LGBT vs Hetero: Stop the Bloodshed, Stay Biblical

[Guest shiloh357]

54 minutes ago, SHINY4UJESUS said:

Well I am sorry that your limited perspective and refusal to acknowledge truth are limiting your discernment here.

You have not established that your claims are truth.

Quote

Again I would prefer taking the entire Word of God into account and lean on God's wisdom regarding things rather than taking one specific instance and promoting it as God.

You have not established that the view you are promoting is from the Word of God, since the Bible doesn't call sinners, "God's children."   You need to actually demonstrate your claim to be biblical first, by offering up the evidence for review.

Quote

If u dont wish to accept truth, that is your choice; but it nonetheless will remain true with or without man's consent. If I gave you a fresh apple and you preferred to believe it is a rotten orange, that is your decision. However, it will not change the fact that it is indeed still an apple. One must not take scripture as a singular item with one context and application; thereby limiting God and promoting deception rather than the fullness of truth. But its up to you to choose what you believe and on God to judge.

Again, you have a long way to do to prove your claim that sinners are God's children.   You have an assumption you are pushing as biblical, but it isn't and you are powerless to prove it.   So all you can do  is attack me.

Quote

Feel free to continue blindly leading the blind if you wish; I will continue teaching and promoting truth in its entirety rather than using single verses as levers to force a flawed perspective upon others. 

I am not blind.  I can see false teaching every time it rears its head.  And yours is false as it comes.

[Hippie333]

I suggest before this goes any further to consider this - if someone disagrees with your views on scripture you have one choice - defend it and show the error of their view or accept that you could be wrong.  It is NOT a PERSONAL ATTACK if someone disagrees with you.  That being said "God bless and please continue"  

 

God Bless,

Hip

 

[SHINY4UJESUS]

Fair enough. As this was the first truly thorough and scripturally sound arguement I will provide significant scriptural basis for my position; thouh earlier I did offer various examles from scripture including entire passages as reference. 

1) KJV 2 Peter 1:20-" ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

  We cannot simply use a single interptretation or context when expounding scripture; as this limits God's truth to a much narrower and partial truth; thereby deception. There are generally three basic contexts to almost every scripture: literal context, figurative context, and legal context. By legal and figurative context; yes those lost in sin without the blood of Christ as propitiation for sin, are "sons/daughters of the devil." However, in the literal sense this is not the case; and if you read closely with the full idea of context you see that I admit in figurative/legal context the idea of demonic sonship. It is in literal context I allude to us still being children of God; which I will now expound upon. 

2)Genesis 1:26-" Then God said, 'Let us, make man in our image, to be like ourselves...,"

  Note that God did not say, "Let us make man in Satan's image," or "in the devil's image." As such we were always God's children in literal sense; though given the righteous and just nature of God we could not be so in figurative/legal sense after the fall; until Christ's blood freed us from the power and penalty of sin.

3) Genesis 3 through the entire Old Testament until the time of Christ: Though Israel was already under the curse of sin...for thousands of years; almost every single time the scriptures referred to Israel it was as God's children, God's chosen people, God's Holy nation. If the weight of sin removed us from the literal sense of being children of God; then why would it call Israel God's children hundreds, maybe thousands of times while they were yet without deliverance from Jesus? This was before Christ entirely; yet while in sin, while unrepentant, while constantly backsliding, God still referred to Israel as His children. 

4) Luke 15:11-32(specifically v. 20)"So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long distance away, his Father saw him coming. Moved with compassion, he ran to HIS SON, embraced him and kissed him." Note the word "while he was still a long way off," and the fact that he had not yet confessed his sin, or asked for forgiveness; yet the father still thought of him as HIS SON. This is symbolic brother. The son had not yet made it home, had not made confession of sin, had not asked for forgiveness; yet was still considered a son. 

  The moral of the story is this: I did not judge the people posting, I judged the deceptive and limited perspective and misappropriation of God's Word. Many times did I admit that in the legal/figurative sense that without Christ a person is a "son/daughter of the devil," however this does not detract from the literal truth that all are literally God's children; though we have in a sense disowned God and become instead children of the enemy. The issue was not the principle; it was the idea that a single example of one scenario, taken out of context promoted deception rather than truth. We cannot simply accept one context and ignore the rest; we cannot simply use one example and promote that alone as infallible truth. The position I have been led by the Spirit and Word of God is verified and validated by passages and verses from Genesis through the Gospels; not merely the one specific example of Jesus referring to the Pharisees. Keep in mind He was using this as an illustration to break the misguided idea that legalism and condemnation were entitlement to God's 'children," tag. 

