Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Paul Christian

What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ

Recommended Posts

Wow!  I was out for the whole day, and while I was gone this thread discussion exploded a bit.

Brother Paul Christian,

Throughout this thread discussion you have now said some things with which I have hearty agreement.  However, you have also said some things with which I would have definite disagreement.  Now, I do not present that in order to "stir the pot" in anyway, and I do not have any spirit of animosity.  I had been pondering over the weekend whether to engage some of the earlier points of disagreement.  However, I am now leaning away from doing so simply because so much conversation has proceeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was taught, in church, that the reason that a family is out of order is solely the man's fault for not "leading". it was also taught, and still is, that if the husband will just "lead" the wife will "follow" and everything will be Ok, But common sense itself should tell anyone that isn't always the case.  Under this teaching, the ladies were given flowers and praised for being great moms on Mother's Day, but whenever father's day rolled around the men were always castigated. After these sermons you left with a helpless feeling that, because of all the innate shortcomings of church-men. the only "real man" in the house was the pastor. Consequently I've also known wives to say things like "I'll submit when my husband learns to lead". That kind of attitude is certainly not what the Lord intended ladies to have but you can't place too much blame on them when they're hearing teaching which is nowhere to be found in the Bible.  Paul, and Peter, on the other hand addressed BOTH genders in the same message and there was a reason for this. Even women are commanded  to "lead". How so? Notice the next verse;

 

 

Quote

 

1 Peter 3 King James Version (KJV) 1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

 

If that is not "leading" I don't know what is. So, instead of having an attitude like "I'll submit to my 'hubby' when he mans-up and leads", the Bible plainly tells women to "submit" anyway. Are men ignorant or just afraid to preach this? And while we're on submission, I don't recall ever hearing anyone expounding much on stuff like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. Wow! That one passage could save alot of marriages in this sad, wretched world. I know people have to want to change, but they need the whole counsel of God. Love feeds off of love. How? Wife submits to the husband and makes him want to love and honour her, conversely, the husband loves and honours the wife and makes her want to submit. If that cycle is broken, it's not time to quit. Fix it by doing your part anyway instead of sitting back and saying I'll do mine when they do theirs. What's the title to this topic. Oh yeah, effeminate men, I'll get back to that. 🙂

The World demeans men and manliness every day and I've often wondered; has this hateful world taken away so much of the joy and honour of being a man, that it no longer appeals to many males? I'm not condoning effeminacy or anything; just an observation. But Christians are not to be like the World are we? No, we're supposed to build each other up, instead of tearing each other down. .God loves that.  BTW, Our eldest son, just took our grandson to Kentucky last weekend on a deer hunt. At 11 years old he got his first deer with a crossbow, and 3 more with a rifle. Man-stuff. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, heartstrings said:

And while we're on submission, I don't recall ever hearing anyone expounding much on stuff like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. Wow! 

Brother Wayne,

I know a pastor who preaches both confrontation and commendation unto both the men and the women of the church at appropriate times and through appropriate passages.  Indeed, I even know that that same pastor has preached on 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 in the public service of the church (carefully, yet publicly).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

I know a pastor who preaches both confrontation and commendation unto both the men and the women of the church at appropriate times and through appropriate passages.  Indeed, I even know that that same pastor has preached on 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 in the public service of the church (carefully, yet publicly).

Great! That's the way it should be.

Of course; some things should not be elaborated on, from the pulpit, any more than the Bible does. But such things, and others, need to be taught. That's why I believe, passages like Titus chapter 2 are there. Older, Godly, "sober minded" men  in the churches are to teach young men how to behave and how to treat their wives and families, and the Godly older ladies are to do the same. It's Biblical and necessary. My wife and I presently attend a Sunday School class where a younger man than myself, with his wife beside him, teaches the class.  His wife is a good lady, and I appreciate her very much, but she corrects her husband from time to time and then starts teaching herself.  Nothing wrong with what she says (except when she corrects her husband) but I just can't see how that could be what God would want for a Sunday School class. I believe the old grey-haired men, who have some of the hard knocks of "life" under their belt should be teaching the younger men the things young men need to hear and the older ladies should be teaching the young ladies for the same reasons. But with the opposite sex in a class, some things that need to be taught, cannot be. Or shouldn't be. Am I making sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion of hard versus soft preaching is interesting.  It is entangled with angry, indignant, meek, mild and weakness.  Very confusing.

