Leviticus and Homosexuality

[stevekehl]

We are saved by faith through grace but faith without works is dead.

Peace,
Ed

Not arguing your point here. Works should flow out of love for God and his creation, not duty. God loves a cheerful giver, that goes for works as well as money. Many people do good things without having faith, those works earn them nothing from God. The danger is that people start to expect salvation in return for their efforts, that is not biblical; hence my objection to your statement that we earn salvation. If we can earn salvation then all we have to do is work off our sins, so an active homosexual could get into heaven if they performed enough good works (under this theory).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Stevekehl,

One of the more interestng aspects of a Strawman type argument is that the Strawman is completely built by his rival - and there has not been a lot of reported cases of the Strawman ever having won a single contest. Imagien that…

Edwest did not say or even suggest whjat you have claimed. Now, take a look at the three parables in Matt 25 - in fact, you can ‘lean over’ and look at my copy … veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_25

Notice, the individuals in each of the above parables had the Grace of God to do something (works ) and were recognized for their free will (Calvin had a major problem with this concept!) cooperation. Those who refused to do what was required of them met a dreadful end - in fact, in the last case, they were calling out, “Lord! Lord!” but for naught. And, this is what James meant when he said that, “…faith without works is dead” (James 2:14-16 … here is the entire chapter just to keep it within context: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/James_2 )

The ending of your post is really what caught my eye - as I understand what you are saying … ‘faith without works is alive and kicking!’ And, we know that this can not be true … don’t we? For while we are required to be baptized, and to confess the Lord, and believe to be saved - there is still more! And, this is where Matt 25 comes in to demonstrate that we can not ‘earn’ our salvation - but, we are required to work for it! At least that is my understanding. Could it be that you have a different understanding? I really do not know… but, let me share an idea with you.

From my understanding of Protestantism’s approach, personal interpretation is key to the understanding of what is written. As I see it, the problem with that is that the actual words tend to mean less and less as the interpretation takes over. Examples of this is that Matt 16 does not have Christ builiding His Church on Peter, John 6 does not require that we eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ to have life in us, etc. The issue, at least as far as I can grasp it, lies in comprehension, and I would like to invite you to take Matt 25 (either the one I sent to you or any version that you select) and summarize it in 100 or less words. This would be a summary of just what was in Matt 25. I have one available and will be happy to share it - but, I do not want to prejudice you by what I wrote. Remember, all that is being asked is for a brief and accurate summary of a chapter of Scripture.

Candidly, I have asked this of many Protestants, and have yet to get any takers. Personally, I have found it an enriching experience to carefully go over the Word of God and make a presentation of it. I am confident you will have a similar experience - but, that is up to you. So, what do you say? I hope, 'Yes!" all of these unmet invitations have me sort of wondering what the real problem is.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Not arguing your point here. Works should flow out of love for God and his creation, not duty. God loves a cheerful giver, that goes for works as well as money. Many people do good things without having faith, those works earn them nothing from God. The danger is that people start to expect salvation in return for their efforts, that is not biblical; hence my objection to your statement that we earn salvation. If we can earn salvation then all we have to do is work off our sins, so an active homosexual could get into heaven if they performed enough good works (under this theory).

 

[stevekehl]

Hi, Stevekehl,

One of the more interestng aspects of a Strawman type argument is that the Strawman is completely built by his rival - and there has not been a lot of reported cases of the Strawman ever having won a single contest. Imagien that…

First question, do you have Spellcheck?

Edwest did not say or even suggest whjat you have claimed.

In a previous post Ed said Christians earn salvation, post #55.

Now, take a look at the three parables in Matt 25 - in fact, you can ‘lean over’ and look at my copy … Notice, the individuals in each of the above parables had the Grace of God to do something (works ) and were recognized for their free will (Calvin had a major problem with this concept!) cooperation. Those who refused to do what was required of them met a dreadful end - in fact, in the last case, they were calling out, “Lord! Lord!” but for naught. And, this is what James meant when he said that, “…faith without works is dead” (James 2:14-16 … here is the entire chapter just to keep it within context: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/James_2 )

Not arguing that works don’t have their place and never have, but works are done out of love, not obligation.

