Churches unable to define a Christian
YOUR article on the conference on homosexuality held recently at Orangefield Presbyterian Church, Belfast, raises a few critically important but apparently forgotten issues.
First, homosexuality is a sin like any other sin, and must be properly named as such.
It is a perversion of God’s plan for marriage and the relationship between a man and a woman for life.
Second, homosexuality, when properly named as a sin, can be forgiven by our most gracious God.
Third, divine forgiveness must be offered to those involved in this sin with the promise that everyone who repents of his/her sin and trusts Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation, will be pardoned. Does the church today believe in forgiveness for sin, this sin? Or is this a ‘preference’ that needs no repentance and therefore no forgiveness?
The church of Jesus Christ must exhibit simultaneously God’s holiness and God’s love.
She must maintain His standards and display His compassion. But the church has no right whatever to even suggest that homosexuality is but another acceptable sexual orientation that is on a par with a proper relationship between a man and a woman for life.
If the Church believes that Paul got it all wrong in Rom. 1, then let her come out and say so. But if she believes he got it right on this issue, then she is duty bound and honour bound to uphold the biblical standards despite all opposition.
I think the real problem is that the churches no longer know what a Christian is, how a sinner becomes a Christian, or how a Christian is to be defined.
The only thing they seem to be interested in are ‘professions of faith’. They do not see that entry into the Christian life is via a ‘narrow gate’, according to Jesus Christ, and continues until death along this ‘narrow road’. It starts ‘narrow’ and it stays ‘narrow’. That ‘narrow gate’ is repentance toward God for sin, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the church ought to be evangelising all those who got themselves caught up in the sin of homosexuality, and seeking to win them for Christ.
But she cannot water down our faith by saying that the ‘profession of faith’ of those who hold on tenaciously to what the Scriptures describe as an abomination, is acceptable for church membership.
That would be like saying that a man can use the foulest of language, including blaspheming the precious and holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and still be regarded as a Christian and church member.
There is forgiveness for that man if he repents of his sin and turns in faith to Christ, but not otherwise.
Sadly, the church has been fatally infiltrated and negatively affected by ‘the world’, to such an extent that she no longer knows what she believes.
J E Hazlett Lynch (Dr)
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Belfast
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 31 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
rthomas
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:14 PMIt is absolutely clear in Romans Ch1 v 27 that Paul refered to "Sodomy" because it states that the men left the natural use of the woman and burned in their lust one toward another.
rthomas
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:06 PMWhat Paul "said" was what God spoke as all scripture is divinely inspired. Wilberforce was a man only.
amadeus
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 03:59 PMRegarding whether the Apostle Paul was right or wrong in Romans 1, firstly Paul is clearly talking about pagan worship and sexual promiscuity. The people he describes there bear no resemblance to the careful, loving, spiritual and monogamous people I know who also happen to be gay. To say otherwise is to misinterpret the scriptures.... let's consider this, slavery was not overturned by anything the Apostle Paul said, quite the reverse..... It was abolished in fact by courageous people like William Wilberforce, who flying in the face of accepted Biblical 'teaching', challenged the moral authority of proof texts from scripture when this was clearly in breach of another human being's rights. Who was correct, Wilberforce or Paul?.
amadeus
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 03:48 PMdefinition of a Christian: one in whom the Holy Spirit has taken up residence. Acts 15.
amadeus
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 12:59 PMrt Thank you for at least attempting an answer to my question. My point in asking it is this. Many Christians condemn homosexuality because of the two verses in Leviticus which prohibit male on male sexual activity. However there are many other verses in Leviticus which also pertain to the moral aspects of the Law of Moses which we conveniently disregard - for example those I have listed in my question. Therefore how do we decide that one is binding today, yet the rest are not? Clearly only personal prejudice can provide the answer. This kind of pick and mix Christianity does nothing to honour God and does a great deal of harm to LGBT people who are as much loved by God as anyone else. It is my firm contention that the 6 or 7 apparent mentions of homosexuality in the entire scripture are not referring to loving, faithful same-sex relationships, but refer to pagan worship, intemperate sexual promiscuity and pederasty. Just as Christians used ( misused) the Bible to promote slavery and racism until as recently as the last century, so some Christians today are doing the same thing with God's Holy Word to condemn gay people. Those who opposed William Wilberforce spouted 'proof texts' from the Bible to show that his campaign against slavery was unChristian and unscriptural. Yet Wilberforce was right.... No-one today would dream of using scripture to promote and condone slavery. So the 'Wilberforces' of today refuse to accept that the Biblical 'proof texts' which are cited to condemn gay people are valid in 21st Century Christendom. Time will prove us right.
