Updated.
Tone and truth should go hand in hand. I know that as I desire to bring the balance of that to my blog, sometimes I succeed and other times I fall woefully short. In that spirit, upon review of my initial post here, I think that some statements were needlessly abrasive to Dr. Mohler and were a distraction from the wheelhouse of the integrity of the issue I was trying to address. To all of you who frequent this blog, and to Dr. Mohler personally, please forgive me for any offense that I may have caused. I trust this update will prove to be more beneficial on this important issue and to once again affirm my love and respect for our brother, though we may disagree on this issue.
From the crucible of grace,
Steve
Romans 12:18
"The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality
would be of great pastoral significance,
allowing for a greater understanding of why certain
persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."
-R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
would be of great pastoral significance,
allowing for a greater understanding of why certain
persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."
-R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
God addresses it this way:
What is sin:
1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
Who is a sinner:
Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
What are the consequences of sinful choices:
Romans 1:24-28 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 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. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 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. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.
By what means is pastoral understanding to the temptations of others attained:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
"If I have missed something, point it out. If I have violated Scriptures in any way, bring this to my attention. If I am confused in any way, point to clarification." -Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.I fully agree and appreciate his words--it's in that spirit that I am writing this post.
Somewhere Over the Rainbow:
Dr. Al Mohler, Jr. (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) has created a firestorm of press the last few weeks due to some very controversial statements he made on his blog concerning the issue of prenatal sexual orientation identification, resulting in part, to the study of what some scientists are labeling a "gay-gene". They think that IF the gay-gene can be identified, then they posit that it can possibly be reversed by prenatal therapy to a heterosexual state. Dr.Mohler asserts, that IF this can be proven and accomplished, this would be an invaluable and beneficial tool for pastors in further understanding and ministering to the homosexual community; and confronting the "inevitable effects of sin." Mind you, there is absolutely no scientific conclusive data that puts this in the scope of reality whatsoever; and apparently, the only consistent research to date has been conducted (are you ready for this) on "gay sheep." How does one tell a gay sheep from a straight sheep? Are there bi-sexual sheep too? What about transgender or transsexual sheep? Talk about "pulling the wool over someone's eyes." I didn't know there were even gay sheep alive, did you?
This is quite a surprise to read from a man of Dr. Mohler's biblical knowledge, theological acumen, and doctrinal discernment whom I support and appreciate greatly. But to suggest at all that we should entertain, endorse, or even give any ounce of credence to this kind of scientific twaddle, whatsoever, is perplexing. In the meantime, the secular media is having a hay-day with this asking the inevitable question concerning the potential of eugenics: "is Dr. Mohler playing God?" You have to admit beloved, this whole line of thinking sounds more like Warren than it does like Mohler. And again, one is inclined in the midst of this issue to ask: "why? - what prompted this kind of discussion to begin with? What is the driving motive or reasoning? And, is it all a needless destraction from the important calling of the preaching of God's Word and the proclamation of the gospel?" Certainly the way to speak, as Christians, to the gay community is not through the biological megaphone of "gay-genes," but by lovingly proclaiming the good news of the gospel of grace through Jesus Christ our Lord. They need regeneration; not gene-reversal. Amen?
Sin (even ones sexual orientation, temptation, and attraction) is not a matter of genetics; it is a matter of nature called Original Sin (Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:3). All carnal thoughts and affections are enmity against God and cannot please Him (Roms. 8:7; James 4:1-5). BTW, that includes me, you and Dr. Mohler - not just the gay community. (The entire third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is a tremendous description of original sin.)
What is unfortunate, is when any of us
direct our attention to lesser issues like "the fiction
of scientific prenatal genome identification and reversal"
rather than continuing to faithfully proclaim the
gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His truth.
direct our attention to lesser issues like "the fiction
of scientific prenatal genome identification and reversal"
rather than continuing to faithfully proclaim the
gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His truth.
This issue is even making global warming seem legitimate by comparison - and I didn't think that was even possible.
It's all in the Genes--and I Don't Mean Levi's:
The article that started this brew-haha is called: Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It? (Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007). In it, Dr. Mohler affirmed the possibility of reversing this "gay-gene" if it could be detected:
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.”However, today, is article entitled, "Was It Something I Said? ..." he seemingly wrote to clarify his views to both conservative evangelicals and media liberals. BUT, instead of clarity there has resulted more confusion. For example he says:
“In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies — or any other therapy of this type.” The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all."As you can see, these statements are in direct conflict with one another and have produced more chaos to readers than clarity; and has left many scratching their heads asking the profound question: "...huh?"
But if any of this is even remotely possible,
why would they stop at a gay-gene? Aren’t there other
moral ills to identify, understand, and reverse as well?
For example: why not try and look for:
- An adultery-gene?
- A thief-gene?
- An anger-gene?
- A gambling-gene?
- A smoking-gene?
- An alcoholic-gene?
- A drug-gene?
- A terrorist-gene?
- An overeating-gene?
- A divorce-gene?
- A gossip-gene?
- A legalistic-gene?
- A materialistic-gene?
- If you're addicted to caffine, could there be a vinti, 2/3rds decaf triple, 3 pump sugar-free hazelnut, nonfat, 1 and 1/2 splenda, with whip, extra hot, upside down, carmel macchiato-gene?
What's All This Really About:
I would encourage you to read both of the articles by Dr. Mohler and then you decide. May I also suggest you read some key passages of Scripture to help you in this study as well: Romans 1:18-32; Romans 3; Eph. 2:1-3; Romans 5:12-17; Genesis 3; Psalm 51; and Galatians 5.
And to be clear, the issue for this blog is not whether scientists and identify and reverse the gay-genes in gay-sheep so that humans can detect a similar gay-gene in unborn babies one day so that it can be reversed to heterosexual status. This is not about science; it's not about research; it's not even about gene reversal. At the core, it is about protecting the integrity, sufficiency and authority of God's Word as it speaks completely about all matters of life and godliness. Science, either indirectly or directly, will always be looking for yet another reason to justify, normalize and condone our sinful behavior.
This is about adding genome doctrine
to a biblical worldviewand elevating
the imprudent possibilityof unproven
scientific genetic study to the level
of the means of grace"to avoid sexual
temptation and the inevitable effects of sin."
to a biblical worldviewand elevating
the imprudent possibilityof unproven
scientific genetic study to the level
of the means of grace"to avoid sexual
temptation and the inevitable effects of sin."
For me, that is what this is about and why it needs to be worthy of our attention. I would encourage you to specifically read Romans 1:18-27 to see clearly that ones sexual orientation is not something that comes from a genetic predisposition, but from one's sinful nature and depraved heart which chooses to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. IOW, I believe that The Fall has effected every area of our lives both physical and spiritual, that not only are we responsible for such choices, as Dr. Mohler rightly and clearly points out in his articles, but also, that even our orientation, temptation and attraction to those choices is a matter of ones sinful nature, not genetic proclivity.
With that in mind, the following is a ten point outline that Dr. Mohler thinks is vital for every Christian to think about on this issue. (Points 8-10 are especially interesting). I deal with each one of these ten points in detail on the BlogCast (though I have listed some brief comments in maroon below).
Before you begin, a personal word about our brother:
Dr. Al Mohler is an orthodox preacher of God's Word; a defender and proclaimer of the gospel of Jesus Christ; AND a faithful man of God. His leadership in greater evangelicalism I appreciate greatly and have personally benefited from in my own life and ministry. His presidency at SBTS is legendary; and he is a needed and crucial voice for the gospel of grace in the secular marketplace as an apologist for the Christian worldview. It is because, beloved, of my overall respect and sincere love for him, and by the command of Scripture (Acts 17:9-11; 1 Thess. 5:21) that I measure his controversial words against the plumb line of God's Word.
As Bereans, it is incumbent upon all of us to adhere the command of the Apostle Paul when he says, "test all things; cling to that which is good..."I know that you bless me here at COT when you examine what I write and say with God's Word. I learn from you; am corrected by you; exhorted by to further sound doctrine; and encouraged in the faith by you. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."
And so in that same spirit I offer to these ten points, what I hope is constructive criticism of the recent views expressed by our dear brother in Christ, Dr. Al Mohler.
To that end may we press on...
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5
Christians who are committed to think in genuinely
Christian terms should think carefully about these points
by Dr. R. Al Mohler, Jr.
Christian terms should think carefully about these points
by Dr. R. Al Mohler, Jr.
1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.
Agreed (but I am not a trained scientist in the field of genetic research and do not pretend to speak for that profession.)2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.
Even my limited knowledge recognizes that this is not an accurate statement - there is no current evidence that the scientific community has produced to suggest biological causation predisposes ones sexual orientation. Furthermore, I believe the Scriptures contradict such assertions (Psalm 51:5; Romans 1:24-28; 3:10-18; Eph. 3:1-3).
3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.
