Homosexuality Deception

As with many other issues brought to this site, homosexuality is one that brings with it extreme controversy. After breaking free from the IFB so many years ago, my perspective about many things in life have changed. My views about homosexuality have changed as well and I believe that the IFB promotes an anti-homosexual agenda for many of the wrong reasons.

This article is going to be somewhat vague because I have a colleague working on publishing research related to scripture and homosexuality so I will let him go into details about biblical exegesis. Please accept my apologies for that. I just want to share that the IFB has for many years and still is on the front lines to suppress and marginalize homosexuals. They manipulate scriptures to do so and it’s abusive.

I’m aware of how much of a hot button issues this is in society and especially in our Christian sub-culture.  I’m actually counting on that and hope that these articles help many people re-think this critical issue.  This is a very complex issue – again the IFB would like to view it as black and white, but nothing could be further from the truth. 

A lot of what I write here is simply a way for me to process the information and think out loud (so to speak).  As such, I’m hoping to get some good discussions going.  We really need to wrestle with this issue to make sure that we are handling it properly.  There are many hurting gay men and women in our societies. The church (especially the IFB) by in large is – in my humble opinion – doing nothing to help and in fact, in some circumstances, making things worse.

In this article I’d like to simply present an introduction to the issue that point to the EXTREMELY damaging practices that the IFB and Christianity as a whole do when it comes to these issues.

I think that the Christian community as a whole does a very poor job of reaching out to the homosexual community, but the IFB, in my opinion and experience, is one of the worst offenders. The IFB is very quick to judge and shun homosexuals. The IFB refuses to allow homosexuals to feel comfortable in church (or even attend church in some instances) and to have leadership/teaching roles in church. The IFB is outspoken against gay marriage and promotes homosexuality as a choice rather then a natural occurrence.

The jury is still out on the “cause” of homosexual orientation. The “nurture vs. nature” debate is quite strong still. The IFB, however, has turned a blind eye to the evidence for natural “causes” of homosexuality and Christians have made up their minds about the issue with no willingness to even consider the issues.

It’s important to discuss this issue and have an open dialogue about how to best minister to those who need and want help incorporating spirituality into their life, however, the IFB has decided to keep a closed mind to such efforts.

The major issue I have with the approach the IFB and other Christians take when it comes to this issue of homosexuality is similar to other areas that are highly controversial and it’s one of closed minded dogmatism. Why is it, do you think, that homosexuals feel so uncomfortable in church (if they even attend)?  We’ve done a piss poor job of making homosexuals feel welcome and loved.  Christ loves the homosexual just as much as the heterosexual.  The last time I looked, we aren’t supposed to judge people.

So with that being said the first thing that I need to point out is the lack of scriptural mandate that that instructs the Christian to be so vocal against homosexuality and gay marriage. If homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin (and I’m not convinced it is – more on this to come in future articles) why do Christians feel the need to be so vocal against it?  This is an issue that’s personal, between the individuals and God.  It’s NEVER our place as Christians to judge the behaviors of others and try to convince people of what we perceive or even believe is sin!  It’s not our place to do the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. The IFB is far too quick to condemn homosexuality and the homosexual.

The IFB is out of line in speaking out against homosexuality and this under lying agenda to purify humanity of homosexuality is no better than Hitler’s desire for ethnic cleansing. Some may be thinking that that is a strong comparison, but I would say that it’s not strong enough. The IFB is guilty of many abuses against people, but this, in my opinion is one of the worst. Manipulating scripture to support an anti-gay agenda is typical IFB and just like every other problem brought out on this site shouldn’t be tolerated in the least.


  1. So, where to begin? I believe I will start with a brief self background to avoid being lumped into any one group or denomination. I classify myself as a Christian, not a Baptist, Methodist, or whatever other denomination you can think of. I have two engineering degrees from two different universities, as well as a couple of semesters of courses I wanted to take from Liberty University. Not that education is important in posting here, but didn’t want to be thrown into the “WV hillbilly” category of not being able to think for myself.

    I went started going to church at age 7 with my parents. I was raised in a non-denominational church in the middle of nowhere West Virginia. We sang hymns, used the KJV bible, and had no official affiliation with other religious groups or denominations. We were truly local, and the church actually still exists today in the same format. The preacher we had for most of my years there was self studied, and like to use the phrase “don’t take my word for it, read it yourself.” The only other church close by was a Methodist church, which I did attend a few times throughout the years.

    That was the only church I really attended until I was 28 years old, at which time I left WV for career reasons. To make a long story short, I have attended numerous churches in several different states, many denominational, some just “Christian” and unaffiliated. I have experienced a variety of preaching, teaching, worship, and music styles. I currently attend an independent (not fundamental) baptist church in North Carolina. We use KJV, sing hymns, and welcome anyone to attend.

    I was unaware of the official IFB terminology until recent years, but find that I do share some of their core beliefs. I will also be the first to say I have some disagreements with their official positions, some being:

    1) I do not believe women need to wear dresses (nor men suits) all the time. I don’t believe God is looking at our clothes, but our hearts.
    2) I prefer hymns in church, but listen to contemporary music outisde of church and think that is a personal preference issue. I don’t believe the bible dictates only hymns.
    3) Tithing… I believe we should give to the church to support what we believe in, but I believe the amount is between myself and God. I can afford to give more than some, but will probably never be the largest donor in any church, and I am not convinced the Bible dictates 10%
    4) I prefer the KJV myself based on research I have done, but don’t condemn others for their version of choice.
    5) I don’t believe any preacher should be put on a pedestal. I don’t follow any man, but rather God’s word.

    There are more, but I am getting long winded enough. The main reason I am posting here is not to argue, but rather make a few statements regarding this topic. I have spent hours recently reading different topics and comments on this site. While I disagree with some of the logic and reasoning, there are some points that I can agree with, or see both sides of the issue.

    However, I do believe the Bible is perfectly clear on this issue. I am not going to list all the verses here because I think the author is well aware of references in both testaments regarding the issue. In addition, until recent years, it was not even a Bible version issue. Though the language was not as strong in some versions (such as the NIV), homosexuality was condemned in Bibles originating from the Greek or Alexandrian texts. Only in recent times have people with an agenda started manipulating the Bible and teaching falsehoods on the topic.

    The Bible calls this sin an abomination, and yes I realize that is in the Old Testament, but it is written in 2 Timothy 3:16 – “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

    Since they didn’t have the NT when Paul was writing this, it is referencing the OT.

    Also, we all reference Sodom and Gomorrah when discussing this topic, and rightly so. God viewed this sin in such a way that he wiped these cities from the face of the earth. Once again, this is an Old Testament reference, but Malachi 3:6 says, “For I [am] the LORD, I change not;…” Since God doesn’t change, his views on homosexuality has not changed either. There are several passages in the NT relating to homosexual behavior and how those who practice or support such things are worthy of death and shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    In summary, this is your website and you are free to post what you wish. I am not your judge, nor are you mine, that will be God’s job one day when our lives here are complete. However, to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is a blatantly false statement. It was not simply a cultural belief at the time, it is written in God’s Word. You can support whatever position you desire, but don’t try to twist God’s word to support it. That is a deception in itself, which is what you are supposedly against.

    1. @JT

      The passages in Leviticus that address homosexuality are talking about the BEHAVIORS and fall under the Mosaic laws related to cleanliness. They were ceremonial laws which were part of the old covenant and which were fulfilled by Jesus during his ministry and no longer apply to NT Christians.

      Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their wickedness not because of homosexuality. The wickedness included “pederasty” which was male on male pedophilia NOT homosexuality as we discuss it today. There is no mention of monogamous same sex committed relationships in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

      Your use of 2 Timothy 3:16 and Malachi 3:6 to support your views is a gross misrepresentation of what those passages mean.

      1. So, I was going to just let this slide, but I am always open to friendly debate/discussion.

        I agree that more was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah than just homosexuality, but am convinced homosexuality was rampant.

