Theosis: In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, theosis refers to the process of becoming more like God or attaining union with Him. It's the transformative journey of divinization, where humans become partakers of divine nature through grace.
Lordship Salvation: In some Protestant traditions, particularly within Reformed theology, Lordship Salvation emphasizes that genuine faith in Jesus Christ inherently includes submission to His lordship. This means true believers will show evidence of their faith through obedience and good works.
I wanna hear your thoughts about this , thank you so much

Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.
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 reading 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 and or reading 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 and or reading 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 and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

Please don't post this on tiktok or any other platform. I have been in a tense relationship with my ex since I was 17, had a child with him and it was downhill from there. It goes from him always being gone, fights, sometimes physical and cheating. A lot of bad on both of our ends. We broke up but he kept trying to get me back. I finally agreed to make it work for our child's sake. I grew up in a old fashioned family mindset with Christian views. I didn't want to be with him but with my family pressuring me and saying my child will resent me.Well, while back together I received texts and pictures that he was sleeping with another woman and she was pregnant. She induced herself on my daughters birthday. Yes, she knew he and I were together and still pursued him. Yes, she had the baby on my daughters birthday on purpose. She wanted me out of the way but people focused on that being in the past and I needed to get over it and forgive him. I did not handle it gracefully, didn't want to deal with it. I gave him an ultimatum. He never gave an answer so I moved on. During my time grieving, I met this amazing man who is my now significant other. He is kind, sweet, patient, respectful. We stayed friends for a year before becoming more. We became a couple and shared a few certain things. I gave my daughter an old phone of mine, and I made sure to delete everything. Well, my ex took and got into my Google account and Snapchat. Found the pictures and sent them to my entire family and downloaded it all for himself. Yes, he admitted he will use it for himself until he finds someone. My family says I should take my ex back because I hurt him deeply and he still loves me, that I am cruel for not wanting to do with the baby that isn't mine because none of this was its fault. I have nothing against the baby, I just want nothing to do with it or the mother. I love my current partner, but with years of mental and emotional manipulation I am struggling with my morals and wants. My mother is telling me I am in the wrong for not telling my ex about my current partner because my ex apparently sat around doing nothing but believing we were getting back together. I did not lead him on nor did I give him the belief that I wanted to be with him. After years of dealing with this and liatening to my family, I am honestly mentally and emotionally struggling with all of this. I don't like the idea of hurting people but I am always the one hurt. Am I in the wrong?

My dad is a pastor, and my mom is a seminarian who ran a Christian youth center. Needless to say I was raised in an extremely religious environment, and was basically indoctrinated into Christianity. I hate to say that but it really is the truth. From as young as I can remember religious "education" was constant. At 38 years old I am still processing the trauma of being taught and earnestly believing that I (like everyone else) am so inherently evil that my sins had a hand in crucifying Christ, and that I deserve (like everyone else) to burn in eternal hellfire save for the miraculous grace of God should I follow the right religious pathway, and that most of humanity will end up in said hellfire.
But the thing is: my parents really are decent people. They're just victims of toxic religion too, they just can't see it. But any time I try to share doubts about Christianity I am hit with well intentioned but thoughtless responses such as "But the Bible says you have to believe!" (This is an exact quote from my mom). I have raised academic points such as textual criticisms of the New Testament, including Bart Ehrman's work, to which the response is "Oh we have some books at the church that will show he's wrong" without even considering that their religious views could be less than the absolute gospel truth. My parents lack critical thinking skills - or at least a willingness to use them - in this area, but they really aren't bad people. And I know that their worry about the fate of my soul comes from a good place.
But the problem is, my kids are 3 and 6 and my parents are now worrying about the fact that we don't go to church, and aren't super religious and it's starting to become a problem. They don't really know that I'm truly deconstructing, they just think I have "doubts" that I need to "get past" and then I can "get my family back into church where they belong." My mom is looking for excuses to try and bring my kids to their church on Sundays, often as an offer of babysitting but it's really about "your kids need to be in church".
I am no atheist, and I definitely believe in a spiritual reality. But I think it's much broader than what I was taught, including that evidence from near-death accounts, mediumship, and deep hypnosis in my view points to a broader spiritual reality.
I obviously don't want to teach my kids something that I don't think is true, nor do I want to indoctrinate them. I certainly don't want them to believe themselves to be inherently evil, or "fallen!" If anything I want them to explore different ideas themselves, and examine the evidence themselves.
My parents are involved in my kids lives and I want that - they really are good grandparents. But now that my oldest is approaching the age where he "should" get baptized soon, according to their church, I worry about how to navigate this. I'm probably just a few years away from hearing things such as "[your oldest son] will go to hell if he dies today without being saved/being baptized/"accepting" Jesus etc." They used to hit me with that all the time as a kid: "If you died today do you know for sure you would go to heaven not hell" and it terrified me, which is honestly why I got baptized as a kid, out of pure terror of going to hell. I would rather not put my kids through that...
Anyone have a similar situation? Any suggestions?

"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.]

"Has the Kingdom of God Come?"

The Scriptures seem to imply that the kingdom of God isn't exactly synonymous with what is called "the Church." The Church was a temporary eschatological community of believers that existed on earth in preparation of a kingdom where God Himself would reign, and said community had Christ reign over them in the meantime. The head of the Church was Christ, with the Father serving as his head (1 Cor. 11:3). The Scriptures teach that, when all Christ's enemies were to be made his footstool, he was to give back all authority to the Father (Psa. 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:22-28), and it is this page's belief that this happened in 70 AD.
The following quotation is from the above hyperlink:

As for the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation, they are apocalyptic metaphor for the 40 years Christ "reigned" (triumphed) over his enemies both human and spirit, with the final triumph being the judgement of apostate Jerusalem. The "1000 years" began with his ascension, and ended with this judgement.

Thus, the community to replace the Church on earth was to be the kingdom of God. But, what even is the kingdom of God, and why did God have to reclaim authority of His own creation in the first place?
To be as succinct as possible: man sinned, and so the great level of authority God initially granted us ourselves over the creation was stripped. As a result, the human condition has suffered and it must be redeemed for God to allow us to reign with Him in the way that He originally intended for us. God has always been sovereign, of course, but He seeks the good of man to make us stewards over His world with Him, as that was His original plan and this was His original view of what a kingdom of His truly looks like: a kingdom characterized by man's love for Him and love for others.
A Biblical understanding of Adam's sin, contrary to popular thought, isn't that we are guilty of what he did personally. We simply inherit his fallen nature and a fallen world as a result of his sin, the same way a baby could leave the womb already addicted to certain substances because the mother abused said substances while pregnant. It's not the baby's fault for its condition, it was the parent's. But the baby is born with this condition and enters the world like this nonetheless.
The implication of this is that we are all only guilty of our own sins, and whether or not we ever seek to treat (or possibly cure) our condition in the first place is on us. We were dealt a bad hand due to Adam, sure, but God doesn't hold us responsible for what our forefather did. God only holds us responsible for what we do, and whether or not we seek to be liberated from the dark forces which keep us in bondage to our sinful condition (Gen. 4:6-7, Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:30, Ezek. 18, Matt. 9:9-13).
The whole Old Testament is essentially a record of God's people constantly breaking their covenant(s) with Him. There are individuals mentioned throughout that were, of course, commended by God and the Biblical authors for their righteousness in honestly pursuing to remain faithful to their covenant with Him. But even the best of these people often faltered and, in fact, did rather heinous things in their lives at one point or another. One of the greatest examples of this is king David, who was literally called by the Scriptures "a man after God's own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22). Yet, this same man at one point committed adultery and then murdered the man he stole the wife of to try and cover it up. This was a heinous thing, and David repented of what he did with genuine sorrow and guilt toward God. God ultimately forgave him, but not without a heavy hand of chastisement and earthly consequences for his actions.
All throughout the Old Testament, you see various men of God who were deemed righteous, but these same men were usually shown to have some major flaw that prevented them from living a life that could be characterized as consistent obedience to the commandments to love God and love others as themselves. There is something deeply wrong with man's heart, according to the Bible. Something so wrong, in fact, that a whole prophecy had to be given that promised to address the issue of man's seeming incapability to accomplish fulfilling the commandment to love consistently on their own without some sort of divine help from above:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."-Ezekiel 36:26

Naturalistic philosophies see the physical world as all that exists. Humans beings are the result of mindless, chance causes and processes. Humans are essentially animals – highly evolved, but no different in significance than any other living thing. Thus naturalistic views demote humans. But this view leaves a lot unexplained. Why do humans practice altruism, benevolence, or acts of heroism? What explains acts of incredible goodness? Sure, naturalistic arguments have been made that true altruism doesn't exist, and that "unconditional love" is really just an illusion that's been disguised very well by our survival instincts that we've developed over a long period of time at certain stages of our evolutionary process. However, many people have found such arguments to be unpersuasive and naive when compared to their actual experience of the world as they mature in their lives and have what they know to be truly meaningful experiences that can't simply be reduced in the way that the naturalist wishes them to be. This realization was ultimately why I transitioned from hard atheism to agnostic spiritualism at one point or another.
On the other extreme of these things, transcendental worldviews and philosophies say that the physical world is illusory. Only the spiritual world is ultimately real. Humans are an expression of the divine spirit that is the essence of all things. If naturalistic views demote humans to the level of animals, transcendental views promote human beings. God is not “out there” somewhere; we are God. God is all, thus God is us. But this view doesn’t explain real evil. Why are people selfish? Why do they hurt others? What accounts for personal acts of evil like rape or terrorism? If we are all truly "God," then why would we ever do such things to what is ultimately "ourself"? And why can't a person who practices the belief that we are all actually "God" be only loving? There are so many people who adopt this view of reality who are constantly, day by day, finding that they struggle to be as truly loving as they wish to be because they will still sometimes find themselves thinking and doing rather evil and selfish things. I can speak from experience here, remembering throwing myself into the New Age movement when I was desperately seeking what I did not know at the time was forgiveness for and redemption from my sins because of who I was as a person up until that point. I was seeking the mythic "ego death" that promised me that I could truly be loving and find the forgiveness and redemption I was searching for, because I thought that if only I truly realized I was "God" all along, I could then accomplish these things all at once and simultaneously. I eventually found even this philosophy unsatisfactory when I came to the aforementioned conclusions concerning our great capacity for evil, and also realized that forgiveness can only exist if there are two parties: forgiver and forgivee. Such a thing is impossible if there is only really one being at play at the bottom of reality, and I knew deep down that forgiving oneself (at least, on its own) will never satisfy one's pursuit for redemption that we all inherently take part in whenever pursuing to mend even our own relationships with each other as humans. Further, love would be an illusion in this philosophy too, being that there is only really one party behind and in all of existence if "everything is God." Such an idea would make true altruism a farce, as well. There would be no such thing as real sacrifice for another, because in this worldview, there is no "another."
The French mathematician and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal said, “Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach both.” Any philosophy that cannot fully account for human greatness and human depravity at the same time should be abandoned because it misses something obvious about the human condition. The religion of the Bible has a valid explanation for human greatness: people are made in God’s image. Thus we have dignity, value, and capacity for good. The Bible also explains human evil: the image of God has been defaced by sin. Our great capacity gets used for the wrong purposes. Our creativity is placed in the service of evil and our best intentions twisted for selfish gain. Something has gone terribly wrong. While other worldviews unduly demote or promote humanity, the Bible gets the tension just right.
Thus, human nature is puzzling and conflicting. Other worldviews—both secular and religious—struggle to account for this enigma, and don't offer satisfying solutions to the problem itself. The Bible, however, explains what happened when it tells us that man rebelled against God in the paradise that was prepared for him called "the Garden of Eden." We fell into temptation and estranged ourselves from God by tarnishing the image we were created in, and now are born with a natural proclivity to do evil, despite our best efforts to do good (that is, to do good consistently).
And so, the Bible promised a solution in the prophet Ezekiel that God will literally change our natural human condition, if we simply choose to humble ourselves before Him in faith to allow for such a change. While as unbelievers our inner disposition towards God is often rebellious, we at least still have the capacity to choose to do the righteous thing in seeking God that He may change us and forgive us if we so let Him. This is one reason why Jesus, (the one who made the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy even possible by his coming, sacrifice, ressurection, and outpouring of the Spirit upon his ascension), said that only faith the size of a mustard seed was required for something so miraculous as moving a mountian to happen, because so little is required from us to allow God to change us into the kind of person He's always wanted us to be, and yet changing the condition of our own heart can be compared to literally moving a mountain if we were to try and do so on our own strength alone. The mustard seed was the smallest of seeds, and yet if one simply planted it and nurtured it, it could become a bush so large that it was comparable to a tree with branches that stretched to the heavens for the very birds of the air to rest on.
It was when I came to these realizations that I prayed to God for the first time again, having been years since I did so, going so far back as to when I was a little child even. I prayed in the dead of night in my room, and asked God to show me the truth and to reveal Himself to me if indeed these things were true, and in an instant I felt His very presence in my room, and my heart was changed. To describe such an experience would be like trying to describe the taste of something to the man born without tastebuds, the color of something to the man born blind, or the sound of something to the man born deaf; there are no words, and it is only something you can know by experiencing it for yourself. Suddenly and all at once, I knew right then and there that Jesus really was who he said he was, that the one true God is the God of the Bible, and that I have been forgiven. As the time of this post, it's been 5 years since then, I'm 23 now, and I'm still walking with God.
My prayer for anyone reading this that may not know God for themselves yet is that one day, you will too.
Back to the topic at hand.
When Adam sinned, we fell under the tyranny of death, corruption, evil heavenly powers, and sin itself. When Jesus came, Jesus was the new and exalted human, the new Adam, through whom humanity could now realize their original destiny that was laid out for them in the Garden of Eden. Because Jesus, being a man, obeyed unto death, he has defeated the powers which held us so long under bondage; we are now promised liberation so long as we simply place our faith in his sacrifice to wash us of our sins and receive the Spirit of God that is also promised to all who exercise this faith.
We often think of ‘the gospel’ as the part that brings the forgiveness of sins (and of course, that is part of the idea), but ‘gospel’ is the announcement that everything has changed in the coming of Jesus and it leads us to a new kind of living.
The gospel Jesus preached and the gospel the apostle Paul preached were different, in that Jesus preached of a kingdom where God reigns directly and with all His faithful subjects as participants in that reign. The gospel Paul preached was about the exaltation and reign of Christ, and because Christ reigned, the consummation of the kingdom of God with earth could now finally take place (Col. 1:12-13). This consummation was put on hold during Christ's "millennial" reign, which transpired between his ascension and his return. However, the consummation has come to full fruition since that return.
We will be arguing for some of these claims by pointing out how central the kingdom of God actually was to Jesus' earthly ministry and message, and demonstrate what Jesus taught about how it actually looks like.
The term 'kingdom' appears 53 times in 42 places in Matthew, 17 times in 13 places in Mark, and 41 times in 29 places in Luke. When the 'kingdom' is qualified, Luke always refers to the 'kingdom of God' (32 times) and Mark follows this pattern (14 times). Matthew, on the other hand, prefers the term "kingdom of heaven" (31 times), using the phrase to refer to the same idea "kingdom of God" only four times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43.
The Gospel of Luke records an event where Jesus responds to the population that lived near Simon Peter's house who believed in him after he had done his miraculous work there, but saw that he was leaving them:

