If homosexuals are bullied, we need to protect them. If they’re unjustly discriminated against, we need to help them. If they’re treated with contempt, the person hurting them should be stopped. If a family member comes out as gay and then is belittled, harmed, or vilified, then the offending family needs to be corrected. If Christians ridicule people who identify as gay or lesbian, they need to admonished. If a church doesn’t welcome seekers of all stripes (including people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual), then it needs to change.
But none of these circumstances are reasons to reinterpret Scripture to affirm homosexuality. Nor do they justify Christians making an attitudinal shift to endorse homosexual sex, homosexual unions, or same-sex marriage.
That’s why I’m mystified by the recent trend of some believers to adopt pro-gay theology.
Earlier this month, I attended the national conference of The Reformation Project in Washington D.C. Its founder, Matthew Vines, calls himself a gay Christian and is dedicating his efforts to changing the perspective of the Church to gay affirming. He and his allies don’t consider this a minor project. They use the term “reformation” because they see this mission in line with the noble reform efforts of Martin Luther. They intend the Church’s transformation to be just as significant as it was post-Luther.
But why reinterpret the biblical text? According to one evangelical ethicist, it’s because LGBT Christians have been mistreated by the Church. David Gushee, who spoke at the conference I attended, explains his rationale in a Washington Post article. He explains that gay and lesbian people have “received contempt and discrimination for centuries” and that biblical sexual ethics have led to an attitude that is “bristling with bullying and violence.”
Even if he’s entirely accurate, what’s the appropriate action? The Christians who have bullied, treated with contempt, and unjustly discriminated against homosexuals should be punished and corrected. It’s very simple. What should be done, then, with the biblical passages that teach homosexual behavior is wrong? Nothing. The problem is with human action, not divine revelation.
The same is true with any moral command in Scripture. Suppose the biblical sexual ethic against adultery led some Christians to assault adulterers. The correct course of action would be to bring the criminals to justice, not reinterpret the biblical prohibition against infidelity.
But Gushee’s solution throws out the baby with the bathwater. He says “we need to reconsider the entire body of biblical interpretation and tradition related to this issue.” Really? Some Christians (and lots of non-Christians) engage in “unchristlike” behavior, and that requires we reinterpret the moral demands of Scripture?
Why would Gushee call for such a drastic reversal on thousands of years of biblical interpretation? For someone who is described (by the inside flap of his book) as “America’s leading evangelical ethics scholar,” shouldn’t he exhibit clearer thinking? Can’t he distinguish between the moral commands of Scripture and the mistaken behavior of some Christians?
It’s possible something else is motivating him. His article explains his change of heart was from his “growing contact with LGBT people…The fact that one of these LGBT Christians is my dear youngest sister, Katey, has made this issue even more deeply personal for me.”
That didn’t surprise me at all. It’s not uncommon to accept pro-gay theology if a family member or close friend is gay. That’s not only true of Gushee, but also of James Brownson – The Reformation Project’s other scholar – who said his son was gay.
You might think I’m committing a genetic fallacy – the mistake of disqualifying a person’s position because of the origin of their belief (e.g. sympathy for a gay relative). As C.S. Lewis once said, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”
I’m not saying, though, that Gushee, Brownson, and others are mistaken because of their family allegiance. They’re mistaken because their reinterpretation of Scripture is wrong. Period. (It’s not my point to make that case here, although I've argued this in my book). Knowing that, it’s now fair to explain why they’re wrong. Close relationships with homosexual friends or family can motivate one to accept a gay-affirming view of Scripture. I feel the same temptation regarding my gay family and friends.
But you don’t have to abandon Scripture’s moral position in order to maintain a loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay. Many Christians are able to stand for biblical truth while being compassionate. Their relationships with gays are characterized by the same qualities as their relationships with other friends and family. Yet, they still hold to the God-given moral parameters in Scripture. No compromise needed.
I’m sad all believers can’t see this solution. Instead, they abandon the authority of Scripture because the LGBT community has been wronged by hurtful people or someone they know self-identifies as gay. Neither of these reasons is sufficient for adopting pro-gay theology. Both reasons do warrant, however, a change in attitude and behavior on the part of people who do wrong. In other words, people should change, not the Word of God. That’s doable since God has always been in the business of changing lives.