        From Merriam-Webster:

        SIN –
        a : an offense against religious or moral law
        b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

        First question… With a couple of exceptions, sins ARE behaviors. So, your statement “…are talking about the BEHAVIORS…” doesn’t really close that argument, but rather support the fact that it is sin. Please explain why you feel differently.

        Second, about your quote:
        “Your use of 2 Timothy 3:16 and Malachi 3:6 to support your views is a gross misrepresentation of what those passages mean.”

        How so?

        1. I’m happy to discuss the issue further.

          I’m not sure how you can be “convinced homosexuality was rampant” in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a popular teaching among the IFB – it’s what I was taught also, but I don’t find support for that in scripture. Can you please share the scripture reference that convinces you that homosexuality was rampant?

          Sin is technically anything that falls in opposition to God’s standard of perfection. Thankfully we are now under the New Covenant which is a Covenant of grace. The Old Covenant Mosaic laws have been fulfilled. By the way, Merriam-Webster isn’t typically a reliable source of theological understanding. I would encourage you to stick with scripture and/or other reputable sources of theological interpretation.

          To answer your questions:

          1. The behaviors I’m referring to are the ones you mentioned in your original comment related to the Levitical laws of cleanliness. Like I said: The passages in Leviticus that address homosexuality fall under the Mosaic laws related to cleanliness and they were ALWAYS behavioral. There is no mention of same sex attraction as a stand alone issue. Those laws were for the Jews under the Old Covenant and no longer apply to NT Christians. They were fulfilled by Christ during his ministry – see Matthew 5:17-20

          2. 2 Timothy 3:16 and Malachi 3:6 don’t negate the fulfillment of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.

          1. Steve,

            Easy items first:

            “Sin is technically anything that falls in opposition to God’s standard of perfection.”
            – AGREED, but with a minor comment that sin manifests itself into actions or behavior.

            “Thankfully we are now under the New Covenant which is a Covenant of grace.”
            – AGREED. We are saved by Grace, through faith, not of works.

            “The Old Covenant Mosaic laws have been fulfilled.”
            – AGREED, but I believe the moral laws still serve as good guidelines to what is pleasing to God.

            “By the way, Merriam-Webster isn’t typically a reliable source of theological understanding…”
            – I agree for the most part with you, and prefer the description used in Easton’s Bible Dictionary for sin, but felt M-W was good enough for a generic in this case.

            As for the sins of Sodom, I am convinced that homosexuality was rampant based on the actions of its inhabitants in Genesis 19 when the angels went to warn lot and his family of the coming destruction.

            Verse 5 (KJV) – And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

            The word “know” in the bible is used in several places to speak of sexual relations, indicated in the NIV version below:

            Verse 5 (NIV) – They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

            Verse 4 states that all of the men in the city were there. So, if all of the men were there, and they wanted to have sexual relations with visitors they thought were men, that sounds pretty rampant to me. If we believe the Bible wording that all men, young and old, were there, that is 100% participation.

            As for the Leviticus reference to homosexuality, I don’t believe passage in chapter 20 is related to any kind of cleanliness because of the context. Here is a brief summary of my understanding and reading:

            Verse 7 – They are instructed to sanctify themselves, or set themselves apart
            Verse 8 – God commands them to keep his statutes
            Verse 9 – Don’t curse your parents
            Verse 10 – Don’t commit adultery
            Verse 11 – Don’t have sexual relations with your dad’s wife
            Verse 12 – Don’t have sexual relations with your son’s wife

            None of these relate to cleanliness, they are simply commands, with consequences listed if the command is broken. Now for the key verse:

            Verse 13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

            Keeping in context, there is nothing regarding cleanliness here. This is homosexual relations, and is called an abomination. God’s Word, not mine. ESV and KJV both use abomination, NIV uses detestable… I don’t see how this can be interpreted another way, so feel free to explain your reasoning.

            You wrote: “Those laws were for the Jews under the Old Covenant and no longer apply to NT Christians. They were fulfilled by Christ during his ministry – see Matthew 5:17-20”

            I agree that Christ fulfilled the law, but my interpretation of the verses you list in Matthew must differ from yours, but I can see wiggle room on where it could be interpreted differently. One of the reasons we have hundreds of denominations I guess. I defer this one for God to clear up when we’re in heaven.

            Lastly, you wrote: “2 Timothy 3:16 and Malachi 3:6 don’t negate the fulfillment of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.”

            I agree in that we are under grace and not law. My argument is that when the NT was being written, the OT was the scripture. When Paul tells Timothy that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”, he has to be referencing the Old Testament scripture. That is my argument that the OT moral laws are still viewed by God as important and are still his His standard that we cannot attain without Christ. Since scripture tells us that God doesn’t change, that would mean that what he considered wrong in the OT is still wrong. What he considered an abomination is still an abomination… And I believe that Romans 1 shows that God still disapproves of homosexuality.

            1. “The Old Covenant Mosaic laws have been fulfilled.”
              – AGREED, but I believe the moral laws still serve as good guidelines to what is pleasing to God.

              The Mosaic Laws and the moral laws are two different things. The moral laws are still in effect for NT Christians, the Mosaic laws aren’t. The Levitical passages that reference homosexuality were part of the Mosaic laws.

              Regarding Genesis 19:5 – this hardly connotes “rampant homosexuality”. At most we could say there was some homosexual activity, but to say it was “rampant” because of this verse is to infuse a message into the passage that just isn’t there.

              Also, the estimated population of Sodom and Gomorrah at the time of destruction is between 600 and 1200. The language “all the men” is figurative. It’s highly unlikely that, assuming 50% of the population was male, 300-600 men surrounded Lot’s house. It’s more likely that the language is figurative – similar to when we say something like: “the entire world heard you scream”. It’s figurative.

              There is nothing in this passage that indicates that homosexual activity was “rampant” or that this is the reason (or even one of the reasons) why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

              We don’t know much about the culture or the cultural context of Sodom and Gomorrah. The phrase “to know” is translated from the Hebrew word “yada” which has about 16 different meanings. Given what we do know about the cultural context, this mob of men could be wanting a few different things:

              This could be some type of cultural ritualistic hazing targeted at outsiders (which is more likely since the men were focused on Lot’s guests only and not Lot or any other male). It could also simply be an invitation to be the center of attraction at an orgy or sexually explicit party. Due to the many meanings of this and the misunderstood cultural elements I remain skeptical and unconvinced of your arguments.

              Regarding Leviticus 20: The ENTIRE context of Leviticus 20 is a recitation of Mosaic law. That’s not opinion, it’s scriptural truth. It’s not really up for debate. I do concede that there is some overlap between moral law and ceremonial law but the moral law is the 10 commandments with the exclusion of number 10 (we are no longer required to “keep the sabbath holy”).

              You say “kept in context” but then proceed to pull individual verses OUT of their context. You can’t have it both ways. The textual context is the ENTIRETY of Leviticus which is about ceremonial cleanliness (see more on this below).

              Regarding Matthew 5:17-20: you say you see wiggle room for different interpretations but you didn’t provide any different interpretation. Care to explain more?

              I don’t think Matthew 5:17-20 can be any clearer. It’s pretty much self explanatory. Vs 17b “I came to fulfill the law [of Moses – see 17a]”. In other words He accomplished its purpose – the purpose, which was ceremonial cleanliness (the way for the Israelites to obtain a right standing before God – see more on this below), is no longer needed because of Christ’s atoning work of the cross and because of Grace.

              Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16 and Malachi 3:6: I’m not arguing that the OT isn’t scripture or that it’s not useful to NT Christians. What I’m saying is that we can’t just arbitrarily pick and choose which scriptures will apply. There has to be a reason for why some scriptures are relevant to NT Christians and why some aren’t. If you arbitrarily pick and choose which of the Levitical Mosaic laws you will highlight (you seem to have a weird obsession with the laws around sex) and which ones you won’t, you are guilt of hypocrisy.

