Trivia Question: What do Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Werner von Braun, H. G. Wells, Martin Van Buren, Abraham Maslow, and Edvard Grieg all have in common? In addition to being famed luminaries who forever changed their respective fields of labor in the sciences, the arts, and politics, they also each of them married a first cousin. John F. Kennedy, one of the more influential American presidents of the 20th century, was the grandson of married first cousins.
Cousin marriage is illegal in the majority of U. S. States (including, thank you very much, Arkansas). Texas's ban on cousin marriage was only recently passed (2005). No state has adopted a more lenient law on cousin marriage in the past century. Marriage between close kin—even closer than cousins—takes place prominently in the Bible. The United States is the only nation in the Western world in which cousin marriage is not universally illegal.
Why? Why do we make it against the law for cousins to marry?
The Genetic Argument: The most common argument against cousin marriage is the suggestion that cousin marriage is not well suited to reproduction. Yet this argument may not be as strong as you may think. Reproduction between people with significant consanguinity does indeed increase the change of recessive genetic traits being passed through to their offspring. However, not all recessive traits can be considered undesirable or classified as a disorder, and not all genetic disorders or undesirable outcomes can be linked to the transmission of recessive genes. Down's Syndrome, for example, is an example of a genetic disorder that is not an expression of a recessive gene, but is instead a transcription error.
The upshot of all of this? Procreation of people over the age of 40 is just as genetically risky as is the procreation of first cousins. The genetic argument really provides little rationale for making cousin marriages illegal.
The Moral Argument: People argue that cousin marriage is incestuous and immoral. Indeed, in many U. S. states, sexual intercourse among cousins legally constitutes incest. The patchwork status of U. S. law on this front means that some marriages, although perfectly legal in Mississippi, are felonious in Texas.
Nevertheless, although sexual relationships among siblings or lineal descendants is forbidden in the Bible, one would utterly fail to demonstrate any biblical prohibition against cousin marriage. Rather, the marriage of Isaac to his first-cousin-once-removed Rebekkah is presented as a good and holy thing and even a part of the lineage of Christ. Abraham himself was married to his half-sister, and levirate marriage laws meant that a man might plausibly be commanded to marry his cousin.
It is difficult to find a good moral argument against cousin marriage.
And yet, while a tidal wave has swept this nation against cousin marriage in the last century and continuing through today, an incipient wave of the legalization of same sex marriage is beginning to move in the United States. Let's consider a comparison of the two:
| Homosexual Marriage | Cousin Marriage | |
|---|---|---|
| Biological | A biological nightmare. Homosexual intercourse has given to the world a fertile locus for the breeding and transmission of disease and is responsible for the gruesome deaths of many of the people who have participated in it. Homosexual intercourse is also entirely incapable of the primary biological purpose for sexual activity—the reproduction of the species. | Leads to a 2–3% increase in the occurrence of those genetic maladies associated with the transmission of those recessive genes that may be injurious to a child. This increased risk is similar to the risk of childbearing at ages over 40. Otherwise, entirely biologically healthy and functional. |
| Historical | Homosexuality itself is historically ancient, yet with a longstanding status of taboo across diverse cultures and epochs of history. | Accepted by most of the world's population today. Historically widespread. Homosexual marriage is entirely unattested in history. |
| Moral | Condemned by the scriptures or traditions of every major faith group (noteworthy exception: the one branch of Hinduism that includes the Kama Sutra has the sole positive mention of homosexuality in major faith texts). Religious leaders from the Dalai Lama to the great Christian leaders of history have been unanimous in their condemnation of homosexuality as sexual misconduct. | Tolerated by every major faith tradition, and even commanded in some. |
So, what's my point? Am I arguing in favor of cousin marriage, suggesting that the denial of cousin marriage is a terrible human rights problem in our nation? No. I believe that laws against cousin marriage serve a generally benign and largely beneficial function in our society. They enshrine an American cultural expectation that people will look outside their own families for a spouse. In so doing, they increase genetic diversity in our nation, leading to marginally increased public health. Banning the marriage of people over 40 would have terrible cultural effects in our country, since many of those married-over-40 folks are the parents of children conceived earlier. So, although cousin reproduction and over-40 reproduction are genetically comparable, the banning of marriage beyond 40 would have far greater ill effects in society than does the banning of cousin marriage. Banning cousin marriage, I believe, results in a positive impact upon our society. I am not opposed to laws against cousin marriage. If they did not exist, I wouldn't be on a campaign to enact them, but their existence does not bother me.
My point is simply to highlight the absurdity of homosexual marriage. Every argument against cousin marriage applies in spades to homosexual marriage. Yet our nation outlaws the more benign of the two while activists for the worse one can almost taste eventual victory in the courts and then in the polls. In Iowa right at this moment, it is a felony for two consenting adults to engage in a marital relationship (cousin marriage) that is historically, biologically, and morally acceptable by every reasonable standard (if a bit odd), but it is (according to an activist court) a fundamental and constitutional human right for two consenting adults to engage in a marital relationship that is historically, biologically, and morally bankrupt (homosexual marriage).
142 comments:
Excellent points. The saddest part of this whole debate is the number of people who name the name of Christ that claim that Christians should voice no negative opinion on this important issue. These individuals are so tired of the "mean spirited culture war". What they mean is they don't have the backbone to stand up for biblical truth.
Bart,
I had never thought about presenting it this way! Excellent post and great thought!
Thank you, gentlemen.
Hypocrisy within the walls of our legal system is nothing new and neither is calling sin good(re homosexual relationships). We've followed the same degenerative past as Israel and the Romans. We are rich but poor. We see but are blind. We are clothed yet naked.
I had never thought of this in the way you have presented it. Just makes me shake my head in complete wonderment of our legal system.
God help us all.
Bart: A biological nightmare. Homosexual intercourse has given to the world a fertile locus for the breeding and transmission of disease and is responsible for the gruesome deaths of many of the people who have participated in it. Homosexual intercourse is also entirely incapable of the primary biological purpose for sexual activity—the reproduction of the species.
bapticus hereticus: That some Christians oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage is not disputed, but the argument advanced here would also be problematic for heterosexuals, too. In some parts of the world AIDS was always and is more of a heterosexual problem than a homosexual one, and the last time I checked, AIDS and other STDs are prevalent among both populations. While I do not know the proportion of STDs among the two populations, given homosexuals number far less than heterosexuals in the American population, heterosexuals, then, contribute more incidents of disease than their counterpart.
Homosexuals can’t procreate (with each other), nor do they, thus, abort a fetus. Thus if one is going to make a biological argument in this manner, this must be taken into account among the more conservative as favoring homosexuality, ironic as it is. Moreover, unless heterosexuals are prepared to have sex only for procreation, it is a bit hypocritical of said group to criticize homosexual sex for its inability of such. Last, heterosexuality is not compromised because of homosexuality nor is marriage compromised, even if the divorce rate among the former is higher than the latter. That homosexuals marry in no way changes how heterosexuals desire to experience their (i.e., heterosexual) relationship. The species will continue and heterosexuals will continue to marry … even if more homosexuals marry.
Which conservative is going to have less sex because homosexuals are enjoying such, and which conservative minister is going to preach abstinence for married couples incapable of having children?
An argument from history and biology against homosexuality do appear to be weak, very weak, and the best approach for a conservative is to make a scriptural argument using a particular hermeneutic. Although the church is not of one mind on this issue, the community would be better off if people with differing viewpoints practiced a bit more humility, however.
bh,
Anyone who holds to the position that homosexuality is wrong 100% of the time because the Bible cleaerly says it's wrong doesn't need to practice "humility" they need to proclaim what God's word says. Of course, by "humility" you mean "Christians need to shut their stinkin' pie holes".
Joe: bh, Anyone who holds to the position that homosexuality is wrong 100% of the time because the Bible cleaerly says it's wrong doesn't need to practice "humility" they need to proclaim what God's word says. Of course, by "humility" you mean "Christians need to shut their stinkin' pie holes".
bapticus hereticus: Well, no, Joe; I think it proper for each of us to proclaim the gospel as we perceive it. And, yes, Joe, even with humility. There is virtue in being meek.
BH: I realize that it is not politically correct to say so, but AIDS emerged among gay men. Indeed, the first name for the syndrome was GRIDS (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Now, having epidemiologically emerged there (for these are the first known cases of AIDS), HIV does readily spread among people engaging in heterosexual activity, among people using blood products or syringes infected with HIV, etc. These are red herrings. If, next year, 100% of the people infected with HIV were heterosexuals, this would not change where the first known cases of the disease originated.
But we're not talking solely about HIV/AIDS. We're also talking about Hepatitis and other STDs. The facts, apart from politics, bear out the negative public health consequences of homosexuality.
I might also add that I am against heterosexual sin as much as I am against homosexual sin. I have only had sexual intercourse with one woman in my lifetime, and she only with one man. I've never been tested for an STD, nor do I intend ever to be tested for one, and I have never had a moment of worrying whether I have one. God's plan for sexuality (heterosexual monogamy or else celibacy) is effective 100% of the time in not transmitting diseases sexually.
So, it will not work for you to try to make me the defender of any variant of heterosexual sex other than the biblical plan.
As far as infertile couples go, allow me to speak as one who has been unable to conceive. I can only say that I have been unable to conceive...SO FAR. However, we are using our anatomies in the ways that God designed them for procreation. The anatomical design involved here is simple yet profound. Children early in their lives comprehend how male and female go together to produce offspring. Heterosexuality is the clear design intention of the human body.
Only with years of careful education can such common sense be overcome.
If my argument from history is weak, then no argument from history could ever be strong. Give me, if you will, the full history of gay marriage in the world. If you have a Post-It note handy, it should suffice for the task.
Well, no, Joe; I think it proper for each of us to proclaim the gospel as we perceive it.
There is only one gospel. We don't get to decide what God's message is. He wrote it in a book. It's called the Bible. You might want to pick one up and try this funny little trick that I like to call "reading it".
Any christian who claims that homosexuality is ok under any circumstances is either (a) deluded (b) ignorant and immature or (c) not a Christian. Most certainly, the and their unbiblical beliefs should be opposed by Christians.
Leave it to a boy from Arkansas to try and justify kissin' cousins. :)
Baptist Heretic,
Long time no dialogue; huh.
I see you are still in a state of lostness and on your way to hell.
Jesus spoke of people like you when He told His followers not to cast pearls befor swine. It is due to your lostness that you can in no way comprehend what these guys are saying to you. To talk to you about righteousness and the things of faith is like casting pearls to swine. As the swine has no understanding of pearls, you have no understanding of biblical truth.
But the Good News is that you do not have to remain a swine rutting in the mire.
Many times before I have shared with you that if you will repent of your sin and believe the biblical gospel you can be saved from the penalty of your sin by the atonement Christ has provided on the Bloody Cross and in the Glorious Resurrection.
Baptist Heretic, put it off no longer. Today is the day of salvation.
Pray for the conviction of the Holy Spirit upon your lost soul that you might be saved. Repent and believe the gospel.
The best friend you have ever had in your evil life,
cb
Bart: … AIDS emerged among gay men. … If, next year, 100% of the people infected with HIV were heterosexuals, this would not change where the first known cases of the disease originated.
bapticus hereticus: That HIV-AIDS first developed among homosexual men is one perspective, but other research suggests HIV-AIDS has been in the human population many years prior to the outbreak in the 80s. Secondly, if HIV-AIDS was a gay disease, then only gay people would be infected; but, obviously, we know that is not the case.
Bart: But we're not talking solely about HIV/AIDS. We're also talking about Hepatitis and other STDs. The facts, apart from politics, bear out the negative public health consequences of homosexuality.
bapticus hereticus: And what do we do when have conclusively discovered that a particular STD initially, widely spread via heterosexual sexual contact? Given your post, one could, then, develop a biological argument against heterosexuals.
Bart: I might also add that I am against heterosexual sin as much as I am against homosexual sin. I have only had sexual intercourse with one woman in my lifetime, and she only with one man. I've never been tested for an STD, nor do I intend ever to be tested for one, and I have never had a moment of worrying whether I have one. God's plan for sexuality (heterosexual monogamy or else celibacy) is effective 100% of the time in not transmitting diseases sexually.
bapticus hereticus: Well, Bart, I am against sin whether by heterosexuals or homosexuals, too, but like heterosexuals and homosexuals, I have not gotten to the point that being against it means I do not engage in it; however, I am happy for you and your wife. Many of us liberals share the same experience.
Bart: So, it will not work for you to try to make me the defender of any variant of heterosexual sex other than the biblical plan.
bapticus hereticus: You have a particular hermeneutic that undergirds your conclusion, to which I have no problem; we all struggle for consistency and authenticity, and hopefully as such is operative we are open to sighting the fox, as Capon would suggest.
Bart: As far as infertile couples go, allow me to speak as one who has been unable to conceive. I can only say that I have been unable to conceive...SO FAR. However, we are using our anatomies in the ways that God designed them for procreation. The anatomical design involved here is simple yet profound. Children early in their lives comprehend how male and female go together to produce offspring. Heterosexuality is the clear design intention of the human body.
bapticus hereticus: I wish you and your wife the best and hope that a child is in your future, but such will not be the case for some couples, regardless of effort. Whereas medical science is not 100% in all cases, in many cases it is, thus for these people, a life without sex seemingly has been advocated in this thread. And I dare say, birth-control probably would not find favor here, either. If sex is for procreation, then those that believe such would be more transparent if they would speak against birth-control. Third, surely homosexuals cannot produce offspring, thus there is a logic to anatomical design (to which even some heterosexuals have sought out medical go-betweens), but it is ‘a’ logic, not the ‘only’ viable logic.
Bart: Only with years of careful education can such common sense be overcome.
bapticus hereticus: I don’t accept the premise behind the statement, thus the conclusion has no merit for me.
Bart: If my argument from history is weak, then no argument from history could ever be strong. Give me, if you will, the full history of gay marriage in the world. If you have a Post-It note handy, it should suffice for the task.
bapticus hereticus: My limited reading of history reveals homosexuality to be more or less accepted/unaccepted and practiced in various, if not all societies. It’s not new, nor is it or has it been universally endorsed or condemned.
Joe: There is only one gospel. We don't get to decide what God's message is. He wrote it in a book. It's called the Bible. You might want to pick one up and try this funny little trick that I like to call "reading it". Any christian who claims that homosexuality is ok under any circumstances is either (a) deluded (b) ignorant and immature or (c) not a Christian. Most certainly, the and their unbiblical beliefs should be opposed by Christians.
bapticus hereticus: Do all the women in your congregation, Joe, cover their heads during worship?
cb: Baptist Heretic, Long time no dialogue; huh. I see you are still in a state of lostness and on your way to hell. Jesus spoke of people like you when He told His followers not to cast pearls befor swine. It is due to your lostness that you can in no way comprehend what these guys are saying to you. To talk to you about righteousness and the things of faith is like casting pearls to swine. As the swine has no understanding of pearls, you have no understanding of biblical truth. But the Good News is that you do not have to remain a swine rutting in the mire. Many times before I have shared with you that if you will repent of your sin and believe the biblical gospel you can be saved from the penalty of your sin by the atonement Christ has provided on the Bloody Cross and in the Glorious Resurrection. Baptist Heretic, put it off no longer. Today is the day of salvation. Pray for the conviction of the Holy Spirit upon your lost soul that you might be saved. Repent and believe the gospel. The best friend you have ever had in your evil life[.]
bapticus hereticus: Oh, CB, you gentle lover of souls.
BH, it is not helpful to try to alter the terms of the debate. The title of the post is "Thoughts about Marriage Law." Therefore, if we are going to discuss history, then we need to discuss the history of "marriage law" or even, at least, marriage customs.
Yes, as I myself articulated in the table, homosexuality itself is an ancient sin.
Now, let's hear what your limited reading has revealed about homosexual marriage in history. And the fact that homosexual activity itself is nothing new makes that argument all the more relevant, I should think, for homosexuality is no "new development" to which marriage needs to adapt. Humankind has interacted with homosexuality for aeons. What have we done throughout all of that history with regard to marriage law?
