Struggles, scars, hope and praise
Trevor Morgan - ‘Oh Hallelujah’ (MP3)
My heart is bearing the scars
Of living in the last days
But in my soul
I know that you are
The one that I await
Oh Hallelujah!
Glory Amen
Oh Hallelujah!
You’re coming again
My eyes can’t take what they see
And it just gets harder everyday
Make me a witness
For what is to come
And what’s passing away
Oh Hallelujah!
Glory Amen
Oh Hallelujah!
You’re coming again
You’re coming again
You came as an innocent child
In the silence of night
But to a world in wonder
On a cloud of thunder
You’re coming back to make things right
Oh Hallelujah!
Glory Amen
Oh Hallelujah!
You’re coming again
I love the old spirituals of the church – “Amen,” “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” “Nobody Knows” – and I wrote this chorus with those songs in mind.
A simple statement of belief and worship was all I was going for, but when I played this chorus for John Mallory he had the idea of lyrically taking it to another level. What we ended up with was a song of struggles and scars, but also one of hope and praise.
Musically, this song really took shape as we were tracking it. The intro was something that we all just started noodling with before the tape rolled, and we liked it so much that it stuck. After the take was finished, we all sensed that we had something pretty special on our hands. - Trevor
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Tags: Music
November 10th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Roger, you asked me over at Michael’s:
Dan, be more specific. What do you mean by the ‘gay issue’? I am referencing it in terms of homosexuality being a sin, and nothing more. We’re all sinners, but sin always has bad consequences. So, we do people no favors by calling sin anything other than sin - for their own good! For example, Michael’s statement to me appears to be:
Yes, that’s what I mean. You are suggesting that homosexuality is a sin and I reject that as not a biblical position. Your position was the position I held firmly until I was challenged on it, prayed about it, looked at what the Bible actually says and had my heart softened by God to see beyond the traditions of men.
I agree that we should call a sin a sin, I disagree that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.
You went on to change Michael’s quote to say:
>>I will have to try to make a case here for Christian churches welcoming sin.
And you asked, Do you see why I said that this is serious stuff and not to be taken lightly?
I see where there’s a need to call a sin a sin and changing people’s words and arguing against the false charge is wrong. Michael is in no way talking about welcoming sin (and we go to the same church, so I know Michael quite well). Bearing false witness is a sin, Roger. Don’t do so.
You also asked, Where does your doctrine come from?
The Word of God alone.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
I didn’t change Michael’s quote. I implied that that was the logical outcome of what he was saying. Of course he isn’t going to say, “I will have to try to make a case here for Christian churches welcoming sin.” Who has ever said that? Yet, how many times has that outcome been achieved through the deception of men?
>You also asked, Where does your doctrine come from?
>The Word of God alone.
Please explain that doctrine from the Word of God then…I’ll let you comment on it.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
I used to believe as you did. The Bible was rife with passages that condemned homosexuality.
The problem is, that’s just not the case.
In studying the Bible, I found - much to my consternation, because I was determined to believe that homosexuality was a sin! - that there are only roughly a handful of verses that even seem to deal with homosexuality.
There are two very similar passages in Leviticus (18 and 20) that say, “men shall not lay with men,” with the second one adding, “they must be put to death!”
That’s it for the entire Old Testament. Sodom and Gomorrah? They were wanting to rape the visitors and of course I agree that rape is wrong, but it’s not to condemn homosexuality anymore than heterosexual rape is a condemnation of heterosexuality. Besides, in Ezekiel, God’s own Self explains what the “sin of Sodom” - gluttony, failure to treat the poor and visitors well (Ezekiel 17).
In the New Testament, Jesus is absolutely silent on this “sin” that today’s church has placed at the top of its hit list. That’s a big red flag for this Christian who tries to base his life on Jesus’ teachings.
There are a 2, maybe 3 places where the word “homosexual” appears in the NT. Each time, the word translated “homosexual” is “malakoi” which literally translated means “soft.” The word appears in 1 Cor (in some translations) in a list of other sinners who won’t be part of God’s kingdom. But in truth, translators are unclear on the meaning of the word, sometimes translating it as “homosexual offender,” sometimes, “effeminate,” and sometimes “homosexual” (and maybe a few other words). You, nor I, nor the translators know the exact meaning of the word, “soft,” in that context.
This leaves us with the famous Romans 1 passage that talks about God giving up sinners to their own lusts, until men forsake women and pursue other men. The passage criticizes them for “abandoning natural relations.”
That’s it. That’s the entire biblical case against homosexuality.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Okay, so there’s not much that even seems to talk about homosexuality, but that still leaves a problem:
Even if there are only two or three places that appear to condemn homosexuality, they still are there!
As to the two OT verses, they are part of a holiness code that condemns interest on loans, polyester, shrimp, pork, “men laying with men,” and further, it commands that we kill them if they do lay together.
