SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Homosexuality in the Church Of England

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:


Philologos wrote:

"This was not the position of Fox or Barclay. They would not accept your views on scripture."

Perhaps, but they would fully defend my right to assert (and follow) the spiritual insights that have been given to me and many other Friends down through the ages by following the Inner Light and attending to the leadings of others so led.

"You accept such scripture as you can weave into your design but reject those that you judge will not fit"

The Bible is not intended to be read literally. It must be interpreted. Some parts don't agree with others. For instance, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Isaiah tells us that mankind will learn peaceful ways, beating spears into plowshares, Revelations tells us that we are going to kill off nearly everyone on the planet before the second coming. I see these as a stark contradition.

"Not by might, nor by power, but by thy Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts."

 2003/12/9 13:19
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Only within our lack of understanding does Scripture oppose itself. God's word is perfect. Our understanding is imperfect. As other warn I also warn. The Spirit within me confirms the word of God. Any other spirit that does not bring us in alignment with the word of God is antichrist.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1.

As you say you follow the Gospels, search to see how careful Jesus sought to confirm His word in the things He did. ie. "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come."

"How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word." Psalm 119:9

Which words are not His? Which words should we not heed? When we become a bondservant, a slave to our Lord and Savior we establish that we have no rights. Yet you assert you have rights. Your logic defies the word of God.

Jake why won't you respond to my posts?


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2003/12/9 15:14Profile
todd
Member



Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California

 Re:

While I don't agree with most of jake's opinions, I think he has been treated unfairly throughout this post. Although I am very impressed with the strong and informed defense being offered, jake is often being critisized unjustly and sometimes even openly mocked.

For example (of unjust critisizm), back near the beginning of this thread jake commented that Jesus said "brood of vipers". Then in reply it was commented that it was John the Baptist that said this (implying that jake had made a mistake). To which jake humlby accepted the correction (though he was actually correct originally). In Matt. 12:34 Jesus says to the Pharisees "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." And in Matt. 23:33 Jesus says again to the Pharisees "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" If I am not mistaken, John the Baptist is recorded twice as using this phrase and Jesus is also recorded twice as saying this phrase. Yet nobody came to jake's defense. Did no other contributers to this thread realize that Jesus also said this (this would be very surprising to me)? Why was jake not defended here?

Not that his attitude has been exemplary either, but if we are trying to be an example for what we perceive to be a weaker believer or even a non-believeer, shouldn't we exemplify justice and fairness in our conduct?

Openly mocking someone is pretty out of character for this site. I am disappointed that nobody has said anything about this yet.

Also, I think jake is kind of right about at least one thing.... that if we are committing adultery in our heart (or if you follow that line of thinking, being a drunk, addict, murderer, idolater, etc., in heart) then we better do a real gut check before pointing the finger at homosexuals. Not to defend their conduct, but just a caution to some (including myself).

And finally, who claims that signs and wonders are "a gospel" (as juoko implied)? It is my understanding that signs and wonders confirm the gospel, not that they are "a gospel".

 2003/12/9 23:25Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Thanks Todd,
For saying what I had noticed as well.
Was hoping that it would resolve itself.

Gentelman, no need for the barb's.
It is a lively discussion and we are all at different stages in this walk. Surely we should defend and debate vigurosly.
Perhaps the ol adage would apply:

In essentials unity.
Non- essentials liberty.
But in all things [i][color=000000]charity[/color][/i]


_________________
Mike Balog

 2003/12/9 23:47Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

quote:Philologos wrote:

"This was not the position of Fox or Barclay. They would not accept your views on scripture."

Perhaps, but they would fully defend my right to assert (and follow) the spiritual insights that have been given to me and many other Friends down through the ages by following the Inner Light and attending to the leadings of others so led.

Hi Jake,
I too would fully defend your 'right' to believe whatever you will. It is when those beliefs are brought into the public domain that we have a responsibility to challenge and earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. [Jude v3]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/10 3:25Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

todd wrote:For example (of unjust critisizm), back near the beginning of this thread jake commented that Jesus said "brood of vipers". Then in reply it was commented that it was John the Baptist that said this (implying that jake had made a mistake). To which jake humlby accepted the correction (though he was actually correct originally).

