Can You Be Gay and Christian?

[Download MP3]
Does God’s Word really speak against homosexual practice? Or would Jesus accept homosexual men and women as they are, without changing them?

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Jesus came into a fallen world because human beings had sinned and rebelled against God; we were hopelessly lost in our sin and could not save ourselves. That sin and brokenness takes on a thousand different forms; one of those forms of sin and brokenness is homosexuality.  Jesus died to save, forgive, and transform: homosexual and heterosexual alike. I believe in the power of the blood of Jesus.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Whatever it is that you struggle with, whatever it is in your life that is contrary to God’s ways, it is not in your best interest to give yourself to it.  No matter how hard it is, there is a way of escape through the cross, and there is even a place of transformation.  Look to the One who is called Savior for good reason!

SPECIAL OFFER! AVAILABLE ALL WEEK!

Sign up to be a torchbearer (monthly supporter of $25 or more) and receive:

  • a signed copy of Revolution + CD Message, “All Things Are Possible to Him Who Believes”
  • Unlimited Access to All Online Classes ($50 Savings Per Class!!!)
  • 15% off all Online Bookstore purchases
  • New CD Message Every Month

OR, Simply Purchase “Revolution” & CD Message for $15

Call (800) 278-9978 to take advantage of this offer!

Other Resources:

Can You Be Gay and Christian? [5 DVD set] Lecture Series with Dr. Brown; Topics include:  Are We Using the Bible to Sanction Anti-Homosexual Prejudice? | Is There Such a Thing as “Ex-Gay”? | Was Jesus Tolerant? | A Christian Response to Homosexuality: A Dialogue Between Mr. Harry Knox, Director of Faith and Religion of the Human Rights Campaign, and Dr. Michael L. Brown | Ministering to the Gay and Lesbian Community

A Christian Response to Homosexuality: Brown/Knox Debate [DVD] An important debate between Dr. Michael Brown, Director of the Coalition of Conscience, and Mr. Harry Knox, Director of Faith and Religion for the Human Rights Campaign, on the topic of “A Christian Response to Homosexuality.”

A Queer Thing Happened To America by Dr. Brown: This book chronicles the amazing transformation of America over the last forty years, literally, from Stonewall Inn to the White House, and addresses the question head-on: Is there really a gay agenda, or is it a fiction of the religious right?

_

Interview with Michael Brown on the Critics of A Queer Thing Happened to America

Are Evangelicals Obsessed with Homosexuality? Free Article by Dr. Brown


66 Comments
  1. Greetings. First, I don’t think that “gay” (as a permanent state) is biblically defined. First Corinthians 6:9 says that this is one of the categories where people are committing sins. The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom. This is a situation where having sex with someone of the same sex is a sin. Some people were these things but they were washed, sanctified, and justified. No other conditions were necessarily changed. Temptation to commit these sins may still exist.
    You can be a Christian– but you aren’t being obedient if you’re having sex outside of a man and woman marriage.

  2. I would argue that it is impossible to have multiple wives and concubines yet be a man after God’s own heart, write countless worship songs and lead God’s people, as David did. Apparently God doesn’t agree with me!

  3. Polygamy and bigamy were not against the Mosaic law, whereas homosexual sex was. Monogamy is only explicitly defined as the ideal in the new testament though it does use Genesis 1 and 2 as its reference for this. The Mosaic law though does seem to present monogamy is the ideal also. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife…..” It says wife not wives which I assume to mean that a wife is the ideal as opposed to wives, that said the rest of the law didn’t prohibit bigamy.

  4. To clarify my previous comment see
    1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
    Other relevant passages – Deut.17:14-20, 2 Sam.5:12-16 & 1 Chron.3:1-9.
    I share Dr Brown’s perspective on homosexual practice, but hesitate to be dogmatic that it’s impossible for somebody who sins in that way to be a Christian. Following that logic, we should question David’s status as a true believer on the basis of his deviant lifestyle.

  5. Are you Mike and Brad truly Born Again no you can not be a real Christian and be gay that is impossiable or have multiple wives and concubines. Who the Son sets free is free indeed, Dr. Brown contuine to preach the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ we need someone like you to stand for the truth and this world is so corrupted and all of those churches that have gay pastor, gay, people, that is not a real Church The Lord God will destroy all of you unless you repent you will go to hell. God did not make Steve and Steve he made Adam and Eve it will never be anything other that what God Created read Roman 1:1- Dr. Brown God Bless you and may the Lord Jesus Christ contuine to Bless you once again thank for allowing the Lord to use you for this topic especially.

  6. I’m not following your logic Mike. Could you possibly explain further? David’s deviant lifestyle???

  7. “I would argue that it is impossible to have multiple wives and concubines yet be a man after God’s own heart, write countless worship songs and lead God’s people, as David did. Apparently God doesn’t agree with me!” —Mike

    After reading your post a few more times, I think your logic is simply wrong. Believing that gay marriage/lifestyle is sinful doesn’t force one (following same “logic/reason”) to question David’s “status as a true believer”. Not even close imo. I can’t see how that follows at all.

  8. Just like to add that scripture is clear that David didn’t live a continuously deviant lifestyle. Yes, he sinned but he didn’t continuously disobey and rebel against God like the unsaved. According to scripture, David is one of the righteous elect. Why should we question that? Hopefully I’m misunderstanding you.

  9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

    nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10

    That’s pretty clear to me.

  10. His arguement is clear and needs to be addressed IMO.

    If someone has multiple wifes (and concubines) we call them a fornicator or adulterer and it appears they don’t inherit the kingdom of God. Then how did David get a pass? If 1 Cor 6:9 has exceptions, then what other exceptions does it have?

  11. Responding to posts disagreeing with my earlier point regarding David, if you study the passages I cited you’ll see that he had numerous wives and concubines. This wasn’t a minor glitch, but a lifestyle choice in conflict with God’s requirement for his people, especially kings [Deut.17:14-20].
    It says in 1 Kings 15:5 that David obeyed God fully throughout his life apart from his adultery with Bathsheba and murdering her husand Uriah. It appears that polygamy and concubines didn’t trouble God in OT. Whereas picking up sticks on the Sabbath Day was so offensive as to demand stoning to death.
    I do note condone homosexual practice and agree it is contrary to Scripture. I’m only saying that we cannot play God and consign every professing gay Christian to hell. He is their judge not me.
    Another point, would you not argue that it’s impossible to hate Jews and be a Christian. By that token Martin Luther must be in hell. I don’t think Dr Brown would go that far. Who is to say that being gay is more sinful than that?