The problem is that we just don’t live by these OT rules anymore. You might wear polyester (or clothes of “mixed fabric”), you probably eat shrimp or pork, you probably don’t think we ought to kill men laying together. We don’t live by those rules, and rightly so.
Now are there some rules in the OT that still have something to teach us? Lord, yes! A great deal! But they have to have some other basis than just the appearance in the OT Rules section written for Israel at a certain time. There needs to be some validation elsewhere than just an appearance in the Holiness Code.
So, let jump back to Romans. This one passage in the NT that seems to condemn homosexuality. But what it is condemning is the “abandoning of natural relations.” Well, for gays, “natural relations” are for the same gender.
And so, with that, I was left with no great biblical support for being opposed to committed loving gay relationships.
I don’t expect you to buy my argument - I wouldn’t have before God convicted me of it. What I’d hope you’d prayerfully consider is your position in regards to Christians like me and my gay brothers and sisters.
At this point, I’m sure you still think homosexuality a sin. Fine. I was there, once, too.
But most Christians seem unwilling to allow for a difference within church on this point. Let’s assume you’re right and I’m mistaken. Let’s assume homosexuality IS a sin and I’ve wrongly interpreted the Bible.
Am I condemned to separation from God for my mistake? Are my gay Christian friends condemned?
Even though we’ve confessed our sin, asked Jesus into our hearts and confessed Jesus as Lord of our lives? Is there no room for human error in your christianity?
November 11th, 2006 at 10:12 am
That sure sounds like welcoming sin, to me. By the time I got through reading this, I could (almost) think sin does not exist.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Sin certainly exists. I know of no one - “liberal,” “conservative,” or pagan who doesn’t acknowledge the existence of sin. My only point is that the Bible doesn’t make the case that homosexuality is in itself a sin.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
I consider myself a normal female and the thoughts of homosexual acts are repulsive to me. If homosexuality is a “natural”, why would it be repulsive to either sex? I believe that God put within us a knowing that it is un-natural and that it is when we go against that knowledge, that we then become hardened to the sin that it is and let our sinful nature take us over.
When it is called an abomination by an unchanging God, who is man that he should change the rules?
November 11th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Sin is bad, right?
The only course of action the bible ever recommends for sin is repentance, right? (no rationalization, no putting it off, etc)
So, it’s important that we know what sin is.
Having said that, I’ll address your concerns…
>There are two very similar passages in Leviticus (18 and 20) that say, “men shall not lay with men,” with the second one adding, “they must be put to death!”
Why did God punish that if it was natural? Wouldn’t you have to conclude that He is cruel and unfair - given your beliefs?
Also, why would God create some men and women as normal, naturally homosexual thereby limiting their ability to procreate and have families if they wanted to? Isn’t that cruel and unfair?
>I don’t expect you to buy my argument - I wouldn’t have before God convicted me of it. What I’d hope you’d prayerfully consider is your position in regards to Christians like me and my gay brothers and sisters.
God won’t convict us of something that is contrary to His word. So far, by your own explanation from scripture, you can’t find that homosexuality is fine. You can’t prove a positive by disproving a negative. Our own minds will allow us to work around something that’s stated and fill in the gaps so that we have convinced ourselves that it is not really saying what it appears to be saying. Given that, we still logically can’t make the jump that the opposite is true without evidence of it. You can only logically conclude that you’re not sure what to believe. To jump to the conclusion that the opposite is true reveals ‘our intent’ to make it so. THAT is natural. That is human nature. That is sin - doing it our way instead of His.
>At this point, I’m sure you still think homosexuality a sin. Fine. I was there, once, too.
No, really, it is not fine. The church now is declaring two opposing messages to the world - one that homosexuality is fine and the other says that it is a sin. God’s word says a house divided can’t stand. This issue is hurting the church. And to paraphrase Jesus’ words to Saul on the Damascus road, ‘When you hurt the church, you hurt me.’
>But most Christians seem unwilling to allow for a difference within church on this point.
Does God have inconsistent views on the topic? No. He doesn’t change. There can be only one truth. We must seek the truth - if it’s not the truth, it’s a lie.
>Let’s assume you’re right and I’m mistaken. Let’s assume homosexuality IS a sin and I’ve wrongly interpreted the Bible.
Am I condemned to separation from God for my mistake? Are my gay Christian friends condemned?
Sin is sin. There are always consequences. Sin damages our communion with God but it doesn’t separate the believer from Him in terms of the relationship. Once a child of God, always a child of God. God will not disown His children. However, if we rebel and disobey and run away from His commands, do we not suffer by that time apart from His fellowship?
>Even though we’ve confessed our sin, asked Jesus into our hearts and confessed Jesus as Lord of our lives? Is there no room for human error in your christianity?
The reason for the cross - the reason Jesus came was because of human error/sin. We admit our error, repent, and return to fellowship with God. He alone is the answer for our sin, not human reasoning, not our ‘good’ works.
