# Abandoned natural relations



## Madman

I did not want to highjack CP’s “Episcopalian smackdown” so I started this thread.
The argument was thrown out that Romans 1 was “never read very closely”, at least by me.  I would argue that the author’s argument is the very reason proof texting is so very dangerous; and is used to set doctrine for the itching ear, by leaving out the science of interpretation or hermeneutics.

The argument that was put forward essentially stated that unnatural acts are a sin and those born homosexual are naturally that way, therefore it is not a sin.

The argument was also put forth that Augustine and Clement of Alexandria agreed with this argument.  I have found no evidence that Clement agrees and have just began with Augustine, either way I am not tasked with following a man, only God.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

*huh?*

Since you started a new thread to discuss something, can you give us more info about what you're talking about?
Assume that we have not seen that other thread that inspired you to start this one.

What is the issue?
What do others argue?
What scriptures or other writings do they offer to support that?

What do you say, and what do you offer to support your view on that issue?


----------



## Madman

GunnSmokeer said:


> Since you started a new thread to discuss something, can you give us more info about what you're talking about?
> Assume that we have not seen that other thread that inspired you to start this one.
> 
> What is the issue?
> What do others argue?
> What scriptures or other writings do they offer to support that?
> 
> What do you say, and what do you offer to support your view on that issue?



Here is the argument from Art:
http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=10013686&postcount=27

To which I totally disagree, however if I put forth a total reply no one is going to read it, it will just be too long.

Here is the short of it.  

Paul is talking to the Church at Rome, who lived in the middle of a hedonistic society.  But the Romans are educated in philosophy and were very well versed and very interested, in things like natural law, that being, the way things are, the way things are created or how they came to be.

An example is Paul’s response to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers which was in the terms they understood.  When he said,  for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,” Acts 17:28, he was probably quoting a philosopher named Epimenides.   

The gentiles were interested in topics of life, movement, and what is being, etc. so Paul answers that question.  It is the God of Paul in whom we “live and move and have our being”. 

The same is being done here; the natural law is that men and women are made to complement each other in relationship.  

Paul says: 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

If anything I believe Paul makes the argument that there is no such thing as being born homosexual, the natural relationship is heterosexual.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> The same is being done here; the natural law is that men and women are made to complement each other in relationship.
> 
> Paul says: 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
> 
> If anything I believe Paul makes the argument that there is no such thing as being born homosexual, the natural relationship is heterosexual.



My argument to start with is who is this group in Romans 1 who abandoned, exchanged, changed, or traded glorifying or worshiping God for that of idols?

My other argument is how could a homosexual man exchange hetero sex for homo sex if he was never having heterosexual sex to start with?
Paul says verse 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. 
They gave it up. They traded it. They swapped female partners for male partners. Were these men married?
Were they on the down low, meaning they considered themselves heterosexually married men even though they had sex with men. 

Second the sexual exchanges only happened as a result of the exchange from worshiping God to that of pagan idols. What made them exchange sexual relations with females for that of males? 
What made them exchange the worship and glory of God for that of idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

So what were the women doing before they exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones? Wouldn't they have to abandon natural relations to have unnatural relations? Otherwise there would be no abandonment or exchange.

Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex.

Why would they think this instead of believing it meant they were having sex with other women?


----------



## Artfuldodger

(quote from Madman from the other thread)
I understand. I believe Art wanted me to respond as to agreeing completely with the Lev. 20:13, a way of painting me as homophobic, in his new context of "love", but that was a direct command to Israel for a specific purpose. It is given in a completely different context than Paul's letter to the Roams.

I do not have to defend what God says only proclaim it, if Art has a problem take it up with the God.
(end of quote)

I'm not trying to paint you as being homophobic. I don't believe you are. I respect your beliefs and why you believe what you do.
We all read the same verses.

I admit that I struggle with what Paul says sometimes. Sometimes it appears he is saying we shouldn't be burdened with the yoke of sin. Other times  he makes it appear our salvation is dependent on works. 
One could get on a religious roller coaster reading Paul's letters.

Nothing loaded about my question concerning the command to kill homosexuals in Leviticus. They must have thought them really evil back then to be commanded to kill them. I'm just wondering if you saw a connection to Leviticus and Romans?  Maybe that homosexuality has always been evil. Maybe that we know it's evil from a general revelation instead of a special revelation.

Some say God never changes and we are still under the Law. Perhaps we are but I don't believe we are.
I wish Paul made it easier for us to understand him. I think Peter was right about understanding Paul. We just don't always understand Paul. In my humbleness I must admit that I don't understand him as much as I originally thought the Holy Spirit had lead me to understand. My pride got the best of me. 

Maybe as Hummer says in;
40,000+ questions
ask over a period of
4 years +
in
11,000+ posts.

After all of that I only learned how to defend homosexuals by justifying the group in Romans were former heterosexuals.
This is all I've leaned? My mission is to defend homosexuals? I've read Romans 1 wrong? This group in Romans 1 were totally depraved incapable of worshiping God? They never abandoned anything?
They were too depraved to worship God? If so, why were they without excuse?


My commandment is "Love." That's all I have left. I'm not too good on the repentance thing. 
Christ is my only hope. This I have learned in my;
After
40,000+ questions
ask over a period of
4 years +
in
11,000+ posts.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Christ is my only hope. This I have learned ...



And that, my brother, is THE answer.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> And that, my brother, is THE answer.



Amen!


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> My argument to start with is who is this group in Romans 1 who abandoned, exchanged, changed, or traded glorifying or worshiping God for that of idols?
> 
> My other argument is how could a homosexual man exchange hetero sex for homo sex if he was never having heterosexual sex to start with?
> Paul says verse 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.
> They gave it up. They traded it. They swapped female partners for male partners. Were these men married?
> Were they on the down low, meaning they considered themselves heterosexually married men even though they had sex with men.
> 
> Second the sexual exchanges only happened as a result of the exchange from worshiping God to that of pagan idols. What made them exchange sexual relations with females for that of males?
> What made them exchange the worship and glory of God for that of idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles?



Art, go back and re-read my argument.  Paul is speaking to "natural law" the way they were created, not that they once were hetero and now they are homosexual.

I used the example of his discussion at Mars Hill, to the "natural law" that the philosophers of the day were interested in.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I admit that I struggle with what Paul says sometimes. Sometimes it appears he is saying we shouldn't be burdened with the yoke of sin. Other times  he makes it appear our salvation is dependent on works.
> One could get on a religious roller coaster reading Paul's letters.



Paul is not always the easiest to follow, that is why hermenutics is so important. How does your interpretation align with such topics in other parts of Holy Scripture?  " Always interpret the difficult passages by the simpler passages".  



Artfuldodger said:


> They must have thought them really evil back then to be commanded to kill them. I'm just wondering if you saw a connection to Leviticus and Romans?  Maybe that homosexuality has always been evil.



Has nothing to do as to whether the Israelites  thought it was evil or not, God commanded them to kill several different groups because of their immorality, hence my statment "take it up with God".



Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe that we know it's evil from a general revelation instead of a special revelation.



I believe ANYTHING that we do against our design is a sin.  Men and women were created for each other.



Artfuldodger said:


> Some say God never changes and we are still under the Law. Perhaps we are but I don't believe we are.
> I wish Paul made it easier for us to understand him. I think Peter was right about understanding Paul. We just don't always understand Paul. In my humbleness I must admit that I don't understand him as much as I originally thought the Holy Spirit had lead me to understand. My pride got the best of me.



God is the one who says He never changes.: Hebrews 13:8 , James 1:17, Malachi 3:6.

As I said "Always interpret the difficult passages by the simpler passages".  We are taught that the purpose of the law was to show us sin, did it do that and is it still doing that? Scripture says if you are going to live by the law then you have to keep every aspect of the law or you have kept none.  The Grace of God through faith in Christ has given us freedom.  "Come unto me all who travail and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28-29




Artfuldodger said:


> After all of that I only learned how to defend homosexuals by justifying the group in Romans were former heterosexuals.



They need your defense? There is no defender of man except Christ Jesus.  What if we are teaching someone that a behavior that God says is sin, is not?  Would it not be better to teach to abstain from a behavior that is most likely a sin?  There are several things that God has not spoken to me clearly on yet it is evident by His Word that they should be done or not be done, my only response, especially on the difficult issues is to say "yes Lord". 




Artfuldodger said:


> My commandment is "Love." That's all I have left. I'm not too good on the repentance thing.



Yes that is one commandment, First Love God then Love your neighbor, and there are more, Go into all the world, arguably we should be doing what the early church did because they had been taught by Christ to do so.  There is much more then just love.

Don't forget we can be "loved" right into he11.



Artfuldodger said:


> Christ is my only hope. This I have learned in my;



Great lesson.  I have learned that also. "The cross is my only hope".  Out of that I have learned that I am "a great sinner in need of a mighty savior".


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Art, go back and re-read my argument.  Paul is speaking to "natural law" the way they were created, not that they once were hetero and now they are homosexual.
> 
> I used the example of his discussion at Mars Hill, to the "natural law" that the philosophers of the day were interested in.



