The Highway

Nothing New Under the Sun?

Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Nothing New Under the Sun? - Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:25 PM

In the days of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, there was the secular power Rome. There were also the religious classes of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I see things today existing in similar fashion. Washington is so corrupt now that it seems to be approaching the heathenism of Rome. In the evangelical & fundamentalist classes today I see Pharisees. The mainline, anti-supernaturalists are the Sadducees of today.

The Sadducees of today are those who claim the Bible is man's writings about God rather than God's word to his people through the Prophets and NT writers. An example of our Sadducees of today is a statement in The New Interpreter's Study Bible. In the Introduction to 2 Peter it reads: "The letter claims authorship by the apostle Peter (1:1), but, even more emphatically than in the case of 1 Peter, most interpreters doubt that the apostle was the actual author." So, the author was an outright liar???

I understand that the Pharisees started with good intentions, striving to remain solidly biblical and orthodox; yet going too far by adding to God's word thinking they were assisting. They kept departing further from God's word and adding more and more traditions. The fundamentalists started with good intentions in the early 20th century, standing for biblical orthodoxy, but it appears to me that it has fallen victim to the same problem of the Pharisees of old, going too far and adding traditions as if it were biblical truth.

I am a 5-point Particular Baptist, believe in the regulative principle of worship, generally adhere to New Covenant theology and am post-mil. Add to this that I am an invert and it's quite hard or impossible to find a church family. (Check "invert" in the dictionary). For years I would not even knowingly consider a Southern Baptist, but months ago I attended a Baptist church that seemed to keep their SBC affiliation a secret and when I realized it, I was so fond of the Pastor I chose to continue, after a private chat with the Pastor, even though I was informed I could not ever be a member. I was okay with this until later this summer.

There was the uproar in Charlottesville over taking down the Lee statue and those of southern heritage and white extremists were there and antifa and BLM types were there on the other side. Having 2 ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, I consider myself a son of the Confederacy and I do not see the Bible teaching that slavery in itself is sin. If I were a younger man and still in Virginia, I would have been in Charlottesville to protest the attack on my heritage. Russell Moore is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC. He stated that the whites protesting in Charlottesville were men of sin, or antichrists, all KKK types. Needless to say, that infuriated me and thinking my tithe was going into this SBC made it even worse. I was mulling this over when the SBC and other evangelicals came up with the Nashville Statement. While I agree with maybe 90% of that Statement, it was clearly all law, no gospel. It gave no answers or solutions to the problem, it only demanded what can't always be done. I now see these leaders and their type as Pharisees as in the following:

"They [Pharisees] tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them." (Matt 23:4, NRSV)
I then see another sign of today's Pharisees -
"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Rom 2:1, NRSV) Examples: Ted Haggard, George A. Rekers

It's bad, forsaking the assembling together; but I have the option to resort to those where I found my most sound and helpful biblical guidance with this difficult and complex situation, the Puritans and those who followed after. Matthew Poole, John Gill, Thomas Brooks, etc. Strangely, I've found some good helps from Lutheran sources as well.

I guess I needed to just blow off steam in this post. This is certainly not a topic that would be suitable for discussion here... too emotional, a hot topic, too sensational in this day. But, if anyone does wish to comment or ask me a question, feel free to send me a Private Message and I'll reply in the Christian spirit, honestly and clearly as possible. I apologize for the length of the post.
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:57 PM

I had not planned to post again, but I wished to comment on this post. I was rather surprised, that after 72 views, there was just one PM that has come to me from this post. But, I will say, the PM I did receive was in such a kind Christian spirit that was/is willing to try and understand the situation of a truly regenerate child of God, who finds his inherent sexual nature to be homosexual. In this day of LGBTQ activism on the extreme left, and homophobia on the extreme right, it is quite a spiritual journey to say the least, with a lot of pitfalls.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:42 PM

1. At the current time, LGBTQ has been expanded to LGBTTTQQIAA... with the proviso that it will most definitely be expanded to include other forms of deviant, unbiblical behavior.

2. I'm surprised that you received even one PM on your professed homosexuality. At least in the US and Canada, to speak in any way that is negatively phrased in regard to LGBTTTQQIAA, is unacceptable and particularly in Canada you could be charged with a hate crime, prosecuted, fined and even jailed according to federal law.

3. Please explain, "inherent sexual nature to be homosexual".

4. Please exegete the following passage:

Quote
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ASV) "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:22 PM

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
I had not planned to post again, but I wished to comment on this post. I was rather surprised, that after 72 views, there was just one PM that has come to me from this post. But, I will say, the PM I did receive was in such a kind Christian spirit that was/is willing to try and understand the situation of a truly regenerate child of God, who finds his inherent sexual nature to be homosexual. In this day of LGBTQ activism on the extreme left, and homophobia on the extreme right, it is quite a spiritual journey to say the least, with a lot of pitfalls.


You are posting here, I'm not looking to chase you away.... I think there are some who have different inclinations..... I would like to see you overcome them, not accept or embrace them.... All I know is my indwelling sin hits right at my core..... Id like to hear about some of your life experiences that led you to this point, in all areas of life

Of course I did not pm you and have been an avid blogger condemning ssm and even ssa but calling for sensitivity TOWARD the struggler
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:25 PM

I describe homosexual orientation as psychology defines it, since it is a word in psychology, it is not found in the Bible. Just notice how the NKJV and NASB are eager to put "homosexuals" in 1 Cor.6:9 but disagree on what word should be thus translated. I had not planned to post any more because it always degenerates into nothing but heat and raw emotions. But, I handle Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10 together since all by Paul. But, I will paste my notes on 1 Cor. 6:9 -

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate(Greek malakos), nor abusers of themselves with mankind(Greek arsenokoites)," (1Cor 6:9, KJV)

The most accurate translation in today's language I believe is by Reverend Arthur Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear, with the literal rendering:

"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites,"

Has the historical translation of malakos referred to sexual acts with the word "effeminate"? No!

"effeminate
1. having the qualities generally attributed to women, as weakness, timidity, delicacy, etc.; unmanly; not virile
2. characterized by such qualities; weak; soft, decadent, etc.: effeminate art"
Websters New World College Dictionary

"effeminate
1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous." the 1828 Websters English Dictionary

The New Jerusalem Bible translates malakos as "the self-indulgent".

The BDAG defines malakos thus: "being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship, opp. ἀρσενοκοίτης"

But, Heinrich Meyer, a 19th century evangelical (Lutheran) German Greek scholar states:
"μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/1-corinthians-6.html

These two Greek authorities disagree but I find Meyer to have the best reasoning. Why would Paul use malakos figuratively, meaning a 'catamite', when the Greek had the exact word for a 'catamite'. The only other uses of malakos in the NT are twice in Matt. 11:8 and once in Luke 7:25 and those 3 occurrences refer solely to soft, luxurious clothing. I cannot believe God the Holy Spirit had Paul use malakos to mean 'catamite' here in 1 Cor. 6:9 when all the other references in the NT refer to soft, luxurious clothing and the Greek had the exact word for 'catamite' that Paul could have used. For centuries, malakos, starting with the Vulgate, up through the Douay, the KJV and ASV; the word "effeminate" was the translation. The first translation to translate the word malakos in the sense of 'catamite' and joined to arsenokoites as "homosexuals" was the first Edition of the RSV NT in 1946. In the RSV Revision, the word "homosexuals" was changed to "sexual perverts". It appears as though the obsession with homosexuality in this modern era has caused a bias in the minds of the translators, reading back into the Bible modern words and concepts not found in the biblical Hebrew and Greek.

This leaves the Greek arsenokoites, "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV and then "sodomites" in the NRSV, YLT and the Interlinear I quoted above, along with other versions. It is a very difficult word and a lot of variance in the views of the meaning. In Principles of Interpretation, page 123 is this statement: "RULE: The meaning of a rare word, not decided by usage, should be sought first in the etymology, then in early versions, and lastly in kindred tongues."

