Can You Be Gay and Christian?

By Tom Gilson Published on April 7, 2018

The state of California is considering a bill to prohibit all counseling by anyone for any LGBT person who wants help changing his or her sexual orientation or identity. In that light, it’s worth asking a basic question: Can a person be gay and Christian?

I’ve written an answer to that question, now contained in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students. (edited by Sean McDowell, copyright 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers). What follows is that article, quoted by permission from the publisher, with links and subheadings added for your convenience:

Easy Questions and Harder Ones

Facebook Live Next Tuesday!

I’ll be interacting on this topic live by video next week on The Stream’s Facebook page — Tuesday, April 10, at 8 pm Eastern time, in the 6th edition of “Contentious Questions (Because some questions are just that way).”

Bring your questions, your comments, and your friends. Share this around social media. I’ll look forward to being with you there then.

This is understandably a troubling question for many, and a troublesome one for others. It actually has more than one answer because there’s more than one question contained in it. One of those questions is, Can a person be same-sex attracted and Christian in the sense of “destined for eternal salvation”? Yes, certainly, just as someone with a lifelong desire for alcohol can be saved. Or someone might ask, Can a gay or lesbian be “Christian” in lifestyle, fully seeking to live in Christ, while at the same time ignoring the Bible’s moral standards? Of course not. Nobody can!

Those answers were easy. The questions that really matter aren’t so simple: “What does the Bible really say about same-sex physical intimacy?” “My brother/sister/friend is gay or lesbian, but they still go to church. Are you sure they can’t be Christians?” “I’m gay or lesbian and I believe in Christ. What about me?”

The Bible’s Message

The Bible’s message on same-sex physical intimacy is clear and consistent throughout. Sex is strictly for the marriage relationship, and marriage is only for a man and a woman. Paul, and the writer of Hebrews (Matt. 19:3-9; 1 Cor. 7:25-40; Eph. 5:22-6:4; Heb. 13:4). Sex belongs within a marriage (between a man and a woman only), and nowhere else.

Furthermore, homosexual practice is forbidden in every biblical passage that addresses it (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10). Some have asked why we think Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 apply today when other commands clearly do not (e.g, Lev. 19:19). The answer is that some of Leviticus was intended for Israel at just that time and place, to mark it out as a separate nation, to guide its civil and criminal law, and to direct the nation in its worship of God. Since then, Jesus Christ has founded the church as the new people of God (1 Pet. 2:5-10), and provided a new way to approach God in worship (Heb. 10:1-22).

The Old Testament moral code, in contrast, was meant for more than just Israel — the Canaanite nations were accountable to God’s sexual standards, too (Leviticus 18:24-30) — and for more than just that time, which we know because its moral commands were reaffirmed in the New Testament.

God is Just, God is Gracious

Does that mean a practicing gay or lesbian can’t be a Christian? There is no simple answer to this question. If by “Christian” we mean someone who is in right standing with God, that answer is way above the pay grade of humans (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Cor. 4:1-4). We can’t know who is in that relationship with God and who isn’t. We do know, though, that the one who is truly in Christ is marked by a growing desire to follow God’s commands (1 John 1:5-7; 2:3-4). Together we must seek the whole counsel of God rather than measuring ourselves against fluctuating cultural standards. God is holy. Neither pride nor lust nor greed nor sloth is pleasing to God.

God is just. If God paid us what we deserve, none of us could stand in His presence. But the good news is God is paid an enormous price to restore us to himself. Those who trust Christ’s provision receive the Spirit, who enables them to live lives pleasing to God. For most, this is a journey, a process. But be sure that God is not through with us until his image in us is restored and we bear the image of his Son.

That ends the article as it reads in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students.

Pursue Him With All That You Are

Yet I would add another question today for those who want to know, “Can I be gay or lesbian and Christian?” That question is, Where is your question coming from? Does it come out of a deep desire to love and follow Christ with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, regardless of your sexual makeup? If so, then pursue Him with all that you are, and let Him direct your paths. In a very real sense it’s the same answer we’d give everyone; for we all have challenges and hard places for God to work on in us.

He is worthy of your wholehearted pursuit.

But if your question comes by way of wondering, Just how much of a gay or lesbian life can I manage to live without losing my connection to Christ?, then I would remind you — as I would remind anyone who wanted to hold on to their old way of living — “No one can serve two masters,” according to Jesus Himself (Matt. 6:24). We might say, no car can have two drivers trying to steer it at the same time. If you’re trying to let your old way of life share the driver’s seat with Jesus, you’re heading toward a spiritual crash.

So I would urge you to turn your attention around. Jesus Christ is better than your old way of life — better than anyone’s old ways. He is worthy of your wholehearted pursuit.

So don’t ask how gay or lesbian a life you can live and still be a Christian. Ask how you can pursue Him wholeheartedly. Period. He’ll be honored by that, and He’ll surely guide and empower you to draw close to Him and His ways.

 

Tom Gilson is a senior editor with The Stream and the author of Critical Conversations: A Christian Parents’ Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens (Kregel Publications, 2016). Follow him on Twitter: @TomGilsonAuthor.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • handydan

    If you have same-sex attraction, are “not the marryin’ kind”, etc, you can be a Christian, but you must not act on your sexual desires. It sounds cruel, but God gives people crosses to bear. When you engage in sexual acts with another same-sex person, then you have committed mortal sin and must go to Confession. If you engage in sexual acts with an opposite-sex person outside of marriage, the same holds true. That is the simple truth as of the Catholic Church.

    • Kathy

      Hi Dan, Protestants are not required to confess to a priest or any other mediator. The veil was torn in the temple when Christ died on the cross, indicating there was no more need of an intercessor to God, as their had been before. Jesus is our only intermediary and we can go directly to our Father to seek forgiveness. However, we are encouraged to confess to one another IF we feel the need to confide in someone, but it is not necessary.

      • handydan

        For your sake, I hope you are right.

        • Chris in NC

          At the end of your post you quote the first half of John 20:23 – but not the second. ” ; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”
          Does that mean that a priest can refuse to forgive someone at confession? It’s in the Bible.

          • Fr. Frank Bass

            Yes, it does; and it occasionally happens. For example, a person who has divorced and remarried while the former spouse is still living could not be absolved unless he or she resolved to live as brother and sister with the current spouse, or until the former marriage was proven to be sacramentally invalid. (The impediments to entering a sacramentally valid marriage are very clear. You can Google to see what they are.) The reason, of course, is that the Lord Himself said that a valid marriage is indissoluble, and I can remember well the days when the Protestant denomination I grew up in refused to perform second marriages. The evidence of repentance is the resolution with the help of Christ’s grace to cease committing the sin. Having said that, we must also say that while we believe the Lord always works through the sacraments, He is sovereign and is not limited by them. It is we humans who are limited. From the human standpoint we remember that Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Our question as Catholics would be “Do I really love the Lord if my married life is in daily ongoing and direct defiance of his Word? Can I really be sure I have saving faith if I refuse to serve and obey him?”

          • handydan

            Yes, a priest can withhold absolution. Although quite unusual given many circumstances, a priest can determine that a person is not truly sorry and does not intend to amend his ways. It is a highly unusual occurrence, but it can happen. Very unusual. I am familiar with the quotation from the Bible. I teach a class at a Federal prison on Catholicism and the Bible.

        • Kathy

          What do you believe is the significance of the temple veil being torn in two immediately following Christ’s death, if not what I mentioned? We believe that Jesus is our Superior High Priest and we can now enter the “Holy of Holies” through Him, negating the need for a human priest since through His death, believers are no longer separated from God and can access Him directly.

          • handydan

            My understanding of the Temple Veil is that the old Covenant is done, null and void. Christ is the New Covenant. We must believe in Him and no other (along with all He taught us). His teachings continued on with the Apostles, the early Church Fathers, the hermits, the early Hierarchy of the Church, St Jerome, who produced the Bible. The Church has prevailed through all the heresies and misguided teachers until today. Satan is doing his best to destroy the Church, even though Christ said “.,…and the Gates of Hell will not prevail…..”

          • Kathy

            The Old Covenant HAS “passed away” in some instances (the sacrificial system, as one example) but we still obey the moral laws contained in it. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Christ’s death and resurrection instituted the New Covenant, as the tearing of the temple veil indicated, like you said. It was a pronouncement that we are no longer separated from God, we have direct access to Him. That makes the Old Covenant priesthood null and void as well. I will refrain from reiterating my past statements concerning that.

            I know you are referring to the RCC as the Church, but all born again believers in all Christian faith traditions are the true Church. I know you’ve been taught otherwise, Dan, that solely being baptized in the CC is the new birth. (Correct me if I’m wrong) I refer to John 3 where Jesus said we must be born again to enter the Kingdom…born of the Spirit, not just of water, which is our first natural birth. The new birth is initiated by the Holy Spirit.

  • John

    Tom, Thank you for your article. Being same sex attracted is a temptation we may have to battle. Being “gay” is a lifestyle/choice/mindset that is anti-Christ and anti-Biblical. Let us continue to fight the good fight of faith in Christ…especially when the darkness seems to be advancing. All will be set right when our glorious Savior appears.

  • tz1

    One also cannot be an adulterer or fornicator (hence the attacks against Trump).

    But the critical bit missing from almost every argument today is TELOS, the purpose or end.

    What were we created for?

    What is Marriage for? Lets not ask that as the nasty subject of contraception and the traditional protestant and still Catholic view that it is a grave sin comes up. No, just say fun sex – the same reason, purpose, TELOS of gay sex – is the reason for Marriage, and if they happen to want children, ok, go ahead, but they are strictly optional. The Pill turned almost every Christian Marriage into a Gay Marriage. Nothing Gay’s do is prohibited, as long as it is between consenting Husband and Wife? But if the TELOS of marriage fundamentally includes Children, it changes everything. Ask Onan.