              For example: Leviticus 20:9 tells the Israelites to “put to death anyone who dishonors (speaks disrespectfully of/to) parents.” I have little doubt that you or your children have spoken disrespectfully to parents – I don’t know anyone who has escaped the preteen and teen years without speaking disrespectfully to their parents. Did you put your children to death when they spoke disrespectfully to you? Using your logic you should have.

              Another example: I hope you’ve never eaten pork since a the pig is considered an unclean animal (see Leviticus 11:7 and 20:25). If you’ve eaten pork products then, using your logic, you are guilty of violating the law.

              We know that all of Leviticus 20 were the ceremonial laws because we read in verse 7… “set yourselves apart to be holy… keep all my decrees by putting them into practice, for I am the Lord who makes you holy.” and this is repeated again in verse 26… “You must be holy because I, the lord, am holy. I have set you apart from all other people to be my very own.” Read also verse 25 where they are told to make a distinction between ceremonially clean and unclean animals… “you must not defile yourself by eating unclean animal or bird…” Ceremonial cleanliness is the textual context of these Levitical passages (chapters 11-27 at least).

              The Mosiac laws were a picture of right standing before God. Israel was God’s bride and He required them to be just as holy as He is or else they couldn’t be in a relationship with Him. The ceremonial laws were a representation of Christ’s atoning work on the cross and a way for them to have a right standing before God. Since Christ fulfilled those laws on the cross (God now uses Christ’s work on the cross to clean us – we don’t need human ceremony anymore) they no longer apply to us NT Christians. THAT is the TRUE context of the Levitical passages dealing with ceremonial law.

          2. Let me start by saying this has been an enjoyable and civil discussion thus far, which we need more of. Too many people resort to personal attacks over differences of opinion, doing nothing to benefit Christianity.

            First of all, you wrote – “If you arbitrarily pick and choose which of the Levitical Mosaic laws you will highlight (you seem to have a weird obsession with the laws around sex) and which ones you won’t, you are guilt of hypocrisy.”

            I am picking and choosing nothing. The thread I responded to was about homosexuality, so that is what my emphasis is on, as I like to try and stay focused on the topic at hand. I only pointed out other passages that show the OT still matters. Also, the Bible only covers homosexuality in a sexual nature, so the passages I point out are going to be “laws around sex.” No way around that.

            As for the law, the Bible does not specifically call out Mosaic law from moral law based on placement in the Bible. All of Leviticus 20 is not simply Mosaic law, as adultery is listed in verse 10 of the same passage. I think it is safe to say that we will agree to disagree here.

            Back to Genesis 19… Rampant was my word, not biblical in nature. So, using a common definition of rampant as “flourishing or spreading unchecked”, I still say homosexuality was rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah based on what the verse says… which is all the men were there. I disagree with your theory that it is figurative, as do several commentaries I checked. Matthew Henry does an excellent job of describing this, and his commentaries are respected across many denominations and generations. You can attempt to explain that away and reason it out differently, but the Bible says that all the men were there, and I’ll take that at what it says.

            I won’t argue Matthew 5 simply because it isn’t worthwhile and we agree to the overall message that Christ put us under grace.

            The rest of what you wrote, regarding cultural context and such, is one of the things that frustrate me most about seminaries and religious “education.” I’m not disrespecting the desire to further one’s education, but it seems that most educators do a better job at discouraging belief in the Bible than encouraging it. There is much time spent trying to place doubt in students’ minds about the accuracy of scripture. Seems like we have too many graduates that are “experts” in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but not enough fluent in Bible.

            For example, most Bible College students, even at traditionally conservative colleges like Bob Jones, are taught that we don’t have any original copies of the scripture. While that is a true statement, it is then used to cast doubt on any translation being totally accurate. This creates doubt in many students that are just beginning a career in ministry, so they start building on a shaky foundation. The result is reasoning away portions of scripture that one doesn’t like, or society goes against.

            I said all of that to get to this, which is the main point I made in my original post. Agree with it or not, homosexuality (according to the Bible) is a sin… as is murder, adultery, lying, etc. All sins can be covered by the blood of Jesus, his gift to us on the Cross and through His resurrection. Once we’re under grace, does that mean it’s okay to keep on intentionally sinning? Paul said “God forbid” to that line of reasoning in Romans. Can a homosexual be saved? YES! Can they continue to live that lifestyle thereafter? Not if they want to please God. Works are not required for salvation, but I believe the Bible teaches that once we are saved, our lives should change to reflect that. That’s what James was writing about in parts of his epistle.

            1. I am picking and choosing nothing.

              Please revisit your previous comment. You said that some of the mosaic laws still apply to us today (the laws regarding homosexual behaviors). You can’t pick and choose which of the mosaic laws still apply. It’s all or nothing. They either all apply or none of them do.

              That’s not my opinion. That’s Biblical truth.

              If you agree that we are no longer required to execute children when they disrespect their parents then you must also necessarily agree that the laws around sexual activity, discussed just a few verses later in the same passage, no longer apply. It’s all or nothing – they are all part of the Mosaic laws.

              Either all of the mosaic laws have been fulfilled (hint: they have – see Matthew 5:17-20 – Jesus said: “I have come to fulfill the law.” not “I have come to fulfill some of the law.”) or none of them have been fulfilled (not supported by scripture).

              Again, this is Biblical FACT and TRUTH, it’s not open for individual opinion. See previous comment for additional information.

              As for the law, the Bible does not specifically call out Mosaic law from moral law based on placement in the Bible. All of Leviticus 20 is not simply Mosaic law, as adultery is listed in verse 10 of the same passage. I think it is safe to say that we will agree to disagree here.

              First, I think “agree to disagree” is a cop out and I resent investing so much time thoughtfully formulating an argument only to have it met with an “agree to disagree” effortless grunt. If you want to make an argument, stand by it and argue your point. If you’re just going to say “we will agree to disagree” then it’s kind of pointless to have a discussion don’t you think?

              Like I already said: I admit that there is some overlap between the Mosiac laws and the moral laws (some of the Mosaic laws are ALSO in the moral law – adultery for example). But just because there’s overlap doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t separate them. How we separate them is by the context (see more on context below).

              There are actually three different types of law in the Bible: There’s moral law (never ending and transferred to NT Christians), ceremonial law (applied ONLY to the Jews and ONLY until Christ fulfilled the law on the cross – see previous comment) and civil law (laws governing people within a community such as property ownership, property boundaries, criminal prosecution, civility among neighbors, etc. which also don’t apply to us because we follow our own civil laws). This is easily understood with just a cursory study of the Bible.

              RE: Genesis 19. I know what “rampant” means – please don’t patronize me. I simply don’t agree that Genesis 19:5 demonstrates that homosexuality was “flourishing or spreading unchecked” and I’m still not sure how you can honestly inject that into scripture – See previous comment for an explanation as to why I disagree. I’m happy to entertain your perspective though so I ask again… how do you honestly interpret homosexuality being “rampant” from Genesis 19:5? I just don’t see it.

              I won’t argue Matthew 5 simply because it isn’t worthwhile and we agree to the overall message that Christ put us under grace.

              Again, what’s the point of a discussion if you’re going to ignore my questions and claim it isn’t “worthwhile” to discuss? The only conclusion I can come to, at this point, to explain that is that you are ignoring this passage because it ruins your argument. If I’m wrong please let me know, but I don’t understand how you can read Matthew 5:17-20 and still say that some of the Mosaic laws (the ones about sex that YOU say still apply) apply to us NT Christians. Please explain your position instead of hand waving it as “not worthwhile”.

