What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

Bible Study What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality

What is binding law from God for people today for sinful homosexual behavior?

  • All men should know that homosexual behavior is sinful and punishable by God based on law revealed t

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All men should know that homosexual behavior is sinful and punishable by God based on "the Law of Ch

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All men should know that homosexual behavior is sinful and punishable by God based on the general "l

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BereanDAD2003

Guest
This post is a compilation of thoughts that I placed in a string of four articles elsewhere at Christian Forums. I think it is especially important that we have in hand some basic material on what the Scriptures say about homosexuality given the current state of affairs in our country. I am certain my approach here will not be acceptable to all Christians. But I do my own study. You do yours and conclude what you will. Sources that I have consulted are given in a bibliography at the end of this post. Please pardon the length.

BereanDAD


Homosexuality: Answered only in the Law of Christ

Not all of the teachings of the Bible are for everyone. The Bible contains two testaments or covenants, or mutual agreements between God and man. They are the Old Testament and the New Testament. And the New Testament teaches Christians that there are things in the Old Testament that, while useful for giving examples and positive moral instruction for Christians, were given specifically to the Jewish people as far as binding law is concerned.

Immediately one must consider God's Old Testament statement about who the Law given by Moses was to govern. It is to Israel specifically that God gave the Law. He says to them: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" (Exodus 20:1-2).I recently asked a former law school professor, and Orthodox Jew, was the Orthodox position regarding the ethics of homosexual practice for modern man. He succinctly summarized my present conviction regarding the Levitical code when he said, "These are laws for our community, not for those who are not under God's covenant (non-Jews). Certainly if someone wanted to convert to Judaism, that individual would need to make commitments and over a period of time demonstrate his willingness to follow the Torah (Law). We do not bind God's Law on those outside the Law. It is not our concern."

My present position is that none of the four passages found in the Old Testament speaking about homosexual practice are written to govern the behavior of those who are not Jews. Homosexual practice is spoken of negatively and is legislated against severely in the Hebrew Scriptures, including two stories of unsuccessful but attempted homosexual rape in Genesis 19 and Judges 19. A man, in the first passage offers to allow his two daughters to be sexually abused rather than to allow his male guests to be violated by the men of Sodom. Those men refuse and try to force their way into the house to have them sexually. In the second story the proposed rapists surround a house, pound on the door, and shout to the man trying to show hospitality to a male guest. They tell the man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house tries to stop them and offers his own daughter and the guest’s concubine to the men so that they might do to them whatever they wished. He pleads: "But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." But the men would not listen to him. Ultimately the concubine was raped all night and eventually died from the abuse. (Judges 19:22-26).

In addition to the stories in Genesis and Judges, there are two statues in the Levitical Code condemning male-male sexual intercourse as detestable: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence," [Leviticus 18:22]; and "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death--their bloodguilt is upon them" [Leviticus 20:13] (Jewish Publication Society translation of the Hebrew Scriptures).

Traditionally, Christians have concluded that since the two stories cast homosexual behavior in a bad light, and since the death penalty was reserved for male-male homosexuality in the statutes in Leviticus, it is wrong for anyone to practice homosexual acts today.

It may be true that homoerotic behavior is wrong. But it is not generally wrong on the basis of passages describing God's law for the Jewish community specifically. As a parallel example, Christian thinkers might want to reflect upon the fact that the Jewish Sabbath is a special holy day for the Jews only. Christians are not required to keep the Sabbath, which lasted from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Similarly there should be no expected requirement of obeying specific statutes in the Levitical Code, including those on homosexuality if the basis of such obedience is the Jewish Law given by Moses.

Certainly the New Covenant Scriptures speak of the value of learning from the behavior of the Jewish nation as described in the Old Covenant Scriptures: "These things happened to them [i.e. the Jewish nation] as examples and were written down as warnings for us [i.e. Christians], on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Corinthians 10:11). But can we say that such passages, and others that could be presented, should be embraced as authoritative law for Christians or those outside either covenant?

