Thursday, November 30, 2006

He Should Be Rejected

I recently listened to a Muslim convert to Christianity explain how Muslims, who live in foreign countries, do not have to honor oaths that they take. They are in fact allowed to deceive as necessary. Such as is the Religion of Islam. Allah is a God who is not bound by anything, even oaths that He may take.

Newsmax has reported that, "Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Quran instead."

So we now have a man elected to an office who will not swear to uphold his authority by taking an oath that gives rise to the very form of government he intends to serve. In other words, the foundation for government and the oath of office may be ignored while serving in the capacity to defend those very foundations for freedom.

"Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Quran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in . . ."
If he were honest he would admit that even though he is not a Christian, since he is serving a nation that is built on the premise of the Bible, then he must swear by that God to fulfill his duty. If he is not willing to do that, then he is not fit for the office.

Some may counter by saying, "What about religious freedom and pluralism?"

My response is simple. There is no religious pluralism without Christianity as the foundation of government. Please show me one Muslim nation that has religious freedom? or religious pluralism? Show me a nation that is atheistic that has maintained religious freedom over a significant amount of time? You will not find any that is comparable to the United States.

Islam seeks to install Sharia Law wherever it can. If this Muslim representative could, don't think for a moment he wouldn't try. If they are getting away with setting up their own court system in France and England, they will do it here.

Dennis Prager is absolutely right in the article when he says, "Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

Don't think for a moment the Framers (who took oaths very, very, very seriously) would not have bounced this guy out on his ear. If they would not have tolerated it (for very good and solid reasons), why would should we?

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Jack Graham Proves Me Wrong

Every once in a while fad teachings come through our mouths, and then we wise up. For instance the idea that Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins substitutionarily, so that the only reason men go to hell is for their rejection of Christ. After a while we think about what we are saying and say "Hey, that's dumb and inconsistent with everything else I believe." So we move on hoping not to have caused too much damage for the Kingdom of Christ.

Today I heard a clip of Pastor Jack Graham proving me wrong. This idea is not a fad. He uses an illustration that is so convincing, I am surprised I did not believe this error earlier.

Here is the very brief clip of the illustration.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Discussion? Vote? Why Bother?

More evidence that the Activist Homosexual Community that seeks certain rights truly are not interested in getting equal rights but instead are attempting to force their beliefs upon the rest of society outside the normal democratic means. In the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, the state legislature has decided to violate the Constitution in order to maintain "the newly discovered gay right to marry" by ignoring a "citizen's petition seeking the amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman."

The CitizenLink article goes on to state:

In a speech at the Massachusetts Capitol one week after lawmakers left town, Romney explained why he was taking his stance.

"As I listened to the debate in the legislative session, I was struck by the irony and the hypocrisy," he said. "Legislators so energized to protect the newly discovered gay right to marry had no compunction about trammeling the long established, constitutional right of the people to vote."

If the Legislature refuses to vote, the plaintiffs are asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to order the secretary of state to put the issue on the ballot. Can the court order the Legislature to do its duty without violating the separation of powers?
So now we have a State Legislature violating the law after the State Supreme Court violated the law in order to give homosexuals the ability to redefine marriage and society's cultural norms against the will of the people. If the truth is not plainly seen for all, that the Left in this country hates our Constitutional system, I do not know what would.

Baptism and Grace Among Brothers

I was recently told that the doctrine of Scripture Alone causes divisions among Protestants on issues that are important in a person's salvation, particularly as it pertains to baptism. Well, I have found that the MP3s for the White/Shishko debate on the issue of Baptism are free here.

James White defends and explains the Baptist position on Believer's Baptism while Bill Shishko defends and explains Paedo-Baptism (baptizing infants) from a Reformed Presbyterian perspective. Both approach the debate from a Covenantal perspective

So many Protestants seem to have no idea that there are people, who differ on such issues and yet are so united on the Doctrines of Grace, are able to treat each other as Christian brothers. Quite some time ago, Pastor Lynne Smith explained to me that Presbyterians and Baptists are closer than most think and are probably the last two great allies on the Doctrines of Grace and taking Sola Scriptura seriously.

Listen to the debate and you will find that can't help but learn something.

Monday, November 27, 2006

King and Dobson On Separation of Church and State

James Dobson was apparently on the Larry King Live program again. King decided to question the issue of Homosexuality again by trying to appeal to the separation of church and state issue. Here is part of the conversation:

KING: Why is it a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved?
DOBSON: Well, it's both. It is both.

KING: But we have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Beg your pardon?

KING: We have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Who says?

