Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nashville Statement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Babylon Bee posted another:

    Source: Babylon Bee


    If you’ve come within fifty miles of Twitter or Facebook this week, you’ve probably heard about a mysterious new document called the “Nashville Statement.” Depending on which crowd you run with, you probably think it’s either a 67th book being added to the canon of Scripture, or else a modern, revised version of Mein Kampf. But unlike the unwashed masses on your social networks, you’re a smart person, and so you came to The Babylon Bee to get the story straight.

    So here they are: just the facts about the Nashville Statement.
    What does the Nashville Statement say?

    It says some really controversial stuff for Bible-believing Christians, like that God made Adam and Eve as (trigger warning) male and female, that marriage was created by God to be the union between one man and one woman, that He loves people with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction even if He doesn’t approve of all of their actions, and that He offers His grace and mercy to sinners of all stripes.
    Who has signed the Nashville Statement?

    A whole mob of fringe, hate-filled bigots with zero credibility, such as John Piper, J.I. Packer, Mark Dever, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Francis Chan, and Matt Chandler. Just look at that list of theological lightweights—couldn’t they at least have gotten some people who’ve proven themselves as faithful witnesses of Christ?
    Who has come out in opposition to the Statement?

    A bunch of folks who believed everything it says just a couple years ago.
    What is their main argument in opposition to the Statement?

    That those supporting the Nashville Statement are not doing so because they believe the Word of God, but because they are homophobic, neo-nazi white supremacists who worship Donald Trump—which makes sense, as long as you don’t think about it for longer than about three seconds.
    How should I respond to the Nashville Statement?

    You could start up a hashtag-based movement telling people to abandon the faith because the Bible doesn’t line up with their personal feelings, or you could launch into a 500-tweet-long rant about the Statement so that everyone knows how sensitive and caring you are. If you really want to effect social change, you could even change your profile overlay to a rainbow flag or #RESIST image macro for the next week or so. BUT, whatever you do, above all else, definitely do not read the Statement and actually attempt to honestly engage with its claims. That way, madness lies.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Edit: It formatted weird. Just go to the site.
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      Again, I absolutely believe you when you claim that it isn't your experience. I know for a fact that it is the experience of others. I know that it is possible. Why do you and others you know have no luck? I can only guess. But I do know that it is possible, and even if it weren't, I believe one should never give up trying.
      I have a general intention of purity these days. Purity to me simple means becoming a well integrated person in control of my sexual appetites. To have them sublimated to the point where I am in control of what I do, not my loins. Its not something I've achieved perfection in for various reasons. I fall and I have lingering habits, but I don't have any male relationships. I overcame the temptation to start one with a good friend recently, but beyond that I feel safe and secure in being able to live a public life that's appropriate to my station. I still pray for my concupiscence to be lessened, which is already happening naturally over time as my sexual appetite declines.

      Sure, which is why I know that it can be done, because God tells us that we can renew our minds.
      True, though I don't necessarily think that God grants all things in this life. To be fair there's legends of the desert fathers being able to become living flames out of their love of God, and experiencing miracles on a daily basis. I trust the advice of my spiritual advisors on this though. Focusing on sublimation of the desires is better, than focusing on altering them. I have no doubt that my obedience to my spiritual advisor is most pleasing to God, as obedience in general is highly pleasing to Him.

      I don't know why so many people seem not to have success,.... But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in miracles, or that people can't break off the habits of the old man.
      I don't believe sexual attraction to be a mere habit to break.

      I haven't denied that habits can be broken. Porn addiction can be thought of in terms of a bad habit, in other words a vice. There's sound advice on how to break such a habit: Avoid occasions, cultivate a virtue of resistance, pray for purity, holy friendships, etc... You reinforce in a person a belief that they can overcome, that they're not helpless and they can seek the grace of God. It's still very difficult, but not impossible, even for complete sex addicts to have significant change. Especially as they grow older and their urges diminish.

      But I don't think attraction is a habit. I can't train it. It would be like teaching me to see the Mona Lisa as ugly. Or that a certain flavor of yogurt was disgusting, and that's putting it oversimplified terms even. How would you train me to do that? There is no arguing with taste, as it's famously said.

      There is no approved way of changing a persons sexuality, and a lot of very dubious pseudoscience, some testimony I trust but can't evaluate as to how I could emulate it, and some claims of miracles I have never witnessed or experienced for myself despite praying for them. The more time I've spent away from Christian websites dealing with that nonsense the worse it looks each time I come back. The atheists are right to ridicule Christians on account of the ludicrous conversion therapy nonsense we've promoted.

      Courage, which is one of the only organisations I have respect for are very careful and hesitant in what they're saying in comparison. And like me, they spend more time focusing on the celibate path to holiness for people with deep-seated homosexual attractions.

