Fight back against the "equality" avatars

[Castor Muscular]

Ok...

In this thread alone, you have denied (either implicitly or explicitly) three of the five solas. You teach heresy (regarding the Church Universal). You flirt with (and often wholly embrace) gnosticism. You seem to have no understanding of what "the world" is. (After all, you define it by music style and choice of beverage.) You reject Christus victor as a valid atonement model because, after all, those "liberals and Orthodox folks" teach it.

These are all self-based view of Christianity, rooted in pride.  Typical white-washed tombism.  It's what you do and how you appear to others that matters. 

But it didn't occur to me until I read this post that gnosticism was involved.  Very astute observation. 

 

[rsc2a]

Ok...

In this thread alone, you have denied (either implicitly or explicitly) three of the five solas. You teach heresy (regarding the Church Universal). You flirt with (and often wholly embrace) gnosticism. You seem to have no understanding of what "the world" is. (After all, you define it by music style and choice of beverage.) You reject Christus victor as a valid atonement model because, after all, those "liberals and Orthodox folks" teach it.

These are all self-based view of Christianity, rooted in pride.  Typical white-washed tombism.  It's what you do and how you appear to others that matters.

I never thought about it that way. Let's see:

- denied (either implicitly or explicitly) three of the five solas - faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone ... dependent on me for something or another

- teach heresy (regarding the Church Universal) ... after all, it's not about a corporate church, but my church that I attend.

- You seem to have no understanding of what "the world" is. (After all, you define it by music style and choice of beverage.) ... After all, it can't be something wrong with me.

- You reject Christus victor as a valid atonement model ... because that has universal implications where substitutionary atonement is personal. Must reject the universal application because that wouldn't be about me.


[quote author=Castor Muscular]But it didn't occur to me until I read this post that gnosticism was involved.  Very astute observation. [/quote]

I have found that the old heresies are quite prevalent in most churches (and in ourselves). They may not explicitly believe in Marcionism, gnosticism, or flawed view of the hypostatic union (among others), but it's still implicitly taught (or believed).

 

[ALAYMAN]

In this thread alone, you have denied (either implicitly or explicitly) three of the five solas. You teach heresy (regarding the Church Universal). You flirt with (and often wholly embrace) gnosticism. You seem to have no understanding of what "the world" is. (After all, you define it by music style and choice of beverage.) You reject Christus victor as a valid atonement model because, after all, those "liberals and Orthodox folks" teach it.

I could be a card-carrying modal-gnostic-quasi-pelegian-hairy tick, which of course I'm not one any more than Sidlow Baxter, but all that subterfuge and mudslingin' of yours has aptly proven that your reading comprehension still needs some work, and your Attention Deficit Disorder is as strong as ever.  So if ya don't mind, turn from your gay-coddlin' ways and tell your lispy friends about repentance from their, errrm, gift.

 

[subllibrm]

A man says he is saved and his life changes.

But if it doesn't, was he actually saved?

 

[Castor Muscular]

A man says he is saved and his life changes.

Rather, God changes a man and he is saved. 

But if it doesn't, was he actually saved?

Here's the Control Freak version:  "Has he changed such that he is living his life exactly the way I expect him to?  If not, he must not be saved."

 

[subllibrm]

A man says he is saved and his life changes.

Rather, God changes a man and he is saved. 

But if it doesn't, was he actually saved?

Here's the Control Freak version:  "Has he changed such that he is living his life exactly the way I expect him to?  If not, he must not be saved."

God changes a man to see his need for salvation, yes. That first "work" is God's alone. All others that follow are done by His enabling power.

Not looking to be  a control freak but would it not be reasonable to expect that a saved homosexual would desire to avoid the sin of homosexual sex? Would we not be responsible to hold them accountable to that just as we hold other Christian men to a proper use of their sexuality? I am not attracted to men. I do find women attractive and know that outside of God's strength to resist/flee/avoid temptation I could/would fall into the sin of adultery (physical or mental).

I cannot speak for Aman but what I am hearing him ask is should we "accept" sexually active gays into full membership in the church? We don't "accept" heterosexual activity outside of marriage, why would gays get a pass?

As for those who are not saved, treat them all the same. I don't ask any visitor what kind of sins they are bringing in with them on Sunday. It makes no difference. But when the pastor gets to a passage that defines a sin, he had better preach it regardless of who's toes get stepped upon.

 

[ALAYMAN]

God changes a man to see his need for salvation, yes. That first "work" is God's alone. All others that follow are done by His enabling power.

Not looking to be  a control freak but would it not be reasonable to expect that a saved homosexual would desire to avoid the sin of homosexual sex? Would we not be responsible to hold them accountable to that just as we hold other Christian men to a proper use of their sexuality? I am not attracted to men. I do find women attractive and know that outside of God's strength to resist/flee/avoid temptation I could/would fall into the sin of adultery (physical or mental).

I cannot speak for Aman but what I am hearing him ask is should we "accept" sexually active gays into full membership in the church? We don't "accept" heterosexual activity outside of marriage, why would gays get a pass?

As for those who are not saved, treat them all the same. I don't ask any visitor what kind of sins they are bringing in with them on Sunday. It makes no difference. But when the pastor gets to a passage that defines a sin, he had better preach it regardless of who's toes get stepped upon.

