A Synagogue was Vandalized by Nazis in my Home Town.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/graffiti-found-on-racine-synagogue-several-anti-semitic-vandalism-incidents/article_45092379-e7e4-5d6f-a62e-7dd91eb13836.html

This really upsets me.

I probably won't be able to attend the Inter-Faith service they're having on September 29th (which happens to be Michalemass, a holiday I think might be connected in origin to one of the Fall Holy Days).  I have family issues going on, and it's on the other side of town and my transportation options are limited.

But my Prayers shall be With Them, I teach on this Blog that Hate is the truly worst Sin and that The Messiah of Israel is still the Messiah of Israel first even though He has also Saved All The Nations.

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"

The modern left and liberals repeatedly calls this common mantra of modern American Evangelicalism a hollow meaningless distinction.

When the Christian saying this believes Endless Fiery Torment is how God punishes Sin, then I agree, it is utterly nonsensical to claim you "love the Sinner" or that God does in your theology.

Now I don't consider Homosexuality or Homosexual acts as Sinful, same with cross-dressing or identifying as a gender other then the one you were assigned at birth, and a lot of other things that are often the specific "sins" in mind when this subject comes up.

But I still want to defend the true meaning of this statement, it may not exactly come from The Bible but neither does Homousian.  

I do believe God Hates Sin, but His anger is for but a moment (Psalm 30) long enough to judge and purge the Sin.  God Is Love and His punishments come from His Love as our Father.

Jesus said the whole of the Law is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore I conclude that the chief Sin that God so vehemently Hates is Hatred.  Even Esau, the one specific person The Bible seemingly says God "Hated" (past tense) is described as Hating his brother Jacob in Genesis 27.  And Judas Iscariot, the "Son of Perdition" behaved hatefully towards Mary of Bethany.

This is an important opportunity for me to really stress that I believe in Universal Salvation and Affirming Homosexuality.  If there are other Universal Salvation teachers who agree that Homosexuality isn't a Sin, they aren't publicly stressing it. It's as if they want to maintain as much credibility as possible with conservative Evangelicals.  Well I believe I qualify as an Evangelical, since I preach the Evangelion, The Resurrection of The Flesh.

Some of you might be thinking "if they don't think anyone goes to Hell for Eternity, what does it matter if they technically think Homosexual acts are a sin".  Because we do believe God's punishments are for Correction, so I don't want Gay and Trans people thinking that means God is going to simply rewrite an important part of who they are, that he's going to Burn the Queerness out of them.  And it can also still lead to supporting things like Gay conversion therapy, which is basically psychological torture.  So it is important to me to stress that what God seeks to correct is hateful and harmful behavior, not Love.

My arguments regarding Homosexuality and Universal Salvation happen to be intimately linked to each other, because of my view of Romans, particularly how Chapter 11 contextualizes Chapter 1, is vital to both.

I agree with the view that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical rant largely drawing on works like the Wisdom of Solomon and possibly Philo of Alexandria, and that the rest of Romans is refuting the people who say things like that.

The "Clobber verses" from this section speak of something being "against nature" (Para Phusis), and then verse 28 talks about God giving sinners up to a reprobate mind which is the basis for the Baptist doctrine that some people are beyond saving.

But in Romans 11 "against nature" (Para Phusis) is used of what God does grafting people who do not biologically descend from Jacob into the family of Israel, showing that acting "against nature" (Para Phusis) can't be inherently bad.  And then after the fullness of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel, All Israel shall be Saved.  God Consigned ALL to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on All.

Update: I later wrote this post on what "Sin" properly even means.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2021/09/hamartia-what-does-sin-actually-mean.html

Do we have a Promise that we will be with God as soon as we die?

We are definitely promised to be with God in Eternity.  My issue here is with the timing some people stress, often people tying this to rejecting a Physical Bodily Resurrection and/or Premillennialism.

As I've said in past posts about the issues of Soul Sleep and Annihilationism, I have become undecided on if we have a conscience state between physical death and Resurrection.  There is Biblical evidence that can go either way.

This post is partly my desire to respond to something I read recently on an article specifically against Premillennialism that cited the following verses as promises we will be with God as soon as we "die" and viewing this doctrine as being in conflict with Premillennialism.

(Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Heb. 12:22-24; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 6:9-11; 14:1-5; 15:2; 18:20; 19:14)

I don't really feel like there necessarily is a conflict between this idea and Premillennialism, but I looked into these verses and I don't feel they make that argument.

