Okay, the title is intentionally (and playfully) misleading. I will discuss, though, homosexual behavior and the military, so it's not entirely misleading ... right?
In some of these posts and in discussions with folks I've registered my concern that people who continue in sin (specifically the sin of homosexual behavior) (specifically not "same-sex marriage", a different issue) are very likely hell-bound and in need of salvation. One person questioned that and brought up a similar concern (that is, one that wasn't mine, but was his). "What if a Christian was a general in the Army and it turned out that serving in the military was a sin?" Of course, the dialog broke down before long and I don't intend to use this space to continue it, but I did think it might be helpful to compare the two ideas, not so much for their ideas as much as the approaches by which we might determine what is and isn't "sin".
First, I conclude that homosexual behavior is a sin because of what I read in the Bible. The passages are unavoidable. In chronological order, they would be things like "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Lev 20:13) and "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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 themselves the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27). These are explicit texts that say explicit things. They make no exceptions or offer any variations. Further, their contexts seems to require precisely the meaning that the texts seem to indicate. The first, for instance, is followed immediately by "And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion" (Lev 18:23). So if Lev 18:22 has exceptions or conditions not obvious, so should Lev 18:23. And we'd have to conclude that, like homosexual behavior, bestiality is only a "perversion" (the text's word) under certain circumstances, not necessarily all circumstances. For instance, "If a cult of zoophiles wanted to involve you in idolatry by means of bestiality, then, by all means it's sin. Otherwise, why not?" Nope, not seeing that. Further, there is no contradiction from the rest of Scripture. There isn't a single passage that references same-sex relations in a positive light. Nothing in Scripture offers any support for the notion. The text, the context, and the entirety of Scripture agree. So people who read the texts for what they are saying come to the same conclusion that I do.
"But," the anti-Christians-in-the-military crowd would object, "we get our view from Scripture as well." Okay, let's look. Lew Rockwell argues that being in the military violates each of the 10 Commandments. Of course, in his piece on the subject he does point out that "If it limited itself to controlling our borders, patrolling our coasts, and protecting our citizens instead of intervening around the globe and leaving death and destruction in its wake then perhaps it might be a noble occupation for a Christian." Thus, apparently from his perspective it's wrong to be in the military now, but not as a matter of principle. Greg Boyd argues that the command is to "love your enemies" and "do good to them", not kill them. There is, according to Boyd, only one reason that we think otherwise. "Universal 'common sense' tells us that people ought to kill, if necessary, to protect themselves, their families, and their country." And that's not a good reason. Plow Creek Mennonite Church offers a piece that assures us that "Christian Pacifism is the Scriptural Position". While many of the references are not in support of the argument per se, there are several offered in direct connection. We have Jesus's words, "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44), "Do not use force against an evil man" (Matt 5:39), "Forgive and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37), "Do not be anxious about your life" (Luke 12:22), "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" (Matt 26:52), "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matt 7:12), "Do not return evil for evil" (1 Peter 3:9), "Never avenge yourselves" (Rom 12:19), and "Overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21). (I'm trying to offer a fair listing.) Plenty of Scripture there.
So, using the same rationale as the first paragraph, how does this work? Well, first, there isn't one explicit text that says that serving in the military is sin. Not one. Okay, so perhaps the explicit text doesn't work, but the context does, right? Well, nothing about the context coincides with "military". So maybe not. Still, the entire sense of it is there, right? Well, there is reason to see the entire sense of it. However, when compared with all of Scripture, there's a problem. Assuming that there is a universal biblical principle that says that "use of force is evil" or some such, we have lots of problems, in fact. Jesus made a whip to use in the Temple. He told His disciples to take their swords. The suggestion (that some make) that He didn't use the whip on people and He certainly prevented them from using their swords is a good thing or we'd have a sinning Savior. But the problems don't stop there. Why, when dealing with the centurion, did Jesus remain silent about his sin? Well, that could be a matter of context. Certainly it's an argument from silence. We don't know all that He said to the centurion. On the other hand, we have explicit texts elsewhere. We know, for instance, that God commanded warfare of His people. Regardless of your views on the incident of the Amalekites and such, we all agree that God promised the land of Canaan to Israel, took them to it from Egypt, and punished them for failing to take it. Now, what have we here? We have a "righteous God" commanding His people to violate His commandments (see Lew Rockwell) against using force and punishing them (40 years in the desert) for failing to obey His command to violate His commands. Now that is a problem. And then there's the whole return of Christ thing where Jesus returns with a sword in His mouth killing all unbelievers. You may see that as "nonviolent", but I can't begin to see it as such.
So let's look at how the two stack up. The first has explicit texts. The immediate context agrees with the plain reading. There is nothing in all of Scripture to counter that straightforward reading. All indications are that homosexual behavior is a sin, and changing that conclusion requires altering texts, contexts, and the entirety of Scripture. As for "Christian pacifism", there are some texts that suggest it. However, there isn't one that is explicit. Further, the context is never about "Christian pacifism". Worse, if we conclude that the universal biblical principle is pacifism, we make God the Father and God the Son out to be sinners, violators of their own principles.
I am not here trying to dismiss the concerns raised by the passages on Christian pacifism. We must wrestle with those texts. Is is possible to "love your enemy" and be in the military? Is it possible to "not use force against an evil man" and defend your home against intruders? Is it possible to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and still be part of the armed forces? It's something we ought to think through. I'm not saying there is no question here. All I'm trying to point out is that on some issues there is apparent certainty and on some there is not. So be sure you're not questioning the obvious and standing for the unclear -- or upbraiding those who do the opposite.
91 comments:
On the issue of pacifism, most the texts used to support the position have to do with personal grievances and behavior with your neighbor, rather than nations.
As you pointed out, God led Israel into warfare, and Jesus' return will be warfare, so it can't be a sin.
Governments are responsible for restraining evil and protecting citizens (Rom.13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-14), which may require service even of Christians.
I think the theory of just war has its merits when deciding when a Christian should serve in a combat situation, but that would be from a conscientious objector status while remaining IN the military if one wants to serve in the military anyway.
When the NT mentions military officials (Matt. 8:5-13; Lk 3:14; Acts 10:1ff) there is no condemnation as to them being in the military service. In Lk and Acts there were just given instructions about how to do right and be acceptable to God in their military service - they were never told to "go and sin no more."
So if the government is established by God and is given the authority to wield the sword by God, then then there is no way being in the military can be a sin.
I did a post on this some time ago. I'm with you there. (Interestingly, since almost all the approaches to "Thou shalt not join the military" revolve around not killing, I don't exactly know how they deal with the fact that 80% of the military don't carry weapons. They're support, maintenance, etc. I know that there are conscientious objectors in the military. Should, for instance, a chaplain not be in the military? Nope, not getting it.)
This post, however, was not about whether or not the position was true, but how we go about arriving at it. What astounds me is when people take clear and obvious and suggest it's obscure and then take the obscure and make it fact.
Well, I just read that post - that was before I found your blog ;oD
I understood your purpose in the post, I was just demonstrating why I think the Bible says military service is NOT sin, whereas the gist I get from your post is that the Bible is not specific.
And I agreed with you. The Bible, however, is "not specific". That is, there is no, "Thou shalt serve in the military" or "Thou shalt not serve in the military." There are specific injunctions against, say, homosexual behaviors. And still some will say, "It's pretty clear on that whole military thing, but you have to really work hard to conclude that homosexual behavior is a sin" (although those who argue for that behavior would never use such language -- it's "being gay" for them).
I forgot to say, that was an excellent article you linked to. I have a similar study I did about a decade ago, including looking at early church fathers. One of these days I might post it on my blog.
You are right, there is no specific, "thou shall" for military, but it couldn't be any more clear when it comes to homosexuality. But, hey, don't confuse people with facts!
I don't understand the point of having homosexuals openly serve when you see the majority of them making fools out of themselves in public. When people say "openly" they know exactly what they're taking about when it comes to gays.
Well, I didn't actually address the question of "gays in the military" either openly or not. I did elsewhere, but not here. Nor am I sure I understand the "the majority of them making fools out of themselves in public." I'd guess that in the military that has not been the case. Of course, "openly" doesn't mean "flamboyantly" or "making fools of themselves", but "admitting that they are attracted to people of the same gender rather than hiding it", something that the other post I referenced addresses.
You are right, there is no specific, "thou shall" for military, but it couldn't be any more clear when it comes to homosexuality.
What you all are entirely failing to get is that, while it is true there is no "thou shall not" for the military, IT IS ALSO TRUE that there is no "thou shall not" for marriage for all. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE BIBLE, NOT ONE TIME, NOT ONE PLACE. Gay marriage is NEVER CONDEMNED in the Bible.
So, while you "get" the whole subjective nature of someone saying to you, "You're wrong, God does not want Christians serving in the military, it's OBVIOUS from the Bible," you DON'T get that YOU are being subjective and presumptuous when you say, "You're wrong, God does not want gay folk living in a marriage like arrangement..."
I suspect that you are just so blinded by your cultural human traditions that you are missing the obvious. Perhaps that is a sign that you aren't actually saved, at least by YOUR standards, right Stan?
Can you at least admit that, "BY MY standards, IF I'm mistaken about marriage equity, I, STAN SMITH, AM A POOR LOST SOUL...," because that is exactly what your measure of Christianity does for your position - since you are "continuing in sin," can we agree on that point?
Dan, at some point I would think that you'd see that you have never yet paid attention to the arguments on the topic that I've put down. You continue, despite my repeated attempts, to suggest that I hold that it is immoral for a homosexual to marry a homosexual. I have never made such an argument and never held such a position. Yet you keep arguing that "gay marriage is never condemned in the Bible".