Lastly, what are we to do with those testimonies of people who have been delivered from that lifestyle? Why would God change someone who is naturally that way into something that is naturally another way? A house divided can’t stand, right? Isn’t God contradicting Himself if your beliefs are true?
November 11th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“Why did God punish that if it was natural?”
Tell me this: Why was eating shrimp wrong - and not just wrong but an abomination! There are some passages in the OT that don’t make much sense, we just have to try to take them in context of the whole Bible and discern God’s will the best we can, by God’s grace and revelation.
“The church now is declaring two opposing messages to the world”
Yes, and it’s a shame. Would that you would repent for your position on this and thereby unite under Christ as one. Also, would that those Christians who support war would repent and seek to join with the Peacemakers following in Jesus’ steps.
But this is the fallen world we live in. Sometimes Christians are wrong about what is and isn’t a sin. I don’t know how you get around that but by God’s Grace.
“Once a child of God, always a child of God. God will not disown His children. However, if we rebel and disobey and run away from His commands, do we not suffer by that time apart from His fellowship?”
This is certainly true. We both aren’t likely to be correct when we hold seemingly opposing views (on gays, war, peacemaking, divorce, the environment, whatever). And so we both need to seek God’s One Way.
But sometimes we will be wrong. This is a fallen world and we are fallible creatures. I think you’re wrong on this issue, but I recognize my fallibility. It is entirely possible that I’m wrong. But after seeking God’s will, reading, studying, praying on the topic, I’ve been led by God to believe that gay marriages are a good thing.
I can’t deny the direction I feel I’ve been led by God, can I?
I’m glad to see that you don’t seem willing to condemn those who disagree with you as unbelievers. As I don’t condemn you. It’s a starting point, seems to me.
God help us all.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Sue said: “When it is called an abomination by an unchanging God”
God called eating shrimp an abomination, too. God changed (or perhaps just revised what is an abomination).
November 11th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Dan said: >>Tell me this: Why was eating shrimp wrong - and not just wrong but an abomination! There are some passages in the OT that don’t make much sense, we just have to try to take them in context of the whole Bible and discern God’s will the best we can, by God’s grace and revelation.
Good question. Let’s go to scripture. The references to clean/unclean foods are made in Chapter 11 of Leviticus where there are no death penalties - just directions from God to be obedient. Later in chapter 17 we get to a section of laws where penalties are given. Why are there penalties here and not regarding the food issues? Could it be that the latter are moral/ethical issues that effect everyone and obedience is not only wise, but needed for survival?
Let’s see what Jesus had to say about it: In Mark 7:14-23 He clarifies the Lev. 11 clean/unclean references by saying they are not moral/ethical in nature:
“Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. … Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Check this out:
Colossians 2:16-17
“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
What does that mean? The OT rituals and cermonial laws (which includes diet, ceremonies, sabbath) are no longer necessary because of Christ! Interesting note: my study bible has the heading of ‘not legalism but Christ’ before this section.
Another reference in scripture to there no longer being a need for these is in Ephesians 2:11-13.
“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands– remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
Gentiles, strangers to the laws of Israel, were once on the outside looking in. But because of Christ, they are now brought near and there is not that distinction needed between OT Israel and the rest.
There’s more…
Colossians 3:5
“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
There it is! The link between the death penalty (”put to death”) of the OT laws (and the distinction between them and the other OT laws). These are moral/ethical issues that are timeless and effect everyone. Interesting note: my study bible has the heading of ‘Not carnality but Christ’ before this section.
If you don’t have a study bible, I highly recommend it. It’ll help you find passages that are related to each other and will help you make better use of your Bible study time.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:01 am
“The OT rituals and cermonial laws (which includes diet, ceremonies, sabbath) are no longer necessary because of Christ!”
That’s an interesting and plausible explanation. One that I don’t necessarily disagree with. But the point is, you have to take the Bible - not word for word literally - but take it and interpret it, what it means to us, what it meant then.
While the NT clearly tells us that all food is okay (even that food that was formally “abominable”), it nowhere abolishes every tittle and jot of the OT - the death penalties, the wearing of polyester, the charging of interest (forbidden), the Jubilee Laws, etc, etc. We have to make sense of what was a commandment in the OT and see if there is reason to think it still applies today.
You have found those handful of verses, supposed they were about homosexuality and decided that the Bible has condemned homosexuality. I have found those handful of verses and found them not to be about homosexuality at all.
Just as you have read the Bible and found war permissible for Christians and I have read it and found it nearly impossible for Christians - and a great sin.
We have to interpret the Bible - and it’s important that we strive and pray to get it right. But sometimes we will be wrong. I’m suggesting that we need not break fellowship over different interpretations. You and I probably wouldn’t be comfortable in the same church, but we need not break fellowship.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Romans 1: 18-32
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21.for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25. because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural. 27. and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents. 31. foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
I can not see anything positive here about homosexuality and I notice in the last verse that we are not to approve of it. There is a long list of things that displease God and we do not single that out as the only one but I certainly see no changing of God’s mind concerning what is sin.