But i know what works for me a listener.  I want the preacher to focus on scripture and keep control over his emotions.  If he occasionally slips into passion, ok.  But as a preaching style, it feels a bit like being bullied.

God’s wrath is legitimate, but the preacher is not God.  I need to be admonished but not yelled at.  I need to be taught and that requires objective analysis of scripture.  I need to be inspired, and that requires positive emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread topic was about effeminate men, it has moved away from that to encompass men in a leadership role, women's place in marriage, clothing, etc.

To me being effeminate is not about any of these things. Rather it is more about how a man thinks of himself, his speech being more like a female and even exaggerating the female speech patterns, it also encompasses such things as mannerisms being more female than male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall being in a church where an "effeminate man" preached from the pulpit. I have heard some relatively soft-spoken ones, I suppose, but wouldn't label them effeminate. The original poster seems to be trying to convey that if a man doesn't yell from the pulpit, he isn't being manly. If so, I disagree. But I just haven't been around any sissy preachers to be able to relate to this topic. Maybe Joel Osteen is like this? But even false teachers, get all red-faced, run the pews, pound the pulpit and scream. Some are pretty tough guys! 😄

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that the context of the effeminate passage which lists those who are "abusers of themselves with mankind" directly after effeminate.

Wouldn't it make more sense to define effeminate as the transvestite types, trannies or the flamboyant homosexuals whom purposely wear make up/clothing to appear feminine and not the purposely meek and humble men who look like men but rather follow Christ's example and not Adam's anymore?

2 Tim 2: 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (I can list many like this all true to their contexts)

There is the Biblical answer, these who puff themselves up as harsh, manly men in the name of Christ, are simply not the true servants of Christ. They serve another father unwittingly through the pride and lusts of the flesh....mammon is not money only, recognition and making a name for oneself is also mammon.

They deceive themselves but still have time to repent if they would turn from using God's Word as merely a reference for their "theology" and feed on it daily as the BREAD OF LIFE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wretched said:

Consider that the context of the effeminate passage which lists those who are "abusers of themselves with mankind" directly after effeminate.

Wouldn't it make more sense to define effeminate as the transvestite types, trannies or the flamboyant homosexuals whom purposely wear make up/clothing to appear feminine and not the purposely meek and humble men who look like men but rather follow Christ's example and not Adam's anymore?

Indeed, I believe that a false definition/description for "effeminate" has been presented.  Therefore, this thread discussion has begun with confusion.  This is one of the reasons that I asked for a more precise listing of those characteristics (in demeanor and behavior) which might be Biblically viewed as those exclusively for women, and never for men.  (Note: If we consider the actual teaching of God's Holy Word, meekness certainly CANNOT be one of these characteristics.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, wretched said:

Consider that the context of the effeminate passage which lists those who are "abusers of themselves with mankind" directly after effeminate.

Wouldn't it make more sense to define effeminate as the transvestite types, trannies or the flamboyant homosexuals whom purposely wear make up/clothing to appear feminine and not the purposely meek and humble men who look like men but rather follow Christ's example and not Adam's anymore?

2 Tim 2: 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (I can list many like this all true to their contexts)

There is the Biblical answer, these who puff themselves up as harsh, manly men in the name of Christ, are simply not the true servants of Christ. They serve another father unwittingly through the pride and lusts of the flesh....mammon is not money only, recognition and making a name for oneself is also mammon.

They deceive themselves but still have time to repent if they would turn from using God's Word as merely a reference for their "theology" and feed on it daily as the BREAD OF LIFE.

