The doctrinal delusions of Ronald Goetz

I have thought long and hard before beginning this thread. I have neither the time nor inclination to engage in this particular issue but I am appalled at the blatant publicising of Ronald Goetz's stand on homosexuality. I would much rather spend my time smelling the sweet scents of a perfume but sometime we have to spend our time examining poisons too. Poisons should be clearly marked. If someone then chooses to take the poison that is their choice but an obligation rests on us to make sure we understand that this is not just a slight variant on standard doctrine but a major and destructive perversion.

I am not a homophobe. I have worked side by side with homosexuals in business. We have a number of homosexuals in our wider family. I never have any problem with working with them as colleagues or embracing them as family members. The question is, however, what does the Bible teach about homosexual practice? Is there a gospel for the homosexual? Yes, there is…

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9–11 NKJV

This passage makes it very clear that some in the church of Corinth had a history of homosexual practice, but the church in Corinth had no homosexuals within its covenant community. In the sentence, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Paul switches from the Greek Imperfect tense to the Aorist tense. This is perhaps not so plainly seen in our English versions but that switch from one tense to the other is a dramatic disconnect in the original Greek text.

Here is my own translation…

AND some of you used to be such, BUT you became washed, BUT you became sanctified, BUT you became justified…

Three times that BUT rings out in Paul's statement. There had been a radical disconnect in the history of these people. That radical disconnect is what we mean by regeneration. Paul lists a number of 'patterns of life' and says 'this is how you used to be' and then boldly declares… but no longer!

Is there a gospel for the homosexual? Yes there is. We must reach out to them in the love of God and tell them that they, as we, can be washed, sanctified and justified. We do not need to continue in those old unrighteous patterns of life. More, in our evangelism we must make it plain that you cannot be a member of the covenant community of Christ and at the same time continue in..

sexual immorality, or idolatry, or adultery, or homosexuality, or sodomy, or theft, or covetousness, or drunkenness, or reviling, or extortion…

Let there be no doubt. Christ receives sinful men… BUT he will not allow them to continue as sinful men. He says to them …neither do I condemn you BUT go and sin no longer'. According to Paul's statement , by the Spirit, this list of patterns of life is a subset of 'the unrighteous' and people who remain in unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God. We need to make that transparently clear in our evangelism.

Brother Ron (philologos),

Thank you for speaking the truth in love; your posts are most appreciated.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face shine upon you.

Grace and peace,
Matthew

the origins of homosexuality

Where does this practice originate? Paul links it with idolatry and says that when the human race 'knew God' they refused to give him his rightful place and were ungrateful. Rom 1:21 In their foolishness they 'changed' something. They 'changed' their theology inasmuch as they became idolators and and "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Rom 1:23 NKJV Notice the downwards slide of this sequence; corruptible man, birds, four-footed beasts, creeping things. The slide began when they began to 'create God in their own image'. The Greek gods, as an example, were notorious for their promiscuous sexual activity.

As a result of this idolatry, which is the cardinal sin of humanity, God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:24 NKJV The result of a false view of God was a false view of man; "they dishonoured their bodies among themselves". God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Rom 1:26 NKJV Notice that we are following a clear history here. The women 'exchanged' the natural use for what is against nature. We are reading here in plain and unequivocal terms that lesbianism is 'un-natural'. And the men followed suit… "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Rom 1:27 NKJV So we have some more descriptions of homosexual activity here, it is un-natural and shameful.

They changed their theology (the concept of God) and consequently changed their behaviour.

The last verses of Roman 1 add a sobering comment; "who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. " Rom 1:32 NKJV. These sins, as all sins, carry a death sentence; those who practice such things are deserving of death. It goes on to speak of those who sanction such practices with a sense of increasing horror. Not only do they practice these things they actually 'approve'. To 'approve' these activities is at least equal to practising them.

This is why Ronald Goetz's teaching is so dangerous. Doctrine is more deadly than deeds. In the book of the Revelation we read of a group of people called Nicolaitines; no one now knows who they were or what they believed. However there is a development in the way they are referred to. Initially you have a group of people who 'behave" as Nicolaitans; But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hateThus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Rev 2:15 NKJV Now you have a group of people who 'believe' like Nicolaitans.

Doctrines are more dangerous than deeds. A deed may be an error in understanding but if that error is fixed in a 'doctrine' it becomes much more difficult to shake. This is why I have taken the step of beginning this thread. Ronald Goetz's doctrine is more dangerous than the practice of homosexuality itself.

edited to correct a Bible reference.

