(Re: But how are they ever going to call the Bible itself *hate speech?)
One way this could happen is through a campaign wrought by adherents of the future Antichrist's religion, which is Satanism, also called Gnostic Luciferianism. For its secret adherents already run some major media outlets. And they could paint all Biblical Christians as dangerous, violent fanatics, after a series of gruesome, "false flag" terrorist attacks against LGBT people, and against non-Christian, religious people such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.
For after these attacks, which will actually be perpetrated by temporarily-hired, "street scum" agents of the Satanists, "false flag" notices could be planted on Christian websites which will claim responsibility for the attacks, saying that the victims were "slain in the name of Jesus Christ, by the wrath of the Lord of the Holy Bible". In this way, the world could (mistakenly) be made to think that Biblical Christians are starting to get violent against LGBT and non-Christian, religious people. And so laws could be passed to "put a stop to this madness of the Biblical Christians".
(Contrast Matthew 5:39 above)
Any Christian who refuses to sign a declaration that LGBT people are not sinners (as in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and that those of non-Christian religions will not be damned (as in John 3:36), could be fined. And if they refuse to pay the fine, they could be arrested and held indefinitely in detention centers, and given "reeducation classes" until they agree to sign the declaration. Those who refuse to partake in the classes could be placed in regular prisons due to (what could be called) "the dangerous hatred which they have displayed against other people simply because of their natural, sexual orientation/identity, or because of their religious tradition".
It will not matter if a Biblical Christian has never committed any violence against other people, or even if he affirms that he is a total pacifist: The very refusal to sign the declaration could still be deemed to be a case of "hate speech", or "hate thought". It could be said that "modern society, in this age of terrorism, can no longer afford to condone such vile, medieval thinking".
Even when things reach this point in our future, Biblical Christians must never become violent to (as they could say) "take action to defend our freedom of religion, and our free-speech rights". There must be no modern-day Mattathiases (1 Maccabees 2:1) who will take it upon themselves to start murdering government officials (1 Maccabees 2:23-26), and leading armies of rebel Christians against sinners (1 Maccabees 2:44). For this will only play right into the hands of the government, and its mistaken idea that all Biblical Christians are dangerous, violent fanatics. And such violence will be a direct disobedience to the commands of Jesus Christ Himself that Christians are never to employ violence: "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52). And even when, in our future, Biblical Christians will be attacked violently by governments and enraged civilians throughout the world (Matthew 24:9-14), Biblical Christians are never to return any violence. For: "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39).
The victory of Biblical Christians will not be in their slaughtering of sinners, but in their patiently being slaughtered by sinners, for the sake of Jesus Christ: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake" (Matthew 24:9). "As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us" (Romans 8:36-37). "And they overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death" (Revelation 12:11).
[John 12:25, Mark 8:35; 1 Peter 4:12-15, Revelation 13:7,10, Revelation 14:12-13]
(See also Mark 13:9, Luke 10:19, and Matthew 5:39 above)
(Also, regarding the Antichrist's religion of Satanism, also called Gnostic Luciferianism, see Revelation 13:4 below)
~
(Re: How is Romans 1:26-27 referring to the LGBT community?)
Romans 1:26 is referring to lesbians, who have unnatural, sexual affections for each other:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature . . .
And Romans 1:27 is referring to male homosexuals, "gays", who have unnatural, sexual lust for each other:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here the "recompence of their error" at the time that Romans 1:27 was written in the first century AD could have been hepatitis-type infections, but it would also include, in principle, the horrible AIDS plague in our own time.
(Regarding transgenderism, see section 4 of Numbers 12 above)
~
(Re: In August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the Family Research Council headquarters, and specifically said that he used the SPLC designation of "hate group" for the FRC in making his choice of target)
This is a good example of how the enemies of the Bible are not peaceful, but show the same violent hatred for others which they wrongly accuse Biblical Christians of having. These anti-Christian groups are the real hate groups. Indeed, they are Satanic.
~
(Re: How can homosexuality be "against nature"?)
Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:
[Matthew 19:4-5]
God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.
(See also section 2 of Numbers 12 above)
Homosexuality could be the result of how one was raised, that is, based on poor "nurture", rather than "nature".
For example, boys who grew up without paternal love could be more likely to become gay.
And girls who grew up without maternal love could be more likely to become lesbians.
That is, their sexual orientation is a desperate striving for the love which they never got as children.
Also, we cannot trust so-called "scientific" studies today which purport that homosexuality can be nothing but "nature" instead of "nurture", because all such studies start out with the presuppositions of "political correctness". If any study's results began to undermine these presuppositions, the study would be immediately abandoned as "flawed". Otherwise, the scientists involved would have their careers completely destroyed by their universities and the media.
For the universities and the media have been swallowed whole by "political correctness".
It is a black hole which lets no light (truth) escape.
"Political correctness" is the death of truth.
Even conservative media like Fox refuse to speak any truth regarding homosexuality, and its agenda against Biblical Christianity, for fear of being boycotted by advertisers.
Just more proof that:
1 Timothy 6:10 . . . the love of money is the root of all evil . . .
So there needs to be a conservative news source which is not dependent on advertisers.
Think of an "NPR2" supported by government funds and staffed by conservatives, just as NPR is supported by government funds and staffed by leftists who are continually trying to push the falsehoods of "political correctness".
~
(Re: Gay Seattle Coffee Shop Owner Evicts Peaceful Christians)
He has every right to do so, just as a Christian Seattle coffee shop owner would have every right to evict peaceful gays.
Similarly, a gay Seattle bakery owner would have every right not to bake a cake for a Christian with Romans 1:26-27 written on it, just as a Christian Seattle bakery owner would have every right not to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
(Or do gays want to have their cake and eat it too?)
~
(Re: Do Christian businesses have the right to arbitrarily fire people because they are members of a minority?)
Note that pedophiles, for example, are a minority. But any business can still fire a pedophile for bringing his eight-year-old lover to work.
For we are talking about a minority based on sinful actions, not a minority based on skin color.
~
(Re: The SPLC explicitly identifies what qualifies a group as an anti-gay hate group: "[they] use dehumanizing language and pseudoscientific falsehoods to portray LGBT people as, for example, sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to children and society . . .")
Does the SPLC then identify those who are against pedophilia as an anti-pedophilia hate group?
Or can someone say that pedophiles are "sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to children and society" without being a hater?
And if someone can say that, then why cannot a Christian group simply point to the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful?
[Romans 1:26-27]
Just as we must never hate or dehumanize pedophiles, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Mark 9:42); and just as we must never hate or dehumanize adulterers, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Galatians 5:19-21); so we must never hate or dehumanize homosexuals, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27).
~
(Re: Just as we must never hate or dehumanize rapists...)
That's right. Instead, we should simply state that what they do is sinful.
(Re: ...So when a racist associates black people with rapists it cannot be taken as an act of hate?)
It can if a racist hates rapists.
Also, what do you mean by a racist "associates" black people with rapists?
Do you mean that racists claim that black people are more likely to be rapists?
If so, on what is that claim based? What are the actual stats?
We know that racism itself is a sin, for . . . (See "God accepted" under Numbers 12 above)
But it is not a sin to say that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), just as it is not a sin to say that pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).
Here the "association" is simply that they are both sinful.
But by your analogy, are you saying that it has been claimed that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles?
If so, on what is that claim based? (That claim has not been made here.) What are the actual stats?
~
(Re: In section 2 of Romans 1:26 above, how can you say that pedophilia will be legalized like homosexuality has been?)
Because pedophilia could be legalized in all cases where "consent" has been established in court, or by some other legal means, just as some states already allow minors to consent to marriage. If they can consent to marriage, then why not to pedophilia?
As an example, imagine that a man is brought before a municipal court on charges of pedophilia with a thirteen-year-old boy. The defendant's counsel brings the boy to the stand to testify.
"Can you say whether you have been harmed by the defendant?"
"No, sir. I have been in no way harmed, but only loved. Preciously loved, like I have never known before."
"Then he did not force himself upon you?"
"No, in no way. He has loved me tenderly from the start. He fills me up with his love. He is my lover. My man. I cannot imagine living without him."
At this point, the defendant's upper lip begins to quiver. And in the jury, a woman's eyes well up with tears. She dabs them with a tissue.
Then the defendant's counsel brings a respected psychiatrist to the stand to testify. The defendant's counsel tells the judge:
"Your honor, the next witness is an advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism, who has proven in peer-reviewed articles in top psychiatric journals that neither homosexuality nor transgenderism per se requires any mental illness whatsoever. To reject her testimony would be to reject these normal expressions of human sexuality, just as I hope to show the court that pedophilia can also be a normal expression of human sexuality."