This was my mistake, so I put my hand up. What I ought to have said was that John was the originator of the phrase. Jesus often quoted John Baptist e.g. 'Baptised in the Holy Spirit and fire' is John Baptist's phrase, later taken up by Jesus.

I have consciously tried to respect Jake's opinions while refuting the premises on which they are built. At one point we took the debate off-line but was encouraged to return to the public forum by Greg. I have a whole bundle of things in which I agree strongly with Jake.
e.g. I won't swear oaths, I am a pacifist (sometimes militantly so ;-) ) Nearly all the meetings, in the church of which I am part, would be described by Jake as 'unprogrammed'. I believe passionately in an uncluttered Christianity where the sons of God are Spirit-led and not directed by forms and creeds; the church of which I am part has no doctrinal statement and no membership role. My one point of conflict with Jake has been the final (not sole)court of appeal for Christian debate; Jake believes it to be his inward witness, I believe it to be the scriptures. and because I want to preserve the usefulness of the early Quakers contribution to the Church I have tried to show that they too regarded the scriptures, not as the sole or even initial authority, but as their final authority. that whatsoever is contrary to their testimony, may justly be regarded as false

I'm sorry if my vigour has offended you. At all times, as they say in soccer, I have gone for the ball and not the man.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/10 3:48Profile









 Re:

Todd,

I appreciate your kind words.

I guess my position is that the Truth is in the Scriptures, but that you need to hold it up to the Light to see and test it. This is because there are so many authors, time frames, differences in interpretations of the original languages, and groundings of the writers that it is impossible that error has not been introduced down through the ages. (Ever participate in the experiment where one person wispers a message to the next in a circle and it is thus passed on to the next until it comes back to the original person, having gone through numerous rephrasings? Very often the message that comes back is vastly altered, many times hilariously.)

If the Bible in its present form is wholly without error, then God would have to have been present in every person who translated or otherwise transcribed the Bible. They all would have to have been infallible, and knowing human nature, I have a hard time accepting this. I also know that scholars have gone back to previous versions in earlier translations and then revised or corrected parts based upon new information. So, if even tiny details or parts needed to be corrected, what does this say about the infallibility of the current version? Jesus offers a solution to this problem in that he is present in the NOW in the form of the Holy Spirit and is available to us to assist in clarifying and discerning the intent and meaning. Also, the Bible has many passages that were written as allegorical story, and often people misread these to be literal. (Here I refer in particular to the Creation story and Adam and Eve.)

I guess this post is a long way from the subject of Homosexuality and the Church of England, except that those of you who do not accept that homosexuals can be Christians rely on the inerrancy of the Bible as an underpinning for such beliefs.

Thank you all for your honest and reasoned opinions.

Jake


"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged." John 16:7-11

 2003/12/10 13:15
todd
Member



Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California

 Re:

Philo,
you wrote:
"This was my mistake, so I put my hand up."

As I was confident you would when called on it. I was more disappointed that nobody else stepped in to defend jake than the fact that you made a mistake.

"I have consciously tried to respect Jake's opinions while refuting the premises on which they are built."

And I think that for the most part you have done an excellent job. I am very grateful for your commitment here.

"I have a whole bundle of things in which I agree strongly with Jake."

As do I. I guess saying that I disagree with "most" of his opinions is misleading because what I meant more was that I disagree with most of what he has said about what has been the main issue with him all along- that is, the whole authority of Scripture debate. However, even here, I sypathize with his leaning towards the need for personal revelation and not just mental assent, though it seems clear he has taken this too far. And as you put it "I (also) believe passionately in an uncluttered Christianity where the sons of God are Spirit-led and not directed by forms and creeds;"

"and because I want to preserve the usefulness of the early Quakers contribution to the Church I have tried to show that they too regarded the scriptures, not as the sole or even initial authority, but as their final authority. that whatsoever is contrary to their testimony, may justly be regarded as false"

And once again you have done an excellent job of this and really openned my eyes and given me a greater appreciation for, and desire to know, more concerning the Quakers and their contributions. once again I thank you.