While the Old Covenant stories regarding Israel were valuable "examples" for Christians under the New Covenant, but they were not authoritative binding law for Christians. Neither these examples or Jewish statutes found in the Levitical Code are law for individuals who are neither Jewish or Christian. No one other than the Jews were required to keep the Law of Moses, which was the most sublime code of ethics on the earth. It limits its binding application to those who God had brought out of Egypt, the nation of Israel--the Jews.

Even the Christian apostle Paul wrote that Christians are not bound to the Mosaic statutes.: "I myself am NOT under the law . . . . but am under Christ’s law†(1 Corinthians 9:20, 21). For a Christian the old covenant, as a body of law, was considered to be obsolete: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for the other . . . .By calling this covenant “new,†he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear†(Hebrews 8:7, 13).

Additionally, Paul, in comparing the Law of Moses with salvation by the faith system of New Covenant Christianity, writes: “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified [i.e. made right in God’s estimation] by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.â€Â

Christians are judged by what Jesus the Christ says is his word: “ There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word, which I spoke, will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say†(John 12:48-50).

Additionally he says that his apostles and prophets would be inspired to give to the church authoritative Scripture later: “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you†(John 16:12-15).

As an example of the authority behind apostolic writings, consider the summary statement made by Peter regarding Paul’s writings received by the church: “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction†(2 Peter 3:16).

Therefore, what is said in the Old Testament, while instructive, was binding only upon Jews, and even then only until the Messiah Jesus came to fulfill then to replace the Jewish economy of things with his new covenant and teachings.

What we need to know about God’s will as it relates to ethical behavior today has to come from what is contained in what Paul calls “the law of Christ†(1 Corinthians 9:21) and the writings of his inspired apostles. As regards matters related to homosexuality, only the apostle Paul speaks to the issue in three passages of the New Covenant: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Romans 1:26-27.

I must write frankly about what I generally see whenever I try to talk with people, gay or straight, about these matters. Most of those in my experience are usually very philosophically prejudiced about what they believe on the matter of homosexuality. Straight people are often totally disgusted with male-with-male and sexual practices. Often, however, they hypocritically voyeuristically "get off" over lesbian behavior between attractive women. With respect to homosexual men, however, they would just as soon get out a baseball bat or pistol whip every homosexual they found if they could get away with it.

Gays, on the other hand, often approach challenges to their sexual practice with statements like, "This is who I am! Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot be?!" or "What do I care about so-called 'scriptures' that restrict my sexuality any more than you care about them restricting your heterosexual behavior?" A representative example of this attitude is seen in Gary David Comstock's Gay Theology Without Apology. After listing a number of passages from the New Testament on sexual ethics, he speaks very strongly:

"Those passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe [i.e. forbid] behavior" (Comstock 43).

Comstock would simply throw out the Bible if he felt it condemned the sexual behavior he felt was legitimate. While I observe that many people are quite comfortable with this, I must report that at the 2001 Texas Christian University observation of National Coming Out Day, the EQ Alliance panel took a more moderate and responsible approach when questioned. Those on the panel granted that those who believe in Scripture should be careful to discover what it says about their sexuality before "coming out" as committed and public homosexuals.

If I haven't been clear enough, let me pointedly acknowledge that New Testament evidence on homosexuality is not as "cut and dried" in every text as many evangelicals would suppose. The New Testament materials require the careful and responsible investigation by evangelicals and gays alike. Particularly, the passages written by Paul demand far more than the cavalier approach some on either side take to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:24-27.

To begin, I want to recommend two books that my study reveals are stellar among many scholarly books and theological journal articles addressing the Bible and homosexuality. I find two books in particular to be fair and balanced in their approach to the information. The books effectively summarize what has been written by others; they deal with primary Greek and Hebrew biblical sources in their contemporary historical contexts; and they are relatively inexpensive. I'm providing links to two books. I am hoping you will carefully study them.

Please consider Chapter three, "Homosexuality," in The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. by Dr. Victor Furnish. Also examine the very thorough important linguistic and cultural study by Dr. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality.