      My entire point is that just because we don't see the miraculous every day doesn't mean that the Christian with congenital heart disease should just give up on his condition, and just give in to his fate. That, in my opinion, is not walking in purity. Walking in purity for the Christian with heart disease means continuing to eat healthy, exercising, meditating on the Word, praying for healing, and remaining faithful that God is willing and able to do mighty works in our lives.
      I've never said we should stop praying. I think if anything good is possible it should be desired, if there's even a minute amount of goodness you could increase in the world, it would be good to seek it. Heterosexuality is a good, so if someone is homosexual it would be natural for them to desire restoration. Even to pray for it.

      How much of an effort would you say someone should do with it to satisfy you? I'm asking you, because you seem to have something in mind.

      I do have a prayer for purity I say everyday. I say it every morning and every evening. I intend it primarily just to be that I don't fall into some old bad habits, and get God's protection on that. However as it touches on sexuality, there is of course an implication of being healed of any iniquity at all, anything that would be a problem.

      Is this sufficient, or should I make more effort? Should I drop all the other prayers I say for the people I love, for building up of the Church, for evangelistic, and focus all about me and my loins? Is it really important that I focus on making myself heterosexual even though I'm celibate? Or is it enough that I focus simple on mastering myself and who I am, so that urges aren't what dominate me anymore?

      Of all the things, aside from general intentions to be better at very specific problems, I don't want prayer to be all about me. If anything, the best times in prayer are when I'm drawn out of myself, and get to just worship God or contemplate Him.

      I would appreciate it if you would stop implying that I think that gay people are "lesser Christians". It's very irritating to constantly have to fight against this strawman of my view on the subject.
      I would be happy to do so, its just that every time you make a post like this where you explain that you don't mean gay Christians are less holy, you introduce some new statement that, it seems to me, conflicts with that. Last time it was about them not properly 'walking in purity', now its that they still have the habits of the old man 'despite being told to put on the new man'. And later you talk about "It's certainly the case that one might be able to stifle that walk through error, or ignorance, or whatever and yet still passionately love God" which was your response to whether a person with homosexual attractions could still walk in purity and love.

      So no Adrift, its not clear to me exactly what you're saying. If you weren't saying things that looked like you were walking back a lot on the statement, I'd be more comfortable with believing it when you say homosexual attraction does not cause a person to be a lesser Christian.

      That you mention people you consider holier who struggle with those desires, is perhaps the only thing I know of that tells me that you don't consider it at least a huge problem as to whether a person is holy or not.

      Honestly I don't know. I'm not sure how to integrate that with the other things you're saying. Not when you're using those phrases which all imply moral evil.

      I trust it if you say that it's only a problem of natural evil, and that this is what you mean. Natural evil is something that shouldn't be. And we'd both agree that there is a wrongness in having homosexual attractions. However its not morally wrong to have them, if they're not acted on. Just as its not morally wrong to have heterosexual attractions, if they're not acted on. One however is a natural evil, while the other one isn't.

      If we'd agree on that I think we'd be in agreement in regards to Christians with homosexual attractions not being lesser Christians.

      I believe Jesus when he says that he will do whatever we ask in his name if it aligns with his will, and I have no reason to believe that it is not God's will that we all experience normative and healthy sexual appetites.
      What you have reason to believe God wants or doesn't want is not that important.

      I've asked. I trust Him. I know He can heal me if it is His Will. I haven't received; ergo, it's not His Will; I live by His Will, hence I'm celibate and not seeking marriage.

      What else would you have me do?

      No, I don't believe the sensible approach to the miraculous is to not expect them, and feel we're lucky if we see them. I believe Jesus when he says that with the faith of a mustard seed we can move mountains. I believe the book of James when it says God gives generously, and that we should not doubt what we ask for in faith. That doesn't mean I believe in some sort of Benny Hinn style faith healing, but what I do believe it means is that when we come to God with our issues, we ought to faithfully come to him expecting to receive.
      I do so, I know I'll recieve all in the Parousia. There is no doubt of that.

      Whether God will super-abundantly also give me that in this life, maybe. That's His will. I have no control of that. He's God, I'm just a penitent disciple.

      I certainly don't believe we can just ask and receive. At least not in the straight forward sense. I don't think God owes us that, and I'm suspicious of how you're reading those texts. If Christianity preaches that then I'm definitely out of here, because I could never relate to that in my experience.

      I believe it's our willful cooperation with the Holy Spirit that allows us to put off the desires of the old Man, and renew our minds to the new.
      Again, I don't think attraction is a habit, porn addiction, sexual relations, dating scenes etc, are habits. Those can be approached as habits, and changed, leading, for people with deep-seated homosexual attraction, to happy, joyful, celibate lives.

      If that's enough for you, then by all means, hold to it. But that's not at all what you've let on. You seem to have made a couple of points pretty clear on the subject. 1.) That this wasn't enough for you for a long long time (and nor has it been enough for many other people), and even at your present state of acceptance, you'd still desire change.
      I'm not quite sure where I've said its not enough. Do you have citations?

