"If a man lies with a man...They must be put to death."
OFF TOPIC as I don't have an e-mail for you:Brannon Howse, someone with Christian Worldview Network claims gays weren't murdered in Holocaust because they were working for Hitler.
Emproph, the entire premise of your blog is ludicrous and demonstrates almost a total lack of understanding of Christian theology. That's quite a feat!The Old Testament's (i.e., the Hebrew Tanakh) theocratic law required the death penalty for incest and homosexuality in Israel. And just as prophesied in the Old Testament, the promised Messiah of Israel - Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ - came and established His catholic (or universal) Church from its Jewish foundation, necessitating a change in the Law (cf. Hebrews 7:12). The apostles and prophets, who God used to write the New Testament, set forth the will of Jesus Christ for His new, universal Church (cf. Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11).Now, with that in mind, recall that when a man committed incest in the local church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:1), St. Paul the Apostle did NOT require the death penalty for him. Instead, St. Paul required excommunication from that church unless the man who committed incest repented (1 Corinthians 5: 4 - 7).Both terrible divine judgments - the old being execution in the Old Testament theocracy and the new being excommunication in the New Testament Church - preserve the holiness of God's established nation or church, a reflection of the holiness of God Himself.Yes, Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.") required the death penalty for homosexuality in Israel (see also Leviticus 18:22, 29).Similar to the example of incest, the New Testament does NOT require the death penalty for homosexuals. After all, there were converted homosexuals in the church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11)! The execution of homosexuals in Israel is thus, plainly and unequivocally, the equivalent to excommunication from the New Testament Church.Looks like you need to rename and redo your blog sir - if you're intellectually honest.
I'm curious, Theo--what do you think the premise of this blog is? By the way, you seem to imply that the laws that God set down in the Old Testament are not valid for the New. I always find this a curious statement since Jesus states in Matt:"5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."So how does that fit into your own Christian theology?And I don't buy your death penalty in the Old Testament=excommunication in the New Testament. If you believe it, it would be nice if you were to go and visit all of the so-called Christian blogs that love to give the Leviticus citation when they demonize the glbt community.
Great questions Kevin. The premise of this blog is that Christians (N.B., name of the blog is "Genocide for JESUS" - emphasis mine) hold a "death threat morality" with reference to homosexuals (N.B., the authors use of Leviticus).The author of the blog appears to believe that Christians hold that homosexuals should be executed by the modern nation-states for violating a provision of the Mosaic Law, which among other things governed Ancient, and theocratic, Israel.The author assumes that Christians are bound to the Law of Moses as a rule of life. This is simply not the case. The Law of Moses was given to Israel and not to the Gentiles or the Church. The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of the Messiah of Israel - Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.In other words, the Law of Moses in its totality no longer has authority over any individual. This is evident first of all from Romans 10:4, with St. Paul the Apostle telling us that Christ is the end of the law. Galatians 2:16 concurs, stating that neither is there justification through the Law. Furthermore, there is no sanctification or perfection through the Law (cf. Hebrews 7:19).Another important point here is that the Mosaic Law was never meant to be a permanent administration, but a temporary one. In the context of Galatians 3:19, St. Paul describes the Law of Moses as an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was added in order to make sin very clear so that all would know they have fallen short of God's standard for righteousness. It was a temporary addition until Christ would come. Now that Jesus has come, the Law of Moses is finished.The Law of Moses, the unit of 613 commandments, has been invalidated. No commandment has continued beyond the death of Jesus the Christ. The Law of Moses does still exist and can be used as a teaching tool to show God's standard of righteousness and our sinfulness and need of substitutionary atonement. It can be used to point one to Christ (cf. Galatians 3:23-25). It has, however, completely ceased to function as an authority over individuals (i.e., as a rule of life).The Law of Moses has been done away with, and Christians are now under a new law. This new law is called the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2, and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Romans 8:2. This is a brand new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer.Concerning Matthew 5, you fail to understand the context - historically and theologically - of Jesus' words. It's true that Jesus did indeed come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He came to fulfill the Law of Moses, and He did! But the Law of Moses did NOT end at His COMING, or during His life. The Law of Moses ended upon His DEATH.Recall that Jesus spoke in Matthew 5: 17 - 19 while He was living. As long as Jesus was living He needed to obey the Law of Moses in the manner that Moses commanded in order to fulfill it. And as Mark 7:19 illustrates, while Jesus was living, He also foreshadowed the abolition of the law: "This [Jesus] said making all meats clean." Can it be any clearer than this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away? You claim that you "don't buy [my] death penalty in the Old Testament=excommunication in the New Testament." But you don't deal with it logically.Incest = Death Penalty in the Old Testament, agreed?Incest = Excommunication from Christian fellowship in the New Testament, agreed?Homosexuality = Death Penalty in the Old Testament, agreed?Homosexuality = Excommunication from Christian fellowship in the New Testament, how do you disagree if the above three are correct? If any of the above three are wrong, please explain how.
Theo said...I read through my past posts, and never made that argument about [Biblical] inerrancy once. Never. Never did, and never would."
Where did that come from Emproph? My statement was and is completely true.You of course failed to cite what you labeled as the argument I had allegedly made concerning inerrancy. If you think I've made an argument in favor of Biblical inerrancy either in the above comment or elsewhere, it simply goes to show that you don't understand the concept of Biblical inerrancy,The sad thing is that doesn't surprise me.
