Posted on 09/09/2017 8:11:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The response to the Nashville Statement continues with some scholars now saying it damages the church's already negative reputation with homosexuals, and lacks pastoral wisdom even though they agree with the document theologically.
Writing on his website Sunday, New York Times bestselling author Preston Sprinkle, who is currently a full-time speaker, noted that although he stood with the authors and signers of the Nashville Statement — a document published last week by the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission that promotes the long-held Christian view of marriage and sexual ethics — it falls short on important fronts.
"I do believe that [the signers have] gone about this all wrong and it will tarnish the church's already tarnished reputation with LGBT+ people," Sprinkle wrote, saying that the statement came across as "one-sided" and that it "fails to own up to the many—MANY—mistakes that theologically orthodox believers have made in this conversation."
Sprinkle took particular issue with the "impersonal" and "outdated" language in several of the statement's articles as well as its narrow focus, as others have, especially with article 7, which argues against "adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception."
Although former homosexuals Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Butterfield are among the statement's initial signatories and do not identify as "gay," Sprinkle maintains that what one opts to call oneself presents a more complex issue.
"[T]here are many original signers of the NS that have taken a very hard line against ever adopting the term 'gay Christian'—even if the person believes in a traditional view of marriage," Sprinkle said.
Documents like the Nashville Statement, which by their nature demand adherence, unnecessarily exclude these faithful Christians, he went on to say. He has spent many hours reading on sexuality-related topics and speaking with friends who identify as all sorts of things and concluded that "this specific conversation is ten times more complicated than most people realize, and a thousand times more complicated than article 7 makes it out to be."
About the same time as the publication of the Nashville Statement, Sprinkle released a 20-minute film called, "Dear Church: I'm Gay." While the film makes a point to endorse the historic Christian view of sexuality, it delves deeply into the pastoral nuances and complexities, telling the stories of several Christians who have had various levels of experience with same-sex attraction and homosexuality. Also included in the short film is the story of a noncelibate gay man who no longer believes his Christian faith but whose parents are Christian and have stayed in relationship with him even as they do not agree with homosexual practice.
"While we absolutely need to celebrate and promote Christianity's historic view of marriage and sexual expression," Sprinkle reiterated, he emphaized that "we need to do so much more thoughtfully and much more holistically—pounding the pulpit for truth and grace."
In similar fashion, Pastor Josh Daffern of MTV Church in Columbus, Mississippi, thought the Nashville Statement lacked pastoral wisdom and that it contained a few "fatal" flaws that gave him enough reason to never sign it.
"This statement reminds me of a married couple that constantly has arguments," Daffern wrote on his Patheos blog Tuesday, noting that as a conservative evangelical pastor he had "no qualms with the individual tenets" of the statement but, like Sprinkle, objected to some of the language used in it. And, he continued, the Nashville Statement was crafted mostly by academics and scholars who are mostly sealed off from people who do not think like them and that the document ultimately impedes the Great Commission.
Daffern mentioned that he has a lesbian woman who has been attending his church for about a month and is reportedly battling addictions and is struggling with several other issues in her life.
"If I preached on the Nashville Statement and declared my allegiance, would that help or hinder her own spiritual journey?" he asked. "Why would I be more comfortable with pastors and not Christian academics creating this document? Because orthodoxy divorced from relationships can many times lead to rhetoric that hinders (not helps) us achieve our overall mission, to lead all people to Jesus," he said.
"I don't disagree with the document. I disagree with the tone in which it was presented. I disagree with the vacuum within which it was created, and I disagree with the rhetoric this will now create that will only further drive a wedge between evangelical Christians and the LGBT community."
Wrong, Showalter...you lack wisdom.
The only morally good sex is unprotected sex within a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.
All other sex is evil.
When you use the word "passion," do you mean "priapic appetite," or something else?
Hi. I was hesitant to respond as it seemed possible that what I’d come up with might be taken as curt or cutesy, but here goes.
It is our job to provide a faithful witness to His word. God provides the Grace. That’s the devision of responsibility.
There can all too easily come a point at which our trying to be gracious to the feelings of the lost works counter to the urgency of the Gospel and this is really what those demanding sensitivity to their sin are seeking, even if they do not intellectually realize it, as people don’t like being made to feel bad as if they did bad things. It’s that very bad news that goes all the way back to Genesis against which the Gospel is good news. But we cannot be a faithful witness if we pull our punches on that ... so it’s probably better to not even go down that road.
But it’s a must to look beyond the sin to the need which has been expressed and met in a sinful way. It is my observed belief that modern Christendom has little or no room for such matters and has failed to be Jesus grade anymore.
We need a doctrine of evangelizing.
