Today's Ruling

[tall73]

And that is your opinion. You cannot keep confusing your opinion for fact and writing the rest odd that conflicts with it as false.

I noted that in the portion you quoted he did not make any reference to the Scriptures. And it is true, he did not in the portion you quoted.

I referenced that as Christians we need to look to the Scriptures for how we should conduct ourselves. If he gives his view on what we should do but does not present Scripture, that is just his opinion.

If he at least references Scripture then we can see what it says. But he did not do that. So it is just his opinion.

And yes, when I just state my opinion it is ALSO my opinion. However, when we look at the Scriptures it is not just our opinion.

 

[tall73]

After awhile, it seems like you're trying to justify exclusion using the Bible for reasons that are personal.

I have posted Scriptures that specifically speak about exclusion.

Here is another, not even related to homosexuality:

2Th 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.
2Th 3:15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.


The reality is that the church of the Scriptures did warn people again continuing in sin, and did put some out of the church if they persisted in sin or in false teaching.

If you take it to be my personal issue, that is up to you. You still need to explain why such texts are there.

 

[mkgal1]

TW is correct about Romans 1 referring to idol worship. Troy Perry writes: “The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.”3 Troy Perry, Don’t be Afraid Anymore, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1990), pg. 342.

The word "lust" differentiates the behavior in Romans 1 from a loving and committed relationship. Lust is sexual behavior void of genuine love (and heterosexual couples--even married---can be guilty of lust).

 

[tall73]

For every vague passage that maybe, sort of addresses homosexuality as a sin,

It did not "maybe sort of" address it for the generations of Christians to modern times. They knew it addressed it. And even you acknowledged it appears in a list of sins pointed at the notion that all sin. Why would it be there if it were not a sin?

 

[tall73]

For every vague passage that maybe, sort of addresses homosexuality as a sin, there are a dozen more clear, concise passages that remind us we all sin,

Indeed, very many. And we are to repent of them. And if we persist in them we do not inherit the kingdom of God.

We all sin, we all stumble in many ways. If we are confronted with habitual specific sin in our lives, we are to turn away from it, not pretend it is not a sin.

 

[tall73]

TW is correct about Romans 1 referring to idol worship. Troy Perry writes: “The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.”3 Troy Perry, Don’t be Afraid Anymore, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1990), pg. 342.

The whole of 1:18 to 3:20 addresses many sins among all of the human race. These are seen as ultimately deriving from rejection of God. However, they are not limited only to those who worship idols, or associated with them.


The beginning of the argument:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

The end of the argument:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

It addresses along the way all kinds of sins, and not only those done by those who worship idols.

They are seen as further and further lowering of humanity, departing from the ways of God.

 

[tall73]

and are associated with some very serious offenses

Of course, because he was listing sins to show all are sinners.

 

[tall73]

it is our duty to not exclude or punish, judge, and remember that God is in even those who are the least among us, ie, the minority.

1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
1Co 5:13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

 

[tall73]

but ignore the countless stories and words of Jesus and how he saved the adultress, rebuked those who would harm her,

He did not say "continue in your life of unrepentant sin"

Joh 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.

 

[tall73]

walked with thieves and prostitutes, kept company with unrepentant sinners

Indeed, Paul also said to not judge those outside the church, for then you would have to leave this world. But he said to judge those in the church.

No one has said not to hang around sinners. I speak with homosexuals frequently, and try to be as loving to them as I can. I do not expect them to conform to any Christian way of thinking if they are not believers. However, if they are believers, then just like all the rest of us, they do need to turn from habitual sin.

I do not agree with getting in people's faces and confronting non-believers of a homosexual variety, any more than I do of other varieties. We are to give a reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect.

However, if someone wants to know what the Scriptures say, I will tell them, whether it goes against their heterosexual, homosexual, or non-sexual practices.

 

[tall73]

Jesus came to seek and save the lost. And those who responded also repented:

Luk 19:7 And when they saw it, they all grumbled, "He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."
Luk 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."
Luk 19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.
Luk 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."


Likewise John the Baptist called prostitutes to repentance:

Mat_21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

The pharisees had no interest in the tax collectors or prostitutes because they thought them to be "sinners".

We are all sinners, and we should no more stay away from homosexuals, than any other person. However, if they wish to join themselves to Christ, then repentance is part of the Christian life.

 

[tall73]

Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Strangely, I even had an instance where I asked a serial gossip not to return to one of the churches I was pastoring. I visited her because people continually spoke about her fostering gossip and division. I asked her and to my surprise she admitted it outright that she had no interest in joining the church, but did get information at the church about people, and pass it on. I gave her the option of turning away from that and being a real part of the church if she wanted to. She was not interested. It was one of the most unusual conversations of my life. But the church was better off not having someone who's goal was to spread malicious speech.At the same time if she ever wanted to turn away from that, she would have been welcome.