I believe it is Bernard Ramm who warns that the etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning. That is generally true, but if we are studying the one who coined the word from two other words, as Paul did by joining G730 ἄρσην arsen (male) to G2845 κοίτη koite (bed or couch) etymology is important. The occurrence of the word in the NT is the first known use of the word so Paul is thought to have coined it. The word koite in Heb. 13:4 stands for the marriage bed, morally honorable. In Rom. 9:10 it stands for conception. So, it has a sexual meaning and in these two cases it is moral. Yet we find the word used in a vice list in the following:

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." (Rom 13:13, KJV)

Here koite is rendered "chambering", which is quite suggestive since it means men bed-hopping, promiscuity. The 19th century Methodist Adam Clarke in his commentary states on this word: "This is no legitimate word, and conveys no sense till, from its connection in this place, we force a meaning upon it. The original word, κοιταις, signifies whoredoms and prostitution of every kind."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/romans-13.html

When the word has "male" prefixed to it and in a vice list, is it sin as in Rom. 13:13, or is it sin just because it has "male" attached to it? To me it seems that male to male sex in 1 Cor. 6:9 is the same as what Adam Clarke described as the male-female sin. While the passage in 1 Cor. 6 has no real category or structure so we can get an idea from word association of the meaning, Paul uses arsenokoites once more where we do get an idea from word associations. In 1 Tim. 1:9, 10 KJV we find the sins by category:

"A. lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners, unholy and profane
B. murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers
C. whoremongers, arsenokoites, menstealers (NRSV 'slave traders')
D. liars, perjured persons"

There the word is sandwiched between "whoremongers" and "menstealers" or slave traders. The meaning of this word now is more clear, an abusive, dominating and promiscuous male. The description of Nero's perversion comes to mind again. Paul wrote in the day of Nero, the pervert and I believe the type of conduct in Nero is what Paul had in mind. It surely fits Paul's descriptions. You can read 3 paragraphs of Nero's conduct here:

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/suet-nero.asp

This is how I understand 1 Cor. 6:9 about the words in question; but it is better when seen in the context of all 3 of Paul's references. But, I'm not in the mood to debate this. I was more interested in civil, Christian discussion. I believe I will add a quote from a theologian on this problem:

One of the early discussions of homosexuality in Christian ethics, was by the German theologian Helmut Thielicke in his 1964 book, "The Ethics of Sex". The first statement he makes at the beginning of the chapter on homosexuality is as follows:

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent." page 269 and also...

"Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 270
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:17 AM

Quote
AGAINST HETEROSEXUALITY
by Michael W. Hannon
March 2014
Alasdair MacIntyre once quipped that “facts, like telescopes and wigs for gentlemen, were a seventeenth-century invention.” Something similar can be said about sexual orientation: Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.

Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework’s regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.

On this novel account, same-sex sex acts were wrong not because they spurn the rational-animal purpose of sex—namely the family—but rather because the desire for these actions allegedly arises from a distasteful psychological disorder.


https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:22 AM

No debate here........ grin All that you provided is what many other homosexuals have used to sanction their behavior and relegate it as acceptable, albeit societies throughout the world for centuries (with exceptions of course) and historic Christianity reject it as sin. We are exposed to this sin against nature itself from the near beginning of Scripture in Gen 13:13; 18:20; and the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah revealed 19:5-9. Sodom is used repeatedly throughout Scripture to refer to the unnatural act of men having sexual relationships with other, and likewise for women Isa 1:9, 3:9; Deut 32:32; Lam 4:6.

sod'-om-it (qadhesh, feminine qedheshah): Qadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and "consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahweh's land could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (Ezr 2:50 f): The presence of Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboam's time (1Ki 15:25). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (1Ki 16:10), and Jehoshaphat routed them out (1Ki 22:46). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were actually "in the house of the Lord" (2Ki 23:7). The feminine qedheshah is translated "prostitute" in Ge 38:21-22; Ho 4:14; in Ezr 2:50 "prostitute" (the King James Version margin "sodomitess," the Revised Version margin transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice.

Paul makes plain that homosexuality is an abomination for it is a sin against nature itself which God allowed due to the blasphemy of idolatry cf. Rom 1:18-32. There is NO "theological problem" in regard to homosexuality, transgenderism, transvestism, pedophilia, lesbianism, and any other sexual practice which is outside the bond of marriage, i.e., a man and a woman.

In regard to malakos BAG (489 D 2) says, "of pers. soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually." and at the end, it references 1Cor 6:9, interestingly enough.

In regard to arsenokoites again BAG (109 B) "a male homosexual, pederest, sodomite"

Thus, the bottom line is simply this...... "Christian" and "Homosexual" are antithetical. The Bible nowhere condones any such behavior, but rather it condemns it and the wrath of God is upon all who not only practice homosexuality or any deviant sexual act but who give consent to such behavior (Rom 1:32). I brought up 1Cor 6:9 not simply to show that homosexuals and all sexual deviants will be cast into hell, as is clear from the text, but Paul glories over those in Corinth who had been to repentance and true faith in Christ through the Spirit, for he writes in vs 11: (ASV) "And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." My emphasis of the word "were" is most important for it is in the aorist tense, i.e., it is a "done deal", i.e., those who were homosexuals along with all the other types of sins committed among the people of Corinth were no longer guilty of such sins because God the Spirit had given them a new nature which first brought deep guilt upon them and the desire to repent of those sins. That repentance was accompanied by a true living faith that resulted in union with Christ. Consequently, their lives changed dramatically (sanctified) due to their justification in Him. God's wrath was no longer upon them, but to the contrary, they were adopted as sons into the kingdom of God himself. This is what it means to be saved, delivered, redeemed, etc. No one can claim to be a Christian and willfully live in sin. May God give you the ability to see these things, convict your soul deeply and grant you repentance unto life through faith in the LORD Christ.
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:02 PM

Hello Pilgrim, I'll address just one important point you made, and it is critical when discussing a male who loves males exclusively. Your quote "BAG (109 B) 'a male homosexual, pederest, sodomite'" is apparently the 2nd Edition of the BAGD, but it was corrected in the 3rd Edition, 2000 BDAG and it reads on arsenokoites - "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9". The error of the first Edition of the RSV, which used "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9 has been corrected. The RSV 2nd Edition and the NRSV as well as the UK REB also avoid the word "homosexuals" and for very good reason as seen in the following:

Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 Edition: "The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek." page 602

Speaking of equivalency, notice: Principles of Interpretation, 1915 Ed. by Clinton Lockhart: "If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be noted by the interpreter." page 49

Many think "sodomy" and "sodomite" are the biblical equivalent of "homosexuality" and "homosexual", but that is in error also; the words being coined by the Roman Catholic Church:

"SODOMY, Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom...first known use: 13th century"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

And Anthony, if I understood your quote, I'd agree that these are man made labels or terms. It is better to drop the labels that are not biblical and examine passages to see exactly what is being condemned. Imagine if every m-f sexual sin in Scripture was merely labeled "heterosexuality" or "heterosexuals".

Pilgrim, I understand you are the head man here, so I have a proposal for you. I know from personal experience the heart ache, the heart break, when a son comes to the Christian parents and says, "I'm gay". With your 'ok', I'd like to start a Post on this subject, and we can handle the discussion in a civil and Christ-like manner. The Christmas and New Year's Holidays are a hectic busy time, so maybe after the first of the year? I'm sure I can stay civil and in a Christian spirit, if you don't 'needle' me. ;-)
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:52 PM

I could be mistakened but it doesn't seem like the bible speaks to lawful sexual pleasure or relations with the exception of the marriage bed.... Except that it's better to marry than burn ..... The whole sexual preference and identification phenomenon is not lawful or legitimate outside a complete rejection of Christ (in Whom all sin is removed unto perfection, righteousness and holiness if we are indeed in Him and Him in us)....

Much peace and grace to you my friend!
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:01 PM

It seems what you are trying to do, but without any logical reason which I have been privy to for several years on many fronts, is to legitimize homosexuality, i.e., to suggest that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. IF my understanding is correct, and that has been admitted by myriad homosexuals with whom I have dialoged with, then I do stand immovable in opposing any such notion. Semantic gymnastics is not a valid argument. Homosexuality is an accurate term, regardless of its origin to describe same sex attraction and sexual intimacy. Sodomy is a valid synonym for homosexuality. All one needs do is consult the biblical references I provided to show the truth of this. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to their homosexual practices:

Quote
Genesis 13:13 (ASV) "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against Jehovah exceedingly."

Genesis 19:4-8 (ASV) "But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing, forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof."

The people of Sodom demanded Lot turn over to them the two men/angels in order that they may KNOW them. The meaning is indisputable that they desired to have sexual relations with these men as the emphasized parts are perspicuous. The use of the word know is used many times in Scripture to denote sexual intimacy, e.g., Gen. 4:1. And, as I have shown above, the word "Sodomy" is used consistently to refer to the abomination practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, i.e., homosexuality/sodomy.

ALL sexual relations outside of the marriage between a man and a woman are condemned in Scripture. In fact, just desiring (lust) of another person outside of marriage is condemned in Scripture (Matt 5:7,8). And please don't try and escape the prohibition taught by Christ in that passage by suggesting that it only applies to men who lust after women. The text universally prohibits and condemns ALL lust outside of heterosexual marriage.

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the N.T. as well:

Quote
Romans 1:22-32 (ASV) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. And even as they refused to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them."

