How do Christian churches justify performing same-sex marriages/blessings? (Gospels, dogma, scripture)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a liberal Messianic Jew, my response would be you like most Conservatives do not understand the famous "anti-gay" verses of the Bible. You cherry pick and pull them out of context, and just blindly assume the English translation you are reading is in fact their word for word original meaning. They are not.
I cherry pick Romans 1:27-32. Tell me you do not understand it.
Some might argue that condoning is exactly what God does (those who believe it's a person's faith and professing of that faith that saves them, and not their behavior). That's why the questions I asked are so important. I'm not trying to argue which is the most correct outlook, just explaining why a Christian church might consider it "okay" to perform same-sex marriages/blessings.
Except that confess of sin means 'to say the same as', that is, you are saying the same thing that God is saying about your sin and who his son is. It's not simply believing, but 1.) believing that what you are saying in agreement with God is true (assent), 2.) trusting that God is able to do what he says (trust), 3.) surrendering yourself to him as traditionally represented through baptism (commitment), and 4.) doing those things he has commanded us to do, or walking in the works he predestined us to walk in (obedience and action).
If we are assenting that what we say is true in our confession, then we believe that what we are saying about our sin is true, and that what God is saying about our sin is true as well, since that is what confession is. If what we believe this, then we cannot condone our sin rather we must condemn those that God has called sin. Forgiveness of sin is not the same as condoning it, it's saying that which should be (and in fact has been) condemned (judged) has been forgiven. To condone something is to overlook, perhaps even forgive, without the consideration that it is wrong. Not the same at all. Confession is part of our faith in Christ Jesus, so it's not really so simple a faith is you really look at what faith is.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,687,625 times
Reputation: 3689
well if at one point in the bible a man could marry multiple women, and a dad could sell his daughter off for land , i'm sure this can be okay at one point right?
But is there anything biblical to say that homosexuals are going to hell? If not, we must concede that, at least in terms of forgiving the sin and perhaps overlooking (aka, giving them eternal life in heaven despite their sexual orientation), God would be condoning it. Again, not to confuse condoning with approval.
However, I think there is a greater point you're missing. Any & all sin separates us from God. He does not condone any of it. Jesus paid the price for our forgivness. It's our's to accept or reject. A homosexual is no different from anyone else.
John 3:16 doesn't elaborate to say that one must believe everything in the Bible. It says, "Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life". Though several interpretations could be proposed, I think it requires a bit of stretching to make this mean something other than "If you believe in God, you're saved."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Yes, there is.
However, I think there is a greater point you're missing.Any & all sin separates us from God. He does not condone any of it. Jesus paid the price for our forgivness. It's our's to accept or reject. A homosexual is no different from anyone else.
Assuming we're still talking about salvation (and not anointment or something of that nature), Ephesians 2:4-9 also gives reason to believe that perhaps homosexuals with faith in the Christian God will be saved.
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Not being a biblical scholar..The only thing I know is out of the old testament- to para phrase- "Don't lie down in bed with a man and pretend he is a woman" The sinner might not be a homosexual- just a common straight guy using sodomy as some sort of sexual out let.. People assume that all homosexual acts are committed by true homosexuals...Look at those confined in federal prisons for years at a time- They are not gay- so are these sodomites condemned also?
Jesus Christ existed hundreds of years after the para phase I mentioned....Christ disapproved of prostitution...He would probably disapprove of male prostitution also....I really don't think that gay men were encouraged to be sexually active back in the days of Jesus. So it was not an issue....The great sin are those who sodomize and harm others out of convenience and sexual cowardice.....
In my time I have observed a few men who are clearly straight who take on passive male partners and dominate them...I wonder what so-called Christians think of these types who are in their ranks...like some priests who are members of the Roman church>>>?
John 3:16 doesn't elaborate to say that one must believe everything in the Bible. It says, "Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life". Though several interpretations could be proposed, I think it requires a bit of stretching to make this mean something other than "If you believe in God, you're saved."
I don't disagree. Actually, "him" refers to Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0;25339508Assuming we're still talking about salvation (and not anointment or something of that nature), Ephesians 2:4-9 also gives reason to believe that perhaps homosexuals with faith in the Christian God will be saved.
"But [B
God[/b], being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,not a result of works, so that no one may boast.".
Of course. That's the point I was making earlier.
That brings up another point. What happens to a person after they're saved? The Bible says they are a "new creation". Scripture also says we are no longer "slaves" to sin. Is a person who remains engaged in sin really saved?
Well, that's an exaggerated, but inaccurate, way to phrase it. I attend an Episcopal Church, and there is more bible reading in the Episcopal service than in any other type of church I've gone to (grew up in the Reformed Church of America, just as a point of reference, and have attended a Church of God (Anderson, IN). The Episcopal church follows the lectionary. This means that the weekly readings are pre-determined so that the entire bible is read in church over a period of two or three years, I forget which.
So, if you were to attend an Episcopal Eucharist, you would hear a) an Old Testament reading, b) A Psalm, c) a New Testament non-gospel reading, and d) a reading from the Gospel. The Gospel reading is read only by the priest; the OT and Epistle/NT readings are given by a lay reader (a ministry within the church) and the Psalm is usually said either in unison or responsively.
The job of the priest is then to try to tie those readings together in a common theme in his sermon. Sometimes I wonder how he's going to do it, and then I am amazed at the outcome.
I don't know if your remarks above are meant to be just mean-spirited or if you are truly ignorant of the importance Scripture plays in the Episcopal Church. What you call "wholesale rejection", we consider simply not taking the entire bible as the literal and infallible word of God. It is a collection of writings from over hundreds of years, some of it Jewish history, some of it allegory, some of it poetry, some of it writings from the early church, and some of it the life and words of Jesus. The last part is obviously given more weight than any of the other books.
I'm not engaging in an argument here over whether the bible is literal or not. I don't believe it is. You do. There are jillions of threads on here on the subject if you wish to revisit them. They hold futile arguments that never end. As you are surely aware, the Episcopal church holds that its doctrine is based on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. In most fundamentalist/literal-bible churches, Tradition and Reason are not considered valid facets of Christianity.
I am just providing this information for educational purposes, since there seem to be misconceptions here.
Also, you should understand that accepting homosexuality, or not, has created rifts in the Episcopal church, since some churches are more conservative than others. I don't see the difference being reconciled anytime soon.
Excellent points and background.
As for the OP, perhaps churches are relying on history:
That brings up another point. What happens to a person after they're saved? The Bible says they are a "new creation". Scripture also says we are no longer "slaves" to sin. Is a person who remains engaged in sin really saved?
I would have to see the verses, and far be it for me to tell you what to believe here. But I'd at least perceive a possibility that one "being dead in their trespasses" and one remaining engaged in sin are the same thing *shrugs*
But I'm by no means an expert on how the Bible should be interpreted.
It seems to be the case that there are gradually becoming more Liberal Churches performing s.s marriages or blessings.
For instance, the Episcopalian Church has started 'blessings'.
How do they reconcile this with the Bible and general Christian theology?
Some, seem to just do away with the OT and Paul sections, but how about with the more orthodox churches - how can this be?
Simple. They follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Unlike those who cherry-pick biblical verses out of their original context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