Thank-you, Ron for posting this.

Doctrines are more dangerous than deeds.

These people always couch their interpretation of this issue in how love is to be lived out. It sounds so sweet, so kind, so generous and to counter it can make you think you are a meanie, one who does not love the Lord at all, one who has no clue what love is.

Rosalind Rinker is one of those writers who wrote much about love. It is so attractive...until you find out she was the darling of the lesbian community. (Feel like I am beating a dead dog here.) (BTW, are you aware that according to polls taken by "Christianity Today" that she ranks among the most influential writers in the 20th century?)

Thanks, again, Ron, for your level-headedness in addressing this issue.

ginnyrose

"I am appalled at the blatant publicizing of Ronald Goetz's stand on homosexuality."

What is this publicizing? Is it here on this site or is this an issue in general in the body of Christ at large throughout the world? I think I have heard the name before but not sure where.

I binged Ronald Goetz and I am totally appalled at what I found. It just about makes me vomit...

Lord have mercy! on Ronald and his kind....

Yes, Jeremiah, he had posted here - at least I think it was the one and same.

ginnyrose

EDIT: PS: Jeremiah, I just did a search and found Ronalds posts on this thread: "Luke 17:34-36". Just keep going down on this forum and you will find it.

Ron: "Initially you have a group of people who 'behave" as Nicolaitans; But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev 2:6 NKJV but later you have a group of people who have fine-tuned their doctrine..."

Ron, you quoted Rev. 2.6 twice here. I think you meant your second reference to be Rev. 2.15: "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate."

Thanks
you're right. I have edited the original post.

To get deeper down into Ronald Goetz's writing is something of a surreal experience. He piles supposition onto supposition, and conjecture onto conjecture. Not a single one of his interpretive efforts can be vindicated.

He suggests that the homosexual, the Samaritan, and the leper were ostracised because of biological constraints and that such prohibitions have now been superseded as "The words of Jesus trump the Torah". These 'biological' features are now no longer a reason for segregation; that is his claim.

Leaving aside the fact that Samaritans and lepers had no choice in their life patterns he also fails to notice another key issue. In the law of Sinai the homosexual was not ostracised, he was put to death, and the passage adds a detail which shows very clearly the sense of the homosexual's culpability in the matter, 'their blood shall be upon them'. They were guilty not biologically different.

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. " Lev 20:13 NKJV

The leper was quarantined, the Samaritan was excluded, but the homosexual was to be put to death. He was to be 'cut off' from Israel. The word 'covenant' does not appear in Ronald Goetz's thesis. Perhaps this is indicative. The homosexual had breached the covenant and so was permanently excluded from the congregation of the Covenant community. For the leper there was always the possibility of healing and restoration to community. The purpose of the death of the homosexual was not only in terms of personal punishment but in terms of keeping the people of the Covenant pure.

In the New Covenant communities known as local churches there could be no place for the practising homosexual. The practising homosexual cannot be a part of the covenant community.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9–10 NKJV

There is no basis for Ronald Goetz's claim that 'biological' features included homosexuality and that such are now abrogated.

RonaldGoetz, You have no respect for the Word of God, no respect for Christians, and no respect for the rules of these forums. Hence the link to your free book.

You come here to promote your agenda, and if people follow your agenda, they will be lead by you to the very gates of Hell.

Ronald W. Goetz, I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. I pray in Jesus name that you cease bearing false witness against our Lord, His written Word and the Spirit of God. I also pray protection over all who read your postings and your book. I pray that you repent of your wickedness and turn from your evil ways.

2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."

Ronald,

I did more checking on the the web and here is what I found. (I used 'bing' - I binged your name).

At http://www.shuckandjive.org/2009/11/turning-tables-on-bigots.html . The introduction reads as follows:" Ronald Goetz, a "Proud PFLAG Dad" is proposing a lawsuit on behalf of clergy and churches whose rights are being violated because they cannot perform marriages for same-gender couples. This is a turn the tables approach on those Christians who argue that marriage equality somehow violates their freedom of religion. What do you think? Mr. Goetz is looking for advice and input."

