The first openly gay Episcopal bishop announced he will have no official role in a meeting this summer of world Anglican leaders, saying restrictions that organizers wanted to place on his involvement had caused him "considerable pain."
-
(Photo: AP Images / Kiichiro Sato)Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, right, speaks to a committee Wednesday night, June 14, 2006 in Columbus, Ohio during the Episcopal General Convention. The key committee was drafting the church's response whether to preserve unity among Anglicans around the world by temporarily barring gays and lesbians from becoming bishops.
New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson had been told last year that he could not fully participate in the once-a-decade gathering in England, called the Lambeth Conference, as the world Anglican Communion sat on the brink of schism over his 2003 election.
Still, Episcopal leaders had been negotiating with the Anglican Communion Office to allow him to join the event in some capacity. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S.
At a Texas meeting Monday night of the Episcopal House of Bishops, Robinson said that the final offer to include him was in effect a "non-offer," and he had declined it.
The House of Bishops was informed that full invitation is "not possible" from the Archbishop of Canterbury to include Robinson. But Anglican leaders said Robinson could "be present" in the conference Marketplace, or convention hall, where exhibitors and church agencies set up stalls, and that he could participate in one "high profile" event, such as a news conference, at the 20-day summit. The exhibit hall is open to the public, while the Lambeth discussions are private.
Robinson told the bishops in Texas that ever since he got word of the proposal late last Friday, "I have been in considerable pain." He said he had hoped to participate in Bible study and small group discussions with other bishops.
"I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can't sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study Scripture together," he said. "It makes me wonder, if we can't sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of Communion do we have and what are we trying to save?"
A spokesman for the Anglican Communion did not respond to a request for comment.
The spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, didn't invite Robinson to Lambeth, partly to appease theological conservatives, who believe the Bible bars gay relationships. Some had threatened to boycott the meeting if he attended.
Williams also didn't invite Bishop Martyn Minns, who leads a network of conservative breakaway Episcopal parishes in the U.S., that have aligned with the like-minded Anglican Church of Nigeria.
Still, five Anglican archbishops from Africa and South America said recently they would boycott Lambeth because they could not share communion with the Episcopal bishops who had consecrated Robinson. The five are among several Anglican conservatives who are holding an international gathering in June in the Mideast that is seen as a rival to Lambeth.
The Lambeth Conference is scheduled July 16 through Aug. 3 at the University of Kent in England.
Some Episcopal bishops who believe that committed gay relationships are acceptable in Scripture had discussed boycotting the event if Robinson couldn't attend.
But Robinson repeatedly urged them to go.
"For God's sake, don't stay away," Robinson said. He plans to travel to the event on his own, staying in the Marketplace to be available for with anyone interested in talking with him.
"Pray for me," he said. "I will need that. A lot."
The Episcopal House of Bishops is in session March 7-12 at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas. The retreat meeting focuses on private conversations that are closed to media and other visitors.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RSS
Yes, Jesus was under subjection to the earthly government, which He demonstrated when He had Peter go fishing for money to pay taxes.
But if the government were to expect Him to do something sinful, He would have not come under subjection. He would have refused. Which is why He said that capital punishment was wrong. Whether at the hands of an individual, or a government.
And, yes, the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. The law of Moses stated that anyone caught in the act of adultery was to be stoned. If He were to stand against that, then He would be standing against the law. If He were to allow it, He would be a hypocrite in His message of love. But, He introduced a new concept at that time: Grace.
He was saying that it was up to God to execute judgement on someone. It wasn't man's responsibility. You see, He did acknowlege that adultery was a sin. But He also showed, with His reaction to the whole situation, that it was not man's place to be the executor.
Prophet-
This will be my last post on this topic. It seems you have missed the 2 main points I have continued to emphasize.
1) God gave capital punishment for certain crimes. The OT clearly states this many times. To not admit this would be to willfully deny God.
2) Capital punishment was not given to individuals to decide upon. It was a tool to be used by the civil government.
