"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

Agape and Eros are synonyms actually.

We keep hearing it declared that the Greek Language had multiple mutually exclusive words for "Love", the big three being Eros (Sexual and Romantic Love), Agape (Familial Love) and Philia/Phileo (Brotherly Love, which you're supposed to have for everyone).  From theologians like the late Karl Bart to to C.S. Lewis to YouTube videos like the Overly Sarcastic Productions summary of Eros and Psyche (a story that originated in the 2nd Century AD BTW).

The thing is, there is a lot of context about the history of the Language being left out of that.  I don't know if that's an accurate representation of how people in modern Greece use these words, but there are some important facts about the Ancient usage I need to point out.

First of all, and this is semi-well known, "Eros" is suspiciously missing from The New Testament, the closest we get is one guy's name seems to have Eros as one of it's roots, (Erastus mentioned in Acts 19:22, Romans 16:23 and 2 Timothy 4:20).

A popular theory for why is that the first Generation of Christians were a bunch of prudes seeking to reject Sex and Marriage so they had no need to discus Eros.  Well this entire Blog is partly dedicated to refuting that notion.

It's also been proposed that these early Jewish Monotheists wanted to avoid saying "Eros" because it was also the name of a Greek god.  Thing is lots of Greek words in the New Testament are also names of Greek gods, from Ouranos to Hades to some Olympians being explicitly mentioned.  But maybe there are nuanced reasons why Eros would be different, after all twice the Epistle known as 1 John says that "God is Love (Agape)".  Also not every deity in Greek mythology had an active cult of worship, most primordial deities were not as active as part of Greek pagan religion as Eros was.

But wait, why isn't there a Greek god named Agape?  A lot of abstract concepts and emotions are personified in Greek mythology, even some pretty trivial ones.  Well you see the well known academically but not so casually well known fact is that Agape is a word that was almost never used by Greek speaking Polytheists.  Apparently Homer used a form of it but not in any way comparable to it's NT usage.

In other words, Eros and Agape are a bit like Clark Kent and Superman, you kind of never see them in the same place at the same time.

The first problem with excluding Romantic and Sexual Love from the meaning of Agape is that Paul uses Agape of the Love that Husbands are supposed to have for their Wives in Ephesians 5.

But then there is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.  As I've said before in my view the Septuagint is at least partly Pre-Christian in origin but the final from we typically know was copied and preserved through Christian hands.  Both Eros and Agape are used in the Septuagint, but Eros far more rarely.  It is the main place you find both being used.

Both words are used to translate the same Hebrew word, Ahav and other forms of Ahav like Ahavah.  But Eros is NEVER used in The Song of Songs that is Solomon's.  That's right, the most explicitly Erotic part of the entire Bible used Agape and not Eros.

I can't help but wonder if Agape might actually be Hebrew in origin.  There is a rarely used synonym for Ahav that only appears in Jeremiah 4:30, and Ezekiel 23&33, Agab, Egeb and Agabah (Strongs Numbers 5689-5691).  For whatever weird reason, Bs sometimes change to Ps in ancient transliterations, so Agape could easily have come from this word.  Some of it's uses do seem to imply a Sexual sense.  The Strongs definitions for the words say things like Sensually and Amorousness.  However I lack a smoking gun on this theory since I can't find a place where this word became Agape in the Septuagint, in the Jeremiah verse it is translated Eros.

So Agape can definitely include Romantic and Sexual Love in ancient Judeo-Christian use.

Meanwhile Eros was definitely used by Gentile Greeks of more then just Sexual Love.  Plato is someone who's attitudes towards sex I've strongly opposed on this Blog, but he is a witness to how the word was used, and Platonic Love was indeed Platonic Eros.  However what we today means be "Platonic" doesn't always match what Plato actually meant, so it's complicated.