      I've never said I'm now a person who like St. Thomas Aquinas was gifted with the gift of angelic purity and so never experience concupiscence of any kind. I have my vices. I won't talk about them here, but I have them. Fighting them is hard, and while I'm starting to see significant improvements there's still a long way to go. At least that's where I am today. Several years ago, before my stint as an atheist, I was a protestant in a Church that didn't believe in celibacy having any value. Only married people could hold authority as elders, and anything else was viewed with suspicion. I was a single, gay, teen Christian so I thought... well, I'm not going to be like the gay Christians who say they can't make the change. I'll make it happen. It just never happened. I was an atheist for a while, became Catholic, made new attempts, failed over and over again for a few years... a few depressions later, I was tired of beating my head against a wall. I decided to focus on a celibate life and not obsess about my sexuality so much.

      The less I've thought about sex the better. Its a topic that's starting to sicken me, no matter what direction you're talking. The only change I want is to master my vices.

      2.) That most people should not even begin to attempt to change their sexual inclinations. That for the vast majority of Christians it is impossible, and that even talking about renewal of the mind in this area will be met with a lengthy challenge.
      I have never said that.

      I have no problem with people seeking to explore or change their sexuality for what they believe to be the better. There is nothing wrong with that. If this wasn't clear, I should have made it clear.

      I have made very specific reservations. I think its wrong to demand of them to change their sexual inclinations. Especially so for those who have made significant attempts at doing so. Or to drill into their head that they're sinful if they even have these desires. I have made very specific reservations regarding Christian amateur psychologists leading conversion camps with zero oversight or professionalism, and without any scientific integrity. That its wrong to cast doubts on a gay Christians father, as if its the fathers fault he was that way. That its wrong to automatically psychoanalyze gay Christians, or to judge their character or motivations for failing to achieving various changes. I out lined most of those in the thread you linked to.

      I honestly don't think this view is that confusing.
      "I understand perfectly anything I say."

      I would be surprised if you found your own thoughts confusing. Not even John Martin thinks his thoughts are confusing. I'm saying that I've tried to understand you, and apparently I get you wrong. This happens often with me. I guess partly because I'm autistic, and sometimes my read intentions where none are. I apologize if I get you wrong, and I've tried to be fair in this post why its hard to grant some of your points because how you seem to say one thing but then continue differently later.

      It doesn't seem accurate to me to say that it is "morally evil" to simply have unacted upon same sex attractions, but I certainly do not think it is God's desire for us to have same sex attractions.
      If you would be willing to diagnose homosexual attraction as a natural evil, then we'd probably be in perfect agreement!

      I can easily accept a homosexual attraction as a natural evil. A boil on the back, or a missing eye, or heart defects as little nephew has, are all natural evil. Their final causes are working contrary to your own. In my case it prevents me from forming long lasting romantic attraction to the opposite sex. And provides me with sources of lust that are contrary to nature. It's not my fault that things are like that, but we can both agree that its not proper and if things were good it would have been rectified.

      We just live in a fallen world, and so even sexuality in people can be broken.

      2 Corinthians 7 tells us to purify ourselves from everything that could contaminate the body and the spirit, as we work towards complete holiness out of reverence for God. This ought to be our lifelong pursuit. That, to me, is what it means to walk in purity. It does not mean that today I'm gay, and tomorrow I'm straight. It means that we continue to work with the Holy Spirit in attaining the image of Christ.
      I would agree with this, if you would accept that the celibate life can be such an expression.

      I think it's much more likely that this accusation you're putting into my mouth is born out of your own personal and emotional investment in the topic. You find my view irritating, and impossible, and so are (perhaps unconsciously) casting it in as negative, or as extreme a way as possible. I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the impression I get.
      I love you Adrift, and I've never tried, and will never try to psychoanalyze or judge your character, I'd appreciate it if you treated me with the same courtesy.

      I'm no theologian, and I'm an expert on the patristics, and I can't read koine greek. I am a Catholic. I trust what the Catholic Church teaches, and what it teaches here strikes me as nothing but pure ordinary common sense: Homosexual attractions can only be viewed as natural evils, but are not morally evil if not acted upon. And are then, aside from the special occasions of sin they open up, no impediments to living a virtuous and holy life pleasing to God.

      This is unnecessarily crass. Do you think Christian heterosexual men walk around with Edited by a Moderator whenever they see women? For that matter, are you implying that Christians struggling with homosexuality walk around with Edited by a Moderator whenever they see other men?
      It was intended as a little humor to round off the discussion, sorry if you thought it was too much. If I get what I'll want I'll be a person who doesn't really think about whether something is sexually arousing anymore, and at any rate avoids those things that I would find arousing.

      Is it then really so important, that if I were to too look at things that I'd find arousing, that they'd be those things I'd have found arousing, if I were aroused by the same things that arouse heterosexual men? See the conundrum to me? Trying to live a celibate life, is not really compatible with adjusting your sexuality to something you prefer, because I don't see how you'd do it, without constantly gauging it and therefore thinking a lot about sex.

