https://thirtypiecesofsilver.org/20...reject-the-false-gospel-of-lgbt-christianity/ I never heard of this author but it is a long- and seems to be very well researched- essay about serious unbiblical compromise going on. It certainly is a convincing and troubling article. But I am not educated in the current debate and maybe I am missing something. If anybody has time to read it- or most of it- or at least skim it pretty well- and you know more about the discussion, I would like to know if there is any reason why I should not 100% agree with this author. I would really really appreciate it if you don't just post a reply based on my title without actually reading this. If the guy is wrong and this is a ninth amendment false accusation thing to some degree, I want specifics. Thanks. I just want to say also that I deeply appreciate the many folks here and your desire to learn and think and be entirely biblical, even if people don't always agree. But I guess what I am getting at, is this article correct that something is happening which is outside the bounds of debatable orthodoxy, and crossing into support for immorality? I've seen remarks elsewhere that it is just semantics, but this author presents a much more troubling commentary.
Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence Three times is a pattern.* https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/al-mohlers-post-on-the-humiliation-of-the-sbc.95683/ Given this thread, we are at the 'coincidence' level, absent other evidence. But we're getting might close to a pattern. FN: *modified from the original by Ian Fleming
The culture is dictating the priorities of the church and its focus. And the church seems to be seeking approval from the culture.
This has to be the first time I've heard Ian Fleming quoted here, although I'm not as regular as I used to be. But I believe that in Fleming's original (Goldfinger if I'm not mistaken), the third time is "enemy action." Which, when we get down to it, is the question before us - are we dealing with enemy action?
I am not convinced at all regarding Al Mohler, who has always championed, among other excellent authors, Rosaria Butterfield, on the LGBTQ issues. How many students has he taught, and how many have gone this direction? I would imagine that the number that have gone soft is small compared to the number that uphold the traditional biblical teaching. I am not familiar enough with Keller's own stance on these issues, although I have seen some wishy-washiness from him that makes it seem slightly more probable. However, using students to accuse the teacher is not proper form at all. Furthermore, using organizations of which Mohler and Keller are a part is not really that logical either. Neither Mohler nor Keller represent those respective organizations. We've got the fallacy of composition going on here: the properties of a group are not the same as the properties of the individuals within that group. I do not think that the blog post should be seen as a reliable indicator. If a person wants to make a case based on Mohler's and Keller's own writings, then I am willing to listen to them.
"Nate Collins is a longtime student and protégé of Albert Mohler, having received his Masters and Doctorate at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and then joining the faculty of SBTS. " I do not see any regular association of any sort between the two on the Internet, except what is mentioned in this post. (Please correct me if I am missing anything) The fact that Collins studied at SBTS, does not automatically guarantee that they are still on the same theological path.
I read the article and briefly perused the conference agenda. I hope Mohler publically distances himself from this syncretism. It looks like this era's visible church is headed for a new "dark ages"......... I wonder what Ligonier will do with Mohler if this trajectory continues?
It is good to stay alert for cultural accommodation, and to carefully critique each other's teachings especially in regard to new cultural issues that must be addressed. But what I read there was more gossip than careful critique. It lacked humility or invitation for dialogue, and it used overreaching statements to suggest guilt by association. And when we encounter gossip in the church—especially gossip against leaders in the church—we should refuse to have anything to do with it.
Per the article: 1. I don't think the Mohler connection is particularly that strong. I am a student of several professors from RTS and our worldviews differ. 2. The connection with Russell Moore is a bit stronger, since he is a pro-life Cultural Marxist.
Thank you for the imput! If one of the mods here posted a piece about Iain Murray and called him a protege of Lloyd-Jones, and I had never heard of Iain Murray and didn't know anything about him, I would accept that assessment out of respect for the poster here, even if he didn't back it up with references. So I wondered if somebody here would say this author is known to be a careful scholar or some well respected Reformed teacher or pastor intimately familiar with the issues. I guess since that hasn't happened, for now I will be cautious in accepting the conclusions. For other reasons I have some concerns about TGC, but I'll let this one drop and hope the author is making too many "guilt by association" assumptions.
I do have many concerns with the ERLC and of course the Gospel Coalition, but i think the author has failed to make any concrete connection between Mohler and these things. Perhaps he should be a stronger voice in condemning them, but the author seems to be ascribing a much deeper level of guilt.
These things are concerning. I pray the current trend toward acceptance of homosexuality does not take hold in conservative and confessional churches.
At that point, they would be neither conservative nor confessional. So I suppose it's a technical impossibility.
Any so called church that allows for the Pastor to be an avowed Homosexual, or grants same sex weddings would to me cease being a real church of Christ.
Regarding Russell Moore, one of the first things I read by him years ago was a series of posts on the hypothetical of a person in your congregation who presents as a woman, but confides in you that he was born a man. Moore worked through the issue in a way I felt was pastoral yet unyielding to the reality that this person was created by God a man. I don't see any reason to think that he changed his views.
Greg Johnson made a defense of the Revoice conference on Aquila Report suggesting the difference in the conference supporters and opponents is one of language. I think in this case ceding language to the LGBT side is not safe. There's a lot to say on the article, but this part had me completely baffled: I must have slept through that part of Reformed orientation, because I have no idea what he is talking about. What is this question that Reformed folks are supposed to ask? I thought it was "have you submitted to Christ?" but that doesn't seem to be what he is getting at.
How do we "redeem the culture" when it comes to homosexuality? Maybe acknowledge that they groom and dress better than us straight shlubs?
Ethnic minorities were so yesterday...so they decided to focus on "sexual minorities" as they are now describing them.
So that this makes sense in the morning, Perg may have been responding to a portion of a post that I deleted as perhaps casting too broad of a net.
I have also seen talk of "accommodating" those who are "gay Christians" and of "empowering" their identity. This is very dangerous. Repentance is not accommodation.
The only thing that should be done is to proclaim to those caught up in such life styles that God hates that way of living, but He also has provided by the Cross of Christ the means to be forgiven and delivered from such a way of living.
I wouldn’t touch the PCA or SBC with a ten foot pole. Critical theory/cultural marxism is welcomed from the top down (PCA especially) and I truly shudder to think about the seminary grads/leadership in 10 years time or so.
Moderator Note: This sort of sweeping generalization is a clear ninth commandment violation and will not be tolerated without action by the staff. 'Nuff said.
That is necessary to say, but that isn't all that needs to be done. The road of repentance for these people is long and often involves the complete disruption of households and their networks of support. We need to be prepared to walk beside them and assist as God has gifted us.
I agree with you on this, as the Church needs to come along side those whom the Lord saves and delivers out of that darkness to find real love and support now among the people of God. There seems to be 2 extremes on this issue, as some churches just preach hard against this lifestyle as sin, but do it more of a spirit of spite than love, and yet other churches love the sinner to the extent of condoning their sin.
See the latest examination of Revoice here: https://www.theaquilareport.com/full-homosexual-inclusion-in-the-pca/ "But the problem we have today is that the ‘gay-Christian’ community refuses to acknowledge such desires are sinful. In fact, they profess that to expect individuals with homosexual desires to repent of them would be a destructive burden to them, tantamount to denying who they were created to be. Hence, these individuals have no problem embracing these desires which only fuels their identity as a ‘gay-Christians.’ They embrace it and do so proudly. They confess no need to neither repent for these desires nor pursue any efforts at mortification. And why would they if they are not sinful?"