Again, where is the genetic evidence that "shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment" exist and have imprinted ones genetic code to render on predisposed to a specific sexual orientation? More importantly, where is the biblical evidence to support this claim?
4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.
I think in part it would. It would mean that God created all homosexuals in the homosexual orientation. It would take their predisposition out of choice to divine design and would further legitimize their claim to God given same sex desires. This has been the justification of the gay community for years: "God made me this way." Speaking biblically, Romans 1 would have to be rewritten, for there would be nothing "unnatural" about men fulfilling their sexual desires with other men; women with other women if they are "born" with that genetic desire. Sin issues cannot be reduced simply to a matter of science.
5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.
We have the Scriptures; and they are sufficient to give all the counsel we need to minister to those who are struggling in any sin including homosexuality (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Peter 1:3-4). They are completely sufficient, lacking nothing, for "all matters of life and godliness."
6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.
I agree that all people are made in the image of God; I disagree that gay people are marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. Taking this principle to its logical conclusion, any sin then could be ultimately attributed at its foundation to a genetic predisposition. The Fall has predisposed us already to a sinful nature, to be sinners, and to commit all kinds of sin.
7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
I agree. I am also pro-life and stand fully against the murder of unborn children.8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
IMHO, this is inexcusable for a Christian leader of Dr. Mohler's influence and biblical astuteness to see "genetic reversal" as being considered "appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." The "means of grace" in salvation or sanctification are completely sufficient to accomplish this purpose.
9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.
I don't think this is confusing at all. Moral responsibility flows from moral choice and I believe they are rooted in the corrupt an depraved sinful nature we all possess at birth due to original sin. We are spiritually held accountable for both.
We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation.
Ah but we do; and THAT'S the point here.
We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen.
This bold statement is shocking to me. To assert that we [Christians] are the ones sinning because we say that homosexual temptation and attraction is predominately a choice and not genetically predisposed is unbiblical.
We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.
10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation.
I will make that claim now. Science will never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. Scripture has already defined the reason and choice for "that orientation (Romans 1:18-32).
We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
I agree with this first sentence.
As to the second one: Who has proven this and where is the solid data from the scientific community across the board that states this?
This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.
Again, science adds not one thing to effective biblical ministry--especially for those in the gay community. To do so, is to write the next chapter in a "therapeutic theology" - a genome doctrine.
As I know Dr. Mohler agrees, it is the power of the gospel, not genetic discovery or reversal, that is needed today to understand, impact, and minister effectively to any sin issue facing mankind in any culture. I don't understand this unnecessary diversion from the centrality of the Word of God and the gospel to explain this.
91 comments:
Amen Scott,
Rom 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
The gospel not science. This of course does not mean that science is not of use or even valuable, but with regards to salvation, it is meaninglessness.
Steve,
I was going to respond point-by-point to your list, but I didn't want to eat up five screens here. Instead, I posted it on my blog HERE .
I'm sorry to be a pest. But it looks like you have plenty of "Paula Abduls" here. You need a Simon Cowell to keep you honest ;)
John
Rom 12:3
3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Ro 12:3). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
To all:
Thanks for your thoughts and care on this topic.
John, I came in tonight and reposted some thoughts after each of the ten items by Dr. Mohler. I felt I was a bit rushed before and wanted to take a bit more time before turning in tonight.
I just noticed that you linked to your website and gave some commentary there. You might need to update your post as well. Thank you for your patience--it's been a very long day.
Let's remember to think biblically about these things.
Grace and peace,
Steve
I think we should be extremely skeptical of “scientific” research in any area that has a connection with what our secular culture considers politically correct. Scientists at liberal (nearly all) universities would be eager to assert that they had found a gay gene. They would grasp at any straw to make the case for such a gene. In contrast, they would be extremely reluctant to claim that no such gene existed. Do not think for a second that job security, career advancement, and social acceptance are not tied to politically correct issues.
John
Where are those studies? Where is the data? Fact is it just does not exist, at least as anything less than fraudulent or based upon weak and un proveable theories.
Lets pretend that there is something that shows there is a genetic connection! We now have a genetic flaw, a mutation, just like trisomy 18 or 23 or the myriads of other fatal and or debilitating mutations.
How is this fatal to the Homosexual? They will never be able to reproduce! Set apart in their own world and the carriers of this gene die out over time. This truth is incontrovertable, they will never reproduce naturally, they will always need to recruit or manipulate in some way.
What this is all about is a desperate attempt for the homosexual to become legitimate, but they never will. The Homosexual is exactly who he claims to be, a being driven by sexual orientation, driven by a choice to have sex with the same sex. Read Romans 1 and you will understand the cause, they are a cursed people just like all sinners! They need Christ like all sinners, like all of us. Until they accept Christ and turn from their sin then the nightmare goes on. Hmmmm I wonder if there is a gene that causes post modern thinking? Even if there is the only hope is in Christ, and this applies to all of the other problems that you point out. How amazingly simple, but how complex and twisted many have made it become.
Gigantor,
You said "Where are those studies? Where is the data? Fact is it just does not exist, at least as anything less than fraudulent or based upon weak and un proveable theories."
This is where true science just won't work. If any study ever asserted that homosexual orientation was influenced by biology, you would immediately throw it out as fraudulent and unproveable.
And this is not an attempt to make homosexual activity acceptable as you claim. It's an attempt to encourage Christians not to act like redneck idiots to homosexuals. And I'm not the one calling people out - Al Mohler is. He's one of you dude. The "post-modern" gene skipped his generation. I suggest you actually consider what he's saying.
"WOW"
What a fantastic post, Kudos!
New "Credit Card" / "Jeans" commercial:
"What's in YOUR Genes, Dr. Mohler???"
John
I have worked as a biologist for many years and I have some background in microbiology and genetics. The point is that the gene connection is just not there, never has been and never will be! Bring on the empirical data, lets have a look, by the way, although human studies and animal studies show similarities it means nothing. Humans and animals are not the same, that is atleast if you believe what God has said. Or do you look to a explanation that comes from those that deny God exists? Sorry John, if God is not factored into this then the final conclusion is wrong. These studies are not science, they are wishful thinking of people who love the darkness.
As far as Dr. Mohler being my brother in Christ, that does not mean that he can not be mis lead or wrong, and he is mis lead or wrong or both in this situation. Perhaps he is sliding into the post modern morass, I pray that he is not but, unfortunately, it would not shock me.
As for you, you spend a lot of time on these petty issues and you do not know the one who has the answers, that is Christ. It is apparent in your vitreolic replies that when someone calls you out you do not know where to turn. You seldom answer any questions posed to you because you have no answers, in your mind there is never a answer to be found, that is unless it fits into your own reality, the world as John chooses it. Perhaps if you seek him you will find the answers!
I have a lot of respect for both Campi and Mohler. When I read Mohler's response I came away with more clarity and was not perplexed. Perhaps my desire to err on the side of mercy may blind me. However, I also know that you, Campi, respect Mohler. You respect other men that are on "your side of the camp" per say, that you have confronted, like MacArthur.
But even if I agreed with you on every point, I do believe that some of this confrontation here does not exemplify the gentle in: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24,25)
I have SO MUCH respect for you Campi. But in tears I ask that you consider the word "gentle."
We so need to be careful with the tongue-in-cheek style.
We also need to be careful how we confront our dear sisters and brothers in Christ. I use to think that those in public ministry should be confronted publicly. But I have seen to much "tongue-in-cheek, unforgiving, ungentleness" and do believe that it is Biblical to confront privately before one goes public. And if you bring a necessary confrontation public, to do so with a broken and contrite spirit.
Ex Animo,
Lisa @ Deo Volente
(I cannot seem to access my blogger account right now and again apologize for having to use my husbands)
Lisa:
Thank you for your comment.
As you know, I use tongue and cheek approach sparingly. But the issue before us is so farfetched that it cannot be taken seriously or treated as such. It demands a bit of humor...
I held back a response on this issue for two weeks after reading his initial blog post. I didn't react to it, but waited for a further response. As you are probably aware, even his second response was not received well hardly by anyone. In fact, it brought further confusion.
I have treated the doctrine here very seriously; but I won't dignify these kind of frivolous assertions with a serious doctrinal rebuttal. This is sad to me that a man of Dr. Mohler's biblical acumen and stature would even entertain such a notion in the genetic field like he has. And then, completely contradicting himself between his two responses.
He didn't own anything and wouldn't humble himself to do so. There was no apology or even the slightest bit of "due to the fact that so many on both sides of the aisle here have had trouble with what I have written, it is obvious that I failed to communicate accurately on this issue from a biblical worldview. Please forgive me..."
What we got was spin; not humility. I have heard from many pastors who are deeply concerned over the lack of being able to admit that he even flip-flopped like he did.
All to say, I do appreciate you greatly. Thank you again for your comment.
With grace and peace in Christ...
