[SeekAndFind]

"Is Jim Baker's adultery with a woman any less reprehensible than Ted Haggard's lying with a male prostitute?"

With this question as a foundation for trying to make claims to tolerate the degenerate so long as they are resisting temptation, you reveal the twisted nature of your own thinking! Instead of focusing upon the Deliverer, you would have us focus upon the abject failure of highly regarded, still unregenerate men who held themselves and their lusts as superior to the deliverance Jesus brings to the human soul by placing His Life int he human spirit!

My friend, why would the above question I posed by interpreted as TOLERATING the degenerate ? The asking of the question should imply that I DO NOT tolerate sexual degeneracy in both forms --- heterosexual or homosexual.

As for "highly regarded" men --- that is exactly my point -- NO ONE, NO MATTER HOW HIGHLY REGARDED IS IMMUNE FROM temptation.

The problem I have is this -- Christians mostly focus on ONE FORM of degeneracy (homosexual lust) and then take for granted the other form of degeneracy ( heterosexual lust ). That is a very unbalanced view. If you won't tolerate one, you should not tolerate the other.

As for focusing on the deliverer, of course we should. But to do that, we have to KNOW the sin He is delivering us from, and it is not simply sexual lust ( in both forms ), but lust of other things ( e.g. money, power, etc.).

And here's my point again --- pastors are tempted by ALL FORMS of lusts ( be it sexual or material ). When a pastor is tempted, but through God's grace, does not fall for the temptation, we do not then say that the pastor is not fit for his position. Therefore, if a pastor is tempted by sexual lust ( heterosexual or homosexual ) but through God's help, does not fall for it ( i.e. remains celibate, or is abstinent ), why should the pastor not be fit to continue being a pastor ? *THAT* is my point.

[MHGinTN]

This will be my final post to you because I sense by discernment that you are serving the father of lies, as your effort to purposely dissemble what I wrote attests.

You quote partially from what I wrote in order to mischaracterize the message. THAT is a technique used extensively by deceivers and liars, as Satan used the technique int eh Garden to woo Eve.

Here is the entire sentence, then what you tried to lift out of context in order to mischaracterize the message:

My actual sentence: "With this question as a foundation for trying to make claims to tolerate the degenerate so long as they are resisting temptation, you reveal the twisted nature of your own thinking!"

You purposely left off the 'so long as they are resisting temptation'. Your plea is specious in that aspect of your twisting the issue to tolerate the unregenerate as leaders so long as they are not caught acting upon the lusts of their unregenerate soul. You apparently do not comprehend that the delivered soul is under the guidance of the Life of God, in the spirit of man. And under such guidance the moment of tempting is the near simultaneous moment of God's still small voice within instructing to flee from the temptation so it has no power to corrode His children! That still small voice is not heard by the unregenerate soul, yet you would dissemble the lesson in order to persuade tolerance for those unregenerates who are resisting acting on their temptations. The leadership in the Church must be by regenerate souls, not imitated by the unregenerate mightily resisting temptations. For you see, even the mighty fall to temptation since it is their nature, as your two examples so vividly illustrate. Yet you want to dissemble their lesson to diminish the power of God's Spirit in the human spirit as deliverer from temptation.

You are seeking to deceive by mischaracterizing the message which strikes at the heart of your effort to dissemble the actual issue of temptation and the victory over same which the Deliverer accomplishes when His Life is placed as the earnest of inheritance into the human spirit, which then teaches the human soul to be obedient to the righteousness of God.

You are deceptive and in being such you serve the father of lies, wittingly or unwittingly. You would rewrite The story of Ruth to have her once again out in the fields picking up fallen grains for sustenance when she is heir to the Grace in the Barn of the Kinsman Redeemer. You would rename Obed (worship) to be Jacob (twister).

Get thee behind me, Satan. Loose your grasp on the mind of this poster, SeekAndFind. Cease the conflation attempts in this discussion.