Some of the Protestant commentators who have responded to the Nashville Statement, such as those at Mortification of Spin, have observed that the statement is very limited. It does not address the vast majority of sexual-revolution behaviors, but only symptoms at the very far edge.
This doesn’t make the statement “wrong” or of no benefit at all, but it is far from all that Christianity has to say about human sexuality, and far from the most crucial content.
Hitler converted to Islam and died in Indonesia in 1970:
He’s in Hell, by the way...
I guess Brandon has never read the Bible.
If they had truly meant the repentance, then yes. Even Judas had an opportunity to repent. The thief on the cross repented at the last moment and joined Christ in heaven.
You don’t pastor unbelievers who are enemies to the Truth.
**The thief on the cross repented at the last moment and joined Christ in heaven.**
1. That was under the old covenant. The testator was not dead yet. So, the new covenant was not established yet. Jesus Christ commanded rebirth. This includes being filled with the Holy Ghost, which was not to happen until after his departure.
2. Jesus Christ was still on earth. After telling the man with the palsy (that was lowered through the roof), the his sins were forgiven, he told the doubters that “the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins”. Luke 5:24. He also forgave the sins of the sinner woman that anointed his feet. It doesn’t say in exact words that he forgave the thief. But the thief was obviously asking for forgiveness, and the Lord’s reply of them being together in paradise, makes it obvious that forgiveness was granted.
Then the Son of man left this earth. But not before handing over the job of remitting sins to his ordained men (John 20:23). They began to do so in Acts 2:38.
“1. That was under the old covenant. The testator was not dead yet. So, the new covenant was not established yet. Jesus Christ commanded rebirth. This includes being filled with the Holy Ghost, which was not to happen until after his departure.”
Wrong,the thief died under the New Covenant, John 19:32-33. Salvation has been the same since Adam and Eve received the promise of a Savior the Promised Messiah Jesus Christ, Gen 3:15. Only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ has mankind been saved from Hell and that’s from Genesis to Revelation, Heb 10:3-4.
The Holy Spirit isn’t given for salvation, but because of salvation. The Holy Spirit is part of the sanctification process, John 14:26. He is our teacher and advocate, John 14:26 not our Savior that’s Jesus Christ.
“Jesus Christ commanded rebirth”
What you are referencing is when a person accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Savior He (Jesus Christ) comes and lives within us (Rom 8:10, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27), thus we are born of the Spirit of Christ. Then the Holy Spirit comes to live in us, 1 John 3:24 to teach and guide us so that we become more like Jesus as our great God sanctifies us more and more each day.
“Then the Son of man left this earth. But not before handing over the job of remitting sins to his ordained men (John 20:23). They began to do so in Acts 2:38.”
Well you are consistent I’ll give you that, but unfortunately you are still wrong three for three.
He didn’t leave anyone to forgive sins because only God can forgive sins, Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21, Isaiah 43:25, but with that being said you cannot forgive something that has already been forgiven, forgotten, and not remembered EVER AGAIN!
Col 2:13-14, Heb 8:12, Psalm 103:12
Col 2:13
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Notice it says “having forgiven” that’s past tense my friend. How, because those sins was nailed to the cross again “PAST TENSE”, Col 2:14 & Eph 2:15. All sins were forgiven past, present, and future in Christ Jesus.
“Then the Son of man left this earth. But not before handing over the job of remitting sins to his ordained men (John 20:23).”
John 20:23 doesn’t give authority to a sinful man to forgive sins, but instead it gave authority to the apostles to write the Holy Scripture which is the Word of God and cleanses us by faith in Jesus Christ, John 15:3, John 13:10, Romans 10:17.
“They began to do so in Acts 2:38.”
How you extrapolate that the Apostle forgave the sins and not God in Acts 2:38 proves either that you are repeating what you have read somewhere else or have a serious reading comprehension problem or both you choose.
Was there something unclear about my post, #39?
Maybe it’s late and I tired — well, actually BOTH are true — but I’m not getting what you want me to see here or comment about.
Generally speaking, I would certainly agree that sin has been nailed to the cross and would say that is one reason why the contents of the books are not referenced as to why any one is saved or damned but only if their names are written in the lamb’s book of life or not.
Numerable years ago if was basically given a visual metaphor for this one night as I dreamed, and I only ever reference it because it in so far as I can tell agrees with Scripture.
THAT last is of overriding importance to me, for it is Scripture and not experience (or some Johnny come lately teaching) that tells us what we can know about God’s promises and his working ... if “experience” (or some teaching) in any way opposes or is subsequently found to oppose Scripture then Scripture STAYS and the other GOES. Anyhoo ... back to my tale....