So what does the Bible say about "homosexuality." First of all, you should know that the psychological term "homosexual" never occurred in an English translation of the Bible until 1946 in the Revised Standard Version where two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 were combined into one English word, “homosexuals.†The first word is arsenokoites, which is a compound word formed from the words arsen, "male," and koiteo, "to bed," suggesting the translation as simply "a male who beds/lies with (i.e. has sexual intercourse with)another male." The second word is malakos, literally translated "soft," to be understood figuratively in the present discussion.


Options of Interpretation: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

1. As if roles were not switched in contemporary sexual romps, the two Greek words may simply describe active and passive roles in homoerotic intercourse. And anyone engaging in it, as the 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 indicates, would "not inherit the kingdom of heaven."

2. A large body of evidence has the words describe the most widely accepted male-male sexual practice at the time of the New Testament writings, namely Graeco-Roman pederasty described as early as the time of Socrates and onward.

Here the arsenokoites would have been an older man, a patron, who took the malakos, provided financially for the boy's education and introduction to society, and in return shared in willing intercourse of different kinds with the boy.

This is called "man-boy love" because the written descriptions in the various texts and then-contemporary pottery depictions represent intercourse between a bearded person with one who was not. In art of the time, one with a beard represented an older man, and one who was beardless represented an adolescent. Only rarely is there either discussion or paintings describing two bearded individuals engaging in intercourse, although there is much more evidence of homoerotic behavior between adolescents.

Abusively at times, the older man would tire of the boy for various reasons, not the least of which was that he began to grow facial hair, which was considered unattractive and undesirable. Consequently the boy would be let go for someone more desirable. Equally abusive was the fact that sometimes sophisticated boys in the pederastic [man-boy love] arrangement would exploit the older men whom they seduced, in order to get money and gifts. The idea that has been suggested is that Paul was condemning the abuse in the relationships between men and boys, regardless of the direction from which it originated.

3. Additionally, ample evidence describes the malakos as being a "call boy" or male prostitute who exploited and manipulated the arsenokoitai or older men. Mark Antony was said to be such a prostitute before coming into his own position as a leader in the Roman Empire at the time of Julius Caesar. The interpretation here is that Paul was condemning male homosexual prostitutes and those who had sexual intercourse with them, declaring that they were "unrighteous" and would "not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9). He points out that some of the Corinthian Christians had beenarsenokoitai and malakoi, but were no longer. They were "washed," "sanctified," and "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:10).

4. Significant is the fact that the Apostle Paul seems to be the first writer to use arsenokoites (in 1 Corinthians 6:9). The possibility exists that Paul, who was familiar with the Old Testament translation into Greek simply repeats the Old Testament prohibition of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 In those passages, arsen, the word for "man" in the sentence “and with a man do not lie, koiteo, the lying of a woman†(meaning "have sexual intercourse with a man as one does with a woman.") Consequently, it would imply homoerotic intercourse without consideration of the age of the partners.

Again, however, the majority of the contemporary writings describes man-boy homoerotic intercourse.

5. Also to repeat, regarding the term malakos in 1 Corinthians 6:10 the term literally means "soft," and was used of catamites or male prostitutes, especially when it is used in contexts where the Greek wordarsenokoites is also used (Bauer, 109, 488). The idea that has been suggested is that in this passage Paul is condemning this particular abusive exploitation and not general homosexuality. Paul says in the passage that malakoi and arsenokoitai "will not inherit the kingdom of heaven" (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). The various options for understanding Paul's condemnation in one area, leaves other homoerotic doors open--at least in this passage. Conservatives will feel that the treatment of this context compromises the truth or doesn't take enough of a stand. The fact, at least on this particular passage, is that I didn't approach it to try to prove anything, merely to see what God says through his inspired apostle. If slam-dunk conclusions are hard to come by in this passage, so be it. You are welcome to do your own research.


Options for Interpretation: Romans 1:26-27

There are sufficient reasons to understand Romans 1:18-27 to be a condemnation of homoerotic intercourse generally, even if one maintains that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (in 1 Timothy 1:10, arsenokoitais is translated "perverts" in the New International Version) is only talking specifically about pederasty as practiced in the ancient Greek-Roman culture. This passage contains the Apostle Paul's general argument about homosexual lust, where it came from generally in the grand scheme of things, and what is God's perspective of it among mankind presently.