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
SJ Camp
The fact here is this, one comes to these types of conclusions, ie. Dr. Mohler, by forgetting that the word of God is sufficient and it will guide us in all things pertaining to life and godliness. That is not to say that it is a recipe book but it is a very specific, perfect and inerrant Law and Gospel given to us by God in order that we might know how to live! While homosexuality is a sin like any other sin there is a reason that God chose to address it specifically and so we should pay special attention to it and not allow the theories of the world to overshadow it in any way. We are the temple of God and any immoral fornication sin jeopardizes that temple and God will destroy those who defile or destroy his temple. The genetics scheme simply clouds the truth, we need to take the truth for what it is and use it to test any and every theory. For if any theory is not based in the truth of the word then it is worthless and needs to be discarded. I suggest that Dr. Mohler and anyone who gives creedence to this particular issue get back to the basics of the word of God and prayer.
I was thinking about this attempt at finding a genetic solution for the sin of homosexuality, and thought it was very interesting that they would try to prove this. What I saw in this was not an excuse for homosexuals to say "God made me this way", but an acknowledgement by the scientific community that if you are a homosexual, there IS something wrong with you! To prove this would be no different than saying that you have a genetically inherited medical condition, and require treatment.
Gigantor,
You wrote: I suggest that Dr. Mohler and anyone who gives creedence to this particular issue get back to the basics of the word of God and prayer.
I do appreciate these words. This issue is a difficult one to face and it has personally and hurtfully affected several people I deeply care about in my life. A dear friend's husband left her and their son for another man, my brother's best friend and business partner "came out of the closet" recently and literally rocked my brothers world, one of my Titus 2 mentors recently learned that her son embraces the lie of homosexuality, my own mother told me when I was young that she thought she might be a lesbian... and if this is supposed to be genetic than I have been skipped. I could go on and I betcha there is someone that comments on this blog that knows of or is close to someone that has bought into this lie. This justification of sin.
Campi,
I don't know what to say. I do know that I immensely respect you and have learned SO much from you. I am not sure I agree with your approach here. So I believe in this instance I will wholeheartedly implement Gigantors words... and get back to the basics of the word of God and prayer.
To me that especially entails prayer and 2 Tim. 2:24,25
Ex Animo,
Lisa @ Deo Volente
Too all:
As, I have been following this I am left with some thoughts... And I know John, I am a "Paula Abdul". On this issue...
When looking at science and looking at God's word... Every single time I must side with what is Biblically sound. Every time !!
Where is the scriptural preface for Dr. Mohler's comments.. I look at Steve's response and it is littered with scripture. Steve has backed his comments with scripture and as of today Dr. Mohler has yet too (to my knowledge). Infact he still seems like he is blinded to the comments he has made.
Science has not found a so called gay gene and I don't think they have found the pollution gene that they are saying is partly responsible for global warming.. What is next? Maybe scientist have a innacurate fact gene. I could probably prove that one by looking at all of the missing links to their so called facts over the last 30-40yrs.
But yet as christians, why do we look at science as a possible authority on this issue? Would we look at a politician in the same light? No, I would think not...
I shutter to think that we would give science the benifit of the doubt over scripture. That really is the bottom line. This is a very slippery slope.
I wonder, could someone explain to me the difference between the Theory of a gay gene and the Theory of evolution? Are they not both man made theory, that tries to excuse man of his sin and accountability towards God.
We need to remind ourselves that 1 Cor 3:18 states
1Cr 3:18 ¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Cr 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
1Cr 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
Science has its place, but it is not the final authority for the believers in Christ Jesus.
The narrow way is still narrow.
Bill
Lisa
I studied biology and genetics and have searched for this elusive gay gene within the research done in the scientific community and have always found the same thing, there is no proof of this existing at all. The majority of the studies are a rehash from already debunked studies done on the connections of heredity and crime, as well as the old identical twin studies. Neither of these studies are taken seriously and have been left. Of course there are the animal studies wich seem to resurface every so many years, but we must keep in mind with animals that we are looking at pure instinct. While we humans do have some instinct we function on logic and reason, not animalistic instinct, that is with acception of those that have totally given themselves into moral depravity then the consequence is that they begin to look and live like animals.
Romans 1 gives a clear reason for the depravity of homosexuality and it's cause. It certainly fits the United States today as well as the rest of the world.
I agree with you Gigantor. I agree with the Biblical reasons put forth by Campi on this issue and I appreciate his necessary and ample supply of Scripture. My struggle is not with the truth as set forth by Scripture. God's Word is not relative truth. It defines truth. It is truth. God is truth.
My struggle is the approach on the method of confrontation.
Erring on the side of mercy is not at the expense of truth. It is confronting error in meekness and gentleness.
Ex Animo,
Lisa @ Deo Volente
And one more thing... what about a bridges gene (as in Gene Bridges)
or what about a Hy-gene?
or Mr. Green Gene?
or a Billy Gene?
or a blue Gene? (as in Blue Like Jazz Gene)
or the Simmons gene? (for those struggling with grossly extended tongues)
or the Scott Gene? (for those who struggle with cussing and preaching... simultaneously)
or the I Dream of GENE... E?
Lisa @ Deo Volente
Hey if we discover a Gay Gene then we won't have to repent! Point is men love to make excuses for their sin.
"The heathen outside the pale of Christendom form gods out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a god out of their own carnal minds". This is just another example!
Bryan
In his blog post, “Is Your Baby Gay?”, Al Mohler links to the study that Steve was addressing in the BlogCast about genetics, to Slate.com, a politically Liberal Internet publication, and the title of that article is...“Brokeback Mutton”. Some of you have alluded to the politics involved in this issue, so I thought that I would bring this to your attention.
From there, Slate.com links from within their article the words “hormones, brains, and behavior” to the website of Oregon Health & Science University, which, from looking at their website, also appears to have Liberal leanings.
Interestingly, in their Mission Statement, they state under Core Values:
Social responsibility. We contribute to society's intellectual, cultural, spiritual, and economic progress and well-being to the maximum possible extent.
Since when is Science supposed to contribute to society’s spiritual progress and well-being, and “to the maximum possible extent” no less?
My point is that there is a built-in Liberal bias in the study of genetics. And I believe that there is a political agenda tied to the research of genetics as related to homosexuality.
Only recently has this idea come up about “being born that way” and using genetic research to try to prove it. And I think that this is because homosexuality has become a political issue.
If Liberals can get the government to not legislate morality regarding homosexuality, by saying that it is biological, then I suppose you could say that they have “won”. Except now homosexuals are concerned about being subjected to medical treatment to change them. So, they have created a new dilemma for themselves.
Unfortunately, it seems like too many Christians are taking this genetic science seriously, not realizing the political agenda attached to it.
Lisa
The confrontation is direct because this issue has been brought to us in a direct and militant manner. The proponents of this issue will stop at nothing to gain their legitimacy and that includes destroying the innocent to gain it!
As far as compassion and mercy are concerned on my behalf and I believe on the behalf of everyone else in here that has responded, we are more than willing to reach out to anyone that is in bondage to this particular sin and any other for that matter. The Gospel is for all those that believe.
With respect to Dr. Mohler, I believe that those that have personal access to him ought to be direct in how they confront him. He is a leader that has great influence, and what he says effects many, including those that are young in Christ and know no better. This issue has the potential of being a real stumbling block to many! Hopefully he comes to his senses and repents of what he has said, in both his original article and his follow up, my prayers are with him.
FYI here's an article that describes the reason why people THINK there's such a thing as a "Gay" gene, when in fact there has never been such a claim made by the science community:
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
It was the faulty understanding and thus reporting of journalists that caused the ruckous---but many would be happy if there were such a thing, to justify their sin.
Do you guys remember that article in Time Magazine about us having a "God" gene? You know...us religious folk who pray and stuff---we can get that fixed someday by popping a pill I suppose and we'd be less trouble to them....I found the link to the article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041025-725072,00.html
"The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality
would be of great pastoral significance,allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."
This is nothing but humanism. Psychobable. Nonsense.
And its saying that Scripture and the Spirit are not enough to deal competantly (sp) with people's sin.
We don't need to know why someone commits homosexual acts or adulterous acts or whatever. What we are to do is deal with their sin if they claim to be saved (1Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1; Matt. 18).
Its disheartening to see "leaders" be infested with such worldly thinking. Its quite a shame.
Scripture IS enough!
Forgetting homosexuality for the moment, is it possible that my genetic makeup results in me struggling with certain sins more than with others? For example, my temperament may give me problems with anger, or alcohol/drug addictions that run in my family may give me a predisposition to misuse drugs. If this is true, then I must agree with Mohler that genetic factors may be one reason why I struggle with certain sins.
Nevertheless, the strength of my urge to sin is not an excuse to sin. I am still choosing to sin. And, although I could take Valium to curb my propensity for angry outbursts, I don’t think that science is the answer to overcoming sin. Scientific cures may control the flesh, but they leave my heart hard and unrepentant.