I never said the Civil Government was above God. I said that Jesus as man was subject to the authorities placed over him.
I wasn't reading into the story of a woman caught in adultery. I clearly stated that their circumstantial evidence left me with many questions. I also pointed out that it was not within the INDIVIDUALS sphere of authority to decide and carry out the judgment of capital punishment. That is reserved to the CIVIL GOVERNMENT, as it says in scripture.
In John 8, verse 6, it shows that the Pharisees were trying to TRAP Jesus. How were they trying to trap him into agreeing with the Laws of the OT? If Jesus had said "Yes, stone her", then Jesus would be guilty of murder according to the Roman laws, and in rebellion to the authority placed over him. Jesus did not do this. He knew it was a trap. He answered as he should considering his authority. He was not the head of the civil government and did not have the authority to stone the woman. He was an individual. To allowing stoning the woman would be to stand in rebellion to the authority (Rome) which God had placed over him. The Pharisees would have had him trapped IF Jesus had commanded stoning because (1) it was outside of Jesus' authority and (2) it was against the Roman Laws that anyone should carry out capital punishment except the Roman Government.
May God grant us both wisdom that we may understand scripture better.
So, you are saying that the government, and it's laws, are above God?
And what? You don't think that perhaps the man caught in adultery escaped? Why read into something that isn't there. You miss the point. Whether they had the man or not, doesn't negate that she was guilty. There were the witnesses who were there. So, she was guilty of death, and Jesus negated that law. Yes, he condemned adultery, but he also condemned what man said was the penalty of adultery. If he didn't, he would have turned and walked away, leaving her to her fate.
Prophet-
First, I will point out that you did not answer my question. Now I will answer yours-
Second, as I have continued to say, capital punishment according to scripture should only be carried out by the civil government. Since the Israelites were under Roman authority, it would be the Roman authority that would have to carry it out. The people in general were never the recognized civil government. I refer you back to the implementation of the judges over Israel through Moses.
Third, presuming that she was "caught in adultery", where was the man who was caught with her? Obviously the case of the Pharisees was lacking further evidence. According to the OT laws, both the man and woman were to be stoned. So, where was the man? Seeing as they did not bring forth the man, only the woman, it brings into question their accusations. What the Pharisees were trying to carry out was not justice. Justice would include stoning the man.
Fourthly, to clarify Jesus position. Jesus was an individual. A teacher, and respected individual- but an individual all the same. He, showing respect for all peoples, did not pass the judgment of condemnation and encourage an unbiblical act of capital punishment by an improper authority. He, as an individual, was not accepting of the idea of living an adulterous life because he clearly stated "go, and sin no more". Jesus therefore was condemning of adultery to the extent which he had authority over the woman.
Fifthly, Jesus' authority. To clarify- though Jesus is God, he was given authority over heaven and earth after his resurrection, and while here on Earth he lived mostly according to the ways of man, excluding certain miracles he performed. Though in one case he might have had certain authority over the woman caught in adultery, as he has over all people- He, in the human sense, was not in a position of authority over her since he was not her husband, or father- or even a church elder, or a ruler in the government. His authority was limited to that of a one individual who encourages another to "go and sin no more".
I hope this has clearly explained to you why Jesus did not tell them to stone the woman, while not contradicting scripture. I encourage you to think about what you have proposed- that God is somehow dichotomous or dualistic in his thinking, and correct your thinking. I know I am not perfect in my own thinking- only through prayer, study, and petition to God can we improve.
On the same token, though. How can you justify Jesus not allowing the pharisees to stone the woman caught in adultery, when the OT law strictly commands that she be stoned?
Prophet-
My last point... let us say that you are correct. I totally disagree- but let us assume you are right. Please explain to me how you can rationalize how God in the OT commanded capital punishment but in the New Testament said it was wrong?
Your "interpretation" is making God contradict himself. How do you reconcile this?
