I'm neither Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

In spite of the things that are Protestant like about me, I have come to reject the Protestant understanding of "Justified by Faith not works".  Which is the one thing all branches of Protestantism have in common, Lutheran, Calvanist, Arminian, Wesleyan, and the Free Grace Eternal Security that was my original Soteriology when I started this blog.

Justification in Romans is NOT the same thing as Salvation, the true Soteriology of Paulian Theology is laid out in Romans 5 and 11 where Justification is no longer the focus at all.  And when Paul speaks of us being Saved By Grace through Faith in other Epistles, the Faith in question is of Jesus not us.

So does that make my view of Justification the same as the Catholic and Orthodox view?  Maybe, but must still be understood in the context of my firm belief in Universal Salvation.  

However what prevents me from simply going back and rejoining any Ancient Church is that I firmly reject Episcopal Polity and the Authority of all Church Councils besides the one attended by the Apostles themselves in Acts 15.  My position on Church Polity is Congregational first and foremost but with elements of Presbyterianism.

So many Catholic and Orthodox clerical arguments against Protestantism are founded on a belief there needs to be some tangible continuity between a valid modern Church and the Churches of antiquity  And I can't help but be reminded of the things Jesus said specifically to rebuke that way of thinking.

"From whom did John get his Authority to Baptize?"-Matthew 21:23-27

"Who isn't agaisnt us is with us"-Mark 9:40

The Church was never meant to be an Organized Religion but a decentralized association.

Evangelical Protestant Soterology

American Evangelicalism, and to an extent Protestantism as a whole, has gotten it into their heads that being Saved is synonymous with not being punished for your sins.

That's why they can't accept the multiple Scriptural witnesses about God's Punishments being for Correction, or YHWH promising Israel He will Save them AFTER He Punishes them.

The reason they can't even entertain any alternative theory of Atonement to Penal Substation is because to them Penal Substitution is what the word Atonement itself means.  But the truth is in Ancient Israel the idea behind making a Sin Offering or Trespass Offering was never that you aren't being punished because the Goat is being punished in your place, the idea was losing this Goat, or the money you had to spend to obtain it, was your punishment.  It was essentially a ritualiezed way of paying a Fine.

Salvation is about not being punished for our sins in a sense, in the sense that the original required punishment for eating the fruit was death, and likewise the Torah throwing around the Death Penalty pretty liberally.  Because of Jesus's Death and Resurrection we are all saved from that maximum sentence.

But that's another thing, even though these Evangelicals will quote verses about "the wages of sin is death", they don't' actually believe that, they think the modern concept of "Hell" is what "death" actually means when Paul says that.

Now you can be forgiven for your Sins, as Ezekiel 18 lays out forgiveness is a result of Repentance.

I was accused recently of "denying repentance" because of my current Soterology.  But the truth is it was before I believed in Universal Salvation, or at least while I was still transitioning into it, that I made posts on this blog agaisnt repentance.  Where I argued you did not need to make a serious attempt to change your ways for God to forgive you.

That's why I find it really offensive when Evangelicals accuse advocates of my Soteorlogy of denying that actions have consequences when they are the ones who think the point of believing in Jesus is a Get Out of Hell Free Card.

I believe that unrepentant sinners will be punished.  But I also see more then one passage in The Bible that implies Believers will be punished more then Unbelievers (like Luke 12 and Ezekiel 16), because we're without excuse, we can't claim we didn't know what the rules were.

Now some particularly Eternal Security believing Evangelicals do have some nuance on this issue.  Kent Hovind I believe once said that Sin is a "legal matter" if your an unbeliever but a "Family Matter" if your a believer.  Because they feel God only considers believers His Children.

But Paul said at the Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 that all Human beings are Offspring of God. 

Meanwhile how can Sin ONLY be a Legal Matter for exactly the people who never consented to this Law Code in the first place?  Certain American Christians keep saying "consent of the governed" is a Christian Principal yet they don't actually think God operates that way.

Jesus Words Only

During Jesus ministry the Pharisees seem at face value to be the main adversaries of Jesus (mainly to those who don't know the Priests were Sadducees at this time).  But throughout Acts the persecution of the young Church came mainly from the Sadducees, the few exceptions (last one being Saul/Paul himself) were very early on.

The difference between the two is often defined by their views on the Resurrection, but it goes deeper then that.  The Pharisees added to God's word with their Oral Torah now passed on by the Rabbis.  But the Sadducees limited God's Word to only the Five Books of Moses.  That's why they could sorta get away with denying the Resurrection, they gave no credence to Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37 or Daniel 12.  But Jesus in Matthew 22:32 did prove the Resurrection to them from The Torah.

