What would I say to the person you have described (or anyone for that matter)? The first thing I would ask him/her is, “are you saved, and when did you first trust Christ as your Saviour?” Their answer to these questions would determine the way I would proceed with them. Most of the folks that I ask this of don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. Most think because they grew up in a church denomination, or got baptized as a baby or adolescent, that this makes them a Christian. I would tell that person that accepting God’s offer of salvation is an individual, conscious, informed decision that a baby could not possibly make, nor could very many adolescents. I would also explain that belonging to a church denomination or going through the ritual of water baptism is not tantamount to salvation.
If they didn’t have a valid salvation testimony, I would tell them to trust Christ as their Saviour, believing that he died for their sins (and, of course, encourage them to continue to come and listen to the messages, which are always dominated by the gospel) If they did I would give them the right hand of fellowship, and invite them to enter into fellowship with my congregation (I have no formal membership) If they wanted my opinion of anything they were doing or trying to stop doing, I would admonish them by the scripture as I know it. Here might be an example of how I would do this:
In 2 Cor. 12 the apostle Paul besought the Lord three times to take away a **“thorn in his flesh.” ** The Lord’s answer was: “My grace is sufficient for thee.”(verse 9) In Acts 14, after Paul had healed a man, the crowd he was speaking to tried to deify he and Barnabas, and he told them that he wasn’t any different than they, a man **“of like passions…” **. (verse 15) In Romans 7 he refered to himself as **“carnal, sold under sin…” ** There has always been great speculation over these statements. The fact that Paul remained single has lead some to speculate that he was gay, or had gay leanings. Could that have been his thorn? Whatever it was the remedy is always God’s grace. It says in 1 Cor 10:13 that, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” and in 2 Cor 9:8: “God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work”(KJV)
I firmly believe that if one is saved, he/she has the power–by the grace of God–to overcome any tendency or behaviour that is not in accordance with the will of God. That doen’t mean it will be easy. It may be harder for some than others, but, whatever the situation, God’s grace is sufficient to see you through it.
My apologies – I hadn’t realized you were a dispensationalist. No wonder you kept quoting Paul! (In point of fact, I find that theory loathsome, but that’s not your problem, it’s mine.)
In the interim, I ask for your prayers, ministering (as a layman) to people who feel oppressed by the sort of theology you’re expounding.
God gave me the gift of the world and my life in this world, to enjoy it, to learn from it, and hopefully to make it a better place. One of the many ways I enjoy it is through sexual activity that is biologically incapable of producing offspring. One of the many ways I try to make it a better place is by expressing intimacy and love for another person and sharing our time in this world.
God also gave me the knowledge to be able to recognize between what is truly a sin and what is based in the fear and misunderstandings of man and society and societal conventions.
And I’d appreciate it if you didn’t compare homosexuality to alcoholism. I have known alcoholics in my family and among my friends and I’ve seen how that addiction damages their lives and their health and the lives of those around them.
I know this matter is very close to your heart, Sol, and that you are not in agreement with what JMS is saying, or where (s)he’s coming from, but do you really claim that God gave you this knowledge?
I’m not coming at this as someone who disagrees with your conclusion re what is and is not a sin (you might well be right and me wrong), but as someone who’s always on the alert when someone claims to have received a revelation from God.
(I appreciate that you’re not claiming exactly a revelation, but still the fact remains that the gates of discussion are somewhat closed when someone starts claiming that God is on their side.)
Meant in the spirit of grace and truth, if that doesn’t sound too high falluting.
Bad word choice on my part. I meant to type “intelligence,” in the sense of the ability to reason and interpret. (As opposed to “intelligence” in the sense that everyone who disagrees with me is unintelligent.)
TeaElle, I can’t find any verses of Jesus condemning bestialists either.
AND NO, I’M NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE THE EQUIVALENT.
I’m saying that JC did not have to address something specifically for it to be a sin when Torah already did that. JC’s earthly ministry was to the Jews. There was no controversy as to the sinfulness of gay sex among Jews of that day. Paul however extended the ministry of Christ to the Gentiles, in which gay sex was quite the issue.