Our disaproval of the homosexual lifestyle does not exhibit hate, but love that would desire their salvation and repentance. Repentance will not come until conviction of sin first is recognized. May our hearts be open to God and His Word.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Dan said: >While the NT clearly tells us that all food is okay (even that food that was formally “abominable”), it nowhere abolishes every tittle and jot of the OT - the death penalties, the wearing of polyester, the charging of interest (forbidden), the Jubilee Laws, etc, etc. We have to make sense of what was a commandment in the OT and see if there is reason to think it still applies today.
Think of it this way: Moral laws are timeless and universal. If broken, they have consequences no matter what country, time period, or belief we are a part of. Dietary laws, clothing guidelines are not moral laws.
Here are some more scripture references that you may have missed regarding sexual immorality:
Jude 7-8 - includes both heterosexual and homosexual lusts. Note: Sodomy is not a synonym for ‘rape’. Therefore, when we see ‘Sodomites’ - we can’t conclude that it means ‘rapists’ - as you are saying the proper interpretation of the Sodomites should be. In this verse in Jude, Sodom and Gomorrah is recalled as being synonymous with sexual immorality and unnatural desires.
“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones”
1 Cor 6:9-11 - Note that it starts with a warning: “Do not be deceived” - Why is that important? Because the enemy works by deception. He takes a little truth and twists it into an attractive, appealing doctrine that is not sound - not the truth.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”
Did you notice the last part? ‘And such were some of you…’ - the early church contained folks that had been a part of these lifestyles - but God had delivered them from it.
1 Tim 1:10 - another reference. Note: What is sound doctrine? Apparently, a doctrine that opposes the things that are listed here. If a church endorsed a doctrine of slavery, that would be wrong. If a church preached a doctrine of lying, that would be wrong. How can we not conclude that a church that teaches a doctrine of homosexuality as being ‘natural’ is wrong?
“the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”
Rom 1:26-27 - There is absolutely no other way to interpret this with our God-given common sense than what it appears to be, that homosexuality is not condoned by God and is sin.
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
How does your church deal with this passage?
Finally, go back to the testimonies of those that have been delivered from that lifestyle. That’s evidence, not speculation. For example, Dennis Jernigan - go read his testimony here….(you probably sing some of his songs at your church)
http://www.dennisjernigan.com/About/DJsTestimony/tabid/85/Default.aspx
That’s the power of God at work! God did that for his Glory. You don’t want to deny God where He is working and doing great things for His glory do you?
November 13th, 2006 at 7:10 am
“the testimonies of those that have been delivered from that lifestyle. That’s evidence, not speculation.”
And how about the evidence of those who’ve been delivered from hateful comments such as I unintentionally made back before God delivered me from the lifestyle of smug self-satisfaction and confidence in unsound doctrine? That, too, is evidence, not speculation.
And, for the record, my former anti-homosexuality position was not intended to display hate but love. Like you, I wanted gays to be what I considered to be “whole.” And that was out of love. Nonetheless, my holding that position caused me to say some hateful things in the presence of folk that I didn’t realize were gay at the time.
I’ve already told you how my church deals with the Romans passage. The gist of that passage is that one should not abandon natural relations. For me, natural relations are towards women. That’s because I’m heterosexual. For gay folk - folk like that pastor Haggard, who no matter how wrong he thought it was, could not repress his natural desires - natural relations are towards the same gender.
It’s what you do with those natural desires that makes it right or wrong. Loving, committed, unoppressive relationships are a blessing - there’s nothing in the Bible but praise for that sort of relationship. Abusive, lying, cheating, hateful, oppressive acts in relationships are a wrong - whether in a gay or straight relationship.
But again, it’s not even so much I’m trying to convince you of the grave error of your way so much as to help us all understand that we all have to interpret the Bible by God’s grace. Your comment here:
“Think of it this way: Moral laws are timeless and universal. If broken, they have consequences no matter what country, time period, or belief we are a part of. Dietary laws, clothing guidelines are not moral laws.”
…is fine, but it’s extrabiblical. There’s nothing in the Bible that says dietary laws and clothing guidelines are not moral laws. That’s a bit of reasoning that you’ve applied - not incorrectly - to your bible study. We all have to do some of this.
You recognize that - even though the Bible nowhere tells us to stop killing disrespectful children (as we’re commanded to do in the OT), that we shouldn’t do this - that, in fact, it would be wrong to do so. So we both make the judgement that “Thou shalt NOT kill disrespectful children,” and we do so as an extrabiblical judgement, by God’s grace.
Sometimes we must do this sort of reasoning.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:02 am
And how about the evidence of those who’ve been delivered from hateful comments such as I unintentionally made back before God delivered me from the lifestyle of smug self-satisfaction and confidence in unsound doctrine? That, too, is evidence, not speculation.