"And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore [i.e., for this pupose] am I sent." (vss. 42-43)

The Greek word euangelion is often translated as the word 'gospel.' In the Bible, this word is always used whenever it concerns the announcement of the reign of a new king. And in the New Testament, the Gospels themselves use this word or the phrase "good news" to summarize all of Jesus’ teachings. They say he went about “preaching the gospel [good news] of the kingdom [of God]” (Matt. 4:23).
There’s this beautiful poem in the Old Testament, and it’s in chapter 52 of the Book of Isaiah. The city of Jerusalem had just been destroyed by Babylon, a great kingdom in the North. Many of the inhabitants of the city have been sent away into exile, but a few remained in the city, and they’re left wondering, "What happened? Has our God abandoned us?" This was because Jerusalem was supposed to be the city where God would reign over the world to bring peace and blessing to everyone.
Now, Isaiah had been saying that Jerusalem’s destruction was a mess of Israel’s own making. They had turned away from their God, become corrupt, and so their city and their temple were destroyed. Everything seemed lost. But the poem goes on. There is a watchman on the city walls, and far out on the hills we see a messenger. He’s running towards the city. He’s running and he’s shouting, “Good news!” And Isaiah says, “How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings [news]” (vs. 7a). The feet are beautiful because they’re carrying a beautiful message. And what’s the message? That despite Jerusalem’s destruction, Israel’s God still reigns as king, and that God's presence is going to one day return with His city, take up His throne, and bring peace. And the watchmen sing for joy because of the good news that their God still reigns (vs. 10).
Jesus saw himself as the messenger bringing the news that God reigns. Jesus also claimed to be the Son of man. This was Jesus' favorite self-designation, being used some 80 times in the Gospels. Notice, not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus was directing our attention to a vision described by the prophet Daniel:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:"-Daniel 7:13-14a

At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus: "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed [God]?" His answer left no room for doubt. "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62). Because Jesus' was rejected and killed for threatening the power the religious authorities had over the people, the consummation of God's kingdom with earth had been put on hold until all of Christ's enemies would be put under his feet after his ressurection and ascension.
But again, what is the kingdom of God? What does it look like exactly?
Well, the way that Jesus described God’s reign surprised everybody. I mean, think about it. A powerful, successful kingdom needs to be strong, able to impose its will, and able to defeat its enemies in physical combat. But Jesus said the greatest person in God’s kingdom was the weakest, the one who loves and who serves the poor (Matt. 23:11-12). He said you live under God’s reign when you respond to evil by loving your enemies, and forgiving them, and seeking peace (Matt. 5). To us, this is an upside-down kingdom. But to God, it's right-side up. This was what God had originally planned for us: a kingdom where God reigns in our hearts.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."-John 3:3

Jesus was being quite literal here. You can’t see the kingdom until you’re born again and have the life of that kingdom. When you’re born again, you start 'seeing' differently. You see what others don’t see, you hear what others don’t hear, you know what others don’t know. And yet you may be physically in the same earthly location as they.
The kingdom of God is the totality of God’s influence that covers the world and heaven. It’s everywhere, but its manifestation isn’t everywhere. It manifests on earth wherever there are those who are born again and live as if God reigns in their hearts.
Before Jesus, John the Baptist announced to all people, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2), as he saw a soon coming kingdom of God that would be ushered in by the Messiah. Notice that John the Baptist didn’t say that something “like” the kingdom would come and he didn’t say that the real kingdom might be thousands of years away. He said over and over that THE kingdom was at hand! Do you believe him? Did God inspire him to give a clear and accurate message or a mistaken one? If we dare to believe him, things might become surprisingly clear, simple and exceedingly optimistic.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."-Matthew 6:10

Jesus taught his followers of his generation to pray that God's kingdom come and that His will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why pray for something that will just inevitably come by force, unless it was actually through our willing participation? That is, unless God's will is carried out through us "in earth, as it is in heaven"?

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."-Mark 1:14-15

It's very telling that these are the very first words the Gospel of Mark chooses to record Jesus as saying.
The kingdom is NOT something to wait for. Jesus says the kingdom is NOT something visible, and it is NOT something in the sky. The Kingdom Jesus taught is a spiritual reality that comes into the world through us. Considering that Jesus even said the kingdom was in and among the Pharisees in Luke 17, which seems almost offensive to consider, perhaps it is like a spiritual seed that has been planted inside each of us, and that activating faith in God makes it grow.

"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."-Luke 13:18-19

Jesus talked about the kingdom as if it would be a present reality, yet one that was growing in the world like a seed grows into a tree.

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."-Luke 13:20-21

To Jesus, the kingdom was something growing in us like yeast through dough, increasing in effectiveness.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."-Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."-1 Corinthians 4:20

Paul says the kingdom isn’t something you taste or touch like physical food. It’s not even saying the right words. But rather the kingdom comes in the realities of righteousness, peace, joy and power that flavor our lives when we live empowered by the Spirit of God and God's Spirit in us.
Since Jesus the Messiah returned only 40 years after his earthly ministry, putting all enemies under his feet, the complete consummation of earth with the kingdom of heaven has finally taken place.
The kingdom of God has come, and it continues to come through us as believers. It makes progress like light shining into the world and dispelling the darkness.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 5:14-16

Eternal Life Is Now

Most Preterists affirm that we are in the kingdom of God now. That is, we believe that through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement we enter into the kingdom of God, which is spiritual. We speak of the spiritual nature of the kingdom. We speak of God dwelling with men. We affirm God’s presence with us. We even affirm that we are in the new heavens and new earth. But the question remains: If we have all of this now, how does this translate into a proper view of “the afterlife”? (Hereafter this term will refer to consciousness and the new body after physical expiration of this body in this mortal realm.) In other words, how does this translate into a hopeful view of the afterlife?
We must dispel a dismal doctrine floating around that this is all there is. There are some Preterists who teach that we are in the kingdom in the here and now, but when we physically expire it is all over. We simply turn to dust. What follows will prove this idea to be dreadfully wrong. This will be evident not so much by proving what we will not have after our body dies; rather, it will be evident by proving that what we have now is eternally enduring, because we have immortality.
“He who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” Jesus said this to Martha after her brother Lazarus had physically died. She was a real woman who had a real conscience and a real life experience. Lazarus was physically dead; therefore we must take this into consideration as we try to make sense of Jesus’ subsequent words:

"Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"-John 11:23-26

The Jews obviously believed in a resurrection of the dead. Martha did too. But Jesus tells her that he is the resurrection and the life. However, he doesn’t stop there. He begins to both qualify and quantify this life: “He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (vs. 25b). At this point we might still infer from his words that he is referring to physical life, but his next words contradict that idea: “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (vs. 26a). Let’s paraphrase his words to elucidate his view of resurrection: “I am the spiritual resurrection and life. Your brother has died physically, but he will rise with a ‘better resurrection’ (Heb. 11:35). He who believes in me, though he were physically dead like Lazarus, yet shall he spiritually live. And he who is presently physically living shall never die spiritually.” Some try to convolute this text by inferring that Christ was speaking of two resurrections. But his statement that he is the resurrection and the life prohibits that concept. Finally, he is obviously not stating that he who lives and believes in Christ will not physically die. If this were his meaning, then we would have to conclude that no one ever truly believed in him, for all of us still physically die; or we would have to conclude that he was mistaken or was lying, neither of which is an option within the parameters of the Biblical faith.
Obviously those who question this idea will ask questions like, “So this is heaven?” By “this” their minds usually gravitate back to what they see, hear, and feel and not to what the Scripture says. They fail to make a distinction between the physical realm and the spiritual realm. We must remind them that even they will confess that God dwells in their hearts. They would never say that this is a physical dwelling place. In fact they will gladly tell us that our hearts are the spiritual dwelling place of God, a fact with which we would agree. So it should not seem a strange thing that all the blessings mentioned in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 are bound up in the affirmation that God dwells in our hearts, presently. God does not cease to dwell in our hearts in the afterlife. He merely continues to live out His presence with us both here and hereafter.

"What Does It Mean to Love God Consistently?"

With all this established, if God is truly reigning in the heart of a believer, what does it mean for us if and when we sin again in this mortal realm? Further, what did Jesus mean by the following statement?:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."-Matthew 5:48

Many mistakenly interpret "perfection" here as meaning sinless perfection, but in context, that's not what Jesus is saying here. This statement is the conclusion from his introductory statement in verse 20 of the same passage:

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

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is pointing out how outward actions and behaviors are not enough to be approved by or to fulfill what God requires of us. He argues that the condition of one's heart is primarily what God is concerned with, and the scribes and Pharisees with all their legalism and their exclusively deontic approach to interpreting and practicing the Law was not enough to merit entrance into the kingdom of God. They were not spiritually mature enough to consider the intents and motivations that drive one's actions in the first place.
The Greek for "perfect" in Jesus' statement could also mean "complete," "whole," or "mature"; in this context, it doesn't mean the common, modern understanding of the word. There's a high standard one should strive to attain; and striving, and actually practicing righteous conduct, is indeed attainable. We are to strive for spiritual maturity, and this is possible, just as it's possible to be considered overall faithful in a relationship despite having made mistakes at certain points. Those mistakes don't necessarily make the relationship void so long as the person who committed them demonstrates to the other genuine remorse and a change from within, so that their outward conduct overall corresponds to said change.
There's a big difference between the man who lies to his spouse about something trivial like actually finding another woman attractive and then admitting this lie to them, versus the man who completely breaks his covenant by seeking a sexual interaction with that other woman and does not even feel remorse. The latter would only find forgiveness and be called overall faithful if he were to atone for what he did through genuine repentance and a change of heart to cause a change of conduct. Only then would the unfaithful man be considered faithful again, and find forgiveness and reconciliation, (assuming the spouse is merciful, which God of course is; the Lord is longsuffering toward us). On the other side of the coin, the "faithful" man who does not act on his desire for another woman could be proven unfaithful when it's shown in the judgement that in his heart he coveted another man's woman all along. In either case, it's all about both the condition of one's heart AND their corresponding actions that matter to God, not just actions alone.
Said in a similar context, the Gospel of Luke clarifies Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:48:

"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."-Luke 6:36

God’s sinlessness is not under consideration in Jesus' statement. God's absolute kindness, nothing lacking, is being stressed in the passages in reference. The whole Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5–7) was designed to bring God's covenant community to spiritual maturity. It is not enough for them to love people who love them, for even the unbelievers love those who love them. Spiritual maturity concerning kindness is they should love those who hate them! As the Creator, God deals gently with people who despise His words and refuse to believe them (going so far as to give these people material sustenance such as sunshine and rain; Matt. 5:45), so believing Israel was to deal tenderly with their persecutors.
To put it simply: you are saved by faith from past sins (Rom. 3:25) but then judged by works (Jam. 2).
We who live today aren't under the Law of Moses, we are under the law of the Spirit, which is necessarily not a law written in ink. See 2nd Corinthians 3.
"Oh, if you don't follow the Law of Moses, does that mean you can go and kill, since you don't believe in the law that says not to kill?"
The law of the Spirit is centered around love. God's love, through His Spirit. We don't kill, but not because Moses said so. We don't kill because the Spirit we have and are under the law of says not to.
When Paul says that a man is saved by faith and not by works, he means specifically "works of the law." The 'mitzvah.' When the apostle James said that a man is not saved by faith but by works, he is NOT talking about the Mosaic Law. Paul and James agree, but not in the way Protestants have typically understood.
When Paul speaks of faith, he means your entire walk as a Christian. Your thoughts and your actions. So when he says "faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28), he's implying your actions under the Spirit are also included in faith. Most miss this.
When the James speaks about faith, he means a mental proposition (Jam. 2:24). So, just earlier in chapter 2, he talks about how the demons know that God is one. In other words, the demons have 'faith' (mental knowledge) that God is one and yet they have no works because they don't act like it. They serve another god, that is, Satan.
James is directly addressing the issue of Paul. When Paul wrote his epistles, people of the time thought when he said "not by works," Paul meant all works. So, they didn't need to help the homeless, feed the poor, etc. Those works "won't buy your salvation." Sound familiar? James is addressing this issue. That's not what Paul meant. Paul meant that works of the Law won't save you, because if you read Romans 7, you'll see that the Law died in Christ, and "we are married to another." A faith that is dead is what the audience of James' letter were doing. They saw a man hungry and said "I have faith you will be well." But they did nothing. No deeds. James is saying that your knowledge of God isn't going to clothe that man or feed that woman. You must do works. You are not saved by faith alone. Faith meaning your beliefs. But to Paul? Faith meant the man who sees someone hungry, and then acts according to the Spirit of the law. Not under obligation by a written law in tablets of stone, but by the Spirit law on the heart.
So ultimately, entrance into the kingdom of God is not merely about affirming mental propositions, neither is it about actions by themselves, but rather a walk defined by faithful covenant obedience. This is what it's all been about, and willing participation with the Spirit of God is necessary for us to be conformed to His image as He originally intended. This is why it's so important that we have a Biblical understanding of what "perfect" means according the authors of the Scriptures, as its meaning has everything to do with the kingdom of God itself and what it means for us practically.
I will conclude with a quotation from another post of mine:

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.