    Can you use contraception in a Christian Marriage? If the answer is “no”, a lot of other things just fall into place without the sophisticated sophistry.

    Nature is just the same kind of random, mechanistic, purposeless chaos to most Christians as it is to secularists, humanists, or atheists. But the key to philosophy and understanding is after you have ascertained WHAT something is, you should ascertain what it is FOR. Or as Chesterton noted, if you buy a property and there is a wall or fence, you ought not tear it down until you know why it was put up. Why is there a wall?

    • I’ve found that Aristotle’s Four Causes to be immensely helpful in understanding, and teaching my children, biblical morality, and biblical wisdom.
      1. Material Cause. What does a thing come from? The material cause of a table is the wood used to make it.
      2. Formal Cause. What is it? The formal cause of the table is the idea of the table in the mind of its maker. The idea has to exist in the mind before it potentially exists.
      3. Efficient Cause. What is the means by which it comes to be? The one who makes the table is its efficient cause.
      4. Final Cause. What is its purpose or end? The final cause or purpose of a table is to place things on it.
      It is no surprise that the “Enlightenment” inspired Darwin to rid the world of the final cause, and that atheist/agnostics/secularists to this day vehemently deny telos in nature. They know if you have a final cause, you must have a formal cause, and we can’t allow that. As you say, most Christians unfortunately and uncritically swallow naturalist assumptions, and live like it. Not least in the area of having children and sexual ethics. Biblical morality isn’t true because it works, it works because it’s true, because that’s the way God made his creation to work.

      • James

        The Final Cause is both unknown and unknowable.

        This is why we have religion. Religion is how mankind makes sense of the world around us. It is how we bring order to the chaos. But this is speculation, not certainty, no matter how much we would like it to be certain.

        • No it’s not. You define religion as “speculation.” Says who? You’ve obviously never seriously explored, for just ONE example, the evidence for the resurrection. Absolute certainty, a la Descartes, is a fiction in any area of human existence, not just religion. All we can have is a form of certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, not unlike we would find in a court of law. Based on the incredible amount of evidence, Christians have concluded that a dead guy came back to life 2000 years ago. It’s your assertion (no doubt based on ignorance) verses the evidence. I’ll go with the evidence every time.

          • James

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            It is quite possible—and indeed highly likely—for the telos of human existence to be beyond human comprehension. But that doesn’t give us much to work with.

          • I would say any claim whatsoever requires evidence. More important than the atheist’s self-serving and arbitrary assertions as to what counts as evidence, is appropriate evidence given the claim. Historical evidence is one thing, empirical evidence another, mathematical another, philosophical another, logical another. But I would wager a decent amount of cash that you like most people who throw around that ridiculous phrase have never honestly engaged the evidence for the resurrection. Lee Strobel, ex-atheist did, and now he’s one of us. Deep down that’s why atheists almost NEVER take the evidence seriously, and almost NEVER actually study it; they’re afraid it will prove true! And I’m sorry to say, more sophistry will just dig your hole deeper.

          • GLT

            James,

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

            Considering the fact the term extraordinary is totally subjective in nature, your argument is moot at best.

          • John Connor

            There’s no evidence of anyone rising from the dead after several days. What you have is a 2000 year old text.

          • What you are is NOT an historian or textual critical scholar, so you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.

          • John Connor

            You don’t know me and have no idea what you’re talking about

          • Of course I do. Nobody that knows the first thing about ancient history or textual criticism would make the utterly ignorant claim you made. It’s very simple.

          • John Connor

            There’s zero proof or evidence of anyone coming back from the dead three days later. smh

          • In that, you could not be more wrong.

          • John Connor

            I’ve worked in the medical field for 21 years. Nope, nobody has come back three days later after being pronounced dead.

          • So you conclude, nobody can? I’m not sure what kind of logical fallacy that is, but it is a fallacy. What’s even worse, your assumption leads you to discount the relevant evidence that Jesus of Nazareth in fact did come back from the dead after three days. Your assumption means you refuse to even consider the evidence, and like other atheists assert that the evidence is in fact not evidence. My assumption is far superior to yours, and one not based on a measly 21 years. God exists (we need only open our eyes), and bringing a person, no less the God-man, back to life for him is easy peezy. Like Lee Stroble, if you had the guts to actually study the evidence, you might come to the same conclusion. But you won’t do that because you like being your own God. Satan has you, and if you read Genesis 3 and the account of the fall you’ll know why.

          • John Connor

            Sweetheart, I lived and studied the Bible for 18 years before becoming an atheist. No evidence of anyone being dead for days then coming back to life.

          • Well, my friend, you and I live and read a different Bible! And I’m going on 40(!) years. Atheism is infinitely more incredible and unbelievable than any old resurrection from the dead. That anyone could be an atheist is proof to me that Genesis this nails it.

            I recently read “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” by Michael Licona, all 600 pages, and there is a HUGE amount of evidence in and out of the Bible for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. One day maybe you’ll find your way back to the Christianity, as ex-atheist C.S. Lewis, that makes sense of everything.

            Cheers!

        • GPS Daddy

          >>But this is speculation, not certainty, no matter how much we would like it to be certain

          It depends. If you lump all religions together and take the lowest common denominator then you have blind faith. This is typical of thee atheist. They will not use discernment to evaluate the merits of a religion. As far as Christianity there is an abundance of evidence. There are also many websites and books that dives into these so I will not wast my time in going through this evidence.

          Bottom line, James, here are the things that every person faces:

          1. You are alive.
          2. You did not choose to be a living being.
          3. How you choose to live your life will demonstrate what you think this life is… or in other words, your world view.
          4. You will die just like everyone else.

          Now here are some facts that are true no matter if you accept them or not:

          1. The physical universe is real.
          2. The spiritual, or non-physical world, is real.
          3. Life is designed.
          4. Design always has a designer.
          5. Life has purpose. This purpose is objective.
          6. Objective good and evil/ objective right and wrong exist.
          7. Everyone does evil if they live long enough.

          • James

            A.3. What you think this life is has little bearing on what this life actually is.
            A.4. The inevitability of death is the central dilemma of human existence, and one that people most want to avoid.

            B.2. I am highly skeptical of the existence of this spiritual world. I am not a fan of new age “spiritual” nonsense. I assume you aren’t either, and can thus appreciate some skepticism about “spiritual” things. As for more traditional ideas about the spiritual world, I see it as yet another attempt at avoiding the inevitability of death. I one of those odd people who are religious (because religion is a net good for society), but not spiritual.
            B.4. This only gets us to deism.

            B.5. Even assuming that there is an objective purpose, that does not necessarily mean that it is knowable by people. Must lab rats understand the purpose of why they are in the lab?

            B.6. That objective right and wrong exist does not mean that humans can accurately know this right and wrong. Some things nearly all people can agree on, but there are plenty of disagreement among people of goodwill in the details.
            B.7. And doing evil often leads to tangible consequences. Murder someone, go to prison. Society requires that proportional tangible consequences for evil be given if possible.

          • GPS Daddy

            Thats a bunch of non-sense. Philosophy/logic is only good if it has the right foundation. All of the points that you deviate from what I had posted points to a heart issue, James. But a better source than me on heart issues is the bible. In studying His word God will reveal to you your heart and His heart. Rossaria Butterfield had such an experience in coming to Jesus. Maybe looking her up might be beneficial.

          • James

            An emotional response to an intellectual discussion. How typical.

          • GPS Daddy

            No, not at all. I’m just not going to play your intellectual games. You need to deal with the heart issues that you have. Diving in the bible is a good way to do that.

          • James

            If your Faith isn’t an intellectual one, then I am not interested.

          • GPS Daddy

            Therein lies another problem. You think that the only thing that exists is the intellect. Faith is more than just the intellect. You have faith, James. The heart of live is NOT the intellect, its the heart. Intellect will only bring you so far. Let me ask you this: What else could it be if its NOT the intellect?

            I’ll give you a hint: Its the heart.

          • John Connor

            1. Agree
            2. Nonsense and personal opinion
            3. No proof or evidence of that
            4. No proof
            5. Yup
            6. Yup
            7. Nope

            Where do you come up with this stuff?

          • GPS Daddy

            Wrong, as normal.

          • John Connor

            Prove it

          • GPS Daddy

            Already been proven. You do not listen.

          • John Connor

            Not at all. No god has ever been proven to exist. Keep trying

          • GPS Daddy

            If you will listen then I will keep trying. Are you ready to start listening?

      • tz1

        AMEN
        Biblical morality isn’t true because it works, it works because it’s true, because that’s the way God made his creation to work.

        • swordfish

          Biblical morality doesn’t work. If it did, there wouldn’t be any need for articles like this.

          • Of course it does ,you just don’t like it. Three words: sexually transmitted diseases. Wrong you are again!

          • swordfish

            Squirrel!

          • swordfish

            You probably didn’t get “squirrel”. I meant that your mention of STDs is irrelevant. (Because straight people get STDs as well.)

      • swordfish

        What is the final cause of men’s nipp… (No, let’s not even go there!) Instead, what would count as evidence that final causes exist?

        • Actually, Mr. He Who Won’t Put His Real Name, the question is what would count as evidence that final causes do NOT exist? You first.

          • swordfish

            No, you claimed that Final Causes exist, so you should provide evidence that they do.

          • Well, then I guess we’re at an impasse. Life, no name person, doesn’t work the way you want it to work just because it’s the way you want it to work. You claim life is a meaningless jumble of matter with no purpose. Prove it. Purpose exists everywhere in nature, and purpose doesn’t exist by chance. If you say it does, it is for you to prove it. It is axiomatic to any sentient being (which I guess you are not) that final causes imply formal causes. The idiocy of denying thus is obvious. No wonder you refuse to defend it. I’m busy. No more words for you.

          • swordfish

            You could have just said you can’t back up your claim that their are Final Causes and left it at that.