The statement here by Dan seems to be a couple of decisions made. One is self control over certain reactions and the other is a decision to interpret the Word in his own way.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
>And how about the evidence of those who’ve been delivered from hateful comments such as I unintentionally made back before God delivered me from the lifestyle of smug self-satisfaction and confidence in unsound doctrine? That, too, is evidence, not speculation.
I don’t understand your point. 1 Tim 1:10 clearly states that the doctrine that you are explaining is not true. As Christians, we worship God in spirit and in truth. Truth is what distinguishes us from all of the false belief systems of the world that worship in spirit, good intentions, and sincerity - but not truth. Read the first chapter of 1 Timothy. Paul charges that Timothy make sure that others teach ‘no other doctrine’ than the true one. Why? Because errors about doctrine determine whether we worship the true God (and there cannot be two different ‘truths’) or an idol.
“Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” 1 Tim 4:16
>I’ve already told you how my church deals with the Romans passage.
How about the 1 Tim 1:10 passage?
>The gist of that passage is that one should not abandon natural relations. For me, natural relations are towards women. That’s because I’m heterosexual. For gay folk - folk like that pastor Haggard, who no matter how wrong he thought it was, could not repress his natural desires - natural relations are towards the same gender.
So, God creates us a certain way, calls it ‘good’, and then calls the natural outflow of that ‘goodness’ a sin? IF that’s the case, then God is not God. It could be said that God tempts us then. Scripture again denies that view.
>There’s nothing in the Bible that says dietary laws and clothing guidelines are not moral laws.
We found a couple of verses earlier that clearly said they weren’t moral laws, remember? Nothing from the outside defiles a man. It’s what in the heart that defiles us. Immorality doesn’t come from the food we eat or the clothes we wear.
>I’m trying to convince you of the grave error of your way
Do you believe my position is a grave error? How do you know that? Who told you that this position was a ‘grave error’? There’s nothing in scripture to lead us to that conclusion.
>And, for the record, my former anti-homosexuality position was not intended to display hate but love. Like you, I wanted gays to be what I considered to be “whole.” And that was out of love. Nonetheless, my holding that position caused me to say some hateful things
No, that position didn’t cause you to sin. Our sin nature causes us to sin and take God’s word (which is not sinful) and wield it in fleshly ways sometimes.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Sue said:
“The statement here by Dan seems to be a couple of decisions made. One is self control over certain reactions and the other is a decision to interpret the Word in his own way.”
I’m not sure of what you’re saying here, Sue. “Self-control over certain reactions?” What’s that mean?
And, as to the decision to “interpret the Word in my own way,” I’ll remind you that “my own way” WAS the way I’d been taught - ie, that the Bible teaches homosexuality as immoral. THAT was what I believed. Only after praying and reading the Bible on this particular topic did I change my mind, against my own will. I didn’t WANT to believe that homosexuality wasn’t a sin, that was what I thought the Bible clearly said.
I only got to where I am now by studying the Bible with a prayerful mind. How is that interpreting it in my own way?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Roger said:
“1 Tim 1:10 clearly states that the doctrine that you are explaining is not true. As Christians, we worship God in spirit and in truth.”
What doctrine of mine does 1 Tim 1 refute? That homosexuality is not a sin? But, as I’ve already stated, we don’t know what the word “homosexual” in 1 Timothy means. I don’t see how that proves anything.
In context of “the immoral,” those who embrace “perversion,” etc, I don’t think loving committed gay relationships fit in with that list. I’m opposed to sexual acting out, sexual oppression, bad sexual behavior, I just disagree that God is including that in this list and 1 Tim doesn’t really help make the case, since we don’t know what the word means.
I’m also not totally sure what you mean here:
“So, God creates us a certain way, calls it ‘good’, and then calls the natural outflow of that ‘goodness’ a sin?”
I’m saying that God creates us, hetero- and homosexual, and it IS good. As is the natural outflow of that goodness in the context of a committed loving relationship. But not outside of that context, and that is true for gays as well as straights.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Self-control over certain reactions?” What’s that mean?
Dan, I guess your previous reaction to gays was someone else’s fault then? You have expressed that you have had 2 views about homosexuality, so it must have been your own that you decided on then, because God is an unchanging God “He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.”.
Genesis 1: 26-28 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and till the earth and subdue it;
Now tell me where the Bible says God created a homosexual or anything in between a male and female.
Also, how is the homosexual pair going to be fruitful and multiply?
November 13th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
“Dan, I guess your previous reaction to gays was someone else’s fault then? You have expressed that you have had 2 views about homosexuality, so it must have been your own that you decided on then, because God is an unchanging God “He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.”.”
Well, I’d believed what I’d been taught when I thought homosexuality was wrong, but I was taught poorly. Do you call that someone else’s fault? It just is what it is. My fault as much as anyone else.
I still don’t see how that means it was “my own” that I decided upon. I was led by God to believe that, despite what I’d been taught, homosexuality was not wrong in and of itself. Just as heterosexuality is wrong.
