Naming the Name of Christ

[Guest shiloh357]

You're gettin' haughty again. You are arguing against things I haven't proposed. I never said that I didn't accept the Bible's definition of it as an abomination--I do. And I also know that the Bible promises that God will never allow us to face a temptation w/o giving us the grace to withstand it . So back off, buddy. At least stick to refuting what I actually say.

I am not haughty. I am just more honest about your position than you are. I have not refuted anything you did not already say.

I'm not sure the genetic argument fails on those grounds. What about the criminal with an abnormally high testosterone level. If he murders, its still sin.

The genetic argument basically asserts that their is a physiological element to homosexuality, it is created in them to be a part of their nature. It is therefore considered as "normal" heterosexuallity. The genetic argument is used to assert that homosexuallity, being genetic is not sin, and is therefore a perfectly valid and normal orientation, thus discrediting the Bible's claim of it being a sin.

Just because the homosexual may be genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex, does not mean it is out of his control.

I'm gentically predisposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. Yet, if I cheat on my husband, its still sin.

Yes, but it is not a sin to be attracted ot the opposite sex, and that is my point. The genetic argument is made to claim that being sexually attracted to the same sex is not sinful and is as normal and acceptable as heterosexuality.

What I mean about it being out of his control is that if it is genetic, then it is not his choice, and if that were true, it would not be a sin.

[Fiosh]

Again you are putting words in my mouth, Shiloh. I never said, or even implied:

"You just want to feed them with the lie that they are okay the way they are,"

I've repeatedly stated that homosexuality is sin. You are twisting the argument for effect and drama.

You have an idealistic view, and that's wonderful for you. But we struggling Christians still need grace.

Why did the Apostles, and Paul and their disciples need to go back to the Churches and remind them of who they were and how they should behave? Did they tell them that they were no longer brothers because of their sin? No, they told them to turn away from it and back to Jesus.

You seem to assume that because I have compassion for the homosexual who tries to follow Christ, but has yet to see that his lifestyle is sin, that I condone it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To be honest, the thought of it disgusts me. But I love the homosexual despite the sin. And I would love nothing more than to be used by the Holy Spirit to help lead him from that life.

The question isn't whether it is sin. Or whether we should present the truth of the Gospel to him.

You are convoluting the argument .

[Fiosh]

You're gettin' haughty again. You are arguing against things I haven't proposed. I never said that I didn't accept the Bible's definition of it as an abomination--I do. And I also know that the Bible promises that God will never allow us to face a temptation w/o giving us the grace to withstand it . So back off, buddy. At least stick to refuting what I actually say.

I am not haughty. I am just more honest about your position than you are. I have not refuted anything you did not already say.

Actually, yes, you have. And I've pointed out several examples. So, now you accuse me of dishonesty. Nice, Shiloh.

I'm not sure the genetic argument fails on those grounds. What about the criminal with an abnormally high testosterone level. If he murders, its still sin.

The genetic argument basically asserts that their is a physiological element to homosexuality, it is created in them to be a part of their nature. It is therefore considered as "normal" heterosexuallity. The genetic argument is used to assert that homosexuallity, being genetic is not sin, and is therefore a perfectly valid and normal orientation, thus discrediting the Bible's claim of it being a sin.

Well, that may be one argument, but it is not mine.

Just because the homosexual may be genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex, does not mean it is out of his control.

I'm gentically predisposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. Yet, if I cheat on my husband, its still sin.

Yes, but it is not a sin to be attracted ot the opposite sex, and that is my point. The genetic argument is made to claim that being sexually attracted to the same sex is not sinful and is as normal and acceptable as heterosexuality.

Again, that is NOT what I am arguing.

What I mean about it being out of his control is that if it is genetic, then it is not his choice, and if that were true, it would not be a sin.

Not necessarily. If it is a result of trauma. It is still within an individual's control.

And if it is genetic, the individual can choose to live a celibate life. God will give them the grace.

[patricia1]

You're gettin' haughty again. You are arguing against things I haven't proposed. I never said that I didn't accept the Bible's definition of it as an abomination--I do. And I also know that the Bible promises that God will never allow us to face a temptation w/o giving us the grace to withstand it . So back off, buddy. At least stick to refuting what I actually say.

I am not haughty. I am just more honest about your position than you are. I have not refuted anything you did not already say.

I'm not sure the genetic argument fails on those grounds. What about the criminal with an abnormally high testosterone level. If he murders, its still sin.