You said it better than I could. There's nothing morally or Biblical wrong with presenting the Word of God in a "soft spoken" manner. by a more refined "city guy" type man. I've heard great Bible preachers expound the scriptures that way. As well there's nothing wrong with a "rough", country backwoods "tough" man or "former marine" type either; I've heard great preaching from them too. Where either goes wrong is when pride or scorn rear their ugly heads up and, unfortunately, I've seen that from both "types"..  Not good. Rebuke (in love) when it's needed, but just don't forget that God commands us to "exhort" too.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I can't recall being in a church where an "effeminate man" preached from the pulpit. I have heard some relatively soft-spoken ones, I suppose, but wouldn't label them effeminate. The original poster seems to be trying to convey that if a man doesn't yell from the pulpit, he isn't being manly. If so, I disagree. But I just haven't been around any sissy preachers to be able to relate to this topic. Maybe Joel Osteen is like this? But even false teachers, get all red-faced, run the pews, pound the pulpit and scream. Some are pretty tough guys! 😄

Related image

What I was trying to convey was not just a quiet voice, but a soft mushy lovey dovvy voice that comes out when they are trying to be “Christ like”. There is a difference between loud and angry, which is good in its place, and just authoritative. The effeminate is neither.

We should teach as Jesus tought, as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 

Edited by Paul Christian
Add a sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I can't recall being in a church where an "effeminate man" preached from the pulpit. I have heard some relatively soft-spoken ones, I suppose, but wouldn't label them effeminate. The original poster seems to be trying to convey that if a man doesn't yell from the pulpit, he isn't being manly. If so, I disagree. But I just haven't been around any sissy preachers to be able to relate to this topic. Maybe Joel Osteen is like this? But even false teachers, get all red-faced, run the pews, pound the pulpit and scream. Some are pretty tough guys! 😄

Related image

If you read 1 Corinthians 6, the "unrighteous" in verse 9 is referring to not being saved. All of these sins can be done by saved people. Some of these people committed some of those sins. How is it that they could no longer commit any of those sins? 1 John 3:9 says that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin... yet "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. When the people who committed some of those sins got saved, those sins were no longer accounted unto them, yet they could continue in the flesh to commit such sins. Some of the saved people in Corinth may have still been in some of these sins (in the flesh), as is evidenced by the context of the rest of chapter 6. 

If you are going to say that "abusers of themselves with mankind' is talking about homosexuals, and therefor homosexuals can be saved, then you have to admit that you believe that homosexuals can continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved. If you say that no practicing homosexual is saved, then you contradict your own interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9. If you say that they can be saved if they quit sinning, then you are preaching works salvation. If you say that they can be saved, but if they commit the sin of homosexuality again, they will lose it, then you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer. 

I personally believe what Romans 1 teaches, which is that they were haters of God, became vein in their imaginations, worshiped the creation more than the creator, and God eventually gave them up to vile  affections and a reprobate mind, which is why they are homosexuals or "trannys". Romans 1 finishes off referring back to Leviticus 20;13, so I fail to see the opportunity for them to get saved, especially when God made them that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

What I was trying to convey was not just a quiet voice, but a soft mushy lovey dovvy voice that comes out when they are trying to be “Christ like”. There is a difference between loud and angry, which is good in its place, and just authoritative. The effeminate is neither.

We should teach as Jesus tought, as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 

Yes, most of us know how effeminate men act..

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

If you read 1 Corinthians 6, the "unrighteous" in verse 9 is referring to not being saved. All of these sins can be done by saved people. Some of these people committed some of those sins. How is it that they could no longer commit any of those sins? 1 John 3:9 says that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin... yet "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. When the people who committed some of those sins got saved, those sins were no longer accounted unto them, yet they could continue in the flesh to commit such sins. Some of the saved people in Corinth may have still been in some of these sins (in the flesh), as is evidenced by the context of the rest of chapter 6. 

If you are going to say that "abusers of themselves with mankind' is talking about homosexuals, and therefor homosexuals can be saved, then you have to admit that you believe that homosexuals can continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved. If you say that no practicing homosexual is saved, then you contradict your own interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9. If you say that they can be saved if they quit sinning, then you are preaching works salvation. If you say that they can be saved, but if they commit the sin of homosexuality again, they will lose it, then you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer. 

I personally believe what Romans 1 teaches, which is that they were haters of God, became vein in their imaginations, worshiped the creation more than the creator, and God eventually gave them up to vile  affections and a reprobate mind, which is why they are homosexuals or "trannys". Romans 1 finishes off referring back to Leviticus 20;13, so I fail to see the opportunity for them to get saved, especially when God made them that way. 