              RE: scriptural context. I really have no interest in discussing scripture out of context. Context is king in Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Without it you only have subjective opinion and personal interpretation which is highly subject to manipulation (which is what we see among the IFB) and what Paul warned against in Acts 17 – you can read my response to Don about this for more information: https://baptistdeception.com/biblical-mandate-for-baptistdeception-com/

              See also 2 Peter 1:20

              In order to get the proper picture of what was being communicated in scripture (precisely because we don’t have the original autographs), we must consider the scripture in all it’s contextual elements: textual context, historical context, lexical context, cultural context and linguistic context. And that doesn’t even include the unique personality, perspective and characteristics of each author. See my comment to Adam in the comments section of this post for more information: https://baptistdeception.com/4-reasons-christians-are-wrong-about-homosexuality-and-same-sex-marriage

              The main point about my article isn’t whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Please read the article again to better understand the message I’m trying to convey or ask questions. I’m happy to clarify as needed.

              1. Steve,

                In response to your comment “Please revisit your previous comment. You said that some of the mosaic laws still apply to us today (the laws regarding homosexual behaviors). You can’t pick and choose which of the mosaic laws still apply. It’s all or nothing. They either all apply or none of them do.”

                You are correct in what you stated that I said. However, I do see where the issue lies with my statement in your eyes. You have broken the OT law into three categories of law, perhaps due to whatever religious education you have received. I view all of the OT law as mosaic law. Maybe that’s not correct from a theological perspective, but at least you should be able to see where I am coming from.

                We have focused on Leviticus 20 so far in this discussion, but is there more? If we turn back a few pages, there is a similar passage in Leviticus chapter 18. I won’t list all the verses here, but verses 20-23:

                20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.

                21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

                22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

                23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

                While this is in the same area of scripture, the verses listed are in the middle of a section of scripture pertaining to what you would call moral law. This contains the same message regarding homosexuality, and not simply related to cleanliness. Even the verse 23 is not listed as a command due to uncleanliness… Here again, I’ll take the Bible for what it literally says… Adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality are all sins that are listed in this passage.

                Moving on…

                You stated “First, I think “agree to disagree” is a cop out and I resent investing so much time thoughtfully formulating an argument only to have it met with an “agree to disagree” effortless grunt.”

                I will have to disagree with that statement, and here’s why. Every argument has at least two sides to it. There are times when, no matter what either side gives in support of their view, neither one will give in to the other. I believe that is where you and I are on the issue of Sodom… I believe that the Bible should be interpreted exactly as it is written. When it says that all men were there, I believe it means all men were there. It doesn’t say most or some, it says all. I even referenced one of the most respected commentaries used that describes it in much more detail than I can write here. In contrast, you do not believe that all men were there, and offered your reasoning as to why you believe that. Being that I don’t agree with that, and you don’t agree with my position, isn’t it safe to say that we agree to disagree?

                I agree that the main point of your article was not to determine whether or not homosexuality was a sin (but you did write you were not convinced it was), but rather to condemn those who view it as such. You are correct in that we are not to judge others, but we are to discern right from wrong. Kind of like the expression, hate the sin, not the sinner. I don’t hate people who are living a homosexual lifestyle (I do have friends that are that way), but that doesn’t mean I can accept their sin as being okay.

                There are many arguments surrounding scripture that are simply useless and nonproductive, at least in my opinion. For example, I could care less how old the earth actually is and refuse to get into debates about it. However, there is a push in recent years in an attempt to get Christians to accept sin as being okay since we are under grace. This is a problem and has many churches focusing on how to get people in the door and keep them there, rather than teaching the Bible and staying doctrinally correct. My purpose in commenting here was to call out that what God says is sin, is sin. Biblically speaking, I believe scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin, and churches are correct to call it as such. It is not discriminatory to teach what the Bible says, but it is dangerous to water it down to what those outside the church will accept.

                From the original article, you wrote: “The IFB refuses to allow homosexuals to feel comfortable in church (or even attend church in some instances) and to have leadership/teaching roles in church.”

                Once again, I am not IFB, just to be clear. However, someone who is not saved, or even who is saved, will be uncomfortable in church any time their particular sin is discussed. Will someone feel comfortable during a sermon on adultery if they are in an adulterous relationship? I would hope not. In addition, even though salvation is not works based and we all do have our faults, a church has every right not to accept those who are living in known sin to have leadership roles in the church. The Bible discusses how leaders of the church are held to high standards. The church is to set a Godly example for the world to follow, not become like the world.

  2. Wooooah… You lost me with the whole thing about “There isn’t one passage of scripture that says homosexuality is a sin (at least not when properly interpreted).” I’ve personally become very frustrated with the IFB methodology after having been a member for almost 8 years now. I very much feel like throwing up every time i hear the whole “man of God” spiel because its always followed by how the preacher should be treated as though he is God. I apologize if that context offends anyone. But I take strong issue with you in the passage I quoted you. Have you ever read Romans 1?
    Romans 1:24-27 KJV
    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [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: [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.

    So as you can clearly see, even with KJV there is no interpretation required. Paul was speaking plainly in regards to the misuse of the body, calling it “vile affections.” Which leads me to the conclusion that you are propagating an agenda or are “biblically speaking” very uneducated..

    1. So all you did was quote Romans 1:24-27 followed by “so as you can clearly see…”, but you didn’t explain or refute what I said. If we could “clearly see” what those passages talk about I wouldn’t have written the article. Care to try again?

  3. I believe the consensus of view by those the Lord has called into the ministry of the church is that homosexuality (or for that matter any deviant sexual conduct) is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. While the Christian church views it as a sin, it is clear that those who continually practice such sin simply are not saved by God’s grace. 1 John

    The church I formerly belonged to has a ministry to homosexuals and they met several times a week for pray and support. Some have been delivered from that lifestyle while others are still in a struggle. I believe, like one of my former minister stated that there are more leaving the gay lifestyle than going into it.

    I for one would not honor or accept anyone that practices sin for a teacher or even a member of my church. I would consistently pray for them that the Lord would intervene in their lives and lead them to salvation.

    Unfortunately my present wife’s son is gay and married to a gay man. We do not condemn them but have made it clear that as Christians we believe God is to be the Judge of them; not us. Howbeit, we also have made it know to them that as Christians who study the Bible, we believe their lifestyle to be contrary to the will of God and that God will judge them on this issue. I belong to a Bible distributing ministry.

    Interestingly enough, my wife’s daughter is married to an IBF minister who condemns homosexuality and homosexuals. As a result the daughter refuses to have much to do with her brother. They had a problem with us when we went to the wedding of their first daughter in that I was one divorced from a former wife some 45 years ago – they do not believe divorce nullifies the covenant of marriage, and that the homosexual brother showed up with his gay partner. As a result, we were somewhat shunned by the IBF minister and my wife’s daughter.

    My wife cannot denounce her son but loves him nonetheless, howbeit does not accept his homosexuality. Love the sinner but despite the sin!

    1. @Lee Jensen

      Lee Jensen wrote:

      “While the Christian church views it as a sin, it is clear that those who continually practice such sin simply are not saved by God’s grace. 1 John”

      Steve’s reply:

      One of my greatest fears regarding this issue is that the church will heretically lead the world to believe that in order to be saved one must not be a homosexual and/or stop practicing homosexuaity. This is the narrative that I hear over and over again currently and the same narrative that you seem to be perpetuating, Lee. I cringe when I hear Christians making such false claims.

      It is not true that someone needs to stop sinning in order to be saved. There is no basis for this belief found in scripture. Grace is the opposite of legalism. You can’t espouse grace, while in the same breath promote the idea that we need to do something to earn our salvation.

      The irony is that you referenced 1 John to support your belief that “those who continually practice such sin simply are not saved by God’s grace”. 1 John 1:9 states:

      If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin…

      It does NOT say:

      If we confess our sin – and then stop sinning – He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin…

      I urge you and all who read this to stop this heresy that homosexuals need to stop practicing homosexuality in order to be saved. It’s NOT true and it’s a belief that isn’t founded upon Scripture.