Judge: "Proceed".
Defendant's counsel to the psychiatrist: "Has the defendant abused the child mentally?"
"Not at all. He has shown the child only gentleness, kindness, and love. I have thoroughly examined the child psychiatrically and he is in perfect mental and emotional health. It would be a total crime to separate him from his lover."
The judge shifts in his seat. For his municipal jurisdiction has clearly outlawed pedophilia.
But at the end of the trial, the jury goes to deliberations and uses "jury nullification" to declare the pedophile innocent. (Jury nullification allows a jury to declare a defendant innocent regardless of the law or the facts in a case.)
The prosecutor appeals to state court, which agrees with him that the law has been broken. But the defendant appeals to federal district court, which agrees with him that no harm, and so no crime, has been committed. The prosecutor appeals to federal circuit court, which agrees with him, saying that the local jurisdiction had the right to outlaw pedophilia in every case. But the defendant appeals to the Supreme Court, which rules that pedophilia is lawful in every case where the child's consent and mental health have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And so pedophilia joins homosexuality and transgenderism as a normal, lawful expression of human sexuality. Pedophilia becomes just another natural, "sexual orientation". Pedophiles become simply "lovers of children", the literal meaning of the word "pedo-phile".
And then the SPLC begins to persecute as "hate groups" and "pedophobic" any Biblical Christian groups who continue to say that pedophilia is a sin.
~
(Re: Just to remind you, dehumanization is the process of demonizing a minority group, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment, leading to the justification of hate, discrimination, and even violence and genocide. You seem to lose track of that)
Then do you agree that it is not dehumanizing to simply state that what pedophiles do is sinful, even though they call it "love" (e.g. NAMBLA)?
And if so, then do you also agree that it is not dehumanizing to simply state that what homosexuals do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), even though they call it "love"?
For neither statement requires that pedophiles or homosexuals themselves should ever be hated or treated inhumanely.
For we all have or own sins to think about, and we must always treat everyone else as we would wish to be treated ourselves (Matthew 7:12). But this cannot involve our denying the fact that our sins are sins, and then trying to force other people to support them, such as forcing them to bake a cake to celebrate them.
For that is tyranny.
We have fallen under a homosexual tyranny.
And the SPLC and Antifa are its Gestapo.
Also, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia-with-consent. For otherwise, pedophilia-with-consent completely undermines all of the homosexual arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".
~
(Re: Regarding a Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for an LGBT wedding, isn't it not the people being discriminated against for who they are, but what they are requesting? For if a person who was not LGBT asked for a pro-LGBT cake they would still be refused on the grounds that the product being asked for goes against a Christian baker's religion)
That is a great point, and it gets to the very heart of the problem: Homosexuals and their supporters mistakenly claim, for example, that a Christian calligrapher not writing invitations to a gay wedding shows "hatred" and "discrimination" against gays themselves, in their persons, when in fact what is being discriminated against is not any person (i.e. the calligrapher could write birthday-party invitations for a gay person), but is against the practice of homosexuality itself, which would be promoted by supporting a gay wedding. Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11), such as homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) or adultery (Galatians 5:19-21), or pedophilia for that matter (Mark 9:42).
So forcing Christians to support any sinful activity denies them their First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion.
It is the same with the right to free speech. It includes the right not to be forced to support any speech which one disagrees with (Harris v. Quinn).
And just as not supporting a speech by a homosexual is not discrimination against that person in himself, so not supporting a sinful activity by a homosexual is not discrimination against that person in himself.
Also, in the "Masterpiece" Supreme Court case, the homosexual plaintiffs even admitted that the Christian baker told them:
"I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings."
So he was not discriminating against their persons at all, but was discriminating against an event which goes against his religion.
~
{Re: If a gas station refused to sell Asians gasoline, but says that they can buy candy from the store, would not that still be discrimination?)
Not against their persons, but against the event of Asians using gasoline. Courts would have to determine if this is based on a "sincere" religion, and why it singles out Asians, as opposed to other races using gasoline. The Christian belief that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27) is not discriminatory, for it applies to all races.
So the analogy fails, because it ties the activity to a race, instead of being an activity which is wrong in itself, regardless of race.
A better analogy would be an owner of a full-service gas station standing by his gas pump when a hot rod pulls up filled with teenagers.
"Hey, old man. Fill 'er up with the highest octane stuff you've got. We're going street racing!"
"Street racing, huh? Sorry, boys, I won't sell you gas for that."
~
(Re: The lack of respect for religious conscience by gay activists has disappointed many among the gay community)
That's great.
For homosexuals should respect that Biblical Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).
Similarly, Biblical Christians should not go to a gay calligrapher and demand that he write 1,000 placards which quote Romans 1:26-27.
Leave each other alone.
But the world will not leave Biblical Christians alone, ultimately. For...
(See Matthew 24:9 above)
~
(Re: Regarding a Christian baker selling generic items to homosexuals, is not even this supportive of their activity?)
No, for Jesus Christ miraculously provided bread for five thousand men (John 6:5-14), most of whom were probably in some unrepentant sin. But the bread was not in support of their sin. On the other hand, imagine if two of the men came to Jesus afterward and said: "We want to marry each other tomorrow. Can you miraculously make hundreds of loaves of bread for our homosexual wedding? We hope to feed many guests". Clearly, Jesus would have declined that request, for it would have been specifically supporting a sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11). Instead, Jesus would have lovingly urged the men to "sin no more", like He urged the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11).
~
(Re: If a Christian baker will not make a wedding item for one customer, then shouldn't he not make wedding items for anyone? That is, in any business, shouldn't how any customer will use any item be irrelevant, or else that item should not be for sale in the first place?)
That is a hard principle, and would ruin many a Christian business.
For example, imagine that a Christian seller of lumber has a customer walk in and ask for some lumber to fix his deck.
"What do you need?"
"I need two 2x4 boards, one ten feet long, and one five feet long."
"No problem. Here you go."
A few days later, the same Christian seller of lumber has another customer walk in and ask for some lumber to build a cross.
"You're building a cross?"
"Yeah, I need two 2x4 boards, one ten feet long, and one five feet long, to make a cross to burn in front of the house of that black family who just moved into our white neighborhood."
"Are you kidding? I'm not going to sell you anything to do that."
"You have to, for you just a few days ago sold the exact same lumber to my white neighbor Sam to fix his deck. You can't discriminate against me."
"I'm not discriminating against you as a person, but against the sinful activity that you want the lumber for. I'm not going to do anything which will help you to terrorize that black family. And don't you know that they're also Christians? For I saw their car in front of the Pentecostal church last Sunday."
"But they're n.....s. We can't have them in our neighborhood."
"And I can't have you in my store. Get out, you racist! Git! Git!"
And the man could be chased out of the store at the end of a broom.
What court is going to charge this Christian seller of lumber with discrimination because he would not sell for a racist purpose the exact same thing that he sold for a non-racist purpose?
~
(Re: But regarding the scenario above, is not it always okay to refuse to sell someone something if you know that he is going to commit a crime with it?)
What about a crime against God's law, such as the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27)?
That is, if a Christian can refuse to sell generic lumber for a KKK cross burning, then why cannot he refuse to sell generic lumber for a gazebo for a homosexual wedding?
~
(Re: Regarding Christian Gay Conversion Therapy, is there any reason to accept as valid people's assertions of being converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality?)
There is no reason to reject them. Christians who were engaging in homosexual sex, and identified themselves as gay, have been able, through Christian Gay Conversion Therapy, to reorient their sexual lives into married heterosexuality, and have children.
There is no reason to ever discount the power of Jesus Christ to free Christians from any sin (John 8:34-36), including the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27), whether through therapy or without it.
Also, the whole idea of a permanent, unchangeable, sinful "sexual orientation" is a lie of Satan, who uses this same idea to assure even pedophiles that what they are doing is a natural, "loving" aspect of human sexuality, and is in no way sinful. For example, compare NAMBLA's idea of "man-boy love".
~
(Re: Is pedophilia only a sexual attraction towards prepubescent children?)
Pedophilia is sexual attraction towards "children" (Webster's), which can refer to any minor (i.e. under 18 years of age).
That is why many states have statutory rape laws against sex with minors, even with consent.
But because pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" toward children, pedophilia-with-consent will have to be supported by homosexuals eventually, or else their whole idea that one's "sexual orientation" is always a natural and good thing will be completely undermined.
