Is denying service spreading the message of Christ?
- Thread starter johnnycanuck
- Start date
- Status
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
I did want to contend more directly to one point about the inconsistency of selling cakes for multiple heterosexual weddings while refusing homosexual weddings. The difference is the simple application of the hermeneutic of charity in one's dealings with others. It is possible to mess up and sell a cake to celebrate the marriage of a couple of straight louts who are immoral in every possible way when one doesn't know about the situation behind the wedding. That is reasonable in a world of finite beings with finite knowledge. Such an oversight is impossible in the case of homosexuals if the baker knows it is a cake for a same sex wedding. Big difference.
johnnycanuck
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you M.Rice! You have understood me! Never once was I promoting a homosexual agenda nor was I condoning homosexual marrige. I was merely looking at the act of denying service not being gracious or gospel. I have been married for 22 years and it is obvious that I have missed the mark countless times when it comes to the model of Eph 5. What I want to stir up, if anything, is to find a better solution to reach out to a people who are just as blind in their sin as any other sin. It is obvious to see when someone wants a cake with same sex figures on it. But as many have noted, the baker may have baked a cake for countless people who are in equally as grievous sin. What I was getting at is if the baker is going to deny someone a cake for disagreeing with homosexual marrige, then the baker should also seek to find out whether he or she is baking cakes for couples who may also be undeserving of said cake.
So please forgive me if i can't wrap my head around this. I am just trying to find a way that would magnify Christ. I am not saying that I would as a baker, sell them the cake. Apparantly, I have beat this horse dead, so I guess I stop.
So please forgive me if i can't wrap my head around this. I am just trying to find a way that would magnify Christ. I am not saying that I would as a baker, sell them the cake. Apparantly, I have beat this horse dead, so I guess I stop.
I think your point was clear enough from the start. The difference between your two scenarios is that in the case of the cake with two brides or two grooms, no behind-the-scenes investigation is necessary. The thing speaks for itself and is plainly wrong.
That objective recognition does not create a duty to also snoop out the sins of other customers.
johnnycanuck
Puritan Board Freshman
You are right Victor Bravo. That would be an intrusion on others pivacy.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
I think you answered your own question. (Bold, my emphasis, of course)
Elizabeth
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, Don: most male-female couples who come in and order a cake aren't going to give the baker a run-down of their particular sins. When a homosex couple comes in, the sin is very evident. Are you suggesting that, in order to 'make things fair', the baker should pre-approve all couples who come in for a cake, maybe with a questionaire? A kind of 'leveling' of the field, so to speak?
Elizabeth
Puritan Board Sophomore
"I am just trying to find a way that would magnify Christ"
Well, celebrate male-female marriages, then. Even those with a bad start(living together previous to, prior marriages in some instances) can be redeemed by our Lord. Homosex marriages are not redeemable. They mock God's very good creation, male and female in marriage. Just my 2cents.
Well, celebrate male-female marriages, then. Even those with a bad start(living together previous to, prior marriages in some instances) can be redeemed by our Lord. Homosex marriages are not redeemable. They mock God's very good creation, male and female in marriage. Just my 2cents.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
johnnycanuck
Puritan Board Freshman
Elizabeth, I do not celebrate same-sex marriage, I do not condone same-sex marriage, but what I do want to do is to find a way to reach out to any sinner other than just flat out denying them service. Most everyone here has some how construed that my simply trying finding a better way to reach out to this specific group of sinners has me agreeing with their behaviour. Maybe it is my Canadian accent showing through?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
It's a "no brainer" that a Christian baker should not supply wedding cake to a homosexual couple. The same would be the case if a bigamist or polygamist wanted a cake or if it was made plain to the baker that the couple getting married were adulterers who had just left their respective spouses to get married, although this is not always apparent in the same way as the case of the homosexual couple is.
Birthday cake is quite different. It's not immoral for homosexuals or adulterers to celebrate their birthdays, but it is immoral for them to traduce marriage.
As for reaching out to them, the Christian baker, as well as making clear that Scripture is against their sin by not baking a cake, can share the Gospel with them verbally or in written form.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Birthday cake is quite different. It's not immoral for homosexuals or adulterers to celebrate their birthdays, but it is immoral for them to traduce marriage.
As for reaching out to them, the Christian baker, as well as making clear that Scripture is against their sin by not baking a cake, can share the Gospel with them verbally or in written form.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Bethel
Puritan Board Freshman
It's not your Canadian accent as much as your proclivity toward the social gospel. You've given no scriptural proof that it is unbiblical for a Christian business owner to deny service to a homosexual "couple"--especially when that service would celebrate a union in direct violation to God's word. It's your preference that we "find a better way". What did you expect the owner to do? Make the cake and then pass out tracts at the wedding? Tell the "couple" that it's wrong, but go ahead and make the cake anyway, implying that the "marriage" really isn't that bad, or even worse, that business profit is more important? Christians are in the world, but not of the world. We need to stand for God's word, especially when it is being directly challenged.