There is a "Jesus Words Only" movement out there, seeking to deny that Paul was inspired or a true Apostle, and that we should build our doctrine on Jesus words alone (though they generally feel the non Pauline Epistles don't contradict them).  There is a tendency for them to favor Matthew and John over Luke, but the main website I've viewed of them seeks to defend Luke against the accusation that he was a Paulian and insists the Jesus in Luke was consistent with the Jesus in Matthew and John.

I'm glad frankly that there are enemies of Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security who admit that's what Paul taught.  Now they slander Paul by saying he taught Calvinism and other Gnostic things.  As far the Calvinism I addressed that here.

The basis for saying Paul was a Gnostic is argued by lots of enemies of The Bible, the problem with this movement's premise is the case for Paul being Gnostic is slightly weaker then the case for John being Gnostic (all that talk about The Logos, The Light and the Archon of The Kosmos).  The Gnostics borrowed language from both of them, as well as Philo.

To me all of The Bible is Jesus words, because Jesus is The Word.  But at any-rate Jesus dealt with the Saducees by sticking to their ground rules, fortunately I feel my job here is easier then Jesus was.  But first I want to clarify something.

Faith Alone and Eternal Security get treated as separate issues, to me they are not, believing Salvation can be obtained without works but then lost based on them is absurdly illogical.  And for that reason everything Paul said on Faith Alone proved Eternal security.  But as far as the Bible verses I use against those who insist they can be separated, there is really just one or two key things from Paul.  Frankly the strongest verses on specifically Eternal Security to me do come from what is often printed in Red.

Now, to begin.

These people like Catholics do not deny Faith is also needed, no one who doesn't believe in Jesus is gonna be saved by their good works.  They know Jesus said he is the only way in John 10.  So I won't be quoting every verse that mentions Faith.

I don't want to hear those people responding with talk about active ongoing belief vs one time moment belief.  Those semantics are used to deny Paul taught Faith Alone as Evangelicals understand it also.  Any verse where that interpretation of what belief means is plausible to me I won't be using.

John 3:14-18

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 Perhaps people think my view of these verses are undermined by what follows about men who do evil deeds hating the Light, and those who know Truth being drawn to the light.  That discussion perhaps tells us something about what kinds of people become Believers, but not about Salvation itself.  Verse 19 is clearly meant to be a slight change in subject.

On the subject of specifically Eternal Security, no one has Eternal Life if that salvation was latter lost.  Which brings me to John 11:25-26

Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Believing makes Death impossible, that is the plain reading of that statement.

John 10:28-30

I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.  I and my Father are one.

 John 17:12

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Now the first part of this verse is popular for those of us who believe in Eternal Security.  Those who believe Salvation can be lost feel the statement about Judas disproves Eternal Security.  Regardless of one's view on if Judas was ever truly Saved.  He is defined here as the absolute one and only exception. And it's part of fulfilling Scripture, he is the Idol Shepherd of Zechariah 11.

Verses from John used against Eternal Security or Faith Alone may include 4:36-37.  That is about earning rewards not Salvation.  Mostly they would be the verses that mention his Commandments.

Enemies of Faith Alone love John 14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

First of all loving him is a work, he defined Loving God elsewhere as the greatest commandment.  There are I believe Saved people who during their walk fail to Love him adequately.   Similar statements are used from John's Epistles and I respond the same way, none say the person who doesn't Love him either never was or is no longer saved.

I'm more concerned with how this is used by Legalists to support using a rigid interpretation of Scripture to judge the validity of one's walk with God.  They ignore the context of what comes next.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

This is tied in with The Prophecy from Jeremiah we are reminded of in Hebrews. The Law is no longer written in Stone but on our Hearts by The Holy Spirit.  He gives us our commands now, and we should read Scripture because among other things that is part of how the Spirit communicates with us.  But God's intents for different people are different as Romans 14 and the various times Jesus did things on The Sabbath shows.  We are under the Law of Liberty.

Statements from Matthew tend to be what's most often used against Faith Alone.  Matthew perhaps does stress it the least of them in a sense, that is why we have more then one Gospel.  But what's used from Matthew against it is stuff that is meant to show the impossibility of earning Salvation.

The Sermon on The Mount makes God's Laws stricter then how many understood them.  But the point of the Sermon is in Chapter 5 verse 20.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is about the impossibility of earning Salvation by our own righteousness.  We are supposed to obtain it by Jesus righteousness.

Most uses of the word Saved in Matthew's Gospel are when talking about surviving Persecution, those verses aren't on Eternal Salvation yet enemies of Eternal Security as well as Calvinists continue to misuse them.

Matthew 7:21-23

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 Verse 21 gets cited without what comes next to try and contradict Faith Alone.  Sometimes Faith Alone and Eternal Security advocates will out of laziness or brevity quotes 22-23 without the prior verse, then the critics of Faith Alone will complain about our "ignoring" the context of verse 21.

