​Out of the Closet

[phkrause]

The National Football League (NFL) draft has a different look this year. Most years the top story revolves around the marquee college quarterbacks, players with the potential to resurrect a dormant franchise and spark hope in a deprived fan base. Like any other year, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will be booed as he steps to the podium at Radio City Music Hall to announce the first pick.

http://www.adventistreview.org/141513-23

[Gregory Matthews]

Much of the value in that article comes from reading the comments that have been posted to the article.

For full value, read ALL of them.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

ah yes... in the comments following the article, I read the oh-so-common adjoiner, "we should love the sinner, but hate the sin."

It reminded me of Tony Campolo's short story about a phone call late at night...from a mother....of a gay son......who committed suicide.

Not all would agree, but I think Tony is spot on ....

[phkrause]

ah yes... in the comments following the article, I read the oh-so-common adjoiner, "we should love the sinner, but hate the sin."

It reminded me of Tony Campolo's short story about a phone call late at night...from a mother....of a gay son......who committed suicide.

Not all would agree, but I think Tony is spot on ....

I have to confess, that is the way I've always heard that: "we should love the sinner, but hate the sin." I liked the way TC ends that interview. I think I'd like to reread that in the Bible and see how it sounds now that I've heard TC say it.

[M. T. Cross]

Honestly if even one of you changes your mind after watching that video, I am not speaking to you again - cause he is saying the exact same thing I have been saying since my very first post here.

A gay person

A straight person

What is the common denominator there?

[LifeHiscost]

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."Matthew 19:17 KJV

Because all are guilty, does that make it OK to yield to licentious behavior? Or at the very minimum avoid recognizing verbally anothers' dangerous position?

"(for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. "

Ephesians 5:9-12 NKJV

God cares! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

ah yes... in the comments following the article, I read the oh-so-common adjoiner, "we should love the sinner, but hate the sin."

It reminded me of Tony Campolo's short story about a phone call late at night...from a mother....of a gay son......who committed suicide.

Not all would agree, but I think Tony is spot on ....I have to confess, that is the way I've always heard that: "we should love the sinner, but hate the sin." I liked the way TC ends that interview. I think I'd like to reread that in the Bible and see how it sounds now that I've heard TC say it.

As I can't get the audio of the video,not sure why,would someone

explain to me is the "love the sinner,but hate the sin " the wrong approach or do you automatically show hate for the sinner

if you think actions or lifestyle is wrong?

[LifeHiscost]

To me that is allowing the Lord to speak through you, jackson. You will be disdained by some for your honesty, but your integrity reveals the Light so desperately needed in the general society of today.

God loves the sinner but He cannot be just and save the sinner who chooses to remain in his sinful condition.

God blesses! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said:

Quote:

Homosexual behavior unrepented forfeits eternal life.

The above statement is a partial truth and fails to recognize what the Bible actually says in fullness.

It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin. Any rebellion against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, that is not repented, can lead to the forfeiture of eternal life. It is in this that Jackson is partially correct.

Where Jackson is not correct is in the idea that one can lose eternal life for engaging in behavior that is against the4 will of God, but has not been brought to our attention by the Holy Spirit. The following Biblical verses support this:

James 4:17--If you know to do good and do not do it, then it is sin.

John 9:41--One who is spiritually blind (not yet convicted by the HS) is not charged with sin.

John 15:22--If Christ had not informed of sin, they would not be charged with sin.

In short, in an abstract sense, one sins anytime one violates the will of God for us. But, in a specific sense one is not charged with sin unless there is a knowing rebelling against the will of God for us.

This is simply because in our human minds it is impossible for us to at any time have a full knowledge of the entire will of God for us. So, the HS has to lead us little by little. We are not charged with rebellion against God (sin) absent a conviction by the HS.

Life was correct when he said the following:

Quote:

God loves the sinner but He cannot be just and save the sinner who chooses to remain in his sinful condition.

God does not force people into eternal life who have chosen to live outside the will of God and are in rebellion against God.

However, I have issues with the following posted by life:

Quote:

You will be disdained by some for your honesty, . . .

To say that some disdain another for their honesty is simply false. One can reject the position of another without personalizing it to the point of holding that person with contempt and scorn. One should not translate disagreement into personal scorn and contempt.