To repeat... one can use whatever term they choose to describe the vile acts which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote in the above passage. What cannot be denied is that homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism, same sex attraction and same sex sexual acts are condemned by God. These acts were allowed to be committed as just temporal punishment for fallen man's rejection of the biblical God, aka: idolatry. And the LGBTTTQQIAA has consistently insisted that God loves homosexuals which is a direct contradiction of the above text and displays the idolatry which Paul wrote about. To quote an old Puritan which exemplifies this type of depraved thinking, "In the beginning, God created man in His own image and ever since the Fall, man has been trying to return the favor." Fallen man always fabricates a "god" that accepts their sinfulness and calls it "good".
Posted By: Tom

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:32 PM

One of the things I believe is very important in a discussion of this nature is to remember to call sin sin.
I can stand beside someone who is fighting against a particular sin such as homosexuality. However, I can not and will not stand beside someone who does not confess their sin and makes excuses for it.
I know people who deap down know it is a sin, yet found people who interpret Scripture in a way that excuses their sin.
They now have even marched in a gay pride parade and told others that God is ok with it.
Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:35 PM

Paul in Romans 3 deals with the matter of judgment upon those who have the law and those who have never had the law (never heard of it) with a very interesting comment wedged between:

Quote
Romans 2:12-16 (ASV) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing [them]); in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ."

It makes not a wit of difference whether someone admits that God's law condemns their sinful act(s) for they are still under the law and the just judgment for transgressing it for God has written the law upon their heart, having been created in the image of God. It's like someone rejecting any idea that there is such a thing called 'gravity'. The fact is, gravity exists as it was created by the very word of God. And if the one who refuses to acknowledge gravity should walk off a cliff, they will suffer the consequences of that foolish act.
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:36 PM

Read about Sodom:

"Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD." (Gen 13:13, NRSV) The KJV reads "men" and the NRSV is "people" no reference to males here. Men is plural of man which means people, humans, mankind unless the context shows otherwise, the Hebrew being enowsh. The difference can be seen in the following: "And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male(zakar) among the men(enowsh) of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him." (Gen 17:23, KJV)

"But before they lay down, the men(people) of the city, even the men(people) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter" (Gen 19:4, KJV)

The same word here for "men", Hebrew enowsh, the context of the verse shows clearly this was not just about males. But, even if it were only the males, what happened? According to God's word, this is what happened:

"And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. (Gen 19:9, KJV) The word "brethren" in v7 is a very broad word not specifically "males": "brethren" used chiefly in formal or solemn address or in referring to the members of a profession, society, or religious denomination - our church brethren" Merriam-Webster online

That is clearly attempted rape by the entire people upon the presumed to be young men. If you don't think women can rape also, just read the daily paper. Now, if rape or attempted rape of male on female does not condemn all male-female relations in and of itself, neither does male on male rape condemn males who love males. Rape is a sin of violence, domination not love. But, the Lord GOD told us what the sin of Sodom was, and it was not listed as sexual:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, KJV)

Before reading homosexuality into the word "abomination", check how the word is used in Ezekiel. It is the Hebrew to ebah and it is found approximately 41 times in Ezekiel, the most of any OT book. But, trace the word through Ezekiel and it seems to mainly indicate things connected to idolatry as v36 of this very chapter shows:

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them" (Ezek 16:36, KJV)

We can see from a book of history how the Jews of about 180BC viewed the sin of Sodom: "He did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance. (Sirach 16:8 NRSVA)

It appears as if everyone answering here is content to read into the Scriptures their own bias and prejudice rather than let the word of God speak for itself. Did I violate a rule of hermeneutics here? Did I define a word improperly? If one uses proof texting, you need to understand exactly what each proof text means before stringing them together in an attempt to support a belief. The Roman Catholic Church, in its arrogance, contradicted the Lord GOD, and created a sin called "sodomy" based on the city of Sodom, and their twisting of the account. Try finding a sin called "sodomy" in any English version of Scripture, I've yet to find one. Even the KJV "sodomites" refers to idolatrous male cult prostitutes, not males who love males. Compare the following:

"None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God." (Deut 23:17-18, NRSV)

If being a male temple prostitute condemns male to male love; then being a female temple prostitute would condemn male-female love.

I don't see that this discussion will go anywhere. If anyone, I mean anyone, has a relative, close friend, any Christian who needs to understand what the Bible says and does not say about the psychological concept called homosexuality, feel free to PM me and I'll try to help. I'm 75 and have studied this topic in depth, it is my spiritual welfare at stake here so I've dedicated a lot of sincere study on it.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:37 PM

1. A passage taken out of context is nothing more than pretext! scold

2. Words derive their specific meaning from the CONTEXT, both near and far, but specifically in the passage in which they are found. Thus "men" in the context of Gen 13:13 is probably best taken as a collective, which simply means ALL in Sodom were wicked people, whether they engaged in homosexual behavior or condoned it. In either case, Paul in Romans 1 includes ALL who either engage in same sex sexual acts and those who condone it.

3. In Gen 19:4 "men" must be taken as males for they are distinguished from the wider inclusion of "all the people". Then, those who were Lot's guests are referred to as "men", without question meaning the "males" who were inside the house, which is most definitely proven to be true when Lot offered his daughters "female" as their substitute in vs. 8.

4. It is sad that you will use whatever translation you think supports your erroneous claim that nowhere does the Bible condemn same sex attraction or same sex sexual deviancy. I have already provided two specific passages which incontrovertibly teach that God abhors same sex relationships which are reserved for heterosexual marriage partners. The law given to Israel condemns any such practice. The NT confirms the condemnation of such relationships and practices in the Epistles and even heterosexual sex outside of marriage. God created man (mankind) as male and female. And when Adam was created, God said it was not good that the man (Adam as representative of all males as well as mankind) be alone and thus created a woman (Eve as representative of all females) for him. God did not create another man (male) for Adam. And historically, the Church has been unified in condemning any form of extra-marital sex and specifically homosexuality long before modern godless psychology came into being. It is only in the last 50 years +/- that this entire matter of accepting deviant behavior became an issue.

5. God condemns all sin and those who refuse to repent of sin and seek God's mercy and grace in Christ will be cast into hell. Same sex romantic affections, same sex romantic relationships and same sex sexual acts are clearly sin. It is at best an oxymoron to claim to be a Christian homosexual.

6. FYI, I am not homophobic, for I do not fear homosexuals. In fact, I bring the Gospel to homosexuals perchance God will grant them repentance of their sinfulness and bring them to Christ with a true living faith in whom they can be delivered... no more nor no less than any other sinner who stands in dire need of salvation.

7. Twisting the Scripture to find justification for your sin is nothing more than sophisty. I for one will not tolerate it. And further, I will NOT permit you to promulgate your sin using the PM system on this Board. To do so will immediately result in your permanent expulsion. Those who are wanting to converse with you may certainly do so via e-mail of which I am not responsible. I will assume that I have made myself clear...... yes? scratchchin
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:40 PM

Speaking of Romans 1:26, 27

Rom.1:18-32 is a narrative of man's rejection of the one true God and thinking himself wise, creates idols in exchange for the One True God. These are God rejecting people, idolaters, who are proud of their own perceived intellect and wisdom. Their continued descent into deeper and deeper depravity is 3 times attributed to "God gave them up" in vs 24,26,28 and all three times the cause or reason reflects back to their ultimate sin of rejecting God and turning to idols. The flow of thought goes back to their rejection of the One True God and exchanging Him with idols.

"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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Rom 1:26-27, KJV)

1. Women changed "natural use", NRSV "natural intercourse", but did not, could not, change their nature.
2. a. changed "the natural use" KJV, YLT.. Referring to the created order, God's design
b. "exchanged their natural function", Amplified, "exchanged their natural sexual function" ISV, "changed their natural way" AAT by William F. Beck (LCMS)

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature, these women would have the created order orientation within themselves, but could only change their conduct. Sexual orientation is not changeable.

"The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."
http://www.ct.gov/shp/lib/shp/pdf/a...sexual_orientation_and_homosexuality.pdf

3. It is common to teach that v26 refers to lesbianism, but that violates the directive of 1 Cor. 4:6 ASV, "learn not to go beyond the things which are written". There is nothing here stating women had sex with women. As the English Baptist John Gill wrote in the 18th century, one understanding can be: "by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the 'sodomitical' embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". This would probably refer to oral and anal intercourse of women with men. From this viewpoint, the word "likewise" connecting v27 to v26 also refers to oral and anal intercourse of man with man, unnatural compared to the created order, but created order does not define sin, God's commands do. Of course, if lesbianism is not 'read into' the words of Scripture here, there is zero reference in the Bible to lesbianism!
4. In v27 men are "leaving" (KJV), "giving up" (NRSV), "having left" (YLT), "forsaking" (Literal translation by Jay P. Green). You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave. This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.' And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary was printed about 1872 long before the words and concept were invented. On Rom. 1:26,27 it reads:

"But observe how vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices." It does not take much grey matter to know what modern words we'd use for "natural vices" and "unnatural and monstrous vices".

