O/T law & sexual deviants

Hi Bro Curtis,

My opinion is that any of the laws in the Old Testament that make sense for us today, we should follow. I view God as having given laws for our own welfare and not just as some sort of arbitrary rules for us to follow.

Of course some of them would not apply still today. When it comes to stoning someone for not following them of course that wouldnt apply today.

Claudia

 

The OT law was given to the Israelites. I have never been nor will I ever be a Jew. I am just a Gentile sinner and under the law of Christ, which means I'm under grace, governed by the Holy Spirit. :saint:

 

Dear Scarlett O

Please give me a detailed list of the moral laws in the Mosiac Covenant.

 

I think saying there were ceremonial, moral, and civil laws in the OT and Christians are to only follow the moral ones creates a lot of problems (and I've heard this before and used to say it until I was challenged on it and couldn't answer). First of all, how do we know which ones were ceremonial and which ones civil, etc? It's not always clearcut -- if you look at all them, you'll see that. Then, how do we know we are to follow only the moral ones?

I think an easier way to answer might be to say that the NT addresses the moral behavior were are to follow. For example, there are several passages in the NT that prohibit and denounce sexual immorality. Sexual immorality would cover bestiality, adultery, and other sexual sins prohibited in the OT since it is anything outside of marital relations. Also, things such as porn would come under Jesus' directive on not lusting.

"Love God" and "love your neighbor" cover the moral commandments of the 10 commandments, as Jesus said himself. Other parts of the 10 commandments are also addresed in the NT - such as murder, adultery, etc. - except that Jesus shows that internally it counts as much as it does externally.

Both OT laws and NT prohbitions all reflect the righteous character of God, which is what we are to focus on, and the fact that we are being conformed to the image of Christ.

 

We are not under law per se, but I say we should rather look rather at God's attitude towards those sins as revealed in the OT. To God, they are an "abomination," and that is how He refers to them over and over in the OT. (See Lev. 18:22 for one example.) If they were an abomination to God then, He hasn't changed His mind and they are still an abomination.

There are many breaches of the OT law which God does not call an abomination. Therefore we should pay attention when He does call something an abomination.

Caveat: note that there are some things in the OT that God says should be an abomination to the Israelites, especially in the dietary restrictions. This does not mean that God Himself considers eating a catfish to be an abomination. (See Lev. 11:10.) :smilewinkgrin:

 

The answer to some of these questions is very basic.
God ordained the marriage institution long before the law. He sanctified and made it holy. Anything outside of that marriage union of one man and one woman is sin. All illicit sex is sin, whether it be bestiality, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc. It is all sin. All "sexual deviancy" as the OP puts it, is sin. We don't need the law to spell it out for us. Jesus spelled it out for us in the gospels. Sin comes from the heart. Such sin is also mentioned a number of times in various epistles. The law has been done away with. We are no longer under the law. But the Bible is very clear on what is sin.

 

Great post!

:thumbs:

 

Good post! :thumbsup:

 

In Lev 18 God defines a set of laws for which even pagan nations -- who had no access to scripture would be held accountable. Among the sins listed there certain things were called "abominations".

This means that our creator God holds humanity to "some standard" of morality beyond which he will send flood, or rain down fire on Soddom or destroy the earth by fire etc.

all this "delete the OT when it pleases you" logic that sometimes passes for exegesis when certain topics come up on this board - pass away when we realize that God "does not change" and as Christ said "His Word CAN NOT be broken".

In Matt 5 Christ said that He did NOT come to abolish His own Law -- much as many would like to think that He nailed His Own Law to the Cross what we find in the NT is that "Jesus Christ is the SAME yesterday today and forever" just as in the OT He says "I DO NOT CHANGE".

Having said that --

It is instructive that the list of sins in Lev 18 for which a pagan nation is held accountable lists the perversions you seem to be targetting on this thread and not some of the finer points of law -- such as coveting or Sabbath breaking or blasphemy or the worship of pagan gods ...

in Christ,

Bob

 

In Genesis 2 God gives us two laws made "For mankind" one of which is Marriage and both of which mankind takes with him from his sinless state in Eden. I am amazed that someone that wants to toss out the OT as a basis for doctrinal substance is willing to go back to Gen 2 and admit to this part of the Word of God as binding -- as something that "can not be broken".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do you keep slandering me Bob? I never once said one should throw out the OT. If you are going to lay false accusations against me then quote me word for word, or take back the false accusation.

 

Was I imagining your challeng that said that SDAs should prove their doctrines without using the OT???

Was that another DHK??