I can’t help but be reminded of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-5) to stand firm in the truth:
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
This is precisely what the Church is facing now. People are looking to justify their desires, whether for homosexual behavior or to affirm those who practice it.
Paul’s charge, however, is intended for those of us who will stand firm. We are to preach the Word of God and be ready to “reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.”
This is the sober reality we face. Will we turn away from the truth? Or will we fulfill our ministry? Remember, God will judge us.
A contradiction in terms. Al Mohler's wrote a terrific article (with a re-post of an earlier piece he had written) on this topic:
Sexual Orientation And The Gospel of Jesus Christ
Posted by: g | November 19, 2014 at 08:01 AM
But Alan, you again are being "wishy-washy" on this topic. You haven't answered the question as to what constitutes a "loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay."
Bottom line, the Scriptures are clear that the first and foremost identifier of such a relationship is that you share the Gospel with them. And the true Gospel is that the homosexual, like every other unbeliever, is lost in his/her sin, has no hope if left to fend for themselves, and only believing on Christ can save them. And then, true belief in Christ will result in repentance from sin, including homosexual behavior and desires, and thence a life lived for Christ and not themselves.
An absence of this also constitutes "[abandoning] Scripture's moral position"!
Posted by: g | November 19, 2014 at 08:08 AM
Alan, disagreeing with you on how you interpret the Bible's various passages regarding sexuality doesn't mean anyone has "abandoned the authority of Scripture." Insisting that this is the case just alienates people from wanting to have a real conversation.
Posted by: brgulker | November 19, 2014 at 12:12 PM
This isn't a gay versus straight issue. This is an issue of our actions. Sin, regardless of the form it takes is just that, sin.
If we regard sin as something that all of us have committed and will so continue to do then this discussion can be reduced to how we deal with sin.
Mark 2:15 NIV
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.
If we approach each other from the perspective of us all being sinners, all having fallen short of the glory of God, then we behave in a commensurate manner.
We can be consistent with scripture in treating sinners with love and compassion without glossing over or condoning the sin. Jesus did not become the Word made flesh for the righteous few.
The issue at hand is whether or not we have the ability to measure out which sins deserve our disdain and condemnation.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
So while scripture affirms the appropriateness, and or inappropriateness of various behaviors it does not provide us with a mechanism for wrath or judgement.
We are called to love the sinners even is we despise the sin. Hence it is perfectly consistent to have friends that commit what we believe as sins that are unique and different to our own. In fact, we all do.
Posted by: Paul | November 19, 2014 at 12:13 PM
"Alan, disagreeing with you on how you interpret the Bible's various passages regarding sexuality doesn't mean anyone has 'abandoned the authority of Scripture.' Insisting that this is the case just alienates people from wanting to have a real conversation."
brgulker, if there was any ambiguity in these passages I think you'd have a good point. Since there is none, Alan's characterization seems spot on. Additionally, you don't have to search long to see a large percentage of folks on the "gay-affirming" side say things like, "well, Paul had his views but JESUS never said..." which doesn't exactly treat the Epistles (for instance) as truly "authoritative." Further, there also seems to be a strong correlation in "gay-affirmation" and "universalism." This should not be a surprise. Once you question the Bible's *authority* in one area it's much easier to do so in other areas.
Posted by: wunderlichen | November 19, 2014 at 01:30 PM
The answer is clear.
God needs to be expelled from the church for having an unchristian attitude.
Posted by: T | November 19, 2014 at 01:40 PM
An excellent post. Thank you! Standing firm for the Holy Word of God in a world opposed is challenging and we need to remember Jesus has called us to follow Him well. Mercy without Truth, is no Truth at all.
Posted by: Rose | November 19, 2014 at 02:44 PM
I highly recommend Alan's booklet "Ambassador's Guide to Homosexuality". and "Is God Anti-Gay" by Sam Allberry.
They are accurate and balanced.
