I doubt any statement of mine is totally complete. He has shown us what is right and wrong to Him. He has given us a perfect sacrifice which is also an important aspect. My point is, if we can’t trust God’s Word for truth and a path to follow, there is no way to know Him objectively and, it leaves everyone in a lurch just doing what’s seems right in our own eyes, not what is right in His eyes. The alternatives are much more unreliable. If we are all traveling the “narrow path” as His Word says, we should encourage each other in it. Help each other to the destination not throw each other off the path by denying it’s existence. I do not mean to be hurtful to anyone but, coming out of the brand of paganism I have come out of, speaking truth is love, it is healing and deliverance. May all good come to us all on this forum and may we accept it from His loving hand.
Peace to you!
My apologies to Buddy. I had not read your/his post before I asked my question of Kelly.
I don’t understand you. I am a sinner. We are all sinners.
If you are wanting an answer to the question ‘why not call homosexuality a sin’, how about:
“Because the Bible doesn’t.” -is that sort of answer you are looking for?
or “Because Jesus doesn’t” - is that any better?
Hi Kelly
Thank you for your response. You seem to speak from the heart and I appreciate that. I would like to discuss this further but it is gone midnight here so, until tomorrow, I bid you God’s peace.
Buddyb4, why are you qualifying your relationship as loving and monogamous? Your sarcasm doesn’t escape me, but you use it as though you think I (or anyone who calls a sin a sin) have something to throw at you - or at least, that’s how it seems to me. My point is this: If you deny it as a sin, you have no need of Christ. If you agree with the law (and pardon the pun, but the greek for “agree” or “confess” is “homologeo” - to say the same), then you know your need for Christ. You can only feel frustrated in this because of two things: 1) a demand of righteousness, apart from Christ, in behavior, or 2) your conscience continues to speak to you, even though you willfully and forcefully deny it.
You speak as if from the world.
I commit adultery in my mind at least twice a week. That secretary at the office keeps wearing low-cut blouses, and I confess, her boobs are really beautiful - at least the part I can see. So, while all the gays may have left, I’m still here - in my weakness. I would never identify myself as an Adulterer though - and, I’d never join a Fellowship of Adulterers, walking in our adultery, (and being happy in it). And, I’d never try to convince you that adultery is okay, scripturally, legally – first and foremost because the plain reading of scripture says otherwise, and secondly, because that would be to justify the old, dead man.
Buddyb4, you miss the importance of “Christ in you, our hope of Glory”. If you claim Christ, then rest in Him, knowing His righteousness is sufficient. You have a weakness - I get that. We all do. There is a consequence for you for your weakness and a consequence for me for my weakness. Why is that so hard for you? Haven’t you died in Christ?
Ah. but he has. Is the risen Christ a homosexual? If you are in Him, then you have his righteousness.
Greetings Buddy,
I am sorry for your pain. I want you to know that my intention in this post was to hold up God’s Word. It was not to make you feel like a confession was being wrenched out of you. I’m sure Bad Avocado was not trying to do that either. I understand that we are all in different places. No doubt, you have not had to deal with the sins I have, or the temptations I do. Your sin does not make me love you less. I would hope you would be the same toward me in my sins. I had rather hoped that the truth of His Word would give you hope. How interesting that I have a cousin living your exact story. I love him very much and I like the man he lives with. I see all his love and the good inside him and because he was one of the two cousins I was closest with, he knows I love him. He knows I think his lifestyle is sin and he knows I mean no ill toward him, only good because I love him. If you were my cousin, that knew me and I you, this conversation would not have been so heart wrenching I’m sure. But, the truth is we are all God’s children so, we are related and I hope our relationship can flourish in Him. I know this theological conversation was harder for you than me in a lot of ways and that does not bring me pleasure but, my desire for you and all God’s children is for all goodness and blessing to be theirs. I don’t know how good and blessing can come outside of His Word and sometimes that is hard. But, it is always good.
Blessed is the man whom Yehovah instructs out of His Torah. (Psm 94)
May you be blessed in all good things, Buddy!