      It just seems counterproductive to me.
      Last edited by rogue06; 10-17-2017, 09:56 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I thought the statement was good. I signed it.
        I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

        Comment


        • #34
          The debate in this thread has gone on about Article 8, but off this site, the most controversial article has been Article 10, which states that this is not an "agree to disagree" issue among evangelicals. Given that 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that this is a salvation issue, I must confess I don't understand the mindset that one can think homosexuality is sinful but be willing to agree to disagree on it.

          By the way, this isn't the only place I've seen people get up in arms over the lack of a mention of divorce. Some people were trying to stir that hornet's nest up on Rob Gagnon's Facebook page before he told them to knock it off. I doubt everybody is coming up with that talking point independently. Anybody know where this is all coming from?
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #35
            I like what I've read in reading the Nashville Statement. Basically all 'progressive' critiques I've seen of it veer wildly and enthusiastically into the realm of the heretical (and, we can make no mistake, affirmation of homosexuality and transgenderism within the context of Christian ethics is out-and-out heresy). (Incidentally, those very critiques in the name of 'love' and 'tolerance' are dripping with the utmost spite and mockery.)

            I contemplated signing the Nashville Statement myself, but I do have a couple misgivings:
            • The fact that it originates exclusively from one sectarian wing of the evangelical world. I'm deeply disappointed with the CBMW for apparently not having reached out to, say, the CBE to co-sponsor a declaration on behalf of evangelical believers in general. As a result, although some signatories (e.g., Gagnon) have noted that nothing in the Nashville Statement requires an explicitly complementarian reading - and they're probably right about that - nevertheless, the CBMW threw away any avenue of escape out from under that cloud of suspicion of being a wholly sectarian expression, rather than having weight to really speak on behalf of Christianity or Evangelicalism as such.
            • As some other evangelical critics have noted, the Nashville Statement really could have done a better job at setting forth the winsomeness of the authentic Christian depiction of love, marriage, desire, and sexuality, in a way that presents a more positive and well-rounded contextualization for the rejection of the homosexualist and transgenderist heresies. (Yes, they do have some of that, but they did handle it more clumsily than was necessary.) As a result, the Nashville Statement gives the wrong appearance of being more negative than it really means to be, and as they say these days, optics really do matter.
            • Finally, Ryan T. Anderson (a respectable scholar) has critiqued the statement, hyper-pedantically but accurately, for utilizing the term "chastity" in a misleading fashion, i.e., as synonymous with celibacy rather than denoting a virtue applicable both inside and outside marital union. Anderson sees this as reflecting a deficient overall theology of sexuality (and I think that's an overreach), but some added care on the drafters' part really wouldn't have gone amiss either.

            But, those quibbles aside, certainly the Nashville Statement doesn't say anything actually untrue or actually unloving, and certainly the self-styled progressive critics can, at best, be described as sub-Christian.
            "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

            "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

            "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              In general with joint statements like this, I think the usual approach is to read them as specifically as possible, meaning they only address exactly what they address. So any accusations of them implying something by omission aren't proper. If something is omitted, then its simple not something addressed by the statement, and nothing yay, or nay is implied on other statements.
              Except that this is not 'lowest common' statement! This is supposed to preach biblical truths of male and female, sex and marriage against errors, also evils of current world!!! And divorce is one big evil.

              So we don't read specifically, cause they said they'd be general!

              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              The Nicene Creed doesn't talk about divorce either. I guess it's too liberal.
              Is Nicene Creed about sex, sexes, also marriage, libtard?

              Statement that wants to preach biblical truth about sex and marriage, but no mention of divorce? Something's very wrong!!!
              Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                By the way, this isn't the only place I've seen people get up in arms over the lack of a mention of divorce. Some people were trying to stir that hornet's nest up on Rob Gagnon's Facebook page before he told them to knock it off. I doubt everybody is coming up with that talking point independently. Anybody know where this is all coming from?
                People: 'You say you're preaching truths of bible about marriage, also to attack falsehoods of this age! So why nothing on divo-'

                Libs: 'Shut up!!!!!!!!!'
                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
                  I'm deeply disappointed with the CBMW for apparently not having reached out to, say, the CBE to co-sponsor a declaration on behalf of evangelical believers in general. As a result, although some signatories (e.g., Gagnon) have noted that nothing in the Nashville Statement requires an explicitly complementarian reading - and they're probably right about that.
                  CBMW is complementarian. They believe bible teaches complementarianism!!!

                  Then they makes statement about 'Holy Bible's truths about sexes!!!'...but it can be signed honestly by egalitarians

                  What a big fat joke.
                  Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I don't believe sexual attraction to be a mere habit to break.

