Bible Discussion Thread

My question is should a gay couple be allow to attend a spirit filled church as a couple? I know they should never hold any position in a church while living this kind of life. I have always wondered about this.

The prohibition against mankind laying with mankind like womankind was part of Mosaic Law (the Law of Moses). That set of laws was not given to Gentiles as evidenced by the prohibition against eating anything that died of itself; Israelites were not allowed to eat such things but Gentiles were. Israelites were even allowed to sell an animal that died of itself to Gentiles. After Jesus, Gentiles were allowed to come into the fold and it had to be decided whether Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses; or not. It was decided once and for all in Acts Chapter 15. It was decided by the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, the Elders, and all the Brethren (including Paul) that Gentiles are only required to keep 4 decrees out of the Law of Moses; and the prohibition against mankind laying with mankind like womankind ain't one of them. If anyone tells you any different, they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. See also Acts 16:4-5: Spirit-filled Churches were originally established via the 4 decrees that were ordained by the Apostles and preached by Paul and his fellow-laborers.

John

Read 1 Corinthians 6:9; Revelation 22:15 to name a few verses that speak to sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is one such form of sexual immorality.

Not only does 1st Corinthians teach things in opposition to the instruction of our Lord in the Gospel of John and the instruction of the Holy Ghost in Acts 15, consider what Jesus is reported to have said in Revelation 2:20 "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols." 1st Corinthians Chapter 8 is the only instruction I'm aware of that teaches Jesus' servants it's okay to eat things sacrificed unto idols. Jesus and the Holy Ghost and the Apostles and Elders and Paul and I say it's not okay to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Were you able to view my comments about serious glaring problems with false doctrine in 1st Corinthians?

John. What you referenced from Acts chapter 15 & Acts 16:4-5 is true. But Paul went much further than those 'four decrees'. Have you not read Romans 1:18-32? ("wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness": God's wrath on ALL men (Jew & Gentile) - God gave them up unto vile affections including homosexuality - these all stand under the Judgement of God).

Again Paul states in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, speaking to a largely Gentile Church - the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, the effeminate & homosexual included. But "such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." They had left their wickedness (repented) - now washed, sanctified & justified in the Eyes of God.

If the Scriptures stopped only at the Book of Acts, we might be inclined to believe you. But any immorality, as in any other sin, even not declared in the Decalogue or other Jewish Laws, is binding on all mankind - no man or woman is absolved of guilt of any type of sin.

Jesus warns his disciples to beware of leaven (false doctrine) that will be added to the unleavened bread that comes down from heaven (even the very Word of God). 1st Corinthians 7:25 is a prime example of the introduction of doctrine that did not come from the Lord. The author(s) even tells you they didn't get it from the Lord. Consider what Jesus instructs us all in John 7:16-18 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." Therefore, if anyone introduces their own doctrine, unrighteousness is in them.

In Acts 15 the Pharisees proposed doctrine that was in opposition of the Holy Ghost. The Apostles recognized it and rejected the Pharisee's doctrine as leaven. It did not come from God, it came from their heart. What's in a person's heart is what comes out of their mouth. By thy words shalt thou be justified and by thy words shalt thou be condemned.

Romans also introduces false doctrine when they suggest that the "powers that be" are ordained of God and should be obeyed. The Apostles taught no such thing. In fact they taught the opposite. The "powers that be" said to them: "Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine [...] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." ( Acts 5:28-29).

1 Corinthians 7:25-28. It's true that this advice wasn't received from the Lord, but Paul gives this instruction to the believers (married & unmarried) in response to the "present distress" (some read it as an 'impending time of suffering'). I don't see anything wrong with an apostle giving advice concerning a situation that the Church is in, or maybe, facing, that hasn't first come from the Lord. He has every right to do so, just as the preacher today shares not only from the Word, but also his personal impressions & encouragements or warnings about events (good or bad) happening around them. This is not Paul's doctrine - it's his teaching, advice for the times they were in. And the believers could have disregarded this advice if they wished, without it being a sin; but the consequences were before them.