Peace!
I don’t understand you either pilgrim. We are all sinners who can’t label sin as sin?
Why not?
I’m dead to sin, what do I have to fear by calling it sin. My sin or your sin… doesn’t matter. Regarding my own, I’ve died to it. It certainly can’t kill me any more.
The John MacArthur’s of the Church may tell you that they have died to sin, and then tell you to stop sinning. If we don’t learn to appropriate the righteousness of Christ apart from works (and apart from the John MacArthurs of the world), we will only live in frustration - trying to get our dead corpses to look and smell pretty - instead of the rotten, stinking dead things they are.
But, if we let the old man die, then sin (and John MacArthur) can’t hurt us.
Only by bending it and ignoring parts of it. The old man needs to bend it. The old man insists on being righteous in his flesh, apart from Christ. The old man can’t handle the accusation (whether from the law or the conscience), so he needs to make an excuse:
It’s not my fault. Everyone else is doing it. It’s not wrong. It’s okay. I was born this way. Who are you to tell me anything? But I’m so happy. Gollum. Gollum
It’s the “old man” that picks up stones for the woman caught in adultery. Since the old man ignores his own dead heart (justifying his own behavior) he wants to throw stones at everyone else. Jesus doesn’t throw stones! Jesus forgives. And Jesus says, “Go and sin no more”. He didn’t fail to call a spade a spade - yet he forgives!
I know. Crazy, ain’t it?
It’s dangerous too. Nothing kindles wrath from man so easily as to tell him he’s wrong. Jesus did that to the Pharisees and ended up on a Cross. God tells us that we’re wrong. So we say, like the Jews, “kill him” - and like Nietzche, we declare “God is Dead”. This is a hell of a lot easier than changing our mind and agreeing with God - saying the same thing He says.
But God needs to show us our thirst (depravity) in order to lead us to water (life in Christ).
Why not say the same thing God says about our own sins and also say the same thing Christ says about his forgiveness and the gift of life and righteousness (which comes from his resurrection, not the cross)?
In previous discussions I presented the argument for the traditional interpretation of homosexuality, which I continue to think has more exegetical coherence that modern critics recognize. Yet most Biblical moralilty makes sense to me in terms of widely recognized conceptions of what love means and does. And I must honestly confess that I cannot fathom why my expression of marital heterosexuality logically need be morally superior to a homosexual fidelity. My honest sense is that my tradition has commonly fostered an unloving approach to homosexuals which has also encouraged their dishonesty about themselves. I’d hate that gracious presentations of the traditional interpretation would prompt us to lose them.
On the current Christianity Today web page, its’ editor Mark Galli, unabashedly says Jesus promoted breaking the Torah… and he received some highly critical responses. Within current discussions on diversity of evangical interpretations and the hermaneutical clarity of Scripture, I seem to sense Jesus’ handling of Torah and the Hebrew Scriptures is more complicated and debateable than Kelly may, but I love her devotion to faithfully holding to God’s Word as she understands it. And I find Kelly is quite right that it is appropriate on this an evangelical forum, to avoid evaluations of others’ character and motivation, and as she has, graciously focus debate on one’s understanding of the Bible, and each of our understandings of how we may differently seek to be faithful to its’ pivotal role in our faith.
I would hate for anyone to leave the forum for any reason. Some may feel hurt because we are discussing sodomy. My personal hurt came from my “feelings” that others were striking out at me because of their feelings. I think both “feelings” at different times, trumped our need to instead seek Scripture. I felt persecuted for just trying to state Scripture. My struggle is with the emotional manipulation/control tactics. I grew up with a mom casting spells and manipulating things in the spirit via demons. Because of the authority she had over me and my desire to be loved by her, it created in me a real hurt and anger toward that kind of behavior. I know people may not do that intentionally and I try to maintain a distance between the two (the person and the behavior) but, it still does affect me at a deep level. I’m not sure if I still need healing there or if Yehovah has left that open as a door of discernment.
