Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Leviticus: Selectively Outdated? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Michael Negranol | 171084 | ||
Lately I've been entrenched in some very heavy apologetics, and a question was ultimately raised that I was at a loss to answer. This question pretained to the legitemacy of using the Book of Leviticus as a means to defend the Christian outlook on Homosexuality. Namely, why is Homosexuality still viewed as a sin where as other laws within the Book are soundly ignored? What determines what of Leviticus is still valid and what is outdated? | ||||||
2 | Leviticus: Selectively Outdated? | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 171085 | ||
Hi Michael, Simply, the answer lies with 2 Tim. 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" The entire canon of scripture- all 66 books- are considered God's Word. There are timeless truths echoed in it's pages. One is that of the sin of homosexuality. Both the OT and NT condem it's practice. One of the favorite methods of the pro-homosexual camp is to simply dismiss what the Bible says. This done by discarding or calling into question the "validity" of any book such as Leviticus. They attempt to weed out truths of God's Word that are not to their liking! It is selective and dishonest. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Is this line of logic Biblically sound? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Michael Negranol | 171100 | ||
Hmmm, while this is certainly a good answer and one I sincerely appreciate, I'm not entirely feeling it makes the point clear. In more words than the original, the question was posed why is it that Christians are still beholden to Leviticus 18:20 and for the most part ignore say Leviticus 11:10? Early this morning, however, something dawned on me, and I'm interested to know if this argument is sound. Simply put, Leviticus 18 as it detailed the commandments of God in regards to Sexuality is not merely a law, but a definition of Sexual Morality the likes of which transcend the limitations of time. Christ himself uses the term "Sexual Immorality" in Mark 7:21, and as any man of God of the time would refer to it, undoubtedly was speaking in regards to what is sexually moral in the eyes of God as outlined in Leviticus. Another counter point that was brought up earlier by the same person who posed the original question is in Romans 1:18-31 where Paul makes it a specific point of God's attitude toward sexual immorality. These weren't men and women who were eating pork and shellfish, these were people committing acts of sexual impropriety. The New Testament indeed turns away many of the Old Laws of the Old Testament, but sexual morality simply is not one of them. In short, my follow up question is am I making sense with these statements? |
||||||
4 | Is this line of logic Biblically sound? | 2 Tim 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 171105 | ||
Dear Michael, The New Testament brings clarity to the revelation of the Old Testament. It confirms your evaluation. Sexual sin has, apparently, been fairly well understood through the ages. After all, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah well before the Mount Sinai. Christ clarified that sexual morality had its roots in the heart, and could be violated in mere thought. (In hindsight, considering the wisdom writings, I wonder that that wasn't obvious to us. But that's another topic.) The apostles confirmed the importance of this aspect of moral purity in their communication to the gentile believers (Acts 15:29). Finally, we have the explicit instruction from the epistles, as has been repeatedly mentioned in other threads of the forum. I liked the phrase you used: "which transcend the limitations of time." Indeed, every aspect of righteousness and holiness transcends the limitations of time. The law of God reveal the sinfulness of man, but they also reveal things about Himself. As we study them, we should always attempt to see this dual aspect of any command. Thank you for your questions. In Him, Doc |
||||||