  12. There is a difference between David taking many wives, which God allowed, at least at the time, and homosexual behavior which God has never allowed ANYWHERE in scipture. As you correctly point out, the scriptures state that David obeyed God fully throughout his life, so it wasn’t seen as a sin in those cases. Many have speculated on why this was, and the most common (and reasonable) one I heard was that this was allowed because of the extremely brutal wars that took place during those times. With the high rate of casualties in all the wars, many women were left abandoned and powerless. It was extremely difficult for women to survive in that cultural alone so they were left with basically no options to continue living. In these unfortunate situations I believe God allowed, for a time, to let men take these women so they could survive. I believe there is great sciptural support for this as well.

    2Samuel 12 7-8

    7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I GAVE your master’s house to you, and your master’s WIVES into your arms. I GAVE you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU EVEN MORE

    As you can see from that passage, it says God gives David wiveS. The context of this passage is when God sends Nathan to rebuke David for what he did to Bathsheba and Uriah. He emphasizes one of the reasons why David’s adultery/murder was so bad, was because God had given him everything he ever needed and even more and yet he took from Uriah who had so little in comparison. God states that if everything he had given David wasn’t enough for him, he would have given him even more!!! I think with a passage like that it’s quite clear that God not only allowed, but gave David multiple wives for HIS own purposes during that time period. You mentioned 1 Kings 15:5 and that’s actually a verse that argues against the point you are trying to make.

    1Kings 15:5

    3 He committed all the sins his father had done before him; HIS HEART was not FULLY devoted to the LORD his God, as the HEART of DAVID his forefather had BEEN. 4 Nevertheless, for DAVID’S sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem by raising up a son to succeed him and by making Jerusalem strong. 5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

    Again, this passage states that David had a heart fully devoted to GOD and that outside of the Uriah incident, he had followed all of the Lords commands. This of course is further support that David taking wives was not seen by God as a sinful or rebellious act at that time. We know adultery is a serious offense to God, he even uses adultery metaphors to describe what it’s like when HIS people turn their backs on him.

    Jer 3 6-10

    6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. 9 Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. 10 In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense,” declares the LORD.

    Adultery is seen as an evil act in God’s eyes, and it’s not something God just simply overlooks. If David had been continuously committing adultery with his wives in God’s eyes, it’s not something God would have ignored an even inspired his future biblical writers to ignore in passages like 1 King 15:5. It’s wrong for us to bring this charge of continuous rebellious adultery until death to David when God didn’t, and considers David to have had a heart fully devoted to HIM. I think it’s a dangerous thought to even consider a blatantly rebellious adulterer (or sinner) would ever be counted as righteous by God as David was an has a chance to be saved on judgement day.

    “I do note condone homosexual practice and agree it is contrary to Scripture. I’m only saying that we cannot play God and consign every professing gay Christian to hell. He is their judge not me.”

    I understand your concern Mike, I’m not trying to accuse you of being a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle. I’m just trying to point out that it’s a mistake to make an argument for those partaking in the homosexual lifestyle, possibly being saved, by coming up with supporting evidence from the story of David’s life recorded in scripture. David is consistently portrayed in scripture as a righteous King, one after God’s own heart. Homosexuality is always consistently said to be an evil act, and is never condoned at any time in scripture.

  13. So the crux of this argument so far has been: can a person live a life that continuously and consciously departs from God’s will and be a Christian? But has any follower of Christ ever been anything other than continuously and consciously sinful?

    The problem seems to be with the denial by gays and lesbians that homosexual behavior is wrong – to essentially disbelieve or adopt a heterodox interpretation of those passages of scripture that touch on right sexuality.

    So the deeper question seems to be whether it is possible to be a Christian while holding a wrong theology?

  14. Wow, that’s a loaded question you asked there Ryan! Haha! That’s very thought provoking and would start a discussion that would probably only end from fatigue rather than coming up with a definite answer. I’ve had those types of discussions several times with others and many times in my own head.

    Having said all of that, I don’t believe this conversation was necessarily going down that route. It wasn’t the main reason why I first responded, and I don’t believe my conversation with Mike and others would have gone to those extremes without some type of “resolution”. At least that’s what I believe.

    I guess you could sum up my posts (and probably 90%) of the thread to the question(s), ” Did David live and die as an unrepentant adulterer in God’s eyes because of his many wives?” or “Was David living in sin by having more than one wife? I think the biblical evidence is clear that God didn’t consider David to be sinning by having multiple wives and that HE actually approved of it.

  15. Ryan, you ask: “But has any follower of Christ ever been anything other than continuously and consciously sinful?” Absolutely! Otherwise Romans 6 and a host of other passages are totally untrue.

  16. Point taken, Dr. Brown. I overstepped in trying to get my head around this distinction of continuous sins of lifestyle alluded to in previous posts.

    And I didn’t mean that to be loaded question at all EDH – its simply where my mind goes. If its impossible for a gay person to be authentically Christian, is it similarly impossible for a person to be Christian while affirming that a homosexual can be Christian?

  17. Ryan — all clear! The issue I see in the Word is that of conscious, unrepentant, continuous practice of something that is contrary to God’s Word and will as opposed to a fall (or even many falls) with repentance and a full acknowledgement of wrong and a genuine desire and attempt to obey God.

  18. It seems to me that the law didn’t cover every act that man might commit, but did cover so many acts that are common to men.

    Every bit of it is holy and good being written for a particular people at a particular time though it is for all people everywhere to learn from and by it we may come to a knowledge of God.

    A king was told to not take to himself many wives, or horses, or to gather to himself much gold as was mentioned in this blog above. (Deut 17:16,17)

    I notice by Deut 17 that it doesn’t say that a king must not have any money, or even a horse or two.

    David had a few wives it’s true though in the beginning God made for one man, one woman.

    The law is not at fault if it does not tell people everything they should or should not do by an exact line of specific command for every possible situation, though it is quite detailed and as long as God wanted it to be.

    How many wives are many? I don’t know the exact number. I suppose some would say that more than one is too many for any man, even for the kings of Israel.

    I suppose I can say that God gave the commandments and then left it to us to keep them and he will be the judge over all.

    Solomon had many wives and he had a lot of gold and it seems to me that it likely affected him in ways that were not good, that such things had their consequences.

    I’ve never read (to my knowledge) of Soloman advocating the having of many wives or the keeping of much gold. When God makes a man rich, the riches may become a snare to him. It’s happened to many. (I Tim 6:9)

    By his word Jesus took us to a higher level in understanding the law without adding anything to it.