Wait a minute. God didn't "make them that way". The Bible says God "gave them up" unto vile affections and "gave them up" to uncleanness. They were the ones who made themselves that way. Sinners can reach a point where God "gives them up" BECAUSE....they didn't like to retain God in their knowledge. In other words, one can keep on rejecting God until the Holy Ghost stops pleading with their heart,. But I don't see what you're getting at here. We have no way of knowing which homosexuals, or "trannys' God has "given up", so, from our perspective they have a soul that can still be saved.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

Wait a minute. God didn't "make them that way". The Bible says God "gave them up" unto vile affections and "gave them up" to uncleanness. They were the ones who made themselves that way. Sinners can reach a point where God "gives them up" BECAUSE....they didn't like to retain God in their knowledge. In other words, one can keep on rejecting God until the Holy Ghost stops pleading with their heart,. But I don't see what you're getting at here. We have no way of knowing which homosexuals, or "trannys' God has "given up", so, from our perspective they have a soul that can still be saved.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

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:

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;

Whatever you may think these verses say, the verbage is clear that God did something to them. The references are proactive on God's part. It is quite clear in vs 28 that God did something to their mind, and if we use the bible to define it, we have to go to Jeremiah 6:30, which is the first use of the word "reprobate' in the bible. 

Jeremiah 6:30 Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.

Apparently, when God rejects someone, their mind becomes "reprobate", and results in them doing things which are not convenient, unclean, vile, and against nature. Men with men is against nature, just as the women leaving the natural use of the man is. God also makes reprobates out of people who change His word, take the mark of and worship the beast, and the people of Hebrews 6:4-6. We have examples such as with Moses and the pharaoh. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and then God hardened his heart. 

Homosexuality is not a sin that is common to man. It is an unnatural sin that occurs only after God does something to them. It appears that God removes whatever separates people from the natural and unnatural. The NT warns saved people about indulging in the lusts of the flesh, and of this world, but I don't believe that God gives saved people over to, or up to, unnatural, vile, unclean, and inconvenient lusts, as He did in Romans 1, for his seed remaineth in us. Neither do I believe that God does this to people that are not Hebrews 6:4-6 people. 

Romans 1 says "when they knew God". These people have already tasted of the heavenly gift. God made himself known to them, and they are without excuse. Their choices caused their foolish hearts to be darkened just like Pharaoh did. Unless someone can show me some scripture that says these people can be saved, I just can't buy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

If you read 1 Corinthians 6, the "unrighteous" in verse 9 is referring to not being saved. All of these sins can be done by saved people. Some of these people committed some of those sins. How is it that they could no longer commit any of those sins? 1 John 3:9 says that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin... yet "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. When the peoplePl who committed some of those sins got saved, those sins were no longer accounted unto them, yet they could continue in the flesh to commit such sins. Some of the saved people in Corinth may have still been in some of these sins (in the flesh), as is evidenced by the context of the rest of chapter 6. 

If you are going to say that "abusers of themselves with mankind' is talking about homosexuals, and therefor homosexuals can be saved, then you have to admit that you believe that homosexuals can continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved. If you say that no practicing homosexual is saved, then you contradict your own interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9. If you say that they can be saved if they quit sinning, then you are preaching works salvation. If you say that they can be saved, but if they commit the sin of homosexuality again, they will lose it, then you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer. 

I personally believe what Romans 1 teaches, which is that they were haters of God, became vein in their imaginations, worshiped the creation more than the creator, and God eventually gave them up to vile  affections and a reprobate mind, which is why they are homosexuals or "trannys". Romans 1 finishes off referring back to Leviticus 20;13, so I fail to see the opportunity for them to get saved, especially when God made them that way. 

Please consider my friend that passages like this within the Church Epistles confronted the tares and not the wheat within these churches. Jesus clearly stated that both wheat and tare would grow together until the harvest in all NT churches. Those he addresses before and after this immediate context are the tares, however, within the immediate passage he states:

9Know 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, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And 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.