The way this is constructed clearly defined verses 22-23 as defining what is meant by verse 21.  The "Will of my Father" is clearly meant to be Knowing Jesus not doing good works.  On the subject of Eternal Security it's important to note all of these NEVER knew him, there is no acknowledgment of such a state as being one who formally knew him not being allowed into the Kingdom.

Now this "Jesus Words Only" movement will argue that because Iniquity in the Greek is Amonia which means Lawless that Jesus is describing Paulian Christians.  They are deemed Lawless because they choose to be judged by the works of The Law.  Paulian Christians, who believe Faith Alone and Eternal Security would never say "Lord, Lord, look what we've done", we would say "Lord Jesus, we Believed in you".

There is no getting around that these were people seeking to be judged by their works.  Whatever your view on the Old Testament Law, what these people were bragging about doing was what Jesus told followers to do.  Anyone trying to justify themselves by the Law will be deemed Lawless.

The references to "Outer Darkness" I've explained in another post.  It's not Hell or the Lake of Fire but being outside New Jerusalem in the New Creation in Revelation 21-22.

The Sheep and Goats Judgment in Matthew 25 is not about Eternal Destiny directly.  It's neither the Bema Judgment or White Throne Judgment, it defines itself as being when he returns to establish his Kingdom.

Those who were already Saved before this are neither the Sheep or Goats, they are his Brethren he is referring to.  The post Rapture Believers who were facing Persecution were the "least of his bretheren" since they were to late to be part of The Church, and are at this moment already Resurrected.

I don't think they include those that took the Mark either, those were killed at Armageddon.  This is simply those who managed to stay neutral all through the Revelation 13-19 period, they are getting a second chance based solely on how well they treated those who were Believers being persecuted.

Or maybe that view is wrong and it is the White Throne Judgment, still demands that the Brethren are separate from either group.  That it is framed as a parable shouldn't be forgotten.

Matthew 19:17 gets misused by many people, I've even seen it refereed to as an instruction to the Disciples which it was not.  In verse 16 the rich young ruler asks "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?", he asked the wrong question.  Jesus demonstrates how high the standard is to earn Eternal Life,

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, "Who then can be saved?"  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

This alone doesn't settle the matter of how Eternal Life is obtained.  This is similar to other incidents like with the Lawyer who we are told tried the justify himself, and the man Jesus rebukes for calling him Good when thinking he was only a man.

Matthew 20:21-22 isn't about Salvation, it's about being able to rule as Jesus right hand and left hand.  Not all of the Saved will co-rule with him.

Matthew 21:28-31 isn't really about works, that's merely an analogy in the parable.  It's about it not mattering if you do the Father's will right away or not.

The only thing unique to Mark really relevant to defining Soterology I addressed in my Baptism study.

Now to Luke, starting with Chapter 8 verses 12-15 where he explains the parable of the Sower.

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.  They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

The word "Saved" is used only to describe the first category, which tells me there is something distinct to them about how that word related to them.  The popular thing is to interpret this as saying only the last category are truly Saved.  But I disagree, without using Paul to influence my interpretation at all.  Only the first group are categorized as not being Saved.

The next are those who Believe but Fall Away, Matthew 7 allowed no room for former believers among the damned, and John says Belief period gets you Eternal Life.  So yes I see this as proof that truly saved people can Fall Away but not that they lose their Salvation from it.

The third group are believers who don't fall away but are worldly.

Only the fourth bears Fruit.  They and they alone are those who will receive great Rewards and Co-Rule with Jesus in New Jerusalem.  But there are also Nations of The Saved outside New Jerusalem.

Luke 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Revelation is a coded book.  At face value it doesn't seem interested in Faith Alone, you have to understand what being written in the Book of Life means.

Now that I feel that is settled.  One more amusing thing, the main Jesus Words Only website also insists that Luke's account in Acts was ignorant of Paul's by Faith Alone doctrine or else Luke wouldn't have spoke so highly of Paul.  Acts 16:29-32

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

On an issue other then Faith Alone, they insist that Jesus contradicts the doctrine that Yahweh no longer lives in a Temple made by Man.  I suggest they read John 4.

Are you not preaching the real Gospel if you're not offending people?

That is a popular notion among some "Conservative" Christians.  Like here.
If You're Not Offending Someone You're Not Preaching The Gospel

That article really doesn't use much Scripture to back up it's premise.  Luke 5:32 I feel is particularly misused.  The intent there was clearly not to offend obvious sinners but those who thought they were righteous.

