Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[St. SteVen]

"Let every man have his own wife" 1 Corinthians 7 says.
Nothing else has ever been accepted Scripturally.

The requirement for an Elder is that it be a man with one wife.
What does that infer about the other men?

Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?

/

 

[Behold]

You've made the claim, now produce the verse that condemns male to male loving, intimate relationship for the New Covenant believer, a Christian. Even if you quote from Leviticus, even for the Jews it did not mean what fundamentalists try to say, and it was to Jews, not Christians.

Romans 1

26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another

—MEN committing shameful acts with MEN......

and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

 

[GracePeace]

The requirement for an Elder is that it be a man with one wife.
What does that infer about the other men?

Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?

/

Read 1 Corinthians 7 before answering it.

Proverbs 18
13He who answers a matter before he hears it—
this is folly and disgrace to him.

1 Corinthians 7
1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

What this OBVIOUSLY "infers" is that the only sexual relations that are acceptable to God, as in all Scripture, and as in all Christian history, is HETEROSEXUAL relations.

@Arthur81

 

[GracePeace]

Romans 1

26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another

—MEN committing shameful acts with MEN......

and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Their "answer" to this obvious condemnation of homosexuality is, "Well, yes, the Bible DOES condemn FORCED homosexual relations, or HOMOSEXUAL PROSTITUTION, or PEDOPHILIC HOMOSEXUALITY, but this does not address loving committed homosexual relations."

Conspicuously absent from Scripture is a SINGLE INSTANCE where ANY FORM of homosexual relations are ever spoken of in a positive light, or celebrated, or approved. Why might that be if they are correct and God accepts homosexual relations of SOME sort? Why would God make it SO CLEAR that He condemns it if He REALLY wanted to say it was acceptable to Him? Wouldn't He have filled Scripture with celebration of homosexuality if He actually wanted to tell us He accepted it, instead of filling Scripture with condemnation of it? Of course! But the fact is He wanted us to understand He condemns it--just as everyone, since the beginning of creation, already knew!

 

[GracePeace]

Romans 1

26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another

—MEN committing shameful acts with MEN......

and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Importantly, 1 John qualifies this "lust" as NOT FROM THE FATHER, but as "love of the world". It's not of God, it's of the world--of its ruler, the devil, whose works Jesus came to DESTROY (1 Jn 3:8). Any "love" they have has nothing to do with the Father, but is "love of the world". God works in us to will and do for His good pleasure, and He does not work the works of homosexuals; those works are the works of the devil.

 

[BarneyFife]

Barney, I stay with the older understanding of effeminate as just that, not sexual acts. Also, the older Bibles (KJV, RV, ASV, YLT) translate "abusers" by sodomite (if you use the 1828 Webster's) so they were sodomizing others but now they are washed, sanctified... I take "washed" to mean by the blood of Christ, not baptism. I take sanctified as "set apart" and progressive sanctification would continue to the last day, and the believer is declared righteous in justification, based solely on the life and death of Jesus.

We just don't agree on this, Arthur, and you probably already know that so I'll spare you the details. :)

I don't know how you would apply Matthew 5 to a gay man? Are you suggested he do as legend says Origen did, castrate himself? From what I've read that does not change a homosexual orientation.

On Matthew 19 are you continuing with the idea of castration, by making themselves "eunuchs"? I do not understand that verse to be understood as literal eunuchs. Therefore I take the verse as follows:

This is probably the most important thing (to me) for me to respond to.

I think Jesus was trying to express, most likely entirely in hyperbole, that folks should go the extra, extra mile to separate themselves from sin in a way that I'm afraid this generation is largely unwilling to do.

"For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’" (Matt 19:12 REB)

I do believe the ONLY biblical "marriage" is man to woman; regardless of what SCOTUS ruled, so a gay is "incapable of marriage".

Can't argue with that.

Barney, depending on how you interpreted and suggested application of these passages to a male of homosexual orientation; I can only see the man leaving you in a very depressed state of mind, with no workable answer. That is if you are suggesting what I hear from very fundamentalistic types.

Well, I've had to deal with this in my own immediate family, successfully by the grace and to the glory of God, and not once did it even cross my mind that my only son would be better off without testicles. It wasn't an easy time, and I know that it's much harder for some, but I think it is a grave mistake to buy into the popular notion that issues involving sex and gender are too sensitive to be addressed aggressively. Much of the aggression will have to be expended in prayer (which few are apt to do) and sometimes the outcome will be negative and often protracted over a long period of anguish for all parties involved. I'm not in a habit of appealing to people to struggle against things with which I cannot emphasize.