That might be true but didn't the group in Romans 1 exchange this natural hetero way for that of the homo way?

What is Paul saying about their other "exchange" from glorifying and worshiping God for that of idols? 
What is Paul trying to say when they "traded the truth for a lie?

You must do as you suggest and look at all of the exchanges. You can't say all of the other events were exchanges except that of the sex part.

You can't say they exchanged their praise and worship of God yet they had always practiced homosexuality.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> That might be true but didn't the group in Romans 1 exchange this natural hetero way for that of the homo way?
> 
> What is Paul saying about their other "exchange" from glorifying and worshiping God for that of idols?
> What is Paul trying to say when they "traded the truth for a lie?
> 
> You must do as you suggest and look at all of the exchanges. You can't say all of the other events were exchanges except that of the sex part.
> 
> You can't say they exchanged their praise and worship of God yet they had always practiced homosexuality.




This group of Gentiles knows about God, they are without excuse.  

Even though they knew about God they did not worship Him but instead made idols that looked like created things and worshiped them. The painter is known by his painting yet they produced a counterfeit “painter” that better suited their purposes. If we do not glorify God as God we do not glorify him at all, we trade the truth about God for a lie about God.

So God gave them up to everything they desired; vile acts, wrong worship, envy, strife, sexual deviancy that was practiced in their hedonistic worship, etc.

I see nowhere that this can be interpreted as Christians who changed to pagans, or heteros to homos, I see it as saying these Gentiles, through natural revelation knew God and should not be doing the kinds of things they were doing, finally God just let them go so they could see how far they could fall.

Also nowhere do we see in Holy Scripture that homosexuality is good, these are practices of a debase people, who were eventually given over to it. 

I just believe according to everything else in scripture about the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit, and believing that the things of God should be used for the purposes of God, it is wrong for Christians to teach that homosexuality is ok with God.  There is nothing in God’s word that glorifies that act.  

It is no different then saying that since "God don't make no junk" then drug addiction is good.

In God’s design it has no purpose other than self-gratification and God calls his children to more than that.

P.S. There is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE is born homosexual, therefore your argument is a non-starter, but that is for another thread.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> This group of Gentiles knows about God, they are without excuse.
> 
> Even though they knew about God they did not worship Him but instead made idols that looked like created things and worshiped them. The painter is known by his painting yet they produced a counterfeit “painter” that better suited their purposes. If we do not glorify God as God we do not glorify him at all, we trade the truth about God for a lie about God.
> 
> So God gave them up to everything they desired; vile acts, wrong worship, envy, strife, sexual deviancy that was practiced in their hedonistic worship, etc.
> 
> I see nowhere that this can be interpreted as Christians who changed to pagans, or heteros to homos, I see it as saying these Gentiles, through natural revelation knew God and should not be doing the kinds of things they were doing, finally God just let them go so they could see how far they could fall.
> 
> Also nowhere do we see in Holy Scripture that homosexuality is good, these are practices of a debase people, who were eventually given over to it.
> 
> I just believe according to everything else in scripture about the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit, and believing that the things of God should be used for the purposes of God, it is wrong for Christians to teach that homosexuality is ok with God.  There is nothing in God’s word that glorifies that act.
> 
> It is no different then saying that since "God don't make no junk" then drug addiction is good.
> 
> In God’s design it has no purpose other than self-gratification and God calls his children to more than that.
> 
> P.S. There is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE is born homosexual, therefore your argument is a non-starter, but that is for another thread.



They might not have been Christians but they did know God. They had been delivered the Gospel message.
God made it evident within them. They had the capability to worship God. 
Before this account in Romans 1, Paul is discussing the Gospel message. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.

or;
For when they had come to know God, they did not give Him glory as God nor render Him thanks, but they became absorbed in useless discussions, and their senseless minds were darkened.

This group knew God in some capacity. I know of groups on islands and small villages that know God by divine revelation from nature. They worship idols and false Gods. God hasn't turned them over to a depraved mind.
Why has God taken this particular group and turn them over to a depraved mind? Why did God give up on them before letting them eventually choose salvation?
He doesn't do that to every other individual who is evil. He doesn't do it to all Atheists and Pagans.

There was something about this particular group that rubbed God the wrong way.

They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Islanders and villagers have been worshiping idols and false Gods for ages but they didn't know God in the same capacity that this group knew God. 
For this group God expected them to not exchange the truth for a lie. He didn't give them years to think about salvation as he turned them over to a depraved mind.

They had a great capacity of knowledge about God and God didn't like it when they abandoned that knowledge. 
They  exchanged the glory of the immortal God. Can the average lost person do this? Can the average lost person exchange the glory of the immortal God for images of man and animals?

They traded the truth about God for a lie. Can a lost person do that? What did he trade from?

Who were they worshiping and glorifying before they "exchanged" their worship? Who were they worshiping before they became "God haters?"
Who were they worshiping before they exchanged the worship and glory of God for that of idols?


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> They might not have been Christians but they did know God. They had been delivered the Gospel message.
> God made it evident within them. They had the capability to worship God.
> Before this account in Romans 1, Paul is discussing the Gospel message. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed.
> 
> Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
> 
> or;
> For when they had come to know God, they did not give Him glory as God nor render Him thanks, but they became absorbed in useless discussions, and their senseless minds were darkened.
> 
> This group knew God in some capacity. I know of groups on islands and small villages that know God by divine revelation from nature. They worship idols and false Gods. God hasn't turned them over to a depraved mind.
> Why has God taken this particular group and turn them over to a depraved mind? Why did God give up on them before letting them eventually choose salvation?
> He doesn't do that to every other individual who is evil. He doesn't do it to all Atheists and Pagans.
> 
> There was something about this particular group that rubbed God the wrong way.
> 
> They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
> Islanders and villagers have been worshiping idols and false Gods for ages but they didn't know God in the same capacity that this group knew God.
> For this group God expected them to not exchange the truth for a lie. He didn't give them years to think about salvation as he turned them over to a depraved mind.
> 
> They had a great capacity of knowledge about God and God didn't like it when they abandoned that knowledge.
> They  exchanged the glory of the immortal God. Can the average lost person do this? Can the average lost person exchange the glory of the immortal God for images of man and animals?
> 
> They traded the truth about God for a lie. Can a lost person do that? What did he trade from?
> 
> Who were they worshiping and glorifying before they "exchanged" their worship? Who were they worshiping before they became "God haters?"
> Who were they worshiping before they exchanged the worship and glory of God for that of idols?



I don't see any evidence that they ever worshiped anything other than idols.  The exchange is that they knew the truth yet chose to worship idols.


----------



## hummerpoo

Hey Art,

I had to smile when I remembered making this statement 6 mos. ago:

"Candidly, you are not going to get over Rm 1 until you can get over your misunderstanding of "exchanged". It's blocking the real issue."

Your still working on that block.  Hang in there brother, you'll find your way around.  You might try meditating on the meaning of "have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."  Another key might be "God has shown it to them. "  (Look at what Barnes says on this one. I haven't read it all for a long time, but I seem to remember that Barnes has a pretty good handle on the passage.)


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I don't see any evidence that they ever worshiped anything other than idols.  The exchange is that they knew the truth yet chose to worship idols.



So the only thing you see in all of Romans 1 that was exchanged was the truth for a lie? They didn't exchange any type of worship, and they didn't exchange any type of sexual preference?

Even thought it says;
They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. (this "exchange" you agree actually happened)

Their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.

In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. (abandoned their natural sexual function? Doesn't that mean they left?)

I see a lot more exchanges than just their knowledge of God. I see some physical exchanges going on.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Before Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome and even before he went there, what percentage of the population knew God by his general revelation? 
The place was full of pagan temples and shrines of all kinds. These people were mostly pagan. 
They knew God by his general revelation. They were without excuse. They were evil.

Why wasn't the whole country or city turned over to a reprobate mind? Why go spread the Gospel if God already expected them to worship him by his general revelation? Why go if the whole city had been turned over to a reprobate mind. 

Can someone know God and not be required to worship him?

Again what was it about this particular group that rubbed God the wrong way? They made some exchanges, changes, trades, abandonment, or leavings. It did start with trading the truth.
Maybe their knowledge of the "truth" was more than the rest of the pagans of whom they use to belong to.  Maybe they were not quite Christians but had left the pagans.

They knew God. What exactly does it mean to know God? Let's say I know God by his general revelation and creation. Does God expect me to worship him just by this general revelation? 
How does one become a believer of God after gaining knowledge of God. What's the bridge this group in Romans never crossed?
What made them different from the millions of other lost people that haven't crossed the bridge? God hasn't turned all of them over to a reprobate mind. 
This group was more than made up of someone who has always been a homosexual idol worshiping pagan.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I don't see any evidence that they ever worshiped anything other than idols.  The exchange is that they knew the truth yet chose to worship idols.



Do you see this verse tying in with the Leviticus verse that homosexuals should be killed?