~
(Re: Is not the fatal flaw regarding Christian Gay Conversion Therapy that there is no way to judge the credibility of subjects' reports of change in sexual orientation?)
This questioning cuts to the root of the entire "identity" movement. For if someone who used to be gay but who now "identifies" as heterosexual can be "non-credible", then on what basis must it be assumed that someone who now "identifies" as homosexual cannot also be "non-credible"?
That is, this claimed "lack of credibility" is the fatal flaw in any homosexual's assertion that his or her homosexuality is an innate, unchangeable part of his or her being, instead of being simply a sinful predilection (Romans 1:26-27) which can be repented from through the power of Jesus Christ (John 8:34-36).
~
(Re: Jesus ate with sinners and did not care what kind of message that sent about His religious practice)
That's right (Luke 5:30-32).
Similarly, Christians can freely eat with homosexuals, such as at a birthday party for a gay person. For the meal is not in support of the practice of homosexuality, but in support of the person in himself.
Likewise, while Jesus Christ could have eaten with prostitutes, He would have never done so in a way which supported the practice of prostitution. For example, imagine if some prostitutes had come up to Him and said: "We just built a new brothel. We would love for you to come to a dinner tomorrow celebrating its completion". Clearly, Jesus would have declined that invitation, for it would have been specifically supporting a sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11). Instead, Jesus would have lovingly urged the prostitutes to "sin no more", like He urged the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11).
~
(Re: If the Supreme Court accepts "sincere" Christian beliefs as legal, then how is that not a governmental "establishment" of religion, forbidden by the First Amendment?)
It is not establishment for the Supreme Court to accept as sincere the ancient Biblical Christian belief that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), for such an acceptance in no way establishes that belief as the only one allowed by the government, or even the only one officially supported by the government as sincere. For people are still completely free to reject the Bible if they want to, and the government can officially support as sincere other religious beliefs which reject the Bible.
A second reason that it is not establishment to say that if a Christian holds to the 2,000-year-old Biblical Christian teaching that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27) then that Christian holds a sincere Christian belief is because otherwise, one would be saying that the Biblical Christian view of homosexuality has been insincere for 2,000 years, whereas a group of nine people (i.e. the Supreme Court) today gets to now say which ancient, Biblical Christian beliefs are sincere and which are insincere.
~
(Re: Is the Court effectively denying that the beliefs of gay churches are rooted in the Christian tradition?)
Whether they are or not is irrelevant to the Court. It is not the arbiter of Christian truth, but the arbiter of what is a sincere "religion" according to the use of that word in the First Amendment, such as with regard to the requirement that the government allow the "free exercise" of religion.
Clearly, gay churches are sincere in their beliefs, and can be 99% in line with the Bible with regard to doctrine other than whether homosexuality is a sin or not. So the Court is not going to reject the "free exercise" of the religion of gay churches.
Nor should those churches seek to deny the "free exercise" of the religion of churches which say that homosexuality is sinful, based on what the Bible itself teaches (Romans 1:26-27).
They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
But that is what some homosexuals want, sadly. They want to destroy Biblical Christianity at its root by making the Bible "hate speech" and "homophobic" when it says that homosexuality is sinful. And they want to make such speech illegal.
But it is the very word "homophobia" which is in error. Indeed, it is a garbage word which needs to go into the trash. For no one has a "phobia" (fear) of homosexuals, like many people have a "phobia" (fear) of spiders, giving rise to the valid word: "arachnophobia".
Instead, "homophobia" is a word invented out of whole cloth to support an agenda against Biblical Christianity.
It is an Orwellian abuse of the language. It is sinister. And it is calumny.
~
(Re: Why do those who bully others like to hide behind the Bible?)
Note that Biblical Christians do not bully anyone by simply saying that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).
Instead, it is homosexuals who are now bullying Biblical Christians by trying to force them in court to deny their religion.
When the Nazis went after the Jews, they made sure to attack Jewish businesses.
What we are witnessing today is the Kristallnacht stage of the homosexual persecution of Biblical Christians.
Ultimately, there will be a Biblical Christian Holocaust, perpetrated by the whole world (Matthew 24:9-13).
(There may be some people whose mouths water at the very thought of this.)
~
(Re: Will conservative Christian beliefs get the protection of the law, while progressive Christian beliefs will not be acknowledged?)
No, what will happen, eventually, is the exact opposite. The Supreme Court will eventually deny Biblical Christianity the protection of the First Amendment because of its purported "hate", while so-called "progressive" Christian beliefs (as if we can progress in a way which contradicts the Bible) will be acknowledged as the only legal Christian beliefs.
~
(Re: I think your position goes against our church's constitution and could be considered grounds for disciplinary action)
Eventually, even churches will execute those who stubbornly hold to what the Bible teaches, thinking that they are doing God service:
John 16:2 . . . yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
(See also Mark 13:9 above)
--
*Romans 2:4 / *Rom. 2:4 -
God grants only elect individuals the miraculous ability to repent from sin and believe in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18b, Acts 13:48b), while God hardens nonelect individuals in their sinfulness, because He created them to be vessels of His wrath (Romans 9:18-22).
(See the "Vessels of wrath" section of Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Romans 2:5 / *Rom. 2:5 -
Here the original Greek has no "the" before "day of wrath". And the word translated as "day" (hemera: G2250) does not have to mean a 24-hour day. For the word can be used figuratively to refer to a much longer period of time (2 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Peter 3:8, John 8:56). The final stage of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 will be when God's vials of wrath will be poured out on the world (Revelation 16), possibly over a period of 75 days.
(See Daniel 12:11 above)
This wrath will be followed by the wrath of God at Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:15-21), which will occur immediately after the future Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-30). Ultimately, after the subsequent Millennium and Gog/Magog rebellion (Revelation 20:4-10), non-Christians of all times will be physically resurrected at the Great White Throne Judgment, judged by their works, and cast into the eternal wrath of the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 20:11-15,10, Revelation 14:10-11, Matthew 25:41,46).
--
*Romans 2:6-8 / *Rom. 2:6 -
(Re: *Works)
Christians must have both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law), if they are to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For Christians must continue to do righteous deeds if they are to continue to be righteous (1 John 3:7, James 2:24,26). And there is no assurance that Christians will choose to do that, instead of wrongly employing their free will to become utterly lazy without repentance, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).
(See also Philippians 2:13 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 below. And see section 2 of Ephesians 2:8 below)
~
(Re: Does that make the Trinity a *Quadity?)
No, for it does not turn Christians into God. The Trinity (YHWH) alone is God (Isaiah 44:6). For the Trinity alone is uncreated (John 1:3), and it alone has life in itself (John 5:26). Christians, on the other hand, will forever remain the creations of God (Revelation 4:11), and will forever have life only as they continue to abide in God (John 15:6). But their abiding in God does connect them with God in the closest way possible, as close as a body is connected to its head (Colossians 1:18), or a wife is connected to her husband (Ephesians 5:31-32).
~
(Re: Are we *bribing God with works? Or, are we depending on our own merit, and not on the finished work of the *Cross?)
No, for when initially saved people, that is, Christians, perform good works, they are not trying to bribe God to forgive their sins, or grant them ultimate salvation. Nor are they depending on their own merit, and not on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. For God cannot be bribed, and sins can be forgiven only through faith in Jesus and His sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Romans 3:25-26). But God does nonetheless still require that those with faith in Jesus patiently continue in good works if they are to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For faith without works is dead (James 2:17-26).
(See also Luke 17:10 above)
~
(Re: If I convert on my deathbed, and do not do good works, am I still saved from hell?)
So long as the lack of good works was due to physical disability, instead of wickedness and laziness (Matthew 25:26,30).
But even someone saved on his deathbed will want to do good works, such as praying and the giving of alms, which are highly prized by God (Acts 10:4).
--
*Romans 2:11 / *Rom. 2:11 -
See Acts 10:34 above.
--
*Romans 2:14-15 / *Rom. 2:14 -
This does not refer to Gentiles keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which includes the Ten Commandments. For while even Gentile Christians perform that law (Romans 3:31), they do so only with regard to its spirit (Romans 7:6), by loving other people (Romans 13:8).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Romans 2:16 / *Rom. 2:16 -
God will ultimately judge everyone (Romans 2:6), but not on the same 24-hour day. In Romans 2:16, in the original Greek Textus Receptus, there is no "the" before "day"; and...
