To all, but particularly ELCA and ELCIC members; What are your thoughts?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Lutheran Church to ordain Married Gay Pastor




http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/05/14/5565166-cp.html

[seajoy]

I'll give you 1 guess as to how I feel about this.

[RevCowboy]

As I said in the sub forum, I am quite angry about this. Its not just the fact that he is Gay (which is against our theology, confessions and current constitution), but he also has not been collaquized or called by the Synod. Just to note this ordination has not been sanctioned by the Eastern Synod, however, I think they should suspend (which may lead to excommunication) from the roster all those who participate. Its not enough to simply not sanction, there needs to disciplinary action.

I think this is another step down the path of a split in the ELCIC, between liberal east and conservative west.

[Tofferer]

It is a violation of the Scriptures (first) and the Lutheran Confessions (second). There is no place in scripture where God repeals the Law. Yes, it is fulfilled in Christ, but it is not abolished, repealed, or anulled. The Law is still in effect in that it shows us our sinfulness and need for a saviour. Christ is that saviour. However, if we are truly saved, we should not act in a manner contrary to the law. Moses would have likely stoned the ENTIRE congregation that is involved in this. This will certainly cause further division within the entire christian church as a whole.

[AngelusSax]

While there is some precedent for Law being changed/repealed/what-have-you (dietary laws were explicitly so, and the church has, through history, "repealed" many laws, actually in Acts saying the Mosaic law no longer holds any sway at all for Gentile Christians--it was all Noah law as the 4 biggies), I don't see that homosexuality, which may fall under the "sexual immorality" clause of the laws in place according to Acts, has been repealed.

But, if it is true that the law is given by God through the church now, as the book of Acts clearly indicates, as well as Jesus' statements to Peter on binding and loosing, then the church gets to decide. Not the congregation, the church. If the congregation goes against what the church has in place, then that congregation is undoubtedly in violation of not only church law, but Holy Law which is given through the church.

Practically speaking, I see nothing but division resulting from this. Even the mere mention of the word "homosexuality" is enough to make some people want to get up and leave and never come back. It will be interesting to see who has placed themselves under the church's authority-even in disagreement with the rulings of the church--and under their own authority.

As of now, the church has a position of requiring celibacy for those who are homosexual, and as far as I know, all straight people outside the bonds of holy matrimony. For any person or congregation to violate this is wrong, period. They are not being faithful. If they really want change and believe the Holy Spirit is calling for change, they need to make their case, either in writing or verbally, and let the synod assembly votes be cast and trust that the winning side is the side that is supposed to win.

[tisamy]

I grew up in what became the ELCA, which I have been visiting lately. That is what I'm familiar with. The congregation I've visited is a bit more conservative than the ELCA website suggests is the average. A lot of much older members there. I had left church altogether for a long time, then went to my mother-in-law's church - Church of God/Anderson Indiana. I'm leaning much closer to the LCMS nowadays.

I may have to part ways with ELCA altogether. I knew it may be the case when the study on sexuality was finished. There's a part of me that wants to stay and speak up and use my voice to try to change things. But realistically I think it's too far gone from that point. Sometimes I wonder if the majority of laity agree with how things are going within the ELCA.

Ordaining an actively gay pastor goes against scripture. To me , this is just not a cultural issue thing. I have read the various culturally based arguments concerning this and I find them lacking. I have read the ones saying it's about temple prostitution, paganism and idolatry. God is quite clear about this issue. The law does not change. Jesus clarified what marriage was meant to be. I don't see how scripture can be twisted to change the Law. The Law stands, though we are justified. Jesus said to the adulteress, 'Go and sin no more.' To dismiss the Law to live as we see fit is nothing more than idolatry of self and our own standards IMO- putting our own desires before God.

Our culture has gotten farther and farther from God. Seperation of church and State has become a dominant issue in America today. Joseph Campbell once said, to paraphrase, 'You can tell the importance of something to a society based on how big that something's buildings are.' He went on to explain how the temples in ancient civilzations were the biggest, the cathedrals in Europe were the biggest. And now, it's the buildings of commerce that tower over us. He went on to this saying he applied as being spoken of Americans, 'We work at our play, worship our work, and play at worship.'
I have never forgotten it and strive to worship at worship. Is there worship without obedience? Or should I say is there worship with open defience? The bible lists homosexuality as a sin. If the church were knowingly ordaining an actively, openly practicing unrepentant: liar, thief, drunkard, idolator, etc, to shepard her flock then I'd disagree with that too.
That's my two cents.:)

[AngelusSax]

The bible lists homosexuality as a sin. If the church were knowingly ordaining an actively, openly practicing unrepentant: liar, thief, drunkard, idolator, etc, to shepard her flock then I'd disagree with that too.

I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).
It may seem like that example is over-used, and perhaps it is. But the Law is the Law, and to break even the slightest part of any of it, including what you eat or wear, then you break, according to Scripture, the entire Law altogether.

It is good that you would oppose ordination of an unrepentant sinner regarding sins more than just homosexuality. But since we all break at least one of the 613 commandments from God, and none of us fully love our enemies, and since we don't order our lives to do so, we aren't repentant on that sin of not fully loving our enemies, can we ordain anyone who is unrepentant on any sin?

My argument is that we already do, in all honesty. The bar for what is sin and what we need to do in order to not sin is so high, none of us ever gets over save on a few issues. And it tends to be the issues we clear the hurdle on (at least we think we clear it) that we are most adamant others not do.

This isn't a problem with you personally or anything like that. It's a trap everyone falls into, myself included.

That being said, I realize we can't ordain unrepentant pedophiles or murderers or something like that. Of course there has to be a line. The question is exactly where we draw that line?

I still maintain that this is a church issue, and if we have placed ourselves under the authority of God through the church, then for us to leave when the church decides what we don't like is being unfaithful, and it's unfaithful to stay only as long as they agree with what we want.

Of course, issues that are directly essential to salvation (Trinity doctrine, salvation through Christ alone, etc.) are to remain constant, if if a church claims those are no longer in place, I would argue that it is no longer a church, but a cult or group gathering. Perhaps I'm in the minority, which is probably the case, as it usually is in any thread I'm on here, whether taking the conservative side or the liberal side (to use labels which are more eye of the beholder than abstract fact). But hopefully I have been reasonable in my minority-ness.

[tisamy]

I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).
It may seem like that example is over-used, and perhaps it is. But the Law is the Law, and to break even the slightest part of any of it, including what you eat or wear, then you break, according to Scripture, the entire Law altogether.

It is good that you would oppose ordination of an unrepentant sinner regarding sins more than just homosexuality. But since we all break at least one of the 613 commandments from God, and none of us fully love our enemies, and since we don't order our lives to do so, we aren't repentant on that sin of not fully loving our enemies, can we ordain anyone who is unrepentant on any sin?

My argument is that we already do, in all honesty. The bar for what is sin and what we need to do in order to not sin is so high, none of us ever gets over save on a few issues. And it tends to be the issues we clear the hurdle on (at least we think we clear it) that we are most adamant others not do.

This isn't a problem with you personally or anything like that. It's a trap everyone falls into, myself included.

That being said, I realize we can't ordain unrepentant pedophiles or murderers or something like that. Of course there has to be a line. The question is exactly where we draw that line?

I still maintain that this is a church issue, and if we have placed ourselves under the authority of God through the church, then for us to leave when the church decides what we don't like is being unfaithful, and it's unfaithful to stay only as long as they agree with what we want.

Of course, issues that are directly essential to salvation (Trinity doctrine, salvation through Christ alone, etc.) are to remain constant, if if a church claims those are no longer in place, I would argue that it is no longer a church, but a cult or group gathering. Perhaps I'm in the minority, which is probably the case, as it usually is in any thread I'm on here, whether taking the conservative side or the liberal side (to use labels which are more eye of the beholder than abstract fact). But hopefully I have been reasonable in my minority-ness.

I understand what your saying. :) Really I do.
There are sins the bible mentions that will keep people from inheriting the kingdom of God. There does seem to be a line as you say. I reference 1 Cor. 6
Paul tells us to follow the law as best we can. Homosexuality is a major lifestyle element. It's not a little thing.
I try to discern not judge. Even if it doesn't sound like it.:sorry:

Paul gave qualifications for church leaders.

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)

1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
"Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:8-13).

The only family lifestyle listed is husband and one wife.

FWIW what was forbidden in wearing clothing was wool and linen together. Deut. 22:11 A straight forward reason is not given.


"The great Rabbinic Commentator Rashi says (on Genesis 26:5), quoting the Midrash, that the Law of shatnez is a chok, a decree that the King has passed for His subjects, for which we do not know the reason. A great many of the Commandments in the Torah are of that sort. We do not know precisely why pork is forbidden, for example. We do not understand how the Purification by means of a red heifer works.
Therefore, we can never truly understand the entire reason for this Mitzvah, but we can understand some of the concepts within it, at some level. Maimonides, in his Guide to the Perplexed, points out that ancient pagan priests used to wear wool and linen processed together, because they knew how to make use of it for occult practices, including idol worship and other terrible things, and therefore the Torah forbade us to use it for all time, and ordered us to stay far away from shatnez, as well as all other practices of the pagans. " from beingjewish.com

[DaRev]

I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).

You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law. They are very distinct. Until you learn to differentiate between the two, you'll never 'get it.'

[DaRev]

FWIW what was forbidden in wearing clothing was wool and linen together. Deut. 22:11 A straight forward reason is not given.

From the context of that entire section, which seems to begin a chapter or two earlier, it was a command given to the Levites concerning their ceremonial attire.

[Willy]

I'll stick my neck out on this one. This is the right move. It won't be long and this will not be thought of as unusual. WE've been ordaining gay people forever. We just haven't been honest about it. So has the Missouri Synod. And if the Roman church didn't ordain gay people they probably would have few priests left. I think that gay and straight pastors should be held to the same standard--that if they are going to be involved in sexual expression (something most people want) it should be done in the context of a committed relationship.