Romans 1:32
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


These always been homosexual pagans deserved to die.


Now if we move far away from this group of homosexual pagans in Romans, where does that place all of the other pagans worldwide that only know God by his divine nature?

Do they know God's righteous decree by this divine nature? Are they without excuse?  Sure they might know to procreate with the opposite sex but do they know that if they sleep with a man they deserve to die?

Do these pagans worldwide know that God's decree is to not be slanderers, gossipers, untrustworthy, boastful, arrogant, and greedy individuals deserving to die?
Especially considering almost all of them are worshiping false Gods and idols? 
Why has God not turned these knowledgeable of God by divine revelation people over to a reprobate mined?

If the whole wide world knows God then why did God turn just this little group over to their own desires?
If they  knew God just by a divine revelation? Was it because they were always homosexual pagans or was it because they were heterosexual God knowers who exchanged their glorification of God for that of idols?


I'm thinking they knew God and his "truth" more than y'all are giving them credit for. I'm pretty sure they abandoned worshiping God for idols. I'm pretty sure they exchanged hetero sex for homo sex.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Hey Art,
> 
> I had to smile when I remembered making this statement 6 mos. ago:
> 
> "Candidly, you are not going to get over Rm 1 until you can get over your misunderstanding of "exchanged". It's blocking the real issue."
> 
> Your still working on that block.  Hang in there brother, you'll find your way around.  You might try meditating on the meaning of "have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."  Another key might be "God has shown it to them. "  (Look at what Barnes says on this one. I haven't read it all for a long time, but I seem to remember that Barnes has a pretty good handle on the passage.)



No what I'm really hung up on is who this group is. The exchanges are scripture. Exactly who the group is is speculation.

Romans 1:23
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

From Gill quoting Philo;
"some, who, leaving the true God, make to themselves false ones, and impose the name of the eternal and incorruptible upon created and corruptible beings.''

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And changed - This does not mean that they literally "transmuted" God himself; but that in their views they exchanged him; or they changed him "as an object of worship" for idols. They produced, of course, no real change in the glory of the infinite God, but the change was in themselves. They forsook him of whom they had knowledge Romans 1:21, and offered the homage which was due to him, to idols.

I agree with Barnes, they didn't change God into these images but exchanged him as an object of worship for idols. Of course they couldn't really change who the one true God is. That's impossible.
They forsook him. 

Forsook, past tense of forsake;
abandon (someone or something).
renounce or give up.

Barnes is correct. I like Barnes. I like Gill better but I like Barnes too.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> Hey Art,
> Hang in there brother



Good to see you back Hummer. You've been missed.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> No what I'm really hung up on is who this group is. The exchanges are scripture. Exactly who the group is is speculation.
> 
> Romans 1:23
> exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
> 
> From Gill quoting Philo;
> "some, who, leaving the true God, make to themselves false ones, and impose the name of the eternal and incorruptible upon created and corruptible beings.''
> 
> Barnes' Notes on the Bible
> And changed - This does not mean that they literally "transmuted" God himself; but that in their views they exchanged him; or they changed him "as an object of worship" for idols. They produced, of course, no real change in the glory of the infinite God, but the change was in themselves. They forsook him of whom they had knowledge Romans 1:21, and offered the homage which was due to him, to idols.
> 
> I agree with Barnes, they didn't change God into these images but exchanged him as an object of worship for idols. Of course they couldn't really change who the one true God is. That's impossible.
> They forsook him.
> 
> Forsook, past tense of forsake;
> abandon (someone or something).
> renounce or give up.
> 
> Barnes is correct. I like Barnes. I like Gill better but I like Barnes too.



Yes Art, but you insist on ignoring the fact that general revelation is clearly referenced and there is not a hint that there has been special revelation.  

Barns—vs. 19
That which may be known of God - That which is “knowable” concerning God. The expression implies that there may be many things concerning God which cannot be known. But there are also many things which may be ascertained. Such are his existence, and many of his attributes, his power, and wisdom, and justice, etc. The object of the apostle was not to say that every thing pertaining to God could be known by them, or that they could have as clear a view of him as if they had possessed a revelation. We must interpret the expression according to the object which he had in view. That was to show that so much might be known of God as to prove that they had no excuse for their crimes; or that God would be just in punishing them for their deeds. For this, it was needful only that his existence and his justice, or his determination to punish sin, should be known; and this, the apostle affirms, was known among them, and had been from the creation of the world. This expression. therefore, is not to be pressed as implying that they knew all that could be known about God, or that they knew as much as they who had a revelation; but that they knew enough to prove that they had no excuse for their sins.

God hath showed it to them - Compare Joh_1:9. He had endowed them with reason and conscience Rom_2:14-15; he had made them capable of seeing and investigating his works; he had spread before them the proofs of his wisdom, and goodness, and power, and had thus given them the means of learning his perfections and will.

Barnes—vs 20
Things that are made - By his works; compare Heb_11:3. This means, not by the original “act” of creation, but by the continual operations of God in his Providence, by his doings, Ï€Î¿Î¹Î·Ì�Î¼Î±ÏƒÎ¹Î½  poieÌ„masin, by what he is continually producing and accomplishing in the displays of his power and goodness in the heavens and the earth. What they were capable of understanding, he immediately adds, and shows that he did not intend to affirm that everything could be known of God by his works; but so much as to free them from excuse for their sins.

I'll check Gill; but I doubt that he will disagree.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Yes Art, but you insist on ignoring the fact that general revelation is clearly referenced and there is not a hint that there has been special revelation.
> 
> Barns—vs. 19
> That which may be known of God - That which is “knowable” concerning God. The expression implies that there may be many things concerning God which cannot be known. But there are also many things which may be ascertained. Such are his existence, and many of his attributes, his power, and wisdom, and justice, etc. The object of the apostle was not to say that every thing pertaining to God could be known by them, or that they could have as clear a view of him as if they had possessed a revelation. We must interpret the expression according to the object which he had in view. That was to show that so much might be known of God as to prove that they had no excuse for their crimes; or that God would be just in punishing them for their deeds. For this, it was needful only that his existence and his justice, or his determination to punish sin, should be known; and this, the apostle affirms, was known among them, and had been from the creation of the world. This expression. therefore, is not to be pressed as implying that they knew all that could be known about God, or that they knew as much as they who had a revelation; but that they knew enough to prove that they had no excuse for their sins.
> 
> God hath showed it to them - Compare Joh_1:9. He had endowed them with reason and conscience Rom_2:14-15; he had made them capable of seeing and investigating his works; he had spread before them the proofs of his wisdom, and goodness, and power, and had thus given them the means of learning his perfections and will.
> 
> Barnes—vs 20
> Things that are made - By his works; compare Heb_11:3. This means, not by the original “act” of creation, but by the continual operations of God in his Providence, by his doings, ποιήμασιν  poiēmasin, by what he is continually producing and accomplishing in the displays of his power and goodness in the heavens and the earth. What they were capable of understanding, he immediately adds, and shows that he did not intend to affirm that everything could be known of God by his works; but so much as to free them from excuse for their sins.
> 
> I'll check Gill; but I doubt that he will disagree.



Then you agree that a general revelation requires one to worship God.  That one knows the decrees of God? That they are without excuse?
Paul is speaking to a group of Christians in Rome about the gospel. Why does he switch his message to be about a group who only know God by a general revelation?

Romans 1:17-19
For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> Good to see you back Hummer. You've been missed.



Your kindness is appreciated.  I don't know how much I'll be around, but I stopped in yesterday and saw an old, old issue still boiling.  Being there at the beginning, so to speak, I would feel like I was bailing out if I didn't make my presence known.  I hope Art is O.K. with my nosing in.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Then you agree that a general revelation requires one to worship God.



Yes, after a manner of speaking.  They would not have knowledge of the particulars, but would be aware that the Creator would require recognition.



> That one knows the decrees of God?



No



> That they are without excuse?



Yes, that's the whole point.



> Paul is speaking to a group of Christians in Rome about the gospel. Why does he switch his message to be about a group who only know God by a general revelation?



It's a great place to start.



> Romans 1:17-19
> For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
> 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.



Gill—vs 19
Romans 1:19
Because that which may be known of God,.... There are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance: but then there are some things which may be known of God, without a revelation. Adam had a perfect knowledge of him; and his sons, though fallen, even the very Heathens have some notion of him, as that there is a God; and by the light of nature it might be known that there is but one God, who is glorious, full of majesty, and possessed of all perfections, as that he is all powerful, wise, good and righteous: and this 

is manifest in them, or "to them"; by the light that is given them: it is light by which that which may be known of God is manifest; and this is the light of nature, which every man has that comes into the world; and this is internal, it is in him, in his mind and conscience, and is communicated to him by God, and that by infusion or inspiration; see Job_32:8; 

for God hath showed it unto them; what may be known of him by that light; and which is assisted and may be improved by a consideration of the works of creation and Providence.

