An Discussion On Culture And "Gay Rights"

• Discussion:

          -Following are a series of excerpts from Dan Trabue with responses to them on the issue of the normalization of homosexual behavior in our culture:

          "Ah, but WHO is it that is plotting even now to deny the right to marry and other basic rights to LGBTQ people?"

          That is not happening anywhere except in the Middle East. No reasonable person has any plans whatsoever to deprive people of different sexual orientations of any basic human rights. They are to be treated just like everybody else.

          "It's conservatives and the religious right. LGBTQ folks are NOT trying to tell straight people who they can and can't marry."

          We do not generally see heterosexual people parading around the streets of cities in ridiculous and ugly attire exclaiming what they do behind closed doors. We do not see heterosexual people putting symbols of their sexuality on children's cereal boxes during a specific month of each year. Where has our culture's sense of decency and honor gone?

          "Who is it who's telling transgender folks which bathrooms they must use? It's conservatives. LGBTQ folks aren't telling conservatives which bathrooms to use."

          There are only two genders which are determined by genetics. That people want to be called by something other than what they really are, is no one else's problem but their own. There is no obligation on my part to affirm a man to be a woman or visa versa when all of human history up to this point did not do so.

          If this matter is really all that important, then businesses should create unisex, single person restrooms. Problem solved.

          "Who is it who's telling gay or lesbian couples that they can't adopt children? It's conservatives. LGBTQ people aren't trying to say that "Southern Baptists can't adopt children!"

          Adoption is not a gay rights issue. It is a children's issue.

          "LGBTQ people HAVE been oppressed for centuries/throughout history in nations around the world and in the US."

          Even if that is true, they are not being persecuted in the West right now. This leads up to a bigger point, namely, the utter futility of trying to negotiate with people who have anger issues and entitlement problems. They are never happy no matter what you do for them, always demanding more.

          "They just want to live their lives in peace and without oppression."

          Dissidents just want to live their lives in peace and without fear of their children being sexualized by predators.

          "Would you return to the days of criminalized homosexuality if you could?"

          This question is a meaningless hypothetical.

          "Would you deny the right of gay guys/lesbian women to marry who they want?"

          Do people have the right to marry whoever they want without exception? Can adults marry children or relatives if they so desire? Can adults marry plants, animals, or rocks if they so choose? Is desire the only factor used in considering a potential spouse?

          "The Supreme Court conservatives may do so."

          Homosexuals already had "rights" long before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015. Therefore, it is not likely that anything will change in the foreseeable future.

          "Look, you are free to think what you want about LGBTQ people, but conservative Christians (and extremist Muslims) have lost this argument, at least in the free world."

          Appeals to public consensus as a standard of authority for what we ought to consider moral are unreliable, since culture is always subject to change. That makes it no objective or fair measure at all. "Conservative" views of marriage can make a comeback to a position of dominance as they once did over the acceptance of homosexuality by the Greco-Roman world.   

          "That's illegal discrimination and rightfully so. So, too, for gay customers. You don't have to like it, but discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation is illegal in our nation."

          This is an invalid comparison. Skin color and gender are not behavioral characteristics as is homosexuality. They have nothing to do with each other. It is ironic how these people demand acceptance and toleration, while at the same time not extending the same treatment toward those who disagree with them.

          "Are you saying that people who take the time to teach children are "targeting them" for propaganda?"

          The content and quality of "instruction" makes the difference between night and day, but our fellow simpleton would not realize that even if it hit him in his crusty forehead. He pretends that all manner of behavior is the same, but things that are different are not the same.

          "Or, when conservatives do it, they're just being helpful, but when liberals do it they're targeting and grooming children?? You see the problem with that, don't you?"

          Children should be taught things like mathematics, grammar, and science, not sexualized. That is what pedophiles do. Children have no real understanding of how the world works, and should gradually be prepared to face it as their parents will not always be alive to act for them. Moreover, people have grown up to have sex for thousands of years without any teaching as to how it is done. They just procreated.

          "And if you find my positions weird And tomorrow, perhaps you can understand how I also find your positions weird and immoral. As well as unbiblical, ungodly and irrational."

