The narrative ( I used journal, prayer and Bible and meta ai to help me reconstruct them since when I am in a relationship I saw some painful narratives)…..
Reconstruct these harsh voices “You need to rush your healing, you might abuse her or devalue” “ your not good enough, she is not good enough, do you really love her” “ you have to be healed fully in order to love” “Suffering and collapse is the only way you can be loved” Or even “ it’s the only way to learn” “ you are unlovable, you can not love (Sam vaknin cough cough “ “ your true self is completely vanished, you will never be cured or healed”… (Sam vaknin you love to disagree with Winnocot, Kernberg and HealNpD…. “….. “ your childhood wounds are way to bad to be treated”…. “ you can’t have good relationships or healthy ones”…. “Am I really loving ? What if I am loving” can I not love am I “unlovable” “It’s bad if love fulfills you” “ God wants to see me punished for me to love him “ “I haven’t suffered enough” or “haven’t I suffered enough”
-your sadistic ego loves to stop intimacy, growth and love ❤️…. ( why ? It’s your parents who taught you a performance based love… reject your feelings for me…)
Read this : “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” Some verses…
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭53‬:‭5‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.” ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭9‬ “ be grateful for the wound that pushes you closer to God… *.
Now let’s build you a healthy narrative now we understood these harsh narratives aren’t us…
“ listen it’s ok I am not completely healed I am learning and I am trying, healing is a journey not a destination”…. Don’t rush it… and enjoy it with your partner..”
“ my partner and I are working together to build a healthier relationship, like a tree 🌴 forming”
“Love is forming not formed it’s a journey”
“ I can still love and be loved in an imperfect state” honestly loving your partner means her imperfection is a journey you will learn to love Love is a sacrifice…..
“You deserve love regardless of your traumatic past or struggles at the end we are just children relearning to love ❤️ “ collapse isn’t the only way to learn….
“I am loved by someone in this world, yes love can be relearned you are capable of loving it comes from the will aswell… “
Christ will teach you like the father of the prodigal son, he allows us to run back to him despite our flaws and love allows for growth…
Yes you can have healthy relationships… it requires patience and growth along the way it’s a journey…
When your false self makes you question if you are loving remember love is a choice …
Your working through your childhood wounds, it’s a journey that will lead you to know more of what your needs and wants are, same with digging up your true self…..
Trust blindly your capacity to build love from nowhere love is built…aswell…learn to love others and you will see the tools you need….
Focus on your ability to do so and trust your emotions when it comes…
Love is fulfilling, and is a beautiful thing so value your partner and do not feel guilty for comparing hehim
But realize would you want this journey you have made with someone along the way…….
Love is patient and kind…..and you and me are learning to just love .. so don’t beat yourself up….
Trust me you will be fine
This ai version of my narrative since I can’t write it all here …
"Once, I was a hurt boy, carrying the weight of harsh narratives that told me I was unworthy, unlovable, and destined to fail. The voices in my head echoed the wounds of my past, perpetuating a cycle of self-doubt and fear.
But then, something remarkable happened. I found love - imperfect, messy, and beautiful love. It was like a ray of sunlight breaking through the cracks of my broken heart. For the first time, I felt seen, heard, and accepted for who I was.
As I embraced this love, I began to heal. The harsh narratives started to fade, replaced by a gentle whisper of hope and redemption. I discovered a new narrative - one of grace, forgiveness, and unconditional love.
This love led me to Christ, and I found solace in His embrace. I realized that I was not alone in my brokenness and that He was the ultimate source of love and healing.
Now, I'm on a new journey - to relearn what love truly means. I want to find real love, the kind that flows from a heart transformed by grace and mercy. I'm learning to surrender my fears, my doubts, and my need for control.
I'm discovering that real love is not about finding someone to complete me but about becoming whole in Christ. It's about embracing my imperfections and those of others, and trusting that love can heal even the deepest wounds.
This is my story - one of hurt, redemption, and the pursuit of real love. I'm still a work in progress, but I'm grateful for the journey, knowing that love will continue to transform me in ways I never thought possible."
Npd isn’t a death sentence…
Your superego wants you to believe that it is even Sam vaknin (oh I have the worst disorder shut up already)….
I can make something on the true self but it’s not gone just takes introspection