I’m not real well versed in what you are talking about above. I was not raised in church and my experience with it has (in what I did learn) really turned me away from her interpretations and traditions. I know this may be offensive but, to make my point, it made me sick that christians kept the same pagan holy days that I did growing up which, was for the worship of ancient deities/demons. That was a little weird for me. I’m not well read when it comes to modern critics either which unfortunately, has left me a little embarrassed in my lack of understanding of what you have said above (sorry). My shift to leaving behind eternal torment was based wholly on my further studies after reading Julie’s book. I already had gleaned from Scriptures that God is just and that does not leave room for all people who didn’t “accept Him as Savior” being tormented in an unending state. All that was left was to spend some time in the Greek and comparing Scriptures. Could you explain what you mean by, “Yet most Biblical moralilty makes sense to me in terms of widely recognized conceptions of what love means and does.” I’m sorry, my faith is very untraditional and my understanding of love is to not sin against God or our neighbor then, to go “the extra mile” to help restore our neighbor when I have that oppurtunity. My understanding is, Torah tells us what love “is”, Jesus showed what love “does” by keeping Torah perfectly in the flesh. Had He not, He would not have been a perfect sacrifice and we would still be in our sin. Also, He gave us an example, that we should walk like He did (doing Torah). I am simple in my thinking. I think, God says it and it is good to do.
I do not doubt that the same feelings accompany both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. My thoughts, and what I thought we were discussing on this particular thread was, what God says about it and, is it right to Him. I was raised with the idea that homosexuality was right, that sexual abuse was ok, that witchcraft was normal. I don’t have a background that fosters any judgment toward anyone really. I don’t think anyone is being uncaring toward those in that sin, only just saying, according to the God that was and is and will be, it is sin. If we can’t admit that there are laws at work in the universe that are higher than we are and, realize that we have, at least some personal responsibility to adhere to them, we are saddest of all creatures. My life experience testifies that God have given us discernible, objective, saving, life changing truth in the Scriptures. And, I believe He loves others just as much.
It would be fun to discuss this idea of Jesus breaking Torah if, others are interested. Can we start a thread for that, Bob? I’m not up on the current debates, which would be interesting to hear and discuss.
Thank you, Bob! Peace and joy to you in abundance!
“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We however, says Peter, are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.” Luther
I also am quite a sinner. I am crippled, diseased, poor, blind and spiritually brain-damaged. We all are. Knowing my own profound and secret failings, I find it strange that homosexuality is singled out for special treatment, especially when the church is no longer certain it is necessarily and in all circumstances a sin.
Is homosexuality unnatural? Let all who practice artificial contraception remain silent. Is it anti-family? Let all divorcees and adulterers remain silent. Is it decadent? Let all who lust in their hearts remain silent. When we lay burdens on others that we ourselves are unable to bear, of course we will crush them. Rather than going to Moses to get the rules right, let us go to Christ in all our weakness and confusion. He knows us and loves us. He knows how to save us.
The Letter kills. The Spirit brings life. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and he will direct your steps.
Hi Kelly! Thanks for sharing more about what has shaped your journey. While I empathize with the painful experiences of homosexual friends, your own reactions, feelings and views all seem very understandable. I apologize for any language of mine that accentuated your feelings of being manipulated. Please know that I really meant “I love Kelly’s devotion to faithfully presenting God’s Word,” and I have thoroughly enjoyed your gracious contributions to discussions.
I understand “Most Biblical morality makes sense to me in terms of recognized conceptions of what love does” especially in terms of your reference to Jesus’ example. Harvey Cox says in his Harvard ethics course that Jews, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus etc. all said in reading the Gospels, “Jesus’ example and values represented what we would teach; we claim him and his ethics.” For he is widely recognized as prioritizing love in terms of what would not bring harm, but positively builds up and cares for the deepest needs of others. So I meant it’s evident to me that most traditional morality seeks to preserve this conception of love, but (perhaps my blind spots mean) it’s just not obvious to me how homosexual ‘love’ would necessarily violate the nature of love that the Bible emphasizes.
