The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[catolico]

A) Is it your position that none of the laws of the Old Testament need to be followed?

B) If some of the laws of Old Testament should be followed, how do we choose which ones are applicable to today?

C) I have never said that we need to follow all of the laws of the Old Testament. I have never said that we need to follow all the laws/rules of the New Testament. For example, I think that women should be allowed to weak gold and pearls. Also, I don't think that we should recommend that slaves obey their masters.

D) Should all the laws/rules of the New Testament be followed today?

E) If not, how do we choose which to follow?

If I thought your question was sincere I might answer you.

As long as one is looking for weaknesses and errors in God's plan and Word you will never find it. This is all throughout the New Testament - Jesus isn't telling us because he's kidding.

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

 

[mark46]

I have stated a critical issue. If you do not wish discuss it here, so be it. Other are discussing over on the GT forum.

If I thought your question was sincere I might answer you.

As long as one is looking for weaknesses and errors in God's plan and Word you will never find it. This is all throughout the New Testament - Jesus isn't telling us because he's kidding.

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

 

[Nemo Neem]

I disagree with it only in terms of the "homosexual marriage debate." Homosexuals are humans, and they have a right to choose ministry as a career choice. However, just don't let them preach to me about gays getting married.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Point #1 Homosexuality is a sin of sexual immorality. Unlike heterosexual sex, there is no circumstance under which it is moraly acceptable. It is a rebellion against the created order. More over it is identified in scripture as a sin that leads to God giving those who practice it over to delusion.

Point #2 This question specifically addresses the question of practicing homosexuals and implies that they are openly practicing, ie publically. Which makes this also a public sin. It is essentially what would have been called a 'notorious' sin. What this means is that the Church must deal with it in such a way as to protect the truth, and the public teaching of the Church in the community. To give the appearance of accepting such a sin does tremendous harm to the purpose for which the Church exists, namely to be a light and to represent Christ. When the Church allows itself to be seen as condoning sins like this it is defaming the name of Christ and the gospel.
The same situation is true for unmarried heterosexual couples that cohabitate, ie "practice" immorality.
People in doing these things unrepentantly should be excommunicated, both for their own good (as they are essentially blaspheming communion by taking it with unrepentant hearts, also to convey to them the seriousness of the choices they are making) and for the good of the Church.

Point #3 Clergy are called, and held, to a higher moral standard than the general congregation. This is specifically because they are both the guardians and teachers of truth in the Church, and they are also the official representatives of the Church (and thus its teachings and beliefs) to the community.
We all recognize that people including clergy aren't going to be perfect. Yet the fact remains that failings and weaknesses which are 'tolerated' in the congregants (ie they aren't excommunicated for them) should not be tolerated in the clergy. Thus if a person has significant moral problems, they should not be ordained, or they should step down. This is especially true of people who are unrepentent of their sin and also especially true of people whose sins are on public showcase.

The real issue at the heart of all this is apostasy. The word apostasy means to switch sides, or change loyalties etc. It means you abandon what you once claimed to be loyal to. Many in the church, many Christians have abandoned their loyalty to God, and have denied the Lordship of Jesus Christ in favor of deciding their own right and wrong. They have become their own gods and declared that they are right and God is wrong. Whereas scripture says let God be true and every man a liar, they have made God a liar so that they can be true.
It used to be that we were conformed to the likeness of Christ, but they have decided that he should be conformed to their likeness.

 

[kiwimac]

Only in your opinion ST, only in your opinion.

 

[ebia]

1. Why is a long dead horse being resurrected for more flogging?

2.

More over it is identified in scripture as a sin that leads to God giving those who practice it over to delusion.

eh? I assume you are talking about Romans 1, but that has homosexuality as part of the delusion to which society falls because of separation from God, not the other way around. Paul doesn't put homosexuality as the cause of the problem but as part of the symptom.

 

[Simon_Templar]

1. Why is a long dead horse being resurrected for more flogging?

2.
eh? I assume you are talking about Romans 1, but that has homosexuality as part of the delusion to which society falls because of separation from God, not the other way around. Paul doesn't put homosexuality as the cause of the problem but as part of the symptom.