What I have said and what the Bible says is that "a man lying with a man as with a woman" explicitly is "an abomination". All words are clear and concise. None are "hunches" or "guesses" or "opinion". It isn't "cultural". It's the text.
All "gay marriage" is is the societal acceptance of a sinful practice. It is the People approving sin. There can be no doubt that the Bible clearly states in many places that homosexual activity is a sin. I think I said this a while ago to Dan T, if a gay couple get married, and don't have sex with each other, then I guess its okay. But when they are participating in homosexual activity, there can be no doubt they are sinning, and since I can't see a married couple never having sex, then gay marriage is a sin, in that is propagates homosexual activity.
And, WOW. That is the most hostile I've seen you allow Dan T. be readable. I mean, wow.
"That is the most hostile I've seen you allow Dan T. be readable."
Just to be clear, I don't normally block Dan T. He hasn't been commenting as much. When he does, he includes a "between you and me" kind of thing because he doesn't want/expect it to get posted.
Oh, and David, I would have a real hard time defining the union of two males (or two females) as "marriage" with or without sex. My objection to homosexual behavior is that it is biblically immoral. My objection to "same-sex marriage" is that it falls outside of the standard, time-honored, historical, traditional, even biblical definition of marriage. I'm not saying it's immoral; I'm saying it's not "marriage". (I know that Dan T considers that my "hunch", but even the California Supreme Court, in legalizing "same-sex marriage" back in 2008, recognized that was the case and were knowingly and intentionally changing the definition of the word. Not just my "hunch".)
If to say that homosexual marriage being sinful is a "hunch", then it is a damned good one based on all the available Scriptural information. Such does not exist for the contrary position and doesn't even qualify for the term "hunch". It is only sinful projection of one's preference onto the text, otherwise known as "a lie". Honest people can't come to such a conclusion without wanting the conclusion to exist where it doesn't.
Okay, just to address a couple of points here, Stan, then I'll go away again.
Marshall...
Honest people can't come to such a conclusion without wanting the conclusion to exist where it doesn't.
And yet, in the real world, this DOES and HAS happened. I am a case in point.
I am an honest person. I was an honest person when I was 25 and 35. I was opposed to the normalization of gay behavior. I thought the Bible "clearly" taught this. I had NO desire or plan to change my position.
AND YET, in the real world, based upon prayer, Bible study and meditation upon these points, I changed my position. NOT because I read "liberal" sources. I did not. NOT because of my "gay friends." I had none that I knew of. NOT because I "wanted to." I didn't.
I changed because of Bible study and Bible study alone.
I know this drives some people crazy because they can't conceive of it (any more than I could 15+ years ago) and, if they can't conceive of it, it just seems impossible.
But denying real world evidence is not a healthy or rational way of making a point.
Marshall's statement is demonstrably false.
Then, on this from David...
That is the most hostile I've seen you allow Dan T. be readable. I mean, wow.
I have to wonder what in the world you mean. I said nothing hostile, or at least nothing from a hostile point of view from MY side. The harshest sounding thing I can find is my observation/guess that perhaps it's just cultural tradition blinding some to the point where they can't see that the Bible does not say what they think it says. It just doesn't.
And since I came from the same point as you all, my best guess as to why I couldn't see that the Bible didn't say what I thought it said is cultural blindness. There is nothing hostile in my intent in saying that. My apologies if it sounds that way. It was not my intent.
Finally, Stan, I would REALLY like to see you address this question:
Can you at least admit that, "BY MY standards, IF I'm mistaken about marriage equity, I, STAN SMITH, AM A POOR LOST SOUL...," because that is exactly what your measure of Christianity does for your position - since you are "continuing in sin," can we agree on that point?
No, Dan, I will not. I have repeatedly answered your question and you have repeatedly ignored my response. Beyond that, I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT SAME GENDERS MARRYING SAME GENDERS IS A SIN. I have repeatedly said that neither perfect knowledge nor sinless perfection are required for salvation.
And your complete ... at this point ... refusal to acknowledge any of that answer comes across all by itself as hostile.
You're missing the point, Stan. I apologize. Perhaps I was not clear. Let's change the topic...
Can you at least admit that, "BY MY standards, IF I'm mistaken about Christians and war, I, STAN SMITH, AM A POOR LOST SOUL...," because that is exactly what your measure of Christianity does for your position - since you are "continuing in sin," can we agree on that point?
I'm not talking about the specific area of possible mistake, I'm speaking of being wrong.
I deleted the sarcastic response. Nor am I going to bring up the question of your integrity. What part of "Salvation is not dependent on sinless perfection or perfect knowledge" is incomprehensible to you?
For other readers asking themselves, "What in the world is Dan Trabue prattling on about?", this is an extension of an email conversation that started way back when I expressed my concern for the eternal condition of people who remained in sin. I take 1 John 3:9 seriously, believing that a "cannot" means something. Dan takes it as hyperbole and suggests that people who sin in ignorance don't have anything to worry about. (Sorry, Dan, that may be not entirely accurate, but it's the shorthand version.) As in so many other cases, Dan interprets Scripture by his own experience and I interpret Scripture by what it says and then filter my experience through it.
And so, Stan, I STILL wonder if you'll stand by your own criteria?
That is, will you admit that, "BY MY standards, IF I'm mistaken about Christians and war, I, STAN SMITH, AM A POOR LOST SOUL...," because that is exactly what your measure of Christianity does for your position - since you are "continuing in sin," can we agree on that point?
Is there some reason you are unwilling to answer this question? It sounds a bit as if you're unwilling to admit that the logical conclusion of your position is that you have no assurance of your own salvation, and perhaps because you can see how graceless the position is, once you apply it to yourself - is that it?
If not, why not answer the question?
I have answered Dan's question. I've answered it more than once. I've answered it here. Clearly Dan is either unable or unwilling (or both) to see the answer.
My question is this: To the other readers, is my answer unclear? I need clarification from some of you because I think I have clearly, unequivocally, and completely answered Dan's question, and he's still saying, "Why won't you answer?"
I think you have clearly answered Dan T's question, but not in a specific way. He is asking a specific question, where you are answering the broader question. Question: "Will you admit you are going to hell for believing wrongly about 'A'?" Answer: "I do not believe in condemnation for mistaken belief's. (Aka perfect knowledge/sinless perfection)"
See, the specific question was answered broadly, and for someone actually looking for an answer rather than attacking, the answer is quite clear. To the specific question, "Are you going to hell for being wrong about 'marriage equity'/Christians in the military?", your specific answer should be, "I do not believe that if I were wrong about 'marriage equity'/Christians in the military that I am bound for Hell because...I don't believe in perfect knowledge or sinless perfection as needed for salvation."
Now, that answers the specific question, but also is a "vindication" in Dan T's mind because now you have admitted that he and those that believe as he does are not going to hell for being wrong, which you have never said was the reason for his condemnation, but that's what he heard, and so that's what he'll hear. His gay friends are going to hell for practicing sin. He is practicing sin by approving their sin. This is where he is getting confused.
Stan,
Your answer was very, very clear. But when you have a person like Dan, who denies the truth of Scripture, why shouldn't he deny that you gave him an answer. His conscience has been seared.
I think David's last comment is a good one. Dan's objective is validation of his belief, and by putting anyone else in the position of answering a hypothetical, "IF I'm mistaken...", then he can stand pat with his pretense that, "sure, I Dan Trabue might be mistaken", and carry on with what he knows is indefensible. The problem is, it really doesn't matter what any of us think. All that matters is what the Bible says and it doesn't give any justification whatsoever for his position, no matter how he twists it to do so in his addled mind. He knows this to be true or he wouldn't try all these lame ploys.
The fact is, that there is no justification for his position on Christians and war, because he chooses to believe that war is in and of itself sinful. That's not possible as warring can be completely justifiable in order to save lives. There's no justification for sexual sin, such as homosexual behavior, adultery, incest or bestiality.
Before I digress too far, however, I will state again that although Stan has defended Dan's obvious crapola regarding his sincerity, I don't buy it for a minute based on the lack of justification for Dan's "sincere" beliefs, and more, the lack of an argument that he will never see to the end, relying on ploys like "IF I'm mistaken...". Stan's NOT mistaken based on what Scripture says on the subjects covered. He has answered Dan as requested, but he has not given an answer that plays into Dan's hands.
But here's the real truth: if Stan DID play into Dan's hands, Dan would still be wrong, a liar and a heretic in saying the Bible has given him an understanding that justifies the commission of sinful behavior, or that God would ever bestow blessing on a union based on a clear distortion of His intention for the creation of two sexes.
Just to reiterate, Dan did NOT arrive at his beliefs without extra-Biblical influence. It is not possible, especially considering his inability to demonstrate how it could be possible. I'm willing to continuing challenging his defense of this nonsense no matter how long it takes.
"I changed because of Bible study and Bible study alone."
If the above is true, and it clearly isn't, it should be easy enough to explain and demonstrate how Scripture brings one to that conclusion in a manner that silences all objection or argument. He can't even come close.
Thanks for the straightforward answer from David. I appreciate someone just answering a question straight on or at least explaining why they can't answer it in a straightforward manner. Thanks, David.
And of course, David is absolutely right! This IS the orthodox position: One is not "not saved" for being mistaken. We are SAVED BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS. And even after we are saved, we aren't turned into magical people who have attained perfect knowledge. We are STILL sometimes mistaken.