Did God did make me this way? If He did, it doesn’t mean that I have license to sin and you must accept me the way I am. It does mean that my weakness is for His glory and for my ultimate good. In fact, my inability to overcome sin brought terrible consequences that brought me to God. In my weakness, Christ in me gives me a new desire—to walk by the Spirit and receive strength to fight against my sin. If that weakness hadn’t been there, I would never have realized that I needed a Savior. Praise God for my genetic weaknesses.
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea,even the wicked for the day of evil - Proverbs 16:4
Did God make me this way? Yes, all men are bound by sin but not everyone is given the ability to flee from it.
The gifts of faith and repentance are not given to everyone!
Gigantor wrote: With respect to Dr. Mohler, I believe that those that have personal access to him ought to be direct in how they confront him.
I do not consider the blogosphere to be "personal" access.
Ex Animo,
Lisa @ Deo Volente
Terry:\
Amen! It is the wonderful transforming power of the gospel for all of us--including anyone in the gay community. It is not the ability to gene-mark and then through prenatal therapy reverse the gene to a heterosexual state...
Thank you.
Lisa:
You said, "Erring on the side of mercy is not at the expense of truth. It is confronting error in meekness and gentleness."
That's what I did here my friend.
Dr. Mohler believers, as I do, that when someone makes a claim that does not square with Scripture publicly, it should be confronted publicly as well. Even minor disagreements can be dealt with in this way and are also legitimate apart from the more weighty concerns of doctrine.
You believe this too. I.e., you did not write me personally about your view of this post, but chose to make your remakes here to me publicly where I made them. And that's good, right, proper and OK to do so; and I appreciate you for them.
Humility dictates that we receive constructive criticism in a multiplicity of venues--including private ones as well. Pride would respond and say, "I resent the fact that someone disagreed with me and chose to disagree with me publicly where I said my words... They should only confront me personally."
Listen, I love my brother AL and respect him deeply. But his articles asserting the possibility of a gay-gene and attributing prenatal therapy reversal as somehow curbing the effects of sin and its temptations is so outside the scope of Scripture - so ludicrous - that I think this gentle tongue and cheek approach is the right one in THIS case and hopefully can be used in his sanctification too. Don't you agree?
Let me say it this way, if I had come out with the same articles that Al had, Christian love and gentleness would demand that you write about me and those articles publicly - in the same arena that I posted them. AND because we are fellow believers in the Lord, that you would also write me privately as well.
Both are necessary, proper and loving.
Your tears and compassion here are welcome and appreciated. I trust you have cried more about Dr. Mohler's bogus claims and for not representing the biblical mandate and for causing such confusion, blurring an effective Christian testimony and witness for the gospel to the gay community.
I hope this helps a bit further. I appreciate you very much.
Grace and peace,
Campi
Col. 1:9-14
Lisa
Dr. Mohler has chosen to be a public teacher and his teachings are broadcast widely to many thousands, in a way and perhaps even literally to some he has become a pastor or elder to those who listen to him. Although I do not believe that Dr. Mohler has been rebuked here, perhaps we have had some strong disagreement, I think since he is a public minister that this scripture applies to him;
1 Tim 5:18
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (1 Ti 5:19-20). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Perhaps this would not be considered a offense worth rebuking, but at the least there should be a strong exhortation with regards to such a wide deviation from the truth, he needs to change the way he is thinking! Or support what he is saying with scripture.
Wow. Lots of lively discussion here. Since I always like to get to the bottom line, I'll pose this question:
Isn't all of this (not these comments, but the issue of Steve's post) just another way to find a way to blame our sin on someone other than ourselves so that we don't have to take responsibility for our actions?
No, the scientific evidence is not the issue, althougt I've read some good stuff from the Christian Research Institute that denies the proof of the "gay gene" theory. We must all just keep pressing on one person at a time within our own sphere's of influence in hope of "infecting" those people with an insatiable desire for God's word.
Great post. Great discussion.
The AP wire service has now picked up this story - it has gone global and the response is not good. Make no mistake about it at this juncture beloved: whatever negative press Dr. Mohler receives as a Christian leader from the secular press, is not because he is being persecuted for the gospel as a believer; it is him being rightly held accountable for his unfortunate and ridiculous words.
What saddens me, is that we have now another evangelical leader who has muddied the waters away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. If any of us were unregenerate and in the gay community we would also feel targeted once again as being the "unpardonable" by the religious right.
Is there any more evidence that we need beloved that we as Christians should be about the work of the gospel and not tryhing to speak about foolish things like the scientific morality of genome reversal for homosexuals?
This is a sad day indeed.
May we all shed tears over the poor witness this has been once again to those who so desperately need the gospel we claim to believe and which can set them free for eternity. When someone needlessly eclipses the light of the gospel with the clouds of earthly unproven scientific "wisdom," then they have forgotten their calling and have grown deaf to the cries of the unregeneratet.
We're talking about lost souls here ladies and gentlemen; people who are without Christ and for whom a perditious eternity awaits because they don't know the Lord Jesus Christ. And what do some Christian leaders focus on in the midst of millions of people without Lord? "Fictional gay-genes."
Repent.
Does anyone at Southern Seminary remember these verses? (John 3:16-21).
With brokenness for the lost,
Steve
SJ Camp
Agreed, let us focus on the higher calling of the Gospel, it is the power of God to salvation to those who believe! Let us seperate ourselves from the things of the world and focus where the real battle lies, the battle for the hearts and souls of men towards salvation and glory in Jesus Christ the one and only Lord. He is the only one that can heal this rift and He will.
Agreed, this deeply saddens me. This has hurt the cause of Christ and unfortunately the men that are applauding Dr. Mohler's comments are not those who we as believers in Christ Jesus would want to be partnered with.
May Dr. Mohler will see the error of his comments and repent. Just as we all have had to repent of our errors... And if he does, we will welcome him with open arms.
Lord, Your Will Be Done,
Bill
What saddens me is that once again, conservative Christians will be seen with their targets on one of their own over the homosexual question. It's becomung THE major issue that will divide the Church in the next decade.
Look. Dr Mohler is not proposing that homosexual behavior is righteous. He's not saying that homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" or have special rights.
All he's saying is that PERHAPS there is something to the notion that they are born with certain in-born desires. That's all.
You guys are WAY too afraid of the slippery slope. We must remember that all homosexuals, lesbians, trans gendered, etc - are precious to God. He loves them and gave Himself for them. We should feel the same way about them.
Can ANYONE HERE seriously picture Christ walking up to a gay person and spewing scriptures at them - insisting that they're choosing their feelings? Or do you think He would listen and be understanding, gracious and merciful? Certainly, we can convey the idea that the act of gay sex is a sin, but can't we show mercy to people who legitimately believe they were born with their feelings? Who are we to say they weren't?
John:
You're missing the issue here completely. I am showing compassion for the homosexual community by not making this an issue of genetics, but one of commonality to all of us--sin.
We have the solution to the sin problem don't we... in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have seen hundreds of men who are gay and HIV infected respond to the gospel of grace. What a joy it is when even one is drawn into the kingdom by God's electing love.
It diminishes the work of the gospel and damages a testimony to say that people are predisposed in one category of sin by gene marking. That's not only insulting and demeaning to that group of people, begs the question as to why only a "gay-gene" - are there not other moral issues that can be traced to the genetic imprint, but yet it also dumbs-down sin to an issue of genome and not the Fall.
You know this to true.
Your bleeding heart I appreciate, John, but it lacks any concrete truth to move beyond just sheer sentimentality. "Born with their feelings" that's the best you can offer someone caught in sin? That's your point of identification with someone who is lost and gay? Come on--even The View does better than that :-). It's about the gospel John and all that Scripture says we in regards to God and His law. That is where you must begin with anyone who is lost.
While I love and respect Al Mohler, this has hurt the cause of Christ for a season. My prayer is that he will repent of this publicly and get on with the business of the gospel.
You asked what would Jesus do? He would say: go and sin no more; I am the resurrection and the life; I am the way the truth and life and no one comes to the Father but through Me; repent and believe.
He would not engage them on biological reasons as to why some of them developed these feelings without seemingly any viable explanation. How unloving that would be.
It's about the gospel John--not genetics.
Steve
2 Cor. 4;:5-7
John
We are all for mercy as God has shown mercy, the problem is that people love their dark little deeds and sins and they do not want to stop Jn. 3:19. We don't go looking to beat them with the scripture stick, as you always seem to accuse, we simply preach the Gospel Rom. 1:16; 10:15. When there are those that want to destroy the innocent in a effort to gain legitimacy that is where the line is drawn Lk. 17:2.
You have a nice little post modern way in your words but what you say is just more of those subtle little lies that stand up against the truth, I am not certain if Eph. 4:14 applies here or Jude. At any rate, when you speak of the word you only speak in part, the parts that you want to believe, not the whole truth.