    I hope all of us who struggle against sin gain the victory through Jesus. As long as there is a struggle, it seems to me that there is life, and as long as there is life, there is hope.

    May all those who struggle with this matter find life and victory in Christ.

    When God forgives us we receive his love. We know he is faithful. His love changes us. We will be changed by him if we are faithful.

  19. Mike you need to be Born Again yes we do judge the people and you must be gay as I will pray for you and them, you need to be delived again I will say it again it is impossible for you to be a true and be Christian gay Mike that is a lie from the pit of hell and were are you getting that teachering from,you are an error Paul said and seach (were) some of you but you are washed you are clean and you are Sanctified 1Cor.6:11 notice Paul said such were some of you cant remain Born Again and not Washed in the Blood because the Blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and just to forgive us our sins and (cleanse) from (all) Transgression when if you are ready to say it let me know did you say the sinners prayers You must be Born Again I mean truly Born Again if Mike you were truly Born Again you would not even say to me that you can be a Christian and be gay that is what lets me know that you are not truly Born Again the devil can not lie to God children or hide from God true children

  20. Sorry for delay responding to EDH. It seems you are saying that God gave crystal clear revelation about marriage at creation and therafter moved the goal posts to allow for different cultural factors. Isn’t that precisely how gay activists try to justify their position?
    Nowhere in scripture does God legislate in favour of polygamy. That was always a human deviation from God’s law.
    Whether we like it or not, the facts about David’s family history are recorded in scripture and we have no right to twist their plain meaning to justify his moral failings. Adultery always has meant cheating on one’s spouse. How can it ever be permissible for any man to cheat on his wife by adding more wives to his collection as well as having numerous mistresses [concubines]. To argue that David didn’t sin at that point because God gave him all his wives and mistresses is skating on thin ice. If that were so, God would be himself be holding marriage up to ridicule!
    At various points in his life David must have made conscious decisions to marry additional wives and to establish relationships with concubines. These events dictated his family lifestyle. Solomon must have been influenced by his family upbringing and went much further than his dad in terms of wives and concubines.
    I personally find it very difficult to reconcile the statements made in the rest of scripture about David’s godliness with his obvious dysfunctional family life. I’d be interested to hear Dr Brown’s take on this. I come back to where I started. If David could enjoy God’s favour in spite of his deviant [diverting from God’s ideal] long-term relationships with women how can we make dogmatic pronoucements about every professing gay Christian, consigning them all to hell! I don’t intend to add any more thoughts on this subject. I think it’s much more complex than we realise. It’s obvious from David’s case that God isn’t as black and white about judging people as we are.

  21. I happened to listen in on your show (I believe) on Friday, April 8th. There was a caller named Francis (?) he is a born again Christian who used to be homosexual and a drag queen. He mentioned a youtube video of his testimony and I was hoping you could help me to find it? My brother is living a homosexual life although 10 years ago he was going to college to become a youth pastor. We’re a praying family and know he will have a testimony someday to share with many people. I was curious to hear this mans testimony. Any help you can give to me would be greatly appreciated

  22. How can it ever be permissible for any man to cheat on his wife by adding more wives to his collection as well as having numerous mistresses [concubines].s TO ARGUE THAT DAVID DIDN’T SIN AT THAT POINT BECAUSE GOD GAVE HIM ALL HIS WIVES AND MISTRESSES IS SKATING ON THIN ICE. If that were so, God would be himelf be holding marriage up to ridicule!
    At various points in his life David must have made conscious decisions to marry additional wives and to establish relationships with concubines. These events dictated his family lifestyle. Solomon must have been influenced by his family upbringing and went much further than his dad in terms of wives and concubines.
    I personally find it very difficult to reconcile the STATEMENTS MADE IN THE REST OF SCRIPTURE about DAVID’S GODLINESS with his obvious dysfunctional family life. I’d be interested to hear Dr Brown’s take on this. I come back to where I started. If David could enjoy God’s favour in spite of his DEVIANT [diverting from God’s ideal] long-term relationships with women how can we make dogmatic pronoucements about every professing gay Christian, consigning them all to hell! I don’t intend to add any more thoughts on this subject. I think it’s much more complex than we realise. It’s obvious from David’s case that God isn’t as black and white about judging people as we are.—–Mike

    Thanks for the response Mike. I will try to demonstrate that I think you are approaching this situation incorrectly.

    “TO ARGUE THAT DAVID DIDN’T SIN AT THAT POINT BECAUSE GOD GAVE HIM ALL HIS WIVES AND MISTRESSES IS SKATING ON THIN ICE.” —–Mike

    That’s what the scriptures state Mike. We must always let the scriptures guide us when trying to come up with answers. I believe you have mistakenly put your own thoughts/opinions above what the sciptures actually state. I’m not trying to be insulting at all. I believe every Christian at one point or another makes that mistake while trying to study God’s word, I know I have.

    As for David’s wives, the scriptures plainly state that God gave him Saul’s former wives.
    (8 I GAVE your master’s house to you, and your master’s WIVES into your arms. I GAVE you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU EVEN MORE)

    How could that possibly be more clear? God gave David multiple wives. It’s not “skating on thin ice” at all to say David didn’t sin at that point because the scriptures say he didn’t sin. As you mentioned yourself 1 Kings 15:5 states that David obeyed all of God’s commands except for the case of Uriah/Bathsheba. That again, clearly shows that in God’s eyes David wasn’t sinning by having many wives. It doesn’t say God overlooked or ignored his sin and only looked at the good David did, no, it says that David only disobeyed ONE commmand by God, and that ONE time was the Uriah incident.

    Here it is again.

    “For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.”

    (I personally find it very difficult to reconcile the STATEMENTS MADE IN THE REST OF SCRIPTURE about DAVID’S GODLINESS with his obvious dysfunctional family life)— Mike

    As you correctly mention here, David is consistently said to be a godly man in scripture. David is said to be a man “after God’s own heart” and a man with a heart fully devoted to God. Why should we question that? I believe the reason you struggle is because your mistakenly (perhaps accidentally) going beyond what the scripture teaches when you talk of David being in sin because of his many wives. Let me ask you, how is it obvious David had a dysfunctional family life?? The only way you can reach that conclusion is if you go beyond what God and the biblical writers say about David “not failing to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite”. Think about what your led to believe if you go above and beyond the scriptures and maintain David was living in sin as an adulterer. If we say David lived (the majority of his life) and died as an adulterer then how do you square that with the 1 Kings 15?