I certainly hope Dobson's response was fuller than this. The truth is that there is a separation of church and state. They are separate institutions with separated powers. At times they may overlap. Nevertheless, for Dobson to imply there isn't is contradictory to his own statement of "It is both."

I didn't see this conversation so I will give Dobson the benefit of the doubt he was able to clarify himself.

Saturday, November 25, 2006


I didn't miss Thanksgiving. The folks flew out from the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. Isn't family time just special? Especially when you get to spend it with your new grandson!

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Norma Normans non Normata

"The norm that norms (but itself) not normed."

The David King and William Webster's series, Holy Scripture, will simply become classics.

For those, who would like to listen to a Protestant perspective on the "Scripture: The Only Infallible Norm", I have uploaded an MP3 file of chapter 6 of Volume I, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith by David King.

David King gave me permission to give away the MP3. The chapter deals with many of the questions that RCs often misunderstand as to the Protestant's position on "Scripture precedes the Church; the Appeal to Apostolic Succession; Scripture, not the Church, the only Infallible Norm".

Here is the file. I admit it may take a couple of times through before you may grasp all of the information. Enjoy!

Monday, November 20, 2006


Newsmax reports:

Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system.
There you have it. This is a legal issue (remember Clinton had nothing to hold Osama in a court room setting, therefore he denied anything to be done in his "arrest"). Terrorism is (according to Nacy Pelosi) just a problem to be "solved". There is no war. America is at fault. America is evil. We need to be cut down to size. American greatness and "exceptionalism" (as Rush likes to say) is causing Global Warming.

Maybe we should form the Al'Queda Bill of Rights. Now that the Left has won the elections, isn't that the next real step of true progress.

I am sorry, but for Reno to think Bush's actions are unprecedented is simply a bold face Left-wing lie. But if America voted for it, I guess let them do all the damage they can in two years. Now isn't that just a terrible way to think?

There is much that could be said about this topic of fighting Terrorism in the courts, but I'll just say this. The courts are not able to deal with our own American problems, do we really want a bunch of Left-Wing judges overseeing trials for "Enemy Combatants"?

WWLD (What Would Linclon Do?)

Piper On Election & Faith

Just read this quote from John Piper at Reformation Theology Blog.

If all of us are so depraved that we cannot come to God without being born again by the irresistible grace of God, then it is clear that the salvation of any of us is owing to God's election. Election refers to God's choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness. We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional. It is not. We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life. But faith is not a condition for election. Just the reverse. Election is a condition for faith. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world that he purchases our redemption at the cross and quickens us with irresistible grace and brings us to faith. - Dr. John Piper, in "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism"
How could it be any other way? Having listened to Piper, I also believe that faith is also a gift of God. Therefore it could be said that we are elected to have the gift of saving faith by the Sovereign Grace of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Steven On the D/L

I was reminded tonight by Algo (a channel rat) that Steven called a radio program on 9/11/2003. He happened to be listening and thought Dr. White did a good job interacting with an 8-year-old. The context of Steven's call was that he had heard Christians will inherit eternal life and that Christians have it now. He approached me with the question and seeing he needed to do a little "growing up" I told him to call the Dividing Line. So he did!

Here is a short clip of that conversation.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Schumer Gets To Nominate Judges?

CitizenLink Update reported today:

When the 110th Congress convenes in January, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., will become chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts and he's absolutely saying he plans to reject any of President Bush's judicial nominees who appear to be conservative.

"There will be no more right-wing judges, period," he told the New York Daily News. "(Bush) will have to negotiate with us, because we'll have the majority."

There you have it. Democrats get to appoint judges with their viewpoint. Even though historically, Presidents nominate who they want. I guess when there is a Democrat President, Conservatives will return the favor? Oh, who am I kidding?

I would like to ask Charles Schumer why he despises the U.S. Constitution so much. I already know the answer, and I think the above statement speaks for itself. It doesn't matter who Bush nominates, if there is even the appearance of a man who loves the Constitution and loves to interpret it in its own context, if he even appears to not legislate Leftist ideas from the bench, if he even appears to be someone of integrity and fair yet personally holds conservative views, if he even appears to be a Christian conservative, if he appears to be to the right of Schumer in any way, the Stalinists will shut Bush's nominees down.

I guess that is what Conservatives get for abandoning their principles.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Discerning Pastors, Help Wanted

For months I anticipated the movie, The Passion of the Christ, by Mel Gibson. The movie had been reviewed by Evangelical Pastors nation wide. It was claimed to be able to bring a new wave of revival to our land and would be used worldwide to proclaim the gospel. Such was the shallowness of the shepherds of Christ's church.

