Debates: Walter Martin vs Bishop John Spong.

The late Christian Apologist Dr. Walter Martin takes on the heretic Bishop Spong in this fifteen part debate on the topic of morality, homosexuality, and other sexual ethics. The first four videos set the tone for the debate as Spong denies the physical resurrection of Christ and His deity.




29 thoughts on “Debates: Walter Martin vs Bishop John Spong.

  1. The 10th video is incredible. I absolutely love this man’s statement when he was trying so hard to change himself and then he realized that he could come to Christ as a homosexual but that Christ would not leave him as a homosexual. I am reminded of the video going around right now from one of Piper’s conferences about the rose that Christ wants.

    What a beautiful testimony to the miracle of regeneration and the grace and mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

  2. Spong gives me the creeps. His worldview is made of Jello, accepting of everything, rejecting nothing. He is a cultural relativist, completely dismissive of truth and Truth.

  3. SpongBob Squishypants admitted (at 4:48) what we have been saying all along–that the liberal, Emerging, “The Bible means whatever you want it to mean” crowd is not at all empowered by the Holy Spirit, but by their desire to worship a “God” of their own making.

    “When in doubt, don’t condemn.” Uh, what? The Bible condemns homosexuality. The only “doubt” about that comes from people who don’t want homosexuality to be a sin. They want homosexuality to be no more important than whether somebody likes broccoli.

    “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”–Matthew 7:26-27

  4. fourpointer,

    “SpongBob Squishypants ” – LOL! So accurate and in the proper cultural context!

    All these years, my mom and then my wife (for the first couple years of our marriage) told me it was IMPORTANT for me to eat “my” broccoli. I never took possesion of any broccoli and consider it “another vegetable”, perhaps in the sense that SpongBob Squishypants considers the biblical Gospel to be simply “another gospel” – for which and in which he rejoices. Condescending in a pithy way so as to be perceived by goats as “spiritual”.

    Seems the Apostle Paul took a bit more firm stand FOR the biblical Gospel and AGAINST all “other gospels”. Perhaps SpongBob Squishypants writes that Scripture off as pudding, as well.

  5. Jane says:

    Now I know for sure where Brian McLaren Rob Bell Tony Jones and others in the emergent church are getting their theology. Thanks for putting up these videos. Very enlightening indeed as we wonder what on earth happened to the evangelical church over the last 20 years.
    I was so moved by Roger’s testimony of Christ coming in and making him a brand new creation. He knows the truth now for sure. As does Dr Martin. I pray that God would move similarly in Bishop Spong.

  6. Mark Di says:

    As a Christian, I have always been bothered by the church’s denial of reality when reality conflicted with the Bible. We know that humans of today looked very little like the first discovered people, but we deny it. We know homosexuals are born that way because of a change in their DNA, but we dent it. What are we afraid of? That archaic beliefs don’t always hold up? That a book we claim is 100% accurate is not? The Bible was written in an era where people did not understand the laws of nature so they tried to explain it by faith, not much different than the pagans and their gods. To challenge the Bible in no way denys Jesus Christ. Doubts about the little things in no way strips the power of Christ. I do agree with Spong that a radicle change must be made in the Chruch today, as the current Fundamentalist doctrines are seriously flawed.

  7. Mark Di,

    Thanks for stopping by to read. We are bothered here at DefCon when we find somebody who stops by and while claiming to be a “Christian” denies the truths and inerrancy of the Word of God.

    As for humans looking very little like the first discovered people, are you speaking of the fact that DNA has devolved from the first humans created in the image of God? Adam and Eve were formed perfect, but DNA has declined through the years resulting in more sickness. Or, are you speaking of the theory of evolution that falls flat with no proof of any kind that there is a missing link (except maybe in Spong’s or Richard Dawkin’s head!)?

    Amazing that the perfect Sovereign God of ALL creation NEVER changes, but humanity does because of inherited depravity. God created man and woman and then gave the command for them to populate the earth. Sodomites (male or female) cannot do this. God calls it an abomination and here at DefCon we stand on the infallible truth of God’s Word. Homosexuals are NOT predisposed to their abominable wicked proclivities. Romans 1 would be a good passage for you to read unless it has been removed from your version of the Bible.

    Stranger still that you mention the Bible was written when people did not understand the laws of nature. In such a statement, you deny that God has the full knowledge of how His creation works. Hebrews 11 says that “Faith is the substance of things unheard, the evidence of things not seen.” Faith in God only comes through the working of the Holy Spirit as He performs the miracle of creating new life within each individual who is dead in trespasses and sins.

    For the record, Spong is a first rate heretic and most definitely NOT a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Personally, my hope is NOT built on the kind of drivel with which he seeks to cram the minds of gullible people. My hope is built on NOTHING less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.

    You state that “the current Fundamentalist doctrines are seriously flawed.” Yet, you do not share which ones you claim to have knowledge of that are seriously flawed.

    One final question (if you are actually reading here and not just stopping to snipe at something you disagree with), “If you were to die tonight and find yourself standing before the Judge of all the earth, the One Who created the heaven and earth, the One Who through the Holy Spirit gave us the Words of Life known as the Bible, and the Almighty Perfect God asked you, ‘Mark Di, why should I let you into my heaven, what would your answer be?'”

    The Desert Pastor

  8. We live in a day and age when the fountain of God’s Word seems to be flowing in pitifully small, and rapidly drying, streams. By and large, the practice of the world is to stomp right past the cleansing fountain of the wisdom contained in the Bible, and to wallow instead in the muddy imaginations of man. (II Corinthians 10:5).

