What the Bible Really Says About Sex . . . Really?

Good, a discussion. Let's take this part by part.

"So you agree that “Protestants” trace their lineage back to Christ and the early Church, and that Roman Catholics aren’t the only ones who can claim a rich spiritual heritage going back 2,000+ years?"

As far as I know, ALL Christians trace their spiritual lineage back to Jesus Christ: our heritage includes, or ought to include, all of the Christian history we can get our hands on: the texts, the creeds, the councils, the catacombs and the martyrs, the great Christian teachers whose writings are still available to us from the first, second, third centuries AD, the preachers and writers from Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Milan, Hippo.

That constitutes a rich spiritual heritage. And it is, in a sense, more accessible now than it has been for the past 20 centuries. Our Christian family album, yours as well as mine!

"Most RC FReepers say that non-Roman Catholics trace their lineage only back to Luther, and that only Roman Catholicism goes all the way back to Jesus and His Apostles."

Find me the FReeper who says that, and I'll share the historic evidence I have. Or you do so: share the evidence, and ping me to it.

I don't know of any FReepers who would say that non-Catholics have no affinities to that historic "family" I mentioned above; for instance, Luther cited (in a positive and approving manner) various Fathers of the Church 14 times in the Augsburg Confession, and particularly admired St. Augustine, the founder of the religious order of which he had been a member. Luther even taught a course on Peter Lombard, who in turn quoted many of the Fathers. I find this fascinating! (More on that here: Concordia Theological Quarterly, first article [Link].)

"Would you say that the Baptist church down the street is an expression of Christ’s Church no less than the Roman Catholic church down the street?"

I must answer this as if I were answering my brother-in-law James, who is a Baptist pastor, my late father-in-law Robert, a Baptist and one of the founders of a local Christian school, or my husband FReeper Don-o. (You see I am surrounded by loving Baptist witnesses!)

I think that as believing Christians, Baptists are united with Christ in faith, just as I am. But the Baptist Church does not have, and does not claim to have, full and complete unity with the Church as a visible body with the Eucharist and the Sacraments and the Apostolic succession as Catholics understand those terms. Naturally, I am a Catholic because, examining the evidence, I have become convinced that the Catholic Church possesses this fullness.

But read on, brother. The Catechism says this:

"Many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

If you want to, you can follow this link and read more, in context. The fuller answer may interest you.

This implies that the more we share in the written word of God, and faith, and grace, and the love of Christ, the more we will grow in that unity desired by Christ.

I think my Baptist kinfolk would approve. I hope we can, too.

I do appreciate your gracious reply.

This is one key area where I disagree with Roman Catholicism, where you wrote that as a non-RC, I don’t enjoy “full and complete unity with the Church as a visible body with the Eucharist and the Sacraments and the Apostolic succession as Catholics understand those terms.”

That sentiment has been expressed before by RC FReepers (e.g., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2654838/posts?page=32#32 ):

“While the worship of Christ outside of His church is possible, it is done in an imperfect manner befift of the sacramental graces designed to assist us thru our salvation journey.... Abandon the imperfect road to salvation and accept the apostolic church of Christ which has given us the Holy Scripture or continue to reside in a mirage of fantasy quite possibly a prisoner of Satan.”

And your catechism restates it this way: “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

And that’s precisely what I’ve been saying: That Roman Catholics think they’ve got the only real, legitimate, highest expression of Christ’s Church on earth. See, your words betray your denominational condescension:

1) You either believe that I am not in “full and complete unity” with the Bride of Christ, because Rome is not part of my religious tradition. Or

2) You’re using the term “the Church as a visible body” as a synonym for “the Roman Catholic Church.” If that’s the case, then the implication is that non-RC churches are *not* “the Church as a visible body.”

It’s really this doctrine of yours that bugs me, the doctrine inherent in Roman Catholicism, that you’re part of the real Church, and that non-Roman Catholics are not part of the real Church, or experience it in a less-than-full way.

Now, on to your skepticism about RC FReepers’ saying that “Protestants” can only trace their heritage back to Luther ... you’ve been here seven years, and probably have participated on numerous RC-related discussions, and you’ve never seen Roman Catholics trying to delegitimize non-RC FReepers by saying that our history only began in the 1500s? Really?

Good morning, Theo,

I was hoping I’d get up today and find a response from you, and here it is. Thank you! This may turn out to be valuable for both of us.