          • Boy, you really are slow, aren’t you.

          • swordfish

            If you say so, Mike. Although, if that’s the case, it’s odd that I can back up my claims, while you can’t back up your claim that Final Causes exist.

          • It’s not odd at all. You haven’t backed up anything but your own baseless assertions. That’s what atheists always do, assert, assert, assert, and never, never, never bring any evidence to the table. So we’re at an end of this fruitless conversation. Have a great day.

          • swordfish

            Mike, I haven’t made any assertions during this conversation, I’ve just asked you to defend your assertion that Final Causes exist, which you haven’t done.

        • What kind of thing would you accept as evidence that final causes exist, swordfish? (I’d bet a week’s salary your answer will be in the form of a category error.)

          • swordfish

            I asked what would count as evidence, because I can’t think of anything which would. Presumably you can, otherwise you wouldn’t accept the idea of Final Causes in the first place. If so, what do you think counts as evidence?

    • Fr. Frank Bass

      Amen! Amen! While same-sex marriage has done great damage, it doesn’t even approach the catastrophic damage done by The Pill, abortion (when contraception fails), and no fault divorce. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the only reason the notion of same-sex marriage was ever entertained is because heterosexual couples eventually came to assume that intercourse need never have anything to do with children; and if an “accident” happened, it could be gotten rid of. How the devil must laugh watching us yearn for sterility as though it were a gift, and how he must delight in watching us slaughter our children on those occasions we’re accidentally fertile. Sterility and death. The SSM advocates came up with nothing new. They copied what they saw us doing. As you implied, if sterility is now a feature rather than a bug, then why not?

  • Stephen D

    The wise man builds his house on the rock of obedience to Jesus (Matthew 7). The house of the disobedient man is built on sand and will be destroyed. Warnings such as this are multiplied many times over, and form a consistent message in the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Epistles. The Bible is very clear that sex outside M-F marriage is not permitted. So the course of action required of the Christian is very clear.

  • Arnold Kropp

    We must go back to first things first, such as why was the union of a male and female created as it was? Surely the Almighty Creator of all could have spoke the expansion of the human race completely different than that sex act of planting a seed, which God also made enjoyable..If it wasn’t such an experience, then we probably shy away from it as our nature is against work. Adam and Eve looked upon that tree curiously thinking : “Hmm? What is evil. never heard of that before. What is it? Let’s try that, shall we. We won’t die just because we want to see something new. Everything here is new..Let’s see what’s it’s all about.”

  • Nick Stuart

    Can you cheat on your expense report or taxes and be a Christian?

    Can you commit adultery and be a Christian?

    Can you covet your neighbor’s super SUV and be a Christian?

    The baseline requirements for salvation seem to be minimal: “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Rom 10:9

    After receiving Christ, for most of us our sin natures don’t vanish. God works with us through the rest of our life. Someone who’s a homosexual or lesbian can become a Christian at which point the Holy Spirit begins the work of sanctification.

    • Patmos

      So when you’re in Christ you’re not a new creature, and old things don’t pass away, and all things don’t become new?

      And you’re saying the devil doesn’t flee like lightning at the name of Jesus?

      You’re a perfect example of the modern lukewarm church, fully distracted, and treating the good news in a cavalier manner.

      • Nick Stuart

        Actually Patmos I’m someone who spent a couple of years on a Presbytery committee that in the time I was on it dealt with cases of: suspected accessory to homicide, adultery, falsification of credentials, drug trafficking, and embezzlement. The pastor who baptized all 5 of my children was murdered by someone with whom he had arranged a homosexual liaison on line. Even though we are “new creatures” we still fall short every day in thought, word, and deed.

        If any of us, however sanctified, left in the church lobby an album recording every thought, word, and deed from our most recent month I suspect we’d move with great haste to retrieve it before someone took a look inside. We need to extend the same grace and forbearance to our fellow Christians as God extends to us.

  • Patmos

    Continue in my word, and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

    When a person gets hit with the Holy Spirit things change. This is not some phenomenon to be explained away in modern terms, like through Freud or some other such nonsense. This is the super natural power of God we’re talking about here, and it is promised to all who are called (Acts 2:39).

    From that point a person will not be foolish enough to engage in any type of sin, nor will they even have the desire to do so, for Christ (that is, the anointing) is the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

    It is true you can believe to a degree and not be aware of the promise of the Holy Ghost. We see this in Acts where a group of people is asked if they have received the Holy Ghost since they believed and they respond that they didn’t even know that there was a Holy Ghost, but without that anointing you don’t get the full measure of salvation.

    In Ephesians Paul describes it as being sealed (1:13), and I think this seal is a far better indicator than any title like “Christian”. We learn in one of the parables of Jesus that a person can be a believer and still be cast out, the parable where one person is given money and does nothing with it, choosing to bury it instead.

    Yes, you have to continue in his word, and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

    Paul wrote to the church at Corinth that it is the love of Christ that constaineth, fulfilling what Jeremiah prophesied about with believers having the law written on their heart. When you are Spirit filled you do not concern yourself with the things of this world, nor do the things of this world have authority over you (Luke 10:17-20).

  • Cortney Alexander

    There’s a lot of great material in this article, but I was left confused by this statement: “Does that mean a practicing gay or lesbian can’t be a Christian? There is no simple answer to this question. If by ‘Christian’ we mean someone who is in right standing with God, that answer is way above the pay grade of humans (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Cor. 4:1-4). We can’t know who is in that relationship with God and who isn’t.”

    While we can’t read hearts like God, we can give Scripture’s answer to specific questions. This particular question is only complicated if we conflate someone practicing an unrepentant lifestyle of homosexuality with someone struggling against their sinful desires and sometimes failing. But if we’re truly talking about the practice of homosexuality, Scripture gives a much more straightforward answer than “only God can judge.” Scripture says that “no one born of God makes a practice of sinning” (1 Jn. 3:9). As Paul said in another passaged cited by the author, “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Praise God that he grants believers release from such practices!

    If we changed the question from homosexuality to whether the practice of Ashtoreth worship is incompatible with born-again Christianity, I don’t think we’d have trouble answering the question. But Paul didn’t seem to differentiate between the two sinful practices in 1 Corinthians 6, so why would we?

    • gong yeh

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think they are spot on. 1 John 3:9 really is the best answer to topic of this article.

      I would like to share something I learned from J.D Greear’s book :Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart” that I think has relevance in this discussion. The main point of the book is how one can have the assurance of salvation, which is the same as saying how one can know one is a Christian. And the conditions needed for this assurance are:
      1) Trust in Jesus as one’s Savior from the penalty of sin.
      2) Repent and surrender to Jesus as one’s Lord.
      3) Continue the above relationship for the rest of one’s life.

      For condition #2, JD explains in the book that if one’s definition of repentance is ‘I will obey Jesus 99% but keep 1% off limit’, then one hasn’t repented and Jesus isn’t one’s Lord (i.e. Luke 6:46). He also clarifies that he’s not saying if one fails to obey 100% then one hasn’t repented. Perfection of obedience is not the issue, it’s the posture to Jesus that matters. As such, when it comes to the matter of practicing homosexual being Christian or not, the key word is ‘practicing’, Is the person’s posture one of ‘Lord I am struggling with this please empower me to bear my cross’ or ‘this is who I am and I have no intention of changing, in fact I don’t feel this is sin and Jesus will understand’. Which posture one holds is indication of whether one has saving faith in Christ.

      For me, the more difficult question is whether a gay person can immediately stop the practice of homosexual lifestyle or is this a process? If this is a process, should we expect a gay believer to stop the practice after a week, a month, a year? If I understand Luke 3: 8-14 correctly, it seems that genuine repentance requires one to stop sinning immediately – to bear fruits in keeping with repentance. However, if some gay believers struggle but eventually overcome their homosexual practice completely, this makes it difficult to answer the question ‘can you be gay and Christian?’. May be the answer is ‘yes, but not for the rest of your life’?

    • Thank you for your thoughts, Cortney and Gong Yeh.

      This issue is never simple, and it’s harder yet to compress into a short article like this one. What I tried to say is that it’s not possible for you or me to judge whether a person is saved; that’s God’s job and not ours. Of course we can explain God’s standards, including what repentance should look like. But it would have been very difficult in this article to answer a lot of associated questions.

      We could say, for example, that one who continues in homosexual sin is not going to inherit the Kingdom, and that would be true, but even there the word “continues” is a bit hard to nail down. Do we mean, “happily continuing, with no regard for God’s word or God’s holiness”? In that case it’s very, very unlikely the person is saved. Or do we mean “continuing in spite of their repeated vows to themselves, ‘I know that was wrong and I’ll never do it again!'”? In that case, I know a lot of Christians dealing with besetting sins have made the same vow, and I’m not in a position to judge them as condemned to eternal judgment. That’s above my pay grade, as I wrote in the article.

      There are further questions associated with where a person is in their walk with Christ and their maturity; for a brand-new believer is certainly saved even if they haven’t turned away immediately from every sinful practice.

      So you’re right: There are scriptural principles that apply here, but when dealing with a host of human conditions and motivations and maturity levels, there are two dangers to avoid. One danger is condemning any person whom God has not condemned. The other is to encourage anyone to think there’s anything either good or spiritually safe about continuing in clear sin. I wouldn’t want to do either; I tried to steer clear of both of them; maybe I could have been clearer. Your comments are helpful; thanks.

  • Trilemma

    What about being lesbian and Christian. The Bible never says anything about a woman being intimate with a woman.

    • Kathy

      Romans 1:26-27 (RSV) “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Wow, after writing that just now, I realized the penalty of their error could possibly be referencing diseases, one being AIDS. Hadn’t thought of that before.