Furthermore, one can be wrong and be honest. One can be ignorant and honest. Being right and informed have nothing to do with integrity and honesty.

[bonnie]

To avoid being labeled an unloving bigoted christian how should we respond to those of the gay and lesbian community when it comes to the insistence that is is just another lifestyle choice?

As you know I have been friends with a lesbian couple for well over 30 years. They know and accept my personal and biblical belief that their lifestyle is wrong. We don't hash it out,it was simply made clear when asked in the beginning. They know I would never vote to legalize "gay marriage", nor would I attend if they decided to now marry.

They don't demand my agreement to be friends. They would be welcome in our church as they should be. But where to we go when they want membership? After all,if married in a civil ceremony they are not living in sin anymore than I am being married by a Justice of the Peace.With membership comes the ability to hold office.Now what? They may be very well the best selection by the nominating committee for a specific office. If they are not convicted this is sin and of course all elected to office are far from perfect,how do you love this sinner and hate the sin,while denying them a role in leadership?

Most of this persuasion are not content unless their choice is seen as normal and right as a herterosexual marriage. If that is not offered then you are considered less than christian.

Obviously that would be a topic in sermon or lesson study that

more than likely would be avoided to spare embarrassment and making members uncomfortable,just as abortion and living together outside marriage is not.

Is it necessary to be supportive of or legalizing gay marriage

to treat homosexuals in the manner of "loving the sinner,but hating the sin".

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand Bonnies post to, in part, be asking questions of me. For now, I will respond to the following:

Quote:

But where to we go when they want membership? After all,if married in a civil ceremony they are not living in sin anymore than I am being married by a Justice of the Peace.With membership comes the ability to hold office.

1) A denomination has the right to say who is welcome to attend its services. I happen to believe that all who come to worship, and not to disturb the service, should be welcomed. Therefore, I would welcome at our service practicing homosexuals, atheists and a lot of other people. The line that I would draw would be those who attempt to disrupt the service.

2) Membership in a denomination is a step up in relationship from that of simply attending. I believe that a denomination has the right to establish standards for membership that are beyond simply attending. The question then becomes: Are the standards for membership fair, Biblical and appropriate?

3) Participants in the life of a congregation, to include that of the weekly services is a step up from merely attending. Actually, membership may not be required. I preached at a SDA Church Saturday. I asked who was attending and not SDA. I was informed the Pianist was not SDA. I am aware of a SDA congregation who placed a Methodist, who regularly attended, in charge of raising the funds to build a church building. This is allowed and does not violate denominational policy.

4) Elected office is a step up from membership. It is expected that people elected to positions of leadership in congregational life will be members in good standing. So, no, membership does not automatically qualify one to hold office.

5) As to the issue of marriage: In the U.S. marriage has both sacramental (religious) and civil functions. They do not overlap. We have no obligation to recognize sacramentally those who have a civil marriage in relationship to the religious life of our church. However, we do have an obligation to recognize the civil authority under which they are married. IOW: We can say that they are married under civil law but not religious law.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin. Any rebellion against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, that is not repented, can lead to the forfeiture of eternal life. It is in this that Jackson is partially correct.

Where Jackson is not correct is in the idea that one can lose eternal life for engaging in behavior that is against the4 will of God, but has not been brought to our attention by the Holy Spirit. The following Biblical verses support this:

James 4:17--If you know to do good and do not do it, then it is sin.

John 9:41--One who is spiritually blind (not yet convicted by the HS) is not charged with sin.

John 15:22--If Christ had not informed of sin, they would not be charged with sin.

In short, in an abstract sense, one sins anytime one violates the will of God for us. But, in a specific sense one is not charged with sin unless there is a knowing rebelling against the will of God for us.

This is simply because in our human minds it is impossible for us to at any time have a full knowledge of the entire will of God for us. So, the HS has to lead us little by little. We are not charged with rebellion against God (sin) absent a conviction by the HS.

and I may be wrong, but I don't think that declarations by Christians to the LGBT population that they are sinning and will "go to hell" is in any way the equivalent of being convicted by the Spirit...