                    I haven't denied that habits can be broken. Porn addiction can be thought of in terms of a bad habit, in other words a vice. There's sound advice on how to break such a habit: Avoid occasions, cultivate a virtue of resistance, pray for purity, holy friendships, etc... You reinforce in a person a belief that they can overcome, that they're not helpless and they can seek the grace of God. It's still very difficult, but not impossible, even for complete sex addicts to have significant change. Especially as they grow older and their urges diminish.

                    But I don't think attraction is a habit. I can't train it. It would be like teaching me to see the Mona Lisa as ugly. Or that a certain flavor of yogurt was disgusting, and that's putting it oversimplified terms even. How would you train me to do that? There is no arguing with taste, as it's famously said.

                    There is no approved way of changing a persons sexuality, and a lot of very dubious pseudoscience, some testimony I trust but can't evaluate as to how I could emulate it, and some claims of miracles I have never witnessed or experienced for myself despite praying for them. The more time I've spent away from Christian websites dealing with that nonsense the worse it looks each time I come back. The atheists are right to ridicule Christians on account of the ludicrous conversion therapy nonsense we've promoted.

                    Courage, which is one of the only organisations I have respect for are very careful and hesitant in what they're saying in comparison. And like me, they spend more time focusing on the celibate path to holiness for people with deep-seated homosexual attractions.
                    I'm using the word "habit" as a catch all phrase that includes one's mental patterns, inclinations, behaviors, actions, etc. That should have been clear from the context. I haven't promoted any sort of "conversion therapy". Certainly not in the sense that was made infamous by certain ex-gay ministries. This is part of your straw man campaign though, so even though I haven't mentioned it, it seems like you can't help attack it every time we get into this subject. What I have mentioned is the work of people like Jeffery Schwartz and his work in the field of neuroplasticity. If you're curious, I strongly suggest checking out his book You Are Not Your Brain: The 4-Step Solution for Changing Bad Habits, Ending Unhealthy Thinking, and Taking Control of Your Life.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I've never said we should stop praying. I think if anything good is possible it should be desired, if there's even a minute amount of goodness you could increase in the world, it would be good to seek it. Heterosexuality is a good, so if someone is homosexual it would be natural for them to desire restoration. Even to pray for it.

                    How much of an effort would you say someone should do with it to satisfy you? I'm asking you, because you seem to have something in mind.
                    It's not about what satisfies me. But I think God well be very pleased if those who struggle with the inclination towards sin were to continue seeking wholeness. Were to continue putting off the habits (and here I mean what I stated above) of the old man, and continued putting on the new. I think a great start to that would be getting out of one's mind that "This is my lot in life. This is who I am. I will have these desires for the rest of my life, whether I want them or not." The Bible says that we are more than conqueror's. That we are new creations in Jesus. I'm not going to let that old man nature tell me that I'm something I'm not. I'm going to continue renewing my mind to that which he tells me I am.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I do have a prayer for purity I say everyday. I say it every morning and every evening. I intend it primarily just to be that I don't fall into some old bad habits, and get God's protection on that. However as it touches on sexuality, there is of course an implication of being healed of any iniquity at all, anything that would be a problem.

                    Is this sufficient, or should I make more effort? Should I drop all the other prayers I say for the people I love, for building up of the Church, for evangelistic, and focus all about me and my loins? Is it really important that I focus on making myself heterosexual even though I'm celibate? Or is it enough that I focus simple on mastering myself and who I am, so that urges aren't what dominate me anymore?
                    I don't think it's sufficient. No. I think that you can continue to strive towards wholeness, as we all must, no matter what sin we struggle with.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Of all the things, aside from general intentions to be better at very specific problems, I don't want prayer to be all about me. If anything, the best times in prayer are when I'm drawn out of myself, and get to just worship God or contemplate Him.
                    The Bible tells us that you must love your neighbor as yourself. I'm of course not asserting that all your prayers should be about yourself. That's another straw man of my argument. But if you love yourself (as you should), you should pray for yourself, and should hope the best for yourself, so that you might be able to better help those who are also struggling.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I would be happy to do so, its just that every time you make a post like this where you explain that you don't mean gay Christians are less holy, you introduce some new statement that, it seems to me, conflicts with that. Last time it was about them not properly 'walking in purity', now its that they still have the habits of the old man 'despite being told to put on the new man'. And later you talk about "It's certainly the case that one might be able to stifle that walk through error, or ignorance, or whatever and yet still passionately love God" which was your response to whether a person with homosexual attractions could still walk in purity and love.

                    So no Adrift, its not clear to me exactly what you're saying. If you weren't saying things that looked like you were walking back a lot on the statement, I'd be more comfortable with believing it when you say homosexual attraction does not cause a person to be a lesser Christian.
                    I only know of one person who is completely holy. It isn't me. It isn't you. We are all struggling in some area of our lives. That doesn't make you any lesser a Christian than me, or vice versa. This is Christianity 101 Leonhard. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    That you mention people you consider holier who struggle with those desires, is perhaps the only thing I know of that tells me that you don't consider it at least a huge problem as to whether a person is holy or not.
                    I haven't mentioned anyone that I know who is holier. I said I knew some great teachers that were struggling with homosexuality. I didn't say anything about their holiness, nor did I imply that I was holier than them.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Honestly I don't know. I'm not sure how to integrate that with the other things you're saying. Not when you're using those phrases which all imply moral evil.