The Number 47, Synchronicity & the Law of Time Courtney Jamal Dewar, aka Capital STEEZ, came with perfect timing. Wielding a higher message, he revealed to all those around him through his music and his being the corruption of society and all of its constructs. He was fascinated, some would say, obsessed, with the number 47. For him this number held a higher meaning on many levels. First and foremost, he felt it was about synchronicity. He made all of his homies, including myself, aware of how this is the quintessential random number. We literally began to see it everywhere. You can research the numerological significance of 47. Here are just a few: 47 appears to be the quintessential random number of the universe. When a number appears randomly, more often than not, that number is 47. In other other words, if you asked people to pick a number at random, more often than not, that number would be 47. Of course, if 47 shows up more than any other number then it isn’t truly random, but using the word random makes the whole phenomenon easier to describe. From a spiritual perspective, number 47 is a combination of the energies and attributes of number 4 and number 7. The vibrations of number 4 include those of productivity and application, inner-wisdom and practical-thinking, honesty and integrity, endurance and determination, conscientiousness and discipline. Number 4 also relates to our passion and drive in life. Number 7 brings the qualities of spiritual awakening and enlightenment, intuition and inner-knowing, psychic abilities and mysticism, independence and individualism, persistence of purpose and manifesting good fortune.
There is even a much-viewed YouTube spoof of Jim Carrey’s The Number 23, substituting—you guessed it–the No. 47. Jim Carrey's character named Walter is given a book titled The Number 23. Walter starts reading the book and notices striking similarities between himself and the main character, a detective named "Fingerling". Fingerling is obsessed with the 23 enigma, the idea that all incidents and events are directly connected to the number 23 (Weirdly enough when I was younger I was in cod team called 23Enigma) only noted it as of the coincidence.
Jim Carrey told reporters he was so captivated by the 23 enigma even before reading the script that he renamed his production company from "Pit Bull Productions" to "JC23." (Jesus Christ 23?) Oddly enough the first film Carrey worked on with Joel Schumacher his character The Riddler's real name was 'E. Nigma'. According to Carrey, he was reading a book about Psalm 23 when he was first given a copy of the screenplay to review. He said he asked a friend to read the script and "an hour and a half later he was on page 23, circling every 23rd word. That's the kind of thing I want to do to an audience." When he discovered that the first page of the script involved the lead character trying to capture a pit bull, he was "freaked out," given the change in name of his production company. (Pitbull productions) My Nicknames Pitty, short for pitbul (These are just speculations) Also I've gathered others inputs and went down a deep rabbit hole. Mind you, this is just connections that has been gathered over time, but the consistency of certain "coincidences" are interesting to say the least. Just try to piece together the connections even though it may be out of radar due to us living completely different lives.
James > Cleveland Cavaliers (Cavs) > Number 23 > Nicknames are King James & The Chosen One
Cavs is the nickname of my last name Cavanagh
When you flip the cleveland cavaliers logo upside down it is quite similar
(The hat I've worn since 14, P represents the nickname"Pitty:" short for pitbill a nickname ive had since i was around 10 years old.
Matthew writes that on 23 occasions Jesus blessed 47 people.
The Bible credits Jesus with 47 miracles.
The Declaration of Independence has 47 sentences. Originally published: 4 July 1776 (4/7)
1947 is when the UFO crashed at Roswel
The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are 47 degrees of latitude apart.
Capital STEEZ died from allegedly leaping from the Cinematic Music Group’ either gripping a bible or with it strapped on his back There is also the fact that a blood lunar eclipse will occur in New York at 3:47 am on STEEZ’s birthday in 2047, and then the lunar eclipse which will occur after this one is part of the Lunar Saros series 135. He said he named the song 135 for “5th dimensional synchronization”... whatever that means, this would be a massive coincidence.
How Many People Can See This Eclipse? Number of People Seeing... Number of People* Fraction of World Population At least some of the penumbral phase 4,070,000,000 When the Eclipse Happens Worldwide — Timeline Event UTC Time Time in Melbourne* Penumbral Eclipse begins 7 Jul at 07:47:47 Visible in Melbourne 7 Jul at 5:47:47 pm On capital steez birthday.
STEEZs last tweet “the end” Was posted December (23) 2012 The building steez died (The colliers office) is on 666 fifth avenue, 10103 10+10+3=(23), New York. The building was built in 1878 The bohemian grove was established in 1878 The address of the CMG label building is on 40 west (23)rd st, 10010, New York The Freemasonry Grand lodge of New York is on 71 west, (23)rd st 10010 NY. Directly located across the same building STEEZ died. Yeah. West 23rd st, w is the (23)rd letter in the alphabet. In Hebrew the letter W represents the number 6 The fraction 2/3 in decimals=0.666 The freemasonry grand lodge of New York was founded in December 15, 1782 15, 1782 1+5+1+7+8+2 = 24. December 24 the date that's etched on STEEZs tombstone. A police report about his death has never surfaced, information has never been released, but there is pictures of his gravestone (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuFVUJJR4Ug) and on that gravestone it says 24/12/12, which actually adds up to 48, yet he tweets on the 23/12/12 stating 'The End. Steez was ready to open up Pandora’s box and expose the illuminati occult in a way that has never been done before. It gets deep. Just think about it guys. Steez was an intellectual genius. He would obviously know that suicide actually makes u go to hell and not heaven. As a believer in the lord he would never commit suicide.
I'm not sure if you're paying attention to the ryan garcia trying to reveal how something tragic happened to him where he was taken to boheiman grove and forced to watch things i wont mention here People said his crazy and on drugs, sad thing is, I believe he is telling the truth Fast forward he wasn't on drugs and
Peep his song "Free The Robots" https://youtu.be/XcmR8DxuHBA
STEEZ has definitely made a positive impact on this world by introducing a new way of thinking and spirituality, even more of an impact than a lot of artists who are still alive... Capital STEEZ was 19 at the time of his death.
There is also gematria behind his death it has to do with numbers. I’ll explain what it is for those who aren’t aware of it. Gematria is the decoding of letters to numbers, it’s used to translate ancient Hebrew Scriptures. But it’s also the code for the entire world. The most basic way I can put it is that it’s as simple as ABC=123, they use these numbers thru media, and the thing that’s being shown on the media always correlates with Masonic numbers and words that correlate with whatever and whoever is being shown on the news or media and whatever event is taking place always correlates 100% of the time. In news, sports, music industry, Hollywood, politics, everything. In Numerology, which is different from gematria. After calculating his name I came across a lot of similarities when calculating mine in various forms.
While calculating his name i came across things relating to me like Like "Melbourne Victoria Australia, Royal Melbourne Hospital, june twenty fourth. From his name which connected to me personally as i was born in that hospital, thats the city i live and my birthday. The similarities left me wondering if it was actually real or not so I used multiple different calculators and paid for a membership on gematrinator to get maximum results and ended up noticing so much our mine and steezs calculations were similar answers in different form, and answers i got with his name ultimately connected to mine, vice versa. So i was intrigued and these are a list of numbers that matched up with our names. This is all speculation based on connections that seem to be very consistent peep this
Calculating these variations of our names such as Courtney Jamal Dewar / Courtney jamal Dewar Jr / Courtney Everald Jamal Dewar Jr / Capital STEEZ / Nathan Cavanagh / Nathan James Cavanagh / Nathan James Cavanagh Sciarra, calculations all listed together when I noted them all I didn't think to label to each name as I was so captivated by the coincidences I just kept going down the rabbit hole. I came across profound links to both our names that binds us both to the unique synchronicities that were to apparent to all be ruled as pure coincidence, such as his name calculating to my birthday, place of birth and city, and city i live to say the least.
These are calculations through gematria, some are our calculations mixed in this as I was just noting down every connection I noticed
The first and the last Eye Of Horus Total Eclipse the numbers of gods matrix coordinated universal time Capital Steez June Twenty Forth (my birthday) came up from steez name Lunar Eclipse Sacrifice July (2047 lunar eclipse on steezs birthday) The Central Intelligence Agency A WISE TALENTED MUSIC PRODUCER Royal Melbourne Hospital (where I was born) The Holy Bloodline Of Jesus The Return of Christ Exodus Luke synchronisation The Synchronicities Of Jesus The Book Of Revelations Vibrational Frequency Biblical Prophecy Melbourne Victoria Australia (where im from), came up on steezs calculations The Royal Bloodline The Divine Bloodline Of Jesus fourth of jew lie Energy frequency vibration The Holy Lineage Of Christ One Who Understands Mysteries december the twenty fifth. ..... speaks for itself A Door to another dimension New Moons And Solar Eclipse twenty four seven (my birthdays the 24th, his is the 7th) the victory of the lamb multidimensional royal regiment of scotland Golden Gate Sacrifice Gods Gift Clairvoyant The Chosen One The Two Appointed Ones Leaving For Heaven David And Daughter Of The Oath Are One Almighty God Roars Upon His Throne Powerful Great Grandma The Lord On Earth Donald Trump Assassination Lords Alignment The Lord Gods Here God Is Really Here God Birthdate Encoded End Of Times God Code The Code Of The Lord Lord Birthday Code Gods Provable Code Gods Alive Loser Access Into Heaven Twenty Three The Anunnaki Gods Jesus Is Coming A True Prophet The Seventh Seal What is Jesus's number? 888 Apollo Is The Beast Of Revelation See Fulfillment Of The Book Of Isaiah Prophecy The Serpent In Genesis Describes The Mark Of The Beast See The Forced Evil Mark Of The Beast Foiled The Victory Of The Lamb May The Lord Fill Your Heart Two Masters Is Cancer (steez and I are both Cancer) God Of Eternity We Are God Twins Maker Of New Earth A Two Edged Swords Xanax Vicodin Addiction (i struggled with bad) The Bible Is Intentionally Concealing Information The Galactic Jesus the Anointed One Moses Will Come The King Is Coming Miraculously Encoded By God Pyramids On Mars Forests On Mars Holy Spirit Of Zeus We Are Absolute Infinite Sent By The Gods Powerful Great Grandma999 Burning Alive The Gang Stalkers. (long story short I was a victim of whay they call gangstalking when I was reaching my peak or enlightenment and have been trying to get back to that state again, all I can describe it as is demonic torment) Enoch 777 on YouTube speaks on it good.) A Fourty Seven Mandating The Poisonous Jabs Knowledge Of God Brings Eternal Life Death Isnt So Scary Anymore Invictus Sol The Lion And The Lamb https://imgur.com/gallery/ztGPJGS The Lord Is Here Coming To Restore The Eternal Kingdom The Blood Of The Lamb Contact With A God Revival Jesus The Annointed One the key to it all I Am The Holy Grail Sun Moon Earth Revelation Nine Spirit World I Am The One Lord Jesus Christ I Know All Codes And Connections The Wisdom Of God Word Of The Lord Quantum Entanglement Theory The Anunnaki Path Almighty God Roars Upon His Throne 173 Enoch Chapter Ninety Five Pyramids Have Hidden Chambers Music Is My Life Revelation Five Everyone Is God Forever Jesus Walking With God Vision Of Gabriel New Revelation Seven Wonders Symbiotic Craft Thank You James (my middle name is James) Words Of The Bible Isaiah Fourteen Thirteen Trumps Last Son He Is Jesus Crown Chakra God Is You Gods In A Body The Resurrection Of Life The Book Lj Enoch King Jesus Gods Wrath We Are At War Truth Hidden In Plain Sight Double Conciousness The Anointed Lay Dead On The Cross Dragon Of China Is The Anti Christ. A Seed Of Jesse Angelic Guidance Black Pyramid Hidden Truth In Plain Sight King Messiah Heavens Dream Let The Decoding Fun Begin Add Up Letters Notorious Names The Child Of Christ Aliens Exist Spirit Of Moses C E R T I F I C A T E Of Baptism Of The Lord Of Christ Alchemist Fluoride To Heaven God Is Number Codes Numerical Language Learning Decoding Is Fun The Lord Of The Messiah The Book Of Hidden Messages Eight Eight Eight Nine Nine Nine Lost Books Of The Bible Rna Vaccine Maternal Ancestors Are Of Royal Descent You Are Gifted Frequency Turn Off Your Smart Phone I Am Eternal Life David Christ Gods Son The Sound Of Jesus Coming Help Others Realize Full Potential Implants During Surgical Procedures The Solar System And Thoughts The Reincarnation Of King David King David Divine Dna Is Activated Jesus Returns To Earth The Lion Of Judah Is With Us (Steez would speak about Judah)
Jamal Dewar; psalm twenty three Jesus son of God Nathan Day Revelation fourteen one Spiritual warfare Gang Stalker (experienced this myself) Satanic Cults Commit Suicide forty seven problem Bloodline of Jesus Christ The End (when this came up my jaw dropped.) And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you Amen The Holy Mother of Jesus christ Are you ready for whats coming july seventh twenty eighteen
Courtney Jamal Dewar, Jr: The Book Of Revelations Vibrational frequency MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA (where I live) Christ Resurrection Satan Rules The World The Divine Bloodline of Christ synchronization Biblical Prophecy Capital steez Exodus Luke The Divine Bloodline of David Second Christ The Return of Christ Jesus Resurrection Jesus Christ Bloodline
I added stuff from my name as it was so coincidental I didn't think to label them at first I just wrote down anything I thought added up This is just deep research into who reminds me of myself My instagram is mistapitty Listen to The Resurrection by Pitty https://on.soundcloud.com/Xn3nN
Listen to Revelation 22 by Pitty https://on.soundcloud.com/gBAja
Peep his song "Free The Robots" https://youtu.be/XcmR8DxuHBA
STEEZ has definitely made a positive impact on this world by introducing a new way of thinking and spirituality, even more of an impact than a lot of artists who are still alive... Capital STEEZ was 19 at the time of his death.
There are four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Each of these emphasizes a unique aspect of his sacrifice and ministry. Matthew's focus is on Christ being the son of David and a King.
Look into the etymology of your name. - What Does Nathan Mean? The name Nathan means “Gift of God” or “God has given.” In the Old Testament, Nathan was a prophet and one of King David's sons; he acted as a messenger to King David and is considered one of Jesus' ancestors. (David name of my biological grandfather) (James is my middle name) - James is a classic, traditional and Biblical name (Saint James, of course, was Jesus's brother and one of the 12 apostles) meaning "supplanter" or "replacer." It's derived from the Latin Jacomus which also means "may God protect.
Every letter to Capital STEEZs full name calculates to 147 when done in reverse on the gematria calculator and mine equals to exactly 470 when done in reverse.
"Nathan James Cavanagh Sciarra" = 470 (Reverse Reduction) N a t h a n 104 13 26 7 19 26 13 J a m e s 87 17 26 14 22 8 C a v a n a g h 159 24 26 5 26 13 26 20 19 S c i a r r a 120 = 470 8 24 18 26 9 9 26 Reverse = 470
"Capital STEEZ" = 47 (Reduction) C a p i t a l 26 3 1 7 9 2 1 3 S T E E Z 21 = 47 1 2 5 5 8 Reduction = 47
"Courtney Everald Jamal Dewar" = 147 (Reverse Reduction) C o u r t n e y 41 6 3 6 9 7 4 4 2 E v e r e s t 41 4 5 4 9 4 8 7 J a m a l 35 8 8 5 8 6 D e w a r 30 = 147 5 4 4 8 9 Reverse = 147
