Started by Richard Johnson, March 03, 2009, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on March 06, 2009, 10:03:51 PM I also know there was famous argument between Bouman and David Yeago at a Call to Faithfulness Conference on this issue, but I never seen a transcript of it, so I don't know what was said.David Charlton
Quote from: Team Hesse on March 07, 2009, 11:43:23 AMThe GLBT issue can and should be framed as an issue of the Gospel, in my opinion, because it is finally about the nature of the Church's proclamation. Do we proclaim "Your sins are forgiven for Jesus' sake" or do we proclaim "All are welcome in Jesus' name"? If we bless what should be forgiven, we are denying the Gospel to whoever is receiving this false blessing. That is no compassion at all, to encourage a person in their fallenness and deny them the comfort of the forgiveness of sins. This last statement applies to a host of people, not just GLBT folks. It is reminiscent of the first chapter of the Hammer of God when pastor Savonius first contacts dying Johannes, the only words of comfort he can offer to this afflicted sinner on the edge of death is "You weren't really that bad... your life was really fairly good..." and the like. And poor dying Johannes lays there afflicted because he knows he's a sinner -- until peasant Katrina shows up and says "Yes, Johannes, you are indeed a sinner. But don't you know that Jesus is a greater Savior than you are a sinner?" And poor old Johannes hears the Gospel, accepts the sacrament and dies in peace. Katrina showed more compassion by a country mile than Savonius did. Fortunately, Savonius learned that. Can the ELCA?Lou
Quote from: peter_speckhard on March 08, 2009, 09:29:19 PMLou, I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. You consistently claim that all our works are filthy rags. Everything we do is sinful because we are by nature in bondage to sin. This is true so far as justification goes. However, all a gay couple is asking your church to do is treat their "marriage" the same way your church treats your marriage to Deb. According to you, every aspect of your own marriage is 100% sinful because you and Deb are sinners. Ditto their gay "relationship". They aren't asking that the church say they aren't sinning in all they do; they're asking that the church treat their sin like your sin. I do not agree with them because I do not agree with you on this matter. I'm sure they'd be happy to acknowledge their relationship as sinful in the same sense that you acknowledge that your relationship to Deb is sinful. Your church is a RIC congregation when it comes to sinner husbands with sinner wives; what is the big deal with being RIC with two sinner husbands? Again, they don't want to be declared righteous in their relationship; they merely want to be declared no different than you in their relationship. Are they? If so, why?
Quote from: DCharlton on March 09, 2009, 04:19:59 PMLou, You said:As Scott Y. has pointed out consistently, there is no positive reference to same-sex sexual liason to be found in scripture. If all is locked under sin and there is no positive command which would enable a person to "sin boldly and even more boldly trust in the righteousness of Christ," then it seems to me we are dealing with something which simply cannot be encouraged. Now what we have been discussing is the idea that, "Disagreements over the Law should not be church dividing. Only disagreements over the Gospel rise to that level."I believe that is a false premise. Let me show you why.1. If we say, "Disagreement over the Law are not church dividing."2. And, "Both positive commands and negative commands are Law and not Gospel."3. And, "There are many negative commands and no positive commands concerning same sex marriage."4. Disagreement over same sex marriage should not be church dividing because it concerns the Law not the Gospel.Either the premise that disagreement over the Law is not necessary is wrong or the Sexuality Statement is correct in saying that the issue of same sex marriage should not be church dividing.
Quote from: DCharlton on March 09, 2009, 06:20:34 PMI think we can agree that IN SOME CASES disagreement over the Law can be church dividing. Disagreement over the Law is not necessarily Church dividing, and in some cases is should not be church dividing. One issue we did not discuss was slavery. I many cases slaves were allowed to hear the Gospel. In some cases slaves were allowed into the same church as their owners. So, if slavery did not necessarily prevent slaves from hearing the Gospel, should it have been church dividing? David Charlton
QuoteThe Word of God to the obstinate slave holder would have been "Slavery is a damnable sin, repent" (Law).