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, printed 1988; Vol. 4, page 437 -

"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

5. The KJV word "burned" in v27 is the Greek, "G1572" and is found only here in the NT, just this one occurrence. A. T. Robertson says it means "to burn out, to set on fire". The NRSV renders it "consumed". From a 19th century Greek scholar, James Robinson Boise, "a much stronger word than the Eng. burned". This is important because the word used for sexual desire translated "burn" referring to a loving couple is totally different: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV) The word "burn" here is the Greek: "G4448" a totally unrelated word to that in Rom. 1:27.
6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715". The words "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum, not a neat hetero-, bi- or homosexual construct of human sexuality. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27, which is "G1937"!
7. The KJV words "working that which is unseemly" in the literal Greek reads "working the unseemliness", Rev. Alford Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear. The Greek scholar, Boice, I referenced above writes: "the (well-known, notorious) indecency". The sexual perversions of Nero, who lived at the time Paul wrote, comes to mind. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/suet-nero.asp READ THIS HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF NERO AND COMPARE TO HERE
8. What is the "error" meant in "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"? From the flow of the entire passage from v18, it would seem to refer to the rejection of the One True God and worshiping idols. The moral degradation described is the horrible descent into the depths of depravity which was sin compounding upon sin, as punishment. Again, Boice in the 19th century writes: "of their error, of their departure (from the true God)". The respected 19th century theologian, Presbyterian Charles Hodge states in his commentary on Romans: "The apostle for the third time repeats the idea that the moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of their apostasy from God. Receiving, he says, in themselves the meet recompense of their error. It is obvious from the whole context that the Greek here refers to the sin of forsaking the true God; and it is no less obvious that the recompense or punishment of this apostasy was the moral degradation which he had just described." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hdg/romans-1.html

Then the 2000 Edition of the BDAG reads: "Of an erroneous view of God, as exhibited in polytheism, resulting in moral degradation ... Ro 1:27" Yet in this day it is common to dogmatically insist the "error" is homosexuality and the "recompense" is something like AIDS.

The sin, the error, of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols and self-worship which brings about degradation upon degradation to where their outrageous and extreme lust consumes them. Studying 1 Cor. 6:9 and Rom. 1:26, 27 objectively comes up describing the type of behavior of Nero, referenced above. Nothing in the entire Bible condemns two males loving each other faithfully including sexual intimacy. You can invent all the theological constructions you wish, but the Bible does not condemn men loving men. By the way, did you ever notice how men seem to focus solely on vs26,27 and totally ignore the 'little sins' contained in vs29, 30 as worthy of death?!
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:06 PM

All desires and inclinations in light of.....

Quote
The Effect of Sin: "Total Depravity"
BY WILLIAM SASSER
A gentleman was heard to exclaim, as he left a certain church service, "I don't think I'm going to come here again, they make you feel like you're a sinner." No doubt, this particular fellow would have felt at home with the Pharisees. You remember they were a religious sect who regarded themselves as righteous through law-keeping, and everyone else wicked sinners. However, many "wicked sinners" felt drawn to the Son of God. In fact, they were attracted to Him by the droves. When the disciples were asked, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?", Jesus answered for them: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:11-13)." Because Christ came to call sinners, it is essential that we have a good understanding of the doctrine of sin, as taught in the Bible.

The Bible has quite a bit to say about sin. The English word, "sin," is found some 299 times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament there are 276 references to sin. The doctrine of sin is known theologically as Hamartiology, from the Greek word, hamartia {ham-ar-tee'-ah}, meaning, "to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken. "This particular word, hamartia, is found some one hundred fifty-one times in the New Testament. Sin is commonly defined as "the transgression of the law." The Apostle John tells us, in I John 3:4, Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Several words in the Bible are translated by our English word, sin. Put together, these words reveal the essence of the biblical concept of sin.

From the Hebrew language of the Old Testament we discover the following:

chatta'ah {khat-taw-aw'} - condition of sin, guilt of sin
chata' {khaw-taw'} - to miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt

'ashmah {ash-maw'} - doing wrong, committing a trespass or offense

shagah {shaw-gaw'} - to go astray (morally), to lead astray

chet' {khate} - punishment for sin

'avon {aw-vone'} - perversity, depravity, iniquity

pesha' {peh'-shah} - transgression, rebellion

'asham {aw-shawm'} - offense, trespass, fault

From the Greek language of the New Testament we get the following:

hamartia {ham-ar-tee'-ah} - to miss the mark
anamartetos {an-am-ar'-tay-tos} - sinless

parabasis { para'-bah-sis} - transgression

adikia {a-de -kee'-ah} - unrighteousness

asebeia {as-see'-bee-ah} - impiety

anomia {a-nom'-ee-ah} - contempt and violation of law

poneria {poner-ree'-ah} - depravity

epithumia {epi-thu-mee'-ah} - desire for what is forbidden

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume IV, page 2798, gives the following general definition of the Biblical view of sin:


Sin is any attitude of indifference, unbelief, or disobedience to the will of God revealed in conscience, law, or gospel, whether this attitude express itself in thought, word, deed, or settled disposition and conduct. Transgression of known law, then, is sin; but so is wrong attitude, wrong desires, wrong 'set' of the will orself (rebellion - pesh, asebeia; perversion - Won, adikia; ruin, confusion - resh, apostasia, epithumia; I John 3:4; Matthew 5:22, 28; Romans 7:8ff; 5:21). Sin is thus unbelief (Hebrews 3:12, 19), the centering of the self upon something, or someone, less than God Himself (Genesis 3:6; Romans 1:28; 8:7).

The doctrine of sin may be practically stated by the simple phrase "all men and women are sinners" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Ecclesiastes 8:11; 9:3; Jeremiah 17:9). What this means is that the state of man before God is one of total depravity (unwillingness) and total inability (unableness). That is, the unregenerate person has not the desire nor the ability to love, seek, or submit to spiritual truth. Of the five so-called "Doctrines of Grace," - sin, salvation, atonement, calling, security - this is perhaps the most important. If this point is received and understood, not only will the other four doctrines be readily received, but more easily understood. According to the Heidelberg Catechism, 3rd Lord's Day, Questions 6,7,8:

Question 6: Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?

Answer: By no means. But, God created man good, and after his own image; in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him, and live with Him in eternal happiness, to glorify and praise Him.

Question 7: Whence, then, proceeds this depravity of human nature?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. Hence, our nature has become so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin.

Question 8: Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good and inclined to all wickedness?

Answer: Indeed, we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Can these statements be proved by Scripture? What saith the Word of God? The prophet said, "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). I shall now proceed to show you why I believe that this view of sin, i.e., total depravity and total inability, is in complete harmony with Scripture.

A. What Total Depravity Does Not Mean.

1.It does not mean that man is absolutely depraved.

"Absolute" depravity would mean all men are depraved both intensively and extensively. Intensive has reference to the degree to which sin may have brought man with reference to his depravity. Extensive is in reference to the extent to which sin has actually depraved man.

The intensity of sin is not total. That is, no man is as bad as he can be. Apart from the restraining grace of God–called "common grace" by the old writers–every man could become much worse in actual behaviour. However, the extent of sin is total. Every human being has been infected and affected by sin in every part of the body, soul and spirit. The whole, or total, being has been invaded by sin. Thus, "total depravity" means that every faculty of man's being, every activity of his life, and every sphere of his existence has been permeated by sin.

2. Extensively man is described thus:

a. Spiritually blind (Jn. 3:3; 12:3; Jer. 5:21; Pro. 16:2).
b. Mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (Rom. 3:14).

c. Lips are like vipers (Rom. 3:13).

d. Tongue speaks lies (Psa. 58:30; Jer. 8:6; Rom. 3:13).
e. Throat is an open grave (Rom. 3:13).

f. Belly is his god. (Phil. 3:19).

g. Feet are misguided (Rom. 3:15).

h. Mind is opposed to God and His ways (Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21).
1) The mind generates evil desires (Eph. 2:3).

2) The mind is blinded by Satan (II Cor. 4:4).

3) The mind is proud (Col. 2:18).

4) The mind is corrupt (I Tim. 6:5).

I. Conscience is defiled (Tit. 1:15; Heb. 10:22).
j. Heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9).

1) The heart is set upon evil (Eccl. 8:11).

2) It is full of lusts (Rom. 1:24).

3) It values the wrong things (Jn. 3:19).

k. The affections are vile (Rom. 1:26).
1) They are inordinate, or disgraceful (Col. 3:5).

2) They are set upon the earth (Col. 3:2).

3) They are not natural (Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3).

l. All men:

1) Sin by nature (Eccl. 8:11; Gal. 3:19; Rom. 3:10-11,23; Rom. 5:12-14).
2) Are vile by nature (Rom. 1:18; 2:13).

3) Are children of wrath by nature (Eph. 2:3).

