That standard is God’s Law. Christ fulfilled it all — every jot and tittle — in order to be the spotless Lamb of God and pay for the sins of His people.

IMO, believers who glibly repeat “we’re-under-grace-not-law!” seem not to understand the proper relationship between God’s Law and His Grace.

Report comment to moderator

This is the very law of which Christ upheld every jot and tittle.

While most of the dietary law is no longer in effect, the moral law — e.g., do no murder, do no adultery, have no false gods, honor your father and mother — still is in effect.

So it seems that some manner of distinction is to be made among the laws of God by those who seek to acknowledge and obey Him.

And finally: Yes, the prohibition against homosexual acts falls within the category of God’s moral law. One reason is that it is taught clearly by His prophets and apostles in both the Old and New Testaments.

Report comment to moderator

James 2:10-11: For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws. For the same God who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.” So if you murder someone but do not commit adultery, you have still broken the law.

Galatians: 2:17-21: But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.

Obviously, neither James nor Paul is saying sin is ok. But they seem to be clearly saying that if you look to the old law for instruction on what is or isn’t sin — rather than looking inward, to the light of Christ in the heart — you obligate yourself to keep every jot and tittle of it.

Modern Christians, however, do this on many topics. You demand that people keep some of the law, but dismiss other parts as outmoded or superseded. That’s precisely what James and Paul said not to do.

Report comment to moderator

Frank: Would you mind elaborating on that a bit?

Report comment to moderator

You have problems understanding because you cannot bring homosexuality into a rightful, un-sinful practice regarding the Bible – It’s because of this sin, that you and many others are unable to make it right according to the Bible which has hindered you from understanding anything regarding LAW and GRACE -

You wander off into cursing parents which is a sin but is not punishable by death in the NT – this won’t make homosexuality sinless no matter how hard you work on it.

Report comment to moderator

This is my point: There’s a long list of laws in the Old Testament, many of them in Leviticus, others found elsewhere. The New Testament writers speak of keeping all of the law or none of it, not some halfway definition. But modern Christians seem to prefer to pick and choose.

I agree that murder, theft, adultery and other things are still morally wrong, but this is one of many examples of Christian theology being incoherent.

Report comment to moderator

“Why, for example, do you argue that the prohibition against male homosexuality in Leviticus still applies, but the system of Levirate marriage does not? Some say, “Well Paul in Romans reaffirms the evil of homosexuality.” OK, but Jesus reaffirms the rightness of Levirate marriage.”

Homosexuality has never changed from being sin – it was sin in the OT and in the new it is still sin – many times the portion of Scripture has been quoted on this blog Romans 1

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 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.

28 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;

A REPROBATE MIND is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

“And in any case, if we are now under grace, that doesn’t mean what used to be wrong is now right. Christians argue that sin is still sin, just forgiven through Christ. Except it seems that many sins are NOT still sins in the minds of many Christians — many things outlined in the Old Testament law are now ignored and not seen as anything to repent of — but homosexuality is.”

Steveg, you argue with GOD Almighty when you make these statements. Murder, adultery, stealing, are still sins and so is homosexuality – We aren’t under grace to steal our neighbors car or plunder through his home taking whatever we like, anymore than we are under grace to go out and commit adultery -

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Levirate marriage has nothing to do with “the fundamental definition of marriage decreed by God.” It is what God commanded Israel in a certain situation.

Note that, contrary to your assertion, it never requires a brother who is already married to take his brother’s widow as his wife.

Note also that, while homosexual behavior his directly condemned as wicked in the NT — and that using unashamedly descriptive terms for the participants (”effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” is the linguistic equivalent of “cathcers” and “pitchers”) —  levirate marriage is never described as a requirement by any NT writer.

Indeed, it’s only mention in the NT is when Sadduccees (who didn’t believe in bodily resurrection) describe a hypothetical situation in order to try to entangle Jesus in a debate on resurrection. Even if we assume that Jesus had no problem with Jews of his day practicing levirate marriage, that hardly mandates the practice for Christians after Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law.

How diligently you search the Scriptures, because you think that in so doing, you lay to rest any opposition to homosexuality …

Report comment to moderator

You can’t help it. It’s what you do.

What I do is point out the fundamental incoherencies in much Christian theology and thought. Christians who are not able to counter the arguments typically fall back on saying “Well you just can’t understand the Bible like I do.”

It’s a cop out, but I guess it’s the best you can do.

Report comment to moderator