I’m not sure what Polycarp means in charging JMS w/ “dispensationalism”. (I think I know what Poly’s getting at, but I’m not finding it in JMS’s posts. What am I missing, Polycarp?)
But that’s not the question I asked. I’m fairly familiar with how the “unsaved” are handled.
I specifically asked, what would you say to someone who has spent years of their life following your suggested method and for whom that method has failed?
I’m talking about someone who is saved, who sincerely believes as you do and has tried their best to change with God’s help, someone who has committed to overcoming their tendency with God’s grace, someone who has done everything you claim will make them happy in accordance with God’s will, someone who has done everything that you would do - and for whom all of that has failed completely. God’s grace has not, in fact, been sufficient for this individual.
The thing about being saved is paramount. Admonishing someone by Scripture who isn’t secure about their salvation, is like building a house on a foundation of sand. It is an excercise in futility.
About the all sufficiency of God’s grace.
If God’s grace isn’t sufficient for you, then it isn’t sufficient for anyone. Just because you don’t feel that it has affected you in a positive way, doesn’t mean it isn’t effective. It is often most effective when we are least cognizant of it. Know this if nothing else: His grace is going to preserve you unto the day of redemption, no matter what you decide to do with your life–and that includes taking it.
About being happy.
You said that I claimed trusting Christ, and obeying God’s written will would make one “happy.” I don’t believe I said that, but if I did I was wrong. The word “happy” appears only six times in the NT, and is translated from the Greek, “makarios” (Stong’s # 3107). The same Greek word is translated 70 more times in the NT as “blessed.” Within the context this has to be referring to something of a spirtual nature rather than a temporal or emotional one. There is no promise of temporal “blessings” to the church, the body of Christ. That isn’t to say we can’t or won’t be temporally blessed, just that God doesn’t promise this. Here is what we are promised: We are "…blessed ** with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ…accepted in the beloved…in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 1:3-7) The “blessed hope” for those of us in the body of Christ is “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13) Our focus needs to be on these spiritual blessings and the Saviour, not on our temporal situation. It says, " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." ** (Rom. 4:7,8) This is talking about you and I, brother.
(
I would suggest that you immerse yourself in prayer (Philippians 4:6,7), and in the following sections of Scripture: Romans chapters 5-8; Ephesians chapters 1-3; Colossians chapters 1-3; 2 Timothy chapters 1-2. (KJV)
I don’t make it a habit of suggesting other reading outside the Bible, but there are three books that have been particularly helpful to me in my Christian life:
“Mere Christianity,” by C.S. Lewis; “Father and Son,” by Gordon Dalby; “Happiness is a Choice,” by Minireth and Meyer.
Finally: “Endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.”
Which explains why it is impossible to “overcome” a homosexual orientation: homosexuality is every bit as in accordance with God’s will as heterosexuality.
Do you mean by this statement that having a sexual attraction for those of the same sex is in accordance with God’s will, or would you extend that to the actual acting out of this attraction in a relationship?
If it’s the latter, please explain the following passages:
**Rom 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.(KJV)
If what is described in verses 24-27 is okay with God, then everything in verses 29-31 has to be too.
Several possible explanations, among the following. Paul had a stick up his ass. Paul ain’t God and his word is not The Word. The cause is contained in 18-23. Verses 24-32 are the consequences. …
Or, JMS, as I’ve pointed out a few dozen times on this board, including at least once in this thread, it might be that Paul was writing to the Christian church in Rome, which he planned to visit, to fill them in about his theology and to “reconnect” with old friends who had moved there (which the letter surely sounds like it was written to do), and in the process made reference to local situations and events about which they should take notice. The hedonistic practices of the First Century equivalent of the “Jet Set” were notorious in that day and remain so today; Petronius Arbiter wrote a “tell-all” book describing an insider’s experience with them that was made into an Italian film that was considered scandalous when I was young. Sober historians described their excesses, among them people bored with “normal” sex seeking new thrills from sexual practices they were not accustomed to engage in. (Good taste forbids me from going into more detail, but gay sex was the least ick-producing item on their menu.)
In other words, Paul is not talking about gay men and women as we know them today, those with a “natural” orientation toward each other, but about a bunch of perverse hedonists who lived within a few miles at most of the Christians he was writing to.