4) Are deceitful by nature (Jer. 17:9).

5) Are hostile toward God by nature (Rom.

8:7-8; Lk. 19:14).

6) Are alienated from God by nature (Eph.

4:18).

3. The nature of man is such that he is compared to beasts.

a. Compared to a snake because of his venom (Psa. 140:3).
b. Compared to a mule because of his stubbornness (Job 11:12).

c. Compared to a bear because of his cruelty (

Dan. 7:5).

d. Compared to a dog because of his uncleanness (II Pet. 2:21).

e. Compared to a sow because of her uncleanness (II Pet. 2:21).

f. Compared to a dragon because of his desolateness (Job 30:29).

g. Compared to a fox because of his cunningness (Heb. 13:32).

h. Compared to a leopard because of his fierceness (Dan. 7:6).

I. Compared to a lion because of his ravening (Psa. 22:18).

j. Compared to a moth because of his frailty (Job 27:18).

k. Compared to a spider because of his flimsiness (Isa. 59:5).

l. Compared to a wolf because of his ferociousness (Jn. 10:12).

m. Compared to a locust because of his destructiveness (Joel 2:25).

n. Compared to a sheep because of his stupidity (Isa. 53:"6).

4. In man is the...

a. Absence of original righteousness -- best deeds are void of righteousness (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9-10; Psa. 14:2-3).
b. Presence of positive evil – all men have a proclivity, or bent, toward evil rather than good (Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:22).

This, then, is the extent of sin in man. This is total depravity. What would it be if men were absolutely depraved?

5. Total depravity does not mean the total absence of relative good, whether that goodness is civil, natural, or even religious.

a. Men may be good citizens, good parents and even good church members. Men may possess a kind of goodness which causes them to sacrifice for worthy projects and goals. For example, Albert Schweitzer could have been a doctor of medicine, a doctor of music, or a doctor of theology, but he willfully chose to give his life for the heathen people of Africa. By all standards of the world he was a "good": man. However, Dr. Schweitzer was not a Christian! To him, Jesus was not the eternal Christ, the Son of God, nor was the Bible inspired by God. In addition, Schweitzer did not accept the atoning work of Christ. Thus, though Schweitzer sacrificed his life for Africa, he was not a believer. And though he did many wonderful works yet he was totally depraved.
b. Question: How is total depravity manifested in good men?

Answer: They are in rebellion to Jesus Christ! If not in deed, then in the thoughts and intents of their hearts. Even the heathen do good, not because they are good, but because the Law is written in their natures by virtue of the fact that they were created in the image of God (Rom. 2:14).

Question: Why don't men break out into total outward rebellion?

Answer: they are restrained by the common grace of God (II Thess. 2:6-7).

Conclusion:

Total Depravity is not absolute depravity
Total Depravity is not the total absence of relative good.

Though man is not intensively evil, He is extensively evil.

B. What Total Depravity Does Mean - Positively. By nature we only and always sin.

1 It is important for us to know that even relative good, which I have shown you may exist even in unbelievers, is not good in God's sight.

2. What men call "good" is evil in a Holy God's sight."Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity." (Psa. 39:5) "An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21:4)

Question: How can there be sin in plowing a field? Why is plowing connected with a high look and a proud heart? The farmer works hard in the field, he provides his family with food, perhaps even for the good of others. How could this be sin?

Answer: First, because he does not plough in faith. Secondly, he does not plough for the glory of God. Does he acknowledge who gave him the field, or the strength to plow it, or the wisdom to make crops? No! He takes all the credit to himself, and curses the weather when he is not successful. Further, he gives none of his increase to the Lord.

3. Conclusion: The natural man can never do anything which is fundamentally pleasing to God, but only evil continually, for he is self motivated.

a. "God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5
* Man's wickedness is great because it's against God.

* Man's wickedness is deep: "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart."

* Man's wickedness is "only evil continually."

b. Man's wickedness is from his youth.

"For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21)

.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5).

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go estray as soon as they be born speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3).

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jer.. 17:9 See also Romans 3:10-18)

c. Total Depravity, positively stated, means that men only and always, by nature, apart from regeneration, sin.

C. What Total Depravity Negatively—by nature we do not have the ability to please God or hate sin; we call this Total Inability.

1. This answers all the questions asked about the will of man. Make the will of man as free as you please. Let him will what he pleases; his problem is his ability. One may will to take ten years off his life, but let's see him or her do it! One may will to be wealthy, but this does not mean one will be wealthy. Exercising the will is no problem. Exercising the ability is where the problem lies.

2. Consider these Bible facts:

* Man has a carnal mind which is enmity to God and which is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7).
* The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them (I Cor. 2:14).

* No man can come to Christ (Jn. 6:44,65).

* "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8).

Please note that in all these scriptures the word "can" is the focal point. Many confuse "can" with "may" when considering total depravity and total inability. The question is not "may I come to God?," but "can I come to God?" Of course, you may come. God does not hinder you, Christ does not forbid you, nor does the Holy Spirit withstand you, you certainly may come. But can you? "May I come?" asks permission. "Can I come?" speaks of ability. In other words, all have permission to come, but none have the ability to do so.

Christ never said, "You may not come to me, that ye might have Life." He said, "You will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5:40.

Why will not men come to Christ when it is clear that they have a clear invitation and permission? Simply because they don't have the ability, i.e., they cannot. Thus, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" stands as a fact beyond dispute. See John 6:44,65.

3. Analogies: Christ used many analogies to show and demonstrate the fact that salvation is a supernatural act of heaven, and does not lie within the ability of the sinner.

a. The new birth (John 3). Prior to conception there is non-being. In conception only the parents are active, the conceived child has nothing to say about when, where or how it shall be conceived and born. In like manner, before spiritual conception and birth there is only spiritual non-being. How can a spiritual non-being believe and repent? Thus, faith is a result of spiritual conception, not the cause of it. As in natural conception only the parent is active. In this case the parent is God.
b. Creation (II Corinthians 5:17). "In the beginning God" is the only cause and explanation for the created universe. Nothingness cannot produce something. The Creation was totally passive in coming into being. God spoke the universe into being. He said, "Let there be," and there was. Paul speaks of believers as being "new creations in Christ." The same cause is responsible for the new creation, and in the same manner, as the old creation. "In the beginning God created" is the cause of all new creations in Christ. God speaks and there is.

c. Resurrection (Ephesians 2:1). The only person who can be resurrected is a dead one. Living people aren't resurrected. The only person who can resurrect a dead person is God. In the same manner, men are said to be "dead in trespasses and sins." Accordingly, they cannot resurrect themselves. If they are to be quickened, i.e., made alive, God must do it. To be raised to spiritual life and joined in spiritual union with Christ is nothing short of a miracle. Perhaps the best illustration is an extra-biblical one.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;

All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty back together again.


Conclusions:

1. Salvation must be of God. Men cannot save themselves.

2. The basic cause of trouble in our world is the spiritual enslavement of men to sin: ".... destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom. 3:16-18

3. The slightest desire to know God, be delivered from sin and bow to Christ is evidence of the work of the Lord.

4. The doctrines of total depravity and total inability are designed to drive us to cry to the Lord for deliverance.


https://www.monergism.com/effect-sin-total-depravity
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:10 PM

Your sophistry is certainly typical of those who try to eliminate the biblical teaching concerning homosexuality. And, it is insulting to those of us who are given to know the Scriptures, especially the original languages.

1. Romans 1 definitely reveals the natural rejection of all mankind of the one true living God, for they are born with a corruption, a depraved nature.

2. And because of ALL mankind is an idolator by nature, God gave them over to their depravity which is expressed in infinite ways. However, Paul, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit lists some of the more abominable sins, e.g., homosexuality, which is a sin not only against God but nature itself, for He created man as male and female and ordained that they should compliment each other and enter into a marriage bond. But mankind being depraved and an enemy of God rejected that which God originally intended and exchange the nature affections (pathos) for the opposite sex for an affection for the opposite sex; female for female and male for male. Further, not only did they express a VILE affection for the opposite sex, they went even further and engaged in the original use (chresis) sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. This by definition is homo (same sex) sexuality. Try as you might, the truth is incontrovertible. No conservative Christian commentator has ever even entertained that Romans teaches that homosexual affection and particularly homosexual acts are allowed, never mind deemed "natural".

3. It is clear that the 2000 Edition of BAG has taken on a new staff which is not of God and changed various things from previous versions to accommodate the ever declining morals of society.

4. Using the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture, one who is given the Holy Spirit at regeneration infallibly knows that homosexuality and all sexual deviant behavior is condemned by God. And, as I have before mentioned, the entire Church throughout history has openly condemned such. It is only in recent years that the homosexual (taken as a term generally speaking) has taken root and succeeded in making inroads in not only society but in the visible church, which too has fallen from orthodoxy for the most part.