"All he's saying is that PERHAPS there is something to the notion that they are born with certain in-born desires. That's all."
Yes John, this is what is known as sin, we were all born bent, out of sinc, what ever you want to call it, it is still the same sin that leads to seperation from God, death. There is only one hope for this and it is found in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There is no other answer for this.
Really neat how you have minimized this though, I mean he is just saying they have a excuse, give me a break.
It is real simple John, along with all the other sins homosexuality is a sin too, its end is death. God specifically mensions this sin in the bible because it is particularly destructive to the body and the mind. Of course you would have to take the scriptures that address homosexuality as the word of God! Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:27, we both know that ther are many more scriptures that I could quote you but you would have to believe that God placed them there for a reason, and that reason would be that this particular sin is called a abomination to God. It is a sin that is against the temple of God, our bodies, and God will destroy those that will destroy his temple!
"You guys are WAY too afraid of the slippery slope. We must remember that all homosexuals, lesbians, trans gendered, etc - are precious to God. He loves them and gave Himself for them. We should feel the same way about them."
We want to follow the word of God 100% because it is perfect in every way and has given us all we need pertaining to life and Godliness 2 Peter 1:3, 4. We are not afraid of the sinner, we are sinners too, we have just accepted the atoneing sacrifice of the Son of God as totally sufficient for our sins, we are forgiven and justified by our faith in Him. By his Holy Spirit we have been empowered to bear the fruits of righteousness that he has commanded us to do, and so we avoid sin and hate it. We choose to do our deeds in the light and we hate the darkness. While we preach the gospel to those that are in sin we are also seperate from them!
"but can't we show mercy to people who legitimately believe they were born with their feelings? Who are we to say they weren't?"
Everyone has feelings John but not all feelings, when acted out upon are abominations to God. Of course anything done apart from Christ is sin and it all leads to death.
The point is that the understanding we need is that this is just another satanic smoke screen to minimize sin and make it a easier pill to swallow, problem is that it is a poison pill no matter how its cut.
My point is that this confrontation comes across more as mocking because it was presented in the tongue and cheek style which does not come across as approached with gentleness or meekness. I understand he needs to be confronted. But confrontation to someone, that for the most part is Biblically sound, in this manner is not what Scripture teaches us. If it does, show me. I am sincerely teachable, and, but by the grace of God alone, I am not tossable.
Please know that I have approached this situation in like manner as you have approached it by confronting you publicly just as you have done so to Mohler... without implementing the tongue in cheek style. I just sincerely do not find it appropriate.
I have an incredibly busy week ahead, but please know that you all ARE FERVENTLY and SINCERELY in my prayers. And yes, I have been praying in tears for Mohler and this deep error. And I do highly respect you Campi and do appreciate your heart for truth. I just pray that in the future you will consider avoiding the tongue in cheek confrontation to brothers and sisters in Christ who are committed to sound doctrine as you are.
May we all remain teachable. Especially me. I know I have much to learn.
Lisa @ Deo Volente
I also appreciate your patience with me as I work out my salvation in fear and trembling.
Lisa @ Deo Volente
This is a harrowing discussion, especially for one in a foreign country who is not too bright. What I appreciate greatly about it is the composed spirit in which these posts are largely written. I was listening just now to "He is All You Need", and I take great comfort in knowing that no matter what storms are round about, whether from within or without, He is the sovereign God, and laughs at the furies of the nations. To see brothers and sisters engaged in discussing so explosive a subject matter, and yet see so much humilty and self-control, is encouraging to me, for I have experienced so very little of it. May God keep you in integrity of heart.
Lisa
Excuse me, but there is no mocking here...
Stay on subject.
What do you think about the content of the post and what Dr. Mohler has actually said and affirmed? THAT is the issue here.
Steve
Hey Steve---
I guess this whole thing with Mohler isn't really a surprise, is it? Considering his co-beligerance of the last year or two, its not to me.
The closer we get to the Last Day, the smaller the circle of biblical Christians becomes. The "leaders" are proving to be impediments to the Gospel and they seem Scripture not sufficient by Itself.
I see this as a War on the Word and its growing by leaps and bounds. When Scripture isn't sufficient, people run to science, psychology, theologians, history, authors, etc. to find biblical doctrine. THIS is why so many lose their way. Their foundation is build on sand, not The Rock who is Christ Jesus the Master.
Denise,
"The closer we get to the Last Day, the smaller the circle of biblical Christians becomes."
And of course, you view yourself within that loop.
Spiritual pride is a dangerous thing.
Steve,
Respectfully, God is the God of genetics. The fall is wrapped up in our genes. All people are NOT created equal in the physical sense. Some are created with physical issues. Some have mental issues. Others, emotional. That's just science Steve. Throw all the scripture you want at it, but it ain't gonna change reality.
Look - the reason Mohler even has to address issues like this is because of idiots calling themselves Christians running websites like "godhatesfags.com". That's the extreme, but there are plenty of right-wing fundamentalists who display nothing but hatred for gays and lesbians.
As for the gospel being all they need, the gospel is based in love. It's good news - not condemnation. Many believers "throw" the gospel at people like a missle. They do it without love or any understanding of the people they claim to care about. They want to do it without listening. They just want to blab and blab churchy language that hasn't meant anything since the 1950s - and then they get upset when they're loosing the battle for the soul of our nation.
If the Church really wants to reach the gay and lesbian community, we must love and serve them first. We have to grab the towel and washbasin and wash some feet.
That's the way Jesus did it. What you left out in your response was that before Christ did BEFORE he told the woman at the well or the harlot who was about to be stoned to "Go and sin no more". Before that, He loved them. He protected them. He listened to them and empathized with their plight. He didn't look down His nose at them.
Wow. Bad english. Sorry.
"Before that, He loved them. He protected them. He listened to them and empathized with their plight. He didn't look down His nose at them."
And we hated Him, and killed Him John.
We didn't like it when the Lord said "Your father is the devil". Or when He said, "If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out, for it's better to enter heaven with one eye, than to be thrown into hell with both eyes".
We love to suppress the truth, because we hate it. Until the Lord opens the heart, and brings it to see it's sinful state, and to see the mercy of God at the Cross, so that we cry out for mercy, and repent of our sinful ways, no one will ever bow the knee to the Truth, because we hate it. Nobody's going to tell me what to do.
I believe if we share the truth, then some people are going to hate us. They hated the holy Lord of pure compassion, so how much more will they hate us. So be ready to be hated.
But there will be those who the Lord shall have mercy on as well, and that's our greatest hope. That the same mercy we have obtained will be poured out on others who hate the Lord, and live in rebellion against the truth.
And the bottom line, I forgot to say, is when we are speaking the truth in love, our first our foremost motive must be for His glory, no matter the outcome.
>Sin is not a matter of genetics
I don't think you could actually prove this from scripture and I think this may be a false dichotomy (nature vs. genetics). That sin is original to our "nature" does not necessarily (or biblically) preclude genetic implications.
I can't go with you on this one Steve. :-) I think Mohler has a point.
To add one more thought... most Christian ethicists believe the fall altered our genetic coding (genetic diseases would be an example). There's no reason to believe that "proclivity" for whatever sinful desires one may have isn't also the result of the fall.
The anti-proclivity argument rests on an unproven assumption/presumption that heart desires lie completely outside of the realm of physics. All sin comes from the heart. It is an unproven assumption that this reality can be cleanly separated from the physical dimension. IOW, it may be possible to include "proclivity" in "all sin comes from the heart".
FWIW.
>Al is saying that there may be >a "gay-gene" - not that The Fall >in general has impacted our >genetic code. That is different.
I don't agree. I don't think there is a difference and neither does Mohler. Nor can you biblically prove it. The possibility of a gay gene, if it is real, would be evidence of the impact of The Fall on our genetic code (as would be an adultery gene, cleptomaniac gene, etc. etc.).
And the admission of such, as he points out in his most recent blog, doesn't negate Rom. 1 or any other of the prohibitions against homosexuality or any other violations of God's law. IMHO, to posit Rom. 1 against Mohler's suggestion says more than the scriptures actually say about the relationship between "predisposition" (or "proclivity") and the heart.
And FWIW, no, I don't support the idea of eliminating the gay gene or any other so-called gene of procilivity if they are "discovered".
Chad:
Al is saying that there may be a specific "gay-gene" that is the reason for ones "sexual orientation"; and that we "sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen." You support this claim? Where in the Word of God is claiming that personal responsibility and choice on any sin issue, is now a sin to suggest that against the one who is sinning?
He is also claiming that you then could reverse that "gay-gene" to a heterosexual state under the guise that "we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." In Al's view, biological means can be used to avoid sexual temptation and the effects of sin?
And you believe this? I can't believe that you do dear brother.
As always I must ask, what is your clear Scriptural proof for this skewed view?