Paul argues that there was adequate knowledge available about God's ultimate nature evident in the things that were created. But in time past, some did not acknowledge him. Rather than do so and give him thanks for the things that he provided, men turned to worship things that were created instead of God. This is idolatry (Romans 1:18-25).

As a result of this idolatry, Paul says that God gave people over both to "unnatural" female (prostitution or lesbianism?) and male to male homosexual lust and acts, in Romans 1:26-27. (Admittedly, the reference to lesbianism could possibly mean unlawful heterosexual relations by women, as in prostitution, and not be a reference to lesbianism at all. Consequently, both the Old and New Testaments would technically be silent on the issue.)

Theologians arguing for the homosexual position say that Paul is condemning inappropriate homosexual all-consuming lust, and that so long as homosexuals are in loving monogamous relationships, and not lusting, they are not the individuals condemned by Paul in this passage.

Even so, one ought to pay careful attention, however, to the types of terms that Paul uses to describe the behavior generally:

1. Lust (v. 24).

2. Impurity (v. 24)
.
3. Dishonored [practices] (v. 24).

4. Degrading passions (v. 26).

5. Unnatural "function" [meaning unnatural intercourse] (v. 26-27).

6. Burning desire between males (v. 27).

7. The Greek literally translates as "the indecent act" or "the shameless deed" [Understood to mean intercourse] (v. 27).

The context condemns not only those who practice these things, but also those who approve the practice of these things (v. 32).

Items 2, 3, 5, and 7 have to do with behavior specifically, in addition to any sort of inappropriate desire. It is homosexual activity, specifically intercourse between men, that is generally condemned by Paul here.


Straight Talk for Hypocritical Non-Gay Christians

To conclude, let me say that any number of books supporting homosexuality can be referenced. My only suggestion, a strong suggestion I might add, is that a person dealing with this issue should try as hard as he can to make his decisions from reading material that is soundly based in the historical-linguistic method of exposition. God chose to communicate to us through the written word. Granted, sometimes the meanings of words and phrases are elusive. But I am convinced that objective study reduces greatly the propensity for misunderstanding that comes when we are governed by our logical mind and not by our emotional desires. One cannot get to ideas without using words. It is, on the other hand, very easy to choose only the words and texts that support ideas that one has decided in advance that he wants to believe.

If homosexual intercourse between males is condemned generally because of the linguistic evidence available, then one should not discard what the Bible says just because he is inclined to participate in homosexual acts that Scripture condemns, even if one does it out of love for another person. The "Well, this is who I am" logic does not fly with God. Anyone who wants to be a disciple of Christ submits his will to Christ's directions as revealed in Scripture. Jesus says,

Why do you call me "Lord! Lord!" and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to me, hears my words and practices them is like the man building a house. He dug deeply and laid a foundation upon the rock. And when a flood came or the stream burst against that house it was not shaken, because it had been well built. But he who hears and does not obey is like a man who built a house upon the earth without a foundation. The stream broke against it and it fell in, and the ruin of that house was great (Luke 6:46-49).

Additionally, I have a word of warning to self-righteous Christians who consider homosexuals untouchable sinners. How often are you like the prophet Jonah to whom God gave a commission to preach to those in Ninevah, the capital of Assyria, which had greatly oppressed the people of Israel. Jonah did not want to preach to them because he knew that God was merciful and might even forgive them for their sin. I've been around enough warped Christians to know that homosexuality scares the crap out of you!

Whether you think it is filthy (By the way many homosexual acts are enjoyed by heterosexual couples), or that it might rub off on you or, God forbid, that someone might think you are one if you are seen in the presence of a homosexual, it is your belief and practice to classify homosexual behavior as the worst indiscretion that is on God's list. You talk about it. You joke about it. Some of you Christian guys even hypocritically will even say, with your worldly friends, that Lesbianism isn't really all that bad--it's really a bit sexy--but two guys making out just grosses you out. You put homosexuality in a category entirely on its own. And your behavior communicates that you wouldn't have much of a problem if God never forgave a single one of them, and sent them all to hell.