 

[tall73]

Other texts that talk about church discipline, and restoration when possible:

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

In cases where the church initially withdrew fellowship, if the person turned around they were to publicly re-affirm their love for him that he might not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow:


2Co 2:6 For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough,
2Co 2:7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
2Co 2:8 So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.
2Co 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.
2Co 2:10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,
2Co 2:11 so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Paul wrote on another of topics quite directly in his letters to the Corinthians. However, they served a purpose:

Co 7:8 For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while.
2Co 7:9 As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.
2Co 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Godly grief produces repentance that leads to salvation, without regret. This is the goal whenever attempting to approach anyone.

Even if someone is put out of the church, the goal is still to bring them back:

Jas 5:19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,
Jas 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

2Th 3:13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good.
2Th 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.
2Th 3:15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.


Jesus also spoke about bringing matters to the church:


Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Even then, just as the church reached out to tax collectors, the person was not without hope. But the action was taken by the church to wake them up.


Paul also indicated that disputes between Christians could be resolved in the church:

1Co 6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
1Co 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
1Co 6:4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?
1Co 6:5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,
1Co 6:6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

This topic has me really shaking my head. Especially in this section. Usually we are mostly in agreement on things for the most part. But this has people all over the place. Some are for gay marriage because Jesus did not address it (despite the fact God mentioned it... the Creator and all). Then some refuse to let others tell them anything, despite the fact the bible does say you can correct your brothers and sisters in Christ (but so many times, then you have God handle it). I mean when someone gets angry enough and tells me "Your judging me and you know nothing" I usually know they feel convicted by the Holy Spirit but they are lashing out instead of accepting the conviction. I know this because I was VERY guilty of it when I was younger. But whatever, when we all stand before God, whatever humanly reason we have for not taking advice will not matter to God. And we will be judged accordingly. He didn't give us the Holy Spirit for no reason.

 

[LinkH]

TW is correct about Romans 1 referring to idol worship. Troy Perry writes: “The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.”3 Troy Perry, Don’t be Afraid Anymore, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1990), pg. 342.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that Romans 1 addresses adultery. Because men worshipped idols, God gave them over to various lusts including what the passage calls 'vile affections' of men burning in their lust to one another. The passage does not say that this happened in one generation, and it makes clear that among mankind in general, one man desiring another sexually is 'vile' an acting on it is 'unseemly.' The Old Testament already showed that this was a sin for the nations to commit. Paul also describes women doing what was against nature.

The part about, "it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today" is just sophistry. The Greeks already had the idea of men loving each other in homosexual affairs before Paul came on the scene. No doubt, some of them have genuine feelings for each other, just as an adulterer can have real feelings for an adulteress. The feelings are real, but the feelings don't justify the sin. No matter how good the feelings are, bad desires are still lust and acting on them is still sin.

It bothers me to see you quoting and promoting this type of false teaching and sexual perversion. It is sad to see you on the side of sexual perversion and against marriage as God has revealed it in the scripture. If sex outside of the type of marriage relationship God describes in Genesis is okay because it is 'loving' then why would you condemn premarital sex, shacking up, polygamy, or incest?

One could just as easily argue that the passages against adultery aren't talking about responsible loving adult adulterous relationships. One could say that passages against incest are only condemning molestation or situations where one is taking advantage of the other. One could argue that the passages about fornication don't condemn loving boyfriend-girlfriend sexual relationships between consenting adults. But all that would be a bunch of lies just like your quote above.

The word "lust" differentiates the behavior in Romans 1 from a loving and committed relationship. Lust is sexual behavior void of genuine love (and heterosexual couples--even married---can be guilty of lust).

Delighting in iniquity is not loving according to I Corinthians 13. Love is more than good feelings, romantic feelings. Adulterers can have a kind of love toward one another, but it is not the pure form of it. It's not loving toward God to commit adultery. And it is not loving toward one's partner in adultery to encourage that person to sin against God. The same is true of homosexual behavior. It is not loving toward God to engage in it, no matter what the feelings are. Feelings do not justify sin. It is not loving toward the other person, not with the I Corinthians 13 kind of love, to participate with someone in an activity that causes the other person to commit what God considers an abomination. And it is not loving for those who profess to be Christians to encourage others to sin against God. Jesus warned that it would be better for one to have a millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown in the depths of the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

There are those who have been saved who used to engage in homosexual sin, those get past it and have normal married relationships with a member of the opposite sex, and those who are still able to be tempted in that way but who overcome and do not live in the sin. If we love people we should want them to overcome by the grace of God.

