If the Schmidt thesis is right, then your argument has at least partial
If the Helmaniak thesis is right, the argument is painfully wrong.
Scenario. A person in your church, known to you, godly, a Christian who affirms
a relationship with the Christ on many occasions, saved, baptised, all the
usual things, tells you one day she has formed a relationship with another
woman and that they expect it to be one of lifetime committment.
Under theSchmidt thesis, there appear to be two options available:
1. She is terribly mistaken and in need of salvation.
2. She is terribly mistaken but her salvation is not, on this account, in
Under the Helmaniak thesis, other options are available.
I have no problem with a person asserting "all gay acts are immoral" if they
clearly assert that as their opinion. But if they assert that as "fact," without
advancing some argument(s) in its favor, it seems out of place.
Have you ever visited a Metropolitan church? Or any church that accepts gays
without telling them they must change? I have. Real people. You & I are going to
get to know them quite well in the next 10,000 years or so.