The people who were offended by what Jesus and Paul were preaching, were those who thought they were already believers in The God of The Bible.  The Jews in their various sects were the limit of that at the time, but now we have various forms of Christianity that are effectively the same things the Pharisees and Sadducees were, and many of them even seem Evangelical.

Yes we are told we will be hated by The World, the Greek terminology there means more precisely the world System (ruled by Satan).  But this notion I've seen from some Baptist preachers that you're not a real Believer if non-believers find you tolerable at all is not supported by Scripture.  Joseph was pretty good at making friends in Egypt, his problems there only came when one person liked him too much.

The people of Faith through out the Old Testament that became hated by heathens were not really hated for their faith.  Mordecai wouldn't bow down in-front of an ego-maniac, Daniel and his Friends were the object of envy because the PAGAN King was fond of them.

Likewise in Acts 16 Paul got into trouble for depriving some greedy people of their cash cow.

Jesus had mixed receptions from Jews, but never once did a Greek or Roman dislike him, Pilate was flabbergasted how much the Priests and Pharisees wanted him dead.

Paul's sermon at Mars Hill in Acts 17 didn't outrage anyone.  Some laughed at it, some were curious, and some believed.  But none were offended.

Now back to the article I linked to.

Jesus didn’t seem to care about the rich young ruler’s feelings when he told him to sell everything and give it to the poor.

I'm really tired of people alluding to this incident from Matthew 19 without the proper context that he asked the wrong question.  That I will be talking about more in a future post.

Jesus didn’t seem to worry about offending the adulteress when he told her to go and sin no more.

I would respect citing this incident from John 8 more if it was about her accusers being possibly offended by realizing they were no better then her.   As for the Adulteress, the fact that he just saved her life pretty much guaranteed there would be no offense.  A good perspective on that line is here.

Jesus didn’t seem concerned about the Pharisee’s feelings when He called them a brood of vipers.

You see there is a theme here, the only people offended by Jesus were those who went around offending others.

Jesus didn’t give Nicodemus other options to being born again.

And Nicodemus was not offended by this, he was merely confused at first.

Jesus wasn’t worried about driving away the multitudes when He commanded them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

The people who went away didn't understand his message here, they weren't offended.

Of course the premise of this rant was that the Truth is offensive.  It will be to some people, but not all people, and it's often those who think they know The Bible but are blinded by tradition that find the Truth most offensive to their sensibilities.

Intricately linked to this is the idea that we shouldn't be afraid of offending LGBT people.  Even putting aside my disagreement with the traditional view of Homosexuality.  You can preach "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" without pointing fingers at any specific sins, and yes I'd say the same about murder.  Give the message of Salvation, and once they have The Holy Spirit leave it up to the Spirit to direct them in what they do or do not need to change about their lives in their walk with God.

But some people think you have to "Repent" (thinking Repent always means turn from Sin) to be Saved.  That is an error that undermines Faith Alone just as much as denying Eternal Security does.

If the Gospel your Preaching has works in addition to Faith it might be offensive to many people

If the Gospel your Preaching requires repentance it might be offensive to many people

If the Gospel your preaching denies assurance of Salvation it might be offensive to many people.

If the Gospel your preaching says Salvation can be lost it might be offensive to many people

If the Gospel your preaching says not everyone is eligible for Salvation it might be offensive to many people.

But if the Gospel your Preaching is that Salvation is by Grace through Faith alone apart from works lest any should boast.  The only people offended will be those who want to boast.  Maybe the modern world has those people in larger numbers then Ancient times, I don't know.

If someone is offended that they might be be unable to qualify or because they think it's too difficult for them to do it, we've hindered The Gospel which is supposed to be that Salvation is easy, Jesus did all the work.  If your presenting that Gospel in a way that makes it seem offensive, you are doing a disservice to it.

 If someone is offended about the possibility of others getting into Heaven with them who did less then them, then yes it's Okay to offend those people.

My personal family experience is that my Catholic Father is far more offended by my Free Grace approach to Faith then my Neo-Pagan cousin.

Can an unsaved person lose their ability to be saved?

That this can happen is popularly taught by some pastors.

I'm not saying it can't happen, issues like the Mark of The Beast are difficult to deal with.  That issue is of course purely eschatological.  If your even concerned about these kinds of issues that's solid evidence the Holy Spirit hasn't given up on you.

My ultimate point for this post is that no specific external Sin or amount of Sin should be used as outward evidence someone has reached that point.  Paul called himself the Chief of Sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) and indeed he persecuted the Faith, I really don't think any Sin would be more difficult for God to forgive then being a persecutor of his children.  But we have Proof in Paul you can be redeemed even from that.