But first, I want to respond to how this article refers to this "promise" as being "the central Hope of the Christian Faith", it most certainly is not.  The Gospel is the Resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't talk about where we go when we die, neither did the Old Roman Symbol or the "rule of faith" cited by Tertullian and Ireneaus, nor did either the Nicene Creed or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.  The Pre-Nicene Creeds even specifically stressed it as a carnal Resurrection.  I don't think the people at this website are necessarily intending to deny a bodily Resurrection, but claiming where our souls go when we die rather then the Resurrection is our central blessed hope shows how this idea can be a gateway to undermining The Resurrection.

Now as far as talking about these verses go, I want to save the Revelation ones for last since they are a special case.

First is what Jesus said to the Thief on the Cross.  I agree with Lex Meyer that the English Translations of this verse should move the comma.  "Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise".  First off the thief probably wasn't even dead within 24 hours, Jesus died as soon as he did for a number of reasons, but standard crucifixion took days.  And Jesus didn't go directly to paradise either but descended into Sheol/Hades.  The "this day" timing referring to Jesus saying giving this promise not when it is fulfilled.

The Mansions in Heaven verse in John doesn't tell us when we enter those Mansions, I believe those Mansions are in New Jerusalem, the context talks about when he comes again, not when we die.  Hebrews 12 likewise is about New Jerusalem.

It's similar with most of these verses, they are about our promise to be with God but don't actually say anything about when that happens, these people quoting them as doing so are like Pre-Tribbers thinking every reference to there begin a Rapture proves their imminence doctrine.

The verses from Philippians and 2 Corinthians are perhaps best understood in the context of what InspiringPhilosophy explains about how Paul uses those terms in 1 Corinthians 15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rffmrioFnBY

2 Corinthians 5's statement about "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is completely misquoted and taken out of context, it is not actually saying that is what happens at physical death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWDrOYi1UKA&fbclid=IwAR0Nb0wYGCCnEbWUPkPl5d3lrlSBNxSKugsibqEpoohHKlAm8-mM14UpVyE

1 Peter 1:11 explicitly refers to the Glory that follows the Suffering of Christ, that's clearly The Resurrection.

Before I go onto Revelation, one verse not cited on this list that I think is relevant is when Jesus said those who Believe in Him will Never Die.  That's why the term "Soul Sleep" is popular, Paul repeatedly refers to currently physically deceased believers as being "Asleep".  In which case if we simply wake up at the Resurrection, it will still functionally seem the same as being with God as soon as we died.

Now onto the Revelation verses.  It's funny because as a non Premillennial this website clearly isn't taking all of Revelation literally at face value, but when it suits how they prefer to see things they will.  I suppose however to some extent there is no view of Revelation that can't be accused of to some extent picking and choosing where to take it literally.  So I won't throw stones in that regard, I'll just make my case.

Revelation 6:9-11 is the Fifth Seal.  Now as someone who tries to take Revelation as literally as I can, I really don't think this verse is telling us that all the Martyrs are literally dwelling under an Altar.  When we understand what the purpose of the Altar of Incense was in the Tabernacle, and connect this to what happens after the Seventh Seal is opened in Revelation 8, I think this is mainly about the Altar having their Prayers that they Prayed as they suffered for Christ.

Verse 11 also says they shall rest a little while longer.

The rest of their Revelation verses start in Chapter 14, I could actually add at least one from Chapter 13.  The end of Chapter 11 and beginning of Chapter 12 is where I place The Parusia/Rapture, that's why there are no Saints dwelling in Heaven.  Revelation 14 specifically uses language of the Resurrection like being the First Fruits and Redeemed of The Earth to describe the 144,000.

So indeed, none of these verses contradict the possibly that we are asleep between bodily Death and Resurrection.

Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council

The first Canon of the First Council of Constantinople is commonly read as follows, emphasis mine.

The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm.  And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

However some variants read "Macedonians" instead of "Semi-Arians" and most scholars believe that is probably the original reading.  The context and grammar here clearly intends to use this name as a synonym for the Pneumatomachi who were founded by a Macedonius, and every other Hersey on this list is identified by it's founder.  Macedonius may have also qualified as a type of Semi-Arian but the heresy he's uniquely associated with is denying the Divinity of The Holy Spirit.

Also the term "Semi-Arian" was probably not actually used at the time of the Council, it seems like a term scholars made up later to refer to various attempted compromises between the Nicene position of Athanasius and proper Arianism.