                    I trust it if you say that it's only a problem of natural evil, and that this is what you mean. Natural evil is something that shouldn't be. And we'd both agree that there is a wrongness in having homosexual attractions. However its not morally wrong to have them, if they're not acted on. Just as its not morally wrong to have heterosexual attractions, if they're not acted on. One however is a natural evil, while the other one isn't.

                    If we'd agree on that I think we'd be in agreement in regards to Christians with homosexual attractions not being lesser Christians.
                    You keep on tripping up on this idea of "morally evil". I haven't introduced that phrase into this conversation, and I replied to it when you initially did. I stated, "It doesn't seem accurate to me to say that it is 'morally evil' to simply have un-acted upon same sex attractions, but I certainly do not think it is God's desire for us to have same sex attractions."

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    What you have reason to believe God wants or doesn't want is not that important.

                    I've asked. I trust Him. I know He can heal me if it is His Will. I haven't received; ergo, it's not His Will; I live by His Will, hence I'm celibate and not seeking marriage.

                    What else would you have me do?
                    I believe God would have you not believing that you are fated forever to be gay. I believe God would have you continuing to put off the desires and inclinations of the old man, even if it seems to no effect. I believe God would not want you in a state of anxiety about your situation, nor would he desire you to attempt change through sheer force of will, but in cooperation with the Holy Spirit in a peaceful, and present state of mind. These are the same things that I think God would desire for all of us who struggle with one sort of sin or another. I've repeated this several times in this thread though, so I don't know why you keep asking me "what more should I do/what more would you have me do".

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I do so, I know I'll recieve all in the Parousia. There is no doubt of that.

                    Whether God will super-abundantly also give me that in this life, maybe. That's His will. I have no control of that. He's God, I'm just a penitent disciple.

                    I certainly don't believe we can just ask and receive. At least not in the straight forward sense. I don't think God owes us that, and I'm suspicious of how you're reading those texts. If Christianity preaches that then I'm definitely out of here, because I could never relate to that in my experience.
                    I find it curious how you talk about your Christian faith as though the smallest nudge in your Christian worldview one way or the other would have you booking it rather than reevaluating your own understanding. Nowhere have I stated that God owes us anything. That's another straw man (how many are we on now?) I do believe though, that God is true to his word, and that he delivers on his promises.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Again, I don't think attraction is a habit, porn addiction, sexual relations, dating scenes etc, are habits. Those can be approached as habits, and changed, leading, for people with deep-seated homosexual attraction, to happy, joyful, celibate lives.
                    See above for how I'm using the word habit. By the way, I'm not the one who invented the idea of "putting off the habits of the old man". The word "habit" is often used in literature and commentaries of Paul's writings to refer to thought patterns, behaviors, inclinations, temptations, etc.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I'm not quite sure where I've said its not enough. Do you have citations?
                    Yes. Right from the start in your first reply in post #16 you wrote that, matching your own experience, "voluntarily changing these inclinations is close to being impossible". So it wasn't enough for you to simply accept that you were gay. At some point in your life you desired change. Furthermore, you've stated that you continue to pray that your desires are weakened, and that it won't be something you have to deal with at all in heaven.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I've never said I'm now a person who like St. Thomas Aquinas was gifted with the gift of angelic purity and so never experience concupiscence of any kind. I have my vices. I won't talk about them here, but I have them. Fighting them is hard, and while I'm starting to see significant improvements there's still a long way to go. At least that's where I am today. Several years ago, before my stint as an atheist, I was a protestant in a Church that didn't believe in celibacy having any value. Only married people could hold authority as elders, and anything else was viewed with suspicion. I was a single, gay, teen Christian so I thought... well, I'm not going to be like the gay Christians who say they can't make the change. I'll make it happen. It just never happened. I was an atheist for a while, became Catholic, made new attempts, failed over and over again for a few years... a few depressions later, I was tired of beating my head against a wall. I decided to focus on a celibate life and not obsess about my sexuality so much.