Of course, this might mean that instead of preaching Paul and his asceticism at people, you might need to preach the humanistic principles taught by Jesus Christ. And apparently your stance is that they are not for the Gentile church (although it’s strange that Jesus’s idea of “neighbor” emphatically includes Gentiles, and Paul himself makes a point that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ). But whatever – I’ve long since resigned myself to the fact that explaining this stuff to people who consider themselves “Bible-believing Christians” usually does no good – they insist on calling it “watering down the Gospel” instead of what it is – focusing on what Christ Himself said is most important.
I still am not clear on what a dispensationalist is–although I do know that it is not my cup of tea.
As for this, JMS : "I would also explain that belonging to a church denomination or going through the ritual of water baptism is not tantamount to salvation. ", while the former may well be true, the latter statement is simply a matter of interpretation/belief.
Are you telling us that an infant who is born, christened and then dies is NOT “saved”? What of chlidren in the same circumstances?
Are you serioulsy telling me that a person can be active in their church for decades, do any number of “loving their neighbor like themselves”, seeing Christ in others etc–and still not be “saved”? that the drunken homeless man who dies in ER is also not “saved”? What kind of faith is this?
Does one truly have to witness (no, please don’t do it here) to YOU or in a way that is acceptable to you in order to qualify for such a moniker?
Who are you to judge? Who are you to decide such a thing? What happened to God moving in mysterious ways etc?
Why are you dismissing baptism? Surely it is an important part of faith. I can’t quote Scirpture and argue that way–all I have is the principles I use to live my life–like a whole lot of other people. I may not have Jesus’ statements down pat, but I do get his message–Love One Another. Which includes, I might point out, those whom you find repugnant–God is not as choosey as you.
How in hell is lecturing someone to, in essence, change the color of their eyes/some other immutable physical trait like homosexuality unless they want to continue “sinning”, loving one another? How is concentrating on Law not being Pharisical (if that is a word)?
The distinction that you keep referring to and defending is the most appropriate to this thread, granted. As I understand it, your defense is that your church is welcoming of homosexuals, as long as they show a genuine desire to repress and overcome their homosexuality and live a righteous life.
Which is a step better than saying that homosexual desire itself is a choice, so that’s a start. But I believe you’re still missing the point. Yes, it does eventually come down to choice and behavior. A person doesn’t (consciously) choose to have a particular sexual orientation, but a person does choose how to live his life while having that orientation. And if a person truly believes that acting on homosexual attraction is a sin but chooses to do it anyway, then that person is willfully sinning.
But what about those of us who do not believe that homosexual behavior is inherently sinful? What is your church doing for us? How are your arguments helping us? There are thousands of people out there – I used to be one of them – who knew that we had this attraction and are constantly told that it’d be “wrong” to act on it, although they can’t identify why it’s wrong when it feels perfectly natural. So they suppress it and feel miserable.
They’re not getting what they need from the cheapened, watered-down philosophy of “total self-determination,” that whatever you want to do, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, is okay. They need more structure than that.
And they’re definitely not getting what they need from the church. They get judgement, and condemnation, and rebuke, and political machinations intended to keep them never quite on the same societal level as everyone else. And when they ask why their desires are “wrong,” they get nothing more than, “Well, it says right there in black and white [and in some versions, red].” And when they ask for a deeper meaning in those passages, they’re called “worldly” and people react as if they’re presuming to know more than God.
They’re told that if they were truly filled with the Holy Spirit, they wouldn’t need to act on their desires. Most often, they’re told this by people who can then go home and act on their own desires, which of course are completely different and not sinful because they’re straight and they’re married. And simply quoting scripture to someone does not fill him with the Holy Spirit – he has to hear it, believe it, understand it, and it has to make sense to him. So what are you going to do, and what is your church going to do for people like that?
You can read that passage as a laundry list of Things That are Bad To Do. Or you can assume a level of intelligence on the writer that presents the entire passage as a single coherent thought. It talks about lust, spite, deceit, wickedness, fornication. It talks about forsaking “their women,” which to me implies adultery and infidelity, pure carnal sex without the bonds of commitment or mutual respect. And it talks about abandoning God, not “retaining God in their knowledge,” acting purely out of worldly desire and lust, instead of retaining our souls and our faith and the true purpose for which we were created (hint: it’s not just to crank out more humans).