Gill—vs 20
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him,.... Not the angels, the invisible inhabitants of heaven: nor the unseen glories of another world; nor the decrees of God; nor the persons in the Godhead; but the perfections of God, or his "properties", as the Arabic version reads it; and which are explained by "his eternal power and Godhead": these, 

from the creation of the world are clearly seen; this is no new discovery, but what men have had, and might, by the light of nature, have enjoyed ever since the world was created; these 

being understood, in an intellectual way, by the discursive faculty of the understanding, 

by the things that are made; the various works of creation; all which proclaim the being, unity, and perfections of God their Creator, 
so that they are without excuse; the very Heathens, who have only the light of nature, and are destitute of a revelation, have no colour or pretext for their idolatrous practices, and vicious lives; nor have they, nor will they have anything to object to God's righteous judgment against them, or why they should not be condemned.


Old men need their sleep.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Now to all who understand Paul better than me.

We have a group of always been homosexual pagans who know God by a general revelation which requires them to worship God. They are without excuse. The only exchange they have made is the truth for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. Other than that they've always been homosexual pagans without excuse.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. I don't know how that was possible being they were already homosexual pagans.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. I don't know how God did that considering they were always homosexual pagans. They were already depraved as they only knew God from his general revelation.

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
How was it God expected them to follow his righteous decree considering they were totally depraved? They only knew God by a general revelation.

Now from here after we get through all the parts where we aren't suppose to judge, Paul again turns back to God and his judgement for evil. Evil. Eventually a resurrection of the evil.  A resurrection of the darned because of their evil.
Paul reverts back to the punishment of the evil and away from grace. The evil will be judged. 

From John; those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Never mind that we are all evil and none of us are righteous. The evil will be judged for their evilness and the good will rise to live.

Romans 2:13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

So now I can see why we must keep the law. 

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.
They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

They know God's Law by this general revelation.

And this is the message I proclaim--that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone's secret life.

These foreign Gentiles who have never heard the Gospel will be judged for their evilness based on general revelation.
Will they gain salvation by this same general revelation even though they have never heard the gospel of Jesus?

Then later after all of these law keeping requirements and the evil being judged, Paul says this;

10as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

So will we be judged for our works and evil deeds or is the law just to show the knowledge of sin? If we are all depraved evil beings and none of us can actively seek God, why was the group in Romans 1 without excuse? Why did they know God if no one can seek God? If no one can do good and they only knew God by a general revelation, why were they punished? Not even one of us is good yet we are without excuse and we know God way more than just through a general revelation.
We know God by his special revelation and we can't even judge the group in Romans.
We are equally as guilty. 
I'm trying to recall from my Sunday School lessons what covered my sins beings I'm so equally as guilty.

Why or what was Paul's purpose for showing a group that only knew God by a divine general revelation yet were without excuse?
What was Paul's purpose of showing us this very evil group to tell us were were equally as guilty if in fact we aren't because we will all be judged for our action/works? 

What was Paul's purpose of showing and explaining how Gentiles keep the Law by their general revelation if Law keeping doesn't offer salvation? Why the importance of these Gentiles keeping these decrees of God if they will never be granted the opportunity for salvation through a special revelation? 

Why are we making such a fuss over this group who only knew God by a general revelation if it doesn't do anything for this group? This general revelation only condemns yet they were without excuse.
The whole world is without excuse yet only a few will receive a special revelation.
The group in Romans never did. They were condemned before being offered a special revelation. Or were they?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Your kindness is appreciated.  I don't know how much I'll be around, but I stopped in yesterday and saw an old, old issue still boiling.  Being there at the beginning, so to speak, I would feel like I was bailing out if I didn't make my presence known.  I hope Art is O.K. with my nosing in.



Amen, you are always welcomed!


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> So the only thing you see in all of Romans 1 that was exchanged was the truth for a lie? They didn't exchange any type of worship, and they didn't exchange any type of sexual preference?
> 
> Even thought it says;
> They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.



Art,
OK my friend I think I see part of the problem, I believe you are trying to make too many issues out of this writing of Paul.

The point he is making is that God has poured out His wrath against "all unrighteousness and ungodliness", not just people in Rome, even though they are included in the group.

In vs. 20-21a he explains why they are without excuse, and then in in vs. 21b-23 he explains what they did, they did not glorify the one they knew was God, they did not worship Him but chose to fashion gods that they would like to worship.

He gave them up to the debauchery because that is what they wanted.  

 They exchanged the knowledge of God for a god that would let them live the hedonistic life.  In the exchange of the knowledge of God everything became alright, it caused envy murder, wickedness, sexual immorality, etc.

Hummer is right you are hung up on the word exchange.

Ask God to help break through to what He is truely saying here.

God's peace.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think this group was different from say the Hindus or Muslims. 
The Hindus and Muslims actually they are worshipping the correct God. God hasn't turned over to their own debauchery.

Now this group in Romans know God yet have still decided to worship idols. It's like they are doing it for spite. They all got together and said, we know the correct God to worship but let's spit in his face and worship idols instead.
Kinda like rebellious teenagers that know better. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

These weren't homosexual pagans after all but heterosexuals in a sort of religious limbo. They weren't quite God worshipers but they weren't idol worshipers either. 
They decided themselves wiser than God and chose idols just to rub it in God's face. They knew God and God expected them to worship him. Hindus don't know the God of Abraham because they grew up believing there God is the correct God. Their not worshiping a false God on purpose like this group in romans is doing. God hasn't turned all the Hindus over to a reprobate mind.

This is why God turned his back on them. These heterosexuals lost their desires to sleep with women. They once had heterosexual desires but God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Therefore they exchanged hetero sex for homo sex. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
I can't get over the exchanges because they are a part of this story. They are a part of scripture. These were heterosexuals that at one time had a desire to sleep with the opposite sex. Their idol worship is what made God turn them over to their own lust to sleep with men.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.
What reason? What did they do that made these women abandon their desires they one had to sleep with men?


----------



## Artfuldodger

These were not like the Native Americans who worshipped false Gods before being taught the God of Abraham.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

God didn't give Native Americans a reprobate mind because they didn't worship him. Didn't they know the God of Abraham by his general revelation of nature?

This group knew better. They knew the correct God to worship and still chose to worship idols. They had turned from the true God that they knew to be the one true God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 1:26
For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Gill's commentary;
 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections,.... Because of their idolatrous practices, God left them to very dishonourable actions, sodomitical ones, both among the men and women: 

for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature (h); or by making use of such ways and methods with themselves, or other women, to gratify their lusts, which were never designed by nature for such an use.

If it's "complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men" that is evil then a lot of Christian women are guilty of such evilness. Some things couples do just aren't natural. Those things are being used for purposes that God didn't design them to be used for in that way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Ellicott's commentary;
The “error” is the turning from God to idols. The “recompence of the error” is seen in these unnatural excesses to which the heathen have been delivered up.

Barnes' commentary;
It has been indeed a matter of controversy whether paederastry, or the love of boys, among the ancients was not a pure and harmless love, but the evidence is against it.

 He also says (Tuscul. Q. iv. 33), that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practiced, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. (Tuscul. Ques. v. 20.) Xenophon says, that "the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws."

Plutarch says, that this was practiced at Thebes, and at Elis. He further says, that Solon, the great lawgiver of Athens, "was not proof against beautiful boys, and had not courage to resist the force of love." (Life of Solon.) Diogenes Laertius says that this vice was practiced by the Stoic Zeno. Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common.

He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colors and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. 

There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome. If so common there, if it had the sanction even of their philosophers, it may be presumed that it was practiced elsewhere, and that the sin against nature was a common crime throughout the pagan world.

(It appears Barnes is quoting individuals who knew that these men were heterosexuals practicing paedesrastery. My words.)


----------



## Artfuldodger

"They" knew God. This is from the Berean Church and Pastor Curtis is showing how he thinks these people knew God. It isn't by a general revelation as that would not give the individual the power or "calling" needed to crave and understand God. Now if one hasn't been given this special revelation one can't know God's decree of evil or even seek God in order to worship him.

Believing Christ leads to salvation; disbelieving Christ leads to wrath.

"Who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"--the word "suppress" here is the Greek word katecho, which means: "hold the truth." It could be translated: "hold in the sense of believe" or it may mean: "hold in the sense of hold down or suppress." In this context it is best translated as: "suppress." It is present tense--they were doing it in Paul's day. Who in Paul's day had the truth, but were suppressing it?

Can a Christian look at nature and truly know the God of Abraham? Why would a Pagan see nature and know God?

Anyway this guy is a preacher and has the ability to present my view in words better than I can.
I'm not saying you have to agree with him but al least read it to understand my point of view. 
He explains how "they" knew God. They had the knowledge and chose not to use it. 
They made the "exchange."

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/romans_new/1_18-25.htm

From the preacher;
"For even though they knew God"--this verse has always bothered me. I always thought, how did lost mankind know God. Who is this referring to? Is it all men? Do all men know God? No they do not!