But again, we disagree on that. And, while not ideal that we can’t come to agreement, that’s just the way it is. My question to you is the same as to Roger: Does my disagreeing with you on this topic mean that I’m not saved (in your mind)? Are you rejecting fellowship because we disagree upon whether or not this is a sin? Ought we always break fellowship anytime we can’t come to agreement with other christians about a particular action’s sin status?
Do you think cigarette smoking is a sin? Drinking beer? R-rated movies? Divorce? Fisticuffs? Driving cars? Eating meat? Buying foreign cars?
Must we agree upon each of these and the hundreds of other possible actions or inactions before we can be brothers and sisters?
I say, no, thanks. The Church is fractured enough as it is.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Dan, I try to be at peace with all as much as is possible. I could be your friend, but I will never agree with you on whether homosexuality is a sin. You did not give me scripture to prove that God made a homosexual. Scripture is what I will stand upon to form my views. You can not answer a question by running a rabbit to take the discussion in another direction. If you want to wait until eternity to find out what is truth, that is your decision. There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but its end is the way to death. We are told not to rely on our own wisdom or to be wise in our own eyes.
You seem to say that if two homosexuals are in a “loving” relationship that it is ok. A lot of differing sexual match-ups could say they were “in love”.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
>What doctrine of mine does 1 Tim 1 refute?
The doctrine that homosexuality is not a sin.
>But, as I’ve already stated, we don’t know what the word “homosexual” in 1 Timothy means. I don’t see how that proves anything.
Who’s teaching that “we don’t know” what is being communicated in that verse? That’s not true.
For example, see:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=1&verse=10&version=KJV#10
http://scripturetext.com/1_timothy/1-10.htm
I also looked it up in Wuest’s expanded translation (from the Greek) which reads:
“for whoremongers, for sodomites, for slave dealers and kidnapers, for liars, for perjurers, and if, as is the case, there is anything of a different nature which is opposed to sound teaching, according to the good news of the glory of the blessed God with which I was entrusted.”
When you read these replies, what’s the first thing that goes through your head? Are you interpreting it for what it is (if it makes sense, is logical, from scripture, etc) or are you filtering it through your interpretation of what those scriptures mean thereby already determining what it means before you give the scripture a chance to speak to you? That makes all the difference in the world. We can’t read into scripture. We have to let the truth be communicated to us. It won’t force itself on us. We have to be willing to understand whatever (sometimes hard) truth it may be communicating - after all, we’re ‘taking’ God at his word here and not ‘debating’ God on it.
>Must we agree upon each of these and the hundreds of other possible actions or inactions before we can be brothers and sisters?
>I say, no, thanks. The Church is fractured enough as it is.
Is it the same gospel? For example, I could point someone struggling with homosexual lusts to the testimony of Dennis Jernigan and countless others to show God’s power, goodness, love, and grace. That is good news! It speaks to God’s nature - who He is, what He’s capable of, and just how much He is involved in our lives - each and every one of us.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
“Scripture is what I will stand upon to form my views.”
Me, too. But there is not agreement (Wuest notwithstanding) upon the word translated homosexual. I am saying that THIS serious follower of Christ and student of the Bible (for 30+ years, now) does not find the support for this sin that you think is there.
But again, I ask you: Suppose you’re right and I’m wrong. Suppose homosexuality is a sin.
Are you saying that God will punish me for being mistaken about a sin - send me to hell for being non-omniscient? Will God send my gay Christian friends to hell for not being omniscient? Will you go to hell for not being omniscient and being wrong about a sin (and believe me, you WILL be wrong about a sin - maybe or maybe not this one, but at least a few dozen)?
If so, then who may be saved?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
The reason anyone will miss going to heaven will be because they rejected Jesus Christ as their savior. Receiving Christ as Savior means that we believe that He is God’s Son, He is God, He died on the cross as payment for our sins, rose again to give us eternal life and that His gift of salvation requires a meaningful acceptance on our part. His Holy Spirit comes into our lives at the time of our acceptance, we become a new creation, old things are passed away, and a new life in Christ will bring about a personal relationship with Him that cleanses us and gives us a desire to glorify Him with our lives and everything that we have.
We will not be completely sin-free in this life, but as His Child we will be chastened if we willingly walk in disobedience and do not turn from sin. Just as we love our earthly parents and we should want to honor them, we should even more want to honor our heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus who paid such a great price to redeem us.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:14 am
“Receiving Christ as Savior means that we believe that He is God’s Son, He is God, He died on the cross… and that His gift of salvation requires a meaningful acceptance on our part.”
We believe, we believe he died on the cross, raised from the dead, we’ve accepted God’s gift of salvation - meaningfully accepted! God’s Holy Spirit HAS come in to our lives and we desire to glorify God in all we do. We do not willingly walk in disobedience and we have turned from sin.
Now what?
November 14th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Dan said: >We do not willingly walk in disobedience and we have turned from sin.