On the same site a comment is made by a John Shuck: Ronald Goetz is the administrator for the facebook group Yes I am a Christian; yes I support gay marriage. Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:47:00 AM

I checked on that link on Facebook and there was posted an email address. I compared it with the one you posted on your profile and, sir, it is the one and same.

What say, sir?

ginnyrose

I will try add another post later today but I wanted to underline my own intention in this thread. I am not trying to engage with Ronald Goetz, I am trying to engage with his teaching. I will not enter into personal abuse or rebuke in my posts. I want to examine what he is 'saying'. I believe that what he is saying is toxic because some who read it may think it legitimises their un-natural behaviour.

When Paul wrote to the Galatians he said they were 'bewitched' and yet he did not attempt to exorcise any 'spirits', he simply declared the truth and showed how their thinking was in error.

RG's ideas are wrong and can be shown to be wrong, very easily. If we can remove the foundations of his error we may save some from the net that has been spread to catch them.

Please do be restrained in how you post to the thread. It will be far more useful if we can keep it on a level keel. Thank you.

The Black Museum of Scotland Yard is a famed collection of criminal memorabilia kept at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police in London, England. If ever someone creates a Black Museum for Hermeneutics I have some exhibits to pass on.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It is the Greek word translated as 'translated' or 'interpreted' in John 1:38, 42; 9:7; Heb 7:2. Before we can apply a Bible precept we need to understand it. RG says, quite rightly, that the context of a passage is vital in understanding what it signifies. This is true but there is more, no only is the historical context important but the genre is important too. The parable is a special way of preaching truth. The allegory has several points of contact with the reality that it represents. The Good Shepherd theme of John is an allegory. A parable is different to an allegory; a parable has one main point that it seeks to convey but will often decorate that one point with incidental, and often valuable, details.

eg when Peter says " But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night… 2 Pet 3:10 NKJV" He doesn't mean that Christ is coming to steal the video, nor that his entrance is illegal, or even that his coming will be at night. He simply means he will come without warning. It is important to identify the key truth that the parable is illustrating so that that truth can become the controlling model for the interpreting of the remainder of the parable. This is not only true of strict parables but parabolic teaching in general.

RG's thesis is based on his interpretation of Luke 17
“In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” Luke 17:31–36 NKJV

Notice that the passage, as quoted, begins with 'in that day' and about half way through this quotation uses the phrase 'in that night'… RG makes an assertion about the phrase 'in that night'. He says "
In Luke 17 a signal that something unusual is afoot is the phrase “in that night.”

He quotes the passage from the KJV as follows…

I tell you, in that night
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-36, KJV)

In fact, as far, as I can make out this is not a quotation from the KJV but a quotation based on the KJV but significantly altered in its punctuation. I have found no version of the KJV that has this punctuation. The Cambridge University Press version of the KJV is often accepted as the definitive version. The CUP KJV has…

I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Luke 17:34–36 KJV

Can you see what RG has done? He has substituted semi-colons for the KJVs periods (full stops, as we say over here) and set 'I tell you, in that night' on a line all by itself. By doing so he has attached the phrase 'in that night' to all three stories. He needs to do this because he wants to prove that the phrase 'in that night' has sexual connotations and by doing so he will create a controlling model for the rest of the passage. In fact, the Greek NT does not use punctuation at all so even the punctuation is a vital part of hermeneutics. RG has effectively created his own Bible version which he then goes on to expound. This is a reckless hermeneutic.

To understand why it is so reckless to make this statement let me illustrate.

Suppose I set you a math problem... ok I will not prolong the pain…

if I start off with the wrong number and then feed that error into the rest of a calculation I cannot get the right answer. This was the danger with the Y2K bug as it was called. If a single error is fed into further calculations each stage will be further from the truth.

So to recap, at this foundational level of his thesis RG makes two massive assumptions; he assumes that all three events took place at night, and he assumes that the phrase 'in that night' introduces a coded sexual theme. On this hang all his later conclusions. This is a reckless hermeneutic and has no place in a serious attempt to understand the teaching of the passage.

I will later take each one of these three events and show how the poison spreads through the remainder of the interpretation.

Ronald,
I have my CUP KJV here by my side. There are no semi-colons at the end of verse 34 or 35.

The Accordance Bible Software KJV has
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Luke 17:34–36 KJV

The Bible Gateway has
Luke 17:34-36 (King James Version)
34I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

StudyLight website also has periods at the ends of verses 34 and 35.

I cannot find an online version of the KJV that has your punctuation.