[AngelusSax]

You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law. They are very distinct. Until you learn to differentiate between the two, you'll never 'get it.'

Where does the Bible say that what we don't follow today is ceremonial law? Every time I read it it lists laws, and while the NLT sometimes says one will be ceremonially unclean, it does so regarding many different laws, some of which we still hold to today in regards to the sexual realm, and some of which we don't in regards to the food realm.

All the Law is all the Law.

Deut. 26:16-19, upon completion of the many laws and regulations, says that if "you" (the intended audience of the day) obey all these commands (which include the one about wool and linen and various other things we tend to ignore), you will be set high above all other nations he has made.

So either the Levites, being the only ones the command pertained to, would be set that high, or all Israel would, and therefore all Israel was to be under these laws as well.

Of course it's more fun to pick and choose. Just some of us are honest enough to admit that picking and choosing is what happens in any church today on any laws/regulations they follow.

I'll stick my neck out on this one. This is the right move. It won't be long and this will not be thought of as unusual. WE've been ordaining gay people forever. We just haven't been honest about it. So has the Missouri Synod. And if the Roman church didn't ordain gay people they probably would have few priests left. I think that gay and straight pastors should be held to the same standard--that if they are going to be involved in sexual expression (something most people want) it should be done in the context of a committed relationship.

But let's ask this: If the church retains the current position, or even goes the other way all of a sudden, would you hold yourself under the authority of the church even in disagreement?

[DaRev]

Where does the Bible say that what we don't follow today is ceremonial law? Every time I read it it lists laws, and while the NLT sometimes says one will be ceremonially unclean, it does so regarding many different laws, some of which we still hold to today in regards to the sexual realm, and some of which we don't in regards to the food realm.

All the Law is all the Law.

Deut. 26:16-19, upon completion of the many laws and regulations, says that if "you" (the intended audience of the day) obey all these commands (which include the one about wool and linen and various other things we tend to ignore), you will be set high above all other nations he has made.

So either the Levites, being the only ones the command pertained to, would be set that high, or all Israel would, and therefore all Israel was to be under these laws as well.

Of course it's more fun to pick and choose. Just some of us are honest enough to admit that picking and choosing is what happens in any church today on any laws/regulations they follow.

The Ceremonial Laws pointed ahead to the coming Christ. Christ fulfilled those. We're not under those Laws any longer. It's the Moral Law that is still adhered to in the Church, which includes the sin of sodomy. Paul speaks very clearly about this.

[DaRev]

I'll stick my neck out on this one. This is the right move. It won't be long and this will not be thought of as unusual. WE've been ordaining gay people forever. We just haven't been honest about it. So has the Missouri Synod.

And when they're discovered, they are immediately defrocked, as they should be.

[AngelusSax]

The Ceremonial Laws pointed ahead to the coming Christ. Christ fulfilled those. We're not under those Laws any longer. It's the Moral Law that is still adhered to in the Church, which includes the sin of sodomy. Paul speaks very clearly about this.

So we're under Grace for our salvation unless we disobey one of the laws that may or may not be included for Gentile Christians under the book of Acts, in which case we're under Grace until we sin then we're under law and if we don't repent, salvation is yanked away because we're still under some Law?

That seems to be what your argument is. Perhaps I've merely misread/misunderstood you though. Further clarification would be helpful, and thanks in advance.

[DaRev]

I've merely misread/misunderstood you though. Further clarification would be helpful, and thanks in advance.

I've explained it to you numerous times on this board. I'm tired of repeating myself.

[AngelusSax]

I've explained it to you numerous times on this board. I'm tired of repeating myself.Yes, and your explanations have always seemed to be saying Grace just isn't enough, we have to obey parts of the law we particularly like in order to earn the rest of our salvation or maintain it, which sounds more Catholic than Lutheran. Of course, since you come from the Catholic church (I believe you mentioned once leaving Catholicism), that isn't too surprising.

In short: It seems like you have no problem saying to someone who disobeys a law you happen to not disobey, that they need to obey or else there'll be hell to pay, and most probably in the literal sense of the phrase.

Either Grace sets us free and saves us, or it doesn't. Obeying the law doesn't do jack regards to that, and any suggestion otherwise is antithetical to the Gospel message.

[DaRev]

Yes, and your explanations have always seemed to be saying Grace just isn't enough, we have to obey parts of the law we particularly like in order to earn the rest of our salvation or maintain it, which sounds more Catholic than Lutheran. Of course, since you come from the Catholic church (I believe you mentioned once leaving Catholicism), that isn't too surprising.

In short: It seems like you have no problem saying to someone who disobeys a law you happen to not disobey, that they need to obey or else there'll be hell to pay, and most probably in the literal sense of the phrase.

Either Grace sets us free and saves us, or it doesn't. Obeying the law doesn't do jack regards to that, and any suggestion otherwise is antithetical to the Gospel message.

If you had bothered to read anything that I've posted on this board you would know that's not true. I have never said any such thing. So, either you're ignorant or illiterate, I'm not sure which.

The Moral Law most certainly still applies today. Obeying it doesn't get us saved. Breaking it and being unrepentant gets us damned.

I truly have nothing more to say to you about this matter. You don't listen to anyone other than yourself anyway.

Ciao.

[LilLamb219]

Instead of looking at it as to whether or not we should obey a law, how about looking instead to how God views homosexuality and take his concerns into consideration? Does God love the practice of homosexuality?

[AngelusSax]

The Moral Law most certainly still applies today. Obeying it doesn't get us saved. Breaking it and being unrepentant gets us damned.Then we're all damned because we all break some part of it somewhere and none of us is truly repentant, or we wouldn't commit the same sin more than once or twice. Repentance isn't just being sorry and "trying to do better". It's ordering your life so actually do do better, right then and there.

Instead of looking at it as to whether or not we should obey a law, how about looking instead to how God views homosexuality and take his concerns into consideration? Does God love the practice of homosexuality?A much better argument. Of course, one could argue God does not love it, or one could argue that He does not, though He didn't then (history is full of precedent of God amending His laws/conditions/whatevers, as God no longer wants genocide but at one point commanded it).

And of course, as with so many other things, we can then get into "well is it the act itself or the intent that is the problem?" If it's the act, then the act is indeed a problem. If it's the intent, we need to know what intent is actually there that is the problem. Idol worship done through homosexual acts (as has been suggested by some, but I don't know I buy into it, or that I don't buy into it), or just the intent to have homosexual sex? If a man lusting after a woman is adultery, and it is, then how can we draw the line on homosexuals at acting on it? Shouldn't we condemn the lust that happens as well, and say if they exhibit signs of oogling a same-gendered person, they're out? Lots of questions arise, which would be nice to delve into elsewhere, perhaps.

I truly have nothing more to say to you about this matter. You don't listen to anyone other than yourself anyway.Actually I do. I just find you arrogant and the antithesis of God's love and mercy, so I find it hard to listen to you, specifically. But other people come off as humbly offering advice, rather than haughtily so. Them, I listen to, and even in disagreement, I can respect.

And just because I disagree does not mean I don't listen. It just means I disagree with what I'm listening to, because that's the way the usage of a brain works sometimes. People disagree. Get over it.

If you had bothered to read anything that I've posted on this board you would know that's not true. I have never said any such thing. So, either you're ignorant or illiterate, I'm not sure which.If breaking a law and being unrepentant means we are damned, then that means the grace of the act on the cross simply WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. There is NO other interpretation than that. You can argue that it is grace which allows us to repent and that repentence is itself grace, but that means that those who don't repent don't receive that grace, which leads us to Calvinism and double-predestination.

[tisamy]

[quote=AngelusSax;46989585]I still maintain that this is a church issue, and if we have placed ourselves under the authority of God through the church, then for us to leave when the church decides what we don't like is being unfaithful, and it's unfaithful to stay only as long as they agree with what we want......

quote]

After some thought, I will have to respectfully disagree in part. I hold the church as the body of Christ is made up of all believers including the saved and unsaved. Would I leave the church? No. Would I possibly go to another congregation or denomination? Maybe to LCMS? Yes. Such a decision would not be based on personal preference but on prayerful study of the scriptures.

[AngelusSax]

After some thought, I will have to respectfully disagree in part. I hold the church as the body of Christ is made up of all believers including the saved and unsaved. Would I leave the church? No. Would I possibly go to another congregation or denomination? Maybe to LCMS? Yes. Such a decision would not be based on personal preference but on prayerful study of the scriptures.The one problem here is that, if one includes "other denominations" in the church in this context (which they are certainly included in the Church Universal), then the problem is that no two denominations can agree on any one point it seems. So the problem isn't in claiming to not leave the Church, that much is true. The problem is finding a denomination that agrees with enough key elements that you can remain a member of it even in disagreement.

Personally, for better or worse, I'm a member of the ELCA. If the ELCA decides to ordain open gays, then I submit to that authority, and even if I come to a point of disagreement, I will still submit to that authority. That doesn't mean that if I ever have a vote I won't cast it in opposition, but that I am placing my trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the assemblies as He sees fit to decide what He wants decided. And if He wants something decided against what I think should be, I will still submit. After all, if God works to bring about a decision, I am no one to think I know better than God.

Having said all that, I can see where you're coming from and respect that. The general consensus today seems to be that we are under authority in the line, from bottom up, to congregation, then synod (as in regional synod, like Southern Ohio), then to the Synod (as in, ELCA as a whole), as our representative faction of the Church. But if one wants to just be under the Church, and not necessarily a synod, while I disagree I can respect it.