A point Stan seems to equivocate upon. So, I still wonder, Stan (and Glenn), do you agree with David and the orthodox position? Has he stated your opinion correctly?
OR do you still think (as your many answers seem to say to me) that IF you get to heaven and find out you were mistaken on some issues that should have been obvious to you, and thus, by that mistake, you have continued in sin, you have demonstrated that you were never saved?
You should know, David, that this is what Stan has represented to me. I've just been trying to get him to put it in terms of HIM being the one mistaken. "If I, Stan Smith, get to meet God after death and discover I was mistaken on behavior X - and thus, I continued in sin, then that means I never was saved in the first place."
Is that, or is that not your position, Stan?
Dear Dan,
The rule I have here is "Let's keep it friendly." "Friendly", by my estimation, is not "You've answered my question over and over again, so I'll keep asking it." Further, you determined that you wouldn't be commenting on my blog (very often) and, even in this string of comments, said, "Okay, just to address a couple of points here, Stan, then I'll go away again." And still here you are repeating questions I've answered (What's wrong with you? David said I had already answered your question and now you're asking if I agree with his agreement of my answer?) and continuing to make comments. Since I've answered your repeated question, and since all who have looked and responded agree that I've answered your repeated question and since continuing to ask an answered question is not friendly, do not expect the opportunity to comment again.
Oh, and that is not my position. Never has been. I have repeatedly and explicitly denied it. But, while someone misrepresenting you is a grievous offense, your willingness to gladly and repeatedly misrepresent me is, again, not in the category of "keep it friendly".
Stan,
I think you have been clear. And I agree with your style - NOT allowing Dan to try to trap you with words...that's all he's doing. He says that Bible study alone changed his position 15 years ago. I'd like to know what was going on in his life at that time. I wonder if something else happened to help him change his position - i.e., a family member confessed being homosexual, maybe Dan had an unanswered prayrer that shook his view of God, etc. Because he sure seems to have left his position on the truth of Scripture (if he really ever believed its Truth).
What I have told Dan is this:
One can claim to be a Christian and therefore saved, but if the "Christ" the person is following is not the Christ of the Bible, can the person be saved following a Christ of their own making? I say "NO." Which is why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not saved. For all their claims of being Christians, the Christ they follow is not the Christ of the Bible; the identities do not match.
So it is with the Christ Dan follows. Dan follows a Christ who thinks homosexual behavior is okay, a Christ who condones and even supports same-sex marriage as the moral equivalent of true marriage. The Christ that Dan follows is all about homosexuality and the social gospel.
I maintain that the identity of the Christ Dan follows is no better than the identity of the Christ a Mormon follows. What he follows is a Christ of his own making - an idol.
And an idol has no power to save.
Glenn's point mirrors my own position. It is evident in the question I asked of the usual suspects who have yet to answer: How far can one stray from Biblical teaching and not be worshiping a false god? I think it is an important question as one tries to determine what those teachings are. It is incredibly important in areas where there is so much disparity as between what Scripture actually says and what someone like Dan insists it says despite his inability to explain how it says it.
In this case, a person is not "not a Christian" because they defend homosexual behavior, but because they worship a false god.
Exactly!
Just to put the rumor-mongering, slander and false reports to bed, Stan:
I worship, Jesus, the Christ, the son of God who came to earth as a man, lived a perfect life was crucified, dead and buried; who rose from the dead and who offers us poor sinners the gift of salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus the Christ.
THAT is the Christ I worship. You know, the same one Christians everywhere worship.
Asking me not to comment when so much disinformation and slander is going on is a bit much, Stan.
IF you have a problem with the Jesus I just mentioned, then take it up with me like a Man, like a Christian man. But this pussyfooting, mealy-mouthed slandering girlish gossip and back-biting (all CLEARLY condemned as NOT part of the kingdom of God) is not becoming Christians, nor even just gentlemen.
Come brothers, express disagreement if you wish, but do so with love and respect, AS THE BIBLE says.
WHAT part of my confession is a "false god?" Is it that I believe Jesus to be God? Is it that I believe Jesus to be the Christ? Is it I believe Jesus to be the Way? Is it that I believe to be the Truth? Is it that I believe that salvation from our sins is found in no other name but Jesus? Is it that I am trusting in God's GRACE for my salvation?
Point to anything in my confession and point out where I'm wrong, or admit that you're unjustly attacking a fellow Christian and apologize like the men of God you claim to be.
SF...
I wonder if something else happened to help him change his position - i.e., a family member confessed being homosexual, maybe Dan had an unanswered prayrer that shook his view of God, etc.
And for the 100th time: IT WAS BIBLE STUDY and PRAYER that led me to change my position. I was conservative in doctrine. I did NOT read liberal writers AT ALL. I had no family members that I knew to be gay. I had no unanswered prayer. I had NO intention of changing my position. It was Bible study and prayer. Period.
All this specious speculation is just ridiculous. I've told you all the facts of the situation and it appears that if it's something you can't fathom, then you just deny its reality.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy...
Understand, Dan, that when you say, "It was Bible study and prayer that led me to change my position," we look on that dubiously because there is, in fact, nothing in the texts to suggest anything like what you are claiming. Therefore, it wasn't your Bible study, but something else. Further, the facts remain: 1) You have arrived at this position contrary to any plain reading of the texts and contrary to all historical understanding, and 2) you can't seem to offer any biblical support for "God approves of homosexual behavior" or "God's view of marriage coincides with mine." So "Bible study and prayer" remain your claim, but the facts make people question your claim ... you know, just like you have refused to accept my answer. (Seriously, doesn't this kind of double standard hurt?)
Dan, the way you claim your faith to be Christian is EXACTLY the same verbiage used by Mormons. Yet they are not Christians - are they?
Your confession of a false God/Christ is the claim that your God/Christ finds nothing wrong with homosexuality. The God/Christ of the Bible cannot be identified that way. You have identified a false Christ and false God as who you worship.
And it is guaranteed that you did not derive your view of homosexuality from the Bible because it is quite clear - and has been for thousands of years until modern liberal "scholarship" - that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God, which, by extension, would mean that same-sex faux marriage is an abomination to God because it entails homosexual behavior.
AGAIN, just because you hold the position, "I DON'T SEE how Dan could reach that position biblically alone," does not mean that it did not, in fact, happen.
As a matter of real world facts, I held the conservative position; I had no desire or plan to change my position - in fact, I was quite sure there was NO WAY I would change my position (it would be safe to say that I was hostile towards changing my position); I had no external influences AND YET prayer and Bible study led me away from my old position towards my new position.
How else do you explain this real world set of circumstances but the facts?
I am not saying I'm infallible and couldn't be wrong now (although I seriously doubt it) and I fully recognize that you disagree with my conclusion. But the facts are the facts.
As to your "facts," you are conflating your all's opinions to the entire body of possible human knowledge.
You say, "can't seem to offer any biblical support for "God approves of homosexual behavior" or "God's view of marriage coincides with mine.""
But that is not the fact. I CAN and HAVE offered biblical support and the rationale for my beliefs. What I HAVEN'T done is do so in a way that YOU FIND CONVINCING, even though I find it convincing. But you all are not the arbiters of all knowledge of Good and Evil. It is a real world fact that prayerful Bible study alone led me to my position.
That you find it hard to believe does not change that fact. That seems to be where you all are parting way with rational thinking (and that is not intended to be an insult or harsh - I just mean that you all are disagreeing with real world facts, and that isn't rational).
...and I have not refused to accept your answers, I've busily tried to understand your answers, but found straightforward direct answers to my clarifying questions hard to come by. Even now, re-reading your post, I honestly can't find where you all think you have directly answered my question about "If you die, meet God and have, all your life, held to a position as 'good,' when in fact, you were wrong and thus you continued in sin, in that case, are you admitting that you are not/were never saved, as evidenced by your continuing in sin?"
Seriously, if someone could post a time and line where that answer shows up, that would be so cool, because I simply can't find it.
Dan Trabue asked "If you die, meet God and have, all your life, held to a position as 'good,' when in fact, you were wrong and thus you continued in sin, in that case, are you admitting that you are not/were never saved, as evidenced by your continuing in sin?"
Stan answered, "Salvation is not dependent on sinless perfection or perfect knowledge."
David (whom you praised for his response) said, "I think you have clearly answered Dan T's question. ... your specific answer should be, 'I do not believe that if I were wrong about "marriage equity"/Christians in the military that I am bound for Hell because I don't believe in perfect knowledge or sinless perfection as needed for salvation.'"
I understood my answer as an answer. David understood my answer as an answer. Everyone else understood my answer as an answer. Just you, Dan, just you. Being "wrong" about a concept is not sin. Nor is it what I have ever defined as "continuing in sin". In direct answer to your direct question, then, "No. I am not admitting to what I never claimed."
Now, if you're willing to admit that you are not a Christian per your own position, maybe we can talk.
Dan Trabue: "I had no external influences AND YET prayer and Bible study led me away from my old position towards my new position."
Okay, tell me something, Dan. What, in the texts in question, suggest anything like "It is okay for a man to lie with a man as with a woman in some circumstances"? What rosetta stone did you find that gave you some new sense, some new meaning to the clear statements? You claim some knowledge about idolatrous practices of the time; where does that knowledge come from that is not "external influences"?
Moving from there to marriage, can you offer one -- any at all -- biblical reference that will suggest that marriage includes the concept of two people of the same gender? An example would be fine. A biblical case would be okay. Or, perhaps, a hint of it where, for instance, someone writes of two "spouses" rather than husband and wife. A command to husband and husband. A recommendation of how a wife should treat a wife. Anything at all. Go ahead and reach into that rosetta stone bag and maybe you can come up with a Greek reference to a husband married to a husband. Anything.