[bonnie]

I understand Bonnies post to, in part, be asking questions of me. For now, I will respond to the following:

1) A denomination has the right to say who is welcome to attend its services. I happen to believe that all who come to worship, and not to disturb the service, should be welcomed. Therefore, I would welcome at our service practicing homosexuals, atheists and a lot of other people. The line that I would draw would be those who attempt to disrupt the service.

2) Membership in a denomination is a step up in relationship from that of simply attending. I believe that a denomination has the right to establish standards for membership that are beyond simply attending. The question then becomes: Are the standards for membership fair, Biblical and appropriate?

3) Participants in the life of a congregation, to include that of the weekly services is a step up from merely attending. Actually, membership may not be required. I preached at a SDA Church Saturday. I asked who was attending and not SDA. I was informed the Pianist was not SDA. I am aware of a SDA congregation who placed a Methodist, who regularly attended, in charge of raising the funds to build a church building. This is allowed and does not violate denominational policy.

4) Elected office is a step up from membership. It is expected that people elected to positions of leadership in congregational life will be members in good standing. So, no, membership does not automatically qualify one to hold office.

5) As to the issue of marriage: In the U.S. marriage has both sacramental (religious) and civil functions. They do not overlap. We have no obligation to recognize sacramentally those who have a civil marriage in relationship to the religious life of our church. However, we do have an obligation to recognize the civil authority under which they are married. IOW: We can say that they are married under civil law but not religious law.

I don't disagree with anything you said.However what the gay and lesbian community see and are demanding as loving christian acceptance is far different.

Many reasons are given that the homosexual lifestyle today is not really what the bible referred to.

So what constitutes loving acceptance of gays and lesbians?

You are welcome in the church,but don't expect to be married in the church or hold elected office?

According to this and many other similar statements the SDA denomination is not considered christian...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) affirming Christian denominations are Christian denominations that do not consider homosexuality or transgenderism to be sins

[bonnie]

Quote:

and I may be wrong, but I don't think that declarations by Christians to the LGBT population that they are sinning and will "go to hell" is in any way the equivalent of being convicted by the Spirit...

I don 't think anyone was suggesting a "get in their face and tell them they are going to hell" method.

When I first met the lesbian couple that became close friends,no comment was called for or necessary.

As our friendship grew certain issues were discussed. I did not have to temper my beliefs to be accepted by them,nor did they.

It is never an issue.They know I would never support or vote for gay marriage to be legalized,nor if they decided at this point to "marry" would they expect me to attend.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

my point is that anyone - you, me, pastors, friends, relatives, or anti-gay activists - telling (in either a nice way or an accusing way) a practicing LGBT person that what they are doing is a sin does *not* equate with conviction by the Holy Spirit...

[Tom Wetmore]

Honestly if even one of you changes your mind after watching that video, I am not speaking to you again - cause he is saying the exact same thing I have been saying since my very first post here.

A gay person

A straight person

What is the common denominator there?

Yes, a person...

[Tom Wetmore]

Tony Campolo's remarks are not at all in accordance with scripture .

* * *

What is most troubling , though , is his ridiculous statement that we should "love the sinner and hate the sin in ourselves" and not that in others: That is, we should never hate and rebuke sin in others for that would be hypocritical.

If you cannot muster the courage to rebuke open sin in others then you are not loving them, for we are told to love as Jesus loved.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Jesus chastens and rebukes those He loved:

Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

* * *

You miss the point by either overlooking or intentionally ignoring his explanation of loving the sinner and hating the sin in ourselves. (Selectively picking and choosing parts to pick apart without taking into consideration the whole story or ignoring details that conflict with your prejudgement demonstrates the flaw in your argument that we can rebuke/judge righteously.) Tony explained using Jesus' own words about removing the log from our own eye before going after the speck in a brother's eye. Jesus was clear, take care of your own sin before you worry about rebuking another's sin. By that righteous standard, that leaves very few in a position to judge/rebuke sin in another.

That is confirmed in Jesus' statement in Revelation. He, the only One with perfect love and without sin, can rebuke and chasten and call the sinner to be zealous about their own repentance. Conflating His statement of His perfect love and authority to rebuke/judge with His command for us to love one another doesn't give us the right/ability to judge/rebuke with our imperfect love, clouded by the debris in our own eyes.