[Tofferer]

I will hold myself to higher standard than Willy. I would leave ANY church I was attending if they were to call a homosexual to the pulpit. God's moral laws are abundantly clear that this is not only a sin, but an utter abomination until to God. It was the final straw for the city of Sodom, Moses was given the commandment to stone those who committed this act, and even Paul spoke of it as being in direct opposition to God's design. While I am at it, let me go one step further. There is no other defination of marriage in scripture besides MAN AND WIFE.

[Tofferer]

I think I'd best clarify something from my previous post regarding the city of Sodom. Yes, I know full well that homosexuality apparently wasn't the only problem that city had. I've read and heard people give the opinion that "a lack of hospitality" towards the two angels was what finally caused the cities to be destroyed. However, my hermaneutics and old testament professors both are of the mindset, and I agree with thier logic, that the most inhospitable thing possible was to desire sexual relations with somebody of the same gender as yourself, especially since Lot tried to offer his virgin daughters to men of the city (which would have been considered an act of hopitality in that era) in an attempt to protect the two angels (not that they needed protection). This means that homosexuality should have been considered utterly repuganant to the hebraic mindset of Jesus day and was still considered worthy of stoning.

I don't care how people try to dress up and make something seem socially acceptable, it doesn't change the truth. SIN IS SIN! There are no loopholes, no repealing of the law as all has not yet been fulfilled. To claim that something is not a sin though scripture declares otherwise is to claim to know more than God. This is blasphemy.

[DailyBlessings]

I think I'd best clarify something from my previous post regarding the city of Sodom. Yes, I know full well that homosexuality apparently wasn't the only problem that city had. I've read and heard people give the opinion that "a lack of hospitality" towards the two angels was what finally caused the cities to be destroyed. However, my hermaneutics and old testament professors both are of the mindset, and I agree with thier logic, that the most inhospitable thing possible was to desire sexual relations with somebody of the same gender as yourself, especially since Lot tried to offer his virgin daughters to men of the city (which would have been considered an act of hopitality in that era) in an attempt to protect the two angels (not that they needed protection). This means that homosexuality should have been considered utterly repuganant to the hebraic mindset of Jesus day and was still considered worthy of stoning.

I don't care how people try to dress up and make something seem socially acceptable, it doesn't change the truth. SIN IS SIN! There are no loopholes, no repealing of the law as all has not yet been fulfilled. To claim that something is not a sin though scripture declares otherwise is to claim to know more than God. This is blasphemy.I understand this argument, but am surprised to find it on the lips of a Lutheran.

[seajoy]

Yes, and your explanations have always seemed to be saying Grace just isn't enough, we have to obey parts of the law we particularly like in order to earn the rest of our salvation or maintain it, which sounds more Catholic than Lutheran. Of course, since you come from the Catholic church (I believe you mentioned once leaving Catholicism), that isn't too surprising.

In short: It seems like you have no problem saying to someone who disobeys a law you happen to not disobey, that they need to obey or else there'll be hell to pay, and most probably in the literal sense of the phrase.

Either Grace sets us free and saves us, or it doesn't. Obeying the law doesn't do jack regards to that, and any suggestion otherwise is antithetical to the Gospel message.

Maybe if we sin really a lot, we are even more saved, huh AngSax? :doh:It seems like you just love to look at what folks here say, and make it into whatever you wish. Must be kinda fun for you, in a junior high sort of way.

Remeber that one verse in the bible where Jesus said to go and sin no more? Why would He say that? Perhaps it keeps us closer to Him.

Grow up.

[DaRev]

If breaking a law and being unrepentant means we are damned, then that means the grace of the act on the cross simply WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. There is NO other interpretation than that. You can argue that it is grace which allows us to repent and that repentence is itself grace, but that means that those who don't repent don't receive that grace, which leads us to Calvinism and double-predestination.

Those who don't repent are rejecting that grace. This has been explained countless times.

Remember this verse? Romans 6:1-2a, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!"

[seajoy]

Those who don't repent are rejecting that grace. This has been explained countless times.

Remember this verse? Romans 6:1-2a, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!"

That's the verse I was thinking of in the beginning my last post. Thanks.....nice to have a Pastor here. :)

[DailyBlessings]

Those who don't repent are rejecting that grace. This has been explained countless times.

Remember this verse? Romans 6:1-2a, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!"That verse says not to sin, most certainly. It says nothing at all about losing one's salvation by sinning. To say "one must do such and such to recieve God's grace" makes salvation a human work, even if that something is repenting of a certain deed. Salvation begins before one repents, and continues even though the old Adam rises up within us each morning, unrepentant and virulent. No code of conduct from the Law can save us from our sinful nature, and no egregious sin can separate from God what God has called to himself.

Do you repent of eating pork? Of marrying foreign women? Of wearing mized fabrics? No one can claim righteousness under the Law, not even if they think they are renouncing every sin. The inheritance of Adam is feeble.

[DaRev]

That verse says not to sin, most certainly. It says nothing at all about losing one's salvation by sinning. To say "one must do such and such to recieve God's grace" makes salvation a human work, even if that something is repenting of a certain deed. Salvation begins before one repents, and continues even though the old Adam rises up within us each morning, unrepentant and virulent. No code of conduct from the Law can save us from our sinful nature, and no egregious sin can separate from God what God has called to himself.

I have never said differently. Repentance is moved in us by the Holy Spirit. When we are unrepentant we are resisting the Holy Spirit, we are rejecting God's grace. That is a sign of unbelief, and unbelief is the only damnable sin. I have never said that our salvation is dependent on anything we do. But our damnation is most certainly dependent on what we do.

Do you repent of eating pork? Of marrying foreign women? Of wearing mized fabrics? No one can claim righteousness under the Law, not even if they think they are renouncing every sin. The inheritance of Adam is feeble.

There is no need of being repentant of those things since we are no longer held under the ceremonial laws. And I have never said we claim righteousness under the law. It's impossible.

[DailyBlessings]

There is no need of being repentant of those things since we are no longer held under the ceremonial laws. And I have never said we claim righteousness under the law. It's impossible.Would you describe the prohibition against sexual misconduct to belong to the Gospel, or to the Law?

[DaRev]

Would you describe the prohibition against sexual misconduct to belong to the Gospel, or to the Law?

Homosexuality is a sin. This is very clear in the Scriptures. When one is unrepentant they are acting against God's will, resisting the work of repentance by the Holy Spirit, and thus are rejecting God's grace. They are thus being held under the Law which convicts and condemns. This is not God's doing, but the will of the individual by their own choice, to resist and reject.

[seajoy]

Would you describe the prohibition against sexual misconduct to belong to the Gospel, or to the Law?
Do you think it's wrong to encourage people not to sin?

[LilLamb219]

Why would someone purposely want to engage in something that God finds abominable if they love Him?

[Zecryphon]

From what I've gathered by spending time in CP&E, homosexuals believe they are the way they are because God made them that way. Their thinking is "how can God be against an expression of love between two people in a committed and caring relationship? After all He made me this way." They want to rationalize their sin and lay the blame for what they are at the feet of God.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From what I've gathered by spending time in CP&E, homosexuals believe they are the way they are because God made them that way. Their thinking is "how can God be against an expression of love between two people in a committed and caring relationship? After all He made me this way." They want to rationalize their sin and lay the blame for what they are at the feet of God.

This way of thinking is the greatest ill facing society today. This new "doctrine of entitlement".

It seems to be everyones "rite" to have what they want to have, to think what ever they like, do what they want to do because they are entitled. Likewise, if their wants, actions, and thoughts offend any one, It's not their fault, but rather the one who is offended is a fault.

If they can read from Scripture that it is acceptable to be unrepentant (homosexual is antecedent to the whole issue), I'm surprised that they haven't taken it a step further and conclude that since it's God's fault Christ's sacrifice was to atone for God's sins. The way society is acting, they may have already arrived at that conclusion. Considering some of the other heresies throughout history, it's not that much of a stretch, is it?

Mark

[Zecryphon]

This way of thinking is the greatest ill facing society today. This new "doctrine of entitlement".

It seems to be everyones "rite" to have what they want to have, to think what ever they like, do what they want to do because they are entitled. Likewise, if their wants, actions, and thoughts offend any one, It's not their fault, but rather the one who is offended is a fault.

If they can read from Scripture that it is acceptable to be unrepentant (homosexual is antecedent to the whole issue), I'm surprised that they haven't taken it a step further and conclude that since it's God's fault Christ's sacrifice was to atone for God's sins. The way society is acting, they may have already arrived at that conclusion. Considering some of the other heresies throughout history, it's not that much of a stretch, is it?

Mark

No, it's not a stretch at all and given enough time not only will we see that Christ's sacrifice was to atone for God's sins, but that Christ wasn't even a real person, but a symbol of God's grace. I mean Baptism and Communion have gone symbolic, it's only a matter of time before this does too.

[DailyBlessings]

Homosexuality is a sin. This is very clear in the Scriptures. When one is unrepentant they are acting against God's will, resisting the work of repentance by the Holy Spirit, and thus are rejecting God's grace. They are thus being held under the Law which convicts and condemns. This is not God's doing, but the will of the individual by their own choice, to resist and reject.If homosexuality is a sin, then it transgresses the Law. Is that what you believe, that the prohibition against homosexuality belongs to the Law? Then, you say that one must first act in accordance with the Law, in order to be saved? This was the scholastic argument, but not Luther's: that salvation began with a change in the person, followed by the grace of God.

Do you think it's wrong to encourage people not to sin?
No, but I think it is very wrong indeed to tell someone that they must try to follow a moral code in order to be saved. This places you under the law, under which no one can justify themselves.

[BabyLutheran]

Just to be contrary because I love arguing. Being fat is a sin also (unrepentant gluttony), but we don't seem to hold that against any of our clergy.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against homosexual marriage, clergy, etc. It just seems like it's the easy sin to pile on and condemn when we all have our own version, just as grievous to our Lord. I just don;t hear much outcry about how sinful it is to eat enough food for 2 every day of our lives. I am guilty as charged myself.