On Jesus’ approach to Torah, introducing a discussion would be fascinating. I suspect whether he ‘breaks’ it would depend on how we interpret the Torah and what ‘fidelity’ to it means. My recent class with Dr. Larry Hurtado voiced your respected sense that Jesus was as committed to Mosaic Law as his sparring partners were. I have no doubt that Jesus believed his approach fulfilled the right interpretation of what God’s Torah valued, but my differing view is “The Case Against Jesus,” posted as “Is All Scripture equally valid” on my own page, 6-13-11. An earlier discussion of it is under “Biblical” 12-15-08. It only proves I am not alone, but (in addition to CT’s Mark Galli) Tom Talbott wrote me that my paper fully reflected his own impressions of Jesus’ radical approach. With the familiarity you demonstrate concerning the Jewish roots of Jesus and our faith, I’d especially value and welcome your critique and vantage point, as well as how others see the texts.
I am happy to label sin as sin. The problem is whether you are labeling, for example, a faithful lifelong monogamous same-gender relationship as sin and which scripture you would cite for support of that position.
Ditto.
True, but it’s a life-long process if we’re honest.
Or by interpreting it sensibly as,I hope, you do frequently (eg where Paul says ‘women should be silent’ and countles other texts).
Jesus did more than ‘bend it’.
I don’t know of anyone whose done that in this thread. You seem to be creating strawmen.
No, it’s not crazy.
And the pharisees told Jesus He was wrong. Telling somebody they are wrong does not automatically mean we are right.
Now you’ve lost me completely. Are you suggesting that Jesus (God on earth ) said that homosexuality is wrong? If so, please quote the text. If not, then all this is irrelevant.
Hear, hear! So what DID God (Jesus) say about homosexuality?
I was raised accepting the western ‘Bible’ as ‘The Word of God’. I also frowned on those stupid Catholics who saw the Pope as their infallible authority.
It was many years before I questioned whether I too was making an idol, not out of a person, but out of a collection of 66 books (after all, that was far easier than having a living relationship with the author and as it was I who ultimately interpreted what it meant, it left me in control )
I now believe (as attested by scripture) that JESUS is the only ‘Word of God’ .
This is exactly what the scriptures teach. Jesus Himself referred to the Torah many times and never once called them ‘the Word of God’. Every time, He simply called them ‘the writings’.
If we look at ‘the writings’ (and I suppose we had better stick to the canon we use in the west), they tell us clearly that it is ‘The Spirit’ who shall guide us into truth.
Is this idea scary? Yes. But it is a more firm foundation than relying on ‘the scripture’ alone.
William Blake wrote:
So, truth is, even relying on the Bible will not give us ‘objective truth’ -clearly proved by all the contradictory doctrines of so many ‘Bible believing’ churches.
I believe that the Bible is inspired and unique, but I will not make it the ‘final authority’ because it tells me not to and if I do (despite what it says) then I have made myself to be ‘the final authority’ by making that decision.
Pilgrim, where do you see scripture saying that “faithful” and “lifelong” make it okay?
The Law tells us what sin is. And the law is very clear on the matter - there is no ambiguity.
But you know these scriptures already. This is The Law. The Law shows us what sin is. Before we need a Savior, we need to humbly see ourselves for what we are - what the law shows us - that we are hopeless and dead. The Law is a ministry of death, but it seems you want to remove the law instead of dying to your own righteousness(?)
I used to see this as a process, pilgrim - when I was under the law. Then, under and in grace, it became a choice - for the moments. For believers, it should already have been done, in one respect.
Gal 2:20, Gal 5:24
See below.
Why not just say women should be silent? Paul certainly didn’t give “cultural” grounds for his reasoning (or did he - I’m unaware). Yet, it is from Paul. It’s an instruction from our apostle, which we should adhere to. However there is no death associated with ‘not’ following it, as in Leviticus 20:13.
Where? I see a bunch of places where he broke tradition. Are you saying that he was a pedophile? an adulterer? a thief? a murderer? a homosexual? a coveter?