Admit it and repent! You are wrong in your prejudiced attitudes And you will be judged for it, and most severely because you have been warned! (Matthew 7:1; Luke 12:48).

And even if you did think they were sinners to participate in such behavior, it is your responsibility to imitate Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) and reach out to them. And his example was to be "a friend" of sinners, open to being accused of their actions even because of his intimate association with them (Luke 7:35).

Finally, to my homosexual friends who want to be Christians or to be guided by Christ's way, if you don't have biblical support for your position, or justification--even permission to act, as you will because Scripture is elusive or vague to you after careful study--don't make the mistake of saying the Scripture is wrong (and in so doing judge God). Nor should you reinterpret Scripture to justify your actions.

Please . . . please be very careful and responsible as you prayerfully seek out his will for your life. Talk about this with Christians who do seem to have their head on straight (pardon the pun) with respect to how to approach Scripture and to deal with you honorably.

In the final analysis, you need to do this because you're dealing with God. And he will not be toyed with.

BereanDAD


Bibliography

Abbott-Smith, G. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland: T.&T. Clark Publishers, 1937.

Bauer, Walter, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 2nd edition revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979). S.v.: "arsenokoites," p. 109 and "malakos," p. 488.

Comstock, Gary David. Gay Theology Without Apology. Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim Press, 1993.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1-8. Volume 38 in the Word Biblical Commentary Series. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988.

Furnish, Victor Paul. Chapter Three, "Homosexuality." The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. Second Revised Edition. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1985.

Mounce, William D. Editor, The New International Version English-Greek New Testament: A Reverse Interlinear. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1988

Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.
.
Stott, John. Same-Sex Partnerships? A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revel, 1998.
 
S

saved

Guest
Hello BereanDAD,
in reading over your poll and post I come up with confussing undertsandings of what you stand for. First your poll is confuissing so I opted out of it. Next the post seems to suggest and does say that the OT was not for us even the moral parts. That is false. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Bottom line homosexuality is sin for jew or Gentile. No person who is practicing it is saved. Like any other sinner they need to repent and be saved. it is that simple.
 
H

Homeskillet

Guest
saved said:
No person who is practicing it is saved.
I disagree with that statement just as much as I would disagree if someone said any person who lies isn't saved.

When will Christians stop placing homosexuality on some sin pedestal that makes it worse than all other sins??? IT ISN'T ANY WORSE.


BereanDAD, I feel enlightened by your post here and in the thread I started in Christian Talk and Advice....I am challenged now to dig deeper into the Word. Thank you.
 
B

BereanDAD2003

Guest
Clarifications on Homosexuality and How it becomes Sin

saved said:
Hello BereanDAD,
in reading over yuor poll and post I come up with confussing undertsanmdings of what you stand for. First your poll is confuissing so i opted out of it. Next the post seems to suggest and does say that the OT was not for us even the mnoral parts. That is false. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Botom line homosexuality is sin no for jew or Gentile. No person who is practicing it is saved. Like any other sinner they need to repent and be saved. it is that simple.
Thank you for your interest in my article. To consider your post in reverse order. I think that my article makes clear that those perpetually involved in exploitative pederasty (from either the boy's side or the man's side), or male prostitution end up not receiving the kingdom of heaven according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Additionally I make it very clear that Romans 1:26-27 condemn male to male intercourse if not also Lesbianism.

Even so, however, I also demonstrated, and you didn't do anything but say "It 'ain't so" without any proof or discussion except to quote an isolated Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul says he is not under the Mosaic Law but rather the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21). Additionally I would refer you to James 2:10, Galatians 3:10, and Rom. 7:1-6:

Romans 7:1-6 "Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

Galatians 3:10 "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

As you can see from the foregoing, one cannot divide the Law of Moses up and make one part of it binding without making all of it binding. If homosexual practice is condemned based on the Old Testament, then everything else in the old covenant is binding, moral and ceremonial. My point is that the New Covenant speaks sufficiently to the issue of homosexual sin, and while it is profitable to gauge some things about how God felt about things from reading the Hebrew Scriptures, one cannot be bound by the Old Law if the New Covenant is speaking truthfully. In Christ, the Old Covenant, all of it, is taken away as a binding code of law. Christians are under the "law of Christ" as, again, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 9:20-21: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law."