Posted by: Doug | November 19, 2014 at 04:14 PM
To love someone is not to encourage or affirm them in behavior or inclinations that are morally wrong and counter to biblical teachings. In the area of sexual ethics, this applies whether to adultery, fornication, masturbation or homosexuality. As seems to be more and more prevalent today, to mask love as wholesale tolerance and acceptance, regardless of the behavior and inclination, is not truly and faithfully loving.
Those who reject the moral wrongness of homosexuality - or adultery, fornication or masturbation - do so in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches and provides as a guide toward a life in Christ.
In all of the areas of sexual ethics, we must love the sinner by leading them to Christ, and ultimately to a life in Christ, not by encouraging or affirming their disordered and sinful behavior and inclinations. But, as the article says so well, we must always do so with love, correcting and guiding each other with the love of Christ, and leading others to Him, as our motivation.
Posted by: TomD | November 19, 2014 at 05:17 PM
The key question is: How can we condemn homosexual behavior in a way that doesn't amount to bullying or treating with contempt?
In your other post you mentioned inviting homosexuals to one's home and being friendly. It reminds me of Jesus dining with the tax-collectors.
That was nice and all, but how can we condemn homosexuality while still being nice?
Should we just say it? You might be eating a meal together and say, "Oh by the way, remember that homosexuality is a sin." And if people do some overt homosexual activity, you can tell them to stop. Is that enough of a condemnation?
Or do we need laws against homosexuals? Do we need to condemn homosexuals through the government too? Or would that be contemptuous bullying?
Posted by: John Moore | November 19, 2014 at 05:17 PM
Hi “g”
I agree with you regarding the term “gay Christian.” I don’t use that term. Notice I said that Vines “calls himself a gay Christian.”
Regarding your other comment about me being “wishy-washy,” I pretty much agree with your comments that follow. In terms of explaining what it looks like to have a loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay, I gave an example in the link found in the same paragraph.
Hope that helps,
Alan
Posted by: Alan Shlemon | November 19, 2014 at 05:41 PM
"but how can we condemn homosexuality while still being nice?"
I condemn my children's behavior regularly. My wife and I clearly convey that we completely disapprove of their acts of lying, cheating, or hurting others. Yet they know without a doubt that we love them.
I think it's easy because I have a close relationship with my kids. What about my kid's friends who come to the house and hurt others or steal? I think I have made it quite clear that we completely disapprove of those behaviors. But do they know we love them? Perhaps not, because we don't have a close relationship with them.
So I wonder if it's not much of an issue for those with whom we have established close relationships. The rub may come when we want to walk around our church or town or internet and condemn those with whom we have made little or no effort to establish a relationship. Then the "I love you" message is much harder to convey, hear, or even really mean.
Posted by: Brian Hunt | November 19, 2014 at 05:54 PM
@Alan: Thanks for another good post. @Brian and @John: The kid analogy, while always appreciated doesn't seem to track in this instance. You have authority over your kids and their behavior. You are actually expected to condemn their bad behavior. However, you don't get such authority with full grown adults. Indeed a person's sexual choices are their choices alone, so perhaps starting with "how to condemn a behavior" is not the key question? Maybe the key question is: "How can I express love to my neighbor?" or "Why am I letting my neighbor's sin keep me from loving them?" If you're loving them in such a way that begs the question "why" or "how" the question will be asked and you'll have the Gospel as an answer. If you help a person grow in the Gospel, the Holy Spirit can do the condemning.
Posted by: James | November 19, 2014 at 06:34 PM
We need to be careful about the "gay Christian" label. Due to what I think is largely a generational gap, a lot of us are using this and similar labels to simply mean "Christian who experiences same-sex attraction." When discussing why this conversation is particularly relevant to our lives, we need to use words. I find that "gay" has less baggage than phrases like "same-sex attraction" in most cases when I'm talking to someone who isn't staunchly conservative on sexuality. Refusing to use labels like "gay Christian" is just a way to needlessly alienate people, and that kind of label is not really that different than other adjectives people use when relevant.
I disagree with Matthew Vines about theology, but I don't think the label is really the issue. Making it the issue is needlessly bringing in extra-biblical ideas that distract from the real questions at hand.