    2. I really feel for your wife’s son. A person does not CHOOSE to be gay. Likely it’s something he’s struggled with and felt deep shame, embarrassment, and horror regarding what the IFB teaches are “unnatural” feelings. “We do not condemn them, but have made it clear that as Christians we believe God is to be the judge of them; not us. Howbeit we have also made it known to them that as Christians who study the Bible, we believe their lifestyle to be contrary to the will of God and that God will judge them on this issue.” Say what? If that isn’t condemning, disguised as caring, or a Biblical stance, I don’t know what is. Are you a 100% perfect Christian? No, you’re divorced. That’s a sin too, according to the IFB. I guess I just feel for him and others associated with the IFB…the hurdles they’ve faced, the family members lost, all because of something they can’t help, are heartbreaking.

  4. O.K. Steve set out to judge the Word of God with his own finite intellect and feel good vibes. Now that he’s done his best to undermine Scriptural infallibility he is shocked to find someone who believes less than he does. He attempts to guide the atheist back into the straight and narrow by his human intellect and feel good vibes and niceness.

    Sorry Steve. I am not a troll, but a survivor of spiritual and psychiatric abuse. I guess I’ll find no help here. Maybe you and the atheist you are trying to convert (to Niceness?) should join forces. You sound like an atheist waiting to happen.

    And when you condemn all judging of sin as sinful and wrong you set yourself up for a paradox of reason. Don’t you see how inconsistent this argument is?

    Btw, I am not Westburrow Baptist. But Church of Christ. We study our Bibles a lot. We keep abreast of current translations. But we use them to figure out what God said through the writer. Then we figure out how to do it. We don’t twist the words around and hem and haw about context like seasoned politicians trying to stay on the good side of their constituents.

    Morality is not about going along with the flavor of the month make people like you. Sometimes you need to man up and face the lions! I will pray for you, Steve.

    1. Without human intellect we wouldn’t even have an English translation – Duh. All I’m doing is studying what people have already learned about the Bible. It’s really not that difficult to do, but you’d know that if you’d spend less time griping about my “intellect” and studying the Word for yourself.

      If you don’t find help here then please move along and go troll somewhere else.

      I dont see any paradox.

      Don’t waste your time praying for me please, I’m right where I need to be… not that it’s any of your business.

      You worry about your morality and I’ll worry about mine.

  5. Bruce L. Scheffler

    So much for developing a relationship with Jesus and spreading the Gospel, not judgment…oh well maybe next time I will learn…

  6. Do yourselves a favour… stop reading that book… god doesn’t exist… set yourselves free and get outside and connect with living.

    I was a fundamentalist bible bashing god fearing Baptist…..

    Went to the church, the school, chapels etc etc…. disconnected from the evils of the world and indoctrinated. As with all cults, it took years to deprogramme. Now i believe in no heaven, no hell, no god and no devil. As a consequence I live a life without fear and filled with love. I didn’t learn any of that from an old book and dirty minded men and women who love to intimidate and maintain fear in the lives of so many.

    1. Wait, god doesn’t exist or you believe there’s no god? Which is it.

      1. A single judeo christian god entity does not exist, except in the consciousness of those who choose to subscribe to a mono theistic view. So the god is only a figment of that belief system. And the requisite propaganda books and other paraphernalia needed to justify and somehow prove existence. Throughout the thousands of years on this plane called earth many gods have been believed in. My question has been why do humans have to believe in one version of a god, a idea of heaven and hell. The western civilisation is not the be all and end all or authority on matters relating to belief in deities. Steve, there are many gods.

        1. If memory serves, the “requisite propaganda books and other paraphernalia” of the Christian faith do provide justification and evidence that their god does exist. Your denial of that doesn’t negate it.

          Personally, I don’t know if there are god’s or not, but if you make a claim that a particular god doesn’t exist then you also bear the burden of proof. What proof do you have that the “single judeo christian god entity does not exist…”?

    2. Bible thumping is the term you are looking for.

      Bible bashing is what you do now as an atheist.

  7. I find the entire homosexual issue a chicken-egg problem. Immorality of all kinds is forbidden. And my Bible says sin is sin. So which is worse, a same-sex couple in a committed relationship or a church pianist who leads the Gossip department? Yes, the church is full of sinners, some secret and some blatant. Who do we allow to teach? Who can be an usher? I’ve found that a Deacon who is unfaithful to his wife isn’t really interested in Gods things. Shall we leave conviction and repentance to the Holy Spirit instead? Tho older I get the more I see HIS dealing with an individual’s sin much more effective than mine. If I preach and teach the Word faithfully and do not get on “hobby horses” the church is much stronger. If I know a gay person is present and preach AT him/her, then I am in the way of what God wants to do in their life.

    1. Maybe there should be more sermons against gossip. That would be a tremendous improvement.

  8. Steve,
    You have gone from a prison based religion to an all out liberal view of God’s word. There are some twisted views from the IFB but many of them do cling to the gospel and stand against sin and the practice there of. Your site is pathetic on so many biblical points that it’s not worth the effort you have given it. Kill the site and keep your liberal views to yourself. Your poison is no better for man than the poison you’re trying to prevent.

    1. Hmmm. Very thoughtful Rocky. How long did it take you to come up with that brilliant comment?

      Thanks for providing more evidence of the judgmental attitude that I speak out against on this site.


    I’ll start over.
    I started this conversation in response to something you said in paragraph four of your introduction.

    “The IFB refuses to allow homosexuals to feel comfortable in church (or even attend church in some instances) and to have leadership/teaching roles in church. The IFB is outspoken against gay marriage and promotes homosexuality as a choice rather then a natural occurrence.”

    I asked a series of serious, to me, questions. Would you feel comfortable having a ‘practicing’ pedophile etc. to teach children in the church you attend. Please don’t mince word because this isn’t an exact copy of the questions. This contains the gist of what I asked. I also stated that a ‘practicing’ homosexual was no different. I meant that a practicing homosexual is unrepentant. You responded by telling me where I was mistaken because these people act in secret and I wouldn’t know that they were ‘practicing‘. That’s rather insulting. I said something else in which I supposed you were still angry or something and you asked why I assumed that. Later you accused my of judging, which I was, and said I had no right and when I used scripture that clearly shows that we are supposed to judge problems in the church you again started trying to teach me where I was wrong.

    Before I go any further I would like to give you a little of my background. I was born into a Catholic family. We attended church on Easter, maybe. I remember attending only two or three times. I attended public school. In the second grade a fellow student stood up and asked a question about shepherds in Greece. He asked if it was true that when the shepherds when up into the mountains in summer they used one another for women because they had to leave their wives at home. She said that was true because men had to relieve their urges. I asked my mother at home and she said the same thing. Later when a man asked me if he could give me oral sex I didn’t know what to say but agreed because of what my mother had said. This created in me a desire to have other men give me oral sex. While all this was going on my brother tried to rape me on a regualar basis. I fought him off until my twelfth year and then one day I snapped and lit into him with everything I had. He decided it was no longer worth the effort. I hated my brother for a very long time. Gradually I grew to hate homosexual and myself because of what I had become. At the age of thirty two I surrendered to Jesus and started my long road to recovery.
    At first I was fine but after a few weeks the old urge came back. Finally I realized I couldn’t win the battle alone and started calling upon the Lord. Oh yes, by this time I had read the word and knew that homosexuality is a blight upon any nation. I started praying every free moment. I prayed when I was alone, when I was driving to and from work. During lunch I would go off alone, read my New Testament and pray. When I was working at mundane tasks I would pray. I asked God to help me yield to Him so He could be my strength. After three years I realized I was no longer plagued by this perverse desire. Also I had lost my hatred for homosexuals. After a while I started asking myself why they do the things they do.

    The kleptomaniac steals because he/she has an emotional or mental problem and is compelled to do so. Some homosexuals have the same problem. The best we can do for these folks is try to keep watch over them and protect them from themselves as much as possible.
    Some thieves steal because they are hungry, need money for the family or some similar thing. I don’t know how to relate this to homosexuality.
    Some thieves steal because they are greedy, lazy or any one of a number of excuses.
    Some homosexuals do what they do because they derive a perverse pleasure from it and simply yield to the flesh. Some of these have no desire to change and will not repent. Others want to repent but are addicted to the perverse pleasure.