Johnnycanuck,
Am I to take it that you WOULD sell a "wedding" cake to help celebrate two homosexuals' partnership, and believe it was a better way to spread the gospel than simply and conscientiously refusing to participate in such an event?
If not, then why the problem with this baker's actions?
Am I to take it that you WOULD sell a "wedding" cake to help celebrate two homosexuals' partnership, and believe it was a better way to spread the gospel than simply and conscientiously refusing to participate in such an event?
If not, then why the problem with this baker's actions?
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
I am glad that Josh quoted the Larger Catechism's teaching on the 7th Commandment, because that's where my mind went as well!
Look, I make video games, and I have turned down job opportunities for making games that glorified violence, and sexuality. Why is this any different?
Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. And if the homosexual act is an abomination, then certainly The only redemption in a homosexual "marriage" is to dissolve it. However, a marriage between a man and a woman can be redeemed.
My wife and I were not believers when we were married. However, by the grace of God He redeemed our marriage by converting both of us.
In contrast, a "marriage" between two homosexuals is not valid. If either of the two were to be redeemed by Christ their relationship would have to end.
I also would be outraged by the fact that they call such a thing "marriage". God gets to decide what marriage is or is not. It is no different than me calling a rose bush a human being. It is nonsensical. It is wrong and it makes zero sense. And if a homosexual act is an abomination, then rebranding marriage and applying it to such wickedness is even worse in my eyes.
As such, it isn't even proper to call it a marriage, and I believe it does our Lord great dishonor to call it as such. Our Lord has ownership of that word, and the concept. I would not dare attempt to legitimize the defacing of the Creation Ordinance of marriage with applying it to something that cannot be considered a marriage.
Nor would I bake a cake with a golden calf on it, even if the person ordering it tried to assuage my conscience by saying "but we want to worship the Lord with a golden calf". Folks, I've read that one before - and it didn't go so well
So, consider my denying the baking of the cake a gracious thing to the sinners involved - my hope would be that this would acquaint them with the first use of the law.
Look, I make video games, and I have turned down job opportunities for making games that glorified violence, and sexuality. Why is this any different?
Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. And if the homosexual act is an abomination, then certainly The only redemption in a homosexual "marriage" is to dissolve it. However, a marriage between a man and a woman can be redeemed.
My wife and I were not believers when we were married. However, by the grace of God He redeemed our marriage by converting both of us.
In contrast, a "marriage" between two homosexuals is not valid. If either of the two were to be redeemed by Christ their relationship would have to end.
I also would be outraged by the fact that they call such a thing "marriage". God gets to decide what marriage is or is not. It is no different than me calling a rose bush a human being. It is nonsensical. It is wrong and it makes zero sense. And if a homosexual act is an abomination, then rebranding marriage and applying it to such wickedness is even worse in my eyes.
As such, it isn't even proper to call it a marriage, and I believe it does our Lord great dishonor to call it as such. Our Lord has ownership of that word, and the concept. I would not dare attempt to legitimize the defacing of the Creation Ordinance of marriage with applying it to something that cannot be considered a marriage.
Nor would I bake a cake with a golden calf on it, even if the person ordering it tried to assuage my conscience by saying "but we want to worship the Lord with a golden calf". Folks, I've read that one before - and it didn't go so well
So, consider my denying the baking of the cake a gracious thing to the sinners involved - my hope would be that this would acquaint them with the first use of the law.
johnnycanuck
Puritan Board Freshman
How many times do I have to say, I do not condone same sex marriage, that would obviously imply that if I were a baker, I would not sell the couple the cake. But apparently the act denying these heathens a cake will get me a reward at The Bema Seat. Have any of you actually shared the gospel with any homosexuals? I have, they were my co-workers, and I it was only after several months working with them. I am convinced that they should see evidence of christian virtues evident in our lives. Then I shared my views on homosexuality and what the bible teaches. I am not aware if they repented but that is up to God. I planted the seed. Many years ago I when I was in bible college in Mass. I would spend my weekends in NYC passing out tracts and sharing the gospel to prostitutes, male and female, the homeless and I would sit with and talk to them about their sin and that Christ could forgive and cleanse. Being in the Candian Military I am faced with many who challlenge me on my stance. But you know what? I don't just spew out that homoswxuality is an abomination, I calmly and graciously give my biblical stance. I even go so far to tell them that there is no scientific proof that you are born this way. If this is the social gospel, I am guilty.
Athaleyah
Puritan Board Sophomore
johnnycanuck,
No one here has said there are special rewards for treating homosexuals differently than other sinners. But this is a hot-button issue in much of the world right now. No one is going to come into a photographer's studio and say, "My son just stole his first car and I want you to come photograph it!" then sue the photographer for refusing on moral grounds. But Christian business owners are getting sued for refusing to violate their beliefs. This is an issue right now, and these Christian professionals didn't go out looking to make a statement. But many times, that is exactly what the homosexual celebrants are doing.