Posted by: Jeremy Erickson | November 19, 2014 at 08:22 PM
This post is follows every other attacking article based on the underlying belief that the Bible is not to be questioned, it is inerrant, and doubt is bad. To say there is not ambiguity in scripture is ridiculous, especially regarding this topic. Please educate your readers with true scholarship and not face value scripture reading. There is tremendous debate about the original Hebrew and Greek words that translate as homosexuals. And sexual identity is a complicated subject that can't simply be reduced to a "sin" like lying. The Bible is a wonderful collection of testimony written men trying convey their experience in their own time. Please don't pluck some verse out and say "this is what the church is facing today." It's poor interpretation and lazy application.
Posted by: Matthew | November 19, 2014 at 08:29 PM
I've read that article previously, and found it to be along the same vein. In the article, you say, "But truth and compassion is about Christians balancing their convictions with a love towards homosexual men and women. It doesn’t mean compromise, although it might not be easy to practice either."
You then go on to cite an example of two parents who provide a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration, I assume as an example of "balancing their convictions with a love". You sum this stance up by writing, "Frankly, it was refreshing to hear how this couple is living a healthy balance between truth and compassion. They are uncompromising on their moral stance and relentless in their love for their daughter and this community."
Am I to assume then that they routinely and consistently and repeatedly share the Gospel, call their homosexual friends to repentance of their sin and to belief in Christ? That, frankly, is the only possible course of action that could even possibly constitute "love and compassion".
See, truth and compassion is not about "balancing their convictions with a love towards homosexual men and women." The most loving thing a person can do to demonstrate Godly love toward a homosexual is to share the unvarnished Gospel! And if we can't grasp that, let's consider that's exactly what Christ did, "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He did so all the while we were despising Him and hating Him for what He was doing and were kicking and screaming against the Gospel He proclaimed. If He had taken the stance of your "truth and compassion", and thought, "Well, I better not risk offending them", then we would have no atonement for sins and no hope before a holy God.
The point being, you talk and write a lot about morals and compassion when you engage in this topic, but very rarely do you have much Gospel content. We live in a culture where Christians are becoming so self-deprecating in our quest to not offend sinners that we risk losing the Biblical mandate of repentance of sins in our so-called "gospel". The true Gospel is more than the mere nicety of a lovely Thanksgiving dinner; it's a call to a belief in Christ that results in a life of repentance.
I'll highlight once more Al Mohler's article in the top post as the best Biblical view on this subject.
Posted by: g | November 19, 2014 at 08:36 PM
I agree with you "g", thanks for your input...what do you make of this scripture? Does it apply to your stance with Alan?
Oh, and by the way, we can all move along...there's nothing to see here, Matthew has put an end to this nonsense.
I suggest you at STR cut out the laziness, its getting the natives all riled up.
Posted by: Brad B | November 19, 2014 at 09:12 PM
>> In your other post you mentioned inviting homosexuals to one's home and being friendly. It reminds me of Jesus dining with the tax-collectors.
That was nice and all, but how can we condemn homosexuality while still being nice?
The thought lacks one point, the goal of Jesus' eating with tax-collectors and "sinners." In dealing with Matthew's banquet for Jesus, the disciple was using this vehicle for two purposes, 1) to announce his cessation of his role as a Roman publicani, and 2) to introduce to his friends (the social outcasts who wedded themselves to the Roman culture more than Judaism) to Jesus, whose offer of Gospel granted them the issues of repentance and forgiveness denied them by the official religious organization.
So the thought of Jesus' association with these types is better thought of as commiseration rather than acceptance. He was the Good Shepherd in search of the lost sheep, those who stray from the flock. It leads me to ask, "If Jesus ate today with LGBT's, what would He have said to them?"
I only know that Matthew left his lifestyle behind after the dinner.
I only know that in Matthew Vine's gay-theology, there is a lightness in dealing with sin, an appeal to the speck and beam of Matt. 7: 3-5. This is the duty of the hetero, but Vine's insistence that we focus on our sin, when will Vine address his?
I only know that in following Jesus, there is cost, there is loss. The rich young ruler (Mk. 10: 17ff) was asked to forsake wealth, much as the tax-collector Matthew. Paul tossed aside a career as a rising star in the Sanhedrin to follow Christ. What in today's culture and lifestyle is worth scrapping?