With just a few months before the movie was to come out controversy began surrounding the movie. It turns out that the movie itself was extremely Roman Catholic. After seeing the movie for myself, I could see the Roman Catholicism all over it (stations of the cross, Eucharist in RC sense, ect...). Yet, I was told most people would never notice those things. They could easily be overlooked. Having dealt with lay Roman Catholic apologists first hand; I knew the movie had far more ambition.

Sure enough, RC apologists were admitting that Protestants had no idea that they were watching an extremely RC film, and that they would use it for proselytizing. Crossed the Tiber has reported another Assembly of God pastor to have...well...crossed the Tiber. He explains that the movie had a major impact in the conversion of this pastor.

Again, I would have to ask a couple of simple questions of this pastor. Is he now rejecting the Protestant doctrine of Justification? Does he now reject the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness? In essence, does he now reject Substitutionary atonement for the synergistic treasury of merit system?

Having come from an Assembly background myself, I wonder if he was grounded in the truth at all. Much of the charismatic and pentecostal movement is very unsound to begin with and has often gone into outright heresy. So I suppose I should not be surprised.

So in one sense, I welcome movies and works of art that are more positive and even promoting a positive view of religion. Yet I have to wonder why Christian pastors think that just because a movie may have good qualities and being promoted by men who claim to be Christian automatically gives the movie a pass. Men like Dr. James Dobson were calling Mel Gibson anointed by God.

Are there any Christian pastors with discernment?

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Christ at the Center

My senior year in Christian College I took a course called "Family Life Ministry" and a major part of the grade was based around a paper each student had to write. The paper was to be called, “A Theology of Family.” I don’t need to tell what it was supposed to be about.
I won’t get into the whole of what I learned but one thing I noticed is something I wanted to share in light of the weekend I have had. When studying the Bible towards my Theology of Family, I was constantly confronted with the Scriptural notion that the family relationship, the marriage relationship was meant to serve as a powerfully moving analogy of God’s relationship with His people and Christ’s relationship with his church. That previous summer, in teaching on the jealousy of God, I noticed this language in the Old Testament as well. More than once the Old Testament refers to Israel’s sin and rebellion against God as adultery. The whole nature of how we relate to one another, in friendship, in love, in family and in marriage began to take on new meaning in my eyes.
The reason I mention this little academic anecdote is because, this weekend I witnessed a wedding, officiated by a Pastor with a firm grip on this concept – that is a Scriptural truth regarding marriage.
Pastor Chris Gorman spoke from Ephesians 5:22-33. For those of you who don’t know, it’s that pesky little passage about wives submitting to their husbands and husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. I suppose any one could have used this passage and allowed the bride, the groom, and any scripturally uninitiated attendants create their own, socially conscious meaning, but, thankfully, God has taught Pastor Chris a few things over the years and not only did we get to hear a consistent and thoughtful exegesis of Ephesians 5 on Sunday morning, but we got to see the very illustration that Paul uses to talk about Christ and His Church – we got to see a wedding. That’s right, the introduction for the sermon led straight into a wedding that a lot of the congregation had no idea was supposed to happen. My Grandmother says this is how they did it in the old days, but this was new to me.
The thing I latched onto during the service was the verse about the husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church, and how, if you were to characterize Christ’s ministry and attitude toward those he loves, that is the Church, it could be characterized by service and sacrifice. Something that, as a man, I felt like I needed to hold onto for the future and something most men probably still need to hear.
But beyond that, what I was excited to see was a church which so enthusiastically embraced a wedding ceremony with Christ truly at the center. I think this idea - the idea that our relationships with others, our marriages are to be living examples to Christ's love for His people goes to the heart of true Evangelism and it was nice to be there for it.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Elton John Banning Religion

Elton John is quote on Newsmax:

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."

"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion," he said. "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

So according to Elton John, organized religion is hateful. Just the simple statement that God defines reality and how His creatures are to live and behave is hateful and should be banned.

Now with that kind of rhetoric, is Elton John just some morally neutral creature able to sit in judgment on all religion? On what basis does he say it should be banned? Simply because it is his perspective, should those of us who believe Christ has organized and is builiding a church be banned? If each perspective becomes the point from which judgements should be made, how will his position resist someone of the Islamic persuasion in an Islamic country?

Sir, I think you are wrong for hating Gay people.

That is fine. Now die!

Can't we talk about it?

You may talk all you want. Now die!

But we are people, don't you respect humanity.

Yes, now die!

Please sir, your religious talk is causing others to be hateful.

I see your point. Now die!

It does not matter what Elton John believes anecdotally about people he knows who love their religion. For love is simply defined from his perspective. How does he know if it is true love if the Creator's definition of love is surpressed. We know that the Creator has told us specifically that men hate the truth and surpress it in Romans chapter 1. Isn't this the very truth Elton John denies?