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or waiting recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

Just curious how you got to the point you were in. I'll start.
I spent probably the first 19 years of my life without really knowing much about Calvinism. I went to a Lutheran private school for a couple years, and it didn't really come up more than once or twice, so I didn't really give it much thought. Thinking back, I was probably what you would consider a Provisionist.
I went to a private Bible College that was predominantly Calvinist. I was confronted a number of times about my views, and ended up embracing more of a Classical Arminian view similar to Molinism. I didn't know how to defend my views* because I had never been confronted about it before. I think this came about from a misunderstanding of Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints. I would have described myself as a 2 1/2 point Calvinist. I saw enough verses that contradicted Calvinist soteriology to plant seeds of doubt, but passages like Romans and Ephesians made me wonder.
*Taking a view prior to establishing it yourself is bad epistemology.
So this 2 1/2 point Calvinism was my view until I had a profound spiritual experience in 2018 which started my journey back into theology as a field of personal interest. I was attending a 5-point Calvinist church at the time along with my wife, which I did for a number of years through a long multi-year study of Romans. This was actually really good for me because it gave me an opportunity to study the Calvinist position in detail. I became intimately familiar with the arguments. I realized that they weren't engaging very well with the "Arminian" position so I hit a point where I decided I was going to re-evaluate my positions on soteriology. I found Steve Gregg (The Narrow Path) on the radio and started listening to his program and learned he had a free lecture series on the topic. What I liked is that he systematically goes through all the major prooftexts and quite a few of the minor ones without skipping the hard ones. When I realized that you couldn't establish Total Depravity without it already being established (i.e. begging the question), I became a Provisionist. I think a careful reading of Romans 3 is what sealed the deal for me. I took the "John Piper Challenge" and started highlighting Calvinist leaning passages in blue and non-Calvinist leaning passages in yellow. Unlike John Piper, however, I started realizing the overwhelming evidence of the non-Calvinist position. I also found Leighton Flowers (Soteriology101) and Kevin Thompson (Beyond the Fundamentals) about that same time which helped a great deal to further demolish my presuppositions. It took a while before I really had a robust definitions of Election and Predestination, but when I saw Kevin's seminal word studies on Election and Predestination, it was eye opening. Before then I had an Arminian view of those terms and I thought they were the same thing.
Now I have taken a slightly different approach, and my main focus is on Epistemology rather than Theology. It is more broad reaching and touches on a lot more issues than Theology does.
So that's my story in a nutshell, what is yours?

Actually, the symbolic physical act was drinking wine, as in the OT Passover meal. In the communion, the wine represents the blood of Jesus. Jesus used wine as a symbol for his blood, which signified his sacrifice on the cross. He was the Lamb of God of the Passover, taking away the sins of the world.
Leviticus 17:

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

What about the partaking of the blood?
Again, we are not talking about drinking physical blood.
John 6:

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

The physical life of the physical flesh is in the physical blood. The animated life of the human spirit is in the precious blood of Jesus. Communion is one collective way to feed our human spirits. It grows and strengthens our spiritual life. This is not just a metaphor or symbol. This is a spiritual reality. Believe it.
Why would Jesus use drinking blood as a symbol at all since it is misleading?
It was a radical idea and easily misunderstood as some form of cannibalism. It tested the loyalty of the listeners. John 6:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

They left Jesus.

65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

The loyal ones passed the test. They stayed.
This test continues today. Some pass, and some fail. If one digs deeper into the symbolism and typology, he will find the deeper significance of spiritual reality, as I have tried to do in this OP. Communion feeds the participants' human spirits to strengthen them into the Oneness of the Body of Christ.
Have you passed this loyalty test? :)

Did felix study or learn the early pages of the original Bible? Don’t you understand the simple context, that your verses from Isaiah could also be interpreted differently.
You’re simply not a Bible scholar to attest to this. If your administration doesn’t want to lead by example then it’s okay to have questions about your church as a whole.
At the end of the day, we have the thing called “freedom of speech”. That’s why a lot of people would like to speak and discuss, about INC as a whole topic.