If Jesus was not talking about capital punishment, why did he refer directly to the OT capital punishment law? Verse 38 should be done away with then, since He is refering capital punishment. He even reinforces it with the next verse where he says not to resist evil and to turn the other cheek. Does it say anything about "giving them what they deserve"? No. It says to turn the other cheek. Including (as Jesus refers to) murder.
Prophet,
My deepest appologies for offending you- but I must disagree. Without going into the details of the OT decentralized form of government in justaposition to our modern failing Republic too much- the two are vastly different from one another. Never the less- God gave the command for capital punishment in the Old Testament. If you believe the Bible, then you must accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
My views may be hard- I agree that they may seem so- but I would like to point out that only by accepting both God's commands in the OT and Christs (God's) commands from the NT can we be obedient to God.
My final note would be that the words "eye for eye" do not say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. I believe yo uhave taken scripteu out of context and I encourge you to take a weekend and read through the Pentateuch. It takes about 17 hours, but reading through it all in a short period of time helps to give a more complete view of the main points.
Too often we all can take scripture out of context- I believe this gay bishop has so done. He does need prayer- Prayer to repentence. I pray he does, and that God may forgive him.
Jesus said "You've heard it said 'An eye for an eye'....."
Where did they hear that? From the law of Moses. So He was making the connection between what He was saying and what was said. Because in the OT, when somebody sinned a sin that required death, the government did not carry out the sentence. The public did. They gathered stones and stoned the guilty party themselves. The people were the ones to act out the judgement handed down. So, when Jesus was speaking of "an eye for an eye", yes He was talking about the death penalty.
Gen,
"but I would argue that the political government is suppose to be obedient to God's law."
"Suppose to be"...that is the key phrase of your post. Our government is man made. Therefore, it is imperfect. The government that you speak of, says it's okay to kill unborn babies. That pornography and drunkeness is okay. It doesn't sound like a very Godly government to me. Government is a reflection of it's citizen's values. 200 years ago, the our citizens values were much more Godly than they are today, but still imperfect.
When Jesus was speaking of "and eye for and eye" he was refering to the capital punishment law that had been put into effect. He was saying that repaying death with death was not the way to go.
And if I didn't answer clearly enough -
Jesus was talking to the individuals- not to the role of the political government. These passage you gave were not a refutation of the political government using capital punishment. They were an admonition for individuals to understand the giving attitude and humility of Christians. They were not a condemnation of God's design of justice laid out in the Old Testament.
Prophet,
Perhaps you believe, as many do, that the poitical government cannot follow God? I do not know what you think- but I would argue that the political government is suppose to be obedient to God's law. This being the case, what does scripture teach us about how the government should punish sin and wrong doing?
Prophet-
Perhaps you missed what the scripture were talking about. The OT passages you mentioned were dealing with JUSTICE. The punishments were to be carried out by the political governments- not the individuals acting on their own.
These passages having nothing to do with repaying evil for evil. Jesus was making a clarification of the law that we are to follow the PRINCIPLES in scripture. This is from the Sermon on the mount where Jesus says many times "You've heard it said...but I say..." Jesus was constantly trying to help people better understand scripture and the principles they embodied, not necessarily the literal "buck stops here" understanding of the words. You will notice that he ends this "eye for eye"" bit with these words, "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Why would jesus be talking about giving and lending and going the extra mile, if what he meant was to stop capital punishment? The two topics are not remotely related. Jesus was explaining how we Christians should go above and beyond the call of duty, even taking injustice upon ourselves. Christians should be known for their abundant love and giving and obedience- not for their legalistic obedience to the law. In essence he was saying "You missed the principles behind what was taught, let me correct that".
Upholding Biblical condemnation of sin is not "refuted" in scripture. It is upheld. Jesus was condemning their misunderstanding of scripture because they tried to follow the "law" without understanding that actual principles behind the law.