  In the end, I am sorry if folks simply cannot see what the Spirit would show here; i can do little about that. I can however take a stand against the misconceptions that promote a limited and deceptive view of truth. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters: so if we are not promoting the Word of God, IN ENTIRETY as truth; then we are promoting deception. A half truth is still half fasle-therefore deception. If we are perpetuating these deceptions and half-truths, we are serving the other team. This does not mean a person is "bad, per se; I do not condemn the person, I condemn the lie. i get that these flawed and limited perspectives were not intentionally driven, but deception is still deception no matter what we choose to call it. May our Father in heaven grant us all an open mind, ready to receive His truth in full. May He shatter the age old and long instituted misconceptions that have been perpetuated. May it be God who is lorified, Jesus who is accepted as Lord and Savior..and our hearts that are directed in the proper manner. In Jesus blessed name I pray. AMEN!

[SHINY4UJESUS]

21 minutes ago, Hippie333 said:

I suggest before this goes any further to consider this - if someone disagrees with your views on scripture you have one choice - defend it and show the error of their view or accept that you could be wrong.  It is NOT a PERSONAL ATTACK if someone disagrees with you.  That being said "God bless and please continue"  

 

God Bless,

Hip

 

well said man. i do appreciate your correction. Thank you for directing it in a biblical and principally sound manner

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Shiloh...

Quote

King James Bible
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gods children....                    Love,Kwik

oops,my bad,,,,,so sorry,I'm getting punchy about this time of day,,,,,you did say "sinners" sare not Gods Children,forgive my mis-reading

[SHINY4UJESUS]

no worries brother/sister( i need glasses, cant see profile pics so well...lol). I do not have issue with folks disagreeing with me anyhow, ur fine! I have issue only with those who would promote a single example used in only one context(and misapplied at that,) as infallible truth. The motivation I have is to promote a deeper and fuller understanding of God's will; and breaking the cycle of misappropriation of the scripture as a tool to force folks into following deceptive ideology. I do understand that this is not always intentional, but unintentional misleading can still have a huge detrimental effect to others. Then at some point that flawed view becomes almost like a "movement, " and is nearly impossible to combat. Since here; nearly every post has been quickly and harshly misjudged based on appearance. Then to complicate matters; folks would present arguement based on a very limited and partial view of a single scripture; missing the entire grand scope and critical principle. In the end, we are all human and prone to errors; myself included. All I can do is try to combat deception by instituting God's truth in its place. Lol..but it is an uphill battle at times. 

Edited September 25, 2016 by SHINY4UJESUS
correction

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, SHINY4UJESUS said:

Fair enough. As this was the first truly thorough and scripturally sound arguement I will provide significant scriptural basis for my position; thouh earlier I did offer various examles from scripture including entire passages as reference. 

1) KJV 2 Peter 1:20-" ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

  We cannot simply use a single interptretation or context when expounding scripture; as this limits God's truth to a much narrower and partial truth; thereby deception. There are generally three basic contexts to almost every scripture: literal context, figurative context, and legal context. By legal and figurative context; yes those lost in sin without the blood of Christ as propitiation for sin, are "sons/daughters of the devil." However, in the literal sense this is not the case; and if you read closely with the full idea of context you see that I admit in figurative/legal context the idea of demonic sonship. It is in literal context I allude to us still being children of God; which I will now expound upon. 

The point Peter is making in that verse is not about how WE interpret the Bible.  The word "interpretation" is "opinion" in the Greek and it pertains to the origin of prophecy.   Peter's point is that there was no prophecy that was the result of the personal opinions, ideas, intellect, imagination, or impulse of the prophets.  They spoke as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit.   

So since you bring up the issue of context, you need to actually use Scripture in context and not rip Scripture out of context to suit your theology.

Furthermore, the "contexts"  that exist in Scripture are not, "legal," "figurative" and "literal."   That is just something you have made up.  The truth is that no one is a son of God outside of salvation.  There is no "context" where everyone is a child of God, offered up anywhere in the Bible.  Your theology is driving your interpretation.   You have the cart before the horse.
 

Quote

 

2)Genesis 1:26-" Then God said, 'Let us, make man in our image, to be like ourselves...,"

  Note that God did not say, "Let us make man in Satan's image," or "in the devil's image." As such we were always God's children in literal sense; though given the righteous and just nature of God we could not be so in figurative/legal sense after the fall; until Christ's blood freed us from the power and penalty of sin.

 

No, being made in His image doesn't make us His children, in any sense.  It makes us His creation.   We were not born in His image;  we were created, made in His image.   You cannot equate "creation"  with "birth."