    There are many ministries for homosexuals and yes some of them are run by IFB churches. The most successful ministries are run by homosexuals who have repented. Sad but true most ‘straight’ people simply do not understand what these people have to overcome. Only God can truly heal.

    As for my IFB regurgitation I was never indoctrinated by the IFB. I was thirty two years old by the time I surrendered to God and had been in more denominations than most people have been in churches. I had already seen more hypocrisy than I could stand and had in fact given up on church altogether. My niece asked if she could be baptized in my pond and I said OK. After watching her for a while and being invited by the pastor I attended the IFB church in town and shortly thereafter surrendered to God. My first pastor was the best doctrinal teacher I have ever had and as far as I can remember he never mentioned homosexuals. Sorry to pop your bubble Steve but there ARE some good stable IFB churches.

    Yes there are some wacked out IFB churches but there are some wacked out NON-DENOMINATIONAL churches. I won’t go into what I know about some Calvary Temple churches.

    Steve, it might behoove you to find out a little more about someone before you start trying to tell them they don’t know anything.

    Goodbye Steve

    1. Paul, you’re welcome to spend your time trying to keep track of everyone’s sin if you want, but I’m not going to do that. I used to hear all the time: “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”, but I gave up on that. There are too many sinners. I can’t keep track of it all. I think a better idea is to hate my own sin and you hate your own sin and let others hate their own sin. “My sin is ever before me” (Psalm 51:3) – my sin is enough for me to worry about. If I’m worrying about everyone else’s sin and need for repentance then I’m being distracted from my own need for repentance. In the words of Mark Lowry: “How about you hate your sin, and I’ll hate mine, and then we can just love each other.” (see Matthew 7). You’re blinded by worrying about everyone else’s sin and need for repentance. That’s sad because it distracts you from your relationship with God. I pray that you will one day see that.

      1. Isn’t this entire site dedicated to being worried about other people’s sins?

          1. Sin is behaviors? Really?

            First of all, when most people talk about homosexuality, they are talking about the behavior. Especially when the world is talking about homosexuality, they are clearly not talking about someone who has same-sex attraction but does not act on it. Stop twisting things to prove your point.

            I do realize that temptation is not sin, but that’s not what we’re talking about. You also stated that same-sex marriage was not a sin. Do you think a same-sex couple gets married and then there is no “behavior” to follow.

            There is a ton of deception on this website. I do agree with a lot of things you point out here, but you have gone off the deep end and are just as bad as the IFB teachings that you intend to debunk.

            You have clearly been hurt by what you experienced in the IFB church, but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water on so many issues. You’re letting your own opinions, society’s views, and other factors shape your interpretation of scripture. I see a ton of taking verses out of context and using them to prove your own personal views. That’s what the IFB folks do, so you are basically the same as them, just with different views.

            Oh, and by the way, if only behavior is sin, why did Jesus say that hating your brother is the same as murdering him? Would you call anger or hate a behavior? Do you think it’s possible to sin in your mind/heart? Or is sin only when you act on these behaviors?

            I honestly haven’t read enough on this site to know where you stand on sin in general, and I also don’t care to read much more from what I’ve already seen.

            The real revelation of your heart is your response to Paul in this thread. The guy pours out his heart and bears his soul in order to engage you on a topic, and your response shows a total lack of compassion, love, understanding. You are the same as what you are trying to expose in the IFB camp. I’ll be praying for you, there’s a hardness/blindness in you that is profoundly sad.

            1. Yes, for this issue, the sin is in the behaviors. We aren’t talking about heart issues or anger or anything else. The topic is homosexuality. Quit trying to change the topic and manipulate the discussion please.

              “I honestly haven’t read enough on this site to know where you stand on sin in general, and I also don’t care to read much more from what I’ve already seen.”

              Sorry, but I’m not interested in wasting time discussing things with someone who’s too lazy to read what’s already written. That proves that you’re only interested in arguing not discussing. Your assumptions are getting in the way and, quite frankly, extremely annoying. You know nothing about me and you admit that you aren’t interested in finding out. You came here and attacked me and I have a right to defend myself. You’re pious judgmentalism and holier than thou attitude isn’t welcome here. Don’t bother replying because I’ve instructed the moderator to discard your replies. Go away and harass someone else.

        1. Apparently just a certain sect of fundamentalist Baptists.
          Steve can’t even seem to remember his previous statements and keeps contradicting himself. Not just the Bible.

    2. Paul , if you have any good IFB church’s names that i might seek counsel from could you please email me at wjdrewe22@gmail.com .. I suffer from SSA , and am looking for someone within my denomination of the IFB church . Because i do know that there must be some out there who are willing to deal with this issue in the way in which Jesus would do so . I do agree many IFB church’s are dealing with the issue improperly . More grace is needed with many of the pastors , And more true understanding of what the issue is and what causes it in the first place . I do not believe in confirming the homosexual or accepting them into the church if they are practicing in their sin . Open sin in the church was not to be tolerated .. Yes many secretly are living in sin , but God will not tolerate those who are pridefully snubbing their noses in Gods face , daring him to judge them .. That is the difference in what most of your conversation was about with Steve . So if you have any good names of good men who are understanding and want to offer true help , please refer them to myself if you can .. thank you .

      1. My heart goes out to you, Bill. I struggled with SSA as a young woman because of sexual harassment and other abuse in a Christian high school. Eventually it went away after I suffered a psychotic break and wound up in the Mental Illness factory.

        Not sure Steve will help you. He’s more interested in being politically correct and “hip” with cool new Biblical twistings than accepting God’s Word as we know it. Perhaps I am wrong.

        I will give you my email address, if Steve’s not too ticked to publish this comment. Lulivingnichols at gmail dot com.

        I think very highly of your sincere desire to obey God. You don’t want someone emotionally beating up on you for feelings you can’t control at least for now. You also don’t want someone feeding you rubbish like, You just can’t help yourself. Go out and enjoy your slavery to sin. It’s all covered at the cross. Yuck yuck, you sly dog!

        Ever heard of Henri Nouwen? He had SSA and faithfully served as a priest for many years. But he was celibate. Not gay Steve!

  10. No, I’m not mislead by this passage. This passage is about disputes among Christians which is what we have here. Regardless within this passage we are told that homosexuality is sin, The following passages tell us the same thing. You deny this. That is your choice.
    Paul tells us that we are to judge problems in the church. In a passage below he tells us to put away that wicked person. That person in this scripture is not gay but the fact that homosexuality is a sin means that a homosexual should be put out of the church also. As I said if a person repents or makes a statement that they have repented we must allow them to be a part of the body. No I don’t know who truly repents and I must take their word. Of course there are those who sin in secret but those who sin openly have not repented. You are no different than the IFB pastors. You change the truth to fit your self. You twist scriptures just like they do. You too are a control freak but instead of using charm you use debating skills to try and confuse issues. You are still in the grip of resentment and anger. I’m sorry that is so.

    Romans 1:

    22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
    24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    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:
    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.
    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;
    29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31. Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    1 Corinthians 5

    1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
    2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
    3. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
    4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
    5. To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
    6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
    7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
    8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
    9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
    10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
    11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
    12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?
    13. But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

    1 Corinthians 6

    1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
    2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
    3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
    4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
    5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
    6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
    7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
    8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
    9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
    10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
    11. And 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.
    In these passages Paul judges and tells us to judge also.

    1. I never denied that homosexuality is a sin. I’m not sure how you came up with that based on our conversation. If you want to continue this discussion I request that you at least try to understand what I’m saying.

      I’m going to ignore your verbal attacks towards me and I’ll spare you the retaliatory Scriptural barrage that you just gave me and simply end with this…

      You said that “…the fact that homosexuality is a sin means that a homosexual should be put out of the church also.” and I find that extremely disturbing. Church is a place where sinners should be welcome. The only alternative is to have a church of all perfect people which we know isn’t possible. How do you expect to reach lost homosexuals for Christ with such a pious attitude looking down on homosexuals and refusing to allow them to enter the church? To “put someone out of the church” because they sin is extremely hypocritical and borders on heresy. I would find it laughable if it weren’t so sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      You accuse me of twisting scriptures to fit my agenda – I encourage you to look at your own use of scripture. You accuse me of anger and resentment, but in the prior sentence unleash your anger and frustrations out on me with verbal attacks and ad hominems – more hypocrisy.