          Why would you defend exposing children to drag queen story hour? Even their attire is a symbol of sexuality. Why cannot people be dressed in normal, modest clothing and read stories that are actually wholesome and educational?

          "After all I'm not trying to be objective, I'm saying that gay folks committing to one another in a loving respectful marriage is obviously, on the face of it, a good thing. How's that bad?"

          This is but wishful thinking that belittles the good and the wholesome. One can keep asking an infinite series of questions in which any grounds for reason to stand are obliterated.

An Exegetical Study On The Sin Lists Of Paul's Epistles

• Surveying The List Of Vices Mentioned In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

          -The Apostle Paul says twice in the same passage that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. He also specifies who these kinds of people are. Compare with 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. The repeated emphasis demands our consideration. Paul does not want readers of his epistle to misunderstand or minimize the seriousness of his message.

          -Homosexuality is mentioned in this passage as being one of many damnable sins. Paul elsewhere says that lesbianism is condemned by God. When practiced on a widespread scale, such is an indicator of divine judgment (Romans 1:26-27).
          -Paul echoes the teaching of Jesus Christ to Nicodemus about the necessity of being born again in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5). That expression refers to His reign existing in a state having been brought to full fruition. Evil has no presence there. His kingdom is designed specifically for people who are morally upright, which is brought about by divine grace.

• Surveying The List Of Vices Mentioned In Ephesians 5:4-7:

          -Paul again expects his audience to live lives that correspond with their profession of faith. His message to those who have a newfound identity in Christ is this: "Be what you are." Morally impure behaviors are "not fitting" (Ephesians 5:4) in the Christian life. By that, it is meant they are not worthy to be practiced among those who have been set apart for a holy life.

          -This "inheritance" is spoken of as a future possession that cannot be enjoyed by those who are not in Christ. They do not know Him. Their sins have not been forgiven by God. Compare with Ephesians 1:14 and Colossians 1:14.

          -Greed is isolated from a broader list of sins and called a form of idolatry. Compare with Colossians 3:5. Covetousness corrupts how a person conducts business.

          -The kingdom of heaven belongs to both Christ and God, since the latter has put everything under the dominion of the former (1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:22).

• Surveying The List Of Vices Mentioned In Galatians 5:19-21:

          -The first three sins mentioned in this list are of a sexual nature. They are spoken of in all-encompassing terms. Sexual sins were common in Greco-Roman society.

          -The next two terms relate to worship. Idolatry is giving anything reverence that belongs to God alone. It is a more common problem than we realize and easier to get caught up in than we think. Asia Minor had problems with witchcraft (Acts 19:18-19).

          -The rest of the sins mentioned in this text relate to human temperament. The ugliness of sinful man is made manifest in his reactions to things and the rate at which he does so. 

          -Unbelievers are excluded from the kingdom of God because that is the state in which His will is brought to full fruition. Their way of thinking is incompatible with His.

• Surveying The Lists Of Vices Mentioned In 1 Timothy 1:9-11:

          -Paul here discusses the proper use of law. That the Mosaic Law is in view here, is corroborated by the fact that the listed sins correspond to the Ten Commandments.

          -The words "ungodly and sinful" evoke the idea of those who stray far from righteousness, living in ways that deny or defy spiritual values. These terms emphasize moral and ethical collapse. They showcase lives that are distant from any sense of divine law or virtue.

          -Paul's condemnation of slave traders aligns with similar teachings found in Exodus 21. He places such people alongside liars and perjurers, underscoring a broader condemnation of deception and exploitation. His focus is on patterns of behavior that violate divine principles.

Did The Jews And Early Church Fathers Accept The Apocrypha As Canonical?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to refute claims made by Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn in defense of the apocrypha against charges of its canonicity being rejected by the Jews and certain church fathers. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "Melito’s list of the Old Testament books lacks the deuterocanonicals, but this is not surprising given that many second-century Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books. The Protestant citation of Melito only helps their case if Melito was listing the Christian canon of the Old Testament. But because Melito was composing a defense of Christ from sources Jews would accept, we would expect Melito’s canon in his Extracts to reflect what Jews in his time accepted. In Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory, Edmon Gallagher says, “Most scholars have been willing to attribute [Melito’s] list ultimately to Jewish Sources.”