Posted by: DGFischer | November 20, 2014 at 06:18 AM
No, 1 Cor. 5 doesn't apply directly, meaning, that passage deals with those who are part of a church congregation and are living an unrepentant lifestyle that is incompatible with a life changed by the Gospel.
More applicable would be passages such as Ezek 3:17-21:
While it would take much more space than we have here to properly exegete this passage, we can see a clear command to warn others of their sin, both the righteous AND the wicked, and the responsibility incurred by the "watchman" should he/she fail to do so. The fact that some offense might be taken at such a warning isn't the fault of the "watchman"; in fact, to shy away from that responsibility under the auspices of "love" or "compassion" actually incurs condemnation upon the "watchman"!
It seems to me that this runs contrary to the OP here as well as the linked article mentioned...
Posted by: g | November 20, 2014 at 08:09 AM
As a side note, whether it's intended or not in this case, (and I suspect it's not intended), but often the result of this issue is to end up diminishing the sin of homosexuality by "reducing" it to something "just like other sins".
In fact, the opposite should happen. This should increase our repugnance and abhorrence of sin. And homosexuality is among the grossest of sins in the Bible: "grossest" in terms of the disgusting-ness of the behavior, and more importantly, "grossest" in terms of the gravity of the sin against God.
When we realize that, one side effect should be if we are going to say something like "well, all sin is bad, not just homosexuality" (which I agree with), we should then view other sins with more repugnance, instead of viewing homosexuality with less repugnance.
Posted by: g | November 20, 2014 at 08:22 AM
Neither Jesus not does the Bible teach us to be nice. So throw that particular word out of the conversation. I have a family member whom I love dearly, that is gay and they will always be lived and cared for deeply by me and this family. The issue seems to lie in much very real controversy.
When any gay person expects or demands that they are correct and refuses to accept the simple truth of scripture, they are in error. We live in times where good is being called evil and evil is being called good. Loving gay people is not the issue, condoning their lifestyle as a gay person is not the issue.
Being obedient to God, living according to His word and holding scripture to be the truth are the issue. No amount of compromise regarding any sin is acceptable to God, period. Our challenge is to live the truth of the gospel not reform it. No reformation of the word is necessary.
Posted by: Mark | November 20, 2014 at 03:11 PM
@Matthew, 11/19 8:29PM:
"There is tremendous debate about the original Hebrew and Greek words that translate as homosexuals." Is this debate primarily founded in exegesis, reading meaning out of the text, or in eisegesis, reading meaning into the text?
"The Bible is a wonderful collection of testimony written (by?) men trying convey their experience in their own time." At the center of the biblical text, and its ultimate meaning for mankind, is the transcendent truth of God, not ". . . convey[ing] their experiences in their own time."
Much modern biblical scholarship is an attempt to read current experiences, desires, and needs into the text, eisegesis, not to read the meaning of the text out of the text, exegesis.
The past should be our guide as we deal with our current experiences in OUR own time.
Posted by: TomD | November 20, 2014 at 03:13 PM
As a heterosexual I'm naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not allowed to move beyond the line God has drawn for me not to cross. Why is it any different for Gays? There is a line they also do not cross. The only difference is that allowances like dating and marriage exist behind the line for heteros whereas those practices are off limits to gays. But if we put Christ first, we never cross the lines, either for straights or gays, or make concessions for them.
I personally believe much of the pedophile priest problem comes from gays who try in their own strength not to cross the line and choose celibacy in good faith, but collapse under the pressures, from having their faith rooted in the Church rather than in Christ.
Posted by: dave | November 20, 2014 at 05:56 PM
dave, it is not a "pedophile priest problem," the sexual abuse in the Church has been predominately ephebophilia, or more accurately hebephilia, an attraction toward post-pubescent children, in this instance predominately teenage boys.
According to the John Jay study, 83% of the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2000 involved male sexual abuser and male sexual abuse victim. The median age of the abuse victim was 14/15. The sexual abuse, therefore, is not accurately characterized as a "pedophile priest problem."
