If Herod was Saved: Saved LGBTQ+ and their Children: Born Again Polygamists and All the Rest(rooms)
"He (Herod) had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly" (Mk.6).
“The Sharps say they are born-again Christians who made the decision to practice polygamy after closely studying the Bible. ‘We prayed and prayed and prayed about it and God put it in our hearts to practice the Biblical lifestyle,’" Margie Sharp said.
“A man keeps coming to church in a dress,” complained an Evangelical woman to the NY Times when asked why she thinks the Culture War needed to be addressed on the political level.
"All these had taken strange wives: and some of them had wives by whom they had children" (Ezra 10:44)
--------------------
Abel, the first martyr was killed bacause God demanded that Cain repent to "be accepted." The first martyr in the New Testament was killed because Herod and Herodias refused to repent. But this, the Baptists would say, was before the "dispensation of grace," when men no longer need to repent to be saved, but are saved "by faith alone," and not by repentance and faith. Had Herod asked Peter, "Will Herodias be an issue if I decide to become saved," would he have said, "Let's get you saved first, and then wait for God to convict you?" Ask the "good church" that and watch the squirming and hemming and hawing. This is the "sin in the camp" hiding in plain sight. Until this issue is addressed you can "shut the Temple doors" (Mal. 1:10). It is the first question to ask of any professing Christian you meet: "does your church allow adultery?" If they do, they are false prophets. Not a single person reading the Bible does not understand what Jesus says about divorce-remarriage. But then they listen to the Broadway prophets and learn that what Jesus taught cannot be taken literally. Why? Because the churches will empty because modern people will refuse to take up the cross. But if the Bible doesn't mean what it says when Jesus speaks "with authority," then where does it mean what it says? And so they have ripped the Bible out of the hands of "the common people," and made them dependent on tapes, books, preachers, etc. Because if the Bible can not be trusted here, then it can be trusted nowhere. "The foundations have been destroyed." Herod once mortgaged half his kingdom to do what Luther allowed his church member Philip to do under grace, and Herodias plotted to kill the greatest man ever born to remain in an unscriptural marriage. Evangelicals talk about their wife-swapping and bed-hopping as "mistakes" that were made. Mere trifles--"is it not a little one?" God draws them all up under the awful severity of the 7th Commandment where they will tremble before being cast into the Lake of Fire: "for whoremongers and adulterers God will condemn" (Heb. 14:4).
That is, unless you think the JesusName Preachers at the End belong to the three years of Jesus's ministry when you had to also have works to be saved, and thus the Judgment Christ speaks of would include Jews (including the cub bearers) only. People who were saved by faith alone, then, would get into heaven without having to show "fruits" or repentance. But look closely here: Jesus rejects the sloganeers out of hand for lacking the fruit of the cross bearers. The JesusPreachers were but the old Pharisee recast as Evangelical preacher: "they say and do not." They claimed to be saved by the Cross, but found themselves judged by their works, or lack thereof. This for Luther, was a dangerous mixing of faith and works, and must not be taken literally. It's simply another exaggerated parable to get people to pay attention. Ironically, pagans judge people who profess to be Christians exactly like Christ does at the Last Judgment: by the Sermon on the Mount. By their fruits. They know all the Bushisms: "born again" and "saved, etc." For 2000 years pagans have been hung up on the Sermon on the Mount, which is what they refer to when they say, "Christianity, Christians should try it." But Luther and Calvin thought the teaching so plain, ordinary, and impossible that they couldn't possible be taken literally, and had to be interpreted mystically: they likely referred to the New Heaven and New Earth. That is, the hard parts. The Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, the Good Shepherd--those are all comforts, and belong to the Church of today. This is how these tricksters destroyed the Bible and ripped it out of the hands of the common believer, and invented a new priestcraft to understnd it.
The first martyr in the New Testament was killed for preaching against the perversion of marriage. The problem: they think Jesus misspoke when he called remarriage adultery, or that Jesus spoke in code, which today is lost to us. What He taught would have made sense in that culture, but lost to us. Take Trump or Clinton, both saved. What sense does the "narrow road" make here? How could the gate be "strait" if all you have to do is say the Sinners Prayer to be saved? MAGA is now synonymous with Born Again and Jesus Nameism. 75 percent of Americans believe in Christianity. Look at all the crosses on headstones in Arlington Cemetery. Born Again Bush likely still considers Putin a Christian. What would Jesus say to all this? Why would they not be Christians? Evangelicals teach that repentance is not necessary to be saved. You will repent, they say, after you are saved. How much? A little? How could you tell if Clinton/Bush/Trump have repented--because, even repentance the size of a mustard seed is repentance: that is invisible repentance is still repentance. "Judge not lest ye be judged. Which means that, as with Russians and Serbs, as long as you do not repudiate the Gospel, and want its eternal benefits, you are saved--as long as you repeat the formulas right. That is you can both desire to sin, and equally desire not to suffer eternal damnation for doing so. This Luther said, is the beauty of the Cross. If Trump wants to escape eternal damnation, Luther would say, and says the sinners prayer to be saved from it, God requires no more.