The ending of your post is really what caught my eye - as I understand what you are saying … ‘faith without works is alive and kicking!’

What I was meant is that people can place too great an emphasis on works and begin to weigh good versus bad acts. This is the basis of Hinduism and Buddhism; keeping kharma in balance by doing more good works than bad.

And, this is where Matt 25 comes in to demonstrate that we can not ‘earn’ our salvation - but, we are required to work for it! At least that is my understanding.

What is the difference between earning something and being required to working for it. I am required to work for my paycheck, therefor I earn it. If I have to earn my pay, it is not a free gift. So we can’t be required to work for the free gift of salvation.

From my understanding of Protestantism’s approach, personal interpretation is key to the understanding of what is written.

Yes and no. Like all people, certain passages of Scripture are more meaningful to some, some are inspired by God’s love, others by His mercy and forgiveness, still others by His awesome power and authority contrasted by His intimate knowledge and personal interest in all His children. But, orthodoxy, context, and other Scriptures must be taken into account when interpreting Scripture.

As I see it, the problem with that is that the actual words tend to mean less and less as the interpretation takes over. Examples of this is that Matt 16 does not have Christ builiding His Church on Peter, John 6 does not require that we eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ to have life in us, etc.

Let’s briefly look at words and their meaning. The word interpreted as church in Matthew 16 is ecclesia, Greek for community. Now, is our community built on Christ, the Son of the Living God, or on one of his followers? In John 6:63 Jesus says it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh affords nothing, and His words are “spirit and truth.” Is it the Spirit that gives life, or flesh and blood? But then Jesus flesh was human flesh and the flesh affords nothing, so is Jesus flesh human flesh or something else, better, more pure? But then if Jesus flesh was better that human flesh was He really human? But John 1 says the Word became flesh, so was John wrong, he couldn’t be. Then did John just not fully comprehend
what Jesus was? These are some of the problems with substituting Mosaic Law with Church Law.

The issue, at least as far as I can grasp it, lies in comprehension, and I would like to invite you to take Matt 25 (either the one I sent to you or any version that you select) and summarize it in 100 or less words.

Let me get a Diet Coke and a snack first.
OK. The works chapter, every legalist I’ve ever met had brought up this chapter.
This chapter is about really knowing God. The 10 virgins new to be prepared. Two servants knew God to be loving, that’s why one servant wasn’t afraid because he had only earned 2 talents. The one servant thought he would be punished for failure. The other two risked failure in order to succeed. The righteous didn’t have any conception that they were serving Christ personally, they just lived out the fruits of the Spirit. Those who failed did not live daily for the Lord. So, bear the fruits of the Spirit, take risks, be prepared of the end, the world’s or your own. 104, darn. Well take off the dependent clause at the end of the last sentence.
Now a question for you. Do you think God will turn away someone from heaven because they didn’t do enough community service?
Wow, did this thread take a turn.
Merry Christmas!!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Stevekehl,

Forgive my poor spelling.

Thank you for your summary. As promised, here is my 100 word summary of Matt 25:

This chapter contains 46 verses with 3 different metaphors about God’s Judgment on those who claim to serve Him. The 10 virgins (v1-13) show half brought oil and were prepared and the others didn’t and were unknown to the Master. The Talents (v14-30) has two of the three servants working with the talents given and the other not working even though work was expected. The Judgment (v 31-46) shows that works of charity done for others are done for Christ, though He may not be recognized. Those who were charitable were rewarded while those who failed in charity were damned.

In answer to your question about if God turns away those who do not have enough community service - I do not think ‘community service’ as such has anything to do with entry into heaven. Judges sentence offenders to do ‘community service’ but I do not think this moves them closer to heaven. Ultimately, we are called to follow Christ and we show our belief in Him by doing what He said to do - saying that this somehow ‘doing’ does not involve ‘working’ is nonsense. The term that is so shamefully abused by thsoe misquoting St Paul is ‘…works…’ as in ‘…works of the law…’. Here is an interesting link: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSFAITH.htm

If we are required to follow Christ in order to be His disciple, then we must do the works that He did - yes, even greater works! (John 14). So, in answer to your question, we are required to work for our salvation - to actually put our hand to the plow rather then just think about plowing - but, this is only possible because Christ first gained it for us. Had Christ not saved us - no amount of work, community service or humanitarianism would gain us heaven. We are required to do our part because Christ did His part. The foolish virgins, lazy servant and unmoved individuals are just some examples. Take a look at the Pharisees as described by Christ - they had the recognized authority by having the ‘…seat of Moses…’ (Matt 23) so the faithful Jew was required to do those things that the Jewish religious authorities said were required - but, because the actions of these Pharisees was so bad and without merit - Christ instructs us not to follow their example. A more current example would be a religious leader that encourages acts of charity yet engages in public sin. Following his instruction on charity is good - but, we are to have enough understanding that following their example in public sin will bring condemnation on us, too.

Working for a paycheck is really not a good example of working out our salvation in fear and trembling (Philp 2). We can never repay God Who first loved us (1John 4) but, we are expected to use our talents in His Serivce. While Hinduism and Buddhism and others who urge keeping kharma in balance may have some sort of spritual balance scale - this is not the usually understanding for Christians in general and Catholics in particular. I do not think the Church of Christ religion endorses that either. As I see it, this is really a non-issue.

By the way, Jesus Christ Is flesh and blood just like you and me. Jesus Christ, unlike you and me, Jesus Christ Is God. This has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church for almost 2,000 years. You did such a good job on that 100 word summary (I’ll cut you some slack on those additonal 4 words…) that I would like to invite you to do a similar activity on John 6. We really do have a profound disagreement on what Christ meant by the ‘…Spirit gives life…’ and that is because of where it appears in the text. This is really a matter of udnerstanding what is written. As before, I will be happy to share my summary with you and feel free to use any version of John 6 that you wish.

Oh, and yes, there does seem to be a swing away fromt the thread - so tell me, where does the Church of Christ stand on homosexuality?

God bless

First question, do you have Spellcheck?

In a previous post Ed said Christians earn salvation, post #55.

Not arguing that works don’t have their place and never have, but works are done out of love, not obligation.
What I was meant is that people can place too great an emphasis on works and begin to weigh good versus bad acts. This is the basis of Hinduism and Buddhism; keeping kharma in balance by doing more good works than bad.

What is the difference between earning something and being required to working for it. I am required to work for my paycheck, therefor I earn it. If I have to earn my pay, it is not a free gift. So we can’t be required to work for the free gift of salvation.

…

OK. The works chapter, every legalist I’ve ever met had brought up this chapter.
This chapter is about really knowing God. The 10 virgins new to be prepared. Two servants knew God to be loving, that’s why one servant wasn’t afraid because he had only earned 2 talents. The one servant thought he would be punished for failure. The other two risked failure in order to succeed. The righteous didn’t have any conception that they were serving Christ personally, they just lived out the fruits of the Spirit. Those who failed did not live daily for the Lord. So, bear the fruits of the Spirit, take risks, be prepared of the end, the world’s or your own. 104, darn. Well take off the dependent clause at the end of the last sentence.
Now a question for you. Do you think God will turn away someone from heaven because they didn’t do enough community service?
Wow, did this thread take a turn.
Merry Christmas!!

 

[Nita]

, Looking at Leviticus it seems that out of dozens of rules this one is singled out as one that must be obeyed while the majority of the other rules are ignored. And I don’t understand that

Or eat rabbit, shellfish or pork. Who decided on the hierarchy of these rules. Why the homosexual one and not the others

Just as for individuals there are different rules according to their age and development, so there can be differing rules for nations/cultures according to the level of their development.
(Eg. Compare the rules a parent has for a 2 year old vs. those for a 12 year old, vs those for an 18 yr old.)
Isaiah 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: "Sons have **I reared **and brought up,

Some rules are temporary because they apply only to the particular times and circumstances; some rules apply forever.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nita,

Maybe I just need a clarification on this item but, if I understand Jimmill88’s question, then I do not think it was really answered. For example, a parent may tell a child to hold their hand and look both ways when crossing the street. But, when the child grows up it is hoped that they will still look both ways. By the same token, dietary rules for obedient Jews do not change at any age - eating pork is not permitted - period.

The issue, at least as I see it, is established around a hierarchy for the Old Testament Jew - so that certain offenses were punished with stoning, like adultery or homosexual behavior while other offenses were punished with certain acts or animal sacrifices, like not washing one’s hands or doing work on the Sabbath. So, since there is a hierarchy - the common denominator here may go back to the Ten Commandments. Those items that essentially involve chastity are there to protect the human race as are those that prohibit murder, gluttony, drunkenness, theft, and dishonesty. Just picture in your mind a society that attempted to live just the opposite - they would basically lead disasterous lives and not survive for long.

The idea that because some animals under certain conditions apparently demonstrate homosexual behavior - we now have a license to do this, is a distressingly curious concept. At some point, we need to look at all animal behaviors. Many animals in the wild have apex males that breed with as many females as they can and the off-spring are ready to join the herd in minutes or hours after birth. Human infants are not like this at all - so if the outcome can not be matched, then the route there can not be duplicated, either. No animal in the wild smokes or drinks alcohol - does this mean that we should be following their example either? Naturally, none have indoor plumbing, running water, electricity, on-demand abortion services or safe living conditions from preditors. This can not be duplicated either.

As I see it, any desire to compare animal behavior to human behavior - and this being a reason for humans to act like animals - will bring about death, no living off-spring and much misery. Acting like a human being means, among other things, that we are acting in a logical, mature and purposeful way. This means that items like a life based on emotionalism and confusion as to what we as humans do - is one bound to self-destruction.

Naturally, there is an argument against what I have presented - but, it seems hollow to my ear. If one were to remove statements like, “Because I want to do it” or “That’s not fair that
heterosexuals get to marry the opposite sex” or “I just want to be me” there would be nothing left to talk about. From a public health point of view, here is a rather tame report from the CDC on rhe STD epidemic we have in this country - with HIV making its own distinct contribution:cdc.gov/media/transcripts/t031120.htm

God bless

Just as for individuals there are different rules according to their age and development, so there can be differing rules for nations/cultures according to the level of their development.
(Eg. Compare the rules a parent has for a 2 year old vs. those for a 12 year old, vs those for an 18 yr old.)
Isaiah 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: "Sons have **I reared **and brought up,

Some rules are temporary because they apply only to the particular times and circumstances; some rules apply forever.

 

[meme1961]

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

The root of the answer is that Jesus came to fulfill the law. What is confusing is that the Law includes at least two different classes of law (as an analogy think of the difference between a civil versus criminal law).

Those parts of the law concerned with the physical construction and maintenance of spiritual cleanliness are no longer binding on us because Jesus fulfilled those requirements with his sacrifice.

Those parts of the law concerned with morality are eternal, and thus eternally binding. BUT, final judgement of moral transgressions has been given solely to God (think of Jesus’ answer to those who would stone a sinner). Moreover, while still a crime punishable by death, adultery and homosexuality no longer require immediate physical, temporal execution, because Jesus DIED FOR OUR SINS. If we die having never been saved; never having accepted his gift, then our sin will be punished accordingly.

So homosexual behavior was, is, and always will be a sin, but it no longer requires the immediate execution of the guilty, as Jesus stands good for the sinner throughout the rest of their life.

The mixed material clothing thing, however, is just about Judaic spiritual cleanliness. We are made spiritually clean by the sacraments, and Jesus’ sacrifice, so we no longer maintain our spiritual cleanliness through the old processes.

In short, the moral law hasn’t change, but some of the processes of the law, and how we follow that law, have.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Meme1961,



Is Jimmygill88 still out there?

If so, maybe now would be a good time to respond to those who have provided answers to your question.

God bless

The root of the answer is that Jesus came to fulfill the law. What is confusing is that the Law includes at least two different classes of law (as an analogy think of the difference between a civil versus criminal law).

Those parts of the law concerned with the physical construction and maintenance of spiritual cleanliness are no longer binding on us because Jesus fulfilled those requirements with his sacrifice.

Those parts of the law concerned with morality are eternal, and thus eternally binding. BUT, final judgement of moral transgressions has been given solely to God (think of Jesus’ answer to those who would stone a sinner). Moreover, while still a crime punishable by death, adultery and homosexuality no longer require immediate physical, temporal execution, because Jesus DIED FOR OUR SINS. If we die having never been saved; never having accepted his gift, then our sin will be punished accordingly.

So homosexual behavior was, is, and always will be a sin, but it no longer requires the immediate execution of the guilty, as Jesus stands good for the sinner throughout the rest of their life.

The mixed material clothing thing, however, is just about Judaic spiritual cleanliness. We are made spiritually clean by the sacraments, and Jesus’ sacrifice, so we no longer maintain our spiritual cleanliness through the old processes.

In short, the moral law hasn’t change, but some of the processes of the law, and how we follow that law, have.

 

[stevekehl]

Sorry this took so long. I started a second job on 12/31 and haven’t had much spare time.

“DarkGreen”]This chapter contains 46 verses with 3 different metaphors about God’s Judgment on those who claim to serve Him. The 10 virgins (v1-13) show half brought oil and were prepared and the others didn’t and were unknown to the Master. The Talents (v14-30) has two of the three servants working with the talents given and the other not working even though work was expected. The Judgment (v 31-46) shows that works of charity done for others are done for Christ, though He may not be recognized. Those who were charitable were rewarded while those who failed in charity were damned.

I heard an explanation of those parables as the oil represents the Holy Spirit, so the virgins represent those who wait to long to make a decision for Christ; the servants are about using talents, but the master would have been happy if the one talent had been put in the bank to earn interest (no work involved); the generous and selfish before Christ represents those who supported the ministry by providing food, clothes, housing to ministers of Christ, tended them when they were sick and ministered to them if they were arrested. However, I didn’t want to just repeat someone else.

In answer to your question about if God turns away those who do not have enough community service - I do not think ‘community service’ as such has anything to do with entry into heaven.

What I meant was, do you think someone will get to heaven and have God turn them away because they were a few hours short of the requirement for eternal life? I don’t think so.

If we are required to follow Christ in order to be His disciple, then we must do the works that He did - yes, even greater works! (John 14). So, in answer to your question, we are required to work for our salvation - to actually put our hand to the plow rather then just think about plowing - but, this is only possible because Christ first gained it for us. Had Christ not saved us - no amount of work, community service or humanitarianism would gain us heaven. We are required to do our part because Christ did His part.

This is my point, there is no “our part” in our salvation, Christ did it all. If a fireman drug me out of a burning building, down a ladder, then did CPR until I came around,would it be fair to say we worked together to save me because I ate breakfast the next day?
The problem with thinking that our actions have something to do with our salvation is that we can be lured into pride in our works and judgment of others lack of works. True, other religions try to balance kharma, and wrongly so. No Christian should believe this, but is this different than the person who believes God is extending grace to them because they are performing penance?

I would like to invite you to do a similar activity on John 6. We really do have a profound disagreement on what Christ meant by the ‘…Spirit gives life…’ and that is because of where it appears in the text. This is really a matter of understanding what is written. As before, I will be happy to share my summary with you and feel free to use any version of John 6 that you wish.

I’ll PM you a summary. Wow,John 6 in 100 words? That’s 1.5 words per verse.

Oh, and yes, there does seem to be a swing away from the thread - so tell me, where does the Church of Christ stand on homosexuality?

First, the Church of Christ/Christian Churches should not be confused with the United Church of Christ. The CoC considers homosexual sex as a sin and does not condone gay marriage or ordain homosexual ministers.

 

[stevekehl]

tqualey,
Your private message quota is full, so here is the long promised summary of John 6.

The first half of the chapter shows Jesus complete authority over this world. He can create from nothing (vs. 11), commands the laws of physics(vs.19), and even time and space (vs. 21).Having proven His authority, Jesus then explains that the things of this world are less important than one’s spiritual life. When asked what are the works that lead to salvation (vs. 28), Jesus answers just believe in me, three times in fact. Just as food nourishes the body, Jesus nourishes our spirit. Truly, the flesh counts for nothing, but the Spirit gives life.

I hope you get this and look forward to your response (my mailbox is not full).

Your Brother,
Steve