In a similar passage, Paul speaks of the OT passage about not muzzeling an ox treading the grain- for the worker is worth his wages. Anyone who thinks this passage is about muzzeling oxes and nothing else falls short of understanding the principles laid out of being honest and paying upfront, and making sure to pay according to qualifications.
Can you show me from scripture why God would command his people to use capital punishment, and then change his mind (as you suggest the Bible really says)? Can you show me how your view is not contradictory?
Gen,
Leviticus 24:17-20 speaks of capital punishment:
"17And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. "
Jesus said, refering to that scripture, "38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
So, He said that repaying evil with evil was not the way to go.
You will have to forgive my ignorance- where in the Bible did Jesus REFUTE the idea of capital punishment? It was God who instituted capital punishment for certain crimes. Jesus, being God, could not refute capital punishment lest he refute himself.
Even in situations such as the woman "caught in adultery", Jesus did not REFUTE capital punishment. IF the woman was caught IN adultery, where was the man? The man was also potentailly punishable by death. That punishment was to be carried out by the POLITICAL government- NOT the people in general. Seeing as they were under Roman Law, they were not in a position to carry out such capital punishment. To do so would be going outside of their Biblically given authority.
Gen,
But remember...Jesus refuted the idea of capital punishment.
Actually, the Bible speaks clearly that God's law is to apply to both the believer and the unbeliever. This was said continually in the Old Testament. For some reason people think that because the idea was first mentioned in the OT that it no longer applies- but that's just fluff and nonsense. Might as well say the 10 commandments don't apply.
I am not saying encat the death penalty for sin. I am saying we should follow the commands of God. God did not say "kill someone for stealing". He said the person who steals must pay back double. What happens today? The person who steals often pays back a portion to the other person, a big fine to the political government, and stays in jail for a while. God makes no such provisions in scripture. This show that the modern day pienal system is not in line with scripture.
What part of God's principles do you NOT think we should follow?
You might think God's law was intollerant- yes, it was. It was intollerant of SIN. As for this bit about judging... there are 2 types of judging. The judgement of condemnation and the judgement of evaluation. We Christians are told to constantly evaluate (judge) if something is right or wrong. We are not to condemn (judge) something to be wrong OUTSIDE OF GODS LAW. When it say's WE are not to condemn it means that we are not the one who makes the decision if something is right or wrong, like Adam tried doing in the Garden. We are to use God's judgement.
The political government is suppose to follow God's decrees. Part of those decrees, most actually, says that the political government was given the power of the sword (distributing punishment for crimes, including capital punishment) and the general defence of the country. When I say some of the OT laws should be reinstituted- I mean just that. It was the part of the political government, not the individual or the church, to use capital punishment.
chris,
That's the age old question. What is considered "judging"? And please understand that we believers will judge the nations with Christ.
woah woah, slow down a bit,
If we want to talk about enacting death penatly for sin, then it should only be within the Body of Believers, the Lord Prohibits us from judging outside of the Church. The state was not related to the Church in anyway whenever Paul wrote that, you could be killed for not calling Caesar god. So don't be so quick to use that as an argument.
P R I D E
Tha Bible made clear in the Old Testament that many punishments were intended to scare us into doing what is right. I say, honestly, that we should reenact some of those laws. Kill the homosexuals who are caught in sin. Kill the child abductor. Kill those in adultery. If we enacted such laws- there might be some deaths at first- but soon all people would fear doing wrong and people would become (mostly) obedient to God's commands.
"Gen1_28" You better watch it making statements like that, they'll have hogtied on a spit roasting in the fires of intolerance.
It is not enough to condemn sin- as we Christians should. We must also accept that every person is at a different place in their walk with God. I, for one, clearly see scriptures command to educate my children at home and that to send them to public school would be sin. Even though something like 80% of "Christians" send their children to public school- which I clearly see as sin- I don't go to every parent I know, pointing my finger in their face screaming "REPENT!" 1) I do not have proper Biblical based authority to do so. 2) I don't beileve God would want people to respond that way... most of the time (think Nehemiah and the beard pulling).
