A North Carolina Pastor calls for gays and lesbians to be fenced in so they can eventually die off

[jimcarwest] I apologize for offending your grammatical tastes.

Not offended in the least. Think nothing of it.

[Alex Guggenheim] And exactly what “justice” did the good Pastor deny the reprobates?

By this logic, any pastor can make a grandstanding call for those characterized by covetousness or lying or fearfulness (Rev. 21:8) to be fenced off and left for dead and its perfectly fine. After all, to be guilty of one is to be guilty of all.

There is a difference between calling sin sin and abominations abominations in the fear of the Lord and climbing onto the Judge’s bench and banging the gavel for Him.

[Alex Guggenheim] And now to the alleged advocating the “murder” of homosexuals:

Leviticus 18:22

“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.”

I’ll leave it to those of you who wish to lecture God in heaven about where he went wrong at this point.

Alex, since when did you start living in Old Testament Israel? And why aren’t you quoting these verses instead?:

[Matthew 5:43-47] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[Galatians 6:10] So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Hatred for sinners - of any kind - has no place in the New Testament. It is absolutely correct to despise sin, but not to advocate the death of sinners. Only God can do that, since He’s created all of us and rules over all.

Jay,

I’m sure you were just being brief, but wouldn’t you agree that hatred of sinners has no place in the OT either. I think Deuteronomy 32:35 would be a more applicable passage here. Perhaps when Alex gets a direct command from God for himself to destroy evildoers, he can share that instead of quoting someone else’s command as the NC pastor seems to have done.

@Chip -

Good point.

Oh well I am so sorry that God was guilty of hating the homosexuals and finally changed his mind and started loving them. Good thing you could help him see the light. Or could it be that civil restrictions and punishments for gross immorality and even further, sexual perversions, are matters of loving protection from a sub-culture whose corruption is a threat to social stability and the fundamental integrity of divine institutions essential to man. But no, that can’t be love.

As to loving your enemies, that is for the individual Christian and the corporation of Christ’s body and not the state in protecting its citizens from threats both without and withind I am dure the good Pastor had the state in mind.

So hey all you serial murderers looks like it is your day with the Christians seeing that now that they must love their enemies they aren’t allowed suggest to the state anything be done but “keep the coversation open “(thanks Biola ha ha ha). Context people, context.

I subscribed to this thread so the posts would be emailed to me as they happened. After I read one of Alex’s posts that simply left me speechless, the next email I received was from a service that emails a verse for the day. The verse was Jeremiah 49:16 and the title was Deceived by Pride:

“The horror you inspire has deceived you, and the pride of your heart, you who live in the clefts of the rock, who hold the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as the eagle’s, I will bring you down from there, declares the LORD.”

It seemed pretty appropriate for this particular topic!!!

Only one person on this thread has been accusing God of anything. Furthermore, you create a straw man with an unnecessary dichotomy.

Or could it be that civil restrictions and punishments for gross immorality and even further, sexual perversions, are matters of loving protection from a sub-culture whose corruption is a threat to social stability and the fundamental integrity of divine institutions essential to man.

This does not have to represent either love or hate, but simply righteousness.

Yeah. I mean Alex, only you assume that because God can do something, you can too.

I’ve just skimmed this thread but I’m sure you guys are way off. Alex can’t possibly be arguing for a return to civil corporal punishment based on OT law. We have a NT to guide us, so he can’t possibly be defending this pastor’s outrageous words by appealing to OT law!

[Greg Long] I’ve just skimmed this thread but I’m sure you guys are way off. Alex can’t possibly be arguing for a return to civil corporal punishment based on OT law. We have a NT to guide us, so he can’t possibly be defending this pastor’s outrageous words by appealing to OT law!

Greg, while this is a rare thing to come out of my mouth let me say, you’re right, heh. Okay, kidding aside, yes, you are right, I am not advocating this.

However, I am making a point many are missing, even you.