People like to cite in Hosea when God says "I will love them no more" This ignores the context of the entirety of Hosea, where he is talking about the people of Israel and clearly saying they will ultimately be forgiven and brought back to him.  This is not about an individual person(s).  Like how Calvinists misuse the references to Esau and Jacob in Malachi and Romans, those are about the nations, not the individuals.

Romans 1 (which I'll talk more on latter) is cited as a reference to God giving people over unto Sin.  And they think that means they can't be saved anymore.  And will compare it to God hardening Pharaoh's Heart.

Not only is being delivered unto Sin by God not proof you can't be Saved, it isn't even proof your not already Saved.  Saul was Saved well before God sent an Evil Spirit to afflict him for his Sin.  And in 1 Timothy 1:20 Paul speaks of Hymenaeus and Alexander being delivered unto Satan.  Their clearly spoken of as being fellow believers, but ones with problems.  And he said that was done so they''d learn a lesson.

Using Romans 1 that way ignores the context of Romans 2 and 3 which follow.  Where Paul tells the believers he's talking to that they are no better, they're guilty of every single Sin he described the Pagan Romans engaging in in Chapter 1, weather they realize it or not.

One interpretation of Hebrews 6 taken by some fellow believers in Eternal Security is that it's not describing people who were ever saved, but people who understood The Gospel and outright rejected it.  

They are explicitly described as Falling Away.  And they tasted the Gifts of The Spirit, that is not comparable to the way the Holy Spirit sometimes moves unsaved people.  The Gifts of The Spirit are for those He truly indwells in only.

I recommend Chuck Missler's explanation of Hebrews 6.  First of all the fact that is clear in the Greek Grammar (and not in conflict the KJV reading) is that it's God who won't Repent.  God often says rhetorically he'll do something and then repents of it.  But when he swears and Oath he won't Repent.

Hebrews 6 needs to be understood in light of Numbers 13-14.  The people rejected The Land because of the spies report.  The Angered God, and he said (rhetorically at least, that he's destroy them for that that).  But Moses prayed for them and said to God  that the Egyptians would hear it and say "Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness."

So in 14:20 God says he shall forgive and pardon them.  But they still had repercussions for That Sin he would not turn back from.

Nothing in Hebrews 6 or 10 says the people being spoken of go to Hell.

The Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit is a difficult issue.  It is first of all spoken of in a way that implies it's the absolute only unforgivable Sin.  But those who want to accuse other Sins of being evidence of inability to be Saved just say those are Sins you can't commit till after who's done the unpardonable Sin.

If we define what The Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit is based on the context of The Story, it's accusing something done by The Holy Ghost of being done by Demons.  Thing is, sadly, Independent Baptists who's salvation I don't question risk doing this attacking Pentecostals and Charismatics all the time.  Of course the specific context is casting out Demons.  Matthew 7 proves unsaved people can cast out Demons, but they don't do it by Demons, they still clearly did it in Jesus name.  Their damned because they placed their faith in those Works not in Him.

I think some of what we assume about what Jesus meant here may be wrong.  In the Mark account he says of those who had done this "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation".

Danger does not mean guaranteed.  So if your KJV only, you have to admit maybe they're not as Un-Saveable as we assume.

"But, they receive no forgiveness?".  Aren't we Christians supposed to ask forgiveness when we Sin? Even though we're already Saved and can't lose that Salvation?  There might be a difference in terms of forgiveness at the Bema Judgment and forgiveness at the White Throne Judgment.

Since many consider Matthew 12 as when the leadership of Israel formally rejects Jesus as Messiah.  This may also be meant to be compared to Numbers 13-14.  Besides, it is implied in Acts latter that most of the Phrasiees did become believers.

Now I want to go back to Romans 1.  I've expressed elsewhere why I don't think verses 26-27 meant what most think it means.  But that's immaterial to the discussion here.

One thing both I and people who hold the traditional view on Homosexuality agree on is that the "abusers of themselves with mankind" in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is referring to the same thing Romans 1:26-27 refers to.  Verse 11 makes clear there were Saved people in the Corinthian congregation saved out of every single one of those Sins listed.  Then verse 12 says "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Showing how we're not bound by The Law (New or Old Testament Law), but there are still good reasons to follow it.

Certain Pastors will back up viewing Homosexuals as beyond Salvation by saying "It's not part of the Sin Nature" and talking about how they (and presumably most people) are never even tempted to do that.

I have never been tempted to Drink Alcohol, or Smoke Cigarettes, or do any Drugs.  And plenty of other Sins.  Each individual is different, just because you can't relate to something doesn't mean it's inherently abnormal.

The word for "Nature" in Romans 1:26-27 is the same in both the Greek and Hebrew as when Paul refers to  men having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14.  Does Paul intend to say that's something that is biologically unnatural?  No clearly not.  Also in the Greek the word for "shame" in the Corinthians verse is the same a "vile" in Romans.  This is the most similar passage to Romans in terms of how Paul uses those two key words.