[Zecryphon]

BL, it seems to me that the ELCA is not holding the act of simply being attraced to people of the same gender against their clergy either. The only thing they seem to have a problem with, is if the gay pastor is involved in a sexually-active relationship. Why should the ELCA ignore their own rules on this issue and why would anyone want to be a part of a church body that does not enforce it's own rules?

[LilLamb219]

There's a difference between tolerating a sin because there might be a known struggle to stop and embracing a sin that people think is ok to continue doing.

[Zecryphon]

I just don;t hear much outcry about how sinful it is to eat enough food for 2 every day of our lives. I am guilty as charged myself.

Fat people are practically demonized in our society. Thin and anorexic is what you want to be. Look at what the media puts forth as the preferred weight. Unless your ribcage doubles as a Xylophone you're overweight. Fat people are constantly bombarded with urges from "those who care" to get weight reduction surgery. Can you imagine the outcry that would ensue from the GLBT population if anyone suggested an operation to cure them of their affliction? But let's stick to the topic at hand which is the ordination of an openly gay man in the ELCA and not get sidetracked into a debate about whether or not gluttony is as serious of a sin or not. There's no weaker defense for a sin than trying to justify it by pointing to another commonly committed sin.

[DaRev]

If homosexuality is a sin, then it transgresses the Law. Is that what you believe, that the prohibition against homosexuality belongs to the Law? Then, you say that one must first act in accordance with the Law, in order to be saved? This was the scholastic argument, but not Luther's: that salvation began with a change in the person, followed by the grace of God.

:doh:

No, No, No! God acts first. He acts in us by giving us the Holy Spirit to work faith in us. The result of that work of faith in us is our desire to do God's will. When we sin, which we all do, the Holy Spirit works repentance in us, the result of which is our desire to seek God's forgiveness. That is not at all equated with our obeying the Law to be saved. It is the grace of God coming upon us and working in us.

When one sins and is convicted by the Law, which shows us our sin, and yet is not repentant, they are rejecting God's grace and resisting the Holy Spirit. This leads to damnation.

It's not all that difficult to understand. Unrepentant sin is not forgiven.

Being saved is totally God's work. Being damned is totally our own.

[Tofferer]

DaRev has this right. When we willfully choose to act against God's law, it is sin. Failure to recognize willfully unrepentant sin for what it is indicates a willful lack of understanding of the scripture. Naturally, scripture must always be the standard.

To phrase it another way, if we are truly saved, then we will want to do those things of the Law that are morally correct and up right. Indeed, did not Moses write in Leviticus 20:11 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."? This seems to be indicative of an everlasting decree. Certainly we do not put such to death any more, however, it does not mean that this is not an abomination. Certainly any who would deny this is in danger of being in opposition to God. Yes, the moral laws of the levitical code are still in effect, at least that is what I think.

[RevCowboy]

But let's stick to the topic at hand which is the ordination of an openly gay man in the ELCA and not get sidetracked into a debate about whether or not gluttony is as serious of a sin or not. There's no weaker defense for a sin than trying to justify it by pointing to another commonly committed sin.

The issue here in this thread is about someone being ordained in the ELCIC by a parachurch group, and that this person is being called to work in a ELCIC congregation. Its about what disciplinary action will be taken against this person, the folks who ordained him and the congregation that is calling him.

Now I am not defending homosexuality, but if the problem is ordaining an unrepentant sinner, than no one should be ordained. I live in a society that willing participates in economic systems that propagate extreme poverty around the world so that we can enjoy an over indulgent lifestyle. If being an unrepentant sinner is the issues, than no one should be ordained.

Given the donatist heresy, and the fact that the Augsburg confession upholds its condemnation of the donatists in article 8, if this fellow was legitimately ordained, would his being gay nullify his ministry?

I don't support gay marriage or the ordination of gays, but I also don't want to be a heretic. My church, the literal church of my family (its small and I am related to a lot of folks) could very well be moving in the direction of sanctioning same-sex marriage and the ordination of gays and I struggle with what my response will be....

[AngelusSax]

Maybe if we sin really a lot, we are even more saved, huh AngSax? :doh:It seems like you just love to look at what folks here say, and make it into whatever you wish. Must be kinda fun for you, in a junior high sort of way.That was mature.

Remeber that one verse in the bible where Jesus said to go and sin no more? Why would He say that? Perhaps it keeps us closer to Him.Yeah. And considering we all sin every single day, and it is only those without sin worthy of casting stones, I'm not one to cast stones. Apparently some people however have no hang-up with that.

You can tell me to grow up all you want. What that would mean though would be that I would have to lie to you to appease you, and that would be sin. Don't make me lie. I don't want to.

Now I am not defending homosexuality, but if the problem is ordaining an unrepentant sinner, than no one should be ordained.Amen. Not even people on here who are reverends. We should revoke their ordination because I guarantee there is some sin somewhere they are unrepentant for. Perhaps the sin of not selling all they have and giving money to the poor? That would make, assuming an adherence to all of the 10 commandments and other laws, full completion of obeying the law, according to Jesus (who admittedly isn't Paul which many on here would rather point to than Jesus it seems). If we aren't in full completion of obeying the law, we are in sin. Period. It can be dressed up as "ceremonial" vs. "moral" until judgment day. The fact is the Law is the Law is the Law, and the standard is impossibly high.

But hey, I need to go grow up now and learn to just agree with people I don't agree with because otherwise it's just being childish. I forgot that maturity means being a drone. (Obviously this last statement is not directed at you, RevCowboy. I apologize if my placement after a quotation from you made you think otherwise).

[BabyLutheran]

Fat people are practically demonized in our society. Thin and anorexic is what you want to be. Look at what the media puts forth as the preferred weight. Unless your ribcage doubles as a Xylophone you're overweight. Fat people are constantly bombarded with urges from "those who care" to get weight reduction surgery. Can you imagine the outcry that would ensue from the GLBT population if anyone suggested an operation to cure them of their affliction? But let's stick to the topic at hand which is the ordination of an openly gay man in the ELCA and not get sidetracked into a debate about whether or not gluttony is as serious of a sin or not. There's no weaker defense for a sin than trying to justify it by pointing to another commonly committed sin.

I never said I defended the sin, I just said it's the easiest sin to vilify in our culture for some reason. If we stopped ordaining ministers because they were in unrepentant sin, there would be very few ministers. We all have a sin, some more hidden than others, and we sure aren't very repentant about them. I think it's just real easy to pick on gays.

I guess gluttony and greed are just less easy to pin down.

Like I said earlier, I just like to argue with people to make them think a little. I agree 100% with gays not being ordained, but if we exclude them, let's exclude others too.

[RevCowboy]

But hey, I need to go grow up now and learn to just agree with people I don't agree with because otherwise it's just being childish. I forgot that maturity means being a drone. (Obviously this last statement is not directed at you, RevCowboy. I apologize if my placement after a quotation from you made you think otherwise).

No problem, I didn't think you were talking to me. You are older than me, if I were to tell you to grow up, than I should probably go back to Sunday School.;)

Something that I have been thinking about reading this discussion about the law is the first few chapters Romans. Paul writes in Romans 3 that even if one could be righteous according to the Law, it would not make us righteous according to God. Only God can bestow that kind of righteousness. God extends us forgiveness for our sins, known and unknown. I don't know how that affects this conversation, other than to say that righteousness according to the law is only for the purpose of living with one another on earth, because in the end the only righteousness that matter is that of grace.

[DailyBlessings]

It's not all that difficult to understand. Unrepentant sin is not forgiven.

Being saved is totally God's work. Being damned is totally our own.
Apparently damning others is our work... I doubt there is a single sinless pastor in the whole of the Lutheran church, nor a single one who doesn't try to pretend that their sins are righteousness. That is what sin does. Claiming to repent of all your sins is the surest way to become a hypocrite. Yes, we should try to repent of our sins, known and unknown. But I don't know a single person who does not mask their pet sins with some self-justification or another- calling themselves pious for placing others under the Law, claiming authority from God when they have given it to themselves, excusing their vices as a just response to stress or an attempt to "get along with their congregation" (a favorite one I've heard in defense of alcohol consumption).

Luther was right- sin does not just desire to be ignored, it must pretend to be righteous in imitation of God. And doing what you are doing, claiming that another person is "less repentant" than you are is a sure way to fall into that trap. You would turn your own wretched recognition of sinfulness into a badge of pride!

Luckily our salvation does not come from being pious, or sinless, or "sorry enough" to induce God to forgive us. It comes only though the love, grace, and ultimate forgiveness of Christ. You reject that grace every morning when the old Adam rises up within you, and you again do the things that you claimed to be sorry about yesterday. But the promise is not diminished, and the new self is born again in the waters of baptism.

[DaRev]

Apparently damning others is our work... I doubt there is a single sinless pastor in the whole of the Lutheran church, nor a single one who doesn't try to pretend that their sins are righteousness. That is what sin does. Claiming to repent of all your sins is the surest way to become a hypocrite.

Yet, as believers, that is exactly what we do when we confess. We confess to God those sins known to us and those known only to Him.

I've never said that anyone is sinless. I defy you to show me where I have. What I have said is that if someone is blatantly unrepentant, they are rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit. That is a clear sign on unbelief and that is a damnable sin.

God's Law convicts us, condemns us, and crushes us. That is it's purpose. When someone blatantly ignores God's word of Law by rejecting the Holy Spirit's work of repentance in us, they are held under the Law. They have rejected the grace of God and therefore are in danger of losing their salvation.

Yes, we should try to repent of our sins, known and unknown. But I don't know a single person who does not mask their pet sins with some self-justification or another- calling themselves pious for placing others under the Law, claiming authority from God when they have given it to themselves, excusing their vices as a just response to stress or an attempt to "get along with their congregation" (a favorite one I've heard in defense of alcohol consumption).

