# McLaren denies hell and penal substitutionary atonement



## mvdm (Feb 12, 2008)

If there is any doubt in anyone's mind on McLaren's "orthodoxy", this brief clip should be sufficient to remove it:

[video=youtube;8SOUfsX2fbk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk[/video]


----------



## biblicalthought (Feb 12, 2008)

He's a heretic. My friend Dr. Ron Gleason has been blogging about this cat. His blog is always an eventful read, here's a link.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Feb 12, 2008)

To be expected, he's garbage, no offense to garbage.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 12, 2008)

"If you are not afraid of Hell, you are almost certainly going there. You will then never doubt it again..." -- John H. Gerstner, Repent or Perish, (Soli Deo Gloria Publications: Ligonier, PA 1990), page 13.


----------



## Poimen (Feb 12, 2008)

Jesus delivered me from hell through his sufferings on the cross. So please don't take away the doctrine of hell. 

*Heidelberg Catechism*

Q44: Why is it added: "He descended into hell"?
A44: That in my greatest temptations I may be assured that Christ my Lord, by His inexpressible anguish, pains and terrors, which He suffered in His soul on the cross and before, has redeemed me from the anguish and torment of hell.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 12, 2008)

Hell is a tough doctine for our contemporaries. Even Stott opts for non-existence over continuing torment. With the NPP running amuck in the seminaries, it is a tough world for those of who accept a penal substitutionary view of the atonement.

What really bothers me is how many evangelical youth pastors hang on every word B.M. utters as it if came from heaven.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 12, 2008)

John Stott was one of many that Gerstner wrote about in Repent or Perish.

"When liberals deny Hell, that is to be expected. When 'fundementalists' do, that stops ecclesiastical traffic." (Repent or Perish, page 29).

"If the evangelical will hold to God, he knows he must hold to hell. If he parts with hell, he knows he parts with Jesus Christ, his God and Savior. If he loves God, he must love hell, too. If God decrees it, it must be good and for God's glory, and the evangelical knows that he will sing God's praises eternally as the smoke ascends from the burning pit! Amen!" -- John H. Gerstner (Repent or Perish, page 31-32).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

I'm surprised that he said that because McLaren is solid in _so_ many areas.


----------



## biblicalthought (Feb 12, 2008)

1. To the degree we understand the atonement is to the degree we understand the person and work of Christ.
2. To the degree we understand the person and work of Christ is to the degree we understand the Scriptures.
3. To the degree we understand the Scriptures is to the degree we understand the history of redemption.
4. Therefore, ignorance of the Biblical doctrine of the atonement means ignorance of the work of Christ, the Scriptures and the history of redemption.

*The Justice and Righteousness of God*

God's justice and righteousness are both attributes of God's moral character. Because God is just and righteous, His works are described as being just and righteous. We should not make the mistake of thinking that God's justice is only a description of His works and not reflective of His being. God is just and therefore acts justly.
God's justice and righteousness are consistently joined together in Scripture as being descriptive of God's very being and character. Moses declared that God is “just and right” (Deut. 32:4). The Psalmist declared that “Justice and righteousness are the foundation of (God's) throne” (Psa. 89:14). Zephaniah 3:5 states, “The just LORD is in the midst thereof, He will not do iniquity.” The Apostle John tells us to confess our sins to God “for He is just and righteous” (1 John 1:9).

Because God is just and righteous, He will never do anything which would contradict these attributes. This is the underlying assumption behind Abraham's famous statement, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). The Apostle Paul asks the same type of question in Romans 9:14, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” (KJV) or, “There is no injustice with God, is there?” (NAS). The judge of all the earth cannot do anything unless it is in conformity to His own righteousness. It is blasphemy to attribute injustice to God. His ways are always just and right.

The Scriptures also teach us that God cannot simply forgive sinners and let their sins go unpunished because God's justice is displayed by the vindication of His righteousness in the punishment of sin. Did not God declare to Moses, “I will not acquit the guilty” (Ex. 23:7)? Or again, “He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished” (Ex. 34:7)? Does not the Psalmist state, “For thou art a God who takes no pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with thee. The boastful shall not stand before thine eyes; thou dost hate all who do iniquity. Thou dost destroy those who speak falsehood; the Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit” (Psa. 5:4–6)?: Is not this same principle found in Romans 2:5–6, “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds?”