What I want to draw the line between is authority and government. The leaders of the church (and leaders of families) should be the ones teaching. I as an individual have no Biblically given authority OVER my neighbor- that is reserved for the church and the State. I can speak with my neighbor, discuss scripture, even tell them where I think they are wrong, but I am not in a position of authority to make them do what is right.
The State (government) has the authority to punish- even unto death. And the State should be obedient to God's laws.The State "wields the sword" for a reason.
The church (government) has the authority to condemn certain actions- including shunning people and removing them from the intiment fellowship of other Christians. The Church does not have authority to kill.
Just as I agree that we should follow certain OT laws- I believe it is of the utmost importance that we understand the Principles laid out in those laws. And the biggist failure is that of fathers, not leading their children and wives.
When a company fails- you don't fire the workers- you fire the leadership. Leadership in families has fallen short of God's commands. Let us not blame "the workers" but put the blame wher it belongs and look to leadership. To this end I reccomend a book called "Family Man, Family Leader" by Phil Lancaster. It is an excellent resource.
And may we all better understand God's word and apply it to our own lives.
All joking aside- The Bile says certain things are a sin. If you are a Christian- you will obey Gods commands. If HE says it's sin- then it is- And we have no place or right to allow it. God said "If you love me, you will obey my commands." This doesn't disqualify women being messengers of God- but it does disqualify women and Homo-sexuals from leadership.
Tha Bible made clear in the Old Testament that many punishments were intended to scare us into doing what is right. I say, honestly, that we should reenact some of those laws. Kill the homosexuals who are caught in sin. Kill the child abductor. Kill those in adultery. If we enacted such laws- there might be some deaths at first- but soon all people would fear doing wrong and people would become (mostly) obedient to God's commands.
Bozo says, "There's an agenda, there's a deep emotional reason, and they're dug into the trenches, regardless of the fact the trenches are 2" deep."
The pot and the kettle meet again! (Ditto for jar's abandoning debate with "foolish people." I'll have to remember that.)
Too many today want to re-write the Bible as they have every other piece of historical text. however, this time, they've gone too far, because God esteems His Word above His Own Name. Therefore, when they try to re-write, recontruct, deconstruct, revise, and every other form of liberal translating they can do, they are messing with the Creator God, and His Word, and His plan for mankind. They will also have to answer to the Lord face to face at judgement for leading so many sheep astray after a false gospel which teaches man's wisdom verses God's. May the Lord help us, and keep us in His Word. May He keep us from stumbling, as we are weak, and frail beings. May He grant us biblical discernment like the Bereans that we may search the Scriptures and test all things. That biblical discernment would come to the Body of Christ as a whole, and that we may be salt and light to a dying and lost world that is going to hell in a handbasket like we were if it were not for Jesus Christ the Son of God Our Lord and Savior's Redeeming Blood. May the Lord shed light on all those involved in this heresy of postmodernism. May He have mercy on them and grant them repentance should they decide to turn from their ways. Although I think much damage has been done by these liberal christians with their pseudo social gospel that denies the Whole Counsel of God. This issue really breaks my heart, because the only glimmer of hope that we have is the Word of God and the Gospel of Christ. If the meaning of God's intent is changed for a postmodern revisionist culture, then think of how many people will continue to be deceived. Lord help us, and forgive us our ignorance. May we pray always that You count us worthy to escape the things which are to come. Come Lord Jesus Come...Maranatha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rez band rocks!
Throughout the Bible, God has used women in ministry. There are a number of female prophetesses-es-es (something like that) in the Bible. Whether man ordains them doesn't change God's calling on their lives. I have a calling on my life. I am not ordained of man. True, I may not be allowed to speak in some churches due to that fact. But it will not keep me from speaking God's words and accomplishing what He called me to do. Even if I have to stand on a street corner. God will accomplish His task His way and in His timing.
Annas was a prophetess who prophecied over baby Jesus. If it's good enough for God, it more than good enough for me.