Quote

3) Genesis 3 through the entire Old Testament until the time of Christ: Though Israel was already under the curse of sin...for thousands of years; almost every single time the scriptures referred to Israel it was as God's children, God's chosen people, God's Holy nation. If the weight of sin removed us from the literal sense of being children of God; then why would it call Israel God's children hundreds, maybe thousands of times while they were yet without deliverance from Jesus? This was before Christ entirely; yet while in sin, while unrepentant, while constantly backsliding, God still referred to Israel as His children. 

There are some 589 verses that refer to Israel as "The Children of Israel."   Where does it says "almost every single time"  that Israel is referred to that they are God's children, specifically? 

Quote

4) Luke 15:11-32(specifically v. 20)"So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long distance away, his Father saw him coming. Moved with compassion, he ran to HIS SON, embraced him and kissed him." Note the word "while he was still a long way off," and the fact that he had not yet confessed his sin, or asked for forgiveness; yet the father still thought of him as HIS SON. This is symbolic brother. The son had not yet made it home, had not made confession of sin, had not asked for forgiveness; yet was still considered a son. 

Right, but that is not the same thing as saying that unregenerate sinners are God's children.   This is an example of a man who was already His Father's son, who went astray, but was still saved, still a child of His father.   So that doesn't really speak to what you are trying to promote. 

Quote

The moral of the story is this: I did not judge the people posting, I judged the deceptive and limited perspective and misappropriation of God's Word.

The one misappropriating Scripture is you, not us.

Quote

Many times did I admit that in the legal/figurative sense that without Christ a person is a "son/daughter of the devil," however this does not detract from the literal truth that all are literally God's children; though we have in a sense disowned God and become instead children of the enemy. The issue was not the principle; it was the idea that a single example of one scenario, taken out of context promoted deception rather than truth. We cannot simply accept one context and ignore the rest; we cannot simply use one example and promote that alone as infallible truth. The position I have been led by the Spirit and Word of God is verified and validated by passages and verses from Genesis through the Gospels; not merely the one specific example of Jesus referring to the Pharisees. Keep in mind He was using this as an illustration to break the misguided idea that legalism and condemnation were entitlement to God's 'children," tag. 

There is no legal or figurative sense.   There is only the literal sense, and according to Scripture, the ONLY way a person becomes a literal child of God is through salvation in Jesus Christ.   There is no other way.   You are trying to promote a view that is simply not promoted anywhere in the Bible.  

You may be led by "a" spirit, but this is not from the Holy Spirit, as you cannot really provide any kind of real biblical/theological platform for your position on this.   My view is not based on one verse, but by the truth that no one becomes a son of God apart from Jesus, period.

 

Quote

 In the end, I am sorry if folks simply cannot see what the Spirit would show here; i can do little about that. I can however take a stand against the misconceptions that promote a limited and deceptive view of truth. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters: so if we are not promoting the Word of God, IN ENTIRETY as truth; then we are promoting deception.

That argument cuts both ways.  That could easily be said about what you are promoting, given that you have no biblical platform for it.

Quote

A half truth is still half fasle-therefore deception. If we are perpetuating these deceptions and half-truths, we are serving the other team. This does not mean a person is "bad, per se; I do not condemn the person, I condemn the lie. i get that these flawed and limited perspectives were not intentionally driven, but deception is still deception no matter what we choose to call it. May our Father in heaven grant us all an open mind, ready to receive His truth in full. May He shatter the age old and long instituted misconceptions that have been perpetuated. May it be God who is lorified, Jesus who is accepted as Lord and Savior..and our hearts that are directed in the proper manner. In Jesus blessed name I pray. AMEN!

All of the vaulted spiritual platitudes in the world will change one fact about the weakness and unsupportable state of your view.

[SHINY4UJESUS]

Well brother you are free to twist the scripture to whatever purpose you wish. I do not wish to continue to promote deception and contention. Your perspectives are very opinion based rather than scriptural. It is written that thse things of the spirit are only discerned by those born of the Spirit. I was asked for sound scriptural evidence, which I provided. I would like to note that your continued intent here is to cause dissent, promote disunity, promote deception and continue to cast condemnation on both the Word of God and its minister. These things reflect the spirit of satan; not that of God. I will wash my hands of this matter and simply let God dictate what shall be done with one so iven to deception, hatred and condemnation; for the Word is clear on this. 

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, SHINY4UJESUS said:

Fair enough. As this was the first truly thorough and scripturally sound arguement I will provide significant scriptural basis for my position; thouh earlier I did offer various examles from scripture including entire passages as reference. 