1.) there’s actually a lot of minister’s children lingering on Reddit. 2.) im not gonna listen to felix I’m sorry because I can’t find any direct evidence that he’s the last messenger (Isaiah has a lot of context and you’re not a minister right? So let’s not get biblical at this point, and 3.) we should be given the fair share to ask questions about INC and to discuss things within our circle .

im not the one defending your faith, did you forget that? I actually took courses in secondary school, a few courses (a general class for religion and a catholic course) before I went to college. I’m just saying be open minded right?

Sorry but do what you have to do, you don’t understand one simple concept- your Church administration is nowhere to be found right?

And why would I speak on Rauff’s behalf? Could you also speak on Eddy’s behalf? We’re not the ones defending the INC, you are. Would you be able to ask your church admin to come here, You can’t right- move along INC defender trueiglesianicristo

I’m seeing a lot of people attack the Pope for what he’s said during his 60 minute interview, part of that is him saying all people are good and that “the heart itself is good”. I know there are Bible verses about how the heart is deceitful and all have sinned so I’m just confused with what Pope Francis meant, if there’s any validity to what others are saying or if I’m just misunderstanding.

Mattana Ministry Welcomes You To: Weekly Bible Study: 21 May 2024 Theme: Bible Basics Explained/Faith (2) Scripture: Heb.11:3 & Gen.1:1-4 Message: Creation
We’re back in Hebrews 11, and in verse 3 we run directly into a sticky point in the world of faith: science. Specifically, creation. Let’s read at verse 3:
“By faith, we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3). So our chapter on faith begins with our understanding of creation. So what about evidence for creation?
Consider quickly the beginning of the universe in light of the basic laws of science. We know the universe had a beginning from simple number theory. If we start counting at negative infinity, it’s impossible to arrive at two thousand something. So there must be a start. At some point, time began.
And at some point space came into being. And matter. And energy.
Let’s apply the laws of science.
Conservation of Mass: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
So where did all the matter come from? There is no scientific law nor test or observation that can validate anything creating something. The Big Bang theory offers no scientific explanation for nothing becoming something. It had to happen. Had to. And yet it violates the conservation of mass. Unless there is something outside this universe that created the mass from nothing. Next law of science.
Conservation of Energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Again, energy could not have existed for eternity past, so it must have a beginning. The Big Bang offers no scientific explanation for nothing creating energy. It had to happen. And yet it violates the Conversation of Energy. Unless something outside the universe created the energy from nothing. And one more scientific law: entropy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that order cannot come from disorder in a closed system.
All things naturally move toward disorder. Now the universe has a phenomenal amount of order in it. So where did it come from? If the universe is a closed system, then the scientific laws insist that something outside of the universe must have added it.
So to be an atheist and still believe the laws of science, then we must believe that the major scientific laws were broken at some point by nothing. For the atheist, nothing created time, space, matter, energy, and order.
Now science does not lead us to that conclusion. That conclusion violates scientific law. So believing it requires faith. That is faith in nothing.
But what if we trusted the scientific laws? Well, they all tell us that time, space, matter, energy, and order must come from something. They cannot create themselves. However, there is nothing in the known universe that can create them. So it would require something outside the known universe to create them.
Now consider Genesis 1:1.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Beginning - that’s time.
God - something outside the universe.
Created - that word in Hebrew means to make something from nothing.
The heavens - space.
And the earth - matter.
So God, outside the universe, created time, space, and matter. What happened next? God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). That’s energy.
And the very next thing, He “separated the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:4). That’s order.
Time, space, matter, energy, order. How is it that Genesis 1, written well over 3,000 years ago, gives a direct explanation for the problems brought up by the laws of science, some of them formulated in the last two hundred years? That’s pretty amazing.
When it comes to faith, we should all recognize our options here: the universe as we know it either came from nothing or something. The laws of science tell us nothing cannot make something. So option 1 is to put our faith in nothing. It breaks the laws of science, and there is no atheist solution for this apart from sheer faith. But we can choose to believe it on faith. Option 2 is to put our faith in a Creator. No laws of science are broken, but it still does take faith.
So back to Hebrews 11:
“By faith, we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Many of us believe that. But not everyone agrees.
MM
Please feel free to leave a review of this message.
https://www.soulcenters.org/directory/mattana-ministry/#listing-reviews