Luther was right- sin does not just desire to be ignored, it must pretend to be righteous in imitation of God. And doing what you are doing, claiming that another person is "less repentant" than you are is a sure way to fall into that trap. You would turn your own wretched recognition of sinfulness into a badge of pride!

The word of God is clear. It's no secret that someone who is an active homosexual, especially someone who claims to be a man of God, that they are unrepentant. How is that my turning anything into a "badge of pride"? :scratch:

Luckily our salvation does not come from being pious, or sinless, or "sorry enough" to induce God to forgive us. It comes only though the love, grace, and ultimate forgiveness of Christ. You reject that grace every morning when the old Adam rises up within you, and you again do the things that you claimed to be sorry about yesterday. But the promise is not diminished, and the new self is born again in the waters of baptism.

It's true that the life of a Christian is a life on continuous repentance. But blatant unrepentance is not the sign of a Christian but of an unbeliever. Salvation does not come from being pious or sinless or "sorry enough". It comes from the grace of God. That grace is made evident in the believer by his constant repentance, one of the fruits of faith. One who is outright sinful without repentance is lost. They are resisting the grace of God which leads to damnation. It's quite simple, really.

[seajoy]

You can tell me to grow up all you want. What that would mean though would be that I would have to lie to you to appease you, and that would be sin. Don't make me lie. I don't want to.

But hey, I need to go grow up now and learn to just agree with people I don't agree with because otherwise it's just being childish. I forgot that maturity means being a drone. (Obviously this last statement is not directed at you, RevCowboy. I apologize if my placement after a quotation from you made you think otherwise).
In saying I'd like to see you grow up, I'm talking about not twisting what others say. I surely don't think you would to see things as I put them to you, nor would I want you to if you don't believe that way.
What you have said about my casting stones, makes me see that you think I see myself as sinless and a judge. That is not me. I'm quite aware of my sin and need for my Savior. If sins aren't shown to folks, they don't know they are doing them, and it could lead to separation from God and thus damnation. I care too much about people to just leave things go.

I highly doubt RevCowboy would have thought you were talking to him with your closing remarks. That was just another stab at me. Maturity means not twisting words to suit your agenda. You accused Rev of thinking that keeping the Law will save us. You know darn well he doesn't believe that. We have many posts since you posted that, all aimed at trying to prove Rev and others here think keeping the Law saves. All you have done is sidetrack the issue that homosexuallity is a sin. Your diversion worked quite well really.

[Zecryphon]

The issue here in this thread is about someone being ordained in the ELCIC by a parachurch group, and that this person is being called to work in a ELCIC congregation. Its about what disciplinary action will be taken against this person, the folks who ordained him and the congregation that is calling him.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now I am not defending homosexuality, but if the problem is ordaining an unrepentant sinner, than no one should be ordained.

Is that the problem? I thought the problem was more simplistic, like the person who is up for ordination is conciously and knowingly violating the rules of the church to which he may be ordained. What is the ELCIC position on a pastor who is engaged in a sexaully active homosexual relationship? Is this person fit to be in the pulpit according to the ELCIC rules? If not, that should end the matter right there. Yet, I seem to remember reading in that article that there were those in the church that wanted the rules set aside for this man. Why does he get preferential treatment in this matter? Because he's gay?

I live in a society that willing participates in economic systems that propagate extreme poverty around the world so that we can enjoy an over indulgent lifestyle. If being an unrepentant sinner is the issues, than no one should be ordained.

You'd have to prove that everyone is indeed an unrepentant sinner. Since that is a matter of the heart, I don't see how you could come to a definitive conclusion about a person's level of repentance towards any sin.

Given the donatist heresy, and the fact that the Augsburg confession upholds its condemnation of the donatists in article 8, if this fellow was legitimately ordained, would his being gay nullify his ministry?

The heresy of Donatism is limited to the sin of the minister affecting the validity of the sacraments, if I remember correctly. Are the sacraments the whole of a person's ministry? Plus, for me to answer your question about this man's ministry effectively, I'd need to know what being gay means to you. Does being gay mean being attracted to people of the same gender? Or does being gay mean being involved in a physical relationship with a member of the same gender?

I don't support gay marriage or the ordination of gays, but I also don't want to be a heretic. My church, the literal church of my family (its small and I am related to a lot of folks) could very well be moving in the direction of sanctioning same-sex marriage and the ordination of gays and I struggle with what my response will be....

The only advice I can give you, should the scenario you describe ever become a reality, is to evaluate the scriptural evidence they present for this move towards acknowledging gay marriage, which is a total contradiction of terms. You must also pray about this extensively. If the evidence the church puts forth is more social than Bibilcal, I believe you will know what you should do. The question then remains will you do it? Familial loyalty to the church does complicate this and there is no cut and dried answer to your predicament.

[Zecryphon]

I never said I defended the sin, I just said it's the easiest sin to vilify in our culture for some reason. If we stopped ordaining ministers because they were in unrepentant sin, there would be very few ministers. We all have a sin, some more hidden than others, and we sure aren't very repentant about them. I think it's just real easy to pick on gays.

I guess gluttony and greed are just less easy to pin down.

Like I said earlier, I just like to argue with people to make them think a little. I agree 100% with gays not being ordained, but if we exclude them, let's exclude others too.

I never said I defended the sin, I just said it's the easiest sin to vilify in our culture for some reason. If we stopped ordaining ministers because they were in unrepentant sin, there would be very few ministers.

How do you prove conclusively that a person is in unrepentant sin?

We all have a sin, some more hidden than others, and we sure aren't very repentant about them. I think it's just real easy to pick on gays.

It's just as easy to pick on the obese and gluttons as your previous post proved.

I guess gluttony and greed are just less easy to pin down.

Like I said earlier, I just like to argue with people to make them think a little.

So people who disagree with you aren't thinking? Is this what you really believe? Maybe you just like to argue with people because you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I agree 100% with gays not being ordained, but if we exclude them, let's exclude others too.

We should exclude anyone from ordianation based upon the scriptures, not our own personal prejudices.

[Tofferer]

Why do I feel as if during this debate we've forgotten the term "Sola Scripturem"?

[RevCowboy]

Thanks for the clarification.



Is that the problem? I thought the problem was more simplistic, like the person who is up for ordination is conciously and knowingly violating the rules of the church to which he may be ordained. What is the ELCIC position on a pastor who is engaged in a sexaully active homosexual relationship? Is this person fit to be in the pulpit according to the ELCIC rules? If not, that should end the matter right there. Yet, I seem to remember reading in that article that there were those in the church that wanted the rules set aside for this man. Why does he get preferential treatment in this matter? Because he's gay?

Presently the ELCIC does not allow practicing homosexuals to be pastors and the Bishop of the synod (district) into which he was unlawfully ordained sent two letters of warning to the congregation that is ordaining him.

What I meant by asking if its about ordaining unrepentant sinners, was to point to that fact that this ordination is about violating the theology, constitution and policies of the ELCIC. The issue of ordaining unrepentant sinners is separate in my mind. I think we are on the same page, we just said it differently.



You'd have to prove that everyone is indeed an unrepentant sinner. Since that is a matter of the heart, I don't see how you could come to a definitive conclusion about a person's level of repentance towards any sin.

So if a person is unaware of their sin, they are not guilty of it? I believe this could lead to a slippery slope or argument. I am certain that this fellow who has been ordained believes with all his heart that is not sinning by being Gay, or by being ordained to a church whose theology should not allow him to be ordained.

The heresy of Donatism is limited to the sin of the minister affecting the validity of the sacraments, if I remember correctly. Are the sacraments the whole of a person's ministry? Plus, for me to answer your question about this man's ministry effectively, I'd need to know what being gay means to you. Does being gay mean being attracted to people of the same gender? Or does being gay mean being involved in a physical relationship with a member of the same gender?

Pastors are called to Word and Sacrament ministry, everything that they do flows out of this calling and is intimately connected to it. I am not saying that Pastors can and should be people or objectionable morals, but God can work through anyone, including murderers, prostitutes, thieves and more.

However, despite the fact that God can and does work through sinners, I do not consider this man's ministry valid as it is not presently a ministry sanctioned by the whole ELCIC.


The only advice I can give you, should the scenario you describe ever become a reality, is to evaluate the scriptural evidence they present for this move towards acknowledging gay marriage, which is a total contradiction of terms. You must also pray about this extensively. If the evidence the church puts forth is more social than Bibilcal, I believe you will know what you should do. The question then remains will you do it? Familial loyalty to the church does complicate this and there is no cut and dried answer to your predicament.

Thanks for the support. The reality is the church will split if this goes forward. However, the ELCIC has decided at its last two conventions that it did not want to begin the practice of blessing same sex marriage and that it wanted to uphold is present understanding of human sexuality.

I think a split may good for the church, that being said, its hard because we are so small and inter-related. Families will divided, they already are divided. The thing that saddens me is that this issues is so utterly peripheral to the mission of the church and its keeping us from that mission.

[Zecryphon]

Presently the ELCIC does not allow practicing homosexuals to be pastors and the Bishop of the synod (district) into which he was unlawfully ordained sent two letters of warning to the congregation that is ordaining him.

What I meant by asking if its about ordaining unrepentant sinners, was to point to that fact that this ordination is about violating the theology, constitution and policies of the ELCIC. The issue of ordaining unrepentant sinners is separate in my mind. I think we are on the same page, we just said it differently.

Yeah, I think we probably do agree.




Originally Posted by Zecryphon http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47020420#post47020420) You'd have to prove that everyone is indeed an unrepentant sinner. Since that is a matter of the heart, I don't see how you could come to a definitive conclusion about a person's level of repentance towards any sin.