----------



## Artfuldodger

Before discounting the Bereans, they believe homosexuality is a sin;

"ABSOLUTELY, EXPLICITLY, AND UNEQUIVOCABLY, THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIAN HOMOSEXUALS."

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/homosexuality/


----------



## hummerpoo

madman said:


> art,
> ok my friend i think i see part of the problem, i believe you are trying to make too many issues out of this writing of paul.





artfuldodger said:


> i think this group was different from say the hindus or muslims.






artfuldodger said:


> these were not like the native americans who worshipped false gods before being taught the god of abraham.






artfuldodger said:


> romans 1:26
> for this cause god gave them up to vile affections: For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.





artfuldodger said:


> romans 1:27
> and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.



Look at what Madman said; He's on target.  It's not that all of the issues you are looking at are not there, they are, but you are looking at them without the context of the scripture, your looking at the trees and failing to see that there is a forest, on a mountain, in a mountain range, on a continent, associated with oceans, on a planet, in a solar system, in the universe.  No wonder you've got problems ... see.

Without running down each of the quotes you have cited from commentaries, I'll bet that each is set within a context of the point of the passage of scripture, which is "just condemnation".

As to the Hindus, Muslims, and Native Americans, you need to add Hummer, and Madman, and Art to that list.  They are all condemned by the general revelation, or by God's Law, or the Gospel (if not received), or whatever is the highest level of revelation that God has provided; notwithstanding, that God has given them a new heart, written His law on their heart, sent the Holy Spirit, they have been born again (from above), received baptism of the Holy Spirit, " show that the work of the law is written on their hearts" (Rm. 2:15); to which special revelation in congruent and concurrent.

The commenters, and you and I, can find within the passage issues related to the overarching point of the passage, but only as they relate to the context provided by the passage, which is "just condemnation".  The depraved acts are not the point, they are related to the main point.  The depraved acts are not the cause of condemnation, they are the symptom.  The cause is the natural condition, from which the only hope of salvation is Christ.

<<< edit >>>
It seems that you are trying to deny that God's condemnation is justified.  
(Is. 45:9)"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '?"


----------



## Artfuldodger

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Romans 1:19
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

They knew God!


----------



## Artfuldodger

A general revelation sounds like God is dangling the salvation carrot in front of us but only slows it down occasionally for certain individuals with a special revelation.

If I'm without excuse by being granted a general revelation then by all means God please lower me that carrot.

Now if God lowers the carrot and I still refuse then I'm without excuse. I have been given the knowledge to know God.

I'm not denying God's condemnation is justified. I just don't believe he condemns us with a general revelation without offering a special revelation.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> I just don't believe he condemns us with a general revelation without offering a special revelation.



If I may quote a wise man whom we both know, "You need to take that up with God, those are His words not mine."


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> If I'm without excuse by being granted a general revelation then by all means God please lower me that carrot.



In making this statement conditional, you fall into both the error of the Arminians in denying the Holiness of God, and the error of the Pelagians in denying the depravity of men.  But I suppose that should wait until you can accept that scripture means what it says.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Can a man be saved by a General revelation? If not then why did God expect the group in Romans 1 to worship him?
If the group were totally depraved, how did God expect them to worship him?
I believe they were already condemned by sin entering through Adam. We are all condemned just by being born humans. We don't need a general revelation to condemn us.
If God expects us to worship him then he needs to show us the way.
He needs to eventually offer the special revelation to all of us.

I'm picturing God requiring all of mankind to worship him through a general revelation yet not giving all of mankind a chance at salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Has God reacted or done the same thing to every lost person that he did to the group in Romans 1? 
Has God given every reprobate a reprobate mind? 
If one is a reprobate how does God expect them to have the knowledge and desire to worship him?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.

Many Calvinist critics of Arminianism, both historically and currently, claim that Arminianism condones, accepts, or even explicitly supports Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Arminius referred to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Now if no one can seek or understand God without the Holy Spirit, how did God expect the group in Romans 1 to do it unless they already had the capacity of said knowledge?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> If God expects us to worship him then he needs to show us the way.
> He needs to eventually offer the special revelation to all of us.



Then the LORD answered Job (Art) out of the whirlwind and said: 

"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 

Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements—surely you know! 
Or who stretched the line upon it? 
On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.
> 
> Many Calvinist critics of Arminianism, both historically and currently, claim that Arminianism condones, accepts, or even explicitly supports Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Arminius referred to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
> 
> Now if no one can seek or understand God without the Holy Spirit, how did God expect the group in Romans 1 to do it unless they already had the capacity of said knowledge?



Did you not note that I separated them completely.  Please read carefully.

They can't.

He didn't.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> A general revelation sounds like God is dangling the salvation carrot in front of us but only slows it down occasionally for certain individuals with a special revelation.



How low did God dangle "the carrot" for Abram?




			
				hummerpoo said:
			
		

> The depraved acts are not the cause of condemnation, they are the symptom. The cause is the natural condition, from which the only hope of salvation is Christ.



Hummer hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Madman

Art,

Somewhere hummer said the wickedness, homosexuality, backbiting, etc., are only the symptom not the problem, the problem is that they were worshiping a false God. He is exactly right!

In the other thread you "congratulated me for leaving ECUSA because they do not believe Christ is the only means of salvation" or something to that effect.  I believe God did not command me to take my family out of ECUSA because they were not following Christ, He called me out because they DO NOT BELIEVE the Holy Scripture. They have general revelation and believe there is a god, but they do not believe in THE God.

Not following Christ is a symptom, believeing homosexuality is approved by God is a symptom.

I believe if God knew they were earnestly searching the Scriptures for truth He would have had me stay and help teach them, but they do not want to know, so he has given them over to a reprobate mind.  If you don't believe that look at some of the filth that is taught by Suwanee their main seminary. 

ECUSA and it's members want a certain lifestyle, they claim to know God and if nothing else general revelation shows a loving God, but they chose death over life.

I will ask again, what is life affirming about unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, homosexuality?


----------



## Madman

Art,

I have to go, this is Ash Wednesday and I have services.  I pray God calls you, as He has me, to a Holy and penitent Lent.  

Ask God to speak to you through His word and the power of the Holy Spirit, not internet commentators.

I will pray He does that for me and for you.  May the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob pour out His mercy and revelation upon us all.

God's peace my brother.


----------



## hummerpoo

Madman said:


> Art,
> 
> Somewhere hummer said the wickedness, homosexuality, backbiting, etc., are only the symptom not the problem, the problem is that they were worshiping a false God. He is exactly right!
> 
> In the other thread you "congratulated me for leaving ECUSA because they do not believe Christ is the only means of salvation" or something to that effect.  I believe God did not command me to take my family out of ECUSA because they were not following Christ, He called me out because they DO NOT BELIEVE the Holy Scripture. They have general revelation and believe there is a god, but they do not believe in THE God.
> 
> Not following Christ is a symptom, believeing homosexuality is approved by God is a symptom.
> 
> I believe if God knew they were earnestly searching the Scriptures for truth He would have had me stay and help teach them, but they do not want to know, so he has given them over to a reprobate mind.  If you don't believe that look at some of the filth that is taught by Suwanee their main seminary.
> 
> ECUSA and it's members want a certain lifestyle, they claim to know God and if nothing else general revelation shows a loving God, but they chose death over life.
> 
> I will ask again, what is life affirming about unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, homosexuality?



Amen!!!

Brothers and Sisters, "The harvest is white" and this sounds like the laborers we have been praying for.


----------



## Artfuldodger

From Pastor Curtis. "I said last week that verses 19-23 of Romans 1 are not teaching natural theology. Paul is not teaching that all men are without excuse before God because God is revealed in creation. Paul teaches that men are without excuse because they sinned in Adam: 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- Romans 5:12 NASB 

Paul says in verse 21, "For even though they knew God"--do all men know God? No, they do not! Only Israel knew God, being in covenant with Him. 

Then in verse 23 Paul says, "They Exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image"--Who did this? It was Israel! Israel in the wilderness swapped the living God for the golden calf"


http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/romans_new/1_24-32.htm


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> From Pastor Curtis. "I said last week that verses 19-23 of Romans 1 are not teaching natural theology. Paul is not teaching that all men are without excuse before God because God is revealed in creation. Paul teaches that men are without excuse because they sinned in Adam:
> 
> Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- Romans 5:12 NASB
> 
> Paul says in verse 21, "For even though they knew God"--do all men know God? No, they do not! Only Israel knew God, being in covenant with Him.
> 
> Then in verse 23 Paul says, "They Exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image"--Who did this? It was Israel! Israel in the wilderness swapped the living God for the golden calf"
> 
> 
> http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/romans_new/1_24-32.htm



I don't know whose water you are carrying, but you need to bring the whole bucket.

From your cited source document:

Contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations, but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person's natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage. 