Bart: BH, it is not helpful to try to alter the terms of the debate. The title of the post is "Thoughts about Marriage Law." Therefore, if we are going to discuss history, then we need to discuss the history of "marriage law" or even, at least, marriage customs. Yes, as I myself articulated in the table, homosexuality itself is an ancient sin. Now, let's hear what your limited reading has revealed about homosexual marriage in history. And the fact that homosexual activity itself is nothing new makes that argument all the more relevant, I should think, for homosexuality is no "new development" to which marriage needs to adapt. Humankind has interacted with homosexuality for aeons. What have we done throughout all of that history with regard to marriage law?
bapticus hereticus: The ability to have more than one wife has a longer history than that of having only one (at a time), thus why not appeal to having more than one wife at a time? There is much history to suggest it. And owning slaves has a longer history than that of disallowing such, as well. Why not continue to own slaves, for there is much history to support such, too. Were not some of the finest achievements of man due in part to slave labor? However, the use of history is going to depend on one’s perspective; that is, in both of these cases, and given a certain perspective, one is not going to argue that history is on one’s side. One may argue, however, that all that happens in history, regardless of practice, may or may not be justified given one’s moral code. Some would like to think that to some degree there is an ascent of man (e.g., the 8th century BCE prophets, and notwithstanding the naïve liberal bias of the 19th century) due to the presence and influence of God’s Spirit, and via such, although at an uneven pace, civilization is maturing. If past must be prologue, then the end of history has occurred and we are just marking time. But our experience tells us that such is not or at least should not be the case, thus we are to be open to the future and its creative possibilities. We are not going to all agree on what it might look like or should look like, but if we strive to be open to God’s Spirit, we might be surprised as to what God is in.
Baptist Heretic,
There are times when gentleness must be replaced with a straight forward approach. But with both gentleness and straight forwardness it is always necessary to be truthful. For if we are not truthful we fail in our accountability to God.
In your case a straight forward and truthful approach is necessary as has been evidenced over a period of time in dialogue with you.
You simply believe you have an understanding of faith you simply do not have. it would be impossible for you to have it because you are lost and on your way to hell.
You making an effort to understand biblical truths is as if you took another person's mail and tried to read it as if it were your own even though it is written in a foreign language.
"....pearls before swine...." is the end result of your efforts, so to speak.
cb
CB: Baptist Heretic, There are times when gentleness must be replaced with a straight forward approach. But with both gentleness and straight forwardness it is always necessary to be truthful. For if we are not truthful we fail in our accountability to God. In your case a straight forward and truthful approach is necessary as has been evidenced over a period of time in dialogue with you. You simply believe you have an understanding of faith you simply do not have. it would be impossible for you to have it because you are lost and on your way to hell. You making an effort to understand biblical truths is as if you took another person's mail and tried to read it as if it were your own even though it is written in a foreign language. "....pearls before swine...." is the end result of your efforts, so to speak.
bapticus hereticus: CB, I am glad you have the truth, for the rest of us need only sit back and observe you as you work out your and our salvation with fear and trembling. Do you sell indulgences, too?
Baptist Heretic,
You are not the only one who is glad I have the truth. I am too. Otherwise, I would be on the way to hell right along with you.
But, Heretic, there are many, many others who have the same truth as do I.
You may have it also if you repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel.
cb
CB: Baptist Heretic, You are not the only one who is glad I have the truth. I am too. Otherwise, I would be on the way to hell right along with you. But, Heretic, there are many, many others who have the same truth as do I. You may have it also if you repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel.
The best friend you have ever had in your evil life, cb[.]
bapticus hereticus: Poor bapticus hereticus. So far away from God, and so close to CB.
BH,
Are you arguing that homosexuality would not be "degrading passion" or just disagreeing with the gist of Bart's article?
The church is not in any disagreement on the issue of homosexuality are they?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, Are you arguing that homosexuality would not be "degrading passion" or just disagreeing with the gist of Bart's article? The church is not in any disagreement on the issue of homosexuality are they? Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Greetings, Chris. No, I don’t think it is inherently a degrading passion, but it can be. I think anyone, notwithstanding one’s sexual orientation, is capable of such. But to your second question: if one denies the legitimacy of some faith groups, e.g., Alliance of Baptists, ECUSA, and some in many faith groups, e.g., PCUSA, UMC, for them then there is no disagreement in the church regarding homosexuality or homosexual marriage. But if one allows legitimacy to a fuller range of the Christian community, then, yes, there is disagreement on both issues. Thanks for the blessing and such to you, too, in this season of repentance and preparation.
Baptist Heretic,
It is true. You are close to me. But so are many, many other people who are lost and on their way to hell.
That is why God commissioned me along with all of His other children to go among you and the millions like you who are condemned already to death and hell and tell you the Good Story of Jesus Christ.
What is the Good Story? Heretic, I am glad you asked that question. The Good Story of Jesus is that he died for sinners, rose the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father calling lost people like yourself to repent and believe the gospel.
So, why do you tarry?
cb
cb: Baptist Heretic, It is true. You are close to me. But so are many, many other people who are lost and on their way to hell. That is why God commissioned me along with all of His other children to go among you and the millions like you who are condemned already to death and hell and tell you the Good Story of Jesus Christ. What is the Good Story? Heretic, I am glad you asked that question. The Good Story of Jesus is that he died for sinners, rose the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father calling lost people like yourself to repent and believe the gospel. So, why do you tarry?
bapticus hereticus: Oh, you sweet-talker, CB. Are you the author of the Kentucky report that quantified the number of lost people in the state?
BH,
God says ….. Romans 1:25-27 “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (26) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, (27) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
God is very specific that women exchanged natural function for what is unnatural, and in the same way men did as well. The truth seems to be that God gave them over to these “degrading passions”, which God makes clear that they (those encouraging such) are filled with unrighteousness, not righteousness.
I have many Christian friends that are Methodist, PCUSA, etc. and all of them that follow Christ agree with God concerning “degrading passion” which the Apostle clearly defines as the acts of homosexuality. So the church, according to the Apostle is not in disagreement, but can certainly be confused on the issue. This confusion no doubt occurred during his day as well, demanding the response that was given him by God to write for us.
If you still do not believe that God is saying that homosexuality is degrading passion, what do you do with the truth given. The words (greek) is very emphatic and clear with the term “degrading”. So the quality of the act has been very well defined by God.
How do you reconcile that in your mind?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: I have many Christian friends that are Methodist, PCUSA, etc. and all of them that follow Christ agree with God concerning “degrading passion” which the Apostle clearly defines as the acts of homosexuality. So the church, according to the Apostle is not in disagreement, but can certainly be confused on the issue. This confusion no doubt occurred during his day as well, demanding the response that was given him by God to write for us. If you still do not believe that God is saying that homosexuality is degrading passion, what do you do with the truth given. The words (greek) is very emphatic and clear with the term “degrading”. So the quality of the act has been very well defined by God. How do you reconcile that in your mind? Blessings.
bapticus hereticus: I, too, have friends that are UMC, PCUSA, etc. that are in agreement with you, as is most of my family, too. Your question was whether the church was of one mind on these issues, to which, however obvious to me at least, it is not. As a pastor I am sure you know there are various interpretative mechanisms in which to approach scripture, and I am confident due to your preparation for said role that you know of these and the various suppositions that others which disagree with you take (and the oft elusive and multidimensional character of truth); and I am confident that you understand these issues are not going to be reconciled to everyone’s satisfaction in the near or intermediate future, but what I am not confident in is the ability or desire of some to recognize that there are other issues on which we can find sufficient agreement and need for shared ministry. For the record, I reconcile my beliefs much the same way that you likely do: I study, pray, reflect, discuss, worship, repent, involve myself with others, etc..
BH,
Not all hermeneutical approaches are equally valid. Some, indeed, are not valid at all. As I would wish for many conservative believers to acknowledge about passages regarding stewardship and the care of the poor, as I would wish many non-Baptists to acknowledge regarding immersion, and as I would wish those whom you mention to acknowledge regarding homosexuality...
..."I didn't like that part of the Bible, so I'm ignoring it"...
...doth not a hermeneutic make.
Can you indicate to us which hermeneutical approach has, anytime in the entire history of the planet prior to 1950, come up with approbation of homosexuality in the Bible?
BH,
I hear what you are advocating. But, in spite of my, your, or anyone’s attempt to dance around God’s use of the Greek to display “degrading passion”, the church (those called out to understand these words) can only agree with the rendering or not agree (be opposed to it). The agreement is to agree with God, not with man or any denominational affiliations. When a group of individuals begin to ignore the simple truths of scripture (as in Romans 1),they run the risk of being set aside by God (Revelation 2).
The acts of “degrading passion” are not complex to understand. Certainly there are many “churches” that find it appealing to redefine this simplistic declarative, but would you not agree that the Apostle is clear and not ambiguous in any way at this point. He is meaning it for comfort to the Roman believers, declaring, not judging the truth concerning righteousness and unrighteousness. In other words, the Apostle is not arguing to determine the force of “degrading passion”,…he is simply declaring its existence and how it will survive as God allows it to continue.
The church has no other option than to tell the truth, does it not?
Blessings,
Chris
Earlier today I posted a comment in a comment thread dealing with a fellow who is very confused about such things as biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. The subject matter, among other things, was homosexuality and incest. I do not believe him to be lost and on his way to a Devil's hell as is Baptist Heretic. But I do think him to be very confused none the less.
Here is the comment:
In 1909 G.K. Chesterton said; “Men do not differ much about what they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”
Take note of this part of the quote in light of this post: “….they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”
Chesterton’s words have an even greater impact today as is illustrated in the following:
Recently, the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) seemed to suggest that the Bible isn’t the last word on homosexuality.
It is reported thusly:
Bishop Mark Henson said “….the understanding we have of homosexuality today does not seem to be reflective at all in the context of the biblical writers. Therefore, Lutherans should consider more modern views on sexual orientation.”
He went on to say; “God is still speaking to us.” later he said; “….more homosexual-friendly policies may help the denomination grow.”
It seems to me that Heretic believes that the greatest virtue of Christianity is to excuse evil and we can all work together without parameters within faith. Of course, Heretic is lost and has probably been seduced by some liberal teacher of religion somewhere who made him think he was a believer by virtue of him being sincere about believing in the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man or some such silly thing.
The sad thing is that the fellow which I reference from the other thread will likely go out and produce a thousand more like Heretic.
cb
Bart: BH, Not all hermeneutical approaches are equally valid. Some, indeed, are not valid at all. As I would wish for many conservative believers to acknowledge about passages regarding stewardship and the care of the poor, as I would wish many non-Baptists to acknowledge regarding immersion, and as I would wish those whom you mention to acknowledge regarding homosexuality... "I didn't like that part of the Bible, so I'm ignoring it"...
...doth not a hermeneutic make. Can you indicate to us which hermeneutical approach has, anytime in the entire history of the planet prior to 1950, come up with approbation of homosexuality in the Bible?
bapticus hereticus: Are you suggesting that insights and interpretative approaches since 1950 are illegitimate? Did theological method and reflection end prior to 1950? Nonetheless, I could say historical-critical, literary, philosophical, etc., and then you would likely say, “hey, we have those arguments, too, and they are much better.” And I would say, “OK. Gagnon makes some good points, but not everyone is going to accept both the process and outcome of his and other like-minded individual’s arguments. Via makes a good argument, too, (some of which even conservatives would embrace) but not all (liberals or conservatives) are going to accept his arguments, either, although liberals would be more inclined toward Via. And then there is process theology. Anathema to most conservatives. Such is instructive (and it predates 1950), however, and such would assert ways of knowing such as reason, experience, and scripture (e.g., Cobb), but not likely in a manner that will compel conservatives to its positions.” Bart, there are good people on both sides of this/these issue/issues, and many see no need to demonize the other for disagreeing, but sadly that is not true of all, e.g., witness the silliness of CB’s posts in this thread. The point that I have made in this thread is simple: the biological argument (and to a lesser degree the historical argument) advanced does not compel me to accept it as sufficient for denying homosexuality or marriage among homosexuals.
BH,
The issue does not seem to be whether we should be “denying homosexuality or marriage among homosexuals.” The history of the world proves that men and women will act out in homosexuality and will even justify in their own minds their right to marry.
There are two things that the text of scripture makes clear. One is what I mentioned earlier. There is “degrading passion”, being the opposite of “holy passion”. God provides for (1) holy passion (established and described in Genesis 2 and 3), and has made clear that “degrading passion” or acts that are unnatural and the Apostle defines those acts very clearly as being those acts that mitigate against the (2) design of God for man and woman.
Again, if “degrading” or “atimia” has revealed the quality (which is obvious) of the passion proclaimed by a woman acting out unnatural acts with another woman, or a man acting out unnatural acts of passion with another man, then we must believe that to be true. Is there any place in scripture that affirms “holy passion” as a woman acting out sexually with another woman, or if a man is action out sexually with another man?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH,I hear what you are advocating. But, in spite of my, your, or anyone’s attempt to dance around God’s use of the Greek to display “degrading passion”, the church (those called out to understand these words) can only agree with the rendering or not agree (be opposed to it). The agreement is to agree with God, not with man or any denominational affiliations. When a group of individuals begin to ignore the simple truths of scripture (as in Romans 1),they run the risk of being set aside by God (Revelation 2). The acts of “degrading passion” are not complex to understand. Certainly there are many “churches” that find it appealing to redefine this simplistic declarative, but would you not agree that the Apostle is clear and not ambiguous in any way at this point. He is meaning it for comfort to the Roman believers, declaring, not judging the truth concerning righteousness and unrighteousness. In other words, the Apostle is not arguing to determine the force of “degrading passion”,…he is simply declaring its existence and how it will survive as God allows it to continue. The church has no other option than to tell the truth, does it not? Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Do we not see darkly through a glass? Has the church a record of getting it right in all instances? Is not the seed still growing silently? Cannot people disagree without behaviors demonizing the other’s being? Some will go to great lengths in their attempts to convince others of their rightness of understanding, all the while missing the greater, more important point: we are all sinful, yeah, even the disciple, and in need of God’s grace. Perhaps one day our need to correct the other will give way to our freedom to love the other. Goodness, who knows what that might influence. By all means, I encourage you to plant the mustard seed as you best perceive it need be done, but what does any of us really know from said point about its growth? Must we think it can’t be or won’t be without us?
BH,
With the truth we have, we do not see dimly concerning holy marriage. That is very clear. Also, we do not see dimly concerning acts of unnatural sexual relations. We see clearly, do we not? These are simply truths of scripture.
I agree that there are many things we do not see clearly. Yet, if we are confused on whether God created man, and provided women to the man in a holy relationship, then we are not willing to see God’s simple truth. We would be intent on other motives,…our motives, not God’s truth. Knowing the truth, sets people free.
1 Corinthian 13:11-12 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. (12) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
The Corinthians were a perfect crowd to receive this message from the Apostle Paul. Because of their selfishness, they had perfected about 21 abominations against God and his church that Paul was kind enough to correct for us. So he did not want them to remain as a naïve child, but to do away with childish thinking,…so the mirror we have is dim, yet not unclear. Now we know things with clarity because of God’s Word. Then, we will know fully so much more of His purpose and more importantly be fully known.
I encourage you not to be enticed or seduced into believing that the mirror, with what we have been given, has not been given without great clarity. Because it has. It is for freedom that He has set us free.
Blessings,
Chris
CB: I do not believe him to be lost and on his way to a Devil's hell as is Baptist Heretic. … The sad thing is that the fellow … will likely go out and produce a thousand more like Heretic.
bapticus hereticus: Now about that Kentucky report. Were you consulted?