The poll was VERY carefully worded, I wanted to make people think about the implications of saying that the Old Covenant is binding, given the content of my article. But since no one has responded to it yet, I will reword it, hopefully to make it more understandable.

Actually, no one comes UNDER the new covenant until he accepts Christ. But one can be CONDEMNED (not saved) by breaking general revelation and the sins that can be identified in the law on the heart (Romans 2:14). I do not believe a person is born lost, but loses a "safe" state upon consciously choosing to sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Matthew 18:1-5). A person does not become a sinner by breaking the Old Testament law or the New Testament law of Christ. Both were Testaments or Covenants. The first was a covenant that God made with the Jews. The second is a covenant sealed for Christians with the blood of Jesus.

Covenants imply relationship. There is no relationship until a person comes into the covenant. One becomes a sinner by breaking law that he, at the very least, should have known. Paul identifies this as the law on the heart in Romans 2:12-14. It's in Romans 1:18-32 that he lists some of the elements contained in this general law written on the heart. And homosexual practice--"the dishonorable [or "shameful"] deed"--is mentioned in that context.

Thank you for your consideration of the article. Please read it again for better understanding of it. Also, I welcome a follow-up letter.

Regarding Homeskillet's comments:

Homeskillet said:
saved said:
No person who is practicing it is saved.
I disagree with that statement just as much as I would disagree if someone said any person who lies isn't saved.

When will Christians stop placing homosexuality on some sin pedestal that makes it worse than all other sins??? IT ISN'T ANY WORSE.

BereanDAD, I feel enlightened by your post here and in the thread I started in Christian Talk and Advice....I am challenged now to dig deeper into the Word. Thank you.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. People go ballistic over sex. While Paul does classify sexual sin as against one's own body, he certainly doesn't classify it as worse than any other sin. And it's blatant, defiant, continual, "in your face, God; I reject you!", sin that results in God's judgment. Homosexuality is a confusing sin. It is a seductive sin. The biblical evidence on it is open for some scholarly discussion as to even what is being condemned (as I try to point out in the article). Thank you for your careful reading of what I have written, Homeskillet. And I also would welcome any follow-up correspondence from you on the subject, and my clarifications in this post.

Sincerely,
BereanDAD
 

Bryan

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
230
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Yes, homosexuality is just like any other sin. The key is repentance. Someone who lies, and recognizes that they shouldn't, and repents of that action is in a very different place spiritually than one who is a homosexual and has decided that they are not going to repent of the lifestyle. The latter is NOT saved.
 
S

saved

Guest
Homeskillet said:
saved said:
No person who is practicing it is saved.
I disagree with that statement just as much as I would disagree if someone said any person who lies isn't saved.

When will Christians stop placing homosexuality on some sin pedestal that makes it worse than all other sins??? IT ISN'T ANY WORSE.


BereanDAD, I feel enlightened by your post here and in the thread I started in Christian Talk and Advice....I am challenged now to dig deeper into the Word. Thank you.
You can disagree all you want, but it is not me who you disagree with b ut the Lord. 1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.


1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.


1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.


1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
 
S

saved

Guest
Bryan said:
Yes, homosexuality is just like any other sin. The key is repentance. Someone who lies, and recognizes that they shouldn't, and repents of that action is in a very different place spiritually than one who is a homosexual and has decided that they are not going to repent of the lifestyle. The latter is NOT saved.
AMEN!!! :wink:
 
S

serapha

Guest
saved said:
Bottom line homosexuality is sin for jew or Gentile. No person who is practicing it is saved. Like any other sinner they need to repent and be saved. it is that simple.

Hi there!

I would agree that there is a difference between a professing homosexual and a practicing homosexual. However, if one is saved, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and then enters into a homosexual relationship with the same profession of faith, I have to accept their profession of faith.