So when 1 John 4:7 says that "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" using Agape.  You can't say that's separate from the Love Homosexuals feel because of some modern notion of Agape and Eros being distinct.  Agape is used in negative senses sometimes, but that's only when Love for some thing gets in the way of one's Love for God.  It's never used of love for people.  Sexual Love can be sinful when it is expressed or taken against someone's will.  But calling any consensual romantic love Demonic is in my view potentially Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Update: So I recently learned of a minor Greek Goddess called Philotes, she was associated with both Friendship and Sex, so that right there is evidence that Philia wasn't completely divorced from Sexual connotations either.

The Law of Moses and Christianity

There are two extremes on the issue of keeping the Law of Moses in the Church.  There is the "God never changes" so keeping the Law is just as Important as ever crowd.  Some may even argue it's stricter now.  And then there is the full on it is BAD for Christians to keep the Law, even the Holy Days, camp.

The latter is absurd, to suggest it's bad to follow Jesus example by keeping the Feast of Tabernacles.  The only way it would ever become bad is if you try to force it on others.

The extremists of the former camp come in varieties.  I have said already about all I care to regarding those who want to reject Paul as a false Prophet.  Or anyone else who will deny Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

To those like Rob Skiba, who I greatly respect.  The key issue I want to ask is, did Paul mean what he said when he said "all things are lawful to be, but not all things are beneficial" in Corinthians?  All the issues you can point out about the health benefits of not eating Pork are relevant to the beneficial part of that statement, but they do not undermine the lawful part.

I believe in Eternal Security.  I believe there are different judgments for Believers and Unbelievers.  I believe only Believers will receive rewards and only Unbelievers will receive punishments.  But some Believers will get no rewards as the Bema account in Corinthians shows.  There are five different Crowns we can win, I don't want to go in depth on them here.  But the point here is that one is a reward for not sinning, maybe one or two others are also relevant to the law.  But Martyrs have a guaranteed crown no matter how they lived their Christian life up to that point.

One of the arguments for suggesting the Law is now stricter for Christians is to say that because now all Believers are "Kings and Priests" that laws unique to the Priests and Kings in the Torah now apply to all Believers.

Leaving aside the issue that the Priesthood in question here is not the Aaronic one, but of Melchizedek (it may surprise you to learn that even Rabbis have taught that the Priesthood of Melchizedek in a sense includes all believers).  What the New Testament actually teaches is that we all have the opportunity to be Kings and Priests.

Apostates, as I have argued before, lose their citizenship in the Kingdom (but not their Salvation).  So they certainly won't become Kings of it.

I would hesitate to argue you are a King by winning any Crown, since there are two different Greek words for Crown used in the NT.  But I would advise that if you want to be a King in the Kingdom then it would help to follow the instructions God gave the King (which Solomon failed to follow) in Deuteronomy.  But that does not make it a Sin to not follow those instructions.

My point is keeping the Law is good, as long as you're not doing it thinking it contributes to your Salvation.  My objection to much of what I hear from the Torah observing community lies only in my opposition to making other Christians feel obligated to do anything.

Rob Skiba complains about strawmen he's accused of.  But he's engaging in one when he says things like "I'm just saying it's a good idea to obey God".  I believe we should obey God, but I believe God's commands are different for each of us, we are to be lead by The Holy Spirit.  When Jesus said "Those who love Me obey My commandments" in John it's right before he talks abut sending the Comforter, that is not a coincidence.

I feel the most important command God has given me personally is to never tell other people what to do, and to politely and respectfully as I can oppose those who do tell others what to do.  That is why I spend so much time on the Homosexuality issue even though I'm mostly Straight myself, and why regardless of economic disagreements I tend to vote Libertarian.  But on the Homosexuality issue  I show it's not condemned in the Torah either, practicing Homosexuals can keep perfectly Kosher.

And yes I know Rob insists he's not telling anyone what to do.  But so much of the what he says in context easily comes off that way, intentionally or not.