There were different forms of Semi-Arianism, many opposed the term Homusian as much as the proper Arians, but others did not.  Indeed some were specially trying to make their Semi-Arianism compatible with the Nicene Creed.  Meletius of Antioch was the main example of this variety, many will deny he qualified as Semi-Arian but he was opposed by Athanasius and within Antioch by the students of Eustathius.

The basic gist of Semi-Arianism is believing Jesus was Begotten before or at the beginning of Creation.  That in essence He did already exist as the Word of God before then, but this Begetting was the beginning of His existence as a distinct Person.

People constantly present the history of the Second Ecumenical Council as when even Semi-Arianism was condemned as no longer compatible with Orthodoxy.  But the additions to the Nicene Creed tied to this Council are mainly focused on addressing other heresies with a different focus, particularly issues related to The Holy Spirit.

In fact, if anything, Semi-Arianism is more compatible with the Nicene-Constantinople Creed then it was the Original Creed.  Both versions refer to Jesus being "Begotten not Made", but in the original Nicene Creed it's entirely possible to interpret the Begetting as being in reference to His being Begotten in Mary's Womb at the Incarnation, in fact I hope that was exactly the intent.  The Constantinople version however declares that Jesus was...

 "Begotten of The Father before all Aions(Eons/Ages, commonly mistranslated Worlds)".

That declaration is not only compatible with Semi-Arianism, but I would argue is inherently Semi-Arian.  The only way to make this compatible with proper Athanasianism is to say that The Word already had a distinct personality before this Pre-Creation Begetting, but why would that be the case?  What's the point of this Begetting in that case?

Just take a look at this Arian Compromise Creed proposed by the 359 Council of Seleucia.

We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure, according to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.

It is awfully close to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed on this issue at least with the only significant difference being the lack of Homoousion.

My study into the history of Emperor Theodosius I implies to me a compromise settlement is what he was going for on the Arian debate, but not one that could be seen as in any way a rejection of Nicaea.  His support of Meletius of Antioch is evidence of that.  Also the second canon of the council explicitly tolerates the Arianism of the Council of Rimmi which was that of the Germanciii Barbarians, and the later Theodsian Code further upheld that.  Theodosius was politically motivated by wanting peace with the Barbarian Arians.

The Scriptural Basis usually cited for this Pre-Creation Begetting is Proverbs 8:22-29 and sometimes Psalm 45:1.  The idea that Proverbs 8 refers to a Pre-Creation Begetting of Jesus goes back at least as far as Tertullian in Against Praxeas Chapter 5. They've also used Psalm 110:3 and Psalm 2.

Building Doctrine on something you can only find even alluded to in Poetic books is very shaky.  Especially ones written by the highly suspect Solomon.  But these Greek Christians were also basing this on the Septuagint Greek Translations of these chapters, the Masoretic/KJV/YLT readings don't support this interpretation, Psalm 110 doesn't say "begat" in the Hebrew.  Also I believe Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is The Holy Spirit not Jesus.  Regardless Psalm 110:3 actually supports my view by specifically referring to the Womb in all versions.

As far as Jesus being called the "Firstborn of Creation", the Firstborn is a status sometimes given in the Hebrew Bible to individuals who were not literally the Firstborn like Joseph.  It is only because of the Incarnation that Jesus qualifies as being "born" at all, but he's The Firstborn because of Who He Is not when He was born.

Jesus was called the Beginning, but that doesn't mean He had a Beginning, it just means that Creation Began with His actions, as I talked about a few days ago.  When Jesus said "Before Abraham was I Am" even if you question that as a direct reference to the I Am of the Torah, it implies not just preexistence but a lack of beginning, He didn't just say He existed before Abraham.  I've also already talked about how John 1:3 proves Jesus isn't a created being, if He created everything that was created then He Himself wasn't created.

So if they wanted to rule out even Semi-Arianism, they should have done the opposite of what they did on the Begetting issue and clarified Jesus's only Begetting was in the Womb of Mary, while affirming Him as Co-Eternal with The Father.

The Calcedonian Definition also contains this Semi-Arian statement "before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead", this issue is not really relevant to the main issue Chalcedon was discussing, but still, Chalcedonian Christianity is officially Semi-Arian.

I want to further show that the begetting of Jesus can only be in The Womb of Mary.

Hebrews 11 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "Only Begotten" (same Greek term used in John 3:16) Son at the time of the Offering of Isaac in Genesis 22.  The Author of Hebrews (who I believe was Paul who talked about Hagar in Galatians, but regardless of that) clearly knew enough about Genesis to know Ishmael was alive at this time.

