Precious Jesus

"Afresh, precious, precious Jesus, I resign this body to You, for doing or suffering, for living or dying. Will You accept it? Will You use me for Your glory more than heretofore, that You may have some little return for all the benefits You have done to me? Oh, do grant this request; my heart longs for it, my spirit pleads for it; and "if You will, You can." You know the hot temptation of which I am the subject. Bring Your glory out of it, and keep me from the evil, and it shall be well." - Ruth Bryan

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Leviticus no longer applies



This is the battle cry of the defender of homosexuality as they insist God's word does not condemn homosexuality. They throw out the wearing of mixed fabrics and eating shellfish and pork also found in Leviticus as though this renders the book null and void.
The dietary laws found in Leviticus were repealed by God as Christ Himself declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19.   To sum it up and make it short and to the point, these dietary laws as well as other commands concerning dress and the priesthood found in Leviticus were for the distinction and separation of the nation Israel from other pagan nations.  These laws were rendered null and void by the coming of the Messiah, but nowhere in God's word do we find God stating homosexuality is now okay. I recommend this link for a better understanding of the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws found in Leviticus.
A good question to present to one who claims Leviticus is no longer applicable and to the defender of homosexuality  is this...is  bestiality okay and, if not, where do we find in God's word where this was forbidden? The correct answer is no, it is not okay, as we find in what book of the Bible? You guessed it...Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 23, "Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. " If Leviticus is no longer applicable, as some try and state, then they must confess bestiality is now acceptable as well as pedophilia and incest. That is indeed a slippery slope for them to take, but they must take it if they insist Leviticus no longer applies.
Dr. James White states this in his book 'Same Sex Controversy' concerning the twisted view they have concerning Leviticus,
"The defender of homosexuality must produce a viable criterion for distinguishing between the moral and ceremonial laws, or else consistently reject them all. We have New Testament warrant for discontinuing the sacrificial system {Hebrews 10:1-18} and the failure to observe the symbols of separation from the Gentile no longer displeases God {Acts 10:9-20}. However, the Scriptures never alter God's revealed law regarding homosexuality, but leave us under its full requirement {Deut. 8:3; 12:32; Matthew 4:4}. Indeed, the Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality, the New Testament itself stressing that it is contrary to God's law {1st Tim. 1:9-10}. Therefore, the prohibition against homosexuality cannot be viewed as part of the ceremonial system prefiguring Christ or as temporary in its obligation."

To render Leviticus as obsolete is to take away from God's word and cut out chunks of the Bible in order to justify what God calls an abomination. Shallow biblical knowledge is the main reason why this approach is so effective; we must study diligently the word of God and defend it with equal diligence. There is forgiveness through Christ, but repentance and forsaking this sin is necessary. Only a mind regenerated by God will understand the vileness of sin...may truth go forth and may God be merciful.

6 comments:

Linda said...

That's something that used to have me stumped awhile back until I read some wise commentaries.

People often out of ignorance compare "shrimp" or two different kinds of material that should not be used together etc with homosexuality. This is a serious error because shrimp, shellfish, 2 different kinds of material are not under Moral law. They were under ceremonial law in the Old Testament and only applied to Israel

Many a Christian doesn't know this and so when the homosexual attacks it's critics it silences and disarms them. It's pretty sad because many after you do tell them are tenacious about it and will continue to twist and misrepresent the word of God.

Most though are ignorant themselves about this and merely base their arguments on other people's arguments and never find out the truth. Many when presented with the truth are still acrimonious about it.
Thanks lyn for your diligence in Studying God's word in spirit and in TRUTH and rightly dividing in Sister all to the glory of God.

I pray God does use you in a mighty and tremendous way in setting people free from this torturous prison

May the glorious Gospel of God the very dunamus of God shine his glorious LIGHT into these people's hearts that they would get a glimpse of the awesome Majestic Lord Jesus and fall down in complete and utter surrender to receive the free gift of FORGIVENESS by REPENTING before it's too late.

May God richly bless you sister

lyn said...

Thank you Linda, my prayer and hope is that God will get glory for Himself, that He will open minds to His truth and sinners will be saved. The battle for truth is never ending...

Linda said...

Here's a good read by Kevin DeYoung if you haven't read it yet lyn

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-homosexuality/

lyn said...

have fun,

Your comment was not posted because it contained no solid scriptural evidence to back what you said. All you stated was nothing more than a personal opinionated rant. If you disagree, I insist you use scripture to back your argument, otherwise, your comment will never see the light of day here.

A Drake Mason said...

I respectfully challenge the argument that only parts of Mosaic Law are nullified based on your reference to Matthew 4:4 alone. Jesus spoke those words to the Devil when Satan tempted Him to turn stones into bread. I was under the impression that the Laws of Moses were fulfilled and thereby nullified by Christ. Mattew 5: 17-18, John 1:17, Romans 6:14, 7:4, Galations 3:19, 23-26, Ephesians 2:15, all seem to imply that Christ came to fulfill the law that God put in place to illuminate the sins of mankind. Can you direct me to passages that support the idea that some of the laws are still to be followed? Thank you for your time.

lyn said...

Concerning moral laws, you will find scripture that commands us to flee from sexual immorality {See 1 Cor. chapter six}. Also, Christ warns of even thinking immoral thoughts in Matthew 5:28. He also states what defiles man in Matthew 15:19, His list includes 'fornications' which is every and all sexual sin both within marriage as well as outside marriage. We are indeed commanded NOT to be sexually promiscuous outside marriage. In 1 Corinthians 7:9 the Apostle Paul warns "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." This text references to a burning lust that must be subdued rather than given into. If one cannot subdue their lust, they need to get married. Why would God command marriage if sex was okay outside marriage?
Now look at 1 Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." Again, there are references to those who are sexually immoral and a stern warning - you will NOT enter God's kingdom.
The doctrine of repentance is key in understanding the mortifying of sin commanded for God's people in Colossians 3:5, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Lastly, the Apostle Paul states this in Romans 6 - 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?'

I hope I understood your question correctly, you assume it's okay to be sexually immoral? I answered with that in mind...