On June 24th 2022: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are lining up in the pre-dawn sky, a planetary procession that could be seen above the eastern horizon And what’s even more remarkable about this month’s lineup is that the planets are arranged in their natural order from the sun. The best day to see the spectacle will likely be the morning of June 24 of 2022, weather permitting, as the planetary parade will be joined by the waning crescent moon. This is three days after the summer solstice (or winter in australia), which is June 21. What makes this so unique is the last time we had 5 planets aligned in this fashion, was in March of 1874.
All of the "classical" planets will be viewable in the early morning skies of June 24th 2022. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn will be visible, all apparent to the naked eye even under urban light pollution. On the 24th, our moon will be situated between Venus and Mars, so you could say the Earth-Luna system will complete the "perfect" alignment. Under the darkest skies, one will be able to see seven planets in one sweeping gaze. The same year December 24th the planets will align in their correct order outward from the sun for the second time this year, after a pre-dawn alignment in June which was on my birthday. STEEZ is said to have died on the 24th of December 👉 https://imgur.com/gallery/0RVIxxA
Alternatively, 25 December may have been selected owing to its proximity to the winter solstice because of its symbolic theological significance. After the solstice, the days begin to lengthen with longer hours of sunlight, which Christians see as representing the Light of Christ entering the world. This symbolism applies equally to the celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on 24 June, near the summer solstice, based on John's remark about Jesus "He must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30 NRSV.[59] Now check out the following texts from the bible, they speak of the solstice here. 👉 https://imgur.com/gallery/0RVIxxA and I thought I should add this as it seemed to be quite a coincidence of the date i posted this somg and the content of the posts she made. It aligned with those geomatria calculations I made and i wish I could document snd explain why certain ones just synchronzie but it'd be to hard to comphrened.
"AFTER THE SOLSTICE, THE DAYS BEGIN TO LENGTHEN WITH LONGER HOURS OF SUNLIGHT, WHICH CHRISTIANS SEE AS REPRESENTING THE LIGHT OF CHRIST ENTERING THE WORLD. THIS SYMBOLISM APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE CELEBRATION OF THE NATIVITY OF SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST ON 24 JUNE, NEAR THE SUMMER SOLSTICE, BASED ON JOHN'S REMARK ABOUT JESUS "HE MUST INCREASE; I MUST DECREASE." JOHN THE BAPTIST ANNOUNCES THE COMING OF THE LIGHT THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE, JOHN THE BAPTIST, ANNOUNCES THE COMING OF JESUS, THE COMING OF NEW TIMES, JOHN ANNOUNCES THAT GOD IS GRACIOUS TO HIS PEOPLE BY ANNOUNCING THE COMING OF THE SON OF GOD. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, AND EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM, EVEN THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM; AND ALL THE TRIBES OF THE LAND WILL MOURN OVER HIM.” –ZECHARIAH 12:10-14; DANIEL 7:13-14 SO IT IS TO BE. AMEN (AGREED, YESHUA HIMSELF IS THE AMEN 3:14). “I KEPT LOOKING IN THE NIGHT VISIONS, AND BEHOLD, WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN WAS COMING."
John the Baptist day is 24th of June.
"The flower of life, represents global consciousness and like there's this thing on the consciousness grid, the last piece, it has to be the flower of life and it has to align with the sun and all that stuff and it will wake up global consciousness & as i further in my ascension I hope to build it one day" "Some people might think this type of thinking, first of all this type of thinking might jump over a lot of people's heads" "I think humans need to lighten up, maybe try lighten up" - STEEZ
Someone regarding STEEZ: "Did he think there were codes in the Bible or something? I’ve heard him say he knows the “code” does anyone know what the code is? He was a truly enlightened person I wish I could understand him better."
STEEZ supposedly said he had to die now in order to save the Earth in 2047, which is when the world is supposed to end. Before he killed himself his friends say he withdrew not only from them, but rap in general, saying he was going to become a superhero.
(My birthday)24th of June 1999 = 2+4+6+1+9+9+9 = 40 STEEZ birthday) 7th of July 1993 = 7+7+1,993 = 2007.) 40 + 2007 = 2047
Now read a conversation he had on Facebook prior to death https://www.kanyetothe.com/threads/rip-capital-steez.354864/page-42?post_id=16781894&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-167818 His song Dead Prez (credit to who found these calculations as this wasn't mine) If you wanna conspire a little, we technically have had 46 different president so far, tho truly only 45 different guys have been in office. This year, if we elect a new president they will be our 47th prezident. You could say that happens when the next president is elected, or when the second new president is elected because then there'd actually be 47 different people. On the contrary, you could predict that once 47 presidents have died, something very significant will happen because the song is about DEAD presidents. It'll happen in most of our lifetimes i wonder what will happen 2047?
https://imgur.com/a/bOpRy
FORTY, THE NUMBER: "Forty days was the period from the resurrection of Jesus to the ascension of Jesus some scholars note that 40 days in the Bible doesn't always mean 40 days literally, but may be a symbolic way of saying "a longer time. A master number and part of the “awakening code”. Also Jose Arguelles’s kin is 11 – he brought forth the Law of Time aka the World Thirteen Moon Cale In the Bible, next to the number seven, the number forty occurs most frequently.
Here's an article on Fader that's kind of aligns some things I've discovered.
https://www.thefader.com/2013/11/26/capital-steez-king-capital
Check out these images, not a lot of people would've seen these: h ttp://i.imgur.com/nPE90.png / http://i.imgur.com/sHtdM.png / http://i.imgur.com/ZcNu2.png - he thought he was the alchemist that had the key for world peahttp://i.imgur.com/ZcNu2.png Deshay posted this on Facebook after his immediate death: "Fxck.... This shxt jus rly fxcked me up. Me and Steezus JUST made plans to record on Saturday now hes gone. RIP Capital STEEZ" Joey said he believed he sacrificed himself for spiritual rebirth.
The End THE WIDELY ACCEPTED STORY is that Courtney ‘Jamal’ Dewar committed suicide by jumping off the Cinematic Music Building in Manhattan on 23.12.12 – which equals 47, the rapper’s favourite number. None of the city’s newspapers reported his death. As a result of inconsistent stories and a lack of police intelligence, confusion surrounds the heart-breaking event for the Dewar family. In a 2013 interview with Fader, an anonymous member of Pro Era said, “STEEZ told some of the Pros that he was thinking of killing himself by jumping off the building where Cinematic had its offices.” Dirty Sanchez a close friend of the late rapper recalled, “Nothing was working. Nothing. It was like too late. He made up his mind already.”
Today I will be briefly explaining the practice of Gematria. Gematria comes from ancient Jewish mysticism. It is the practice of combining the letter with the number, with the word. It is said this is how God created the world.
How does it work? Gematria has 4 major ciphers. The first two are easy as ABC, literally. For example A=1 B=2 C=3. And so on. The code can also be read backward from Z to A. This is called reverse ordinal. There are two more ciphers that are equally important but a bit more nuanced so for the sake of clarity I’ll leave those explanations to the work of Zachary K Hubbard. But to put Gematria into usable terms I’m gonna explain a decode I did recently. If you want to decode a word or phrase without doing the math yourself, there is an extremely helpful calculator at gematrinator.com it will give you all four cipher values for your word or phrase in an instant, as well as compare it with corresponding ciphers. Without further ado let’s look at this example:
Here I will outline some interesting numbers that coincide with the rapper Capital STEEZ and the numbers surrounding the music industry as well as numbers that come up with race, and other things I found eye grabbing.
(Credit to another user on here) First off I’ll start with Capital STEEZ, The interesting number here is the full reduction number, 47. It’s eye grabbing for many reasons, but we’ll start with a little back ground. Before Capital STEEZ’s (aka Jamal Dewar) death (suicide) in 2012, STEEZ was apart of an up and coming rap group known as Progressive Era, or ProEra for short. A known staple among these young men were the belief in “47 chakras” and “indigo children”. The two are a topic on their own, but the interesting part is that such a powerful number in Jamal Dewar’s life also coincides with the Gematria of his rap name. But that’s not it! Let’s continue
Capital STEEZ English ordinal: 137
Full reduction: 47
Reverse ordinal: 187 ( see pushed off a roof)
Reverse full reduction :70
Now keep an eye on 70, as we shall see him more as well.
Next we will decode the gematria of the reported means of STEEZ’s death, suicide. This is where I admittedly started getting intrigued.
Gematria of Suicide:
English Ordinal: 70
Full reduction: 34
Reverse ordinal:119
Reverse full reduction: 47
Wow. The exact same values but flipped.
Just a mere coincidence I’m sure But let’s continue .
With these next two we will see two repeats of values, one new value, 88 and a previously used value, 34. As well as 65
Jamal Dewar
English ordinal: 88
Full reduction: 34
Reverse ordinal: 182
Reverse full reduction: 65 ————————— Phrase: pushed off the roof
English Ordinal: 187
Full reduction: 88
Reverse ordinal: 245
Reverse full reduction: 65
And the next term we will decode will be Jamal’s occupation of rapper. Here we will see a reverse of our main number in question, 47, which I’ve found to be reoccurring as well.
Rapper
English ordinal: 74
Full reduction: 38
Reverse ordinal: 88
Reverse full reduction: 34
I’m beginning to sense a bit of a pattern here... But let me move on Now it’s time to get a little spicy
Jamal Dewar commited suicide on the night of December 23, 2012, though his wiki has his death on the 24 I believe as it was around midnight. Many articles coming out about his death including one I read from thefader.com reported his death on the 23rd. I specifically remember this detail because I was a huge fan of his and Pro Era at the time and it was a huge loss to the community.
December is the 12th month
12
23
12
Care to guess what that equals?
Yep. 47
Here are some other related phrases put into the gematrinator calculator:
Brooklyn New York (where proera is from)
223 79 182 74
Suicide by fall 128 56 223 79
Are you seeing the synchronization of these seemingly unrelated words and phrases?.
The word murder and murdered both have synchronized gematria with Jamal. We also see another repeat with 38, also found in the full reduction of the word rapper.
Murder
English ordinal: 79
Full reduction: 34
Reverse ordinal: 83 (38 reverse)
Reverse full reduction: 38
Murdered ,interestingly enough, though only being two letters away from murder, is actually more closely related numerically to jamals name and the word rapper, But there are similarities abound. Murdered.
English ordinal: 88
Full reduction: 43 (34 reverse)
Reverse ordinal: 128
Reverse full reduction: 47
Wow. This one really stands out to me. Every single number code number is used in the over all code of Capital steez just in this one word.
We see the repeats of 88 and 47 as well as the reverse of 34 for the first time and a repeat in the numbers of 128, which we saw as 182 above.
This one is slightly unrelated so I left it sort of by itself but I still maintain it’s validity as it’s use in the music industry is still relevant. That is the word racist. Race is huge in the overall narrative that msm tries to portray.
Racist
English ordinal: 70
Full reduction:25
Reverse ordinal: 92
Reverse full reduction: 47
racist and suicide are perfect matches on the front end and back end. 70 and 47.
Here’s another nugget.
The phrase : jumped to his death
English ordinal: 178 (pushed off the roof 187)
Full reduction: 70 (pushed off the roof 88)
Reverse ordinal:254 (pushed off the roof 245)
Reverse full reduction :83 (pushed off the roof 65)
Leap also shares 34 and 84.
Suicided 74 38 142 52
Occult
English ordinal: 74
Full reduction: 20
Reverse ordinal:88
Reverse full reduction:34
3 more repeats
The year of his suicide was a leap year
Leap year
English ordinal:83 Full reduction: 38 Reverse ordinal:133 Full res verse reduction: 43
Target audience: 133 61 245 83 Suicidal: 78 33 138 57 Hidden mission: 142 70 209 74 Some of these numbers are conjecture but there’s a lot of links between the numbers. 47/74 being the one of the more prominent, as well as 83/38, 34/43, 70, 245/254, 88, 33, 29/92/209, 182/128 all of these numbers connect in one way or another. Now it wouldn’t mean much if we didn’t know more about the nature of these numbers and how and where they appear. But since these number keep popping up in accordance to things like CONTROL GRID or MYSTERY RELIGION or SUPREME MATHEMATICS it seems almost impossible for it to be mere coincidence. Anyways I urge you guys to think for yourself and put in some work and see if you can find any use of this practice. God bless
Ps:
STEEZ’s debut album ”amerikkkan korruption” Came out on 4-7-2012 another 47. Vibration equals 47
A theory out there is that the cabal needed him to die because STEEZ was really bringing influence to more and more young minds with knowledge and the way STEEZ attacked and exposed certain things is not a good thing for those in power, the label that Joey wanted to sign when they were pro era, was a Jewish man named Jonny Shipes. if you’ve extensively went down the “rabbit hole”, like extensively, and you’d say you’re pretty “woke” (I hate that word), then you may know that most labels especially Jewish owned labels are basically the portals into The Illuminati cult, the Jesuit organization that controls the entire world. Oh and remember the news outrage, and investigation because of the 47 “swa stikkas” all over NY, yea you think these Jonny Shipes fucked with that? Nah. But this is all speculation.
It wasn’t long after Capital STEEZ's unfathomable passing on 12/23/12 – 12+23+12 = 47), which was only days after December 21, 2012, the precise date calculated by the great Mayans to be the end of a Great Cycle, that I received knowledge & became aware of the Law of Time. This seemingly new cosmology felt ancient and I quickly realized it had EVERYTHING to do with Synchronicity! I even found the number 47 to be ever ubiquitous throughout this 13 Moon calendar system.
"The next chapter is unstoppable. And yet, the greatest revolutions sometimes originate from the confines of impossibility, do they not? Break the code. It could make a leap and make possible a decision that defines the order of things that are." " Reality is a mathematical model which gets solved over and over again by the observer your thoughts are computations. And they render this world for you to call your own. Not all processors are alike. Different brains produce different realities. The variations go from the subtle to the drastic. Your mind defines how much you can taste. How much you can feel. How much you can understand. Perception defines perspective. We designed you and made sure to engineer your senses so you could perceive just what we needed you to. Neither more nor less. There are parts of time we preferred you remained blind to. It was a necessity."
The Law of Time, I found to hold the most profound yet simple teaching; our Time is not Money, Time is Art. I was able to grasp a greater vision of how we as humans have created an artificial timing system where our time here equates to how much money we can accumulate, where we are constantly stressed by this false belief of our making, and where there is never enough time… This system of our making and continuous propagation has only served to separate us from our Selves, from each other, and ultimately, from nature. Hence, resulting in the chaos and disharmony prevalent in the world today.
What is the greatest common factor of 23 & 47? 1 is the greatest number that 23 & 47 is divided to. The Chosen One @mistapitty ㄣ

