God's Love: Don't leave home without it!
To make your burden lighter (ha!) I've added a link to MacArthur's site-just click on the title post, or
http://www.gty.org/
Can you post a link to the sermon? We can't really respond without hearing it!
In terms of the Bible, I've read it, actually, some parts of it many times. I'm still not sure what to make of it.
I do know that the Bible says that women shouldn't teach or have any authority over men, that working on the Sabbath is a sin that earned one death in the Old Testament and that it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter Heaven.
Are these all to be taken "literally"?
I don't know. Many Christians supported a woman's attempt to become the 2nd highest in command of the most powerful nation on Earth, many believe that it's not really a sin to work on the Sabbath if you have to support your family and that being rich is often a sign of working hard and having moral characteristics.
I think the thing that's problematic, Doug, is that many Christians only hold to the inerrancy of Scripture when it suits their particular lifestyle or political aspirations while insisting that Scripture must be taken at face value when it comes to those "awful homos".
This isn't consistent.
James, the link is in my first comment-it sould be easy to find there, or on iTunes. As for inerrancy of Scripture, I don't care what 'many Christians' (your term) think or do.
I can only speak for myself and my local church, which doesn't change our view of inerrancy period.
Back to work for Doug
Back at home for Doug.
James, I must state again that the Bible is a closed book for those who do not have God's Holy Spirit.
But that doesn't stop anyone from having an opinion about it.
Inerrant in the original tongues; no sincere Bible-believing student of Scripture would state that the many translations are all inerrant. The best translations point out differences in original/copied manuscripts. But God can and does use the translations/versions to reach men's hearts.
I'm not a Bible scholar, but my Pastor is, and when I have a question about a verse, I go to him.
James, I know where you're coming from: you are suggesting that "Christians" pick and choose which parts of God's Word they want to obey.
And the parts that they don't want to obey, the parts pertaining to their own sin, they ignore.
They are very happy to quote the verses about homosexuality being an abomination in God's sight,(as they are 'straight'... but the parts about
not coveting someone's wife, or stealing (if they do their own taxes) or whatever-those parts get ignored.
I wish I could say that you are totally wrong...but I can't. Christians are still in this sinful world, still sinners although saved by Grace, and sometimes even the best Christians stumble and fall. Being human, sometimes they find it easy to pick on other peoples sins to hide their own.
But God is not fooled in the slightest. When Christians sin, they need to humble themselves before God and ask forgiveness. More to come.
I didn't want to hit the alloted word count in the comments-easier to just open another one.
James,there's another reason why it's hard to understand about the Bible-I'll call it the False Christian Noise Machine, or 'FCNM' for short.
There are ALL kinds of people claiming to be Christians who opinionate LOUDLY about the Bible. The FCNM has been blaring out lies about Scripture since the very start. Paul, John and Peter each taught new Christians to be wary of false bretheren trying to tear apart the churches with false doctrines. The FCNM of 2009 is very busy.
So, how do we judge who is right?
Only by Scripture. Example:
God's Word does indeed declare that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't put it in there-God did.
So, if a Christian tells you that God doesn't consider homosexuality to be a sin, you judge that Christian against the Scripture, and know who is false.
If you aren't comfortable stating that it is a sin, because you're not sure what God says about the topic...why would you be comfortable accusing Christians of getting it wrong, or using the scriptures to bash "Gays"?
Listen to the MaCarthur thing, and we'll talk.
Doug, do you know any gay people?
Yes, Lu-in my own extended family. Do you?
Not in my family (that I know of), but I have numerous gay coworkers and friends. As best I can tell they are a lot like me, apart from being gay, of course.
I second James's request for a link to the sermon itself -- there are a lot of links on that page, and I don't know which one you're referring to.
It doesn't necessarily bother me that Christians aren't perfect or that they have moral faults.
What I find more problematic is hearing "THE BIBLE SAYS" on this issue or another.
Why? Well, Christians are not at all united on what the clear meaning of the Bible is saying.
While Christians have found a way of politely disagreeing today, these issues have resulted in bloodshed over the centuries.
John Calvin imprisoned a man named Hierome Bolsec when he ruled Geneva. Bolsec's crime? His rejection of double predestination. He also banished numerous Anabaptists from Geneva for their heretical views on infant baptism.
Some Pentecostals insist that one must show some evidence of having the "gifts of the Spirit" in order to say they are truly saved. Others insist that those types of gifts ceased with the closing of the Canon.
Non-Trinitarians (who believe in Jesus) reject the concept of the Trinity as blasphemous and unscriptural.
ALL of these groups can provide some support for their views in Scripture. These aren't trivial differences and can reflect one's state of grace before God, but I, for one, can't say that any particular group is more true to Scripture than another, no matter how many times I read a passage. Even having some fluency in ancient Aramaic and Greek doesn't seem to resolve these issues.
So, I guess I take comments about what the Bible says about homosexuality in the same vein as I do regarding what it says about infant baptism, or speaking in tongues, or women being permitted to run for office, or communion wafers becoming the actual flesh of Christ: it's fine for people to humbly say what they think it means, but to assert that they KNOW what it means beyond a shadow of a doubt seems a bit of a reach.
ps ... listening to MacArthur's sermon now! :-D
James, in your laity litany (ha!) you forgot to mention that Catholics, whom you consider to be Christians, did more than disagree with Baptists-they tortured and murdered thousands of peoples for refusing to bow to the Papacy. Ouch.