 

Listen to your own slander and then reason it out.
I have consistently said that all Scripture is inspired of God and is inspired.
You have denied that, and in fact said that I have said the opposite. That is slander and a false accusation.
All Scripture is inspired, including the OT, and is profitable. The problem you have is taking OT Scripture out of its context and then trying to prove NT doctrine with it. That is absurd. The church did not exist in the NT. You have taken passages in Isaiah 66 that apply to the Millennial Kingdom, and have tried to make them apply for this time and period today. That also is absurd.
You have taken passages out of Revelation 14, a time of the Tribulation Period, and have tried to make them apply to today. That also is absurd.
You cut and past. You might as well just keep cutting and throwing out. You cut up your Bible into pieces ignoring the Scripture to "rightly divide the word of truth. If any old Scripture will prove your point you will use no matter what the context is. I find that approach to Scripture abhorrent.

 

Ok --let's review it...Here is what you said

DHK said on the SDA thread page 12 post 118...

The SDA's are so stuck to the law of the OT that given the opportunity they could not prove their doctrine using only the NT.

Yet the gospel is a NT message. The church began at Pentecost. It is called the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a NT message not found in the OT. In Hebrews it tells us ..."having not yet received the promise..." The gospel is a NT message.
Can the SDA's demonstrate their doctrine without the OT. Le't see what happens.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=118

FOR DOCTRINE?

A the text says -- profitable for DOCTRINE?

Even when you insist that we prove doctrine WITHOUT the primary text of scripture in reference in 2Tim 3 -- Paul speaking to Timothy??

You are dancing here - because you have made this same claim about pure quotes of the NT when I QUOTE the text.

To claim this as the excuse for "prove your doctrine WITHOUT the scripture of the OT" is not working for you.

Using your argument above you would have to admit to ALL the times you tried and failed to apply the CONTEXT card for both OT and NT -- and then you would have to be saying "so now - prove your doctrine without any scripture at all" IF IN FACT your "I claimed you quoted scripture out of context" is really a valid excuse for "Prove your doctrines WITHOUT using the OT scripture".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Rev 12 and Romans 11 present a picture OF ONE people of God IN ALL ages just as Gal 1 shows us ONE Gospel in all ages with Heb 4 stating clearly "The Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to them as well".

You keep complaining that Heb 4 is wrong -- but I think it is you who are mistaken not Paul.

you are dancing here. I have shown the PRE-CROSS OT teaching on the Sabbath in Is 66 was that the scope was "ALL MANKIND" and that it would go on to eternity. Even you in admitting to this New Earth context admit to the Sabbath of Christ for all eternity - you just think we can rebel against it for now.

Not a Bible concept - but you hold it anyway.

Quote please --

So is this where you insist that we prove doctirne APART from the scriptures of the NT now the way you excuse your call for proving doctrine without the OT??

Your cut and past of scripture down to "not using OT" when the texts do not fit man-made tradition is frankly - shocking.

When you do with Acts and Rev -- it is even more so.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And this is wrong because??
The Oneness Pentecostal cannot prove their version of the plan of salvation without going outside of the Book of Acts.
The SDA cannot prove their version of the atonement without using the OT, especially the Book of Leviticus.
Both are cults. Both are restrictive. You need one particular book in order to prove a heretical doctrine. The doctrine of salvation and the atoning work of Christ can be demonstrated throughout almost every New Testament book and need not be confined to either the Book of Acts or require the Book of Leviticus. If you need the OT to prove NT doctrine you know that your doctrine is wrong.

Here is a quote of your that is absolute slander:

I never said one should toss out the OT. In fact I have said the exact opposite. All Scripture is inspired and profitable. Case in point:

Hosea 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
--Does this also fit into your plan of salvation? Does God command you to go and marry a harlot like he did Hosea? Why not use this portion of Scripture in your presentation of the atonement? Because it doesn't fit?
Of course that is the reason! It doesn't fit.
But it is still inspired and it is still profitable and it is still God's Word. I have never said anything differently and I don't expect to be slandered for it.
The fact is that you rely on Leviticus 16-20 for your heretical doctrine because that is where you can find a scapegoat. But there is no scapegoat in the gospel; no scapegoat in the NT. Thus Scripture is taken out of context.

This is more slander isn't it. If you don't believe me, read my above response.

Yes, I make this claim often. Why? Because it is true. Whether the text is NT or OT, you take it out of its context and make it a pretext for your own preconceived ideas. You fail to rightly divide the Word of truth.

You must prove your doctrine with Scripture, and using the Scripture in the context in which it is given, and yet without contradicting the rest of Scripture. You must be able to reconcile or harmonize the Scriptures.