  9. Jag says:

    Mark Di – you are absolutely right. But unfortunately most Christianity today is dominated by fundamentalists who cannot or will not think for themselves, and they can only see the world in black and white. That’s certainly not what Jesus taught, but they only care what they think and will not accept that no-one has a monopoly for God.
    ——————————————————————–
    It’s not very Christian to call Bishop Spong heretic, is it? After all, his own Episcopal church never declared him to be one. And it is clear in this debate that – whether someone likes it or not – Spong tells it like it is, while Martin has a hard time defending his position since he doesn’t have any real arguments.

  10. But unfortunately most Christianity today is dominated by fundamentalists who cannot or will not think for themselves

    Wow…what a silly statement. But, yeah, you’re right. We just march in lock-step with what our pastors tell us to think (and of course they only repeat what they are forced to repeat), and we don’t read our Bibles on our own. Sheeesh!!

    and they can only see the world in black and white. That’s certainly not what Jesus taught

    Yeah…that whole “Go forth and sin no more” was such an ambiguous statement. So much grey area in that.

    but they only care what they think and will not accept that no-one has a monopoly for God.

    No one owns God. The question is–does He own you?

    It’s not very Christian to call Bishop Spong heretic, is it? After all, his own Episcopal church never declared him to be one.

    You’re kidding, right? I mean, that is a joke! The Episcopal Church of the last 100 or so years probably wouldn’t even call Satan a heretic. Don’t forget, this is the group that ordains openly practicing homosexuals and installs women as bishops (two things that are roundly forbidden by that book you need to pick up, dust off, and read).

    Spong tells it like it is, while Martin has a hard time defending his position since he doesn’t have any real arguments.

    No, actually, there is a reason “Spong” rhymes with “Wrong.” He doesn’t “Tell it like it is”–he tells it the way he wants it to be. Besides, he got totally PWNED by Dr. Martin, and the only thing that may have thrown Dr. Martin off would be Shelby Wrong’s outlandish claims (I mean how do you answer some of Wrong’s ridiculous arguments?)

  11. Jag says:

    Dear fourpointer,

    You are dead right: most Christians don’t read their Bibles, or read them the way their pastors want them to be read! To give you an example: if you are an Adventist, your Bible clearly and unambiguously tells you that the soul goes to sleep after death and you don’t exist anymore. If you are an Evangelical, your Bible just as clearly and unambiguously tells you about the immortality of the soul. If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your Bible clearly and unambiguously tells you that there is no trinity. Try it for yourself – read your Bible from a standpoint that is not yours without prejudice and you will see that other views are just as legitimate as yours.

    Biblical scholars help us understand who wrote the Bible, when, and why. Unfortunately most pastors would prefer to prevent the knowledge from being filtered down to the pews. Otherwise, they say, “people may lose their faith”. “And then we will lose our jobs”, they also think, though don’t say aloud. For one, I am not afraid of taking a spiritual journey wherever it leads, and I am not afraid to face the truth.

    First of all, my God is not a “he”. You are already trying to compartmentalise, tame and own God by assigning God a gender and asserting that God is a male! I find this incredible (what if God is a female?), and Bishop Spong does not do that. But to answer your question, yes, God does own me – and you too!

    So you are homophobic, sexist and proud of it. That’s fine, but what’s so Christian about this? My Bible is not anti-gay or anti-women. If Paul mentions female ministers in his letters – and even a female apostle, then what’s wrong with women bishops (or gay bishops)? There is no male of female in Christ, claimed Paul, and he was right. i would certainly leave a church that discriminates this way and found one that doesn’t celebrate superstition.

    As for the Episcopal/Anglican church, it is a broad, “big tent” church. There are factions there that I like and ones that I don’t, but nothing gives you or me the right to declare anyone a heretic. Did Jesus do that? Did Jesus told anyone to do that? The Jesus I know taught to withold judgment on people. What I know is that I had left Christianity for years. It was an outdated, intolerant ideology to me. Bishop Spong single-handedly reversed that. If it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian anymore. That is enough for me!

    Suggest you read “LOST CHRISTIANITIES: The Battle for Scriptures and Faiths We Never Knew” by Bart Ehrman. Christianity emerged not as a single sect, but with very diverse views on Jesus. It can even be seen in the NT! It wasn’t until Constantine that one option was promoted by the state (for purely political reasons!) over others and became “orthodoxy”. This is how the Roman Catholic church was born, and ironically up to now most Protestants still accept the canon of the NT approved by the Catholics under Constantine. Heresy simply means a way, or choice, and we all have one – therefore we are all heretics as we follow one heresy or another. I am actually growing fond of the word! Even Jesus wasn’t the first heretic – there were many before him in that respect.

    Is rhyming names your only argument against Spong’s views?
    It’s like calling his opponent dr Fartin’, which I refuse to do as it is below my Christian dignity, I’d rather dispute Martin’s actual views. Spong is not outlandish. His views are, in fact, tentative, and have evolved over time. Find convincing evidence, and Spong will change his views (remember, he started off as a fundamentalist!). Would Martin be honest enough and willing to accept a new light, or is he so brainwashed that nothing will change his prejudice?

    No, I do not always agree with Bishop Spong. But I highly regard his deep spirituality and uncompromising, honest quest for the truth. You can throw names on him, but they simply don’t stick.

    Following Jesus is not about belief in this or that dogma. It is about living a good life.

  12. brother Michael says:

    Not answering Jag above as he addressed Fourpointer specifically, but I feel it helpful to post Mr. Spong’s 12 Theses for all to read and determine if, as according to Jag, “Spong is not outlandish” and is someone to be highly regarded for “deep spirituality.”

    So – let’s hear it straight from Mr. Spong’s lips.

    1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found. [i.e. I guess according to Spong, Time apparently had it right in stating that God is dead]

    2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt. [ i.e Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh where such a belief is "bankrupt"]

    3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense. [i.e. no creation, no sin, just fairy tales as foolish Christians float about in the land of gum drops and lollipops.]

