Post by Cindy on Nov 22, 2015 8:42:34 GMT -5
by Matt Slick
Just because someone is a homosexual, does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (or her). Homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same way they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like it or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
In fact, the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest, Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not applicable now.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws, but we do see a continuation of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin although not with the associated death penalty.
2) Homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.
This is a fallacious argument. Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts, and they are against God's created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together--in more ways than one. This is how God made us, and He made us this way so that we could carry out His command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration of God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate Scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and be "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
3) Where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Bible times and has nothing to do with modern-day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding: The first Scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship, and it is condemned. The second Scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third Scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
There is no mistake about it. The view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people in the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists, and He is the standard of righteousness, not the culture. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of, the same as any other sin, and the only way to receive forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4) The sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'" Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of His command to fill and multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that He gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not repent. Without repentance there is no salvation, and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable carries no validity.
posted with permission
carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality
Just because someone is a homosexual, does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (or her). Homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same way they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like it or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
In fact, the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest, Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not applicable now.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws, but we do see a continuation of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin although not with the associated death penalty.
2) Homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.
This is a fallacious argument. Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts, and they are against God's created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together--in more ways than one. This is how God made us, and He made us this way so that we could carry out His command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration of God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate Scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and be "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
3) Where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Bible times and has nothing to do with modern-day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding: The first Scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship, and it is condemned. The second Scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third Scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
There is no mistake about it. The view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people in the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists, and He is the standard of righteousness, not the culture. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of, the same as any other sin, and the only way to receive forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4) The sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'" Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of His command to fill and multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that He gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not repent. Without repentance there is no salvation, and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable carries no validity.
posted with permission
carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality
!!