Hey Jar - yeah, the fact is this kind of anonymous forum is hardly the venue to spar and genuinely have one-on-one honest interaction. Face-to-face is so much better. Especially when you're close enough to SLAP them. ;)
I began running into the Metropolital Church of Christers (MCC) many moons ago and trying to convince them what the Bible so plainly teaches with no ambiguity at all is like trying to convince Dennis Kucinich that UFOs don't exist. There's an agenda, there's a deep emotional reason, and they're dug into the trenches, regardless of the fact the trenches are 2" deep.
This baby takes prayer, fasting, and a little Rez Band.
FORBOZO: Amen brother... PEARLS and SWINE... I often use that quote... I learned to stop debating with foolish people. The funny thing about Truth... it doesn't change. The definition of relativism.... looking out a window on a sunny day and trying to convince the world its raining.
Folks...folks....
We've all enjoyed the stimulating banter over who's got Twisted Scripture on their iPOD and who's got their heads in their booties.
Do you really suppose you're going to somehow convince a person like SheQuon, a card-carrying citizen of "The Land of The Lost", that scripture soundly rebukes homosexuality?
3 Words: PEARLS BEFORE SWINE
Besides, it’s time for lunch.
Tom, once again that just brings us back to all those other things the bible says are sins (any way you cut it), and some of the horrible things it says are okey-dokey. For a true Christian following the WWJD mantra, it is only common sense to reject isolated biblical passages that have nothing to do with true Christianity, and pray that other "Christians" may see the light and abandon their sinful policies of discrimination.
sheq the question isn't about ordaining women the queston is whether homosexaulity is a sin. And as such any way you cut it according to scripture and despite what all you revisionist want, It clearly says that homosexaulity is a sin. Period just like anyother sin and just like any other sin it can cause you to be seperated from God forever. So the question is then are you ready to repent of this sin as well as others and submit to the authority of Jesus Christ and what His word says or are you going to reject it. up to you all. Gods Blessing. In Christ Tom
Valkyrie1966, sounds to me that you and your friends are the only ones demanding that your ideas be the only ones accepted. I agree with SheQuon, that I heard these same kind of arguments and outrage over women's ordination, and earlier in our church history over interracial marriage, the abolition of slavery, the introduction of usury, the promotion of democracy over the biblical concept of the Divine Right of Kings, and earlier still in the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church and the abolition of Levitical law (except apparently for homosexuality).
Gene Robinson wants to study the Bible at the conference? Maybe he could start with Romans 1 and the passages from Deuteronomy where God calls sodomy an "abomination". That would be a real good place to start, Gene. These sexual deviants in clerical garb are never satisfied to engage in their spiritual and sexual anarchy alone. They INSIST their ideas be accepted, that their rebellion get official recognition and that everyone else will just have to suck it up if they disagree. Those who believe the Bible is God's Word will never stop opposing those who want to subvert the truth for their own rebellious ends. Gene Robinson needs to repent and Anglicans who love God and His Word will refuse to accept his perversion of truth.
feet,
"so of the homosexuals that you know(friends, neighbors, coworkers, relatives) what is the spirit that they are given over to be gay and have intimate gay relationships. and what is the fruit of this spirit they were given over to.
examples of fruit....... love, joy,peace, kindness, goodness, self-control,patience,goodness, and faithfulness........................or opposite entities...... hatred, envy, deception, division etc "
You conveniently left out some other things that are opposed to the fruit of the Spirit, such as sexual immorality and impurity and orgies... oh, I see why you left them out. You have to do so in order to justify homosexual behavior. But then again, you've justified pre-marital sex before, too.
"Bible study is for those who wants to know the truth & apply it in their life. Not for them [sic] who wants [sic] to justify their evil doings by misquoting Bible."
But enough about anti-gay fundamentalists. I seem to recall this same kind of protest and (lack of) reasoning when that church started ordaining women.