Another verse they will bring up is Corinthians 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."  Which they take to mean believers can't be tempted by anything uncommon.

Paul's intent here was not to create a way to know what temptation we can't face, but to assure all his readers every temptation they face is common, they are not alone.  In fact I see no reason to use this verse as evidence that "uncommon sins" exist at all.

The problem with people using this verse this way is that they think common equals majority.  When I was collecting Pokemon cards as a kid the Ratata card was labeled common, that did not mean 51% of all cards were Ratata.  I think the percentage of cards that were Ratata was in fact smaller then the percentage of the human race that has felt some form of sexual desire for the same sex.

This same epistle refers to others thing that would be "Uncommon" by the same standard if Homosexuality was uncommon as being sins people within the Body were dealing with.

What is Repentance

I had an earlier post on Repentance and Salvation.  I stand by my points there, but what's more important is what Repentance means.

The Greek word translated Repent means a change of mind.  A Change how how you think.  Mark 1:15 says "repent ye, and believe the gospel".  It's all about Belief.

The people who overemphasis Repentance, who puts memes on Facebook saying "If your Gospel doesn't include Repentance your teaching a False Gospel", think Repent means to Turn from Sin.  It doesn't mean that.  Judas Repented of what he had done, and then went and immediately committed Suicide.

One more thing.  John's Baptism is defined as the Baptism of Repentance.  Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24 and19:4.  Some view that as part of argument Johns' Baptism was a different Baptism then what the Apostles Baptized.  I don't have an opinion on that yet, but either way the point here is.  Jesus was Baptized by John?  Why?  He was Without Sin?

The reason is Jesus did everything necessary for Salvation for us.  Including Repentance.

Questioning The Salvation of Fellow Believers

Seems to be a favorite pastime among Christians today.

Even a lot of believers who say they believe in Eternal Security, really simply mean by that the Fifth Point of Calvinism, or some variation there of.  That certain Sins, or Apostasy, or Bad Doctrine can be used as proof of a lack of true Salvation in a professing Christian.

Like people who believe Salvation can be Lost or in Works Salvation they will miss use verses there for the purposes of showing how impossible it is to earn Salvation.

But they will add to those verses, verses that are about Works as evidence of Faith. The Evidence of Faith in question isn't for other Believers, but about Witnessing.  The great Commission actually says in the Greek to "Be A Witness".  We should be credible representatives of God's Kingdom.  That is why Jesus told the Apostles that The World will Know them by their Love for one another.  And why Nathan told David he gave Occasion to the Enemies of The LORD to Blaspheme after he sinned with Bathsheba and killed Uria.

Faith without Works is Dead.  But you can't have Dead Faith if you never had Faith.

1 Corinthians 3:15 says "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Saul we know was Saved.  His Salvation was depicted before he became King.  Yet he backslid horribly and became a Villain of David's Story.   But when his Death was foretold Samuel said he and his Sons would be with him.  I know in the Old Testament, before The Cross all the Saved went to Sheol.  But in Luke 16 we're informed it has two distinct compartments for the Saved and Unsaved.  What Samuel said there isn't with him as in their both in the same place the same way someone in Racine or Milwaukee are both in Wisconsin.  It means they will be together.

Solomon also didn't Persevere to the end.  And Lot and Samson were both Worldly.  The latter each have New Testament verses confirming their Salvation.

Hebrew 6, and latter parts of Hebrew elaborating on the same Subject are controversial.  I agree with Chris White that the Sin in mind here is Apostasy (not bad doctrine, but renouncing your faith).  But he's wrong in taking the view that Apostasy is the one exception to Eternal Security.

I highly Recommend what Chuck Missler says on Hebrews 6, (he falls into the same traps Calvinists do on some other verses, but on Hebrew 6 he nails it).  He points out issues with the Greek Grammar that aren't easily carried over into English.  But mostly bases his point on going back to the Old Testament passage it draws on, Numbers 13-14, the Spies who rejected The Land.  God was very angry with them, but Moses Prayed for them and they were Forgiven, BUT they were not allowed to see The Land and that's why they wondered for 40 years.  Likewise when a Saved person commits Apostasy Jesus Prays for him just as he Prayed for Peter.

The Prodigal Son squandered his Inheritance but did not lose his Sonship.  When Jesus in Matthew refers to the "Outer Darkness" that is not Hell.  That refers to being Outside New Jerusalem, where The Light of God will be.  Some people refuse to admit that not all the Saved are New Jerusalem.  But Revelation 21:24-27 makes clear there are entire nations outside.  Many are simply because they weren't Saved during the Church Age, but there will also be Church Age believers who lose their Citizenship of The Holy City, but not their Salvation.