Chris: BH, The issue does not seem to be whether we should be “denying homosexuality or marriage among homosexuals.” The history of the world proves that men and women will act out in homosexuality and will even justify in their own minds their right to marry. There are two things that the text of scripture makes clear. One is what I mentioned earlier. There is “degrading passion”, being the opposite of “holy passion”. God provides for (1) holy passion (established and described in Genesis 2 and 3), and has made clear that “degrading passion” or acts that are unnatural and the Apostle defines those acts very clearly as being those acts that mitigate against the (2) design of God for man and woman. Again, if “degrading” or “atimia” has revealed the quality (which is obvious) of the passion proclaimed by a woman acting out unnatural acts with another woman, or a man acting out unnatural acts of passion with another man, then we must believe that to be true. Is there any place in scripture that affirms “holy passion” as a woman acting out sexually with another woman, or if a man is action out sexually with another man? Blessings[.]
Chris: BH, With the truth we have, we do not see dimly concerning holy marriage. That is very clear. Also, we do not see dimly concerning acts of unnatural sexual relations. We see clearly, do we not? These are simply truths of scripture. I agree that there are many things we do not see clearly. Yet, if we are confused on whether God created man, and provided women to the man in a holy relationship, then we are not willing to see God’s simple truth. We would be intent on other motives,…our motives, not God’s truth. Knowing the truth, sets people free. 1 Corinthian 13:11-12 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. (12) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. The Corinthians were a perfect crowd to receive this message from the Apostle Paul. Because of their selfishness, they had perfected about 21 abominations against God and his church that Paul was kind enough to correct for us. So he did not want them to remain as a naïve child, but to do away with childish thinking,…so the mirror we have is dim, yet not unclear. Now we know things with clarity because of God’s Word. Then, we will know fully so much more of His purpose and more importantly be fully known. I encourage you not to be enticed or seduced into believing that the mirror, with what we have been given, has not been given without great clarity. Because it has. It is for freedom that He has set us free. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Do women in your church cover their heads during worship, Chris?
No Heretic, I did not read the report, but believe it or not I did graduate with honors from there.
But I have heard and read the biblical report that only by the gospel can you know the free pardon of sin. And even if I was a raving idiot, I can know I am saved and on my way to heaven and so can you if you repent and believe the gospel.
cb
BH,
This is an excellent question…. “Do women in your church cover their heads during worship, Chris?” Yes, by way of their husbands. You see when you bring up this question, it is important to understand the context and reason for the Apostles instruction. The Apostle is emphatically explaining the natural order that God has created since the beginning. Christ is head of every man, Man is head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. A beautiful reflection of the holy order established and ordained for us at the creation of man. The Corinthians had abolished this order in their church, much like churches do today. The Apostle is encouraging them to return to God’s ordained order so that when they meet together they will be prepared to obey their Lord in His Supper. Not only were women usurping the headship of the man, but many in the church were drunk and hungry. If the church is serious about their Savior, they will heed to the Apostles instruction to maintain order.
Why do you ask? Returning to order in the church is a common theme for the Apostle Paul. Customs can assist in this and be used as a manner of instruction in order to return to God’s natural law. Homosexual acts are neither customs or natural.
The Apostle used circumcision as well, even when it was not necessary (Acts 15).
Do women cover their heads in your congregation?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, This is an excellent question…. “Do women in your church cover their heads during worship, Chris?” Yes, by way of their husbands. You see when you bring up this question, it is important to understand the context and reason for the Apostles instruction. The Apostle is emphatically explaining the natural order that God has created since the beginning. Christ is head of every man, Man is head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. A beautiful reflection of the holy order established and ordained for us at the creation of man. The Corinthians had abolished this order in their church, much like churches do today. The Apostle is encouraging them to return to God’s ordained order so that when they meet together they will be prepared to obey their Lord in His Supper. Not only were women usurping the headship of the man, but many in the church were drunk and hungry. If the church is serious about their Savior, they will heed to the Apostles instruction to maintain order. Why do you ask? Returning to order in the church is a common theme for the Apostle Paul. Customs can assist in this and be used as a manner of instruction in order to return to God’s natural law. Homosexual acts are neither customs or natural. The Apostle used circumcision as well, even when it was not necessary (Acts 15). Do women cover their heads in your congregation? Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Thank you, Chris; you have provided an important element in the conversation, that is, you apply an interpretative scheme to scripture … just as your liberal counterparts do, and as such, they read the few passages pertaining to homosexuality (which on these boards have been discussed endlessly, with little movement by either conservatives or liberals) and come to different conclusions. Thus given your statement above, asserted by the more progressive Christians is that homosexual acts are not considered unnatural for the homosexual. That, of course, is not a position that conservatives can accept. Concerning women in my church: some do, but most do not. As you would expect, churches in which I affiliate are less oriented toward hierarchy.
cb: No Heretic, I did not read the report, but believe it or not I did graduate with honors from there. But I have heard and read the biblical report that only by the gospel can you know the free pardon of sin. And even if I was a raving idiot, I can know I am saved and on my way to heaven and so can you if you repent and believe the gospel.
bapticus hereticus: Doesn’t it strike you as odd, then, that no one will acknowledge before the public that he or she authored a report detailing the number of people going to hell from the state of Kentucky? Do you suppose the author is not as confident about his or her gift of “knowing as God knows” as you apparently are?
BH, if you were assigned the task of determining how many people in Kentucky, or Georgia, or wherever, were going to Hell, what methodology would you employ? Let's presume for the sake of discussion that you get to devise criteria helpful to indicate which of three categories best describes each person as he or she presently exists: (1) Someone extremely likely to go to Heaven; (2) Someone whose eternal destination seems difficult to predict; and (3) Someone extremely like to go to Hell, unless hoped-for changes take place.
What would be the criteria appropriate to those categories?
Bart: BH, if you were assigned the task of determining how many people in Kentucky, or Georgia, or wherever, were going to Hell, what methodology would you employ? Let's presume for the sake of discussion that you get to devise criteria helpful to indicate which of three categories best describes each person as he or she presently exists: (1) Someone extremely likely to go to Heaven; (2) Someone whose eternal destination seems difficult to predict; and (3) Someone extremely like to go to Hell, unless hoped-for changes take place. What would be the criteria appropriate to those categories?
bapticus hereticus: One, these are not questions I would ask, and two, developing a methodology for such would be moot. The questions I would ask would be something like: “In what way could we, given our skills and resources, manifest the gospel in x community?”
BH,
I realize you must find some “important element” to justify your thinking. Liberal is an interesting word as well. Just associating me to liberal brings no substance to this discussion. If someone does not think God has defined homosexuality as “degrading passion”, then they bring definition to liberal in their interpretation of scripture, since they choose not to agree with scripture; not me. Again, the burden of proof is not on those that can read the Greek and determine that “atimia” is degrading and the passion concerning natural sexual passion is clearly held up against what God calls degrading.
You seem to want to ignore the obvious. God says that unnatural acts are considered unnatural. Why is that so unclear to you? Whether you or I believe what God has said does not change what God has said. Whether you feel comfortable around a group of folks that may agree with your ideas does not make the ideas profitable. It is the reality in the idea that either corroborates the Word of God or not. Homosexual acts are either God honoring or they are degrading. God says degrading. A small, yet vocal group of people believe that God is lying when He calls homosexual acts degrading.
There is not one word of scripture that lifts up homosexual acts as natural is there?
Blessings,
Chris
BH,
As far as the hierarchical question is concerned, you are right, there is not hierarchy within the church, …there is only submission and an understanding of order that God has clearly revealed.
People that fall into defending their selfish desires, tend to call “foul” with the word hierarchy. When all along the Holy Spirit has given order in the church, so that the fruit of the Spirit can work to edify all.
Ephesians 4:14-16 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (15) but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
The defense by anyone in the church to advance homosexual acts (degrading passion) in the church; clearly defined by God as unnatural,….that type of activity is what scripture defines as “deceitful scheming”. What is not seen by those advancing homosexual acts in the church is that their activity leads the church away from love. In fact, most people that advance homosexual acts in the church say just simply try to defend the opposite. They pretend that homosexual acts will bring glory and honor to God, which leads to love. The problem with that type of thinking is that the advancers of homosexual activity are calling God a liar. They say He did not say what He has clearly said. It is that simple.
Now of course, if the advancers of homosexual acts in the church want to leave out the word “atimia” from their bibles, and try to make a claim on the meta-narrative of the biblical record with respect to man and woman, then there is no shortage of freedom for that discussion to continue in America (free speech). Personally, I like the idea of discussing the truth of “degrading passion” and what scripture says about it, because the church profits from understanding the truth concerning homosexual acts and what God has said. Exposing the advancement of homosexual acts within the context of the church is very beneficial, because as the truth is known and understood,… it will lead to the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Blessings,
Chris
BH,
OK, that's a good enough starting point. What is the gospel and what does it mean to "manifest" it. How do you know whether you've manifested the gospel?
Chris: BH, As far as the hierarchical question is concerned, you are right, there is not hierarchy within the church, …there is only submission and an understanding of order that God has clearly revealed. People that fall into defending their selfish desires, tend to call “foul” with the word hierarchy. When all along the Holy Spirit has given order in the church, so that the fruit of the Spirit can work to edify all. Ephesians 4:14-16 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (15) but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. The defense by anyone in the church to advance homosexual acts (degrading passion) in the church; clearly defined by God as unnatural,….that type of activity is what scripture defines as “deceitful scheming”. What is not seen by those advancing homosexual acts in the church is that their activity leads the church away from love. In fact, most people that advance homosexual acts in the church say just simply try to defend the opposite. They pretend that homosexual acts will bring glory and honor to God, which leads to love. The problem with that type of thinking is that the advancers of homosexual activity are calling God a liar. They say He did not say what He has clearly said. It is that simple. Now of course, if the advancers of homosexual acts in the church want to leave out the word “atimia” from their bibles, and try to make a claim on the meta-narrative of the biblical record with respect to man and woman, then there is no shortage of freedom for that discussion to continue in America (free speech). Personally, I like the idea of discussing the truth of “degrading passion” and what scripture says about it, because the church profits from understanding the truth concerning homosexual acts and what God has said. Exposing the advancement of homosexual acts within the context of the church is very beneficial, because as the truth is known and understood,… it will lead to the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: I appreciate your comments, Chris, and I understand why you would use some of the language evidenced in your post, for your interpretative scheme leads you to such; mine, however, does not lead to the same place, thus we have a disagreement on these issues (i.e., homosexuality, submission), even as we proceed from the same set of ‘facts.’ My vocation is in research and situations like this are not unique, that is, it is not uncommon for data to fit more than one theoretical conceptualization. Whereas I think, to date, that my perspective is closer to a canonical understanding of scripture than yours, I am, nonetheless, open to new insights and the re-consideration of previously dismissed positions. If however along the way I refuse to affirm the value and dignity of the other that opposes my perspective, do I not attenuate or nullify any gain that I might accrue by being right on a particular point?
Chris: BH, I realize you must find some “important element” to justify your thinking. Liberal is an interesting word as well. Just associating me to liberal brings no substance to this discussion. If someone does not think God has defined homosexuality as “degrading passion”, then they bring definition to liberal in their interpretation of scripture, since they choose not to agree with scripture; not me. Again, the burden of proof is not on those that can read the Greek and determine that “atimia” is degrading and the passion concerning natural sexual passion is clearly held up against what God calls degrading. You seem to want to ignore the obvious. God says that unnatural acts are considered unnatural. Why is that so unclear to you? Whether you or I believe what God has said does not change what God has said. Whether you feel comfortable around a group of folks that may agree with your ideas does not make the ideas profitable. It is the reality in the idea that either corroborates the Word of God or not. Homosexual acts are either God honoring or they are degrading. God says degrading. A small, yet vocal group of people believe that God is lying when He calls homosexual acts degrading. There is not one word of scripture that lifts up homosexual acts as natural is there? [Blessing].
bapticus hereticus: Here, again, Chris, we have a difference in perspective. I don’t hold to the notion that God wrote scripture, a verbal plenary perspective that some find meaningful. Paul is the author of the passage in which you speak, reflecting a particular time and understanding. His words, nonetheless are instructive and useful, and they are open to interpretations that allow his insights to breathe.
Bart: BH,OK, that's a good enough starting point. What is the gospel and what does it mean to "manifest" it. How do you know whether you've manifested the gospel?
bapticus hereticus: Think of the gospel as a latent construct, rich with meaning. How might such meaning be brought to bear by the behaviors of individuals that value and are committed to it?
BH,
Latent constructs may not be so easily observable, but they are usually definable, otherwise they are not really constructs at all. My first question asked you to quantify or observe the gospel, but you were unwilling. I have subsequently moved to a simple request that you define the gospel. You consider it to be "rich with meaning." Pull out some of those riches into words, if you don't mind.
Bart: BH, Latent constructs may not be so easily observable, but they are usually definable, otherwise they are not really constructs at all. My first question asked you to quantify or observe the gospel, but you were unwilling. I have subsequently moved to a simple request that you define the gospel. You consider it to be "rich with meaning." Pull out some of those riches into words, if you don't mind.
bapticus hereticus: When the prophets spoke of God, covenant, and God’s love for the people, they were more or less successful in their efforts. Actually, less. They spoke of previous events and promises, people and problems, but many apparently needed something more to affect their understanding of following after God and God’s love for the people. The word of and about God, then, became flesh, it became manifest in the person Jesus, and they, then, had the greatest clarity about what it means to follow after God and God’s love for the people. What can God’s people do to demonstrate the depth of God’s love for the people?
Hmmmm.....
Here's how I would answer that question:
Each individual human being is a rebellious sinner destined to a well-earned eternity in Hell and with no hope of any other outcome. Into this dire situation came the Triune God incarnate in and as Jesus Christ. He was miraculously conceived and born of a virgin and performed many miracles in the few years of his perfectly sinless life. Wicked mankind murdered him without cause, and in his death by crucifixion he died as our substitute to receive the punishment and pay the cost attributable to universal human sinfulness. All and only those who expressly and voluntarily repent of their sins, trust in the crucified, buried, and risen God-man Jesus Christ, and confess publicly that Jesus is their Lord will be brought to life spiritually, will be transformed spiritually through sanctification, and will, rather than going to Hell where they rightly deserve to go, go to Heaven for eternity when their time on this earth is ended.
BH, do you agree with that?
BH,
It appears that by your own admission, God is not the author of what Christians believe is His Holy Scripture. So, with that type of understanding, you are correct (at least according to you today) that we are working from differing perspectives. I believe there is absolute truth. You, by your admission here, apparently do not believe that is possible. To assume that God did not write scripture, really does make our discussion much more about opinion and interpretation, and less about truth. So, if a Greek word is written in the scriptures, you would simply argue for bias and conveniently blot out the word in the event it does not fit your current train of thought. That is a convenient process, but not a very loving process to say the least.
Even though you admitted you don’t believe the Apostle Peter either….because I do, I will leave you with his instructive and useful words…..
2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, (21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
This is clear for all Christians that have learned Christ by way of the Holy Spirit’s activity.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart: Hmmmm..... Here's how I would answer that question: Each individual human being is a rebellious sinner destined to a well-earned eternity in Hell and with no hope of any other outcome. Into this dire situation came the Triune God incarnate in and as Jesus Christ. He was miraculously conceived and born of a virgin and performed many miracles in the few years of his perfectly sinless life. Wicked mankind murdered him without cause, and in his death by crucifixion he died as our substitute to receive the punishment and pay the cost attributable to universal human sinfulness. All and only those who expressly and voluntarily repent of their sins, trust in the crucified, buried, and risen God-man Jesus Christ, and confess publicly that Jesus is their Lord will be brought to life spiritually, will be transformed spiritually through sanctification, and will, rather than going to Hell where they rightly deserve to go, go to Heaven for eternity when their time on this earth is ended. BH, do you agree with that?
bapticus hereticus: What you are intending with the statement is the assertion that the life and work of Jesus are salvific and that in Christ, one begins to experience one’s essential nature, to which I agree, however, I would not state it as you have, but most in my family would. If this be, then, the way you wish to capture the latency of the gospel, then behaviors that represent (i.e., manifest) such would then need to be developed. My preference is to step back from the life and work of Jesus (i.e., manifest indicator) and stress that which stands behind such, i.e., God’s love (i.e., as being like a latent construct). To manifest this love, then, behaviors consistent with the teachings and life of Christ (e.g., ministering, proclaiming, worshipping, etc.), to the extent a community is able, are thus discharged.