(See "the Greek word" under Matthew 12:36 above)
--
*Romans 2:17 / *Rom. 2:17 -
The apostle Paul can be addressing Gentile Christians throughout the book of Romans. For he saw the church in Rome as being a Gentile congregation (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing Gentile Christians at Rome who were also Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become physically circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" do today. Also, nothing in Romans 11:13 requires that Paul means: "Now I am changing focus and will start to speak to you Gentiles", instead of meaning: "I am addressing this entire letter to you Gentiles because that is to whom I am supposed to be ministering". Compare what Romans 15:16, Acts 22:21, and Acts 26:17 say.
--
*Romans 2:22 / *Rom. 2:22 -
The original Greek word (hierosuleo: G2416) translated as "dost thou commit sacrilege" can mean "are you a temple-robber?"
--
*Romans 2:29 / *Rom. 2:29 -
It is in accord with the context in Romans 2:26, where "the uncircumcision" refers to the Gentiles (Romans 4:9,16, Galatians 2:7-8); and it is in accord with the related scriptures of Philippians 3:3 and Colossians 2:11-13, to say that Romans 2:29 refers to those who are circumcised Jews in spirit, whether they are Jewish or Gentile Christians (Philippians 3:3), through their having undergone water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).
~
(Re: Is it addressing Gentiles?)
See Romans 2:17 above.
--
*Romans 3:2 / *Rom. 3:2 -
The oracles of God given to Israel (Romans 3:2) include the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) by which all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, become saved from hell (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15).
--
*Romans 3:7 / *Rom. 3:7 -
Here the apostle Paul is not saying that his preaching is a lie. Instead, he is saying what had been slanderously reported of him (Romans 3:8). Paul always preached the truth of God's Word the Bible (Acts 26:22-23).
--
*Romans 3:9-20 / *Rom. 3:9 -
Both Romans 3:9-20 and Romans 2:6-7 are true. For Romans 3:9-20 refers to the guilty condition of all people before they become Christians, not after (1 Corinthians 6:11). And the apostle Paul nowhere says that Christians must necessarily fail at Romans 2:7.
(See John 8:34 above)
~
(Re: Are children *innocent?)
No, there are no innocent children (Romans 3:10), because of original sin (Romans 5:19a, Psalms 51:5, Psalms 58:3).
(See Romans 5:19a below)
--
*Romans 3:12b / *Rom. 3:12b -
See John 8:34 above.
--
*Romans 3:19-30 / *Rom. 3:19 -
This means that by the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, no one will be justified (Acts 13:39). Romans 3:19-30 is not contradicting that... (See Romans 2:6 above)
--
*Romans 3:20 / *Rom. 3:20 -
There is no other way for anyone at any time to be saved except by God's grace (Romans 3:20,24).
Also, Romans 3:20 relates to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including its Ten Commandments. For that law was not of faith (Galatians 3:12). But the New Covenant/New Testament law of Jesus Christ is of faith (John 14:12, Titus 3:8).
Also, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including its Ten Commandments, was while "the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). But the New Covenant/New Testament law of Jesus Christ is of the Spirit. For "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). And Christians obey Jesus' law through the Spirit (Romans 8:13).
So Christians should not try to live without Jesus' New Covenant law, but instead keep it by faith and the Spirit.
(See the "stricter" section of Matthew 5:19 above)
--
*Romans 3:21 / *Rom. 3:21 -
(Re: No "the" before law)
See Romans 3:30 below.
--
*Romans 3:25 / *Rom. 3:25 -
(Re: Past sins)
See "past" under Hebrews 10:26 below.
~
(Re: Means that works are not required for ultimate salvation?)
See section 4 of James 2:14 below.
~
(Re: Are the elect born with their sins forgiven?)
No, for the sins of the elect are not forgiven until they believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43, Acts 26:18), and His sacrificial blood (Romans 3:25-26), repent from their sins (Hebrews 10:26-29), confess them to God (1 John 1:9), forgive everyone who has ever wronged them (Matthew 6:14-15), do all that they can (Romans 12:18) to make reparations to and peace with everyone whom they have ever wronged (Matthew 5:23-26, Acts 24:16), and get baptized (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).
~
(Re: Does requiring faith take away the accomplishment of Jesus' blood and make man's faith that which propitiates?) / (*Billionaire analogy)
No, for requiring faith for forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43) does not take away the accomplishment of Jesus' sacrificial blood. Nor does faith by itself propitiate sin. But propitiation comes to people only through their having faith in Jesus Christ and His sacrificial blood (Romans 3:25-26). An analogy would be a billionaire giving some poor people some checkbooks filled with blank checks signed by him which draw on his bank account, and telling them that they can write as many checks as they need to pay off their debts. If the people do not believe that there is any (or enough) money in the account, then they will not write any checks drawing on it, and so they will never benefit from it. But this does not void the money in the account. And if the people do believe that there is enough money in the account, their belief does not take away the accomplishment of the billionaire in filling the account with his own money and offering them access to it. Nor can their belief by itself pay off their debts. It will still be the billionaire's own money which will pay off their debts as they by faith write checks drawing on his account.
--
*Romans 3:30 / *Rom. 3:30 -
This can mean both that initial justification is by faith without works (Romans 4:1-5, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) (so that the future tense of Romans 3:30 includes those not yet initially justified), and that neither initial justification nor ultimate justification requires works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 3:28, Acts 13:39). Romans 3:30 is not contradicting that... (See Romans 2:6 above)
--
*Romans 3:31 / *Rom. 3:31 -
See "Romans 3:31" under Mark 10:11 above.
--
*Romans 4:1-5 / *Rom. 4:1 -
This means that initial justification is by faith in Jesus Christ without works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). Romans 4:1-5 is not contradicting that... (See Romans 2:6 above)
--
*Romans 4:4 / *Rom. 4:4 -
This does not apply to the ultimate salvation of those who are already Christians, for a master does not go into debt to his servant (Luke 17:10).
For Christians do not become the employees of Jesus Christ, but must become His willing servants/slaves (doulos: G1401) (Revelation 1:1), forsaking everything that they have (Luke 14:33).
(See also Luke 17:10 above)
--
*Romans 4:8 / *Rom. 4:8 -
This applies only so long as we repent from our sins (Hebrews 10:26-29) and confess them to God (1 John 1:9).
--
*Romans 4:12 / *Rom. 4:12 -
Walking in the steps of Abraham's faith (Romans 4:12) requires performing works of faith, like Abraham did (James 2:21-24).
--
*Romans 4:13 / *Rom. 4:13 -
This means that the promise to Abraham that he would be heir of the world was not given through the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which had not even been given yet, and would not be given until hundreds of years later (Galatians 3:17-18).
The promise of Romans 4:13 could refer to Genesis 22:17-18 and Genesis 17:4-6.
Romans 4:13 refers to the future, worldwide Kingdom of God in its physical aspect, which will first be fulfilled during the future Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). Abraham will be there (Luke 13:28-29).
--
*Romans 4:14-15 / *Rom. 4:14 -
This refers to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which is not of faith (Galatians 3:12).
--
*Romans 5:2 / *Rom. 5:2 -
This means that as Christians choose to continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23), they continue to have access to God's grace (Hebrews 4:16). At the same time, other verses show that it is only by God's grace that the elect (the chosen) (Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 9:11-24, Acts 13:48b) are given God's miraculous gift of faith in Jesus Christ in the first place (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2).
(See Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Romans 5:8 / *Rom. 5:8 -
Here, "us" refers only to elect individuals. For God hates nonelect individuals (Romans 9:11-13). Romans 5:8 does not contradict double predestination, but is part of it. For God loves elect individuals, not only before they get saved from hell (Romans 11:28), but even before they are born (Romans 9:11-13). Elect individuals were chosen (elected) by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). And Jesus Christ was slain before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:20), in the sense that God had already determined, and so foreknew (Acts 2:23), before the foundation of the world, that every human but Jesus would be a sinner, and that He (God the Father) would send Jesus to suffer and die on the Cross to make possible the salvation of elect individuals (Ephesians 1:4-7). But God loving elect individuals enough to save them from hell even while they were yet sinners (Romans 5:8) does not require once-saved-always-saved.
(See Jude 1:21 below)
--
*Romans 5:9-10 / *Rom. 5:9 -
See Hebrews 10:26 below.
--
*Romans 5:10-11 / *Rom. 5:10 -
Atonement was by Jesus Christ's death (Romans 5:10-11) and at the moment of His death (Matthew 27:50-51, Hebrews 10:19-22). Jesus' New Covenant blood (Matthew 26:28) is not under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Hebrews 10:8-10).