    4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible. [i.e. no virgin birth]

    5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity. [i.e. no miracles - just natural occurrences that we have yet to understand, or more fairy tales]

    6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed. [i.e. no sin, no sacrifice for sin, we are all good people so go burn your Bibles and life like the devil]

    7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history. [i.e. Christ is not raised from the dead, so your faith is in vain.]

    8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age. [i.e. Jesus did not ascend up to the right hand of the Father.]

    9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time. [i.e. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.]

    10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way. [i.e. Don't pray because there is no Theos, and if there were, why do you think he would be concerned about you and act in human history]

    11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior. [i.e. don't let hope spur your own; better to have no hope and drift about aimlessly]

    12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination. [i.e. don't preach "repent and believe the gospel" but rather affirm men in their morally relativistic world but never tell them they are wrong.]

    Well – there it is. Spong has spoken. The marvel is that some believe this is Christianity and that one who preaches such things cannot be said to be a heretic. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength; and adding to Orwell’s list we now have heresy is Christianity.

  13. For one, I am not afraid of taking a spiritual journey wherever it leads, and I am not afraid to face the truth.

    Suppose that “journey”takes you to a place where you realize you’re wrong about what you currently believe? Because, you see, you are. You accuse pastors of only teaching what they want their people to think. But, you too are only believing what you want to, while ignoring the clear teachings of Scripture. I will always believe the written word of God over what any man says. Would you?

    First of all, my God is not a “he”. You are already trying to compartmentalise, tame and own God by assigning God a gender and asserting that God is a male! I find this incredible (what if God is a female?), and Bishop Spong does not do that.

    So, all those times when Jesus and Paul referred to God THE FATHER, I guess they were “compartmentalizing” and “taming” and “owning” God.

    So you are homophobic, sexist and proud of it. That’s fine, but what’s so Christian about this? My Bible is not anti-gay or anti-women. If Paul mentions female ministers in his letters – and even a female apostle, then what’s wrong with women bishops (or gay bishops)? There is no male of female in Christ, claimed Paul, and he was right. i would certainly leave a church that discriminates this way and found one that doesn’t celebrate superstition.

    No, I am not afraid of gay people (which is the true definition of the word “homophobe”). Of course, to people who don’t know the English language, the word “homophobe” means “A person who finds homosexuality to be a sin, and in stark opposition to the Bible.” Dust off your Bible (if you own one) and read 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1st Timothy 1:10.

    Neither am I “anti-woman.” Paul mentions female “ministers” in the sense of “ministering” to others–not as in holding the office of pastor. Dust off your Bible and read 1st Corinthians 11, 1st Timothy 3 and Titus 1. And, if you would, please show me where the Bible says there was a female apostle?

    Oh, and I don’t have time to go into what Paul means when he wrote that “there is neither male nor female.” That is one of the favorite out-of-context verses that theological liberals love to toss out there (along with “judge not” and “let him without sin throw the first stone.”) A tired, worn out tactic used as a last resort when they can no longer defend their position.

    As for the Episcopal/Anglican church, it is a broad, “big tent” church. There are factions there that I like and ones that I don’t, but nothing gives you or me the right to declare anyone a heretic.

    They left the clear teachings of the Scriptures decades ago. There may be a few in there who have not defiled their garments, but they are indeed Sardis (PSST–It’s in Revelation).

    What I know is that I had left Christianity for years. It was an outdated, intolerant ideology to me. Bishop Spong single-handedly reversed that. If it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian anymore. That is enough for me!

    You may call yourself a Christian, but if you are calling that which is evil good, then you may, in fact, be in opposition to God.

    Suggest you read “LOST CHRISTIANITIES: The Battle for Scriptures and Faiths We Never Knew” by Bart Ehrman.

    Bart Ehrman–PLEEEEZZZ!

    Christianity emerged not as a single sect, but with very diverse views on Jesus. It can even be seen in the NT! It wasn’t until Constantine that one option was promoted by the state (for purely political reasons!) over others and became “orthodoxy”.

    Ah yes, the old “Constantine ordered everybody to believe like him and invented Christianity” tripe we hear from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, liberals, and everyone else who wants to chuck the Bible in the river.

    This is how the Roman Catholic church was born, and ironically up to now most Protestants still accept the canon of the NT approved by the Catholics under Constantine.

    Another tired, old, disproven theory–this one is always thrown at us by Catholics who don’t know any better than to regurgitate what their Magisterium feeds them.

    Spong is not outlandish. His views are, in fact, tentative, and have evolved over time. Find convincing evidence, and Spong will change his views (remember, he started off as a fundamentalist!).

    His views are, in fact, wrong. They have evolved over time because he chose to follow his feelings rather than follow the truth. The fact that he won’t debate anybody anymore is proof that he can’t articulate a decent defense of his false beliefs when facing someone who knows the truth and is faithful enough to defend that truth. As this witness to Spong getting roundly thumped by James White attests:

    “Bishop John Shelby Spong, though very bright, seems inexplicably uninformed about the evangelical stream of his own confessional history. When he was asked about J. C. Ryle’s views on some point that was in question, he responded by asking, “Who is he and when did he live?” I literally fell out of my chair.”

    But I highly regard his deep spirituality and uncompromising, honest quest for the truth.

    “Honest” and “uncompromising” are not words that can accurately describe Shelby Spong.

  14. Jag says:

    Yes, I believe that Spong’s thesis are a great program of a new reformation. And they are just as heretic as Martin Luther’s thesis were. Some will move forward, some will remain where they were. I’d rather move on into newly discovered dimensions of God rather than cling to old myths. If Christianity is to survive another century or five, it must never stagnate, or it will become irrelevant.