In Acts 15:5-30, these were apparently a particular sect of the Pharisees & they believed in Jesus Christ. However, as with the problem with Peter (Galatians chapter 2), here too these men couldn't understand nor accept that Gentiles were not bound by the old Law & of circumcision. Therefore, the determination made by the apostles & elders remained faithful to the Law of the New Covenant in Christ. These believing Pharisees needed to be taught, as also in regards to Peter.

With Acts 5:27-29 & Romans 13:1-7, we see two entirely different scenarios. The first, when the 'powers that be' oppose Christianity & the preaching of the Gospel, and the second, when citizens are required to follow governmental laws for the good of the country. If one should believe that we should not obey the govt that opposes the Gospel, then that belief needs to be effected in other instances, such as refusal to pay taxes, abide by road rules, etc. I doubt if there would be many that would put into practise such an thought.

We should not pick & choose verses to support a belief, rather understand the whole counsel of God given in His Word & yes, even holding onto apostolic teaching.

Consider Jesus' witness/testimony about the words he speaks:

"...if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 12:47-50

"...the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me..." John 14:10

Consider Jesus' prophesy about how the Holy Ghost will instruct true believers:

"...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13

When it comes to the disposition of my eternal soul, I'm not interested in opinions expressed in a collection of questionable epistles or the sermons of human pastors; I'm only interested in the unleavened Word of God that came out of Jesus' mouth or the Holy Ghost who is available to those who keep his commandments.

I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist."

Okay, thank you John. I understand now that you reject the NT epistles as questionable. I guess we have no more to discuss.

Again, the reason certain epistles are considered to be questionable is because they do not agree with the teaching of Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles.

Here is another glaring example from the 1st epistle to the Corinthians:

"...take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." 1st Corinthians 8:9

The author(s) of 1st Corinthians claim Christians enjoy the liberty to eat meats that have been offered to an idol in the temple of an idol.

Christians are NOT at liberty to eat meats that have been offered to idols. In Acts 16:4-5, we're told Paul preached the exact opposite. "...abstain from meats offered to idols [...] from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." Acts 15:29

There are differences in the two passages you gave, viz Acts 15:1-20 & 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 (I've included the whole portion to understand the reason for these instructions).

In Acts 15, the problem was that of requiring circumcision of the Gentile converts to align with Jewish believers' expectation. The apostles disagreed, not wanting to put "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples", that it was only "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they" (v 11). To go back to the Law, even of circumcision, negates the free Grace offered to all through Jesus' death. Therefore, the decision was made that no such imposition would be made, but that those four requirements ('decrees') be observed. Why so? These were Gentiles who lived in a society that had no law or compulsion to heed certain things that the Jews found abominable. Rather than discuss each of those conditions, the point was that, these converts needed to observe these 'decrees', not only to satisfy the Jews, but also to desist from any entrance of fornication which was rampant in their society & worship.

In 1 Corinthians 8, what seems as a paradox to Acts 15, is actually a Truth we hold onto, to the liberty we have in Christ, but that Truth (even the right that we have) is constrained because of the "weak conscience" of another, that we don't become a stumbling block to him. We know that an idol is nothing (v4), but some aren't convinced about that; then to see a brother partaking of 'meats offered to idols' can introduce anger, confusion, & maybe "perish" (v11) in faith. In today's application, if we have people over for dinner & have pork & wine also as part of the meal, should we first ensure that the invitees won't be offended by those things? Some might say, 'who cares what they think?' The biblical stand should be abstention from those things for the sake of those who believe (or eat) differently.

Hopefully, you can appreciate that these two accounts are not quite the same.

I'm not interested in your speculation.

I speculated the same things myself.

I suggested: if one invites a Jew to dinner, they should not serve pork.

Then, I heard this message:

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols." Revelation 2:20

Jesus and the Holy Ghost teache the entire Church of God:

Christians must abstain from eating meats offered to idols.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51

I never imagined that the two accounts were the same.

