So Ray Boltz is Gay…

17 Sep

In case you have not heard old school “Christian” singer Ray Boltz has divorced his wife of 33 years and come out as gay (though not necessarily in that order).  Now for the record I think it is wrong to have Gay sex,  i also think it is wrong to have any kind of straight sex with someone you are not married to.  I also think murder is wrong.  I also think that lying is wrong.  I also think drinking to the point of being drunk is wrong.  And so we are clear I have friends who do all of the above.  But here is the thing that bothers me,  Ray is quoted as saying he came to terms with the fact that he was gay because God made him this way and God would not make him that way if it were wrong.   This seems to be one of the most non-sensible statements to me.  Because God did not make Ray that way,  Adam did.  This is the doctrine of inherited sin (i.e. Just as Adam sinned in him we also sinned…) In Calvinism it is the T in Tulip, or total depravity. Now i have lots of friends who do not like “ULIP” but I do not know many people who deny the “T” I mean come on its the “T”  and anyone who knows humans knows the  “T”.  The problem here it seems to me is that Ray wants to acknowledge God as his father but deny that he is related to his other father Adam.  But he is related to Adam,  we all are, and as such we are all born sinful.  On the one hand Ray says God made me and he made me wonderful! Great! So does the Bible in Psalms David says the same when he says “I am fearfully and wonderfully made,” but Ray wants to deny the fact that not only is he made by God, but he is corrupted by Adam,  the same David says in the Psalms “I was evil from birth, I was conceived in sin.”

 My point is this: Because you have a tendency toward something beyond your control does not mean that it is ok to do it.  It may mean that you need to be redeemed from it.  Because you have had an issue from birth does not mean it is from God, it may be from Adam.   In our family that means that we are prone to alcoholism…everyone does it.  It seems to be genetic, but i am not going to celebrate it as the way God made me,  I am going to chalk it up to Adam,  and in the Cross overcome it.


35 Responses to “So Ray Boltz is Gay…”

  1. Sean September 17, 2008 at 6:05 pm #

    Usually when someone from the LBGT group says “God made me that way” they mean that it is part of their biology. They will say that it is not a choice so they don’t see it relating to sin. I completely disagree with this assessment but I suspect that is what Boltz meant.

  2. poopemerges September 17, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    Sean, I agree that Ray is probably saying that it is biology…but I see Biology as another area of humanity corrupted by the fall. Even if it is biology the fact is that is is post-Adamic biology…Sin is a matter of choice and nature. I did not choose to be born a sinner. But I was.

  3. Natalie September 17, 2008 at 6:34 pm #

    Isn’t he the “Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb” guy? So sad…

  4. mikevandrie September 17, 2008 at 8:00 pm #

    how can people mess up the “T” that is the first one. Some people’s kids.

  5. amybaker September 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm #

    The most troublesome thing to me when this happens, (as it has in churches my husband and I are from), is that regardless of what you think about homosexuality; he still divorced his wife. I do not know the details of this, it’s the first I’ve heard, but the sad and scary thing is when a Dad leaves his wife and kids, with the justification of being closeted. Well, suppose he really believes the Bible makes room for it, he still chose to get married, and have a family, and it seems awfully selfish to end a relationship b/c you want to be ‘True to yourself,” which seems to be a phrase often used.

  6. poopemerges September 18, 2008 at 12:06 am #

    Amy that is so well said! I totally agree and if I wasn’t being sort of lazy about the post I would have included that. Thank you for making a great point!


  7. kerr September 21, 2008 at 6:10 pm #

    what a load of absolute trash about the whole Ray Boltz thing.
    so many comments on here are the usual hyper calvanist ‘we are right – everyone else is wrong’ approach. Some people are gay – get over it. Its not comparable to having ‘a problem with’ or a ‘temptation to’ ………get over yourselves!

