I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).
It may seem like that example is over-used, and perhaps it is. But the Law is the Law, and to break even the slightest part of any of it, including what you eat or wear, then you break, according to Scripture, the entire Law altogether.
It is good that you would oppose ordination of an unrepentant sinner regarding sins more than just homosexuality. But since we all break at least one of the 613 commandments from God, and none of us fully love our enemies, and since we don't order our lives to do so, we aren't repentant on that sin of not fully loving our enemies, can we ordain anyone who is unrepentant on any sin?
My argument is that we already do, in all honesty. The bar for what is sin and what we need to do in order to not sin is so high, none of us ever gets over save on a few issues. And it tends to be the issues we clear the hurdle on (at least we think we clear it) that we are most adamant others not do.
This isn't a problem with you personally or anything like that. It's a trap everyone falls into, myself included.
That being said, I realize we can't ordain unrepentant pedophiles or murderers or something like that. Of course there has to be a line. The question is exactly where we draw that line?
I still maintain that this is a church issue, and if we have placed ourselves under the authority of God through the church, then for us to leave when the church decides what we don't like is being unfaithful, and it's unfaithful to stay only as long as they agree with what we want.
Of course, issues that are directly essential to salvation (Trinity doctrine, salvation through Christ alone, etc.) are to remain constant, if if a church claims those are no longer in place, I would argue that it is no longer a church, but a cult or group gathering. Perhaps I'm in the minority, which is probably the case, as it usually is in any thread I'm on here, whether taking the conservative side or the liberal side (to use labels which are more eye of the beholder than abstract fact). But hopefully I have been reasonable in my minority-ness.
I understand what your saying.
Really I do.
There are sins the bible mentions that will keep people from inheriting the kingdom of God. There does seem to be a line as you say. I reference 1 Cor. 6
Paul tells us to follow the law as best we can. Homosexuality is a major lifestyle element. It's not a little thing.
I try to discern not judge. Even if it doesn't sound like it.
Paul gave qualifications for church leaders.
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)
1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
"Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:8-13).
The only family lifestyle listed is husband and one wife.
FWIW what was forbidden in wearing clothing was wool and linen together. Deut. 22:11 A straight forward reason is not given.
"The great Rabbinic Commentator Rashi says (on Genesis 26:5), quoting the Midrash, that the Law of shatnez is a
chok, a decree that the King has passed for His subjects, for which we do not know the reason. A great many of the Commandments in the Torah are of that sort. We do not know precisely why pork is forbidden, for example. We do not understand how the Purification by means of a red heifer works.
Therefore, we can never truly understand the entire reason for this Mitzvah, but we can understand some of the concepts within it, at some level. Maimonides, in his Guide to the Perplexed, points out that ancient pagan priests used to wear wool and linen processed together, because they knew how to make use of it for occult practices, including idol worship and other terrible things, and therefore the Torah forbade us to use it for all time, and ordered us to stay far away from
shatnez, as well as all other practices of the pagans. " from beingjewish.com