The devils, James says, understand the Christian doctrine perfectly. They are all monotheists. They seek to pervert the Gospel, because they know it works. How could they not know, when they've see the proofs over and over again. The devils would also like to avoid torment, which is why they sought refuge in swine. In that sense, even devils would like to be saved. The only difference then between the non-repentant and devils is that salvation is not open to devils. Trump, Luther would say, need only believe that God accepts Jesus' blood as payment for sin (the devils believe this), and wish to avoid eternal damnation (which the devils also want). This, Luther says, saves a person. He can have the heart of a devil and act like one and be saved, because God requires no change at salvation, only the desire to escape damnation and assent to the truth of Gospel. That assent (what the devils cannot deny) is what Luther calls faith. He could even hate God for arranging salvation on those terms, and hate the terms, while still acknowledging that a person can be saved by those terms. If he does that, Luther would say, he has escaped damnation. The devils have to believe what they know to be true. But they hate what they know to be true. Luther would say, you can hate what you know to be true, and still be saved by that truth. The Publican not only saw the truth, but loved it. Repentance is turning from darkness to light, because the sinner now hates the darkness and loves the light. Such is the difference between the faith of devils and the faith that believes. Luther, James would say, deceived Philip of Hesse into thinking that the "dead faith" of devils (mere assent that the truth is what it is) would save him.
If you want to hear the simple Gospel, listen to a Russian or Greek patriot. Christ is God, Christ died for our sins... How could you not believe that? They're rock solid behind the Church, which is the Ark, in which they hope to die, and the priests have it all figured out, and life among us is as bad as elsewhere. What separates a three fingering Serb from a MAGA? The MAGA's would boast of better formulas. But they would be embarrassed if you called them disciples of Christ. Both Hitler and Churchill saw a very fatal flaw in Christ's teaching in that unlike Islam which calls the faithful to take up the sword, Christ told his disciples to "put up the sword" and "take up the cross." And this after 500 years of undermining everything Jesus said by their theologians. The problem is the Bible itself. The masses can't get past the simple language. Just take the simple words of the Sermon on the Mount out into the street, and ask any pagan what Jesus meant to say. That's the problem with it, they will tell you: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is." Everyone understands perfectly well what He said and taught. But what good is it if it is so far beyond the reach of man that it can't be tried. Philip of Hesse couldn't keep the 7th Commandment. Luther said he didn't have to. What am I missing here, the pagan will ask you. He will accuse of being a fraud and deceiver. You don't even try to practice what you preach. "Christianity," they smirk, "Christians should try it." Clinton, his preacher says, cannot become unsaved. He has nothing to fear on the Day of Judgment. The children of the kingdom cannot be cast out. That was for the Jews, who were saved by works. Orban would not mouth same formulas as MAGAs. Why did Jesus come? To save men from their sins, he will tell you. But, you say, he doesn't say "saved," "born again," "personal relationship" like Clinton and George Bush. So if he and Putin learned to talk like that they too would be "born again" and "once saved, always saved." Before he died, the Russian Kalashnikov who designed the AK47 which as killed more people than any gun in history, wrote to the Russian Patriarch, because he worried that God would hold him accountable. "You have nothing to fear, my son," he was told. "You did it for Holy Russia." Bush and Clinton would not have bothered with such priestcraft, but will their formulas save them any better? "One for the Father, one for the Son, one for the Holy Ghost," the Serbs chant. They leave the thumb and little finger, because the Serbs are as fanatical about the Trinity as MAGAs about their "born agains," their "once saveds," their "personal relationships." "Dostoevsky," said a fellow Russian writer, "was the most evil Christian I ever met." He did not doubt that he was a Christian. The Russians are fanatical about their Christianity. Putin has spent untold billions building churches. George Bush said he "looked into his soul." Whereby, he cried MAGA. "Who then," the Disciples would cry today, "is not, and cannot be, saved?" You would have to try very hard, almost to the point of card carrying "non-bornagainism," not to be saved today.