And then there's the last consideration. What would you suggest is the cause of the complete, total, massive failure of the Church throughout its entire history for getting these wrong? How could the Holy Spirit fail so miserably in leading believers to the truth? How could it be that every last believer in the history of Christianity (and Judaism before) could have gotten this wrong ... and you got it right? Any hint of an answer to that would be helpful in getting away from the common belief that you changed for reasons other than "prayer and Bible study".
Dan,
You claim WE are the ones "parting way with rational thinking." I find that about the same as the lunatic saying everyone else is crazy.
There is no rational way to come to the conclusion that Scripture condones homosexuality in any way. It is only "discovered" through emotionalism.
You claim it was through study and prayer - prayer to who? The Mormons ask you to pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true. We never have to pray to know if adultery is wrong, we never have to pray to know if murder is wrong, we never have to pray to know if idolatry is wrong. If you are praying for any of those, you already start out with the wrong premise. To even QUESTION biblical teachings about homosexuality would be the same as to question the other issues noted.
Satan is a good counterfeit spirit and will take you wherever your heart desires.
Stan, I'd be glad to answer your questions if you really want me to explain again the process by which I moved from your position to my current position.
Do you really wish for me to do so?
Dan,
I've read the arguments. They don't come from the texts, but from other sources about the texts. Nor are they something that you or I would come up with. It takes "special knowledge", some sort of ancillary information.
I didn't ask the questions so you could answer them. There are no answers. There is no reference anywhere in Scripture to anything remotely related to the new concept of "gay marriage". And the there is no answer to how the Church and the Holy Spirit got this all so wrong for so long. For that one, some might say, "Well, they got other things wrong", but never things with such unanimity and longevity. All of Christendom for all of Church history was in agreement and got it wrong. In fact, on marriage, all of history has concurred on the definition until now.
So, no, thanks. I asked rhetorical questions for which there are no answers.
Glenn slandered...
You claim it was through study and prayer - prayer to who?
I've pointed out repeatedly that I am a believer in Jesus, the Christ, same as all other Christians. You can see my testimony above about the God of the Universe in whom I believe and by whose grace I'm saved.
If you want to honestly deal with the question, just look over my testimony and tell me where I've got it wrong.
Anything else is just another ad hom attack, brother, the sort of slander and gossip and misrepresentations that are NOT part of the Kingdom of God.
So, take me up on the details of my faith or apologize or continue in your sin, it's your call. But we know (or do we???) what Stan thinks of those who continue in sin.
Stan...
I've read the arguments. They don't come from the texts
I didn't think you were really serious about hearing the Biblical case for marriage equity again. That's why I asked. But the answers are there if you wish to see them.
You can close your eyes and ears and pretend that we are not Christians and that we don't have biblical reasons for believing as we do, Stan, but that does not change the facts.
There ARE answers for he who has ears and humility to listen.
I don't remember saying you weren't a Christian for believing what you believe about homosexual behavior.
Dan,
It is not slander if it is true. Again, your claim is no different than the Mormon’s.
No, you do not believe in the same Christ as real Christians because you believe in a Christ of your own making - a Christ who says what God calls an abomination is really just another form of “love.”
You always resort to the victim card, just like every other cult member does when challenged with their false teachings.
I am not sinning by calling you a false teacher. You are sinning and blaspheming God and Christ by claiming they approve of homosexuality.
As for your arguments and testimony - I’m not interested in delusions and false claims about Scripture. You DID NOT derive your belief from study and prayer. It is impossible to do so with the Holy Spirit and come to the conclusions you come to.
It is YOU who has no humility to listen to 2000 years of Christians and 6000 years of Jews. You are no different than any other false prophet who “discovered” something no one else found for all those years.
"I didn't think you were really serious about hearing the Biblical case for marriage equity again."
Oh, I do! And I'll be offering you a forum, Dan, to do just that really soon. Everyone's welcome to come read all about it. For one thing, I've never read such a manifesto to date. Snippets here and there, but not the journey from point A to point B.
You might want to start composing that heartwarming story in order to transmit it to me via email (available on my profile page) and I will post it in its entirety unedited in any way. I will be grilling you heavily afterward until I get all my as yet unanswered questions answered.
I await.
BTW, your Jesus sounds very much like the real one, except for that homosexuality bit. So close.
Marshall, here is an example of what is offered as defense. (Nothing, to the best of my knowledge, is offered as an explanation of why "marriage" no longer means "male and female". That one is an argument from silence -- "It doesn't say 'marriage is defined as ...'.")
Oh, and Marshall, no one has offered much in the way of a reasonable response to "Why did Judaism and Christianity get it so wrong for all this time?"
Glenn...
You always resort to the victim card
Only a victim in the sense of factually being a victim of an ad hom attack: Attacking the person rather than dealing with the points being made.
And a victim in the sense that you are factually slandering me, rather than dealing with what I have actually said, you make up strawmen to knock down.
The question ALL of you ought to consider is WHY is it necessary to make up stuff that I have not said to knock down rather than dealing with my own actual words and testimony (and by "my" I mean all the false witness and slander and ad hom attacks you all offer towards all those who disagree with you on these topics, rather than deal with their words, you drop back to the cowardly and slanderous, childish, foolish personal attacks.
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?
~The Apostle Paul
We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand.
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
~The Book of Hebrews
Glenn, et al, it's time to grow up. Eat solid food. Leave behind these childish attacks.
Embrace grace, my brothers in Christ.
Wow, Dan, you did that without even flinching. A major portion of this discussion was about you asking a question about what I never claimed to believe, my answering it, and you never seeing it and repeating the same false claim. Yet you are the one maligned and misrepresented and we (your broad sweeping accusation includes me) are the ones "not dealing with what I actually said".
The questions that several people away from this electronic world have asked me are, "Why does Dan keep coming back when he knows that no one will agree with him? And why do you let him?" I honestly have no answer for either. Nor can I explain why Dan keeps promising to go away and doesn't.
I keep coming back because of the misrepresentations of my position and because you have said that it is important to correct bad teachings.
I seriously AM trying to go away, but it really is difficult when people KEEP repeating false representations of my positions.
I find it interesting, Stan, that it seems okay with you for all these repeated false representations but when you perceive that I have done so with you, it's not okay, AND THEN you accuse ME of a double standard?
For my part, I've been asking a question, not stating your position. There is a difference. Beyond that, when you say things like, AND I QUOTE...
I do not believe that someone who continues in a behavior that I consider to be a sin is reason to doubt their salvation.
I believe that THE BIBLE teaches that the one who is born of God cannot sin with impunity, cannot continue in sin, cannot make an ongoing, habitual practice of it without remorse or repentance. You keep making it a matter of my opinion. I’m talking about sin – ongoing, habitual, sin as a lifestyle...
When you say things like that, I hope you can appreciate how confusing your non-direct answer comes across. You DON'T believe that someone who continues in sin is evidence of no salvation, you say on the one hand, BUT THEN you turn around and say "THE BIBLE says one who continues in sin is not saved." Do you SEE how confusing that is? You agree with me that being mistaken and continuing in sin is not evidence of no salvation, but then say the Bible teaches that someone who continues in sin is not saved.
???
I won't answer the question again, but I just ask that you look at your answer and see how difficult it is to understand your position is. You seem to be saying both, and that's what is confusing.
Dan,
I never made an ad hominem attack on you, nor did I slander you. Prove either one. Saying that the Christ you worship isn’t the one of Scripture is neither.
You throw out Bible passages like confetti pretending you have a right to do so when you abuse the Bible for your own purposes. I suggest you read Ps. 50:16-20 - You have no right to use God’s Word.
Your so-called “solid food” is poison. You have found things in the BIble that no Jew or Christian found for 6000 years. You are a false teacher. That is not an ad hominem attack, it is a description of what you are.,
I can. He does it for much the same reason that I have for visiting his blog. The difference is that I bring truth, logic and reason, and he brings the same old lame arguments. I ask direct questions that are relevant and he asks those which are not only hypothetical, but designed to force agreement with a premise lacking truth. He seeks to champion his falsehoods, while I work to dispel them.
Dan Trabue: "I find it interesting, Stan, that it seems okay with you for all these repeated false representations"
I'm interested in what repeated false representation I have made of your belief. I don't believe I have. If you're thinking that the right, fair, godly thing to do is to correct everyone else's "repeated false representation", perhaps you ought to look to your own blog and the comments you get from others toward those with whom you disagree that remain uncorrected.
However, I haven't made an issue of misrepresentation except that you have made an issue of misrepresentation. Because it is an issue to you, I cannot fathom why you are so free to do it to others.
Dan Trabue: "For my part, I've been asking a question, not stating your position."
For your information (FYI), Dan, when you begin a (repeated) question as you did -- "Can you at least admit that, 'BY MY standards...'" -- you are making a claim, a statement of what my position (your word -- "standard") is. Since I never took that position, it is a misrepresentation.
Dan Trabue: "When you say things like that, I hope you can appreciate how confusing your non-direct answer comes across."
When I bring out every possible noun, adjective, and adverb to explain what I said and meant, that is confusing? When I try to explain what I said to the fullest possible extent, that is confusing? And you still don't have an answer to your question even though I answered it directly, fully, with and without commentary, with complete explanatory notes? (And, seriously, Dan, did you not understand the signficance of "a behavior that I consider to be a sin" and "THE BIBLE teaches"? I was saying that it isn't a matter of my opinion; it is a matter of what the Bible says. You didn't get that???)