Those born of the Spirit or the true wheat would not continue in sin willfully. God used Paul to reiterate to the tares in Corinth the true fruits of the Spirit just as our Lord preached clearly in the Gospels (Sermon on the Mount is the prime example) explaining to them clearly that they did not possess it. Too many contextual passages to demonstrate so take a look here for a more thorough explanation: What is a tare?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

If you read 1 Corinthians 6, the "unrighteous" in verse 9 is referring to not being saved. All of these sins can be done by saved people. Some of these people committed some of those sins. How is it that they could no longer commit any of those sins? 1 John 3:9 says that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin... yet "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. When the people who committed some of those sins got saved, those sins were no longer accounted unto them, yet they could continue in the flesh to commit such sins. Some of the saved people in Corinth may have still been in some of these sins (in the flesh), as is evidenced by the context of the rest of chapter 6. 

If you are going to say that "abusers of themselves with mankind' is talking about homosexuals, and therefor homosexuals can be saved, then you have to admit that you believe that homosexuals can continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved. If you say that no practicing homosexual is saved, then you contradict your own interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9. If you say that they can be saved if they quit sinning, then you are preaching works salvation. If you say that they can be saved, but if they commit the sin of homosexuality again, they will lose it, then you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer. 

I personally believe what Romans 1 teaches, which is that they were haters of God, became vein in their imaginations, worshiped the creation more than the creator, and God eventually gave them up to vile  affections and a reprobate mind, which is why they are homosexuals or "trannys". Romans 1 finishes off referring back to Leviticus 20;13, so I fail to see the opportunity for them to get saved, especially when God made them that way. 

Please consider that you are partially correct in regards to homosexuals retaining or defending the reprobate sin:

It is quite impossible for any homosexual to defend the practice and possess the Spirit of Christ. Homosexual practice and or defense of the practice is the direct result of not wanting to retain God in their knowledge. So any claim of Christ by them is a false Christ (changing the Truth of God into a lie) and not the Christ of the Bible. God calls it a reprobate mind manifesting itself with homosexual practice and defense. It is spitting directly into the face of God.

Romans 1: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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. 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: 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. 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;
 

However, you are far more critically wrong in your defense of a powerless and non transforming Gospel which is NOT the Scriptural Gospel:

For those who keep claiming that the fruit of the Spirit is a "works-based" salvation must abandon the Pauline Epistles for a time (they are too much meat for them) and focus only on the Gospels and the General Epistles. God says those are unlearned and unstable leading to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

The meat of the Word within the Pauline Epistles is contained in their contexts which, by the way, mirror of Lord's direct teachings in the Gospels. However, the weed gainsayers and their proselytes pluck out and isolate passages from their contexts to justify the works of the flesh in them that supposedly "believe" but routinely practice or defend the works of the flesh and not the works of the Spirit.

Throw away the merchandise from the gainsayers which teaches this error of the wicked making the Word of God of none effect with their traditions (just as the pharisees of Christ's Day) and listen only to God's Word and His Spirit will teach you if you truly are seeking Him.

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wretched said:

Please consider that you are partially correct in regards to homosexuals retaining or defending the reprobate sin:

It is quite impossible for any homosexual to defend the practice and possess the Spirit of Christ. Homosexual practice and or defense of the practice is the direct result of not wanting to retain God in their knowledge. So any claim of Christ by them is a false Christ (changing the Truth of God into a lie) and not the Christ of the Bible. God calls it a reprobate mind manifesting itself with homosexual practice and defense. It is spitting directly into the face of God.

Romans 1: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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. 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: 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. 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;
 

However, you are far more critically wrong in your defense of a powerless and non transforming Gospel which is NOT the Scriptural Gospel:

For those who keep claiming that the fruit of the Spirit is a "works-based" salvation must abandon the Pauline Epistles for a time (they are too much meat for them) and focus only on the Gospels and the General Epistles. God says those are unlearned and unstable leading to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

The meat of the Word within the Pauline Epistles is contained in their contexts which, by the way, mirror of Lord's direct teachings in the Gospels. However, the weed gainsayers and their proselytes pluck out and isolate passages from their contexts to justify the works of the flesh in them that supposedly "believe" but routinely practice or defend the works of the flesh and not the works of the Spirit.

Throw away the merchandise from the gainsayers which teaches this error of the wicked making the Word of God of none effect with their traditions (just as the pharisees of Christ's Day) and listen only to God's Word and His Spirit will teach you if you truly are seeking Him.