I wish you had actually taken the time to understand what I was trying to communicate. Are you more interested in “winning” an argument?
For me, knowing and accepting the utter depravity of my soul… the fact that I was born in sin and full of sin and an enemy of God - and he died (for me) to bring forgiveness and rose (for me) to have life in Him… that’s crazy! But I’ll take it.
Again, I wish you had tried to understand what I had written.
Yes - I am saying that (in truth, and in grace - and with kind tones in my thoughts - which don’t show up in writing)…
I am saying truthfully, without ambiguity - homosexuality is wrong - and Jesus affirmed it, and so did Paul.
See the scripture:
But using your logic, Jesus didn’t say that it is wrong to rape a child. Will you argue for that? And Jesus didn’t say that I couldn’t bring my mistress to church and have her sit down next to my wife. Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion or even partial-birth abortion. Jesus didn’t say anything about aborting a baby, throwing it away in a trash bin, and … if it somehow is found breathing when we take the trash out, we chop it up, make sure it’s dead and throw it away again. Jesus didn’t say anything about offering our children up to Molech (did He?)
There are a lot of things Jesus didn’t say.
He affirmed the Law and said it is sin, and such a sin as the kind that deserves death, under the law.
But since you are trying to so hard to justify it, it crosses my mind that perhaps you have not come to the end of your own righteousness? When we come to the end of it, we “die”, and then the law cannot kill us any longer. God wants us to agree with Him. If we can’t do that, then we walk in darkness and call God a liar and His Word is not in us.
I find it strange that people don’t want to acknowledge the written word as authoritative unless they want to use it to confirm their own opinions and make an argument against it. I am completely baffled!
It’s wrong to marry an unrepentant prostitute. (Do not be unequally yoked together…) God, in whom there is no darkness, would never command anyone to sin. Yet God commands Hosea to marry Gomer. You find no ambiguity here?
We are to love our neighbors and pray for our enemies, yet God commands Saul to annihilate the Amalekites. Are you sure the law is clear?
We’re commanded not to sell our daughters into prostitution. A few lines later, we are told with equal authority not to wear cloth made from two different fibres. Do these commands *really *have equal weight?
If my brother dies, am I obligated to marry his widow? How many wives am I allowed under the Law of Moses? What days and festivals are holy? Can I turn on a light switch on the Sabbath or is that doing work? Are certain foods unclean, or are they all clean? Must I circumcise my sons? Can my wife speak in church? Must she wear a hat lest she offend or tempt the angels? Why doesn’t the roof of the church act as a big hat?
The Law tied people up in knots. We’re free of it, thank God. We’re now bound only by the law of love. We must do as we would be done by. (If you were gay, how would you like to be treated?) We must maintain the unity of faith in the bond of peace. God hates dissention amongst brothers as much as he hates anything.
The link paper Bob was referring to is located here:
Although Bob has raised the question of equal validity of scriptures (are all scriptures equal), it also references a number of points regarding Jesus and his obdedience to the law. I agree with him that one does not have to venture far in order to sympathize with the San Hedrin.
I think George MacDonald was right to argue that our deep senses of morality and love should lead us to at least re-examine our understandings of Scripture. But I fear that when one’s interpretation of Scripture is questioned, the easiest justification for not engaging the diverse and challenging texts at issue, is to simply accuse challengers of being dishonest, resisting God’s Word as authoritative, or just carnally seeking to confirm their own opinion.
On Jesus’ view of Torah, I find Zondervan’s “Five View on Law & Gospel” helpfully develops the issues. Of the five options debated, my own bias is that N.T. scholar Doug Moo’s view offers the best fit with Scripture, calling it “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View.” I commend this volume to those willing to challenge their own current perceptions.
Also Kelly, I don’t think it’s that people don’t want to acknowledge the authority of God’s word. The question is of Hermenuetics - what does God’s word mean is where the difference lies.