Now, I know that people have been saying things about you here with which you've disagreed and I've been trying to give you sufficient access to respond to them (which you seem to think is my responsibility, not yours, at least on my blog, not yours). I'm not sure I need to continue to do so since you appear to have refuted them as far as you can and they haven't changed and I've answered your question completely, directly, indirectly, in every possible description I can find and you haven't understood. I don't think you have more to say and I know I can't answer any further.
Stan, Glenn keeps bringing up the FALSE and WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED charges, so I keep responding to them. What I would hope that a responsible blog manager would do would be to say, "Be fair and rational, Glenn: If you want to make a charge, SUPPORT IT. Spreading unsupported statements is akin to slander and gossip and not worthy the name of Christ our Lord."
THAT is what I expect you to do. I correct those on "my side" when they respond uncharitably all the time. I have deleted MORE comments from "my side" than I have from my opponents.
Those are the facts. Do I handle my comrades perfectly? No, I freely admit that I don't, but I at least strive for a modicum of respect from both sides and uttering scurrilous, unsupported charges are something that I do not abide, not unchallenged.
Glenn's FALSE and UNSUPPORTED charges begin...
I never made an ad hominem attack on you, nor did I slander you. Prove either one.
You have and it is patently easy to prove so.
You have said I am not a Christian. I have offered my testimony.
BASED UPON MY WORDS (and not your demonically feverish imagination), how am I NOT a Christian?
Is it because I have asked for forgiveness?
Is it because I am trusting in God's grace for my salvation?
Is it my belief in Jesus, the son of God, the Christ, the risen Lord of Glory?
Is it my belief in God, the Creator of the world who loves us? My belief in God's Spirit who leads us unto righteousness, by God's grace?
WHAT in my testimony is wrong?
DEAL WITH FACTS, Glenn, don't just spew excrement from your mind, it gives you bad breath.
You have not offered the first bit of support for your false charges. I rebuke that sort of false witness in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, Glenn.
Be a Man. Be a Christian. Live up to your faith, brother, not down in the gutter.
Stan, from now on, if Glenn repeats any more unsupported and false charges, I'll just ignore them and let them stand as testimony to his false witness and character and I won't comment on them any more. Those are just grade school level ad hom attacks.
IF he tries to address something substantial, then I might comment again, but given Glenn's displayed lack of Christian maturity on this point, I doubt that I'll need to comment again on this post.
For the readers' education, ad hominem (sometimes shortened to "ad hom") is defined as "is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it." It is a logical fallacy that says, in essence, "His argument is wrong because he's a bad person." The readers, then, can follow the dialog to see if anyone has suggested that anyone else has a faulty argument on the basis of their faulty character to determine whether the charge of "ad hom" is accurate.
Dan,
Saying that you are not a Christian is neither an ad hominem attack nor slander. It is not a false charge. As I noted, the testimony you give is identical to one a Mormon will give. The point of dissent is the identity of God and Jesus. Since you maintain that your God and Jesus support homosexuality, you have a God and Jesus different from those who the BIble identifies. Ergo, you are worshiping a false God and a false Jesus, ergo you are not a true Christian any more than a Mormon is.
Those are the FACTS. It is your mind which spews excrement blaspheming Christ and God, claiming they are not against homosexual behavior.
Your claim of my displayed lack of Christian maturity is downright laughable.
Now again, prove I said anything false. I just gave my evidence which demonstrates you are a false teacher and an idolater.
Stan, I can't tell you how much I'd like to quit commenting here, but at the same time, we are SO CLOSE to getting somewhere, maybe even a little bit of agreement. If you all could just prayerfully consider a few more thoughts.
Glenn here is making the false case that I am not a Christian.
I posit it is a false case IF WE USE orthodox measures of what it means to be a Christian.
I posit that Glenn's position is non-orthodox and works-based, and that is why his charges are mistaken and obviously false.
What makes one a Christian? Orthodoxy (and the Bible) tells us:
1. We are called by God to be part of the kingdom.
2. But we must first recognize that we are SINNERS, in need of salvation. We can't be good enough to be saved. We can't be smart enough or "right" enough to be saved. We can't be saved on our own strength and we must recognize this, as I have done.
3. Recognizing our sinfulness, we must then repent, asking for forgiveness for our sin, as I have done.
4. Asking for forgiveness, we must then acknowledge that we can't be saved by our own selves, we can ONLY be saved by Gods' grace, as I have acknowledged.
5. We must accept that marvelous grace of God, God's great gift of salvation offered freely to those who'd accept, as I have done.
6. And the Bible affirms this...
* God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM [as I do] WILL NOT PERISH...
* If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' [as I have done] and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead [as I have done], you will be saved. With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses [as I have done], resulting in salvation.
* If you confess your sins [as I have done], God is faithful and just to forgive them
7. Repenting and accepting, all that orthodoxy tell us next is to accept the Lordship of Jesus in our lives, as I have done. My desire truly is to walk in the steps of Jesus, my Lord, by God's grace.
cont'd...
This is the orthodox Christian way of salvation. Each step I can affirm in my life. And yet, Glenn rejects that salvation (and, for what it's worth, Stan does, too, as if it were their's to reject - a sign of arrogance and a big red flag), falsely asserting that my forgiveness and acceptance of God's grace and Jesus' lordship were not enough to be saved.
Beyond the orthodox Christian way of salvation, what else does the Bible tell us about how we can know if someone is saved?
1. The fruit of the Spirit is evident in their lives, in increasing measure. Galatians 5
2. This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God... 1 John 3
3. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 1 John 2
4. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 1 John 4
5. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. Mark 9
6. In the story of the sheep and goats, Jesus affirms that those who love the least of these are the ones who are part of God's kingdom.
And so on. In short, you can tell if someone is a Christian by the love lived out in their lives. And while I am surely a failure in this regards, those who know me will affirm that I do have the fruit of the Spirit in my life (however imperfectly), I do give cups of cold water in Jesus' name, I do work with and for the least of these, I DO love the body of Christ, even Glenn, Stan, and the so many of my fellow Christians who reject my brotherhood and question my motives and make false statements about me. I love you guys (as much as that can reasonably be said about someone you've only "met" on the internets) and believe you all are striving for God's ways, hoping to take a stand for truth. My heart does NOT condemn me, as John affirms as evidence of knowing we belong to the truth.
On each and every BIBLICAL measure of salvation and its evidence, I am a Christian.
Yet, in spite of ALL these biblical and orthodox measures of salvation and recognizing salvation, Glenn suggests falsely that I am not saved because HE THINKS that I am mistaken on a behavior. Glenn, you say...
The point of dissent is the identity of God and Jesus. Since you maintain that your God and Jesus support homosexuality, you have a God and Jesus different from those who the BIble identifies.
Of course, I think you are mistaken on this point, but - making the huge leap that you are right and I am mistaken - my being perfectly right on every point is NOT a biblical or orthodox measure of salvation. A point which David and Stan SEEM to agree with (although Stan still does not consider me to be a Christian, for reasons I can't tell you, even though he's tried to explain them).
So how about it, more reasonable people here? Can you affirm with me that a lack of perfect knowledge is NOT evidence of no salvation and that Glenn is stepping beyond orthodox Christian tenets in this false witness?
Stan, I do hope you'll post this because this really gets at the heart of your topic here and where I am seeing problems.
Further, if Stan does post this, I do hope that other folk will be able to agree with me on this point, as indeed, you have already affirmed.
Consider this prayerfully, that's all I ask.
Glenn, for any future ad hom attacks, I'll just ignore them here (since Stan would really like me to quit commenting and, frankly, I would really like to quit commenting). Suffice to say that my non-response is my way of saying, "This is just an empty ad hom, no need to respond to such silliness."
If you have anything substantial you'd like to say to me, with love and respect, you know where to find me, brother.
Dan Trabue: "I posit that Glenn's position is non-orthodox and works-based."
"a sign of arrogance and a big red flag"
I posit that if you are going to classify Glenn's remarks about you as "ad hominem", then you will also agree that these are of the same nature and, therefore, equally so. (I, of course, have already stated that I consider neither ad hominem since they don't fall into the defined category.)
Dan Trabue: "Stan still does not consider me to be a Christian, for reasons I can't tell you, even though he's tried to explain them."
I should make it clear (because it obviously isn't yet) that I do not classify you as an unbeliever for your take on homosexual behavior. I can't say this is true for others, but that's not "it" for me. It is a pattern, an entire picture, the structure as a whole. You believe in the "Trinity", for instance, but your explanation of the Trinity is one categorized centuries ago as heretical. You love the Bible, as an example, but your love appears to be only as far as your a priori beliefs will allow, requiring new categories of biblical texts like "epic" and an interesting use of the term "hyperbole" that, as it turns out, means basically "not really meaningful". It is the wholesale and complete rejection of the Church in a historical framework, believing that I am arrogant for concurring with Scripture at face value and concurring with the historic understanding of the Church on many matters but you are sound and not arrogant at all for classifying the entire historical understanding of the Church as false on large concepts. Then there's this whole "double standard" problem where you argue that murder is obviously and abundantly a sin ... but you don't want to get between a woman and her doctor when they choose to murder her baby. You argue that violence is a direct contradiction of Jesus's teachings, but admit that you'd kill someone if they entered your home and threatened your family. You argue that Jesus taught a gospel of near poverty but admit that you're middle class. (Do you have a retirement fund? Isn't that investment?) It's not a single thing, Dan. Nor is it a lack of perfect knowledge ... or even sinless perfection. It's an entire picture.
