V
Valke2
Guest
No. It is saying that “I am the way” may mean something different other than “invoke my name in order to be saved”
- Status
R
rr1213
Guest
Exactly. We all have our crosses to bear. The sin that I am particularly susceptible to may not be the sin which tempts you, and vice versa.
The sin is not having homosexual tendencies or temptations, but acting on them. In theory at least, I could envision a believer who knew that he had such tendencies, yet successfully resisted them through the grace and mercy of Christ remaining chaste, being a better example of the Christian life than most of us who are heterosexual.
But that is not what is happening in the Episcopal Church. In Vickie Eugene Robinson, we have a divorced man who is openly homosexual and living with his lover, ordained as a bishop of the church. All of this was known to the church prior to that ordination (his alcoholism supposedly was not). We also have the Episcopal Church “struggling” with the issue of blessing same sex marriage…with some bishops encouraging this practice. It is not a case where a cross…and THE CROSS…is recognized and help is provided to avoid these sins but, instead, an embracing of the sins and, even worse, calling the sins blessed and “a new thing” which God is doing in the midst of the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church, as a whole, as become apostate and put devout Christians who remain there in a very difficult position mourning the loss of something they loved very much.
T
TheGarg
Guest
This is absolutely dispicable. How can this be allowed to go on. it is not even christianity. I thaks Christ everyday for a Church that is unwavering in the fight against femi-nazi, gay, and liberal agenda’s.
J
JohnWilliams
Guest
You left out that he abandoned his two minor daughters in the divorce (in 1986), to go shack up with his homosexual squeeze. rapturechrist.com/newsletteroct1_2003.htm
Also Robinson made it clear his is a non-celibate relationship.
And scripture?
1Timothy 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Timothy 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Timothy 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
In 2006 Bishop Robinson checked himself into an alcohol rehab center.
R
rr1213
Guest
I agree. Unfortunately we’re preaching to the choir here…
C
Contarini
Guest
No, that is inaccurate. He left his family (with his wife’s full consent, apparently) to be faithful to what he had come to believe was his God-given identity. We don’t know anything about his sexual practices at that point. We do know that he did not meet his current partner until later. Saying that he “left his family to live with his lover” is an unsubstantiated accusation. And again, it distracts from the main point.
The real question is this: is homosexuality a God-given identity such that a person with such an identity is “dishonest” for trying to live in a heterosexual marriage, and thus may (indeed must) leave such a marriage to pursue an “honest” way of life.
That’s the fundamental heresy here. That’s why VGR’s election was a disaster. We’ve had plenty of immoral bishops before–VGR is pretty tame stuff compared to some. The problem is with his claim (no doubt made in good faith) that he was called by God to leave his wife and embrace a homosexual identity.
Edwin
J
JohnWilliams
Guest
I am familiar with the politics involved. And the daughters claim it was OK with them too. That doesn’t mean he didn’t abandon his responsibility for being there for them, and responsibility for at least creating the appearance of a normal household, even as he abandoned his marital vows. Tons of heresy here.
You must have missed these verses above:
1Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
This “identity” is given by Satan to anyone who wants to give themselves over to this brand of lust. No more of a God given identity than pedophilia.
Do you really imagine that God smiles down on one man putting his… up another man’s… ? The very thought is absurd. Those who do are rewarded with reprobate minds.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Certainly not the only heresy. It looks like you identify yourself as Episcopalian. God saved me out of that Church in August 2003, I pray He does the same for you.
The broader problem is the Episcopalian mantra “Scripture, tradition, reason”. Tradition and “reason” are how the things of this world take over and rule a Church and drive it ever deeper into apostasy. It clearly doesn’t stop here.
Perhaps a lesson could be learned from God’s warning to the Pharisees.
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
It is wonderful that the Lord offered such and in-your-face example of Robinson being non-celibate, divorcee that left minor children to shack up with his homosexual squeeze. It was a natural that he would wind up checking into a rehab center. Alcohol is the most common driver for perverted sexual behavior. That is what made him what he is, not God, and for someone to suggest that God did, I would put such suggestion in the category of blasphemy.
Much more on this church from David Virtue. You can browse a jillion articles regarding how good Christians, clergy and lay, are leaving this Church in droves. The news has been continuous since 2003:
virtueonline.org/portal/index.php
"By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/3/2006
The Rev. Henry Pendergrass, 50, rector of St. Nicholas Church in Flower Mound, Texas, has resigned from his parish, the third priest in the Diocese of Dallas to leave in as many weeks.