Eph 5:3-7 "But FORNICATION, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them."
fornication = Greek 'porneia' - illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1Cr 5:9-13 "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–
not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone WHO CALLS HIMSELF A BROTHER but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” "
Accept the repentant? Most certainly! Accept the unrepentant as a brother? God forbid!
I can think of no other sin where the sinner has the nerve to walk into a fellowship and demand that those of the body of Christ redefine-away a sin so that he may cater to his carnal lusts. Man may be fooled, but God isn't.
God calls it an abomination! Got a problem with it? Talk to Him.
In the mean time, excuse me if I reject your moral relativism.
jesus provides a very simple answer to what is of god and what is not?
he said you will recognize the them by their fruit. fruit being fruit of the spirit that they were given over to like in romans1.
so of the homosexuals that you know(friends, neighbors, coworkers, relatives) what is the spirit that they are given over to be gay and have intimate gay relationships. and what is the fruit of this spirit they were given over to.
examples of fruit....... love, joy,peace, kindness, goodness, self-control,patience,goodness, and faithfulness........................or opposite entities...... hatred, envy, deception, division etc
"I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can't sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study Scripture together," he said. "It makes me wonder, if we can't sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of Communion do we have and what are we trying to save?"
I liked Robinson's question what wre we trying to save? Jesus came to save those who are Lost? He is so blinded by perverse lust he does not even know that he is lost.Bible study is for those who wants to know the truth & apply it in their life.Not for them who wants to justify their evil doings by misquoting Bible.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2Tim3:16,17.
StJohn\'s,
I believe you have quoted the Book of Acts completely out of context. This passage is talking about the movement of the Christian religion not the advancement of the homosexual agenda.
To all of you modern-day self-righteous Pharisees, I quote the Bible, "So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!""
PRIDE
The gay bishop should be ex-communicated and all Episcopal churches which support heresy ex-communicated as well.
What we see here are the prophesied times. Scripture says in the last days there will be the great apostacy. Those who's ears want to be tickled, those who exchange a lie for the truth, lovers of self more than God, haivng an appearance of Godliness but denying the power thereof...
These abominations are proof of the Truth of the gospels. Those who have the Truth believe in their hearts and profess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then there are those who only know Him as Saviour. The demons know Him as Saviour, but deny His lordship...
Our approach is simple... stop the arguing. Stay away from those who honor a lie. Don't engage them. It's not that they don't know the truth..they simply reject it.....
The True church will never be defined by brick and mortar....
Article: Robinson told the bishops in Texas that ever since he got word of the proposal late last Friday, "I have been in considerable pain." He said he had hoped to participate in Bible study and small group discussions with other bishops.
If such a bible study would have accepted the sin of homosexuality, then it would not have been a Spirit led bible study, but a deadly game of Scripture Twister.
Dear reader, if you are walking in the works of homosexuality and believe that such works are good, then you have been deceived, lied to. Delay no longer, repent, turning to the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. A new creation awaits you, purchased by the very blood of Christ.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret (Eph 5:11, 12).
february17th: "? Why is it so clear to me that God is against it yet Pastors/Christians justify it?"
They justify it because everything they know about Jesus tells them He would not condemn two people of the same gender for loving one another. Love One Another is what Jesus was all about. Then they look at other passages of the bible that are equally wrong (such as the endorsement of slavery, the killing of children, etc.), and they realize that just like they would not take those isolated passages and say that they are just, they wouldn't take the passages that condemn people for loving as just.
I believe Dr. Rob Gagnon has covered every significant pro-homosex argument that claims Scripture for its support. See www.robgagnon.net . The sad truth is what he finds over and over: once Scripture's denial of any sexual acts outside marriage is clear, pro-homosex advocates admit that "It's really not about Scripture or its authority anyway. It's about what I/we want to do and seeking a way to justify our desires using the Bible."