Dan Trabue: "Whoever lives in love lives in God."
I do want to ask about this one. What is "love" to you? A warm feeling toward others? I am concerned about people dying for their sin and you tell me it's unkind and cruel, immoral and irrational. So I try to warn people about dangers and you tell me to back off. Which is love? I think that women shouldn't kill their babies because it's bad for their babies and the mothers as well and you tell me they should be allowed to do what they please. Which is love? I'm not actually trying to argue the point here. I'm merely pointing out that "This is what the Bible says and this is my experience" can be problematic when "love" means something different to you than what is intended in Scripture. That, in fact, is Glenn's point about the wrong Christ (right or wrong).
And Stan, the problem with your "entire picture" approach to "determining" someone is not a Christian (or likely not a Christian) is that there is NO biblical precedent for it. It's something you've made up apparently out of thin air.
Q:
"Why isn't Dan a Christian?"
A:
"Because of the whole picture of Dan's views..."
What in the name of God does that mean? It sounds like a lazy way of rejecting a fellow's Christianity because you disagree with him.
The problem with this approach, besides it's unorthodoxy and lack of biblical founding, is that it's entirely whimsical and subjective and unsupported.
ON WHAT BASIS would you say someone like me isn't a Christian?
"Well, I can't put my finger on any one thing - you certainly have the right confession, you have the biblical witness of your orthopraxy... it's sorta hard to say, but I know a non-Christian when I see one!"
Do you see how utterly whimsical and unbiblical this is, Stan?
If you just have a hunch ("I really don't much like Dan") then admit it and we'll say, Stan has a non-biblical, unsupported hunch about Dan that he can't really confirm, but he FEELS like Dan probably isn't a Christian.
At least Glenn's heretical works-based answer has SOME substance to it (even if it is unbiblical and unorthodox and un-Christian in character). He can at least point to something ("Dan thinks homosexuality is not always a sin and I disagree, so therefore, Dan isn't a Christian..."). Your guess just seems lighter than swamp gas.
You point to some vague problem with my notion of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The Triune nature of God? Where is the problem there?) but don't say what's wrong with it, other than pronouncing it once upon a time heretical. But the problem there, even in your vague non-point is that salvation is not dependent upon a right understanding of the Trinity.
You state falsely that my love for the Bible is limited by my a priori beliefs and, besides being utterly false, having "the right" view of the Bible is not what makes us saved.
And then you point, like Glenn, to my position on some behaviors, but having perfect knowledge of the "right" position to hold on behaviors is NOT what makes us saved.
In short, you are pointing to a bunch of fluff that is mostly false or certainly a bad understanding of my actual positions, but even if it WERE true, our salvation is NOT dependent upon our getting these points right.
Anyone else? Can we agree that Stan and Glenn appear to be off on a works-based and/or whimiscally undefined and unbiblical approach to salvation?
To answer your question, "what is love?" I'd say that Love is God. God is love. You're trying to suggest that I am boiling down love to just warm feelings for another and that is just not true. As is often the case, you are making up stuff about my positions that I have not said nor do I believe.
I'd say God is love. I'd say Love is self-giving. I'd say love is patient and kind.
I'd say that love keeps no record of wrongs and is forgiving. I'd say love trusts, hopes, perseveres.
You know, like the Bible says, that's what I believe.
And so, I am fine with you having concern for people and their sins. I certainly am. But, as I've said before, I think there is a right way and a wrong way to express that concern. The right way is one of respect, belief, giving the benefit of the doubt (as a rule), of graciousness.
So, where you say...
I'm merely pointing out that "This is what the Bible says and this is my experience" can be problematic when "love" means something different to you than what is intended in Scripture.
When I am relying upon Scripture to inform me about love, then there is no problem, unless you have a different hunch about love than is found in Scripture.
Dan,
I do not THINK you are mistaken about homosexual behavior, I KNOW FOR A FACT that you are mistaken. As noted by Stan and me before, you can’t just claim you discovered something no one else did for 6000 years - if it is new, it isn’t true; if it is true, it isn’t new.
As Stan has pointed out, it isn’t just your identity of God and Christ in the homosexual issue, it is your other heretical viewpoints on top of it. But once you misidentify God, all other orthodoxy begins to fall.
You keep calling my charges against you (false teacher and unbeliever) “ad hominem attacks” - you really don’t know what that means. Learn a wee bit of logic before using terms you don’t understand, please.
Again, your lists of what it takes to be a Christian will be agreed upon by Mormons and yet I hope you would agree that they are unbelievers.
Suddenly you have decided that I believe in a works-based salvation. Have you ever, ever seen anything I’ve written to make that false charge? Just another lie from a false teacher. My belief is orthodox - I don’t worship a God and Christ of my own making.
Once you have a wrong identity of God/Christ - nothing else you say matters. You are an idolater.
As a genuine act of kindness and an attempt to aid Dan in his eager and heartfelt desire not to comment on my blog, I am not responding further to Dan's comments. The reader can decide if there is a double standard, if one side is "slandering" the other, if something in "This is what the Bible says" equates to "works-based", and so on. As a matter of fact, unlike Glenn, I wouldn't have continued responding at all if this weren't my blog, for which I feel some obligation. So feel free, dear readers, to respond as you wish. I won't.
Dan,
How do you derive that Stan or I have a works-based theology? Demonstrate one thing either of us has said which makes salvation works-based.
You keep whining about false charges, but that is about as false as anyone can get. And you know it.
I just didn't want him to get away with that inane charge or works-based salvation. We have demonstrated adequately that Dan's entire theology is distorted and at least aberrant if not heretical, and blasphemous by claiming God approves of immorality. As you noted, saying you go with what Scripture says does not equate to works-based salvation.
Stan, Glenn's asking, I'm just responding...
How do you derive that Stan or I have a works-based theology? Demonstrate one thing either of us has said which makes salvation works-based.
Here's the set up:
D has confessed his sins, asked for forgiveness, accepted Jesus as Lord of his life and, by God's grace, is striving to walk in Jesus' steps, following in his way.
THIS IS THE STANDARD, ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN DEFINITION OF SALVATION. IT IS THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF SALVATION, do you understand that, Glenn?
Glenn is saying, "That does not matter."
Is that fair? You don't think it matters that D has all of these facets to his salvation experience?
If so, then continuing: Glenn says, "None of that matters. We can know that D is not saved because of the evidence that he is wrong (I think) on behavior A. If D was TRULY saved, he could not be mistaken on that point."
That is where it seems you are moving from salvation by grace to salvation by works. You are pointing to D being mistaken on that behavior as evidence of his non-salvation. BUT, the reasonable, orthodox folk here have already stated that we are NOT "not saved" because of imperfect knowledge of sinful behavior.
Don't you see how that is ultimately a heretical salvation by works ideology? You are saying that IT DOES NOT MATTER that D's testimony is one of orthodox salvation, his being mistaken on this point is evidence of his non-salvation.
If D were "truly saved," you say, he would not be mistaken. IF that is the case, then D's salvation is dependent upon his perfect knowledge. Says you.
Right?
As to Stan's vague nothingness charge, I can't really respond to that which isn't there, can I? I've pointed out that the areas he points to, Trinity, recognizing a particular behavior to be sin, etc, that none of those are biblical essentials of salvation.
cont'd...
Glenn...
We have demonstrated adequately that Dan's entire theology is distorted and at least aberrant if not heretical, and blasphemous by claiming God approves of immorality.
No, you have not demonstrated THE FIRST THING, Glenn. You have not said, "Dan says X and that is wrong because..." You have merely stated that you think I'm mistaken on homosexuality, therefore, I'm not saved.
That is not a rational adult argument. Do you truly not understand the difference between offering an unsupported, salacious hunch and making a evidence-based argument? And you accuse me of not understanding logic?
BASED ON MY ACTUAL POSITIONS AND ACTUAL WORDS, Glenn, where is your evidence of non-salvation?
Further, you can't factually state that my "entire theology" is distorted, unless you want to say that believing in God the creator, in Jesus, the son of God, in the Spirit of God, in Jesus' death and resurrection, in salvation by grace... unless you want to say that ALL of these are "distorted," you factually can't make that claim.
The thing is, it comes down to you disagree with me on a couple of behaviors and you want to say I'm not saved EVEN THOUGH, by orthodox, biblical measures, I am.
Embrace grace, Glenn. Stop conflating your opinions with God's will. That's dangerously close to blasphemy.
Seeds from a lemon tree will produce a lemon tree. Seeds from a lime tree produce a lime tree. It is in the DNA God created. It is pure. When you create a hybrid (lemon and lime tree) it is different from the original.
God's word is pure truth. Dan is twisting His word by making it allow acceptance for things like homosexuality and abortion. Dan's Bible is a hybrid "bible". He's sincerely confused because the fruit is sweet to him...it is just NOT the original. There, I just cleared it all up, right? Haha!
sf...
Dan is twisting His word by making it allow acceptance for things like homosexuality and abortion.
So, are you suggesting the "you can't be mistaken and be a Christian" heresy, SF?
I've "twisted" nothing. As with all of us, I could be mistaken, although I think the Scriptures are abundantly clear. But I am saved by grace, not by my perfect understanding of every behavior.
SF, if it turns out you were mistaken all these years about Behavior X (any behavior), will that mean that you have "twisted" the Bible and are, thus, not saved?
Glenn, same question for you: IF it turns out you were mistaken on this or any behavior, does that mean you weren't saved? Do you apply the same non-gracious standards for yourself and your own errancy that you do for others?
