<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Friday, March 24, 2006

From the Email Box

Readers may wish to read these two articles first, Here and Here

To: fred@fredsbibletalk.com
From: ****

Subject: Your website is WRONG!

You say that Jesus never explicitly taught against drug use and therefore, we might assume it is OK. This is based on your argument that the fact that Jesus did not teach against homosexuality, does not make it OK. However, since "drug" use such as your example of cocaine was not an issue then, why would Jesus teach about it? On the other hand, homosexuality was well known and yet, He did not teach against it. His teachings were on the sanctity of a one-person relationship. A man was not to abandon his wife (except to follow God, of course) and he condemned divorce. In spite of that, we hear very little about changing the divorce laws. Heterosexuals seem to be very selective on what they condemn. The Old Testament teaches many things that no heterosexual would dream of enforcing today.
You need to take really in depth look at the kind of hatred you are spreading and think about what kind of reward that will get you on judgment day. John 8.15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man


Thanks you for your comments. I know you mean to infer that I am a mindless bigot and worse, biblically illiterate, but I take such unfounded attacks as a way to sharpen my own thinking. So please understand I am sincere when I thank you for the challenges to my arguments.

Allow me to respond to your individual comments:

You write:
You say that Jesus never explicitly taught against drug use and therefore, we might assume it is OK. This is based on your argument that the fact that Jesus did not teach against homosexuality, does not make it OK. However, since "drug" use such as your example of cocaine was not an issue then, why would Jesus teach about it? On the other hand, homosexuality was well known and yet, He did not teach against it.

(Fred) If you read carefully what I wrote, I was responding to the typical claim that because Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality as a sin in any of His public sermons or private teaching with His disciples it therefore must be sanctioned by the Lord as a legitimate lifestyle. This is poor reasoning. Just because Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality does not equate to His commendation of homosexual behavior. Furthermore, drug use has been a fixed part of human culture through all of history. Perhaps near east cultures 2000 years ago did not dabble with cocaine use, but there was prevalent drug use throughout all of the Roman Empire, including Judea, so my illustration is relevant for the argument I am making.

You write:
His teachings were on the sanctity of a one-person relationship. A man was not to abandon his wife (except to follow God, of course) and he condemned divorce. In spite of that, we hear very little about changing the divorce laws.

(Fred) Well actually, Christ'’s teaching on divorce in the particular context of Matthew 19 is about correcting the Pharisees' abuse of the OT teaching on divorce. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of a one-person relationship. I am not sure what you mean when you write "a man was not to abandon his wife (except to follow God, of course)." Divorce is only allowable if there were some uncleanness found in the woman - sexual immorality. Jesus is specifically condemning the idea of a man abandoning (divorcing) his wife for any other excuse but sexual immorality. God would never allow a man to leave his marriage to "follow" Him, as you suggest.

But be that as it may, let us assume for the sake of argument that Christ was teaching about the sanctity of a one-person relationship. How exactly does he define such a relationship? Note that He appeals to the Genesis account of creation when God created one man and one woman. God's initial creation of marriage was between one man and one woman and establishes the standard of what God deems as an acceptable marriage relationship. God's creation of man and woman and His sanctifying their relationship with the words "a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife," eliminates any other combination of participants in the marriage covenant. I point this out in my original article.

You write:
Heterosexuals seem to be very selective on what they condemn. The Old Testament teaches many things that no heterosexual would dream of enforcing today. You need to take really in depth look at the kind of hatred you are spreading and think about what kind of reward that will get you on judgment day.

(Fred) It is a rather convenient excuse to think I, as a heterosexual, am selecting the portions of the Bible I wish to enforce while rejecting the others that do not suit may current spiritual tastes. I personally would like some examples of the many things found in the OT heterosexuals would never dream of enforcing today. From my perspective, it seems clear to me you are confused between those laws written in the OT that reflect God's nature and character i.e., personal holiness laws, especially pertaining to sexual behavior and lifestyle; and those laws designed particularly for the theocratic nation of Israel to mark them as a special people distinct from the other nations which surrounded them. The first set of laws is universal and transcends both testaments because they are tied directly to God's nature and character. The second set pertaining to the theocratic nation of Israel is not universal and in point of fact was designed to be limited and come to an end when God's redemptive purposes spread beyond the boundaries of a national, physical people state, to encompassing the entire world of His spiritual elect. The condemnation of homosexuality mentioned in Leviticus 18 and 20 falls into the category of those laws tied directly to God's nature, hence, they are still enforce and their repetition in the NT clearly affirms their enforcement.

Furthermore, your objection demonstrates a dismissive attitude of the entire revelation of the Holy Bible–, sadly, a widespread attitude found among many homosexual theological revisionists. You want to argue that because we no longer keep a kosher kitchen, wear clothes made of wool and cotton, and eat pork, we should also admit homosexual behavior into our midst. Yet, the OT is not the only place God condemns homosexuality as being sinful. The NT epistles of Romans 1, 1st Corinthians 6, and 1st Timothy 1 are clear instances where God, through the instrument of His chosen apostle, tells us He still does consider homosexuality a sin and justly condemns it. Moreover, as I mentioned in my article, the marriage relationship is meant to picture the covenant Christ has made with the Church. Christ is called the husband where as the Church is His wife in Ephesians 5. This is a crucial spiritual illustration God expressly reveals to demonstrate His redemption of sinners. A marriage relationship between a man and man or a woman and woman perverts this illustration.

In actuality, it is you who are being selective when handling God's Word. You wish to only accept the Gospels because in your mind you believe Jesus never condemned the gay lifestyle and it is all right for Christians to engage in homosexual behavior. However, you reject the other significant portions of the Bible which so clearly condemn a gay lifestyle as being a perversion of God's original creative order and reveals sinful hearts given over to utter depravity. Perhaps it is you who may wish to reconsider the reward of judgment.

Thanks again for the email.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Blogger Daniel said...

It wouldn't have made your argument any more correct - but it is sometimes helpful to note along with Peter (c.f. 1 Peter 1:11) that it was the "Spirit of Christ" was in the OT prophets (such as Moses) - so that if we wanted to be succinct - we could remind the reader that Jesus *did* explicitly teach against homosexuality - when he spoke through his servant Moses.

Grace.

2:26 PM, March 29, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home