"So if a person is unaware of their sin, they are not guilty of it? I believe this could lead to a slippery slope or argument. I am certain that this fellow who has been ordained believes with all his heart that is not sinning by being Gay, or by being ordained to a church whose theology should not allow him to be ordained."

I didn't suggest that if a person is unaware of their sin that they are not guilty of it. I asked a question. How can you prove that anybody is an unrepentant sinner? We can easily say they are based on what we see. But just saying something doesn't make it true. We have to prove it. How do you prove this accusation?


Originally Posted by Zecryphon http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47020420#post47020420) The heresy of Donatism is limited to the sin of the minister affecting the validity of the sacraments, if I remember correctly. Are the sacraments the whole of a person's ministry? Plus, for me to answer your question about this man's ministry effectively, I'd need to know what being gay means to you. Does being gay mean being attracted to people of the same gender? Or does being gay mean being involved in a physical relationship with a member of the same gender?



Pastors are called to Word and Sacrament ministry, everything that they do flows out of this calling and is intimately connected to it. I am not saying that Pastors can and should be people or objectionable morals, but God can work through anyone, including murderers, prostitutes, thieves and more.

However, despite the fact that God can and does work through sinners, I do not consider this man's ministry valid as it is not presently a ministry sanctioned by the whole ELCIC.

It is true that God can and does work through sinners, but that stance can lead to an "ends justifies the means" mindset. If God can work through sinners, how can a church then deny anyone the office of ministry when everyone is a sinner? Follow that logic long enough and you'll end up finding a way to justify every sinful action.



Originally Posted by Zecryphon http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47020420#post47020420) The only advice I can give you, should the scenario you describe ever become a reality, is to evaluate the scriptural evidence they present for this move towards acknowledging gay marriage, which is a total contradiction of terms. You must also pray about this extensively. If the evidence the church puts forth is more social than Bibilcal, I believe you will know what you should do. The question then remains will you do it? Familial loyalty to the church does complicate this and there is no cut and dried answer to your predicament.

Thanks for the support. The reality is the church will split if this goes forward. However, the ELCIC has decided at its last two conventions that it did not want to begin the practice of blessing same sex marriage and that it wanted to uphold is present understanding of human sexuality.

I think a split may good for the church, that being said, its hard because we are so small and inter-related. Families will divided, they already are divided. The thing that saddens me is that this issues is so utterly peripheral to the mission of the church and its keeping us from that mission.

[BabyLutheran]

How do you prove conclusively that a person is in unrepentant sin?

Can't do that with gays either, at least not all of them.



It's just as easy to pick on the obese and gluttons as your previous post proved.

It is not picking on them, I am one of them. No one says they are living in sin and should be excluded from authority, but they should since it is a sin to be a glutton



So people who disagree with you aren't thinking? Is this what you really believe? Maybe you just like to argue with people because you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong.

No I don't believe I am right, in fact, I am probably the least sure of myself of anyone on this forum. That is why I don't accept blanket statements about most anything. If you argue that gays should not be ordained based on scripture, I do agree with that. When they started using unrepentant sin as a reason, that's when I decide to start the gluttony and greed thing.



We should exclude anyone from ordianation based upon the scriptures, not our own personal prejudices.

Agree 100%. I am the least prejudiced person around.

[Zecryphon]

How do you prove conclusively that a person is in unrepentant sin?

Can't do that with gays either, at least not all of them.

How does this answer my question? If you can't do it with all of the gays, how do you prove it with some of the gays? Which is what your answer seems to suggest is possible.

It's just as easy to pick on the obese and gluttons as your previous post proved.

It is not picking on them, I am one of them. No one says they are living in sin and should be excluded from authority, but they should since it is a sin to be a glutton


Well you just did say it, so yes someone has now said it. You also suggested that gluttons should be denied the office of ministry because they are engaged in a sin in post # 39, when you said:
Being fat is a sin also (unrepentant gluttony), but we don't seem to hold that against any of our clergy.

So people who disagree with you aren't thinking? Is this what you really believe? Maybe you just like to argue with people because you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong.

No I don't believe I am right, in fact, I am probably the least sure of myself of anyone on this forum. That is why I don't accept blanket statements about most anything.

Come on. Who do you think you're kidding? You're on the internet, posting your thoughts about various topics to people you'll most likely never meet. What would drive you to do that, if you didn't start with the assumption that you're right and everybody else is wrong? You may not accept blanket statements, but you have no problem making them. Also from post # 39:

I just don;t hear much outcry about how sinful it is to eat enough food for 2 every day of our lives.

So according to you, ALL fat people everywhere eat enough food for two people every day of their lives. How is that not a blanket statement? Plus, there is no way you could know for certain how much food any fat person eats in a given day. Overeating is not the only cause of gaining weight. There are medical reasons that contribute to people becoming fat and ultimately obese. Now your statement may be true for you, and if it is, you should have made that clear.

If you argue that gays should not be ordained based on scripture, I do agree with that. When they started using unrepentant sin as a reason, that's when I decide to start the gluttony and greed thing.

So instead of staying on topic and defending your stance Biblically, you'd rather derail the thread, so we can focus on irrelevant topics?
We should exclude anyone from ordianation based upon the scriptures, not our own personal prejudices.
Agree 100%. I am the least prejudiced person around.

Actually, you're not. We all are guilty of judging people without having all the facts. That's what prejudiced means, it means to pre-judge.

[BabyLutheran]

OK I give up, I never meant to start a world war, I was just trying to make a point

Seems like you are judging me as well, and for that I am grieved.

I am not as astute as you all obviously are about debating and so I will stay out of it. Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is a villain.

I wish I were more capable of expressing myself in writing, but I am not good at it.

[Zecryphon]

Where did I say anyone who disagreed with me is a villian? Please provide that statement by me or retract your false charge against me. It's a sin to bear false witness, ya know. It's typical to hurl personal insults when you can't defend your points, so I'm not surprised by this behavior from you.

[BabyLutheran]

Please forgive me for my false witness, and I am being sincere.

I am just horrible at debating, and I have learned my lesson not to ever post again in a debate thread.

[Melethiel]

Come on. Who do you think you're kidding? You're on the internet, posting your thoughts about various topics to people you'll most likely never meet. What would drive you to do that, if you didn't start with the assumption that you're right and everybody else is wrong?
I assume that goes for you as well? You're being awfully aggressive in this thread.

[DaRev]

It can be difficult not to be aggressive when everything that is being said is twisted and distorted, which puts us constantly on the defensive.

[Zecryphon]

I assume that goes for you as well? You're being awfully aggressive in this thread.

I assume I'm right until I am proven wrong. How am I being aggressive? I'm dealing with what people write and not launching into personal attacks or twisting what people say.

[Zecryphon]

You're forgiven, BabyLutheran.

[BabyLutheran]

Thank you, and I will re read and think about what I type a little more carefully from now on before I hit the "post" button.

[Zecryphon]

Thank you, and I will re read and think about what I type a little more carefully from now on before I hit the "post" button.

Here's are some tips about effective debate. Leave your personal opinions out of your statements as much as possible. Make statements you can support either with the scriptures or other evidence depending on what the subject of the thread is. When you are not you'r enot posting personal opinions or projections in a thread, your posts will be much tighter and more effective. :thumbsup:

[seajoy]

Here's are some tips about effective debate. Leave your personal opinions out of your statements as much as possible. Make statements you can support either with the scriptures or other evidence depending on what the subject of the thread is. When you are not you'r enot posting personal opinions or projections in a thread, your posts will be much tighter and more effective. :thumbsup:
Good lesson for me.....I get all cranky at times, and should keep that to more of a minimum. :blush: Thanks Zec.

[Zecryphon]

You're welcome, Seajoy. :wave:

[LutheranMafia]

How is being in love a sin? Promiscuity is the sin, not being in love. A majority of gays are extremely promiscuous. What other source of sin is there in the homosexual community? Why were straights in Africa hit ten times harder by AIDS than gays in the US? Because they were that much more promiscuous.

What other source of sin is there in homosexuality than promiscuity? If it is a sin simply in and of itself, then why isn't liking ugly chicks just as much of a sin?

[WildStrawberry]

How is being in love a sin? Promiscuity is the sin, not being in love. A majority of gays are extremely promiscuous. What other source of sin is there in the homosexual community? Why were straights in Africa hit ten times harder by AIDS than gays in the US? Because they were that much more promiscuous.

What other source of sin is there in homosexuality than promiscuity? If it is a sin simply in and of itself, then why isn't liking ugly chicks just as much of a sin?

Actually, it's not that they're MORE promiscuous but that they don't have the...erm...STUFF...available to help cut down on the spreading of the disease.

And as for the other part...the ugly chicks comment...Uh...WTHeck?

Kae

[BabyLutheran]

I think he meant NOT liking ugly chicks.

[WildStrawberry]

Even then, it's apples and oranges. It has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

*shrug* It's pretty typical though. Toss out a red herring (or a red 'fisk in Zec's case) and try to lure people off the track.

Kae

[DaRev]

How is being in love a sin? Promiscuity is the sin, not being in love. A majority of gays are extremely promiscuous. What other source of sin is there in the homosexual community? Why were straights in Africa hit ten times harder by AIDS than gays in the US? Because they were that much more promiscuous.

What other source of sin is there in homosexuality than promiscuity? If it is a sin simply in and of itself, then why isn't liking ugly chicks just as much of a sin?

It depends on the object of the love. Remember, "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." When the object of our love is not God pleasing, it is sinful. When one is in love with someone of the same gender, it is not God-pleasing, thus it is sinful.

[Zecryphon]

Even then, it's apples and oranges. It has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

*shrug* It's pretty typical though. Toss out a red herring (or a red 'fisk in Zec's case) and try to lure people off the track.