I John 4:1-7 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world, they are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error."
I John 5:20,"And we know that the Son of God has come and has GIVEN US UNDERSTANDING, so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."
Romans 1:22-27,"Claiming to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, 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 themselves the due penalty for their error."
Romans 1:32,"Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."
This is why you are being charged with continuing in sin, not that you are gay, but that you give approval to those that continue in sin.
Dan,
I love how you build a strawman to knock down by totally misrepresenting my charge. Typical of a false teacher.
No one said you weren’t saved because you are wrong about a behavior. How many times have I said it is because the God and Christ you identify does not match the identity of the God and Christ in the Bible? How many times, Dan?
The “standard, orthodox Christian definition of salvation” is based on worshiping the true God and Christ of the Bible. If you seek forgiveness from an idol you are still unsaved.
You have much wrong with your theology because you have the wrong God and Christ which you follow - those of your own making, which approve of homosexual behavior, approve of abortion, etc. The God of the Bible calls these sin, therefore you cannot be worshiping the God of the Bible. THAT is NOT works-based salvation.
You are trying to change the argument because you can’t win the one presented. So you raise a strawman.
Again, you keep saying that I THINK you are wrong on the issue of homosexuality when in reality I KNOW you are wrong. You blaspheme God by claiming He approves of it. That is not my opinion - it is a fact that the Christian church for all of history knew but suddenly in the 20th century we have homosexualists who say it has been misunderstood by Christians for 2000 years and by Jews 4000 years before that. You haven’t even addressed this fact.
You also haven’t even addressed the fact that all your statements and testimony are the same as the Mormon’s, which only proves you are worshiping A god, not THE God of the Bible.
Based on your actual position on homosexuality and abortion - just those two issues - demonstrate that you are worshiping a false God, which makes you an idolater.
Do you even know what works-based salvation is? I don’t think so, any more than you know what an ad hominem attack is.
Dan, it isn’t a matter of being wrong on an issue, it is the identification of your God. And, no, I will not be mistaken on this issue, and that is a FACT as much as 2+2=4
All right, I'll explain to you all why Glenn's position is, perforce, a works-based salvation approach. But let me say that I think the problem is not just Glenn's but everyone here. You all seem to want to reject the Christianity of those who disagree with you on certain points. You can't conceive of how someone could be a traditional Christian, saved by God's grace, loving the Bible AND disagreeing with you on certain points.
I know, it's sometimes very hard to love and accept the Other, especially when they seem so very wrong in our eyes.
Nonetheless, I DO love you all. I believe in the best in you all. I accept you as my beloved brothers in Christ and that is why I still post here (for those who question). Further, I apologize if my own imperfect words have failed to adequately convey my position or my love for you all.
Now, to Glenn's error:
1. I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR: marriage is a good thing for folk, gay or straight.
2. Glenn says that my having an opinion about a behavior which is mistaken (according to Glenn, not the Bible) equates to having a "wrong identity of God."
3. Glenn says that my having a wrong identity of God means I am worshiping a false god.
4. Therefore, what Glenn is saying is "being mistaken about a behavior = having a wrong identity of God, which = worshiping a false god."
With me so far?
5. Therefore, ACCORDING TO GLENN'S REASONING: Being mistaken about a behavior (any behavior??) is to worship a false god, which means you aren't saved.
6. Therefore, ACCORDING TO GLENN'S REASONING: One can't be mistaken about a behavior and be saved.
THAT is how you get from your wrongheaded and graceless position to a works-based salvation. Does that make it clear?
I pray that it does, and I pray that God will grant us all wisdom and grace.
Dan,
You keep building a strawman claiming we are basing your salvation on works. That is a false charge, or - as you like to label things - libel (not “slander,” which is oral and which is another word you have no concept of its definition).
Your opinion of a behavior (which is wrong according to the Bible) leads you to have a wrong belief about God. It is your belief about God, not your belief about the behavior, which makes you an idolater.
Your string of statements starts out with a false premise which is why you come to a false conclusion.
It isn’t just one behavior which you are wrong on, which is because you have a wrong view of God, it is others (abortion comes to mind).
It is your wrong view of God which is why I charge you with being an unbeliever. You have made a God of your own desires; you have made an idol to worship.
Let’s see, You have no understanding of the following concepts:
ad hominem
slander
works-based salvation
straw man argument
GOD!
Wow...I think he just said 2+2=5
Took a lot more words though...
Okay fellas. God bless you.
But seriously, give it some prayerful thought, my brothers.
Assume someone else was pointing out these obvious points to you.
I will note, though, that once again, you're attacking ME (ad hom attack), not my arguments about your faulty reasoning. You have not shown that my points about your position are incorrect, you just ignored them altogether and went straight to the attack.
Forget your Christian obligation to give a good defense of what you believe and to correct a brother with love and respect, just consider this from a practical, logical point of view: You have NOT challenged my points or pointed out where I am in error ON WHAT I SAID.
From a pure logical point of view, you lose this argument.
Consider this prayerfully. I give up pointing out the obvious for now.
Thanks, Stan, for your patience. Again, my apologies for any places where I got off track and for any lack in my ability to communicate.
Peace to you all.
[okay, one more helpful hint for Glenn. You said...
Your string of statements starts out with a false premise
But you did not show WHERE I had a false premise. In a logical discussion, one would say, "This premise is wrong BECAUSE..." and they'd give support for the claim. As it is, you just denied it for no rational reason, with no support and no explanation.
I have to wonder WHERE in the world you'd think my statement is a false premise...
I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR: marriage is a good thing for folk, gay or straight.
When, IN FACT, I do have an opinion about a behavior. Are you suggesting that it is a false premise that I have an opinion about a behavior?? On WHAT would you base that?
Anyway, I hope you will come to understand my point and, if there is some actual substance to your disagreement, that you'd offer it. As it is now, I have demonstrated logically how yours is a position of salvation by works, a heretical position, based upon what YOU SAY you believe.
Again, pray on that. Feel free to contact me if you would like to continue this discussion.
Peace.]
Dan, your false premise is that homosexual behavior and all associated with it is okay with God.
We HAVE demonstrated from Scripture that you are in error, yet you claim no one has done so. Our so-called "faulty reasoning" is straight out of Scripture. You are in denial - and I don't mean that river in Egypt!
No one has made an ad hominem attack on you. You don't even know what it means.
I'm sorry, since words are important to me and since Dan has decided to ignore the proper definition of "ad hominem", I have to comment on the accusation of "heretical".
Heretical is defined as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards".
Homosexual behavior, for 6000 years of first Jewish then Christian beliefs and standards, has always been classified as sin and marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman.
Which one here is heretical?
Stan, having an opinion about a behavior is NOT HERETICAL, not in orthodox Christian circles.
Saying that someone needs to be right on a behavior in order to be saved IS heretical in orthodox Christian circles, because it is a works-based approach to salvation.
Easy answer.
Glenn, I think I see your problem.
I offered my first premise like this:
I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR: marriage is a good thing for folk, gay or straight.
The PREMISE in that statement is: I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR.
I THEN offered an example of my premise: Marriage is a good thing for folk, gay or straight.
But you are pointing to MY EXAMPLE, not my PREMISE.
I could have just as easily have said: I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR: investing is wrong for Christians.
Or I could have offered other EXAMPLES to help look at my PREMISE. BUT, my premise is:
I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR.
End of premise.
So, now that we have cleared THAT up, do you have any significant commentary on how I've shown that you are speaking of a salvation by works method?
Or can we agree that insisting that someone is "right" on a behavior is NOT required for salvation, because that would be a works-based heresy?
Look at it again, with the example removed, if it helps...
1. I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR.
2. Glenn says that my having an opinion about a behavior which is mistaken equates to having a "wrong identity of God."
3. Glenn says that my having a wrong identity of God means I am worshiping a false god.
4. Therefore, what Glenn is saying is "being mistaken about a behavior = having a wrong identity of God, which = worshiping a false god."
5. Therefore, ACCORDING TO GLENN'S REASONING: Being mistaken about a behavior (any behavior?? some undefined list of behaviors??) is to worship a false god, which means you aren't saved.
6. Therefore, ACCORDING TO GLENN'S REASONING: One can't be mistaken about a behavior and be saved.
Step-by-step proof that you are speaking of works-based salvation.
If you see any point on which I'm mistaken in my six step argument above, point it out and we could discuss it. If you're just going to say, "No, you're wrong! Because you're a false teacher!! na na boo boo!" I'll remain silent and let the ad hom sits where it lands.
Stan...
since words are important to me and since Dan has decided to ignore the proper definition of "ad hominem"
I'm not ignoring the definition of ad hom. Glenn is attacking ME, not my arguments. My arguments are listed above. His response has been...
* You have much wrong with your theology because you have the wrong God and Christ which you follow...
That is not addressing my points, it's arguing against ME personally, suggesting that I PERSONALLY "have the wrong God."
Ad hom.
* You are trying to change the argument because you can’t win the one presented.
That is not addressing my points, it's arguing against ME personally, suggesting that I PERSONALLY am trying to change the argument. He may well (incorrectly) think that, but it is not addressing my points.
Ad hom.
* You blaspheme God by claiming He approves of it.
That is not addressing my points, it's arguing against ME personally, suggesting that I PERSONALLY "blaspheme God." He may well (incorrectly) think that, but it is not addressing my points.
Ad hom.
* If you seek forgiveness from an idol you are still unsaved.