By the way, I’m approaching this not as a way to convert you to my side, still less to prove you wrong, but more to get clear what you believe, and what I believe. If I mischaracterize anything on the Baptist side (I take it you’re a Baptist, right?) please jump right in and tell me where I’ve made an error.

”And your catechism restates it this way: “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
And that’s precisely what I’ve been saying: That Roman Catholics think they’ve got the only real, legitimate, highest expression of Christ’s Church on earth.

Yes, we’re in agreement there. You, I, and the Catechism see eye to eye on that.

See, your words betray your denominational condescension:
”1) You either believe that I am not in “full and complete unity” with the Bride of Christ, because Rome is not part of my religious tradition. Or
2) You’re using the term “the Church as a visible body” as a synonym for “the Roman Catholic Church.” If that’s the case, then the implication is that non-RC churches are *not* “the Church as a visible body.”

Yes, that’s true as well. But I don’t see how that is “condescension” in an offensive sense. Catholics, and Orthodox and the Oriental Churches (I’m speaking of the Copts, the Malankara Orthodox – the ancient non-Chacedonian guys) say the Church is a visible body. But the Baptists don’t claim that the Church is a “visible body,” do they? (Correct me if I’m wrong.) So saying “Baptists are not ‘the Church as a visible body’” is not condescension or insult, it’s just stating it the way you-all see it, isn’t it?

It’s really this doctrine of yours that bugs me, the doctrine inherent in Roman Catholicism, that you’re part of the real Church, and that non-Roman Catholics are not part of the real Church, or experience it in a less-than-full way.

Yes, that’s the doctrine; and I can see that’s what bugs you.

Now, on to your skepticism about RC FReepers’ saying that “Protestants” can only trace their heritage back to Luther ... you’ve been here seven years, and probably have participated on numerous RC-related discussions, and you’ve never seen Roman Catholics trying to delegitimize non-RC FReepers by saying that our history only began in the 1500s? Really?

I can’t totally speak for other FReepers, but I think I’d find wide agreement on this: it depends on what you mean by “your” history.

If you mean your “Baptist” history, then present your Baptist historic evidence pre-Luther, and I’ll try to look it up. Historic evidence means names, dates, places, identifiable as Baptist, as demonstrated by writings, archaeological remains, tombs and inscriptions and that sort of thing.

I am highly interested in that: I’m here to learn.

If you mean your “Christian” history, then I suppose we share “Christian” history in every one of the 20 centuries going back to Christ. Augustine of Hippo and Nina of Cappadocia are part of your Christian history, if you want to affirm your relationship (and many do.) Name names, I’m taking notes!

If you mean your “Salvation" History, we can both claim David, Abraham, Abel, Eve. But I don’t think that makes them Baptists. Or Catholics. Or Christians. They weren't all even Jews... :o)

So clarify, provide me with specific ancient sources, and we’ll share (especially if I can look them up on the Internet). Now I’ve got to go do the dishes.

See ya!

Again, thank you for your gracious reply.

No, I am not Baptist. I’ve never mentioned the “denomination” of the church of which I’m a member, because that is SO unimportant. My passion is for my Lord, the One who has saved me, the One who brings meaning to my life.

That, again, is near the crux of my concerns about Roman Catholicism. Instead of simply looking to Jesus, this particular expression of Christianity promotes itself and its “saints,” and anytime someone is encouraged to look to the Magisterium or to Mary, they are implicitly encouraged to look away from the Scriptures and away from Jesus. The presence of a “co-mediatrix” distracts from the one Mediator.

Jesus saves, directly, and not through some repository known as the Roman Catholic Church.

You ask if “the Baptists don’t claim that the Church is a ‘visible body,’ do they?” Yes, of course it is, since the Church is made up of those whom the Lord has adopted into His family. The Church is both invisible, consisting of those in the faith who’ve died, and visible, consisting of those in the faith who are among us.

A lot of your discussion is about denominations — Roman Catholicism, Baptist, and so on. I think that may be part of the problem here. The Church is not a “denomination,” but the body of those whom the Lord has saved, and includes Christ-followers who associate with Roman Catholicism and Baptist doctrine, etc.