Very well said.  It is just that simple. 

The only caveat I'd add for clarification is that not only does the concept of "accepting"  go against the notions of repentance and church discipline for perpetual unrepentant members,  I'd say that we ought to be lovingly clear in our communications to those who are lost and make them aware that sin causes eternal death unless Christ is claimed as the propitiation for that/those sins.  Of course I wouldn't necessarily single out homosexuality as being any more or less likely than any other sin to send a soul to hell.  But the purpose of the law is to be a schoolmaster, to lead one to Christ.  As such, it certainly seems prudent to deal with the matter of the conscience in any given sinner regarding those sinful matters which they know with absolute certainty that they are engaged in, thereby not giving them any wiggle room for assuming that they aren't really guilty of anything.  Some, if not many, people think that they really are a pretty good person, until you show them the law of God and they <hopefully> realize that there are none good.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=subllibrm]God changes a man to see his need for salvation, yes.[/quote]

That's not what CM said.

[quote author=subllibrm]That first "work" is God's alone. All others that follow are done by His enabling power.[/quote]

All of it is God's work. He might use us to accomplish the means, but it is still Him.

[quote author=subllibrm]Not looking to be  a control freak but would it not be reasonable to expect that a saved homosexual would desire to avoid the sin of homosexual sex?[/quote]

It would be at least as reasonable as expecting a saved glutton to avoid the buffet line.

[quote author=subllibrm]I cannot speak for Aman but what I am hearing him ask is should we "accept" sexually active gays into full membership in the church? We don't "accept" heterosexual activity outside of marriage, why would gays get a pass?[/quote]

Not all homosexuals are sexually active. Some have chosen a life of celibacy for this very reason.

[quote author=subllibrm]As for those who are not saved, treat them all the same. I don't ask any visitor what kind of sins they are bringing in with them on Sunday. It makes no difference. But when the pastor gets to a passage that defines a sin, he had better preach it regardless of who's toes get stepped upon.[/quote]

I agree. But I have found the tendency is to preach against the sins "out there" and avoid the sins "in here".

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...make them aware that sin causes eternal death unless Christ is claimed as the propitiation for that/those sins...[/quote]

Salvation is not dependent on us "claiming' anything.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Salvation is not dependent on us "claiming' anything.

The word of God says otherwise, in many places.


Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Salvation is not dependent on us "claiming' anything.

The word of God says otherwise, in many places.


Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

I guess that's not one of them.

 

[rsc2a]

Salvation is not dependent on us "claiming' anything.

The word of God says otherwise, in many places.


Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

I guess that's not one of them.

Is ALAYMAN trying to say that if I believe on Jesus, my kids get saved?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Salvation is not dependent on us "claiming' anything.

The word of God says otherwise, in many places.


Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

I guess that's not one of them.

Is ALAYMAN trying to say that if I believe on Jesus, my kids get saved?

Maybe.  It's still not claiming anything.  Maybe ALAYMAN is saying you need to CLAIM to believe in Jesus.  Maybe he's saying you don't actually have to believe. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Is ALAYMAN trying to say that if I believe on Jesus, my kids get saved?

ALAYMAN is not only trying, but is succeeding at showing the forum that rsc2a sucks his theology out of his thumb and comes away with whatever idea strikes his fancy at the time. 

ALAYMAN is also showing the forum that rsc2a will do anything in his power to avoid defending his "acceptance of gays" theology.

 

[rsc2a]

Is ALAYMAN trying to say that if I believe on Jesus, my kids get saved?

ALAYMAN is not only trying, but is succeeding at showing the forum that rsc2a sucks his theology out of his thumb and comes away with whatever idea strikes his fancy at the time. 

ALAYMAN is also showing the forum that rsc2a will do anything in his power to avoid defending his "acceptance of gays" theology.

So the text says that, if I believe Jesus is Lord, then my kids will be saved but it doesn't mean that?

 

[Castor Muscular]

So the text says that, if I believe Jesus is Lord, then my kids will be saved but it doesn't mean that?

Stop discussing trivial stuff like scripture and explain why you promote snorting cocaine and being gay. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

So the text says that, if I believe Jesus is Lord, then my kids will be saved but it doesn't mean that?

yeah, yep, that's what it means.  And hopefully not only will your kids get saved when you do, but they'll receive the appropriate gift, maybe with a little luck, even the gift of gayness.

 

[rsc2a]

So the text says that, if I believe Jesus is Lord, then my kids will be saved but it doesn't mean that?

yeah, yep, that's what it means.  And hopefully not only will your kids get saved when you do, but they'll receive the appropriate gift, maybe with a little luck, even the gift of gayness.

Ahhh...cannot defend your ridiculous proof text so you resort to attacking children. Classy.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Ahhh...cannot defend your ridiculous proof text so you resort to attacking children. Classy.

YOU introduced your children into it, I just ran with the door you opened.  Furthermore, I wasn't the one who started down a rabbit trail, you were.  Consequently you should have no trouble discerning that whole latin phrase reduction blah surdem thang.  The household salvation issue is not in the scope of conversation, but in your typical smarmy self, you chased after peripheral issues rather than dealing with the plain answer I gave.


And lest you forget, again, this thread is about the "acceptance" of gays, which you explicitly have supported (albeit with a paucity of explanation or rationale).