Campi
Roms. 3:21-26
>Where in the Word of God is >claiming that personal >responsibility and choice on any >sin issue
I believe the burden of proof is on *you*, not Al, to prove that personal responsibility and choice in sin are mutually exclusive of predisposition. You are loading the scriptures with your own presuppositions, IMHO.
>"predominately chosen." You >support this claim?
I don't know. It depends on how he uses the word "predominant". Predominant doesn't deny that choice is involved. Again, in his latest blog he clearly articulates the choice to act on homosexual proclivity is a "sin".
It's a both (responsiblity, choice)/and (proclivity), not an either (responsbility, choice)/or (proclivity).
Chad:
Again, where in the Word of God does the Lord tell us that according to design, our genetic make-up makes us predisposed (Al's word) to a certain type of sin {or in this case homosexual orientation)?
Would you support that for every sin? There is a gene for every sin that causes anyone to be predisposed to fulfill? Or is it only this issue of a "gay-gene"?
Have scientists tested this theory (and remember that 's all that it is currently) on all kinds of sheep that manifest those same predisposition's? Or is just the "Brokeback Mutton" sheep?
I don't hear responsibility in those words--I hear avoidance.
It is clearly choice not predisposition biblically brother (James 1:12-16; Roms. 3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-3; Titus 3:3, etc. AND Roms. 1).
>where in the Word of God does the >Lord tell us that according to >design, our genetic make-up makes >us predisposed (Al's word) to a >certain type of sin {or in this >case homosexual orientation)?
Where in the Word of God does the Lord tell us that genetic predisposition (if it is a reality... it's still not proven) isn't a secondary cause of "lust" and "desires of the heart"?
Breuss Wane and all who agree with Dr. Mohler
Can you at least agree with the word of God? Can you see how God feels about this particular Sin, or is it not clear to you? If you can not see what is communicated in these scriptures or you disagree with them then you most likely do not have the spirit of God in you and you need to re-examine your life and seek salvation at the foot of the cross.
Gen. 19:4, 5
4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”
Lev. 18:22-24
22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
23 ‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
Lev. 20:13
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Rom. 1:26-32
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be bdishonored among them.
25 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.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Eph. 5:3-5
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
1Cor. 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
2Peter 2:6-8
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)
Jude 1:7
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
The only hope for sin is Christ and him crucified, apart from this there is no hope. The scriptures are crystal clear on this issue. Dr. Mohler apparently has not taken this into account, God gives no exscuse for sin but He commands repentance, or the wages of sin are death.
BW
So then lets give creedence to a weak theory and remove the focus from the Gospel. You can not give creedence to this and not give creedence to any other ridiculous theory that is put forth regarding the predisposition toward any sin. Of course if it is valid what difference does it make, do you even think for a second that this will produce anything profitable? This is just another smoke screen produced by the devil to detract from what the real focus should be, unfortunately Dr. Mohler is the willing participant in this deception!
Okay, one more time after blogger ate my last 3 comments...
It seems to me (and I could be missing something here, that's entirely possible) that it comes down to a simple question.
Let's suppose there IS a gay gene. Let's suppose medical technology located it, and the brilliant folks that work in this field came up with a way to reverse it and turn it into a "straight gene". Okay?
Who is willing to say that they'd support the idea that medical science can do the work that the Bible tells us can only be done by the Holy Spirit? (The last time I checked the pharmacy, they didn't have a patch for bad tempers, anger, jealousy, pride, lust, hatred or selfishness, but I'm in Canada, so maybe we're last on the list to get this stuff). The last time I checked the Bible though, it said that it's the power of God that changes men, a brand new heart to replace the heart of stone and give us new eyes to see with, new ears to hear with, new wants and new desires.
So then... are we really willing to go there and say we'd support a medical procedure that does the work of the Holy Spirit?
While I'm tossing out random thoughts, let's pretend these folks who once had gay genes and now have straight genes (and yes, it's hard not to make puns, in case anyone was wondering).
Has medical science also come up with a hormonal fix for all the STRAIGHT people who struggle with sexual sins too? Because... in case we're all living in a cave somewhere, I've got news for you.
Straight folks battle this temptation with the very same KINDS of sins.
So, I guess then fixing this highly speculative "gay gene" wasn't such a brilliant idea after all, was it?
/end random thoughts...
Don said "I wish our leaders would surely be more compassionate to all sinners, and that includes the homosexual community, but it's simply a problem of sin."
This is where Mohler and the scientific community might possibly disagree with you. What if homosexuals naturally have sexual attraction to the same sex? What if? Think about it before you say that it's impossible. If you listen to them, that's what many say. "I feel like this is just natural for me" or "I have always had these feelings". What if those FEELINGS are NOT a choice?
Again, the act is always a choice, but what if the feelings aren't?
Bruce said "God hates it. God condemns it. It is an abomination in his sight. Homosexuals have no place in the kingdom."
Neither do the proud, greedy or obese. Neither do people who hold grudges or people who lust after the opposite sex. Or liars, connivers or those without self-control.
Homosexuality gets put in a special category. Everyone here will deny it, but it really does.
Would you have ever thought to use such strong language about being proud? Yet that's in the Paul's list of sins and is every bit as bad as being gay.
Would you have thought to say "Those who ignore the needy have no place in the kingdom" as Matthew 25 indicates?
Also, I think we really ought to evaluate our use of Leviticus to speak against homosexuality. Look at all the other "sins" that aren't really considered sins anymore in that book:
- Cutting the hair at your temples
- Wearing clothes of mixed fabric
- Planting more than one type of crop in a field
- Riding your animal during menstruation
And the list goes on and on. If you're going to trot out these verses about being gay, what about all those others? Why don't they apply anymore?
"What if those FEELINGS are NOT a choice?"
" .. although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their own thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, ... Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, ... For this reason God gave them up to vile passions." Rom. 1:21-26
John, you need to study Romans chapter 1. And you need to let the Word rule your heart, not what this world says, and what our own hearts tell us.
Also, fornication is a more vile sin than some of the others. Paul explains this in 1st Corinthians.
But you are right that God hates all sin. He hates sin, but we don't. But we should. May God gives us a holy hatred for sin, and may we see just how evil it all truly is to God.
John, a good book I have read on this subject is Holiness, by JC Ryle. It is excellent.
>what about all those others? Why >don't they apply anymore?
I never said they didn't. The topic of discussion just happens to be homosexuality. I don't think you know me very well. I'm one of the last guys here you could accuse of singling out homosexuality over other sins that are just as damnable.
>Homosexuality gets put in a >special category. Everyone here >will deny it, but it really does.
While I don't believe homosexuality should be singled out, I do think the case can be made that the Bible does put homosexuality in a special category in some instances (such as Romans 1, which places that particular sin at the very end of descending decadence. Few, if any, other sins are described in scripture as "unnatural".
>Who is willing to say that they'd >support the idea that medical >science can do the work that the >Bible tells us can only be done >by the Holy Spirit?
Not me. That's where I jump off the Mohler "bandwagon".
Sing with Apologetix (to the tune of Barbara Ann): Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa we're lambs; Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa we're lambs; Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa
http://www.apologetix.com/music/song.php?freebie=true &song_id=42
"Not me. That's where I jump off the Mohler "bandwagon". "
Well, that's good to hear.
:-)
As we continue this dialog in here I wonder.... Is there then the posibility of a gene for those men who like little boys. It is sin, bottom line. I think again, that this whole spectrum of attributing prenatal therapy reversal as somehow curbing the effects of sin is nothing more than an excuse for man to avoid repentance..
Bill
>attributing prenatal therapy >reversal as somehow curbing the >effects of sin is nothing more >than an excuse for man to avoid >repentance..
I think we have to be careful in imputing motivation to Mohler, especially when he has in fact denied any of this can be an excuse.
John
I have a great book for you to read on the topic, it is the inerrant and perfect word of God. It is true and accurate in every way, but be careful John, don't elevate your reality above the word of God because that would be you making yourself out to be God! Read things in context, like... oh I don't know say don't apply things to yourself and others that God never intended you to apply to them or you, like the parts about commands that were specifically for the levitical priesthood or laws and commands that are within the covenants God made with Israel, that is just not the right way to read the bible or study it.
I know this will be hard for you because you do not believe that the word of God was actually written by God, and there are things in it that you do not agree with but the point is that the Bible, God's word is the only source of truth that we have today, it actually even trumps science, as a matter of fact science would not exist without it! The point is that it is where you will find everything that you need for life and godliness.
Sill pray for you pretty much every day John.
BW,
"I think we have to be careful in imputing motivation to Mohler, especially when he has in fact denied any of this can be an excuse."
My point is not imputing motivation to Mohler. The point is that it will be the excuse. He can deny that any of this can be an excuse, but in the end it will be the excuse.
It will be the excuse that this culture will lean towards and embrace. "It is not my fault its my genes"
Mohler's comments lean on the side of excuse.. Not on the side of biblical accountability. He can not play both sides on this issue.