I don't believe that the fruit of the Spirit is relevant to God rejecting and giving up on people, outside of the Spirit first drawing them. Fruit is what is produced by something. While Jesus was talking about false prophets, he talks about trees that produce good or bad fruit, in Mathew 7. He said that you will know false prophets by their fruit, not saved people. Unsaved people can do all of the things listed as being the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. 

Why would we think that God keeps drawing them after God has given them over to a rejected mind, vile affections, and to do those things? God makes it clear in Hebrews 6 that it is impossible to renew them again. People that believe the sodomites can be saved have to believe that God gives them over to act like a beast, which is behavior that God says is deserving of death in the same chapter, and to have a reprobate mind, yet still wants them to get saved.  

Preachers are now telling people that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved, which is along the same lines. The bible says that their names will be taken out of the book of life, but that doesn't seem to matter to those who just want God to save everyone no matter what the bible says. Do you believe that the sodomite editors of the NIV can be saved? They have gone through Romans 1, and they have changed the Word of God, yet they have not physically died yet.

Does a sodomite have to turn from all of their sin, or just that one, to be saved? How is a sodomite going to turn from that sin when God has given him over to it, and they don't have the power to do it on their own? Is the Holy Ghost drawing the person at the same time God is causing him to have a rejected mind, and is giving him up to uncleanness? Are you thinking that God gives them over to it, they become a full blown sodomite, and then God starts drawing them to Him again? 

John 6:44 says: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:  Does God quit drawing them while He is giving them up, and giving them over? It seems really strange that God would do this to them while He was trying to get them saved, because He is giving them over to a "rejected" (reprobate) mind. What you seem to be saying is that God gives them up, and over, to do what sodomites do, and then starts drawing them again, after they have literally lost their minds. 

When I give people the gospel, I am trying to get them to understand certain things. I have literally given the gospel to mentally ill people, even while their relatives were in the background laughing at it. I would get through a point thinking that they understood it, and then they would say something that told me that they clearly didn't, and eventually, it became clear that they could not, or would not, get it. My gospel presentation is packed with scriptures, showing them from my bible, because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". 

Why would I think that people who have been given over to a reprobate mind have ears to hear? Mathew 11:15 says "he who hath ears to hear, let him hear". Doesn't this mean that some do not have ears to hear, and wouldn't we consider someone who has gone through Romans 1:17-32 with God are some who don't? Jesus told some of the false prophets of His day that they would have "never forgiveness" for speaking against the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 2 seems to add to all of this concerning the condemnation of such people. 

Why would a homosexual "defending the practice" thereof be any different than everyone else? You could say that they defend it because they are given over to it, but what about the "saved" people who defend the practice, or the unsaved, who just think it is fine and not a problem? We don't have all of God's knowledge as soon as we get saved. Someone can believe on the Lord Jesus and trust in Him for salvation and still be wrong on this issue. The only time that I would question their salvation is when they deny clear scripture, because a saved person will not reject the Word of God. 

I am not wresting the scriptures. My logic on these verses is not out in left field, it is just taking them for what they are saying, and not denying that God has a hand in making them that way. You can say that a sodomite makes the choices that lead to it, but to say that God does not proactively contribute to them becoming a sodomite is denying clear scriptures. The KJV is God's word in the English language, and these words are not hard to be understood, as you mentioned by quoting Peter. 

 

Edited by Paul Christian
add a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, wretched said:

Please consider that you are partially correct in regards to homosexuals retaining or defending the reprobate sin:

It is quite impossible for any homosexual to defend the practice and possess the Spirit of Christ. Homosexual practice and or defense of the practice is the direct result of not wanting to retain God in their knowledge. So any claim of Christ by them is a false Christ (changing the Truth of God into a lie) and not the Christ of the Bible. God calls it a reprobate mind manifesting itself with homosexual practice and defense. It is spitting directly into the face of God.