A letter to the editor in an issue of The Wittenburg Door read: 

You have often supported the cause of the Christian feminists with a compassion for them and their struggle with the Apostle Paul. It is my hope that you have the same compassion for the Christian gays which we represent. Homosexuality can be sinful, but it can be Christian as well. Any form of sexuality (homo or hetero) can be abused, but it can also be used for the glory of God and the blessing of God's people. I would be interested in sharing more if you are interested. I only hope that you have some compassion for the gays who struggle with Paul and who love the Lord Jesus Christ. 

What is the basic issue involved here? The same as with the feminist movement. It is the issue of our response to the inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. Their struggle is not with Paul; it is with the Word of God. Rejection of His Word opens the door to every kind of evil. 

In reinterpreting Bible passages on homosexuality, many take on the church's historic understanding of the issue. They proclaim: "l) the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but "forced sexual activity" and inhospitality; 2) the Levitical injunction against homosexuality is as meaningless as injunctions against eating rare meat or wearing mixed fabrics; and 3) Paul's admonishment against homosexuality was against a particular kind of homosexual act." This is all nonsense!

There's more if anyone is that interested they can read at Art's link.


----------



## Madman

Art,

Do you have a dog in this fight?  Friend, Family member?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know whose water you are carrying, but you need to bring the whole bucket.
> 
> From your cited source document:
> 
> Contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations, but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person's natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage.
> 
> A letter to the editor in an issue of The Wittenburg Door read:
> 
> You have often supported the cause of the Christian feminists with a compassion for them and their struggle with the Apostle Paul. It is my hope that you have the same compassion for the Christian gays which we represent. Homosexuality can be sinful, but it can be Christian as well. Any form of sexuality (homo or hetero) can be abused, but it can also be used for the glory of God and the blessing of God's people. I would be interested in sharing more if you are interested. I only hope that you have some compassion for the gays who struggle with Paul and who love the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> What is the basic issue involved here? The same as with the feminist movement. It is the issue of our response to the inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. Their struggle is not with Paul; it is with the Word of God. Rejection of His Word opens the door to every kind of evil.
> 
> In reinterpreting Bible passages on homosexuality, many take on the church's historic understanding of the issue. They proclaim: "l) the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but "forced sexual activity" and inhospitality; 2) the Levitical injunction against homosexuality is as meaningless as injunctions against eating rare meat or wearing mixed fabrics; and 3) Paul's admonishment against homosexuality was against a particular kind of homosexual act." This is all nonsense!
> 
> There's more if anyone is that interested they can read at Art's link.



Did you miss my post #33?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Art,
> 
> Do you have a dog in this fight?  Friend, Family member?



Meaning homosexual or gossiper? A few gossipers and gluttons but no homosexuals. Out of that whole list why pick only the heterosexuals who practice gay sex to dwell on?

Condemnation.
We are all evil and guilty and worthy of death. The group in Romans were condemned to die. 
The whole world is full of condemned evil lost people yet God hasn't abandoned them yet?
Why did God abandon this group in Romans? What did they do that brought the immediate wrath of God that God hasn't deliver to all of the other reprobates yet?
Why do the others still have hope?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Did you miss my post #33?



No.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If people aren't born homosexuals then they are born to eventually be heterosexuals. 
Say when they reach about the age of 16 they start having feelings for the opposite sex. 
Eventually as this person becomes more and more evil they exchange the truth for a lie. As this person evolves in evilness they abandon natural relations that they once had. The desire to have natural relations they were born with. The desire to have natural relations they had before they became more and more evil. The desire to have natural relations they put aside when they decided to put aside their knowledge of God. The desire to have natural relations they lost from a turning from knowledge gained form a General Revelation.
This along with their evilness makes then abandon their feelings and desires to have sex with women and start lusting after men. 
They aren't born homosexuals but become heterosexuals having gay sex.
They have exchanged their desires to have sex with women somewhere along the way of their life from puberty to the time they finally make the exchange.
This change or exchange from having desires to sleep with women to having lusts after women causes God to abandon the once heterosexual to his or her own desires of lust. Earlier in this heterosexuals life he actually preferred and desired women. His evilness caused him to want to desire men. After people become so evil to start having homosexual sex and God gives them over to their sins they start to really get evil. 
Eventually God will give them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> From Pastor Curtis. "I said last week that verses 19-23 of Romans 1 are not teaching natural theology. Paul is not teaching that all men are without excuse before God because God is revealed in creation. Paul teaches that men are without excuse because they sinned in Adam:
> 
> Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- Romans 5:12 NASB
> 
> Paul says in verse 21, "For even though they knew God"--do all men know God? No, they do not! Only Israel knew God, being in covenant with Him.
> 
> Then in verse 23 Paul says, "They Exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image"--Who did this? It was Israel! Israel in the wilderness swapped the living God for the golden calf"
> 
> 
> http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/romans_new/1_24-32.htm



Curtis’s arguments concerning Romans 1 are as stretched and distorted as a worn out girdle, and poorly (if at all) represent the theologies he purports to represent.

Those whose arguments on sexuality you choose to shill are among the most blatant idolaters currently hawking their agenda.    They construct a god, having no resemblance to the God of Abraham, whose only purpose is to act as a surrogate puppy, showing them love and allowing them feel loved.  They use this idol as a battering ram to bloody the Bride of Christ by enlisting the assistance of those humanist, vaudevillians, narcissistic politicians, shamans, apostates, and other hacks who promote the p.c. agenda to justify their immorality.  You may have noticed that their scriptural misinterpretations are very low on their list of talking points; due to the unsupportable nature of those arguments.  I suggest that you take a hint from that stance.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Out of that whole list why pick only the heterosexuals who practice gay sex to dwell on?



I didn't you did.  I gave an entire list.  I am trying to figure out why you are determined to defend them.  Why aren't you defending those born as backbiters and gossipers?  All of them are "heterosexuals who practice gay sex.  No one is born homosexual.



Artfuldodger said:


> Condemnation.
> We are all evil and guilty and worthy of death. The group in Romans were condemned to die.



Paul is speaking to the church in Rome, but he never says it only applies to people in Rome, it can be applied to the entire earth.  Even Buddhists and Hindus, and American Indians and you and me.




Artfuldodger said:


> The whole world is full of condemned evil lost people yet God hasn't abandoned them yet?



I believe he has "abandoned" some.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Hummer, if you will except Curtis' beliefs on knowledge of God from a general relation isn't what Romans 1 is talking about, I'll except his belief that heterosexuals having gay sex can't be Christians.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 2:5
4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

Lets move on to the other things on Paul's list in Romans 1. If a person doesn't change from his evil ways he will be judged by God. If guilty of the other sins on the list and homosexuality what will be their punishment?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 5:7
5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.

What happen to salvation by grace and election?
It appears by Paul that it's between one's evilness or goodness.

Romans 2:8
But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

What about blessed assurance?

Romans 2:9-10
9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

It's all about goodness and evil.


----------



## Huntinfool

*Can we PLEASE get somebody to add a face palm smilie to the options????*


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
 9Or 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, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nothing of repentance or a change of heart form thinking that you are as equally as guilty but an actual repentance or change from evil to good?

An evil person will not enter the Kingdom but a person who practice goodness will. I imagine an occasional slip up is ok.
We could say at least the person knows it's wrong and has repented in his mind only.

I don't think Paul thinks repenting in one's mind only is good enough but an actual repentance from sinning is required.
At least that's what I'm reading in his letters. 

He talks a lot about evilness not inhering the Kingdom and the wrath of God because of evilness.

How much sin can person continue in before he is considered to be "living in sin?" Can a drunkard still drink? Can gossiper still gossip? Can a cheater still cheat? Can fornicator still fornicate?
As long as they at least know that it's wrong? As long as one feels guilty afterwards?
Is that really repentance or does one really have to repent?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Hummer, if you will except Curtis' beliefs on knowledge of God from a general relation isn't what Romans 1 is talking about, I'll except his belief that heterosexuals having gay sex can't be Christians.



Art, that's typical of your messed up thinking; if I will agree to your point, you will agree to your other point.  Of coarse you would have to find even that on some obscure revisionist website.

Go waste someone else's time and energy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Do ya'll really believe the whole world knows the God of Abraham by a general revelation yet worship false god's to spite the God of Abraham?


----------



## tell sackett

Huntinfool said:


> *Can we PLEASE get somebody to add a face palm smilie to the options????*


----------



## centerpin fan

Huntinfool said:


> *Can we PLEASE get somebody to add a face palm smilie to the options????*






tell sackett said:


>




It's hard to beat Captain Picard.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> What happen to salvation by grace and election?
> It appears by Paul that it's between one's evilness or goodness.



Art,

I believe everyone here has tried to be more than than gracious in walking through this with you.  One of two things has become evident to me; either you are only trying be argumentative or you are a Gnostic. 

Either way just like general revelation, you have been given enough information to work this out.

What is most concerning to me is that I have a nephew who claims to be homosexual, and you would have him believe that God approves.

"Thinking themselves wise they became fools."


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'm trying to figure out what the key ingredient in the salvation equation of Christianity is by ya'lls beliefs.. I thought you might could help me but all you do is bring me back under the Law.

I think I'll stick with the original plan. Won't be no problem that way.