Kae

I would never toss out a red 'fisk. I need all my fisks to beat the heretics into repentance. ^_^

[WildStrawberry]

I would never toss out a red 'fisk. I need all my fisks to beat the heretics into repentance. ^_^

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/Kaemea/smilies/trout.gif


Kae

[Zecryphon]

You got it! LOL

[seajoy]

If it is a sin simply in and of itself, then why isn't liking ugly chicks just as much of a sin?
:eek: Goodness, my hubby has been sinning for going on 28yrs! :doh:

[BabyLutheran]

And he ain't even repentant! lol

[LutheranMafia]

Actually, it's not that they're MORE promiscuous but that they don't have the...erm...STUFF...available to help cut down on the spreading of the disease.
I don't really understand your point here, you mean in the patootie? Perhaps we should just move on to another subject in this topic...:sorry:

And as for the other part...the ugly chicks comment...Uh...WTHeck?

Kae Well… that’s just the way I think about it. I went to Georgia Tech which was 1/4th geeky homely girls (at least back then), and another 1/4th were gay men, so I had a number of both homely girls and gays show interest. It struck me in pretty much the same way. :sick:

[LutheranMafia]

It depends on the object of the love. Remember, "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
Yes, but money won't love you back!
When the object of our love is not God pleasing, it is sinful. When one is in love with someone of the same gender, it is not God-pleasing, thus it is sinful.But why is it not God-pleasing?

I find lesbians to be gross because (a) it is heavily associated with mental health problems, mostly as a result of anger at men, and (b) it goes against the natural order. I’m not talking about the hetero order, but rather the instinctive response of the eldest surviving females to the death of all the mature males in the clan or tribe. It is natural for older women in this case to take on a decidedly asexual form of lesbianism in order to save the tribe. There are other cultures, even in Eastern Europe, that readily accept this custom, and the amazing thing is that these women do not look at all like the gross appearance of lesbians in this country. They actually look like charming and handsome men, not like haggly man haters at all. It is a natural biological reaction to the devastation of warfare, completely unlike virtually all lesbians in this country.

[WildStrawberry]

I don't really understand your point here, you mean in the patootie? Perhaps we should just move on to another subject in this topic...:sorry:

No, I mean condoms. They're a VERY poor country and those things are...well...not as readily available. Plus, I know how men think...

Well… that’s just the way I think about it. I went to Georgia Tech which was 1/4th geeky homely girls (at least back then), and another 1/4th were gay men, so I had a number of both homely girls and gays show interest. It struck me in pretty much the same way. :sick:

So, what you're saying is, your bigoted against both gays and homely girls.

Nice.

Kae

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well… that’s just the way I think about it. I went to Georgia Tech which was 1/4th geeky homely girls (at least back then), and another 1/4th were gay men, so I had a number of both homely girls and gays show interest. It struck me in pretty much the same way. :sick:

And you stayed?

Talk about studious dedication!:D

[LutheranMafia]

So, what you're saying is, your bigoted against both gays and homely girls.

Nice.
Have I made a comment about the salvation of the homely? :holy:

[LutheranMafia]

And you stayed?

Talk about studious dedication!:DAll technical universities are like that if they are hard to get into. Gay guys are statistically smarted and pretty girls don't want to strain their brain so hard if they don't have to.

The presence of so many gay guys didn't bother me nearly as much as the absence of pretty chicks. But that didn't stop me from swooping on the few pretty chicks that were there!

[BabyLutheran]

Not you, LM, you would never do such a thing!

[Radiata]

I am sick and tired of how the church treats homosexuality. Yes, we all know that it is a sin as marked in the Law, and also by Paul, but why is it given so much attention? The church has made it out to be the sin of all sins, when in fact, it is actually no different than lying, stealing, or even murder. Are there homosexuals in heaven? Yes. I know of someone that doesn't want to be one, and prays constantly that he will change. Is this person committing an unforgivable sin even though he is repenting? Of course not. Then people say that it's ok if it is in a single monogamous relationship. Where do they come up with bull like that?

Let sins be sins! Look on homosexuality the same way one would ANY other crime! As for a homosexual belonging to the clergy? As long as he knows that it is a sin, and does everything in his power to resist urges, why not let him preach? How is this man any different from any conservative straight pastor seeing as they are both repentant sinners? Time to go.

/rant

[DaRev]

:eek: Goodness, my hubby has been sinning for going on 28yrs! :doh:

:eek: Why? Is he in love with someone else? :eek:

;)

[DaRev]

I find lesbians to be gross because (a) it is heavily associated with mental health problems, mostly as a result of anger at men, and (b) it goes against the natural order. I’m not talking about the hetero order, but rather the instinctive response of the eldest surviving females to the death of all the mature males in the clan or tribe. It is natural for older women in this case to take on a decidedly asexual form of lesbianism in order to save the tribe. There are other cultures, even in Eastern Europe, that readily accept this custom, and the amazing thing is that these women do not look at all like the gross appearance of lesbians in this country. They actually look like charming and handsome men, not like haggly man haters at all. It is a natural biological reaction to the devastation of warfare, completely unlike virtually all lesbians in this country.

But it's still sinful because it goes against God's will.

[DaRev]

I am sick and tired of how the church treats homosexuality. Yes, we all know that it is a sin as marked in the Law, and also by Paul, but why is it given so much attention? The church has made it out to be the sin of all sins, when in fact, it is actually no different than lying, stealing, or even murder. Are there homosexuals in heaven? Yes. I know of someone that doesn't want to be one, and prays constantly that he will change. Is this person committing an unforgivable sin even though he is repenting? Of course not. Then people say that it's ok if it is in a single monogamous relationship. Where do they come up with bull like that?

Let sins be sins! Look on homosexuality the same way one would ANY other crime! As for a homosexual belonging to the clergy? As long as he knows that it is a sin, and does everything in his power to resist urges, why not let him preach? How is this man any different from any conservative straight pastor seeing as they are both repentant sinners? Time to go.

/rant

If a homosexual is truly repentant, then he/she will no longer be homosexual.

[seajoy]

:eek: Why? Is he in love with someone else? :eek:

;)
That was kind of you. Thanks. :)

[LutheranMafia]

But it's still sinful because it goes against God's will.It's asexual, I'm referring to something that is just a masculinization, but it is family orient, a genetically built in failsafe mechanism to ensure the survival of one's family even when all the males of the extended family have been killed. I really shouldn't even have called it lesbianism, it is the biological instinctual response to a horrendous tragedy. Lesbianism is a distortion of this that involves no tragedy, and is focused on sexual gratification rather than survival of one's kin. One is about devotion to one's family and being willing to sacrifice their femininity to ensure their family's survival, while the other is about hating the males that reared them and wanting to become more masculine out of pure jealousy.

[Edial]

It says that this guy was married since 2003.
And he says he is a homosexual and he apparently was one all this time.

In my understanding homosexual is the one who does not sleep with women and only men.

Why he married her?

[Melethiel]

and pretty girls don't want to strain their brain so hard if they don't have to.
Wow...

[Till]

If a homosexual is truly repentant, then he/she will no longer be homosexual.

What do you mean by this? That "true" repentance will bring about an automatic change in a man's or woman's sexual orientation? That obviously isn't the case for many heterosexual men struggling with pornography, why should it be for homosexuals.

I understand Radiata's frustration. Yes, Scriptures condemn homosexual acts and a church should not tolerate it. But it is too easy for those of us who have no homosexual interstes anyway, to make homosexualty look like the worst possible sin and ignore other sins that the Bible considers as harmful as homosexual acts.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If a homosexual is truly repentant, then he/she will no longer be homosexual.

This does not happen very often, but Rev, I have to disagree with you.

In the past those who were homosexual, and knew it was a sin either remained celibate or married (a woman). Infrequently, those marriages were happy, usually they were misery for both parties.

I would also have to agree with the statisticians, again from growing up in a rural area where every one knows everyone, it would be about 10% for men. I do not recall any women with leanings though.

These men who in their own way recognized their sin, repented and avoided it, but still had to fight with it daily. No different than the rest of us who carry the stain of original sin, but must be watchful, and repent daily, lest we give in to temptation.

It is this daily and perpetual fight with temptation and sin that I believe is the mark of true repentance. If one has no struggle with sin they would have to be 100% sinless just like our Lord.

Mark

[seajoy]

Mark's post was a good one. Thanks.

[DaRev]

Well, I guess it appears that I'm pretty much alone in my convictions. I'll just stick to God's inspired inerrant word as the source and norm of my teaching and practice. I know I can't go wrong with that.

Ciao

[Melethiel]

I don't recall it saying anywhere in Scripture that true repentance leads to a removal of temptation. Please enlighten me.

[BabyLutheran]

I guess no one is truly repentant since most of us keep repeating the same sin patterns over and over, no matter how much we try not to.

[seajoy]

Well, I guess it appears that I'm pretty much alone in my convictions. I'll just stick to God's inspired inerrant word as the source and norm of my teaching and practice. I know I can't go wrong with that.

Ciao
No, you are not alone in your convictions. This is how I look at this sin of homosexuality. I think most of the proclaimed homosexuals choose to be that way from either an abusive upbringing, or coersed into it because of a desire to be loved.....which instead is really a self loathing. Without Christ, they have no resilience against the wyles of satan, thus will turn to any abomination without angst.

Also, I do think a very few are born with this tendency because of sin in the world, just as addicts are born with the desire to drink or take drugs. It does not mean that one should continue sinning by drinking and saying "I was just born this way". Even after one stops drinking though, and repents, it's still a daily struggle that can only be fought with God's almighty hand.

The Christians who continue to live in the sin of homosexuality, are not trusting that God knows what's best for them, and will help them in their struggles. Instead they just pretend it's alright. This is living in denial of one's sin, and the outcome is quite frightening.

Don't say chio just yet, my friend. I think we are on the same page. I may be incorrect. If I am, help me know where I'm off base.