      • Trilemma

        Romans 1:26 says the women were leaving their natural use by their husbands to do something Paul considered shameful and contrary to nature. In the previous verses it condemned them for worshipping the created things such as animals. Paul would certainly consider this shameful and contrary to nature. Back then, various forms of idolatry would involve drunkenness, orgies, and prostitution all three of which Paul would consider shameful and contrary to nature. Leviticus 20:16 says a woman is not to have sex with an animal, also shameful and contrary to nature. From 1 Corinthians 11, we see that Paul thought it was shameful and contrary to nature for a woman to have short hair which was common with feminists of that day. But where does the Bible say it’s shameful and contrary to nature for a woman to be intimate with a woman? If you use the Bible to interpret the Bible, it’s not Romans 1:26. You have to let the Bible define what is shameful and contrary to nature.

        • Andrew Mason

          By your logic Scripture permits child molestation as that’s discussed even less than female homosexuality and yet Bible believing Christians would consider both practices are explicitly precluded.

          • Trilemma

            To be able to consider both practices explicitly precluded you need to have a Bible verse that explicitly precludes them. In Old Testament times, a woman could be married as young a three. It has been estimated that Rebecca was as young as three to ten years old when she was married off to Isaac.

          • Andrew Mason

            Estimated by whom though? Genesis 24:16 has her as a maiden and a young woman whilst verses 65-67 has Isaac taking her as his wife and having intimate relations immediately upon seeing her, and he is age 40 (Gen 25:20). Those arguing RebeccaRebekah was 3 are arguing something nasty is Godly!!! I’d also note that in English marital relations are distinctly between a man and a woman with others being prohibited – some more explicitly than others. Unless Hebrew is distinctly different to English, which is possible, then references to men and women would automatically preclude boys and girls.

          • Trilemma

            Rabbi Solomon Itzhaki (A.K.A. Rashi a well-known respected Jewish Scholar, 1040 – 1105 AD) and Rabbi Tobiah Ben Eliezer (1050 – 1108 AD) have both concluded Rebekah was three when she married Isaac.

            Genesus 25:59 – NIV: So they sent their sister Rebekah on her way, along with her nurse and Abraham’s servant and his men.

            A grown woman or even an older child would not have needed a nursing woman to accompany her.

          • Ken Abbott

            Who says Deborah (that was her name–Genesis 35:8) was a wet-nurse? Many young unmarried women of that day and subsequently would have traveled with an older female chaperone. Take a non-biblical example, that of Shakespeare’s Juliet, who had an older woman companion that she called “nurse” (famously in the balcony scene).

            The rabbinic dating is highly speculative and turns on several assumptions of facts not in evidence from the text. Furthermore, do you really expect a three-year-old girl to be capable of lugging heavy water jugs to service animals?

          • Trilemma

            You’re the first person I’ve seen try to use Shakespeare to interpret the Old Testament. In Genesis 24:59, the word “nurse” is translated from the Hebrew word “yanaq” which means to suck or to give milk. So yes, Deborah was a wet nurse. Rebekah would have used a water jug appropriate for her size.

          • Ken Abbott

            I didn’t use the Shakespeare example to interpret Genesis, merely as an example of the use of “nurse” to indicate a female chaperone in other cultural contexts. Criminey, T, give a guy a break.

            I will concede the point that Deborah had at least at one time functioned as a wet-nurse and may even have done that for Rebekah in the latter’s infancy. But was she still fulfilling that specific role in Genesis 35 where she is again identified as Rebekah’s nurse decades later?

            How large a water jug can a three-year-old girl carry, especially when full of water? How many trips to that well would she have to make to water those camels “until they have finished drinking” (24:19). And what manner of man makes a little girl run to and fro lugging water for his camels while he watches? This all strains credulity past the breaking point.

          • Trilemma

            If Rebekah had been an adult woman, then she would have been accompanied by her handmaiden rather than her wet nurse, or perhaps nanny would be a better word if Rebekah had stopped nursing.

            What sort of man would just sit back and ogle a young woman struggling to draw water for all his camels? It’s reasonable to think he did most of the work while he observed her and she helped.

          • Ken Abbott

            “It’s reasonable to think.” When such is pure speculation because the text says nary a word in support.

            Really, T, I’m going to start calling you “Heterodoxhund,” because when you latch onto an outrageous idea you’re like a dog with a bone.

          • Trilemma

            What’s so outrageous about speculating that a man would help a girl draw water for his ten camels? What’s so outrageous about the idea of Isaac marrying a girl instead of a grown woman? What’s so outrageous about the idea that people who lived over 3000 years ago lived by different morals? The Bible says nary a word about the minimum age for a girl to be married off. The Bible says nary a word about a woman being intimate with a woman.

          • Ken Abbott

            1. Because you don’t allow the text to speak for itself (or follow one of the cardinal rules of biblical hermeneutics, which is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture). Instead, you eisegetically interpret passages to support a cockeyed theory that comports with your preferences.

            2. Because a three-year-old girl cannot be a wife to a man in the sense conveyed by Scripture–that of being a partner, a helpmeet, and an equal partner in fulfilling biological needs.

            3. Because the law of God is founded in the unchanging character of God. What was moral 3000 years ago remains moral today and will still be moral 10,000 years from now.

            4. On your final claim, you think you can explain away or get around the teaching of Romans 1:26-27. Nice try, T, but it doesn’t work, as even some of the more honest revisionists and apologists for homosexuality have conceded. The only way you can get the Bible to “approve” of homosexuality for either sex is to ignore it or dismiss it.

          • Trilemma, look up the word “casuistry.” Then look up “Pharisee.” Then look up “how to read for principles to learn, not for arguments to cause trouble with.”

            Then report back what you’ve learned. If anything.

          • Trilemma

            Casuistry is the basis of case law in common law, and the standard form of reasoning applied in common law. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their misuse casuistry. Christian principles derived from reading a limited number of Bible verses would benefit from casuistry. For example, reading a couple of Bible verses might cause somebody to come up with the principle that it’s always a sin to lie. Casuistry would help them realize that’s not the case.

          • Ken Abbott

            Oh, this is precious–casuistry practiced in providing a definition of casuistry! Did you read a little further in your dictionary, T? “False application of principles, especially with regards to morals or law.”

          • Trilemma

            The misuse of casuistry is the false application of principles. This is what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing.

          • Ken Abbott

            No, the false application of principles IS casuistry, not a misuse. Please look up the full definition of the word, including the second and any subsequent meanings as supplied.

          • Trilemma

            The basis of case law in common law and the standard form of reasoning applied in common law are not the false application of principles.

          • Ken Abbott

            Casuistry, n.

            1. A method or doctrine dealing with cases of conscience and the resolution of questions of right or wrong in conduct.

            2. False application of principles especially with regard to morals or law [no casuistry will convince us that this serious loss is really a victory].

            Argue with Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.

            It was the second meaning of the word that Tom had in mind when he invited you to look it up.

          • Trilemma

            Romans 1:26 – NASB: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

            It’s not clear what Paul meant by unnatural. How would use the Bible to interpret this verse? For example, you could use Leviticus 20:16 to argue that this verse is talking about sexual relations with an animal which would certainly be a case of exchanging the natural for the unnatural.

            I’m not saying the Bible approves lesbianism. I’m saying it doesn’t condemn it.

          • Ken Abbott

            Typical. Look at the verse in its context:

            “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal men and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:21-27)

            There are several things to note carefully about this passage.

            1. All of this comes about as the righteous judgment of God upon sinful and rebellious humans who deny God, refuse to have him in their thinking, and willfully suppress the truth about God in their wickedness. God in essence tells them, “Have it your way,” in spades. He gives them over repeatedly (Paul uses this phrase three times in the larger passage that includes the end of the chapter) to their sins, allowing them to wallow in their depravity and become progressively worse.

            2. The first level of sin is idolatry, a form of spiritual adultery (men and women are unfaithful to the one God Who Is, the Creator; they turn away from him and satisfy their desire to worship by embracing created things).

            3. Naturally, spiritual adultery gives form to physical sexual immorality, and this is the repeated testimony of human history. It was especially evident in the Greco-Roman world in which Paul was writing. Porneia is a broad term that encompasses all forms of sexual immorality, but Paul probably had in mind in this section of the passage the more common forms of heterosexual promiscuity and immorality.

            4. The next level down is same-sex sexual activity. Please note the full teaching of this passage carefully. Historically, men have tended to be the chief bad actors in sexual immorality because of the heightened sexual drive in men as compared to women. But Paul remarks here that *even their women* have gotten wrapped up in this, “exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones.” But what does Paul immediately add? “*In the same way* the men also abandoned natural relations with women,” turning instead to other men to satisfy their lusts. Paul draws an exact parallel and thereby makes clear he is talking about immoral and unnatural physical sexual activity between persons of the same sex, whether men or women. Contrary to your assertion that it is “not clear” what Paul intended by his reference to unnatural relations, the context makes it abundantly and unavoidably (unless one has an agenda to deny it) clear what he meant.

            5. I haven’t quoted the continuation of the passage here, but the next level down extends the depth and breadth of the immorality of the wicked to breathtaking extent. It has to be read to be appreciated.

          • Trilemma

            “in the same way,” refers to the men also leaving the natural use of the woman but doesn’t mean they did the same thing as the women as a result. It also says the men did shameful things with other men. Paul could have said sinful acts, or depraved acts, or some other word that clearly described what they did was sinful. But he didn’t. Shameful doesn’t mean sinful. Getting drunk is shameful but it is not sinful. If the men were leaving their families to get drunk with the guys, it would be shameful but not sinful and they would of course have physical consequences as a result of getting drunk.

            Romans 1 is talking about a progression into depravity. The step just before actual depravity is shameful but not sinful actions.