The justice and righteousness of God demand that sin be punished. And the penalty for sin is death for “the person who sins will die; for the wages of sin is death” (Ex. 18:20; Rom. 6:23; Jas. 1:15). Either the sinner himself must be punished unto death or a suitable substitute must be found who will be able to bear the full punishment of sin.
It is necessary, therefore, if God is “to be just and the justifier” of sinners (Rom. 3:26), that a perfect and proper substitute be found, who having no sin of his own, may be able to bear the full punishment of sin in the place of those to whom the punishment is due.

It was only God Himself who could be the exact, perfect and proper substitute to atone for the sins of His people, and completely satisfy the vindication of His justice and righteousness, and thus render man acceptable in His sight.

The substitute could not be an animal “for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Neither could an angel be the substitute, for the substitute must take upon himself human nature (Heb. 2:14).

No sinner could atone for his fellow sinners for “no man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him — for the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever” (Psa. 49:7–8).

The Scriptures point out the necessity of Christ's assuming a human nature in order to atone for sin.

Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He, Himself, likewise partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil…therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:14–17).

Jesus Christ alone could be the fitting or proper high priest for He only was “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).

The sinlessness of the substitute is necessary for “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Thus we find the Apostle Paul arguing that the death of Christ was necessary because it alone could satisfy the demands of God's righteousness.

Being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forebearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at this present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:24–26).

In order to be just and at the same time justify sinners, God had to vindicate His righteousness by the death of the sinner's substitute. Jesus Christ was the only perfect and proper substitute who could die in our place. When He prayed, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39), the Father heard Him. If there were any other way of bringing about redemption, the Father would have delivered His Son. “But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted” (Isa. 53:10, 4)

The story is told of an oriental judge who had gained a great reputation for his absolute righteousness and severity in passing judgment on criminals. He would not show partiality nor accept any bribes. Because of a famine, he ordered that the water be rationed and anyone caught stealing water should be punished by thirty lashes.

That evening cries rang out as a thief was caught stealing water. The judge had the criminal brought before him only to discover it was his aged mother. He was in a dilemma. To let her go unpunished would undermine his reputation of being a just judge. But to punish her would no doubt kill such an aged one as she. What would he do?

He called for his mother. He stated the charges and found her guilty and called for the men to bring the whip. He ordered her to kneel down. Then he took off his royal robes and approached his mother and laid upon her and commanded that the punishment be given. He took the thirty lashes which his mother deserved. In this way justice was vindicated for he bore her punishment.

How much more do we owe to the judge of all the earth, who stripped Himself of His heavenly glories and bore our sins upon the cross?

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for our sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor. 9:8).

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:6–8).

How can we help but fall at the feet of Him who completely satisfied the justice and righteousness of God in our behalf for our sin? Pause right now and praise the Savior for all you owe Him.

O for a thousand tongues to sing
my great Redeemer's praise,
the glories of my God and King,
the triumphs of His grace.

My gracious Master and my God,
assist me to proclaim,
To spread through all the earth abroad,
the honors of Thy name.

Jesus, the name that charms our fears,
that bids our sorrows cease;
tis music in the sinner's ears,
'tis life, and health, and peace.

He breaks the power of cancelled sin,
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the foulest clean;
His blood availed for me.

Hear Him, ye deaf! His praise, ye dumb,
Your loosened tongues employ;
Ye blind, behold your Savior come;
and leap, ye lame, for joy.

Dr. Robert Morey - Studies in the Atonement


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Feb 12, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm surprised that he said that because McLaren is solid in _so_ many areas.



Haha! Good one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2008)

MICWARFIELD said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised that he said that because McLaren is solid in _so_ many areas.
> ...



I just think it's funny when we have threads that are quoting someone like McLaren or Hagee or Copeland and everyone's like: "Can you _believe_ he said _that_!"

Honestly, these guys don't really shock me. I've gotten to the point where I expect folly from those with futile minds.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm not going to listen to the clip, but a while ago I heard a podcast interview with the guy where he denied hell and the substitutionary atonement. He said he always gets called a heretic by those "Westminster Confessionalists". Sweet!


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 13, 2008)

Well, I gave in. That's the podcast.

You can listen to the whole thing, if you google "bleeding purple podcast", you can find the whole thing. I think the other guy is called Leif Hanssen or something like that.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 13, 2008)

The whole denial of the two issues comes down to their Christology. If Jesus isn't wholly God, then the PSA and hell is a nonsensical idea, because God _does_ ask us to do something He doesn't do Himself. _But,_ because Jesus is fully God, then the cross is the greatest example of forgiveness ever: God takes the wrath due to the sinners onto Himself.