    If David was a rebellious adulterer, then you are FORCED to say that while being an adulterer. David had “not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life except in the case of Uriah the Hittite” 1 Kings 15:5

    So can you tell me how it is possible that a life long adulterer is able to keep ALL of God’s commands? According to that verse, if David hadn’t backslid in the Uriah incident, he would have kept all of God’s commands. Remember David had many wives BEFORE that incident, so according to the logic you present, David completely followed ALL of God’s commands up to that point, while simultaneously being an adulterer! See how that works? The only way to escape this conclusion is to say that David, with his many wives(some given to him by God himself)wasn’t committing adultery and that the ONLY time the Bible says he did, in fact, fall into adultery was with Bathsheba! Also if you maintain David lived and died as an adulterer you are again FORCED to say that it’s possible for a man to have a heart FULLY devoted to God while simultaneously committing adultery. Surely you don’t believe that? That’s where your logic and interpretation will ultimately lead you. If not there, it will lead you to say that there was never truly a command against committing adultery, again that’s on the strength of 1kings15. Because if the verse says he hadn’t failed to keep any commands, and he WAS committing adultery as you claim, then adultery isn’t a command from God. Or there are very clear irreconcilable contradictions all throughout the Bible concerning issues like adultery. Another issue you run into is that you must believe that David should/could have rightfully been stoned to death long before his sin with Bathsheba.

    “Whether we like it or not, the facts about David’s family history are recorded in scripture and we have no right to twist their plain meaning to justify his moral failings”.—-Mike

    “We” or I am not twisting the plain meaning at all. The fact is that the Bible maintains David was NOT in adultery with his multiple wives, and that the only time he’s said to have commit adultery was when he fell with Bathsheba. The bible shows that God didn’t consider David to be in sin. According to the biblical authors(not me), your holding David to a higher standard than even God himself did. Again, for the tenth time, David is said to have a heart fully devoted to God and that he fully obeyed God’s commands except in the case of Uriah. So while being an adulterer, David was still able to keep all of God’s commands. If you continue to hold your position, there’s no escaping that. Your position even threatens to redefine what sin is and how it affects man. As Christians we understand that living in sin and rebelling against God is because of a flawed condition in our hearts. I’m guessing you and every other professing Christian agrees with this. When God saves us, he renews us and gives us a new heart and mind. A heart and mind that truly knows him and strives to please Him and follow his commandments and lead. This new heart and mind tells us to forsake ourselves and follow Christ. The Holy spirit convicts us of our sins and tells us to repent. How is it possible for someone who is truly renewed by the spirit of God to never repent and come out of something as rebellious as adultery? David is said to have a heart fully devoted to God and is consistently looked to as a righteous man throughout the entirety of the bible. God the father even promised him the Messiah would come through his bloodline! Remember your position doesn’t say that David just fell once or twice, but that he lived the entirety of his adult life in complete rebellion to the commands of God all while supposedly being a man after God’s own heart. This is clearly impossible from a biblical perspective.

    It’s obvious from David’s case that God isn’t as black and white about judging people as we are.—- MIKE

    This isn’t obvious at all from David’s life. This all starts with your mistake of going against what scripture truly says and holding David to a standard that not even God set for him . Your insistence on believing David to be an adulterer pre/post Bathsheba is something that cannot be found from an accurate reading of the Bible. The Bible, in fact, states the opposite about David.

    9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinth 6 9-10)

    Mike, according to what you say, this verse clearly states David will not be one of those who inherit the kingdom of God. The position you take forces you to not be able to truly understand this passage. This verse and MANY others makes dogmatic statements on who will or will not enter God’s kingdom. This verse and others are black and white. Because you are confused on David’s status as an adulterer you have created an unnecessary slippery slope. In reality you have made it impossible to state dogmatically on anything regarding heaven/hell. Ex. If you say there actually is a chance for adulterers and homosexuals to enter God’s kingdom when there are verses that explicitly state the opposite, how can we truly understand anything written in scripture? How do we know to trust the plain reading of a scripture when there is a possibility that the exact opposite meaning has good chance of being true?

    “I would argue that it is impossible to have multiple wives and concubines yet be a man after God’s own heart, write countless worship songs and lead God’s people, as David did. Apparently God doesn’t agree with me!” Mike

    I truly believe this is a serious problem. You literally state here that you Would make an argument from your own understanding when you clearly see that the God of the Bible doesn’t agree with you. Why would you even consider holding to an argument when you yourself state that it’s apparent God doesn’t agree with it? I’d like to think you were joking here, but I’m concerned because I believe that’s exactly what you did do in later posts when you insist David was in the sin of adultery when God says otherwise.

  23. Hi Mike,

    As Scripture makes clear, without faith it is impossible to please God. It appears that the key to the redeemed life is faith in the living God – which David clearly held as dear – NOT on a perfectly lived life. Praise God it was Jesus who lived out the perfect life on our behalf so that through faith it would be accredited to us.

    Whether we are willing to admit it or not, even as believers in Christ, we DO NOT always know our own heart or motivations. The apostle Paul acknowledged ambiguity about his own motivations when he defended himself against those who cast aspersions on his motives. He was unwilling to make a final judgment on himself in this matter but deferred to God who will “reveal the counsels of the hearts” (1 Cor. 4:3-5). He even grieved over things that he knew he SHOULD do but didn’t and vice versa.

    However, as “true” believers, our lives should bear fruit for the kingdom and should be characterized by increasing depths of purity and holiness. How can we “grow” (a la 2 peter 1) in holiness unless there is hidden sin and blind spots to be dealt with as the Lord graciously reveals it to us?

    If there are Christians who claim to live out some form of sinless perfection in this life – I would suggest they check their spiritual pride at the door.

    God bless,

    Larry

  24. I have to say that I am not a Bible scholar and don’t know if there is any support for my question in the Scriptures.

    Not a single gay person I know made a conscious decision to be gay; they all knew at a very early age that they were born gay. Their attractions, feelings and urges are as natural to them as our hetero attractions, feelings and urges are to us.
    So why would God create someone whose very nature is contrary to His Word?

