At the root of this particular debate is whether the church is a sanitorium for sinners teaching everything Jesus taught, as per the Great Commission or a perfected community of the redeemed in no need of further 'sanctification', whose teaching should be infallibly apostolic. There are problesm with either definition in my opinion, that is why such matters of practice, discipline and conduct are so divisive, when elevated in the minds of some believers, to the dizzy heights of 'Christian Doctrine', i.e matters which may deprive one of salvation itself. You are quite right to point out that IF salvation is indeed by faith alone and not also essentially by adherance to a biblically stipulated code of sexual and otherwise conduct, then actual BEHAVIOUR becomes the criteria upon which we are then saved, faith in Christ and acceptance of the status of being a sinner thus then becoming insufficient for justification and therefore salvation. .
The part of this is your claim about the Gospels. There are four Passages in the rest of the New Testament that are used to refer to this matter: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 1:7. I understand that some would want to argue with these passages, and I specifically don't want to do that here. https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=550217365 https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=550217455 These two passages from the Gospel are suggested by some to support your claims, yet in reality, they are Jesus' teaching about divorce and perhaps show his opposition to treating women as chattels to be laid aside when men tire of them. However, it is not for me to guess what verses you rely on to support your claim. So I invite you to share the Gospel Passages (MMLJ) that you believe condemn that which you refer to as 'same-sex physical intimacy'. Part of my problem is that I think it is a sideshow for the Church, we could turn the who world straight and add not one soul to the Kingdom of God. Our salvation is wrought in the one who loves us far more than it is wrought in who we love.
See, this is what is so exasperating about liberal argumentation on these issues: you feign confusion about the historical interpretation of the Bible, assert your own (modern) readings as foundational, and then cast the orthodox as some kind of radicals for wanting to reassert doctrinal teachings of the Church. Your* readings are flawed. Your understanding of Scripture is flawed. Your theology is flawed. You refuse to even countenance teachings that were foundational in your own Church until a few decades ago. Orthodox Christian teaching on human sexuality has been essentially unified for two thousand years. Homosexuality is unambiguously denounced as a sin in Testaments both Old and New, and not just in the famed "clobber passages" but in many other places as well (belonging as it does to the broader category of porneia). You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and it is meretricious to retcon your own Church's history and theology. This "sideshow" just got the Archbishop of Canterbury defenestrated from his position by 85% of the Communion he (supposedly) represents. It may not be important to you, but it is of central importance to the vast majority of the Anglican world. It's not going to go away if you ignore it. When we say homosexuality is a sin that will bar the unrepentant from the kingdom of Heaven, we absolutely mean it. And teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable Christian practice is teaching a false Gospel, and brings both teacher and practitioner under the judgement of God.
And to make my previous point more explicit: Biblical teaching on human sexuality applies to fornication, bestiality, and all other forms of sexual expression outside the marital union of one man and one woman. It is not a teaching regarding homosexual behavior narrowly, but all forms of porneia.
I do not understand why you feel the need to mischaracterize the issue to the extreme. Christian doctrine is not limited to "matters which may deprive one of salvation" or "the criteria upon which we are saved". Christian doctrine also covers how we are to live, what our response to sin should be, and a host of other topics. "Practice" and "conduct" cannot be separated away from doctrine, because Christian doctrine teaches more voluminously about practice and conduct than it does about salvation.
No one is saying that discipline is less important than doctrine, only that they're different. I have run out of ways to explain why doctrine is distinct from discipline, and it's not from lack of trying. You either get it or you don't at this point. Grasping this distinction is basic to understanding why we believe, teach, and act as we do. 'Justification by Faith' makes absolutely no sense unless doctrine and discipline are distinguished. If you wish to maintain that every statement in the Scriptures, regardless of its object, is somehow defined doctrine, you're certainly entitled to do so. However, everyone else is still entitled to demand proof, and so far you have not provided any. There can't be productive dialogue unless participants are agreed regarding fundamental theological terms and distinctions. Since that appears to be out of reach in this case, I see little point in continuing the discussion.