That's a stronger turning of the other cheek than McLaren could ever preach, praise God!

EDIT: It looks like I've restated Stephen's article in a way. Curses! I should have read the whole thread first. Sorry, was in a hurry. 

Great post, Stephen.


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 13, 2008)

*Good post/*

Biblical thought,

Really good post[#9]. Very solid. It is a shame the ungodly false teachers answer most every question you posted from the biblical texts completely opposite of the way they should be answered.

They have believed the lie of satan "hath God said". To them the cross was just a nice example, rather than a propitiation.
Like Alexander the coppersmith before them, the Lord will reward them according to their works.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 13, 2008)

That was disgusting.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 13, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> MICWARFIELD said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...


 
You know it. And speaking of shock, to say that he's in for a nasty one hardly describes the situation.


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 13, 2008)

Why do I even listen to this stuff, it's like I want to torture myself. 
But I suppose you have to know how they are framing their arguments in order to refute them.  I just lost a load of brain cells after hearing that.


----------



## CDM (Feb 13, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> MICWARFIELD said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



Exactly. 

I started reading the thread and thought, "oh, gee, another false teacher teaching false doctrine."

It's like me looking out back at my dog, watching and hearing him bark and thinking, "What on earth is he doing!"


----------



## mvdm (Feb 13, 2008)

lwadkins said:


> Why do I even listen to this stuff, it's like I want to torture myself.
> But I suppose you have to know how they are framing their arguments in order to refute them.  I just lost a load of brain cells after hearing that.



I agree that although it is hard to listen to, we do need to know what they are saying in order to refute them and "mark them out". McLaren is gaining remarkable influence and recognition, even in historically confessional circles, e.g., Calvin College invited him last year to lecture at their "Worship Symposium". It is a bit breathtaking to witness the speed at which biblical discernment is fleeing the churches in North America.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2008)

mvdm said:


> lwadkins said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I even listen to this stuff, it's like I want to torture myself.
> ...



Mark,

I didn't mean to criticize you for noting what I did by the way. I _do_ appreciate the discussion. I was merely noting that I don't get shocked by it.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 13, 2008)

> “…the reality of hell, as it is commonly understood, would cause people to lose their mind.…so they (end up) hating God.”
> 
> “…an infinite amount of punishment for a finite amount of sin seems to question God’s loving nature.” “That creates a rational problem….that raises questions about the goodness of God.”
> 
> “If you want me to have a sense that you (Jesus) and God can be trusted and ultimately care for me,”



Especially the last one: me, me, me, me, me, me.

Also, the whole concept that Christ’s warnings of judgment have already come to pass I simply can’t comprehend. That the ‘judgment’ was the destruction of the temple (and so it’s all done now) is just goofy – I just don’t follow. It is such an earth-based, now/me theology, it makes the afterlife an afterthought instead of the meaning of life.

And the idea that what was said/written in the Bible was not intended to carry the meaning and gravity that we now give it guts scripture in its entirety. That is, Paul was writing correspondance like we write emails to Rome, Corinth, etc. etc. and would die laughing if he saw us using these letters as scripture. I just don't get it.



> McLaren is gaining remarkable influence and recognition, even in historically confessional circles, e.g., Calvin College invited him last year to lecture at their "Worship Symposium".



This is distressing. If they could, they would probably invite Anton LaVey to "enrich the dialogue."


----------



## D. Paul (Feb 13, 2008)

MICWARFIELD said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised that he said that because McLaren is solid in _so_ many areas.
> ...



Semper, *that* really got my attention! My jaw dropped until I read MICWARFIELD's post. Rich, don't scare me like that!


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 13, 2008)

mvdm said:


> McLaren is gaining remarkable influence and recognition, even in historically confessional circles, e.g., Calvin College invited him last year to lecture at their "Worship Symposium". It is a bit breathtaking to witness the speed at which biblical discernment is fleeing the churches in North America.



I find it shocking, OK, maybe just VERY VERY SCARY, that he has become the doyen of a LARGE segment of younger evangelicals. Youth pastors and younger seminary grads are infatuated with this guy. 

