I don’t know what “bible” you are reading. The Bible I read, the one containing the 66 books recognized from ancient times by the whole church. (Catholic and Prostetant alike) clearly teaches that God does NOT tolerate ANY sin. It is the lack of tolerence on God’s part towards sin that made a Saviour nessecary; which makes the Gospel nessecary (I Corinthians 15). The love of God never over rides God’s intolerence for any and all sin. That’s what the Gospel is; God expressing His love, yet in a way that that maintains and affirms His intolerence of all sin. It only takes one sin to go to hell. (See Epistle of James 2:10.)

God’s providential dealing with us and our sins while we are yet alive in this world is one thing. How He will deal with those sins in the day of judgement is another. Sin will be dealt with; either at the cross of Christ, or before the judgement seat of God in that last day. Of course if you don’t beleive sin is “sin”, you can delude yourself that you are off the hook and all is OK…

There is a lot about Biblical Christianity that an unbeleiving world finds “odd”. That’s nothing new. On Mars Hill unbeliving Greeks scoffed at the idea of a ressurection from the dead…. We’re not here to make the “odd” “not odd” for an unbeleiving world. We are here to bear witness to what God has said in time and space; ie-history in His objective word. If your post-modern mind rebels at the use of the word “objective”, that is nothing more then an example of your post-modern rebellion against the God who created you. Modernity rebelled against that God too. What you have done in your embrace of Post-modern episimology applied to Christianity and Scripture is to fail to bear witness against the baals of post-modernity in the same way the old liberalism failed to bear witness against the baals of modernity. To embrace the epistimology of either modernity or post-modernity is a failure of Biblical witness and a compromising with the baals of the age. For me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Modernity has its sophistry against which we righlty protest. Post-modernity has just as much sophistry as modernity. The failure of the emergent movement is the failure to protest that sophistry too. In that failure is the failure of the emergent movement to bear authentic Christian witness, and in some cases to put ones self outside of the Christian religion all together.

Kyrie Eleison!

Ironically, Davids’ hands were too filled with blood to build the temple, and yet his genes are connected to the coming of Christ. I point this out to suggest the seeming inconsistencies categorizing sins difficult and perhaps not really possible.

As humans and follower of Jesus, we desire to categorize sins. What if there is value for such categorization from a fallen human perspective but not from a God perspective?

From our perspective, murder is more serious than other sins. If murder is allowed like divorce, the world would be more chaotic. From God’s perspective, I wonder if the four kids left with a messed up lives from divorced parents isn’t at least as equally grievous?

God seems to tolerate pretty much all sins, and yet we as followers of Jesus seem to have great difficulty in 2009 tolerating one specific kind of sin over and above all others. In fact, a significant part of the American church seems consumed by it. Do we wonder if an unbelieving world finds this odd?

On a “not so related to the point” note: If a homosexual relationship is given the legal status of marriage, then by what argument do you continue to outlaw polygamy? ..Or prohibit underage marriage to children? I hesitate to invoke a “slippery slope” argument, but those questions need to be asked….

Peace….

When talking to someone who is pro-homosexual, I usually ask them if they would be fine with someone who slept with their sister, and if they respond negatively, I mention the text and tell them that the Bible groups the two together (i.e., homosexuality and incest). Why one, but not the other?

Only once has someone said that they have no problem with homosexuality, incest, or bestiality, and while I made it clear that we disagreed, I told them that at least they were consistent! It totally blew me away, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised in light of Romans 1:18ff.

“Tolerated” does not equal “accepted,” and tolerating something does not mean the rules have changed, but in fact means that the rules haven’t changed (otherwise it wouldn’t be “tolerated”).

An interesting question indeed! I am going to venture that homosexuality is seen as worse by God, and I am going to do so for reasons none of the previous comments have explicitly mentioned. It seems to me this is the teaching of Scripture. I am, nevertheless, open to having my understanding challenged from Scripture, so if someone can shed further light (in agreement or disagreement) it would be greatly appreciated!

1. In Romans 1, particularly in the three “God gave them over” statements of 1:24-32, the second of these is focused on homosexuality. I argue for homosexuality as worse from this based on the understanding that here in this letter, Paul is not yet trying to cover the spectrum of all sin, but highlighting the most lamentable effects of humanity’s suppression of the knowledge of God. The full scope of the effect of the suppression of the knowledge of God doesn’t come until the third “God gave them over.” Thus, the first “God gave them over” illustrates the greatest perversion of the highest manifestation of intimacy in the God-human relationship that ought to have existed since creation; namely worship. The second “God gave them over” then illustrates the greatest perversion of the highest manifestation of intimacy in the human-human relationship that ought to have existed since creation; namely sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Then the third “God gave them over” highlights the noetic effects of sin that effect every dimension of human behavior, including but not limited to the list given in 1:29-31.

2. It is interesting to note that, as far as I can tell, the vice lists of the New Testament never mention polygamy, but do mention homosexuality. (see 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10)

3. The best New Testament reference I can recall addressing polygamy is not in the moral vice lists, but in the qualification for an elder. I readily grant that the interpretation of this passage is highly debatable, but in my humble opinion the phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2, “husband of one wife,” is in fact noting that an elder is not to be a polygamist. This might strike us in the west as a bit odd, but considering the prevalence of polygamy in the ancient world, it seems to make perfect sense that Paul would want to address this, not only for moral reasons, but for socioeconomic ones.

4. Not to neglect the Old Testament, I would draw attention to Leviticus 18 and 20, in which everything from adultery to bestiality is addressed, including homosexuality (particularly in chapter 20), but polygamy, as best as I can tell, is not mentioned.

Are there texts I am overlooking? Are there reasons that we should elevate above Scripture? Would someone more versed in the relationship of Natural Law to Scripture care to expound on this?

Thanks for the question Dr. Wittmer. I look forward to hearing you on the White Horse Inn this week!

Justin