  8. Tim Morris September 21, 2008 at 8:55 pm #

    I agree with Kerr.
    All this talk about Ray leaving his wife, (the kids are grown and out of the house).
    Maybe his wife would rather not be married to a gay man.
    His children love and support him, his ex-wife loves and supports him. Ray is singing again and still follows Christ. Not as a gay Christian but as a Christian that happens to be gay. God bless him as he continues to touch the lives of so many.
    If you are interested in a biblical view other than your own read, What the Bible Says – And Doesn’t Say – About Homosexuality

  9. poopemerges September 21, 2008 at 10:11 pm #


    Thanks for stopping by. Even if I were to agree to your view on Homosexuality…I still see divorce as a non-option biblically. I also (even having read your position) disagree that someone can follow Jesus and practice sexual sin at the same time (be that gay or straight)… But thank you for the dialogue…

  10. Joel Shaffer September 22, 2008 at 7:23 am #


    If you don’t agree with what is being written here, at least try to formulate an argument that addresses the Calvinistic view rather than “trash” the people who disagree with your point of view or say that their argument is “trash.”

  11. amybaker September 22, 2008 at 11:44 am #

    Tim: I apologize if my comment came off as hurtful, but I was trying to take care to note that I did not know the details of the situation

    “I do not know the details of this, it’s the first I’ve heard, but the sad and scary thing is when a Dad leaves his wife and kids, with the justification of being closeted.”

    , and was commenting on others leaving their families with the justification of sexual orientation. What I am taking issue with, is not Ray in particular, I literally know nothing about him. I am talking about men or women who leave their families for same sex or opposite sex partners, and leave children in their wake.
    Maybe you are correct in the theory that his wife did not want to be married any longer either, I do not know. But, suppose she did, and had children who were still at home.
    All I am trying to say, is that the argument, (from gay, straight or otherwise) that you need to leave your family to find fulfillment, seems selfish when you have made a commitment to them.
    Thanks for posting the link by the way, I found the website informative.

  12. Robert Esland September 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    Hi, could I please make some observations?

    Amy: you take a biblical stand on a biblical issue. On along comes Tim who disagrees with you. Why, then, do you apologize to him? You are a Christian, you are bound to hurt the feelings of some, in particular the feelings of those who hate God and of those who reject the parts of the Bible that do not conform to their liking.

    Kerr: I can assure you that there are many Christians who are not Calvinist but nevertheless reject the notion that Christians can be practising homosexuals.

    Tim, you write: ‘Ray is singing again and still follows Christ.’ Well, I’m sure he is, but the trouble for Ray is, he can only follow Christ from a great distance. You see, Christ is in a place where people like Ray are not allowed to enter.

    So if you are feeling any sympathy for Ray, I think you would better help him by praying that something happens that makes him stop indulging in a lifestyle that God abhors instead of denying that his future does not look bright.


  13. amybaker September 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm #

    Robert, I am not apologizing for my view, I am apologizing for the way I may have come across. As I am sure you are well aware, the Christian community has done a very, very poor job of common, decent courtesy and respect in this arena.
    As a result, some antagonism I am sure seeps into me that I am unaware of. The climate the church has created on this causes even benign comments to be misconstrued b/c others are hearing what you say through their lens of previous bad experiences with Christianity.
    If someone is hurt because they disagree with my opinion on something that is one thing, but if I am being injurious through the way I communicate or interpret a very delicate issue, I want to avoid it all costs.

  14. Robert Esland September 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    I understand your point, but I was just wondering whether one may be overly sensitive about possibly hurting the feelings of people who behave in the disrespectful mode that Tim and Kerr were adopting.

    The owner of this blog responded to your comments: ‘Amy that is so well said!’
    Then Kerr wrote: ‘what a load of absolute trash…’ and ‘…get over yourselves!’ And Tim continues, on the first line of his comment, ‘I agree with Kerr.’ Well, isn’t the fact that the owner of the blog so clearly approves of your contribution reassurance that you were not ‘being injurious through the way’ that you were commenting?

    I do not believe in the current trend where victims are often compelled to apologise and forgive culprits even before culprits have indicated they regret having caused offense. Likewise, I did not think it wise when you started to apologise for possibly hurting the feelings of either of these two.

    I do not think that anything you or I say or not say will ever change people’s attitude to a number of things the Bible says. I also believe that there is no-one who was more careful about how he said things than Jesus Christ. And look where it got him: he was crucified nevertheless! It’s not just the way we say things; it is also the things themselves that make people respond angrily to us. There simply is no way that a Christian message about homosexuality not being approved of by God is ever going to be acceptable to people who refuse to align themselves with that judgement.

    Isn’t it true that we shall have to live with being unpopular in the eyes of many?