In the New Mexico case, the photographers refused to photograph a homosexual "wedding" and gave them a list of other photographers in the area. For most people without an agenda, that would have been enough. But there is an agenda, a direct assault on Christians' ability to live the peaceful lives according to their deeply help beliefs. Christians are not the ones who decided to make this an issue.
And you are accusing others here of making homosexuality a special sin, yet you seem to be making homosexual evangelism a special type of holiness that must be accomplished before someone can have a reasonable opinion on issues pertaining to homosexuality. The question shouldn't be: have you shared the gospel with <X-type of person>. The question is: have you shared the gospel with the people you know where you are? Do you try to love all people, regardless of whatever sin they've committed? Do you try to live a life following your Scripture-enlightened conscience? Do you pray for those caught in sin of whatever type? Homosexuality isn't a special sin; its just the one being advocated right now, the one people are being forced to deal with whether they want to or not.
I have a great amount of compassion for homosexuals as people. I grieve that their desires that can feel like the core of their identity are so twisted, wrong, and damaging to them. I feel compassion that they want families and to love, even if what they are feeling isn't really love. And I think almost everyone here feels that way.
But as a Christian professional, you don't have a relationship with the person. You have two options: provide the service or do not. So as gracefully as kindly as you can, you need to follow your conscience while respectfully refusing to do whatever act you cannot. You can gently and lovingly refuse to do something someone else desperately wants. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do is say "no."
It is not specific to homosexuality in any way. It has always been the same, whatever the sin you are being challenged by at the time. My friend's husband lost his job because he refused to fudge accounting records. Another friend's son-in-law lost his job because he said he would not willingly lie to customers. Sin is sin and we should respond the same way whether it is the "topic of the day" or not. We do not glorify God by going against conscience to "reach" people. We glorify God by loving them, praying for their good, and refusing to participate in their sins.
No one here has said there are special rewards for treating homosexuals differently than other sinners. But this is a hot-button issue in much of the world right now. No one is going to come into a photographer's studio and say, "My son just stole his first car and I want you to come photograph it!" then sue the photographer for refusing on moral grounds. But Christian business owners are getting sued for refusing to violate their beliefs. This is an issue right now, and these Christian professionals didn't go out looking to make a statement. But many times, that is exactly what the homosexual celebrants are doing.
In the New Mexico case, the photographers refused to photograph a homosexual "wedding" and gave them a list of other photographers in the area. For most people without an agenda, that would have been enough. But there is an agenda, a direct assault on Christians' ability to live the peaceful lives according to their deeply help beliefs. Christians are not the ones who decided to make this an issue.
And you are accusing others here of making homosexuality a special sin, yet you seem to be making homosexual evangelism a special type of holiness that must be accomplished before someone can have a reasonable opinion on issues pertaining to homosexuality. The question shouldn't be: have you shared the gospel with <X-type of person>. The question is: have you shared the gospel with the people you know where you are? Do you try to love all people, regardless of whatever sin they've committed? Do you try to live a life following your Scripture-enlightened conscience? Do you pray for those caught in sin of whatever type? Homosexuality isn't a special sin; its just the one being advocated right now, the one people are being forced to deal with whether they want to or not.
I have a great amount of compassion for homosexuals as people. I grieve that their desires that can feel like the core of their identity are so twisted, wrong, and damaging to them. I feel compassion that they want families and to love, even if what they are feeling isn't really love. And I think almost everyone here feels that way.
But as a Christian professional, you don't have a relationship with the person. You have two options: provide the service or do not. So as gracefully as kindly as you can, you need to follow your conscience while respectfully refusing to do whatever act you cannot. You can gently and lovingly refuse to do something someone else desperately wants. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do is say "no."
It is not specific to homosexuality in any way. It has always been the same, whatever the sin you are being challenged by at the time. My friend's husband lost his job because he refused to fudge accounting records. Another friend's son-in-law lost his job because he said he would not willingly lie to customers. Sin is sin and we should respond the same way whether it is the "topic of the day" or not. We do not glorify God by going against conscience to "reach" people. We glorify God by loving them, praying for their good, and refusing to participate in their sins.
Last edited:
johnnycanuck
Puritan Board Freshman
I only spoke about my evangelising homosexuals because it was particular to the topic. I pray for and share my faith to all sinners. I just read about the New Mexico photographers who lost their case against the supreme court to refuse to photograph a wedding on religious grounds. It is obvious that because we are in the tribulation between the time that Satan has been bound and up until he is loosed to gather an international army to war against God at that great battle; we christians will be lose more and more for living as believers of Jesus. Just as the Revelation, and those living during the writing of the letter, we will lose jobs, homes, family and even our lives for not "taking the mark". I now realise that the homosexual agenda is so incidious, militant and anti-God that even the they will go out of their way to destroy christian businesses. I guess it an uncomfortable reality to know that this world is going to become more hostile to christianity, to the point of persecution, even death. I have suffered loss in my career for my witness as a christian in the military, so I know first hand; and this was because of a homosexual commanding officer.
Last edited:
It's dead. Killing it.
- Status