It is very common today for people to portray that the struggle of LGBT folks is too severe to be upset in any way. I truly believe we do a great disservice to the Spirit of God, and the divine Son who bore a constant struggle against evil that none of us could ever imagine when we adopt such a policy—especially since it is born out of a school of sociology and psychology that takes into account only the faceless entities of the oppressed vs. the oppressors that knows not God.

The quote you gave from my post was based on the idea that a male to male relationship sinful just because it is same-sex; but that is not MY position because I do not find the Bible to teach that anywhere, even Leviticus.

We have shared with each other before that we do not use the same basic hermeneutical principles. No need to belabor that point, I guess.

I take it that you teach sinless perfection, which I find completely baseless in the Bible.

I believe that there is absolutely no excuse for sin—ever. Having said that, I might have sinned a thousand times today, even if only by omission. I do not think that if we had a long sit-down about it you would find me compatible with folks who teach what I believe you mean by "sinless perfection."

Men sin every day, and I'd suggest maybe even in the sexual realm.

I don't know of a Biblical way to exclusive immunity to sexual sin.

Of course homosexual orientation is not sin because the Bible says God created the gay man that way; he surely did not choose it himself:

I don't believe in sexual orientation at all, at least, as it is framed in postmodern science. Long conversation.

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21 REB)

I take it the gay man is to be "treasured", because he is the "uncommon" one.

I'm not a stickler for context to the extent that many neo-Gnostsics are, but I honestly can't see how this text is applicable to the plight of one who is tempted exceedingly to sins of perversion, or any other sin, for that matter.

As a matter of transparency, I should admit that I do believe sexual immorality of any kind is especially heinous to God, hopefully not because of any Cold War, moralist-for-moralist's-sake baggage I may be toting around, but because the family unit in all of its dimensions is closely tied to the relationship between Christ and His church, and that of the Father, Son, and Spirit (apologies if this treads too close to a prohibited subject). The concept of "knowledge" as intimacy is something I believe God to be very serious about preserving, touching as it does the very plan of redemption with the image of God being restored in man.

I hope my response hasn't seemed unnecessarily antagonistic.

Thanks, again, for your thoughtful appeal.

.

 

[David in NJ]

We just don't agree on this, Arthur, and you probably already know that so I'll spare you the details. :)



This is probably the most important thing (to me) for me to respond to.

I think Jesus was trying to express, most likely entirely in hyperbole, that folks should go the extra, extra mile to separate themselves from sin in a way that I'm afraid this generation is largely unwilling to do.



Can't argue with that.



Well, I've had to deal with this in my own immediate family, successfully by the grace and to the glory of God, and not once did it even cross my mind that my only son would be better off without testicles. It wasn't an easy time, and I know that it's much harder for some, but I think it is a grave mistake to buy into the popular notion that issues involving sex and gender are too sensitive to be addressed aggressively. Much of the aggression will have to be expended in prayer (which few are apt to do) and sometimes the outcome will be negative and often protracted over a long period of anguish for all parties involved. I'm not in a habit of appealing to people to struggle against things with which I cannot emphasize.

It is very common today for people to portray that the struggle of LGBT folks is too severe to be upset in any way. I truly believe we do a great disservice to the Spirit of God, and the divine Son who bore a constant struggle against evil that none of us could ever imagine when we adopt such a policy—especially since it is born out of a school of sociology and psychology that takes into account only the faceless entities of the oppressed vs. the oppressors that knows not God.



We have shared with each other before that we do not use the same basic hermeneutical principles. No need to belabor that point, I guess.



I believe that there is absolutely no excuse for sin—ever. Having said that, I might have sinned a thousand times today, even if only by omission. I do not think that if we had a long sit-down about it you would find me compatible with folks who teach what I believe you mean by "sinless perfection."



I don't know of a Biblical way to exclusive immunity to sexual sin.



I don't believe in sexual orientation at all, at least, as it is framed in postmodern science. Long conversation.



I'm not a stickler for context to the extent that many neo-Gnostsics are, but I honestly can't see how this text is applicable to the plight of one who is tempted exceedingly to sins of perversion, or any other sin, for that matter.

As a matter of transparency, I should admit that I do believe sexual immorality of any kind is especially heinous to God, hopefully not because of any Cold War, moralist-for-moralist's-sake baggage I may be toting around, but because the family unit in all of its dimensions is closely tied to the relationship between Christ and His church, and that of the Father, Son, and Spirit (apologies if this treads too close to a prohibited subject). The concept of "knowledge" as intimacy is something I believe God to be very serious about preserving, touching as it does the very plan of redemption with the image of God being restored in man.