          This argument made by Trent Horn that these canon lists were Jewish rather than Christian backfires, since Christians accepted the Jewish canon. The Jews were entrusted with the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-2). Those writings are quoted as Scripture in the New Testament. Jesus Christ and the apostles appealed to the Old Testament in debating Jewish opponents. The very first Christians were Jews who worshiped in the synagogues. 

          "The fact that Melito went all the way to Israel (or the “eastern place”) instead of asking the Jews in Sardis about the Old Testament canon shows, as we noted earlier, that there was not a consensus among second-century Jews about the canon of the Hebrew Bible. McDonald says, “Not all Josephus scholars agree with Josephus’s account that all Jews everywhere both know and would die for these twenty-two sacred books. . . Why did [Melito] not go across the street and talk to the nearest Jew to find out, if the matter was well known long before his time?”

          It is plausible that Melito of Sardis had a variety of reasons for his travel, which are not documented in the historical record. He may have wanted to consult the most authoritative Jewish communities. He may have been seeking Hebrew exemplars rather than Greek ones. In fact, travel for theological inquiry was common in the early church. Questioning Melito's integrity, or that of Josephus, without substantial documentary evidence seems totally unwarranted. The acceptance of the apocryphal books as canonical by Jewish communities was so miniscule as to hardly deserve mentioning.

          As a side issue, Paul's references to "the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 and "the Holy Scriptures" in 2 Timothy 3:15 reinforce the notion that there was an established set of texts considered authoritative in his era, which was even earlier than that of Melito. If he consulted Jews to confirm the canon, that actually supports the Protestant position: Christians looked to Jewish authorities because the Jewish canon was the canon.

          "Another point to mention is that if being present in either Melito’s or Origen’s lists were necessary for canonicity, then Esther and Lamentations would be disqualified since they are absent from both lists."

          If that proves anything at all, then it would only mean some books of the Old Testament have stronger attestation than others. Even if we did remove a book from the "Protestant" Old Testament canon, that is not going to somehow justify adding the apocrypha. Further, a person does not have to provide a complete list of books of the Old Testament canon in order to have relevant information about its structure. That certain canon lists fail to include books like Esther is not the only criterion that we have for canonicity.

          "Regarding Cyril, he divided the Old Testament Scripture into three groups: the protocanonical works that catechumens should read, books of “secondary rank” that catechumens should avoid, and books “not read in Churches”— that catechumens should also avoid. The fact that Cyril wanted those who were new to the faith to avoid the deutero-canonical books does not prove they were noncanonical. According to Gallagher, “Cyril himself uses and cites Wisdom and Sirach. Cyril’s canon list was written for catechumens, and so he may have intended his prohibition to apply to them alone, as those who are unable to properly separate the wheat from the chaff.

          But Cyril’s own words are clear. He gives a list of canonical books identical to the Hebrew canon. He explicitly says the other books are not to be read in church. He even distinguishes between “Scripture” and “secondary” books. Even if Cyril of Jerusalem personally valued Wisdom or Sirach, his canonical list excludes them. This is incompatible with the Catholic claim that the deuterocanon was universally accepted.

          "Athanasius uses the same division in his festal letter and even places Baruch alongside protocanonical books like Jeremiah. He did not reject the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books, because, as we’ve seen, he called them “Scripture” and used the book of Wisdom in his defense of orthodox Christology. Athanasius recognized that these books were disputed by the Jews of his time but still said those who seek further catechesis should read them."

          Athanasius rejected the books of Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees as inspired. Baruch was viewed as being a part of the Book of Jeremiah. 

          "Since Jerome was mistaken about the reliability and textual tradition of the Septuagint, this refutes his claim that the true Hebrew canon could be found only in manuscripts that lacked the deuterocanonical books. It also refutes Protestant apologists who cite later medieval theologians, along with biblical commentaries, that rejected the deuterocanonical books simply because they followed Jerome’s erroneous argument about the Hebrew text."