BH,
I'm not saying that "one begins to experience one’s essential nature" in Christ. I'm saying quite the opposite—that the essential nature of humanity is opposed to Christ, for all human beings are sinful in their essence. There is none righteous, not even one.
I'm also saying that these details, like the person and work of Christ, are not some expression of the truth—not some Platonic shadow of another ideal existing behind them—but that they are the truth.
The Bible says that there is no gospel other than these details.
The Bible says that all of those outside this gospel are anathema, condemned, and on their way to Hell.
I am appreciative of your readership and our dialogue. I am also, however, gravely concerned for your spirit. I fear that this, the one and only gospel, is not something that you have accepted.
Please tell me that I'm wrong.
Chris: BH, It appears that by your own admission, God is not the author of what Christians believe is His Holy Scripture. So, with that type of understanding, you are correct (at least according to you today) that we are working from differing perspectives. I believe there is absolute truth. You, by your admission here, apparently do not believe that is possible. To assume that God did not write scripture, really does make our discussion much more about opinion and interpretation, and less about truth. So, if a Greek word is written in the scriptures, you would simply argue for bias and conveniently blot out the word in the event it does not fit your current train of thought. That is a convenient process, but not a very loving process to say the least. Even though you admitted you don’t believe the Apostle Peter either….because I do, I will leave you with his instructive and useful words….. 2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, (21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. This is clear for all Christians that have learned Christ by way of the Holy Spirit’s activity. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: In a corporeal, scientific, sense perception as the primary mode of perception way of thinking, no. But a calling into existence and sourcing one’s being and as the writers’ ultimate concern way of thinking, yes. God, creative author of all that has being of metaphysical integrity, Whom Is Apart From Us and Whom Is Among and Within Us, Whom Is Working Toward Our Good End, is in constant communication with us, wooing us, via non-sensory perception, toward God’s intentions for us. The writers of what we now refer to as scripture were people that had a deep sense of God’s presence and guidance and were highly attuned to non-sensory communication, even if complete com-prehension of such was probably not the case. God, I perceive, via scripture (and I allow for the potential of scripture to falsify such perception), is not coercive, thus what one states and writes in the name of God potentially carries with it bias and reflections of the communities in which one is socialized, given, again, that God seemingly does not violate the self-determining (i.e., freedom) and existential (i.e., fallen) nature of beings.
Concerning absolute truth. Does it exist? I think that it does, but I think I am incapable of knowing it as it is known or as it is. It is too much for me, but nonetheless, I would like to know more truth or at least get closer to it, to the extent we/I are/am presently able. I think one way that we will know is given by John and Paul, that is, we will experience more freedom … and we will thus use that freedom to love one another.
Bart: BH, I'm not saying that "one begins to experience one’s essential nature" in Christ. I'm saying quite the opposite—that the essential nature of humanity is opposed to Christ, for all human beings are sinful in their essence. There is none righteous, not even one. I'm also saying that these details, like the person and work of Christ, are not some expression of the truth—not some Platonic shadow of another ideal existing behind them—but that they are the truth. The Bible says that there is no gospel other than these details. The Bible says that all of those outside this gospel are anathema, condemned, and on their way to Hell. I am appreciative of your readership and our dialogue. I am also, however, gravely concerned for your spirit. I fear that this, the one and only gospel, is not something that you have accepted. Please tell me that I'm wrong.
bapticus hereticus: I would refer to such as one’s existential nature.
And yes, I do appreciate your concern, for we ought to be concerned for one another, but in terms of fear, your time would be better spent fearing and trembling for self, instead. That we would all take such scriptural advice more seriously.
If you wish to make a case that the love of God is not behind the meaning, life, and work of Jesus, I am open to listening. My assertions are not intended to belittle Jesus, but to place his life in a Trinitarian context.
BH: "If you wish to make a case that the love of God is not behind the meaning, life, and work of Jesus, I am open to listening."
I do not wish to do so. I wish to cut through all of the balderdash and ask you for a simple, point-blank answer: Do you personally affirm those truths than I mentioned above and have you consequently therefore received that one-and-only gospel?
HR,
In your last post to me, you have just described to me the Muslim faith, along with several other religions of like faith. Mohammad, by his similiar testimony, had the same faith as you have described.
God has delivered a different faith from the outset of creation than the one you have described.
Continue to search the scriptures.
Blessings,
Chris
Sorry, I meant to address my last post to BH.....
-cj
Chris,
I'll advise Human Resources to disregard your last post.
;-)
Bart,
Heretic and I have gone down this road before.
He always ends it here. That is why I am so persuaded he has never experienced the "religious affections" of the biblical gospel.
I pray for him that he seeks the conviction of the Holy Spirit that he may repent and believe the gospel.
I fear he is not unlike Simon the Sorcerer of the record of the early church.
cb
BH: "If you wish to make a case that the love of God is not behind the meaning, life, and work of Jesus, I am open to listening."
Bart: I do not wish to do so. I wish to cut through all of the balderdash and ask you for a simple, point-blank answer: Do you personally affirm those truths than I mentioned above and have you consequently therefore received that one-and-only gospel?
bapticus hereticus: Whereas I am not a professional minister or a formal scholar of a religious discipline, e.g., NT scholar, theologian, I try somewhat to stay abreast of its various fields, although such is a losing battle, and reflect on the insights generated, which if favorable, are incorporated into my evolving understanding of the Christian faith. But I must confess the areas of greatest influence on me are somewhat dated and are primarily theological (of a philosophical nature), such as neo-orthodoxy, process, existentialism, and critical theory. I sometimes use the vocabulary of these fields, which may be confusing to some, and I apologize if I have used a 10 cent concept when a 5 cent one would do. I don’t consider my reflections and beliefs to be balderdash, nor do I consider those of others that I disagree with (e.g., say, Christian fundementalists’ emphases on inerrancy) as balderdash either, given the structural, process, and content dimensions of faith provide one meaning and a sense of relatedness and importance of their own existence. I would not desire to attenuate any of these perceptions, for to do such would be to move in a direction that is inconsistent with the belief that God, through Jesus Christ (the Lord of a Christian’s life) is reconciling the world to God’s self, and furthermore, it would be behavior inconsistent with the affirmation of living, moving, and having one’s being in God. Do I speak of another gospel to which you have received?
It seems to me Bapticus Hereticus has said what he believes in words which mirror his own thought processes.
Simply put, he believes the Bible are the words of men who had divine insight but were also prone to error. So he doesn't believe the explicit condemnation of homosexuality as sin by some biblical writers means it is in fact sin (and B.H. might put a few caveats in here), and his own reflection on the matter, considering his own transcendental connection with God, leads him to believe it is not always sin.
Is B.H. saved? An "orthodox" belief in the Bible is not the requirement for salvation. Paul wrote of saving faith this way:
"I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.
B.H might have such faith, but I don't think he'll give a "yes" or "no" if we ask him directly. He'll analyze it more than that using words which reflect his own abstract thoughts, and produce an answer which will leave many in doubt.
Chris: HR, In your last post to me, you have just described to me the Muslim faith, along with several other religions of like faith. Mohammad, by his similiar testimony, had the same faith as you have described. God has delivered a different faith from the outset of creation than the one you have described. Continue to search the scriptures.Blessings [.]
haazig ruwaid: Bless you, my friend. Allah knows.
cb: Bart, Heretic and I have gone down this road before. He always ends it here. That is why I am so persuaded he has never experienced the "religious affections" of the biblical gospel. I pray for him that he seeks the conviction of the Holy Spirit that he may repent and believe the gospel. I fear he is not unlike Simon the Sorcerer of the record of the early church.
bapticus hereticus: Some would proclaim the gospel as being the mystery of faith: Christ died, Christ arose, Christ will come again. And then some will live in a manner that actually manifests such belief and value what Jesus valued. But we all have a challenge before us … every moment.
Brother Bart,
Thank you for advising HR of my error.
BH,
One other last remark on this topic of marriage and the plight of those engaged in homosexual acts. The reason that your philosophy of salvation will always be foreign Christ’s testimony to the truth is quite clear.
Homosexual acts lead to death, not life. Why? It is because the basic truth in the creation of man and woman, ordained by God in the institution of marriage, leads us to the life of Christ. The stark reality of a lifetime of homosexual acts has never led, nor can lead to the progeny of the one born of a virgin.
The creation and establishment of humankind by God has so ordered man and woman to bring about His ultimate good to His glory. There is no glory in the homosexual act or the masked motives of fainting love encouraged by selfish ambition surrounding those enamored with the acts. The homosexual act is a denial of Christ, a degrading of the passion established for man and woman, because the homosexual act is a portrayal death. To propose that homosexual acts are of God is to separate Christ from Jesus, as the Apostle John warns us in his first letter. Many have tried; all have failed in this attempt of separation. Such a proposal is anti-Christ and a proposal foreign to the church.
Marriage is clearly ordered and designed for man and woman alone, so that the two will become one flesh to the glory of God. The homosexual acts of men and women are opposed to this design and opposed to the Christ, whom by this order has entered this world as a testimony to the truth, and as a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world by whose blood there is remission of sin to those that believe,…not simply those engaged in the admiring or philosophically arguing about what He has said, but trust what He has said is true. That is the difference between life and death.
1 John 3:5-9 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. (6) No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. (7) Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; (8) the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. (9) No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, ... The reason that your philosophy of salvation will always be foreign Christ’s testimony to the truth is quite clear.
bapticus hereticus: Chris, you are getting ahead of me. How do you understand "[my] philosophy of salvation[?]"
That which cannot be articulated without the aid of Continental philosophers is not the kingdom which one cannot enter except he become as a little child. That which is inexpressible but for arcane and abstract thoughts is not the gospel proclaimed by unlettered fishermen.
bh: Although it became apparent long ago that the first half of your nom de plume is inaccurate, I can conclude no other than that the last half is fitting. In grave concern, I pray for you, and I think that you should listen more closely to C.B.
Bart: That which cannot be articulated without the aid of Continental philosophers is not the kingdom which one cannot enter except he become as a little child. That which is inexpressible but for arcane and abstract thoughts is not the gospel proclaimed by unlettered fishermen. bh[,] Although it became apparent long ago that the first half of your nom de plume is inaccurate, I can conclude no other than that the last half is fitting. In grave concern, I pray for you, and I think that you should listen more closely to C.B.
bapticus hereticus: Bart, if there is nothing to be gained by the insights of philosophers, theologians, and biblical scholars and the tools of their fields, which include the use of abstraction (which is constitutive of higher-order cognitive processing [and higher levels of faith development], which is a value among the professors of the seminary in which you are a trustee), why did you pursue a PhD in church history? Am I not conversing with learned people holding advanced degrees? Recall the story that Barth shares: Jesus loves me, this I know, and twinkle, twinkle little star? Was Barth wrong on this point? Although Barth was not much on philosophy, would anyone think of his writings as being light reading? Did not his crisis theology launch a new direction of theological reflection? Is not the profound truth experienced by these unlettered fishermen worthy of our best and most stringent analysis? A simple, but profound ‘truth’ in physics advanced by Einstein revolutionized the field for years and has greatly benefited humanity, but such would not have occurred if many, many people did not delve into that ‘simple’ truth and tease it out for its implications. But even Einstein’s truth, good as it is, is incomplete. But different from Einstein’s finding, we hold to the ultimacy of the gospel and its power even in its most basic understanding, but do we hold that, even given our belief in its ultimacy, we have definitive understanding of it? The gospel is ultimately a mystery, too; the love of God confounds the mind, but it invites one to search out its meanings and be transformed by what is learned. When the Christian is marginalized for doing such … well, to this we ought to pray that such is not done by other Christians, for how do they benefit by emulating the principalities and powers?
Concerning homosexuality, my opinion is the tendency is present as a result of the Fall. Some engage in homosexual acts because of a latent desire later cultivated, others because of a compulsive and consuming inclination. The right response, one I believe testified to by the Spirit, is to refrain from "all acts of immorality" which include premarital/extramarital sex and all homosexual acts.
Mankind is given many scourges, all ultimately the consequence of human sin. The marred condition of humanity points to our need of the redemption found in Christ which saves us from our many personal and corporate failures.
A four-year-old asks an accomplished meteorological scientist: "I believe that water goes up in the air and makes clouds, and then the water comes out of the clouds to the ground and makes rain. Do you believe that?"
The meteorologist, of course, knows about adiabatic lapse rates and nuclei of condensation and a thousand other arcane things, all of them true and scientific and germane to the question. He has spent years of his life finding answers to questions that most people will never even ask.
And yet, if he knows what he is talking about, he will simply look at the little child and say, "Yes, I believe exactly that."
And if he can't affirm simply these simple truths about evaporation and precipitation, then it is painfully obvious, no matter how quickly he can read a skew-T chart, that he is utterly ignorant of most basic truths of meteorology.
To say so is no indictment of advanced meteorology.
That's a perfect analogy to this conversation. If you will not articulate a simple affirmation of the basics of the Christian gospel, then you are not a Christian. Period.
Yes, I may have studied some things that the unlearned fishermen did not study. God may even have made me smarter than them. But even on the off chance that I might know MORE than they knew, I nonetheless agree with them and can affirm with them all that they did know about the gospel.
What you have affirmed is indeed not the gospel. It is not incompatible with the gospel, but it is not the gospel.
The gospel is not "God is love," nor even "God loves people." The gospel is more specifically, "God so loved the world that He sent His only Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," and, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
The gospel does tell us that God loves us, but it tells us that God loves us in a specific way, through specific acts in history, and with specific expectations of us. Those specifics, and nothing beyond them, are in the statement that I posed to you, as far as I can tell.
The gospel is the collection of those specifics—those specifics that you have declined to affirm.
R Grannemann,
Every time I read a comment produced by you it brings back the memories of pre-CR Liberals.
Are you related to Bill Leonard or Glenn Henson by any chance?
What kind of statement is this:
"Is B.H. saved? An "orthodox" belief in the Bible is not the requirement for salvation...."
What is wrong with you? No one told Heretic he had to have an "orthodox" belief in the Bible at this moment. We all know it is impossible for a lost man to have a valid understanding of Scripture.
Our goal is that Heretic repent of sin and believe the gospel that he might become the child of Holy God and escape God's wrath in the Lake of Fire.
Might I remind you that your efforts to "wax eloquent" are not helping Heretic in the least. Tell the poor man he is lost and must be born again.
You are acting like the fellow of which I referenced from the other thread who will likely go out and produce a thousand more like Heretic if you don't straighten up and get with what you are commissioned to do.
Get with the program or find you a job at the circus.
cb
Simply put, he believes the Bible are the words of men who had divine insight but were also prone to error. So he doesn't believe the explicit condemnation of homosexuality as sin by some biblical writers means it is in fact sin (and B.H. might put a few caveats in here), and his own reflection on the matter, considering his own transcendental connection with God, leads him to believe it is not always sin.
So, are you still getting royalty checks for your work as the voice of the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons, because that's exactly what the above comment sounds like.
Woah Waa Woah Waa Waa Waa
C.B.
I'm glad you are so sure B.H. isn't saved. Sorry if I'm not.
He's been invited by Bart to acknowledge Christ before men. If he doesn't, then maybe he's not saved. More likely, he'll acknowledge Christ in some abstract, convoluted way that isn't entirely wrong, and then you'll still say he isn't saved, and I'll still think he might be.
Joe,
I'm sorry you don't like my summary of what I think B.H. said.
Bart: … articulate a simple affirmation ….
bapticus hereticus: You mean if I will not articulate an affirmation that you approve of then I am not a Christian. Is it you that I am accountable to for my relationship with God? At some point, even you, apparently, will need to, as a baptist, seriously consider that the priesthood of the believer is for others, too, not just for the self. But the response will likely be, “hey, but it ain’t Christian.” And my response would be, “for some in the family, not much is and it seems to be getting harder to find what will pass the approval of a dwindling number of people.” Yesterday it was me; today it is Wade; tomorrow it may be you, Bart.
