re: Why have churches started allowing gay preachers?

I’ll ask a question with a question. Why have churches allowed divorced ministers?

quote:

---

Why have churches started allowing gay preachers?

---

I N F I L T R A T I O N


18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. 22For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.

24Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

28And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. 29Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, 30Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

quote:

---

Why have churches started allowing gay preachers?

---

Do you mean openly gay or?

I've known quite a few preachers who were gay, they simply didn't succumb to the physical aspects of it.

I would say the church has always been a haven for those types.

Personally, I don't get the self hatred. Don't really get the hatred for the gays either.

The guy who sells me our feed is as gay as the day is long, doesn't change the fact that he's a good dude. His husband sold me my last few implements. Gave me a fair price, and delivered them as well.

I'll make the same joke to you that I make to him, "you boys figure out a way to stop me from having to sleep with another man, I'd be gay in a heartbeat just to have someone help with the damned yard work."

quote:

---

No, you don't understand his analysis. He argues that the Bible condemns some same sex sexual activity, but, not the kind of same- sex sexual activity that exists in a loving Gay Marriage.

---

Yes, I do. What he’s doing is called eisegesis , which is reading one’s own biases into the text- when it is not what the text says. Scripture interprets scripture- meaning that when there is a question of interpretation in a particular verse- we weigh that verse against the other verses that deal with the same topic. This is the benefit of having scripture as the ultimate source of authority. Everything thing that Rust Cohle (RC ) is spouting is nonsensical heresy that is easily debunked by a faithful exegesis of scripture. This is the benefit of Protestantism- we are free to disagree with and rebuke (and will be held accountable to God if we don’t) any/all teachings that are in clear contradiction of the well established interpretation of scripture by the early church.

quote:

---

I'm not going to comment on how "Bible Alone" leads to these kinds of problems, because what I'm after here in this thread is to read an Official UMC analysis of this new interpretation of Scripture. We have already discussed "Bible Alone" in a dozen other threads. No need to do so here.

---

Please, spare us the “holier than thou” rhetoric. Your behavior in the majority of these threads is detestable. You complain, incessantly, about “Catholic bashing,” yet here you are, completely unprovoked- attacking Protestants- Protestants that I will not defend, because they are intentionally taking the Word of God out of context to suit their own sinful desires.

Where I see an opportunity for RC’s and Pros to come together to defend the infallible Word of God- you see an opportunity to start a fight. Very interesting.

What’s more interesting, is that you are always in lockstep agreement with atheists, and now heretics, as long as it serves your purpose of dividing the church.

Apologies, Rust. This post was intended for Champagne. Though, I will say that your views on this topic are in clear contradiction to a faithful and consistent exegesis of scripture.

quote:

---

Has it impacted the Presbyterian Church?

---

The Presbyterian USA church allows homosexuals to serve in church leadership roles. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church is much more conservative on the issue.

quote:

---

Why have churches allowed divorced ministers?

---

Divorce is allowed on the grounds of adultery.

quote:

---

completely unprovoked- attacking Protestants-

---

It is regrettable that you view intellectual discourse and rigorous analysis as an attack.

I simply place Protestant Theology on the witness stand and subject it to vigorous Cross-Examination. I maintain that it is unable to withstand such Cross Examination. Why does this anger you? You are too emotional.

Now, the facts are clear. The Methodists have embraced Gay Preachers, Gay Sex, Gay Marriage proudly, officially and without shame. What is also clear is that this denomination is a mainline Protestant denomination whose creed makes it clear that they are a Bible Alone/Faith Alone denomination.

It stands to reason that the Methodists have applied their rules of Bible Alone to this Gay Sex issue and they have concluded that the Holy Spirit has inspired them into reaching this interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Is this not a common thing in Protestantism, though? Aren't there always new off-shoots and new variations being created in Protestantism?