As a former Christian who no longer believes in religion (and I have no desire to) I have some questions mostly about how Muslims view aspects of the religion. Keep in mind that most of this comes from observations that I’ve made, mostly from social media, and I am aware that people on social media talking about their religion tend to be more religious than those who stay off of this (I’m thinking of both Christian’s who make their accounts about Christianity are often more extreme than those I meet in real life and I think it’s probably similar for Muslims). Some of these are also just statements that I would like to hear peoples opinions on.

1. Do people online publicly telling others they’re sinning genuinely think they’re doing something? For one, no one wants to take unsolicited advice from strangers, and second, it seems like that sort of thing drives people away. I’m guessing that they just want to be hateful and the anonymity of the internet allows that.
   
2. When I see people online talking about sinning it almost seems like a point system. Like “if I do x that gives me a reward and if I do y that is a sin” so I’m just going to do a bunch of x to make up for y. Or when people talk about multiplying sins, it feels like they’re doing heaven arithmetic. Again, this mostly comes from me seeing things online, and I’m guessing that people are generally more chill irl.
   
3. In my opinion, most religions center around “don’t be a jerk to other people” and the golden rule “treat others like you want to be treated.” Again, I’m going to use Christianity as one example. In my opinion, being a good Christian isnt necessarily going to church all the time and talking about your religion constantly and telling other people they’re not doing something right, it comes from say doing charity and being kind and not judging people and giving people grace. To me, it’s more important to treat people and our world around us well. It seems like some people automatically view someone who prays 5 times a day but say beats his wife and kids as a better Muslim that someone who doesn’t pray often, might drink or eat pork, but actively strives to make the world better than they found it.
   
4. In Christianity, it can often feel all or nothing so when I see people talk about sometimes wearing the hijab for example and working towards wearing it full time something in my brain doesn’t compute.
   
5. Why do people take commandments from hadiths if they’re not Gods word? Shouldn’t hadiths be more of advice and seeing the Prophet as a model to strive towards towards rather than a requirement.
   
6. Why are some people against women wearing pants bc they’re too masculine even though they didn’t even exist in the Middle East when the Quran was written, therefore pants should be either permitted for both men and women or prohibited for both. In the same vein, why do some people (mostly weird podcast bros) believe that women should be entirely shapeless and not do anything to express themselves as people. Also why are people so against belts around abayas and dresses? Loose flowy clothing is great, but it’s not always very practical and either way isn’t it more important to work on ourselves and not judge (bc judging people is a sin in like every religion). It seems exhausting being angry that a stranger is wearing sparkly pink eyeshadow. Again, I was raised in christianity so this is just the phrasing i know but shouldnt "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"
   

Also it’s super annoying when people of different religions try to convert each other. I don’t think telling a random Muslim person to “find Jesus” is going to do what you want bud. This also goes for the annoying internet atheists who think that religion is inherently evil and don’t recognize that evil people will use anything they can to hurt other people, and religion is just a good tool bc it’s important to so many people. When the Islamic center in my town burned down (electrical fire the building was ancient and the wiring was almost certainly not up to modern standards) many churches in my hometown gathered together to provide a space to pray. They obviously didn’t go in the sanctuary but I remember my church took down all the figures in one of our gathering halls until they could find another location.
Edit: I want to add something specific that I like about Islam. I feel like we only talk about other groups for something we don’t like or agree with, and rarely acknowledge things they do better than us. How Islam views disability is so much better than pretty much any other religion and I appreciate that. Disability is so often viewed as a punishment for something a person or their parents did wrong, so the Islamic view on disability is very refreshing. In the west especially, people often view disabled people as something inherently bad, and a scourge on society. Disability is something to cure or hide away, even if it means hurting people. From what I understand, Islam views disability as simply another set of challenges a person will go through in their life, and it’s important to treat disabled people kindly. I’m going to use a few very extreme examples to illustrate this so bear with me. The first is the Holocaust, which specifically targeted disabled people first because they weren’t even seen as people deserving of dignity. T toured obviously much more that was going on but Christian views of disability played a large part. The second is what I see currently going on in Gaza where I have seen so many videos of people rallying to help disabled people even if it means endangering themselves. Another is what happened in Hurricane Katrina, which, while not at all comparable to a literal genocide going on in Gaza, I think can show a very contrast. In hurricane Katrina, our government left people in hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons to die because they weren’t viewed as worthy of rescue or evacuation. With all the hate and Islamophobia flying around I want to highlight an aspect of Islam that I really appreciate.

A nice private casual family vacation, but not for Mallory Ervin. In the videos you notice her family is all casual laughing and just there to have fun, but Mallory had to make sure it's a fashion show with her obscene $20,000 vacation wardrobe. During her little attention seeking ootd skit, she was quick to mention her mother's shoes were Gucci, even though the mom didn't show her shoes. LOL She literally dresses like a circus clown in those tacky La Vie Style house dresses, that cost about $1000 each. She pairs them with clunky hooker shoes because she's 5 feet tall. Everything about this woman is pure narcissistic behavior and attention seeking down to her neon wardrobe. I can't stand this woman, but her cult followers are worse. I don't understand how they fall for her whole scheme. She's a theater major for fck sake. She does anything for attention and then profits off of it. A makeup YouTuber, reality tv star, an author writing about her fake addiction, selling cheap graphic tees for her scam motivational speaker line "living fully" and now selling cheap china pjs for $100 to her same gullible audience. It's actually sad how people fall for this. What's worse is she pretends she's a christian. She might want to read the part of the bible about greed and vanity. She's such a good Catholic she didn't even know we don't eat meat during lent. There's always going to be con-artists in the world and gullible losers that fall for it.

CMM.World & CMMTheology.org
The Great Harvest is here. Christ's Mandate for Missions and CMMTheology build strong, organic relationships globally as we worship, grow and equip together. Like Joshua and Caleb and the Apostle Paul, we see with faith what He sees in each person (to help each reach fullness), group (many streams and backgrounds in unity) and nations (sheep vs. goat nations). Our passion is to love, connect, equip and send with the simplicity, fullness, and power of the Gospel.
The Uncompromising Blissful Extravagance of His Presence! Inbox
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - November 10, 2022
Dear Mighty One,
I see the Lord's eye upon us we discover by revelation the 'new thing' He is doing in our lives and of those of us who, beyond the present darkness, gaze into His eyes. The 'tuning fork' of Yahweh is orchestrating the sons and daughters of our living God in growing holy remnant unity to withstand as we stand with Him fearlessly in the boldness of the faith of God in this hour. Egypt is behind us, and the covenantal promises and prophetic words we have received (1 Tim. 1:18) empower us by His Holy Spirit to advance in warfare, humbly growing in the spirit of wisdom and revelation.

Yesterday as I encouraged some friends, I said, 'stay in the blissful extravagance of His presence.' Today I saw in Psalm 34 His eyes are upon us in vs. 8 & 9 and v:15 about the 'uncompromisingly righteous.' We are to be holy as He is holy. That leaves no room for any more compromise or seeking to please man or the traditions of men, being free of the fear of man, the religious spirit, and any demonic activity. We are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus. Lord, help us understand by revelation to walk in all the authority we have been given by Jesus Christ.
Psalm 34:8-9 'O taste and see that the Lord [our God] is good! Blessed (happy, fortunate, to be envied) is the man who trusts and takes refuge in Him. O fear the Lord, you His saints [revere and worship Him]! For there is no want to those who truly revere and worship Him with godly fear.'
v. 15 'The eyes of the Lord are toward the [uncompromisingly] righteous and His ears are open to their cry.'
Chuck Pierce shared this amazing word from Penny Jackson that is right on for this season: https://christsmandate.blogspot.com/2022/11/chuck-pierce-shares-powerful-word-from.html
May YOUR November be full of Thanksgiving and Praise for you and yours as YOU enjoy The Uncompromising Blissful Extravagance of His Presence!
Thank you for praying for CMM and all your fellow CMM Global Family worldwide. Pray for all the missionaries, schools, and students in CMM College of Theology in the US, Ecuador, Canada, Cuba, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Thailand.
Pray for the new wells and the living water and safe water recently drilled or soon to be drilled in Tanzania, India, Malawi, and Pakistan.
Pray for our upcoming Christmas gift campaigns to bless children and youth in many nations. Many of them are precious, beautiful children (orphans). As the Lord leads, pray about giving any amount to bless dear CMM children this Christmas. https://cmmworld.kindful.com/
Pray for each other, dear friends. We all know we each need prayers going up to Heaven for all those on the front lines. We each are on the front lines!
Please pray for me as I speak tomorrow online to a crusade with 8,000 expected to attend in Pakistan. In December, I will speak at conferences in Liberia and Kenya with fellow CMM Ordained ministers Robert Bimba (Liberia), Tom Omukhobero, and Daniel and Christine Oyoko (Kenya).
We are working on plans and trips for 2023. If you would like to have some of our awesome CMM family speakers for a conference in your area or would like to join or lead a missions trip, we would love to hook you up with dear friends in many nations.
Please join me in welcoming Dr. Louis Blom of Judea Harvest as Associate Director of Missions at CMM. This strategic alliance multiplies the efforts and impact in building the Kingdom of our God, for His glory. https://youtu.be/HXfP8tCySRc

Many blessings and shalom from us all here at the home office and around the world.
Popular posts from this blog
Honoring and Celebrating the Class of 2022's 196 Graduates of CMM College of Theology Global Schools
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - June 15, 2022