    To fourpointer: the beauty of a life’s spiritual journey is that you do in fact re-examine your beliefs all the time. You revise them as new experiences appear. I have been wrong before, and I certainly may be wrong now. As soon as I find out what is wrong, I will reform my views. Can you say the same of your beliefs?

    People used to refer to God as a he, but does it mean God is a male? Or was it only because they did so in the context of a patriarchal culture? I say that if God is a Father, then God is just as much a Mother. In fact, I believe that God is so much more than either. Human language is imperfect and can never describe God accurately.

    Homosexuality is neither a sin nor against the Bible. In fact, when the Bible was written little was known about it. Paul certainly does not mention homosexuals. In fact, there was no such term then. You do read your Bible, but how do you know if you understand it if you ignore biblical scholarship? How about reading Helminiak’s “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality”? Like I said before, you can defend any view, no matter how silly with a Bible passage (or a few). If you were not afraid of gay people (they have no choice – they are born this way), you would not have a problem with them being bishops. After all I do not think you mind left-handed or red-haired bishops… or do you?

    Paul’s Christianity knew no hierarchy. Anyone could be a minister, bishop or apostle. Romans 16:7 mentiones Junia, a female name, as an apostle. When did you last dust off your Bible? ;-)

    Whether you like it or not, Jesus did stop people from stoning others, and did tell them not to judge. If that makes him a liberal, is that why you find this teaching difficult to follow?

    I do not call evil good. And as to judging whether “I am on opposition to God” why not leave it up to… God? I am glad that ultimate judgments will not be made by religious bigots.

    What’s wrong with Ehrman? He is a first rate historian, and an ex-fundamentalist himself. Again, I do not always share his views, but his scholarship is sound. I can recommend others, if you are allergic to him, but they do not have any alternative history to offer… sorry!

    The canon of the NT was decided by the Roman church, and it emerged out of its tradition. I am not Catholic, but have to admit the truth, even if inconvenient. To me it’s hypocritical to reject church tradition and accept the Bible that would never have emerged without it! The Bible, after all, did not fall down fromk heaven. People wrote it, shaped it and compiled it.

    Can you offer any useful example where Spong did NOT follow the truth, wherever it lead? One thing is sure – he certainly did not follow old and outdated thought and was never afraid to stand for the truth – do you think it was easy? Do you think the death threats he receives are from atheists or Buddhists? I am afraid they are from fundamentalist evangelicals. That speaks volumes about how scared they are of the truth. After all didn’t similar people ages ago seek to kill Jesus? The motivation must have been very similar.

    I am not aware of Spong not debating anyone anymore. But if he were, he is retired now and deserves some peace. After all he may not even write another book. But he has done more than enough, and others will take over. I am not surprised that he doesn’t know all names. I never even heard about that “J C Ryle”. So he (she?) can’t be too influential.

    And again, are you really saying that Spong is compromising? What compromise has he made? And when did he lie to call him dishonest? You seem to believe that if you throw enough mud, some will stick… Is that the only strategy to deal with the inconvenient truths? I personally do not think ad hominem arguments can work.

  15. You claim that I “ignore biblical scholarship.” Yes, I do ignore that which calls itself “scholarship”–yet are you not, in fact, ignoring nearly 2000 years of biblical scholarship yourself? Yes, you are. You are ignoring what men have written, since the earliest days of the church, in favor of your own beliefs so that you may continue calling evil good.

    And yes, Paul did in fact call homosexuality sin. Or do you know more about what Paul and Jude said than what scholars have understood for the last 2000 years? Romans 1:26-27–For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. He went on to say in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10–Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And in 1st Timothy 1:9-10–realizing the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. They may not have had the word “homosexual”–but they certainly had homosexuals (for that matter, they didn’t have words like “automobiles” or “motorcycles” or even “baseball”), and Paul condemned this behavior. Jude 1:7–just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

    The canon of the NT was decided by the Roman church, and it emerged out of its tradition.

    The canon was settled long before the Romish church began. The earliest canons were compiled in the first two centuries after Christ, while the Roman Catholic church did not begin until centuries later. That is one myth that has been busted.

    I would love to continue this conversation, but it is obvious you will not submit yourself to God and His word. Instead I will pray that you will one day understand the truth–that what God’s word says–it means. God did not give us the Scriptures, and then spend the next couple thousand years “tweaking” them to fit our culture. Rather, the culture must submit itself to the will of God–otherwise, they are taking God off of His throne and making Him fit their own image.

    Farewell.

  16. Jag, there is MUCH wrong with your comment, let me address what jumped out at me first…
    you state ‘Homosexuality is neither a sin nor against the Bible. In fact, when the Bible was written little was known about it. Paul certainly does not mention homosexuals. In fact, there was no such term then. You do read your Bible, but how do you know if you understand it if you ignore biblical scholarship?’

    Can you give biblical evidence to back this claim?

    Now, as for what the Bible says, let’s start with Leviticus 18:22 -Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20:13-If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. This are clear passages condemning homosexuality.

    Let’s go even farther back into the book of Genesis, chapter 19- But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
    These homosexual men wanted to have sex with the two visitors, how do we know? Because Lot offered his daughters in their place, vs. 7- And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
    How did these two angels of God respond? vs. 11- And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
    Look at the depravity of the homosexual, they continued to try and gain entrance into Lot’s house, even though they’d been struck blind. Still think homosexuality is okee dokee? Read on and see what the angels proceeded to do to Sodom and Gomorrha. That should be an example for all who live ungodly, 2 Peter 2:6, ‘And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’
    or this from Jude 1:7,‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.’
    The Lord Jesus Christ speaks out against homosexuality as well, from Matt. 15:19,‘For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, vs. 20 These are [the things] which defile a man’. All this lies within the human heart, we will zero in on ‘fornication’, this will prove you wrong in your opinions on the subject.
    Fornication comes from the Greek word ‘porneia’, which translates ‘adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.’. So, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly says homosexuality is defiling.
    What does the Bible say about those who are an abomination to the Lord? ‘ But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.’- Rev. 21:8

    The Apostle Paul spoke clearly against homosexuality as well, from 1 Cor. 6:9,10-Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.’
    Also, this from 1 Timothy1:8-10, ‘But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,’ The law points to sin, which leads to repentance {you would do well to study the doctrine of repentance, the nature of sin and its bondage, the holiness of God, as well as His other attributes}.