Romans 1: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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. 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: 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. 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;
 

However, you are far more critically wrong in your defense of a powerless and non transforming Gospel which is NOT the Scriptural Gospel:

For those who keep claiming that the fruit of the Spirit is a "works-based" salvation must abandon the Pauline Epistles for a time (they are too much meat for them) and focus only on the Gospels and the General Epistles. God says those are unlearned and unstable leading to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

The meat of the Word within the Pauline Epistles is contained in their contexts which, by the way, mirror of Lord's direct teachings in the Gospels. However, the weed gainsayers and their proselytes pluck out and isolate passages from their contexts to justify the works of the flesh in them that supposedly "believe" but routinely practice or defend the works of the flesh and not the works of the Spirit.

Throw away the merchandise from the gainsayers which teaches this error of the wicked making the Word of God of none effect with their traditions (just as the pharisees of Christ's Day) and listen only to God's Word and His Spirit will teach you if you truly are seeking Him.

When you talk about wresting the scriptures, I don't think it is wrong to compare scripture with scripture. There is no context deficiency between the verses mentioned in Romans 1, Hebrews 6, Mathew 11, 2 Peter 2, Revelation 22, or the example I mentioned concerning Pharaoh and Moses. 

Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

Exodus 9:12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.

The same thing is happening in Romans 1. First God makes Himself known to them. Then, when they knew God, they became vein in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Then professing themselves to be wise, they become fools. Then they fully turn away from God, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. At this point, God becomes proactive in giving them over to their lusts and a reprobate mind. In this process they become worse and worse until they are "filled with all unrighteousness", and until they are without natural affection, implacable, and unmerciful. 

Romans 1 says that these reprobates are implacable and unmerciful. Pharaoh was implacable and unmerciful. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that pharaoh would not let God's people go. Why would God do that, when God wanted His people to be let go? God did not want Pharaoh's heart to soften, but rather wanted pharaoh to be destroyed in the end. Romans 1 also says that they are "deserving of death". 

Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." I don't think that God has changed how He does things. The same God hardened Pharaohs heart that gives people over to a reprobate mind. It is the same God that said in Hosea 9:15 "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters" that said in Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book". 

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

These people are "made to be taken and destroyed". God hardened pharaoh's heart so that he would be destroyed. The Romans 1 people are also made to be destroyed. God pushes them along until they are deserving of death. 

In Judges 20:48 the men of Israel are slaughtering the Benjamites because of Judges 19, and they slaughtered them "as the beast". Jude references Sodom and Gamorrha and refers to what those people know naturally as being that of "brute beasts'. The old testament law requires that a brute beast be put down, or "destroyed", which is what 2 Peter 2:12 is referencing. One of the attributes of a false prophet is sexual deviancy. Many false prophets are found out to be child molesters or sodomites. Just as a person who is saved is saved forever, so it is with the children of the devil. Paul referred to a sorcerer in acts 13:10 as a child of the devil, and said that he was the enemy of "all righteousness", just as Romans 1 says they are full of "all unrighteousness". 

When I see effeminate men preaching, all I have to do is check their gospel, and if it is a false gospel, I can rightfully wonder if they are a sodomite or child molester, because that is one of the false prophet's attributes. There is no room in God's word for suffering an effeminate man to teach, especially when they possess the mannerisms of a woman, because it is not natural, and what is not natural might have been given over by God. 

Jude says there are people who crept in unawares who were ordained of old for this condemnation, and goes on to reference the people of Sodom and Gomorrha as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 

You can take all of the scriptures that speak of God's love and long suffering, and apply it to these people, saying that they can get saved right up until they die, but Jude 1:12 says that living people are twice dead, plucked up by the roots. The only way that a living person can be twice dead, it to be reserved for the second death, which is hell. If they are reserved for the second death, their names are no longer written in the book of life. 

God draws all men to Him, but there is a point where some people are those who "God will love no more". God so loved the world, therefor God loves everybody, until He doesn't. We can't save what God won't save. 

There is no lack of parallel context in these passages. 

Genesis 6:3 My spirit will not always strive with man.

Eph 4:19 who being past feeling have given themselves over

Hebrews 12:17 ..for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears

In Hosea 4 God is no longer chastening, and in vs 17 says "Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone. 

John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Glen Schunk, Jack Hyles, and John R Rice all taught the reprobate doctrine. 

