theophiles.org - Does 10 wrongs make a right?

Written by Pirate Bob

Thursday, 02 September 2010 15:00

Found this post on anoter site but it made me question the validation for homosexuality being that one sin accepted can justify another. What are your thoughts TP?

Comments

PineHall - Groan

|2010-09-21 23:28:37

This post shows a lack of understanding. He uses Old Testament/Covenant laws which no longer applies to the New Testament/Covenant Christian. The New Testament also calls homosexual acts a sin even though homosexuality was accepted in the Greek/Roman world. I think he is trying to call Christians hypocrites (based on Old Testament laws designed to set the Israel apart).

I believe the sad thing is he does not seem to recognize that doing right, even though it is a good thing, is not enough counteract the wrong he has done or thought. He and everyone of us are broken by sin. We all need Jesus and his saving mercy and grace.

emperorbma - that distinction... again

|2010-09-22 00:57:29

I agree with PineHall that a large part of this is issue the Jewish/Gentile distinction and that the karmic (i.e. 'balancing good and evil deeds') aspect of the poster in the screenshot is, in fact, "doing it wrong." Allow me to extend that a bit, if I may. The problem here is actually twofold: 1. The Law is not being understood correctly and 2. The poster in the screenshot ignores the fact that the Law isn't the end of the story.

The Scripture is all, without doubt, the inspired Word but only certain aspects are meant to apply today. Luther even says as much in the Book of Concord, when he wrote on the Third Commandment:

Martin Luther (Large Catechism) wrote:

Thou shalt sanctify the holy day.

The word holy day (Feiertag) is rendered from the Hebrew word sabbath which properly signifies to rest, that is, to abstain from labor... Now, in the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest, and commanded that it should be regarded as holy above all others. As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from toilsome work... so that both man and beast might recuperate... Although they afterwards restricted this too closely, and grossly abused it, so that they traduced and could not endure in Christ those works which they themselves were accustomed to do on that day... as though the commandment were fulfilled by doing no external, work whatever... [this] was not the meaning, but, as we shall hear, that they sanctify the holy day or day of rest.

This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ.

But to grasp a Christian meaning for the simple as to what God requires in this commandment, note that we keep holy days not for the sake of intelligent... but first of all for bodily causes and necessities, which nature teaches and requires... Secondly, and most especially, that on such day of rest freedom and time be taken to attend divine service, so that we come together to hear and treat of God's Word, and then to praise God, to sing and pray.

(ref. Emphasis mine)

tl;dr. Luther is saying that the literal reading of the "keep the Sabbath" is not meant to apply to Christians, otherwise we would all be 7th Day Adventists and gather on Saturday instead. Rather, its Spiritual meaning is kept and we are accustomed to taking this rest on Sunday to celebrate the Lord's resurrection and to recuperate. So doing, we keep the Spirit even though we are clearly not keeping the letter.

The law against eating pork, similarly, is not meant to apply outside of the Jewish culture. Furthermore, God even goes so far as to confirm this to Peter in a vision (Acts 10:13), that confirms that 1) the Gentiles are to be evangelized into Christ and 2) the law of Kashrut is not meant to apply to Christians. Indeed, God declares all things clean through Christ and what we are to abstain from, following the Spirit, is that which leads us away from Christ.

However, it is also fair to admit that certain aspects of the Law are a bit less conducive to these sorts of obvious exception. For example, we have in Leviticus prohibitions against someone sleeping with their siblings which are still certainly meant to be kept (under the rather hefty penalty of genetic defects, I might note) and which don't have a nice secondary confirmation in the New Testament like the injunction against homosexuality. In other cases we have some laws, like forbidding the mixing of fibers, that are meant to apply in a Spiritual context only. (in this case, not mixing sound doctrine with false doctrine) However, in no way is any of the Law abolished or abrogated, merely fulfilled (through the Gospel) and revealed in its intended Spirit.

The key to understanding this is to understand that the whole of Scripture is a matter of the Holy Spirit from inspiration to interpretation. The entirety of Scripture is given to bring us to Christ, the Living Word. As it is written, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. It must be clearly maintained that the Scripture is to be understood through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Law serves a clear threefold purpose for Christians: to curb outward evils, to show us our sin and to show us what we should do as those whom Christ redeemed. (all of these uses reinforced by the way the Apostles used the Law in Scripture) Finally, the entirety of the preaching of Law is only to reveal our need for Christ's salvation through His Cross and by the power of the Gospel.

Moreover, none of it should ever be read as a license to throw stones at others, since we ourselves are sinners and Christ and He taught "let him who is without sin throw the first stone." Therefore, to understand the doctrine one must first understand the Spirit in which it is meant to be read. Distinguishing such is the highest Christian art, higher than any philosophy or science. On the one hand this is something so simple that the distinction is obvious to children, yet it is at the same time such even the most educated theologian struggles with it. Simply knowing it is easy. Applying it correctly is the hardest possible thing...

So, yes, Virginia... homosexuality is a sin. So, also, are divorce and hatred. The simple fact of sin existing isn't the end of the story because as the Law "shows us our sin", the Gospel "saves us from our sin" through Jesus Christ. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24)

[Let's see if anyone remembers what I'm referencing in this post's title... *wink*]

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Wednesday, 08 September 2010 21:07

Our valuable member patronpeter has been with us since Monday, 07 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Homer the Catholic? (27 October 2010)
Do I have to be Religious? (16 August 2010)
What does The Bible tell us? (12 July 2010)
Hunting Osama for the Lord? (17 June 2010)
Getting Jiggy with Jesus (18 November 2009)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online