Thanks :)

[BabyLutheran]

I am just thankful that Jesus came to save me from myself. I am a much bigger sinner than most any gay person.

[LutherNut]

There is a HUGE difference between someone who struggles with sin and yet is truly contrite and repentant, seeking God's forgiveness and someone who refuses to recognize their actions as sinful when they clearly are and yet are completely unrepentant and demands that their sin be considered "normal".

Anyone who is ordained into the public ministry must be above reproach. This does not mean one who struggles and yet is truly repentant, but the one who blatantly ignores God's word on the matter and denies the work of God. Such a man has no business being in the ministry, regardless of the specific sin.

[Edial]

There is a HUGE difference between someone who struggles with sin and yet is truly contrite and repentant, seeking God's forgiveness and someone who refuses to recognize their actions as sinful when they clearly are and yet are completely unrepentant and demands that their sin be considered "normal".

Anyone who is ordained into the public ministry must be above reproach. This does not mean one who struggles and yet is truly repentant, but the one who blatantly ignores God's word on the matter and denies the work of God. Such a man has no business being in the ministry, regardless of the specific sin.
I agree with this.

Sin will be sin and often does not cease.
Some, including myself, were very successful in addressing certain temptations in the beginning of their Christian lives (in the case of adult converts) and then fell back into them.

I think the reason we fell was because we somehow became overly confident and thought we knew the Scriptures.

I remember I was talking very strongly that "Christ saves completely!".

I was saying that because I stopped a certain lifestyle that was sinful.
Well. apparently I was incorrect.
Oh, Christ does save completely, but sin keeps us humble.
At least, that is the "design" of sin in the lives of the believers - to keep us from boasting and being harsh.

Oh, there are plenty of people that justify their sin. And this is silly.
Some call it a rebellion, I call it just being silly.

Sin is sin. We struggle. We look at God's mercy and do not understand why He does not remove it.

Sometimes He does, sometimes He does not.

Yet I do know that God works for the best in each of us.
He can use even a deadly sin to teach us good and save us regardless of anything we "do".

God is the perfect Teacher. He can use all in order to edify us.

Sin is not the problem, since there will be no sin in Heaven and Christ paid for our sins.

The problem is our "justification" of it. THAT what keeps us from Heaven.

And THAT is what Satan teaches us.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Edial]

Well, I guess it appears that I'm pretty much alone in my convictions. I'll just stick to God's inspired inerrant word as the source and norm of my teaching and practice. I know I can't go wrong with that.

Ciao
I was also with you in your convictions some 17 years ago.

But life showed me otherwise, my friend.

I know some that stopped from certain sins - desire was plainly taken away.
I know others when the desire was not taken away.
And they struggle.

Both are strong believers.

The LORD does work in mysterious ways. :)

He allows sin for our own good and He restrains sin also for our own good.

It is how we react to it. This is important.

Being in someone else's body and mind, we do not understand.
But God understands - He became a man.

Homosexual acts are wrong, so are other acts and thoughts and deeds and attitudes.

I just beg everyone not to deny what sin is. I practically beg them.
And if we admit the sin, we could always confess.

The great hospital that we call church needs many nurses and counselors.
God is the doctor.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[BabyLutheran]

The last 3 posts really are excellent.

[DaRev]

There is a HUGE difference between someone who struggles with sin and yet is truly contrite and repentant, seeking God's forgiveness and someone who refuses to recognize their actions as sinful when they clearly are and yet are completely unrepentant and demands that their sin be considered "normal".

Anyone who is ordained into the public ministry must be above reproach. This does not mean one who struggles and yet is truly repentant, but the one who blatantly ignores God's word on the matter and denies the work of God. Such a man has no business being in the ministry, regardless of the specific sin.

Exactly!!!!!!

[BreadAlone]

If a homosexual is truly repentant, then he/she will no longer be homosexual.


I couldn't agree more. If a person is repentant of their sin, the blood of Jesus purifies them and places them in the ranks of the righteous. People may get all technical and say they are still "homosexually oriented," but IMHO they are no longer homosexuals..

I'd say it is the same as someone who is repentant of their sin of lying. They may slip up once in a while, but I wouldn't call them a liar. (Perhaps this isn't what you meant Rev, but that's what I agree with. ;))

More towards the OP: truly sad when Lutheranism goes as far as to accept people who reject God as their leaders. Truly sad.

[Willy]

I couldn't disagree more.

[PreachersWife2004]

I couldn't disagree more.

Hmm...there's a shocker.

Anyway, I find it sad that I have to preface anything I say about homosexuality with a disclaimer that I feel the same way about any type of unrepentant sinner. Somehow, I can call out a sin as long as it's not homosexuality, otherwise I'm labeled a homophobe.

The article just points to another step close to Jesus' return. I imagine we'll be hearing about much worse in the coming years.

Come soon, Lord Jesus. Come soon.

[BreadAlone]

Hmm...there's a shocker.

Anyway, I find it sad that I have to preface anything I say about homosexuality with a disclaimer that I feel the same way about any type of unrepentant sinner. Somehow, I can call out a sin as long as it's not homosexuality, otherwise I'm labeled a homophobe.

The article just points to another step close to Jesus' return. I imagine we'll be hearing about much worse in the coming years.

Come soon, Lord Jesus. Come soon.

You homophobic fundamentalist racist hater! You are not even American, supporting your Right-wing views! How dare you envoke your Constitutional 1st ammendment rights in my presence! ^_^ (Sorry, it's just so nice NOT to have people doing that here. Despite how liberal some people may seem in this thread, you aint seen nothin till you've spent a good quality of time in the Debates on Homosexuality forum.)

On a serious note,
Good point there PW..there's always good news mixed with the bad.

Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.

[seajoy]

Good verses BA

[Tofferer]

I couldn't disagree more.

Well, start with Genesis 1 & 2 and work your way forward. You will quickly see that homosexuality is NOT God's standard. It is a perversion of the standard. Further, a truly repentant individual will not continue in a particular sin willfully. Certainly they will still struggle with it, but it will not rule or define them. However, to continue in the sin and to deny that it is a sin will certainly result in pain, angst, and could even result in eternal damnation.

In simple terms, let God be God. He wrote the moral law, let us obey it.

[seajoy]

Well, start with Genesis 1 & 2 and work your way forward. You will quickly see that homosexuality is NOT God's standard. It is a perversion of the standard. Further, a truly repentant individual will not continue in a particular sin willfully. Certainly they will still struggle with it, but it will not rule or define them. However, to continue in the sin and to deny that it is a sin will certainly result in pain, angst, and could even result in eternal damnation.

In simple terms, let God be God. He wrote the moral law, let us obey it.
IMHO, one of the best posts you have ever made.

[Melethiel]

There is a HUGE difference between someone who struggles with sin and yet is truly contrite and repentant, seeking God's forgiveness and someone who refuses to recognize their actions as sinful when they clearly are and yet are completely unrepentant and demands that their sin be considered "normal".

Anyone who is ordained into the public ministry must be above reproach. This does not mean one who struggles and yet is truly repentant, but the one who blatantly ignores God's word on the matter and denies the work of God. Such a man has no business being in the ministry, regardless of the specific sin.
I agree with this.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

BreadAlone, thanks for the Quote from Revelations.

Well, start with Genesis 1 & 2 and work your way forward. You will quickly see that homosexuality is NOT God's standard. It is a perversion of the standard. Further, a truly repentant individual will not continue in a particular sin willfully. Certainly they will still struggle with it, but it will not rule or define them. However, to continue in the sin and to deny that it is a sin will certainly result in pain, angst, and could even result in eternal damnation.

In simple terms, let God be God. He wrote the moral law, let us obey it.

Well said. With any sin, when we repent, the temptations are there. These temptations, or the struggle with them do diminish in time, but they are still there. On occasion we will also fall, but the Lord is there to pick us up again with his Holy Spirit.

"The old Adam is to be drowned in us by daily contrition..." Luther.

[PreachersWife2004]

Paul always talked about fighting his temptations. It's not like once we enter God's fold we'll never be tempted to sin again.

The saying is "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". I think this tends to be true with a lot of different vices in this world, sex included. We may win the struggle over our temptations, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what we are. It is our cross to bear. With God's help we can overcome these temptations but they'll always be there.

[Willy]

Hmm...there's a shocker.

Anyway, I find it sad that I have to preface anything I say about homosexuality with a disclaimer that I feel the same way about any type of unrepentant sinner. Somehow, I can call out a sin as long as it's not homosexuality, otherwise I'm labeled a homophobe.

The article just points to another step close to Jesus' return. I imagine we'll be hearing about much worse in the coming years.

Come soon, Lord Jesus. Come soon.

I don't have any need to call you a homophobe. I do have a need to point out that frequently when we don't want to deal with our own issues, own our own stuff, we will project things on other people. Some folks don't want to own their own homosexual attractions. So it's just easier to make gays into the problem. For me, this subject is not an abstract philosophical issue. It deals with real people who have real concerns and struggles. I think that better quoting Bible passages out of context (Biblical context and social context) is listening to the stories of gay and lesbian people. Hearing their real stories may indeed change our hearts.

[Zecryphon]

I don't have any need to call you a homophobe. I do have a need to point out that frequently when we don't want to deal with our own issues, own our own stuff, we will project things on other people. Some folks don't want to own their own homosexual attractions. So it's just easier to make gays into the problem. For me, this subject is not an abstract philosophical issue. It deals with real people who have real concerns and struggles. I think that better quoting Bible passages out of context (Biblical context and social context) is listening to the stories of gay and lesbian people. Hearing their real stories may indeed change our hearts.

So we should be led by our emotions instead of the clear teachings of scripture? Do you really think that's wise? What happens every time a person follows their heart instead of doing what God wants? Ends in disaster, doesn't it?

[LilLamb219]

Wait a minute, are you suggesting that God's Word doesn't ma