With your blanket statement, it become obvious that


should a "saved" person enter into adultery, then that would mean that they were never saved;

should a "saved" person "lose it" and kill someone, then that would mean that they were never saved;

should a "saved" person steal time from his company by "loafing" on the job when there is work to do (thou shalt not steal)... that would mean that they were never saved.

should a "saved" person ever repeat gossip (false witness); that would mean that they were never saved.

should a "saved" person ever covet... that would mean they were never saved.


What a "crock".


~serapha~
 
S

saved

Guest
serapha said:
saved said:
Bottom line homosexuality is sin for jew or Gentile. No person who is practicing it is saved. Like any other sinner they need to repent and be saved. it is that simple.

Hi there!

I would agree that there is a difference between a professing homosexual and a practicing homosexual. However, if one is saved, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and then enters into a homosexual relationship with the same profession of faith, I have to accept their profession of faith.

With your blanket statement, it become obvious that


should a "saved" person enter into adultery, then that would mean that they were never saved;

should a "saved" person "lose it" and kill someone, then that would mean that they were never saved;

should a "saved" person steal time from his company by "loafing" on the job when there is work to do (thou shalt not steal)... that would mean that they were never saved.

should a "saved" person ever repeat gossip (false witness); that would mean that they were never saved.

should a "saved" person ever covet... that would mean they were never saved.


What a "crock".


~serapha~
It is a crok to those who hate God's word, but to those who love Him and Hisa word it is lovely to their ears. I am always amased at those who add to what is said to make their point. First I never said what you said. I said what scripture teaches and that is all that matters. No one who practices homosexuality is saved, period. That is what scripture teaches. But it also includes those who covet or do adultry or any sin. You might want to read 1Corinthians 6:9-10 for a reference.
 
S

serapha

Guest
It is a crok to those who hate God's word,


and are you indicating that I hate God's Word?




I would hope you would be able to address issues and not people.



First I never said what you said.

No person who is practicing it is saved.


However, if one is saved, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and then enters into a homosexual relationship with the same profession of faith, I have to accept their profession of faith.

God didn't make me the judge the way that He has made you a judge. God make me a fruit inspector, that I might know them by their fruit. Do you judge all Christians by their sexual performance?


Why not let God be the judge of other people's profession of faith?


The apostle John tells us that we will walk in the light as we are given the light. Not everyone has the same about of light, nor the same level of light. Everyone is on their own spiritual journey with God.


~serapha~
 
S

serapha

Guest
You might want to read 1Corinthians 6:9-10 for a reference.

6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentarie ... =6&verse=9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God?




A way of speaking much like that in the Talmud, (Myqydul ala ywve wnya abh Mlwehv edwy ywh) "know thou, that the world to come is not made but for the righteous?"

Without a righteousness there will be no entrance into the world of bliss and happiness hereafter; and this must be a better righteousness than what a sinful creature is capable of working out, and no other than the righteousness of Christ. It was a loss and want of righteousness that cast the angels down from heaven, and turned Adam out of paradise; and whoever of his posterity: are destitute of one, will fall short of enjoying the glory of God; for it is not agreeable to the holy nature of God, to his infinite justice and righteous law, to admit any into heaven without a righteousness: hence a judgment seat is erected, before which all must stand; and those that will be found without a righteousness, will be for ever excluded the kingdom of heaven; and could any unrighteous persons be received there, it would spoil the pleasure and happiness of the saints.


Now this is said, partly to dissuade the Corinthians from going to law with each other before unrighteous persons, who have no right to the kingdom of God, and living and dying as they are, will have no share in it; and therefore since they are not to be fellow heirs and companions with them in another world, they should not bring their causes before them in this; and partly to reprove them for their injurious and unrighteous actions among themselves, their tricking and defrauding of one another, with other sins they were guilty of; which, if not repented of, would show, that notwithstanding their profession, they were destitute of the grace of God, were unfit to be in the kingdom of God, in a Gospel church state here below, and would be shut out of the kingdom of heaven hereafter.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, let's read that passage, but let's leave it in the context of the entirity of the Bible and in the context where it was written (historically).


Again, we are called to be fruit inspectors and not judges. We may judge doctrines and disciplines, but we may not judge other people's hearts... aka their "profession of faith".



~serapha~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please consider donating

Total amount
$737.00
Goal
$4,080.00
Top