    As Fourpointer has already said, ‘farewell’…

    Lyn

  17. Let’s add a little clarification just in case it is not clear to those like Jag – Spong is NOT a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ! In fact, Spong and all who reject the truth of Scripture will one day find themselves at the receiving end of the wrath of God as it is poured out upon ALL who think they are scholars, yet mock the Holy Scriptures. Sadly, Jag, you are also in the same camp as Spong unless you too repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ alone. That means you see sin as God sees it, not as you WISH to define it.

    It is the oldest lie in the Bible, the serpent (Lucifer, Satan, the evil one) says, “Yea, has God really said…..?”

  18. Jag says:

    Dear Desert Pastor – your religion seems to be based on fear. What about those of us who love God so much that they are not afraid? You can’t scare us into believing what you would like us to believe…
    ____________________________________________

    Dear fourpointer,

    You made a serious claim: things that have been believed for long enough become truth. Amazing! The church taught that the earth was flat for hundreds of years. It taught that the Earth was the centre of the universe for a millennium and a half. Many taught that the Earth was created ready-made 6,000 years ago. Now we know that this was all false. Is it hard to imagine that the church’s attitude to homosexuals and women was wrong too? Instead of hardening one’s hard, like fundamentalists do, genuine Christianity repents for its sins.

    The way I see it, you misunderstand Paul completely. Is the chapter in Romans really about homosexuals? Not at all, you are taking verses out of context. It is about wicked people. It is part of Paul’s dialogue with the church in Rome, and we are missing half the conversation as we do not know what the Roman Christians did or wrote. The literalist interpretation you offer creates more problems than it solves. If you take it at a face value, it could mean that the wicked turned to homosexuality. Hurray! I’m not gay, therefore I can’t be wicked! Well… wrong. The text condemns those who exchanged some passions for others. Therefore it cannot apply to those who did not choose to be gay but were born this way (a vast majority, science says). And simple life observations show that there are many gays who do not do the things that Paul mentions in the same sentence. Therefore you seem to be taking your verses out of contex, but also taking the whole epistle out of its socio-cultural context! Paul does not refer to those to whom being gay is the most natural thing.

    Your quote from Corinthians misses the point completely. It’s the translation that is incorrect – the word Paul used does not really mean homosexuals – ancient Greek did not have a word to cover the term. Your interpretation may be honest, but it is too biased and simplistic because you do not see all the colours of tre rainbow, just black and white, and nothing in the real world is black and white.

    I do not have space here to discuss 1 Timothy here, but will mention that it is a pseudoepigraph written in Paul’s name much later by an unknown author – or so most scholars believe.

    Jude, on the other hand, makes no mention of homosexual behaviour. “Strange flesh” does not have to be of the same sex.

    Are you able to support your preposterous claim that the NT canon was settled before Constantine? Yes, there were “canons” in the first centuries, but they were simply lists of recommended reading material. Different local churches had different lists, and no supernatural claims (eg. “inerrancy”) were made about them. The first such canon was in fact by Marcion, whom I am sure you will happily call a heretic anyway. Without Marcion the Catholic canon you find in your Protestant scriptures might not exist, or be very different. And even today the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian and some other ancient churches have their own NT canons, different from yours. You accept your canon purely on the authority of Rome, as protestants inherited their canon from
    Rome. If Protestantism was born in Ethiopia or Syria, you would have ahad quite a different NT canon…

    I will happily submit myself to you and your word (do you seriously think you represent God?), but you will have to find convincing arguments, not conjecture and dogma… Sorry! And if I can suggest something, please do not only pray for me. Pray that we can both understand God and God’s truth better! And may God’s blessings be with you.

    _________________________________

    Dear Lyn,

    Thank you for your thoughts. It’s always good to talk and exchange opinions.
    I have provided some evidence to support my view that the homosexuality is not a sin above, but there have also been a number of books written about the subject. I am happy to recommend further reading, if you like.

    The text from Leviticus is very significant. In fact, it is the only text that appears prohibit gay sex. But the same book also prohibits eating shellfish or pork. And wearing clothes made from 2 different kinds of fibre. I hope you do realise that if you wear a polycotton shirt or blended wool/synthetic jacket you are an abomination to God too? The prohibition of gay sex in Leviticus has a purely ritual meaning. Also, it is significant no note that it does not prohibit lesbian sex at all! Therefore, taken literally it would appear to mean that God is like most males – homophobic on the one hand when it comes to men, yet enjoys watching lesbian porn… But then, is that really a picture of God that you and I would like to take as genuine and believe in?

    As to the Sodom story, you say “These homosexual men wanted to have sex with the two visitors, how do we know? Because Lot offered his daughters in their place”. Wait! If the Sodom people were homosexual men, would there be any point offering them women??? Something doesn’t add up here. What if it was simply about sexual immorality, and not orientation? What if it is rape condemned here, not homosexuality? Let’s see what the Bible says about the sin of Sodom elsewhere: “Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50″. Wow. No mention of homosexuality at all. That settles it for me. Incidentally, the text from Jude you quote doesn’t mention homosexuality either.