That is not addressing my points, it's arguing against ME personally, suggesting that I PERSONALLY am seeking "forgiveness from an idol" He may well (incorrectly) think that, but it is not addressing my points.
Ad hom.
At the very least, he is arguing against me personally in ways that are not addressing my actual points. He may be trying to make some sort of counter argument on other topics, but that's not addressing MY ACTUAL POINTS.
"I have an opinion ABOUT A BEHAVIOR: marriage is a good thing for folk, gay or straight."
This is actually quite true. Marriage is a good thing for folk, homosexual or heterosexual, when each person marries someone of the opposite gender as God intends that we do.
But, if Dan is suggesting that the union of two people of the same gender is a good thing, this is most definitely not supported by Scripture, as anyone who has studied the Bible, seriously, studiously, prayerfully, meditatively or not can plainly see if they studied it honestly.
Dan,
Ad hominem means I attack you as a person and not your beliefs. If I say, “Dan you are just stupid,” that is an ad hominem attack. If I say your theology is wrong, that is not attacking you - it is attacking your theology.
Saying you are worshiping an idol is not attacking you, it is attacking your belief system. Saying you are a false teacher is attacking the teachings you profess.
In your view of ad hominem no one could address people’s teachings, beliefs, opinions, etc without it being a personal attack. That is why you have no concept of what ad hominem is.
I have, as has Stan, fully addressed your points and yet you continue to deny that this has taken place. Saying this is not an ad hominem attack, it is a description of what has taken place.
Saying you blaspheme God by claiming He approves of homosexuality is not arguing against you personally, rather it is arguing against your claims. You claim God approves of homosexuality, and if that is your claim then it is blasphemous. That is not an ad hominem attack and indeed does address your points.
Stating that, “If you seek forgiveness from an idol you are still unsaved,” is not an ad hominem attack, it is a description of the condition. If I tell a Mormon that he is unsaved, by your definition of ad hominem I just made a personal attack on him.
I have addressed your actual points, and one is that you do not understand what ad hominem means!
Your first premise, which is unstated behind your claims, is that you do not accept the Bible as it is written and therefore you state that homosexual behavior is good and right before God. It therefore follows from this statement that the God you speak of is not the God of the Bible. If you do not worship the God of the Bible you cannot be saved. That is the logic string. It has nothing to do with works-based salvation, since we are not talking about what works you do or do not do. We are talking about your theology and who your God is based on statements you make about your God.
You have not yet demonstrated that I practice or preach salvation by works, which by your comment string again demonstrates you don’t understand that concept.
Dan,
Your second string leading to a conclusion is based on false premises and therefore the conclusion is false:
1. You have an opinion about a behavior. Wrong - you have to total belief and theology about this behavior. One can have an opinion about ice cream flavors without claiming God’s sanctioning of them. Once you claim God agrees with you, it is no longer just your opinion, rather you have made it a doctrine of God.
2. You state I claim having an opinion about a behavior equates to having a wrong identity of God. NEGATIVE. You have a theology about this behavior when you claim it is sanctioned by God. If it was just YOUR opinion that homosexuality was okay regardless of what the Bible claimed, then that would be different. But you don’t stop with saying that it’s just your opinion. You state that GOD approves - you speak for God. But the God you are speaking for cannot be the God of the Bible because the God of the Bible is against homosexuality. Ergo, you have a “wrong identity of God.”
3. It logically follows that if you having a wrong identity of God and are worshiping that identity, then you are worshiping a false god. The Mormons have a wrong identity of God so they are worshiping a false God. Muslims have a wrong identity of God so they are worshiping a false God. If anyone is worshiping a God of their own making rather than the God identified in Scripture, they are worshiping a false god.
4. False premise. I am not saying you are mistaken about a behavior. I am saying that you claim GOD is the one approving the behavior. Making a claim about God which is untrue is no less than blasphemy, but also identifies a God of your own choosing - i.e. a false God.
5 &6 are false premises based on premises 1, 2, & 4 being false. The only premise you have which is correct is that having the wrong identity of God is worshiping a false god.
Again, you have not demonstrated that I have ever taught a works-based salvation.
And by the way, it appears from previous statements by you (correct me if I'm wrong) that you also believe God approves of abortion. This is also a false God.
Glenn, thanks for at least trying and dealing with my actual points, but you continue to change what I've said and knock down that strawman.
You say...
1. You have an opinion about a behavior. Wrong - you have to total belief and theology about this behavior. One can have an opinion about ice cream flavors without claiming God’s sanctioning of them. Once you claim God agrees with you, it is no longer just your opinion, rather you have made it a doctrine of God.
1. I have NOT said that God agrees with me. Show me that statement to support this claim. You can't. It's a false and unsupported claim.
2. Again, MY INITIAL PREMISE remains as follows, although I'll remove me from the equation altogether perhaps to help you understand:
A person has an opinion about a behavior.
3. That is premise one. You state that it is incorrect, but you don't/can't support it. OF COURSE people have opinions about behaviors. We ALL have opinions about behaviors. YOU have opinions about behaviors. YOU believe that it is wrong to have abortions. YOU believe it that God does not want gay folk to marry another from the same sex. YOU believe (probably) that investing is okay, that saying the pledge of allegiance is acceptable Christian behavior, etc, etc. YOU HAVE opinions about behaviors, as do we all.
The premise stands UNLESS you can somehow prove that people don't have opinions about behaviors.
You can't just say, "no, no false, false! You're wrong. We know it cause I said so!" You have to offer support for your responses, if you wish to be taken seriously. And providing a strawman support (ie, NOT based on what the other person has actually said) does not help your case.
4. From your initial false premise/strawman, your whole argument collapses. My point stands valid.
But thanks for at least TRYING to take me on my actual points, too bad you veered right off into strawman errors.
Dan,
You have stated that the Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong, that the Bible allows for homosexuality and same-sex marriages. That is the same as saying God approves because the Bible is the Word of God.
Again, the issue is not about opinions about behaviors. You claim the Word of God supports your opinion. You are trying to weasel now by claiming you never suggested that God okays homosexual behavior.
Your logic is still flawed.
That seems an apparent dodge to me as well. Dan always tries to use Scripture to support his unsupportable position that God would bless a homosexual union One cannot even make the attempt without some belief that God would indeed do such a thing and thus one has raised for himself a god that does not exist.
Glenn, so you're conceding that my logical statements stand?
I don't see where you try to rebut any of my actual points, only make strawman and other unrelated false statements, so I guess you're conceding the argument. Better late than never, right?
Not seeing anyone else do anything to discount my logic, all I can see is that my position stands: Glenn's position (that having an opinion about a behavior = having a wrong identity of God, which = worshiping a false god) would mean that we ALL have to be saved, at least partially by having the innate ability to NOT be wrong about any behaviors, which is a form of salvation by works.
Since you haven't/can't dispute it, Brother Glenn (Stan and anyone else who holds to this heresy), I'd pray that you all pray carefully over this position.
I'm quite sure that in your heads and hearts, you know that this salvation by works teaching is not biblically tenable, but at the same time, you're just not appearing to be comfortable with the whole salvation by grace thing, if it means people can disagree with you on what you consider to be important issues. Nonetheless, orthodox Christianity is clear:
Embrace grace, my beloved brothers, no matter where that grace may take you.
As this thread is soon to be dropped to the archives, I will only add that Dan continues in his dishonesty, or inanity. Whichever it is is unimportant as neither is good.
Glenn was NOT disagreeing with the premise that all people have opinions on behaviors. That he didn't accurately convey this sentiment as precisely as one needs to prevent the typical distraction is unfortunate.
Glen's obvious (to honest people) point was that your (Dan's) opinion is unsupportable and reflects a belief in a God that doesn't exist, because to hold the opinion demands the understanding that God does as well. Since there's nothing in Scripture to support the belief, the god you feel tolerates the behavior your opinion supports is a false, non-existent god and your claim to Christianity is totally flawed by belief in a god that doesn't exist.
Then don't just SAY that, Marshall. Make your case in response to MY ACTUAL WORDS and MY ACTUAL POSITIONS. Reference WHAT I SAY and say, "on point 1, you say... and I think..."
THAT is how honest discussion gets accomplished, not vague references to strawmen points and ad hom attacks.
What do you have to say about what I have SAID?
Since Stan wants this gone, anyone can feel free to follow my actual points and agree or disagree with them on my blog, where I've posted an account of how I moved from your position to my position based upon Bible study and prayer.
Dan,
You're really big on complaining when people misrepresent, slander (libel), or argue with "ad hom". So maybe, just maybe, if you do not understand a position (and clearly you do not) (I know you think you do, but you have yet to properly express it, so obviously you don't), calling it "a heresy" is a bad idea. It is no small accusation. It is not "friendly". It is not a correct representation. It is not true. It is not welcome.
Well Dan,
The whole point is that you did not change to a pro-homosexual position by Bible study and prayer. It is impossible to do so just by that. The Bible is very perspicuous as to what God has to say about homosexual behavior, and that has been understood since Moses' time at least! Only your current ideology has practiced eisegesis with Scripture and suddenly found that God really doesn't have a problem with homosexuality in a "loving" context.
And prayer wouldn't lead you to it because then you'd be claiming that God lead you to understand that He really doesn't have the problem with homosexuality that we all think He does.
So, you claim the Bible - God's word - and prayer - receiving direction from the Lord - all lead you to know that God is okay with homosexuality. This is exactly why we can say that your God is not the God of Scripture, and therefore you are worshiping a false God, ergo you are an idolater.
And then you say we misrepresent you!
Post a Comment