*******
(Continued in Comments: Dec 11, 2018)
One way this could happen is through a campaign wrought by adherents of the future Antichrist's religion, which is Satanism, also called Gnostic Luciferianism. For its secret adherents already run some major media outlets. And they could paint all Biblical Christians as dangerous, violent fanatics, after a series of gruesome, "false flag" terrorist attacks against LGBT people, and against non-Christian, religious people such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.
For after these attacks, which will actually be perpetrated by temporarily-hired, "street scum" agents of the Satanists, "false flag" notices could be planted on Christian websites which will claim responsibility for the attacks, saying that the victims were "slain in the name of Jesus Christ, by the wrath of the Lord of the Holy Bible". In this way, the world could (mistakenly) be made to think that Biblical Christians are starting to get violent against LGBT and non-Christian, religious people. And so laws could be passed to "put a stop to this madness of the Biblical Christians".
(Contrast Matthew 5:39 above)
Any Christian who refuses to sign a declaration that LGBT people are not sinners (as in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and that those of non-Christian religions will not be damned (as in John 3:36), could be fined. And if they refuse to pay the fine, they could be arrested and held indefinitely in detention centers, and given "reeducation classes" until they agree to sign the declaration. Those who refuse to partake in the classes could be placed in regular prisons due to (what could be called) "the dangerous hatred which they have displayed against other people simply because of their natural, sexual orientation/identity, or because of their religious tradition".
It will not matter if a Biblical Christian has never committed any violence against other people, or even if he affirms that he is a total pacifist: The very refusal to sign the declaration could still be deemed to be a case of "hate speech", or "hate thought". It could be said that "modern society, in this age of terrorism, can no longer afford to condone such vile, medieval thinking".
Even when things reach this point in our future, Biblical Christians must never become violent to (as they could say) "take action to defend our freedom of religion, and our free-speech rights". There must be no modern-day Mattathiases (1 Maccabees 2:1) who will take it upon themselves to start murdering government officials (1 Maccabees 2:23-26), and leading armies of rebel Christians against sinners (1 Maccabees 2:44). For this will only play right into the hands of the government, and its mistaken idea that all Biblical Christians are dangerous, violent fanatics. And such violence will be a direct disobedience to the commands of Jesus Christ Himself that Christians are never to employ violence: "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52). And even when, in our future, Biblical Christians will be attacked violently by governments and enraged civilians throughout the world (Matthew 24:9-14), Biblical Christians are never to return any violence. For: "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39).
The victory of Biblical Christians will not be in their slaughtering of sinners, but in their patiently being slaughtered by sinners, for the sake of Jesus Christ: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake" (Matthew 24:9). "As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us" (Romans 8:36-37). "And they overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death" (Revelation 12:11).
[John 12:25, Mark 8:35; 1 Peter 4:12-15, Revelation 13:7,10, Revelation 14:12-13]
(See also Mark 13:9, Luke 10:19, and Matthew 5:39 above)
(Also, regarding the Antichrist's religion of Satanism, also called Gnostic Luciferianism, see Revelation 13:4 below)
~
(Re: How is Romans 1:26-27 referring to the LGBT community?)
Romans 1:26 is referring to lesbians, who have unnatural, sexual affections for each other:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature . . .
And Romans 1:27 is referring to male homosexuals, "gays", who have unnatural, sexual lust for each other:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here the "recompence of their error" at the time that Romans 1:27 was written in the first century AD could have been hepatitis-type infections, but it would also include, in principle, the horrible AIDS plague in our own time.
(Regarding transgenderism, see section 4 of Numbers 12 above)
~
(Re: In August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the Family Research Council headquarters, and specifically said that he used the SPLC designation of "hate group" for the FRC in making his choice of target)
This is a good example of how the enemies of the Bible are not peaceful, but show the same violent hatred for others which they wrongly accuse Biblical Christians of having. These anti-Christian groups are the real hate groups. Indeed, they are Satanic.
~
(Re: How can homosexuality be "against nature"?)
Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:
[Matthew 19:4-5]
God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.
(See also section 2 of Numbers 12 above)
Homosexuality could be the result of how one was raised, that is, based on poor "nurture", rather than "nature".
For example, boys who grew up without paternal love could be more likely to become gay.
And girls who grew up without maternal love could be more likely to become lesbians.
That is, their sexual orientation is a desperate striving for the love which they never got as children.
Also, we cannot trust so-called "scientific" studies today which purport that homosexuality can be nothing but "nature" instead of "nurture", because all such studies start out with the presuppositions of "political correctness". If any study's results began to undermine these presuppositions, the study would be immediately abandoned as "flawed". Otherwise, the scientists involved would have their careers completely destroyed by their universities and the media.
For the universities and the media have been swallowed whole by "political correctness".
It is a black hole which lets no light (truth) escape.
"Political correctness" is the death of truth.
Even conservative media like Fox refuse to speak any truth regarding homosexuality, and its agenda against Biblical Christianity, for fear of being boycotted by advertisers.
Just more proof that:
1 Timothy 6:10 . . . the love of money is the root of all evil . . .
So there needs to be a conservative news source which is not dependent on advertisers.
Think of an "NPR2" supported by government funds and staffed by conservatives, just as NPR is supported by government funds and staffed by leftists who are continually trying to push the falsehoods of "political correctness".
~
(Re: Gay Seattle Coffee Shop Owner Evicts Peaceful Christians)
He has every right to do so, just as a Christian Seattle coffee shop owner would have every right to evict peaceful gays.
Similarly, a gay Seattle bakery owner would have every right not to bake a cake for a Christian with Romans 1:26-27 written on it, just as a Christian Seattle bakery owner would have every right not to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
(Or do gays want to have their cake and eat it too?)
~
(Re: Do Christian businesses have the right to arbitrarily fire people because they are members of a minority?)
Note that pedophiles, for example, are a minority. But any business can still fire a pedophile for bringing his eight-year-old lover to work.
For we are talking about a minority based on sinful actions, not a minority based on skin color.
~
(Re: The SPLC explicitly identifies what qualifies a group as an anti-gay hate group: "[they] use dehumanizing language and pseudoscientific falsehoods to portray LGBT people as, for example, sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to children and society . . .")
Does the SPLC then identify those who are against pedophilia as an anti-pedophilia hate group?
Or can someone say that pedophiles are "sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to children and society" without being a hater?
And if someone can say that, then why cannot a Christian group simply point to the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful?
[Romans 1:26-27]
Just as we must never hate or dehumanize pedophiles, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Mark 9:42); and just as we must never hate or dehumanize adulterers, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Galatians 5:19-21); so we must never hate or dehumanize homosexuals, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27).
~
(Re: Just as we must never hate or dehumanize rapists...)
That's right. Instead, we should simply state that what they do is sinful.
(Re: ...So when a racist associates black people with rapists it cannot be taken as an act of hate?)
It can if a racist hates rapists.
Also, what do you mean by a racist "associates" black people with rapists?
Do you mean that racists claim that black people are more likely to be rapists?
If so, on what is that claim based? What are the actual stats?
We know that racism itself is a sin, for . . . (See "God accepted" under Numbers 12 above)
But it is not a sin to say that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), just as it is not a sin to say that pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).
Here the "association" is simply that they are both sinful.
But by your analogy, are you saying that it has been claimed that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles?
If so, on what is that claim based? (That claim has not been made here.) What are the actual stats?
~
(Re: In section 2 of Romans 1:26 above, how can you say that pedophilia will be legalized like homosexuality has been?)
Because pedophilia could be legalized in all cases where "consent" has been established in court, or by some other legal means, just as some states already allow minors to consent to marriage. If they can consent to marriage, then why not to pedophilia?
As an example, imagine that a man is brought before a municipal court on charges of pedophilia with a thirteen-year-old boy. The defendant's counsel brings the boy to the stand to testify.
"Can you say whether you have been harmed by the defendant?"
"No, sir. I have been in no way harmed, but only loved. Preciously loved, like I have never known before."
"Then he did not force himself upon you?"
"No, in no way. He has loved me tenderly from the start. He fills me up with his love. He is my lover. My man. I cannot imagine living without him."
At this point, the defendant's upper lip begins to quiver. And in the jury, a woman's eyes well up with tears. She dabs them with a tissue.
Then the defendant's counsel brings a respected psychiatrist to the stand to testify. The defendant's counsel tells the judge:
"Your honor, the next witness is an advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism, who has proven in peer-reviewed articles in top psychiatric journals that neither homosexuality nor transgenderism per se requires any mental illness whatsoever. To reject her testimony would be to reject these normal expressions of human sexuality, just as I hope to show the court that pedophilia can also be a normal expression of human sexuality."
