Protestants, do you know that Franklin Graham said this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
Protestants – more specifically, American Protestants who are familiar with Franklin Graham – do you know that he said the following? “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

Yes, that’s right. He did not say that, to be a Christian, a gay person has to be chaste, or even that he/she has to stay in the closet, but rather that the gay person has to become ex-gay in order to be a Christian.
 
Love to see the context. I think he likely meant living that alternative lifestyle is not acceptable for a Christian.
 
“But the gay person is going to have to repent of their sins,” he insisted. “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

That is compatible with Catholic teaching.
If gay is equated with sinful behavior (why not?), and that behavior is not repented, then you cannot stay in the grace of God.

Not sure where this thread is going or if anybody is going to care … ?
 
You’re mostly going to shock liberal Independent Baptists; a rare breed.
 
reggieM said:
“But the gay person is going to have to repent of their sins,” he insisted. “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

That is compatible with Catholic teaching.
If gay is equated with sinful behavior (why not?), and that behavior is not repented, then you cannot stay in the grace of God.

Not sure where this thread is going or if anybody is going to care … ?
Click to expand...
I think he was alluding to the notion that Catholicism is accepting of non-practicing homosexuals. Mr. Graham appears to exclude even those from the fold of Christendom.
 
Vonsalza said:
I think he was alluding to the notion that Catholicism is accepting of non-practicing homosexuals. Mr. Graham appears to exclude even those from the fold of Christendom.
Click to expand...
For Franklin Graham, it would appear that being gay is itself sinful, and hence must be repented of. In other words, it appears that he believes that gay people chose to be gay.
 
Peter_J said:
Protestants – more specifically, American Protestants who are familiar with Franklin Graham – do you know that he said the following? “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

Yes, that’s right. He did not say that, to be a Christian, a gay person has to be chaste, or even that he/she has to stay in the closet, but rather that the gay person has to become ex-gay in order to be a Christian.
Click to expand...
I don’t pay much attention to what Franklin Graham says. Usually what I hear, I do not like or agree with. I don’t think he is much like his father, even when the latter was younger.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Love to see the context. I think he likely meant living that alternative lifestyle is not acceptable for a Christian.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Franklin Graham is educated enough to say ‘gay lifestyle’ or ‘homosexual actions’. I can only read what he said and interpret it in the light of the sentence itself. And the sentence as it stands is atrocious and uncharitable.

I’d love to see him go head to head with the priests and deacons I know in a debate, including the priest in charge of the Courage group I attended. He’d be taken to the woodshed for sure.
 
500 years ago, you could define “Protestant.” Today, that is impossible. Like Arianism, it is fading as it slowly succumbs to theological entropy, becoming increasingly irrelevant. Mr. Graham is a victim of his own theology, which may be a mile wide, but only an inch deep.
 
Peter_J said:
For Franklin Graham, it would appear that being gay is itself sinful, and hence must be repented of. In other words, it appears that he believes that gay people chose to be gay.
Click to expand...
Depending on what “being gay” means, I would either agree or not with him.

When a person repents of sin, he is required to detach himself from love of the sin.

If the person loves the sin so much that he wants to identify himself by that very sin - then there’s a moral problem there.

Is like when we say “avoid the near occasion of sin”. We’re not supposed to put our minds in the framework of our sinful inclinations.

It’s like a guy saying “I’m a pornographer. I don’t actually look at or make pornography, but I’m tempted to it. I’m part of the pornography community and I expect to be treated as such.”

That would be sinful - we have to break the attachment to sin. The temptations will come, but we are not to identify ourselves with them.

That’s my view anyway.
 
reggieM said:
Depending on what “being gay” means, I would either agree or not with him.

When a person repents of sin, he is required to detach himself from love of the sin.

If the person loves the sin so much that he wants to identify himself by that very sin - then there’s a moral problem there.

Is like when we say “avoid the near occasion of sin”. We’re not supposed to put our minds in the framework of our sinful inclinations.

It’s like a guy saying “I’m a pornographer. I don’t actually look at or make pornography, but I’m tempted to it”.

That would be sinful - we have to break the attachment to sin. The temptations will come, but we are not to identify ourselves with them.

That’s my view anyway.
Click to expand...
Utterly incorrect as compared to homosexuality. And the implication that identifying as gay or homosexual or SSA is ridiculous.
 
I think as others say: It really depend on what he actually mean.

If it is taken in the light of “once saved, always saved, and if you are struggling you are not saved”, then yes, I do have a problem.

If it is taken from saying “You cannot treat Gay as normal and let it go willy-dilly, but repent always,” that is very minor difference in wording with catholic church and zero difference in practice.

And here’s the thing: he’s talking in terms of and to the secular world, where sound bites and simple language is important. In that light, what he say is not wrong fundamentally. Now, if there are other words from him that implies he also consider “those” priest are the result of Catholic teaching, then I will have a problem. Until then, at this point, I will just quote/paraphrase what he said during the Festival of Hope 2017: “Sex is good, but only between married man and woman.”
 
Jestersage said:
I think as others say: It really depend on what he actually mean.

If it is taken in the light of “once saved, always saved, and if you are struggling you are not saved”, then yes, I do have a problem.

If it is taken from saying “You cannot treat Gay as normal and let it go willy-dilly, but repent always,” that is very minor difference in wording with catholic church and zero difference in practice.

And here’s the thing: he’s talking in terms of and to the secular world, where sound bites and simple language is important. In that light, what he say is not wrong fundamentally. Now, if there are other words from him that implies he also consider “those” priest are the result of Catholic teaching, then I will have a problem. Until then, at this point, I will just quote/paraphrase what he said during the Festival of Hope 2017: “Sex is good, but only between married man and woman.”
Click to expand...
So he’s not at fault for making an objectively wrong statement, it’s the fault of the media and Facebook. Right.
 
I consider it a bit pathetic to say that someone chooses to be attracted to the same sex, because a whole pile of factors contribute to the homosexual orientation.

I take from Mr Graham that acting, living, practising that lifestyle is a sin. This is true. But, to be attracted to the same sex is beyond human control. If he means simply being attracted to the same sex, I don’t care about what he says regarding it - because God knows different. Why should we argue over this.

I have a good respect for Franklin Graham, so I hope it hasn’t affected my opinion.
 
po18guy said:
500 years ago, you could define “Protestant.” Today, that is impossible. Like Arianism, it is fading as it slowly succumbs to theological entropy, becoming increasingly irrelevant. Mr. Graham is a victim of his own theology, which may be a mile wide, but only an inch deep.
Click to expand...
Yes, you could define Protestant as those who participated in the formal protest at Speyer in 1529. Mr Graham’s theology was probably not present
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top