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
Nothing in the entire Bible condemns two males loving each other faithfully including sexual intimacy. You can invent all the theological constructions you wish, but the Bible does not condemn men loving men.

Doubtless this sums up your entire position and reveals that you are still under the wrath and condemnation of God despite your insistence to the contrary. Even without a knowledge of the Bible or the Koran or any other 'holy' book, which universally condemn your lifestyle, a person naturally knows that homosexuality is wrong; a sin.

5. No one has even hinted any of the sins noted in Romans 1 should be ignored. In fact, ANY sin which is mentioned in Scripture is worth of death. Even further, IF it were possible that a human being committed not one sins, did not have one thought that was contrary to God's law nor had one single foul affection, that person would still be under the just wrath of God and condemnation for they own the guilty of Adam's sin and are worthy of eternal death and punishment.

6. Nothing in Hodge's commentary on Romans, of which I also have a copy and am well knowledgeable of what Hodge wrote supports your position. The "recompense" is the withholding of the Spirit's restraint (mentioned by Anthony already), which resulted and continues to be true is the expression of vile and abominable sins which are against nature itself, i.e., sexual deviancy; females with females and males with males which are specifically mentioned.

Lastly, I must iterate my former compassionate plea to you Ned, Pray that God would grant unto you repentance of your vile sin and a true living faith in the LORD Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, that you would be justified in Him and receive that new life in Christ which He Himself promised to all who would come to Him in order to be reconciled with God and redeemed in His precious blood which He poured out for all those whom the Father gave Him. Cast yourself before His mercy and plead that He call you with an irresistible calling of the Spirit unto Christ.
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:52 PM

I'm going to quote the REB, but use any translation you like and see if you find any substantive difference.

NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21, REB)

No one thinks divorce is good, but in this fallen world Jesus gave permission in the case of the unfaithful spouse, yet, it was not like that at the beginning, the created order:

"He answered, ‘It was because of your stubbornness that Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives; but it was not like that at the beginning. I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery.’" (Matt 19:8-9, REB)

Don't misunderstand, my color blindness is not the created order, it is a defect of my vision and it is not immoral just because it is not like in Eden. My sexual orientation in life is a defect of my sexual and personal nature but it in itself is not sin either and it was not my choice, it appeared at age 6 or 7. But, I sure can express it sinfully and have many times in life, but my loving another man including intimacy is not sin in that alone. Psychology says it is not abnormal, but it surely is not in accord with the perfection of Eden, so in this sense it is not natural and I don't recall ever saying it is. There is an interesting story in the OT:

"1–2 That same day, when Saul had finished talking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father’s house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself. Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because each loved the other as dearly as himself." (1Sam 18:1-3, REB)

That can be seen to be a very close, platonic friendship, but the lament of David below is another story.

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were most dear to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26, REB)

Against the background of the verses in 1 Samuel, I am struck by the phrase "love of women". It does not say "love of mother", "love of brother", "love of father" or even "love of wife/wives"! Most commentaries through the years have said it means the love of a wife or wives for their husband, but those words were available and there is no English translation I am aware of that translates by using "wife" or "wives". But, the translators of one version saw the problem as they translated, the Douay-Rheims version and they solved the problem this way:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26, DRC)

The Douay solves the problem by inserting a totally fake, fraudulent sentence which I underlined. That way they introduced the idea of "love of mother". The fact that they resorted to this trickery shows they recognized exactly what the verse states, there was some sexual dimension to the love of Jonathan for David, however slight or expressed.

The Hebrew for "love" here in 2 Sam. 1:26 and 1 Sam. 18:3 is: "H160" and when following from the first occurrence, that Hebrew word as it is applied to human to human love, it is interesting it is used of male to female love at the first occurrence in Gen.29:20 where it refers to Jacob's love for Rachel. The next 3 occurrences of human to human love using this Hebrew word are of David and Jonathan in 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:17; and 2 Sam. 1:26. After those 3 references, the very next use of the word is in 2 Sam. 13:15 of the sordid "love" of incest of Amnon to Tamar.

Even if one still believes it is sin, it is the most moral option that I've found. This writer on Christian ethics agrees:

"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.
I think that, as a class ,homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.
I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California... a Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. book.

The German theologian writing in 1964 surely hit the nail on the head:

One of the early discussions of homosexuality in Christian ethics, was by the German theologian Helmut Thielicke in his 1964 book, "The Ethics of Sex". The first statement he makes at the beginning of the chapter on homosexuality is as follows:

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent." page 269 and also...

"Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 270
Posted By: Tom

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:28 PM

What shocks me about this is that in all my years as a Christian this is the first time I have seen someone who claims to be Reformed use Scripture in this manner.
Yes I have known people and still do that at one time struggled with the sin of homosexuality. However, they admitted their sin and repented. Then eventually overcame their evil desires.
On the other hand, I know a lady who now says she is a man and has left any form of conservative Church. She now attends a liberal Church and thinks nothing of marching in a gay pride parade.
Her friends tried to reach out to her; but her response was that God is perfectly fine with this.
Tom
Posted By: chestnutmare

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:07 PM

Quote
NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?


I am not shocked nor surprised to read some of the things you defend. Scripture tells us that man is totally depraved and you are simply being yourself, a depraved individual who will bend and twist God's Word to your own destruction. Sadly for you, you are an elder man and show no signs of recognizing your sinful nature and therefore refuse to repent of this wicked behavior and mindset. No, you are absolutely wrong. Homosexuals are not moral, not good, and they are most certainly in need of repentance. You deceive yourself and most likely, others as well. That is sad, for it is to your own destruction. The Highway has been patient with you and we have tried to explain to you your need and the Gospel. God certainly can change you. It is called regeneration, the giving of a new heart in place of your heart of stone that you might repent of your sins and believe upon the Lord Christ Jesus for the remission of your sins. It causes the believer to love God and seek to obey Him in all things and to mortify one's sinful behavior. This Ned will not happen for you without a new heart and you will continue to deceive and be deceived for you love your sin.
Posted By: chestnutmare

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:13 PM

Bear in mind these apt words from A.W. Pink
Quote

Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). In view of these solemn words it is tremendously important that each of us should seek and obtain from God the repentance which He requires, not resting content with anything short of this. Hence, there needs to be the most diligent and prayerful examination as to the character of our repentance. Multitudes are deceived thereon. Many are perplexed by the conflicting teaching of men on this subject; but instead of that discouraging, it should stir up to a more earnest searching of the Scriptures. Before turning to the positive side of this branch of our theme, let us first point out some of the features of a nonsaving repentance.

Trembling beneath the preaching of God's Word is not repentance. True, there are thousands of people who have listened unmoved to the most awe-inspiring sermons, and even descriptions of the torments of the damned have struck no terror to their hearts. Yet, on the other hand, many who were deeply stirred, filled with alarm, and moved to tears, are now in hell. I have seen the faces of strong men pale under a searching message, yet next day all its effects had left them. Felix “trembled” (Acts 24:25) under the preaching of Paul!

Being “almost persuaded” is not repentance. Agrippa (Acts 26:28) is a case in point. A person may give full assent to the messages of God's servant, admire the gospel, yea, receive the Word with joy, and after all, be only a stony-ground hearer (Matt. 13:20-21). Not only so, he may be conscious of his evildoing and acknowledge the same. Pharaoh owned, “I have sinned against the Lord your God” (Exod. 10:16). A man may realize that he ought to yield himself to the claims of God and become a Christian, yet never be more than “almost persuaded.”

Humbling ourselves beneath the mighty hand of God is not repentance. People may be deeply moved, weep, go home and determine to reform their lives, and yet return to their sins. A solemn example of this is found in Ahab. That wicked king of Israel coveted Naboth's vineyard, plotted to secure it, and gained his end by causing him to be murdered. Then the servant of God met him and said, “Hast thou killed and also taken possession?” And we are told that “he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted . . . and went softly” (I Kings 21:27-29). Yet in the very next chapter we find him again rebelling against God, and that he was cut off by divine judgment. Ah, my reader, you may have humbled yourself before God for a time, and yet remain the slave of your lusts. You may be afraid of hell, and yet not of sinning. If hell were extinguished, so would be the repentance of many church members. O mistake not fear of the wrath to come for a holy hatred and horror of sin.