  15. Meade September 22, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    Robert: True the truth unites and divides. However in my experience most people have rejected a false Christ and false christianity. As a pastor I want to give everyone a chance to believe or reject the truth. To do that on an issue like this you’ve got to go to great lengths to qualify statements and make sure what is being hear is actually what is being said. This discussion is a perfect example. No one here did the “Calvinist” thing but it was brought up anyway.

  16. amybaker September 22, 2008 at 11:29 pm #

    I agree that nothing we say will change people’s attitude towards things, because it is not our job to convict unbeliever’s that is the Holy Spirit’s job. My responsibility is to simultaneously hold up love, grace, and truth, not to convict on anything. It is also not my responsibility to try and convict someone with whom I am not in some sort of relationship. Whether or not those two men are Christians, I do not know, but it’s not my job to convict them. I am responsible for the attitudes, hurt, and hatefulness shown to this population by God’s people, it’s reprehensible.
    When it comes to speaking with someone who is not a believer, or who has been hurt by Christianty, I believe we cannot err in responding with grace and humility.
    It is not about my rights, and whether or not they have been violated, it is whether or not the message of Christ is being impeded by my own actions, or that of the church.
    If they disrespect me, so be it! That is really okay, but if I am fighting toe to toe with people who believe incredibly differently than I do, without grace and love, I am doing disservice to the gospel.

  17. Cara September 23, 2008 at 12:25 am #

    Robert, I have to disagree with you when you say “Christ is in a place where people like Ray cannot enter.” A place where sinners can’t enter? Apparently, I’m not getting into heaven and neither are you. Besides the fact that your statement only mentions heaven and doesn’t mention a relationship with God, I find a lot wrong with it.
    “People like Ray”? I agree with this blog post — I do think that acting out on homosexual feelings is wrong. So is gossiping, lying, speeding, not wearing my seatbelt, etc.
    God doesn’t rank sins, and neither should we.
    The gossip I committed yesterday hurt Christ just as much on the cross as someone living a homosexual lifestyle.
    Sin is not what keeps us out of heaven and away from a relationship with Christ. What we believe about God and what He has said is the way to have a relationship with Him is what determines our relationship now and our eternal state.

  18. Sean September 23, 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    Sin is exactly what keeps people out of heaven. Sin is detestible to God and he will not allow it in his presence.
    The issue here is not whether Ray Boltz has sinned but has Christ payed for that sin? If we reject the rule of Christ in our lives by persisting in sin, we have no hope of salvation. However, if we reject sin by submitting to Christ as the Lord of life we have hope. Only those who submitt to the rule of Christ to the end will be saved.

    What we believe will determine how we live. If we live a life that rejects the rule of Christ, then we don’t really believe that he is Lord. “By their fruit you will know them.”

  19. Sean September 23, 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    Some people are gay. This is true. But it does not make them any less responsible to follow the commands of God. I am heterosexual but that doesn’t mean I have the right to have sex with whomever I want. I still have to submit to the rule of Christ.

    Soulforce is notorious for making the Bible match their presuppositions. They start with the assumption that homosexuality is genetic (something which cannot be proven). Then they assume that if it is genetic it must not be wrong (faulty logic because right and wrong are not a product of genetics). Finally, they interpret the Bible with these assumptions. The end result is that they come to the opposite conclusion of what the Bible is actually saying. If I were to interpret your comments like they interpret the Bible, I would be left to assume that you think being gay is morally wrong.

  20. Cara September 23, 2008 at 8:30 pm #

    Let me clarify; yes, sin separates us from God, but it is not in the end a case of “Oh, you sinned in this way, so you can’t be in heaven.” It’s an issue of whether we have trusted Christ as our Savior from sin. I know we actually agree on this; I didn’t word it well before.
    And as far as what you say about rejecting the rule of Christ in our lives by persisting in sin, I would have to say I think we all do that. We all still sin.
    Many Christians like to point to homosexuality and say “oh, that’s a lifestyle of sin, so that means you can’t be a Christian and be gay.” I don’t see “lifestyle of sin” in the Bible anywhere; we all continue to sin even after we are saved.
    Certainly none of us should be persisting in sin of any kind, yet unfortunately we still do.
    Whatever it is for any person, I think we all have things we struggle with on a daily basis and sometimes fail. We can’t point to something like homosexuality and say “Well, they’re living a lifestyle of sin” when we are getting angry in traffic on the way to work every morning, or whatever it is for us…

  21. Robert Esland September 24, 2008 at 5:59 am #

    Meade, I will probably like you and respect you as a person, but as a pastor you have chosen to travel to a desert without orientiation points.