Dear Theo—

Thank you for clearing up that part about denomination. I’d thought you were a Baptist because you were asking me to affirm the historic legitimacy of the Baptist church; and also because this thread is about the article by Albert Mohler, a leading and respected (by me!) Baptist.

I assume you think of the Church as the Body of Christ (?) (again correct me if I’m wrong) and I assume that means you have a living connection with all Christians, who are members of the same Body.

As a member of Christ’s Body, the other members cannot be “SO unimportant.” Rather, they areso vitally essential to me, because they are --- as Paul says --- the eyes, ears, nose, hands, feet of my Lord, the One who has saved me, the One who brings meaning to my life.

It is sad to think of the eye saying to the ear, “I don’t need you,” and of the hand saying to the foot, “I don’t need you.” It is sad also that some Christians see our departed as if they were, not only unimportant, not only un-needed, but “dead”. Jesus rejected such thinking on the part of the Sadducees when he said that our God is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ---“ and He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

Thus those who look away from the other members of the Body through twenty centuries of church life, are looking away Scriptures and away from Jesus.

This body includes Christ-followers who associate with Roman Catholicism and Baptist doctrine, etc. – in your words --- and it includes saints both canonized and uncanonized, both on earth and in heaven. We have a living, vital connection with them and always want to be ever-stronger linked to them; learn from them and never stop learning from them; love them and never stop loving them.

But to move on to what really concerns me here:

All this leaves unmentioned the initial problem posed by Mohler, which is that there are active homosexual Christians "out there" ---

Take a look: http://tinyurl.com/GayChristian101

--- who assert that they love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ, who disagree with the"errors" of the "tranditions of men" and the lexicons which translate "arsenokoitai" and "molokai" as homoxual tout court, and who claim that by adherance to Christ Alone, they can be practicing "gay Christian" -- pracitcing gay and practicing Christians.

I think, of course, that their arguments can be refuted; but not, however, without making reference to what 2,000 years of living Church teaching had to say about "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi".

Please do check this out http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html --- becuase my underlying concern is to combat erroneous "Jesus-only" "gay scripture scholarship" that cares not what the Church has said for 2,000 years.

Theo --- you've been a good guy to communicate with, and I want to thank you for your cordial and reasoned responses. A few years' experience on this forum have shown me that a real meeting of the minds is rare (although it happens) You have made this kind of "meeting" possible.

I see I misunerstood you as saying the members of the Church over the ages are unimportant, when actually you said “denominations” are unimportant. Thanks for the correction, which I will keep in mind.

Someone who regarded the Church as human institution only, bearing nothing but the sins and stinks of humanity, could set up a duality and say, "Honor one: the Church, or Christ. The Church must decrease, and Christ must increase!"

But a person who sees the Church as the Body of Christ, cannot even conceive of such a dualism. We honor Christ as the Head of the Church, and honor the Church as the Body of Christ: we don't see how they can be separated.

So I as an individual can be justly accused of any fault, (and my faults no doubt impair my witness--- I must examine my conscience on this), but as a Catholic I cannot be faulted for putting my Church above Christ, since that is a conceptual impossiblility: Christ is the Head of His Body, the Church.

We tend to understand the word "Church" in diverging ways, and this leads to serial failures to "mesh gears" in a real discussion, since half the time we're puzzling over what the other one really meant. For instance, when you say "Rome and its artifacts," I'm thinking, "Huh? Does Theo really think that the city of Rome is the author and perfecter of my faith? Or 'artifacts'? What's that: buildings? baldacchinos? bank accounts? Whattheheck is Theo talking about?"

So it's a good idea to step back once in a while (as both of us have done) to take a breath and say, "Hm, maybe I'm running down the wrong rabbit-trail here."

I am grateful that you said you agree that "2,000 years of Scriptural analysis by Christ-followers should not be rejected out-of hand, as “gay theology” does." I think that was the main point... about 80+ posts ago!

I appreciate the good discussion.

Hm. I’m not sure we’re able to make too much progress. You believe that the One True Church finds its earthly home in Rome, with the Pope as its head, with the episcopacy codifying doctrine. I don’t. Such a presupposition hinders doctrinal reconciliation.

You wrote, “Someone who regarded the Church as human institution only, bearing nothing but the sins and stinks of humanity, could set up a duality and say, ‘Honor one: the Church, or Christ. The Church must decrease, and Christ must increase!’”