I think it's funny that since I have a different belief than the rest of you and defend it that I'm the  argumentative one. I didn't even start the debate. That was started by rjcruiser in post #16 of the Episcopalian smackdown thread.

This was my response;
This is my answer to your post#13. You can respond but then I think we should try to keep on the OP and somehow try and keep it related to how this struggle is happening within the Episcopal Church.

Meaning I don't think we need another homosexual vs. heterosexuals having gay sex thread.

I believe salvation is 100% from God's grace and election.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I believe;

Romans 2:1-2
1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 2:12
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Romans 3:11
there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Romans 3:24
Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.

Romans 4:2
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

And especially this;

1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you. 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.

I'm all about that grace. I do not believe in Lordship Salvation.
The only thing I gain by a general revelation is God's power.
My will to worship and glorify him comes from being called to do so by a special revelation. 
The "washing" really works.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm trying to figure out what the key ingredient in the salvation equation of Christianity is by ya'lls beliefs.. I thought you might could help me but all you do is bring me back under the Law.
> 
> I think I'll stick with the original plan. Won't be no problem that way.
> 
> I think it's funny that since I have a different belief than the rest of you and defend it that I'm the  argumentative one. I didn't even start the debate. That was started by rjcruiser in post #16 of the Episcopalian smackdown thread.
> 
> This was my response;
> This is my answer to your post#13. You can respond but then I think we should try to keep on the OP and somehow try and keep it related to how this struggle is happening within the Episcopal Church.
> 
> Meaning I don't think we need another homosexual vs. heterosexuals having gay sex thread.
> 
> I believe salvation is 100% from God's grace and election.



You need a "fact checker"
You missed #6, #8, #11


----------



## Artfuldodger

#6, #8, and #11 were related to the OP. #16 was asking a direct response of "my" belief.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Does repentance keep us from sinning? Does the Holy Spirit keep us from sinning? How much sinning does one do before he is consider evil?
Is the Christian drunkard who can't quit drinking evil? He has repented in his mind but not his actions.
What about the non-repentant gossiper or the non-repentant glutton? Would one consider them evil?

When does salvation change from being about good vs evil and all about grace?

Will there be a resurrection of the evil or a resurrection of people who never believed? Many people appear to be pretty moral citizens but do not believe in Christ. Others appear evil and do not believe in Christ. Both groups know God by a general revelation.
Which group will be apart of the Ressurection of the darned. Is it a resurrection of the evil or a resurrection of non believers?

Can we separate good & evil from grace? What makes us become good or are we always bad?


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm trying to figure out what the key ingredient in the salvation equation of Christianity is by ya'lls beliefs.. I thought you might could help me but all you do is bring me back under the Law.




I am saved by grace through faith.  PERIOD 

This thread is not about what we believe about salvation, it is about how ANY Christian could believe that God approves of ANY of the actions in Roman 1 as you claim he does.


That has nothing to do with the correct interpretation of Romans 1.






Artfuldodger said:


> I think it's funny that since I have a different belief than the rest of you and defend it that I'm the  argumentative one.



I believe you are argumentative because hummer and I have attempted to direct the conversation to the who, what, where, when and why of the Romans 1 passage.  You evade the arguments put forth and continue to go back to love, and election and some shear nonsense. 

You pull partial quotes from people, out of context, in order to make a case, and even claim certain church fathers held beliefs that they did not hold.

If you believe all you have to do is love people, and God will save His elect no matter the life they live then you have a totally different Bible than I do and the holy spirit that speaks to you may not be all that holy.

This "special revelation" you keep mentioning should be concerning to any Christian.  The God to be worshiped can be seen in general revelation, that was where Abram's faith came from and it was counted unto him as righteousness.

General revelation directs us to God, God by the power of the Holy Spirit directs us to Christ, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ,  out of our faith we do good works and attempt to lead a holy and sanctified life to the glory of God for what He has done for us.

That means envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, homosexuality, should be a lifestyle that we flee from, and struggle against.  If not we crucify Christ all over again.

I just had another thought: you claim God has told you through special revelation that Romans 1 is only speaking of heterosexuals who practiced homosexuality, not those "born homosexual", what about the people who were born enemies of God, do they get a pass too?

P. S. You have yet to address #45.


----------



## Huntinfool

centerpin fan said:


> It's hard to beat Captain Picard.




How I didn't see that, I don't know.  My bad.

Now back to the business at hand....

God made gay people.  Gay people are part of creation.  Gay is natural for gay people.  Therefore they were not the ones exchanging natural for un-natural.  Check!



Quick question.  Would it be possible for each member to be granted a single use "ban button" kind of like a citizen's arrest?  I realize, I may end up the unfortunate victim....but I bet I'd fire mine off before I got hit!


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> #6, #8, and #11 were related to the OP. #16 was asking a direct response of "my" belief.



men laying with men is not natural, you continue to make unsupported claims.


----------



## welderguy

Huntinfool said:


> Quick question.  Would it be possible for each member to be granted a single use "ban button" kind of like a citizen's arrest?  I realize, I may end up the unfortunate victim....but I bet I'd fire mine off before I got hit!



There will always be Davids and there will always be Goliaths....and then there will be those who are too chicken to even fight.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> #6, #8, and #11 were related to the OP. #16 was asking a direct response of "my" belief.



You were ask because your first three post are properly characterized as provocative.  Or we might say, indicative of a provocateur.


----------



## Huntinfool

> There will always be Davids and there will always be Goliaths....and then there will be those who are too chicken to even fight.




Go back through time in this forum...it will be clear that I'm not unwilling to jump in the fight.

What I am unwilling to do is jump into a dumpster fire to save a rotten banana.  If you guys would stop feeding the bears, they would stop coming into town and raiding the dumpsters.


----------



## hummerpoo

Huntinfool said:


> Go back through time in this forum...it will be clear that I'm not unwilling to jump in the fight.
> 
> What I am unwilling to do is jump into a dumpster fire to save a rotten banana.  If you guys would stop feeding the bears, they would stop coming into town and raiding the dumpsters.



Agreed.  The problem is with 100% participation.  Someone always comes out of the woodpile, then here we go again.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How long did the knowledge of God exist from the Garden until it was lost? Adam & Eve and their ancestors had a first hand knowledge of God. Somehow or somewhere along the way this knowledge was lost as people traveled farther apart and crossed the great waters. 
Maybe they lost if on purpose thinking themselves wise, they became foolish.  Eventually though these people lost their knowledge of God and became Hindus, religions of the Native Americans, etc. 
They did know God by his creation but I don't believe they knew him as the God of Abraham or the God of Adam & Eve.
They didn't know him to know the decree of his Law.

They eventually believed in the God's of their Fathers. They weren't actually worshiping these Gods for spite. They were wrong but not to the point that God abandoned them, yet.

They must hear the Gospel to know the truth of Jesus Christ.

I'm trying to show or present why the group in Romans were not the same as every group of pagans worldwide. The group in Romans had the knowledge to make the decision to choose God. They knew better and chose idols. Having the required knowledge and still not believing was proof they did it for spite.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Art,
> 
> I will ask again, what is life affirming about unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, homosexuality?



Nothing is life affirming for heterosexuals to go against nature and exchange that desire they have in their hearts to sleep with the opposite sex to a desire to sleep with the same sex. That is not very life affirming as the group in Romans found out.
It will cause God to show his wrath and abandon you.


----------



## Huntinfool

...and it's life affirming for pedophiles to snuggle up with little boys I suppose?  Since they have that desire in their hearts and all...

How bout that girl overseas who insists she was born a cat?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> How long did the knowledge of God exist from the Garden until it was lost? Adam & Eve and their ancestors had a first hand knowledge of God. Somehow or somewhere along the way this knowledge was lost as people traveled farther apart and crossed the great waters.
> Maybe they lost if on purpose thinking themselves wise, they became foolish.  Eventually though these people lost their knowledge of God and became Hindus, religions of the Native Americans, etc.
> They did know God by his creation but I don't believe they knew him as the God of Abraham or the God of Adam & Eve.
> They didn't know him to know the decree of his Law.
> 
> They eventually believed in the God's of their Fathers. They weren't actually worshiping these Gods for spite. They were wrong but not to the point that God abandoned them, yet.
> 
> They must hear the Gospel to know the truth of Jesus Christ.



My cat's right back leg is demon possessed.  He regularly scolds it and bites it.  Do cat leg demons respond to scolding and biting? How long does it take for the scolding and biting to become effective?


----------



## welderguy

Huntinfool said:


> Go back through time in this forum...it will be clear that I'm not unwilling to jump in the fight.
> 
> What I am unwilling to do is jump into a dumpster fire to save a rotten banana.  If you guys would stop feeding the bears, they would stop coming into town and raiding the dumpsters.



Ha. Just messin with ya HF. Ive seen you fight.You're a scrapper.
I was trying to get a rise out of ya.

rotten banana.


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Nothing is life affirming for heterosexuals to go against nature and exchange that desire they have in their hearts to sleep with the opposite sex to a desire to sleep with the same sex.