Basically, he is not a theologian at all. His training (B.A. and M.A.) was in English. So, you take a somewhat confused but brilliant young Christian kid who doesn't know what he believes, knead him through a B.A. and M.A. in deconstructive approaches to literature, baste liberally in postmodernist hermeneutics, set him out where his verbal adroitness and brilliance can expand like rising bread, and cook this 50-something year old guy on the Youth Specialties circuit to bake for a few years at 350 degrees . . . and ta-da . . . Brian McScarum, icon. 

OK, I know you guys don't have all that much respect for evangelicals. However, as a lifetime card carrying member of the evangelical movement there is DEEP pain in watching the lemmings jumping so gleefully off the cliff.

Honestly, the longer I hang out with youseguys over here on PB, the more more difficult it is to understand why I have remained in my tradition so long. [pretty scary in itself]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2008)

D. Paul said:


> MICWARFIELD said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



What fun would it be if I didn't type with tongue-in-cheek at times?


----------



## DeaconHardwick (Feb 13, 2008)

Unfortunately, Hell will come to meet him in its full, awful reality one day. It's all about what's palatable to man. Modern Christianity has fallen victim to what I call the global sissification of the Gospel. The fact is, the Bible speaks far more of Hell than it does of Heaven, and it's clear that most are going to the former. 



> And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1 Peter 4:18



We know the first group to be sent to Hell will be the members of the liberal cult. A cult is a group of individuals who share a common, outrageous belief they are not willing to subject to rational discourse. I am, of course, referring to those sacrilegious, blasphemous liberals who think the Bible is a tiny pamphlet containing nothing more than the verse, John 3:16. The liberal cultists say what you do wrong doesn't make one iota of difference – as long as you say, "I accept Jesus," you're going to Heaven. Can you believe that? According to this cult, once you say, "I accept Jesus," you can do whatever you wish, and you're still going to Heaven as though nothing happened, just 'cause you uttered the magic words. Needless to say, the liberal cultists won't debate you on this, because they know it makes no sense, hence making them cultists. But they have to hold this belief, because they know it's the only hope they have to go to Heaven despite their depraved, decadent, deviant, debauched, degenerate lifestyles.

True Christians know that the Bible, Old and New Testaments combined, promises Hell for countless sinners. And when you review the Bible in context, just about everyone is going to Hell. Through the apostle, Paul, Jesus told us the majority of so-called Christians cannot enter Heaven because of their sins (and if you don't go to Heaven, the only place left is Hell). "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)." I don't know where the liberal cultists get off suggesting otherwise. I haven't read any verse saying John trumps Paul. Just because John's verse appears on more banners at college football games doesn't make it preeminent. And under the long accepted legal doctrine that the specific controls over the general, Paul's pronouncement that these particular people are going to Hell is clearly an exception to the general rule enunciated by John.
Studies show the majority of people have had premarital sex. They're condemned as fornicators. All those other than Christians are going to Hell as idolaters (and that includes the Catholics who worship Mary, and the so-called "saints"). Studies show many people get drunk at times, so they're out. And, of course, the sodomites are out (but we knew that anyway, without Paul's words).

Of the few people remaining, most of them will go to Hell as adulterers. Matthew told us that anyone who lusts after (has sexual thoughts about) someone to whom he is not married is an adulterer (Matthew 5:28). Matthew also told us that anyone who divorces, then remarries is committing adultery (as is the person the individual marries)(Matthew 5:32). The majority of those who get married wind up divorcing and remarrying at a later date. And the vast majority of people have sexual thoughts about people other than their mates. We're now down to very few people, indeed.

Not only are individuals who marry a second time condemned, but so are their children, their grandchildren, their great grandchildren, etc. Because their second marriage is a nullity, any children of that marriage are illegitimate and are thus condemned to the 10th generation (Deuteronomy 23:2).


----------



## Archlute (Feb 13, 2008)

DH,

I am concerned that in your zeal to defend the truth of God's holiness, and His nature as a just law giver and judge, that you have underestimated the power and the effects of the Gospel. McLaren, along with all of the other sinners and false teachers that one may care to name, is not beyond the reach of Christ. Nor are those Christians who fall to the temptation of lustful thoughts (or even "little" things like irritability with their kids - which are just as much a damnable breaking of the law as more heinous sins) assuredly bound for hell, as seems to be your emphasis. 

It is my recommendation that you might find it a profitable use of your time, in seeking to honor and glorify God in a greater understanding of the nature and effects of the Gospel, to read the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter and sections 11.3, 5; 13.2-3; and 15.4. These portions have to do, respectively, with the relationship of justification to the sins of believers, with sanctification and the sins of believers, and with the repentance unto life that may be granted any sinner by God's electing grace. 