ardens
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 08:53 AMThose looking for "Equality" will not find it in Scripture where we have the tares and the wheat, the sheep and the goats, the saved and the lost. Jacob have I loved, but Esau?? What of Esa?. Much of the equality legislation has its basis in Marxism and no amount of legislation will determine God's attitude. There are those who search the Scriptures seeking to hang their hat on something which will prove their sexual deviations as normal. In one sense we are all equal because we are sinners. We do not have to be taught to sin - we do it naturally. It is our natural orientation but according to some here, that is OK. Sadly it will have future consequences and we should fight against our sinful orientations regardless of what they are.
rthomas
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:26 PMRegarding Amadeus's question ;of course it is not proper , today, to stone a woman because her husband had found out she was not a virgin. This is Israel 4000 years ago. Didn't Christ intervene on behalf of the adultress who asked those ,ready to stone her, that they could if they had no sin themselves? He also said to the woman "Go and sin no more".
amadeus
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:08 PMSTILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO MY SIMPLE QUESTION!
Topperharvey
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 10:21 AMRace crimes are on the increase! COPS are hunting an Asian mob after a white teenager was left for dead. Dan Stringer, 17, and a pal were set upon by up to eight people after walking past a takeaway. Inside were some Asian men and a woman — one of whom banged on the window before producing a knife and making throat-slitting gestures. Trainee chef Dan and Kavan Brown, 17, ignored them and walked on — but the gang rushed out after them. Dan fell over as he tried to flee and was savagely beaten. He suffered fractures to his skull, eye sockets and a cheek. It is believed he sustained nerve damage behind his eyes and he may lose his sight. Yesterday Dan's family issued photos of him in hospital. His mum Cheryl, a care home supervisor, said: "His injuries are so bad, I'm lucky to still have him." The attack took place around 10.15pm on Saturday in Hyde, Greater Manchester. Later in a Facebook message, Cheryl, 44, said Dan would require plastic surgery on an eye socket and cheek. She added: "What b*****ds do this?" Kavan, who suffered a broken nose, said: "I'd never seen any of them before."
cappuccino monkey
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 05:40 PM"Silly arguing to get into a place that doesn't want you?" - I couldn't agree more! We can't choose our sexuality, but we can choose our religion... "just because you are gay doesn't mean the world has to stop!" I'm not gay, but like most gay people I want everyone to be treated equally, regardless of sexuality, skin colour, gender and so on. Like you, I'm in favour of free expression, but I don't believe the News Letter would have printed this letter if the subject had been skin colour or gender. Perhaps some fundamentalist Mormon will be good enough to write in to the News Letter to affirm the sin and perversity of black people, and then I'll have my answer ;)
Ulsterwoman
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 02:27 PMCapponchino monkey: Everyone has a right to express their views! just because you are gay doesn't mean the world has to stop! Racists, Nazis blacks etc have that right to voice their opinions.If some person doesn't like gays then they are entitled to a opinion as long as they do not physically hurt them! You also can exercise your choice!
Ulsterwoman
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 02:19 PMIf you obey by the rules of any club you can become a member! Gays do not belong to the club as it is forbidden in Gods rule book unnatural sex between men or women. Gays insist in gate crashing but the majority of Christians do not wish them to be members of their churches! Silly arguing to get into a place that doesn't want you?
cappuccino monkey
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 01:47 AMYes I think we get the whole gay=evil thing. The Mormon Church once believed that black people are evil too. Some of its members still believe this. So I ask again: If I belong to a religion which believes that people of a particular skin colour are 'perversions' or 'sinners', should I be allowed to publish a letter expressing these views in a national newspaper?
amadeus
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 12:13 AMI'M STILL WAITING FOR ONE OF YOU BIBLICAL GENIUSES TO ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION!
rthomas
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 10:41 PMSecular society may not believe it is a sin to be "lesbian", or "GAY" , "Bisexual" or " Transgender" but the Christian Church does because God has condemned these sinner types in his word to the Church and sinners, that is the Bible. Born again Christians do not believe one is born as one of the above.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.