Do you really think that man will look to God as the answer to this Gene issue or to Science as the final authority?
And again is there then the possibility of a gene for those men who like little boys? Do we still apply Mohler's thoughts the same to this issue?
Billy Boy
Did some of you actually read Mohler's clarification? He said each man is responsible for his own sin. He also inserted a big "IF" in his hypothetical statement about being born genetically inclined. Some of you want to totally discredit Mohler's whole ministry it seems. This all reminds me of a short paragraph in the novel To Kill A Mockingbird. Some of you are expert marksmen when it comes to the gospel. Would that you would put on a similar character like Atticus when it comes to picking and choosing a time to really shoot and showing dignity and restraint instead of gleefully parading your skills in cloaks of sarcasm and one upmanship. I think in the long run, some of you might just shoot yourselves in the foot. It is almost as if you pride yourself in your marksmanship instead of stepping back, praying for, and supporting a brother in Christ instead of jumping every person who says something regrettable or steps outside the line of your expectations. I so appreciated hearing about how C.J. Mahaney visited Mark Driscoll, shot baskets with his sons, encouraged and mentored Mark Driscoll. Why don't some of you consider the same kinds of ministry. Here is the quote from To Kill A Mockingbird.
If your father's anything, he's civilized in his heart. Marksmanship's a gift of God, a talent - oh, you have to practice to make it perfect, but shootin's different from playing the piano or the like. I think maybe he put his gun down when he realized that God had given him an unfair advantage over most living things. I guess he decided he wouldn't shoot till he had to, and he had to today.
" Looks like he'd be proud of it, " I said.
"People in their right minds never take pride in their talents," said Miss Maudie.
I'm just waiting for someone to say I am to stay on subject or whatever. This IS part of the subject. Al Mohler has been a blessing and a spokesman for the cause of Christ. I believe his words were taken out of context and everyone seems to forget the big "IF" with which he precluded his statements. I am so with Lisa from Deo Volente on checking yourselves as to tone and sarcasm.
Denise: I guess this whole thing with Mohler isn't really a surprise, is it? Considering his co-beligerance of the last year or two, its not to me.
The closer we get to the Last Day, the smaller the circle of biblical Christians becomes. The "leaders" are proving to be impediments to the Gospel and they seem Scripture not sufficient by Itself..
Are you serious ? Maybe you should be the one defending the gospel on Larry King!
Gig,
I only brought up leviticus because you used it as a reference for why homosexuality is a sin. So I humbly suggest you take your own advice and quit citing scripture that obviously doesn't apply to us anymore just to make a point.
Candy:
I would encourage you to read Al's articles and the multitude of interviews that he has done in the past three weeks on this issue. Listen to his broadcasts as well and you will see that no one has taken his words out of context--at least not on this blog. AND no one is discrediting his entire ministry--where was that said? Have you actually read the articles here?
You are on subject, but don't give in to hyperbole.
I love my brother in Christ and as I have said many times here, he has been a good voice for the gospel. BUT, this view of his is wrong.
BTW, you could defend the gospel on Larry King. Larry is the King of the softball questions. He is the easy game in town.
Think biblically about this issue rather than quoting Mockingbird...
Just for the record, please show me in scripture where it's our job to convict people of their sin? Our job is just to love people, right? God draws people to repentence through His kindness, no?
Where does it say that we're supposed to stand between people and God or people and scripture and be some sort of interpretter?
Doesn't each of us seek God on an individual level? If God is God, won't He deal with us accordingly?
So why are you all worried about this? You're not gay. Why not worry about our own sins and let God worry about others'. It's like I tell my kids - worry about your own self.
"Some of you want to totally discredit Mohler's whole ministry it seems."
I know I don't. He's a wonderful brother and one of the fine leaders we have in the Body of Christ. God bless Dr. Mohler. I was praying for him not to long ago for his being sick.
And I really appreciate him on Larry King.
However, I disagree with him on this genetic theory teaching.
If God would make a homosexual gene, then God wouldn't condemn homosexuality, would He?
Dr. Mohler has a right to his own opinion on this, but we all do.
If anyone is discrediting him and his ministry, then I would take sides with Dr. Mohler on that count.
Just thought I needed to say this. I pray the Gospel would be preached in greater ways than ever, and that all of us would always be ready to give an answer for the hope we have in fear and gentleness. Amen.
that was a great quote from To Kill a Mockingbird. I loved the movie. Never read the book.
"If God would make a homosexual gene, then God wouldn't condemn homosexuality, would He?"
That's the point. It's not that God creates genes that cause issues for us. It's a result of the fall.
Does God create babies with their hearts outside their body? Does God create hermaphrodites with both sets of sex organs?
Or are cases like this the result of living in a fallen world?
John
As usual you twist others words and apply things that were never meant to be applied. I quoted those particular scriptures in order to show what and how God feels towards this particular sin, He is consistent through both old and new testament. He does treat it differently, because it is sexual immorality and it is a defilement and destruction of the temple of God. Perhaps you should read everything rather than jump to conclusions like you usually do.
By the way, you have no idea what you say when you say none of us have had any experience with homosexuality, but I guess it is typical for you to draw conclusions with out all the information.
On Mohler
I do not desire to see his ministry disparaged, I do not think I could if I tried anyway, however he has disparaged it with his sloppy research and premature conclusion. He needs to get things straight though and not contradict himself as he did in his follow up article, and I did read it. Problem is he drew a conclusion on poor or non existant evidence, not a good thing for a leader such as him.
Gig,
If you're going to use scripture in leviticus to show how God feels about homosexuality, you need to be prepared to also tell us about all the other things He supposedly hates according to the text. You're pulling it out of context otherwise. You're proof-texting - using scripture to make a point that it doesn't really assert.
If you have a testimony about being delivered from homosexuality or know someone here who has, please accept my apologies. I was really meaning that Steve, Mohler nor myself have first-hand experience.
Like I have said before, people who have been there have much more valid opinions than I on the subject. I don't claim to be any sort of expert.
John
You still have not read what I said, I specifically said;
"Can you at least agree with the word of God? Can you see how God feels about this particular Sin, or is it not clear to you?"
Notice the phrase "this particular sin" John, this is what we have been discussing, this particular sin of homosexuality. As far as taking anything out of context John, perhaps you can specifically show me how this is taking these passages out of context since my goal was simply to show God's attitude towards this particular sin.
To be honest with you I think your accusation is your way of saying you can not handle the truth, or you just don't like to look at the word of God because it cramps who you are. As you have said before The Bible is only part poetry, part history and part myth, so how can I trust any of your criticisms since they are invalidated by your obvious antibiblical bias.
To be honest with you I feel a great deal of pity for you because you seem to be so conflicted about everything, there is nothing that I have seen in your commentaries where you are certain of anything. I hope that God will somehow break through the bitter barrier that you have built around yourself.
"Can you at least agree with the word of God? Can you see how God feels about this particular Sin, or is it not clear to you?"
On the surface, if I'm not going to think much about it, it seems pretty easy. Leviticus says it's bad. Romans says it's bad. So it's bad, right?
But then, I look at what else it says is bad, I honestly wonder if these laws are for a different time. It's one of the main reasons that I believe people had at least some influence in the writing of the bible. Frankly, I can't believe God would be so petty. Let's look at a few scriptural commands that I'm sure we all adhere to:
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 commands us to kill anyone who tries to convert us to another religion. (That'll teach those pesky JWs! I guess we should quit dogging those terrorists - they're just following God's ancient law.)
Leviticus 21:17-18 reminds us that people with flat noses or who are lame or blind may not go near the altar of the Lord. (Really, who can blame God? We don't need that circus crap around here!)
Leviticus 19:19 tells us not to allow goats and cows to graze together. It also prohibits mixing fabrics in clothing (cotton/poly).
Even Paul did what you fear the most - changing or updating the ancient laws to suit his culture.
Genesis 17:13 clearly tells us that whether we have babies naturally, or add to our family by purchasing other humans, they all must be circumcised.
Yet Paul changes this in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19. He basically says that circumcision has nothing to do with one's orientation to God.
Look - we could go on for hours like this. And come to think of it - we have. We're obviously not going to agree on this issue - or many others for that matter.
But one thing I hope we CAN agree on is that most gays and lesbians could care less what your or I think or say about the issue.
The best thing we can do is love them, pray for them and serve them. We can do our best - in whatever way we feel the Spirit leading - to point them to God. If we do this in humility, perhaps God can use us to make a difference in their lives.
It's not OUR job to convict people of sin. Beyond that, it just doesn't work very well. God is good at it. He's done it for you and I, so let's trust that He'll do it for everyone.
Instead of becoming impatient and trying to take things into our own hands, let's pray that His kindness will lead them to repentance.
And along the way, let's not forget that we're right there with them. Sinners who constantly struggle with our own deceitful heart.
That's the biggest fight we have - not against the sins of others, but against our own.