 

Edited by Paul Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my friend, you have made it abundantly clear early on that your views on doctrine have been determined through Mr  Anderson's lenses. You can no longer distinguish his teachings from Scripture.

All I am asking you to do is to get it from God alone and you will start to comprehend the Spirit of Truth and be free of this spirit of error. Follow the below link with an open heart unadulterated by men. 

Just try it for a few months and you will see the differences. Trust me you will get hooked and will see His Word as He intended, as The BREAD OF LIFE.

Take it from a Former tare who followed all the "great men of God" for 30 plus years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Paul Christian said:

Glen Schunk, Jack Hyles, and John R Rice all taught the reprobate doctrine. 

John R. Rice, may be a reprobate in your eyes, but in the eyes of many strong IFB saints, he was a man of God, filled with the Holy Spirit of God, a winner on countless souls, a writer of many excellent books & tracts & pamphlets, and walked close to the Lord Jesus Christ. John R. Rice boldly stood against evolution, Calvinists, liberals, moral wickedness in society, moral wickedness in Hollywood, and was a staunch defender of the faith.

In our perverted day and age, many false teachers, liberals, Pastor Steven Anderson and his followers in the NewIFB Movement, find fault, nit-pickers I call them, with John R. Rice, Charles H. Spurgeon, and other men of God, who walked with God in every aspect of the word.

To call John R. Rice a reprobate is not of the Lord. And, to call out his name in a thread called, "What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ," and insinuate that John R. Rice is an effeminate man of God is a lie, deceitful, and a shame.

Edited by Alan
capitalization spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alan said:

John R. Rice, may be a reprobate in your eyes, but in the eyes of many strong IFB saints, he was a man of God, filled with the Holy Spirit of God, a winner on countless souls, a writer of many excellent books & tracts & pamphlets, and walked close to the Lord Jesus Christ. John R. Rice boldly stood against evolution, Calvinists, liberals, moral wickedness in society, moral wickedness in Hollywood, and was a staunch defender of the faith.

In our perverted day and age, many false teachers, liberals, Pastor Steven Anderson and his followers in the NewIFB Movement, find fault, nit-pickers I call them, with John R. Rice, Charles H. Spurgeon, and other men of God, who walked with God in every aspect of the word.

To call John R. Rice a reprobate is not of the Lord. And, to call out his name in a thread called, "What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ," and insinuate that John R. Rice is an effeminate man of God is a lie, deceitful, and a shame.

I think you might want to read my post again. I said they “taught” the reprobate doctrine, sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wretched said:

Oh my friend, you have made it abundantly clear early on that your views on doctrine have been determined through Mr  Anderson's lenses. You can no longer distinguish his teachings from Scripture.

All I am asking you to do is to get it from God alone and you will start to comprehend the Spirit of Truth and be free of this spirit of error. Follow the below link with an open heart unadulterated by men. 

Just try it for a few months and you will see the differences. Trust me you will get hooked and will see His Word as He intended, as The BREAD OF LIFE.

Take it from a Former tare who followed all the "great men of God" for 30 plus years.

Anderson may be a good teacher, but he is not the Word of God. God’s words speak for themselves, and one reason that I respect the man is for defending the word of God and pointing out continually the right gospel. 
1 John 2:27 tells us that because we have the Holy Spirit to teach us, we don’t need a man to teach us. Anderson was the man who pointed me to that. 
The reality is that when a person casts down the presuppositions of past teaching by men, and reads the Bible for themselves, they will find many things that contradict popular doctrine, and that is what people really don’t like, so they blame it on one man teaching it, rather than refuting the doctrine with scripture.

I’m not quoting Anderson, I’m quoting the Bible. If I wanted to quote men, I could quote many current preachers, many modern teachers, and many from antiquity. Little children repeat what others say to make a point, while the learned speak to the authority. I have not exhibited child like behavior hear, and do not succumb to it. I could quit listening to all preaching for 20 years and the Bible would still say the same thing. Why would I seek a spirit that doesn’t agree with the Word of God?

21 minutes ago, Alan said:

I know what you said.

Paul,

You are the one who is teaching reprobate doctrine. You cannot 'rightly divide' Romans chapter one and the other passages you listed.

Why were you saying that I was calling John R Rice a reprobate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...