          Jerome's choice to adhere to the Hebrew canon, which excluded the deuterocanonical books, was grounded in his commitment to preserving the textual and historical integrity of the Scriptures as recognized by Jewish tradition. Contrary to the claim that he was mistaken due to the reliability of the Septuagint, his decision reflected a scholarly understanding of the complexities of textual transmission and the variances between manuscript traditions. Jerome's approach was not erroneous, but was instead a deliberate effort to align with the texts that Jesus and the apostles referenced. Therefore, Jerome's stance remains a scholarly and historically sound decision, rooted in fidelity to the original Hebrew Scriptures.

The Ridiculousness Of The Roman Catholic Eucharist

"But seeing, for the frequency of pretending the change of nature in their consecrations, it cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is not, contrary to the testimony of man’s sight and of all the rest of his senses. As for example, when the priest, instead of consecrating bread and wine to God’s peculiar service in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (which is but a separation of it from the common use to signify, that is, to put men in mind of, their redemption by the Passion of Christ, whose body was broken and blood shed upon the cross for our transgressions), pretends that by saying of the words of our Saviour, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” the nature of bread is no more there, but his very body; notwithstanding there appeareth not to the sight or other sense of the receiver anything that appeared not before the consecration. The Egyptian conjurers, that are said to have turned their rods to serpents, and the water into blood, are thought but to have deluded the senses of the spectators by a false show of things, yet are esteemed enchanters. But what should we have thought of them if there had appeared in their rods nothing like a serpent, and in the water enchanted nothing like blood, nor like anything else but water, but that they had faced down the king, that they were serpents that looked like rods, and that it was blood that seemed water? That had been both enchantment and lying. And yet in this daily act of the priest, they do the very same, by turning the holy words into the manner of a charm, which produceth nothing new to the sense; but they face us down, that it hath turned the bread into a man; nay, more, into a God; and require men to worship it as if it were our Saviour himself present, God and Man, and thereby to commit most gross idolatry. For if it be enough to excuse it of idolatry to say it is no more bread, but God; why should not the same excuse serve the Egyptians, in case they had the faces to say the leeks and onions they worshipped were not very leeks and onions, but a divinity under their species or likeness? The words, “This is my body,” are equivalent to these, “This signifies, or represents, my body”; and it is an ordinary figure of speech: but to take it literally is an abuse; nor, though so taken, can it extend any further than to the bread which Christ himself with his own hands consecrated. For he never said that of what bread soever any priest whatsoever should say, “This is my body,” or “This is Christ’s body,” the same should presently be transubstantiated."

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Of the Kingdom of Darkness (Chap. XLVI)

Exegetical Analysis Of Ephesians 2:4-7

          "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us." (Ephesians 2:4)

          Our sentence of eternal condemnation in the divine court for our sins is duly deserved. However, there is another dimension to be considered in which there is a remedy for our situation. Man has no merit on his own account, but God does. The Apostle Paul defines the means by which our salvation has been brought about: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7). "But God" introduces a note of hope. He has made a path of redemption for us. What is the extent to which God loves us? It is very great, meaning a depth beyond human comprehension. His love is infinitely wide in scope. He reached out to us with His graceful offer of eternal life, even though we were not seeking after Him.

          "even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." (Ephesians 2:5)

          Our disobedience toward God destined us for His eternal wrath. We were naturally not receptive to the things of God. Our prior situation meant certain doom apart from intervention by Him. Paul elsewhere specifies a number of ways that a person can violate God's Law: "...the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers..." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The point to be made is that no one on earth can live up to God's perfect moral standard. So, how can we be made alive with Jesus Christ? We are made alive together in Christ through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. We were once dead to evil ways. Now we live a new life of holiness. Our old ways have passed away. Paul expounds further on the phrase about grace in parenthesis in Ephesians 2:8. We have been purchased by the blood of Christ to be vessels of honor to God.