I have no idea where that came from. I surely didn’t say that. Of COURSE the Church is the Bride of Christ, and though its members are daily in need of a Savior, we are considered by God to be “kings and priests” (Rev. 5:12). Though we are sinful, we are also set apart by God to be holy. We will be presented to Christ in spotless condition, and some day together enjoy a great heavenly feast. The Church is not a mere human institution (though it is made up of humans); it is conceived by God Himself.

And so it is right to give appropriate honor to the Church — not the Roman Catholic denomination in particular over other expressions of Christ’s Church, but to the Church universal which finds its fount not in Rome but in Heaven.

Again, yes, I do believe that denominations (such as the RCC) should humble themselves and affirm that ALL those whom the Lord has adopted into His family are on equal footing before Him. No particular denomination (such as the RCC) is the prime repository of the Lord’s grace and truth.

When I speak of “Rome and its artifacts,” I’m speaking of the denomination whose headquarters are situated in the Vatican, and the particular traditions observed by those in the RCC that are not explicitly Scriptural. The distinctive garments, the cathedrals, the incense, the formalized confessionals, the extraordinary deference given to Jesus’ mother, the shape of “the host,” the embracing of the Apocrypha as as legitimate as the Old and New Testaments, statues of “saints,” Canonization — those things are not prescribed by Scripture in the way they’re traditionally observed within the RCC.

I could talk of “Baptists and their artifacts” in the same way — organs, altar calls, Bible-thumpers, tent meetings. Those things are not specifically prescribed by Scripture, and are typically associated with denominations such as the Baptist denomination.

Anyway, I suppose our conversation is helpful in that it reminds me how grateful I am for the way God Himself cares for and prunes His Church, for the way He draws out a remnant (see Romans 11:5) from among people who have grown stagnant and wayward.

A paradoxical thing just occurred to me. Let's see if I can express it without giving offense, which is absolutely not my intent.

It's this: I know a few things about your religious beliefs

a believer in Jesus Christ
a believer in the authority of Scripture
Not a Catholic
Not a Baptist

And yet, I have little basis for knowing anything, confidently, about what you might or must therefore believe.

Now this is paradoxical, because one would think that if a person said "I believe in Christ and I believe in the Bible," a second person could reasonably deduce what they believed in terms of faith and morals.

But one can't. For instance, I don't know whether you think drinking a shot of whiskey is permitted, prohibited for some, or prohibited for all (a controversy which is now raging amongst the Christian FReepers at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2672733/posts.)

I have no clue where you'd stand on that. Or onthe following:

(Omit all the following if it gets tiresome or offensive, and go straight to the bottom)

Is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person with a human nature, or a human being who was made divine? Or something else?

Is God one Being? Is God one Person? Is God male? One male? Two males? Three males? Both male and female? Neither?

Babies may be / must be / must not be, baptized?

Human beings have/don't have a free will?

Were some people created/predestined to be damned eternally?

Do we inherit our human nature from our parents, or direct from God? Do we inherit our soul from our parents, or direct from God?

Can a person attain true knowledge about God via natural human reason?

Will a person who has accepted Jesus as their Savior by faith, still be saved even if they become a Muslim, commit suicide-bombing and die unrepentant?

Are pious Jews who died before Christ, in heaven? How about pious Jews who died after Christ? Little Muslims who died in childhood? Aborted babies? The babies whom Herod had murdered in Bethlehem? Are there animals in heaven?

Will Christians someday be raptured up to meet Jesus in the air?

Can God change His mind? Is He changeable? Is His law changeable?

Who, if anybody, has the authority to add or remove verses, chapters, or books, to or from the canon of Scripture? (a) first-century AD non-Messianic Jewish rabbis (b) 17th century Christian scholars in Britain (c) Nobody.

If there were a dispute about that (say a Torah scroll of Exodus turns up at an archaeological dig, well-preserved, provably older than any existing manuscripts, with a few amazingly clarifying verses replacing what were admittedly disputable/obscure/garbled/fragmentary verses in other versions) who would have the authority to resolve the dispute? (a) the best Hebrew Torah scholars (a) a church council (c) each individual believer (d) nobody?

Who, if anybody, had the authority to “change” the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?