It’s impossible for us to say we have turned from sin. Our flesh never reforms. As scripture says:
1 John 1:8
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
So, the *only* way we can live the Christian life is to choose daily to die to self and let the Spirit have His way in us. The result: God lives the Christian life for us and through us! It’s not done in our own strength. That truth helps us to better understand the references in scripture saying that we are the body of Christ on earth.
That is further clarified here: (1 Cor 6:13-20)
“The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body”
The sobering reality of that passage is that what we as believers do with our bodies, it’s the same as if we’re taking Christ and putting Him in those same situations.
November 14th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Don’t parse words. When I used the phrase “turned from sin,” I was echoing Sue’s words:
“We will not be completely sin-free in this life, but as His Child we will be chastened if we willingly walk in disobedience and do not turn from sin.”
But certainly we can be confronted by sin and we have to make the decision to follow Christ away or turn from Christ towards sin. I was affirming that we have determined to follow Jesus and, as you try to do, we have tried to read the Word to guide us as we try to follow Jesus by God’s grace.
We simply disagree with you on this “sin.”
So, we ARE - to use your words - living the Christian life by choosing daily to die to self and let the Spirit have His way in us. The result: God lives the Christian life for us and through us!
Can I get a witness?
November 14th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I’m not sure what you mean, “Can I get a witness”?. As Christians, we have a witness living within us - the Holy Spirit. The non-believer does not have that witness of the Holy Spirit, however, I believe God places within us a conscience. The conscience can be over-ridden though to the point that it becomes hardened and does not acknowledge sin after a while. That is a sad condition to be in, and might also be a dangerous one. The Holy Spirit might not always strive to awaken the spirit.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Dan said: >We simply disagree with you on this “sin.”
I’m afraid it’s bigger than that.
For example:
Can you rejoice and give God the glory after hearing of the testimony of Dennis Jernigan? God did that for His glory and not Dennis’.
Going back to the scripture we just read:
“You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body”
This must be answered - and this whole conversation comes down to this one point:
How do we glorify God in our bodies when we use them in ways we were not created/designed for?
November 14th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
I’m glad if Dennis feels happier. I’m concerned because I feel he’s deceiving himself and his God, which will only lead to more unhappiness.
And, as I’ve said, I think it obvious that gays were created/designed by God as gays, so it glorifies God when they are true to that God-given nature. And I understand you disagree. That’s just sort of the way it is.
I just ask that you don’t go around kicking people out of church and into hell because you and they can’t agree upon a particular sin.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Sue said: “I’m not sure what you mean, “Can I get a witness”?”
That’s a saying in some churches - especially black Baptist churches. The preacher will be up preachin’ up a storm and he’ll stop for a breath and say, “Can I get a witness?!” To which the audience replies with “Amen!” and “Say it!”
November 14th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Dan said: >I’m glad if Dennis feels happier. I’m concerned because I feel he’s deceiving himself and his God, which will only lead to more unhappiness.
I don’t understand. There’s more than feeling involved, his life has been transformed. (By who?)
>so it glorifies God when they are true to that God-given nature.
This must be answered - and this whole conversation (and the discussion of the truthfulness and origin of your doctrine) comes down to this one point:
How do we glorify God in our bodies when we use them in ways we were not created/designed for?
November 14th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I just ask that you don’t go around kicking people out of church and into hell because you and they can’t agree upon a particular sin.
What would make you say something like this? From the posts that have been made here, I do not think that attitude has been displayed by Roger or myself.
I fear that you do not take the validity of God’s Word seriously enough. I recommend you to read Rev. 3:1-6.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
>I think it obvious that gays were created/designed by God as gays, so it glorifies God when they are true to that God-given nature.
It’s obvious that God puts a nature in somebody that it opposite to their naturally created body? How so?
November 14th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
I believe a read of Rev. 2 should also be done.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Dan said: >And, as I’ve said, I think it obvious that gays were created/designed by God as gays, so it glorifies God when they are true to that God-given nature.
Which results in …. homosexual sex, right?
So, therefore, you are saying God is glorified in homosexual sex - sex between people with incompatible sex organs. How does God get the glory in that? It appears that God hasn’t got this creation/design thing figured out yet.
If this doctrine is from God, he’s denigrating Himself and His abilities.
Let’s think about God’s glory. God’s glory results when we use what He created for what He intended. God doesn’t create without an intent. He creates with a purpose. If we misuse what He created - that’s a perversion (sin). When we take what He created and abuse it - God’s glory is lost. Only a redemptive move by God can bring back the glory.
But that’s what God loves to do! Look at the Cross of Calvary, look at the testimonies, look at the changed and transformed lives!
Some may say we’re judgmental and want to send some people to hell - or kick them out of church. That’s not true. We only want them to be touched, transformed, and redeemed by a loving, good, and Powerful God … who wants to do so! That’s the truth.