A certain pastor I don't want to name, who teaches Eternal Security, and preaches against all Five points of Calvinism, still loves to question people's Salvation based on Doctrine.

He says based on "My sheep hear my voice and follow me" that whatever problems they have, a truly Saved person will respond to God's Word.  This verse is about Salvation, and another one Calvinists might miss use to support their view of Predestination, but what their wrong on is the cause and effect.

This same Pastor agrees with me on using Saul to Prove Eternal Security, and also Solomon.  But both of them heard God's Word from anointed Prophets and Priests trying to turn them from their backslidden paths yet they did not do so.

The KJV Biblical Word most Calvinists I've seen view as what they mean  by "Persevere" is Overcome.  Mainly how it's used in 1 John and Revelation 2-3.  Overcome is used in many senses of many things in The Bible, plenty no Clavinsits thinks is about Salvation.

1 John 5:4-5 says

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

What John means here is clearly all the Saved.  And doesn't matter if you Persevered to the end or not, simply Believing means you overcome the world.

Some of the usages in Revelation 2-3 and 21:7 may or may not be using it specially of those who who don't lose their Inheritance.  I believe all Seven Churches, even the two worst ones, were congregations of Saved individuals, or else Jesus wouldn't have written to them at all.

You're saved if you Overcome, but not every saved person will Overcome to the end.

Romans 10 says "All who call upon the name of The Lord shall be Saved" no qualifying statements.  1 John 4:2 says " Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God".  And verse 15 says "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

I'm not saying there are no professing Christians who aren't saved.  But those that are are people who were born in the faith, or who converted for the wrong reasons.  But everyone who understands they need a Savior and accept Jesus is Saved.

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." - Romans 4:5
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the

deeds of the law." - Romans 3:28
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8,9

Some advise for fellow Christians on moral law and how to discern it.

First off, study the context of any Bible verse condemning something, to see what the intent of the Law is. Cause Jesus saying "God made the Sabbath for Man not Man for the Sabbath" shows that he wants us to follow the intent of the law more so then the letter of it.

I've spent a lot of time arguing that Christians need to stop labeling things a Sin that I point out The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn like they think it does.

But one thought that may enter one's mind is, as big a book as The Bible is, can it really address every single hypothetical Sin that could possibly happen?

There are only three areas where I feel Sin can be defined broadly.

Any act of worship to a false god, or occult ritual, whether or not it's a pagan practice specifically addressed in The Bible is obviously a violation of the first Two Commandments, and of Jesus's Command to Love God with all our heart, mind, body and soul. Matthew 22:37-28.

Anything you do that harms another person, or violates their rights is a violation of the Golden Rule Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." and to Love our Neighbor as we Love ourselves, Matthew 22:39. The word translated "men" there is Anthropos, which means Man as in Mankind, it's not actually Gender specific, neither Greek or Hebrew used the same word for both those meanings as we do. So yes Jesus's wording of The Golden Rule applies to our treatment to women too. Which is why I recommend starting with that when arguing with Anti-Christians who think The Bible is pro-Rape.

Third, the fact that as a believer our Bodies are the Temple of God, because we have The Holy Spirit indwelling in us, means doing things harmful to ourselves and our own health can be sinful.

In summery, things that harm your relationship with God, with your fellow Man, or your own body are sinful, and you shouldn't need specific Bible verses thrown at you to figure that out if your trying to Follow the Law of Love and being led by The Holy Spirit.

As a Libertarian I believe the Civil Laws of government should address only category two.

And all the stuff in The Bible used to show that God judges even our thoughts. Are all references to thinking about things that are sinful. But that doesn't mean you've sinned as soon as your tempted, the sin is in indulging in those thoughts.

Thing is, pretty much all specific things The Bible condemns fit into one of those three categories as well. The exceptions being mostly the superficial aspects of the Mosaic Law which Christians are clearly not held to, from the Sabbath and Circumcision to Dietary Laws. But even those have potential health benefits.

And after that, some of the things Paul says that he never intended to be taken as outright Moral Law, but merely advise for how Christians should present themselves, but that a lot of modern Christian take as moral law anyway. Like the verses about men having short hair and gender specific dress codes.

Prostitution is the only major Moral Law that one could have trouble seeing how it fits into those three categories. But it does carry a health risk, as a Libertarian I know that the heath risks would be minimized a great deal if it was legal (and it was legal under the civil law code parts of the Mosaic Law). But they'll never go away completely, restaurants are legal and sometimes they get away with violating their health codes. Any time you have sexual relations with a complete stranger you're taking a risk, both in terms of STDs and other safety risks.