 

[LinkH]

And again, unless the baker is also turning away the non-Christian wedding cakes, the baby shower cakes of the single mothers, refusing service to the divorced couple getting remarried to new partners, the couple who already has kids, or anybody serving pork, the whole "my morality forbids it" thing is deeply conditional.

In the Bible, mankind is given pork to eat, since it moves. That's in Genesis. Israelites were told not to eat it.

I don't see why someone would refuse a cake for a baby because the mother is a single mother. I can see turning down a 'happy fornication' cake, but I've never heard of such a thing. I am not a baker, but I might not want to do a wedding cake for a second wedding depending on the situation if I were one, so it's a good thing I'm not. It's also a good thing for the public I'm not, because I don't think a cake I baked would look that good. But bakers can have a 'don't ask don't tell' kind of approach where they might sell a cake to a couple unless one of them says, "I'm leaving my wife of 20 years to marry her. Can you bake us a wedding cake?" or "Can you bake us a wedding cake with two women on top?"

 

[Armoured]

And again, unless the baker is also turning away the non-Christian wedding cakes, the baby shower cakes of the single mothers, refusing service to the divorced couple getting remarried to new partners, the couple who already has kids, or anybody serving pork, the whole "my morality forbids it" thing is deeply conditional.

The only time people seem to feel so compelled to follow their faith to the letter is when it gets them out of something they really don't want to do in the first place.

You find me the baker who whips out his Bible with his cake order form to ensure the people he's providing a cake to are adhering to the tenants of his faith as he sees it and not secular or non-Christian beliefs, I'll rethink my stance. But the fact is, I've yet to see the person who's rejecting a service to homosexuals as he or she does other "sinners" according to his or her faith. It's the "being gay" that seems to be the sticking point, not lack of adherence to their faith.

QFT.

 

[LinkH]

Paul is no Jesus, that's for sure. But again, that's beside the point. So in a talk about idolatry, he mentioned same sex intercourse which in some versions further refined to same sex relations with children...

I don't think you'd find a serious scholar who takes Romans 1 to be about child molestation or prostitution. Maybe a gay rights activist who doesn't read the passage carefully or depends on his audience not doing so. Romans 1 talks about men burning in their lusts one toward another. There is no way to squeeze child molestation out of that.

There is a term in Romans 6, malakos, 'soft' which was used in Greek to refer to men who were effeminate or lacked male qualities or virtues, but it may refer to man doing the lower-status sexual act in a homosexual act, a catamite. There is another term in the passage which seems to be taken from the verse condemning male-male sexual behavior in Leviticus 20 from the Greek Septuagint, "arsenos koiten"---> arsenokoites.

The subtext about a discussion about idolatry by somebody who is not Jesus is not a clear enough basis or justification to deny people rights.

Denying what rights? How does someone have a right to make you bake them a cake? There is no 'right' to redefine marriage away from what God has defined. That's wrong, not right.

Since the church is designed to be a refuge for the sinner to seek God, even if we were to think homosexuality is a sin, it's no more or less a sin than any of us act on on a daily basis.

I don't know how you live your life, but I hope that's not the case. But there are different definitions of what 'homosexuality' is, whether it's an issue of being attracted or one of engaging in sinful sexual acts.

The church is to be made up of saints whose sins have been forgiven and whose transgressions are covered. If one falls into sin, others are to restore him or her in a spirit of meekness. If the person won't be restored, the saints are not to keep company or eat with him or her. I certainly don't think someone should be expelled from the church for having the propensity to be attracted to someone of the same gender if that person is living a holy life. There is also a difference between a seeker and someone who is called a brother. Tall has quoted several scriptures on the issue including I Corinthians 5.

 

[LinkH]

I don't accept the rebukes of strangers on the internet who have decided that I have sinned in some obscure way. There are scriptures also about the plank in your own eye, and maybe people should do a little more of that.

It just seems like you twist things a lot in your posts. Maybe you don't mean to. But whether you are on the Internet talking to a stranger or talking with someone face to face that you've known a long time, if you are wise, you will consider a rebuke and engage in some introspection. If you are a fool, you will ignore it.

 

[Armoured]

It just seems like you twist things a lot in your posts. Maybe you don't mean to. But whether you are on the Internet talking to a stranger or talking with someone face to face that you've known a long time, if you are wise, you will consider a rebuke and engage in some introspection. If you are a fool, you will ignore it.

... says the guy ironically oblivious to the rebuke he just received.