I would also add that the line that God has drawn for us not to cross involves the clear distinction between (1) male-female and (2) male-male or female-female sexual relations.
As a Catholic, I do take a bit of offense (not that much, actually) that you would characterize the fallen nature of the 1 to 2% of Catholic priests who have committed abuse as based on "having their faith rooted in the Church rather than in Christ." No doubt, their failure to follow Christ is evident; the reason for this failure, however, I believe, is Man's inclination to sin, which priests, and Popes for that matter, share with us all. This sinful nature is also true in other religious denominations and traditions, which have similar abuse rates among their clergy.
Posted by: TomD | November 20, 2014 at 06:27 PM
To Matthew:
Your entire post was utter nonsense. A) No one here reads the Bible in a non-questioning way here, quite the opposite. Shows you haven't engaged with utterly anything here or listened to any STR podcast B) There isn't debate among scholars about the meaning of homosexual that is meaningful. For the most part, there is a broad consensus about what the meaning of those passages is. Just pick up any translation and you will find that they agree for the most part. C) Scripture is 100 percent unambiguous on this topic and the only way to say otherwise is to twist scripture in impossible ways. If you would like to challenge us here on that one we will show you that you are dead wrong and I will gladly do so as I read Hebrew and Greek and have read on several journal articles on these subjects. "Please don't pick some verse out..." he can gladly make that comparison since the verse from Timothy is exactly what as happening today. It is exactly parallel as in the first century and is hardly lazy application since it's the same sort of situation. Everything you wrote is all twisted and upside down.
Posted by: JBerr | November 20, 2014 at 07:28 PM
@ TomD;
Please excuse my carelessness in terms. Lets' say the "ephebophilia, or more accurately hebephilia" problem in the Catholic Church, and occurrences in other denominations, stem from a weakness from having a misplaced faith. In the Catholic Church faith is placed in the dictates and rituals of the church instead of Christ who alone can conquer our depravity, as well as in Evangelicalism and any other sect that shifts faith from Christ alone to the meeting of a conditions (including decisions to believe) for salvation.
It takes far more than will power, which is all that's left, if it is our "will" that ultimately saves us.
Posted by: dave | November 21, 2014 at 03:47 AM
What I find interesting is the claim by the gay-theology folks that they are trying to reform Christianity the way Luther did.
In Luther's day the Church was working under the load of centuries of syncretism with the paganism that existed before Christianity came and that continued to have influences.
Many of the excesses, though not all, that Luther decried was the result of this syncretism.
The siren call of syncretism is that you will somehow lure people into the arms of Christ by making Christianity look just a little bit like their false god. What really happens is that you don't actually convert any non-Christians, you have a lot of lost souls walking around calling themselves Christians and you confuse and bewilder those that were already Christian before you painted the idol so that it looked like Christ.
But pro-gay theologians are not decrying syncretism. They are syncretists.
Pro-gay theologians probably will succeed (for now) in getting most groups styling themselves as Christian churches to twist Scripture. And it won't stop with that. Virtually all sexual sin will, ultimately, be viewed as a bad interpretation of Scripture. We seem to be bound and determined to construct our shrine to Aphrodite against the walls of the Temple and call it church when we bow down to her.
This will not result in gay people or other sexual sinners repenting and turning to Christ. Quite the opposite in fact, it will make it virtually impossible for them to repent, since they won't even know that they are sinning.
God will have to raise up another reformation to undo the damage they are doing.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 21, 2014 at 07:33 AM
And, another article sort of related to this topic posted by John MacArthur today:
Persecution and Boldness
While it deals with a different context of persecution, these two paragraphs at least still apply to this post:
Posted by: g | November 21, 2014 at 07:39 AM
Hmmm...makes me rethink my dis-association to Brad B.'s question about 1 Cor. 5...the first thought that popped into my mind when I read WL's quote above was "Welcome to 1st century Corinth!"
Posted by: g | November 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM
@dave, 11/21/2014 3:47AM
"In the Catholic Church faith is placed in the dictates and rituals of the church instead of Christ . . ."