    Which dictionary did you look up the Greek word “porneia” in? I am afraid it sounds like a biased and fundamentalist, not a scholarly one. Porneia is a dated word meaning roughly the same as equally dated “fornication”. If you look up Wikipedia (just for easy of access) “Fornication is a term that typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between married or unmarried heterosexual adults, or between people who are not of marriagable age (teens), or between persons who are not in a stable committed relationship. For many people, the term carries a moral or religious association. Fornication is regarded differently by various religions, societies and cultures. Fornication is sometimes defined as premarital sex.” Therefore neither homosexuality nor lesbianism nor intercourse with animals fall under the term.

    May God’s blessings be with you too, and keep searching for the truth!

  19. For it is written:

    If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY ” And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
    - Hebrews 10:26-31

  20. Jag,

    You are correct. I cannot “scare” you or anyone else into believing what I want you to believe. All I can do is share the truth of Scripture, but if the Holy Spirit does not come and arrest your heart, cause you to fear the wrath of God, cause you to repent of your wickedness, and make you a new creation in Christ Jesus, then you will sadly one day find yourself standing in judgment by the Creator of the Universe that you mock so easily. And all because you place more stock in the wisdom of the world, than even the basics of the most base things of God.

    The person who does not fear God is ignorant. Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.”

  21. Jag,

    The homosexuals in Genesis said this, ‘bring them out unto us, that we may know them.’ This certainly wasn’t a welcome wagon committee. Lot, in his fear, offered his daughters to these perverts to do as they desired. Lot wasn’t really sure what would ‘satisfy’ these animals. Regardless of how you try and twist God’s word, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. You can ‘interpret’ scripture to fit ‘pet sins’ all day long, however, on the last day, your twisting will not grant you entrance into His eternal holy kingdom. I give you credit for having an active imagination.
    I am not interested in your opinions on what God calls an abomination…you see, I lived the homosexual life. I was in bondage to this perverse sin for nearly 20 years. God, in His great mercy, brought me to Christ and saved my soul. I believe in the God of the Bible, I believe His word is infallible, I believe He will judge the quick and the dead. I believe God saves those He has chosen for eternal life. I am eternally grateful to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for taking my sins upon His back and giving His life for me. He satisfied God’s anger and hatred at my sins, all my sins.
    Your man-made books on the subject fail in comparison to what the Eternal God has already spoken concerning the sin of homosexuality. Man’s wisdom is foolishness compared to the Sovereign Creator of the Universe. Here is the ultimate question for foolish man, ‘ Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?’…do read the rest of Job 38 and see if you can answer the Almighty.

    “A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’- Psalm 14:1

    As for which ‘dictionary’ I used, I didn’t use an ordinary dictionary. I used a Greek/Hebrew Lexicon. You don’t use an ordinary dictionary when you want the translation of Greek/Hebrew. I recommend http://blueletterbible.org

    This article is one you need to read…http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-unregenerate-no-matter-how-smart-or.html

    Sadly, there is no point in continuing a debate with you…your unbiblical views prove you are still in your sins; dead to the things of God. You are unregenerate, not born from above. You do not understand spiritual matters, you can’t. You have no understanding because God has not done a work in you, your words prove such. You cannot argue from the Bible because your mind is depraved, your ears and eyes are shut spiritually.
    I do encourage all who have been saved by His glorious grace to pray for your soul; it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    Lyn

  22. Jag says:

    To moderator – for some reason 10 minutes after sending my post it still doesn’t appear, I am therefore re-sending it.

    Great, The Desert Pastor.

    Christian philosophy often refers to 2 divine books: the Scriptures and the book of nature. One surely cannot contradict the other if they come from the same Author. St Augustine wrote that when science and the Bible seem to contradict each other this is likely to be because we misunderstand/misinterpret the Bible. And if we cling to unreasonable beliefs against common sense then we make unbelievers laugh at Christianity. That’s why I do not see why Christianity and science should not go hand in hand. Are you familiar with Francis Collins, author of “The Language of God” (a book about evolution)? He is both an evangelical Christian and a theistic evolutionist. I am neither, but I do highly respect his integrity and honesty. You see, I do not have to believe the same as someone in order to respect them (and their views). I do believe in diversity. If we were all the same, the world would be boring.

    Unworthy1:

    I am sorry, in my Genesis there are no homosexuals. In fact, the term was only coined in the 19th century. And Ezekiel 16:49-50 explains clearly that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and care. In that day and age this often constituted difference between life and death to the nomadic society of ancient Middle East.

    It’s interesting that you condemn homosexuals and praise Lot, who according to the same Bible, was a drunkard who copulated with his own daughters! I can only imagine that your church doesn’t welcome homosexuals, but fathers who sleep with their daughters are OK? Well, let’s just say that it sounds like strange morality to me. Butperhaps it’s you who’s twisting the words of the Bible to make it accommodate your own prejudices?

    A sin is something that hurts yourself or others. Stealing is sin (though perhaps not always). Sexual infidelity is sin (whether gay or straight). And so on. A loving, exclusive relationship between two people is not. When I see two people in love (straight or gay), it reminds me of God, the kind of God Jesus taught about, certainly not Christian fundamentalists.

    Many gay people who also happen to be Christians are made to feel guilty. In fact, conservative religions rely on making people feel guilty – that’s the key to rule over them. If living a gay lifestyle did not make you happy and you are happy now, then I am happy for you. See, I do not pass judgments as easily as fundamentalists do…

    Let me remind you that the Bible did not fall down from heaven. It was written, compiled, arranged, argued about and approved by men. In fact there are different canons of both Old and New Testaments. Whenever the church claimed something that was against science, it was ALWAYS proved wrong: flat Earth, geocentrism and many more. They may be in the Bible, but that doesn’t make them true.

    By the way: I looked up the link you provided, but could not find any results whatsoever for “porneia” Care to help?