For Lu-it might be easier to find going through iTunes as I did-the podcast only has about a dozen sermons. by the way, if you DO hear the Macarthur interview, he makes it quite clear that Christians are no better than anyone else. That is scriptural.
Not a good day for the gay:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/...ected-in-maine/
Thanks for the reminder! Yes, the Dominican Torquemada of Spain was quite inventive in his methods of devising ways of inflicting pain on the human body. Of course, what worse agony is there than fire? And they used that quite frequently.
I'm not sure about MacArthur. His sermons are hard, bitter and unyielding, sometimes violent in their imagery. He comes across as a hard man. For a ministry called "Grace to You", I'm not sure where the "grace" is.
I started listening to one sermon about homosexuality, but in my personal opinion, it's not based on fact (I know a lot of gay folks, and they don't live the way he depicts, although some may).
It boils down to this, James:
There's a 'gay'-homosexual, whatever term you're comfortable with. Let's call him Ed.
Ed hears John MacArthur tell him that he's a sinner, bound for hell.
He also hears another preacher, Billy Mundane(fictional), tell him that it is not a sin to be gay, that God will welcome Ed into heaven just as he is.
MacArthur is willing to offend Ed now, so that he may beconvicted of his sin, seek forgivness and be saved.
Mundane is unwilling to offend Ed in this life. He has to ignore the Bible, which is VERY offensive to sinners.
Who is expressing more care and concern for Ed?
What about those gays who believe in Christ? Are you familiar with Exodus? Many of these Christian members say they will always have a homosexual inclination, but they refrain from acting on it. Are they condemned?
There are other gay-affirming churches who believe that you can still be ethical, have faith in God and have a committed same-sex partner. If Christianity is about what one "believes" and not about the works one does or doesn't do, can they not be saved?
Rufusing to comment on a group I've never heard of, I will state again: Sin is sin. God is the arbiter of what constitutes sin. He is the one Who's opinion matters.
God is the arbiter of who is or isn't a Christian. Those whom He chooses are given His Holy Spirit.
The Spirit indwelling Christians teaches us, molds us, conforms us to the image of Christ.
Here's a part that you should understand, James. Born again believers are not going to argue with God that their sin is not sin. Born again believers accept God at His Word, as our inner witness of the Spirit convicts us when we sin, puts in our hearts a desire to get right with God, seek forgivness.
You mention "gay affirming churches"-there is one in a town near where I live. If those churches teach against what God has clearly stated in His Word, those churches are going to hell.
"If Christianity is about what one "believes" and not about the works one does or doesn't do, can they not be saved?"
Christianity is about Jesus Christ.
Yes, I have faith-a gift from God.
A Muslim has faith.
A Mormon has faith.
A Hindu has faith.
But if they do not have Jesus Christ, they are bound for Hell.
"What about those gays who believe in Christ?"
If they believe in Christ, are indwelt with His Holy Spirit, that holy Spirit will convict them, and they will repent of their sin.
Repent=turn away, change direction.
Since it's pertinent, James, look up Mel White on the net. He's one of those 'gays who are Christian'.
Is he a Christian? Not according to the Bible.
Can 'gay' people be saved? Absolutely! Same as drunkards and idolaters and murderers and everyone else.
Once saved, will they continue in their sin? If they do, they won't call it a blessing from God, as Mel White does. They will eventually be conformed to the image of Christ, just like all the rest of us Christians. By the bye-I'm still a rotten sinner who does not much show much conformity with Christ after 30 years. But I'm headed in the right direction, and in Eternity, with no sin, I'll really live. Now is temporary-then is forever.
I don't have iTunes.
Remember when I said that you seemed to take pleasure in judging people, Doug? The Gospels contain not one word about homosexuality, and a great deal about helping the poor, the oppressed, and the afflicted (all the poor, oppressed, and afflicted, not just the "deserving," whatever that might mean). Your blog is the other way around. I think your priorities are skewed.
To you, they would look skewed, Lu-no surprise.
And what does it matter if the Gospels do not use the work homosexual? Picking out one bit of scripture to prove a point is something which Christians get accused of.
Have as good a weekend as possible, y'all.
Mt. 25:31-46
All right, I listened to the sermon. I was intrigued by MacArthur's use of lurid statistics on the number of sex partners gay men have. If God always and unequivocally hates homosexual behavior, numbers shouldn't matter.
I also note that neither MacArthur nor (afaik) the NT says anything about lesbianism.
Both you and MacArthur talk about homosexuality, although (again afaik) according to the Bible being gay by itself is not counted a sin.
MacArthur also seems to think there's no such thing as being gay, that all gay people could go straight if they wanted to. This has been shown in study after study to be false. (Again, if God hates all homosexual behavior, this shouldn't matter. God said don't do it, so you don't do it, that is all.)
And, finally, the Gospels, replete (supposedly) with the very words of Jesus, don't mention homosexual behavior at all; elsewhere in the NT it's mentioned at most three times. (At least one of those references could be interpreted as not being about homosexuality.) Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked, and loving your brother get a lot more space. I'm not cherry-picking here: I always cite Mt. 25:31-46 because it's the clearest exposition, but these are main themes of the Gospels in particular, and they're prominent throughout the NT. You know this as well as I do. So why all the noise about homosexuality? Could it be that it's easier to rail about sins that don't tempt you than actually to do what the Gospels constantly say you must do?
Commenting by HaloScan