Judges 8 refers to the 70 sons of Gideon's Wives as being Begotten but not Abimelech the son of the Concubine.

So contrary to what we at first assume, being a Begotten Son at least in part technically depends on having the right Mother, of being the Son of a Wife rather then a Concubine.  YHWH's Wife is Israel, Mary is an Israelite.  So Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God because He is The Son of an Israelite.

Every Old Testament example of Jesus being called a Son either of God or of Man or of David is prophetic including Psalm 2, as is any reference to Him being Begotten, in the present tense the Second Person of The Hebrew Bible's Trinity is The Word of YHWH and The Angel of YHWH.  

John 1 likewise doesn't use Monogenes till it describes the Incarnation in verse 14.

Other Platonic Heresies also factor into this.  With both early Patristics and modern Christian Philosophers arguing that since God does not "Change" then The Father was always a Father and The Son was always a Son.  However this way of defining God is incompatible with Hebrew Theology, The Hebrew Bible tells us that YHWH "repented' a number of times.  That God Is Love is what doesn't Change.  The Father was already Father in The Hebrew Bible because He was a Father to Humanity and to Israel.  But the Logos was not yet The Son.

Update September 30th 2020: So the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not actually formally a part of the Second Ecumenical Council, it was in fact unheard of until Chalcedon in 451, the Council of Ephesus 20 years earlier was still using the original Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine in question was still partially popularized by that Council since it indirectly affirmed the Creed of Rimmi as acceptable which includes the same clause, and it was also taught by Cyril of Alexandria.  It's possible this Creed was before Chalcedon just a Creed used locally in the area of Constantinople.  It actually seems like it's possibly a hybridization of the original Nicene Creed and the Creed of the 360 Council of Constantinople.

And the thing is this "begotten before all ages" doctrine was part of how Arius expressed his theology from the beginning, it was in his Profession of Faith from 320 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_creeds

The decision not to include it in the original Nicene Creed must have been intentional, unfortunately we don't have the minutes of the council to document for us if it was discussed.  And we don't have the minutes of this Council either.

The fact is too many people have it in their heads that Homousian is the core of the Arian Controversy when originally that word wasn't a factor at all.  That's why now I've seen Catholic and Orthodox blogs discussing this phrase as if it's inherently Anti-Arian even though Arius himself taught it.  

The root of the Arian Heresy is the Platonic Theology of Timaeus where The Monad is the original supreme God but a lesser Demiurge who emanates from the Monad is the Creator.  Arius used the word Monad in his Profession of Faith, but didn't use Demiurge since that term had come to be associated with the Gnostics.  Philo of Alexandria referred to his version of the Demiurge as The Logos and identified it with The Angle of The Lord, Third Century Neoplatonists also used the word Logos in a similar way.  The Heretic Cerinthus was perhaps the first Christian Heretic to teach a version of this.  But Arius's ideas probably more directly descended from Origen's.

I've decided this statement is no longer my only objection to the revised Creed.  The "One Baptism" comment also contradicts Scripture.  And the "One Apostolic Church" comment is technically acceptable but I know what they meant by it is something I don't like.

I still support all the additions about The Holy Spirit (but not the Western Filioque) and the "Kingdom Shall Have no End" statement.  But I also wish that like the Old Roman Symbol and Apostles Creed it included a clarification that the Resurrection is Bodily/Of The Flesh.

How was there Light before the Sun, Moon and Stars?

This is an issue that has often plagued theologians, how Genesis 1 has Light created on Day 1 but the sources of Light aren't created till Day 4.

Augustine of Hippo theorized that the Light created on Day 1 was the Angels.  I've seen both Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists suggest that Day 4 is simply when the Light of the Stars finally reached Earth.

What amuses me is the failure to consider that the answer to this mystery of the first Chapters of The Bible might be found in the last Chapters.

Revelation 21:23-24, 22:5.

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.  And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Remember that Jesus is the Light of the World in John 8:12&9:5 (and the Light was earlier discussed in chapters 1:4-9 and 3:19-21 and later again in 11:9-19 and 12:35-36 and 46) and He was called the Phosphorous(Lightbearer) in 2 Peter 1:19.  This can also contextualize Jesus saying He is The Beginning of the Creation (Revelation 3:14) and the Firstborn of Creation (Colossians 1:15).

Some might seek to use this connection to support an Arian or Semi-Arian Christology, but that's not necessary, even with a completely Nicene understanding of The Trinity it's still simple to conclude that the Word of God is the source of the Light when God Spoke Light into existence.