John
You still miss the point John, apart from not believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God you do not believe there is truth, it is all relative to you. And that is the crux here John, we are to tell the truth and you can not do that because you do not have it nor do you know Him. Yes you have mental ascent but so does our adversary the devil.
>Do you really think that man will >look to God as the answer to this >Gene issue or to Science as the >final authority?
The answer is irrelevant to the issue. The question presumes its answer: that no such gene will *ever* be found. And IMHO, no one here is in a position to claim such.
Men will always find an excuse, regardless of what the facts are.
"And that is the crux here John, we are to tell the truth and you can not do that because you do not have it nor do you know Him."
Gig - you don't know me. It is impossible for you to know my heart, so stop judging me!
It reminds me of Jesus' condemnation of the pharisees. In an effort to feel superior, they beat people down instead of lifting them up.
Steve: Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison thus the use of a phrase from Mockingbird.
I was making a point that sometimes Christians are great marksmen. They know their scriptures and doctrinal positions well, but use that knowledge to shoot often at others who are in the same camp and working hard for the cause of Christ.
If you are going to criticize me for a metaphor from a book, perhaps you will consider getting rid of your visual metaphoric rainbow sheep as well.
Biblical: I, WISDOM, dwell with PRUDENCE, and find out knowledge and descretion, The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; PRIDE and arrogance and the evil way, And the perverse mouth I hate. Prov. 8:12-13
Jonathan Edwards stated that pride is the most hidden, secret, and deceitful of all lusts". He also warned against spiritual pride which he viewed as the greatest cause of the premature ending of the Great Awakening. (taken from Mahaney's book The Cross-centered Life).
I don't need to add Biblical proof for sin because it has been stated here clearly. I just want to remind people that Mohler was stating a hypothetical situation at best, he clarified it well in my opinion, and yes I read his original blog post and his clarification. I don't think the way the post written here is respectful to Mohler in tone.
Oh...and I wasn't referring to Larry King's questions lobbed at Al Mohler, I was referring to Mohler's unapologetic Biblical responses to Larry King on the show focused on homosexuality.
Candy:
I understood your metaphor--I think the Word of God is clearer per this discussion. I also understood your sentence involving Larry King too. Al has given some very good interviews there on a myriad of issues. But because Larry is the King of the softball question, my point was that any Christian who knows the Word would be able to give just as good of a reason for the hope that is in them on several issues as well.
The point of this thread and post is simply this: is homosexual orientation a matter of choice out of a depraved heart OR a matter of biological predisposition through genetic markers?
I believe the former, I know that Al favors the later IF it can be proven--which according to what he has written, he believes.
It is a heartbreak to read that: "We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen."
I believe clearly, as most believers do, that homosexuality is a choice, not that they are born that way - predisposed by a "gay-gene." I don't think it is sinning to tell someone that they have chosen this lifestyle and then to share with them the biblical hope through Jesus Christ.
I hope you feel the same way...
John
Just responding to your own words that you have proclaimed on this blog! You continually deny the word of God and in so doing attack Christ and all He is. I know that you are not accustomed to having the truth told to you in such a up front manner but you need to hear it. I have not judged your soul in any way but the fruit of your lips speaks for itself, you are deceived and either the truth will condemn you in the end or you will come to the full knowledge of it, I am hoping and praying for the latter.
you can not do that because you do not have it nor do you know Him.
Wow. I mean, wow. I can only hope that some day I can have the spiritual maturity** of some of the commenters here who are so quick to point out who knows God, and who is and is not going to hell, as I saw in another thread.
(**Denotes sarcasm. Perhaps inappropriate, but hey, I'm sure I inherited the gene for it.)
I know there is scriptural reference for correcting someone in love if you believe them to be incorrect. However, I cannot imagine getting to the place in my walk where I would feel arrogant enough to tell others whether or not they know God.
Marcia
Would you tell a muslim or a buddhist that they were on the path to life. Would you tell the materialist that the path to glory is in the amount of stuff you have. If you are a Christian you are obligated to tell them the truth,
John 14:6 Jesus said; I am the way, the truth and the light no man comes to the father but by me.
John 16:24-27
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his 1life for My sake will find it.
26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 “For the Son of Man bis going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Mt 16:24-27). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
John 6:28,29
28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He bhas sent.”
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 6:28-29). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
Is the arrogance that you accuse me of in that I say that I know the truth, or is it that I have examined the fruit that John's mouth has produced and told him that his soul is in peril? Please keep in mind since you apparently did not read carefully enough, I did not judge his soul, that is what God will do, I merely pointed out that the fruit of his comments are diametrically opposed to the word of God in every way. Yes he has made a mental ascent, and this according to what John has said. The devil himself has made the mental ascent too and he quakes at what he thinks of! John has undermined the word of God at every turn.
So, who is more arrogant, your judgement according to improper assumptions or the judgement I have made according to the exact words that John has said and the word of God?
To be honest with you, the answer to the prior question that I posed is not important at all, what is important is the truth, and as far as I know it can only be found in the word of God! Everything else, and I mean everything else in the broadest possible sense, is framed around the word of God, the Bible, the pure truth.
Perhaps you are post modern too in what you believe and none of this holds true for you? Where are you? Should one turn from someone who is about to be ushered into eternal darkness, giving them sweets before they die or should they give them the bitter truth that will cause them to move and avoid certain and eternal destruction? What would you do Marcia?
I do find it interesting that you criticize and judge what I have said and the blog Steve has written and then you turn around and condemn me for judging. Isn't there something wrong with that type of reasoning, or do you not see what you have done? Just curious as to what you use as your standard, what is your measuring stick for judging something? If it is the Bible can you please support what you say with scripture?
Gigantor--I'm sorry; I don't have the time to respond fully right this minute, but I wanted to make clear that I am not criticizing Mr. Camp and his blog. If you noticed, I was referring to those who comment here.
I will respond to your points, but I want to be able to look at Scripture first. If I'm wrong, I'll certainly say so.
Marcia
Fair enough. Please keep in mind that the conversations that John and I have had on this blog go back further than today, there is a couple of months of dialogue here and I have corressponded on his blog as well and another too. You should look at what has been said if not in its entirety, atleast to the point where you can make a credible judgement upon what I have said and how I have responded to John. As I said before, I bear no bitterness against John in any way and me judgeing the state of his soul and it's eternal condition would be useless. However, we as Christians are called to judge the fruit of a individual according to the word of God and the standard that it provides, then we should present the truth in the clearest possible manner that the one in error might be enlightened to the truth and see and turn to it. Of course we know that there is only one that can open a individuals eyes to see and that is Christ. We are commanded to preach the Gospel, the whole Gospel because it is the power of God to salvation to those who believe. Obviously, if one is producing the fruit that the bible says a christian should then why would we preach the Gospel to that person other than to train them to go out and do the same.
A person can not say that they are a Christian on one hand and then turn and undermine the word can they? what a contradiction! The person that does this needs to be turned to the whole truth because they are so deceived that if they are a Christian one can not tell the difference and so it is only safe to assume that they never were a Christian, pray and preach accordingly.
I would hope and pray that all men walk in the entire truth and no credit for this goes to me, it means nothing compared to the surpassing glory of knowing Christ. I have a passion for the lost and I see John as either a brother far deceived or one who has never known Christ, so I proclaim the truth to him as to one who never new Christ. I do respect him even though at times the words I say may seem hard, but what good is my respect if he perishes without Christ?
When did this become about me? I think we're losing focus people...
Love your blog and your thoughts, but I think you are over reacting. If this were a discussion about the bodily resurrection of Christ, which has infiltrated the blogosphere, then yes, it is critical to the gospel.
I think you see a slippery slope starting here, and if you give an inch, it's going to snowball into finding a gene for all sorts of behaviors. I don't see this happening.
IF it can ever be proven (I agree it hasn't) that there is a gene that causes homosexual desires, my faith would not be shaken. It's not a "sin gene" that scientists are looking for.
BRoyal
So what truths should we choose to surrender in order to have peace with the world. Should we as christians hold up the light of truth or is it just to costly because in so doing we offend. This particular issue is important because it attacks the sovreignty of God and the inerrancy of his word, in truth it is a attack on the gospel. What is more disturbing is that it is put forth by a prominent leader in the body of Christ who said "We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominantly chosen." So we sin by proclaiming the word of God, because this is what the word says regarding sin;
James 1:12-15
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
The New King James Version. 1982 (Jas 1:12-15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Should we re-write the bible to be more relevant and sensitive to todays society if this is so? I think not. The word is inerrant at every turn with regards to what it says about all sin, and this particular sin is addressed as an a abomination to God and even a curse for dis-beleif in him and the suppression of the truth. We are called to hold up the light when the truth is attacked because if we do not then that light will be a little more dimmed and the darkness will be given a greater footing. We need to be the brightest lights while we can because the day is drawing to a close and soon it will be all darkness.
Post a Comment