Which is why as open as my attitude towards sex is, I do still feel it's a bad idea to have random sex with strangers, paid for or not. It's best to limit your love life to people you know and trust.

And to fellow Christians, we should avoid getting sexually or romantically involved with unbelievers. Which leads to how prostitution is related to the first category, it is often referenced in The Bible as allegorical of Idolatry for a reason, your lover can be an influence on the way you think. And that can happen even if the unbeliever isn't intentionally seeking to influence their lover's religion. So no I'm not saying every non-Christian is like a stereotypical exotic pagan temptress from an old Hollywood Biblical Epic.

As I've argued elsewhere the intent of Adultery laws is to prevent children from being born without a family. And therefore I don't feel adultery laws should apply to non reproductive sex. However, if either spouse is uncomfortable with it or not aware of it that is a violation of trust.

All the things I argue against traditional convention as things that aren't sinful, or at least not the mortal wroth disfellowshipping someone over sins most Christians think they are. Are all things that can in no way fit into any of those three categories. Anything can be unhealthy if you do it too much, but it's also been scientifically shown that moderately engaging in masturbation actually has health benefits.

Anal sex has health risks, even if your certain your partner has no STDs it's been argued to be potentially physically damaging to the anus. But contrary to popular assumption Anal isn't the only thing Gay men can or do engage in. In fact studies at different times have suggested the majority don't even like it. Consensual sex between two adults who love and trust each other of the same gender can in no way be argued to violate the Law of Love. Nor can sex between two adults who love and trust each other but who aren't married.

Satan wants people to think God condemns things he didn't just as much as he wants people to think sins aren't sinful, maybe even more so.

That statement I'm sure is shocking to many. But let's go back and study the origin of Sin and Satan's deception of humanity in Genesis 3.

Commentaries of Genesis do a good job of pointing out how the first thing The Serpent does is misquote what God said. But what "conservative" commentators tend to avoid emphasizing is that his misquotation was for the purpose of making God's word sound more restrictive then it was. There was only one single tree they couldn't eat from, but the Serpent makes it sound almost like the exact opposite, as if it was very few trees they could eat from.

Then, commentators do a good Job of pointing out how Eve's reaction seems to imply Adam had incorrectly taught her what God said. But again avoid putting any emphasis on that her misunderstanding of the command likewise made the command sound even more restrictive then it was, as if they weren't allowed to even go near the tree.

In fact Christians are constantly encouraging this exact same attitude that laid behind why Adam probably taught it the way he did. Telling people that because of the commands against drunkenness we probably shouldn't even go in bars. Forgetting that Jesus eat with sinners (as well as the Pharisees who he really didn't approve of).

So keep that in mind next time you see the very fact that the World and/or the Occult is encouraging something your church told you to view as a sin, as further confirmation it is a sin. Consider that Satan might want to reinforce the wrong views on Moral Law that many Christians hold.

I'm tired of being told I'm the one interpreting God's Word loosely because I don't consider every single act of divergent behavior a mortal sin. When I'm the one who understands these passages as talking about specific things, in specific contexts, for specific reasons. I hold these interpretations because of the same Hermeneutic principles that lead me to be a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist, a PreMillennial Futurist, and to firmly believe in Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

I absolutely still consider more then enough things sinful to justify "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", that can be demonstrated from the Sermon on the Mount. So don't act like I'm a moral relativist who rejects absolutes.

While Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and other places talk about disfellowshiping Christians who are habitually engaging in Sins that obviously violate the Law of Love (2 Corinthians 2 clarifies to forgive them and let them back in when they've fixed their issues). Or who teach Damnable heresies (not any incorrect doctrine, but one that effects Salvation, contradicting Justification by Faith Alone, or that Jesus is the only Way). Romans 14 also talks about not passing judgment on fellow Christians. Just because the Holy Spirit is convicting you personally to refrain from a certain activity, doesn't mean it's leading all believers to the same choice. He has different walks for each of us.

I've been kicked out of Christian Message Boards and Facebook groups for expressing my view that The Bible doesn't Condemn Homosexuality. But these same boards do have people expressing variant views on Salvation, including people who don't even agree with "by Faith Alone".

Likewise, that Christian dating website, ChristianMingle, won't let you sign up identifying as Homosexual or Bisexual. But you are allowed to identify as someone who drinks regularly, drinking alcohol is condemned in far more verses then all the supposed homosexuality ones.

In fact there is no other areas where their being restrictive, any denomination can qualify as "Christian" for that site, including Catholics. Even if there where verses, right in the Sermon on the Mount, declaring "though shalt not love the same gender" and defining it as something wroth disfellowshiping over. You'd still never convince me any devout Catholic is more of a Christian then a homosexual who believers in Salvation by Faith through Grace only, and Eternal Security.