Confessing sins is not repentance. Thousands have gone forward to the “altar” or “mourners' bench” and have told God what vile creatures they were, enumerating a long list of transgressions, but without any deep realization of the unspeakable awfulness of their sins, or a spark of holy hatred of them. The sequel has shown this, for they now ignore God's commandments as much as they did before. O my reader, if you do not, in the strength of God, resist sin, if you do not turn from it, then your fancied repentance is only whitewash—paint which decorates, but not the grace which transforms into gold.
~ A.W. Pink
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:16 PM

Tom, I think I know why 'Bible believing' Christian men have such a view toward an exclusively homosexual male. There are actually very few exclusively homosexual males, maybe as low as 1% and I don't believe it can be as high as 5%. But, most men when younger have had some degree of gay type feelings at times in certain situations with particular male friends. They may even have sex with a male friend and maybe more than once, but they are NOT homosexual males. If Christian, the teaching heard is hopefully the true biblical pattern, you are to be attracted girls and you are, even if you explored things with a male friend. The biblical model and pattern is you get married, have a family and love your wife. Now, a Christian man has had this when younger and because of his faith, his understanding of Scripture, he feels guilt and stops any homosexual acts. The man was never a homosexual male and so, he projects his experience onto all other males, even exclusively homosexual males, who don't have the ability to just turn off attraction to the same gender and live a normal, heterosexual life. I can read this all through sincere, godly men's views of homosexuality. Now, how strong the homosexual or bisexual drive may be, can vary among males. When I first went online 22 years ago, I purposely sought out Christian sites and especially if this situation was discussed. I remember on of the first I came across was an article by the SBC theologian, R. Albert Mohler. In his article, he scoffed, and I'm paraphrasing here, "There is no such thing as homosexual orientation, it just the sin orientation in a guy."

There used to be what were called Newsgroups, or Usenet. I sought out the Christian groups and used that approach to work out my options in life since I am 100%, exclusively homosexual in my sex/emotional life. I debated and argued with men of God online. I'd get flattened by someone's good biblical argument. That sent me to study more and usually ended up revising. It was very helpful for me because it forced me to study, BUT, and this is important, I too was fearful that we can believe so easily what we wish to be true. This is one reason I like to look at the works of older men of God, prior to the age of psychological studies in sexology. I also will avoid taking actual pro-gay studies seriously. I've read a few, and it was actually a liberal book that first tipped me off that the Greek had an exact word for a "catamite" and that is not what Paul used. Another way I attempted to keep myself between the guard rails was by knowing something about the author and his view of homosexuality. I'll give you a perfect example right here, concerning Leviticus 18:22 -

In the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series, Leviticus, by Professor R. K. Harrison, the commentary on v22 reads:

"The regulations of Leviticus condemn certain aberrations found among the Egyptians and Canaanites, who went far towards deifying sexual activity, and assigned the title 'holy ones' to cultic prostitutes. Sacro-homosexual practices and female prostitution within the context of the cultus was probably well established throughout the ancient Near East long before the Israelites occupied Canaan. Homosexuality of a non-religious variety is poorly documented in Mesopotamian texts..." page 191

Dr. Harrison on page 192 comments about Sodom: "Interestingly enough, the Talmudic authorities placed little stress on a homosexual interpretation of Genesis 19:5, preferring instead to regard the Sodomites as having violated the normal canons of hospitality and justice (Sanhed. 19a; Bab. Bath. 12b, 59a)."

This is definitly not a "gay friendly" professor! On the last page of the commentary, page 252 he states: "For a person to think of himself or herself as a 'Christian homosexual' or a 'Christian lesbian' is a complete contradiction in terms..."

It is noticeable that I quote dictionaries, thesauruses, books on biblical interpretation, etc. I need to know I am doing my best to be as objective as possible and not breaking rules of interpretation. I got that tip from Myron Augsburger, a Mennonite scholar. He pointed out how if we have been taught a verse means a particular thing, every time we read that verse it will say the same thing to us, even if what we think it means is wrong. He gave approaches to try and give a verse a fresh examination to see if it truly is teaching what we think it is. I use the commentary web site with over 100 commentaries on it. I have some favorites there, like Matthew Poole, John Gill, who I do favor, but I'll look at the reasoning on verses from various viewpoints and try to evaluate the points made. Something I noticed when reading men from the past, especially further back like the Puritans, most of their commentary on the "sin of Sodom" is couched in the belief that it is married men, family men who do this wicked sin as Paul describes.

I'll close with a personal account. I met my companion online 21 years ago, and he had a girlfriend he planned to marry. He had told me he was bicurious and then later said bisexual. He struggled for 4 years trying to figure what direction to go, be my 'buddy for life', marry and have a family. I mean he weighed the various things, marriage provided children for his old age, marriage satisfied his culture, traditions and family expectations. Yet, he admitted he had very little to no arousal from women, and no positive emotional feelings to females. So, he was bisexual in the sense he was in middle with tradition, culture and family on one side; and me who he truly loved on the other side. So, he decided, if he married she'd be a good wife; but I'd still have his heart and that was not fair to her. Now, that is how it worked in our situation. I don't know how many views of this thread are repeat views, I am positive someone who has read these posts knows someone important to them that is dealing with the sexual defect of exclusively homosexual orientation.

Tom, it is obvious by how fast I posted these matters, I've worked at this for years and have notes. Sadly, many homosexual males just give up on the church in bitterness, or go into the mainline liberal churches. Thanks for giving me the chance to try and explain how I think things are in this situation. I oppose gay marriage, detest LGBTQ activism we see, we live a discreet life; not an 'in your face' way of living.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:31 PM

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?
To use your argument, the Bible nowhere speaks of "sexual orientation". This is a modern psychological fabrication in order to relegate homosexuals to the "victim class", as the Liberals have done to near everything. Let me state the truth to you once again... ALL MANKIND is born in sin. The natural man loves sin and hates God, and all that is good, pure and right (Jh 3:19-21; Rom 1-3; Eph 2:1-3, 4:17-19). Your homosexual proclivity is simply one manifestation of your sin nature no less than one may be predisposed to steal, commit adultery, lie, cheat, covet another's position, wealth, etc. One FREELY CHOOSES to entertain such sinful desires and thus is singularly responsible for how they deal with them. Of course, the natural man is not only incapable of resisting such temptation but they have no desire to do so (Rom 1:28, 8:7,8; 1Cor 2:14; Col 1:21; 2Tim 3:1-5; Jam 4:4,5; 1Jh 2:15,16; et al). The ONLY cure to one's love of sin is God's redeeming grace, being united to Christ and being given the Spirit of power to overcome all sin (1Cor 10:14; Phil 2:12,13; Eph 6:12,13; Ps 124:6-8).

Lewis Smedes was a well known flaming heretic and hardly a reliable source of truth. rolleyes2

Helmut Thielicke, again yet another heretical theologian and is no purveyor of biblical truth.

You can only find writers who are outside conservative biblical scholars and who were/are enemies of God to support your sinful behavior. You have offered nothing whatsoever to defend your case and you never will for darkness will never overcome the light and the truth of God. Your love of sin is intractable and inescapable for you as a natural man are a slave of your sin with no desire to escape it. Only the Spirit of Truth can provide you with the desire and strength to overcome it by a work of regeneration. May the LORD God be so inclined to look upon you with pity and give you what you so desperately need and deliver you from the bondage which holds you before He takes your life.
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:01 PM

It must be challenging your struggles.....but one thing I can't understand for the life of me.... Why would you choose to be part of a conservative church or mainline protestant church and not a progressive liberal church? I mean we are the deep end....but even most conservative churches have pretty biblical, traditional views, although we are living in radically crazy times where things are changing fast and only very good theology can prevent a major slip....

Also why are you against ssm exactly? I'm not following your logic....seems inconsistent

It sounds like you are trying to reconcile orthodoxy with this particular struggle.... Kind of like the new gay conservative phemomenon in the political realm...which I also reject, but consider a much lesser thing
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:28 PM

Anthony, I recognize your questions as sincere and serious. I was raised in independent, fundamentalist Baptist churches. I remained so until in my 20s when various things happened that caused me to study to see if and how I'd been misled. My freewill idea of faith, was a challenge. This Dispensational eschatology I'd been raised on was just a convoluted system that I found explicitly contradicted by Scripture in too many places. I studied my way out and into a sovereignty of God position. I did not do this all on my own 'smarts'. After reading the 'shock treatment' of Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, I had my eyes opened. I read after men like John Gill, Robert L. Dabney, Matthew Poole, etc. I was not seeking a pillar of truth to follow as a leader, I was looking for reasoning, logic in how they approached Scriptures. I began to study books on hermeneutics as well. But, I left the question about my sexual problem to later in my life, fearing I'd too easily believe what I wished to be true. At a point in my life, I felt forced to approach my sexual defect using the serious study as I used on the theological issues as found in books like James P. Boyce, a Calvinist and supralapsarian himself. I have come to my position on my sexual situation, using the same approach as I did all of my earlier studies, on the standard subjects of theology.

I do not think homosexual life should be an in your face type rebellion, in spite of what some may think reading my posts. In my eyes a homosexual relationship must be discreet. As far as the male model, the pattern, it should be the good, married men of the body of Christ who the younger look up to as a guide. But, on the other hand we must recognize there are serious difficulties facing many that don't fit so neatly in the pat answers of much of evangelicalism. One thing is, being a theologian does not qualify one to use the terms of psychology and use them in different ways and deny what is known through psychology and common sense, the common experience. No homosexual male would choose such a life, especially if he is a regenerate child of God. It's my nature, now how do I handle it? My theology is strongly Calvinistic in the Baptist way so I cannot fit into a "progressive liberal" church.