I'm sorry. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that the word of God ended with the last sentence of John's gospel. Have you noticed those extra pages filled with the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the churches? Did you miss my reference to Romans 1:22-32? Or do you discount it as irrelevant to the matter at hand? What's next? Will you claim that only the 'words printed in red' (uttered by Jesus) are important for doctrine? We don't have Jesus' words pertaining to homosexual behavior. Does silence (the lack of a recorded statement) equal indifference or support? That is fallacious reasoning. We don't have Jesus' words concerning humans fornicating with goats, so does that make it okay to fornicate with a goat? The argument from silence cannot hold up, and since the Bible is far from silent on the subject of (and forcibly condemns) homosexual behavior, the mere fact that we don't have a record of Jesus' words on the subject cannot possibly be used as support. Look at Romans 1. What does it say? 1. Homosexuals, professing themselves to be wise, became fools. 2. They change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image more similar to corruptible man. 3. Homosexuals and lesbians oppose God, so He “gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts.” 4. Sodomites “dishonor their own bodies between themselves”. 5. Lesbians and homosexuals “change the truth of God into a lie”. 6. They “worship and serve the creature more than the Creator”. 7. God gives them up to their "vile affections”. 8. Lesbians and sodomites “change the natural use into that which is against nature” and burn with lust for one another. 9. Homosexuals receive just recompense for their error. 10. Homosexuals and lesbians do “not like to retain God in their knowledge,” so God grants them "a reprobate mind”. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:29-32) 11. Homosexuals are filled with unrighteousness. They are fornicators. They are wicked. They covet physical pleasure. They are malicious (they don't care who might get hurt, spiritually or physically, in their quest for pleasure). Their affection is unnatural. 12. (God doesn't pull His punches.) In God's eyes, those who willfully commit such deeds and who promote the activity among others (take pleasure in getting others to do the same) are worthy of death! (Not that we will be the ones to do this... but they should fear God's wrath on Judgment Day.) Can you read Romans 1 and still say with all honesty that homosexual activity is not a sin, just because we don't see a mention in the four gospels?
The problem some people have is that they fail to see the fact that doctrine encompasses faith AND morals. Doctrine is unchanging (because it is laid down by God, and God never changes). Discipline can be changed by the church, of course. Whatever constitutes sin in the eyes of God does not change with time or societal shifts. Homosexual activity was sinful in OT times and it remains sinful in NT times. It is a matter of morals, of what is right or wrong, under the standards set by Almighty God. Thus it is a matter of doctrine, not of mere temporal church discipline.
Hi, @Rexlion it may surprise you to know that I receive all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical. What I was trying to clarify was what it was that support for your claim on this issue was laid out in the Gospels. My view is that the Gospels do not address the subject head-on, and so it is only by inference that more can be made of the issue. I would not have made the statement you did, because I believe it is fundamentally flawed. This is not something I said, and I specifically did not say it, nor did I intend it. I suspect I might read Romans 1:18-32 a little more broadly than you, in that you seem to suggest that it is only dealing with 'unnatural intercourse', whereas I would see it more broadly in dealing with wickedness and ungodliness. I have trouble aligning some of your points at (11) in that not all Homosexual Persons I have encountered seem to be filled with unrighteousness, and beyond this issue, they appear no more wicked than many others, no more hedonistic than many, and certainly not necessarily malicious. Ultimately I was not wanting to embrace an argument about particular texts, but to clarify one point you had made. This topic generally generates more heat than light.
I think the operative word is "seem". They do not seem to be filled with unrighteousness. Very few human beings do seem that way. However, God knows and judges the heart. Apart from His grace, there is no spiritual health in us. So if His word says they are filled with unrighteousness, I accept that statement as true in spite of humans' "acting abilities" to put on a good face for others to see. (Even an atheist may appear to be morally upright and righteous.)
Reading some of the vitriolic, hate-filled posts above reminds me of an old, wise statement from one of the Renaissance masters: “Among the likes of us there are two things which have ever appeared to me to chime particularly well together–supercelestial opinions: subterranean morals.” — The Complete Essays by Michel Montaigne When the pursuit of righteousness tries to establish itself on ignorance and hate, the virtues its seekers extol become the very vehicles of the vices they seek to destroy.