God has changed our lives for our own good! Why wouldn’t we want to share Him with others? He hasn’t stopped - and He wants to change many more lives for their own good.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:08 am
On the homosexual point, we will apparently not agree. I think it is obvious that gay nature - the way God made them - is towards same gender love. What we as a church ought to be encouraging for gays and straights is faithful love and sex within the confines of a marriage commitment.
You do not agree. I understand that.
Sue, I’ve been a Christian for 33 years now, I have read the Bible all these years - including Revelation - and I do read the Bible still. Next time in the book, I’ll look at those particular passages. Thanks.
My main point that I’ve been trying to confirm with y’all and feel like perhaps we’re on the same page, but am concerned that may not be the case, is the idea of treating homosexuality - even if you think it is a sin - as a somehow different sort of sin.
How much time, money and effort have church folk spent this last decade in opposition to homosexuality? Millions of hours and billions of dollars?
How much effort has been spent on combating commercialism, consumerism, greed - “major” sins that Jesus actually talked about? (And I know there are only “sins” in one sense, not Major Sins and Minor Sins. But there are some themes in the Bible that are very dominant and discussed more frequently - especially in Jesus’ teachings - and it seems appropriate to be more concerned about these sins: pride, greed, hypocrisy - rather than other sins that are given less thought in the Bible.)
My point is
1. that “the church” spends way too much energy on this marginally biblical position and less energy on the “weightier matters of the law,” and
2. it is unbiblical - even if you think homosexuality a sin - to treat it as “the unforgiveable sin,” and anyone who is participating in it or supporting it - thinking that it is not a sin - is somehow more condemned than the person who is smoking and not realizing it is a sin (for example - not saying that I think smoking is a sin…).
If you want to cling to the marginally biblical thinking that homosexuality is a sin, fine. I’ll disagree with you and that will have to be okay. But don’t make that a litmus test for Christianity. You still have to love gays (not saying you don’t) and be respectful to them. And I would suggest you’re obliged not to treat that as any different than any other activity you consider a sin.
While we’re suggesting biblical reading, to get a sense of the heart of God, re-read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), re-read the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25). Let’s get concerned about what Jesus is concerned about.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Dan,
did you get my email?
November 15th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Dan said: >On the homosexual point, we will apparently not agree. I think it is obvious that gay nature - the way God made them - is towards same gender love. What we as a church ought to be encouraging for gays and straights is faithful love and sex within the confines of a marriage commitment.
>You do not agree. I understand that.
—This is bigger than us. It’s about truth. Are we believing the reality of the situation? Is it true or not?
Dan said: >How much time, money and effort have church folk spent this last decade in opposition to homosexuality? Millions of hours and billions of dollars?
—Our culture is sex-saturated. That effects us all. The temptations that are related to what we take in through our eyes and prey on our flesh are everywhere. Instead of standing and fighting, we’ve given in and allowed them all to enslave us. No matter what vice it is, if it’s related to our passions - we’ve given in and called it ‘good’.
Dan said: >How much effort has been spent on combating commercialism, consumerism, greed - “major” sins that Jesus actually talked about? (And I know there are only “sins” in one sense, not Major Sins and Minor Sins. But there are some themes in the Bible that are very dominant and discussed more frequently - especially in Jesus’ teachings - and it seems appropriate to be more concerned about these sins: pride, greed, hypocrisy - rather than other sins that are given less thought in the Bible.)
—See my point above. It’s all tied together. Just turn on the tv and see how the lust of the eyes and of the flesh are played against us to make money and sell products - all the while it runs roughshod over human souls - leaving death, destruction, and confusion in its wake. (John 10:10 - the enemy isn’t playing around here)
Dan said: >My point is
>1. that “the church” spends way too much energy on this marginally biblical position and less energy on the “weightier matters of the law,” and
>2. it is unbiblical - even if you think homosexuality a sin - to treat it as “the unforgiveable sin,” and anyone who is participating in it or supporting it - thinking that it is not a sin - is somehow more condemned than the person who is smoking and not realizing it is a sin (for example - not saying that I think smoking is a sin…).
—Sin is still sin, even if you don’t realize it at the time. It still has consequences. That’s why the proclamation of truth is so important! It’s for our own protection and welfare.
Dan said: >But don’t make that a litmus test for Christianity. You still have to love gays (not saying you don’t) and be respectful to them. And I would suggest you’re obliged not to treat that as any different than any other activity you consider a sin.
>While we’re suggesting biblical reading, to get a sense of the heart of God, re-read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), re-read the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25). Let’s get concerned about what Jesus is concerned about.
—Will do. Jesus is concerned with human souls. And any time sin separates and comes between Him and us, I believe His heart is grieved. Look how far He’ll go to bridge the gap - the Cross! I would hope that message doesn’t get lost as we try to communicate the nature of sin (communicated in love, of course) and it’s outcome - but since we are still flesh, we don’t always do things as good as we should. Yet, that’s what grace is all about.