We are rejoicing! We just celebrated two of our six schools' graduations on June 4th in the US and June 11th in Ecuador and we thank the Lord for all He has done in their lives and will do in this new era. We honor the faith in action of each of the seventy-eight students (in the USA and Ecuador schools this year)of all ages and from different streams and backgrounds. We thank the Lord for the hunger, perseverance and faith to finish strong. Each one encountered the Lord in fresh new ways as their hunger and perseverance in faith reaped eternal change as evidenced in their dissertations and heavenly encounters. In the last few months we have graduated 196 students from our global schools. All glory to the Lord as we enter our 16th year of offering affordable, life changing accredited degrees around the world. Each year our school is led by the Holy Spirit to go higher and deeper in excellence in academic standards and spirit-led equipping in a truly experiential, interactive, a
READ MORE
Prophetic Encouragement for 2022 by Jorge Parrott
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - January 02, 2022

Prophetic Encouragement for 2022 By Jorge Parrott (all scriptures NKJV) (Graphic art by Nancy G. Daniel) Despite the impending wars, division, chaos, calamity, and deceptive controls we hear the voice of our Lord at times speaking, or roaring, or whispering, and breathing on the sons of God. Are we listening yet? Heaven’s roar is clear to those with an ear to hear what the Spirit of the Living God is saying. This year holds untold opportunities, many answered prayers, and the cries of many hearts if we arise to walk obediently in His fullness, not growing weary in well-doing, nor fainting in the heat of this fiery battle. Deut. 6:4 ‘ The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.’ Jesus was asked many questions. What should you ask
READ MORE
Highlights Of Our Amazing Trip To The Holy Land With Chris Reed And Bart Peacher
By CMM.World CMMTheology.org - July 19, 2022

Highlights Of Our Amazing Trip To The Holy Land With Chris Reed And Bart Peacher Prov. 16:9 ' A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps and makes them sure.' We are continually blessed and in awe of how the Lord breathes and moves in our lives. As we press into the high calling of Jesus Christ and we grow in intimacy and trust by faith, His love, grace, and mercy unfold in surprising ways. I had not been to Israel since 2017. So much has changed in the world since then as we see the tremendous acceleration of the times and seasons. Chaos, control, and corruption are increasing at an alarming rate. Our only hope is in Jesus Christ and His righteousness. Divine Encounters Abound As We Are Led By Holy Spirit And Make Ourselves Available Many churches are led by their pursuit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil instead of the knowledge of the Tree of Life. As we surrender fully to the Holy Spirit, we learn to walk in deep humility and attenti
READ MORE
Powered by Blogger
Theme images by merrymoonmary
Copyright 2021 CMM
CMM Vision and Mission
CMM WORLD
CMM.WORLD CMMTHEOLOGY.ORG
NANCYG
Subscribe by Netvibes below
  Posts
  Comments
Translate
Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAssameseAymaraAzerbaijaniBambaraBasqueBelarusianBengaliBhojpuriBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDhivehiDogriDutchEsperantoEstonianEweFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGuaraniGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIlocanoIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKinyarwandaKonkaniKoreanKrioKurdish (Kurmanji)Kurdish (Sorani)KyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLingalaLithuanianLugandaLuxembourgishMacedonianMaithiliMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMeiteilon (Manipuri)MizoMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianOdia (Oriya)OromoPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiQuechuaRomanianRussianSamoanSanskritScots GaelicSepediSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTatarTeluguThaiTigrinyaTsongaTurkishTurkmenTwiUkrainianUrduUyghurUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu
Powered by Translate
Archive
Labels
Report Abuse
Strategic Links
A-Donate for CMM Urgent Needs
CMM College of Theology
CMM Facultad de Teologia
CMM Global Website
CMM MissionsCast (podcast)
Strategic Connecting Toward Freshness and Fullness in God
CMM is strategically positioned with proven, trusted, indigenous friends in many nations activating, equipping, connecting and releasing the saints to reach their people and nation with the love of Father God.
CMM is cross-denominational. We are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus and the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross assures us of victory, through trials, as we are trained to rule and reign with the Father's heart and love of justice and mercy and walk humbly before Him.
CMM is a 501c3 founded in 1978. We also handle donor relations for approximately 500 missionaries globally, ordained ministers, as we enjoy the Lord in fellowship, offering Christian accredited degrees globally, church planting, healing, counseling, orphanages, and prayer centers, creative arts, prophetic, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, medical, stopping human trafficking, leadership training and creative incubators for entrepreneurs, disaster relief, and connecting destinies.
Call 704-225-3927 or email office@cmm.world to learn more or to have one of our many CMM amointed, itinerant ministers speak at your church or group, in person or online.

https://bgodinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/1716247058.png

Unlocking the Secret of True Strength: Gentleness in the Bible

Have you ever pondered the true essence of strength? In a world that often equates power with force and dominance, the Bible presents a radically different perspective: the unparalleled strength of gentleness. Let’s embark on an enlightening journey to uncover the transformative power of gentleness as illuminated in the Scriptures. Get ready to be inspired and discover how gentleness can redefine your understanding of what it means to be strong.

What Does the Bible Say About Gentleness?

The Bible venerates gentleness as a fruit of the Spirit, a divine quality that reflects the character of God Himself. In Galatians 5:22-23, gentleness is listed among the attributes that the Holy Spirit cultivates in the lives of believers, standing alongside love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. This divine linkage underscores the significant esteem the Scriptures place on gentleness as a virtue.

Examples of Gentleness in the Bible

The biblical narrative is rich with examples of gentleness demonstrated by key figures, offering us profound lessons on its application and impact:
– **Moses**: Despite being described as “very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3), Moses led the Israelites with humility and patience, qualities intrinsic to gentleness.
– **Jesus Christ**: Jesus is the quintessence of gentleness. He invited all who are weary and burdened to come to Him, offering rest and teaching with gentleness of heart (Matthew 11:28-29).
– **Paul the Apostle**: Paul, in his epistles, frequently encouraged believers to exhibit gentleness in their interactions. In Ephesians 4:2, he exhorts Christians to walk “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love.”
These examples illuminate the profound truth that true strength often resides not in might but in the quiet, steadfast force of gentleness.

The Impact of Practicing Gentleness

Embracing gentleness can have a transformative effect on your life and the lives of those around you:
– **Fosters Peace and Understanding**: Gentleness opens the door to meaningful dialogue and mutual respect, even in the face of disagreement.
– **Builds Stronger Relationships**: Gentle words and actions can diffuse conflict and build trust, deepening connections with friends, family, and colleagues.
– **Reflects Christ’s Love**: By choosing gentleness, we mirror the love and character of Christ to the world, drawing others closer to Him.

Embodying Gentleness in Everyday Life

Incorporating gentleness into your daily life might seem challenging, but it begins with small, intentional steps:
– **Listen More, Speak Less**: Give others your full attention. Listening is a powerful act of gentleness.
– **Pause Before Reacting**: Take a moment to breathe and choose responses that are measured and kind.
– **Ask for God’s Help**: Pray for the Holy Spirit to cultivate the fruit of gentleness in your heart and actions.

Conclusion: The Strength in Gentleness

The journey towards embracing gentleness is both noble and transformative. As we reflect on the biblical teachings and examples of gentleness, let us strive to embody this virtue in every aspect of our lives. Gentleness is not a sign of weakness but a symbol of true strength, deeply rooted in the character of God.

Ready to Embrace the Gentle Life?

Feeling inspired to cultivate a spirit of gentleness in your life? Start by reflecting on the Bible verses mentioned and ask God to instill His gentle nature in you. Remember, the path to true strength is paved with the quiet power of gentleness. Let’s embark on this transformative journey together, embracing the gentle grace that God freely offers to each of us.
Embrace the gentle life today, and watch how it transforms your world.
If you want to want to research more Bible Answers on your own, please try our Bible Answers GPT. It’s easy to get lost in the interesting responses you’ll find… every search is like a new treasure hunt 🙂
Source =

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."
2 Peter 3 begins by speaking of the coming last days and how "mockers" will say, "where is the promise of his coming?" Peter then reminds the reader that the world was created long ago by the Word of God, brought from the waters, just as it was destroyed by water in Noah's time. Now it is being "reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people." He then quotes psalm 90 in saying that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord. Peter extrapolates from this idea that the Lord is not slow in his promise, but is patient, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.
There's something rather strange happening here, which is not only ignored by a reading lead by ECT, but twisted into something else entirely. That standard interpretation says, "well of course, the wicked are destroyed and the faithful receive the promise," but that's not actually what Peter says. Let's remember that Scripture constantly uses terms like "destruction" figuratively to represent severe consequences, as we see by the "everlasting desolation" of Israel by Babylon spoken of in Jeremiah 25:9, despite them being restored after 70 years of captivity—people, nation, and city. Though I would note the word Peter uses here is apoleia (G684), a stronger illustration of ruin than apollumi (G622), which is used in the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:4).
Even so, the idea of total destruction goes against the idea of eternal torment. Not only that, but the judgment is compared directly with the flood of Noah, a generation which Peter himself says that Jesus went to speak the gospel to (1 Peter 3:19-20). Regardless, there is something even more strange about the ECT interpretation of this passage, which is to apply the final "promise" to the faithful. Why should the faithful be concerned about a promise of bringing all to repentance, so that none may perish? Haven't they already repented? Isn't that the definition of being the faithful believers of God?
If you follow Peter's train of thought, he is speaking about those who will suffer judgement and destruction through fire, specifically referring to the wicked, so this cannot even be said to be the sort of "trial by fire" that believers go through while suffering persecution or just by trying to survive in a broken, sinful world (James 1). The simple fact is that believers don't need to be brought to repentance, because they already have. The promise that they are waiting for is the other half of the judgment by fire. First the judgment, then the restoration through repentance, so that none may perish.
After this, Peter extorts them to be "blameless" and to "not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing." So if Peter is talking about their eternal salvation, he is here teaching salvation by works. No Christian teaches such a thing, as it directly contradicts salvation by grace spoken elsewhere (Eph 2:8) and discards the necessity for the redemption of the cross. It is clear then that the standard ECT interpretation of this chapter is entirely backwards, trying to take components and apply them haphazardly to whichever group best fits their bias—either to the wicked or to the faithful.
A clear, straight forward reading shows that it is actually to the wicked that God's promise of repentance and restoration is coming for. The faithful wait and endure because we must suffer the sins of this world and the persecution of the wicked until that time arrives that the wicked are brought into the fold—even though it be through fire. There is room for some warning of consequences for believers who become immersed in sinful practices, but that can have nothing to do with absolute salvation without preaching salvation by works, rather than by grace.

This is the final installment in the series about N.T. Wright's 'Into the heart of Romans'. Originally a collection, that feature has since been deprecated by Reddit, leaving this series as a bunch of separate, unorganized posts :-( I'll add a flair to each of them later to make them searchable (edit: flair added!)
What I've learned about myself: I am bad at finishing books. By the time you've read 80% or so, the main conclusions and revelations have usually been drawn, and I have a hard time pushing through and finishing the whole thing. This weekend I finally made time to finish writing this final part for this book, after beginning this series months ago. I apologize for the delay.
I am grateful to Wright for writing this book. It is a grandiose view of God's love, the work of the Messiah and the Spirit in and through us. It is really worth checking out!
Without further ado, the final chapter.