  25. Thanks EDH & Larry for your latest posts. I wasn’t serious about God no disagreeing with me, it was tongue in cheek! I was simply making the point that God will make his own decisions in the final analysis, whatever we or anybody else thinks.
    If I’m understanding you correctly EDH we agree that in the beginning God created Adam & Eve male and female, not one man and numerous females. They were the original married couple. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular] and they will become one flesh. This is foundational divine revelation for the human race and was especially so for God’s people Israel.
    Whatever happened in between, David had knowledge of that revelation and tells us in many places that he loved God’s law, meditated on it day and night, directed his steps according to it, etc.
    Yet if I understand you correctly you are saying that David was obeying God by having many wives plus a harem full of concubines. If that is not adultery, but righteous living how can anybody take the Bible seriously? If God laid foundational revelation in Genesis, then later changed the rules to make polygamy and mistresses acceptable as long as it didn’t involve women already married [like Bathsheba], who is to say that he won’t change the rules about homosexuality at some point in history? Just making a point!
    I don’t think you’ve made any comment on the prohibition addressed to kings like David not to take many wives [Deut.17:17]. Maybe he was okay because they didn’t distract him from devotion to God.
    I’m not questioning the authority of scripture. It’s because of apparent contradictions found there that Dr Brown encourages us to ask questions. If you are right about David’s flexible approach to marriage being pleasing to God, at what point in history did God next change the rules? Are polygamy and extra-marital affairs still okay today?
    At some points I’m playing devil’s advocate, merely to challenge your argument and make you think. I’m not convinced by what you’ve said. I really can’t at present reconcile from scripture all that I read there about David. I don’t know if anybody from Dr Brown’s team reads these posts, but if so I would submit that the issue we’ve been discusssing is worthy of his attention. Thanks in anticipation.

  26. I think king David kept all the commandments and broke them all too. But among all the kings of Israel, it seems to me that none of them kept the commandments of God as well as David did. He’s spoken of quite well in that regard.

  27. To cut to the chase, the consensus [excluding me] seems to be:-
    1. It is not possible to be gay and a Christian. I agree that homosexuality is forbidden under old and new covenants. So is adultery.
    2. BUT apparently it is possible to have multiple wives and mistresses and in so doing enjoy the favour of God and serve him effectively. David is proof and I respond that if God decided contrary to his Word it was okay for him to be promiscuous, where on earth is the moral line to be drawn for others, including those who claim to be gay Christians? Is there anybody who grasps the simple point I am trying to make?!

  28. I follow that, Mike.

    I think a common line of argument on this issue is the progressive revelation in scripture concerning sexuality. David’s vantage point was necessarily very different from Paul’s.

  29. Thanks for the response Mike. I definitely understand where you are coming from, and see how you’re having trouble with “inconsistencies” in scripture.

    I have a link here that addresses a lot of this issue. It touches on most of what you say and it’s a very easy read (unlike my posts! haha) http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html.

    I have more that I’d like to add in the not so distant future, but until then I think this will help you.

    I believe the larger issue is, that you don’t seem to realize that the method of interpretation/logic that you currently use leaves you with no solid ground to make any dogmatic assertions about many (maybe any)serious matters of the faith. I truly believe you have unknowingly created an unnecessary slippery slope for yourself as far as interpreting scripture goes, and have created a Plethora of biblical contradictions if you use a consistent hermeneutic. I will try to show you exactly what I mean in future posts. Until then take care, and God Bless

  30. Thanks EDH. The website you linked me to was helpful in presenting the case for polygamy.
    I’d already surfed the internet on the subject and discovered that John Macarthur [Reformed Baptist] in his Study Bible reprimands all key men in OT who practised polygamy as adulterers, so I’m in good company! He has been attacked as teaching heresy for taking this position in defense of God’s ideal of monogamy.
    I understand the reasons given in favour of polygamy. However, they give weight to the argument that if God broke his own moral rules for cultural reasons then, why not now? I don’t take that line myself, but see the point. It’s obvious from internet sites that many Christians are confused about the polygamy issue in view of its acceptance in OT.
    I’ve always admired David as a spiritual giant. It wasn’t until recently that as I was reading in scripture a catalogue of his numerous wives and children by them, plus concubines, I began to question his position as a married man and explore the wider issue of polygamy. Thanks for engaging with me in discussion and debate.

  31. Ray and Mike How many wives did the Apostles have 1Peter1:1- 2:1- 4:1- read all these chapter and your answer is in there. Again when did you both say the sinners pray because you are both an error. Prove all things and hold fast that which is true. Give me an answer after you have read these chapters. Again you both need to be Born Again and it is impossible for you to be a true Christen and be gay the devil cannot live in a true Child of God.

  32. Hi Mike,

    That’s interesting what you heard about John Macarthur. It honestly seems more likely that he was taken out of context rather than that being his official position. Of course we all know that David committed adultery, the real issue is whether he was committing adultery before and after Bathsheba with his numerous wives. Maybe he was rightfully speaking of David being an adulterer post- Bathsheba? Could you provide the link that shows Macarthur’s exact comments? Or at least the link where people alleged Macarthur said these things? Either way, the more important issue (Can you be a gay Christian) is something that I’m positive he wouldn’t agree with, along with the reasoning supporting it —-(Because David was a godly adulterer, being a gay christian is possible)

    “However, they give weight to the argument that if God broke his own moral rules for cultural reasons then, why not now? I don’t take that line myself, but see the point. It’s obvious from internet sites that many Christians are confused about the polygamy issue in view of its acceptance in OT.” ——-Mike

    I understand that someone might make that argument. I personally would first start off by telling them polygamy was never explicitly condemned under the Law like homosexuality was. Second, explain the possible reasons for allowing polygamy (again not explicity condemned, but also not God’s original/best plan). IE. Brutal wars with high death rates for men, the fact that women have always outnumbered men even before high death rate, women didn’t have realistic way to survive in that culture without being either prostitute or slave. Third that allowing polygamy can be seen as
    God saving women’s lives, providing protection, and preventing death. In other words, God allowing polygamy was more about His mercy rather than allowing deliberate sin. At least there’s a strong case for it. Homosexuality, on the other hand is explicitly condemned. There’s never a case in scripture where homosexuality is even hinted at being acceptable. There’s also no realistic problem homosexuality could solve. There’s simply no support for homosexuality in scripture in any way shape or form.

    For those using evidence from David’s story to support the possibility of a “Gay Christian”, I know I could argue very strongly against it using scripture. Bringing the entirety of the Bible into the discussion really shows this reasoning is extremely flawed. I’ve had very little interaction with the NT so far and I REALLY want to dive into this soon. It’s extremely late and I’m pretty busy so I don’t have the energy tonight to do so. I will try to get to this tomorrow afternoon/night, so please give me a little more time! I think I can shed some light on some areas that haven’t truly been addressed yet.

    Until then. God Bless and take care!

    ps. Are you Reformed Mike?