Is the religious celebration of Christmas and Easter permitted? Required? Or forbidden? Was Noah a just man? Or is there no man just? Is dismemberment of an unborn baby morally permitted to save the mother's life? In-Vitro fertilization? Torture for the purpose of interrogation? Whipping as a punishment for adultery? Masturbation for the purpose of marital insemination? Remarriage after divorce? Levirate marriage? Killing of civilians via city-targeted “carpet-bombing” in war?

May a person do evil that good may come of it?

Is pornography OK when provided by a therapist for the purpose of improving marital relations? Consensual anal intercourse of husband and wife? Snake-handling as a demonstration of faith? Removal of non-viable embryo in ectopic pregnancy? Sex-change surgery as a treatment for gender dysphoria? Exorcism as a treatment for self-harming hallucinatory behavior?

Is there an unforgivable sin? If so, what is it? Final impenitence? Sorrow for sin that despairs of forgiveness? Dying ignorant of Christ? Accepting Christ but rejecting the Holy Spirit? Apostasy?

Is polygamy ever permitted? Concubinage? Execution of captured enemy combatants? Sexual intercourse with female prisoners of war?

Did you skip all that? No problem! :o)

I'm not saying this to aggravate you. Nor am I expecting you to answer all these questions. (Though it would be fascinating and thought-provoking if you did!) But the fact is, a person saying "I'm a Christian and I believe in the authority of Scripture alone" doesn't give me any sure information about what they actually believe about right, wrong, God, man, faith, morals, life, death.

Self-identified Bible-believing Christian FReepers could, I’ll bet, be found to answer every one of these questions in every contradictory way imaginable and some which you and I could never have imagined.

Isn’t that strange?

What do you make of it?

Actually, that’s a fun “test.” Here are my answers:

Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

God is one being, expressed as a community of three Persons; He is not “male” or “female,” but seems predominantly masculine, though sometimes described in feminine terms.

Only those who repent of their sins and follow Christ are to be baptized; babies are unable to do that, so they may instead by “dedicated” by their parents or guardians.

Free will vs. predestination? Not sure. I guess I lean more toward predestination, though we appear to have free will to do certain things.

God knows who will be “damned eternally”: I suppose we could call that “predestined,” as He knows the outcome right now.

I don’t understand the next question; I guess I’d say we inherit our human nature from our parents, our sin nature from the first Adam.

We need the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures to gain knowledge of God; it’s helpful to have the Scriptures “unpacked” by wise men and women.

If someone becomes a Muslim, then I doubt they were truly saved in the first place. And “die unrepentant”? I’m not sure what that means. We all sin daily, and some of those sins go unrepented-of. Christ saves His own, even when they’ve left some sins unrepented-of.

Scripture indicates that some people who lived before Jesus was incarnated are indeed saved, by faith in the promised Messiah. I do believe that those who’ve not reached the age of accountability will be in heaven. Animals? I think there are some animals in heaven, as Revelation speaks of horses and such.

The rapture does seem to be a biblically-supported belief.

No, God cannot change His mind. His mind is perfect as it is; no need to change it. :-)

Scripture is set; through the first few centuries, it became evident which books should be included in the Canon, and which were kinda important but didn’t rise to the level of Scripture (e.g., the Apocrypha).

We’re not going to find scrolls of Exodus that are significantly different from what we already have.

The Sabbath? We’re commanded to work six days and rest one day. Where that day falls is irrelevant; God cares about the heart of the matter.

We’re free to observe Christ’s birth and resurrection. God chose Noah to accomplish His purposes, as He chose Mary to accomplish His purposes.

Yes, I believe a woman is permitted to defend her life by taking another life. That is extremely tragic, and a woman is permitted to either have the D&C (e.g., in the case of ectopic pregnancy) or continue the pregnancy trusting that the Lord will achieve His will through the situation.

In-Vitro Fertilization produces lots of fertilized eggs that will likely be destroyed. I think that’s tragic, and I’m opposed to IVF for that reason.

Hm. I’m starting to get tired. These are interesting things about which to form opinions, and I do enjoy thoughtful discussion about these things. But one is not saved by having correct doctrine or correct positions on these issues. One is saved by turning from sin and turning to Christ as Messiah. The RCC is not a necessary part of salvation. That’s my big point.

I do believe the RCC has it right in a lot of areas, and has gotten it wrong in some areas. Just like most Christian organizations, and just like Al Mohler. Regardless whether we associate more with the RCC or Mohler, let us pursue Christ above all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.