As many preachers find it hard to answer questions pertaining to this subject, I believe the problem lies not on how should one deal with homosexuality, but on a more fundamental one: It is obvious one can see homosexuality is a sin in scripture, but the problem is that one doesn't understand why it is sinful.
Those who tried to tackle this often failed because they dismissed it too lightly.
On one or two accounts have I met preachers, who pride themselves of their response to those questions asked of fictional example: It is only a hypothesis. So, they believed they have found their excuse to avoid a challenging question.
I would respond: In Luke 20:29, they asked "There were therefore seven brethren..." To which Jesus stopped them and replied: "WHere? Who? Show it to me! This is just a hypothesis".
In Luke 20:7, they replied Jesus that they could not tell whence John's baptism is from.
They knew the different answers. They understood the consequences of the answers. But that is obviously not what they seek - to ask of it. They want self comfort if they were challenged the question, hence their answer. Obviously, those who wish not take sides, have a sense of uneasy in their self comfort, hence, they ask Jesus in order to reveal their wickedness that is born of their uneasiness.
So it is for those who do not seek further, knowing what the consequences are. But they hold whatever level of understanding they have to find comfort. And as time passed, this selfish cowardice turns into evil sin.
When we ask questions, it can never be for the knowledge of it alone, but for our own growth in spirit. Anything else, is wickedness in vanity.
As it is becoming popular in christendom today, it is sometimes delightful to see those in the robes upholding the commands of scriptures as ordination of gay clergy has become a norm.
Last it was the PCUSA, now the Scotts. It is still interesting to understand the design that led to the discipline of the few, despite tremendous pressure. Of course, one could also be like Martin Luther, who would take no leave other than excommunication.
I heard of it a couple of years back, from Harold Camping of Family Radio. May 21st, 2011, judgment day, end of the world. He had once admitted he miscalculated in 1994, now he's at it again and failed.
I had conversation with others on this and one even brought it up during my youth Bible Study. I used what I've learned from Rev. Tong, that it will surely not happen on that day, because if it does, it would disprove the "but of that day and hour knoweth no man..." verse in Matthew 24:36.
However, the reason I make this entry is something interesting that brought to my attention. As people in NYC had all kinds of celebration to contrast the irony of it, they have parties, 'rapture parties' some called it, to show how they simple don't care about judgment day. Thus, I have now a better vision (rather than just the movies' depiction of judgment days with gangs and harley davison riders) of it. It is like a preview to Jesus' statement in Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Many dispensationalists like to have this rapture and tribulation theory which they claim biblical, which had them confused about how Jesus could come as a thief and having this grand apocalyptic judgment day at the same time. But from this preview, the nonchalant attitude of men on the news, I can see how Jesus would come as a thief.
A couple of Sundays ago, I brought up the fact that Faith Bible Church in Flushing is just like Time Square Church, a charismatic movement type, regardless of their non/inter-denominational title.
One thought that I might be too 'strict', when I said I measured it by the music songs they use.
That's one thing that got me thinking.
I would say this, that I define the charismatics' chief problem on the fact that they see themselves more spiritual than others. So this would be apparent in music, in prayer and even attitude.
I believe John MacArthur nailed it when he mentioned that they are the cause of most if not all of church problems today. 12/23/2023 Update: As a supplement: Here's the source of such claim:
The charismatic movement is largely the reason the Church is in the mess it is today.
In virtually every area where Church life is unbiblical you can attribute it
to the charismatic movement. In virtually every area, bad theology,
superficial worship, ego, prosperity gospel, personality elevation.
All of that comes out of the charismatic movement.
