"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.What is the saving power of God? It is the gospel. What is the gospel? It is the saving power of God. How does this power save us? By believing in Jesus Christ. What is the content of the gospel? The disclosure of the righteousness (or, justice) of God. What is the righteousness/justice of God? (And, to go back a question or two, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ?)
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith'."
Romans 1:16-17
Ah! Read Romans 1:18 to the end ...
Incidentally, Paul restates all this at the end, Romans 16:25-27.
Ah! Read Romans 1:18 to the end
ReplyDeleteIt might result in a visit from the police if you live in Great Britain.
Of course Satan in his deceit has mislead many and used this as a weapon to distract people from the Gospel message and to attack it as out of date reasoning that when the Apostle Paul wrote these words he lacked up-to-date knowledge.
The worship of sexuality is the Golden Calf of our age
And, denial of God's gift of sexuality is the blind-spot of the Church.
ReplyDelete"And, denial of God's gift of sexuality is the blind-spot of the Church."
ReplyDeleteSo, Ron, you know, do you, that homosexuality is God's "gift"? Strange how God forgot to tell any of his prophets and apostles this, so thst they got it wrong for thousands of years. And what about other "sexualities"? They are God's "gift" too, are there?
I don't expect you to answer this, because your theology is incoherent and contradictory. But you should try to think logically, if not biblically and catholicly.
+Martin
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteI urge you to reconsider your proclivity to obsess here about the church and sexuality. Barely a comment goes by from you without some mention of sexuality!
The church does not have a blindspot about sexuality. It does have a prophetic role (to warn against the danger of idolatry) and a teaching role (to represent the will of God on the way in which humans express their sexuality).
Martin has a point: if the Spirit of God is a responsible moral agent, what was the Spirit doing for the millennia when the Spirit gave the impression that God's will for sexuality was different to what you say the Spirit is teaching today?
Wiythout going into the subject too deeply - because it might offend the host of this blog and his conservative anti-Gay readers,
ReplyDeleteI will just sday that "Yes, I do know that intrinsic homosexuals who are also devout Christians know in their bodies, minds and souls that they are homosexual by nature - and not by malicious intent. (Why don't you ask them?)
Persistent attacks on LGBTs on this site - because of who they are by nature - is counter to the Gospel understanding of diversity in Creation, and God's purpose in it's diversity.
I am not saying this lightly, but by a profound personal knowledge of the reality.
I am also aware of the biblical injunction: "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Kyrie eleison!
N.B. If you do not want me to comment on your blog Peter - with a view different from your own; Just tell me, publicly, here.
Agape, Father Ron
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteYou are always welcome to comment here and if you choose to link nearly everything here in some way to homosexuality/GLBT, well, I will live with that ...
Peter, thank you for your tolerance of me on your site. I do not write about the issues of gender and sexuality lightly. They happen to be subjects I do know something about.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems that, at the moment in the Anglican Communion, these two subjects are the tipping point for some, who are so incensed by them that they have schismatically moved out of the communion - in judgement of a class of Christians who happen to be either female or those who are termed L.G.B. or T.
In the culture of the Gospel of Christ's reconciling acceptance of ALL people - even sinners - I feel duty-bound to protest at the exclusivist tendencies of certain conservative Christians who deny the reality and authenticity of Gay Christians - as being deliberately perverse, rather than who they are innately, as persons.
Many of your posts are intimately concerned with the separatism in the communion at present. I think even you will acknowledge that the issues of women and gays are at the forefront of the arguments for those who have departed, and whom you seem to champion - at the expense of the 'marginalised'.
I am capable of arguing other causes - as and when they become important enough for me to enter the discussion. I have only so much time, and I feel the need to defend the seemingly defenceless, the sort of people woith whom Jesus seemed to spend most of his time.
Agape, Ron
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the present turn of our conversation, where I think you and I differ re Anglican Communion issues is whether the cause of the division/separation in North America is solely concerned with homosexuality (or with the combination of homosexuality and women's ordination).
In my own reading of the situation I see the division/separation as caused by a growth in diversity of theology and praxis on a range of matters so that the spread of diversity has become greater than the ability of one church in each of the USA and Canada to contain that diversity.
I would be surprised if members of ACNA agreed with you that they are operating an exclusivist church. They might also wonder about the direction of TEC which has had the effect of excluding them!