When someone finds "vitriolic" and "hate-filled" the posts which outline Biblical principles extolled for nearly two millennia by the church and Christianity, is that person a friend of Christ? I'm referring to the One who said hard things like, Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs; and, Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come; and, Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. Jesus often spoke very frankly and roughly about sinners, especially those who held posts of religious authority and who misled followers in spiritual matters (which is what certain churches of today are doing). Not a single one of us who've posted on this subject are feeling hatred or ill will toward any person who feels same-sex attraction or who acts upon those feelings. Nor have any of us posted hateful things regarding people (although God hates sin, and Christians should hate sin, too). But we have posted what the Bible teaches, and if the words of the Bible make anyone uncomfortable, I hope they will pray and ask God to reveal to them the reason for their discomfort. Perhaps our Lord is convicting them of erroneous thinking and tugging them 'back on track.' Love does not say to a person, "Your actions are perfectly fine," when that person portrays himself as being in a lifestyle of engagement in egregious sin. Genuine love says, "Friend, I fear for your eternal soul. Will you not lay this burden at the feet of Christ and trust Him to help you? Will you not repent and turn away from this sin, and put Christ first in your life instead of giving priority to ill-gotten pleasure?" Try to imagine Christ telling the Pharisees, "Celebrate your hypocrisy and take pride in it, for unrepentant hypocrites are welcome in My Kingdom!" Or imagine Him saying, "If you cause someone to sin, it's no big deal; I love you so much, it doesn't matter what you do!" Or how about this? "Don't fret about entering by the narrow gate. I'm throwing down the fence, and My Kingdom shall be open to one and all!" That isn't the Christ of the Bible. That isn't the God of Christianity. It's the idol worshiped by the self-deceived.
My problem @Rexlion was that you made a statement - that the Gospels outlined the matter. As you used the plural I presumed you to mean Matthew Mark Luke and John (hold the horse while I get on) and I asked you to back that up - essentially chapter and verse from one or more of the four canonical Gospels. Your response, rather than acknowledging your error essentially derisive and divisive. that is a matter that is covered in the Gospels and I can back that up. https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=550267000https://bible.oremus.org/?ql=550267000
Of course EVERYBODY including me and you and all our forum members seem more righteous than God knows them to actually be. Why is it that you so consistently single out people who do not comfortably fit into the heterosexual category, as being essentially more inclined to be filled with unrighteousness, (like everyone else), who sin and fall short of God's exacting standards of righteousness? Could it be that you are not noticing the context in which Paul wrote the words that you have quoted? Paul was writing to ROMANS in ROME. He was criticising ROMAN society, where sexual sin was particularly rife and inextricably entwined with slavery, abuse, oppression and exploitation. His, (as far as Rome was concerned), was a very different perspective on same sex relationships than would be someone who had grown up and lived entirely in a society which understood and, by and large, KEPT God's Law. This would be why the teachings of Jesus Christ do not only not MAJOR on the subject of sexual sin connected with homosexuality, but don't even mention it at all. (Which incidentally also applies to heterosexual forbidden practices). It simply was not prevailant in Jewish society, exept where ROMAN influences had crept in, corrupting Jewish social organisation. I agree with Botolph's point that Pauls condemnation is actually aimed a whole lot wider than just at certain disgusting sexual practices engaged in by SOME homsexuals. His comments are aimed at ROMAN society and the even wider context of HUMAN society.
My problem with that is, I do not recall making the statement you ascribe to me. If you could quote the pertinent portion that I wrote earlier, it would help. My recollection is that I wrote about the Bible, and you subsequently limited the scope to the Gospels. In fact, I just did a search of this thread for the word "Gospels" in my posts, and the word only shows up in response to your mistaken use of the word. If my responses have seemed "derisive", I apologize. If they have seemed "divisive", unfortunately the divide exists and there's no escaping it; I suggest that perhaps the divide exists because one side misinterprets the Bible and misrepresents the opposite side to the issue. By the way, the "do not judge" thing has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on this forum. Clearly, Christians are supposed to make judgment calls about certain things in life, such as the difference between good and evil.