Using the text to confirm one’s opinion is something everyone does - no one’s exempt. The reason is because we’re all trying to understand the text. How far one goes is a matter of spectrum. What if you found out you were wrong about half your beliefs, would you say you were MERELY trying to force the bible to say what you thought it said or would you say you simply lacked understanding and made errors. I think we’re all a mix - we do both.
I reject the calvinist rendering of Romans 9, because I read it differently then they do. They can easily say that I’m trying to force my opinion into it. I can say the same about them. We need to discuss these issues and realize most of us here do take God’s word as authoritative. But we don’t all agree what God’s word is saying on every detail. Yes we all see Universalism in the text. But do we believe that we must all restrain from eating pork? No. Most of us don’t. If you do, then we don’t condemn or judge you. I’m only making the point that many issues are complex, not simple.
I find all kinds of ambiguity in scripture. So, does that make pedophilia okay?
I always assumed God was controlling the bloodline in view of the ultimate need to bring a “man” to the cross. I have assumed that the Sons of God corrupted this bloodline, resulting in the judgment of the flood. But evidently one of Noah’s son’s wives was also corrupt - otherwise why was Goliath so weird?
Whacky. I know. Minor-league stuff too.
Let’s get back to the Majors…
Actually, Gentiles were never bound by The Law, but instead showed the work of the law written on their hearts. If all your shirts are a polyester-cotton blend, and this produces the work of the law in you, then so be it - the law has done its work.
The work of the law is death - in the spiritual sense. Obviously, there are moral codes that served a purpose for the tribes, and obviously there are commands that serve as types, showing the character of God. However, when it comes to righteousness before God, the law can’t make us righteous.
Paul uses the conscience, not the law, when addressing the depravity of the Gentiles, because they were never bound by it. In both cases, it is the work of the law - the spiritual purpose - to show us when we are wrong. As Gentiles, our conscience bears testimony, showing that our thoughts are in conflict - either accusing or excusing us in judgment.
This conflict in the conscience is what I was writing about earlier. You even showed evidence of it when you claimed, a few posts earlier, that two wrongs make a right:
Allan, you are clearly making excuses. This means that your thoughts are in conflict. This is why I say, “why not… ?” Why not just let the old man die - change your mind (repent) from your current view - a mindset that seeks to justify sin and call something “holy” when it isn’t - to a new view that agrees with God, as expressed in his written law. In other words, let’s bring our worldly, Gentile thoughts into alignment with the character of God as revealed to his chosen people. Why not?
This means that we have to admit we are wrong - and admitting we are wrong doesn’t sit well with self-righteousness. But in the admitting, we are letting the old man die and are resurrected to a new life with a gift of righteousness, freely given to us. In the new life, we own victory by faith - a victory that is from the risen Christ… even if we don’t see that victory at the present time. In the new life, the work of the law has no power - because we have already died to it. So, as we grow in Christ, shouldn’t we be able to, more and more, have no conflict of thoughts in our conscience when someone or something claims, “you are wrong”. Shouldn’t we be able to say, more and more, “I agree - I am wrong”? Shouldn’t we be able to stop making excuses, trying to cover our sins?
What is the first thing Adam and Eve did when they got their shiny new consciences? They covered themselves with fig leaves. God doesn’t think that is adequate - He gave them Lambskin.
All I have been saying in these posts is this: whether it is adultery, homosexuality or a poorly chosen disco outfit, let’s throw off our earth-suits and put on Lambskin.
Hallelujah - Thank God I’m wrong and He’s right!! Why should I fight it? Only a dead man (or a baby) fights the accusation, because only a dead man (or a baby) has to prove his own righteousness.
I have loved you - I told you the truth, even though you, buddyb4 and pilgrim may hate me for it. No one wants to be hated. I understand how you feel ! Homosexuals are not the only people who struggle with temptations too powerful for them. I know that the Christian church is often (very often) unloving toward those who aren’t perfect. I have my own struggles Allan, but I claim my victory in Christ. If I were to change my mind and agree (repent and confess) with you, I would have unity with you, but I wouldn’t need victory in Christ.
)