It’s simple as two things within ethics and accountability. I’m sorry to be the bearer of the bad news but if you were not sent by your leaders then how are you credible yourself to tell me about the Bible?
Most of you INC defenders are known for mentioning Bible verses, outside of their contextual context. Likewise, a lot of y’all have never read the Bible outside of your church premises. Your leaders should be the front liners and bearer of news within this church’s grounds - wheter that’s online on social media or in person. If it’s an unofficial page then how are we supposed to take you seriously?????
Education is the ground matters of discipline and regulations. If you were not educated or academically credited to preach the Bible, then why should I listen to you?
I don’t remember saying or giving a slight hint that Rauff was similarly credited, (had academic background - since I don’t personally know him) but he is right for encouraging people to be open minded.
If this subreddit bothers you then I’m sorry to say this but you’re the one who targets other streams of religion as a whole. You’re the hater by true definition. What do the Catholics have to do with INC?
In recollection to my memories and my strong dislike of INC. I’ve only mentioned your church and ideal representatives for the most part.
Borderline: from time and ages ago, Bible scholars have always been the ideal person to approach. Sure, their data and knowledge varies based off analytical and symmetrical findings. But, you’re not as reliable as them. If this bothers you personally, then please get your leaders to act like leaders for once.
Where’s the church administration behind your subreddit? TrueIglesiaNiCristo

• if they are not leading you, then I’m sorry? but keep doing your thing!

At the end of the day, you’re the one trying to convince people of the truth. I’m just really telling people to think outside the box. It’s okay to not follow a church that doesn’t have people’s best interest.

I know people are going to stone me for this but there is this nice verse in the bible, and it more or less goes as follows " Cut the branches that bears no fruit and prune the branches that does bear fruit as it will yield more fruit. " I know it's the bible but just bear with me. It's a book and all books can hold wisdom.
What it means more or less is that you have work on the things that you are good at and not spend energy on the things that you aren't good at. Makes sense because certain things are unchangeable. This is where I tie back into my title. Guys\Gals should stop complaining about being ugly. I am not sure what purpose is serves other than to get people to feel sorry for you but is that going to help you? Is this magically going to get you a partner because they feel sorry for you? Has this ever worked for you, most likely not.
There are things in this world that we will never be able to change. Our looks for the most part being one of them. I for one wished I was smart, and I would have loved to go into the science field, but I realized quickly that I was way too stupid, and it made me angry and sad at the same time. I realized quickly that I can't help that I was born stupid. I just had to make the best of it. It doesn't mean that I have to give up but rather that I had to shift my priorities.
My greatest wish for you guys is that you would stop harping on this and try to focus on things that are in your control. If you are good at making jokes, then get better at it. If you good at talking, then do that and so forth. Take whatever good quality you have and min\max it.
I know we live in a superficial world and the fact of the matter is that a lot of people focus on vanity but not all people and also people do change with time as well. I am sure if you are 40 and you had a conversation with your 20-year-old self you wouldn't recognize yourself. The fact of the matter is that good looking people will go for other good-looking people especially when they are young. It's just biology mate. I wished the rules where different, but it is what it is. You can complain about the game, but the rules will remain the same. So instead of crying about it try to do something about it. Focus on the qualities that you excel in or at least better at. I am not saying that you will definitely find a partner but give yourself the best odds and let the chips fall where they may. If you think that being ugly is an unattractive quality then you have not met its cousin, self-pity. Its far, far worse.
Not everyone will succeed but there is pride in knowing that you gave it your all.

So... I relapsed.. felt distraught. Gave me pleasure for about 5 seconds.. and I was back to feeling like crap..
So Im here again, day 1 starting now. I just had a few questions regarding my walk with God..