      I’m not sure what else to say except that you’re doing nothing more than regurgitating the same old IFB dogma. Although I used scripture appropriately with discernment, proper exegesis and hermeneutics – despite what you think – I don’t really need scripture to tell me your approach to this issue is wrong, just common sense. I escaped those abusive teachings long ago and I want nothing to do with it now. I hope you will one day enjoy the freedom I now have from such harmful and abusive teachings.

      1. “If homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin (and I’m not convinced it is – more on this to come in future articles)”

        I think this is where Paul gets the idea that you are denying homosexuality is a sin. What is going to convince you? What further revelation do you need than the word of God?

        1. The Bible never calls homosexuality a sin. Sin is behaviors. Temptation isn’t a sin (if it were then Jesus was sinning when he was tempted by Satan). This is where more information will be about this topic: homosexualityandchristianity.com I’m currently working on reformatting my research into blog/website format. It’s taking longer than I though.

          1. Romans is very clear on this subject matter. There is only one way to read it, thru the spirit…do not add nor remove! I feel your committing the same acts as the IFB, being blinded by self/agenda/mandoctrine/manopinion,etc…I am of no particular denom. There is only one interpretation of scripture just as Christ said, there is one body, one spirit, one mind, one truth…may we relinquish our selfish passsions and put away our will and desires to bring glory to God…Steve, I’ve been studying your blog and have just begun, i have allot of reading to do…but what little I’ve read is your only putting yourself on their level (IFB) by arguing and guarding your own personal mandate…let the Holy Spirit do it’s work! And be cautioned regarding “The Calvary Chapel” movement..as they have birthed “The Whosoevers”…May God have mercy!

            1. Hi Josi. Thanks for writing. Regarding Romans – I beg to differ. Christian scholars are severely divided as to the meanings of Paul’s words in this passages. It has come to light that bible translators have translated scriptures through the lense of an anti-homosexual agenda and have not paid tribute to the actual meanings of what Paul was trying to communicate. If you’ve never heard of this before then I’m afraid that you haven’t heard both sides. There is NOT only one interpretation of scripture. That is a dangerous proposition to believe. There are typically at least two interpretations of scripture: 1. the traditional interpretations that’s been handed down from generation to generation and blindly believed and 2. the truth. My goal is to expose the truth. Unfortunately, many people just aren’t ready to hear the truth yet. Anyway, I go into great detail about the Romans passage and other passages about this topic in my doctoral dissertation which will soon be made public. I hope that you find it interesting enough to keep in mind for future reading.

              As far as your unfounded accusations about me… yes please do read more because I answer similar accusations many times throughout the site. I hope that you will take the time to read them. I do not put myself on the level of the IFB and I resent the implication. I’m an advocate for the victim while the IFB and their leaders are advocates for the perpetrators. I am doing the exact opposite of what the IFB is doing. We may have similar methods of getting our point across, but I can only surmise that the reason is because I was among the IFB cult for so long that some habits are simply harder to break than others.

              Thanks again for writing and I hope that you will rise above the typical objectors and seek understanding rather than provide arguments and castigation.

      2. I think it is unfair that in this part of the text, you accused the commenter with a “retaliatory scripture” barrage. If he only gave you part of a verse, perhaps you would accuse him of taking the verse out of context?
        Homosexuality IS unlike any other sin. The scripture calls it an abomination.
        God DOES love the homosexual; many in Sodom were practicing homosexuality, yet God gave them much time to repent.
        The reason that some Christians are so forceful when dealing with this sin, however, is most likely not because they think it is o abominable (and it is), but because they are irked with the whole agenda the LBGT people have on forcing others to accept them, or be labeled as “haters”.
        Not all Bible Believing christians are hateful, though many mis-represent Christ when confronting various sins, even minor ones.
        The mishandling of homosexuals by zealous Christians does not negate the seriousness of the sin. Romans makes it clear that homosexuals did not want to retain the knowlege of God so He gave them up to their own lusts. That is a reprobate. Knowing the risk these precious people run of searing their conscience, Christians are on high alert to warn them, thus the hysteria.
        Also, the influence…we all know that the more this invades our culture, this supposedly “alternative” lifestyle will influence the next genration. Thus, nipping it in the bud is essential.

    2. Bruce L. Scheffler

      A fool says all he knows…

  11. 2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? This is talking about judging problems in the church. Homosexuality is a problem in the church. Did you read not verse 9? 9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Effeminate? Abusers, of selves with mankind? These are homosexuals. We are to judge matters in the church and homosexuals are no different than adulterers or any of the rest of them.

    1. I’m sorry, but you’ve been mislead as to the meaning of this passage. I Corinthians 6:1-8 is Paul’s instructions for settling disputes among Christians. He’s saying that there should be no need for lawsuits or secular courts to settle a dispute (verse 1). In verse 2 he’s saying that Christians have the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ and will ONE DAY (“shall” – future tense) be judging the world and the angels based on the authority that is our inheritance (see Revelations 3:21 and John 5:22 for more on judging the world and 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 for information on judging angels). This is not a charge to judge people at present, just a reminder about the authority we carry with us which 1. should help us be mature enough to settle disputes amongst ourselves and 2. will someday be used to help judge the world and the angels.

      Verses 9-11 are a warning to not get caught up in sexual sin – that’s it, nothing more. Paul gives some examples of sexual sin, but this should NOT be interpreted as Paul placing a heavier weight on those sins – as if they are somehow worse that other sins. Christians in today’s society have placed a greater weight on homosexual sin above others for some reason, but I don’t find support for that in scripture.

      Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, homosexuality is NOT mentioned as one of those sins. “Effeminate” means male prostitute and “abusers of themselves with mankind” is actually a reference to sexual abuse (i.e. rape, molestation, coercion, etc. a small part of which was male on male abuse). It is incorrect to translate these two as “homosexuals”. I know its a popular teaching to translate “effeminate and abusers of self with mankind” as homosexualality, but when I researched the original language that’s not what I found.

      So again I must vehemently disagree with you. We aren’t to judge people and we aren’t to treat “homosexuals” as outcasts. Having same sex attraction does not disqualify someone from going to church or even serving in the church. If you are against a homosexual, adulterer, etc. teaching your Sunday School class then that’s YOUR prejudice NOT scriptures.

      1. Steve, my problem is defining all with same sex attraction as homosexuals. Lust is the same as adultery and hatred the same as killing. Yet obviously a lot of lustful, hateful people attend church. If a man refuses to cave into sinful desires or temptations, maybe he doesn’t deserve the label. Period.

      2. Some things to consider:

        1. Homosexuality was worthy of death in the Old Testament.
        2. As many have mentioned already, Romans seems to be clear on it.
        3. Jesus says that marriage is between one man and one woman.
        4. Would you say that you hold to the John Shelby Spong position in regards to Romans 1?

        “We aren’t to judge people” how about judging false teachers? Or judging Independent Fundamental Baptists? Can we judge Joel Osteen? How about the Pope?

        “and we aren’t to treat “homosexuals” as outcasts.” I agree with you on that.

        “Having same sex attraction does not disqualify someone from going to church” as far as gathering with the church, you are absolutely correct.

        “or even serving in the church.” Read 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1, there’s Paul said an elder must be the husband of one wife, can a homosexual fit that qualification?

        ” If you are against a homosexual, adulterer, etc. teaching your Sunday School class then that’s YOUR prejudice NOT scriptures.” No, it’s pretty much based on scripture.