I'll tell you why. It's because the vast bulk of them actively campaign for the proposition that the sin they are tempted to engage in is entirely proper and non-sinful. They take pride in being known as "gay" or "lesbian". The wear the moniker as a badge of honor. They want to normalize the sin within and among the churches. Good observation. Another sexual sin that probably was not prevalent (common) in Jewish society was rape, and I assume this from the fact that AFAIK we have no record of Jesus ever directly mentioning the issue (just like homosexuality). In fact, the Bible as a whole contains considerably less condemnation of rape than of homosexual behavior. Yet who among us would think it right and proper for a church to let it be known that rapists are welcome in their congregations, as their priests, and as their bishops? If rapists grouped together and campaigned for "love" and "inclusion" toward them, would our churches light-paint their buildings with the selected "rapist colors" (whatever they might be) and would our priests wear "rapist color" stoles to show support for the rapists? What message would all of this send to the other Christians in the churches, and to the outside world? I imagine I now will be accused of hating rapists, when I only hate the sin and not the individuals. That is the tactic used against the orthodox position by the heterodox group these days: false accusations and smear tactics.
There are some deeper theological points to be made on this issue. 1. God does not hate his children; he loves them all. But his love will not obscure His holy wrath and hatred of sin. An unrepentant sinner will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. To teach otherwise is a lie. Christianity is not a universalistic religion where all are saved regardless of how they behave. God loves us, but he will not tolerate sin. It is the unrepentant sinner who goes to Hell. This is basic Christian doctrine of Apostolic pedigree. 2. Engaging in porneia is a sin. Full stop. Sexual sin is comprehensively condemned in both Old and New Testaments, and to say otherwise is either be telling a deliberate lie or to express one's own lack of understanding of (or confidence in) Scripture. Homosexual behavior is an instance of porneia and it should be condemned and its practitioners called to repent. If they refuse to repent, they should be ejected from the community of believers in accordance with, e.g., 1 Corinthians chapter 5. It is unacceptable to allow unrepentant sinners to continue in the community of believers as it both affirms sinful behavior (a sin in itself) and it can cause other believers to stumble. 3. Homosexual behavior is comprehensively condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is not a "minor" sin. The example of Sodom stands as an example throughout Scripture of sexual wickedness, and as a rank and flagrant transgression of God's design for humanity. It is clear that the New Testament writers understood the Old Testament reading in this light, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself affirmed the order of creation in Genesis to be God's intent for his people (Mark 10:5-9). Nowhere in the Bible, at any point, is homosexual behavior -- or porneia more generally -- sanctioned or even mentioned as anything other than an offense against God. 4. It is not "loving" to affirm homosexual behavior, any more than it is loving to affirm adultery, fornication, or bestiality. All are disordered forms of sexual behavior and are to be rejected by believing Christians. Just as there is no such thing as an "Adulterous Christian" or "Fornicating Christian", there is no such thing as a "Gay Christian". A homosexual who repents of his lifestyle and returns to Christ is simply a Christian. He was a homosexual; now he is something else (1 Cor. 6:9-11). To affirm a Christian in homosexual behavior is to bar the door of Heaven to him (or her), and thus brings a greater judgement on the one who affirms it (Matt. 18:5-6). 5. There is no "new thing" happening in the Holy Spirit. Our Lord has come as our Savior and his Kingdom has been established. God's revelation to his people finished with the eschatological revelation given to St. John. The Bible we have is God's final word on the matter until Christ returns in glory to judge the living and the dead. There is no higher authority, no court of appeal, no amendments or new volumes. The Bible is God's own Word to us, and it does not change because God does not change. What was true for 1st century Christians is true for us, and will be true for all time for everyone on earth.
I would push back on this. As Paul's letters to the Corinthians illustrate, sexual sin was rife in many places. Homosexual sin was probably more prevalent among the Gentiles, but the Hellenistic Jews of (e.g.) Alexandria came in for some broadsides from Philo among others for succumbing to the Hellenistic culture. We also know that fornication and adultery were rife even in Jewish strongholds like Jerusalem (which is why Christ spoke so much about it during his ministry). There is this notion that modern homosexuality is somehow different in nature or behavior from that practiced in the 1st century Near East, and that's just silly.