Dear MAGA: Open Topic 20181121

“Zurich Mike is only occasionally active as a moderator, but has been part of CTH from the beginning.”
_______________
I recognize the name, but don’t remember getting into any discussions with him about anything, even though I have not hesitated to talk about homosexuality, or racial issues, for that matter. Not to cause problems, but because subjects deemed ‘taboo’ by the P.C. Police NEED to be discussed frankly like any other.
The only reason they are ‘taboo’ is because ‘the powers that be’ want to use peer-pressure to control the narrative and negatively label anyone who disagrees with their narrative in order to silence them. It’s part of their whole control scheme.
And the only way I know of to blow that scheme out of the water is to talk about those issues just as directly as we would any other. With jokes, with facts, with honest arguments, however we would talk about other subjects, we should talk about so-called ‘taboo’ P.C. subjects the same.
It’s the only way (that I know of) to have an honest discussion about them, because if you self-censor, giving special deference to certain subjects, then you are playing ‘their’ game.
And their game is oppression and suppression of any viewpoint they disagree with. It is the most extreme anti-freedom, anti-free speech position possible, and they have been getting away with it unchallenged (at least in propaganda media) for so long that they are arrogant about it.

“ZM is also a very skilled activist with all their best arguments at the ready. I remember him from the blogs during the 2003 gay bishop conflict when the Episcopal church split.”
_________________
That is a great argument/debate to have. I’ve never seen even a plausible argument for a gay bishop that could withstand even casual scrutiny.
Their argument is with God’s Word, pure and simple.
The qualifications for deacons and elders (a.k.a. bishops) are plainly and specifically given in God’s Word — not once, but twice.
They must be *qualified* according to God’s Word, Whose qualifications for deacons and elders (a.k.a. bishops) are given for the position of bishop in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (posted at the bottom of this reply) and again in Titus 1:5-9, and for the position of deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8-12.
Some of the qualifications are clearly judgment calls, e.g., “vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Tim 3:2b). But some of the qualifications are matters of fact. Biological fact (male), relationship fact (married), reproductive fact (father of at least one child).
Among the qualifications given by God (all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, cf. 2 Timothy 3:16) in order to be a bishop (a.k.a. elder), one must be:
A) a Man,
B) he must be the Husband of ONE WIFE
C) he must have at least ONE child, and
D) his child or children must be FAITHFUL and under his control
God is under no obligation to explain His reasons for these qualifications, but in this case, He does:
……………………………….
“(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Timothy 3:5, KJV)
……………………………….
So the first issue that can be settled is that a woman cannot, by definition, be a bishop. It has nothing to do with men being sexist — God has chosen different roles for men and women, and if anyone wants to accuse God of being sexist, let him or her take that up with God and leave the rest of us out of it.
The second issue that can be settled is that a bishop (who must be a man) must be married. Not according to me, it doesn’t matter what I think about it, but according to God. Error is error. And yes, I am well aware that one church in particular is known worldwide for their unmarried bishops, and it matters not at all what I think about it because I don’t make the rules. God does, and He has.
So if anyone claims to be a bishop but does not meet the qualifications given by God, then do they not occupy the position and office of bishop illegitimately, by definition?
And we have not even arrived at the subject of homosexual bishops yet, so let’s do that now.
Marriage is an institution created by God, between a man and a woman. This clearly excludes male-male and female-female unions as far as God is concerned.
And sexual relations outside of marriage is fornication.
So being human, there are a number of ways people seek to get around God’s Word, and all of them fail.
1) one cannot even be considered for the office or bishop unless you are a man, which necessarily excludes women
2) one cannot even be considered for the office of bishop unless you are a man who is married to a woman, which excludes homosexual unions AND unmarried men. “The husband of one wife” (cf. 1 Tim 3:2b, Titus 1:6).
3) one cannot even be considered for the office of bishop unless you are a man who is married to a woman (one wife) and you have at least one child, and your child (or children) is under your subjection, ‘not accused of riot or unruly’, etc.
And even IF one meets all of the factually verifiable qualifications (a man, married, with child or children), he must still also meet all of the OTHER qualifications, according to the judgment of the congregation where he would serve.
And if any church openly defies God and His Word, and will not repent, is that church not apostate, by definition?
I don’t know what argument Zurich Mike could offer in favor of homosexual bishops that overcomes or supersedes the Authority and plain language of God’s Word. I have seen many try, but I have never seen one yet that could get past ‘go’.
Not because of any skill or ability on my part, it doesn’t matter what I think about any of it. It’s not about me.
If it is the Lord’s church we are talking about, then without controversy, the Lord has power and authority to set the rules for His church.
And if anyone contradicts what God has plainly said, who (or Whom) are we to believe and obey — man, or God?
……………………..
“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29, KJV)
…………………….
If there is any context wherein that verse is not true and applicable, what context would that be?
.
And here are the two passages containing the qualifications necessary in order to be a bishop:
……………………………….
“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.) (1 Timothy 3:1-7, KJV)
……………………………….
.
………………….
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: [6] If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. [7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; [8] But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; [9] Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Titus 1:5-9)
………………….