Thanks Art, now I know you are just 

just a troll.


----------



## gemcgrew

Madman said:


> Thanks Art, now I know you are just
> 
> just a troll.


I believe that it is far worse than that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 1:28-29
Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
29Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.

"Their lives became"
When these 100% reprobate heterosexuals "became" homosexuals and "there lives became full of every kind of wickedness."

The evil reprobates "became" even more evil. Did the group become full of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip individually or as a group? 
Did each member of group become  full of every kind of wickedness such as gossiping and envy or did one member take on envy while another took on gossip?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> That has nothing to do with the correct interpretation of Romans 1.
> 
> 
> I believe you are argumentative because hummer and I have attempted to direct the conversation to the who, what, where, when and why of the Romans 1 passage.  You evade the arguments put forth and continue to go back to love, and election and some shear nonsense.



I beg to differ on this. One of my quest into Romans 1 and you can see that I asked often was, who is this group?

I believe you and hummer were being argumentative because I have a different view on who this group might be. 
I do contend that I don't actually know as scripture doesn't tell us. I will say that I don't believe they were homosexual pagans at some time in their lives.

They probably had desires to sleep with women but at some point became homosexual pagans.
Later they learned about God and had enough knowledge of God to be expected by God to worship and honor him. I believe they were in a state of mind of being able to choose between God and Paganism. They were at a point in time where God had offered them the opportunity to choose him or idols. Not only did they choose idols but they did it for spite. They had the knowledge and capability to choose God. They chose idols. God said "what's it gonna be boys" and they laughed at him. They then suffered his wrath.

This group would be different than say the Native Americans living back then who were also pagans. They only knew God by a general revelation. They did not laugh at God and choose false Gods. They were ignorant of God as being the God of Adam & Eve. They had lost that knowledge over time and the long move to America. God didn't abandon them and turn them over to a reprobate mind.
Native Americans were not heterosexuals having gay sex. They still desired to sleep with the opposite sex.
They never made any "exchanges."

The group in Romans chose Paganism and exchanged the truth for a lie. The Native Americans chose paganism but not instead of choosing God. They did not exchange the truth for a lie. They were no more evil than your average lost New World American.

At some point the group in Romans made the decision to become Pagans or to return to a previous life of Paganism and they lost their natural desires to have sex with the opposite sex.
They abandoned their natural desire to sleep with women that they were born with and developed lust for men.

At that point according to the chronology of Romans 1, Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.

God abandoned them to never be offered salvation again.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Huntinfool said:


> ...and it's life affirming for pedophiles to snuggle up with little boys I suppose?  Since they have that desire in their hearts and all...
> 
> How bout that girl overseas who insists she was born a cat?



The commandment of Love and the fact that the Law is now in our heart will show us right from wrong. 
Follow the Spirit and see where he leads you. If one loves others as himself then one should ask if those were his boys would he feel it was right to do what he is doing.

Did she make the exchange from being a human to a cat after worshiping idols? Did she once have a desire to be a human and exchange this natural desire to practice cat behavior?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:28-29
> Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
> 29Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.
> 
> "Their lives became"
> When these 100% reprobate heterosexuals "became" homosexuals and "there lives became full of every kind of wickedness."
> 
> The evil reprobates "became" even more evil. Did the group become full of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip individually or as a group?
> Did each member of group become  full of every kind of wickedness such as gossiping and envy or did one member take on envy while another took on gossip?



"New Living Translation"  Seriously
why not "Tree of Life Version" it has "became"
nobody else does.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> The commandment of Love and the fact that the Law is now in our heart will show us right from wrong.
> Follow the Spirit and see where he leads you. If one loves others as himself then one should ask if those were his boys would he feel it was right to do what he is doing.
> 
> Did she make the exchange from being a human to a cat after worshiping idols? Did she once have a desire to be a human and exchange this natural desire to practice cat behavior?



Rom 2:14  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 
Rom 2:15  They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Rom 2:14  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
> Rom 2:15  They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them



Are all Gentiles pagans?

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

The Gentiles didn't have the Law. They did as good as they could, beins they were totally depraved.
These depraved Gentiles in Romans 2:14 did by nature the thing in the law.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (KJV)

"do not have the law, do by nature the law"

It's not  "have the law, by nature do what the law requires"

Again were they Gentiles or Pagan idol worshipers in Romans 2:14?

What do their thoughts accuse them of being or becoming?
Salvation?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 2:4-5
Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

Unrepentant heart brings wrath. Again Paul goes from grace back to good and evil.
Being judged for evil. Being rewarded for good works. He is back to a works based salvation. 
Gentiles who do the law who aren't even a part of the law will be rewarded for their good works. Is there any mention here of a 100% totally depraved Gentile not having the capacity to do good works. How can God expect this totally depraved Gentile to perform  good works? Why is a lost Gentile gonna be rewarded for good works or even a saved Gentile?
Somehow we must depend on God's kindness to lead us to repentance. Which means maybe we can't do it by ourselves.
None of us are good. We are all equally as guilty.
Yet we are required to be good by a general revelation. We are tasked to follow the law of nature without any help from God's Spirit.

Side note; Unrepentant heart. Why not brain or mind? Why did God use heart? Why did God use homosexual? Or was it man? God knows "homosexuals" isn't the right word. God knows  "heart" isn't what we think and make decisions with. God knows the earth isn't flat. 
Wording is very important and this is why we must understand who the group in Romans 1 is before we can compare every Gentile in the whole wide world to the pagans who traded the truth for a lie.

It was mentioned that I'm all over the place in this discussion. Let me remind you that I was asked to look all over the place in scripture not just Romans 1 although that is the main topic of the discussion.


----------



## tell sackett




----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Are all Gentiles pagans?
> 
> For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
> 
> The Gentiles didn't have the Law. They did as good as they could, beins they were totally depraved.
> These depraved Gentiles in Romans 2:14 did by nature the thing in the law.
> 
> For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (KJV)
> 
> "do not have the law, do by nature the law"
> 
> It's not  "have the law, by nature do what the law requires"
> 
> Again were they Gentiles or Pagan idol worshipers in Romans 2:14?
> 
> What do their thoughts accuse them of being or becoming?
> Salvation?





Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 2:4-5
> Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
> 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
> 
> Unrepentant heart brings wrath. Again Paul goes from grace back to good and evil.
> Being judged for evil. Being rewarded for good works. He is back to a works based salvation.
> Gentiles who do the law who aren't even a part of the law will be rewarded for their good works. Is there any mention here of a 100% totally depraved Gentile not having the capacity to do good works. How can God expect this totally depraved Gentile to perform  good works? Why is a lost Gentile gonna be rewarded for good works or even a saved Gentile?
> Somehow we must depend on God's kindness to lead us to repentance. Which means maybe we can't do it by ourselves.
> None of us are good. We are all equally as guilty.
> Yet we are required to be good by a general revelation. We are tasked to follow the law of nature without any help from God's Spirit.
> 
> Side note; Unrepentant heart. Why not brain or mind? Why did God use heart? Why did God use homosexual? Or was it man? God knows "homosexuals" isn't the right word. God knows  "heart" isn't what we think and make decisions with. God knows the earth isn't flat.
> Wording is very important and this is why we must understand who the group in Romans 1 is before we can compare every Gentile in the whole wide world to the pagans who traded the truth for a lie.
> 
> It was mentioned that I'm all over the place in this discussion. Let me remind you that I was asked to look all over the place in scripture not just Romans 1 although that is the main topic of the discussion.



Go Home!!!!!!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger

God gave them over to a depraved mind
God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking
God gave them up to a depraved mind
God gave them over to a reprobate mind

They have become filled
Their lives became full of
They have become filled
Being filled with all
having been filled with

Were these people totally depraved before or after they turned from their knowledge of God? Before or after they traded the truth for a lie?
How was God able to turn 100% totally depraved men over to a depraved mind? At what point in their lives had they become filled with every kind of wickedness?


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 Corinthians 1:21
Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.

So much for a general revelation. Man could never use his mind to worship and glorify God by a general revelation.

23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

It takes a special revelation. The group in Romans had received it and chose idols instead.

I can see why people struggle to justify their beliefs of election and eternal salvation, myself included. They read some scripture and say "oh no, how can we interpret this to justify our beliefs."
We do this with a lot of scripture. We must and do look at a lot of different scriptures.

Peter concerning Paul;
2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Even Peter admits that it's hard to understand Paul. I tend to agree.


----------



## hummerpoo

http://


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'm gone. I've explained my thoughts.

Filled with malice, gossips, boastfulness, prideful, arrogance, covetous, not humble, angry, conceit, 



Humility , inspirational, encouraging, uplifting, motivational, comforting, helpful, loving, harmony, meek, patience,

Proverbs 29:1 He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.

I've enjoyed the discussion but I know when I've been beat.

Goliath has been defeated!


----------



## Huntinfool

You know Goliath's defeat didn't end so well....right?


----------



## jmharris23

Have mercy


----------

