The fact is that if one "REPENTS" he is turning from his sins. One cannot continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved, as they have not "REPENTED" yet (Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!).
One cannot be "APOSTOLIC" if they have not truly 'REPENTED" (i.e. turned from their sins), as to be "APOSTOLIC" mean's that you are following the teachings of the apostles. As soon as one leaves the doctrines of the Apostles, they cease to be "APOSTOLIC".
The fact is that if one "REPENTS" he is turning from his sins. One cannot continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved, as they have not "REPENTED" yet (Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!).
One cannot be "APOSTOLIC" if they have not truly 'REPENTED" (i.e. turned from their sins), as to be "APOSTOLIC" mean's that you are following the teachings of the apostles. As soon as one leaves the doctrines of the Apostles, they cease to be "APOSTOLIC".
You're right. If one never repents they were never saved.
However, if you repent of a sin and fall back into it do you cease being Apostolic? No. You're just a backslidden Apostolic.
I think it would be an interesting discussion if we evaluated the hermeneutic of "gay theology" and it's claims. It might help those who have encountered these teachings.
I think it would be an interesting discussion if we evaluated the hermeneutic of "gay theology" and it's claims. It might help those who have encountered these teachings.
Aquila are you saying that we should have a discussion on how Homosexuals scripturally defend their notion that they can stay Homosexuals and still be in good standing with Jesus Christ?
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
Aquila are you saying that we should have a discussion on how Homosexuals scripturally defend their notion that they can stay Homosexuals and still be in good standing with Jesus Christ?
I don't know, it might be valuable to the discussion. For example my uncle (a liberal Episcopal priest, who isn't a homosexual by the way, he's a devoted husband and father of two) teaches that Leviticus 18:22 outlaws homosexuality not for the sake of denouncing homosexuality per se, but rather because it was a common pagan practice in pagan worship. He claims this has no bearing on "homosexuality" itself. He equates it with the Bible's condemnation of eating pork or having relations (or sleeping in the same bed) with a woman who happens to be on her menses.
Then you have the verse in Romans...
Romans 1:26-27
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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.
He interprets this as Paul condemning married heterosexuals who were participating in pagan orgies in the temples that notoriously involved homosexual encounters, thereby violating their marriage covenant. He claims that Paul isn't necessarily addressing homosexuality but rather a married couple's involvement in pagan practices.
Then of course you run into the three relationships in the Bible where they believe that homosexual relations took place un-condemned.
I've gone round and round with him on occasion in friendly debate, but many are truly perplexed because you have two schools of theology interpreting the text two different ways. Sometimes the people who are outside looking in don't know what to think. Sometimes struggling Christians don't know what to think.
I don't know, it might be valuable to the discussion. For example my uncle (a liberal Episcopal priest, who isn't a homosexual by the way, he's a devoted husband and father of two) teaches that Leviticus 18:22 outlaws homosexuality not for the sake of denouncing homosexuality per se, but rather because it was a common pagan practice in pagan worship. He claims this has no bearing on "homosexuality" itself. He equates it with the Bible's condemnation of eating pork or having relations (or sleeping in the same bed) with a woman who happens to be on her menses.
Then you have the verse in Romans...
Romans 1:26-27
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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.
He interprets this as Paul condemning married heterosexuals who were participating in pagan orgies in the temples that notoriously involved homosexual encounters, thereby violating their marriage covenant. He claims that Paul isn't necessarily addressing homosexuality but rather a married couple's involvement in pagan practices.
Then of course you run into the three relationships in the Bible where they believe that homosexual relations took place un-condemned.
I've gone round and round with him on occasion in friendly debate, but many are truly perplexed because you have two schools of theology interpreting the text two different ways. Sometimes the people who are outside looking in don't know what to think. Sometimes struggling Christians don't know what to think.
The Leviticus argument is weak, and the reason why is because the chapter is speaking mostly of incest, and then goes on to speak on adultery, homosexual relations and bestiality.
So let's take your uncle's argument, and go one step further. If we follow his logic (which isn't just his, but most homosexual advocators) we would be able to practice non-pagan bestiality?
Romans is dealing with those who denounce the truth of God, and are turned over to a depraved mind to engage in homosexual relations. To say that the text is dealing with pagan temple prostitution is speculation, and not taking the chapter at face value.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
The Leviticus argument is weak, and the reason why is because the chapter is speaking mostly of incest, and then goes on to speak on adultery, homosexual relations and bestiality.
So let's take your uncles argument, and go one step further. If we follow his logic (which isn't just his, but most homosexual advocators) we would be able to practice non-pagan bestiality?
Romans is dealing with those who denounce the truth of God, and are turned over to a depraved mind to engage in homosexual relations. To say that the text is dealing with pagan temple prostitution is speculation, and not taking the chapter at face value.
I think what happens is, we get many who are caught up in their struggles and these "theologians" come their way appearing to be compassionate and understanding.
We should refute their theology in love.
And then minister to the sinner in love and pray for their healing.
I personally think that homosexuals need a miracle. I don't believe they can "will" themselves straight.
Hybrid Mode