I hope my response hasn't seemed unnecessarily antagonistic.

Thanks, again, for your thoughtful appeal.

.

Many Christian parents are in spiritual warfare for their children concerning homosexuality, sexual sin, drugs, drinking,
the occult and the many deceptions in the world today.

We are living at the very 'End' of the period of Grace which is the Gospel being preached to all nations.

The world is in full blown rebellion, the apostacy/falling away is in full bloom and soon the 'man of sin' will appear to save the day!

 

[GracePeace]

I'm not a stickler for context to the extent that many neo-Gnostsics are, but I honestly can't see how this text is applicable to the plight of one who is tempted exceedingly to sins of perversion, or any other sin, for that matter.

@Arthur81 goes out of his way to "misunderstand" Scripture (or he knows he's outright lying, sabotaging)--in his "interpretation" heterosexuals would be "common" (in the context, the damned). He loves perversion, so of course he has a perverted brain that cannot stand truth.

 

[GracePeace]

I hope my response hasn't seemed unnecessarily antagonistic.

It would be difficult to imagine a degree of antagonism against the pit of hell he represents that could not be justified.

Deuteronomy 13
8you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him.
9But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

Hebrews 10
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

In the New Testament, during this age (not counting what God does to them personally, and not counting the coming judgment), we know the practice of this sort of law pertains to denouncing and ejecting such men from the congregation, and to delivering them to satan for the destruction of their flesh (Mt 18; 1 Co 5).

As the text says, mercy can be a sin--in this context, showing mercy is sinful.

 

[BarneyFife]

Conspicuously absent from Scripture is a SINGLE INSTANCE where ANY FORM of homosexual relations are ever spoken of in a positive light, or celebrated, or approved. Why might that be if they are correct and God accepts homosexual relations of SOME sort? Why would God make it SO CLEAR that He condemns it if He REALLY wanted to say it was acceptable to Him? Wouldn't He have filled Scripture with celebration of homosexuality if He actually wanted to tell us He accepted it, instead of filling Scripture with condemnation of it? Of course! But the fact is He wanted us to understand He condemns it--just as everyone, since the beginning of creation, already knew!

And I think the key here is conspicuous absence. I normally get skittish around arguments from silence but that's because the only ones I usually encounter are being used to refute something that's been made very plain in Scripture.

And in this case, the opposite is true. Your argument from silence is being used to SUPPORT the preponderance of positive scriptural evidence.

(The rest of this is just a slightly-related rant. )

I don't hold to views of scriptural infallibility that suppose every word was effectively dictated by God whether in the "original manuscripts" (of which we have none, as I understand it), or the vacuous King James Syndrome (although it is admittedly my favorite, being a baby boomer raised in the Southern Baptist tradition).

On the other hand, I'm much more alarmed by the exponentially growing numbers of the other extreme who are skeptical about the preservation of Scripture to the point that discussion is practically useless since pluralism is guaranteed to result from the Historical-Critical method of hermeneutics.

Phenomena like the "Johannine Comma" and other what's-in-and-what's-out anomalies don't bother me a bit. Our God is much bigger than such nonsense. The way some folks carry on, you'd think the non-English-speaking peoples of the world haven't a snowball's chance in hell of escaping hellfire (pun intended).

The influence of French deconstructionism in the early '60s has ratcheted up a postmodern world of thought that flies right in the face of scriptural pleas for God's people to "build up the old waste places," "repair the breach," and "bind up the testimony and seal the law among my disciples."

"Tear everything down and rebuild everything" is the constant cry of "progressives" who now have us "progressing" further and further into the abyss of chaos and anarchy.

Free pornography and birth control were supposed to wipe out STD/Is, we were told. Where are these mental Olympians now? They've moved on to even more absurd disciplines like "fat studies." Southwest Airlines is now actually offering free extra seats to the morbidly obese. So I guess I'm a fat-shamer now. Never mind that I struggled greatly with staying fit for most of my life. When I was at my heaviest, I would not dare have presumed upon the airline or other passengers for an extra seat without cost to myself. I am not a thief. I wouldn't hold them at socialized gunpoint while they bear the expense of extra jet fuel and maintenance to the aircraft.

What else can we do to make unrepentant sinners comfortable enough to drift blindly into divine judgment?

I'm afraid we shall see.

.

 

[GracePeace]

And I think the key here is conspicuous absence. I normally get skittish around arguments from silence but that's because the only ones I usually encounter are being used to refute something that's been made very plain in Scripture.

And in this case, the opposite is true. Your argument from silence is being used to SUPPORT the preponderance of positive scriptural evidence.

I hold the same view--the common sensical view.

(The rest of this is just a slightly-related rant. )

I don't hold to views of scriptural infallibility that suppose every word was effectively dictated by God whether in the "original manuscripts" (of which we have none, as I understand it), or the vacuous King James Syndrome (although it is admittedly my favorite, being a baby boomer raised in the Southern Baptist tradition).

On the other hand, I'm much more alarmed by the exponentially growing numbers of the other extreme who are skeptical about the preservation of Scripture to the point that discussion is practically useless since pluralism is guaranteed to result from the Historical-Critical method of hermeneutics.

Phenomena like the "Johannine Comma" and other what's-in-and-what's-out anomalies don't bother me a bit. Our God is much bigger than such nonsense. The way some folks carry on, you'd think the non-English-speaking peoples of the world haven't a snowball's chance in hell of escaping hellfire (pun intended).

The influence of French deconstructionism in the early '60s has ratcheted up a postmodern world of thought that flies right in the face of scriptural pleas for God's people to "build up the old waste places," "repair the breach," and "bind up the testimony and seal the law among my disciples."

"Tear everything down and rebuild everything" is the constant cry of "progressives" who now have us "progressing" further and further into the abyss of chaos and anarchy.

Free pornography and birth control were supposed to wipe out STD/Is, we were told. Where are these mental Olympians now? They've moved on to even more absurd disciplines like "fat studies." Southwest Airlines is now actually offering free extra seats to the morbidly obese. So I guess I'm a fat-shamer now. Never mind that I struggled greatly with staying fit for most of my life. When I was at my heaviest, I would not dare have presumed upon the airline or other passengers for an extra seat without cost to myself. I am not a thief. I wouldn't hold them at socialized gunpoint while they bear the expense of extra jet fuel and maintenance to the aircraft.

It is my understanding that these French deconstructionists were Marxists. Marx was an antichrist--"they went out from among us", it says, and Christianity had been deeply inculcated in Karl Marx, one essay of his in particular had shown--and this is the spirit of antichrist that is bringing a fire to the earth, and it is fine, because it will purify and refine those who cling to the Lord. The very weapon the devil meant for evil God is using for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes.

What else can we do to make unrepentant sinners comfortable enough to drift blindly into divine judgment?

I'm afraid we shall see.

It really is terrifying seeing people with itching ears diving headlong into destruction.

 

[BlessedPeace]

It's odd that there is a tapdancing around the fact God condemned homosexuality.

 

[BlessedPeace]

No! The problem is that you basically say "defiled homosexual love is wrong" but then you don't say "undefiled homosexual love is right".

Whose business is it, whether a man has pure love or not?

That's an absurd juncture.
Homosexual sodomy is defilement.

It isn't love,it is sex.

Defiled homosexual sex is wrong. Period.

 

[GracePeace]

And I think the key here is conspicuous absence. I normally get skittish around arguments from silence but that's because the only ones I usually encounter are being used to refute something that's been made very plain in Scripture.

And in this case, the opposite is true. Your argument from silence is being used to SUPPORT the preponderance of positive scriptural evidence.

A not insignificant amount of my knowledge and arguments on this topic come from Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, and from Dr. Michael L. Brown--to give credit where it is due, and to direct people to more knowledge on the topic.

 

[BarneyFife]

@Arthur81 goes out of his way to "misunderstand" Scripture (or he knows he's outright lying, sabotaging)--in his "interpretation" heterosexuals would be "common" (in the context, the damned). He loves perversion, so of course he has a perverted brain that cannot stand truth.

It would be difficult to imagine a degree of antagonism against the pit of hell he represents that could not be justified.

Deuteronomy 13
8you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him.
9But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

Hebrews 10
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

In the New Testament, during this age (not counting what God does to them personally, and not counting the coming judgment), we know the practice of this sort of law pertains to denouncing and ejecting such men from the congregation, and to delivering them to satan for the destruction of their flesh (Mt 18; 1 Co 5).

As the text says, mercy can be a sin--in this context, showing mercy is sinful.

What I don't want to do is wound any person's ability to be encouraged to reach out for the hem of the Saviour's garment, lest they suffer loss from receiving not the virtue that even today goes out from Him.

Do you see a contrast at all between the way lepers were handled in the ancient Hebrew economy of Theocracy and the way the LORD Jesus handled them in Roman Palestine?

The New Covenant is Eternal backward and forward and God never changes but the way He deals with people does. When Israel was being prepared as His ambassador to the world a different set of physical, tangible objectives were being undertaken that are of a different nature than the spiritual ones of today.

This is what it means to graduate from the letter of the law to the spirit of it. Not that the letter is no longer needful, but that, as Christ magnified the law in the Sermon On The Mount and His other precious words... Well, as a great evangelist once said:

"The problem with legalists is that they don't take the law seriously enough!"

It is not an easy thing to judge who needs a soft word in due season to turn away their wearying wrath and who needs the tough love that jars the brood viper out of his hypocritical slumber. There are no shortcuts. Prayer, study, and work; work, study, and prayer. But one cannot be done and the other left undone. :)

Well, hopefully, the antagonism meter will read okay on this one.

Agitation without antagonism. Oh, if only we could be its master!

.

 

[GracePeace]

What I don't want to do is wound any person's ability to be encouraged to reach out for the hem of the Saviour's garment, lest they suffer loss from receiving not the virtue that even today goes out from Him.

Do you see a contrast at all between the way lepers were handled in the ancient Hebrew economy of Theocracy and the way the LORD Jesus handled them in Roman Palestine?

The New Covenant is Eternal backward and forward and God never changes but the way He deals with people does. When Israel was being prepared as His ambassador to the world a different set of physical, tangible objectives were being undertaken that are of a different nature than the spiritual ones of today.

This is what it means to graduate from the letter of the law to the spirit of it. Not that the letter is no longer needful, but that, as Christ magnified the law in the Sermon On The Mount and His other precious words... Well, as a great evangelist once said:

"The problem with legalists is that they don't take the law seriously enough!"

It is not an easy thing to judge who needs a soft word in due season to turn away their wearying wrath and who needs the tough love that jars the brood viper out of his hypocritical slumber. There are no shortcuts. Prayer, study, and work; work, study, and prayer. But one cannot be done and the other left undone. :)

Well, hopefully, the antagonism meter will read okay on this one.

Agitation without antagonism. Oh, if only we could be its master!

.

1 Corinthians 5
1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
...
9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

1 Corinthians 11
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number [the Lord has put to death].


Souls are on the line. Arthur's "gangrene" cannot be permitted to spread. His error must be utterly and completely destroyed.

Arthur knows his error. When we deal with him according to God's Word, that is the only way he will draw nearer to the Lord. There can be no mercy on the devil's words.

 

[BarneyFife]

A not insignificant amount of my knowledge and arguments on this topic come from Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, and from Dr. Michael L. Brown--to give credit where it is due, and to direct people to more knowledge on the topic.

I, myself, seldom recommend teachers. People tend to follow them instead of Jesus. I presume you're not of that ilk.

.

 

[GracePeace]

I, myself, seldom recommend teachers. People tend to follow them instead of Jesus. I presume you're not of that ilk.

.

I do not follow either of those men closely, actually, I only 1) don't want to "steal" from them, and 2) despite my disagreements with Dr. Brown on other topics, believe that he and Dr. Gagnon are good resources on this topic (God gave teachers to the body of Christ, so I'm in line with Scripture in giving them recognition as such).

 

[David in NJ]

It would be difficult to imagine a degree of antagonism against the pit of hell he represents that could not be justified.

Deuteronomy 13
8you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him.
9But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

Hebrews 10
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

In the New Testament, during this age (not counting what God does to them personally, and not counting the coming judgment), we know the practice of this sort of law pertains to denouncing and ejecting such men from the congregation, and to delivering them to satan for the destruction of their flesh (Mt 18; 1 Co 5).

As the text says, mercy can be a sin--in this context, showing mercy is sinful.

PRAY for one another!

You SEE my posts.
i do not yield to this false love of embracing everyone's viewpoints = just as yourself, to which i am grateful for you!

Arthur did yield to us his sorrow/suffering as a parent to which i can say 'I KNOW'.

You can lift UP my (adult) children as well where only 2 have committed themselves to Salvation.
My wife and i are in prayer daily for the other four, hoping and praying that God will save them as HE did for us.

Peace to You my Brother and remember that our prayers can make the difference for Eternity.

 

[GracePeace]

Arthur did yield to us his sorrow/suffering as a parent to which i can say 'I KNOW'.

I wasn't aware he had claimed to have had a child who had gone astray like that.
I do not automatically grant that he is telling the truth about that--that can be a tactic he is using to try get people to feel mercy toward, entertain, his lies when there is no warrant for it--but, certainly, if it really is the case that he has a child who has been deceived by satan, it cannot help his child for him to be equivocating with God's Word on the matter.

@Arthur81 If it really is true your child has erred in this way, your best bet is to tell her or him the truth in love--NOT to equivocate. I highly recommend the materials of Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon and Dr. Michael L. Brown.