I know it is popular now to suggest every use of the word Sin should be defined by 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."  But I say perhaps the word "Law" should be defined by Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which I have a second witness for in how Jesus defined the two greatest commandments.  As well as James 2:8.

New Testament Legalism is just as bad as Old Testament Legalism

Alan Kurschner did a Pod Cast on the Hebrew Roots movement.

I agree that the Blood Moon theory is bunk.  And I agree that it's vitally important to stress how we are not Bound by The Law anymore.  And not just Ceremonial Law but Moral Law too, the Sabbath, Circumcision, Decalogue, Leviticus 18-20, all of it..  While there are lots of nuances to his approach I may not like, I agree with what he was trying to say, until he started defining the "Law of Christ".

He defines the Law of Christ as an even heavier standard to meet then the Law of Moses was.  That could not be more of an insult to Christ.  Jesus said in Matthew 11:30 "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."  And in Matthew 23:4 condemning the Pharisees.  "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

The Basis for Alan's error would be a common misunderstanding of The Sermon on The Mount's intent. I too used to love observing how Jesus in fact makes each Law he address more difficult to obey, not easier.  But I've learned from that error, and will quote the Sermon study from the Grace Thru Faith blog.

A Bible Study by Jack Kelley
Matt. 5:21-48 is a part of the Sermon on the mount that has always bothered me. It’s not what Jesus taught that’s a problem for me, but how it has been perceived.

I grew up learning that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was giving us a guide for holy living . But I no longer believe that was entirely the case. I believe in Matt. 5:21-48 He was expanding on His statement in Matt. 5:20 that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
For all their faults, the Pharisees and teachers of the law were men who devoted their lives to keeping even the smallest details of the Law. They thought by doing this they were earning a righteousness that would gain them admittance to God’s kingdom.  But Jesus said that even as obsessive as they were about the Law, they had fallen hopelessly short of the mark and would certainly not enter the Kingdom.
I believe what He said after that was a series of examples showing what it would take for them to attain the level of righteousness necessary to enter the kingdom in their own strength. I think He chose the first two examples because they were straight from the 10 commandments and were something no self respecting Pharisee would never dream of doing.

The "Law of Christ" is a term The Bile uses only once, in Galatians 6, I prefer the term Law of Love, which is founded on many more Bible verses like Romans 13:10, and the words of Jesus himself, and Johns Epistles.  Or "Law of Liberty" used by James.  That's Semantics however.

The Law of Love has only Two Commands.  Matthew 22:35-40 (Parallels in Mark 12 and Luke 10).

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"  Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 That is it. Christians should not be Legalistically judging each other on how well their behavior matches the Sermon on The Mount, or Paul's Epistles, or anything else.  As long as we're walking in the Spirit and trying to obey these Two Commands we will do well.

The point of the New Covenant is that The Law is Written on our Hearts.  Not in a book, not even The Book (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:13, Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16).  As Commander William Riker once said "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook"

I won't accuse Alan of failing to understand Salvation by Faith Alone.  But it seems he is accusing anyone who chooses to keep any of The Law.

He does make a point to say he's all for Studying Judaism, including Rabbinic sources.  (I think Christians should be very weary of Rabbinic sources.)  But Studying is all. 

This may not be his intent, but it seems like he's accusing any Christians who Observe the Sabbath, or Jewish Holy Days and any other aspects of Mosaic Law of rejecting The Gospel, no matter what their mindset in doing so is.  He's Forgetting Romans 14.  Paul makes clear we are not to Judge other Christians who choose to or feel called by The Holy Spirit to follow Mosaic Customs, including even the Dietary Laws.  And a careful study of Scripture makes clear New Testament Christians absolutely kept the Sabbath and Observed Jewish Holy Days.  It wasn't doing these things at all Paul was condemning in those passages Alan so enjoyed citing.  Judging brethren for engaging in Jewish Customs at all is itself a form of Legalism.