          • Ken Abbott

            I offer the following extended commentary on Romans 1:26-27, taken from White and Neill’s book “The Same-Sex Controversy.”
            *****
            These verses form a single sentence, connected directly to the preceding words by “for this reason.” Paul does not depart from his theme [humanity’s sinful suppression of God’s truth] at this
            point. These verses are not some separated, a-contextual leap into another subject. The theme continues without a break. But here Paul teaches that because of the idolatry of mankind God gives them over to “degrading passions” (NASB), “shameful lusts” (NIV), “vile passions” (NKJV). However the phrase is
            translated, it obviously refers to desires and passions that are dishonorable and indicative of God’s judgment upon those who indulge in selfish, lustful behavior.

            Paul then gives a fitting example of these “degrading passions,” one that illustrates “twistedness” at the very core of human identity. He first mentions lesbianism, describing, clearly, adult,
            mutual lesbian activity. This is seen in the description given in both verses 26 and 27, for verse 27 begins with “and in the same way,” indicating that the description of male homosexual activity in that verse is parallel to the lesbian activity in verse 26. Hence, the description of lesbianism as “against nature” in verse 26 would apply to male homosexuality as well, and the description of mutuality and “indecent acts” in verse 27 would apply to lesbian activity as well.

            There is a note of sadness in Paul’s words, “for even their women…” (NIV and NKJV). The female, as a result of the twistedness of sin, exchanges the “natural sexual function” (the most basic meaning of the words Paul uses) for that which is “against nature.” This is a voluntary act. These women exchange the natural function for that which is against nature.There is a choice involved here, a choice that expresses the twistedness of the rebellion against the Creator that Paul is illustrating. The “natural sexual function” is still known to these women, but they choose to “exchange” it. Paul uses the very same term he had used in the preceding verse, “exchanging the truth of God for the lie,” so obviously this exchange carries the same negative character: the exchange of God’s truth for a lie is the same as exchanging the natural sexual use for the unnatural.The choice is purposeful in the first, and it is in the second as well.

            The meaning of “against nature” is defined by the context. The word translated “sexual function” is not ambiguous or questionable. The conjunction of the word for “natural” is likewise clear, and the resulting phrase “natural sexual function” is easily understood both by Paul’s original audience and by any unbiased person today. He is referring to the way God created human beings, male and female, and the sexual union that takes
            place between a man and a woman. This is what has been “exchanged” in the downward spiral of sinfulness. God created women with a natural sexual function. When one rebels against God’s truth and exchanges it for a lie, that lie impacts everything else in one’s life. The natural function is exchanged for that which
            is against nature, that is, unnatural, against the created order.

            Verse 27 is a continuation of the same thought. It begins “in the same way,” tying the two verses together without question. Verse 26 spoke of “the women,” and verse 27 begins “the men.” The men “abandoned” or “left” the “natural use” of the woman. Paul uses the same words here he used of lesbianism: these men have abandoned (another word signifying choice) the natural sexual use of the woman (“natural relations,” NIV). God’s intention in the sexual expression of His creatures is to be
            between a man and a woman, just as it was with Adam and Eve. This is the natural sexual function. But these men abandon it. They know what it is, but they reject it, they “leave” it.

            Paul’s description of homosexuality is clear and without compromise. “They burned in their desire toward one another” (NASB) is rendered by the NIV, “were inflamed with lust for one another.” Both terms speak clearly of sexual lust and desire. These desires are consuming. Such would point us toward an ongoing lifestyle, not a single incident of sexual debauchery. And these desires are mutual. The desire goes both ways, one homosexual man desiring another, and vice-versa. This point is
            important to remember in reference to revisionist attempts to blunt the force of this passage.

            The mutuality of this desire is emphasized by the phrase “men and women.” The apostle leaves no doubt as to his reference: adult homosexuals. And these are active men: They act upon their desires, accomplishing what Paul identifies as literally “the shameful deed,” or as it is rendered by the NASB and NIV, “indecent acts.” The term comes from an old word that referred to something as “deformed,” and hence flows into the concept of perversion and deviation that is part and parcel of this section of
            the chapter. There is no possible way of reading this term as referring to anything neutral or simply “unusual” or “out of the norm.” Paul views homosexual activity as shameful or indecent.

            This fact is further proven by the final phrase of verse 27. He writes, “and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Man cannot expect to engage in deviant activity
            without receiving the “due penalty.” While interpreters differ over the extent and meaning of the “penalty” and how it is received “in their own persons,” a number of facts are beyond question. First, the fact that a “penalty” or “punishment” is attached to the “error” of performing these “shameful deeds” reinforces the understanding that these are sinful deeds, worthy of retribution. Second, this is a “due” or “necessary” punishment; it is fitting that such deeds receive a penalty: God’s justice demands that the twisting of His created order receive a punitive response. Third, their “error” is not merely a “miscalculation” as we might use the term “error” today. Indeed, a better rendering of this term, which often is used in the New Testament to refer to being misled or drawn from the right path, is “perversion,” just as the NIV renders it, “the due penalty for their perversion.”
            *****
            I apologize for the length of the selection, but it is necessary to get the right meaning of Paul’s language in its context and how it fits into the overall structure of Romans 1:18-32.

            Parenthetically, T, the New Testament writers don’t make the distinction between “shameful” and “sinful” that you want to make. The above commentary makes that abundantly clear. That which is shameful produces guilt, dishonor, disgrace, and condemnation. These are all properties of sin. Humans have an limitless capacity for self-excuse and a perpetual lack of understanding of the depth and degree and consequence of sin before the eyes of a holy God.

        • Kathy

          So much is just common sense, Trilemma. All deviation from the God-given sexual expression between a man and a woman within the bond of marriage for pleasure and procreation is an abomination to our Creator. All that you mention is certainly included (I could reference more), but why would intimacy between females be the only deviation excluded from that list?

          • GPS Daddy

            Kathy, Trilemma has been around a while on The Stream comments. There has been many who have debated Him/Her including Tom Gilson. Trilemma’s MO is transgenderism. Everything seems to revolve around this for this person. He/Her needs to have the bible in error that way their views on transgenderism is also just another valid view. As an example Trilemma recently tried to make every translation from the Greek or Hebrew into the English that was not a direct translation an “error” therefore claiming that English bibles were full of errors.

          • John Connor

            Are you the streams tattle tale? smh/

          • GPS Daddy

            Yep, someone needs to tell new people who the trolls are so they don’t waste their time in vain. If they choose to engage after that then thats their choice. But its fair that they get warned.

          • John Connor

            Too funny.

          • Kathy

            I have engaged with this individual numerous times and felt as if I have been rather compassionate and tried to be understanding of their perceived situation, something I conveyed in my reply to you that was deleted. I figured they were seeking answers. Now it’s getting ridiculous.

            This person is not an atheist, but I corresponded with one off and on for a year. He used every excuse he could muster for not believing, even telling me I needed to “demand” that God reveal Himself in a burning bush so that he would believe. I told him He still would not because He doesn’t WANT to. Never heard from him again. I believe that is the case with Trilemma as well.

          • davidrev17

            Amen dear sister! You just revealed both a theological, thus biblical mouthful about Homo sapiens’ “fallen” nature, or heart condition!

            At least “T” won’t be able to unjustifiably say that those hypocritical Christian’s on the Stream didn’t care, since many on this blog have consistently engaged him, but to no avail so far?

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

            “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-21/ESV)

          • GPS Daddy

            Yea, I’m not sure why people try to twist Jesus into their view. If Jesus does not fit then move on. Why put the energy into trying to debunk the bible? But I think we know why… its that still small voice that keeps calling.

          • Kathy

            I responded to you this morning, but it was removed…go figure.

          • davidrev17

            I’m amazed Trilemma, that you, as a “fallen,” finite pea-brained creature, continue to foolishly (i.e., in genuine Sisyphean-style) spit-into-the-gale-force-winds of infinite omniscience, by accusing Almighty God of being guilty of intellectial/rational tomfoolery, moral improprieties etc. – yet incoherently think NOTHING of demonstrating such “fallen” tomfoolery yourself? How so??

            It’s like you’re desperately trying to convince yourself, that just like the ol’ Burger King commercials used to assure us: we really can “Have It [Our] Your Way” with God, “in Christ”; loosely translated as “having my [sin] cake, and eating it too.”

            We human beings, in our current “fallen” state, are helplessly arrogant; prideful [i.e., I, ME, MY-oriented] to the exclusion of all else; autonomous; self-obsessed; SELFISH; wicked and/or reprobate – aka constantly demanding to “have things our way.” And the overwhelming preponderance of empirical historical evidence for OUR typically manifesting this “human” tragedy – not to mention irrebuttable reality – should present a not-too-difficult spiritual diagnosis for one to accept, or at least evaluate, based on solid supporting evidence.

            And that IS a fools game my friend; because we wicked “fallen” creatures are simply not in the same category of a transcendent, self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent “three-times Holy” Creator! We ain’t God, and He ain’t us! Is that really so distasteful-of-a-concept for you to swallow “T”?? I’m inclined to think you’re unnecessarily wasting the God-given, or appointed “time” He’s provided you on His planet, by pursuing this I, ME, MY oriented “rabbit trail.”

            Plus, like yourself currently, I also remember having that same fence-straddling, “gray-area” idea with regard to pursuing the moral uprightness plainly taught in both Old/New Testament’s, back when I came to “know the Lord Jesus” almost 22-years ago – and even for a considerable amount of time thereafter – as He’d simultaneously declared to have come to “know me” as well, through my “salvation” experience.

            Yet thankfully, I came to reluctantly, thus finally bow-the-knee of my heart to this particularly challenging area, in which I’d been GLORIOUSLY WRONG up until then; yet too pridefully/defiantly self-obsessed to admit that God actually “knew” better about moral matters, than I did. Wow! What a concept, huh??

            There is a Creator God “T” – unfortunately we’re not Him! And tragically, you sound an awful lot like any “fallen” someone of the “specially-created” species Homo sapiens, of whom is in direct competition to reign as the “Creator of all things” upon this, His planet…at least to me you do??