The Bible does make quite clear that marriage is m-f, not same gender. I take Jesus words in Matt. 19:12 and apply them to me, recognizing that Bible commentators have understood that "eunuch" is not to be so literal there:

"There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12, Weymouth)

So, I turn to a passage in Ecclesiastes as a further guide:

"There is one that is alone, and he hath not a second; yea, he hath neither son nor brother; yet is there no end of all his labor, neither are his eyes satisfied with riches. For whom then, saith he, do I labor, and deprive my soul of good? This also is vanity, yea, it is a sore travail. Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falleth, and hath not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have warmth; but how can one be warm alone? And if a man prevail against him that is alone, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Eccl 4:8-12, ASV)

I prayed for a long time with this as a basis for my plea to God in Jesus' name. God answered and what my companion and I have learned about each other's past and how our personalities match, it is quite clear to me that even before my prayers, God had already been planning and working out the solution my buddy and myself both needed. By the way, I'm not a member of the Log Cabin Republicans either. ;-)

I find 1 Cor. 4:6 to be my guide and it kept me orthodox in faith, and also, it is how I approach my situation: "learn not to go beyond the things which are written". This is why I avoid theological constructions unless forced to do so such as on the Trinity. To me, infant baptism, and sprinkling is not supported by explicit statements of Scripture; but, and I emphasize, I do not break fellowship over matters such as that.
Posted By: chestnutmare

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:38 PM

Anthony, where do you see anywhere in what Perpetual Learner has said that he is struggling? Isn't that your projection on him? He denies that homosexuality is sinful and is attempting to convince others that God does not hate it and condemn it.
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:14 AM

He has to be struggling, at least at one point.... He admits that the Bible is pro-marriage, he is pro-male to male relationship and believes the bible does not condemn it although he is personally against ssm.... He's very,very confused about what scriptures teaches and even what he believes ..... He claims to be Calvinist but doesn't believe the main tenets apply to him and his desires???? Very bizarre .... Cognitive dissonance....
Posted By: chestnutmare

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:33 AM

Perhaps you would give my quote from Pink a read Anthony. Note the comment " A person may give full assent to the messages of God's servant, admire the gospel, yea, receive the Word with joy, and after all, be only a stony-ground hearer (Matt. 13:20-21)" You see a person can have an intellectual apprehension of right doctrine yet never embrace with his heart. I think you are yourself familiar with some who do that.
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by chestnutmare
Perhaps you would give my quote from Pink a read Anthony. Note the comment " A person may give full assent to the messages of God's servant, admire the gospel, yea, receive the Word with joy, and after all, be only a stony-ground hearer (Matt. 13:20-21)" You see a person can have an intellectual apprehension of right doctrine yet never embrace with his heart. I think you are yourself familiar with some who do that.

I agree!
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:58 AM

I wish to thank Pilgrim for his patience, and in this situation I know it was not easy for him. I will follow his suggestion, if anyone feels a desire to ask me anything or pursue this because of a true need, you can send me an email and I promise an answer: PerpetualLearner@gmx.cn
Posted By: Tom

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:22 AM

In light o this discussion I thought it might be appropriate to give a link to a broadcast by RC Sproul on homosexuality.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/homosexuality/homosexuality/
As I listened to RC on this subject, I really appreciated the way he came at the subject. He rightly showed biblically how homosexuality and other sins are abominations in the eyes of God. Yet at the same time the homosexual is created in the image of God and as such we should treat them in love. Yet it is not love to accept them just as the way they are. In other words if we really love them we should call them to repentance.
I agree with RC, when he says that there is no biological proof that one can be born a homosexual.
I believe PerpetualLearner would be benefit from this broadcast.
Tom
Posted By: Tom

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:02 AM

Pilgrim
I just noticed your post to me. I agree 100 % of what you said: yet it appears that I may have given you the impression I didn't.
Posted By: PerpetualLearner

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:51 AM

The Christian community would do well to know what they are talking about when using the words "homosexual" and "homosexuality". Maybe a good start is the chapter on sexual orientation in this 2015 edition college textbook.

http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=16

I see how easily the right wing lost the battle on 'gay marriage'. Pontificating on matters from ignorance is not very effective. I repeat, I don't go to a psychologist to learn about theology; and I don't go to a preacher to learn about psychology. How well did that work out for those impressed with George A. Rekers? He was a psychologist, ordained minister, ex-gay advocate, specialist on matters dealing with homosexuality, testifying before government committees. He was active in the farce of Reparative Therapy. Then he was caught vacationing with a "Rent Boy" returning to the Miami Int'l airport.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
The Christian community would do well to know what they are talking about when using the words "homosexual" and "homosexuality". Maybe a good start is the chapter on sexual orientation in this 2015 edition college textbook.... I repeat, I don't go to a psychologist to learn about theology; and I don't go to a preacher to learn about psychology.

David Meyer has no authority to dictate what a true Christian believes regarding homosexuals/lesbians/whatever. God's divinely inspired written Word is the only source of truth on the matter of how a man is to think, feel and act. In that sense, Scripture is the only reliable and authoritative source of "psychology", i.e., the "science of the soul". It is rather odd that you claim to love reading the Puritans who were 'masters of the soul" and whose views regarding such things as homosexuality are referred to pejoratively as "Puritanical". scratchchin

Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
I see how easily the right wing lost the battle on 'gay marriage'. Pontificating on matters from ignorance is not very effective. . . How well did that work out for those impressed with George A. Rekers? He was a psychologist, ordained minister, ex-gay advocate, specialist on matters dealing with homosexuality, testifying before government committees. He was active in the farce of Reparative Therapy. Then he was caught vacationing with a "Rent Boy" returning to the Miami Int'l airport.

1 The "right wing" lost the battle on gay marriage simply because the "right wing" turned their back, but particularly their mind and heart, on God. Contrary to popular myth, the "right wing" is not, I say, it is NOT Christian by any stretch of the imagination. What the "right wing" consists of, at least for the most part, although that is quickly going away, is a group of people who embrace to one degree or another a set of moral values and/or traditional values. But Christian they are not. The overwhelming number of so-called Evangelicals are unregenerate church-goers practicing 'churchianity'. The majority of visible churches in our day rarely even speak of sin, and those who dare to do so have redefined the term to mean simply various external deeds.

2. The lack of true biblical preaching/teaching has been at least contributed to the downfall of our societies and plunged it into moral decay. This was Satan's plan all along; to chip away at the foundation with the intent to topple the church, i.e., to make the church simply another facet of a corrupt society, aka: worldly. Paul warned about this danger and real threat in his Epistle to the Colossians:

Quote
Colossians 2:4-9 (ASV) "This I say, that no one may delude you with persuasiveness of speech. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk in him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,"

Contrariwise, the injunction to those who have been truly called by God and given a new nature through the regenerating work of God the Spirit is thus:
Quote
2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 (ASV) "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours."

There is little doubt in my mind that God has given the known "Western World" over to it's wicked desires and withdrawn the restraint of the Spirit it once had and when God truly blessed those nations with faithful men who proclaimed the truth without reserve. What Paul wrote in Romans 1 is nothing less than a perfect description of what the modern world is today. And, thus consistent with the title of this thread, "Nothing New Under the Sun?"

3. You can continue to post your convoluted use of Scripture to justify your abominable sin, which in the OT was worthy of death, use liberal 'scholars' and revised texts that are now sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, refer articles, etc., by non-Christian authors, but they will never have any influence to change my view nor any other Christ-honoring individual in regard to homosexuality or any other sexual deviancy. God is clear...... sin is sin and must be repented of, "for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them....who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them."
Posted By: Tom

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 PM

Pilgrim
I couldn't agree with you more about this.
Homosexuality is but one avenue that we are seeing depravity in.
It appears that the vast majority of professing Christians have also given way to secular thought where it comes to things like evolution.
Some theologians who were previously thought to be Orthidox have come out saying that not only is evolution biblical; Christianity must change or die.
The fact is however, that if we change to the opinions of society around us we die.
I am reminded of something the great John Owen said. (From memory)."you be killing sin, or sin will be killing you!"
Tom
Posted By: Anthony C.

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:20 AM

As far as PL is concerned, any truly reformed church would recognize these beliefs/lifestyle as heretical and excommunicate..... True love and concern requires proper response
Posted By: Tom

Re: Nothing New Under the Sun? - Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:35 AM

Anthony
You do know that PerpetualLearner considers us to be like Pharisees don't you? Maybe I should think of it as a compliment.
© 2018 The Highway