          "and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:6)

          We have been raised together to newness of life in union with Christ. That is the greatest benefit of having been reconciled to a holy God. We have a new identity in Christ as children of God. We have a new purpose in this life which is to bring glory to God. We become partakers of His kingdom, which is a kingdom of righteousness: "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). There is a radical change of heart which happens in the lives of those who place their trust in Christ. The Apostle Paul's former lifestyle was that of a murderer. He persecuted the church of God. He went from zealously chasing after Christians to becoming a member of that very group he had once despised. His transformed life was one of service to God in preaching the gospel. Paul now enjoys the fullness of fellowship with Christ in heaven. He has seen Him face to face in glory, and so can we.

          "so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:7)

          Christ's sacrifice for our redemption is the greatest expression of love made by God to us. It serves as a testimony to His generosity for eternity. The greatest demonstration of love took place when Jesus Christ made atonement for our sins on the cross. He laid down His life for us. God ought to be praised forever for this wondrous deed. This act was not done because we were righteous and deserved His favor. It was solely because of His benevolence.

There Will Always Be Inequality

"Human beings are obviously unequal in numberless ways, including: health, opportunities, abilities, energy, moral character, and contribution to society. It is essential, therefore, in asserting the equality of all men to delineate the nature and the source of that equality. In Christian ethics the nature of equality is that all men are equally to be loved — not equally admired, or emulated, or praised; but equally loved."

Calvin D. Linton, Wycliffe Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Carl F.H. Henry editor, p. 213-214

Early Church Evidence Against Transubstantiation

"It is not we who eat human flesh — they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."

Tatian's Address to the Greeks, Chapter XXV

Was First Century Judaism Legalistic?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The ongoing debate surrounding the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) engages deeply with interpretations of first-century Judaism and the writings of the Apostle Paul. At the heart of this discourse is the assertion made by proponents of the NPP that the prevailing view of righteousness in first-century Judaism was not fundamentally rooted in legalism, but rather in a framework of grace or "covenantal nomism." This perspective shifts the understanding of Jewish identity and religious practice away from a dichotomy of law versus grace.

          -While the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) has offered a corrective to overly caricatured views of Second Temple Judaism as purely legalistic, its central framework, covenantal nomism, raises significant concerns when weighed against the broader witness of the New Testament and the diversity of Jewish thought in the first century.

• Defining Covenantal Nomism:

          -At the core of the NPP is the term covenantal nomism, a concept articulated by E.P. Sanders. According to Sanders, this framework asserts that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by a belief that as long as a Jew maintained their covenantal relationship with God—primarily manifested through obedience to the Law—they remained a member of God's chosen people. This relationship was dynamic and relational rather than transactional, contrasting sharply with the more common perception of a legalistic approach to salvation.
          -To break this down further, covenantal nomism posits that God’s covenant with Israel provided a narrative in which obedience to God’s commands was understood not merely as a means of earning favor but as a continuation of one’s identity within God’s community. Thus, the commandments were seen as markers of fidelity to the covenant, serving to define and uphold community boundaries. The implication here is substantial: Paul’s letters, often interpreted as polemics against a works-based faith, may instead reflect his concern about boundary markers that fostered divisions, particularly between Jews and Gentiles.

• Historical And Textual Limitations:

          -One major critique of the NPP is its selective use of sources. E.P. Sanders and others rely heavily on later rabbinic texts like the Mishnah and Talmud to reconstruct first-century Judaism. However, these documents were compiled well after Paul’s time and may not accurately reflect the beliefs of all Jewish sects during the Second Temple period. This risks anachronism, projecting later theological developments backward onto Paul’s contemporaries.

• The Context Of Grace In Second Temple Judaism:

          -Even if one accepts Sanders's vision of Judaism as fundamentally rooted in grace, which emphasizes maintaining one’s covenantal status, it does not exactly rule out the existence of a belief in works righteousness, the idea that one’s standing before God could be contingent upon both faith and meritorious actions. Evidence from the intertestamental literature, such as 4 Ezra and 2 Enoch, indicates that many Jews believed in a judgment based on one's deeds that would influence eternal outcomes. For instance, Jubilees illustrates that while election may initiate one’s entry into the covenant community, ongoing obedience to the Law is required for remaining in that status. These texts signal a nuanced interplay between election, grace, and the expectation for obedience, painting a more complex picture than just one of grace devoid of merit. They indicate that works-righteousness was a real and present concern in Paul's religious environment.