Bart: … you have affirmed is indeed not the gospel ….
bapticus hereticus: Jesus is not the word of God? The word of God was not manifested in the flesh of Jesus? God is not in Christ reconciling the world to God’s self? I hold these things in the affirmative (i.e., God in Christ reconciling the world ….); do you hold to a gospel in which these are not the case?
Apparently you make simple what you don’t fully grasp, and in doing so, you miss a meaning. Is not the love of God behind the basis of Jesus’ life and work? Was not Jesus about the things that had value for the Father? Did not when asked to clarify the what and why Jesus replied that when one observed him, one observed the Father, as well? Did not Jesus’ life, even to the cross, represent to us the love of the Father? A fleshly demonstration (manifest) of what was spoken of old (construct)? Is that not good news for the people? Given such, are, then, the people compelled to experience an abundant life in Christ and by making manifest the love of God in their community? Did you receive a different gospel, Bart?
Bart: … specifics that you have declined to affirm.
bapticus hereticus: You asked me to provide you an example of the construct-manifest conceptualization. I did. Did you mean for me to provide you a definitive systematic theology? Apparently so. Were you not able to take an abstract thought and generalize from it the many ways it could work (do you not realize that as a construct “God loves,” implies more? And for the Christian working this out, such cannot be done apart from the life and work of Jesus?) My goodness, even Chris’ church’s website proclaims that “there are many ways to share the gospel in the community,” and basically leaves it at that. Why? Inherent in the message is the invitation, “in what way, consistent with our mission, will you serve with us?” It is a short, powerful statement. In doing so, would they not, then, be making manifest what they perceive to be the gospel? Not only in what they say, but in what they do, too? Would they not be sharing the love of God? Do you suppose the “love of God” is also a concept that is worthy of fleshing out, as well? “I was hungry and you fed me. Why did you do that at such cost to yourself?”
Sharing the gospel in the community and allowing the Spirit to work? Isn’t that better than making public pronouncements that ‘n’ amount of people in Kentucky are going to hell (to which when confronted by the public, no one in this baptist agency has the integrity to say, “hey, I am the one who wrote the report”)?
Do you wish, Bart, to state that you can provide a definitive statement on the meaning of the gospel? Have you exhausted the mystery of God and depth of the Son’s love? When you speak on a subject, do you say, “what I am going to say is definitive, and you will have no need to follow up for there is nothing additional that may be said?” I don’t speak like that, my friend, given that for me the end of theology has not occurred. But even on the things that I affirm and hold as true, when I speak of them, I speak in part, and for most people, there is power in the part, as well. For some, such invites the other to engage the concept, rather than being in a “conversation” (i.e., monologue) which is mainly about what I know.
R. Grannemann,
How can you be "glad" that I am sure Heretic is lost?
What kind of thing is that to be glad about? I certainly am not glad I know Heretic is lost. I long to see the poor man saved before he dies without Christ and spends time everlasting burning in the fires of hell where the worm never dies and the anguish is beyond the experience of the most tortured of living men.
Seriously man, what is wrong with you? Why do you seek to be so very politically correct in regard to a man's soul?
I hammer at Heretic because it is evident he is lost. You come along with your silly rhetoric and give a lost man vain hope that his understanding and experience is possibly sufficient to be considered as a saved man?
Your talk about peace, love and understanding is nothing but vain babbling from a dulled and hardened heart. Do you believe anyone is lost? Have you ever looked a lost person in the eyes and told him he must be born again or for sure he would go to hell?
I am serious man. If I remember, you are in some kind of ministry, right? If you have no more conviction that what you consistently post in comment threads, you need to get out of any kind of ministry and find work more suitable to your milk-toast convictions. Go get a job with PETA. Help other liberals save animals or something. But leave the souls of men to those who actually care-to those who know lost men go to hell and there is only one gospel that can save them.
R. Grannemann: He's been invited by Bart to acknowledge Christ before men. If he doesn't, then maybe he's not saved. More likely, he'll acknowledge Christ in some abstract, convoluted way that isn't entirely wrong, and then you'll still say he isn't saved, and I'll still think he might be.
bapticus hereticus: Thank you, R., for the closest thing I have received to a benefit of the doubt. What Bart is apparently asking me to do is affirm for myself, to him, the way he beliefs, and as such, my beliefs would be legitimate. Recall I previously stated, “What you are intending with the statement is the assertion that the life and work of Jesus are salvific and that in Christ, one begins to experience one’s essential nature, to which I agree, however, I would not state it as you have….
If I were to say, Jesus is Lord, can you tell me what questions I would, then, need to answer, and does before men mean this blog, or does before men in another forum count, or would this forum even count with an affirmation of the former?
Apart from one who wishes to play a sick joke on people and thus diminish their own being, who would write as I do that did not profess the Christian faith?
Yesterday it was me; today it is Wade; tomorrow it may be you, Bart.
That would seem unlikely. The only reason it was you is because you don't believe the gospel. The only reason today it is Wade is because, as much as he tries to straddle the fence, his true colors can't help but bleed through.
BH,
I have a robust belief in "the priesthood of the believer," although that is a term that does not occur in the Bible. Understood biblically, it is a helpful concept.
But one must note in the very term itself that it is "the priesthood of THE BELIEVER," and that's the very question before us.
Certainly the Bible does not present to us any suggestion that we are free to form our own opinions and that God is obligated to receive them as truth because we have some innate right to believe as we wish and to act as we wish.
We do not decide what the gospel is. I do not. You do not. It has been revealed. With regard to the question "What must I do to be saved?" theology has indeed ended. Barth had nothing to add to that topic. Nor did Whitehead. Nothing has been added to that topic since the first century A.D.
CB: But leave the souls of men to those who actually care-to those who know lost men go to hell and there is only one gospel that can save them.
bapticus hereticus: I have been posting to this blog off and on for nearly a year and in this time the language you have used about me, especially if you believe I am lost, is, well, embarrassing, and I challenge you, if you think not, to use our dialogues in a witnessing class and see if those in attendance will embrace your method. I go by "bapticus hereticus," and yes it is crude for baptist heretic, but it is not spelled baptist heretic, it is spelled bapticus hereticus. Not once, CB, have you referred to me as I refer to myself on this blog: bapticus hereticus. Tell me, my friend, how this communicates that you care? In changing the attitudes of another, three things typically need to operate simultaneously: belief in the sincerity of the one seeking to influence, belief in the integrity of the message being presented, and belief that the message has utility for the self. If I were lost, CB, and only had you to learn of the gospel, parts 2 and 3 would be compromised because I do not perceive part 1. I would perceive such with Bart or with Chris, but not with or of you. Thus, if you really believe I am lost, either you change and convince me that you care, or you would do well to remain silent concerning me. If you really believe that I am lost, do you want to risk go into eternity with my blood on your hands?
Heretic,
You must be out for break there in South Carolina. While you are away from your students, why not find a good conservative gospel preaching pastor and relate to him your personal experience of salvation.
Walk through your spiritual history with him. Of course, we both know you cannot articulate a time when you experienced the saving grace of Christ in your life. Let him share the gospel with you that you might be born again.
Heretic, have you ever experienced the convicting power of the Spirit of your lost condition before a just and righteous God?
That is the only hope you have. Begin to pray and ask God to show you your lost condition. Ask Him to bring godly sorrow into your hard heart. Ask God to show you the truth of your spiritual condition.
Heretic, don't wait too late. If you do, you have nothing but hell and torment before you.
C.B.
Nope, not a minister.
"Your talk about peace, love and understanding is nothing but vain babbling from a dulled and hardened heart." I don't think I said anything about peace, love and understanding.
I summarized what I thought H.B. said. I didn't agree with it. How is this being politically correct?
Bart: BH, I have a robust belief in "the priesthood of the believer," although that is a term that does not occur in the Bible. Understood biblically, it is a helpful concept.
But one must note in the very term itself that it is "the priesthood of THE BELIEVER," and that's the very question before us. Certainly the Bible does not present to us any suggestion that we are free to form our own opinions and that God is obligated to receive them as truth because we have some innate right to believe as we wish and to act as we wish. We do not decide what the gospel is. I do not. You do not. It has been revealed. With regard to the question "What must I do to be saved?" theology has indeed ended. Barth had nothing to add to that topic. Nor did Whitehead. Nothing has been added to that topic since the first century A.D.
bapticus hereticus: Goodness, Bart, not only do you deny the priesthood of the believer, you even deny the believer.
Heretic,
Your blood is not on my hands. It is not even on R Grannemann's hands even tough he fails to tell you the truth. My poor lost friend, your blood is upon your own head.
You have been given the gospel time and time again. Yet, our heart is still hardened before Holy God.
Heretic, when Jesus says those terrible words to you; "Depart for I never knew you", there will be no one to blame other than yourself. And, you will.
You will blame yourself for all eternity as you suffer the tortures of the Lake of Fire.
"Nope, not a minister."
That is wonderful news there, RG. You have no idea how glad I am to hear that today.
Go and find one (a minister) who knows the truth of the gospel to help you get straight about the way of salvation and Scripture in general.
The CB Scott Method of Witnessing
CB: Bob, Jesus loves you.
Sam: CB, my name is Sam.
CB: Frank, you swine, you are headed for hell, and you know that I know and you know that I know you know that is true.
Sam: CB, who is Frank?
CB: Tony, why are you denying that you know nothing about Jesus and all things spiritual and never had a decent thought in your life? You know, you are quite ignorant.
Sam: You know my name is Sam, right?
CB: Sure, Harry. Did I tell you that I love you in Jesus' name?
Sam: You sure you got that right?
CB: Heretic, Your blood is not on my hands. It is not even on R Grannemann's hands even tough he fails to tell you the truth. My poor lost friend, your blood is upon your own head. You have been given the gospel time and time again. Yet, our heart is still hardened before Holy God. Heretic, when Jesus says those terrible words to you; "Depart for I never knew you", there will be no one to blame other than yourself. And, you will. You will blame yourself for all eternity as you suffer the tortures of the Lake of Fire.
bapticus hereticus: CB, when an unbeliever tells you that they find you an impediment to their belief in the gospel because of the interpersonally offensive way you relate to them, will you continue to be interpersonally offensive, that is, treat them in the same manner? Would you consider that after a point God may have another in mind to bear witness to said person and that God's team has others/another beside yourself?
Heretic,
You confirm the writings of the Apostle Paul about us simpletons who preach the gospel to the "wise" like yourself. My witness is not with finesses, but for some reason it seems to work.
Therefore, I shall continue in my heritage. I believe I am in good company.
1 Corinthians 1:18-31:
"18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”
CB: Heretic, You confirm the writings of the Apostle Paul about us simpletons who preach the gospel to the "wise" like yourself. My witness is not with finesses, but for some reason it seems to work. Therefore, I shall continue in my heritage. I believe I am in good company ....
bapticus hereticus: CB, did you not receive a doctorate or are presently working on one?
Heretic,
As I have already said and you have continuously confirmed over and over; You have no idea what God "may have....in mind" for you do not know Him as His child. You cannot know the things of God for you are like unto the swine who would not know how to value pearls when it comes to the things of God.
Heretic, I think we have come full circle again. How many times is that now, in the last year?
I will have to leave you now. I have to go and use my foolish way of sharing the gospel with another this evening. But know this, I have and will pray for you that you come under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit and repent of your sins and believe the gospel.
I trust you will pray for yourself the same prayer. And please do so before it is too late.
cb
B.H.
I missed your reply to me at until now.
"Before men" does not mean to this blog.
B.H. to Bart: “What you are intending with the statement is the assertion that the life and work of Jesus are salvific and that in Christ, one begins to experience one’s essential nature, to which I agree, however, I would not state it as you have…."
"If I were to say, Jesus is Lord, can you tell me what questions I would, then, need to answer."
I think your statement has the right words. The fact you care that I believe you are saved, that you care about making the "good confession" to men, if not to this blog, is an indication to me that you are saved.
I'm not sure I feel comfortable presuming to give this advice, but the people on this blog are our brothers, and if you want to put your brothers at peace (if that is possible) simply make your confession at bit more personal. Say that you are personally trusting in Jesus as savior and Lord, that you count his death on the cross is the satisfaction for your sins, that you believe in Christ's resurrection and have the hope of eternal life in him.
If that doesn't satisfy them, I don't know what will.
I'm not saying your other words don't imply this in some measure. But your belief concerning homosexuality gives conservative Christians some doubt.
CB: I will have to leave you now. I have to go and use my foolish way of sharing the gospel with another this evening.
bapticus hereticus: Again, CB, did you not receive a doctorate or are presently working on one?
My doubts have nothing whatsoever to do with BH's views on homosexuality.
Bart: My doubts have nothing whatsoever to do with BH's views on homosexuality.
bapticus hereticus: I am in good company. Last week one of your regular readers had questions (i.e., doubt) about Daniel Vestal. The pattern is clear: when efforts to convince another (typically, the "another" is the more progressive participant) to your (i.e., the conservative persepctive) point of view are unsucessful, then move the discussion to the validy of their (i.e., the progressive participant) faith, or rather lack of such.
BH,
Let me see if I understand you: You're saying that I have a pattern, when people disagree with me, of accusing them of not being Christians?
Bart: BH, Let me see if I understand you: You're saying that I have a pattern, when people disagree with me, of accusing them of not being Christians?
bapticus hereticus: Bart, I did not personalize the comment (nor spell check it, either), nor did I have any person in mind when I wrote the comment. I was simply referencing several outcomes.
Because if that's what you're saying, then you're NUTS. In the entire history of this site, there have been three people total whom I've suggested were not Christians. You may very well believe that you are in good company—they were Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and you.
I do not recall that I have ever blogged a single word, not one, about Daniel Vestal, and I challenge you either to provide a word-for-word quote from me or to retract and apologize.
You mentioned Wade Burleson, and I've certainly had innumerable disagreements with him, yet I am confident that he is a believer.
On those occasions when I have had concerns about somebody not being a believer, it has always, every time, been because they either denied or refused to affirm some central aspect of the gospel. For example:
1. The full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
2. The lostness of all humanity apart from Christ in their sin.
3. The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.
4. The death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
5. The exclusivity of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
... and then, apart from those propositional aspects of the gospel, the volitional aspect of having...
1. Personally repented of one's own sinfulness
2. Trusted in Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation (which includes a belief that Jesus is all of those things listed above and did all of those things listed above)
3. Confessed verbally and publicly that Jesus is their Lord.
Yes, when one sets aside these cardinal truths of the gospel, one is not a Christian and is outside the gospel. When one will not affirm them unambiguously, then I have no unambiguous confidence in that person's salvation.
Here's another example: Aaron Weaver. Who's more "progressive" (a.k.a. liberal) in Southern Baptist life? Some, perhaps, but Aaron is way over to the left. Have I ever questioned his salvation (and he's been over here a lot)? I have not.
BH,
Our posts crossed one another, and now I see how I misunderstood you. I apologize.
I thought you were saying that one of my regular readers was asking questions IN FAVOR of Daniel Vestal (I was occupied and didn't pay careful attention to that thread, but recall that somebody was advocating Daniel Vestal in the comments).
Anyway, I thought that you were on here talking about me having questioned someone's salvation because they said nice things about Daniel Vestal. I see now what you were saying.
BH,
Wow…I missed a few things since I had to leave the comment stream yesterday to attend a Christmas Party. You had said sometime back…. “Chris, you are getting ahead of me. How do you understand "[my] philosophy of salvation[?]"
The only way I have been able to follow what you believe about salvation is by what you testify.
So far you have told me that you do not believe that the Word of God is true. You believe that homosexual acts are holy and separated unto God bringing glory to Him. That Mohammad brought glory to the same God as the Apostle Paul or others in the bible that have testified to the truth (or a truth, depending upon the cultural bias you have established). That Jesus Christ is not God, by virtue of a bible that is potentially fallible (in other words…not God breathed to men infallibly by God… a bible estimated as being esoteric doesn’t quite get there since the mystery has been revealed).