Christianity is not calling men to die, but to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Homosexuality is not some unpardonable sin. All sin leads to death. It is sin that must be dealt with in the Person of Christ. Only He can take it away. Only He can give Life.

Perhaps he has forgotten what atheism and supposed non-religion has brought to our world the last century. Stalin ring a bell anyone? He may continue to attack Christianity, for surely that is the big target here in the U.S.. Yet it is the very religion that has given him freedom from Islamic Law. Be careful what you wish for Mr. John. According to Romans 1, you seem to be getting it.

Beauty and the Beast in Scott City

Last night the Scott City High School performed their final performance of Beauty and the Beast. With the 30 Bazillion dollar brand new high school and the very nice auditorium and with the brand new sound equipment that should allow everyone to be heard with very good quality, I figured the performance should have quite an advantage. It did. That, however, was not what made the musical great.

The casting was perfect. I personally know several of the students, and it was as if they were written into the musical by the author. Majken Eckels gave the lead performance of Belle. She was simply terrific. The girl can simply sing. A surprise to me was the singing by Mrs. Potts played by Jill Kuckleman. Again, she fit her role and her voice could not have been better. I wonder if I should have asked for her autograph. Perhaps it would be worth something someday.

The sexy pair, that again was cast perfectly, was Babette and Lumiere played by Amanda Kennedy (who may also become a famous singer) and Santos Prieto. They along with the silly girls brought humor to the program. Parker Artz played Belle’s father, and that boy can sing.

The Beast played by Travis Reece also did an excellent job. I am not sure how Travis managed to get through it all. He is also on the football team, which has been winning in their playoff games, and has been having a reaction to his makeup. Acting big is right up Travis’ alley. Playing opposite Travis was Gaston by Winston Sattler. There were not very many male performers (I think I counted 6 in all?), yet the cast seemed adequate with their performances. I do not remember hearing any stumbles or truly awkward moments. It seemed almost perfect.

Mrs. X (I don’t want to embarrass her) told me this morning that she had gone to dinner and the musical last night. She went home, believing she had been to the big city and had a wonderful night out on the town. I agreed. I came home feeling that way too.

If I find some pictures floating on emails around town, I will be sure to post them here.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Repeating History?

Yahoo News reports, "Al-Qaida in Iraq claims it's winning war ".

Well, isn't that a surprise. The party that has sided with the enemy on more than one occasion gets into power, and now the enemy claims it is on the road to victory.

Bush was asked in his press conference after the election if there were parallels between Vietnam and the Iraq Wars. He is far too gracious to tell the truth, so I will tell you what he should have said. He should have said, "Yes. Just as the Media helped North Vietnam win the war, so the Media today is helping the Terrorists win this war with one exception. I, the President, will not resign from my duties as President as Johnson did." Of course time will tell if Bush will be able to follow through and achieve victory.

It seems to me that just as North Vietnam was emboldened by Leftist Americans, just as Osama was emboldened by Clinton's "cut-n-run" policies, so will terrorists be emboldened by Americans desiring to cut-n-run from Bush's policy. I hope and pray one thing. Our policy should not be responsible for another South Vietnam-like slaughter in Iraq. We did that in the first Gulf War. May we not repeat it again.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Don Fry On Jesus' Coming

Several years ago I asked my Pastor about Revelation 22:20 which says, "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming quickly.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

How can Jesus be coming quickly after 2000 years? He responded by saying, “It sure is a stretch of the language.” I agreed. It is troubling that several passages of the New Testament seem to imply that Jesus’ Coming should have already happened.

Yet what is being assumed by my former Pastor and myself is that this "Coming" is physical. To deny the physical Coming of Christ would most certainly be heretical and to be more like Jehovah’s Witnesses or even Full (or Hyper) Preterism. Yet could there be more meanings to "Coming" than just what we have always assumed and unable to entertain due to being cast out of the local orthodox church?

Consider a passage that has bugged me for many years now:

Mat 26:64 Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

Here, Jesus is responding to the High Priest during His trial. Yet surely the High Priest is not alive today awaiting the physical Coming of Christ. I have wondered for years now if Daniel’s language is being incorporated into the New Testament and Daniel’s meaning may be more than just the physical Coming of Christ. Is not the Book of Revelation about the authority of Christ to bring not only salvation to His people now, but also to bring forms of judgment now, since Jesus now rules all the kingdoms of men?