1. Yesterday I had this really really really STRONG urge to reconcile with God.. Not just ask for forgiveness, but like REALLY go back and live that sinless life... You know? Like running back to Jesus, not looking at the storm, just focusing on Him.. I still have that strong desire (I can't' stress how strong it is).. Does that mean Im growing closer to God? Or does that mean Im going away from God?
2. I can't discern the Voice of God.. I asked God to talk to my yesterday, and I read the bible.. No verse struck out, no voice from God at all.. I know that I have to stay persistent with God, but could this mean that I just can't hear God anymore because I hardened my heart with sin? And if so, I did pray for God to give me a heart of flesh, but I don't see any changes (again, I think I have to be persistent).. Could someone make sense of this?
3. I am worried about marriage.. And I don't want to be.. Im in my late teens, I shouldn't be concerned or worried about this at all, I don't want to be troubled with issues I may or may not face in my later life.. Im too young for it and I have other more important things to focus on.. Is this normal? What should I do about this? I kind of don't want to be in any relationship except with God.. Im not that good looking so no girlfriend, and I don't want a girlfriend either. I don't want petty things like this to bother me.. So, if someone could guide me through this, it would be nice.
4. What exactly is prayer? I just sit in front of a picture of Jesus I have in my house and I just vent out my feelings, thoughts, my emotions, what I think, what I feel, what I want God to do for me in my life.. Is this prayer? or is it that I have to be on my knees, clasping my hands, closing my eyes? Because I had doubts about maybe I was just talking to myself, and I was not talking to God.. So I want some guidance there too..
5. How do I know that Im walking in the way of the LORD? I may be walking according to what seems right to me, but I how I know that I am walking in the direction that the LORD wants me to walk in? Is it just based on what I do right or wrong? I know that I must be able to produce fruits of the Holy Spirit if I am walking in His way.. And Im not seeing any big difference in my life right now, so I want to be sure to put my efforts in walking in the way of the LORD..

Thank you so much, for anyone who took the time to read and reply to my questions, I have doubts sometimes, but I try to not let it get to my head, and but sometimes, its too much, and I think we all need some guidance in some way to point us in the right direction.. Thats why Jesus gave us the Holy Spirt so that He can point us in the direction of goodness and holiness..
May God bless you, and may his perfect peace be with you. And thank you once again.

Christians are to love The Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul and Strength and Mind. This is the basis of Christianity. What does it mean to love God with your soul? What is the soul? Soul has a lot to do with identity. I would like to talk about identity politics; however, there is a learning curve. Someone may need to understand The Soul.
Discovering The Soul
When someone is talking about The Soul, which Soul are they referencing? Plato and The Soul? Abstract Philosophy God and the Soul? The Bible, and how The Bible references The Soul? Working to explain The Soul and The Bible, I have worked to do so in a way that your average person may be able to understand, and find or feel their soul. He are starting with a perception, we postulate that the Soul is a person, and has to do with decision making and identity, and given scripture, and various media or cultural references of The Soul, we may be able to see if we are right, and a bigger picture.
Given you understand what The Soul is in the Bible, someone may begin to understand exorcism. They may understand Identity Politics, and what it actually is in spiritual warfare. They may come out with greater understanding of creation and God.
The Basis of Christianity

• 5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.. (Deuteronomy 6:5)
• He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:27)