You fail to see that there are no Christians that believe (not simply doubt) just those few things I have mentioned above. The reason for that is that the Holy Spirit does not testify to those fictional beliefs that you appear to defend. You had mentioned Daniel Vestal. He and I were in the same local church for many years. He does not believe any of what you have intimated in the above paragraph.
So, if what you have been telling me is accurate,…then that is how I am judging your apparent form of philosophy. I am not judging you, because you and I are already judged by God alone. I am only judging what you have said. Your philosophy appears to be anti-Christ. Christ has never testified that those things I have mentioned in the paragraph above to be true. Love seems to be your catch all phrase at this point. Love though, is not ambiguous. You had mentioned the last half of this teaching by the Apostle Paul earlier…..but here is the first half explaining unambiguous love.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, (5) does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, (6) does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; (7) bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (8) Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
Love, along with a very clear list of Godly attributes, ….rejoices in the truth. If truth is relative as you seem to imply….then there is nothing to rejoice with, and God is absent from that type of “relative love”. What is true though…is that God’s love never fails. (yours, mine and Mohammad’s certainly will fail unless given by the Holy Spirit).
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
[1] … you do not believe that the Word of God is true.
[2] You believe that homosexual acts are holy …
[3] That Mohammad brought glory to the same God as the Apostle Paul …
[4] That Jesus Christ is not God, by virtue of a bible that is potentially fallible (in other words…not God breathed to men infallibly by God… a bible estimated as being esoteric doesn’t quite get there since the mystery has been revealed).
bapticus hereticus:
[1] That my understanding of some scripture varies from yours does not demonstrate that I perceive scripture to be untrue, but such is sufficient for you, however, to draw such a conclusion.
[2] Correction: some homosexual acts are such, not all. I believe that God expects the same level of commitment in these relationships as he does in those of heterosexuals.
[3] Goodness, where did I even mention Mohammad?
[4] Never said the bible was fallible or inerrant, but I do believe it to be infallible, but not inerrant. Nor do I equate Jesus with God, due to my Trinitarian beliefs. However, I do agree with Barth that Jesus is the God-man, the clearest manifestation of God that we can know; and yes, I believe what Jesus said when he stated that he and the Father were one. However, if you are up to the task of removing all the mystery surrounding the Trinity, please, I am very interested. You will be the first theologian or biblical scholar to do so. Most of said people that I have read have been a bit more humble about his or her assessment of such.
Chris: … the Holy Spirit does not testify to those fictional beliefs that you appear to defend … Daniel Vestal … and I were in the same local church …. He does not believe any of what you have intimated ….
bapticus hereticus: My beliefs are also pretty much on display in the writings of most individuals that publish in the Christian Century. Thus I can at least take comfort in not being alone. In terms of Vestal, tell that to blog regular that questioned his status last week.
Chris: … Your philosophy appears to be anti-Christ. … Love seems to be your catch all phrase … Love though, is not ambiguous … but here is … unambiguous love.
bapticus hereticus: Why bother telling you anything, Chris, you are doing a pretty good job on your own of constructing then deconstructing me.
Chris: … Love is patient … kind … not jealous … does not brag and is not arrogant ….
bapticus hereticus: A few weeks ago one of the blog regulars posted on his blog the following (concerning Romans 12): “… Also, verse 14 is one of those verses that should be practiced more and more and more by the people of God. It says, “Bless them who persecute you; bless and curse not.” How many times in a day do you have to deal with people who treat you bad? Who act ugly to you? Who say mean things to you, or about you? And, our first reaction is to cuss them out, or hit them in the mouth. Our first inclination may be to give those people the evil eye, or to store away the hurtful event, and treat those people coldly, or even meanly, in the future. But, what does the Bible teach us? In spite of our feelings, we should bless those people. We should bless those who treat us bad. Wow!”
He then went on to state on this blog: “BH, Joe is whipping you all over this page. Way to go, Joe.”
Chris: … If truth is relative as you seem to imply….then there is nothing to rejoice with, and God is absent from that type of “relative love”….
bapticus hereticus: The essence of God being “creative love” is a pretty God metaphor for God, I think. As a Christian, I am not compelled to perceive myself as being less for such a belief. The possibilities … we have only begun to imagine.
Last, if participation on this board places me in the company of Carter, Obama, and Vestal, then my esteem for myself has increased even as I am humbled by the company. Jesus was also told he was “NUTS”, even had a devil, to which I assume that was about his “anti-[God]” views and ways. He was out; they were in.
BH,
On your point #1, it appears you pick and choose what truth is true or not,…I have only pointed out that you seem to testify to that type of belief. I believe that Jesus is the true Light and came to testify to the truth, and has given that truth to us without error.
John 1:7-10 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. (8) He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. (9) There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
For instance, John came to testify about the Light. Jesus is the true light that has come into the world.
On your point #2, you seem to continue to defend homosexual acts. In other words, the acts that bring definition to someone claiming to be homosexual. God points those acts out very clearly as “degrading passion”, but you seem to disagree with God at this point. The level of commitment is not what God is referring to in degrading passion. I realize that you must remove God’s definition or word to realize your goal concerning homosexual acts as holy. I am not trying to trap you into justifying your thoughts…. I only point out what was written. You seem to disagree with the fact that it is written or that the Apostle Paul was meaning something different in his cultural context.
On your point #3, your reference to “haazig ruwaid: Bless you, my friend. Allah knows.” ..led me to believe that you are in agreement with his statement that Allah (in the context of Muslim faith) is the one true God. You may not believe that to be true, so I will wait for further testimony. Certainly Mohammad is pushing Allah as the one and only God by the faith that was delivered to him by his father.
On your point #4, your understanding of “without error” is simply a broad definition. It allows you to pick and choose what you believe is true, instead of testify to the truth. There is a distinction. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the persons that elect, effect and maintain the salvation given to sinners that have been created in His image and these three persons are One. There is no reason to remove any mystery,…as you have mentioned Christ testified to this being true, so I believe it through the work of the Holy Spirit.
BH, it is easy to think that I am reconstructing or deconstructing you or what you have said. If you want to debate your philosophy of life, I am up for reasoning through your logic. As for now, you seem to make illogical assumptions and then get upset when I mention your testimony. Again, I realize it is very difficult to live in an esoteric world,..although many people do enjoy the experience, …but I simply believe there is greater freedom in knowing the truth without esoteric means.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, On your point #1, it appears you pick and choose what truth is true or not ….
bapticus hereticus: That is a line of argument that is well worn, and due to its inability to discriminate, it is basically a meaningless argument when used to separate groups. Yet the truth is, however, that such is not without some validity; that is, inconsistency of thought and behavior is normally distributed. Every person of every theological perspective will struggle with this as they mature in the faith.
Chris: On your point #2, you seem to continue to defend homosexual acts … [and] disagree with God at this point.
bapticus hereticus: Again, Chris, as you well know and to which I made explicitly clear in my last post, to which you have for some reason ignored, I defend some homosexual acts. Please see the previous post. I surely hope God is supportive of my position on this, but I have sufficient confidence that God would be. But I am open to better arguments.
Chris: On your point #3, your reference to “haazig ruwaid: Bless you, my friend. Allah knows.” ..led me to believe that you are in agreement with his statement that Allah (in the context of Muslim faith) is the one true God. You may not believe that to be true, so I will wait for further testimony. Certainly Mohammad is pushing Allah as the one and only God by the faith that was delivered to him by his father.
bapticus hereticus: I could be wrong, Chris; perhaps HR is not haazig ruwaid. Given you introduced Islam into the conversation, you might be in a better position to know.
Chris: On your point #4, your understanding of “without error” is simply a broad definition. It allows you to pick and choose what you believe is true, instead of testify to the truth. There is a distinction. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the persons that elect, effect and maintain the salvation given to sinners that have been created in His image and these three persons are One. There is no reason to remove any mystery,…as you have mentioned Christ testified to this being true, so I believe it through the work of the Holy Spirit.
bapticus hereticus: Let me make it clear: I don’t believe in inerrancy in any form. I don’t have a problem with errors in scripture. I don’t even believe that the originals are without error, assuming a definition of an ‘original’ could even be agreed upon. But for me it really does not matter. What I have is sufficient.
Chris: BH, it is easy to think that I am reconstructing or deconstructing you or what you have said. If you want to debate your philosophy of life, I am up for reasoning through your logic. As for now, you seem to make illogical assumptions and then get upset when I mention your testimony. Again, I realize it is very difficult to live in an esoteric world,..although many people do enjoy the experience, …but I simply believe there is greater freedom in knowing the truth without esoteric means.
bapticus hereticus: Do you know my internal state, Chris? You are able to practice psychotherapy, without said credentials, via the internet on a person you have never met? Do you know if I am experiencing sadness, happiness, anxiety, envy, “upsetness,” etc.? Simply, my friend, you assume too much; you are extrapolating beyond the data and in the process are committing many type 1 errors. You may judge me all you wish; construct me, deconstruct me, whatever you desire. Thanks, but no thanks on your offer; I already have conversation partners such as Moltmann, Tillich, Whitehead, Griffith, Habermas, McClendon, Mullins, Jesus, Paul, etc.; I am doing fine with my discussants.
BH,
Surely I am no match for your esoteric exercises.
But, back to the point of the post where marriage is ordered by God as one man and one woman…..it appears that you have figured out a way around God’s order.
You seem to be stumped on the Greek term for “degrading passion”, where men conduct sexual acts with men and women conduct sexual acts with women. Would the term “atimia” that is used and corroborated historically and scientifically, and not rejected by biblical scholars be one of those homosexual acts that you could agree is opposed to God? If not, why not?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: ... back to the point of the post where marriage is ordered by God as one man and one woman…..it appears that you have figured out a way around God’s order. You seem to be stumped on the Greek term for “degrading passion”, where men conduct sexual acts with men and women conduct sexual acts with women. Would the term “atimia” that is used and corroborated historically and scientifically, and not rejected by biblical scholars be one of those homosexual acts that you could agree is opposed to God? If not, why not? Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Again, I do not think homosexual acts are unnatural for those that are homosexual, but I affirm that there are vile homosexuals acts, just as I affirm there are vile heterosexuals acts, too. Yes, Paul opposes homosexual acts, vile and otherwise, but Paul, a man of his day and of a particular socialization processes, is insufficiently informed on homosexuality. While the emphasis in this discussion is homosexuality, thus “if no to homosexuality” then “no to homosexual marriage,” the larger issue Paul is dealing with is idolatry. To this end, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Christian and otherwise, struggle, and none of us benefit by being left to passions that attenuate our relationship with God. When our ultimate concern is redirected from that which is ultimately concerned for us, we, the created, place the desires of the created ahead of the creator. We, ugh, well, gunk it up, so to speak.
BH,
Thank you for the more definitive answer. I think I have a better understanding of how you approach scripture and use it to inform your philosophy.
I believe from what transcripts have been found that we use to translate the scriptures….from those texts the Apostle clearly contradicts your thinking. My attempts at trying to clarify what the text has conveyed is not to change your mind, but to show that the text itself opposes what you have come to believe.
Since homosexuality is not something new, the Apostle was very aware of the acts of men with men and women with women. These “socialization processes” that you mention really are the crux of how some that associate with the church begin to change the language of the Word of God. The Apostle was probably more informed than either of us on the subject, and to include it among the context of the other things God hates while leading into the doctrine of justification before the Roman church is very instructive for all believers of all ages. I’m not so sure that we should put the principles of the Word of God as only relative to the culture where they are learned….as if the culture changes the meaning and sufficiency of the message.
Thank you again for at least answering this question more emphatically. No doubt that even God ordained marriage (holy matrimony – one man with one woman) is not foreign to “atimia”. It is also no surprise to me that people defend homosexual unions as “marriage” because of this “socialization processes” that you mention (politics and money is always enticing). That is a completely different subject, as it should be, than God’s ordaining of man and woman in holy matrimony.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, Thank you for the more definitive answer. I think I have a better understanding of how you approach scripture and use it to inform your philosophy. I believe from what transcripts have been found that we use to translate the scriptures….from those texts the Apostle clearly contradicts your thinking. My attempts at trying to clarify what the text has conveyed is not to change your mind, but to show that the text itself opposes what you have come to believe. Since homosexuality is not something new, the Apostle was very aware of the acts of men with men and women with women. These “socialization processes” that you mention really are the crux of how some that associate with the church begin to change the language of the Word of God. The Apostle was probably more informed than either of us on the subject, and to include it among the context of the other things God hates while leading into the doctrine of justification before the Roman church is very instructive for all believers of all ages. I’m not so sure that we should put the principles of the Word of God as only relative to the culture where they are learned….as if the culture changes the meaning and sufficiency of the message.
bapticus hereticus: Gravity has a pretty long history, but what was known of it prior to Newton? Goodness, gravity is still a problem, but we know more about it now than Newton, and would not think of ignoring new insights. We will always have Newton, Einstein et al. even after their particular insights have been surpassed, and we will continue to read their work for their instructive quality, as well.
We cannot get away from culture. Scripture, based on oral tradition, was culturally conditioned, and we are situated a long way from the societies in which these traditions were developed then codified; but that does not preclude us from interpreting them in light of our on existential challenges and needs. We do not live in first century Palestine. Nor do we need to in order to be faithful to scripture. But Christianity will not look the same; it will be manifested in different ways, even as it is derived from the same primary tradition. As Brueggemann would say, there is both the tradition and the traditioning process. Focusing on the limited understandings of homosexuality from a first century Jewish Christian, nothwithstanding his stature, and missing his larger and timeless point of idolatry is to place an impediment in the way of the traditioning process, thus attenuating the ability of scripture to breathe. Yet even if it is allowed to breathe anew, the larger, more important, underlying question still remains: what things are we engaged in that stand in the way of experiencing our essential nature, that is, our being with God?
Chris: Thank you again for at least answering this question more emphatically. No doubt that even God ordained marriage (holy matrimony – one man with one woman) is not foreign to “atimia”. It is also no surprise to me that people defend homosexual unions as “marriage” because of this “socialization processes” that you mention (politics and money is always enticing). That is a completely different subject, as it should be, than God’s ordaining of man and woman in holy matrimony. Blessing[.]
bapticus hereticus: And some will assert, including me, that a process-oriented, canonical perspective of scripture provides support for homosexuality and that such is a worthy insight to be preserved in various socialization processes used to instruct Jesus’ disciples.
BH,
We cannot get away from truth. Culture is based upon customs and traditions, which is conditioned by sin, and sin is not different today than it was at the time that Adam and Eve rebelled against God. Christ being the same yesterday, today and forever does not shift as cultures do, thus His truth is not effected by cultural shifts. This none shifting is extremely profitable for the culture under the influence of sin, where citizens adhering to an unmovable faith and truth brings great benefit to a culture. Processes never does change truth,…only men try to use process to legitimize a path to a new tradition, typical one of their own making suitable for a specific desire.
Some obviously do assert that homosexual acts (degrading passion) are holy. The called out of God (the church) must be taught the truth so that they can easily see the error of this “processed existentialism” after the models set for us by K and Nietzsche. Long ago (early 80’s), I remember my professor of philosophy at the University of Texas was enamored by these guys. I had a great time shooting holes in their theories of life. Christians certainly deserve more educated teachers than the likes of folks modeling after those guys….I mean after all, Mr. N ended his blissful life abruptly.
There is no support for homosexuality in the canonical support for scripture, unless of course in your definition it can be altered by existential means to meet the subject thoughts of an individual. You do know, I’m sure, that these philosophical existential meanderings of K and N are opposed even to the science of the Newton you mention.
Blessings,
Chris
Yes, Paul opposes homosexual acts, vile and otherwise, but Paul, a man of his day and of a particular socialization processes, is insufficiently informed on homosexuality
Thank you for being the poster child for why the CR and BFM2000 were needed. It's just sad that the CR wasn't more successful--it should have gone much further than it did.