So do you consider the Bible to be without error, or not?
I absolutely believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible - "inspiration" being God's superintending of the human authors in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written, and "inerrancy" meaning the Bible is without error (see Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).Inerrancy in this context means that the Bible communicates truth and does not err. Paul Feinberg offered this as a good definition of inerrancy:"Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences."This definition helps to explain both what is implied in the doctrine of inerrancy as well as what is not implied in the doctrine of inerrancy. First, inerrancy relates to the original autographs, not the copies of the autographs. Second, the doctrine of inerrancy means that the Bible is true in all it affirms. The Bible contains a historical record of some evil acts. But the Bible doesn’t condone those evil acts. Third, the doctrine of inerrancy does take into account the fact that difficult passages exist within the Bible.Biblical inspiration implies Biblical inerrancy because of the nature of God and His attributes (something that can be demonstrated both philosophically and theologically). Consider the following syllogism:1) God exists.2) God is always truthful in all that He does.3) God is the author and source of scripture.4) Therefore, scripture is always truthful.It logically follows that IF God exists, God is truthful, and IF the scripture is inspired by God in all its parts, then it is inerrant and authoritative.
“It logically follows that IF God exists, God is truthful, and IF the scripture is inspired by God in all its parts, then it is inerrant and authoritative.I might agree, IF we were making all those assumptions.Even if we agreed that the existence and truthfulness of God could be proven philosophically, how do you then arrive at the conclusion that the autographs, and their compilation, were inspired by that god?Assuming the autographs are readily available?Assuming also that “inspiration” means the suspension of the human capacity for error.
“"inspiration" being God's superintending of the human authors in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written”On second thought, wouldn’t that be a violation of free will?
I arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired based on (1) Jesus' life and teachings, death, burial, and Resurrection, (2) the fulfilled prophecies, (3) the amazing accuracy and consistency on a wide-variety of issues over time and place and culture, and (4) the many scientific statements.The Bible can be seen as an integrated message - sixty-six books written by more than 40 authors over thousands of years, yet demonstrating that its origin is from outside our time domain.Concerning inspiration, our Creator used men as instruments to reveal Himself in written form to humanity. The Bible therefore has a "dual authorship." Both God and the human writer. God guided and guarded the authors who were involved in the writing. The authors used their own individual personalities when composing and recording God's revelation.Thus, the inspirational recording of God's revelation was NOT some sort of mechanical dictation where the human element of writing was completely obliterated. The writer's individual styles were expressed in the final text. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit of God guided and controlled each writer so that what they wrote was not distorted in any sense, but was what God wanted written.
“Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit of God guided and controlled each writer so that what they wrote was not distorted in any sense, but was what God wanted written.”Ok, but still, how is that not a violation of free will?
What makes you think that God infringes on someone's "free will" if he inspires them? Can't God's spirit in a person, work with a person's free will, clarify the truth, and bring him to freely write the truth without error? If God inspires a person to write, "There is a God," does that mean it isn't true?
This whole 'free-will' argument has been argued for centuries and centuries. Does God know all and see all in the future? If so, then it appears that our actions do not matter since everything is set in stone. What we do and what we will do is known to God, and therefore there is no free will because our wills don't matter. Or maybe we do have free will, but it is not a true free will. If God does not know all and see all in the future, then he (or she or it) cannot be a true God. Or it may be that a God does not have the power to see the future.Who knows? No one really knows. It can only be based on a belief. Anyway, Augustine (a 4th century Catholic church father from North Africa) writes tons about free will...
I also have lots of problems with inerrancy argument. If someone wants to believe that the Word of God is inerrant, then they better have a perfect book of the Word of God. However, we do not have a SINGLE scrap of manuscript from the original New and Old Testament. Not one letter. The Bible we have today is a creation of scholars who have used thousands of manuscripts to come up with the book we have today. It is certainly a good guess that what we have today might be what the original looked like, but it is only a guess. Therefore, for me it is impossible to say that the word of God is inerrant when we don't know exactly what the word of God really is. And if you don't believe me about the manuscripts, just take a look at any Greek, Latin or Hebrew (or any of the other ancient language manuscripts) of the Bible. They show the differences between manuscripts and manuscript families.
“What makes you think that God infringes on someone's "free will" if he inspires them?”From what you said: “God's superintending of the human authors in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written”the Holy Spirit of God guided and controlled each writer”--“Can't God's spirit in a person, work with a person's free will, clarify the truth, and bring him to freely write the truth without error?”Sure, but we’re not talking about “can,” we’re talking about “did.”“If God inspires a person to write, "There is a God," does that mean it isn't true?”Of course not, but as I said, we’re not arguing about the possibility, we’re arguing about the certainty of the reality.I can agree with you that the possiblity exists, but at that point, it seems that what you're suggesting is a sort of holy mediumship, where the author actually chose to suspend their own free will for a time being - to be "controlled" by God. At which point the question then becomes, how do you even know that that decision wasn't "controlled" by God?--Kevin brings up some good points too that need to be addressed. -And some further thoughts on my part that are somewhat an extension of the free will thing,If God knows the future, then God would have known we would have chosen to fall from Grace by ‘eating’ of the knowledge of good and evil. But if before falling from grace, we had no knowledge of the meaning of good and evil, then we would have had no understanding of the meaning of threat. And if we had no knowledge of the meaning of threat, then how could we possibly understand the meaning of a warning against threat?
Post a Comment