                    The less I've thought about sex the better. Its a topic that's starting to sicken me, no matter what direction you're talking. The only change I want is to master my vices.
                    So...where are you confused? I stated "this wasn't enough for you for a long long time". You seem to be agreeing with that point in the paragraphs above.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I have never said that.
                    Yes you did. "voluntarily changing these inclinations is close to being impossible". "I don't think just because you've given a reply to me somewhere that you therefore have carte blanche to continue posting this stuff without criticism." You also strongly suggest that those who attempt to alter their thought patterns on this subject will likely be met with nothing but despair.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I have no problem with people seeking to explore or change their sexuality for what they believe to be the better. There is nothing wrong with that. If this wasn't clear, I should have made it clear.
                    Ok.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I have made very specific reservations. I think its wrong to demand of them to change their sexual inclinations. Especially so for those who have made significant attempts at doing so. Or to drill into their head that they're sinful if they even have these desires. I have made very specific reservations regarding Christian amateur psychologists leading conversion camps with zero oversight or professionalism, and without any scientific integrity. That its wrong to cast doubts on a gay Christians father, as if its the fathers fault he was that way. That its wrong to automatically psychoanalyze gay Christians, or to judge their character or motivations for failing to achieving various changes. I out lined most of those in the thread you linked to.
                    I don't remember linking to a thread. Nor do I remember anyone arguing for many of the things you're against. I certainly haven't suggested one ought to seek conversion camps with zero oversight. I don't remember casting doubt on anyone's father for how they turned out. I certainly haven't been psychoanalyzing gay Christians or judging their character and motivations for failing to achieve various change.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    "I understand perfectly anything I say."

                    I would be surprised if you found your own thoughts confusing. Not even John Martin thinks his thoughts are confusing. I'm saying that I've tried to understand you, and apparently I get you wrong. This happens often with me. I guess partly because I'm autistic, and sometimes my read intentions where none are. I apologize if I get you wrong, and I've tried to be fair in this post why its hard to grant some of your points because how you seem to say one thing but then continue differently later.
                    I haven't been using obscure language or complicated reasoning. I've been very careful to lay out what my view is on the subject as simply as possible. I think probably a lot of the problem is that you're so wrapped up in this debate that it's hard for you to approach it dispassionately. Imagine, instead, if you will, a Christian who has an issue with rage. Whenever his wife looks at him wrong, he wants to snap at her. Every time someone cuts him off he wants to ram them. Could it be said that this man who resists these strong urges could live richly and fruitfully as long as he walked in purity of life? As I stated in post #11, I believe that in some sense we can answer yes, and in some sense no. But is it purity of life to live a life filled with rage, even a rage that isn't acted upon? I don't believe the correct recourse is to resign oneself to a life of rage when all measures have been seemingly tried and failed. It's my belief that it's God's desire that this person eventually overcomes their circumstance, and that this is done, not by force of will, but in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. It might be a life long process, but if so, so be it.

                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    If you would be willing to diagnose homosexual attraction as a natural evil, then we'd probably be in perfect agreement!

                    I can easily accept a homosexual attraction as a natural evil. A boil on the back, or a missing eye, or heart defects as little nephew has, are all natural evil. Their final causes are working contrary to your own. In my case it prevents me from forming long lasting romantic attraction to the opposite sex. And provides me with sources of lust that are contrary to nature. It's not my fault that things are like that, but we can both agree that its not proper and if things were good it would have been rectified.

                    We just live in a fallen world, and so even sexuality in people can be broken.
                    I don't think homosexual attraction is anymore a natural evil than any other sin that any one of us struggles with. None of us want to be slaves to sin, even those that we enjoy deeply.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I would agree with this, if you would accept that the celibate life can be such an expression.
                    I think a celibate life is a fine start. I don't think it's the end all be all.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I love you Adrift, and I've never tried, and will never try to psychoanalyze or judge your character, I'd appreciate it if you treated me with the same courtesy.
                    Leonhard, I love you too, and I do not mean to psychoanalyze, but in order to write a response that I think is fair to both of us, it is sometimes necessary for me to anticipate the motivations of the person I'm engaging with. It's a style of discussion and debate that I believe Ravi Zacharias engages in, and I often find it brings much more to light.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    It was intended as a little humor to round off the discussion, sorry if you thought it was too much. If I get what I'll want I'll be a person who doesn't really think about whether something is sexually arousing anymore, and at any rate avoids those things that I would find arousing.

                    Is it then really so important, that if I were to too look at things that I'd find arousing, that they'd be those things I'd have found arousing, if I were aroused by the same things that arouse heterosexual men? See the conundrum to me? Trying to live a celibate life, is not really compatible with adjusting your sexuality to something you prefer, because I don't see how you'd do it, without constantly gauging it and therefore thinking a lot about sex.

                    It just seems counterproductive to me.
                    I'm not sure I understand the question, but to break it down into something that we might both relate to, if you and I were both to meet a man who suffered from issues with rage, but was able to reduce his interaction with people, or found some coping mechanism that didn't remove the rage, but at least didn't make it an inconvenience for him, and a problem for others, we might think, "well, okay, at least he's doing something about his circumstance." I would like to think, though, that both of us would recognize that, while this person is doing something, that they're not walking in the fullness of life. That there's a root issue here that should not be ignored, but that ought to be dealt with so that they can experience life to its fullest. That doesn't make this person evil. Heck, it doesn't even make him different, because we all deal with something in our lives that keeps us from experiencing life to its fullest. But I think that what God would want for all of his children is to strive for that fullness. To continue purifying ourselves. To break free from the bondage of sin, and the old man nature, and to be the conquerors he says we are. We must live it, and know it, and know that it will come to pass even if we don't see it right now. That's my view.
                    Last edited by Adrift; 09-01-2017, 06:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      The debate in this thread has gone on about Article 8, but off this site, the most controversial article has been Article 10, which states that this is not an "agree to disagree" issue among evangelicals. Given that 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that this is a salvation issue, I must confess I don't understand the mindset that one can think homosexuality is sinful but be willing to agree to disagree on it.
                      Sort of. Let's bracket the question of whether he's actually referring to modern Christian gays. (I think he's not.) Remember that this is describing the life of his people before they became Christians. It's not giving a list of unforgiveable sins.

