What part of 'ALL' cannot be understood?

[RealityCheck]

No, Polycarp. Jesus has fulfilled the whole of the law.

As for your demands, 1 Timothy 4:12, "Let no one despise or think less of you because of your youth..."

But if the WHOLE of the law has been fulfilled, then NONE of it any longer applies. If Jesus was sacrificed for all sins, past present and future, then all things considered sinful under the law have been forgiven and the sinners all redeemed.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Mat 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.

...of course, His salvation only applies to you if you believe in it.

 

[keltic63]

But it's OK to pick and choose some laws from Leviticus to enforce on others. regardless of what Jesus may have said about doing that? Because that is what it sounds like you're advocating. You really do need to clarify what you are attempting to convey here, Middlemoor, and to suggest what is our criterion for recognizing which laws are still in effect and which superseded, and how we can tell the difference.

this is the argument that many use to support "cherry-picking" in Leviticus: there are ceremonial laws, moral laws, dietary laws, etc. depending on whose version of the concept you read. Some of the laws no longer apply, while others do. Coincidentally, the laws that do apply, just happen to address the sins of the "other" groups. There is no division of the laws indicated by scripture, the laws appear to be in some random order (not grouped) and there is no guideline in scripture to help us determine which laws do not apply to modern society.
I like to consider the Levitical laws, fulfilled and summed up in Jesus' Great Commandment: Love God, Love Others.



*and who cares if you wear a poly-blend shirt while you eat your lobster?

 

[seebs]

It's important to realise that Leviticus doesn't just contain rules for ceremonial and archaic behaviors, but things like theft, deceit, slander, hatred and revenge. (http://www.harvestusa.org/articles/lev18&20.htm). If we say that everything in Leviticus is obselete, then we're saying that God has changed his mind about all kinds of wrong-doing.

But, as I explicitly stated, that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that we never need to refer to Leviticus to determine what is moral, and that the presence or absence of a rule in Leviticus gives us no information about its morality.

Leviticus condemns things which are moral, condemns things which are immoral, allows things which are moral, and allows things which are immoral.

If you want to know what is moral, Leviticus will never tell you. If you want to know that humans cannot please God by following laws, Leviticus illustrates the point brilliantly.

But it is pointless to quote Leviticus in support of a particular moral claim unless you accept all of its claims. Or, as Paul put it, he who is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law.

Which we can't, and it wouldn't please God if we did.

 

[seebs]

No one has ever given any kind of rubric for how we would tell whether a law was "ceremonial" or "moral" in advance.

With one exception. In 2002, when I asked, mac_philo gave a rubric which has had a genuine 100% success rate in predicting whether defenders of this theory will consider a law moral or not.

If following the law would inconvenience a typical middle-class American, it is a ceremonial law. If following the law would be utterly trivial to a typical middle-class American, it is a moral law.

In four years, I've yet to find a single counterexample.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Actually, we do have to refer to Leviticus.

It is one source of God's viewpoint on homosexuality, which will never change.

 

[RealityCheck]

Actually, we do have to refer to Leviticus.

It is one source of God's viewpoint on homosexuality, which will never change.

Do God's views on anything ever change? Cause, you know, God is constant and never changes according to most Christian doctrines...

 

[seebs]

Actually, we do have to refer to Leviticus.

How do we know which things in Leviticus we should take as still-true, and which aren't, then?

It is one source of God's viewpoint on homosexuality, which will never change.

Do God's views on all moral questions remain immutable? Do the five books of Moses accurately present these views on all topics, or only on some?

 

[Jeff123]

But if the WHOLE of the law has been fulfilled, then NONE of it any longer applies. If Jesus was sacrificed for all sins, past present and future, then all things considered sinful under the law have been forgiven and the sinners all redeemed.

All believers in the whole of the New Testament have been forgiven and redeemed. There is nothing in the NT to support "Universalism".

 

[seebs]

Do God's views on anything ever change? Cause, you know, God is constant and never changes according to most Christian doctrines...

What we mean by that is a bit debated. Obviously, God's essential moral character had better not change, or we may all be in for a very bad time of things in the unforseeable future.

But God specifically asserts that God's plans change under some circumstances, which suggests some kind of capacity for "change" in some sense.

 

[seebs]

All believers in the whole of the New Testament have been forgiven and redeemed.

Huh?

What's this got to do with anything?

There is nothing in the NT to support "Universalism".

I would grant that there is nothing that cannot be interpreted in a way compatible with non-universalist beliefs, just as there is nothing that cannot be interpreted in a way compatible with non-eternalist or non-annihilationist beliefs.

But there are certainly passages which, if taken at "face value" (not always a wise choice in the NT) seem to be "in support" of universalism.

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 12, Verses 29-33
The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.
​

Jesus does not say "draw some men unto me".

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

How do we know which things in Leviticus we should take as still-true, and which aren't, then?

Why do I get the feeling that i'm repeating myself? To start with there's Leviticus 19:11, theft and deceit, 19:16-18, slander, hatred and revenge...all of this is in the link i've posted several times.

http://www.harvestusa.org/articles/lev18&20.htm

seebs, why don't you tell us what you think. Is homosexuality okay with God, or are you just against the use of Leviticus in support of the opposite?

 

[RealityCheck]

What we mean by that is a bit debated. Obviously, God's essential moral character had better not change, or we may all be in for a very bad time of things in the unforseeable future.

But God specifically asserts that God's plans change under some circumstances, which suggests some kind of capacity for "change" in some sense.

That's a tough one... because it doesn't fit with the concept of an omniscient God. If God chooses to change plans under some circumstances, that implies that those circumstances were somehow out of his control or not known by God already ahead of when they happened... it implies that God is learning how events will unfold at the same time and pace we are, which is not an omniscient God!