“I just could not, in all conscience, bring one more person into the Episcopal Church,” Pendergrass told VOL in a phone call to his home in Flower Mound…"
R
rr1213
Guest
I think that in that case a devout homosexual finds himself in the unenviable position of needing to remain celibate in order to follow the mandates of God and still not “violate” his homosexual identity. A hard thing to do…not a cross tha I would want to bear…but what I believe would be required.
C
Contarini
Guest
This isn’t about politics–it’s a simple matter of fact. Did he leave his family to shack up with another man? I know of no evidence that he did.
I can’t see how this is relevant to the question of fact.
I don’t think the evidence supports the contention that homosexuals as a whole begin by wanting to give themselves over to homosexuality and then develop the “identity.” Rather, most homosexuals appear to struggle with same-sex desires before deciding that this is their identity and they must embrace it.
You did read the sentence where I said that this “God-given identity” idea is a “fundamental heresy,” didn’t you? Why are you arguing with me on this when we agree (at least to that extent)?
I was confirmed in 1998 in the Diocese of North Carolina, and am officially still a member of St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church in Durham. I have not lived in NC since 2003, but have not transferred my membership to any other Episcopal church (though I’ve been attending both Episcopal and United Methodist churches–my wife is a deacon in the UMC), because I’m uncertain about remaining Episcopalian.
I hope you aren’t suggesting that tradition and reason are valueless. I agree, however, that the “three-legged stool” is a highly misleading metaphor, because it implies that these three things are independent and can be balanced against each other, which is absurd.
Just how is tradition the problem in this particular issue?
You still have not provided any evidence for the claim that he immediately “shacked up” with a sexual partner. Since you continue to repeat this claim without evidence after having been challenged, you are guilty of malicious slander. It is unfortunate that your zeal against one sin leads you to commit another.
Edwin
J
JohnWilliams
Guest
Please support your contention of “malicious slander” on my part and be quote, and post source, specific.
I provided this link with the claim earlier:
“In 1986 Robinson divorced his wife and left her and his two young daughters to move in with his homosexual companion, Mark Andrew”
rapturechrist.com/newsletteroct1_2003.htm
The term “shacking up” is generally applied to two persons who are living in an unmarried sexual relationship. Do you perhaps have another understanding of this term?
Or another:
“Robinson divorced his wife, with whom he had two daughters, in 1986 and openly declared himself homosexual. He has been with his partner Andrew for 13 years. Robinson was elected bishop of New Hampshire earlier this year and formally elevated to the position in August at the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis, Minn.”
crosswalk.com/news/1224477.html
Try a Yahoo search:
search.yahoo.com/search?p=robinson+divorced+wife+to+move+in+with+homosexual&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
Which part did I get wrong? Perhaps one has to have witnessed him putting his… up his boyfriend’s … or something like that? Is this the proof you are looking for? Robinson is more than open about this sexual relationship being a matter of fact.
Are you trying to make some sort of a point here? Are you trying to contend that he wasn’t a homosexual at the time he divorced his wife, but then became one? You seem to be all over the place on this. All you’re going to get by wallowing in the mud with them is dirty.
My Church lied to me too initially, claiming he was celibate, until they found out he was not, then they simply dropped that issue. Defending homosexuality encourages kids to go that way.
R
rr1213
Guest
It was my recollection, perhaps incorrect, that Robinson was not yet with his “partner” at the time he divorced his wife, although it was understood that he was Gay. Indeed, since he was ordained a bishop in 2003, the article you link above would be consistent with my understanding of the facts. Also, as you can see, I am not a fan of Bishop Robinson by any means, but I don’t think we need to be quite as graphic on these forums as what you’ve posted above.
J
JohnWilliams
Guest
The continually compounded errors created by “reason” (contrary to scripture) later become tradition.
For example a couple of decades ago women were not allowed to lead Episcopal Churches. Now it’s a tradition.
The now-tradition of ordaining homosexual priests will give way to the “reasonableness” of marriage of homosexuals (I understand the Episcopal Church in Canada already does). Get what I mean?
Tradition is all too often the product of the reasoning of men, rather than a product of the study of the truth of God’s Holy Word.