1) KJV 2 Peter 1:20-" ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

  We cannot simply use a single interptretation or context when expounding scripture; as this limits God's truth to a much narrower and partial truth; thereby deception. There are generally three basic contexts to almost every scripture: literal context, figurative context, and legal context. By legal and figurative context; yes those lost in sin without the blood of Christ as propitiation for sin, are "sons/daughters of the devil." However, in the literal sense this is not the case; and if you read closely with the full idea of context you see that I admit in figurative/legal context the idea of demonic sonship. It is in literal context I allude to us still being children of God; which I will now expound upon. 

2)Genesis 1:26-" Then God said, 'Let us, make man in our image, to be like ourselves...,"

  Note that God did not say, "Let us make man in Satan's image," or "in the devil's image." As such we were always God's children in literal sense; though given the righteous and just nature of God we could not be so in figurative/legal sense after the fall; until Christ's blood freed us from the power and penalty of sin.

3) Genesis 3 through the entire Old Testament until the time of Christ: Though Israel was already under the curse of sin...for thousands of years; almost every single time the scriptures referred to Israel it was as God's children, God's chosen people, God's Holy nation. If the weight of sin removed us from the literal sense of being children of God; then why would it call Israel God's children hundreds, maybe thousands of times while they were yet without deliverance from Jesus? This was before Christ entirely; yet while in sin, while unrepentant, while constantly backsliding, God still referred to Israel as His children. 

4) Luke 15:11-32(specifically v. 20)"So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long distance away, his Father saw him coming. Moved with compassion, he ran to HIS SON, embraced him and kissed him." Note the word "while he was still a long way off," and the fact that he had not yet confessed his sin, or asked for forgiveness; yet the father still thought of him as HIS SON. This is symbolic brother. The son had not yet made it home, had not made confession of sin, had not asked for forgiveness; yet was still considered a son. 

  The moral of the story is this: I did not judge the people posting, I judged the deceptive and limited perspective and misappropriation of God's Word. Many times did I admit that in the legal/figurative sense that without Christ a person is a "son/daughter of the devil," however this does not detract from the literal truth that all are literally God's children; though we have in a sense disowned God and become instead children of the enemy. The issue was not the principle; it was the idea that a single example of one scenario, taken out of context promoted deception rather than truth. We cannot simply accept one context and ignore the rest; we cannot simply use one example and promote that alone as infallible truth. The position I have been led by the Spirit and Word of God is verified and validated by passages and verses from Genesis through the Gospels; not merely the one specific example of Jesus referring to the Pharisees. Keep in mind He was using this as an illustration to break the misguided idea that legalism and condemnation were entitlement to God's 'children," tag. 

  In the end, I am sorry if folks simply cannot see what the Spirit would show here; i can do little about that. I can however take a stand against the misconceptions that promote a limited and deceptive view of truth. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters: so if we are not promoting the Word of God, IN ENTIRETY as truth; then we are promoting deception. A half truth is still half fasle-therefore deception. If we are perpetuating these deceptions and half-truths, we are serving the other team. This does not mean a person is "bad, per se; I do not condemn the person, I condemn the lie. i get that these flawed and limited perspectives were not intentionally driven, but deception is still deception no matter what we choose to call it. May our Father in heaven grant us all an open mind, ready to receive His truth in full. May He shatter the age old and long instituted misconceptions that have been perpetuated. May it be God who is lorified, Jesus who is accepted as Lord and Savior..and our hearts that are directed in the proper manner. In Jesus blessed name I pray. AMEN!

John 1 is quite clear about who are the children of God. 

12 But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,
13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

Lost folks are not children of God. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, SHINY4UJESUS said:

Well brother you are free to twist the scripture to whatever purpose you wish. I do not wish to continue to promote deception and contention. Your perspectives are very opinion based rather than scriptural. It is written that thse things of the spirit are only discerned by those born of the Spirit.

The problem is that you assume what needs to be proven.  You expect your view to simply be accepted without question.  There are some serious flaws in how you handle Scripture and in how you make up concepts that don't exist and expect those made up concepts to be the working terms of the conversation.   You need to prove what you claim.  

Quote

I was asked for sound scriptural evidence, which I provided. I would like to note that your continued intent here is to cause dissent, promote disunity, promote deception and continue to cast condemnation on both the Word of God and its minister. These things reflect the spirit of satan; not that of God. I will wash my hands of this matter and simply let God dictate what shall be done with one so iven to deception, hatred and condemnation; for the Word is clear on this. 

No one has cast condemnation except for you.  Your unbiblical claims have been rightly challenged and not just by me. My purpose is to challenge teaching that does not line up with Scripture.   So now I have the spirit of Satan?   And you complain about condemnation?   The ONLY person condemning anyone is you.  Not all division is a bad thing.  We have to separate and divide from false teaching.