This OT law on this matter, while binding for the Theocracy of Israel, had a practical reason. It was not ritualistic. It was a criminal code regarding sexual perversion which threatened the stability of the Theocracy if permitted to freely exists.

Nothing in the NT requires governments today to not see the value in this nor does it condemn any government that might see the value of its practicality. It is true that government, today or outside The Theocracy, is not bound to adhere to this but neither are they forbidden from gaining the fruits of its enforcement if they believe its principle to be applicable nor are they condemned in doing so. In fact, Romans and Peter both have words about government’s legitimate codification of criminal behavior and its enforcement which historically includes certain forms of sexual perversion (and today certain forms of sexual perversion, conveniently called orientation, are still criminalized throughout the world, understanding its threat to social welfare):

Romans 13:1-5 NASV

vs1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
vs2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
vs3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
vs5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Peter 2:12-14 NIV

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

If a government determines that the perversion of homosexuality is indeed evil and a threat to social stability, the formation and enforcement criminal penalties regarding sexual perversion by non-Theocratic governments are not condemned in the Bible and, as exampled in the OT, it can be up to being executed. Again, governments are not bound by this since they are not The Theocracy, but nothing forbids them from seeing the wisdom in providing social protection in this manner.

Now as to what “we”, the church is suppose to be doing.

We, the church, are not a Theocracy for human government, so we are not led by the OT protocols meant for The Theocracy of Israel. We have another protocol. We have a spiritual Theocracy at the moment to be realized literally later on. So strictly speaking, the church’s treatment and the individual Christian’s response to sexual perversion is with regard to spiritual matters. Such persons are not permitted to be members of local assemblies and they may be guarded against within our assemblies, families and private individual lives if we believe their influence to be one of countermanding and counter-influencing of our Christian lives. We are to keep our personal lives safeguard and the body of Christ safeguard from such influences. Now, this does not mean we will not interact or bring the message of the gospel to reprobates, but it does mean that there is a protocol to follow with respect to how we are to respond. They are not friends of God, they are enemies but still, via the body of Christ they should be given the gospel and the same grace afforded all persons, again with respect to the ministry of the gospel.

We are to, with regard to spiritual matters and functioning as ambassadors of God’s kingdom and the gospel message, always love those who oppose God for the sake of the gospel.

But this does not nullify in anyway the legitimate function of government (which does not fall under spiritual protocols but divine establishment protocols) of codifying sexual perversion as criminal and responding with criminal penalties. And this legitimate exercise of government includes the participation of Christians who also may legitimately participate in government and its codification of principles of divine establishment. They do not have to codify, as criminal, the sexual perversion of homosexuality, but governments are free to do if they consider it a threat to the stability of their state.

Which speaks to why so many Christians have so many misunderstandings regarding the Christian life and how it is to be lived with respect to the divine institutions of self, marriage, family, government and the church, all with distinct protocols and objectives from God.

So quite possibly the Pastor (I have already made this point but it seems to be escaping a few) had the state in mind with regard to protecting society from the influence of reprobate minds. The worst I see one could possibly charge him with is a certain degree of unawareness with regard to his potential audience and not explaining how he came to his conclusions.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Only one person on this thread has been accusing God of anything. Furthermore, you create a straw man with an unnecessary dichotomy.

Or could it be that civil restrictions and punishments for gross immorality and even further, sexual perversions, are matters of loving protection from a sub-culture whose corruption is a threat to social stability and the fundamental integrity of divine institutions essential to man.

This does not have to represent either love or hate, but simply righteousness.

Chip,

I didn’t create the dichotomy, someone else did by suggesting that the mere suggesting of codifying sexual perversion as criminal and enforcing it was based in hate. You will have to talk to them. But to your suggestion that it could be “simply righteousness”, it could be but then righteousness normally has its foundation in the consideration of others which is an application of genuine love for others. But I am glad you see such laws as being based in righteousness :)

[Alex Guggenheim] We have a spiritual Theocracy at the moment to be realized literally later on.

That should read, “to be realized physically later on”.