Judge: "Proceed".
Defendant's counsel to the psychiatrist: "Has the defendant abused the child mentally?"
"Not at all. He has shown the child only gentleness, kindness, and love. I have thoroughly examined the child psychiatrically and he is in perfect mental and emotional health. It would be a total crime to separate him from his lover."
The judge shifts in his seat. For his municipal jurisdiction has clearly outlawed pedophilia.
But at the end of the trial, the jury goes to deliberations and uses "jury nullification" to declare the pedophile innocent. (Jury nullification allows a jury to declare a defendant innocent regardless of the law or the facts in a case.)
The prosecutor appeals to state court, which agrees with him that the law has been broken. But the defendant appeals to federal district court, which agrees with him that no harm, and so no crime, has been committed. The prosecutor appeals to federal circuit court, which agrees with him, saying that the local jurisdiction had the right to outlaw pedophilia in every case. But the defendant appeals to the Supreme Court, which rules that pedophilia is lawful in every case where the child's consent and mental health have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And so pedophilia joins homosexuality and transgenderism as a normal, lawful expression of human sexuality. Pedophilia becomes just another natural, "sexual orientation". Pedophiles become simply "lovers of children", the literal meaning of the word "pedo-phile".
And then the SPLC begins to persecute as "hate groups" and "pedophobic" any Biblical Christian groups who continue to say that pedophilia is a sin.
~
(Re: Just to remind you, dehumanization is the process of demonizing a minority group, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment, leading to the justification of hate, discrimination, and even violence and genocide. You seem to lose track of that)
Then do you agree that it is not dehumanizing to simply state that what pedophiles do is sinful, even though they call it "love" (e.g. NAMBLA)?
And if so, then do you also agree that it is not dehumanizing to simply state that what homosexuals do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), even though they call it "love"?
For neither statement requires that pedophiles or homosexuals themselves should ever be hated or treated inhumanely.
For we all have or own sins to think about, and we must always treat everyone else as we would wish to be treated ourselves (Matthew 7:12). But this cannot involve our denying the fact that our sins are sins, and then trying to force other people to support them, such as forcing them to bake a cake to celebrate them.
For that is tyranny.
We have fallen under a homosexual tyranny.
And the SPLC and Antifa are its Gestapo.
Also, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia-with-consent. For otherwise, pedophilia-with-consent completely undermines all of the homosexual arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".
~
(Re: Regarding a Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for an LGBT wedding, isn't it not the people being discriminated against for who they are, but what they are requesting? For if a person who was not LGBT asked for a pro-LGBT cake they would still be refused on the grounds that the product being asked for goes against a Christian baker's religion)
That is a great point, and it gets to the very heart of the problem: Homosexuals and their supporters mistakenly claim, for example, that a Christian calligrapher not writing invitations to a gay wedding shows "hatred" and "discrimination" against gays themselves, in their persons, when in fact what is being discriminated against is not any person (i.e. the calligrapher could write birthday-party invitations for a gay person), but is against the practice of homosexuality itself, which would be promoted by supporting a gay wedding. Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11), such as homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) or adultery (Galatians 5:19-21), or pedophilia for that matter (Mark 9:42).
So forcing Christians to support any sinful activity denies them their First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion.
It is the same with the right to free speech. It includes the right not to be forced to support any speech which one disagrees with (Harris v. Quinn).
And just as not supporting a speech by a homosexual is not discrimination against that person in himself, so not supporting a sinful activity by a homosexual is not discrimination against that person in himself.
Also, in the "Masterpiece" Supreme Court case, the homosexual plaintiffs even admitted that the Christian baker told them:
"I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings."
So he was not discriminating against their persons at all, but was discriminating against an event which goes against his religion.
~
{Re: If a gas station refused to sell Asians gasoline, but says that they can buy candy from the store, would not that still be discrimination?)
Not against their persons, but against the event of Asians using gasoline. Courts would have to determine if this is based on a "sincere" religion, and why it singles out Asians, as opposed to other races using gasoline. The Christian belief that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27) is not discriminatory, for it applies to all races.
So the analogy fails, because it ties the activity to a race, instead of being an activity which is wrong in itself, regardless of race.
A better analogy would be an owner of a full-service gas station standing by his gas pump when a hot rod pulls up filled with teenagers.
"Hey, old man. Fill 'er up with the highest octane stuff you've got. We're going street racing!"
"Street racing, huh? Sorry, boys, I won't sell you gas for that."
~
(Re: The lack of respect for religious conscience by gay activists has disappointed many among the gay community)
That's great.
For homosexuals should respect that Biblical Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).
Similarly, Biblical Christians should not go to a gay calligrapher and demand that he write 1,000 placards which quote Romans 1:26-27.
Leave each other alone.
But the world will not leave Biblical Christians alone, ultimately. For...
(See Matthew 24:9 above)
~
(Re: Regarding a Christian baker selling generic items to homosexuals, is not even this supportive of their activity?)
No, for Jesus Christ miraculously provided bread for five thousand men (John 6:5-14), most of whom were probably in some unrepentant sin. But the bread was not in support of their sin. On the other hand, imagine if two of the men came to Jesus afterward and said: "We want to marry each other tomorrow. Can you miraculously make hundreds of loaves of bread for our homosexual wedding? We hope to feed many guests". Clearly, Jesus would have declined that request, for it would have been specifically supporting a sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11). Instead, Jesus would have lovingly urged the men to "sin no more", like He urged the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11).
~
(Re: If a Christian baker will not make a wedding item for one customer, then shouldn't he not make wedding items for anyone? That is, in any business, shouldn't how any customer will use any item be irrelevant, or else that item should not be for sale in the first place?)
That is a hard principle, and would ruin many a Christian business.
For example, imagine that a Christian seller of lumber has a customer walk in and ask for some lumber to fix his deck.
"What do you need?"
"I need two 2x4 boards, one ten feet long, and one five feet long."
"No problem. Here you go."
A few days later, the same Christian seller of lumber has another customer walk in and ask for some lumber to build a cross.
"You're building a cross?"
"Yeah, I need two 2x4 boards, one ten feet long, and one five feet long, to make a cross to burn in front of the house of that black family who just moved into our white neighborhood."
"Are you kidding? I'm not going to sell you anything to do that."
"You have to, for you just a few days ago sold the exact same lumber to my white neighbor Sam to fix his deck. You can't discriminate against me."
"I'm not discriminating against you as a person, but against the sinful activity that you want the lumber for. I'm not going to do anything which will help you to terrorize that black family. And don't you know that they're also Christians? For I saw their car in front of the Pentecostal church last Sunday."
"But they're n.....s. We can't have them in our neighborhood."
"And I can't have you in my store. Get out, you racist! Git! Git!"
And the man could be chased out of the store at the end of a broom.
What court is going to charge this Christian seller of lumber with discrimination because he would not sell for a racist purpose the exact same thing that he sold for a non-racist purpose?
~
(Re: But regarding the scenario above, is not it always okay to refuse to sell someone something if you know that he is going to commit a crime with it?)
What about a crime against God's law, such as the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27)?
That is, if a Christian can refuse to sell generic lumber for a KKK cross burning, then why cannot he refuse to sell generic lumber for a gazebo for a homosexual wedding?
~
(Re: Regarding Christian Gay Conversion Therapy, is there any reason to accept as valid people's assertions of being converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality?)
There is no reason to reject them. Christians who were engaging in homosexual sex, and identified themselves as gay, have been able, through Christian Gay Conversion Therapy, to reorient their sexual lives into married heterosexuality, and have children.
There is no reason to ever discount the power of Jesus Christ to free Christians from any sin (John 8:34-36), including the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27), whether through therapy or without it.
Also, the whole idea of a permanent, unchangeable, sinful "sexual orientation" is a lie of Satan, who uses this same idea to assure even pedophiles that what they are doing is a natural, "loving" aspect of human sexuality, and is in no way sinful. For example, compare NAMBLA's idea of "man-boy love".
~
(Re: Is pedophilia only a sexual attraction towards prepubescent children?)
Pedophilia is sexual attraction towards "children" (Webster's), which can refer to any minor (i.e. under 18 years of age).
That is why many states have statutory rape laws against sex with minors, even with consent.
But because pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" toward children, pedophilia-with-consent will have to be supported by homosexuals eventually, or else their whole idea that one's "sexual orientation" is always a natural and good thing will be completely undermined.