I can't believe I drew this game (playing black):
[Event "?"] [Site "kurnik"] [Date "2011.05.19"] [Round "-"] [White "rodos56"] [Black "timlyg"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Time "17:36:52"] [TimeControl "180"] [WhiteElo "1765"] [BlackElo "1522"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. exd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. Be3 b6 8. Qd2 Nbd7 9. O-O-O Bb7 10. h4 a5 11. Ng5 h6 12. f3 Re8 13. Rde1 Nf8 14. Kb1 c5 15. dxc5 Bxc5 16. Bxc5 bxc5 17. g4 Rxe1+ 18. Rxe1 d4 19. Nce4 hxg5 20. hxg5 Nxe4 21. fxe4 Ng6 22. e5 Qb6 23. Bc4 Bc8 24. Qd3 Rb8 25. b3 Be6 26. Bxe6 Qxe6 27. Qe4 Re8 28. Qb7 Qxg4 29. Qc7 Qxg5 30. Qxc5 Rxe5 31. Qc8+ Kh7 32. Rh1+ Nh4 33. Qc7 Kg6 34. Rf1 f6 35. Qd7 Qe3 36. Qg4+ Qg5 37. Qxd4 Ng2 38. Rg1 Re1+ 39. Rxe1 Nxe1 40. Qe4+ f5 41. Qxe1 f4 42. Qe6+ Kh5 43. Qf7+ g6 44. a4 Qg3 45. Kb2 f3 46. Qd5+ g5 47. Qxa5 f2 48. Qb5 Qg2 49. Qe2+ g4 50. a5 f1=Q 51. Qe5+ Kh4 52. Qh8+ Kg3 53. Qe5+ Kh3 54. Qh5+ Kg3 55. Qe5+ Kf2 56. Qd4+ Kg3 57. Qe5+ 1/2-1/2
Recently I came across MacArthur view on Baptism while reading comments on Facebook. (Which was on another subject: Immediate baptism after conversion)
Since it was well known that MacArthur is considered a calvinist, I naturally thought he would be in agreement with paedobaptism. Which even John Calvin devoted a whole chapter 4:16 in his Institutes to.
I found one of his sermon on such subject. Perhaps a re-affirmation after the debate with R.C. Sproul.
From the first talk, I noticed while using many reformers' quotes, John mainly found the ones that supported his point of view, in spite of their infant baptism advocacy. Quoting John Calvin only once or twice as well. Perhaps he just has too much respect for Calvin to debunk the man who's written much of the stance on paedobaptism throughout history.
It does motivate me to look deeper into such subject. And I came across this page.
And as for MacArthur's first point against infant baptism: That it is not in scripture, I will respond that while the Bible does not discuss the age group of baptism, I do know that the Bible affirms that baptism is for those who are human beings, sons of Adam.
What I could gather, the root cause of this sort, is the definition of baptism as whether or not it is a sacrament of repentance and faith as Rev. Bryn MacPhail puts it. So begins the debate.
I would also note that to some extend, this is also affected by the mode of baptism.
So while many would claim the reformers are more liberal on this matter, I would say that whenever there's a chance to show that grace precedes human actions, without breaking the doctrine of salvation, it is not wise to cover nor hinder such opportunity.
Since it is normal to have disagreements even among family, I don't see much problem as long as we can agree to disagree so that the root cause is clear and truthfully identified, lest we err in our judgment against others and make false accusation in hearts.
I do not known or remember the controversial issues with N.T. Wright, famous English theologian. I want to say I had confused him with another, Gordon Fee. But I just don't quite remember.
However, they do have something in common, and perhaps that's what I've found before and forgotten:
When they interpret the word "head" in the new testament, they down play the leadership role of its meaning to mean just the "source", like source of the river, etc. And I also noticed on his commentaries that he has a habit of taking text out of its context, disregarding verses that he had just mentioned a couple of sentences ago in order to make his point.
There are Christian reponses here and there, chiefly on the already known principle of doctrine: That while it is a cultural mandate for Christians to want to stop criminals, we do not seek satisfaction in the death of our tormentors.
Comparing the cost and lost ($3 trillion for 15 years) of U.S.A. with Osama's death, at least one is making a smart remarks. That Osama's point of war is not expansion of territory or financial gain, but a ridicule of America by bankrupting her, bleeding her as the Soviet Union once suffered. The victory against Osama has yet nor will likely to produce beneficial results from other postwars.
And one wisely put it: "Our national debt is our biggest national-security threat," - Adm.
Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While I surely support capital punishment for Bin Laden, I will also support some of Bin Laden's arguments against the American "way" of life today.