For years I have kept this understanding of these texts to myself. Today, however, I heard a sermon by Pastor Don Fry of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. He preached on Revelation 1:7 and went into many of these troubling texts on the Coming of Christ. It is worth the listen. He more than demonstrates that Christ is King of Kings now and is able to rule the world now, even though His future physical Coming will bring total fulfillment of his Kingdom.

Listen to the Real Audio version here or if you have an MP3 player, here. Enjoy, and be challenged!

BTW: Go Vote! :-)

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Waldron's Dissertation: Faith, Obedience and Justification

The Journal, Reformed Baptist Theological Review, has finished its third year of publications. The Reformed Baptist Academic Press with Managing Editor Richard Barcellos is seeing a bigger future than just the journal. They are also starting a Dissertation Series. “RBAP is in the process of gathering relevant Ph.D. dissertations with the goal of publishing a series by contemporary Reformed Baptists.”

The first one out of the gate is Sam Waldron’s Faith, Obedience, and Justification. Since the RBTR has had several articles on the subject of New Perspectivism, I was expecting Waldron’s Dissertation to be one that must do a lot of refuting “NPism” by going to the Biblical text and explaining “Sola Fide”. This was not the case.

Instead Waldron’s Thesis was to demonstrate that three influential men today, who advocate some form of Covenantal Nomism, as being out of the Reformed Protestant Tradition. He does this in 7 chapters and a conclusion.

In chapter 1 he lays out his introduction, thesis and methodology. In the following 3 chapters he gives a positive presentation of the doctrine of Sola Fide as taught by Luther, Calvin and the Protestant Confessions. The doctrine’s main features, such as the difference in “resting on Christ” as compared with producing obedience, were explained from the writings of Luther and Calvin demonstrating what they clearly taught and believed. The Law and Gospel distinction was also explained throughout their works.

Chapter 4 was for me the most impressive. Waldron gives a brief survey of most of the major Confessions. He goes to the relevant texts and demonstrates that what Luther and Calvin believed was also believed by many generations to follow. This information gives the reader plenty of evidence that the doctrine of Sola Fide has been consistently taught and upheld.

Chapters 5-7 deal with Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and Don Garlington’s views of Sola Fide. Each of them are carefully analyzed to be sure that what they say is not misconstrued. Waldron contrasts their views with the Reformation’s history. Waldron carefully seeks to understand the meanings of terms that are usually reserved for Reformed Protestants. Imputation is often denied.

For instance Don Garlington is quoted as saying on page 221:

"In sum, the evidence educed from these passages by Piper [Counted Righteous In Christ] clearly confirms that the righteousness of God is none other than the righteousness of Christ. Nevertheless, it has not been established that imputation is the means by which Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness by virtue of union with Himself, plain and simple."

This may sound confusing, so Waldron explains:

“The righteousness of God is none other than the righteousness of Christ appears to be an impressive statement of the Traditional view of justification. That Garlington does not mean these words in that way should by this point be obvious. He means by the righteousness of Christ the righteousness that is imparted to us and infused into us by our participation in or union with Christ…. What Garlington means to say is, however, quite clear by now. He means that it is not possible to distinguish between the moral and forensic aspects of salvation. To become righteous means to become believingly obedient to the covenant as a consequence of which God declares you to be what you really and personally are—a faithful covenant keeper.”

Waldron demonstrates over and over again from the Creeds and Confessions that the Christian’s faith is not what makes him righteous but the object of that said faith…the imputed righteousness of Christ.

His concluding chapter is quite gracious but also factual. He shows that the three men are outside of the Reformed Protestant Tradition and should cease and desist from trying to remain Evangelicals. He rightly concludes that they have more in common with Trent than our Confessions.

I would never have thought of the approach this book has taken. The Reformed Baptist Academic Press is to be commended for producing a much-needed work such as this. The only criticism of these RB books is that the authors often quote the original Greek without bracketing the English equivalents for readers who can’t read Greek. Although I have become used to this, these books would be helpful to many who perhaps might otherwise ignore it for not making such provisions.

With the Auburn Avenue movement and New Perspectivism coming down the pike in a hurry, every pastor that shepherds the flock of God faithfully needs to have this in his library. Get it. Read it. Be equipped by it. Laymen too!

Soli Deo Gloria

Friday, November 03, 2006

White & Spong

Dr. White just came into channel and gave a brief note that the debate with Reverend John Shelby Spong on the subject of homosexuality went well. I am also told by "Brigand" that Spong used the "you are judgmental" argument and was quite the moving target (aren't all theological liberals tough to nail down?). I wonder if that begins to wear thin on people anymore.

Anyway, Dr. White was able to proclaim a Saving Gospel that is actually able to save sinners, including homosexuals. So for those who think it is some unpardonable sin, the Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation for everyone believing.