Chris: BH, We cannot get away from truth. Culture is based upon customs and traditions, which is conditioned by sin, and sin is not different today than it was at the time that Adam and Eve rebelled against God. Christ being the same yesterday, today and forever does not shift as cultures do, thus His truth is not effected by cultural shifts. This none shifting is extremely profitable for the culture under the influence of sin, where citizens adhering to an unmovable faith and truth brings great benefit to a culture. Processes never does change truth,…only men try to use process to legitimize a path to a new tradition, typical one of their own making suitable for a specific desire.
bapticus hereticus: I agree concerning the nature of truth, but what I don’t assert is that Paul, you, or I have a complete understanding of it; that is, in our statements (manifest indicators) about truth (construct), it is doubtful that any of us, including Paul, completely capture it. That we come close is sufficient. Secondly, I also agree that Christ (to which we assert Jesus as the Christ, Jesus as Lord, to which we also assert lived, was crucified, resurrected, and will come again) is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but our understandings of Christ are not and have not been. Last, concerning process: This food will kill you in a skinny second; thus, do not eat it. But what if we now have technology to process said food so that it is nourishing, instead? Do we still avoid it?
Chris: Some obviously do assert that homosexual acts (degrading passion) are holy. The called out of God (the church) must be taught the truth so that they can easily see the error of this “processed existentialism” after the models set for us by K and Nietzsche. Long ago (early 80’s), I remember my professor of philosophy at the University of Texas was enamored by these guys. I had a great time shooting holes in their theories of life. Christians certainly deserve more educated teachers than the likes of folks modeling after those guys….I mean after all, Mr. N ended his blissful life abruptly.
bapticus hereticus: And the understanding of some in the church ended the lives of others not perceived to have the truth, thus should we assert that the teachings of the church/scripture, then, lead to murder? Of the great insights of process is that God is the fellow sufferer that cares, and of existentialism, the estrangement of man to himself and God. I would assert that these are two bedrock insights that may be gleaned from scripture, too. It could be an apparent non-preference for philosophy is (partly) conditioned by your exposure to it by others, but notwithstanding such, one need not take a philosophical approach to scripture in order to have a well-developed theology. Barth (Reformed) is a fine example. But one may take such an approach, say from an existentialist position, to which MacQuarrie (Anglican) is a fine example; and if you wish, an eclectic, narrative approach of baptist theologian, McClendon, yet another fine example.
Chris: There is no support for homosexuality in the canonical support for scripture, unless of course in your definition it can be altered by existential means to meet the subject thoughts of an individual. You do know, I’m sure, that these philosophical existential meanderings of K and N are opposed even to the science of the Newton you mention. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Goodness, Chris, from the interpretive scheme you use, I would agree concerning homosexuality. I, however, don’t use such a scheme. Moreover, I don’t find problematic your logic, I simply don’t accept your premise. But I do, nonetheless, accept you, a brother in Christ.
Joe: Thank you for being the poster child for why the CR and BFM2000 were needed. It's just sad that the CR wasn't more successful--it should have gone much further than it did.
bapticus hereticus: And thank you, Joe, for demonstrating which side, yet again, of the previous SBC controversy it is that raises this issue. Pertaining to this conversation, not that it would likely matter: CBF, on various occasions, has taken a stand against homosexuality.
And thank you, Joe, for demonstrating which side, yet again, of the previous SBC controversy it is that raises this issue.
Of course conservatives are going to raise this issue. They stand on the same side God stands--with the Bible and its clear, unmistakable teachign on homosexuality and against your theological ilk.
BH,
It matters not whether we accept each others premises. What does matter is how the truth is told. I think it is clear by now, that you and I make the truth known differently. Your testimony seems to be that truth is relative, grows, and is affected by processes as more information is added or understood through time. The testimony I make is that truth is fixed, does not change, can be more profitable when understood though the power of the Holy Spirit, and is not effected by process. That is very obvious by our discussion this past week. I guess some do call it perspective, but I believe it is so much more.
From a scientific and historical point of view, the faith that has been delivered to the Saints once for all,…. is born out of truth that is unchanging.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, It matters not whether we accept each others premises. What does matter is how the truth is told. I think it is clear by now, [1] that you and I make the truth known differently. Your testimony seems to be that truth is relative, grows, and is affected by processes as more information is added or understood through time. The testimony I make is that truth is fixed, does not change, can be more profitable when understood though the power of the Holy Spirit, and is not effected by process. That is very obvious by our discussion this past week. I guess some do call it perspective, but I believe it is so much more. From a scientific and historical point of view, the faith that has been delivered to the Saints once for all,…. is born out of [2] truth that is unchanging. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: [1] I would assert that we use many of the same processes or ways of knowing (i.e., experience, revelation, reason, tradition, scripture), but that we place varying degrees of emphasis on each, and it is via these varying degrees of emphasis that our perceptions of truth may vary. [2] Whereas truth may be unchanging, I am of the opinion that its richness may preclude one from fully grasping it given the limits of rationality and cultural situation; and even if truth is unchanging, our development as a people may necessitate, that in light of new understandings, that we appropriate previous knowledge differently. What one knows is heavily contextualized, and such is with both its benefits and its problems, but realizing such, one becomes more open to the insights of other traditions, even while valuing and practicing one’s own; but again, understanding the parochial nature of one’s tradition is necessary for the continued development of one’s faith. The faith that was passed to me from the saints is one in which I am ultimately cast into the mystery of being, complete with its contradictions and paradoxes, and to use Schleimacher’s understanding, it is a faith in which I perceive a deep and absolute dependence on God. The faith I have today is not the faith of 20, 30, or 40 or more years ago; and I am thankful for that, as I am thankful for such as it was 20, 30, or 40 or more years ago, too.
Joe: Of course conservatives are going to raise this issue. They stand on the same side God stands--with the Bible and its clear, unmistakable teachign on homosexuality and against your theological ilk.
bapticus hereticus: And given your stand with God, you will, of course, love the liberal and treat him or her with regard, too?
BH,
The faith that was delivered once for all is unchanging. If we have any of “that” faith at all, it is because of the Holy Spirit. It is not an achievement or process by which we can boast or remark. Christ followers simply confess of knowing that to be true by what measure of faith that is given by God as testimony to the truth that is given through His Word.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, The faith that was delivered once for all is unchanging. If we have any of “that” faith at all, it is because of the Holy Spirit. It is not an achievement or process by which we can boast or remark. Christ followers simply confess of knowing that to be true by what measure of faith that is given by God as testimony to the truth that is given through His Word. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: I speak of faith as both an orientation toward life and as content of my religious reflections, but a more formal definition would stress an orientation toward life. As I have matured, my orientation toward life is a bit more multi-dimensional than it was when I was younger, and due to this my perspective on scripture has changed and become more multi-dimensional, too. Not that I have attained truth as it is, but my hope is that I have a fuller appreciation for such and what I am able to know of it.
Heretic,
Bottom line: You are lost and on you way to hell unless you repent and believe the gospel.
BH,
Thank you for making your philosophy known here. Your view of Christ is one that is foreign to scripture. Your view of marriage is one that is opposed to God. And your view of relationship (homosexual “atimia”, or degrading passion) is one that God says will not inherit the kingdom of God. I realize that in your process theology, that your view is subject to change, so with hope in Christ, I do pray that God will grant you mercy to see the unchanging truth as opposed to a pseudo-truth in process.
1 John 1:6-9 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; (7) but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. (8) If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (9) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If Christ is in you, your fellowship will be evident with the Saints, not just the Saints that agree with your opposing view of Christ. There are plenty of people that pretend to be Christians without an opposing view of Christ. Your testimony on the other hand is quite opposed to the God you say you worship.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH …
[1] Your view of Christ is one that is foreign to scripture.
[2] Your view of marriage is one that is opposed to God.
[3] And your view of relationship (homosexual “atimia”, or degrading passion) is one that God says will not inherit the kingdom of God.
[4] I realize that in your process theology, that your view is subject to change, so with hope in Christ, I do pray that God will grant you mercy to see the unchanging truth as opposed to a pseudo-truth in process.
bapticus hereticus:
[1] For me, Jesus, crucified and resurrected, is Lord. That is my view, foreign as it is to some.
[2] Here you again extrapolate beyond the data. The two become one and are to hold God at the center of their relationship. Is that not how you and your wife perceive marriage?
[3] Again, as I have stated, repeatedly, degrading passion is not something open only to homosexuals, it is open to all that draw breath, heterosexuals and otherwise. As it is unnatural for one to engage in sexual acts against his or her nature, it is unnatural for human beings, the created, to worship self (and its creations) instead of that which is responsible for their creation. Misrepresenting another for the sake of consistency is an unnatural act, too, for the Christian, for it displaces his or her essential nature for his or her existential nature.
[4] As Paul taught me, when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. And as I have matured in Christ, it is not that my belief in truth has wavered, for from it, I, instead have learned more of its richness and its mystery. I was raised on milk, but now I struggle with meat.
Chris: 1 John 1:6-9 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; (7) but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. (8) If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. (9) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If Christ is in you, your fellowship will be evident with the Saints, not just the Saints that agree with your opposing view of Christ. There are plenty of people that pretend to be Christians without an opposing view of Christ. Your testimony on the other hand is quite opposed to the God you say you worship. Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: If your point is that my beliefs and the practice of my beliefs are not congruent, then you have me. The two are not. But, let’s dispense with the dance, shall we, Chris? We are both flawed beings, struggling in the light, yes, but flawed nonetheless, and neither of us would be acting from our essential nature by asserting unclean what God has granted acceptance. For us to do such would be to act in an unnatural manner. I regularly behave in ways inconsistent with the God I profess, for as it has been stated and to which I affirm, prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, but as I mature I become a bit more humble in the estimations of self and its knowledge, from which I, then, have a deeper appreciation for the consumption of dross and the refinement of gold, and the resultant affirmation of grace, all sufficient, amply supplied. Thus when we have our discussions of circumcision, in all its related forms, let us not lose sight, notwithstanding our perceptions of the importance in such, that we are, nonetheless, free to love one another. And as Paul would assert, ‘yes, now that is a faith that counts and confounds the mind.’
CB: Heretic, Bottom line: You are lost and on you way to hell unless you repent and believe the gospel.
bapticus hereticus: CB, if I see Heretic, I will pass along your comment. Sorry if I have interrupted your conversation with Heretic. Oh, got any insights on the winning numbers for the PowerBall lottery drawing this weekend?
Heretic,
One of the greatest evidences of your lostness is that you always revert back to the material or the temporal in any response.
You have no concept of the eternal. Go back and read your comments and even the posts on your blog. You will see it.
Repent and believe the gospel.
CB: Heretic, One of the greatest evidences of your lostness is that you always revert back to the material or the temporal in any response. You have no concept of the eternal. Go back and read your comments and even the posts on your blog. You will see it. Repent and believe the gospel.
bapticus hereticus: CB, just had lunch, but I did not come across Heretic at the resturant, but if I do come across him today, I will let him know you are looking to touch base. Now, about those numbers? Any thoughts?
Heretic,
Enjoy Christmas. I hope you enjoy it as much as a lost man can.
I also pray that this is not your last Christmas. For if you were to die
(and we both know you fear death more than anything when you are alone thinking of your own mortality)
before next Christmas every Christmas will then become a horror to you because you will realize you never made the One who came as a babe in the manger to atone for your sin, your Savior and Lord.
And, Heretic, if you were to die before even this Christmas, for all eternity you will know your blood is upon your own rebellious, prideful, lost head.
BH,
Below is the data given by God concerning Adam and Eve. God’s created beings, male and female are the context, and become one flesh is unique in the fact of their distinctive difference in creation. One is male, the other is female. The context of this section is testifying to the truth that a man shall be joined to his wife…a woman and they become one flesh.
Genesis 2:22-25 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. (23) The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." (24) For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (25) And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
The obvious fact that you continue to overlook is the foundation for holy marriage. It is holy because God in creation set out the basis for marriage being one man and one woman. The Hebrew linguistic data is extremely clear and well understood. If God had intended that marriage include man with man, or woman with woman, the data would show that to be true…but, it is clear that the data does not show that to be true. In fact, the same data clearly sets (degrading passion) man with man and woman with woman as something that God hates.
So are you also trying to make the case that God intended for man to be “one flesh” with man? Is there any data to back such a claim?
Blessings,
Chris
BH,
Another thing about this "one flesh"...
The only natural consequence to bring definition to “one flesh” is the distinctive created male and the created female becoming one. This oneness is not achieved by man with man, or woman with woman. A perceived oneness or a feigned oneness assumed by homosexual relations (man with man, woman with woman) is not of the same substance as Adam recognized as being achieved with Eve. The fundamental order of relationship with man and woman is the foundation for understanding passion. Where someone will insert or abridge the order of God in creation and then form another basis for love and sexual relationship where men pursue men and/or women pursue women is the definition of degrading passion as given by the Apostle Paul in more than one occasion and is given in the Old Testament records as well.
Process theology or existentialism can only kick against the truth, because the very nature of God is unchanging. Logic is logic and language and data bear the facts.
Jeremiah 23:16-23 Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. (17) "They keep saying to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You will have peace"'; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, 'Calamity will not come upon you.' (18) "But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened? (19) "Behold, the storm of the LORD has gone forth in wrath, Even a whirling tempest; It will swirl down on the head of the wicked. (20) "The anger of the LORD will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; In the last days you will clearly understand it. (21) "I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. (22) "But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, And would have turned them back from their evil way And from the evil of their deeds. (23) "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: BH, Below is the data given by God concerning Adam and Eve. God’s created beings, male and female are the context, and become one flesh is unique in the fact of their distinctive difference in creation. One is male, the other is female. The context of this section is testifying to the truth that a man shall be joined to his wife…a woman and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:22-25 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. (23) The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." (24) For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (25) And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. The obvious fact that you continue to overlook is the foundation for holy marriage. It is holy because God in creation set out the basis for marriage being one man and one woman. The Hebrew linguistic data is extremely clear and well understood. If God had intended that marriage include man with man, or woman with woman, the data would show that to be true…but, it is clear that the data does not show that to be true. In fact, the same data clearly sets (degrading passion) man with man and woman with woman as something that God hates. So are you also trying to make the case that God intended for man to be “one flesh” with man? Is there any data to back such a claim? Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: Again, I don’t accept that God manifestly wrote scripture, even if said scripture was written by individuals inspired by God, and secondly, we in the US do not practice marriage as was sanctioned and practiced by many in ancient Hebrew cultures, although we share a common belief in the sanctity of such an institution. ‘Woman out of man’ indicates to me that individuals are incomplete apart from the other, but the nature and intensity of the relationship with others will vary, of course. ‘Woman out of man’ is a profound biblical truth that has many levels of meaning beyond a literal reading of the passage. And no, scripture does not speak of man joining man, but given our evolving understanding of homosexuality, such is the case in a committed partnership between homosexuals that is built upon a relationship with God. If one moves beyond the manifest language of scripture to what the language symbolizes, one will have evidence for the support of homosexual marriage and the said couple involved becoming one flesh. The intention is that the individual will find completion in the other, vice versa. That is, authentic human existence must take into account both the personal and social dimensions of life, and that the commitments of said existence will vary in nature and intensity.
It is inaccurate here to speak of the difference as being one of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, properly understood, is the art of coming to understand what the text of the Bible says.
It is another thing entirely, having come to an understanding of what the text says, to come to an understanding as to what authority that text has in our deliberations. It is at that point that this disagreement finds its root, it seems to me. For BH does not seem to be among those disingenuous folks who try to stuff homosexuality into the Bible. BH is agreeing that the Bible is anti-homosexuality.
The question is whether it really matters what the Bible says about the matter. That's the key point of the debate.