  33. Hi EDH
    If you google ‘John Macarthur polygamy’ – no, he isn’t guilty of it himself! – but you’ll see his quote that David committed adultery with a bunch of women and that God blessed him in spite of his sin, not because of it.
    No, I’m not Reformed although was majorly influenced by Calvinism early on. My present theological perspective is very similar to that of Dr Brown. I’m not really confused about the issue of homosexuality. And I’m more inclined to embrace JM’s no-nonsense approach to polygamy than to entertain suggested divine reasons for excusing it. That savors to me like a dose of casuistry!
    I think we’ve said all we need to on this subject, so thanks again and be blessed.

  34. I once knew of a lesbian couple who held Bible meetings in their house. Before the meetings were held in their house, they had attended meetings at another’s house who was the appointed elder of those meetings by the overseeing organization.

    One of the lesbians brought nearly all the new people to the fellowship. It grew so large that splitting into two groups was the matter at hand.

    About that time there was division in the leadership of the organization, and the majority of the people left the one fellowship in favor of the other. There was so much wrong going on in the one fellowship that many people went to the other where the lesbians were running the meetings.

    There we prayed, sang spiritual songs, read the scriptures, heard speaking in tongues and prophecy.

    It was a very contrary thing, like the best of times and the worst of times.

    If our define being a Christian as following Jesus, then we say “No. One can not be a homosexual and follow Christ. He must deny himself
    to follow Christ.”

    Too many times people tend to follow him one minute and deny him the next, and try to live in that kind of lifestyle. What a conflict!

    One of the lesbians took part in the breakup of a man’s marriage who was a part of the fellowship.

    That was the end of that fellowship at that location.

    So can a person be a homosexual and be a Christian? That doesn’t work very well. Christ will divide the sheep from the goats.

    Though they prophesy, sing songs to the Lord, teach from the scriptures, bring people to the Lord, bring them to the new birth, lead them into speaking in tongues, evangelize, shepherd, or whatever, the Lord will separate the sheep from the goats.

    No matter what the sin is that may have it’s hold on a sinner, we must believe that God is able to save. He is able to save to the uttermost.

    The cross is so important. We can not afford to miss it.

  35. I’m not really confused about the issue of homosexuality. And I’m more inclined to embrace JM’s no-nonsense approach to polygamy than to entertain suggested divine reasons for excusing it. That savors to me like a dose of casuistry!—-Mike

    Okay Mike, I will now then ask you to shed some light on how you can maintain the possibility of a “Gay Christian” without creating TONS of biblical contradictions and reducing scripture to a text that cannot begin to be interpreted with any type of consistency. I understand what your position is, but I’m truly curious to see how you can maintain your position from scripture. You haven’t really interacted with any verses at all with a strong exegesis or began to touch some of the flaws in your position I pointed out in previous posts. (ex. 2 Sam 12 7-8, 1 Kings 15:5, or given a reason how a man could with a heart FULLY devoted to God participate in continual uninterrupted sin(meaning no repentance). Or how can a life long adulterer keep ALL of God’s commands? I’m not saying you actually believe those statements, but that’s where your interpretation ultimately leads you and I see no way around it.

    Now, on to the NT.

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    This verse explicitly states that homosexuals or “men who have sex with men” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul states homosexuality; along with the other acts listed, are things “some of you were” which refers to their PAST lives. How did these sinners eventually become people who would inherit the kingdom of God? Paul tells us exactly,they “were washed, were sanctified, were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” That seems pretty clear. What you seem to suggest, is that after the Spirit of God works in you, you can STILL be trapped in one of these sins that will leave you outside of the kingdom of God. Even more, the logic/reason you present doesn’t exclude the possibility of you having ALL of these remaining sins active in your life AFTER the Spirit washes, sanctifies, and justifies you. How can this reasonably be explained?

    Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8:5-8

    Above 1Corinthians 6:9-10 has shown that if the Spirit of God is in us He will “wash,sanctify,and justify us. Because of that process we are able to inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is said to be one of the sins that will keep us from the kingdom of God, therefore if the Spirit of God is in us He will definitely wash us of it. If we aren’t living under or in “accordance with the Spirit” the only other option the Bible presents is that we are living “according to the flesh” In homosexuality (under flesh)the mind is set on what the flesh desires (v5). The mind governed by the flesh is death (v6), hostile to God (v7), does not submit to God’s law (v7), cannot please God (v8). In contrast when you live according with the Spirit, the mind’s set on what the Spirit desires (v5), and is life and peace (v6). Big difference between the two.

    9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

    In v9 Paul explains to Christians that they are are not in the realm of the flesh, but rather the Spirit. He then says if you don’t have the Spirit of Christ, you do not belong to Christ (v9). Paul makes it clear in 1Corinth6:9-10 and even clearer in Romans 1:26 that if you’re a homosexual, you are not living in the “realm” or in “accordance with the Spirit”. According to Paul, all those living in the flesh don’t belong to Christ, which of course means they aren’t Christians. This is completely consistent with all of Paul’s writings and everything he taught on the nature of sin.

    Your logic completely clashes with all the scriptures just presented. Let’s look again. Paul says you can either live in the flesh or the Spirit and not both simultaneously. If your logic is correct the exact opposite is true. If you’re gay, you’re undoubtedly under the flesh according to Paul. If you’re a Christian you’re undoubtedly under the Spirit according to Paul. If you’re a “gay Christian” which are you under? You are forced to say both, which completely contradicts (v-9) which states “you however are Not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the spirit” Actually verses 5-9 are completely dedicated to contrasting the difference between Spirit/flesh. Paul says If you’re gay, the Spirit of Christ doesn’t live in you; but if you’re a Christian the spirit of Christ does live within you. How does that work if you’re a “gay Christian”? You are forced to say both, which makes no sense whatsoever. Also if you’re gay, you don’t belong to Christ,but if you’re a Christian you do belong to Christ.(v9) Who does the “gay Christian” belong to? Paul says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, but those who are washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit of God will. How does this work for a “gay Christian”? The Spirit only washes away some sins and not others?

    I’m not singling out homosexuality, the issue is much deeper than that. It’s the sin and rebellion behind homosexuality that no true Christian has in his heart according to scripture. Homosexuality is the outright defiance of God’s law and created order. More importantly, it is the refusal to repent from sin clearly defined by God for the sake of pleasing the flesh (like fornication)Homosexuality is a lifestyle, it isn’t a fall or a mistake. It’s actively living your life by your own rules and completely ignoring God’s. The motivating factor behind homosexuality is the true heart of this issue. Instead of simply answering the question, “Can you be a gay Christian” How about, “Are you truly a Christian if you REFUSE to REPENT of your sinful ways in order to fulfill your own selfish fleshly desires? That’s at the heart of everyone who refuses to follow God. That’s what drives the homosexual lifestyle.

