The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Homosexuality

Uhmm, yea that is one point (Matt 5:14-16). Though you may not be “of the world” you still have to deal with the world and are suppose to be a witness to it. In addition, it would be extremely foolish if you go into a prison to tell the other prisoners you are a “recovering homosexual” for you are probably going to get raped, or if on a job application you put that you are a “recovering liar, or thief” you are not going to get hired. Moreover, this denies who you already are “in Christ.”

In union with Christ there is definitive sanctification and progressive sanctification. If you call a Christian a mere “recovering …” then you are in fact denying his definitive sanctification and thus his salvation and union with Christ. You are in fact making salvation progressive and ignoring its definitive aspect for if one is merely recovering (the process of restoration from sickness or the like; or process of overcoming, rescuing, or delivering [Webster]) then he has not actually arrived at the point of absolute deliverance. However, if one is “saved” then he is a Christian NOW and NOT a mere “recovering ….”.

It is important for a person to recognize who they are “in Christ” and to assume one is anything less is not only sin, but destructive to one’s whole Christian walk. While not perfect (and there is a struggle with sin) it is important to realize what one has already become. We are Reformed and Always Reforming, not Reforming, so we will become Reformed. We are Christians in armour (Eph 6) who are fighting against the enemy not recovering (1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7). We must be renewed in the spirit of our minds (Rom 12:1-2) and realize what and who we are:

Please forgive me if I mis-interpreted what you indeed posted ...

Recovering

So are you a Christian or recovering pervert? Which are you going to (or should) put on your application for deacon?

Tom, I am NOT denying that a Christian struggling with sin is to be called a Christian—my point is that HE SHOULD be called a Christian. My problem is with calling him a “recovering ….,” which is no where in Scripture!

Maybe this other post will assist you.

Joe

I see what you are getting at and agree.
Though what I was talking about (perhaps badly) was not saying that I was "a recovering pervert". I was saying basically what you are saying (at least in my mind).
Only I think, I now see it matters that one first sees oneself as first a Christian and then someone who is being sanctified.
It might be semantics in my mind, but if I want something communicated properly, I should learn how to make sure I am understood.

I will also say that although I am grateful for the work of organizations like AA. I never the less, have seen many people who call themselves Christians, become dependant more on AA than God Himself.
I have a friend who calls himself a recovered alcoholic, who needed AA for a time. But, now sees himself as totally recovered, unlike many others who have been in AA for years, but consider themselves as "recovering", even though they have not had a drink in years.

Tom

Hi, Pilgrim. Happy Lord’s Day to you (and everyone else on the board)!

You wrote to me:

Good question. I had two different “struggles from Joe’s post:

(1) Joe seems to be saying in his post that I should care what humanity thinks about my sins (or anyone else’s sins).


IF that’s what Joe is saying, I don’t agree with that.

My concern should correspond with what God cares about. My concern should be to glorify God. I’m not going to worry about speaking the truth – no matter how unpalatable it is OR how much harm may come to me as a result of speaking the truth.

IF that’s what Joe is saying . . . . . .

(2) Joe seems to be confusing "saving grace" or "regeneration" with "sanctification” when he writes . . . .


IF I understand Joe correctly, here, he seems to be saying that IF I call myself a “recovering [whatever]”, I am questioning my salvation.

I simply don’t see that. If I call myself a “recovering [whatever]” I am merely stating that I have a predilection toward that particular sin and that the Lord is in the process of sanctifying me of it.

I pray that is clearer.

Trust me, I do NOT like the term “recovering [whatever]” as much as others. Nor do I like the term “non-practicing [whatever].”

I was merely trying to answer Tom’s question, “What do you think of this line of thinking?” and I am concerned that folks are making “a mountain out of a molehill” because the topic is “homosexuality” – which was the point of my other post:


With a deep appreciation for the grace provided by God through Christ’s death on the cross,
Ted

Can one who is united with Christ and seated with him in the heveanly realms, recipient of every spiritual blessing, child and very heir to the King of the Universe, identify himself by the sin he has died to in Christ? May it never be. We will struggle with this body of death until we die, but when we allow ourselves to be known and identified by these struggles rather then by our Savior, we are no longer stuggling but have admitted defeat. May we never dishonour our Lord in this way.

Thanks Ted,

Yes, I am able, I think, to grasp your objections.

No, in regard to your second objection above, let me assure you that Joe isn't confusing "saving grace" or "regeneration" with "sanctification". Although it is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely that he would make such a blatant and serious error. Personally, I agree 100% with his view that for a professing Christian to use such phraseology as, "I am a recovering xxxx" or "I am a non-practicing xxxx" is in actuality to deny one's complete salvation in Christ. The text in 1Cor 6:11 is most instructive as the verb to be, "were" (Grk: nte) (2nd per pl imperfect) literally translated says, you were ─ once but no longer. There is a finality emphasized in what Paul is saying, i.e., there were some among them at Corinth who were once fornicators, thieves, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, etc. that were wholly saved, i.e., "washed", "sanctified", and "justified", objectively by the atoning sacrifice of Christ AND practically "in the Spirit of our God". These individuals who were involved in these gross sins had been delivered from them when they believed upon Christ. They were not "recovering" from them nor does Paul say they were "non-practitioners" of those sins. And because they had been saved from their sins (cf. Matt 3:21), they were to flee any temptation to return to them. (cf. Rom 6)

In the epistle to the Ephesians, Paul explains what such a deliverance entails, i.e., true Spirit-wrought repentance, where he uses the example of the one who is a thief.