        1. @Klaus

          Some things to consider:

          1. Yes, in the OLD TESTAMENT! We are New Testament Christians. The ceremonial laws in the OT no longer apply to NT Christians (Matthew 5).
          2. As I’ve already mentioned, in Romans 1 Paul is giving a history lesson not a new set of commands or standards.
          3. Where did Jesus say that?
          4. I have no idea who John Shelby Spong is nor do I know what his position on Romans 1 is.

          You’re conflating two different types of judging.

          An “elder” is a leader in the church. Someone who serves in the church doesn’t necessarily need to be a leader. The IFB doesn’t have elders. Paul was giving instructions for ideal leadership not service. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are Paul’s advice not a set of commands to follow.

          No, it’s based on faulty interpretations of scripture which are based on prejudice.

  12. We are not to judge another’s righteousness but we are to judge their works.(I Cor.6:1-20)
    This passage clearly shows that WE ALL sin in some fashion but it also shows that we are not to yield to the flesh. This includes unnatural desires and also the desire to denounce and harm, physically or emotionally those we find hard to like or care for.

    1. Um, I think you may have referenced the wrong passage, that’s not what 1 Corinthians 6 is saying. I don’t find permission for us to judge anyone in the Bible, not their righteousness nor their works. In fact Romans 2 tells us that it’s God’s responsibility to judge people according to their works. I’m not sure where you get that we are to judge people by their works. If you are thinking of John 15 please read this article for more information: https://baptistdeception.com/bearing-fruit-deception/

      1. Perhaps Paul is thinking of the quote from the Sermon on the Mount. “By their fruits you will know them.”

  13. Hi Steve. A few questions. First Jesus said in Mt. 12:31 that all manner of sin against the son of man shall be forgiven. This includes homosexuality. However this forgiveness depends on repentance, Lk13:3. Would you feel comfortable with a practicing pedophile teaching children in the church you attend? How about a practicing adulterer or murderer or drug addict? If one of these individuals has truly shown evidence of repentance I would be comfortable but I would be a fool to have my children taught by one of these other wise and the same goes for and unrepentant homosexual.

    1. Hi Paul,

      Your questions are trap questions, more commonly known as a loaded question fallacy. If I answer yes (I would feel comfortable with a practicing pedophile – murderer, adulterer, addict – teaching children in the church) then I just admitted that I support pedophilia (or murder, adultery, addiction, etc.) or at least pedophiles teaching Sunday School. If I answer no then I’ve just admitted that pedophilia (murder, adultery, addiction) is equal to homosexuality. Either answer raises suspicion about my perspective. I’ll look past that for now and share with you the problem with this line of reasoning (other than being fallacious).

      1. All those sins are secret sins (well except for murder – I seriously doubt a “practicing murderer” would be able to get away with it for very long). No one knows who is secretly a pedophile, an adulterer, an addict. Your children could be taught by a pedophile and you wouldn’t even know it.

      In actuality I was attending a church not to long ago when the pastor was let go for having an affair with his secretary. Their affair had lasted for 2 years. No one knew about it and the entire congregation was being taught by an adulterer for 2 years.

      During my research I discovered that hotels love when there’s a pastor’s conference in town because they receive their highest revenue from pay per view porn during that week. Pornography addiction is rampant among church leaders and guess what, no one knows about it.

      A few years ago, I attended a church with a gluttonous pastor. He decried every sin from the pulpit except for gluttony. He was a hypocrite. Preached at that church for 20 years.

      My last small group leader was indicted for embezzlement along with the church’s custodian and chief bookkeeper. No one knew about it. I was being taught by a theif.

      My point is that it’s an effort in futility to put so much effort and worry into what other people are doing or not doing. No one’s perfect. That’s why Jesus told us to forget about the speck in someone else’s eye and worry about the log in our own eye (Matthew 7). If you’re so distracted with trying to figure out what sins everyone is committing you won’t be able to learn what YOU need to learn.

      2. Repentance is a matter of the heart not behaviors. Only God knows who truly repents. I worked with an addict who went to church every Sunday and “truly showed evidence of repentance”, but relapsed a few days later. It’s not our place to judge the intent of someone’s heart. We look at the many times he relapsed and think “he must not be serious about his repentance” because we are judging him by his behavior. This is a very dangerous game to play. He very well may be “truly repentant”, but his struggles with addiction are just too overpowering at the moment. We judge him, label him as weak and a sinner and cast him aside. He doesn’t need that. He needs people who can empathize and show compassion. When all he receives is pious judgment he detects that and gives up. God sees his heart and is able to tell if he’s truly repentant or not. That’s not for us to decide or judge. But either way, that’s what repentance is supposed to be. Repentance isn’t a one time event, it’s a daily activity. That’s why we can’t rely on what we perceive as “evidence of repentance” because it’s a matter of the heart not behaviors.

      3. You seem to be confusing repentance with perfection. Since only God knows the heart (Jeremiah 17:10) and rewards/punishes accordingly, there’s no way that we humans could ever tell of an individual has repented or not. Anyone could “truly show evidence of repentance” and still be an imperfect sinner. That’s not a good gauge of someone’s heart or intent (we shouldn’t be gauging people’s heart in the first place – see #s 1 and 2 above).

      4. Homosexuality is a separate issue from pedophilia, adultery, murder, addiction, etc. They shouldn’t be compared.

      5. There’s a difference between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual behaviors. One is a matter of attraction (temptation) while the other is a matter of behavior. But again I submit to you that someone could be a homosexual (tempted to engage in homosexual behaviors) and we might never know it. Even so, someone could be engaging in homosexual behaviors and still we might never know it. What’s more, even if you somehow knew that your child’s Sunday School teacher was homosexual, how do you know if he/she is unrepentant or not? There’s absolutely no possible way (unless you are omniscient) that you could ever know that. (Besides, I think it’s a stretch to think that an unrepentant homosexual would be teaching Sunday School anyway – unless he/she was hiding it in which case you wouldn’t know, see above – so it’s of no consequence).

      So anyway, I hope that answers your questions.

      1. You are correct in what you say but what you misunderstood by the questions is that if we knowingly allow a person with questionable character to teach then we are putting the students at risk. As you say, usually we don’t know who these people are. That being said, how do I know whether or not a homosexual is active? When I mentioned the pedophile, etc. etc. I was talking about those who had been convicted and then claimed to have repented. These were not trap questions. I do not equate repentance with perfection. To truly repent means to discontinue living for self and to live for God. A practicing homosexual has not repented. There is a difference between a practicing homosexual, or whatever our past sin(s) have been and one who fails from time to time to resist temptation. Why did YOU ASSUME I was trying to trap you. The questions I asked are perfectly legitimate.

        1. We all have “questionable character”. No one has the right or duty (except for maybe a Judge and Jury in court – remember “innocent until proven guilty”?) to label anyone in such a way. The seminary trained pastor is no better than the lay leader who struggles with same sex attraction. If students study the Word (or have parents who guide them in what they are being taught) then there is no risk.

          Again, if we follow scripture then we realize that it’s none of our business to try and figure out if someone is repented or not. Repentance is an act between the individual and God – no one else. When we try to determine who has “truly repented” we are judging their heart. Unless you are God you have no authority, right, ability or power to do that.

          We are all “practicing” sinners. We all have hang ups that we struggle with on a daily basis. We all have to repent often. Why can’t a convicted pedophile repent? I don’t understand your reasoning here. Placing a hierarchy on sin is a manmade construct. There isn’t support for it in scriptures.

          I didn’t assume you were trying to trap me. The questions you asked were trap questions (research loaded question fallacy). It’s a logical fallacy. Regardless of intent, that’s what you did.

        2. Bruce L. Scheffler

          I am sorry, who do you know that does not have a questionable character? I have met a lot of people in my short life and not any of them have walked on water…we are all questionable since non of us are infallible. Jesus made it real clear when He said for us to judge we must step outside of the world to do that…hmmm…nope sorry do not want to fall in that trap…I cannot walk on water…sure glad you can though…(and yes I am being sarcastic…)

Comments are closed.