            (e.g., see Matthew 7:21-23; John 17:1-3; Galatians 4:8-9; 2 Timothy 2:19; and please read the “Parable of the Soils,” whereby you just might find your own life’s “heart condition” described by the Lord Jesus.)

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways.” This is the Lord’s declaration.“For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9/ESV)

            “But as it is written: What eye did not see and ear did not hear, and what never entered the human mind— God prepared this for those who love Him. Now God has revealed these things to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who among men, knows the thoughts of a man, except the spirit of the man that is in him?

            “In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who comes from God, so that we may understand what has been freely given to us by God. We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.”

            “But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.”

            “The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. For who has known the Lord’s mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:9-16/HCSB)

            “Marvel not that I say unto you, that “YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN” (John 3:7, emphasis added).

          • Trilemma

            I have never accused Almighty God of being guilty of intellectual/rational ineptitude, moral improprieties etc. I’ve accused Christians of those but never God.

            Why do Christians desperately want things their way? Why do Christians desperately want to condemn women being intimate with women when the Bible says nothing about it? Sounds like Christians want it their way no matter what the Bible actually says.

          • davidrev17

            “Why do Christians desperately want things their way? Why do Christians desperately want to condemn women being intimate with women when the Bible says nothing about it? Sounds like Christians want it their way no matter what the Bible actually says.”

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            So let me see if I’m tracking correctly with what seems to be your primary grievance about we Christian’s, and our otherwise imaginary, non-existent God.

            You obviously don’t consider the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to be Divinely inspired; thus absolutely binding authoritative TRUTH for ALL people, in ALL places, and at all times. However, I do….as well as countless others on earth as I write this.

            Yet, you’re deeply troubled because WE hypocritical Christian’s aren’t in reasonable (or even strict) compliance with what YOU, an atheist?, strenuously assert to be THE “absolutely authoritative,” correct interpretation of this same-s_x issue we find contained in a hopelessly spurious mass of so-called ancient “religious” history – recorded for no authoritative purposes other than personal, or cultural?

            Is that almost accurate?

          • Trilemma

            I do not consider the Bible inspired by God because it was written by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men. I am not an atheist.

            I am troubled by Christians who use the Bible to bully people when the Bible doesn’t even condemn what their doing. Can you quote a Bible verse that explicitly says anything about a woman being intimate with a woman?

          • davidrev17

            Hey, thank you, as that does help clear things up considerably. So I’ll just do one paragraph of yours at a time.

            What you’ve stated in your first paragraph represents nothing more than an irresponsible opinion, that’s not only wildly imaginative, but demonstrably UN-true throughout the text of both Old/New Testament’s.

            Obviously, this means you’re trafficking in these bizarre, baseless opinions that typically circulate amongst the lost when it comes to the concept of Divine inspiration; since the Bible unambiguously claims “DI” for itself in roughly 40-places of the NT’s 27-books.

            The same holds true throughout the Masoretic Text of the OT; whereby easily 2,000 direct references are made about “DI” in its 39-Books. Fortunately, this is an area of immensely beneficial study of which should go a long, long way toward opening your presently “blinded” spiritual “eyes & ears.”

            Also, the numerical figures I just cited can be easily confirmed – but I won’t do your homework for you! Why? Because you NEED to reconcile [i.e., correct] your bush-league erroneous assumptions, by carefully comparing the unassailable scholarly facts/work that’s been done in this area, with those of your own misguided notions.

            You can also locate the same info on this stuff in any reputable study bible. Once again: the Holy Scriptures are of NO aid/assistance to your cause in this instance “T.”

            Shalom!

          • Trilemma

            But, can you quote a Bible verse that explicitly says anything about a woman being intimate with a woman?

          • davidrev17

            Why – or even how for that matter – could an infinitely Holy (i.e., morally perfect) omniscient Creator, turn-a-blind, thus disinterested “eye” to ANY same-s_x-related activity on our part – when one’s engaging in physical heterosexual relations outside the covenantal bond of marriage, is decisively spoken against throughout the Bible’s content??

            (BTW: I’m a single “born straight” male, of whom has been fighting to successfully remain CELIBATE for more than 19-years now. So please demonstrate for me, from Scripture too, just how it’s roundly ASSUMED that any same-s_x activity engaged in by either male or female, is somehow acceptable to this “three times Holy” God?

            How do “they” get the proverbial pass-from-God, when WE straight folk have to toe-the-line of moral purity in this area? Do tell, please! (e.g., please read 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 for a bit of relevant context.)

          • Ray

            Trilemma, Why do you so desperately want things your way, while God has clearly instructed and commanded otherwise?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why do you keep stating lies about the Bible?

            “Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

          • tara

            Are you looking for a way Out or a way In? If you are looking for a way out, you can find many exits. If you’re looking for a way In there is only 1 way…1 door. His name is Jesus. His desire is that Each and Every person be Married to Him. Become fully committed and submitted to Him. Become One with Him Spirit, Body and Soul! Saying Yes to Him requires that we say No to Sin. SIN SEPARATES US FROM GOD, BECAUSE IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF HOLINESS. HOLINESS DRAWS US CLOSER TO GOD! We cannot become one with Him if we are still entangled in Sin. HOLINESS TRANSFORMS US FROM GLORY TO GLORY INTO THE IMAGE OF CHRIST HIMSELF! THE IMAGE WE WERE ORIGINALLY CREATED IN …THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD!
            Fully Committed Christians are
            not looking for a loophole to continue in any form of sin (sexual immorality included), but are actively, agressively and continually looking for ways to move away from sin and draw closer to God. The first three chapters of Genesis (before sin entered the world) clearly presents Gods perfect will for every aspect of life, including marriage and sexual expression. He didn’t have to tell them not to engage in sexual activity with anyone else, because He only made 1 man and 1 woman. Not 1 man and 3 women, or 2 men or 2 women. He didn’t make an adult male and a 4 year old female. He created and demostrated His perfect will for marriage and human sexual expression. By 1 man sin entered the world causing a seperation of humans from God and separation from man and woman. And the rest is history.

          • Trilemma

            Does the Bible give any indication that intimacy between two women should be considered a form of sexual expression?

          • Kathy

            Of course not, but it seems that is what you are referring to, not just confiding in or involved in a platonic friend relationship. I have suggested a site that should answer many of your questions like this clearly and concisely…don’t know if you ever referenced it. gotquestions (dot) org. I’ve never read it, but heard many positive reviews about a book by Rosaria Butterfield, but can’t remember the name of it…I’ll look it up. It may also help to answer your questions.

          • Kathy

            “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert”. I noticed she has a new book out since that one and videos as well.

          • Trilemma

            I frequently visit the gotquestions site and I’ve read the book by Rosario Butterfield. In today’s culture, a woman being intimate with a woman is considered to be sexual expression but does the Bible indicate that it also considers such intimacy to be sexual expression?

          • Kathy

            I don’t pretend to be able to relate to your struggles concerning this issue. We are all, in our own way, trying to help you understand not our own opinions, but what God’s Word says. It is clear that God ordained marriage between a man and woman. If He tells us that we are not to divorce, with the exception of adultery, it appears that He is conveying that sex is bonding and that bond is broken when a spouse is intimate with someone outside of the marriage. Same for relations with anyone before marriage. You develop a bond with that person that should be restricted to marriage. So, from what I understand, you should not develop that kind of a bond with anyone unless you are in a male-female marriage.

        • davidrev17

          Just posted a comment to you, but I mistakenly hit Kathy’s “Reply” sensor, just below

    • Joel

      You obviously never read the Bible.

      • Trilemma

        Can you quote a Bible verse that explicitly says something about a woman being intimate with a woman?

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Still doing your best and Satan’s very own “Did God really say?”; I see. Are you so foolish as to believe you are actually being successful with anyone?

      This OLD attempt at duplicity and guile has long ago been addressed many times. It’s synonymous with the typical chicanery of those who say, “Jesus never said anything about Homosexuality or SSM.”

      Trilemma says ‘he Bible never says anything about a woman being intimate with a woman.”

      Jesus, who is the Word, says, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

      • Trilemma

        Yes, I claimed the Bible doesn’t explicitly say anything about a woman being intimate with a woman. There’s a number of verses in the Bible that explicitly say something about men having sex with men but none about a woman being intimate with a woman. Instead of quoting John 8:44 in order to call me a liar why not quote the verse that explicitly says something about woman being intimate with woman?

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Just so you know, I’m not casting any pearls your way, this is for anyone else that might actually still have a conscience and perhaps a willingness to surrender their life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ as their new Master.

          Kathy (see below) already gave Trilemma one. See his/her response below. It’s a nice attempt, and the typical attempt to make God’s Word say something it doesn’t, but it falls way short on its face. One doesn’t even have to be a Greek scholar to understand.

          Verse 26 says “Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts.” (GNB) I chose that translation because it has the word “pervert” which is not only apropos but one most folks, I would imagine, easily understand and it relates directly to the changing the “natural” into the “unnatural” ACTS.

          Now, just to add a bit to that, when one does look at the Greek they will see the word “use” which in the Greek is “chrēsis”. That would is used ONLY 2x in the NT and BOTH times it refers to the SEXUAL “use” of a WOMAN’S body.

          Additionally, when one reads Verse 26 they see the word “Even”. This clearly implies that Lesbianism is “even” or MORE contrary to the “natural” than homosexuality between men. One doesn’t have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure that one out. Just spend a little time on a farm or think about the last time you saw a female dog try to hump anything it can grab a hold of.

          Lastly, look at the next verse. See the “likewise” in Verse 27? Again, it’s not rocket science. Trilemma attempts to use Biblical gymnastics to have you jumping all over Scripture to define what “unnatural” is when it’s right there in the very next verse.