    ‘As a pastor I want to give everyone a chance to believe or reject the truth.’

    This is an instance of the kind of Christian arrogance that is so hateful to many unbelievers. Who are you to ‘give everyone a chance’ what to believe? Do people depend on you giving them a chance to choose their belief? The truth is, everybody already has a chance. It is an integral part of the make up of human beings. Or, if you adhere to Reformed Theology, people’s chances depend on the Holy Ghost. In either case whether people have a chance to believe or reject the truth does most certainly not depend on us.

    ‘…you’ve got to go to great lengths to qualify statements and make sure what is being hear is actually what is being said.’

    This I classify as rubbish. When asked by someone ‘what colour is the tomato?’ and the tomato is red, it suffices to announce that the tomato is red. The person uttering the statement is not responsible for the deaf ears of others: everybody on earth is solely responsible for hearing what is being said. Personally I detest the custom that is exemplified by not daring to say the tomato is red to someone who has decided not to like red. So what if someone does not like red? It doesn’t alter the colour of the tomato.

    What I read between your lines is that you have a lot of empathy for people who do not like red (to continue the analogy) even to the extent that you carefully weigh your words in order to do everything in your power to avoid hurting the feelings of those who do not like red.

    Well, that’s your choice. But in my mind it doesn’t improve your effectiveness as a pastor. I’m saying that we will never be able to deliver the clear message of the tomato being red to people who do not like red, as long as we maintain the attitude of going ‘to great lengths to qualify statements’.

    Meade, you nor I can ‘make sure what is being hear[d] is actually what is being said’. We can make sure to use the right words, like ‘the tomato is red’, or ‘God does not allow practising homosexuals into His Kingdom.’ We cannot make sure that others hear them who don’t want to hear these messages. They have to change their position to hear these messages. They are, of course, at liberty not to do so, but I consider it foolish to apologise for clearly stating a message to those who have an aversion to it, and I consider it dangerous to qualify the message we are supposed to deliver out of respect for people’s feelings or emotions.

    Christians are called to speak out, not to cloak their words for fear of hurting the precious feelings of people who reject some or all of the messages of the Bible. Christians are summoned to ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect… (1 Petr. 3:15, NIV). With gentleness and respect is not the same as qualifying the content of the message in order not to offend. The word of God is already an offense to many. So be it. There is no reason why we should add to that offense but there is equally no reason why we should try to obscure the reality of what the Bible actually says.

    You nor I are responsible for the fate of those who plainly hear God’s message and then reject it (by closing their ears). But what if people have not heard because we chose to ‘go to great lengths to qualify’ God’s statements? Are we implying that God didn’t choose the right words? Are we saying that God was not sensitive enough to people’s feelings? Or could it be that we will be facing the prospect of standing before the throne of the Almighty God who made Heaven and Earth, trembling with fear because some people are barred from entering the Kingdom of Heaven on account of not having heard the warnings because we chose to qualify God’s message?

    It’s your call, Meade, but I’m not with you in this.


  22. Robert Esland September 24, 2008 at 6:44 am #

    Cara, I see there is a need to address the issue of heaven and the Kingdom of God.

    You are right to say that it is not a case of “Oh, you sinned in this way, so you can’t be in heaven.” We believe that people who trust Jesus Christ as their saviour will go to heaven and have the right to enter eternal life. That includes people who sin in whatever way.

    However, not all of heaven is the same. There is a special place in heaven called the ‘Kingdom of God.’ I know many if not most Christians do not differentiate between Heaven and this Kingdom and that’s where all the confusion stems from.

    The Bible clearly and unambiguously states that people who practice homosexuality cannot enter the Kingdom of God. The Bible never mentions that those sinners cannot enter Heaven; of course they can, they merely have to trust Jesus. So if the Ray we’re speaking of accepts Jesus Christ as his saviour, he will go to heaven.

    But he will not get into the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is a special place in Heaven, reserved for those who do not practice a number of specific sins. That’s why there are high walls around that Kingdom. That’s why the Bible literally says: ‘outside are …’ The Bible doesn’t say these people are outside of Heaven, of course not, that would contradict the main message.