What would Herod have to do to be saved? Every adulterer in Europe once took up the Crusade to atone for their murders and adulteries. But how do you ask a man who cannot "put up his sword" to "take up the cross?" For a man who sees it as his duty to transgress the 6th Commandment will see breaking the 7th as his due reward. Brothels swarm around battlefields like flies on the stink of Beelzebub. They are the two sides of the same coin. In pagan literature, Mars is always committing adultery with Venus. How would Peter have preached to Herod had he been summoned to do so after Pentecost? Would he still have told him to repent? Would the rich young ruler have been glad, instead of "walking away" sorrowfully because Peter would have said nothing about "his many possessions?" Is what John and Jesus taught before Pentecost for the Church today, or was it meant only for the three years of Jesus' ministry when men were saved by "taking up the cross" and "becoming disciples?" The Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the Parables, the Salt of the Earth, the City on a Hill--all this is "discipleship-take up the cross" talk, the "strawy" half-way house gospel that you find in the Book of James. "Taking up the cross," and "discipleship," Luther would tell you, will keep you from seeing "the Cross." Luther would not shy away from the slogan "We don't know if Christianity works, because it's never been tried," because it shows a total ignorance of grace. What do you mean "by tried." Good works? But Christ came for just that reason: Men cannot do good works. Christ came to free people like Philip of Hesse from the 7th Commandment, because they cannot keep the 7th Commandment. "To try" is to destroy the Gospel. You do not tell Sodom to clean up before coming to the Cross. If Sodom thinks it wants to clean up after coming to the Cross, that's up to them, but it adds nothing to their salvation, and they are free "from the wrath to come," although they may suffer the loss of some rewards. All that has to remain optional to safeguard grace. Which is why you should never say "repent and believe." Are you saved by repentance? No. But you just put repentance before faith. What is the ordinary man is Sodom to think if you preach the Cross in such confused manner. You're telling him he must do something before he even believes. You're already three steps removed from the Cross. Because no one can separate "repentance" from good works, or at least stopping to do bad works. Repentance in Cain may not yet rise to "doing well to be accepted," but it certainly means addressing the "sin that that desires to rule him," for "his deeds were wicked." This is what people see when you say "repent and and believe." Remember, this is the first day of Pentecost, and all these people were Jewish. Hebrews, you have often heard is not for Gentile believers. If you want to confirm Sodom in its sins, Luther would tell you, read them the Book of James. That was meant for Jewish "discipleship-take up the cross" salvation, when Jews were saved by a mixture of faith and works, until the full message will be revealed in the writings of Paul.
All the "impossible" divorce-remarriage texts are from this "between the times," Jewish half-faith-half-works-discipleship-take-up-the-cross period.
What is a true Gentile believer to make of all this. How does he know what's for him in the Gospels and what has been done away "with the Law?"
What is John asking Herod to do? Why was it enough to make Herodias angry enough to kill him? Can a Gentile believer understand any of this? Would his marriage have been "unscriptural" in the time of Paul? Would John have been killed if he had preached the grace taught by Paul. Would the disciples have said "then it's better not to marry" if they had seen that Herod and Herodias would not have to change their arrangement under Grace? Paul taught that the divorced must "remain" unmarried. What formula would he have them go through if like Philip of Hesse they couldn't keep from breaking the 7th Commandment, and decided that "one sin" would be worth it. They would commit a quick sin by remarrying, then repent just as quickly, and, if need be, join the church down the road. What's done is done. A small price to pay. As a divorced recently told me: "I'm not going to spend the rest of my life alone." What good was his wealth by himself? He already had a girlfriend, but wanted to make it right. Don't worry about what Paul said, Luther told his Protector. Why would a rich man like Philip waste the rest of his life in a poor marriage, when one little sin would make the problem go away. What's done is done. Do what you have to do, repent, and rejoin the church. God is not going to punish you for one little mistake. Because I have yet to find one person looking for a "goodly wife" willing to go back to their real wife. Like Herod and Herodias they would sooner take their chances with the Lake of Fire. If you want to test all this, present these very simple questions to the good church down the road. When you see them come out of their skin trying to weasel out, you'll have your answer. They know "there's sin in the camp." But it's of such a magnitude that it cannot be real. Broadway would become Straitgate, and they did not sign up to waste their lives "being weary in well doing, until the saints rest from their labors." How does Satan not triumph if God has to settle for a Remnant?