    I say: it’s a great thing to fall into hands of the living God! God is love. Passing judgments on those who differ from you is not the fruit of the holy spirit.

  23. Jag,

    What exactly does the Greek word that is translated “homosexuals” REALLY mean? That is, what did it mean to those that Paul was writing to? Because, in every lexicon you will find it is defined as “men who fornicate with men.” Unless you believe that during the time that Paul wrote his letters there weren’t men having sex with men. This seems to be your implication when you said, In fact, when the Bible was written little was known about it. Paul certainly does not mention homosexuals. In fact, there was no such term then (Which is a rather perplexing claim, since those kinds of relationships are condemned from as far back as Leviticus. Did they disappear for some 5,000 years?)

    Actually, the word Paul uses (arsenokoites) is from the Septuagint (the “LXX”, the Greek translation of the Old Testament), which would have been the OT that the Corinthians would have been reading from. So it wasn’t that Paul “invented” the word–it’s simply a contraction of the words the LXX uses in Leviticus 18:22 (meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikos, “with a man do not lie [as one] lies with a woman”) and Leviticus 20:13 (hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos, “whoever lies with a man [as one] lies with a woman…”).

    Speaking of Leviticus and the “Eating shrimp was a sin” argument, here is something you might want to read.

    So, why did Paul refer to “men [having sex with] with men” as “that which is shameful” (NKJV) or “indecent acts” (NIV) and that they would “receive the due penalty of their error”? Or why Jude said that the men of Sodom who wanted Lot to bring out the men in his house so they could have sex with them are “undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” Keep in mind that however you interpret these verses, you may be doing so while ignoring many years of biblical scholarship (and remember your own words–You do read your Bible, but how do you know if you understand it if you ignore biblical scholarship? So, which biblical scholarship are you going to ignore?).

    Genesis 19:4-5–The men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 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 know them.” Pretty clear there, not a lot of wiggle room. How does your pastor filter that before he delivers it to you?

    And you still haven’t told me who the female apostle was.

    Your repeated claims of “Constantine decided what books would be in the Bible” are, still, unfounded. You might want to read FF Bruce’s book “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” and you will see that the canon was not determined by the “BIG-C” Catholic Church but rather by the “little-c” catholic church. Another resource for seeing that Constantine did not establish the canon would be Eusebius’ “History of the Church”–especially since Constantine commissioned Eusebius to write “History”, and while Eusebius speaks quite loftily of Constantine, he says nothing of Constantine “establishing” the canon of Scripture.

    Finally, while it is true that there were many “sects” within Christianity, this is something that was roundly denounced by the apostle Paul (see 1st Corinthians 1:10-17, 1st Corinthians 3:2-8, and Galatians 1:6-10 for starters).

  24. A few problems, Jag.

    1. If there is no mention of homosexuals in “your Genesis”, then you obviously have torn out the parts that offend you. You must have a very small pamphlet indeed that has erroneously been labeled “Holy Bible.”

    2. Sex outside of marriage is sin no matter what excuse you want to use to cover it up. And if you two people in lust reminds you of God, then it is not the true God but the god of this world who has blinded your eyes.

    3. Gay and Christian are not terms that are biblically and morally compatible.

    4. The Bible makes it clear that judgment is to take place when it comes to sin and Jesus Christ Himself said that we are to judge with righteous judgment.

    5. As for an evangelical Christian who claims to be a theistic evolutionist, again an oxymoron in terms. The gospel begins with the first verse that Collins so willingly seeks to refute, “In the beginning GOD……”

    Now while we are at this, why don’t you elaborate on the agenda that the homosexuals are forcing on the world at large? The problem with your view is that it makes their agenda acceptable because you will not pass judgment. Very convenient. This is why in a sexually Europe, the homosexual agenda is seeking to reduce the age of consent beyond any decent standard so that those who are older and can no longer find pleasure in their current level of perversity. When you are not content with the pattern that God created — one man and one woman for life — then the evil one will mix truth with falsehood and it ultimately allows for all manners of perversion. Why don’t you admit what they are trying to accomplish in reducing the age of consent, why they are seeking to introduce their perverted lifestyle into the curriculum in our schools, why they are not content with ruining the meaning of marriage? Their agenda is just as perverted and as wicked as their father, who is the evil one – satan himself!

    Revelation 21:8 which I am certain is also missing from your little pamphlet concludes the matter thus: “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

    That concludes God’s take on the issue of homosexuality. There is no room for a second opinion, and when God the Creator of heaven and earth reigns and casts judgment from His high and holy throne, there will be no second chances either. May I humbly implore you to seek the face of the One True God and plead for mercy from Him before it is too late!

    So to

  25. Jag says:

    Dear fourpointer,

    I am sure you can find dictionaries that translate everything the way you want it. Especially if compiled by people from your own church. But if you consult more scholarly ones, it will not be so easy. You probably mean the word arsenokoitai. The first problem is that we do not have this word anywhere except in Paul’s letters until much later in history! It is therefore difficult to establish beyond any doubt what the word meant to Paul. To quote Wiikipedia: “Porneia appears a number of times in Paul’s letters, always with arsenokoitais. In, “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality”, John Boswell argued that the word ‘arsenokoitais’ in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers to male prostitution specifically” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament). So here’s just one alternative meaning. In fact, your definition “men who fornicate with men” is very similar. Surely dedicated, loving and exclusive relationship beween two gay people cannot qualify as “fornication”. The following link may also be helpful:

    http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/word_arsenokoitai.html

    The fact that there was no term for homosexuals does not mean that there was no homosexuality. It just means that there was no understanding of it and, in most cases, no acceptance.