    That’s it for right now. There’s even more I’d like to add but discussing these few verses took me so long. Hopefully in the future I can fully articulate how allowing for “Gay Christians” completely shatters scripture. It undermines so much scripture. It redefines sin, downplays it’s effects and undermines the power of God greatly. This is the slippery slope I’m talking about. This allowing for the possibility of “Gay Christians” creates problems and solves none.

    Looking forward to more discussion. God bless!

  36. This is like asking can you be a thief and Christian?
    How about…why pick out one sin over another?
    ——-Chuck

    Or Can you worship false gods and be a Christian? Can you be a murderer and a Christian? Child molesting Christian? etc. etc. Surprised no one else brought this up.

  37. You obviously misunderstood me EDH. When I said I was not confused about homosexuality I meant that I am convinced that it is contrary to God’s will revealed in his Word. I don’t need to be persuaded!
    What I find much less convincing are various attempts by your good self and others to justify polygamy, having concubines, etc. as immoral lifestyles pleasing to God in OT, if not in NT. You’ve covered that ground already, but that’s why I find John Macarthur’s no-nonsense approach more consistent with the unchanging character of God.
    I don’t intend to continue with this thread as I think we’ve said enough already and need to move on. I really hope Dr Brown gives it an airing on his show sooner or later.

  38. Just heard that Kobe Bryant is being fined $100,000 for saying an anti-gay slur to a referee. I guess he used the word “faggot”, now he is being fined.

    Give me a break. They allow swearing on TV. They boast about their sins. Yet you say the word “faggot” and you get fined.

    Before you know it, if you are not gay they will lock you up and throw you in jail.

    What is this world coming too? Just like the times of Noah. Sound familiar?

  39. EDH –
    Your line of argument makes clear sense, but it depends entirety on the nature of the homosexuality Paul had encountered and wrote of. It seems unlikely that he had in mind life-long, monogamous homosexual relationships that the historical record suggests were virtually unknown to the cultures amongst which Christianity emerged, and certainly never acknowledged by the civil state. Paul, and the communities to whom he wrote, knew a different and narrower range of same-sex behavior than we have come to be familiar with in our own culture.
    I think that context is essential, and makes it difficult to locate all practicing homosexuals outside of Christ.

  40. You’ve covered that ground already, but that’s why I find John Macarthur’s no-nonsense approach more consistent with the unchanging character of God.—Mike

    I haven’t found anything about John McCarthur that shows that he agrees with your position about David, Abraham. etc, nor have you provided anything to back up that claim. Everything I hear from McCarthur seems to contradict what you say. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if you insist he agrees with you could you at least cite a source?

    What I find much less convincing are various attempts by your good self and others to justify polygamy, having concubines, etc. as immoral lifestyles pleasing to God in OT, if not in NT.—Mike

    You didn’t even interact with ONE text or point out the flaws of my exegesis on verses like 2 Samuel 7-8 and 1 Kings 15:5(which you introduced to the discussion, which ironically contradicts your entire argument) You haven’t even begun to show how your position can hold up to scripture. You disagree, okay, but that still leaves you with the task to show how you can possibly arrive at your position using a consistent interpretation. So many problems arise from your position.(ie How can David follow ALL of God’s commands before Uriah incident if he was an unrepentant adulterer?)That’s just one of many issues that arrive from your position.

    You obviously misunderstood me EDH. When I said I was not confused about homosexuality I meant that I am convinced that it is contrary to God’s will revealed in his Word. I don’t need to be persuaded! —–Mike

    No, I completely understand you and your missing my point. I know you believe homosexuality is sin. The HUGE issue is how can you then say it’s possible to be a “Gay Christian”? How can you support that from scripture and how can you hold to this without completely diminishing scripture to a text that can’t begin to be interpreted consistently? Those verses I went through above (1corinth6, Romans 8:5-9) weren’t supposed to convince you that homosexuality is sin, it was to show you that scripture doesn’t even leave the slightest possibility that you can be both a Christian AND GAY. It’s completely contradictory. Saying a Gay Christian is possible is the same as saying you can be an obedient follower of both God AND Satan simultaneously. Or that you can serve both God and Money. The issue is you don’t realize that’s what your position will ultimately come to if you use your method of reasoning. And that’s not an exaggeration.

    If a “Gay Christian” is possible, what’s not impossible for a Christian? If it’s possible, you must also, for the SAME reasoning say, that it’s possible to be a “Christian who refuses to repent of sinful ways in order to fulfill fleshly desires” That’s what your saying is possible in essence. That’s completely false according to the entirety of scripture.

    Also following the SAME reasoning you must also believe it’s possible to be a “Christian murderer”, a “Christian child molester” a “Christian polytheist” a “Christian thief”. Again this is not me twisting words, or being deceptive or using a strawman. This is the logical progression of what you have been defending. Here’s a few more. As mentioned above, Paul states that you can’t live both according to the Flesh and the Spirit of God simultaneously. If you’re gay, a murderer, an idolater, etc. you are under the flesh. If you’re a Christian you are living in accordance with the Spirit of God and are said to be washed of these things. Your logic says it’s possible we CAN be both under the Flesh and Spirit, and Paul is wrong. Under the flesh we can’t please God, but the your logic says we actually can. Even more, you can be cleansed by the Holy Spirit and still be enslaved to sins like idolatry, and thievery. You may also inherit the kingdom of God without repenting of any of those sins. It could go on and on. This is a slippery slope. I’m not saying you believe these things, but that’s where your logic leads you. If you disagree, please tell me specifically how it doesn’t. I would love to see the methodology you use that can save this line of logic/reason in light of scripture.

  41. It seems to me that too often we might find ourselves or other Christians to be in the flesh and if indeed in such wretched condition, we can not please God. Therefore we must die to it and find new life in Christ, again and again if necessary.

    If we live in sin and do not repent, are we a Christian? Not a true one.

    It seems to me that there are Christians, and then there are Christians.

  42. Hello Ryan,

    Thanks for the response. I’d just like to make a few quick comments for right now. Maybe I’ll add more later.

