Wow, you just seem to think that no depraved person will ever want to be saved, and if he or she does, he can't be. Neither of those is a biblical idea. You keep ignoring all the Bible verses and explanations I send you, and you keep hammering one verse: "But it says 'They did not retain God in their knowledge,' and 'God gave them over.' " Yes it does say that, but there's always opportunity and an invitation along with God's grace to bring people to repentance. That's what the Gospel is about. God never stops pursuing people to bring them to salvation. Anyone can repent, anytime. That's the good news! You can come to Jesus, even today.

Romans 1 is talking about that all humans are guilty before God and are subject to the bondage of sin. All humans. Paul is saying that no one is able to save themselves because we are all reprobate. Sin is a universal condition, and the universal need of humanity for salvation is found in Jesus Christ. That's what Romans 1 is about. He is NOT saying there is a certain group of sinners who cannot be saved.

Let's examine 1.28, since that's the anvil you keep hammering on, apparently ignoring the rest of the Bible on this subject.

"Furthermore": This is the third of Paul's "gave them over" statements. These rebellious ones had tested God (not in faith, but in rebellion), and when God didn't conform to their notions, they turned their backs on him, suppressing the truth that they inherently knew in their consciences and had learned in their lives. God became a mockable caricature based on partial truths and outright lies.

God, in his love, doesn't force people to love him, so he "punished" them by letting them exercise their free will in their insistence on sin. Since this is the third "God gave them over" statement in the text, again we have a cause and effect. The cause is sin (rebellion in tossing into prison the knowledge of God); the effect is God's righteous judgment (his "wrath"). Their minds are not just dark, but reprobate—depraved. The godlessness of humankind is complete, a theme he will hammer home all the way through Romans chapter 3. He then launches into a directory of depravities to prove his point: everyone, every human being, no matter who you are, fits into one of these sins. There is none righteous, no not one.

"Reprobate" is the Greek word ἀδόκιμον: "Not standing the test; unqualified; worthless; base; disqualified; unfit for any good deed; unreliable; unworthy; tested and failed." The preposition εἰς ("to") is used here to suggest the figure of a captive subjected to another power. They made their choice by free will, and God lets the natural consequences come upon them (so the punishment fits the crime), their knowledge of God becomes unreliable and worthless, and they are now captive of its power. Robertson says, "They rejected God and God rejected their mental attitude and gave them over. Like an old abandoned building, left to do those things which are not fitting. Like bats and snakes in a deserted building, like the nightclubs of modern cities, the dives and dens of unrestrained animal impulses."

The Interpreter's Bible says, "When you give away what is really worth keeping, you are left only with the kind of resources that isolation affords."

The result is serving one's own self-seeking desires rather than the will of the One True God. The reprobate mind is equally as destructive to self as the reprobate flesh, both characterized by sin. It is unprincipled, depraved, and unable to discern good, God, or evil. It is mind consumed by the cloud of self.

But it doesn't mean there is no return and no chance of repentance. The rest of the book shows us there is—for everyone.

"just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God": They rejected the value of knowing God. They intentionally refused full knowledge of Him.

"so God gave them over": God punishes them by letting them have the fruit of their own sin. He lets them exercise their free will and suffering the consequences of it rather than protecting them from it.

"to a depraved mind": ἀδόκιμον. "Not standing the test; unqualified; worthless; base; disqualified; unfit for any good deed; unreliable; unworthy; tested and failed." It certainly does NOT mean "failed with no hope of return."

"so that they do what ought not to be done": Sensuality has not become their strongest drive, and they are enslaved to it. Their mind is dark, their soul is shrunken, and their conscience is damaged. But fear not. There is hope in Jesus Christ. That's the message of Romans.

You seem to be working so hard to squeeze sinners into this tiny little box where there is no hope for them and God can't reach them. God is not so small that He cannot reach a person whose mind is dark, whose soul is shrunken, and whose conscience is damaged. Romans 13.12 says it's possible to set aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 2 Corinthians 4.6 says, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." Ephesians 5.8 says, "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord." Colossians 1.13 says, "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves." THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT: We can be rescued!

> The Bible doesn't teach this.

Romans 1:28 [quote]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge[/quote]

If you don't want to think of God you don't want to be saved.

> A reprobate won’t ever want to be saved because they don’t even want to think about God.

The Bible doesn't teach this. The Bible teaches that "whoever believes in him will have eternal life." The Bible teaches that anyone can repent. The Bible teaches that even people we think are spiritually hopeless can and do come to Jesus. It teaches that the only unforgivable sin is the sin of never turning, but it NEVER says that a reprobate won't ever want to be saved. As a matter of fact, and I already quoted this for you, Paul says in 1 Cor. 6.11, right after the text we're discussing, that people HAD turned away from the wickedness. That's the good news of the gospel.

> Romans 1.28

There is no notion in this verse or text that there is no longer any hope for these people. You'll notice in Romans 2.7-8 that it's those who PERSIST in their ways.

Romans 3.21ff. shows that despite the horrific sin and depravity in humans, there is a way of escape from it: Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Anyone can be justified freely (Rom. 3.24; 4.7-8). While we were depraved sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5.8). That's the whole point: anyone can be reconciled (Rom. 5.10) except those who refuse to be reconciled through their whole lives.

A reprobate won’t ever want to be saved because they don’t even want to think about God.

“they did not like to retain God in their knowledge”

Romans 1:28 [quote]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.[/quote]

> That translates to fornication, not "sexually immoral". The word "immoral" isn't even in the bible.

Neither is the word "moral," so what does that tell us? Nothing. The fact that the word "immoral" isn't in the Bible is a non-point that takes us nowhere. The word "trinity" isn't in the Bible either. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The term πόρνοι is translated as "Prostitution; unchastity; fornication (meaning every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.)." It is applied to cases where there is payment for sex (prostitution) as well as cased where there is no payment for sex (for example, Paul uses *porneia* in 1 Cor. 5.1 for a son having sex with his father’s wife.) Therefore it was used in various situations where the sexual liaisons were considered to be immoral. The Greeks and Romans had a different moral code than Paul was indicating for Christians, and Paul applied to term in general to marital unfaithfulness or sexual immorality/licentiousness.

> Think about it: the bible is absolute basis for morality because it defines what is and what is not sin by NAMING the sin.

The Bible doesn't pose itself as a moral guide or as the basis of morality. One could never derive a complete guide of moral objectivity from the Bible because it never provides (nor claims to provide) a full moral system. Clearly, it says a lot of things that show us what morality is, and it points us to be moral people. Though we can rightfully assume that God's character is revealed for us to derive a full morality, even the glimpses of moral insight the text does contain don't show us the full moral system. We only have pieces. A complete objective moral system based on the Bible is simply impossible to produce because the Bible never gives us every single part of that picture.

> the bible is absolute basis for morality because it defines what is and what is not sin by NAMING the sin.

Not always. Sometimes the Bible describes the sin. Sometimes the Bible gives us an example of the sin (Ex. 32).

> If the bible said something is "immoral" then it would no longer define itself and it would follow it's not Gods Word anymore.

"Immoral" is a concept of that which is against what is good and right, about which the Bible has much to say. It uses terms like unrighteousness, wickedness, uncleanness, abomination, evil, and sin to express the concepts of immorality, ungodliness, and sin. You seem to think that if the Bible ever said something was "immoral," then "immoral" would no longer be immoral. But the Bible uses "sin." Does that mean sin no longer defines itself and it doesn't follow God's word any more? What about "unrighteousness," "transgression," and "godlessness"?

> The bible has to NAME the sin for something to be immoral because it's the bible that defines morality itself.

You are putting a barrier on the Bible that the Bible doesn't put on itself. The Bible doesn't use the term "morality," never defines morality, nor does it put itself in a small box of applicability as you are doing. Perhaps as a refutation you can point me to the text where the Bible defines morality by using the term and giving the definition.

> Paul came up with the word.

He possibly did. The term is not found in any extant Greek text prior to Paul's use of it here. Paul coined other words as well.

> So to say "male coitus" automatically infers that it's male-male coitus and not necessary female-male coitus is disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous at all, but etymological. arsenokoitai: The first half of the word (arsenikos) denotes "male," and the second half of the world denotes "coitus." So how can it refer to female-male coitus as well?

> Actually, if you take 1 Timothy 1:10 into account it's more likely female-male coitus than not.

There is nothing in 1 Tim. 1.10 that leads to your conclusion. There "adulterers" is [i]pornois[/i], a term we've already discussed. That refers to both male and female sexual immorality. Then Paul uses [i]arsenokoitas[/i], so I don't know how you can confidently assume he's taking into account both male and female coitus. Then he says "slave traders" ([i]andrapodistais[/i]): men-stealers (see the first half the word meaning "mean" (andra...)? Then he says liars, then perjurers, and then a catch-all term. So where do you get any justification that [i]arsenokoitas[/i] is "more likely female-male coitus than not"? There's no basis for your interpretive barrier.

> Sodomy is for the reprobate

Sodomy is an abomination, correct.

> which is why there is no possibility it is among the sins of the members of the churches at Corinth

This is a non sequitur. Sodomy was rampant and habitual in ancient Corinth (as well as all across the Roman Empire), and it is distinctly and literally identified by Paul as (1) sinful and contrary to sound doctrine in 1 Tim. 1.9-10 and (2) able to prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God in 1 Cor. 6.9 (couched in a sentence with other "wicked" behaviors).

> Reprobation is when someone rejects God one too many times such that God has given them up to a "reprobate mind" and directly refers to the act of sodomy.

The term translated "reprobate" in Rom. 1.28 is used 8 times in the NT, and not always in connected with sexual sin, let alone sodomy. It's the Greek word ἀδόκιμος (you'll notice the "a-" prefix, meaning a negation; the rest of the word is [i]dokimos[/i], meaning "righteousness"); this is a person lacking in righteousness.

[list][*] 1 Cor. 9.27: "disqualified." Disqualified for the prize. He's not talking about sex at all, but with not being a slave to sin.
[*] 2 Cor. 13.5, 6, & 7: "failed." Failed the test. Nothing to do with sex or sodomy, but with not giving in to sin, but instead do what is right.
[*] 2 Tim. 3.8: "Depraved minds." Referring to false teachers Jannes and Jambres, teaching things that aren't true. Nothing to do with sex or sodomy.
[*] Titus 1.16: "unfit." Used generally for thoughts and actions that are detestable, disobedience, and unfit for anything good.
[*] Hebrew 6.8: "Worthless." Refers here to any teaching that isn't the truth that leads to salvation.[/list]

So, I'm afraid to say, you're just wrong about this. Again, you're making boxes and barriers that are too small and that the Bible doesn't make. Reprobation is far more than just rejecting God "one too many times such that God gives them up to a reprobate mind. Most uses of this term have nothing to do with sexual activity at all, let alone sodomy.

> A reprobate cannot be saved

Anyone can be saved if they repent, including a reprobate. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 6.11, "That's what some of you were, but (thank God) you were washed...sanctified...and justified." Anyone who continues in their reprobation cannot be saved, true, but anyone who will repent of it can be welcomed into the kingdom (2 Cor. 13.5-10). Even the sin of blasphemy can be forgiven as long as one does not persist in it (Mt. 12.31). Any sin can be forgiven if one confesses and repents (1 Jn. 1.9).

>A reprobate cannot be saved, but the Corinthians are saved .. therefore they never did sodomy.

Again, this is a non-sequitur. A reprobate CAN be saved, as I've shown. And the Corinthians are saved. 1 Cor. 6.9-11 shows clearly that "that's what some of you were, ... but now you are cleansed."

> The sexually immoral: πόρνοι.

That translates to fornication, not "sexually immoral". The word "immoral" isn't even in the bible.

Think about it: the bible is absolute basis for morality because it defines what is and what is not sin by NAMING the sin. If the bible said something is "immoral" then it would no longer define itself and it would follow it's not Gods Word anymore. The bible has to NAME the sin for something to be immoral because it's the bible that defines morality itself.

up until the bible [i]arsenokoitai[/i] is only used in two places in all Greek bodies of text: 1 corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Paul came up with the word. So to say "male coitus" automatically infers that it's male-male coitus and not necessary female-male coitus is disingenuous. It probably means whore. Actually, if you take 1 Timothy 1:10 into account it's more likely female-male coitus than not.

Sodomy is for the reprobate, which is why there is no possibility it is among the sins of the members of the churches at Corinth. Reprobation is when someone rejects God one too many times such that God has given them up to a "reprobate mind" and directly refers to the act of sodomy.

A reprobate cannot be saved, but the Corinthians are saved .. therefore they never did sodomy.

Romans 1:27 [quote]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[/quote]

Romans 1:28 [quote]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;[/quote]

> I’m saying that people INSERT homosexuality into 1 cor 6:9 because of false bible versions mistranslating that verse.

I see homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6.9 because that's what it says. Paul is talking about the wicked who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

[list][*] The sexually immoral: πόρνοι. A generic term for every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. Whoring one's body. But then Paul details what some of those are.
[*] idolaters: εἰδωλολάτραι. Depending on something other than God. Putting one's trust in anything other than God's grace.
[*] adultery: μοιχοὶ. Sexual relations between a married person and someone who is not his or her spouse.
[*] male prostitutes: μαλακοὶ. The passive, receiving partner in homosexual intercourse. A man or boy who is used for anal sex.
[*] homosexual offenders: ἀρσενοκοῖται. Greek: "man coitus." The active penetrator in homosexual intercourse. The sodomite or pederast.
[*] thieves: κλέπται. Thieves; robbers.
[*] greedy: πλεονέκται. Greed; self-indulgence at the expense of others; avaricious over-reachers.
[*] drunkards: μέθυσοι. Overindulgence in alcohol to the point of loss of control.
[*] slanderer: λοίδοροι. Abusive verbal accusers and insulters of others; those who lie about other people.
[*] swindler: ἅρπαγες. Robbers. A stronger term than "thieves." Cheaters; deceivers.[/list]

[i]People[/i] don't insert homosexuality into the list, Paul did. ἀρσενοκοῖται means what it means. The first half of the word (arsenikos) denotes "male", and the second half of the world denotes "coitus" — relates to male coitus with a male. In ancient Greece and Rome, same sex coitus was often pederastic (though not always), often a display of power (a right and privilege of the wealthy and powerful, or the head of the household), but sometimes just sexual engagement. Therefore the word does include pederasty and homosexual rape, but that's not its only meaning.

You can't remove it from the list because you think it's not a normal thing to be tempted about. Paul put it on the list because it's something wicked that prohibits one from entering the kingdom of God. This is wicked (ἄδικοι) behavior that prohibits inheritance of the kingdom.

You say we can only go by the text, not man's words. Great, then let's go by the text. "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offender ... will inherit the kingdom of God." Anyone who is not sanctified from these sins (1 Cor. 6.11) is not justified before God.

> 1 cor 6:9 is about Paul telling them not to take disputes with brethren to mans court but to settle disputes in the church.

You missed the flow and Paul's point.

vv. 1-3: Don't take your disputes with brothers to man's court, but settle such disputes in the church, as you said.

v. 4: We cannot dream we'll hear God's wisdom from people who are unredeemed sinners.

v. 5: Certainly there is someone in the church who can judge with God's wisdom!

v. 6: It's wrong to show the dirty laundry of your church conflicts in front of godless magistrates and to let them, who don't have access to the Holy Spirit, settle your disputes.

v. 7: These disputes all by themselves show that you are not living in the unity of the Spirit, and about that you should be ashamed. Instead, turn your other cheek and absorb the wrong. It's a better choice than making the Church and Christ look bad.

v. 8: Instead, you are acting like sinners yourselves! That's bad enough, but your victims are your Christian brothers and sisters. It's shameful behavior.

vv. 9-10: Anyone who continues in his or her sin doesn't inherit the kingdom of God. And if you are someone who continues in sin, then beware the judgment of God. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do not be deceived: Religious demeanor doesn't justify wicked behavior.

But then in v. 11 is the clincher: "And that is what some of you were." In other words, some of them were ἀρσενοκοῖται, but now they are washed (a probable reference to baptism)—a change of life-orientation, sanctified (set apart for God), and justified (set free from that wickedness). Clearly, and irrefutably, some of them were involved in sodomy, but now they have been changed, redeemed, set apart for Christ, and set free from that lifestyle and behavior.

You quoted Martial.

I’m not saying sodomy isn’t forbidden by God. Did I say that ever? It’s clear by lev 20:13 that it’s an abomination.

I’m saying that people INSERT homosexuality into 1 cor 6:9 because of false bible versions mistranslating that verse. I’m saying that if there is a doubt that 1 cor 6:9 is talking about sodomy that it clearly isn’t because sodomy is not a normal thing to be tempted about. Only reprobates burn in lust for strange flesh.

1 cor 6:9 is about Paul telling them not to take disputes with brethren to mans court but to settle disputes in the church.

I've been quoting the Bible all along. The terms, as in my first post, point to the fact that it includes all same sex, not just pederasty. The context, as in my second post, shows that Paul's words don't relate to temptation but rather to sexual sin of all kinds. I've shown you from 1 Corinthians that the issue is what is sin, not whether one is tempted or not. Sodomy is clearly being forbidden. It's beyond a doubt.

> I'm still missing your point. I have never been tempted to steal. I wouldn't even dream of it. Does that mean it's not a sin?

How could you be missing my point? So just because you claim you’ve never been tempted to steal means that sodomy is a temptation common to man?

The problem is you’re not quoting the bible. You’re quoting mans words. If you want to believe Paul is talking about sodomy, go right ahead. It would be wrong though.