It talks about the “natural use of a woman.” What is that, exactly? Not in the context of the society in which the Book was written, but today? Is a woman nothing more than the repository of a man’s seed? Or is she a human being, capable of taking part in the world and making it a better place? Is “natural use of a woman” an archaic phrase that reflects the time in which it was written, or is it a truth that stands through the ages? If we’re comfortable with the idea that women are more than just breeding machines, then why must we insist on the idea that all humans are nothing more than just breeding machines?
Personally, this is the verse that I find most interesting:
Is your God a spiteful, vindictive, human-like creature, who’s more concerned about the mechanical workings of the world, about what’s “natural” and “common,” than He is about what’s in our hearts? Can you reduce the love of people for each other, to nothing more than animal lust and copulation and reproduction? Is sex for you nothing more than a necessary evil that it’s our duty to perform, in order to make more worshippers for God? Is God so petty that He’s fixated on our corrupted, physical form and would rather us suffer through our time in this world unable to enjoy the beautiful experiences he’s made available to us?
You look at my relationships and you see lust and carnality and worldliness, and, for some reason, some perceived attack on society as you know it. I see your relationships and see something beautiful – intimacy and commitment and trust and mutual satisfaction. And, unfortunately, a true attack on the happiness of others.
I don’t need to lift up your wife’s dress to verify that your relationship is legitimate and something to be cherished. But you look at my boyfriend and assume that we know only sex instead of intimacy. Which of these attitudes is more God-like, and which is more like the fourfooted beasts and creeping things?
Well, that’s a real informed decision. You don’t know what it is, but you know it isn’t your cup of tea?
Since you asked…the word dispensation is translated from the Greek “Oikonomio.” which is where we get our English word “economy.” It occurs 4 times in a KJV (the NIV renders it “administration”), and simply means what it says, “to dispense with something.” Scripturally speaking, it would mean God’s dispensing of a message, commandement(s), directive through a dispenser (“oikonomos”), e.g. Moses was God’s chosen vessel to dispense the Law, and record it in the five books of the Law (Gen-Duet.) In brief, a dispensationalist is one who divides the Bible into dispensations, and studies it from that perspective.
However, there is no real distinction in this, because just about everybody who studies the Bible is a dispensationalist, in that they divide it–at minimum–into old and new testaments. Most folks who call themselves Christians would fall into this catagory.
I don’t personally believe making this simple division will lead anyone to the vital truths concerning where we are presently. I believe we’re in the "dispensation of grace "(Eph. 3:2), which is a parenthesis in the prophetic timeline between the OT and the NT. I believe this dispensation began with the revealing of it by Paul in his post-Acts epistles. Some dispensationalists believe it commenced at the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, which symbolized the end of the Old Covenant with Israel. Whatever. The point is, we’re in it now.
There is a book that goes into much greater detail on this entitled, “Things That Differ” (C.R. Stam), published by the Berean Bible Society.
What about those who aren’t “christened?” What happens to them? What I’m saying is this: baptism has nothing to do with it. All of Israel’s symbolic rituals–baptism (ritual washing), circumcision, holy days, etc.–ended with the commencement of the grace dispensation. “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body…circumcised with the circumcision made without hands…buried with him (Christ) in baptism, werein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God…” (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 2:11,13) These “operations” are spiritual, and occur at the moment one trusts Christ for salvation. Those who trust Christ are placed into a spiritual entity referred to as the “body of Christ.” (1 Cor. 12:27) Obviously, babies and small children (and severly retarded adults, etc.), do not have the cognitive disonance or understanding to make a decision to trust Christ. I couldn’t say exactly what happens to them, or where they fit in, but if God is the merciful God I believe he is, they are not going to perish.