    I think it’s very likely that Paul encountered both the more promiscuous homosexual lifestyle (majority) and the monogamous homosexual lifestyle (minority) that we encounter today. Why not? You write, “Paul, and the communities to whom he wrote, knew a different and narrower range of same-sex behavior than we have come to be familiar with in our own culture”. How do you know what Paul knew for sure? This statement goes beyond speculation and suggests that Paul didn’t at all experience what we sometimes do today (monogamous homosexual relationship) Why? What makes today’s homosexual different than those of the past? Why should we believe that homosexuals today are more inclined on being monogamous? Homosexuals in Paul’s day were very promiscuous, and homosexuals today are very promiscuous. I believe statistics show that has always been the case within that community. I’m sure there are monogamous homosexual couples today, and I have no reason to believe that there weren’t any during Paul’s day. I have no solid reason to believe that the % of monogamous couples today was any greater than those of the past, let alone far greater. To sum this up, I don’t believe Paul was dealing with anything drastically different than what see or are “familiar with in our own culture”

  43. EDH If you haven’t found the quotes from John MacArthur you cannot be looking as they are there on the internet for all to read.
    Meawhile I am away on holiday for the next week with my extended family – five wives, eight concubines and kids by them all. I’m sure you are happy with that arrangement, as it doesn’t break the seventh commandment! Seriously, it’s only my wife and kids.

  44. You can not call yourself a Christian and live in sin constantly. Its all about repentance.

    The gays who call themselves Christians are not dying to themselves. When you follow Jesus you need to die to the things that are against the Lord.

    Homosexuality is clearly a sin against the Lord. Where as a subject like gambling is clearly not a sin. Although some may say gambling is clearly a sin. But it is not written as one.

  45. To me the question is “can one be a non-Christian and saved?”

    I say this cause there are many folks who say they are in a relationship with G-d but yet they have not been fully changed into a Christ-filled Life. So you have some homosexuals, or people involved in relationships or situations which the Bible does not align as being holy, yet they love G-d and they are torn between the two. So to me the question is (kind of like Ryan asked earlier) can one believe some things really wrong and still believe in Christ and be saved?

    Example is a gay man who loves another man, but says he loves with all his heart the L-rd. Okay, one is wrong, but yet he loves the man and he loves his Creator and prays and wants to have a relationship with HIM. Can that person be welcomed into the Body?

    Can that person possibly be saved?

    I think maybe, since the Scriptures are full of folks who turn to G-d and believe in Him but yet are not necessarily saved or part of the people of G-d the way we think. Some become idol worshipers (Gideon) some engaged in various sexual relationships that the Scriptures do not hold in good light, (someone mentioned David, but there’s his son Shlomo, Solomon, there’s Samson-hello Samson lived a life of hedonism, slept, fornicated with unbelieving women, broke his Nazarite vow constantly, yet he’s a hero? A man of G-d?)

    The Torah is full of folks who had relationships, or the text indicates they knew somewhat of G-d, despite the fact they were either not of the chosen people (the ‘elect’ for all you Calvies-though I’m not one) or in the case of those like Samson, plus others, they were not fully in right relationship or standing with G-d, but He apparently not only used them instrumentally, but there was a sense of His forgiveness and caring mercy, compassion for them and His Love.

    So is homosexuality wrong? Yes, according to Scripture, but can folks enjoy a relationship with G-d, though not necessarily how He would have it be? There are those in the Bible who did.

    Shalom,

    Christopher

    P.S. I’m not endorsing the lifestyle here, I’m just saying that I believe there is a difference between believing in G-d and being a believer, a Christian who’s been transformed and life changed by G-d?

    I agree with, and very much respect Dr. Brown, and believe with all my heart that homosexuality is not what G-d would have.

    But, I also agree with those like Rabbi Shmuley Boteach who say that we shouldn’t put those out who are seeking to have a relationship with G-d and I think it is clear from Scripture that you can indeed have a relationship with your Creator, with your Maker and be in a grateful person blessing His Name and seeking to be in a relationship with HIM, though not being a Christian. We as believers believe that Jewish people and other people (and I say this as a believer of Jewish and American Indian and Creole heritage) who are not believers can have a relationship with G-d, though they do not know Christ and have not been ‘born again.’ We affirm, not all but most of us do, that Jewish people can still have a relationship with G-d without being believers, but that it is not complete, same with Muslims. We don’t believe in allah (I will not capitalize the name of the deity) but we (not all, but many Christians) believe that there are indeed Muslims who seek G-d honestly and truthfully. So I say that we must cultivate this with homosexuals who seek to be in relationship with G-d. Don’t step all over their faith, just cause we do not agree with them. Help them to develop a relationship with both G-d and His Children and let the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit of G-d) speak to them.
    Shalom

  46. EDH If you haven’t found the quotes from John MacArthur you cannot be looking as they are there on the internet for all to read.—–Mike

    Mike, if these quotes are out there, why can’t you simply just post them here? If I claimed (multiple times) that a well known Christian had certain beliefs I would definitely provide them if someone asked. Isn’t that the right thing to do? Isn’t the burden of proof on you in that situation? I do know one thing for sure about MacArthur, he doesn’t support any type of hope for the possibility of a “gay Christian”. Nor does he support that possibility based on some kind of failure in the life of David.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMacArthurGTY#p/u/116/pl7HfLMOkZ0

    Anyway, you haven’t even begun to explain the plethora of flaws with your position that I raised. You haven’t given even the slightest bit of exegesis on any of the scriptures presented. I truly believe that is because your position is indefensible from the Bible. Mike, you don’t have to prove anything to me here if you don’t want to. I just ask that you read my posts closely (last few to you especially) and honestly look at the flaws I pointed out in your position. Try to answer all of my questions/objections by using a consistent interpretation of scripture. Honestly see if that’s possible, I’m 100% convinced it isn’t. If you maintain that it is, can you please show me? Maybe you can show me that I’m wrong? Right now, I’m under the belief that using your logic, scripture COMPLETELY falls apart to the point that it’s almost entirely worthless.

    Meawhile I am away on holiday for the next week with my extended family – five wives, eight concubines and kids by them all. I’m sure you are happy with that arrangement, as it doesn’t break the seventh commandment! Seriously, it’s only my wife and kids.—–Mike

    Good one! haha.

    On a serious note. It’s ironic that you bring up the seventh commandment. That actually hurts the position you take! If David was continually breaking the 7th commandment with his wives, then how can he have kept ALL of the LORD’s commands except for that ONE Uriah incident? (1 Kings 15)
    Remember, David had multiple wives BEFORE the Uriah incident, so why was it said that he only failed to keep one command? Surely his prior “adultery” would have taken his broken command total to at least two? Right?

    BTW, do you realize that what we call concubines today is completely different from the concubines of the OT?

    God Bless. Hope you had a safe trip.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*