Romans 8:34-39 Nothing Can Separate Us From God’s Love

‘Romans 8 ends on a note of wonderful confidence’. Philosophers have always tried to find solid ground, how can we know? Decartes claimed ‘I think, therefore I am’ (cogito, ergu sum) and ‘much subsequent western thought has tried to build on that, with (to say the least) mixed success’. Bishop Leslie Newbigin even altered that statement some time ago into ‘tesco, ergo sum’: I shop, therefore I am!
But Paul says something different: Amor, ergo sum: I am loved, therefore I am. ‘The gospel urges upon us an epistemology of love’, not simply the feeling, but agape, the generous self-giving which affirms the reality of what is known and loved. When Paul says ‘I am persuaded’ in verse 38, he isn’t just summing up Romans 5-8 but he’s also looking at ancient intellectual life and philosophy, saying ‘this is where you can stand’.
This is the love of God the creator, anchored in Jesus. In this passage Paul lists grave threats and forces aligned against us, but ‘the gospel itself, the message about Jesus crucified, risen, ascended, interceding, holds us in place despite everything: God’s love in the Messiah, Jesus our Lord’.
This answers the first common question, about the beginning and the end of the section, we’ve answered in each chapter so far: it begins and ends with God’s love, in verses 35 and 39.
For the second question, we’d usually look at the small connecting words, but again Paul isn’t using careful argumentation here, but a rhetorical device: seven threats in 35, and larger powers in 38-39a. Paul invokes Psalm 44 when speaking of the threats, but then claims that ‘the one who loved us (37) will enable us to be not just victorious, but super-victorious (hypernikomen). Why (gar, 38)? Because no forces on earth or in heaven can separate us from that same love.
The third regular question: what about the wider world in which Paul’s hearers would receive this message? The ‘question of confidence’ is vital, today as it was back then. We know God will look after us after death and we can cling to Jesus when bad things happen, but there is something else going on here.
People in Paul’s culture (and today!) might interpret the bad things happening to Christians as a sign that God was angry with them. They assume that if you live your life in tune with God, you wouldn’t have any problems. But if there are problems such as persecution, ‘the people or indeed the whole movement had obviously gone off the rails.’ Wright here devotes a few paragraphs to criticizing the western world, as pandemics and wars disrupt what seemed to be a success story but made victims along the way. ‘How should we look out upon a world in a mess?’ That question must have occupied the minds of Roman thinkers as well, as the empire’s rhetoric of peace and prosperity sounded hollow, especially to Jews at times of anti-Jewish riots or for instance when Caligula tried putting a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple. Jews read Daniel’s prophecy about the 490 years and they too expected God to step in when the situation became very bad or dangerous. ‘For all these reasons, the two lists of dangers and hostile forces would represent real and present threats to Paul’s hearers’.
Paul had been questioned about this before. In Corinth, some wondered whether God would allow a proper apostle to lead such a bizarre life as Paul had, including persecutions and dangers. In 2 Corinthians, Paul turns that argument on its head in a ‘glorious, ironic rebuttal’: all the bad things that happen to Paul, he insists, are actually ‘the defining marks of genuine apostleship’. Romans was written not long after 2 Corinthians and Paul may have thought about vulnerable Christian groups in Rome, too. For instance, the gentile believers in Rome might regard the Jews, who were expelled under Claudius, as ‘obviously under divine displeasure’, which could lead to these gentile believers becoming ‘Job’s comforters’ to these Jewish Christians when they returned under Nero.
Wright ‘suspects’ that Paul isn’t just talking about ‘assurance of final salvation’ here but also about ‘penultimate assurance’, which his part of the doctrine of justification. This assurance is what we as Christians ought to give to one another: ‘we are to see one another’s misfortunes and sorrows, not as signs of God’s displeasure, […] but rather as part of the calling to share in the messianic woes, in wich – as in verses 26 and 27 – the spirit is calling out to the father from the heart of the pain and perplexity’.
Christians still make mistakes, some still step off ‘the steep ladder of vocation and settled for a gentler climb’. Compromised Christians or a worldly church no longer challenge their wider community. But those who refuse to slide into the world’s ways of thinking may well face real trouble. Paul makes that point in verse 36, where he cites Psalm 44. In that psalm, the psalmist celebrates God’s promises, but complains that they have not been coming true, even though they have kept the covenant. They have remained faithful, and yet this is happening. The psalmist concludes: it must be because of you, it is ‘for your sake’ (Ps 44:22). He knows God is in charge, but there must be ‘stranger, darker and deeper things going on in the world than one would see on the surface’. There were earlier allusions to Ps 44 (Rom 8:27 echoing Ps 44:21) and now Paul points to the next verse, Ps 44:22 to express the belief that the ‘severe troubles of God’s people are somehow for God’s sake’. As seen in 17-30 already, ‘the point seems to be that those facing severe troubles are somehow sharing in the Messiah’s present redemptive sufferings’, a point on which Wright will later elaborate.
Paul isn’t simply saying ‘everything is going to be all right, nothing else really matters’. He is saying that in a way, but he is doing so in a world that saw misfortune as a sign of divine misfortune. No, this is part of our vocation, our calling to bear in the spirit the pain of the world. This is part of our salvific ministry in and for the world. ‘Paul is, as it were, applying the unique fact of Jesus’ crucifixion to the present sufferings of Jesus’ people as they stand in prayer, as in verses 26 and 27, at the heart of the suffering world’. Our sharing in the messianic woes makes us part of the way in which Jesus’ victorious death is applied to the world (Colossians 1:24). ‘With the spirit groaning within us, we are called to share in God’s rescue plan for the whole world’.
Let’s remind ourselves how the last five verses work. There aren’t many connecting words. The troubles mentioned, just like the cross of Christ, aren’t unpleasant or ghastly things we have (or Christ had) to endure, but actually the setting for the greater victory, in which ‘all opposition is not just defeated but swept off the board’. Twice Paul uses alla, but, to make this point, in verses 36 and 37. In 38, we then get a gar which explains this seemingly counter-intuitive super-victory, which is based on the ‘unbreakable love of God himself, of which Paul has become utterly persuaded’. This love is the framework for these verses, opening with the Messiah’s love in 35 and ending in 39 with ‘the love of God in the Messiah Jesus our Lord’. Verse 37 too mentions love, as a halfway stepping stone. And with this, this major portion of Romans (5-8) returns to where it began, in Romans 5, where God’s love is displayed in action in the death of Jesus, and is being poured out in our hearts by the spirit. Paul has now, at last, worked his way back to that ‘great statement’.
Paul offers two lists here, as part of his heightened rhetoric: 7 bad things that might happen to you in verse 35, and ten power structures that might be arranged against you in 38-39. Seven plus ten, in ancient rhetoric, indicates a kind of completeness: ‘anything and everything the world, the flesh and the devil might throw at you.’ 31-39 draw together ‘the whole scripture, all human experience, the whole hostile world, and the whole victorious gospel’. Nothing can sepate us, those in the Messiah, from the love of God. And for the first time since Rom 5:6-10, Paul makes clear that it is all about that love.
Wright thinks we don’t ‘sufficiently ponder’ what that means. We know about Gods love, but to we really understand it? Wright proposes to ‘rattle the cage a bit’. First, many Romans believed Rome had a secret name, its Latin name spelled backwards: Amor, Latin for Love. Romans believed they descended from Aeneas, the son of the love goddess Venus. It’s ‘quite possible’ that Paul here is reclaiming love (agape), as ‘the deepest truth of the creator God’ instead of as a secret name of a pagan city. This matches with the other ‘subversive’ way in which Paul appropriates Roman imperial language for the Gospel, such as ‘gospel’ and ‘Lord’ (kyrios), words Rome used for its own rulers and messages of imperial benevolence and peace. Paul reclaims those words and applies them to Jesus as the true ‘Son of God’ and lord of the whole world, bringing true justice and peace. ‘No wonder the rulers and authorities of Paul’s day struck back in every way they could’ and that is the context for the final passage. Second, in verses 35 and 37 Paul speaks of the Messiah’s love, the love of Christ. That is actually quite rare. Wright lists a few examples in 2 Cor 5, Gal 2, Eph 3 and 5, but that’s about it. Paul speaks often of the love of God ‘that sent the son to die’. And when Paul speaks of grace, he speaks of ‘the grace of Lord Jesus’, not of the Messiah. So why, here, the Messiah’s love? In scripture or extrabiblical sources, there ‘is nothing to suggest that if and when a Messiah turned up he would act out of love. Ruling, bringing justice, defeating enemies, but not love. So where does it come from, here at the heart of the passage and the rhetorical climax of the letter so far?
The answer must be ‘the great Biblical theme of the love of YHWH himself, Israels God’. And the idea of the Messiah’s love must mean that the Messiah is the personal embodiment of Israel’s God. God loves his people (as we see in scripture, Wright cites examples) and the Messiah ‘clothes that love in human flesh and blood’.
And to speak of God’s love is to speak of the covenant, God’s unbreakable loyalty to his people and covenant renewal through the Messiah. Now, European philosophers since Hegel have thought in terms of progress through either evolution or revolution. It can’t be both, and theologians have likewise said that Paul’s theology can’t be both ‘covenantal’ (evolutionary) and ‘apocalyptic’ (revolutionary). These categories have joined ‘forensic’ which has been used to analyse Paul, which means ‘belonging in a law court’. But, in Romans 8 we have ‘in the same breath, the covenant with Israel, now focused on the Messiah, and at the same time we have the sudden inbreaking of God’s powerful rescuing love in the new messianic exodus’. ‘Apocalyptic’ and ‘covenant faithfulness’ fit together in ancient Israelite and Jewish thought. Paul has also spoken of the unveiling (apokalypsis) to the world of the justice of God. All this explains, says Wright, why he sometimes translates the key term dikaoisyne not as ‘righteousness’ (which has its own modern theological misleading connotations) but as ‘covenant justice’, which draws together the covenantal and forensic categories together, in line with the Hebrew tsedaqah which in the Septuagint is often translated with dikaiosyne. We have to stop applying post-Enlightenment, modern categories; we shouldn’t give 19^th century answers to 16^th century questions, but 21^st century answers to 1^st century questions. We have to think like ‘first-century, Bible-soaked, Messiah-focused Jews’. That’s the only way to learn to understand our own world.
This agape love of which Paul speaks, what is that exactly? Not some special sort of Christian love; the Septuagint uses it for God’s love for his people as well as for destructive lust. The early Christian use of agape picks up on the theme of the Hebrew hesed (mercy, loving kindness, generosity) rather than a linguistic phenomenon. Both Paul and John use it to indicate the ‘biblical theme’ of divine love and God’s faithfulness to his covenant and its purposes, now fulfilled in Jesus. But, again, Jewish and Biblical thought never links this to the Messiah. There are three other (converging) answers as to why Paul speaks of the Messiah’s love. **First, ‘**early Christian throught began with reflection on the resurrection of the crucified Jesus’. This had to be the revelation-in-action of the long promised divine love, if it was the new exodus: God the Creator had at last remembered his long promised mercy. God had promised to reconcile the world to himself in reconciling love, and this had happened through the Messiah. God’s plan for himself and the Messiah converged in a way that was not apparent from contemporary Jewish readings of Scripture, but it became obvious in the light of Jesus. Wright connects this to the hesed Adonai, the loving kindness of YHWH himself. Second, Jesus’ first followers did not separate his resurrection from their memory of him before his death. Jesus displayed a ‘sovereign kindness in so much of what he did’, his closest followers knew him, and they spoke of his crucifixion itself as the supreme act of love. (John 13:1). Third, ‘the church’s present awareness of the person of Jesus himself’. ‘That strange presence’, always loving, promised and experienced in the sacraments for instance. ‘The Jesus who was experienced as a man of love before his crucifixion was known personally as the loving Lord in the intimate prayerful life of his followers’. ‘Memory and experience dovetail with the scriptural promises of YHWH’s rescuing love’, resulting in this remarkable theme, written less than 25 years after the crucifixion (!). This is, then ‘a radical innovation in Jewish messianic thinking’, as Jesus’ first followers came to see him as the human embodiment of Israels God. This passage is designed to give comfort and assurance, but underneath is a revolutionary theology of incarnation. Coupled with what has been said in Rom 8 about the spirit (pneumatology), this is ‘one of the greatest expositions of Trinitarian thought from any point of Christian history’. Not in the shape of cold theory, but in the shape of gratitude, allegiance, faith, hope and answering love.
At last, we can now walk through these verses and see how they work.
In 35b, Paul lists ‘the physical dangers and threats he himself had met’ or expected to meet, and his hearers might encounter soon as well. In the Greek, the list has an ‘audible punch’ which is not easy to pick up in English.
·Suffering and hardship: physical pain and cultural challenges such as loss of home or job.
· Persecution: Paul had experienced it and he could see it coming for the community in Rome.
· Famine: uncommon for us westerners, but a regular occurrence in those days.
· Nakedness: could happen after a shipwreck or at a public beating.
· The sword, machaira, a short sword used for executions, not in battle.
In Paul’s days, many would have said that if these things happen to you, the gods must be angry with you, you must have done something wrong. But in vs 36, Paul cites Ps 44 to ward of any suggestion that divine displeasure is causing these things. In Ps 44, the psalmist says that ‘all these things have come upon us, but we have not played you false or denied the covenant’. We suffer ‘because of you’ says the psalmist and Paul echoes that, we suffer ‘on your account’ (heneken sou), because of you we are sheep destined for slaughter. These sufferings are not signs of heaven-sent anger, but but ‘actually the outworking of the purpose which was sketched in 8:18-27’. What’s more, this verse closely echoes the Isaianic language for the suffering Servant, in Is. 53:7. That means these sufferings can be seen as ‘Messianic afflictions’, not just some nasty things to get through. They are to be embraced as part of the ‘redemptive vocations’. ‘This is where the wounds of Jesus meet the wounds of the world’. We are ‘reckoned’ sheep for the slaughter, just as the Messiah, when we are baptized and justified in him.
BUT… verse 37 begins with alla, ‘but’. Don’t let all these things ‘dominate your horizon’, because ‘in all these things we are super-conquerors, hypernikomen’. The enemy has been completely wiped out. Through our participation in the messianic sufferings, the ‘pain and the anger of the world may itself be exhausted and overcome’, through the supreme act of love of the Messiah and our participation in those sufferings, when we go ‘prayerfully to the dark places, to bring God’s light and healing right there’.
The reason for this ‘extraordinary analysis’ is given with the gar of verse 38, pepeismai gar. Paul is persuaded, he ‘has done the math’. He has listed 7 dangers and 10 powers that could attack us, ‘and he declares that none of them can come between the believer and the lof of God in Messiah Jesus’. The list of ten dangers is mostly arranged in pairs. We can read this list as ‘north, south, east, west’: Paul is covering the bases, it includes our possible states (life and death), the past and our (uncertain) future, powers in heaven and on earth, and anything in the cosmos. All of this is created, they are all creatures, ‘part of the world made by God, whereas the gospel is about the incarnate love of the creator himself’. These creatures, taken over by powers darker than themselves might indeed try separate us from the divine and messianic love, that is part of the ‘groaning of creation’, the out-of-jointness of God’s good creation. That creation will be rescued from its slavery to decay (8:19-25), that is the ultimate answer to that problem, and therefore also to any intermediate problems that might arise from the ‘creatures’ as they still are. Paul has lived experience with these powers, but he knows they will fail to separate us from the love of God.
Our human love experiences separation regularly (travel, work, death), but this love gives assurance of eternal unbreakability. Hard to imagine, but that is what the gospel provides. And with Paul, we need to be persuaded of all of this, ‘because of the resurrection of the crucified son of God’. It doesn’t all depend on the cross like some think, either because of a theological liberalism or because their specific atonement theory doesn’t really seem to need the resurrection. But the resurrection is the victory, where the creator God declared that the crucified and risen was indeed really his son, Israels Messiah and the world’s lord.
That’s after all where Romans began, from 1.3-5. Wright briefly recaps Romans from 1-5 and then 5-8. In the end, 8 ‘comes back full circle’ to the introduction in 5:1-11: ‘justification leads to glory, marking out the path of suffering and hope, sustained by the spirit-given love of God’, ‘this in itself is rooted in God’s action of utter self-giving love in the Messiah’. ‘That is where this first half or Romans now concludes’.
The victorious covenant love of God isn’t some fuzzy generalized sense of the transcendent or something like that. It’s not some conviction you have to talk yourself into. No, his conviction, persuasion and assurance all follow from the central ‘good news’ event of Easter. ‘If God really did raise Jesus the Messiah from the dead… then everything follows’. Wright here repeats an anecdote he often shared as a speaker, about a London cabbie who saw Wright was a bishop, and said to him: ‘What I always say, is if God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, then everything else is just rock ‘n roll, innit?’ ‘That is Paul’s doctrine of assurance in a nutshell. Nothing else in all creation can separate us from God’s love in the Messiah, Jesus our Lord’.