Without wanting to go to far astray from the topic at hand, or wishing to perpetuate an on-going discussion of the "wrongness" of Catholicism, this is, with all due respect, a generalization and characterization of Catholics that is both inaccurate in its scope and misleading in its conclusion.
We must find ways for orthodox believers in Christ to find, and to act on, common ground against the rampant secularism that surrounds us . . . and not perpetuate stereotypes among ourselves. This applies to both Catholics and Evangelicals. If we do not do this, the unity of the secular movement will, in this world, overwhelm the lack of unity in Christ.
Posted by: TomD | November 21, 2014 at 02:07 PM
Re: TomD;
"orthodox believers"? There is such a thing apart from the Roman Catholic Church?
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
Posted by: dave | November 21, 2014 at 03:52 PM
@dave:
Yes, I, along with many orthodox Catholics, am willing to contend, no matter what has been said or written in the past, that there are orthodox believers within the broad Christian family. Dave, we must find a way to move forward, rather than contend about the past and reflexively move from one point of contention to another. As we cite, for instance, what happened in 1215, or any action from the past, the secular culture is overtaking us in the present day.
Here is an example of the way forward:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/05/evangelicals--catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2
Posted by: TomD | November 21, 2014 at 04:20 PM
@ TomD;
Unity? But what if the Papacy is the Antichrist as the Reformers and many who paid with their lives at the stake affirmed?
Posted by: dave | November 21, 2014 at 08:32 PM
I mean, if you were Protestant, that would be different. Right? But you aren't.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 22, 2014 at 05:50 PM
Thank you for the clarity and forthrightness of your words concerning this present day assault upon the Word of God. If you have a few moments, I entreat you to visit my new Apologetics site in which I am directly refuting the video Mr Vines is circulating: "God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" I have a son who is gay and has been influenced by this video, and I have been approaching him with love and compassion while proving THAT Mr. Vines is wrong so that I can prove WHY he is wrong. If we have the mind of Christ, we can welcome LGBT people into our hearts and churches to emphasize not so much the threat of Hell but the promise of Salvation. My site is:
https://batheinthelight.wordpress.com/
Thank you for your time and patience, and for sharing the truth of God's word in a way that can be easily understood!
Posted by: Jay T Harding | December 12, 2014 at 08:15 AM
I think people need to realize that we need a solid foundation for our belief in order to do something correctly. Any foundation that we use, will determine who we are and what really matter for us. As Christian, I believe that God's word is the most valuable source to looking for the truth and foundation of our action. Again, as Christian we should define term LOVE and JUDGEMENT. Jesus teaching us that to love God and loving other are the highest law in which other law hang on to. But do we really want to say that we love others when we see them destroying their own life? if people called gay or lesbian as new lifestyle that everyone has right to choose, let me ask why do you even call this as life style when you know that gay sexuality brings many destructive things, either physically or our nature as God's creation. Talk about judgement, yes indeed no one in the earth has any right to judge people either they will go into hell or heaven. That is God's decision. But can I say that I want to warn people from bad thing, not because I am better than them, but because I know that what they are doing is wrong, destructive and killing themselves. Can I also call that as my expression to love others? GBU
Posted by: Abraham Adi Kurnia | December 16, 2014 at 09:58 AM
So many people assume that they are doing something right by protecting someone's right to be homosexual. But is it really a right thing to do? Same-sex marriage even was still a taboo thing for our society before 20th century. It started to getting more popular since 1990s. If our society (which based on secular code value) thinks that it is not a right thing to do, how about our Bible? Since in Old testament, in Leviticus, a man who lies with another male will be put on death because it is an abomination in the eyes of God. Even we talk about this any further, we will find out that homosexuality is one of the main activity in Sodom and Gomora. And we all know what happen to Sodom. So, again, if we talk about protecting someone's right, let me ask you whats our right to questioning God's standard? do you really love someone if you give them a confirmation to do something that against God's will? That is not a "loving-others" action that God wants from us. In fact, we have to realize that it is a sexual dissorder, a valid proof that we are depraved as God's creation because of sin. And we, as Christian, have to help others to get out from homosexuality circle, cope their struggle and overcome their past.
Posted by: Prilia Dani Nareswari | December 16, 2014 at 10:16 AM