Now I don't disagree that the Bible actually does imply or even directly state this... the story of Jonah is a perfect example. But it is hard to reconcile these two views in a logical, coherent fashion.

 

[seebs]

Why do I get the feeling that i'm repeating myself? To start with there's Leviticus 19:11, theft and deceit, 19:16-18, slander, hatred and revenge...all of this is in the link i've posted several times.

No, no, no.

I don't want a list.

I want a way that, without access to a "cheat sheet", I can tell whether a given law is ceremonial or moral.

I want a pattern, not a set of pat answers. I want a moral principle I can live by, not a huge set of individual laws, each totally unrelated to the others. I'm a gentile Christian; I don't have to do mitzvah, and I don't see any reason to live by the Mosaic Law.

Of course, I am bound by the law Christ gave, so I have to love God and love my neighbor... But that leaves me with no reason to go combing through Leviticus reading passages there, because all the moral advice I need can be found in the Gospels.

Is there some reason for which the words of Jesus are not enough?

seebs, why don't you tell us what you think. Is homosexuality okay with God, or are you just against the use of Leviticus in support of the opposite?

I currently think that homosexuality is a reproductive disorder which is in and of itself free of moral issues, being a purely biological construct. I have not yet found a genuinely compelling argument either way on the morality of gay sex as a general category.

If you would like to present this argument, I have a standing offer for a serious formal debate on the issue. I have been trying to get a solid argument on it for four years now.

However, primarily, my objection is to the use of Leviticus in a way that, so far as I can tell, does not permit a consistent interpretive framework.

I cannot see an obvious reason for which I should accept the Levitical condemnation of one thing, while ignoring the Levitical condemnation of another. I would like to see a description of this, preferably in the words of a participant here.

As an example, I have a friend who is firmly convinced that the Levitical injunction against tattoos still applies. Does it?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

seebs, you have to be reasonable. I don't think the five immoralities I mentioned constitute a "huge set" of laws. Besides, you only have to decide wether homosexuality is against God's will. Using Leviticus and other sources, it should be possible to do that without being confused.

 

[RealityCheck]

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 12, Verses 29-33

The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.
​

Jesus does not say "draw some men unto me".

So where does that leave someone like me?

 

[RealityCheck]

seebs, you have to be reasonable. I don't think the five immoralities I mentioned constitute a "huge set" of laws. Besides, you only have to decide wether homosexuality is against God's will. Using Leviticus and other sources, it should be possible to do that without being confused.

You are completely missing the point of his question. There are hundreds of laws in Leviticus. You have named a few that are considered laws we SHOULD follow. But there are hundreds of others you have NOT mentioned... and the question is, do we follow those as well? Should we follow those as well?

See, you can't have it both ways. If you are going to say "This verse states X is wrong, and that is the word of God," then you have to similarly accept that the same book says something ELSE is wrong, and that is also the word of God.

seebs' is specifically asking why we do not follow ALL of the laws in Leviticus, and why that's okay. Or, another way, why only SOME laws are still applicable to us today, but the others are not, and how you can tell the difference.

Here's a simple way to look at it: three statements from Leviticus -

1) Homosexual activity is wrong.
2) Wearing blended clothing is wrong.
3) Charging interest on a loan is wrong.

Now clearly, in our modern day and age in America, we regularly violate 2 and 3. We have no problem with that. So why is that okay in God's eyes, but violating 1 is not?

 

[Polycarp1]

seebs, you have to be reasonable. I don't think the five immoralities I mentioned constitute a "huge set" of laws. Besides, you only have to decide wether homosexuality is against God's will. Using Leviticus and other sources, it should be possible to do that without being confused.

IMO, Seebs is being reasonable. Yes, you identified "five immoralities" from Leviticus. And you noted that some Levitical laws are not applicable. But Leviticus, in fact all of Torah, is crammed full of laws that together constitute "a huge set."

What Seebs is asking for is, what's your system for deciding which are still applicable and which are not. And don't say "moral" vs. "ceremonial" because everyone will find the division between them in a different place. And there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that says, "Thus saith the Lord, thou shalt obey My moral laws but may now disregard My ceremonial laws."

Either we are free in Christ or we are not. Either He paid the debt for all sin, or He did not.

It's not a difficult question -- where is the touchstone that draws the distinction between "laws we have to keep" and "laws we are free from," and why (with Scripture cite) is that particular distinction binding on Christians? It's what you're arguing for, so you must have an answer.

Finally, supposing for the moment that "homosexuality" as you generalize it from Leviticus is against God's will, where in Scripture do we find the provisions that some conservative Christians seem to be applying? Where is it said that what someone regards as "an unrepentant homosexual" is to be chivvied out of the Church and made unwelcome until/unless he "repents" (and repents of what, specifically? acts? feelings? urges? impulses? sexual desire generally? Why him and not the guy who lusts after another man's wife?) Where do we find authority for banning them by law from adopting, or visiting their partners in hospital, or choosing to contract marriage? What are the Scriptural cites for doing these things? And how do they relate to what Jesus said about the proper behavior of a Christian toward others generally?

These are the sorts of questions that really need pinning down. It's very easy to flag someone as "a homosexual" and quote Scriptures to prove him a sinner (we're all sinners according to Scripture). But is that what Jesus Christ tells us to do? If so, where and how? If not, why do we do it?

 

[kopilo]

So where does that leave someone like me?

men in that context may mean humans.

 

[RealityCheck]

men in that context may mean humans.

You'd think the "inerrant and infallible word of God" could be a bit more inclusive to begin with...