Where have I told a lie? Where did I attack anybody? If I say that this new Methodist theology is flawed, don't you agree with me? Yes.

Why are you attacking these fine Methodists?

The word never changes….. these churches are becoming too worldly…..

Although I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, I try to avoid the RC/Pro debates on secular forums (like this one)- because I see it as possibly being a detriment to the mission of spreading the gospel. This particular topic of debate almost always devolves into behavior that is misrepresentative of the Christian faith. It’s like parents arguing in front of their young children- it’s can be an ugly display of disunity that lowers confidence (or faith) in the institution of marriage (or Christianity, in the case at hand). That said, as long as it can be done with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)- I’m obliged to answer any questions or concerns you may have- to the best of my very limited ability.

I 100% understand and agree with your point that unlimited, Willy nilly, self-serving eisegesis of scripture has led to many people creating their own preferred version of God (which is idolatry). However, I don’t see that as a knock on Sola Scriptura. I see that as a continuation of what Paul spoke of, in Acts 20:29-30, in the 1st century. Which is interesting, because there were no Protestants then.

quote:

---

I'm glad that you are being absolutely clear that, according to your version of Bible Alone, the Methodists have strayed from "sound biblical teachings"

---

Aside from the pejorative “your version” comment, I would hope that we are in agreement; and that you can understand that it’s not “my version”- it’s just the truth. It’s not the truth because I say so- it’s just the truth. Does Rome disagree? Moreover, would it be the truth because Rome says so, or, because God says so?

quote:

---

Guess what? There's a huge mainline Protestant denomination who will tell you the same thing - that you have interpreted the Bible incorrectly and that THEY are the ones implementing "sound biblical teachings".

---

No doubt. And, in those instances, we can discuss these secondary issues (like once saved, always saved, cessation/continuation of spiritual gifts, Calvinism/Arminianism/Molinism, young earth/old earth, eschatology, church governance, etc) with respect and love for each other. The reason I emphasized secondary, is because these issues are secondary to the core doctrines of Christianity. Which are:

• Jesus is the Son of God and is equal with God (John 1:1, 49; Luke 22:70; Mark 3:11; Philippians 2:5–11)
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15; John 8:29)
• Jesus was crucified to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:2–4)
• Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:46; Mark 16:6)
• We are saved by the grace of God; that is, we cannot add to or take away from Christ’s finished work on the cross as full payment for our sin (Ephesians 2:8–9)

It could be argued that belief in the inerrancy of God’s Word is also a core belief of Christianity because, if the Bible’s veracity is suspect, then all we know about God is in doubt. Saving faith is inextricably linked to the Word of God: “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17).

I think you’ll find it difficult, to say the least, to find a Protestant denomination of Christianity that denies the aforementioned core doctrines. Before you even go there- literally no one accepts Mormons and JWs as Christians- other than themselves, and atheists.

quote:

---

Both cannot be true at the same time. Two Bible Alone denominations claim that the Holy Spirit led them to two opposite interpretations.

---

No doubt. At least one, if not all, are wrong on these secondary issues. May God’s grace cover us all. I, personally, am of the opinion that not a single one of us (including Rome) has it all figured out to the point that we can be a viable substitute for the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit in the actual growth of the believers (1 Corinthians 3:6).

quote:

---

There's something broken about this system of Bible Alone/Faith Alone.

---

I disagree. Rather, I think that there is something broken about humanity. To say that there is something wrong with the Bible alone- is to say that there’s something wrong with the Bible ( 2 Timothy 3:16). To say that there’s something wrong with faith alone, is to question the salvation of the thief on the cross (Luke 29:42-43).

quote:

---

We know that something's wrong because Protestantism keeps branching off into tens if not hundreds of different denominations.

---

This is an indication that there’s something wrong with those who twist the Word to fit their narrative- not that there’s something wrong with the Word.

quote:

---

Now we come to the point in the history of the Protestant Reformation where two mainline Protestant denominations have completely opposite Biblical Truths about this very important topic involving God's Plan for Human Sexuality. Both sides utilize the Bible Alone/Faith Alone system for forming doctrine.