The first two chapters will help you in thinking about the lives of Christians whom you may observe to be in sin, or who have at some time been engaged in sinful behaviors, such as those which you have made a point of in your above post. The final section, regarding repentance unto life, is more applicable to McLaren. I do not personally like him (nor his perceived "likableness" - he's really just stuck on himself, in my opinion), and I have indeed heard him speak at a former seminary (not WSC!). He may very well be a false teacher marked out for destruction, in the vein of Peter's second epistle, _but_ he may also be granted the grace of God, through the help of faithful theologians and scholars who engage him in a concerned, prayerful, and accurate manner, to repent of his false teaching, and to return to a true (and truly generous) orthodoxy.

It is my prayer that you are helped by this post, and by those references in the WCF, in your goal of growing in the Christian life and knowledge of the Gospel, and not that you take this as an assault upon your intelligence, your love for Christ, nor your zeal in keeping falsehood out of the church.

Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss this further.

In the name of the Lamb,


----------



## Zenas (Feb 13, 2008)

Nothing suprising to see here. The man was a God-hating heretic a year ago, and he is so now.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Feb 14, 2008)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> To be expected, he's garbage, no offense to garbage.


Well, you know the old saying, "Misery loves company," and here's further proof: [video=youtube;PqtwLlrSssY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqtwLlrSssY&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Grymir (Feb 14, 2008)

DeaconHardwick - "We know the first group to be sent to Hell will be the members of the liberal cult."

Dude, you had me going. I was like YEA, Preach on brother. But the end of your post lost me. Jesus himself made the exception for adultry. Math 5:32 KJV "saving for the cause of fornication"

But keep on preachin' brother, you will convict people of their sins and drive them to the arms of Jesus!


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 14, 2008)

JasonGoodwin said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> > To be expected, he's garbage, no offense to garbage.
> ...



Wow! And a tip of the hat to James Forbes (ordained American Baptist recently retired from Riverside NY) and Red Letter Christians (the Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo group). Can we get any more trendy? It was even on a Media Matters clip. They are surely one of my favorites. And National Council of Churches' own Bob Edgar standing in the back! A feel an amen coming on strong. Oops.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 14, 2008)

I loved the ringing cell phone in the background. I think I learned more from that noise than McLaren's.

The landscape is changing. Give Campolo a chance, man. You Puritan guys have to put Rob Bell on your Rolodex and take John Calvin off of it.


----------



## danmpem (Feb 14, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> Honestly, these guys don't really shock me. I've gotten to the point where I expect folly from those with futile minds.





When I moved off to college, I wasn't at all surprised at all the vile things students were doing at parties, and that is simply because I understood the doctrine of total depravity. Just as I am not surprised that there are false teachers, and that the ones who I know to be false teach more true ideas about a false Christ.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 14, 2008)

I...............just..................can't....................seem......................to...............................................let....................go......................of........................my..............................Calvinist.................chains.....................i.................need.............................some......................MClaren................WD-40......................or.......................some..........................Campolo.....................greese..............................................or.................some.....................Rob Bell, argh, he just make me want to vomit. Lord, if you give me Rob Bells Church, I promise to be more faithful to your word than he is.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Feb 14, 2008)

JasonGoodwin said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> > To be expected, he's garbage, no offense to garbage.
> ...


I kept waiting to hear about the glory of God and the redemptive work of Christ but all I heard was him him gushing over his own righteousness and open minded, progressive politics.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 14, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > lwadkins said:
> ...



No problem.... I didn't interpret as criticism anything you said.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 14, 2008)

DeaconHardwick said:


> . . . .
> 
> And under the long accepted legal doctrine that the *specific controls over the general*, Paul's pronouncement that these particular people are going to Hell is clearly an exception to the general rule enunciated by John.
> Studies show the majority of people have had premarital sex. They're condemned as fornicators. All those other than Christians are going to Hell as idolaters (and that includes the Catholics who worship Mary, and the so-called "saints"). Studies show many people get drunk at times, so they're out. And, of course, the sodomites are out (but we knew that anyway, without Paul's words).



There's another ancient legal doctrine: "read to the end of the passage."

1Co 6:9-11:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 
*And such were some of you*: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Praise God that blaspheming, theiving, reviling, fornicating, covetous, drunkards such as some like me can be washed, sanctified, and justified in Christ's sovereign and omnipotent name.


----------