In that dream I found myself in a massive antechamber to I suppose what amounted to the marraige supper of the lamb. In this antechamber were individuals writing furiously on the huge slides of paper, as tall as a tall man, and also there were other spindles which were unattended a sealed. There were lots and lots and lots of these spindles for the antechamber (I walked around in it a bit) was itself vast.
I understood that these were people who were trying to write their own certificates to let them go in.
In contrast to these, right by the door, there were tables overburdened by single sheet forms. I picked one up and it just happened to be mine, the one filled out specifically for me. It was a legal form, filled out here and there in red (to represent the color of blood, to say that a flesh and blood person was attesting, as common with different forms of common laws), that was essentially a certificate of the new birth, a birth certificate.
I had not written one thing on the page. Nor had I picked up anyone else’s certificate.
There was an attendant to these tables, that I don’t recall if I could see him but I knew he was there, and I asked that since this was filled out for me, and I had it in hand, why couldn’t / shouldn’t I proceed on in? The answer was of course that I should and could go in.
As with the form I entered, quickly found a place that was mine and sat down.
Someone filled out that form for me. I was responsible only to pick it up.
Those innumerable giant spindles where men were laboring to write their own worth, instead of picking up the form that might have been made out for them, profited no one and since every spindle, if active or still, was still outside no one entered the gathering by means of them.
I rather got the impression that one might write on one till they either gave up and accepted someone else’s effort on their behalf or they kept writing until they ran out of time and then they’re were taken away elsewhere, somewhere I did not see but presume it ain’t a good place to end up.
How does that match up to your sense of what Scripture says about salvation and who has brought it about?
So how does he feel about the "tone" in which the Biblical condemnation of sodomy is presented?
And how does he feel about the wedge between evangelical NT Christians and the Jewish community due to preaching the cross of Christ?.
And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. (Galatians 5:11)
Certainly kindness and compassion is to be shown towards homosexuals, as towards others, but that does not mean we do not affirm that what is sin according to Scripture, and warn souls of its consequences, esp. when acceptance of it it is foisted upon us.
If it was possible for them to repent, but while they certainly were far far more winked and destructive than most, all are sinners and all need to be saved, and all who come to the risen Lord Jesus with broken and contrite hearts can be saved on His account, thanks be to God.
One lost soul may be drowning 10 yards from shore, and another 100 yards, but both need to be rescued.
However, God owes mercy and grace to now one, and those who sin against the light they had in harden their heart when convicted of God have the least chance of seeing repentance.
He was referring to the reputation of the church at large, not one single denomination, much less an elitist one (whose distinctives are not manifest in the inspired record of what it believed ) whose members overall support homosexual unions.
Wrong. Rather than taking a text in isolation as Catholics often must do, and which is the only way they can attempt to make their tradition (of the need to normally confess sins to a Cath priest in order to obtain forgiveness) here appear Scriptural, you needed to examine issue in the light of the rest of Scripture, and in particular the Scriptural record of the NT church (Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels).
In so doing, we can see,
1. Nowhere are NT pastors distinctively called by the distinctive word for a distinctive separate sacerdotal class of believers, ("hiereus" in Greek, and "priests" in English), to whom souls regularly came to obtain forgiveness.
Instead, all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
2. Nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors, or ever commanded to do so. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)
Here we see an example of spiritual binding and loosing, in which the heavens were bound from providing rain, and then loosed to do so, whereby believers of like fervent holy faith are encouraged as able to obtain such binding and loosing in prayer.
However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:13-15)
Yet nowhere is the infirm man required to confess his sin, and which in this case is likewise one he is ignorant of, but chastened for. (cf. Mark 2:1-11) Nor is this an example of the Catholic "Last Rites," as healing is what is promised here, while the Catholic Last Rites is normatively a precursor of death.
And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. (Mark 2:3-12)
One can be chastised for unconfessed sins he is not aware of, and mercy can even be requested for those who sinned in ignorance, (Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60) and here we see healing and forgiveness being treated as one thing, for the latter obtained the former. And which was in response to the intercession of the man's friends, and is corespondent to James 5.
In both cases it seems that the afflicted were not aware of the sins that there were under chastisement for, and in neither case was confession of such required, and in both cases intercession obtained deliverance without sacerdotal clergy being required.
3. Nowhere does any NT pastor teach believers that they need to be confessing their sins to them in particular in order to obtain forgiveness.
Instead, Scripture simply states that,
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
And when Peter charged Simon Magnus with sin, he told him to pray to God himself if perhaps he might be forgiven. However, this does not mean that intercession for mercy cannot be asked of pastors or believers in general, as was also the case here.