~
(Re: Is not the fatal flaw regarding Christian Gay Conversion Therapy that there is no way to judge the credibility of subjects' reports of change in sexual orientation?)
This questioning cuts to the root of the entire "identity" movement. For if someone who used to be gay but who now "identifies" as heterosexual can be "non-credible", then on what basis must it be assumed that someone who now "identifies" as homosexual cannot also be "non-credible"?
That is, this claimed "lack of credibility" is the fatal flaw in any homosexual's assertion that his or her homosexuality is an innate, unchangeable part of his or her being, instead of being simply a sinful predilection (Romans 1:26-27) which can be repented from through the power of Jesus Christ (John 8:34-36).
~
(Re: Jesus ate with sinners and did not care what kind of message that sent about His religious practice)
That's right (Luke 5:30-32).
Similarly, Christians can freely eat with homosexuals, such as at a birthday party for a gay person. For the meal is not in support of the practice of homosexuality, but in support of the person in himself.
Likewise, while Jesus Christ could have eaten with prostitutes, He would have never done so in a way which supported the practice of prostitution. For example, imagine if some prostitutes had come up to Him and said: "We just built a new brothel. We would love for you to come to a dinner tomorrow celebrating its completion". Clearly, Jesus would have declined that invitation, for it would have been specifically supporting a sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11). Instead, Jesus would have lovingly urged the prostitutes to "sin no more", like He urged the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11).
~
(Re: If the Supreme Court accepts "sincere" Christian beliefs as legal, then how is that not a governmental "establishment" of religion, forbidden by the First Amendment?)
It is not establishment for the Supreme Court to accept as sincere the ancient Biblical Christian belief that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), for such an acceptance in no way establishes that belief as the only one allowed by the government, or even the only one officially supported by the government as sincere. For people are still completely free to reject the Bible if they want to, and the government can officially support as sincere other religious beliefs which reject the Bible.
A second reason that it is not establishment to say that if a Christian holds to the 2,000-year-old Biblical Christian teaching that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27) then that Christian holds a sincere Christian belief is because otherwise, one would be saying that the Biblical Christian view of homosexuality has been insincere for 2,000 years, whereas a group of nine people (i.e. the Supreme Court) today gets to now say which ancient, Biblical Christian beliefs are sincere and which are insincere.
~
(Re: Is the Court effectively denying that the beliefs of gay churches are rooted in the Christian tradition?)
Whether they are or not is irrelevant to the Court. It is not the arbiter of Christian truth, but the arbiter of what is a sincere "religion" according to the use of that word in the First Amendment, such as with regard to the requirement that the government allow the "free exercise" of religion.
Clearly, gay churches are sincere in their beliefs, and can be 99% in line with the Bible with regard to doctrine other than whether homosexuality is a sin or not. So the Court is not going to reject the "free exercise" of the religion of gay churches.
Nor should those churches seek to deny the "free exercise" of the religion of churches which say that homosexuality is sinful, based on what the Bible itself teaches (Romans 1:26-27).
They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
But that is what some homosexuals want, sadly. They want to destroy Biblical Christianity at its root by making the Bible "hate speech" and "homophobic" when it says that homosexuality is sinful. And they want to make such speech illegal.
But it is the very word "homophobia" which is in error. Indeed, it is a garbage word which needs to go into the trash. For no one has a "phobia" (fear) of homosexuals, like many people have a "phobia" (fear) of spiders, giving rise to the valid word: "arachnophobia".
Instead, "homophobia" is a word invented out of whole cloth to support an agenda against Biblical Christianity.
It is an Orwellian abuse of the language. It is sinister. And it is calumny.
~
(Re: Why do those who bully others like to hide behind the Bible?)
Note that Biblical Christians do not bully anyone by simply saying that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).
Instead, it is homosexuals who are now bullying Biblical Christians by trying to force them in court to deny their religion.
When the Nazis went after the Jews, they made sure to attack Jewish businesses.
What we are witnessing today is the Kristallnacht stage of the homosexual persecution of Biblical Christians.
Ultimately, there will be a Biblical Christian Holocaust, perpetrated by the whole world (Matthew 24:9-13).
(There may be some people whose mouths water at the very thought of this.)
~
(Re: Will conservative Christian beliefs get the protection of the law, while progressive Christian beliefs will not be acknowledged?)
No, what will happen, eventually, is the exact opposite. The Supreme Court will eventually deny Biblical Christianity the protection of the First Amendment because of its purported "hate", while so-called "progressive" Christian beliefs (as if we can progress in a way which contradicts the Bible) will be acknowledged as the only legal Christian beliefs.
~
(Re: I think your position goes against our church's constitution and could be considered grounds for disciplinary action)
Eventually, even churches will execute those who stubbornly hold to what the Bible teaches, thinking that they are doing God service:
John 16:2 . . . yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
(See also Mark 13:9 above)
--
*Romans 2:4 / *Rom. 2:4 -
God grants only elect individuals the miraculous ability to repent from sin and believe in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18b, Acts 13:48b), while God hardens nonelect individuals in their sinfulness, because He created them to be vessels of His wrath (Romans 9:18-22).
(See the "Vessels of wrath" section of Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Romans 2:5 / *Rom. 2:5 -
Here the original Greek has no "the" before "day of wrath". And the word translated as "day" (hemera: G2250) does not have to mean a 24-hour day. For the word can be used figuratively to refer to a much longer period of time (2 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Peter 3:8, John 8:56). The final stage of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 will be when God's vials of wrath will be poured out on the world (Revelation 16), possibly over a period of 75 days.
(See Daniel 12:11 above)
This wrath will be followed by the wrath of God at Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:15-21), which will occur immediately after the future Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-30). Ultimately, after the subsequent Millennium and Gog/Magog rebellion (Revelation 20:4-10), non-Christians of all times will be physically resurrected at the Great White Throne Judgment, judged by their works, and cast into the eternal wrath of the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 20:11-15,10, Revelation 14:10-11, Matthew 25:41,46).
--
*Romans 2:6-8 / *Rom. 2:6 -
(Re: *Works)
Christians must have both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law), if they are to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For Christians must continue to do righteous deeds if they are to continue to be righteous (1 John 3:7, James 2:24,26). And there is no assurance that Christians will choose to do that, instead of wrongly employing their free will to become utterly lazy without repentance, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).
(See also Philippians 2:13 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 below. And see section 2 of Ephesians 2:8 below)
~
(Re: Does that make the Trinity a *Quadity?)
No, for it does not turn Christians into God. The Trinity (YHWH) alone is God (Isaiah 44:6). For the Trinity alone is uncreated (John 1:3), and it alone has life in itself (John 5:26). Christians, on the other hand, will forever remain the creations of God (Revelation 4:11), and will forever have life only as they continue to abide in God (John 15:6). But their abiding in God does connect them with God in the closest way possible, as close as a body is connected to its head (Colossians 1:18), or a wife is connected to her husband (Ephesians 5:31-32).
~
(Re: Are we *bribing God with works? Or, are we depending on our own merit, and not on the finished work of the *Cross?)
No, for when initially saved people, that is, Christians, perform good works, they are not trying to bribe God to forgive their sins, or grant them ultimate salvation. Nor are they depending on their own merit, and not on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. For God cannot be bribed, and sins can be forgiven only through faith in Jesus and His sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Romans 3:25-26). But God does nonetheless still require that those with faith in Jesus patiently continue in good works if they are to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For faith without works is dead (James 2:17-26).
(See also Luke 17:10 above)
~
(Re: If I convert on my deathbed, and do not do good works, am I still saved from hell?)
So long as the lack of good works was due to physical disability, instead of wickedness and laziness (Matthew 25:26,30).
But even someone saved on his deathbed will want to do good works, such as praying and the giving of alms, which are highly prized by God (Acts 10:4).
--
*Romans 2:11 / *Rom. 2:11 -
See Acts 10:34 above.
--
*Romans 2:14-15 / *Rom. 2:14 -
This does not refer to Gentiles keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which includes the Ten Commandments. For while even Gentile Christians perform that law (Romans 3:31), they do so only with regard to its spirit (Romans 7:6), by loving other people (Romans 13:8).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Romans 2:16 / *Rom. 2:16 -
God will ultimately judge everyone (Romans 2:6), but not on the same 24-hour day. In Romans 2:16, in the original Greek Textus Receptus, there is no "the" before "day"; and...