                      The following is from Thiselton's commentary:

                      "He is not describing the qualifications required for an entrance examination; he is comparing habituated actions, which by definition can find no place in God’s reign for the welfare of all, with those qualities in accordance with which Christian believers need to be transformed if they belong authentically to God’s new creation in Christ. Everything which persistently opposes what it is to be Christlike must undergo change if those who practice such things wish to call themselves Christians and to look forward to resurrection with Christ."

                      But elsewhere Paul is pretty realistic in recognizing that this transformation is never complete during this life.

                      Note that I'm not saying that this shows that people who disagree on this issue can coexist within the Church. But I don't think we should compromise key Reformation principles in order to make homosexuality the unforgiveable sin.
                      Last edited by hedrick; 09-01-2017, 10:03 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        The debate in this thread has gone on about Article 8, but off this site, the most controversial article has been Article 10, which states that this is not an "agree to disagree" issue among evangelicals. Given that 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that this is a salvation issue, I must confess I don't understand the mindset that one can think homosexuality is sinful but be willing to agree to disagree on it.
                        Where do you see anyplace in the statement that suggests we should be willing to agree to disagree on the sinful nature of homosexuality (or transgenderism for that matter). Article 10 clearly states that “We deny that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which . . . (we) . . . should agree to disagree.” Or am I misunderstanding you?


                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        By the way, this isn't the only place I've seen people get up in arms over the lack of a mention of divorce. Some people were trying to stir that hornet's nest up on Rob Gagnon's Facebook page before he told them to knock it off. I doubt everybody is coming up with that talking point independently. Anybody know where this is all coming from?
                        I think it has been stated before that Article 1 specifies "a life long union" which certainly covers divorce.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          Where do you see anyplace in the statement that suggests we should be willing to agree to disagree on the sinful nature of homosexuality (or transgenderism for that matter).
                          1 Cor 10:31. Eating meat sacrificed to idols was apparently just as serious in the 1st Cent as homosexuality is now. Rev 2:20, e.g. condemns Paul's position as strongly as Nashville condemns that liberal position today. For conservatives, this issue was even more serious than homosexuality is today, because from their point of view it involved people in idolatry. That's surely more serious than a moral offense.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                            Sort of. Let's bracket the question of whether he's actually referring to modern Christian gays. (I think he's not.) Remember that this is describing the life of his people before they became Christians. It's not giving a list of unforgiveable sins.

                            The following is from Thiselton's commentary:

                            "He is not describing the qualifications required for an entrance examination; he is comparing habituated actions, which by definition can find no place in God’s reign for the welfare of all, with those qualities in accordance with which Christian believers need to be transformed if they belong authentically to God’s new creation in Christ. Everything which persistently opposes what it is to be Christlike must undergo change if those who practice such things wish to call themselves Christians and to look forward to resurrection with Christ."

                            But elsewhere Paul is pretty realistic in recognizing that this transformation is never complete during this life.

                            Note that I'm not saying that this shows that people who disagree on this issue can coexist within the Church. But I don't think we should compromise key Reformation principles in order to make homosexuality the unforgiveable sin.
                            I do not see KG as putting homosexuality up as an unforgivable sin. The passage he referenced spells out that this is something that was in the past prior to salvation. None of that allows for practicing approving homosexuality to be consistent with Christianity. The statement spells out the requirement for living an obedient life. No sexual orientation or gender dysphoria condemns one living an obedient life.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              I do not see KG as putting homosexuality up as an unforgivable sin. The passage he referenced spells out that this is something that was in the past prior to salvation. None of that allows for practicing approving homosexuality to be consistent with Christianity. The statement spells out the requirement for living an obedient life. No sexual orientation or gender dysphoria condemns one living an obedient life.
                              He was claiming it was a salvation issue.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                                1 Cor 10:31. Eating meat sacrificed to idols was apparently just as serious in the 1st Cent as homosexuality is now. Rev 2:20, e.g. condemns Paul's position as strongly as Nashville condemns that liberal position today. For conservatives, this issue was even more serious than homosexuality is today, because from their point of view it involved people in idolatry. That's surely more serious than a moral offense.
                                As I see it either you are wrong or scripture is contradicting scripture. Which is it?
                                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X