Can you be a Christian without being a disciple as in "by thus shall all men know that you are my disciples." Is this more of that Jewish half-faith-half-works salvation that was in place until Jesus died on the Cross. That is, before the Cross and Born Again, "taking up the cross suffering" and "following Jesus" was what made you a disciple, and if your good deeds were enough, you would have eternal life, or at least enter into Jewish Paradise, or the Kingdom of God, which is just short of the Kingdom of Heaven. Clinton, we are told was saved when he repeated the Sinner's Prayer, but no one ever said he was a disciple. He never confessed to taking up the cross. Dobson says the Rev Paula White led Trump to Christ. Whether he said the Sinners Prayer, I have not heard. If Christianity can exist without being tried, most people would see confirmation there. In Russian, you're a Christian as long as you're not a confessed atheist. All Serbs are Christians, which is why they remove three fingers from Muslims when they kill them. The Serbs are fanatical about the Trinity.
How to proceed:
They cannot be deacons, as the Baptists would say, because the Bible does not say, “the husband of one husband.” Whether “the wife of one wife” leaves open the door for woman preachers like Bethebel Hex Moore, the Scripture does not address specifically. But the Baptists would be firm here, “they cannot be deacons.” Some of the less strict allow deacons, but slam the door on pulpitry. Scarcity of candidates could be a problem as "the Matter+" multiplies and grows by the day.
You cannot separate them, for two wrongs don’t make a right. That is, the sin of condemned marriage cannot be made right by the sin of equally condemned divorce. For the Bible forbids divorce. How then can you ask saved people to divorce? Besides, the children are innocent.
You cannot judge them. “Judge not, lest you be judged.” "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.” Besides, what’s done is done, and if they’ve repented and are saved, ”God (as the Apostolic Lutherans around here say) has forgiven them.” Jesus delivered believers from the Law, and you cannot now make a Gospel Law out of people’s former sins. Because, Paul said, “such were some of you.” The Church is for sinners. If you find the perfect church, don't join it, you’ll ruin it. Look to your own heart to see if you are not an unsaved legalist. A person who understands grace will not judge. God accepts you as you are. You do not ask the people of Sodom to clean up before coming to the Cross. Come as you are, Luther said, Christ will save you “in” your sins. You are saved by faith, and not by repentance. Repentance comes after you are saved–if you should decide to do so, because you may or may not decide to become a disciple, and may opt not to "take up the cross." If not, you will “suffer loss” on the day of Judgment. But you will not become “unsaved.” And most people, frankly, find it enough to just get saved, and are willing to forgo "rewards." President Clinton once said the sinner’s prayer. “He cannot now become unsaved,” the leader of his church said. “Because once saved, always saved.” Once the people of Sodom say the sinner's prayer, they are saved. What comes after has nothing to do with their salvation. It has to do only with “rewards.”
They must be dealt with Case by Case. Every case is different. You can’t take a shotgun approach here, and put them all in the same lot. There are “exceptions” to the hardest knots of divinity, and as in the days of Ezra, when some of them “had children," not the work of a day. Sorting them will take time, and years, and a blanket amnesty may be the best approach as with the divorced. God is not the God of misery. The Good News cannot be turned into Bad News lest the multitude “walk away sorrowfully,” when, like Luther’s Philip of Hesse, they cannot repent. Luther agreed that he couldn't (and need not) repent, and told him to practice polygamy. When the young Nazi had soul turmoil when forced to kill Jews, he asked his pastor what to do, because if he didn’t keep killing Jews, he would be shot. “Is that what God wants,” his pastor cried angrily? God had already put this young man in an impossible situation, and now he would be killed if he disobeyed orders. And the Jews would be killed anyway? So where are the morals here? Because this young man had a right not to be killed by his superiors. It was either kill or be killed. By the Augustinian doctrine of Just War, he had the right to defend himself from his superiors, which he did by executing Jews. Mir Niks, Dir Niks.
Grace covers all. All of Sodom, Jesus said, would have repented, if they had witnessed what was done in Capernaum. The Church is not for the perfect, but for sinners. Love the sinner, hate the sin. You cannot be the Pharisee and say, “I thank God I’m not like……….” Move on. What’s done is done. You cannot undo the past. Unless you want to turn the Church into a Remnant. "Is that what God wants?" If you allow Satan to have Broadway, how has he not triumphed over God? This is the question behind Augustine's Scriptural grounds for the Catholic Inquisition. Everyone was forced to convert to Christianity, and the Holy Roman Empire became the Church, with the Holy Inquisition (torture) to make sure you (at least) mouth the formulas. This is what got the Donatists and Jacob Hutter tortured and martyred.