Certainly. Salvation–now–is by grace, not works. (Romans 4:4,5; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) That’s why it’s called the “grace” dispensation. Activity doesn’t save people, God does. Salvation is a gift that God freely offers those who will receive it(Romans 6:23); whether it be the prim and proper, sprayed and powdered lady sitting in the amen corner, or the drunk in the gutter. God is no respecter of persons or their good works. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)
Don’t get grace and faith mixed up. They aren’t the same thing. The faith of Christ is what produced the grace that will save anyone who will receive it. (see Romans 3:22; Gal. 2:16)
It doesn’t have anything to do with what is acceptable to me–it is what is acceptable to God. God has presented a simple message in his word (“the simple gospel of Christ”) that only requires two things of individuals to be accepted: 1. admit you are a sinner (not good), and 2. accept God’s offer–through Christ–of the forgiveness of your sins (past, present and future), and salvation. My job is to lay out these terms to my hearers as clearly and sucinctly as possible, and then to let them determine whether or not they’re saved. My greatest concern is for their eternal souls. I don’t ask people for their testimony in my meetings. But if someone tells me, voluntarily, they believe they’re saved by virtue of their good works or church affiliation, I’m sure not going to slap them on the back and say, “I’ll see you in heaven!” I’m going to tell them the truth. If you want to call that being “judgmental,” so be it.
Oh, groan! No, that does not define dispensationalism, any more than your being able to tell the difference between a copy of the Constitution and a cop’s pocket copy of the traffic law makes you a constitutional lawyer.
In other words, anything Jesus taught doesn’t count, only Paul. That in a nutshell is why I find dispensationalism despicable, despite its focus on grace.
“Repent and be baptized” apparently is one of those inconvenient Scriptures that “have nothing to do with the ‘present dispensation’”?
Oh, give me a break! Grace is unearned favor, by definition. God saves us because He loves us. Just as we are. That He as a loving Father wants to guide His children into the ways He knows are best for them, does not affect His love and his faithfulness towards us.
Yeah, but He doesn’t show up explaining what’s acceptable to Him to all and sundry. Which means it’s what you think is acceptable to Him.
Well, you can start with the guy who said the stuff in Matthew 25:31-46. He obviously had the wrong idea, according to your standards.
Hmm. How to reply, since this isn’t in the Pit.
First, I asked legitimate questions–and I did not patronize you. Yes, I can decide that Dispensationlism is NOT my cup of tea from your posts on the subject. I was looking for a working definition. There is no need to give the derivations of the word, and I am familiar with the actual words, “dispense” and “dispensation”. Praise God I am not one of your flock–I don’t take kindly to condescension. Thank you, Polycarp for the more shaded and complex meanings.
This is an item of faith for you. Frankly, I have never heard either my nun friend or my pastors talk about this at all. So, you may be in it, but mebbe that’s a matter of perspective. I don’t know. I am not a Bible scholar.
Exactly my point–and I agree with you that baptism is not a deal breaker, so to speak. I also agree that God is merciful–but I also believe that God is loving, that God is love. I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass that anyone has spoken aloud their dedication or belief in Him. Witnessing or whatever is for the people and the groups to which they belong. It’s a man made requirement, in my book. I either misread your post or misunderstood it–I thought you stated that only those who had admitted that Christ is their Savior were going to “heaven”.
I don’t get faith and grace mixed up. I believe that the faithless are also in a state of grace.
See? I know that dispensationalism is not my cup of tea. I don’t need or want you or anyone else to be concerned about the state of my eternal soul. That is best left to me, surely you can see that? And succinct is a matter of some debate! My eyes glazed over from just the number of paragraphs!
And your “truth” is not my “truth” and we read the same Bible. I can’t quote chapter and verse, nor do I want to–to use the Bible as the ultimate source like a textbook makes no sense to me. Which version? Which translation? Which mis-translation? Which social more does it refer to and how is that relevant to today? (alot of them are still vitally relevant, I’ll give you that). When people do this, I feel like I am watching some strange type of religious poker: “you say Leviticus <random number here>? I raise you one Matthew and two Corinthians (second letter)!” It never ends. It can’t–there is too much in the Bible that is conflicting, contradictory and provocative. Just MHO.
You can come at me forever with NT this and OT that–I am not arguing the semantics in the Bible here–I am questioning the working principles used in worship and service to others by dispensationalists.
And sadly, I have forgotten the main thrust of this thread…someone please remind me!