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. (Acts 8:22-24)
4. As seen in James 5:16-18, the power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but formal judicial actions are executed under leadership, not autocratically but in union with all the church.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:16-18)
While judicial actions are carried out by the whole church under leadership, that the power to bind and loose is not restricted to clergy is also evident by what follows Matthew 18:16-18, as it applies to two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name.
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)
The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5:
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin:
To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)
5. Leadership does act in the person of Christ in such judicial and disciplinary cases (which flows from the OT: Dt. 17:8-13), together with the church, while Spirit-filled holy men such as the apostles can also declare one to be bound in sin, as seen before in Acts 8:20-23, and in Acts 5:1-10 (cf. Acts 13:6-12; 1Co. 4:21) be instruments of Divine judgment.
Yet this is not an endowment of office as if anyone in that office can execute such, but such can be the power of Spirit-filled holy men who are to occupy that office, while the power of binding and loosing in general is provided for all Spirit-filled holy believers.
And since there simply is no Catholic priesthood in the NT church, no separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively called by the distinctive name for such, whose primary active function is that of offering the Catholic Eucharist as an offering for sin, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life , then any spiritual power that might belong to the office of NT presbuteros does not apply to them .
6. Outside of the above, nowhere is clerical intercession or that of anyone required for forgiveness, but the promise that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) means that forgiveness does not require regular confession to clergy, let alione Catholic priests.
In many places in the gospel, Jesus makes clear that he is appointing men to transmit his teaching, and to sanctify and to govern in his name. In other words, Jesus describes a religion, an institution, in which he appoints men to mediate the teaching and the sanctifying activity of Jesus.
And thus the Westminster Confession affirms "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," and we believe in ordaining elders (presbuteros) who are the only overseers of the church after the apostles, and who were not Catholic priests, and were normally married.
That and the absence of other Catholic distinctives and the overall contrary nature of Catholicism disallows both the Catholic church from being the one true church (though some within it can be saved) and your own priesthood, and thus you as being a priest from being NT pastors.
**Wrong,the thief died under the New Covenant, John 19:32-33.**
No, you’re wrong. When does a dead man make a promise to someone that is alive. The promise was made while Jesus Christ was still alive. Are you planning on making promises to alive folks when your body stiffening up?
**Heb 10:3-4.**
That’s right, those sacrifices could not take away sins. But they did offer those sacrifices by the commandment of God; LONG before the Law was instituted.
Obedience.
**The Holy Spirit isn’t given for salvation, but because of salvation.**
Look at John 3:3-8. So you think one can see the kingdom of God without the Spirit?
I said:“Jesus Christ commanded rebirth”
You said: **What you are referencing is when a person accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Savior He (Jesus Christ) comes and lives within us (Rom 8:10, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27), thus we are born of the Spirit of Christ. Then the Holy Spirit comes to live in us, 1 John 3:24 to teach and guide us so that we become more like Jesus as our great God sanctifies us more and more each day.**
First of all, the experience must be scriptural: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit”. John 3:8
There are three detailed instances of people being filled with the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, as the Spirit gave the utterance (Acts 2:4; 10:44; and 19:6. A fourth detailed instance showed a sorcerer, who after seeing Samaritans receiving the Holy Ghost, offered money for the power to be able to give people the Holy Ghost.
I don’t think that he’d offered anything to see people say, “I accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior”.
**He didn’t leave anyone to forgive sins because only God can forgive sins.**
That’s right. But he commanded:
“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:23
Was the Lord lying? Do you think that he just didn’t instruct them properly? They were ordained to remit sins, but they had to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Ghost power to guide them.
Do you read Mark 16:16 this way: “He that believeth, is saved..”.
Is Acts 2:38 from heaven, or of men?
**Col 2:13**
Paul reminded those at Colosse: “....putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”. Col. 2:11,12
Paul reminded the Roman saints of their conversion: “..How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” Rom. 6:2-5.
** “PAST TENSE”,**
You will not find any detailed conversion stories in the epistles. Those letters were written to people that were already converted. The context proves that without a doubt.
But, you can read plenty of past tense verses that show the context of the epistles, such as this one: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Rom. 6:17,18.
Here is a short list showing the past tense wording in many places; showing the writer addressing people that are already converted: Rom. 13:11; 1Cor. 2:5, 12:2, 15:1; Gal. 1:6, 3:2-3; Eph. 1:13, 2:1; Phil. 1:5, 2:12; Col. 1:23, 2:6; 1Thess. 1:6, 2:13; Heb. 6:1,2,10.
Is Acts 2:38 the word of God?
You say his word cleanses us. Do you believe Acts 2:38 is his word?
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.