Response to Gay Seminarian Discussion (2)

More from Email discussions. Something in my discord detector beeped and I felt the need to be sure that two people in the discussion didn't talk past each other. Basic issue of discussion appeared to be whether/how tendencies to sin persist after person becomes a more mature believer (whether through conversion, after confirmation, after growing more in his faith, etc.) Relates to the idea of whether a person with SSA can '"change."

J wrote:

... In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he says, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (II Cor. 5:17). In other words, if a person is in Christ (i.e. a Christian), he will still have to deal with temptations of all kinds. Nevertheless, as a new creation, he is no longer gay, a murderer, a rapist, or what have you, if he has put off the "old self" and put on the new (see Ephesians 4:22-24).

G responded:

As to the "permanence" of this "deep-seated" tendency -- I really don't think it's as clear cut as you present it. I don't think that one can deduce from St. Paul's language that you quoted that baptism can remove these "deep-seated" tendencies. You yourself acknowledge this. I'm not sure it's a helpful distinction to say that someone is not homosexual after baptism/conversion to Christ. If people still struggle with SSA post baptism, then, yes, they're homosexual. Baptism doesn't take the condition away. I hope that made sense?

I responded, having grown up Babdis’ and having finely tuned heresy and theological confusion detectors:

Just a bit of clarification [a' la Izzy], so that we don't get hung up on theological language.

J. refers to being "in Christ" and "a new Creation." G. refers mainly to baptism, and once to conversion when discussing this status.

Since the whole "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" thing hasn't lead to unity of all believers, it's important that we understand each other's terms, so that we don't get hung up on points tangential to the main question regarding candidates for the
priesthood.

Regarding Baptism: Catholic understanding says that baptism, as a sacrament of initiation, makes us part of God's family, removing the stain of original sin, not the ability to sin. Conversion is the ongoing process of becoming more like Christ.

Baptist (I think that is your background, J, correct?), understanding is that Baptism is a sign and an action/ordinance undertaken in obedience to Christ upon acceptance of Jesus as your Savior. Baptism itself, separate from acceptance of Christ, would not effect a change in the person's relationship with God. Conversion is synonymous with becoming a new creature, which is what happens when one accepts Christ.

I think in talking about baptism/conversion and being in Christ, you guys are both talking about a person who has come to a point where he has turned his life over to Christ. This is presumably at a point AFTER having had opportunities to sin and to discover within himself "deep seated tendencies" for various types of sin. Neither
of you appear to be talking about a newly baptised infant or to a young child who has just "asked Jesus into his heart."

In any case, you would both agree that the conversion/baptism/"being a new Creation" gains the sinner forgiveness of sin and a relationship with Christ. It is at this point, whatever we call it, that we must address what tendencies, habits, preferences, etc., we bring into our relationship with God.

Paul's writings, esp. in Romans 6, seem to indicate that this new status does not automatically equal sanctity. If it did, Paul would not have to, in the same chapter, tell us that we need no longer be slaves to sin, and admonish us to not let sin reign over our mortal bodies. We put off the old self that is enslaved to sin, but not the ability to sin. In Romans 7, Paul admits that "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," and recognizes that the struggle continues until we have put off this mortal body.

Don't think I strayed into heresy...