Those of you who were reading my blog last summer will recall that I began a project late in June in response to another blogger's (feetxxxl, by screen name) claim that scripture does not say homosexual conduct is a sin. His main focus was some passages in the epistles of St. Paul. I titled my project, "What Does St. Paul Say." So far, I have published seven posts in the series:
Introduction , on June 25
Introduction, Part 2 , on June 26
No. 1 , on June 28 — here I listed three passages in which St. Paul deals explicitly with the topic
No. 2: A Note About Interpreting Scripture , on July 1
No. 2: Romans 1:26 , on July 3
No. 2: Romans 1:27 , on July 16
No. 2: Other Passages , on August 11
The numbers correspond to the numbers of the items I set forth in the first post. And in my last post I got ahead of myself and mislabeled it. I still have to deal with the second and third passages which I quoted in "No. 1." Those are 1Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1Timothy 1:9-10. Those will complete Section 2. The "Other Passages" post blends Sections 3 and 4. Finally, in Section 5 I will deal with the passages cited by feetxxxl and his interpretation. That will probably require more than one post.
So if you care about the topic and you haven't seen these posts before or want to refresh your memory, you can follow the links. I expect to be getting to Corinthians soon.
An der Grabstätte von Kronprinzessin Cecilie
1 week ago
5 comments:
hmm...i am quite interested in what passages and interpretations feetxxxl has given on this subject.
your posts on this has been quite interesting and am looking forward to your next 'installments'
@ tom — I linked feetxxxl and the post in question in my "Introduction" to the series. As I recall his point was that in Romans St. Paul says that those who are in Christ and live by the Spirit are not subject to the law. So transgression of the law are sins for those who are not in Christ, but not for those in Christ and living by the Spirit. And the fruits of the Spirit include joy. Since he feels joy, he concludes that he must be in the Spirit. Since he is in a sexual relationship with another man, he concludes that it cannot be sinful since if it were he would not have the joy that comes from the Spirit. Perhaps it would be sinful if he were subject to the law, but for him it clearly isn't since he has the fruit of the Spirit. Basically, that's his argument as I understand it. I'll get to it at the end of the series. But first I think I need to say how I read the direct references to homosexual conduct, before I deal with this indirect argument.
doesn't it say somewhere in Hebrews that if a person knowingly sins after receiving christ into their life, their sins are no longer covered by the blood of jesus.
If this is correct then i'm guessing that feetxx or whatever his screen name is, if he's in a male with male relationship after receiving christ into his life
. . . . . then according to hebrews his sins are no longer covered by the sacrifice of christ.
And on judgement day this feetxx guy he will be standing alone face to face with God. And I don't know what's going to happen after that.
@ David DelaCruz — You are probably thinking of Hebrews 10:26-29. There is a similar passage at 6:4-6.
By itself, the message of those verses seems to support your conclusion. On the other hand, we have the passage where Jesus tells the apostles that the sins they forgive are forgiven. And then there is 1Corinthians 5:1-5, where Paul calls for the church "to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord." So it seems that forgiveness is possible for a believer who sins. If not, lots of people might as well just give up and stop trying to live moral lives.
The sixth century commentator Oecumenius writes about the Hebrews passage and says, "He did not speak of people who have sinned, but he addressed the reckless and desired to admonish those who wish to remain in sin until the end. Hence it is especially clear that he does not destroy the possibility of repentance." Contemporary writer Alan Mitchell, a professor at Georgetown University, notes that "The present participle of the verb 'sin' shows that the act was not a one-time offense, and so perhaps the repeated nature of the sin demonstrated that it was willful."
Where the King James and Rheims translations say, "For if we sin willfully…," we get "For if we willfully persist in sin…" in the New Revised Standard and "If we deliberately keep on sinning…" in the New International Version.
So it doesn't seem to refer to a single act.
Still, it seems that continuing sin, deliberately engaged in, is a real cause for concern. But I think that Oecumenius is right when he says that this ultimately applies to those "who wish to remain in sin until the end." Those who change their hearts and repent can still be saved — they can't be baptized again for the forgiveness of their sins, and Jesus is not going to offer a second sacrifice; but his one perfect sacrifice is sufficient to save all who turn from their sins to him, who ultimately do not "keep on sinning," as the NIV puts it.
As you say, we don't know what will happen to feetxxxl when he stands before God. But we hope and pray that all who are willfully sinning in any way will repent while there is time.
You know, I look forward to the continuation of your series, hope you will give a hint when you intend to finish it, so I can try an answer.
Post a Comment