The genetic argument basically asserts that their is a physiological element to homosexuality, it is created in them to be a part of their nature. It is therefore considered as "normal" heterosexuallity. The genetic argument is used to assert that homosexuallity, being genetic is not sin, and is therefore a perfectly valid and normal orientation, thus discrediting the Bible's claim of it being a sin.

Just because the homosexual may be genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex, does not mean it is out of his control.

I'm gentically predisposed to be attracted to the opposite sex. Yet, if I cheat on my husband, its still sin.

Yes, but it is not a sin to be attracted ot the opposite sex, and that is my point. The genetic argument is made to claim that being sexually attracted to the same sex is not sinful and is as normal and acceptable as heterosexuality.

What I mean about it being out of his control is that if it is genetic, then it is not his choice, and if that were true, it would not be a sin.

There are a couple of things I would like to say first outside of scripture :

In the medical field there are many babies born these days, any many down the ages, without genitalia! I am not going to argue over why. It just happens. Many years ago the medical field DID NOT have the knowledge they have now where they can do hormone testing...and even now it is not a surety. When this would happen in the 50's and prior they would ask the parent what they were hoping for ,operate fixing things just so; in hopes the gender was correct. The parents sometimes were not even told. In the sixties they were told and wouldn't know if things were correct until pubity. Now that being said,there are some medical factors hidden we may not be aware of.

That being said When we come to Christ as was quoted all things become new...I believe it is a constant action word..The old commentary which I cannot find says to be brought to original form. I take that as the form in the garden prior to sin.

Romans chapter1:21 -32 Talk about christian people who once were believers changed the truth of God into a lie worshipping the creature more than the creator. For this cause God gave them over to vile affections changing the natural use of woma against nature as well as men. As far as i see this whole chapter They served their lusts. And they did not like to retain God in their knowlede.... God gave them over to a repbrobate mind. Everything still were within thier flesh...they served thier flesh instead of God..refused to hear conviction of the Holy Spirit and continued.

But it all seems to be lumped together further down with fornication----wickedness----covetousness---maliciousness-----envy---murder---debat----deciet---malignity----whisperers--backbiters-----haters of God-----despiteful---proud----boasters----inventors of evil things-----disobeience to parents ------covenant breakers-----without natural affection----implacable----unmerciful----who KNOWING the judgement of God and so on ;lust---lust not your let me try this...and then repent sin!

I also believe homsexuality can be a spirit.

But with all that said I came into this thread to look at what it meant by naming the name Of christ expecting to find the many names God has.... showing us who he is...love you guys

[Guest shiloh357]

Again you are putting words in my mouth, Shiloh. I never said, or even implied:

"You just want to feed them with the lie that they are okay the way they are,"

I've repeatedly stated that homosexuality is sin. You are twisting the argument for effect and drama.

Nonsense. My aregument has been solely centered around those who reject the Bible's definition of what constitutes sin and as such refuse to their homosexual lifestyle as sin. That is where I have endeavored stay. You on the other hand are the one twisting the argument and changing the subject into an issue about those who struggle with sin but are still trying to sincerely serve Christ. I have made the point that I am in no way challenging or questioning the faith of those continue struggle as they try to live for the Lord and shed their old ways. Sometimes they fail, and sometimes they are victorious, buit they struggle because they know and understand that homosexuality (or whatever lifestyle) grieves the Lord and their heart is set to please him.

You have an idealistic view, and that's wonderful for you. But we struggling Christians still need grace.

I have a biblical view and I believe there is more than enough grace for struggling Christians, but then this is just another attempt by you to change the subject given the lack of biblcial foundation for a number of your assertions.

Why did the Apostles, and Paul and their disciples need to go back to the Churches and remind them of who they were and how they should behave? Did they tell them that they were no longer brothers because of their sin? No, they told them to turn away from it and back to Jesus.

That is not issue here, at least not for my part. I am not talking about Christians who struggle with sin. You are trying to refute me on an issue I did not raise here. Maybe someday you will actually stop trying change the subject.

You seem to assume that because I have compassion for the homosexual who tries to follow Christ, but has yet to see that his lifestyle is sin, that I condone it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To be honest, the thought of it disgusts me. But I love the homosexual despite the sin. And I would love nothing more than to be used by the Holy Spirit to help lead him from that life.