Song to Preface this: Heuy Lewis "Heart and Soul."
What is a Soul? A soul is a person. Given a The King of Salem had 50 Souls, he had fifty persons or servants. How did they identify themselves? Possibly as a servant of The King of Salem in some way. Loving The Lord with all your SOUL, may have to do with identity. Who was someone serving? Was someone a Servant of "Something Else" or a Servant of God? A child of God? A son of God? These may be good things to be as a Christian looking to love God with your Soul or identity.
A couple years ago I lived in walking distance from Duke University. Given someone was a Duke fan, or Duke Alumni, or had a lot of Duke Paraphernalia, they may have loved Duke University. How did they love Duke University? They loved Duke with their Soul or Identity. Someone with a Duke T-Shirt may be saying something about who he is, or was, or would like to be. When Duke wins or has done well in basketball, someone who loved Duke with their Soul or identity, they may have rejoiced? They felt good? In their soul, they rejoice, and feel a sense of happiness. That is where the soul is. Given anyone has been a sports fan at some point, and has identified as a fan of ___________ their soul rejoices when their team does well. Given I was to look up Soul in a Bible concordance, there are many of these feeling or sensing type verses where the soul is a place inside someone where there is passion. Someone loving God with Their Soul in a world of materialism and commercialism may have given up their Nike and Adidas, to be more as "Plain as John the Baptist?"
Given a musician signed a record contract, and said record contract was very strict, did said musician "Sell their Soul?" Given a musician has to sing all the songs said record company tells them to, and be at A or B place at a certain time, as said record company tells them to, and said musician has very little free will, would that be "Selling The Soul?" Given the record company was a servant of "The Purple Gang," or Kabbalists, or some other group not serving God, that may have been someone selling their soul to the devil? When we get the basics of what the Bible describes the Soul to be, there are a lot of interesting topics that come up. The Truth hurts. Knowledge brings sorrow. Ignorance is bliss? Their is freedom in The Lord.
The Soul and Identity.
True Statements:

• The Song of Songs is in the Bible as a representation of God's Love for Israel or The Church.
• In the New Testament, The Church is a Bride for Christ.
• Christ is to man as a man is to woman or Christ is the head of man as man is the head of woman. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Marriage has been an important part of The Bible and Faith and growing in understanding.

Woman is meek before her husband. Man is meek before God. A woman loving her husband with her heart and soul may have taken his name. She is forging a new identity as Mrs. _____________. A married woman with a hyphenated last name is one foot in, one foot out? Who or what does she love more? Her husband or Feminism? Maybe she didn't quite want to leave her family and her old identity behind as a single female or "Daughter of?" Feminists tend towards socialism. Is a woman really married to her husband or more married to The State? Woman is meek before her husband. A man is meek before God.
Looking at the Soul like this, someone may be able to see God. (And Satan.) The Truth hurts. Knowledge brings sorrow. Ignorance is bliss?
Spirits
Given we are coming into an understanding of The Soul, what are Spirits? Spirits effect motivations. Here is a short list of some spirits mentioned.

• Deaf and dumb spirit (Mark 9:17-29)
• Lying spirit (II Chronicles 18:20-22)
• Perverse spirit (Isaiah 19:14; Romans 1:17-32)
• Seducing spirit (I Timothy 4:1)
• More at: https://www.christcenteredmall.com/teachings/evil-spirits.htm

What are these Spirits doing? They are influencing. They are effecting motivations. Someone with a seducing spirit or spirit of prostitution may have been on tinder in the wrong way? Someone with a lying tongue may have been a habitual liar? Someone with one of these spirits, their character may have been molded a certain way. Their soul, who they are, may have been molded to something. Part of their identity, even if it was subconscious, may have been molded to something. Some Spirits are generational. They may have been passed down from Generation to Generation. There may have been generational curses on some families. (Deuteronomy 5:9) Some spirits someone may have picked up by being in sin, and being unrepentant. Someone's Soul or character may have been molded around something.
Given someone has God's Holy Spirit, they say "Jesus is Lord." They may tend to think about God, and talk about God a lot, and be prone to God-centric activities. Their Soul, and God's Holy Spirit, overtime, may have entwined. They are "One with God" leading towards an understanding of Theosis.

So if police are paid to slander then why even associate with them? I get it now if you would rather be alone with a bear or a man but when it comes to the police I would still pick the bear cause a bear isn't going to violate my constitutional rights. And like the Bible says it's better to be with a bear than a fool and slanderers are called fools in the Bible but the Bible also says don't call anyone fools.
Anyway it is like why associate with police when they are going to listen to government and violate the constitution? Like I do hear Christians talking about persecution and being like we love the police. Really I don't believe a regular citizen who has no political or authoritarian power can persecute you I truly don't see it happening. But for the verses I am referencing.
Proverbs 17:12
12 Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool bent on folly.
Proverbs 10:18
18 Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 20:19
19 A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid anyone who talks too much.