J
JimO
Guest
Not if you are operating from the position that God has revealed the way to Him. Also, people don’t seem to understand or aren’t clear on what is meant by the “way” to God. As Christians, we believe that Jesus is the “way, the truth, and the life” and that nobody comes to the Father, except through Him. I realize that those who aren’t Christian will take issue with that; however, for the Christian, what exactly does this mean? Well, it means that we are saved only through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. If not for that sacrifice, nobody would be saved.
She claims that we are saved through “holy living”. Well, by what standard does she judge holy living? If it’s by the biblical standard, then homosexual acts are unholy living, thus jeopardizing a person’s salvation. If not by the biblical standard, then I guess there is no definition for “holy living” and it can be anything you want. This is the New Age world view, not the Christian world view.
J
JimO
Guest
Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a sin, but to act on it is a sin. We simply do not know whether the orientation is a choice or not. The bottom line is that sexual acts outside a sacramental marriage (which is between one man and one woman) that is open to life are sinful. People don’t want to hear it, but that teaching simply cannot change in the Catholic Church.I would say that homosexual orientation is not a choice…
but to act on it is a choice.
I think I remember reading your catechism on this once…but i forget the words now
J
JohnWilliams
Guest
Sounds to me like you are leveling as serious a charge as you possibly could, but on the basis of splitting hairs. You failed to quote and provide the post number that you are responding to as I requested. So I remain accused and unable to answer to it.
Believe me, I know what’s going on in your heart Brother. I left the day Robinson was ordained. My wife stayed but left a year later. Our mid-teenage kids were caught in the confusion. The damage is inestimable. I simply have to trust in the Lord and leave it in His hands.
Which part did I get wrong:
He divorced his wife.
He abandoned the home of his wife and children.
He shacked up with his homosexual squeeze.
He was ordained as a Bishop.
He checked himself into alcohol rehab.
What I found was a failure of the ECUSA to get specifically graphic about EXACTLY what was being discussed in terms of how homosexuals relate to each other sexually. IF THIS HAD BEEN DONE IN THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS THE CHURCH MAY HAVE BEEN SAVED.
The Church was not well surved to sweep the true ramifications of the homosexual lifestyle and its result under the rug, and the desease, desperation mental illness and misery suffered by these poor folks.
S
Syele
Guest
is Jealousy a choice?
J
JimO
Guest
All sin is a choice. We choose to do things our way instead of God’s way. We’ve been grasping for apples from the very beginning.
R
rr1213
Guest
I’m not leveling any charge. You’re getting my posts mixed up with others.
All I am saying is that I recollect that he was not “with his lover” at the time of the divorce and one of your citations would support my recollection.
But, ultimately, it doesn’t matter does it? At the time he was chosen to be the Bishop of New Hampshire everyone knew that he (i) was divorced, (ii) actively homosexual, (iii) proud of his homosexual lifestyle, and (iv) living with his male lover. Any one of these four factors were sufficient Biblical grounds to prevent his ordination. Nonethess, the Episcopal Church had to show how “God was doing a new thing” and went ahead and ordained him.
I seriously considered leaving the day he was ordained, but hung on for another 3 years in the vain hope that Canterbury would do something…or the Anglican Communion would do something…or the Anglican leaders of the Southern Hemisphere would do something…or that the Network would do something…or…whatever. Eventually I had to do something so I left. It has not been easy for our family.
J
JohnWilliams
Guest
But might we sometimes be a little prone to be “wise in our own conceits” as regards the Jews? Why did God give some of them the “spirit of slumber” - eyes that they could not see and ears that they could not hear - even after the Cross?
But weren’t Old Testament Jewish saints “born again” and filled with the Holy Spirit before the Cross? Weren’t they also an election that is saved by grace through faith?
My above comments are not meant to indicate that I believe in ecumenism or “all roads lead to Heaven” because they pertain only to the Jews. But do we sometimes perhaps misunderstand the role of the Jews? That is the good olive tree that we gentile “wild branches” are grafted into.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Yes, the bible condemns ‘a man laying with another man’.
But Jesus also said ‘judge not and you will not be judged’. ‘For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged’. Mat 7: 1-2
But Jesus also said ‘judge not and you will not be judged’. ‘For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged’. Mat 7: 1-2
- Status