• Insights From The Gospels:

          -Looking at the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus often confronted prevailing interpretations of righteousness that Jesus viewed as overly simplistic or hypocritical. The Pharisees and religious leaders are frequently depicted as exemplars of a legalistic approach that emphasized external compliance to the Law while neglecting the internal transformation that God desires. For instance, in Matthew 9:11, their criticism of Jesus for associating with "sinners" exposes a rigid perspective that compartmentalizes righteousness. Similarly, in addressing the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30), Jesus challenges the notion that adherence to the Law, particularly when divorced from love and humility, guarantees righteousness.
          -The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14 starkly underscores the pitfalls of self-righteousness and the need for genuine humility before God as the path to justification. Jesus's teaching about righteousness not merely as a legal standard but as an issue of the heart offers profound implications for understanding both his message and Paul’s later theological reflections.

          -The parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:21–35) further illustrates that grace must be received and extended, not earned. The servant is initially forgiven a massive debt, but his failure to forgive another leads to his condemnation. This parable critiques a mindset that treats grace as a transaction rather than a transformative gift.

• The Pauline Epistles And Works Righteousness:

          -Within Paul's epistles, he is vehemently vocal against what he perceives to be errors related to works-righteousness. Romans 9:30-10:4 illustrates Paul's argument that righteousness comes through faith, not by works of the Law. As a former Pharisee, Paul reflects on his own earlier understanding of righteousness through the Law (Philippians 3:4-9), highlighting a radical transformation in his theology post-encounter with Christ. This struggle illustrates that although covenantal faithfulness was a principle in early Judaism, many still conflated obedience with justification in ways Paul found problematic.

• Theological Tensions In Covenantal Nomism:

          -Covenantal nomism also introduces ambiguity between grace and merit. While it claims that obedience is a response to grace, it still places the burden of covenant maintenance on human performance. This creates a functional legalism, where grace initiates but works sustain. Paul’s theology, by contrast, insists that justification is not only initiated but also sustained by faith (Galatians 3:3). Paul’s language in Romans 4 is particularly instructive. He appeals to Abraham’s justification “apart from works” (v. 6), emphasizing that righteousness is credited through faith, not earned through obedience. This directly challenges the NPP’s claim that Paul was only concerned with ethnic boundary markers like circumcision or dietary laws. Paul’s argument is more radical: even Abraham, the father of Israel, was justified by faith before the Law was given.

• Additional New Testament Evidence:

          -Hebrews 10:1–4 critiques the sacrificial system itself, arguing that the Law was “only a shadow of the good things to come” and that it could “never... make perfect those who draw near.” This suggests a deeper theological critique of the Law’s inability to bring about true righteousness, not merely its misuse as a social barrier.

• Arguments Based On Liberal Scholarship:

          -The contributions of liberal scholarship further complicate this picture. Numerous references within Paul's writings and the canon of scripture highlight a broad discourse on "works" without exclusion of boasting (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:5; Gal. 5:19). Even if some texts attributed to Paul are debated concerning their authenticity, they reflect a trend in early Christianity that grasped the essence of grace as opposed to performance-based acceptance. This pushes readers to reconsider the implications of Paul’s teachings on justification and righteousness, particularly regarding their potential reception both in his time and among contemporary readers.

God Intended Sex To Be Sacred And Treated As Such

"Reducing troth to physical sex is to reduce human sexual intercourse to animal copulation. Physical intercourse is a good gift of the Lord which ought to stay in the marriage-room of the creation. If sex in principle can be had with anyone—so-called free love—without exception elements of selfishness, exploitation and insecurity enter in."

James H. Olthus, Wycliffe Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Carl F.H. Henry editor, p. 408

Showing Mercy To Those Who Offend

“Let mercy keep company with courage. Follow my advice in this: if in battle you win a man’s surrender, then unless he has done you such grievance as amounts to heart’s sorrow, accept his oath, and let him live.”

Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival