Repent and be baptized. Repentance is a key doctrine for salvation. If they believe Scripture on the matter homosexuality is a sin and to be repented of. As is true for any sin.

In my understanding it's not perfection, that a homosexual or hetero will never have wrong thoughts or even actions, or a person who struggles with anger will never be angry, etc. Rather it means a change of mind, a change of heart about it. Saying 'I don't want to do that anymore it's wrong'. I don't know how you get around repentance as a genuine Christian.

I have never heard any Christian leader attack the sinfulness of greed in rich capitalists.

"Rich capitalists" are not necessarily greedy. Even the poor can be greedy. In the same way, a fat person is not necessarily a glutton. Even a skinny person can be a glutton.

greed is not only embraced but also protected and honored in evangelical circles.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. The people I know, both rich and poor, would be shocked to see any sin, including greed, be embraced or protected. It is not uncommon for many sins to be overlooked or ignored, but "embraced" and "protected" and "honored" are entirely different.

I have often wondered why we are so focused on sexual sins, but so lenient or dismissive of others. I think one reason we see Evangelicals being very clear about their opposition to the sin of homosexuality is because we also see so many explicit advocates for it.

how can we attack homosexuality so much and turn a blind eye on greed.

I agree we should not ignore greed or any other sin. But I would not characterize standing for Biblical truth regarding homosexuality as an "attack". It's far more a defense of Godly sexuality.

I just really do not understand why we put SO much emphasis on people who "embrace" a homosexual lifestyle but not on people who embrace other sinful lifestyles.

I have never heard any Christian leader attack the sinfulness of greed in rich capitalists. Quite the contrary, greed is not only embraced but also protected and honored in evangelical circles. Jesus spoke a great deal about greed and it's sinfulness.

I am pro-capitalism. But how can we attack homosexuality so much and turn a blind eye on greed. Greed and the love of money has done so much damage and brought so much pain to our country. We still cannot get out of the financial mess brought to our country by greed.

I think that (regardless of which position is taken on this topic) many people are not accurately presenting the opposing viewpoint when they state their disagreement with it.


A person is saved by faith alone, and yet will still sin after the point of salvation. This is the "free grace" and "grace alone" of Ephesians 2:8-9. God saves his enemies (Romans 5:10) with his mercy, and doesn't decrease his mercy when his enemies become children.


At the same time, if a person says they are (for example) a "dishonest Christian" or a "gay Christian" but also says they have no conviction when they "embrace" dishonesty or homosexuality, then this indicates they do not have the Holy Spirit working in them (cf. John 16:8, Gal 5:17). No work of the Holy Spirit = no salvation (Romans 8:9) -- their profession of faith is false. The "lordship" of God will prompt us to be obedient to Him.


Often, those setup a "free grace vs. lordship" scenario are actually creating a false opposition of the two. They are not acknowledging the biblical standard that real faith DOES produces fruit (faith and fruit are inseparable, James 2:14-24), the biblical STRUGGLE (Galatians 5) between conviction and action, and the biblical reality that much of the New Testament is written to help saved persons deal with the real possibility of committing sin.

Hi DM,

I too am curious about what a systematic theological answer would be! In my understanding, it is also dangerous to follow the thread of this argument if we view sins as just embracing 'actions' of disobedience to God and it leads to the two problems you stated above.

Each sin listed in the bible reflects an even larger sin - of rejecting Christ - and it is this ultimate sin that leads to death. This stems all the way from original sin and is a violation of the first commandment. So even if our hearts are full of unrepentant sin and even if OT heroes engage in sin, we are justified under Jesus on the cross and hence are saved. However this knowing 'engagement' of sin reflects a rebellion of God and yes, it can encapsulate homosexuality and even gluttony. But in my unknowing and unrepentant sin, I still hang on to the cross - I am justified and the Spirit will slowly expose them. On the flip-side, a person can still say he is saved solely by Christ, but in fact, as evidenced (but not proven) from his unrepentant sin, his heart does not treasure it dearly, and it is mere 'talk'.

This is just my understanding! Hope other views will come out for discussion.

"A simple believer who honestly reads his Bible knows that "A proud sinner defiantly ignoring the lordship of Christ while professing to embrace him as Savior is precisely what Paul says is impossible. These passages do not threaten believers who struggle with indwelling sin and fall into grievous sins ..." Theologians appreciated, but not needed.

Anybody? Joe (Carter)?

I am very interested in getting the perspective of some Reformed theologians (professional or lay) on how to deal with these objections.

If that's your opinion of the Bible, why would it matter what Jesus is written in it to have said?

Had it ever occurred to you that maybe, perhaps maybe, what the bible says about homosexuality was the result of the biases and ignorance of the people who wrote it? Did Jesus say anything about it? Is Paul (a man who said women should be submissive to men and silent in church, that slavery was OK, and that Jews killed Jesus and their prophets) more relevant than Jesus to you?

"Some us choose very different lives than others... but whatever we choose, it doesn't remove our relationship with God... While behavior matters, those things don't interrupt someone's relationship with Christ."

Isn't that what happened in the Garden of Eden? A choice to act against God's commands removed humanity's relationship with God? I'm not saying someone can lose their salvation, but let's not pretend that an abundance of passages don't speak to faith not persevering to the end (parable of the soils; rebukes of false teachers; etc.)

Very helpful. Thank you for the synthesis!

All sin must be killed. We cannot show any sin in our lives even the slightest degree of mercy.

"So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.". Romans 8:12-13

As Dan notes below, in the Christianity Today article Chambers clearly states that he's talking about those embracing, rather than struggling with, a lifestyle of sin. "Some us choose very different lives than others... but whatever we choose, it doesn't remove our relationship with God." He's speaking of those who actively choose a sinful lifestyle, rather than struggling with it.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/julyweb-only/alan-chambers-accused-of-antinomian-theology.html

I find this whole deal to be pretty ridiculous: that this even has to be debated! From what i've read Chambers is being VERY clear about his position and is simply (in my view) mistaken. What kicks the bees' nest for me is this kind of (what i call) "Rodney-King Christianity" viz. "Can't we just all get along?" Chambers is presenting. He says, "So, as others identify as Wesleyan Arminian Christians, Calvinist Christians, Anabaptist Christians, gay or ex-gay Christians, I have to admit I am just, simply, irrevocably, a Christian. I am not smart enough and don't have enough time to know how those other labels would fit or serve me or those to whom I have been called to minister." He seeks to muddy the waters with denominational distinctives and skirt around what all would agree (for the most part) it actually means to be Christian in the first place viz. one who loves Christ, His word and His church and hates sin and seeks to put it to death. This false humility is the same kind of rubbish that Osteen uses in his Larry King appearances ("Well, i'm no theologian here" but i'm still going to tell thousands of people what the bible says.)
He throws up further smoke screens by saying 'hey, we all have sin in our lives when we die' and presents this kind of Antinomianism by it which ignores what our ATTITUDE as regenerate children of God needs to be towards that remaining sin. to continue in it and embrace it reveals the true nature of the heart.

Joe Carter: "As president of Exodus, Chambers has been a compassionate leader ministering to individuals struggling with same-sex attraction. But his advocacy of a non-lordship view of salvation, often mislabeled as "free grace," is both dangerous and unintentionally hateful."

Teaching doesn't get much worse than that, does it?

I agree exactly. Embracing sin is a much greater level of involvement from merely engaging in it. You describe the difference very well, and Chambers doesn't use the word "embrace" (as far as this article goes). Therein lies the confusion for me.

Given that many (most?) homosexuals don't view their behavior as sinful, they likely would deny that they are "struggling" with sin. It's not an issue of struggling against sin and sometimes losing: It's an issue of intentionally living in a sinful manner, intentionally dwelling in sin because you don't believe it to be sin (or don't believe it to be especially bad).

I think it's confusing because he's TRYING to make the two mean the same thing: he's trying to say that if you can struggle with sin and still be ok, then you must be able to outright accept the sin as an integral part of your daily life, without struggle, and still be ok. The problem is... well, the article itself addresses the problems with that.

Someone below mentioned repentance as the distinction that Chambers misses and Adam had.

From the CT article:
"Some of us choose very different lives than others," Chambers said of gay Christians in same-sex marriages. "But whatever we choose, it doesn't remove our relationship with God."
When asked to clarify whether or not that meant "a person living a gay lifestyle won't go to hell, as long as he or she accepts Jesus Christ as personal savior," he replied, "My personal belief is … while behavior matters, those things don't interrupt someone's relationship with Christ." In the course of the interview, Chambers made it clear that he believes that homosexual acts are sinful.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/julyweb-only/alan-chambers-accused-of-antinomian-theology.html

It would be nice to have some clarification. It seem to me that Chambers and each of these scholars responding to him are not actually talking about the same issue.

If Chambers means that we can actively and intentional live in an ongoing sinful manner without any sorrow or repentance or struggle, then these responses to his statement make sense. However, if he means that people can continue to struggle with sin and sometime lose that fight and yet remained saved then it seems that Chambers is actually correct in his statement and that these answers don't actually speak to the issue Chambers is trying to address.

Is Chambers' position clearly stated somewhere?

[...] Debatable: Can Christians Embrace Sin and Still Be Assured of Their Salvation? [...]

Chambers has embraced the "once saved always saved" mindset. How very sad.

I will not quote scripture today about this issue because you have the Bible and can on the subject all you wish to if interested. But, I will give my assessment of what the Bible teaches on this subject. First, scripture is plain on the status of mankind. Adam, our federal head, fell into sin, and ALL of his posterity after him are conceived and born into this world a sinner by their very nature and status. That is why babies die! They have a fallen nature and are seperated from God as sinners. (Not dealing here with are any of them saved that is for another day). So, all are sinners and that one sin of Adam wasn't homosexuality or any moral sexual type sin. It was disobeying the word of God and eating of the forbidden fruit. Disobedience period! Now, all humans do sinful acts since they are "sinners" full of corruption and seperated from God. God planned to save some sinners and He died on the cross to pay or atone for their sins or no sinner would ever get to heaven at all. Covering the "sinner" his state as a sinner and also his infractions or sins which flow out of his or her life are covered by Christ by His blood. Past, present and future. Justification was worked out for the one's who trust and have faith in Christ and turn or repent of their sins. So, the condition for this salvation is belief/faith/repentance and that happens at one moment in time - after God makes a change in the heart/mind/soul/spirit of a lost sinner enabling him or her to have the inseperable graces in order to be alive to understand spiritual truths enough to call upon the Lord Jesus and recognize he or has sinner against God and is in need of a Savior and pardon or to be saved from the wrath of God to come! After being saved we are a "new creation" living in a fallen body which has not changed one bit! This new man or born again person is the one which is IN CHRIST and can never sin again, is pure and holy, is according to John in his epistle one who never sins! However, that new person or creation is to be active with the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification of the flesh which is full of sin or has the "law of sin" still abiding in it. That is where the struggles come and a person who has had the imputation of Christ's righteousness added to their account in the new birth, is looked upon by God as clean always. He never sees us in a condemned position again. Never! Now the new person and his spirit struggle with the old flesh and from time to time that flesh may get the best of us and we fail. We may cuss, get tipsy on liquor, get to angry, even perhaps have a lingering habitual sin, or otherwise Hebrews is meaningless when the writer states "lay aside the sin which does so easily beset you." I content the epistles of John and Romans 7 would make no sense at all if we Christians could not sin or could not habitually sin because ALL do in some form or fashion every day. So homosexuality is a situation as I see it whereby if the person doesn't recognize it as a sin against God flowing flowing from his fallen nature and is something he or she must fight against and seek to be delivered from has NEVER seen the light of Christ at all. ALL sinners know they are sinners and know their particular sin is wrong and would want to fight against it and do fight against it all the time. If that struggle isn't there one must question whether they have ever been given the Spirit of Christ at all. The Holy Spirit will bear witness with our spirit we are children of God. But that does not mean sinless perfectionism at all. Also, the Weslyian Arminians idea of the three tenses of salvation and potential to not complete them all brings one to damnation if utterly unscriptural as it can be. Yes, we are saved, being saved and will be saved. But it is not to be interprested as if the "new birth" whereby we are placed into Christ (can't be in Christ and still be lost and a sinner in activity or status). Paul said it was NOT him any longer sinning in Romans 7 but sin that remained in his body that was the problem. NOT the new man Paul the Apostle who did not wish to allpw that body and its sinful desires to do its work. Yes, we ask forgiveness daily because we allow our fallen nature to operate but that confession has to do with our faculties which have been left unredeemed and not changed such as our mind, our brain, our fleshly desires, etc., need to be under control by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, but the NEW person is perfect in Christ and will NEVER be any more perfect than it now is! Again, you can't be IN Christ and be not perfect! The new man is perfect but the old carnal flesh and its faculties have not been changed one bit. That body is the problem. We are so unified in all of this that we can't seperate ourselves like this very easily. But I see the Bible teaches we are body, soul and spirit, a tripartate person, for God says the word can divide us like that - sharper than a two-edged dividing the body, soul and spirit - even though we may not be able to. So hopefully this helps some. Mystery yes, but able to be understood somewhat by the word. No salvation is ever lost since it is a work of Christ forever given - EVERLASTING LIFE AND ETERNAL LIFE ARE PRESENT SITUATIONS AND NOT SOMETHING WE WAIT ON WHEN IT COMES TO OUR SPIRIT AND SOUL. We have it now! And HE is the keeper of it because HE is the ONE who had it, gave it and will complete it all. The body is purchased and the Holy Spirit in us is the down payment of that purchased possession. If you take any of this otherwise you will never, never have any assurance of anything because you are basing your eternal salvation and life afterwared on something you do and you can earn by some method of operation of the flesh! Can't be done! Salvation is of the Lord and HE is the author and the finisher of our faith!

Yeah, I should clarify that this is of purely theological/doctrinal interest to me. I agree that asking "how far can I go without sinning?" is the wrong mindset (although, that also is much murkier when trying to decipher your own motives and determine whether sharing the prayer request is GOOD or GOSSIP, than it is when trying to determine how much you can indulge sexual urges without sinning or something like that).

DM -
i appreciate your thoughtfulness in these comments and the way you are wrestling with the issue. To me, one answer to your points would be the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting us of sin. When it comes to ignorance of sin then there may be cases that we are simply not being spiritually or intellectually honest with ourselves viz. fooling ourselves or rationalizing what we know to be sin. Another answer might be that we can be more clear where Scripture is clear and more gracious where there is room to be so. No one is arguing about whether you can think it's ok to kill someone here b/c Scripture is clear on this as, i believe, it is about homosexual practice. Where the sin is harder to discern (i.e. am i gossiping about someone or just sharing a prayer request?) i think we need to appeal to individual conscience and the community of faith to aid us in deciding when we've crosses the line. That said, the question of "where is the line?" is a dangerous one which raises flags when people ask it - seems to imply sometimes the idea of "how much can i get away with?"
Finally, as to the question of polygamy, it is a good one but one over which there is much debate and uncertainty amoung Christendom. The question i would want to ask in response is: are you struggling with the sinfulness of polygamy in your own life and how to reconcile that with your faith, is this this more just thinking out the issue and finding points of interest to press on? An appeal to David and polygamy, in my mind, takes the focus off the individual asking the question is what i mean. I would want to say, 'i don;t know about that, but what sins are YOU currently struggling against?' Just my thoughts. God's peace.

Chambers is right in noting that we are all sinners (Rm 3:23). The issue that Chamber's doesn't address is the role of repentance in the believer's life. This is why we have a problem with his position. I don't have a problem saying that homosexuals can be saved if they are living a life of faith with an attitude of repentance. I make mistakes, what differetiates me from an unbeliever is that I'm sorry for my sins, and even though I may do them, it is my goal to stop the behavior because I have a new life in Christ. It's the lack of repentance, the willingness to "embrace" the sin as if it wasn't a problem, that bothers me.

I come from the traditional Reformed perspective, but this is actually an issue (embracing sin generally, not homosexuality specifically) that I have been wrestling with recently. Let me explain...

Burk is persuasive, but he doesn't tie up all the loose ends and Chambers is right that it is a bit hypocritical. In accordance with traditional Calvinist doctrine, everyone at TGC (I think) would say that if you embrace a lifestyle of sin (e.g., homosexuality), that would be an indicator that you have not actually been justified. There are two objections to that view that I have been considering lately (still unresolved):

(1) That's easy for us to apply with respect to homosexuality because it is easy to talk about what homosexuality is. With respect to engaging in a homosexual lifestyle, you either ARE, or you AREN'T. And there is no confusion about whether you are or not. But what about sins that are harder to discern? For instance, what about gossip? (What is gossip? Are you possibly living as a gossiper without knowing it?) There are plenty of other examples I could use. Even baptism--if God really does want Christians to baptize their children into the new covenant as infants (similar to circumcision in the old covenant) (see Acts 2:39), then are believers baptists sinning despite their honest belief that they are correct? (The baptism point is taking things a bit further, but just a similar idea...) The basic question is this: what if, because you think that you are not sinning, you are embracing a lifestyle, and that lifestyle is actually sinful?

(2) How do you deal with King David? Under Burk's theology, I think you have to presume that David was not saved. David not only screwed up on occasion, but he apparently "embraced" a polygamous lifestyle. I think the TGC guys would all say that is sinful. But Hebrews 11:32 seems to indicate that David is a model of faith. So the question remains: how does David fit into this whole discussion?

And my previous comment has nothing to do with homosexuality specifically. Same thing would go for a married man who abandons his wife and moves in with another woman. Same thing goes for an unrepentant, still-swindling con artist. I'm not saying we need to be perfect, but the "embracing" our sin vs. "engaging" in sin is an important one.