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Basically the title. I’m curious to know everyone’s story.
The short of mine: I was in the long process of deconstructing fundamentalism. Having always been a spiritual person by nature, I was open to new truths. One day I remembered a verse in the Bible (James 1:5 — “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”), prayed for wisdom, & the next day I found the books by total accident. Reading them felt so familiar & rang so true that it felt like I was remembering something I always knew. This was about a year ago.

Why being transgender is not a sin, by MARK WINGFIELD NOVEMBER 9, 2018

Link to original post: https://baptistnews.com/article/why-being-transgender-is-not-a-sin/#.YYk6tE7MK72
I recently met a lovely young family in the northern suburbs of Dallas. They told me they previously attended a large Baptist church there – until their high school son became their daughter.
The mother was committed to her volunteer work in the church, and when she told the pastor who supervised that ministry area that her child was transgender, the pastor said: “That’s fine. We love everybody here. But it’s still a sin.”
“Blah, blah, blah, but….” Whatever comes after the “but” always negates whatever nice things were said in the first part of the sentence. Beware of the “but.”
Some would look kindly on the suburban pastor’s response because, after all, the pastor didn’t kick the family out of the church or condemn the teenager straight to hell. But.
Even among Christians who appear kind or progressive, too often the existence of someone who identifies as transgender gets chalked up to “sin.” No doubt that’s the root reason so many Christians happily pile on against transgender persons and their family members about bathrooms and schools, because in their heart of hearts, they don’t understand transgender identity and simply default to thinking it is a sinful lifestyle choice.

I think we all can agree that a “sin” is something we do that we shouldn’t do, something we have a choice about. If I eat an entire half-gallon of ice cream, I am likely guilty of the sin of gluttony. I didn’t have to eat the ice cream. If I fixate on why other people are more athletic and agile than me in my mid-life body, I probably am guilty of the sin of envy. There is a way for me to redirect my thoughts to avoid envy.
The same is not true of transgender identity. Emphatically and conclusively, this is not a choice. It is who a person is. Did you choose to have red hair? Did you choose to be tall or short? Did you choose to have the genetic markers you have? Of course not. Transgender persons are simply acknowledging that the gender identity assigned to them at birth because of physical anatomy does not match the brain, biochemical and genetic gender identity they know inside.
Since writing a column two years ago about understanding transgender identity – an opinion article that has been read more than 1 million times and led to giving a TED Talk on the same subject – I have conversed with hundreds of transgender persons and family members of transgender persons. That’s not just ministerially speaking. It really has been hundreds. Every one of those transgender persons has told me that they knew from their earliest awareness – from the time they were 4, 5 or 6 years old – that the gender anatomy they showed on the outside did not match who they knew they were on the inside.
There is an increasing body of scientific evidence to back up this assertion. For example, a 2008 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that female fetuses with increased prenatal exposure to androgens are more likely to have gender nonconforming behaviors. Researchers – including some theologically conservative ones – point to environmental factors that may be responsible for what appears to be an increase in transgender identity through endocrine disruption beginning in the 20th century. This is linked to industrialization, development of new chemicals and medicines.
But these environmental factors only explain an increase, not the presence of transgender identity, which has been documented for centuries. The American Academy of Pediatrics (not to be confused with a small association of conservative pediatricians often cited by critics of transgender rights) recently released a new policy statement explaining that variation in gender identity is a normal part of human diversity. For an excellent, lay-friendly description of the emerging science of transgender identity, look to this report from Harvard University.