          His/her Hermeneutical principles are sorely lacking and his/her Exegesis is beyond pathetic. It’s completely absent and totally in the realm of the Eisegesis one uses when citing Scripture just as Satan did to Jesus. It’s an attempt to deceive and cause one to fall.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Well can you be fat & be a Christian ..?
    Sure there are obvious distinctions between obesity ( you know – bring zaftig, plump, curvy or any other description that hefty lady prefers – fat men are just “big” or “extra large” ) & sexual deviance. Though both are detrimental to ones state of mind. Not to mention the condition of the heart.
    So, is ones relationship w/God the Father through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ & sealed by the Spirit of the Living God predicated upon behavior ? Is it not rather established upon the shed blood of the Savior & faith in His name ?
    Perhaps we need to catalog a list of sins that are too great for the mercy of God to eradicate from our spirit. Thats not hard to do. there aren’t any. There is no sin resistant to that blood. What can wash away my sin ” ? You know – “nothing but the blood of Jesus” .
    Am I discounting the place of holiness & obedience to the word of God ? Not at all.
    The new birth is a spiritual thing. It’s my recreated human spirit that has fellowship w/my Creator. Everything else is a work in progress . Its got to catch up to my spirit. You know that “work out your own salvation w/ fear & trembling” kind of thing.
    The one who has faith in Christ & is a partaker of His kingdom is not a homosexual. There are no homosexuals in Christ. Hey, that obese person “in Christ” is not fat either. What ? How crazy is that ..?! Not crazy but scriptural . Haven’t you read – “if anyone is on Christ he is a new creation. Old things have passed away. All things ( in the realm of the spirit man ) have become new,
    That fat guy that just embraced faith in Christ is still fat. Is the scripture misleading us ?
    Not at all. you have to ” compare spiritual things w/spiritual ” where rightly dividing Gods word is concerned. Same w/every stain of sin in a new ( or even seasoned ) believer.
    So my brother who’s turned from unbelief to faith in his Redeemer while still wearing the homosexual old man in his ‘ flesh ‘ is seen by God as one who He through that efficacious shed blood of His Son calls that new man in Christ – righteous !
    That righteousness is based on nothing other than that believers ID in Christ. Sure theres no excuse for continuing in sin. Theres also really no excuse for being overweight. Both afflictions take time to leave their host home. What the scripture I believe references as the “old man” . We’ve got to put “him”off. That usually doesn’t happen overnight. It would seem great if it did, but then how would we develop “character” that pleases God ?
    Through faith ! Nothing else please Him.
    So, the answer to the question ‘ can you be gay & be a Christian ? ” Well, thats easy to answer. NO you can’t. It’s not semantics. If your in Christ your not even ( in some sense of the word ) even a male or a female. We are all one in Christ Jesus. even if the behaviors of overindulgence & deviant appetites still war against the soul …..

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      You really wasted a lot of time and space there. When one starts off with a false equivalence, which is basically a lie, ya can pretty well tell the rest will just be more of the same – false.

      God never talks about one being “fat”. There are many people who are fat and it has nothing to do with the sin of gluttony.

      The rest of that blather is as old as Gnosticism and Antinomianism itself.

      • Howard Rosenbaum

        Sure. By “false equivalence” you must be referring to a concept or thought that contradicts a personal bias . Not one that is a logical fallacy. Had you an objective understanding of my remarks or perhaps even read past the first line, you presumably as an objective reader would have logically ( if for no other reason ) not taken such offense.
        So, do you object to the inclusion of homosexuality in the same sentence w/other less obviously noxious sin ( in a culturally Christian context ) or is it the other way around ? There are a lot of things scripture seemingly neglects to spell out in “black & white”. That’s kind of where the HS & the “full counsel” of Gods word comes in. God leaves no “stone” of human experience “unturned”. Not even the relative levels of self indulgence where our appetites are concerned. ( all of those “nasty” appetites )
        Look, I’m not on a “fat crusade”. Nor am I referencing body types. Sure some folk are more prone to the appearance of being “large” than are others. Perhaps you are among the former ? Regardless, had you grasped the sentiment expressed in what you refer to as “blather” a very different conclusion would have been drawn. Even by a ” fat ” fellow or gal.
        Btw, the grace of which I spoke of in my offending remarks is a whole lot older than those of Gnosticism & Antinomianism you felt compelled to reference. Those btw are a curious pair of ideologies given the protest you proffer over my biblically principled precepts …..
        ( Oh, 12% – 18 % body fat is considered optimum for bodily health – I guess that allows for a reasonable frame of reference where gluttony is concerned … )

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          No. By “false equivalence”, I meant exactly what it means. You might try assuming one actually means what they say instead of projecting some kind of faux-omniscience were you actually think you can tell another what they mean.

          And if you need further evidence that you have deluded yourself into a self-imposed god-complex, here’s more: contrary to your claim, I actually read the entirety of your blather and looked at it objectively. Nor was I the least bit offended. I simply saw it for what it was. A load of tripe.

          And no, contrary to your fiery dart attempt, while I am carrying a few more pounds that I probably should I’ve always been blessed with being able to eat anything I want to and as much as I want to and not have a problem. Had YOU grasped the sentiment expressed in what I said you would’ve understood that I was actually referring to those who have a medical problem or genetic disposition to being overweight and their weight has nothing to do with Sin. Ergo, the false equivalence.

          There’s nothing “Biblically principled” about your precepts. It’s a bunch of word salad tossed out from your delusional self-imposed god-complex and you just proved that with your reply.

          So, now that you’ve publicly discredited yourself by revealing your heart (Matt. 15:18), I’ll just say thank you because it makes it easier for others to see thru your lies.

          • Howard Rosenbaum

            Wow ! Boy did I pull a trigger or what ..?
            So, the crux of your argument is predicated upon some presumption of my not “assuming” what you proffer as proof of some kind of delusional God complex on my part ..? Well then theres little to no hope that anything anybody whose position on anything you disagree with will penetrate the appearance of that implacable heart your sentiment suggests.
            So you read the entirety of my “blather” ? Yet you failed to reply w/any concrete scriptural or even logical repudiation of what you clearly seem to take “offense ” towards. As to my understanding what you suggest I failed to grasp regarding medical conditions , genetic dispositions or any other criteria relative to ones weight, you only had to read the reference I made in my reply to your curt remarks. I noted what should go w/out saying to folk willing to think just a little bit critically . Yet you failed to grasp the distinction made.
            To conclude that my remarks suggest that I’m making apologies for sin is preposterous ! Not only do you seem unwilling to be objective in these matters but you also claim to prevail as judge & jury over MY heart. You presume that your one & only reference to scripture justifies such hubris !
            Your misplaced sentiment & mistaken assertions , your blatant antagonism & convoluted thinking precede your illusions of virtue. Nevertheless In spite of my chastisement & harsh words , I not unlike the God whom you accuse me of arrogating
            ( you know , that God delusion you claim for me ) hold no ill will towards you. I hope this grace that you ignorantly disparage teaches you something along the lines of “the more excellent way ” …

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Uh, that would be an “or what”. Don’t flatter yourself. While that may well have been your intention it fell way short.

            As to the rest of your comments is just more diarrhea of the mouth. Just one long run on nonsensical babbling statement interspersed with more of your deluded self-imposed god-complex.

            Now in another attempt to perhaps help you see the light and as an educational experience for others I’ll address your latest comments here more specifically:

            “So, the crux of your argument is predicated upon some presumption of my not “assuming” what you proffer as proof of some kind of delusional God complex on my part ..?”

            No, the crux of my argument that you have a self-imposed god-complex, which is by definition “delusional”, is your constant and repeated habit of climbing up on your throne when you step into the delusion of being God where you can actually claim what somebody else thinks or why they said or did what they did.

            “Well then theres little to no hope that anything anybody whose position on anything you disagree with will penetrate the appearance of that implacable heart your sentiment suggests.”

            Exhibit #??. I’ve lost count!! More on my “implacable heart” later.

            “So you read the entirety of my “blather” ?”

            Yes. Despite your false accusation based on your faux-omniscience stemming from your self-posed god-complex. I made myself VERY clear and yet you still question that. That speaks on its own,.

            “Yet you failed to reply w/any concrete scriptural or even logical repudiation of what you clearly seem to take “offense ” towards.”

            Clearly only in your blinded eyes. I already addressed that to. As to the Scriptural or logical repudiation, I’ll get back to that.

            “As to my understanding what you suggest I failed to grasp regarding medical conditions , genetic dispositions or any other criteria relative to ones weight, you only had to read the reference I made in my reply to your curt remarks. I noted what should go w/out saying to folk willing to think just a little bit critically . Yet you failed to grasp the distinction made. ”

            No, YOU FAILED to make the distinction I did. Your words are there in B&W for all to see.

            “To conclude that my remarks suggest that I’m making apologies for sin is preposterous !”

            Oh really? Okie dokie, let’s get things right out in the open for all to see. Can an unrepentant homosexual practicing the sin of Homosexuality while professing to be a Christian go to Heaven? Yes or No. Can two Homosexuals in a SSM that profess to be Christian go to Heaven? Yes or No.

            “Not only do you seem unwilling to be objective in these matters but you also claim to prevail as judge & jury over MY heart.”

            Boy howdy, you do like to violate John 7:24 on a regular basis don’t you? Perhaps if you cut the Giant Sequoia Tree outta your eyes socket you would see better and things wouldn’t “seem” to you as they do. Unsure as to why I’d say that? It’s as clear as crystal right there in that last comment “but you also claim to prevail as judge & jury over MY heart.”

            Now, scroll up a tad. See YOU saying I have an “implacable heart” ? Here’s the difference between me and you and what you’ve said and I’ve said. I have judged your heart based on Matt. 15:18 and I spoke specifically to what you have said. You, on the other hand, characterize my heart as Unforgiving based on your PERCEPTIONS.