Ah, I should have realized this was a zombie thread. There isn't enough activity around here for a recent post to have this many pages

Also, you are correct about the second point, I had the order reversed.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

It's ALIVE!!!!!

 

[pmcleanj]

1. Why is a long dead horse being resurrected for more flogging?

Personally, I think it's an attack of the evil one; who benefits every time a Christian community becomes obsessed with some idolatry, whether it is an obsession with sexuality of one sort or another, or an obsession with some particular churchmanship, or with materialism.

Every so often the Anglican discussion boards on most sites get turned into the "homosexuality debate" board, as if we had no other topics of interest to join us in common. Quite frankly, I don't see and have never seen homosexuality as a fundamentally Anglican issue, but it keeps little things like plainchant and good preaching and witness and ministry off our minds and off our shared discussion here. So, I'll be deleting STR from my bookmarks for now. I'll check back in a few weeks or months and see if the board has recovered from this latest attack.

 

[Simon_Templar]

It's ALIVE!!!!!

Honestly, the issue isn't worth talking about further, excepting the rare case where there is someone unfamiliar with the issue who has genuine questions.

talking about it isn't going to change anyone's mind and there is no possible compromise.

I should have known better than to post in the first place.

I stopped posting in this forum quite a while ago. I only recently started even popping in to see who was around because I was curious about some of the folks I used to see around here.

 

[LyleSmith]

Personally, I think it's an attack of the evil one; who benefits every time a Christian community becomes obsessed with some idolatry, whether it is an obsession with sexuality of one sort or another, or an obsession with some particular churchmanship, or with materialism.

Every so often the Anglican discussion boards on most sites get turned into the "homosexuality debate" board, as if we had no other topics of interest to join us in common. Quite frankly, I don't see and have never seen homosexuality as a fundamentally Anglican issue, but it keeps little things like plainchant and good preaching and witness and ministry off our minds and off our shared discussion here. So, I'll be deleting STR from my bookmarks for now. I'll check back in a few weeks or months and see if the board has recovered from this latest attack.

You make a fair point. If we are pointing a collective finger at the "other" then we can keep the light from shining on us and our own sin. Nevertheless I think this issue represents a massive 'in your face' apostasy, and I agree with the broader definition of that term ST gives it.

And what of the "communion of saints"? How can we be in communion with 2000 years of them if we become innovaters in our tiny portion of the historical timeline?

Blessings

Lyle

 

[kiwimac]

The communion of saints is in God, they are not sitting somewhere judging our performance.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The communion of saints is in God, they are not sitting somewhere judging our performance.

You mean this ISN'T Anglican Idol?



JUST kidding, noone get mad at me please.

 

[Polycarp1]

You mean this ISN'T Anglican Idol?



JUST kidding, noone get mad at me please.

That's Simon Templar; he just sounds like Simon Cowell!

 

[kiwimac]

Or so Simon Cowell would probably like you to think.

 

[Phinehas2]

A calling is a calling to Christ in whom there may be a particular ministry. There is no calling to any sort of compromise. So a person who is a wilful practicing sinner who helps the poor does not have a calling from God, that’s humanism. Christ’s teaching is too seek to follow all He taught.
Those who wilfully compromised with Jesus, the Pharisees, the rich young man, were given various ultimatums.

The homosexual issue is the clearest indication of a counterfit christianity within the church masquerading as Christianty.

 

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust!

 

[JasonV]

Heiferdust!

And a lot of it!

 

[Phinehas2]

kiwimac and JasonV,
Silly one words rebuttals seems to me like trolling. What I wrote is correct and backed up with many scriptural passages I have already quoted and cited. On this issue the scripture says do not be deceived, your reply indicates you are deceived.

 

[JasonV]

kiwimac and JasonV,
Silly one words rebuttals seems to me like trolling. What I wrote is correct and backed up with many scriptural passages I have already quoted and cited. On this issue the scripture says do not be deceived, your reply indicates you are deceived.

I count five words on my post.