Chris: BH, Another thing about this "one flesh"... The only natural consequence to bring definition to “one flesh” is the distinctive created male and the created female becoming one. This oneness is not achieved by man with man, or woman with woman. A perceived oneness or a feigned oneness assumed by homosexual relations (man with man, woman with woman) is not of the same substance as Adam recognized as being achieved with Eve. The fundamental order of relationship with man and woman is the foundation for understanding passion. Where someone will insert or abridge the order of God in creation and then form another basis for love and sexual relationship where men pursue men and/or women pursue women is the definition of degrading passion as given by the Apostle Paul in more than one occasion and is given in the Old Testament records as well.
bapticus hereticus: Becoming one is a theological statement that attest to the power of love appropriately manifested in a committed relationship. That we agree upon, but what we don’t agree on is that homosexuals are afforded this theological insight. Again, homosexual sex is not unnatural to the homosexual, and, furthermore, Paul did not write with an understanding of sexual orientation as we know it today. His sexual ethic was one-dimensional; something we know is not the case today. For the Christian, the fundamental order of being is being one in Christ, given there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, bond or free. However, we typically don’t raise an eye at a Jewish and Gentile relationship, or even a bond and free relationship, and one day, although likely not very soon, there will be much more acceptance of homosexual relationships, too. Probably about the time SBC accepts women pastors, which is very, very likely to happen.
Chris: Process theology or existentialism can only kick against the truth, because the very nature of God is unchanging. Logic is logic and language and data bear the facts.
bapticus hereticus: Only hard-line orthodoxy holds to a completely immutable God. But such is not an entirely inaccurate concept, however; that is, process holds to a God with two natures: one primordial, the other consequent, otherwise it would be difficult for God to have a meaningful relationship with his creation or talk of human freedom having any coherence. Important to keep in mind is that which cannot vary cannot covary.
Chris: Jeremiah 23:16-23 Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. (17) "They keep saying to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You will have peace"'; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, 'Calamity will not come upon you.' (18) "But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened? (19) "Behold, the storm of the LORD has gone forth in wrath, Even a whirling tempest; It will swirl down on the head of the wicked. (20) "The anger of the LORD will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; In the last days you will clearly understand it. (21) "I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. (22) "But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, And would have turned them back from their evil way And from the evil of their deeds. (23) "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off?
bapticus hereticus: Insightful and true.
Bart: It is inaccurate here to speak of the difference as being one of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, properly understood, is the art of coming to understand what the text of the Bible says. It is another thing entirely, having come to an understanding of what the text says, to come to an understanding as to what authority that text has in our deliberations. It is at that point that this disagreement finds its root, it seems to me. For BH does not seem to be among those disingenuous folks who try to stuff homosexuality into the Bible. BH is agreeing that the Bible is anti-homosexuality. The question is whether it really matters what the Bible says about the matter. That's the key point of the debate.
bapticus hereticus: It is all of the same question, actually. If one accepts scripture as inerrant and written by God, then one will not place much value on anything but scripture and revelation, and will likely place scripture over revelation (by equating scripture with revelation). However, if one does not hold to inerrancy and a verbal, plenary understanding of scripture, then more weight may be given reason, experience, and tradition than otherwise given, thus varying interpretations of the same data will be inevitable.
CB: Heretic, Enjoy Christmas. I hope you enjoy it as much as a lost man can. I also pray that this is not your last Christmas. For if you were to die (and we both know you fear death more than anything when you are alone thinking of your own mortality)
before next Christmas every Christmas will then become a horror to you because you will realize you never made the One who came as a babe in the manger to atone for your sin, your Savior and Lord. And, Heretic, if you were to die before even this Christmas, for all eternity you will know your blood is upon your own rebellious, prideful, lost head.
bapticus hereticus: CB, I am still lookin’ for Heretic; perhaps he will post and let you know where he is, but I am happy to pass along your words to him if I see him. Surely, after reading your posts he would be feelin’ the love and seek you out for spiritual advice.
BH,
Sure, ….all (Christ followers) obedient to God practice marriage in exactly the same way as the account of Genesis. Of course there are those that move in other directions. But, I would not consider that progress, but more accurately an aberration of the true statement. Because of sin, those attempts to justify marriage as other than male and female are destined to fail however popular and more normalized the sin may appear to the supporters of such. So far,…it is difficult to follow your assumptions because of the lack of data you provide. You have shown only subjective experience as your data….and no scientific hard data of any sort. I show you thousands of years of Greek data,…and you dismiss it as coercive and not of God anyway. So, surely you can see that if you can’t show any data, or you cannot come about with real explanations for militating against the historical record of male and female as God’s only standard in marriage….then our discussions simply turn into a circular argument that you fail to support.
For instance….in the scriptural context, it is the entire canon of scripture that supports one man and one woman in marriage from beginning to end. Many thousands of years of history, no discrepancies….then all of a sudden someone steps into the congregation in the 20/21 Centuries and tries to convince the church that the bible is not only wrong about “degrading passion”, it is not to be trusted because of the bias of so-called biblical authors and a lack of experience in such matters. To be quite honest at this juncture,…there is not a theologian worth his or her salt that can believe such naïve aspirations of constant circular reasoning with no real data.
When you purport things like…. “Becoming one is a theological statement that attest to the power of love appropriately manifested in a committed relationship. That we agree upon, but what we don’t agree on is that homosexuals are afforded this theological insight.” ….it leads me to believe that one day this committed relationship could extend to just about anything that can be imagined. Which in fact it will and has…. BH, an individual aspiring to homosexual acts “is” afforded this theological insight, yet this individual disagrees with the theology’ truth.
The Apostle Paul captured this perfectly….. Roman 1:25-27 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
You simply believe the Apostle Paul is lying. The individual aspiring to the homosexual acts, intent to remain in his/her sin, worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator. I am certain that any sinner can be rescued from sin, including me,…so there is hope. But to confuse the truth with a lie is the deceitful scheming of Satan set against the peace that Christ has given to those that know the truth. I would encourage you to stop kicking against the Christ of the bible, and for the sake of those that Christ is calling to himself, stop teaching the doctrines of demons.
Galatians 6:1-8 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. (2) Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. (3) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. (4) But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. (5) For each one will bear his own load. (6) The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. (7) Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. (8) For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: … You have shown only subjective experience ... no scientific hard data ….
bapticus hereticus: Chris, I am not making scientific arguments, or even offering biblical proof-texts for supporting homosexuality, I am “speaking” theologically, and generally so, and certainly not so in a formal way. If you wish to hold me to a scientific point of view, you will, of course, place your own argument in severe jeopardy, given your oft appeals to “God has thus stated.” I assume you have read the arguments supporting homosexuality, and they are pretty much categorized in Via (in his debate with Gagnon), to which I basically support. I have, nonetheless, spoken to your comments and have spent a respectful amount of time in doing so. If you perceive that I have not answered you as fully as you would desire, I understand. Fora such as this make more definitive conversation problematic, not to mention the competing interests of that which places bread on my table and a roof over my head. Accepting such as valid for myself, I have not pressed you for questions in my posts left unattended by your person, assuming such is valid for you, as well. Simply, we have a disagreement. You are not convincing me that I am wrong or even wrongheaded. I have given you several reasons why I think the way I do. You do not accept them. That is OK. The more you press me, the more you will not like my responses, given the way I approach scripture is not like you. We have some very basic differences in how we perceive knowledge and how it may be known and generated. Whereas we have competing interpretations, we agree at a superordinate level of understanding that Jesus is Lord. And even given our differences, such is, nonetheless, sufficient to sustaining a community.
Chris: … in the scriptural context ….
bapticus hereticus: Again, Chris, it is not the logic that is problematic; it is the premise. Your logic is fine; the conclusion you draw based on the data given a certain set of assumptions is supportable. I simply don’t accept the premise, thus the logic is moot. One more time, and we have been over this several times: We have some very basic differences in how we perceive knowledge and how it may be known and generated.
Chris: … this committed relationship could extend to just about anything that can be imagined ….
bapticus hereticus: Anything that can be imagined? Goodness, Chris. I can imagine much now that I would say, ack, no! As I have stated, I am not a relativist; but I am a pluralist. That is, I am open to truth claims of other perspectives, but I do not believe that all truth claims are equal. Goodness, upon self-reflection my own truth claims may be rendered moot. But yes to your larger point: theological reflection is not without risk and we may go down some dead-ends, but we may also walk through some doors that will astonish even the most jaded individuals. If you want a theology or a faith which carries no risk, then you would be asking for something that has no relevance to your existence.
Chris: … Paul captured this … For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator ….
bapticus hereticus: Yes! We do it and know it, and we do it unaware. God help us to know and then give us the courage to be.
Chris: [1] You simply believe the Apostle Paul is lying … [2] I would encourage you to stop kicking against the Christ … and … stop teaching the doctrines of demons.
bapticus hereticus: [1] Goodness, Chris, no. Paul is just a bit uninformed about homosexuality. But idolatry? Paul nailed it! Chances are if I lived in Paul’s day I would be in agreement concerning homosexuality … and chances are I would probably be more in agreement with Saul, instead! [2] That we would all have a better grasp of the mind of God.
Chris: … Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness ….
bapticus hereticus: Good advice and insight.
Heretic,
One subject of which we have had little dialogue is that of the Sodomite lifestyle.
Yet, I have read many of your comments and your posts. I realize you are a teacher in SC and may not be willing to answer this question, but I will ask anyway.
Are you currently living a Sodomite life-style?
If you are please know that the gospel can free you of that as well if you repent of sin and believe the gospel.
I realize you may have heard that many Christians believe the gospel is not sufficient to deliver you from being a Sodomite.
That is simply not true. The Blood Atonement is sufficient for any and all sin. The constituency of the Church at Corinth is ample illustration that God will deliver a person from any sin or multiplicity of sins who truly repents and believes the gospel.
I say all of the above to let you know God's grace is sufficient. It was sufficient for a mercenary murderer like Paul. It is sufficient for you. I just pray you repent and believe the gospel.
BH,
Thank you for taking the time to briefly make known your beliefs on this subject.
I'm really not trying to press you for too many answers....I was simply trying to discover any basis for logic in your arguments. I think somehow you may have convinced yourself there is a foundation,...but as you have stated... we disagree on that point.
Thank you Bart for posting the subject.
Blessings,
Chris
There is a crises in Christian epistemology, has been for a hundred and fifty years, and B.H.'s position of an intuitive apprehension of knowledge, in addition to "selective" input from God's revelation (gleaned from those who have gone before) is one way around it. B.H. doesn't gain certainty of knowledge, but he gets enough knowledge to conduct his life and sustain faith. The crisis, of course, is the scientific data concerning origins and the literary criticism of the Bible -- something dismissed as foolishness by fundamentalists, but the crisis is real enough. Atheism's growing numbers and N.Y. Times best-selling authors testify to that. Yet, B.H. has a system that cannot be falsified by modern critical methods -- or categorically denied by atheists.
I recently finished reading Dembski's latest book (The End of Christianity). The SWBTS prof. attempts to solve the problem of Christian epistemology another way, and maintain biblical orthodoxy. Dembski recognizes the scientific conclusion of an old earth is valid and that it presents a problem for Genesis. He presents what he calls a "kairological" reading of Genesis 1. It's not the same as an allegorical reading of Genesis 1, but shares the property that it did not materially happen in space and time. Interesting that this idea would come out of a champion in the conservative camp, but it shows the power of the crisis mentioned above.
I won't try to explain Dembski's "kairological" reading of Scripture. You need to read it yourself to get an accurate picture. But it's actually quite good (not saying that he's right). In any case, I think SWBTS needs to be congratulated for actually producing something which begins to address the concerns of modernity. Dembski's book is one of the few worthy answer's to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, even though Dawkins' book is shallow theologically and not much more than a rant. For Dawkins' book is being read widely, was even mentioned to me a couple months ago by an atheist physicist at work.
CB: Heretic, One subject of which we have had little dialogue is that of the Sodomite lifestyle. Yet, I have read many of your comments and your posts. I realize you are a teacher in SC and may not be willing to answer this question, but I will ask anyway. Are you currently living a Sodomite life-style? If you are please know that the gospel can free you of that as well if you repent of sin and believe the gospel. I realize you may have heard that many Christians believe the gospel is not sufficient to deliver you from being a Sodomite. That is simply not true. The Blood Atonement is sufficient for any and all sin. The constituency of the Church at Corinth is ample illustration that God will deliver a person from any sin or multiplicity of sins who truly repents and believes the gospel. I say all of the above to let you know God's grace is sufficient. It was sufficient for a mercenary murderer like Paul. It is sufficient for you. I just pray you repent and believe the gospel.
bapticus hereticus: Apparently, CB, you are under the impression that only homosexuals advocate for homosexual relationships and the rights of homosexuals afforded other human beings. Thus for advocating justice for these ‘disturbed’, as is the unmistaken assumption in this blog thread held by most of the regular posters, individuals, I must, then, be ‘disturbed,’ too.
Such would seemingly indicate that if one is not as one of the people in which one advocates, then one has no basis for advocation. From the work of Selman on perspective taking such thinking would suggest a very low level of moral development.
No, CB, I am not a homosexual and have no experience with such, but I am, nonetheless, supportive of homosexual relationships. My motivation for speaking to this issue is scriptural and is partly derived from Micah 6.8.
And yes, CB, I am of such people, too; that is, many of these individuals are brothers and sisters in Christ, and if I do not advocate for that which God has accepted then Christ is divided, also an issue at Corinth to which Paul was compelled to address. The Jewish Christians are calling for circumcision and some of the Gentile Christians, apparently feel guilty for not having undergone such, are considering it. And Paul says, ‘stop!’ Even Paul is unaware of the richness of his words, due to his ignorance of some issues, that is, due to being a person of his day. Allowing his words to breathe, we might assert that heterosexuality is nothing and homosexuality is nothing, either; thus let us celebrate the state that we are given.
CB, until such time when you address me in a manner that I refer to myself, you will have no standing with me as to your sincerity or regard for me as a human being. Your behavior toward me comes across as one being a spiritual gun-slinger, looking to add another notch, and thereby enhance an image of self. I am not a means toward whatever end you may have in mind.
Chris: BH, Thank you for taking the time to briefly make known your beliefs on this subject. I'm really not trying to press you for too many answers....I was simply trying to discover any basis for logic in your arguments. I think somehow you may have convinced yourself there is a foundation,...but as you have stated... we disagree on that point … Blessings[.]
bapticus hereticus: And thank you, Chris, for your responses; I have enjoyed conversing with you.
Heretic,
You are correct in part. I was a gun-slinger once. But during that time I was not spiritual, but I did rescue a lot of "spiritual" people.
Now that I am spiritual, I do retain a certain boldness from my gun-slinger days which makes me have no fear of telling you that you are going to hell if you do not repent and believe the biblical gospel. God did save me. But he did not remove the personality He gave me at my conception. Bold is part of it. So, boldly I tell you; You are lost and without hope and you have no understanding of Scripture or theology. For, to you both Scripture and theology are as pearls before swine.
An illustration of your complete lack of understanding is in your saying:
"....My motivation for speaking to this issue is scriptural and is partly derived from Micah 6.8...."
Heretic, you cannot find support for your position on homosexuality in that passage of Micah or any other part of Micah with a flashlight.
Heretic, you may be able to teach a little math, but you are ignorant of Scripture and you are a theological dwarf.
Repent and believe the gospel.
CB: Heretic … An illustration of your complete lack of understanding is in your saying:
"....My motivation for speaking to this issue is scriptural and is partly derived from Micah 6.8...."
Heretic, you cannot find support for your position on homosexuality in that passage of Micah or any other part of Micah with a flashlight.
bapticus hereticus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Recall, CB, that I was writing about advocating for rights that homosexuals should have, that is, that justice would be done. Thus, let’s look at Micah 6.8, shall we:
… and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
My motivation: to do justice. To seek justice … yeah, even for homosexuals.
CB: Heretic, you may be able to teach a little math, but you are ignorant of Scripture and you are a theological dwarf. Repent and believe the gospel.
bapticus hereticus: God’s blessings be with you, CB.
Post a Comment