            “You presume that your one & only reference to scripture justifies such hubris !”

            Exhibit # what now?

            “Your misplaced sentiment & mistaken assertions , your blatant antagonism & convoluted thinking precede your illusions of virtue.”

            Exhibit # what now? However many it is, I doubt you’ll recognize it still. Moreover, that is a false accusation and you have borne false witness against me. So take that and Matt. 5:23-24 with you when you head off to church on Sunday to worship God in spirit and truth and see how that works out for ya. Oh, and btw, I just love all the Scripture you cited to back up those assertions! LOL While you’re looking for some to come back with, ya might wanna take a little look-see at Prov. 6:16-19 and 19:5,9 to see what God has to say to you about those false accusations and bearing false witness.

            Nevertheless In spite of my chastisement & harsh words , I not unlike the God whom you accuse me of arrogating
            ( you know , that God delusion you claim for me ) hold no ill will towards you. I hope this grace that you ignorantly disparage teaches you something along the lines of “the more excellent way ”

            Another false accusation unless you are agreeing with me that the Grace you refer to is the Gnostic or Antinomian “grace” is which I do disparage it and it wouldn’t be ignorant to do so but rather righteous.

          • Howard Rosenbaum

            Wow & wow …!
            Once again & in the face of apparent contradiction you do err. The very thing that you accuse me of failing to recognize is that which you employ – this “self imposed God complex. My motive for having responded to your ersatz commentaries is simple.
            Scripture encourages us to ” let not your good be evil spoken of “. Had you a motive predicated upon something other than some misappropriated “self righteousness” you might be capable of discerning the distinction between your comments & mine.
            You use scripture references to substantiate your accusations about my perceived character while missing the “spirit of the word”. You know, that divine balance between truth & its application.
            Look , you have the liberty to disagree w/anyone you choose to. Even the Master Himself. Though you don’t have that right . I’m not speaking in terms of a government sponsored right. I’m referring rather to the inherent God given provision of a faith which works by love. The same concept you seem to have grappled with in my initial comments regarding Mr Gilson’s original question . Yeah, scripture says ” by faith we understand”. A faith that cannot function as designed by “the author & perfecter of our faith” unless love remains its motive.
            That Mr Blaricome is the real “crux of the matter “. That is what seems to be the distinction separating your motives from mine. Though I have just set myself up for another false ” God complex” accusation . Your steadfast misunderstanding of my remarks regarding homosexuality is not surprising , given the tone of your replies.
            Scripture never has given any justification for the deception a homosexual life style creates. It as you will agree , condemns homosexuality. As to what it does not condemn ..? Well you will draw your own conclusions regardless of any biblical exegesis I have already provided . That again is your liberty to do so – even in the face of my limitations & your own ….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. (Prov. 18:2)

            I have specifically cited where you exercised a faux-omniscience while sitting on your self-imposed throne. So your “I’m rubber, you’re glue” doesn’t hold water since I have NEVER done that here even once. Your attempt to deflect with such petulant comments are a further reflection on your pride and blindness. Need evidence? Both of your self-imposed god-complex and foolishness? Just look at your very next sentence!!!!

            “Had you a motive predicated upon something other than some misappropriated “self righteousness” you might be capable of discerning the distinction between your comments & mine.”

            Now, without addressing the rest of your prattle that amounts to nothing more than diarrhea of the mouth let it be pointed out that, not surprisingly, you did NOT answer the direct questions I posed to you.

            Which I think gives us an answer and probably tells us all we need to know about how to receive anything you have to say regarding Scripture.

            And THAT is the real “crux” of the matter. Truth or Lies.

          • Howard Rosenbaum

            Wow , wow & wow ..!
            You know this is really starting to get old. Your claim objectivity but you repeatedly tread upon the same bitter waters. I took the liberty of looking thru a selection of your comments on Disqus. Mine are also public so I would not prevent anyone as well, from gleaning a consensus of my views & at times a little bit of self indulgence. After all this is as much entertaining as it is ( hopefully ) profitable.
            I apparently am not the only subject of your “wrath”. Seems that you are very easily triggered & substitute a mix of angst & vitriol in many of your posts . Posts that are replies to folk you obviously disagree with. You also seem to keep it going for what most reasonable folk would consider both overbearing & not a little bit impulsive.
            Happily , while I’ve encountered a few on this & another site who fail to appreciate some of my sentiment whether political or theological , I’ve yet to meet up w/the likes of one like you.
            It’s unprecedented. Even the leftist trolls who have trolled me have shown less antagonism than have you in these last few responses . Remember it was you that initiated the tidal wave of insults. Yes, I’ve reciprocated in a measure, but w/out the animus so prevalent from you.
            As to those answers to your questions you protest I left unanswered ? Well apparently you are either incapable or unwilling to understand what even a casual reader could ascertain. You may choose to further your crusade of self vindication but you’ll do it w/out my participation from here on in . It’s no longer entertaining & certainly not profitable ….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wow , wow & wow ..!

            That showboating speaks for itself.

            “You know this is really starting to get old.”

            Uh, no. It actually got old a long time ago. Like the first time you repeated your self-imposed faux-omniscience & continued display of the psychotic god-complex.

            ” Your claim objectivity but you are repeatedly treading the same bitter waters. I took the liberty of looking thru a selection of your comments on Disqus. Mine are also public so I would not prevent anyone as well, from gleaning a consensus of my views & at times a little bit of self indulgence. After all this is as much entertaining as it is ( hopefully ) profitable. ”

            And now more truth comes out. Entertaining, huh? Have you ever seen the definition of “internet troll”?

            “I apparently am not the only subject of your “wrath”.”

            “Wrath” has nothing to do with it. And yes, you are not the first who has expressed lies and tried to do Satan’s bidding that I’ve shined the light on. So what?

            “Seems that you are very easily triggered & substitute a mix of angst & vitriol in many of your posts.”

            Ahhh, the ad homs and fiery darts again. Not to mention the continued violation of John 7:24. Which is practicing sin.

            “Posts that are replies to folk you obviously disagree with.”

            Yeah, well, so? If you did as you say, which I don’t doubt you did, which speaks volumes for itself, you also noticed that I laud those who speak the truth. Now I wonder why you failed to mention that? No need to reply. I actually don’t wonder why. Doubt anyone else does either.

            “You also seem to keep it going for what most reasonable folk would consider both overbearing & not a little bit impulsive.”

            More demonstrated delusion and self-imposed god-complex. Maybe some day you’ll wake up and realize your idea of what’s “reasonable” – well, wasn’t. But that’s typical of those who’ve deluded themselves into thinking they know what everybody else thinks and does.

            “Happily , while I’ve encountered a few on this & another site who fail to appreciate some of my sentiment whether political or theological , I’ve yet to meet up w/the likes of one like you.”

            And? So?

            “It’s unprecedented.”

            Nope. Wrong again. Faux-omniscience fails once more.

            “Even the leftist trolls who have trolled me have shown less antagonism than have you in these last few responses .”

            You’ve mistaken truth and exposing lies as antagonism. Nice job at Distraction & Diversion though ineffective.

            “Remember it was you that initiated the tidal wave of insults. Yes, I’ve reciprocated in a measure, but w/out the animus so prevalent from you.”

            You just keep telling yourself that. Denial and Delusion are powerful forces. My comments are there for all to see in B&W.

            “As to those answers to your questions you protest I left unanswered ? Well apparently you are either incapable or unwilling to understand what even a casual reader could ascertain. You may choose to further your crusade of self vindication but you’ll do it w/out my participation from here on in . It’s no longer entertaining & certainly not profitable ….”

            And so he’s caught once again not answering the question. His response? Hurl another helping of word vomit and walk away without answering the question.

            Now I’m not omniscient nor under the delusion that I am but I do suppose that most people can see that for what it is. When one has a question put to them point blank and refuses to answer it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why.

  • Dena

    Jesus died for our sins so we can be saved. Grace isn’t cheap. We cheapen grace when we think we can be “saved”, yet sin all we want too. If we live a sinful lifestyle by parting, drinking, sleeping around – do we really love God? A person who excuses sin and practices it as a way of life – I question if they understand what salvation means.

  • Kathy

    Haha, funny! No problem, I’ve done it myself. Always enjoy your posts anyway.

  • Dr. Jim Heyman

    Revelation 21:8 (NKJV) 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,
    abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all
    liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and
    brimstone, which is the second death.”

    Revelation 22:15 (NKJV) 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      LOL. I just quoted those above. Guess I should’ve read the comments section first! LOL

      Obviously no need to tell you but for anyone who doesn’t know those are the word of Jesus Himself!

  • Andrew Rodriguez

    Tom, if you read these comments, I’m wondering then what might be your view on the approach of an organization like Love Boldly. I’m seeing a growing movement in Christianity of hesitancy to teach truth (even if one believes the traditional biblical viewpoint) and instead just love LGBT people in the same way before and after they come to Christianity. No offers for help addressing homosexuality and no accountability. I have serious misgivings about such an approach.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    “If by “Christian” we mean someone who is in right standing with God, that answer is way above the pay grade of humans.”

    Wrong. Matt. 7:15-20 & 21-23, 1Jn 3:7-10, 1st 6:9-10, Rev. 21:8 & 22:15 and more.

    “We can’t know who is in that relationship with God and who isn’t.”

    Wrong. Matt. 15:18, Mk. 7:21-23, Lk. 6:45 and more.

    Need more evidence? John 14:6. Now, with that in mind, someone comes to you and says, “Jesus is not the only way. Just one of many ways. And Jesus wasn’t God. Just a man.” Is that not calling Jesus a Liar? So tell me, how can one deny Jesus and be a Christ-follower?

Inspiration
Why We Need the Wise Counsel of Good Friends
Casey Chalk
More from The Stream
Connect with Us