My issue with you is the utter lack of biblical foundation for the misguided unChristian notion that a person can be a practicing homosexual and a practising, committed Christian and servant of Jesus Christ. Your zeal to love them has caused you to fall into a false belief that one does not really need to give up or repent of their sin before coming to Christ, and that could not be further from the truth. During Peter's first sermon, when the people asked Peter what they should do in response to his message, Peter responded that they should repent and be baptized. Peter also writes:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

(2 Peter 3:9)

Repentance from dead works (sin) is a prerequisite for salvation. That cannot be suspended, postponed or brushed aside. If a person wants to become a true Christian, the first thing they need to do is to acknolwedge that they are a sinner and they need to acknowledge and repent of the sin in their life, and that includes homosexuals admitting their lifestyle is sinful, seeing it as God sees it and repenting of it. Repentance means making a 180 degree change of mind and heart. That is the initial step in being born again. Without the acknolwedgement of one's sin, they cannot see the need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross or their need for a savior.

In dealing with a homosexual, their sin needs to be confronted, not coddled. God's standard has to be made clear from the outset. There is no compassion or love in avoiding the issue of God's righteous standard. One cannot be Christian and remain consumed in their sinful lifestyle. Neither can they be a Christian and live in a state of denial rejecting what the Bible says about their sin. If they would reject one part of what the Bible teaches, what other parts are they prone to reject as well? The truth is Fiosh, if you really love them, then you will love them enough to tell the truth.

The question isn't whether it is sin. Or whether we should present the truth of the Gospel to him.

You are convoluting the argument .

To contrary, you are the one who is employing manipulative emotional tactics to change the subject from those who reject God's definition of sin into discussion about those who struggle with sin. You really can't win on facts, so you (as you have done in the past) switch to tactics that amount to emotional manipulation.

[Guest shiloh357]

I

am not haughty. I am just more honest about your position than you are. I have not refuted anything you did not already say.

Actually, yes, you have. And I've pointed out several examples. So, now you accuse me of dishonesty. Nice, Shiloh.

Actually, I am just holding your position up to the Scriptures, to see if it fits. Your approach is dishonest in that it depends on you changing the subject and applying my arguments to issues I did not raise. You are trying to say that just because I don't accpet a practising homosexual as a Christian that I am not compassionate and that is both dishonest and unfair. I am not advocating that homosexuals be mistreated or shunned or treated as 2nd class citizens. I am not even saying that one cannot be friends with a practising homosexual. What I am saying is that they are not, and cannot become true followers of Christ until the repent and turn away from their sinful lifestyle.

If you were not so bent on winning this debate by trying to portray me as a cruel uncompassionate ogre of sorts, you would see that. I love them enough to tell them the truth.

The genetic argument basically asserts that their is a physiological element to homosexuality, it is created in them to be a part of their nature. It is therefore considered as "normal" heterosexuallity. The genetic argument is used to assert that homosexuallity, being genetic is not sin, and is therefore a perfectly valid and normal orientation, thus discrediting the Bible's claim of it being a sin.

Well, that may be one argument, but it is not mine.

Acually it is THE argument put forth by the most outspoken proponents of the notion that homosexuals are born that way and therefore cannot change or repent from their orientation anymore than someone else can repent of having brown hair and freckles. Making it "genetic" is an attempt to remove homosexuality from the forum of moral discussion altogether.

Perhaps you need to study the issue a bit better before lending your approval to it.

What I mean about it being out of his control is that if it is genetic, then it is not his choice, and if that were true, it would not be a sin.

Not necessarily. If it is a result of trauma. It is still within an individual's control.

And if it is genetic, the individual can choose to live a celibate life. God will give them the grace.

You are missing the point. What I am saying is if the orientation is rooted in genetics, then having that orientation would be beyond that person's control. Of course they can control their actions and the degree to which they display and live out that orientation, but the homosexual orientation itself would be beyond their control and thus not sinful.

Take it a littler further though. How can the orientation be genetic, but the actions and lifestyle borne out of that orientation be sinful? The orientation itself is as wrong as the corresponding lifestyle. The Bible teaches that sin is committed in the heart long before it is committed in the flesh. So it is as wrong to have a homosexual bent as it is to actually live it out in the flesh. The genetics argument simply does not square with Scripture.

[Vickilynn]

Shalom,

This seems to be the Shiloh and Fiosh show and no one else is allowed in!

Anyway, when we are saved, we are JUSTIFIED (just as if I'd never sinned)

justified ~ (A) ~ to be made right with God through the death and return to life of Jesus Christ; to say someone is right with God.

justified ~ (B) ~ to be made right with God through the death and return to life of Jesus Christ; to declare that God has accepted someone.

And as we walk with Him, He reveals our sin to us and we are continually being SANCTIFIED

SANCTIFICATION

The process of being made holy resulting in a changed life-style for the believer. The English word sanctification comes from the Latin santificatio, meaning the act/process of making holy, consecrated. In the Greek New Testament, the root hag- is the basis of hagiasmos,

[Fiosh]

Shalom,

This seems to be the Shiloh and Fiosh show and no one else is allowed in!