"I'm sorry if my vigour has offended you. At all times, as they say in soccer, I have gone for the ball and not the man."

I have not been offended either by you or your vigour. I simply felt the urge to point out obvious injustice, call it what it is, and be fair to jake.

Jake,
you wrote:
"...it is impossible that error has not been introduced down through the ages"

Isn't God in the business of doing impossible things (i.e. creating something out of nothing for a start)?

quote:
"Ever participate in the experiment where one person wispers a message to the next in a circle and it is thus passed on to the next until it comes back to the original person, having gone through numerous rephrasings? Very often the message that comes back is vastly altered, many times hilariously."

Yeah, and that idea used to make me stumble in this area as well. Until a teacher (I think) told us to try this experiment in a new way that I would encourage you to try. Write a message on a piece of paper and pass it around the room. See how much it has changed when it gets back to you. From what I understand, the Scriptures weren't passed around strictly through word of mouth but were written records that, when copied, were done so with painstaking attention to accuracy and detail ("every jot and tiddle").

The point is, God is capable of bringing down, through the ages and places, the perfect translation for us to have. No matter what has happened to it in the past, God is capable of giving to each person what they need. Whether it's the KJV for you, or "The Message" for the little girl next door.

"Jesus offers a solution to this problem in that he is present in the NOW in the form of the Holy Spirit and is available to us to assist in clarifying and discerning the intent and meaning."

Yes I agree with this except I think we disagree on the problem. The problem is not in the accuracy of Scripture but in our ability to truly "get it."

"Also, the Bible has many passages that were written as allegorical story, and often people misread these to be literal. (Here I refer in particular to the Creation story and Adam and Eve.)"

How is this anything more than your opinion (in reference specifically to the Creation story)? You may be correct, but do you have concrete proof? If so, you should give Ray Comfort a call. I believe he has offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove evolution. Let us know the results.

"I guess this post is a long way from the subject of Homosexuality and the Church of England, except that those of you who do not accept that homosexuals can be Christians rely on the inerrancy of the Bible as an underpinning for such beliefs."

Do some people here truly believe that homosexuals [b]can't[/b] (that is they absolutely can not) be Christians? I definately don't have solid beliefs about this topic. I would definately like to hear more discussion about this.

 2003/12/10 21:42Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Thanks Todd
your quote given me a greater appreciation for, and desire to know, more concerning the Quakers and their contributions.

I would heartily recommend George' Fox's Journal, as amazing account of the 'law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus' in the life of a man. Also, Robert Barclay's Apology; there is a version of this online and I have put a link to it in the Books section. Also William Penn, No Cross No Crown.

The language is archaic but some versions will give you a glossary (the online Apology does) and it is worth perservering. Occasionally you will come across oddities like 'hat honour' (in Penn) which will explain why Quakers would not remove their hats for kings and insisted on the use of 'thee'. It all makes very logical reading. Whether I would have been prepared to go to jail on my refusal to remove my hat is another matter.

The Quakers' views on freedom from sin lived on in early Methodism and the Salvation Army. Their abandonment of baptism and communion lived on in the Salvation Army. Their rejection of 'original sin' lived on in Finney and Reidhead. Their suffering for their convictions was prodigious. Whenever I think of their early years the words of Hebrews come to mind of whom the world was not worthy

As I commented in a much earlier thread we pray for revivial, they lived it


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/12/11 3:25Profile
jouko
Member



Joined: 2003/10/9
Posts: 172
Ex-England colony of Australia

 Re:

Hello Todd. Maybe I should have said signs and wonders are another gospel according to...

2Co 11:4 For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .

..if the signs and wonders become the primary factor in the gospel preached and not repentence from my sinful ways.

You make some really good points in the rest of your letter. I've never ever thought of writing something on a piece of paper and then passing it on and so on!! Brilliant stuff to use in a Sunday school class or youth group to really make a point about the Word of God.

Kent Hovind I believe has a $250000 offer the same way Ray has, nobody has claimed it yet.

As for homosexuals being Christians, I agree with the first post by Nasher and the verse he quoted.

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


_________________
Jouko Hakola

 2003/12/11 3:37Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy