Friday, March 30, 2012


I am not surprised at all that I am in the Bernie camp on the Scriptures. I have always believed the entire Bible to be true and free of errors and if there are any, they are man's and not God. To me, the Bible is part of the faith experience. What about some of those horrible stories of the OT. Dang if I know. Was there really someone called Job. I think so. Did God really say, "go in and kill everbody, including the babies." I doubt it but could be. I have to fall on the words of Lamar and my seminary professor, Dr Boyce. He would say on '"hard" passages," always know this: God is going to do what is right. OK. And, when hard pressed, I am going to say that I believe the Bible, the whole Bible and everything in it. I can't explain it, nor defend it. It is simply what I believe. Amen. 


On Mar 29, 2012, at 7:20 AM, "Bernie Windmiller" wrote:

Have appreciated the discussion on the Holy Scriptures. I am one who believes in Biblical inerrancy. I believe the origianl manuscripts (which are extant) were free from error. To believe otherwise puts a perfect God in a precarious position. Are there errors in our NIV (or other translations)? Yes, but these are problems in transmission. Just because one Biblical writer puts an event at a different place than another, does not mean there is an error. They are writing to different people and situations and knew how and what needed to be said. That is different than a blatant knowningly error. The earliest manuscripts we have, or parts of them, are very consistent with what we have today. Once we start down the road of admitting errors, man becomes the judge of what is God's Word and what is not. Thomas Jefferson is a classic example, who could not bring himself to believe in miracles. So his NT leaves out the miracles of Jesus. He made the decision what was God's Word and what was not. I believe there are a lot less problems with accepting Biblical inerrancy than in denying it. Bernie.

Thursday, March 29, 2012


On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Charles Clanton wrote:

I meant to send all of you a copy of this response to Clyde.  Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Clanton
To: Northrop
Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 6:58 am
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Scriptures

Clyde,  I, like you accept homosexuals and work with them, love them and help them anyway I can.   The discussion in my mind is not should we do these things and support all people as Jesus taught us to do but was the question are some homosexuals actually born that way and really can't help it.  I hear you saying yes.   I personally welcome all persons to the church for we are all sinners, saved by grace and as hard as we try will never be perfect.  I guess the theological question is if a person is born a homosexual then is he commiting a sin because of it.   The Bible and most of our church members would say yes...he/she is living in sin.  I would have to say....I don't think so!   Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Clyde Northrop
To: 'Charles Clanton'
Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2012 10:06 am
Subject: Homosexuality and the Scriptures

Charlie wrote: In reading Clydes "posting"  I wasn't sure if he was saying some people are just born homosexual.
Charlie, I speak generally and not personally. 
I am saying that we have no way to clinically separate those who MAY have been born Homosexual
from those who developed Homosexuality from life, experience and / or abuse.
The trend is to simplify and use the excuse of “She was just born that way.”
We want to keep from dealing with the issue and use excuses to do so.
Why? Because we think we have judgmental responsibility? 
Even Christ did not come to condemn the world.
We welcome perpetual fornicators in our church. How would homosexuals be different?
If someone is content in Homosexuality, I won’t be able to do what the Holy Spirit does not do.
If someone is NOT content in Homosexuality, and ASKs for my help, then I will work with him/her.
I consider neither Homosexuality Nor Heterosexuality license for Promiscuity.
My job is to minister to people. I don’t have the prerogative of defining, defending, or changing God’s standard.
Ask the Holy Spirit to help clarify the Word. Don’t ask me to help rationalize the Word.
None of this is directed to personalities. Don’t take any of it as attacking.
I try to make my position clear. Nothing more. 
I am not trying to hide behind anything. I work with what I have. A homosexual person is a homosexual person.
Whether it happened pre or post birth we are all sinners in need of a savior.
He who is without sin start casting.
Ask yourself “what is making this so hard?”
Everyone who walks into the door of the church is a sinner.
1. Some accept through faith that they are saved by God’s grace with no merit of their own.
2. Some have become holy and use great effort to keep the church holy.
3. Some stay away because they can’t stand people who believe they are holy.
I seek to cast my lot in #1 above, unworthy and grateful to God for his unmerited favor and sacrificial provision.
I don’t believe in class one, class two, and class three forgiveness.
It took Jesus on the Cross until He died to meet my need.

I was in that crowd that day and I dropped my stone and walked away.
(Lamar, let’s write a gospel song and use that for the first line.)
From: Charles Clanton
Thanks Lamar for your very clear and consise explanation of both subjects.   In reading Clydes "posting"  I wasn't sure if he was saying some people are just born homosexual.  I hear him saying some are born with both male and female organs.     I still believe some are born that way and it isn't the fault of the father or mother.
I'm like you with the Scriptures somewhat.  There are differences in some of the accounts of Jesus activities and when he did them in the gospels but as you well know each of the gospels was written with different audiences in mind.  I'm teaching the Gospel of John right now and the greatness of it to me is that it not only tells what Jesus did and said but what it meant after the Holy Spirit had revealeed it to him over the many years of his life.  He more completely understood the "whole story" after seeing it lived out and living it out himself.  He left out things that the other gospel writers had already covered and emphasized the things that helped people to understand that Jesus really was the Son of God and the Messiah and had come to redeem the world.    I don't hold to total inerency because there were some mistakes made as the Bible was translated, of course.  However the message of salvation is totally clear to me.   Of course in the Old Testament there are things that God was given credit for that I think were certainly misunderstood.   And I don't think Paul was totally right about women in the church.  I certainlyt don't condone homosexual behavior or that lifestyle and believe that homosexuals do not have to act on their desires.  (Straight guys have lived celebate lives).    However, I know that it would be extremely difficult to not act on my argument lacks some validity!
Subject: Homosexuality and the Scriptures
Clyde, in one of your postings you asked me what I believe about this, and why.
I am addressing two issues: inerrancy and homosexuality.
On inerrancy I believe that the Scriptures give us a sufficient account of  God’s mighty acts to save us, and that we all need to be saved, and the way to salvation is through the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  However, I don’t believe that any mathematical approach to the Scriptures can sustain a doctrine of literal inerrancy.  I already gave examples: John’s placing the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, which defies logic, and the Synoptics all placing the temple cleansing at the end of Jesus’ ministry, which account is correct?  Another example is the various numbers and accounts of the feeding of the thousands, 5,000, more, etc, and in various settings.  I don’t like discussing this, because I feel that it makes me disloyal to the Scriptures, and I am reluctant to “put the pen to paper,” as often heard in early movies.
On the subject of Homosexuality, I like Clyde’s approach.  If a child is born with both male and female genitalia it is no fault of him/her.  Likewise, if a person is born a homosexual it is no fault of him/her.  I know the arguments of early childhood experiences on the final identification of one’s sexual identity.  I just have trouble accepting that an over indulgent mother can produce homosexuality in her son, or the opposite in an over indulgent father doing the same on a daughter.   I know that I am omitting a whole issue of early childhood sexual abuse, and I frankly don’t know the answer to that.  I lived in San Francisco for 2 1/2 years and observed the “gay lifestyle,” surely Jerry has seen more of this.  I am not arguing for such a life style, either hetero or homo. I am just saying that we conservative Christians need to take another look at these issues, and do so from the premise of God’s grace.
Summary: I love and value the Holy Scriptures, but I don’t worship them, nor gloss over the contradictions therein.  And I say that as an Evangelical Christian.
I think that St. Paul was wrong on women in the church (S. Baptists please forgive me).  My earliest memory of a pastor is sitting on her lap, at age 5 or 6.  Sister Allie Taylor told me to never forget that Jesus loves me.  I haven’t, nor have I been able to follow the logic that some propound that women cannot be ministers, pastors, chaplains, evangelists.  Didn’t Jesus send us a signal on Easter when he chose the Magdalene to carry the first message of the resurrection?  I guess what I am trying to say is that too many of us fundamentalists (I prefer the term Evangelical) have morphed into worshipping, or at least seeming to, “inerrant” Scriptures rather than the risen Lord, the Living Word.  And I say again, I love and thank God for the Scriptures.
I hope that some of you, who haven’t entered on these subjects, will do so. 

I've liked these discussions. Good thinking. I am more in the "dang, if I know more or less category." Jesus surely talked more about love than he did homosexuality, however. I tell you what I've noticed in myself, being here in the bastion of gay and lesbian existence. I often make a joke and call gays, "fruits, fruitcakes," usually talking to some buddy like myself. And, when I sit down and think about it (to be honest, I don't waste much time thinking about it, only when we have a discussion like now), I feel badly that I am exhibiting a NC slang which is disrespectful. I run into lots of gays in the medical profession, docs and nurses in the Infusion Center the absolute best nurse I've ever known is gay. (I started to say fruit) why do you say, "homosexuality" as opposed to gay, for instance.