    Unless one is willing to accept that Heaven is not just one Happy Garden where everyone is equal, it will be difficult to grasp this concept of the Kingdom being a ‘set apart’ place for those who refrain from persisting in the named sins that God abhors. But once a person understands that the concept of hierarchy will not end when this present world ends, things become clearer. Why would there be thrones in the Kingdom of God is everyone is equal? Why this talk about reigning as Kings? Reigning as Kings over whom?

    The Kingdom of God is a fabulous place; it is a place where all those who offend God and Jesus and the angels and the upright believers (which is not the same as sinless because we all sin) are not allowed to enter. They are outside. Outside, that is, after the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth. The new Heaven and the New Earth are going to be much, much bigger than the Kingdom of God.

    People like Ray will most likely go to heaven if they don’t reject God; they will, however, not enter the glorious city, the Kingdom of God, if they persist in the specific kinds of sin that Jesus Christ personally named in Revelation:

    “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches.” (Rev 22:14-16).

    Jesus is not differentiating here between believers and unbelievers as most Christians almost automatically assume; he is making it known that those believers who persist in certain kinds of sin cannot enter the holy city. The sin of ‘getting angry in traffic on the way to work every morning’ is not listed among the sins that are ‘shameful and deceitful’ (Rev 21:27) that bar one from entering the city.

    Let’s not add words or remove from the words that Jesus spoke. Therefore, let’s not add specific sins to, or remove specific sins from the list that Jesus informed us about.


  23. Meade September 24, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

    Robert: What you’re doing is a perfect example of what I’m talking about when I say I want to make sure what is being heard is actually what is being said. You have an impulse to read between the lines things that haven’t actually been said. I think that’s probably the problem with how much of evangelicalism deals with homosexuals.

    I’d suggest reading up on reformed theology and missional contextualization because your problems with them aren’t really valid for what they actually are. You’re welcome to disagree with what they actually believe but I don’t think you’re doing that here.

  24. Robert Esland September 25, 2008 at 4:30 pm #

    Meade, maybe you could help me out here. What, actually, did you mean with ‘making sure that what is being heard is actually what is being said.’ I seem to have been unable to follow you.

    I am not an evangelical.

    I am under the impression that the Bible has a problem with homosexuality. Am I wrong in this interpretation, do you think?

    Why would I need to read up on missional contextualization? I don’t even know what missional contextualization is. So how could I have problems with it?

    I do not understand your remark ‘…your problems with them aren’t really valid for what they actually are.’ It could be a lack of understanding English idiom on my part. Could you explain this sentence, please?

    Who do you refer to with ‘they’ in the last sentence. Do you refer to reformed theology and m.c.? I was not even aware that theology was able to believe anything at all; I’ve always thought only people believe. Or are you, when you mention ‘reformed theology’ referring to the people who hold reformed theology as the guiding doctrine for their life rather than to the doctrine itself?

    You say that I am welcome to disagree but you don’t think I am doing that. I don’t undertand this either. So what I am doing, do you think?

    Finally, I have clearly stated what I believe on the issue of homosexuality and Christians. You have not done likewise. In fact, you have not addressed any of the issues we are debating. Is that intentional? Are we debating for the fun of debating, or are we discussing issues? In case the latter, do you think it might help if you, too, would let us know what you believe the position of the Bible is in respect to the issue at hand?


  25. Cara September 26, 2008 at 12:10 am #

    Thanks for clarifying your view. I can honestly say I’ve never heard that one before.
    I’ve never heard of distinguishing two different levels of heaven, unless of course we’re talking about the Islamic concept of seven levels of heaven.
    I definitely disagree with your theology on this one, so I think it’s best to just leave it there.
    I will just say that I certainly was not trying to add or take from the words that Jesus had said; obviously, you think I have, just as I think you have in your assessment of there being a difference between heaven and the kingdom of God and what that difference is.
    We’ll just have to disagree on this one.

  26. Robert Esland September 26, 2008 at 5:55 am #

    Cara, this is so typical. I argue that there is one heaven with a special set-apart area, and you twist my words as if I had argued for different heavens on different levels. I have not, Cara, and I would advise you to aspire to honesty in your arguments when you come across people with whom you disagree. Your arguments should be able to speak for themselves; you should not have to resort to twisting the words of your opponent. So put forward an argument: why am I wrong in assuming a distinction between Heaven and the Kingdom of God?

