Skip to comments.Warning All Churches [Homosexual infiltration]
Posted on 11/21/2013 1:41:36 PM PST by fwdude
Over this year, there have been a number of news reports on another movement in the church advocating for the acceptance of homosexual behavior and same-sex relationships. Matthew Vines, an openly homosexual 23-year-old student at Harvard University, posted a video on YouTube of a speech he gave on homosexuality and the Bible. In the talk, he claims repeatedly that Gods Word does not condemn monogamous same-sex relationships.
Now, a recent report from the Christian Post highlighted the amount of compromise happening within the church on this issue. The headline of the article explains, " 50 Hand-Picked Christians Trained To Convince Churches To Re-Interpret Scriptures Gay Boundaries. Vines apparently hosted a training conference recently in his home state of Kansas for Christians who want to convince their churches to accept same-sex relationships.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldviewweekend.com ...
Jesus said to them again, Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
So.... your position is that the Holy Spirit is an optional buffet item?? The Holy Spirit indwells the believer. No HOly Spirit, no salvation.
Again, the assumption Scripture is the only authority. Please demonstrate that from Scripture.
Your pictures in lieu of solid argument are entertaining but really add nothing to the discussion.
Making it personal?
According to which Protestant denominations? There are others that fully embrace Baptismal Regeneration.
Actually, Scripture states that believers are given the Holy Spirit for guidance.
It would appear the Spirit’s major job is to point to Jesus?
I have heard some sermons say if we are talking about the spirit and not Jesus, it ain’t the Spirit.
So demonstrate it.
Happy to do so — Here you go:
Already done. See post 21.
I can pretty much guarantee you I have a better command of Scripture than you do. What I don't have is all the Protestant baggage that goes along with it.
“You are the one who appears to be arguing for Christ not being God in the flesh.”
“Making it personal?”
Note the term “appears”.
Any time you’re ready to prove it, please go right ahead. My experience with Catholics on this board says otherwise. They are well-versed in Catholic dogma and doctrine, but no so much in Scripture.
If not, you must be claiming to always follow the Holy Spirit's prompting and are thus sinless...no?
None of those Scriptures demonstrate what you claim.
Any believer will tell you that the indwelling Holy Spirit does not create a sinless person. If I were sinless, I wouldn’t need a Savior and I would be denying that wonderful passage in Romans which Catholics love to forget when it comes to Mary. Circular argument??
Of course they do. Revelations, for example, forbids adding to Scriptures. The others as well. Better go back and read again.
So "appears" isn't personal, but "seem" is....
So why won't you answer my "tohu va bohu" question?
And as I spent over twenty years as a Bible Christian, you'll find I don't fit your prejudice.
If the indwelling Spirit does not protect you from sin, by what Scripture do you maintain it protects you from doctrinal error?
Not prejudice. Experience. And why won’t you answer your own question since you appear so “eager” to show your — ahem — supposed “better command” of Scripture.....??
For the record, it's singular: not "Revelations." Please show where that condemnation extends to the whole of the Bible.
And you wanted me to demonstrate my command of Scripture; well there you go.
Now we’re back to Scripture proving Scripture. That’s how. If one’s interpretation contradicts Scripture as stated over and over again (not removed from its context) contradicts Scripture...guess who’s wrong. (Clue: Since Scripture IS the only authority, that would be the one who is wrongly interpreting it, not Scripture itself.)
As for “protection” from sin, who said He was some kind of life vest? He guides, but no I don’t think I ever stated one was COMPELLED, but it’s a strange sort of Christian who would not want to.... Again, since we are ALL sinful creatures, we will never be sinless on this Earth. None of us (and yes, that includes Mary). Only one was and is sinless in human form and that’s Christ.
Did you not apply your "experience" to me?
THAT’S your supposed “better command” of Scripture??? SERIOUSLY???? Ever hear of a typo, slick?? No??
You applied it to yourself. And frankly, nothing you’ve said has proven that experience to be in error.
Now I’ve just realized I’ve wasted over an hour with a nonsensical discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize Scripture as authoritative, so ....we have no common ground on which to continue and frankly I have better things to do than continue this silly, pointless debate that’s going nowhere.
Have you ever had a doctrinal discussion with a Jehovah's Witness? They do exactly that, and with the same alacrity of most Protestants I might add.
It doesn't make them right.
A serious Bible student would never make that mistake. It's like a cop confusing his taser with his pistol.
So please show the universality of the condemnation in Revelation.
Oh I have no problem stating categorically that Scripture is authoritative, just not Protestant interpretation of it is authoritative. And apparently, you are going to do like all Protestants when challenged on their own turf: declare victory, and run away.
If you came to my church, we would welcome you too, sinner that you are.
Don’t forget transubstantiation.
Wow! All the same posts in thread after thread. The vastness of you portfolio is astounding! And the depth of study is amazing! Have you ever thought of public speaking tours?
That’s not the answer to my question, but you probably already knew that.
Actually, it is. Like I said, all sinners are welcome there would be no church otherwise. And there is no church that exists that includes people who do not sin. Ebdorsement of sin through weakening scripture, doctrine, and teaching is another thing altogether. My church requires that people conform themselves to what Jesus and the Bible teaches.
“My church requires that people conform themselves to what Jesus and the Bible teaches.”
Are you sure? Or should they conform to what your church teaches?
So, your all-inclusive statement was false. You don't include in the life of the church those who rebelliously refuse to conform themselves to what Jesus and the Bible teaches, or outright unbelievers.
If you did, I'd never darken the door of your "church." It wouldn't be any different from a UU club.
I would challenge Mr. Vines to prove that the original recipients of the books of the Bible who lived during the eras of the Old and New Testaments would’ve thought that the books taught that homosexual behavior was OK. Of course, that would be ridiculous. I have more intellectual respect for non-believers who reject the Bible as the word of God but concede that it teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful than I do for the likes of Mr. Vines and his fellow false teachers with their heretical and ahistorical teaching.
The Synagogue of Sodomy and Church of the Stinky Donut Hole is the religious faggotry of the left...
“When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.”
Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan, 1651.