    I read the link you provided. Interesting, but not convincing. The word translated as “abomination” does not in fact refer to “sin” in the Torah, it normally refers to ritual impurity. Therefore male (but never female – isn’t it telling?) sex was considered ritually impure. But then so was a menstruating woman. Shelfish aside, you do realise that wearing cloth made of two kinds of fibre was prohibited to. Is it a sin then, or not? If not, why was it prohibited? Please provide a clear answer…

    I generally accept biblical scholarship that can be objectively assessed, that does not contradict common sense, and that takes into accout the sociohistorical context in which the books of the Bible were written. This does not mean that I accept anything as the last word. But where there are competing views, that’s how I choose the one that is more likely to be true. Provide arguments to the contrary and I will happily change my mind – in fact have done so more than once.

    In fact, in an earlier post, I mentioned Romans 16:7 which has the female apostle – Junia. Why are you saying that I didn’t tell you that? In fact, it was you who did not tell me why copulating with one’s own daughters while drunk and impregnating them (Lot) is OK while beng in a gay relationship is sin. While at it, please also explain why the Ten Commandments do not say anything about gay behaviour either. Or why you don’t uphold the Bible’s clear an unambiguous teaching that the Earth is flat. Or what it is exactly that makes homosexuality sin. Or why Leviticus does not condemn lesbianism the way it seems to prohibit male gay sex. You see, I find it hard to accept when someone claims “homosexuality is evil full stop”. I need to see it in context, as part of a consistent ethical/theological system, and understand reasons for it.

    Constantine did not himself decide the canon of the Bible. But he (and the roman Empire in general) did pressure the church to enforce unity. Forminig a canon and banning other scriptures was a means to an end. Amongst the books I recommend are:

    “Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years” by John Philip Jenkins

    “When Jesus Became God” by Richard Rubenstein

    “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart Ehrman

    It was therefore not the empreror himself, but the church he tamed thataround the same time obediently gave the Christian Bible roughly the shape it has today. “In 331, Constantine commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity#Early_Christian_Bibles)

    I do not question (or ever questioned) that Paul denounced those sects of early Christianity that he disagreed with him. But let’s get this into perspective. It was only about 10-30 years after Jesus’ death, and Christianity was already very diverse. Paul’s was neither the only nor even the best interpretation. Paul was often in opposition to the church in Jerusalem, lead by Jesus’ brother, James, and the apostle Peter. Of course he would denounce others, and the others probably denounced him – except that their writings didn’t survive… Remember, those others had visions of resurrected Christ as much as Paul did, so their views were as valid as Paul’s.

  26. But if you consult more scholarly ones, it will not be so easy.

    Ooooohhhh…I get it…if someone believes that the Bible says what it means then they aren’t scholarly. Meaning that in the first nealry 2000 years of the church, no one who said anything about the Bible knew what they were talking about–only those who want to say that sin is not sin. Got it. (Of course, it is rather ironic that you stress the issue of “scholarship”–and then go on to quote Wikipedia!! Even my teachers at our local community college wouldn’t accept Wikipedia as a source!!)

    You probably mean the word arsenokoitai. The first problem is that we do not have this word anywhere except in Paul’s letters until much later in history! It is therefore difficult to establish beyond any doubt what the word meant to Paul.

    Ummmm….hellllloooooo……read my last comment. That’s exactly what I talked about! Go back and read what I said, I ain’t gonna repeat myself.

    RE: “Why isn’t homosexuality mentioned in the Ten Commandments?” What, you think God’s Law is limited to the Ten Commandments? And “why isn’t lesbianism condemned?” Ah, yes, always the sinner is looking for loopholes! If it isn’t mentioned in one certain place, than it doesn’t count! (Again, dust off your Bible and read Romans 1).

    RE: Junia in Romans 16:7–“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” Paul is not calling these two “apostles”–he is simply saying that they were know BY (or AMONG) the apostles. Meaning they worked with the other apostles.

    RE: Lot and his daughters. Go dust off your Bible and read Genesis 19:33-35. You will see that Lot did not actively lay with his daughters–they got him drunk, he passed out, and as it says, “he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.”

    RE: the canon of Scripture. Settled long before Constantine. Ain’t goin’ back there.

    Consider this our final conversation. I know I said that before, but this time it’s done. Because your intent seems to be only to spread your poisonous thinking, and continue to do the work of Satan in declaring “Hath God indeed said?” you are no longer welcome here. Goodbye.

  27. Jeff H says:

    It’s interesting the lengths to which Jag (and his fellow lost) will go to hold on to that one sin they find irresistible.

    News for you Jag, you get to keep your pet sin. It’s to DIE for.

    The enemy steals and he kills.

  28. Jag, you fail to understand that certain foods that were forbidden under the old covenant were now made clean under the new covenant, read Mark 7:15, Acts 10:15, 1 Timothy 4, 4-5.
    However, we continue to find in BOTH the Old and New Testament the forbidding of sexually immoral behavior, including homosexuality. Meditate on 1 Cor. 6:9-10, it’s crystal clear {to those who have ears to hear that is}. Unfortunately for you, you are no longer allowed to spew out your propaganda here. Truth has been given to you, but like so many, you love darkness more than light. You are of your Father, the Devil. That is why it is pointless to continue on with you, you cannot hear truth because you do not belong to Christ. You have absolutely NO HOPE beyond the grave…this wretched life IS your reward, and it’s not lasting. This is so sad, you are blinded by your love of perversion, so much so that you lash out at those who expose the error of your beliefs.
    May God be merciful to you, you have no clue what horrors await you upon your departure from this life.

  29. Mark says:

    I’m not trying to be a jerk here, But I thought that the purpose of the moderator was to MODERATE, and not to necessarily be part of the debate. Even though I am on Professor Martins, as well a John Ankerburg’s side on this debate I find it somewhat irritating that he continues to chime in. Professor Martin is well able to defend Orthodox Christianity, and doesn’t need his help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s