(See "the Greek word" under Matthew 12:36 above)
--
*Romans 2:17 / *Rom. 2:17 -
The apostle Paul can be addressing Gentile Christians throughout the book of Romans. For he saw the church in Rome as being a Gentile congregation (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing Gentile Christians at Rome who were also Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become physically circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" do today. Also, nothing in Romans 11:13 requires that Paul means: "Now I am changing focus and will start to speak to you Gentiles", instead of meaning: "I am addressing this entire letter to you Gentiles because that is to whom I am supposed to be ministering". Compare what Romans 15:16, Acts 22:21, and Acts 26:17 say.
--
*Romans 2:22 / *Rom. 2:22 -
The original Greek word (hierosuleo: G2416) translated as "dost thou commit sacrilege" can mean "are you a temple-robber?"
--
*Romans 2:29 / *Rom. 2:29 -
It is in accord with the context in Romans 2:26, where "the uncircumcision" refers to the Gentiles (Romans 4:9,16, Galatians 2:7-8); and it is in accord with the related scriptures of Philippians 3:3 and Colossians 2:11-13, to say that Romans 2:29 refers to those who are circumcised Jews in spirit, whether they are Jewish or Gentile Christians (Philippians 3:3), through their having undergone water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).
~
(Re: Is it addressing Gentiles?)
See Romans 2:17 above.
--
*Romans 3:2 / *Rom. 3:2 -
The oracles of God given to Israel (Romans 3:2) include the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) by which all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, become saved from hell (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15).
--
*Romans 3:7 / *Rom. 3:7 -
Here the apostle Paul is not saying that his preaching is a lie. Instead, he is saying what had been slanderously reported of him (Romans 3:8). Paul always preached the truth of God's Word the Bible (Acts 26:22-23).
--
*Romans 3:9-20 / *Rom. 3:9 -
Both Romans 3:9-20 and Romans 2:6-7 are true. For Romans 3:9-20 refers to the guilty condition of all people before they become Christians, not after (1 Corinthians 6:11). And the apostle Paul nowhere says that Christians must necessarily fail at Romans 2:7.
(See John 8:34 above)
~
(Re: Are children *innocent?)
No, there are no innocent children (Romans 3:10), because of original sin (Romans 5:19a, Psalms 51:5, Psalms 58:3).
(See Romans 5:19a below)
--
*Romans 3:12b / *Rom. 3:12b -
See John 8:34 above.
--
*Romans 3:19-30 / *Rom. 3:19 -
This means that by the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, no one will be justified (Acts 13:39). Romans 3:19-30 is not contradicting that... (See Romans 2:6 above)
--
*Romans 3:20 / *Rom. 3:20 -
There is no other way for anyone at any time to be saved except by God's grace (Romans 3:20,24).
Also, Romans 3:20 relates to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including its Ten Commandments. For that law was not of faith (Galatians 3:12). But the New Covenant/New Testament law of Jesus Christ is of faith (John 14:12, Titus 3:8).
Also, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including its Ten Commandments, was while "the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). But the New Covenant/New Testament law of Jesus Christ is of the Spirit. For "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). And Christians obey Jesus' law through the Spirit (Romans 8:13).
So Christians should not try to live without Jesus' New Covenant law, but instead keep it by faith and the Spirit.
(See the "stricter" section of Matthew 5:19 above)
--
*Romans 3:21 / *Rom. 3:21 -
(Re: No "the" before law)
See Romans 3:30 below.
--
*Romans 3:25 / *Rom. 3:25 -
(Re: Past sins)
See "past" under Hebrews 10:26 below.
~
(Re: Means that works are not required for ultimate salvation?)
See section 4 of James 2:14 below.
~
(Re: Are the elect born with their sins forgiven?)
No, for the sins of the elect are not forgiven until they believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43, Acts 26:18), and His sacrificial blood (Romans 3:25-26), repent from their sins (Hebrews 10:26-29), confess them to God (1 John 1:9), forgive everyone who has ever wronged them (Matthew 6:14-15), do all that they can (Romans 12:18) to make reparations to and peace with everyone whom they have ever wronged (Matthew 5:23-26, Acts 24:16), and get baptized (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).
~
(Re: Does requiring faith take away the accomplishment of Jesus' blood and make man's faith that which propitiates?) / (*Billionaire analogy)
No, for requiring faith for forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43) does not take away the accomplishment of Jesus' sacrificial blood. Nor does faith by itself propitiate sin. But propitiation comes to people only through their having faith in Jesus Christ and His sacrificial blood (Romans 3:25-26). An analogy would be a billionaire giving some poor people some checkbooks filled with blank checks signed by him which draw on his bank account, and telling them that they can write as many checks as they need to pay off their debts. If the people do not believe that there is any (or enough) money in the account, then they will not write any checks drawing on it, and so they will never benefit from it. But this does not void the money in the account. And if the people do believe that there is enough money in the account, their belief does not take away the accomplishment of the billionaire in filling the account with his own money and offering them access to it. Nor can their belief by itself pay off their debts. It will still be the billionaire's own money which will pay off their debts as they by faith write checks drawing on his account.
--
*Romans 3:30 / *Rom. 3:30 -
This can mean both that initial justification is by faith without works (Romans 4:1-5, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) (so that the future tense of Romans 3:30 includes those not yet initially justified), and that neither initial justification nor ultimate justification requires works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 3:28, Acts 13:39). Romans 3:30 is not contradicting that... (See Romans 2:6 above)
--
*Romans 3:31 / *Rom. 3:31 -
See "Romans 3:31" under Mark 10:11 above.
--
*Romans 4:1-5 / *Rom. 4:1 -
This means that initial justification is by faith in Jesus Christ without works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). Romans 4:1-5 is not contradicting that... (See Romans 2:6 above)
--
*Romans 4:4 / *Rom. 4:4 -
This does not apply to the ultimate salvation of those who are already Christians, for a master does not go into debt to his servant (Luke 17:10).
For Christians do not become the employees of Jesus Christ, but must become His willing servants/slaves (doulos: G1401) (Revelation 1:1), forsaking everything that they have (Luke 14:33).
(See also Luke 17:10 above)
--
*Romans 4:8 / *Rom. 4:8 -
This applies only so long as we repent from our sins (Hebrews 10:26-29) and confess them to God (1 John 1:9).
--
*Romans 4:12 / *Rom. 4:12 -
Walking in the steps of Abraham's faith (Romans 4:12) requires performing works of faith, like Abraham did (James 2:21-24).
--
*Romans 4:13 / *Rom. 4:13 -
This means that the promise to Abraham that he would be heir of the world was not given through the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which had not even been given yet, and would not be given until hundreds of years later (Galatians 3:17-18).
The promise of Romans 4:13 could refer to Genesis 22:17-18 and Genesis 17:4-6.
Romans 4:13 refers to the future, worldwide Kingdom of God in its physical aspect, which will first be fulfilled during the future Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). Abraham will be there (Luke 13:28-29).
--
*Romans 4:14-15 / *Rom. 4:14 -
This refers to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which is not of faith (Galatians 3:12).
--
*Romans 5:2 / *Rom. 5:2 -
This means that as Christians choose to continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23), they continue to have access to God's grace (Hebrews 4:16). At the same time, other verses show that it is only by God's grace that the elect (the chosen) (Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 9:11-24, Acts 13:48b) are given God's miraculous gift of faith in Jesus Christ in the first place (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2).
(See Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Romans 5:8 / *Rom. 5:8 -
Here, "us" refers only to elect individuals. For God hates nonelect individuals (Romans 9:11-13). Romans 5:8 does not contradict double predestination, but is part of it. For God loves elect individuals, not only before they get saved from hell (Romans 11:28), but even before they are born (Romans 9:11-13). Elect individuals were chosen (elected) by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). And Jesus Christ was slain before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:20), in the sense that God had already determined, and so foreknew (Acts 2:23), before the foundation of the world, that every human but Jesus would be a sinner, and that He (God the Father) would send Jesus to suffer and die on the Cross to make possible the salvation of elect individuals (Ephesians 1:4-7). But God loving elect individuals enough to save them from hell even while they were yet sinners (Romans 5:8) does not require once-saved-always-saved.
(See Jude 1:21 below)
--
*Romans 5:9-10 / *Rom. 5:9 -
See Hebrews 10:26 below.
--
*Romans 5:10-11 / *Rom. 5:10 -
Atonement was by Jesus Christ's death (Romans 5:10-11) and at the moment of His death (Matthew 27:50-51, Hebrews 10:19-22). Jesus' New Covenant blood (Matthew 26:28) is not under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Hebrews 10:8-10).
*******
(Continued in Comments: Dec 11, 2018)