So I was talking to my friend who is Iranian American and an atheist and he thought it was interesting that because of the way I was raised as a Christian that I would believe that when Ebrahim Raisi died he went to be welcomed into the arms of Christ. That God's love and God's grace is bigger than the way he led a repressive regime and sent thousands to be executed. And I'm thinking, I guess I don't know what happens when people die. I believe a reckoning happens. It just sort of feels weird for me a Christian with cultural hegemony in my country (the United States) to think that when the president of an Islamic Republic who hurt a lot of people died they still go to heaven. Help me think through this because I think maybe what I believe is stupid.
Also it is great that I defaulted to listening and hear someone celebrate. I am not a fan of Raisi, but I only know a small amount about Iranian politics, only what learned in school, hear on the BBC World Service and read in books. But it is, something I'm sort of wrestling with. IDK, if you grew up where I did in the USA, I didn't realize that there are Iranians who like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Everyone I know who is Iranian speaks English and their family had a really bad time there. It's why they live here?
it's weird to think about a human being in an abstract way. This was a human being a flesh and blood human alongside 9 other people. It seems like the Bible sometimes celebrates the death of tyrants.
At the same time, the way I was raised as a Christian stressed universal salvation eventually. It stressed that we didn't know. And it said something that is quite heterodox. People who were raised as other forms of Christian have been confused and even think I believe in universal salvation as a choice, but it is what I was indoctrinated with as a Methodist.

Saint Mark was born in Athens. He related his life to Abba Serapion who, by the will of God, visited him before his death.
He had studied philosophy in his youth. After the death of his parents, Saint Mark withdrew into Egypt and settled into a cave of Mount Trache (in Ethiopia). He spent ninety-five years in seclusion and during this time not only did he not see a human face, but not even a beast or bird.
The first thirty years were the most difficult for Saint Mark. Barefoot and bedraggled, he suffered from the cold in winter, and from the heat in summer. The desert plants served him for food, and sometimes he had to eat the dust and drink bitter sea water. Unclean spirits chased after Saint Mark, promising to drown him in the sea, or to drag him down from the mountain, shouting, “Depart from our land! From the beginning of the world no one has come here. Why have you dared to come?”
After thirty years of tribulation, divine grace came upon the ascetic. Angels brought him food, and long hair grew on his body, protecting him from the cold and heat. He told Abba Serapion, “I saw the likeness of the divine Paradise, and in it the prophets of God Elias and Enoch. The Lord sent me everything that I sought.”
During his conversation with Abba Serapion, Saint Mark inquired how things stood in the world. He asked about the Church of Christ, and whether persecutions against Christians still continued. Hearing that idol worship had ceased long ago, the saint rejoiced and asked, “Are there now in the world saints working miracles, as the Lord spoke of in His Gospel, ‘If ye have faith even as a grain of mustard seed, ye will say to this mountain, move from that place, and it will move, and nothing shall be impossible for you’ (Mt.17:20)?”
As the saint spoke these words, the mountain moved from its place 5,000 cubits (approximately 2.5 kilometers) and went toward the sea. When Saint Mark saw that the mountain had moved, he said, “I did not order you to move from your place, but was conversing with a brother. Go back to your place!” After this, the mountain actually returned to its place. Abba Serapion fell down in fright. Saint Mark took him by the hand and asked, “Have you never seen such miracles in your lifetime?”
“No, Father,” Abba Serapion replied. Then Saint Mark wept bitterly and said, “Alas, today there are Christians in name only, but not in deeds.”
After this, Saint Mark invited Abba Serapion to a meal and an angel brought them food. Abba Serapion said that never had he eaten such tasty food nor drunk such sweet water. “Brother Serapion,” answered Saint Mark, “did you see what beneficence God sends His servants? In all my days here God sent me only one loaf of bread and one fish. Now for your sake He has doubled the meal and sent us two loaves and two fishes. The Lord God has nourished me with such meals ever since my first sufferings from evil.”
Before his death, Saint Mark prayed for the salvation of Christians, for the earth and everything in the world living upon it in the love of Christ. He gave final instructions to Abba Serapion to bury him in the cave and to cover the entrance. Abba Serapion was a witness of how the soul of the one-hundred-thirty-year-old Elder Mark was taken to Heaven by angels.
After the burial of the saint, two angels in the form of hermits guided Abba Serapion into the inner desert to the great Elder John. Abba Serapion told the monks of this monastery about the life and death of Saint Mark.
Source

Saint Mark was born in Athens. He related his life to Abba Serapion who, by the will of God, visited him before his death.
He had studied philosophy in his youth. After the death of his parents, Saint Mark withdrew into Egypt and settled into a cave of Mount Trache (in Ethiopia). He spent ninety-five years in seclusion and during this time not only did he not see a human face, but not even a beast or bird.
The first thirty years were the most difficult for Saint Mark. Barefoot and bedraggled, he suffered from the cold in winter, and from the heat in summer. The desert plants served him for food, and sometimes he had to eat the dust and drink bitter sea water. Unclean spirits chased after Saint Mark, promising to drown him in the sea, or to drag him down from the mountain, shouting, “Depart from our land! From the beginning of the world no one has come here. Why have you dared to come?”
After thirty years of tribulation, divine grace came upon the ascetic. Angels brought him food, and long hair grew on his body, protecting him from the cold and heat. He told Abba Serapion, “I saw the likeness of the divine Paradise, and in it the prophets of God Elias and Enoch. The Lord sent me everything that I sought.”
During his conversation with Abba Serapion, Saint Mark inquired how things stood in the world. He asked about the Church of Christ, and whether persecutions against Christians still continued. Hearing that idol worship had ceased long ago, the saint rejoiced and asked, “Are there now in the world saints working miracles, as the Lord spoke of in His Gospel, ‘If ye have faith even as a grain of mustard seed, ye will say to this mountain, move from that place, and it will move, and nothing shall be impossible for you’ (Mt.17:20)?”
As the saint spoke these words, the mountain moved from its place 5,000 cubits (approximately 2.5 kilometers) and went toward the sea. When Saint Mark saw that the mountain had moved, he said, “I did not order you to move from your place, but was conversing with a brother. Go back to your place!” After this, the mountain actually returned to its place. Abba Serapion fell down in fright. Saint Mark took him by the hand and asked, “Have you never seen such miracles in your lifetime?”
“No, Father,” Abba Serapion replied. Then Saint Mark wept bitterly and said, “Alas, today there are Christians in name only, but not in deeds.”
After this, Saint Mark invited Abba Serapion to a meal and an angel brought them food. Abba Serapion said that never had he eaten such tasty food nor drunk such sweet water. “Brother Serapion,” answered Saint Mark, “did you see what beneficence God sends His servants? In all my days here God sent me only one loaf of bread and one fish. Now for your sake He has doubled the meal and sent us two loaves and two fishes. The Lord God has nourished me with such meals ever since my first sufferings from evil.”
Before his death, Saint Mark prayed for the salvation of Christians, for the earth and everything in the world living upon it in the love of Christ. He gave final instructions to Abba Serapion to bury him in the cave and to cover the entrance. Abba Serapion was a witness of how the soul of the one-hundred-thirty-year-old Elder Mark was taken to Heaven by angels.
After the burial of the saint, two angels in the form of hermits guided Abba Serapion into the inner desert to the great Elder John. Abba Serapion told the monks of this monastery about the life and death of Saint Mark.
Source

It was 00:15 on 15 May 2024
This is about one of His ways of gaining – Strength in the Lord!!!
UNPACKING – 1 PETER 5:6-10 NKJV
The Lord’s council is to,

• “Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God”

So that,

• “He may exalt you in due time”

However, because this addresses a time of testing. There will be a need to,

• “Cast all your care upon Him”

So that during this time of testing. There remains an awareness of Him. Who,

• “Cares for you”

Therefore,

• “Be sober, be vigilant”

For,

• “Your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour"

Wherefore,

• “Resist him, steadfast in the faith”

Knowing that the hour of testing has begun. And that,

• “The same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.”

So,

• “May the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus”
• “After you have suffered a while”

Bring you to the place of – Strength in the Lord!!!
Which is part of – His Divine Plan!!!
For, He uses such testing. To,

• “Perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you”

Amen!!!
PETER’S TRAINING
This same Simon Peter, who wrote the portion of scripture cited above in 1 Peter 5:6-10; Yes, the same Simon Peter knew all about how to write about – The Testing of our Faith
For, Jesus had taught him. When He said,

• “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat”

But,

• “I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail”

So,

• “When you have returned to Me”

Then you would have learned. How to,

• “Strengthen your brethren”

So, this is one of His ways of gaining – Strength in the Lord!!!
Hallelujah!!!

• “To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” – 1 Peter 5:11 NKJV

Hence – Satan is on God’s leash
Christian E. van der Westhuizen

#inspiredbygod

I understand the general consensus when it comes to The Law, but please hear my testimony before you place judgment. (Proverbs 18:13)
First and foremost, all praise to The Most High. And bless His Son, Yeshua our Messiah. May your Ruach (Spirit) guide those who are seeking.
I have some verses I would like everyone to test. So, please bump this post so that everyone can test what it is I’m about to reveal. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
So, as I stated at the beginning, I do understand that the consensus is, “we are no longer under the Law, but under grace.”
However, I came across a study about keeping the Law. And that the Law isn’t just this idea of “legalism” of “works” to earn one’s way into the Kingdom.
Now, come and see.
The first thing I wanted to reveal is that the Law is love. Please let me say this again, the Law, I like to use the Hebrew word Torah, is love. The idea of love is not just a set of emotions defined by some Greek scholars. But that the idea of love is what the Word says love is.
(John 14:15)
“If you love me, keep my Commandments.”
Now, I know this may seem self evident with what I am saying, and I really do think this is the case. But, I also know that the general teaching is that Yeshua gave new Laws. But please allow me to open those verses next.
(Matthew 22:37-40)
37 And he said to him, "You shall love Yahovah your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Torah and the Prophets."
Look closely at verse 40. As one can clearly see, by keeping the whole Torah and the teachings of the Prophets, you are loving both The Most High and neighbor. Now, I implore you, read this passage again with the understanding of verse 40. And then reread (John 14:15)
Ok, if you remember what I mentioned earlier, I said that keeping Torah isn’t just this act of legalism. And I gave a beautiful example of how keeping Torah is how Abba wants us to love. But now I will show you that keeping Torah grants us righteousness.
(Deuteronomy 4:8)
"And what other great nation has righteous statutes and rules as just as this whole Torah, which I am setting before you today?"
Key phrase “righteous statutes”. As I said, Torah is righteousness. Which is why Christians say, “Yeshua is the only one who fulfilled the Law perfectly.”
But what happens when someone else walks in Torah perfectly?
(Luke 1:6)
"In the sight of Elohim, Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous; they were blameless in observing all Yahovah’s commandments and regulations."
Righteousness is also perfection. Even Yeshua Himself tells us to be perfect.
(Matthew 5:48)
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
It is only then, will Yeshua’s blood cover our sins. Meaning, after accepting Yeshua as our Messiah, we walk in Torah as Yeshua walks in Torah, out of love and righteousness.
But, if you say you are not under the Law, or under Torah, then how does love make sense according to The Most High? (John 14:15)
But there is a flip side as well, and that’s not walking in the Law. And that is called sin.
Again, just as we aren’t the ones that say what love is, Abba is the one who says what love is. And the same goes for sin. It’s what He says is sin, not what we say is sin. So, what does the Bible say is sin?
(1 John 3:4)
"Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices Lawlessness; sin is Lawlessness."
(Matthew 7:21-23)
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
Please read (Matthew 7:21-23) very carefully. This passage is talking about those who have passed away from this world and are now seeing Yeshua. Please notice how they call Yeshua “Lord”. This means these people claim to be followers of Yeshua. But notice what Yeshua tells them at the end of the passage. “Depart from me, you workers of Lawlessness.”
Question, what group of followers does Yeshua have that say, “we are no longer under the Law, but under grace”?
So, unless we walk in righteousness and become perfect as Abba is perfect, only then will Yeshua’s blood cover our sin.
Question, when does Yeshua’s blood cover our sin?
People think His blood covers our sin before we die. But look at the evidence I just showed you with Yeshua’s own words. But now, allow me to show you again, His own words talking about when His blood will take effect.
(Matthew 26:28-29)
"In the same way, after supper he took the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.'"
As you can see, Yeshua says His blood, the new covenant, will not take effect until when? Verse 40, “until on that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.
So as stated above, we must walk in love and righteousness before we present ourselves before Yeshua. And after that, will His blood cover our sin in the Kingdom.
Here is a bonus prophecy by Jeremiah talking about the new covenant in the Kingdom.
(Jeremiah 31:33-34)
"‘I will put my Law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know Yahovah,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares Yahovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.'"
I pray this teaching on Torah, or the Law, helps you with your walk with Yeshua.