Anyway, when we are saved, we are JUSTIFIED (just as if I'd never sinned)

justified ~ (A) ~ to be made right with God through the death and return to life of Jesus Christ; to say someone is right with God.

justified ~ (B) ~ to be made right with God through the death and return to life of Jesus Christ; to declare that God has accepted someone.

And as we walk with Him, He reveals our sin to us and we are continually being SANCTIFIED

SANCTIFICATION

The process of being made holy resulting in a changed life-style for the believer. The English word sanctification comes from the Latin santificatio, meaning the act/process of making holy, consecrated. In the Greek New Testament, the root hag- is the basis of hagiasmos,

[Guest shiloh357]

So what we need to ask, what needs to be settled at least in this thread is whether or not a person must repent of homosexuality before they can "name the Name of Christ." Is repentance necessary? In a word yes. Fiosh believes that person can still live in homosexuality, reject that homosexuality is even a sin at all, and still be considered a faithful and true follower of Jesus Christ. They need not repent until, according to Fiosh, God finally gets around to convicting them.

So it really comes down to an issue of whether or not repentance is necessary before salvation. One becomes a Christian at the initial moment when salvation occurs. Salvation occurs at the moment when a person concsciously accpepts Christ, believes the Gospel and repents of sin. Many argue over whether repentance must precede faith, but regardless of where you stand on that issue, most do agree that repentance precedes salvation.

In dealing with repentance there are three steps that will be observed as God works on the heart of a sinner:

1. Conviction - Sin is confessed. A person must see himself as the Bible describes him, as a lost, ruined and hopellessly wicked wretch who is helpless to do anything to change his estate before God. He must see his good works as "filthy rags" and that he stands before an infinitely holy and righteous God. Repentance will bring confession of sin (Ps. 32:5; 51:1-4).

2. Contrition/Remorse - Sorrow over sin. When a person comes to a place of contrition, he has a godly sorrrow for his sin and he hates sin. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of ..." (2 Cor. 7:10).

3. Conversion To Christ - Sin Forsaken. Repentance is not just being broken for sin, but to be broken from sin as well. We must forsake that which we want God to forgive.

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

(Acts 26:15-20)

The message Paul preached that he received from Christ was a message of repentance. Peter preached repentance in Acts: 2:38, and declared it was God's will that all men come to repentance in 2 Peter 3:9.

Even Jesus claimed that he came to call sinners to repent:

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician: but they that are sick I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

(Luke 5:31-32)

It also bears noting that Repentance is a work of God on the heart of a sinner. Repentance occurs when the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to destroy the sinner's self-righteousness, and self- goodness, and causes him to call out to God for mercy and forgiveness. Repentance is a work of the Holy spirit that causes a change of attitude, action, and affection.

A person cannot remain homosexual if they truly believe the Gospel, because part of Gospel is repentance. That is why when someone says, "I know homosexuals who love Christ" it only reveals a certain amount of naivete on their part. A sinner cannot remain in sin and truly love Christ. A sinner may assent to some of Christ's teachings, but they do not genuinely love Christ otherwise they would have repented of sin and believed the gospel in it wholeness.

If Jesus' earthly ministry was one of calling sinners to repentance, why would that have changed as we continue the ministry He began? Would not Jesus if he were walking this sod still be calling sinners to repentance? If we avoid the message of repentance, we are not reflecting His heart or His will.

[Vickilynn]

Shalom Shiloh,

I agree with you, let me get that said first.

But I truly do not understand how you can say that someone wo does not KNOW their lifestyle is a sin, can repent of it?

I ministered to a homosexual nurse that I worked with. He was a Catholic and I shared the Gospel with him over and over and we went over the Scriptures about homosexuality being a sin and he just did not see it. You see, he had been indoctrinated by his homosexual priest that these verses were mistranslated and misunderstood by the homophobic Christians and that as long as he was in a monogamous homosexual relationship, he was not practicing sin.

So, some people have blinders on when it comes to their sin and they give their heart to Jesus and He reveals these things to them.

This is what I'm referring to.

Also, there were PLENTY of things in my life that I did not know were sin when I got saved. And as I walked closer with Jesus and studied the Bible and went to church, I was made aware that certain things were sin and I repented of them and stopped doing them. But, it didn't happen on the day I was saved, it has been happening for 30 years.

See what I mean? I'm not talking about willful knowledgeable refusal to give up sin, I'm talking about areas that we are in denial about until the Holy Spirit gets ahold of us and convicts us of it.