Ephesians 4:28 (KJV) "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth."

It should be plain that Paul utterly rejects any notion that one can be a "non-practicing" thief. Such an individual is nothing more than a dormant thief; i.e., there has been no actual change; regeneration, justification nor sanctification! But rather one is no longer a thief, period, when the individual does that which is in stark contrast to his former actions; previously: robbed others, transformed: gives to others.

Does this mean that the thief, adulterer, homosexual, etc., never is tempted to do that which he was delivered? No! Does this mean that the person never will commit any of these sins again? No! But what it does mean is that along with the new disposition (regeneration), the realization of the offensive of those sins (conviction), the gratitude from being delivered (justification), the power to overcome all manner of temptation to fall into those acts again (sanctification), the believer can endure temptation and keep from giving in. (1Cor 10:13)

In His Grace,

GREAT points, Pilgrim. Thank you VERY much! In particular, thank you for pointing me to scripture. You have changed my thinking on this topic. I (NOW) agree with you and Joe that this sort of language ("recovering [whatever]" and "non-practicing [whatever]") is, indeed, un-Biblical.

Thank you SO much for helping me see that clearly. What a fool I've been. Please forgive me.

Thankful to God for your patience and scriptural knowledge,
Ted

Pilgrim,

I do not dispute that the converted are tempted to sin, and grievously at that. But I believe the sin of homosexuality is a peculiarity among sins, insofar as it is unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man, even though homosexuals would say their urges feel natural. I think it is accurate to say that the vast majority of humanity does not have homosexual tendencies, latent or active, but if a homosexual is converted, I cannot say if such vile affections remain lurking within or not. My doubt arises because of the specific connection between homosexuality and a perversion of the homosexual's view of God in Romans 1. It is a punishment God gives certain people over to; if they are forgiven, does the need remain for God to keep alive in them an affliction so tailored to show forth a perverse view of God and nature? I am not sure what the answer to this is.

Sin is not natural. Therefore, claiming that homosexuality is peculiar due to its unnaturalness seems odd. All sin is unnatural and against God's revealed will.

We are perfected in Christ; already but not yet. Therefore, even the elect are not perfect.


God bless,

william

I beg to differ. Sin is VERY natural. The natural man wants only sin. Our natural state is dead in trespasses and sins. Surely a believer is one who has an incipient new nature created in him.

I think we might be experiencing a semantic conflict here, averagefellar!

Yes. I agree in as far as nature refers to mans preferences. My intended use was to mean the original state of man. Semantical differences aside, I think we probably are fairly close.


God bless,

william

Jonathan,


In that case, shouldn't there be many more homosexuals than there are? They are given over because they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25). That's not a particularly uncommon perversion of the view of God! What I think Paul is showing in Romans 1 is an entire society that has turned away from God and so is afflicted with homosexuality. This might explain why we seem to be having more and more trouble with homosexuals in our own day, as Western society increasingly rejects God and elevates man.

Maybe there are more than we think there are!

Nevertheless, there are many unbelievers who have not, in their minds, perverted how God truly is. Like a friend of mine, who used to be superstitiously afraid to destroy religious tracts, they believe and tremble, yet they do not own Christ as Saviour.

Nevertheless, CIB, you make an interesting point... It's another difficult subject, and one I am not going to be "dogmatic" about.

The reason I'm asking is because I know Christian brothers who are still tempted with attraction to other men. According to your view of the nature of homosexual sin it would seem that I would have to consider them as yet unregenerate and holding to a particularly perverse notion of God. I know we cannot rely on experience, but rather we must trust the Word of God. Yet, I'm not sure there is warrant for your view in Scripture.

As you say, we cannot rely on experience, but rather, we must trust the Word of God. I think we must ask, what do homosexual desires say about a man's soul? The highest sense of conjugal relationship is the spiritual one between Christ and His Church; but where the Object of worship has been wilfully and knowingly corupted in its nature (in the mind of the perverse), it seems God has responded, at least in some cases, by mirroring this higher corruption in a perverted and wholly unnatural sexuality. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" - this is not my pet theory; this is the Word of God's verdict. There is a definite link between perverted sexuality and perverted views of God among people who knew what God is really like. Can a man really be born again and still possess this sentence from God, this desire "against nature", this mark of those who have who "held the truth in unrighteousness"? I don't know! But I do doubt it.