“Those are just some thoughts on the issue here. It's not as black-and-white as some Christians might like to think it is." "But there is an increasingly vocal number of Bible-loving Christ-loving Christians who are looking seriously at the passages of Scripture which refer to homosexual practice and determining that the Bible isn't as clear as it appears. "
Knightopia, whatchu smokin’?. An increasingly number of Bible-LOVING Christians, huh? How in tarnation can someone who "loves" the Bible can't see the Truth so plainly...unless the Truth is not in him? I can't disagree with you more. I''ve heard all the fantastical groundless arguments from the MCC-ers and it's clear as day to me either folk like you are seriously suppressing the Truth or you're simply not IN the Truth. And if you challenge scripture's simple teachings, then what ELSE do you question?
When you state "You can't apply that reasoning to homosexuals and give everyone else a free pass", who's giving who a "free pass"? The Bible clearly states "gluttons" won’t see Heaven just as much as lovers of homosexuality. I've asked someone else this before: where are you getting your theology from? Because you need to get your money back.
I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but I can surely tell you, sparing you scripture after scripture, that this issue is VERY black and white - whether you or I want to believe it or not.
Bottom line: God is not going to cast anyone into Hell for being a homosexual...or a glutton for that matter. People go to Hell because they supress the truth of the Savior and are not found in Him. It's just that those that are in Him know in their spirit what scripture clearly states. I suggest you ask God, revealed in Jesus Christ, whether or not you really know Him at all. Sorry to sound like a jerk, but you need to get real with God, dude. Soon.
in response to the question by "february17th":
The issue here isn't one of using Scripture to "justify" homosexuality. There are no Scriptures which explicitly say "Homosexuality is OK." The issue here is instead a disagreement on the interpretation of Scriptures that refer to homosexual practice. There are many who feel that Scripture clearly condemns homosexuality.
For example, in a recent interview, J.I. Packer cited 1 Corinthians 6:9, saying (in essence) "This Scripture clearly teaches that homosexuals will not 'inherit the kingdom of God'" (i.e., go to heaven/be saved/etc.). So if homosexuals aren't "saved," then they aren't "Christians," right? Well, so goes the reasoning.
But there is an increasingly vocal number of Bible-loving Christ-loving Christians who are looking seriously at the passages of Scripture which refer to homosexual practice and determining that the Bible isn't as clear as it appears. References to "homosexuality" most likely referred to temple prostitution (homosexual acts conducted by prostitutes in worship of false gods), etc. How does that relate to homosexuals living today who affirm the deity of Christ, love God, and want to join in worship (and lead in worship) with other Christians? If you keep reading in 1 Corinthians 6, you'll see that other people that "will not inherit the kingdom of God" include those who are greedy, adulterers (divorced and remarried people?), idolaters (everything can be an idol, right?), the sexually immoral (anyone who commits sexual sin?), thieves (ever stolen anything? paper clips from your office maybe?), drunkards (ever get drunk?), slanderers (ever gossipped about someone behind their back?), and swindlers (ever sold someone a piece of junk?). By Packer's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6, it seems none of us are bound to "inherit the kingdom of God." You can't apply that reasoning to homosexuals and give everyone else a free pass.
Those are just some thoughts on the issue here. It's not as black-and-white as some Christians might like to think it is.
This man is an unrepentant sodomite, who is living in an openly homosexual relationship. He is no more a bishop than I am. Just because he uses the title and wears a collar, doesn't give him the right to be received as a bishop or given any authority as a bishop. He is doing far worse, too, he is openly challenging the Word of God and trying to drag others into supporting what God calls abomination. He should be on his knees before the Lord in abject repentance, but instead he's flaunting his sin and encouraging God-only-knows how many thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of others to remain in their sin and declare "good" what God declares "evil".
Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter."
Matthew 18:6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Serious question. How do homosexuals justify their actions with scripture? Why is it so clear to me that God is against it yet Pastors/Christians justify it? Could someone provide me with scripture that is used to justify this? Thanks
Yes he certainly does not belong at the summit or let alone to be considered a minister at all.
He openly breaks God's law and encourages others to also.