Gay apostolics?

[stmatthew]

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".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Do you consider your uncle saved?

Yes.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, they aren't speaking in tongues on Sunday and holding hands with their boyfriend on Monday.

Not possible. The reason being you can't have two contrary things coming forth from the same source.

Political correctness has caused many Christians to believe that anything that says Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom. This only causes the Christian to feel as if he is nice and kind and non-judgmental, and the Homosexual is left confused and heading full speed to a devil's hell.

Tell it like it is boys and girls, if someone is still cruising and picking up friends for a night of companionship and they claim they are Christians, don't believe them. They need to get real, and get honest, and repent with snot bubbles and tears at an Apostolic altar.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, they aren't speaking in tongues on Sunday and holding hands with their boyfriend on Monday.

Not possible. The reason being you can't have two contrary things coming forth from the same source.

Political correctness has caused many Christians to believe that anything that says Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom. This only causes the Christian to feel as if he is nice and kind and non-judgmental, and the Homosexual is left confused and heading full speed to a devil's hell.

Tell it like it is boys and girls, if someone is still cruising and picking up friends for a night of companionship and they claim they are Christians, don't believe them. They need to get real, and get honest, and repent with snot bubbles and tears at an Apostolic altar.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

AMEN!!!!

bro. b-are you suprised?

[Aquila]

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Exactly.

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.