I could quote chapter and verse for study after study, and that would not change the minds of some people who are determined to label as sinful anything they do not understand, usually because “the Bible says so.” In these cases, I ask people to tell me where in the Bible being transgender is condemned as sinful. The only answer usually offered is Deuteronomy 22:5, which says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.”
Here’s the problem with even a literal reading of that passage: Transgender persons will tell you they are not “men” putting on “women’s” clothing or “women” putting on “men’s” clothing. Instead, they are declaring an identity much deeper than clothing; they are saying that they are dressing outwardly to match who they know they are on the inside. This is not cross-dressing, which is not the subject of this column. Cross-dressing is about finding pleasure in wearing certain clothes. Being transgender is about finding mental and spiritual peace by aligning outward presentation with inner being.
Occasionally, people will point to Genesis 1:27 as a condemnation of transgender identity: “male and female he created them.” Most transgender persons will tell you they believe God has, in fact, created them as either male or female; the problem is how they have been labeled by others who are not God.
Some people today identify as “gender fluid,” meaning they find in themselves bits of both male and female identity and cannot definitely say they are one or the other. While this may sound unsettling to some of us on first hearing, a return to Genesis might help. There we also learn that God created both “night” and “day” and that God separated “land” from “sea.” Yet we have no problem understanding the existence of dawn and dusk or marshes and everglades. Also, the point of Genesis 1 is inclusion, not exclusion. The ancient text tells us that God created everything: “and,” not “or.”
The other lesson we need to keep learning from Genesis is that all humanity is created “in the image of God.” Everybody. Without exception. When we look at others who are different than us and try to see in them the image of God, we gain new understanding and empathy.
Sometimes well-meaning Christians get this part but still can’t get over the “sin” label. So they will say things like, “All of us are sinners in God’s eyes, and it’s just that my sin is different than your sin.” That’s another way of saying, “I love you, but….”
There’s an easy way to remember why this is wrong: Transgender identity is about who a person is. It is about their fundamental being as humans created by God in God’s image – an image that God has declared to be good.

Hi,
I posted on Lutheranism a while back about exploring Lutheranism, and have since begun attending my local LCMS church.
It’s been an amazing few months, but I can tell my pastor is beginning to wonder if my wife and I are truly serious, and will pursue confirmation.
Background on us, we are a family of 5, I was raised non denominational, my wife Mormon. Around a year ago, I believe the Holy Spirit began to lead us on a different path, and Christ has taken front stage for us, whereas most of my life, Christianity has been sort of a pleasant afterthought confined mostly to night time prayers or reflection on Christian holidays.
We were both baptized in our non-denominational church last October, and I feel no need to re-baptize as we received Trinitarian baptisms which I feel are absolutely and fully sufficient.
The issue I’m having is my children.
I just cannot get over the many stories in the Bible that seem to point to a chronological ordering of repent/believe and THEN be baptized for remission of your sins. I have read, watched, talked to my pastor and heard very good arguments, but I’m still so hung up on this.
Lutherans believe baptism saves, cool, I can subscribe to that. Lutherans believe God can save whoever he chooses, so we don’t have to be hardline and say unbaptized babies are surely damned. Awesome, even better. Lutherans believe that baptism is the actual moment of regeneration, and faith is created in that infant at the moment of water baptism where they receive the Holy Spirit? This is where I’m hung up.
It’s not that I can’t believe it, it’s that I just really don’t understand how that’s true.
We certainly see verses in the Bible “be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit” etc. etc. but then we see multiple New Testament examples of the Holy Spirit coming upon people in a multitude of chronological ways.
At times, it’s genuinely felt like I’m finding contradictions.
I’ve lost countless nights of sleep worrying that because of MY inaction, my sweet children are being withheld from baptism. But then I stand back and reflect on what I’ve just said
My choice to get them baptized or not is the deciding factor of whether or not they are “saved”? That just really doesn’t make sense to me. How am I the one that decides if my children receive salvation?
I want this to be over so badly, I want to show up to church and hand our beautiful children to our wonderful pastor and have them baptized, but I just selfishly need more than “John the Baptist leapt in the womb” or “David believed at his mothers breast”. Both of those could absolutely be instances of infant faith. Or they could simply be describing extraordinary people, and their extraordinary faith as the exception, not the rule. If it was normal for infants to have faith, why would they feel the need to make the distinction in these verses as if it were an incredibly special thing?
I love Lutheranism, I believe in real presence, I believe in the Law and Gospel message of Luther, but man, I just need help with this baptism thing. I feel like every day I wake up and it’s a constant battle emotionally and spiritually to the point that I’m just absolutely relieved to go to bed so I don’t have to read and worry anymore.
Any advice, experience would help more than you know.
God bless you guys.