Our role is to point the sinner to Jesus. Let Jesus rebuke them since he can see clearly with not even a speck in his eye.

Why do you so zealously hold on to a need or desire to do the rebuking? If you believe you are as righteous as and have as perfect love as Jesus, please rebuke and judge. But know that by the same standard you too will be judged as you judge others.

[bonnie]

my point is that anyone - you, me, pastors, friends, relatives, or anti-gay activists - telling (in either a nice way or an accusing way) a practicing LGBT person that what they are doing is a sin does *not* equate with conviction by the Holy Spirit...

For me,in my case when asked where I stood on the issue and how I felt I answered truthfully.

If they were to approach my pastor with the same kind of questions I would be pretty upset with him if he shrugged and told them as long as they were not convicted it was a sin no problem. Likewise if he were to meet them and launch in to a "you are going to hell".

There is a big difference between what the typical gay and lesbian communities consider a loving christian response and what many religious denominations feel is a loving christian response

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Bonnie, it seems you're still missing my point, but I'll just let it go...

[bonnie]

Bonnie, it seems you're still missing my point, but I'll just let it go...

Possibly,but I don 't think so. A few of you seem to take a couple of posts to mean that on meeting a gay or lesbian couple they will launch into a fire and brim stone and "rebuke the sinner".I don't believe that is what was meant. There is a time and place. Just as when I was asked directly,I responded in kind.

I think if I were a non-SDA looking for information as to where the denomination stood on this topic the lines would be quite blurry. I know I would never direct any questioning that lifestyle here

Not whether I would be welcomed to worship there,but that my lifestyle would be accepted as biblically more correct and christian than those that opposed my lifestyle.

By oppose I don't mean bashing someone over the head with the bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

If they were to approach my pastor with the same kind of questions I would be pretty upset with him if he shrugged and told them as long as they were not convicted it was a sin no problem.

Methinks that I have been misunderstood.

If a person came to me personally and wanted to explore with me what the Bible said on the subject, I would do so. I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual practice is wrong.

But, I would not judge the person as I cannot judge the extent to which the HS has convicted them. I cannot judge whether or not they are in rebellion.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

If a person came to me personally and wanted to explore with me what the Bible said on the subject, I would do so. I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual practice is wrong.

But, I would not judge the person as I cannot judge thee extent to which the HS has convicted them. I cannot judge whether or not they are in rebellion.

That's *exactly* my point, too!!

[bonnie]

Methinks that I have been misunderstood.

If a person came to me personally and wanted to explore with me what the Bible said on the subject, I would do so. I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual practice is wrong.

But, I would not judge the person as I cannot judge thee extent to which the HS has convicted them. I cannot judge whether or not they are in rebellion.

Having an opinion and believing something is wrong and then stating such is seen as judging by some here.

Judging someone's fitness for eternal life is far different.

But, I would not judge the person as I cannot judge thee extent to which the HS has convicted them. I cannot judge whether or not they are in rebellion.

No one has suggested that should be done.

[LifeHiscost]

"...but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)" Romans 2:10-15 NKJV parenthesis theirs' LHC

Quote:

However, I have issues with the following posted by life:

Quote:

You will be disdained by some for your honesty, . . .

To say that some disdain another for their honesty is simply false.

"Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause."Psalm 35:19 KJV

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill, and whoever kills shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court.

But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.

So if when you are offering your gift at the altar you there remember that your brother has any [grievance] against you,

Leave your gift at the altar and go. First make peace with your brother, and then come back and present your gift.

Matthew 5:21-24 AMP brackets parenthesis theirs' LHC

When my brother has a grievance against me, the onus is on me to go to him/her/them to initiate the Balm of Gilead.

"For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt.

I am mourning;

Astonishment has taken hold of me.

Is there no balm in Gilead,

Is there no physician there?

Why then is there no recovery

For the health of the daughter of my people?

"Jeremiah 8:21-22 NKJV

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

When my brother has a grievance against me, the onus is on me to go to him/her/them to initiate the Balm of Gilead.

You come across to me as having issues with a number of people who post here.

Have you followed your advice and gone to any of them as you have said should be done?