---

See above and throughout

quote:

---

Is it arrogant to question whether this Bible Alone/Faith Alone system invented by men living in the 1500s is broken?

---

No. It is admirable and necessary. But, to judge the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide by those who pervert it to serve their own selfish interests, is akin to an atheist who questions the truth of the gospel because of those who erroneously misrepresent the teachings of Christ.

quote:

---

Weren't there serious arguments and divisions among Protestants even back then when the Reformation was new?

---

Have there never been divisions among Roman Catholics? Have there never been two Popes contending for the seat of Peter? You might want to check your history. I’m not sure this is the road you want to take. From the day that Christ rose- there have been divisions amongst believers. There was division amongst the disciples prior to Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 18:1-4; really interesting that this occurred after Matthew 16:18). How did these disputes get settled? By the Word (John 1:1). How do we settle disputes today? By the Word (2 Timothy 3:16).

quote:

---

As early as 1529, leading Protestants had already disagreed on what the Bible says and were branching off.

---

Due to disputes over secondary issues.

quote:

---

The doctrine that they themselves invented: Bible Alone/Faith Alone

---

Pretty sure the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write the doctrine for us. (Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Jesus in Mark 7:6-9. Sola Fide: Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 1:17, Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1, Galatians… come on man- just read the Bible. It’s literally written all over it. )

Look, brother, I don’t want to fight with you. I’m happy to share the Kingdom with my Catholic brothers and sisters. I don’t condemn Roman Catholicism because I know that it is not what Jesus has called me to do. He has called us all to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength- and to love our neighbor as ourself (Matthew 22:34-40). You are my brother in Christ. And though we may disagree on a great many things- we absolutely agree that we are saved by grace through faith; in order to do the good works that He has set before us- as laid out before the beginning of time, space, and matter; by the all powerful, all knowing, all loving, Triune God of the universe that paid our debt in full.

Good thoughts. Thanks.

My objective is not to fight with you or anybody. I argue against a flawed theology. I use over 500 years of branching off and splitting into different denominations that believe totally opposite things as support for my contention that Bible Alone/Faith Alone don't work. This theology was unknown until over Fifteen Centuries after Christ Ascended to Heaven. Bible Alone/Faith Alone was invented or made up or discovered by men writing in the early 1500s. I'm not surprised that it is apparently broken and doesn't work.

I know you think that Bible Alone/Faith Alone do work. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. What I hope to do is to raise the questions and invite people who really want to put some serious thought into these important matters to look at what 500 years of Protestantism has wrought, i.e. many different denominations and some of which believe completely opposite things about very important topics.

Sure, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages had two Popes for a bit. But the theology was the same throughout the whole world in all of Christendom, despite the fact that there were two Popes.

It's intellectually dishonest to argue that the two Popes is the same thing as the scores of different Protestant denominations, many of which believe some totally opposite morals and doctrine.

Protestantism has a big problem. It's broken into many pieces. You can ignore it. That's probably what is best for you. But, for thinking people - they might want to exercise a bit of observation and reasoning, because they like to see things as they are, and not as they would hope them to be.

I think that Bible Alone has resulted in scores of different Protestant denominations. This is because anybody can pick up a Bible and "find" a new interpretation that allows Gay Sex, or some other new idea. If their church congregation agrees, they can vote on it and make it official doctrine of the denomination. There is no church hierarchy to overrule the new theology and declare it heresy. If some of the congregation don't like the new theology, they can branch off and start their own brand new Protestant denomination. It has happened hundreds of times in the last 500 years in Protestantism. Why? I say because the system is flawed.

I say it's better to stick with Saint Thomas Aquinas's denomination. He was a smart guy. If Bible Alone was correct, Aquinas would have said so.