    I fully realise that you (and most believers) will firmly disagree me with. So be it. Now why don’t you ask yourself why Jesus Christ put so much emphasis on working here and now with the objective of storing up treasure in heaven. What’s the point of doing any good deed at all to obtain treasure in heaven if everyone is going to be similarly blessed anyway? Or are you maybe believing that Jesus did not actually mean these things literally?

    Finally, are you able to answer my question of, if we are all to become kings, whom we are supposed to become king over, or will you merely reject my theology and leave it at the resolve to disagree with someone who writes things you have never heard of before?


  27. mikevandrie September 26, 2008 at 8:09 am #

    Robert you have distorted scripture so much. If those are your verses for they being two parts of heaven then your argument is weak and non Biblical. The first problem is with Rev. 22:14-26. In this verse it lists things that will keep people outside of the city, the thing is that we all have committed one of them. So either none enter what you call the kingdom of God or you are wrong.

    Again in Rev. 21:27, again the problem is that we all would be unclean expect for the grace of God. You can’t make yourself clean.

    Robert the other problem is that in Revelation heaven is the city. The Bible started in a garden and ends in a city.

    So if you have verses that say it then argue it otherwise I am afraid that your position holds no water.

  28. edikaiosen September 26, 2008 at 11:48 am #

    Also, Robert, take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 – 11

    This is a similiar arguement to Mike. We have all been idolaters at some level, but beyond we all fit in to some catagory. But that is all irrelevent anways because Paul states in verse 11 that that is what the Corinthians were. At this point we must remember the audience of whom Paul is speaking to, namely one of the most immoral churches in history, yet Paul is able to say clearly that that is what some of them were doing. The implication being that they no longer need to conform to those ways anymore because they were ‘washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Sprit of our God.’
    Consequently it is assumed and implied and I believe correct to interpret that this passage means that we’re cleansed from all past, present, and future sins and there are none that will bar us from the Kingdom of God which is synonimous with Heaven.

    Secondly, it would be more beneficial for you to focus on such texts as Romans 2:4
    It is his kindness that leads us to repentance.

    All the best,

  29. Robert Esland September 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    ‘So either none enter what you call the kingdom of God or you are wrong.’

    Mike, why don’t you try a bit harder to get your logic right. You are setting up a false dichotomy here, which you infer my reasoning leads up to: your either-or cannot be deduced from my argument. The option of my being right does not equal that none enter.

    Moreover, the Bible didn’t start in a garden. At least not the Bible most folks are used to. Did you tear out the first page from yours? Also, you refer to ‘Rev. 22:14-26’. Most copies of the Bible end five verses before yours. Maybe there are things in Rev 22:22-26 that you would like to share with us, seeing that you are claiming it lists sins that keep people out of the Kingdom – and that we ‘all have committed one of them’.

    Kyle, according to you it is ‘correct to interpret that this passage means that we’re cleansed from all past, present, and future sins and there are none that will bar us from the Kingdom of God which is synonimous with Heaven.’

    Are you aware that this means that you and I can indulge in any sin whatsoever, because we’re cleansed of all sins before we even commit them? Well, why don’t we all get drunk and entertain our lusts in any which way we want? Yeah, I know, Jesus wouldn’t be particularly happy, but he nailed those sins on the cross anyway, so in the end it will all be all right. Is that your interpretation of Paul’s words?

    I would suggest you consider the biblical meaning of the concept of repentance first, before you deny its importance.

    The issue this thread is discussing, in case you have forgotten in the heat of searching through the Bible to find a passage you can throw at me, is a simple question, which many of you seem unwilling to address, of a very practical nature: will a person who claims he is following Christ but who persists in practising homosexuality, be admitted into the Kingdom of God?

    Does anyone of you, with the exception of a few who posted earlier, have the guts to unambiguously align yourself with the statement:
    ‘A person who follows Christ but who also persists in, and does not repent of, practising homosexuality will certainly enter the Kingdom of God.’