It seemed good to the Holy Ghost for all Gentile Christians to obey four decrees.

Paul agreed with the Holy ghost and helped to establish the churches among the Gentiles by preaching the four decrees.

After having helped to establish the churches by teaching that Gentile Christians must abstain from eating meats offered to idols in the temple of an idol, why would Paul suddenly abandon the instruction of the Holy Ghost and teach the opposite?

It seems more likely that the epistle to the Corinthians is the leaven of the Pharisees, Saduccees, and/or Herod that Jesus warned the Chruch to beware of.

Are you aware of the practice of writing something and attributing it to someone postumously?

You write, "Are you aware of the practice of writing something and attributing it to someone postumously?" Yes, I'm well aware. But one would have a hard time trying to disprove Paul's authorship of the Corinthian Epistles. If that can happen there, then where else in God's Word? Does then the authenticity of any biblical writing depend on what we believe is correct or on what those more informed than us have studied, verified & canonized? Thus far, I've found Paul's writings on par, repeat, on par with all of Christ's teachings.

That aside, I would introduce you to 1 Corinthians 10:18-33 which may further lend support to what I've shared earlier. Again, Paul iterates that the meat offered to idols is nothing. This is not a Christian going to a temple, being offered the sacrificed meat to eat & then partakes of it there. Paul speaks of eating of meat as sold in the marketplace ('shambles'), whether sacrificed meat or not, is perfectly appropriate to eat by the Christian as the idol is nothing (a lump of wood or stone). But he would refuse to eat this 'retail' meat if it meant that a brother's conscience is affected by it. Paul had freedom to eat anything, but love & concern of the other person constrained him.

In Revelation 2:18-20, Jezebel (whoever she was or represented), promoted fornication & eating of meats offered to idols. These are specific acts of wickedness, as of 'free love & partaking of temple offerings'. Does Paul ever advocate this? Rather, he denounces any form of fornication ( 1 Corinthians 6:18-20) & partaking in the "table of devils" ( 1 Corinthians 10:20-21). But he does allow eating of meats that may have been offered to idols, but sold in the shambles, because that is still only meat untainted with any devilish impurities. But not all have a clear conscience about that, & so they don't eat the meat & Paul abstains also for their sakes.

If you believe this is still all speculation, then that's your choice, as also the choice of other readers.

For what it may be worth:

Consider what Luke tells Theophilus - these things are surely believed among us. Luke claims:

The Apostles way was to travel in person; important messages required multiple witnesses in person.

Jesus had taught them to travel in pairs. Phillip was an exception when he traveled with an angel.

Israelite Christians would never dream of entering the house of a Gentile; much less, eat meat there.

Jesus told Ananias Paul was a chosen vessel who would suffer many things (not from writing letters).

Jesus specifically told Paul to go speak to people in person.

Luke was Paul's traveling companion.

Paul's custom was to speak to people in synagogues and marketplaces (he was long-winded).

Luke serves as Paul's biographer - he never tells us that Paul engaged in letter writing.

In fact, Paul proposed visiting the churches again in person to see how they were doing.

When the Jews from Asia recognized Paul at the Temple, they made no mention of any letters.

Neither the Jews from Jerusalem or Asia made mention of any letters before Felix, Festus, or Agrippa.

When they arrived, Paul summoned the Jews; they had not received any letter about any heretical epistles.

Thank you for your time John. Your comments might be worth more to someone else, for their response.

Incidentally, the notion that an idol is nothing in the world is preposterous considering the following information:

"...there arose no small stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." Acts 19:23-27

You believe Jesus refused to instruct Paul when virgins were in distress? In Acts, Jesus instructs Paul when necessary.

"...if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2nd Corinthians 11:4

"...the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:5

As a postscript someone I knew who took up the gay lifestyle walked away from the faith. That is surely better than continuing on knowing better and heaping further condemnation in the house of God. As I stated in my last comment the two ladies left; they had individual counseling with one feeling differently than the other in some ways. Usually; for those I know anyway these individuals identify as "Christians" and therefore need to be warned patiently and with love as to what they are doing is wrong. There are cases; mercifully where two women living together have both repented; but obviously they cannot continue living together as before. That is the other thing I wanted to mention there are many who have come to faith and much to the anger of their own community. This includes a personal friend of mine. The name escapes me; but "Confesions of an unlikely convert" is one example. This involved a Syracuse university professor come out of the gay lifestyle who was counseled 2 years by a former pastor of mine; Ken Smith. Butterfield was her last name. Check it out.

The better question is whether the gay couple would WANT to be in a Spirit filled church in the first place. The Spirit of God brings to mind sin; righteousness and judgment to come according to Christ.

I was in a church that was rather lukewarm; where a gay couple attended for several months; even thinking they could become members. We attempted financial assistance for a time due to their struggle for basic food items; and some moneys from the church budget were allocated. They were dissuaded as to becoming members because of our doctrinal standard; but considering they sat in a class on the book of Jude for several weeks before the main service it is hard to conceive that they didn't feel uncomfortable. There was enough discomfort for them to eventually move on. The same situation occured with a lady living in sin with her boyfriend and a couple other young unmarried individuals living in sin. One couple in that state stopped attending; the other two married. Again; one of the women wanted to become a member while engaging in these activities. This was a friend of the couple living next door to my pastor; and going on for months; it wasn't a false rumor. Again; if the whole truth is preached and people are on fire for the Lord; there won't be a continuation of such attendees in my opinion. We had a couple other challenging individuals which the enemy tried to use to cause dissention (a mentally ill and probably demon possessed person; and someone who was asking for money who apparently tried to lie about his status and marry someone in the USA who was an immigrant).

If people want to listen to the gospel; it is one thing but without a viable testimony of faith or living in continual sin; communion as well as membership should be denied for their own good. That was something the pastor mentioned but I had to warn him about one of the aformementioned individuals trying to take communion. They are free to be atheists as some I know.

Thank you for the comment, I enjoyed reading it.

Ronnie,

The answer to that is no. They must be removed from fellowship until they fully repent and completely refrain from that type of lifestyle. Homosexuality/Lesbianism is a form of sexual immorality and should never be allowed to enter into or remain in the body of Christ, the church.

That's not what the Holy Ghost taught Paul in Acts Chapter 15.

I do not believe that Jesus would turn anyone away from attending a service, in fact the Holy Spirit may have led them there in the first place, to teach them, to possibly convict them eventually, and to lead them to Christ. These things have happened. I was once told and believe it to be true that the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Do not forget we are all sinners and are saved by grace.

My old pastor said church is exactly where they should me, along with Alcoholics, drug addicted people, the bum in the street, the homeless, etc for where else are they going to hear the gospel.

I myself, was lead God to a spirit filled church before i was saved. No one had lead me to Christ as is common but God himself lead me there.

I do agree they cannot hold an office or become members of the church, but they DO belong there.

Thanks for listening.

Junnybug

Thank you for the reply, that is how I also feel, just wanted to hear other's thought's on it too.

Dear Ronnie, given that homosexuality is a sin, it should be no surprise that most churches will not allow someone to openly demonstrate their love and allegiance to sin in the church. These two things don't mix. One is saying hey look at me, I'm doing something detestable to God and I want you to be ok with it, and the other is respecting that others are trying to escape the temptations of sin of the world and are trying to be in a sanctuary from that evil. So, one is selfish, the other is respectful of others and to God. Perhaps it would be similar to a man having an affair with a married woman and sitting by her during church holding her hand. Or maybe an alcoholic who brings a liquor bottle and drinks during service, or someone doing drugs during service or cursing, or lying, stealing, or other sins that your support for can be demonstrated during a church service. All of this is evil according to the Bible. Some pretend that sin is 'who they are' and that threaten Christians to accept and tolerate their sin. But the reality is that sin is always a choice, not an identity as some falsely assume. There are a lot of deceptive excuses to sin and very creative and seemingly persuasive ones that we must watch out for and stand against.