    Guys, if God is real, then judgement is real too. There are thousands of Christians who are being led to think that it is not a matter of life and death when people keep sinning, even persisting in the very sins that God abhors, because in the end Jesus Christ has died for all our sins and we’re all happily going to God’s Kingdom. Well, let me tell you something you may not have considered before: The Kingdom of God is God’s Kingdom. His, not ours. God, the Mighty One, has set rules for admittance. Some of you seem very keen and eager to trust that God’s love will eventually cause Him to relax those rules.

    I am telling you that I, for one, do not believe that He will. I cannot find a single verse in the entire Bible which would suggest that God will not be a stern judge.

    Trust and repentance are of paramount importance. That means trusting that the Bible is true and that God is who He says He is. It also means that God will do what He says He will do and that He will not allow people into His Kingdom when they refuse to repent of a number of particular sins.

    It is our duty to point this out to people who have not yet repented. We should not indulge sinners when they keep on sinning, we should emphasise the need for them to stop!

    You guys may think you are doing Ray Boltz a favour when you express your love for him as a fellow follower of Christ or when you voice your support for his decision. I, however, think I can do people like Ray Boltz a greater favour by pointing out the need for them to refrain from indulging in this particular sin that God abhors.

    Good grief, I am the only one from the current group of people debating here who shudders at the thought that thousands of Christians who persist in homosexuality will find themselves barred from entering the Kingdom of God? Has an angel of God visited you guys in a vision, telling you not to worry because Ray is going to be all right? And all those many other homosexual Christians too? Is that what I have been missing, a visit from an angel? Or have your minds been set at ease by a some very convincing theologians over the fate of people who continue to engage in things that are shameful and deceitful?

    Maybe those theologians could one day visit Europe, to enlighten us over here as well. Or would it possibly be a wiser move to send these theologians a fresh copy of an unadulterated Bible!


  30. poopemerges September 26, 2008 at 1:05 pm #


    I appreciate you man, but you are not orthodox, and therefore not Christian in the sense we are discussing. You reject the Trinity and attack cannon. Those are our basis of believe, so frankly we have nothing more to discuss. Your post are long, boring, and riddled with cultism. So I think it is best we go our separate ways.

    But quickly: No one here has said Ray is ok. Our point is quite the opposite.

    No sinner gets anywhere without Jesus who changes our nature and the Spirit who regenerates us.

    You can argue for Moralism all you like but remember moral, non-homosexuals who are apart from Christ will parish as well because we are all law breakers and by nature enemies of God.

    In light of your admonition to be honest with Ray I will do the same for you: You are an idolater because you distort who God has reveled himself to be in Scripture and deny his basic character. You are not worshiping the same God we are. You need to repent and believe. We will pray for you.

    Anyhoo, if you have a blog post the link and argue there. Otherwise stay on topic or stop posting here.


  31. Cara September 26, 2008 at 5:32 pm #

    Please take your own advice and read what I’ve said carefully. I did not say that your belief was like seven levels of heaven; I said I had never heard a belief even similar to yours before, other than the view of different levels of heaven.
    You do have to admit though that your theology certainly has a feel of “levels” to it if only certain people get into the kingdom of God.
    I could put forth an argument against you, but I don’t think this is the place to do that.

  32. Robert Esland September 26, 2008 at 5:42 pm #

    D, this is your blog. As you have decided that I am not worshipping the same God as you guys, there is not much more to be said.

    I’ll just leave you with a parting question. You say that no sinner ‘gets anywhere without Jesus who changes our nature and the Spirit who regenerates us.’ Ray Boltz was a married Christian for over 30 years. Now he has divorced his wife and turned gay. Is that the work of Jesus changing his nature? Is that the work of the Spirit? You seem to be denying that the man can change anything about these things himself, after all, it is Jesus who changes his nature.

    So, is Jesus now going to change his nature again someday to get him into God’s Kingdom?

    Don’t worry: unless you’d ask me I’ll not post here again.

    It’s kind of you to pray for me, please also pray for Ray.


  33. shawnbarr September 26, 2008 at 6:17 pm #

    What a sad situation with Boltz. I do hope the Christian world will pray for him and also exhort him. Remember that we are called to exhort one another when we see a brother in sin. Here’s a fictional conversation between Ray Boltz and Jesus…

  34. mikevandrie September 26, 2008 at 8:47 pm #

    I meant 14 and 15

  35. Seth McBee September 28, 2008 at 1:13 am #

    Wait…Boltz is gay!? Ahhhh…hell…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: