Moment Zero

Is it me or does the Holy Ghost, at times, feel more like a holy joke? Not in the sense that the Spirit doesn’t exist but in that it’s just not tangible? I know we have all seen or possibly participated in church events where people have had tangible experiences with the Holy Spirit. This post isn’t about that. I’m not in the mood to resolve the issues between continuationists versus cessationists today. Maybe next Tuesday. I’m not even talking about gifts right now. I’m just talking about good old-fashioned Spirit inspired living. What does that mean? In an age where emotions have become the social barometer for all authority in life, how does one give authority to something they can’t see and in most cases don’t feel? How do I even know that the Spirit is helping me? People may talk a good game about these things but if you ask them to explain all those one-size-fits-all evangelical phrases like, “Look to the Cross,” you’ll soon see that they haven’t given much thought to how the Spirit practically helps us either. So, now what? If I can’t feel the Spirit working how do I know that he is? If we’re being honest, when we fight sin it just feels like we are trying to force ourselves not to do it. I don’t feel like anything or anyone is helping me not give into lust.

When I was kid there was this dumb martial arts movie called, “The Last Dragon.” It was basically about this gangster bully named Sho Nuff who was an undefeated martial arts champion. Leroy was this kind-hearted martial arts kid whom Sho Nuff was terrorizing. At the end of the movie, in typical cheesy ‘80’s fashion, Leroy remembers something that his Kung Fu instructor told him and then it happens. Sho Nuff had been dunking Leroy into the water trying to make him submit by saying that Sho Nuff was the master. Just as Sho Nuff was about to punch Leroy in the face, this orange glow comes over Leroy’s body, indicating that he is, in fact, the true Kung Fu master. And he whoops Sho Nuff. Badly.

As God as my witness, I used to think the Spirit was like that orange glow that just lights around your whole body and makes you obey.  After a while I came to my senses and thought it was more like a holy zap, than a holy glow. I thought, you pray, the Spirit zaps you, and you walk around in a trance just loving everybody and wanting nothing more than to change the world. I later found out that this does indeed happen but it isn’t the Spirit. It’s drugs.

What I have come to realize is that in order to understand this better I have to understand what scripture says about those without the Spirit. And again, I had to realize that a lot of my problem understanding the Spirit’s work is my tendency to read the scripture from my experience rather than from God’s perspective (See post “Salvation is not Conversion http://curtisallen.net/post/22399766486/salvation-is-not-conversion).

Without the Spirit

I am only going to use two passages here to make the point. There are many to choose from but two is sufficient for now. We will see these passages from our experience in comparison to seeing them from God’s perspective. I know that sounds like a weird dichotomy but you would be surprised how often we gets confused because we think that God is speaking from our perspective instead of his.

Ephesians 2:1-10

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2  in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9  not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2 is one of the greatest passages in scripture and has one of the most overlooked statements in it. The emphasis of the chapter falls more on verses 8-9, where the grace of God, not our efforts, is what saved us. Who doesn’t love these verses? Satan. Definitely. We could probably name plenty of others but for the believer these words are a taste of sweet humility. We did nothing and received everything. Bangin’! Now that you’re all warm and fuzzy, the part that is most misunderstood in this passage is verse one. “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins,” if seen wrongly can confuse even the godliest of Christians.

Let’s start with the bible is written from God’s perspective not our experience. This is key. This is the reason why many of us don’t understand what it means that we were dead in the trespasses and sins. From our experience, we have been doing good stuff for as long as we can remember. And we have had people do really nice thing for us. How can a person be dead in trespasses and sins and save someone’s life? Or help out someone who is homeless. There are people who are good parents, great at their jobs, do not give into lust, do not steal, or lie, have wonderful marriages and yet they are dead in trespasses and sins? How can someone be dead anyway? I have been alive since my birth date. And what about someone who grows up in a Christian home? Are they dead too when they haven’t done a lot of the stuff that most people do?

These are the kinds of questions we ask when interpret the scripture from our experience rather than God’s perspective. God isn’t necessarily speaking of actions when he talks about trespasses and sins. He is, definitely but it is more than that. God is speaking comprehensively, about the identity that the actions come from. Everyone is born with the identity of the serpent as their primary identity, minus maybe John the Baptist. And Jesus obviously. Good works are only good to God when they are done perfectly. That means in action and motive. Good works can only be done perfectly if they are done with knowledge of the will of God specifically and are done with the perfect motive to honor him thus highlighting his glory. No person can do that. Except Jesus. All good works that are done in the identity of the Spirit are evil and sinful to God. I remember something about our greatest works being filthy rags to God. From God’s perspective, not our experience, everything is sinful unless Christ perfects it. Christ only perfects the works of those whom were chosen by God’s grace and given salvation.  

Romans 8:5-8

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

This passage is just another example. These verses contrast the difference between a person who has the Spirit and a person who does not. What is important to note here is that the person who sets their mind on the flesh are hostile to God. This statement is from God’s perspective and it is getting at the motives, thoughts and actions of a person. People cannot do anything that pleases God even if they do things that are pleasing to us. Setting their minds on the things of the Spirit are nit just activities. This is to do any and all activities in honor of the Lord. It’s setting your mind on things because who God is, not because of what people need.

Okay so….

Back to what this all means about knowing that the Spirit is helping me. Jesus perfects any obedience that a Christian does. But the desire that a Christian has to be obedient is to honor the lord. Christians don’t want to just be good co-workers. We want to be a good witness for Jesus. We don’t want to just be good parents. We want to raise our kids so that they’ll believe in Jesus. We don’t read a book that confronts us consistently, warning us that our actions are evil, and yet keep reading it and in fact treasure it, unless the Spirit is in us. Any acts of obedience to God are from the Spirit who gives us the desire and the ability to obey. By faith we act on that desire and ability and this is what obedience is. The Spirit is not a tangible thing in most cases. But it does produces tangible results. And is the only reason why you do anything that you do for God’s glory

As a Christian one of the scariest passages in the bible is Matthew 7:21-23. Yep that one. The infamous “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven,” passage. As frightening as Matthew 7 can be for some people, what can be the most confusing are passages like Matthew 10:22, 19:25, 24:13, John 15:1-8, and Revelation 21:7. The theme of each of these verses is essentially this “but the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Some Christians struggle with this though wondering, “Well wait…I thought I was saved. Why is this passage warning me to bear or fruit or else?” Then, many in the reformed camp go to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints and so dismiss the warnings about persevering to the end. In this chaos of being saved, I think, many well meaning believers have forgotten a few things about salvation. And, are confused about how God uses the term and how we use the term “saved.”

From God’s Perspective

One of the ways I have failed as a Christian and pastor is that I can forget that the bible is written from God’s perspective. That sounds dumb right? However, many of the contradictory statements about salvation come from not realizing this fundamental truth. When God speaks about his people he speaks of us as completed people. Meaning he says things that are in the past tense as if they are done. Like the word “saved.” It is a past tense way of saying we have salvation. But then God will simultaneously speak to us in the present tense and tell us that we must “conquer to the end” to be saved. Almost as if we are not saved yet. What is happening here?

Because God is outside of time and knows all things related to time, he weaves statements in and out of time. When I say time, I mean specifically our experience. Years, months, days, hours, minutes etc. When he says we are saved, he is saying this, in some ways, outside of time. Because it is a finished work. It is past tense. It has been completed. But God will also use the same term in the present tense. This deals more with our experience of being saved. He speaks as if we are saved only IF we believe until the end. And this is where the problem begins to occur. How are we saved and yet aren’t saved unless we believe until the end? This question has created theological divisions and certain emphasis’ depending on your theological tradition.

Salvation’s Emphasis

I am reformed in my Soteriology (fancy word for the doctrine of salvation). And I believe there is an Ordo Salutis (Latin word for order of salvation). For the most part reformed tradition lists salvation in this order: Election, Gospel Call, Regeneration, Conversion, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance, Death and Glorification. I will not be explaining these terms but feel free to look them up. As true to what I see the bible teaches about salvation, those of us who are reformed place a lot of emphasis, as Luther did, on Justification. While none of us would outright say this, Justification has become equivalent to salvation in the reformed world. It is often where we stand our ground. Justification is taught a ton in reformed churches and can in some ways compete with the gospel itself.

In the non-reformed world many people believe in some sort of Ordo Salutis as well. But in the non-reformed world, salvation’s emphasis is on conversion. The weight of salvation, and I would even say the very hope of salvation, is on the moment you get “saved.” That decision to accept Jesus as your savior at a youth retreat, or that altar call moment that was laced with tears is how most people think of being saved. People will wage their eternal destinies on that moment of conversion. It is a watershed moment in our lives and it becomes, for many of us, the very foundation of our being saved. The problem is, justification and conversion are not salvation. Since people have thought they were, along with the way God speaks in and out of our space-time continuum, much confusion exists about salvation. Especially when one arrives at the verses I mentioned above on fighting to the end. This, I think but am probably wrong here, does not have to be as complicated as it has become. Let me explain.

Salvation

Only God knows

Even though this may be hard to believe, only God knows who is truly saved and who is not. While I can have confidence that I and others I know are saved based on faith and fruit, ultimately we do not know who is saved and who isn’t. Only God knows who are his. This creates a tension in our experience. We want to be assured of salvation and we should be. Didn’t John write 1 John to give people the assurance that they are saved? Yes. But isn’t it funny that people are as confused as ever about being saved? We must start with the reality that only God knows who are saved.

Because we are limited to space and time, and are in many ways hindered by emotions, this is a hard truth to grasp. But haven’t we all seen people who seemed at one point to look like believers, and after a while they show themselves not to be? When that happens we usually toggle between confusion and self-righteousness. But it is in these moments that we are forced to remember that only God knows who is saved. When Jesus said to the disciples “one of you will betray me,” none of them said, “Oh it must be Judas.” They each accused themselves. Only God knows who is saved. Yet we can have confidence that we are saved, based on who we believe in (Jesus) and how we live.

The problem with ‘saved’

The biggest problem with the term saved is when God uses it he speaks omnisciently knowing all things. He can speak confidently that some will be saved because he chose them to be. He speaks knowing how all things are going to end up. When we speak of being saved we speak in time (experience) and usually mean justified or converted. That is the only way we can speak because we do not know all things and can only speak based upon what we know now, which is why most of what we believe is in faith. It is not necessarily wrong to do this, but we must remember that when God speaks of being saved he speaks outside of time. God can see you and I as finished, glorified even, because he has chosen us to be. Even though that it is not our experience. So what does all this mean?

We have to think of salvation not as Conversion or Justification but as a spectrum that begins with Election and ends with Glorification. From our knowledge and experience, salvation only begins in this life for us. Salvation doesn’t end with conversion. It doesn’t end at Justification. As a matter of fact, sanctification, perseverance and death are the only things we can experience with our senses. Those are the only parts of salvation that are tangible in this life. Salvation ends when we are standing face to face before God and have received glorified bodies. This is why God warns us to persevere. He is warning us from our experience not his perspective. It is why he says we must persevere because that is the only true measure of a genuine Christian. 1 John 2 and 2 Peter 2 both cover this. People who only believe for a season in this life were never converted to God, even though they were to us.

We have to persevere to the end because that is what salvation is. It’s not the moment you made a profession of faith. All a profession of faith means is that we are being saved. We are in a process to be saved and can have some assurance that we are saved (however we will only be as confident as we are obedient). But honestly, we will only know that we are saved for certain if we hold firm to the end. We need to think of salvation as a process that we are in (from the standpoint of our experience) and know that we must prove ourselves to be his disciples (John 15:8) throughout this life. So that we may die believing they very thing we do now. If we remind ourselves that salvation is really Election to Glorification, it may help us to see why we have to persevere. Rather than thinking we are saved (which we are, but when we say it, we say it outside of time and experience), it may be more helpful to think we are being saved, which is more accurate to where we are in our experience of salvation.

Dear Curtis,

This is a slightly strange request .. but can you tell me when you were born?

I am an assistant professor at the University of Heidelberg, teaching American religious history. I’m currently writing an article on the ways the Heidelberg Catechism has been spoken of, used and understood in America, and I want to mention your rap. The requirement for the academic journal, though, requires birth and death dates for historical figures, and birth dates for contemporary figures. Thus, this rather odd request.

The article will be published in Evangelische Theologie, which is mostly read by German Lutheran pastors and Reformed theologians here. It will be published in 2013 for the 450th anniversary of the catechism. I’d be happy to send you an English version of the article when it’s finished.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for your marvelous rap.

Best,
Daniel Silliman
Heidelberg Center for American Studies
University of Heidelberg

This is correct in a sense. We cannot know for a certainty that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality just because nothing is recorded in the New Testament. There are things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in Scripture. John says so in closing in John 21:25, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (NASB). 
Jesus did occasionally hold up Sodom as an example of a sinful city (e.g. Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:12), but mainly to tell people that the sinfulness that caused them to reject Jesus and His disciples was worse than Sodom’s sinfulness. No specific mention of homosexual activity is made, nor should it be assumed; Scripture lists other reasons why Sodom was destroyed (more on that in the next section). 

However, it is important to note that, even if Scripture does not record any word from Jesus against homosexuality, this still does not argue in favor of a pro-gay position. By the pro-gay’s own argument, culture was so against gays that it supposedly influenced Paul to be anti-homosexual. If that’s the case, and being against homosexuality was wrong, why didn’t Jesus say a word to address this flaw in society? I can see only three possibilities: a) because the attitude wasn’t present (highly unlikely); b) because the attitude wasn’t wrong; or c) because the attitude is indirectly addressed by Jesus’ other teachings.


Watch Out For…

§  Christian should love and not hate people. Acceptance is the new faith. We have moved away from tolerance. I can tolerate anyone and have in some cases my whole life. But the now it is either I agree (accept it as fine, good, and acceptable to God) with homosexuality or I’m a hater. I’m a homophobe etc. I remember when there was a time that people were allowed to disagree with things and it was fine. NOW I PROMOTE HATE BECAUSE I DON’T THINK GAY MARRIAGE IS OKAY? REALLY? Gay marriage is a civil rights issue and black people should understand because of what we had to go through? Really? Where was LGBT during slavery and the racism throughout the civil rights days? Were they defending us? Were they against racism? Where does history show that? So hundred’s of years of murder, rape, slavery, segregation, threatening, psychological harm, false arrests, false imprisonment, among other things is equal to people wanting to be married? LGBT owes all black people an apology for making gay marriage a civil rights issue! A longer post on gay marriage being equivalent to the civil rights issues that blacks have faced for hundreds of years is coming soon.

§  There are many things that Christians don’t follow anymore (Moral Norm). This is somewhat true but we very much follow the moral code of the OT today. The Ten Commandments still govern us well. Along with many others commands. We don’t follow strictly Jewish temporary cultic practices but the moral norms as listed in the second objection would be contemporary duh’s in the way people should and should not act.

The Greek word used for homosexual in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 is unclear. In the NASB, 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, “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…”
The word translated “effeminate” is the Greek word “malakos,” and the word translated “homosexuals” is the Greek word “arsenokoites.” “Arsenokoites” was not, in Paul’s time, the Greek word for “homosexual.” There were other words available to Paul that he could have used to be more specific. So, why did Paul use a word apparently of his own invention? He combined “arsenos”, men, and “koites”, bed, to create a word similar to “men-bedder.” The source of the words Paul combined was the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of Scripture in use in Paul’s time. This does not mean that he wasn’t referring to homosexuality as we know it today. It just means the Greek word is unique. 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Variations to this argument are as follows:

1) The “Paul’s words aren’t Scripture” argument.

 It is argued by some that Paul’s writings aren’t Scripture and that Paul did not think he was writing Scripture. These arguments are very simply refuted. Peter affirmed the view of the church that Paul’s words were Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. He wrote, “… and regard the patience of our Lord {as} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (NASB).
Paul knew his own words to be Scripture when he wrote 2 Thessalonians, his second earliest letter. Verse 2:15 says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us” (NASB). Here, he’s telling the people to view his writings, and those of the other apostles, as Scripture. (At the time Paul wrote that, none of the gospels had yet been written, and that’s why he speaks of holding fast to traditions taught by word. It is certainly not a proof-text for accepting traditions over Scripture.)


2) The “Paul was affected by his culture” argument.
 This argument basically states that Paul thought homosexual activity was wrong just because his culture trained him to think it was wrong. The problem with this argument is, the same argument would apply to the person making it. Cultural pressures have forced some weaklings in the faith to accept homosexual acts simply because it’s the popular thing to do. Aaron did the same thing when the people of Israel asked him to make an idol for them to worship.
 It comes down to a choice. If I have two people who are possibly “affected by their culture,” do I go with the views of a modern (even modernist) minister, or do I go with the views of Paul? Paul is the man whom God chose to write the larger part of New Testament Scripture, not any modern minister. Reason would dictate that I choose Paul.


3) Paul’s usage of the word “natural” is being misinterpreted by people today. This is probably the most interesting of the arguments against Paul’s Romans 1 perspective. What is said is Paul uses natural in Romans 1 in the same the way he uses natural in 1 Corinthians 11 (primarily verse 14). This speaks on the way men and women wear their hair. Nature spoken of here (Corinthians) would not reflect society now. It was a customary distinction not a “for all time” distinction. Churches don’t follow what nature teaches us in every case. What Paul means by nature is not just what is customary or conventional but that which is created and intended by God. It speaks to the inherit nature of things, biological constitution.

Galatians 2:15 Jews by nature not customary biological (using same word for nature here)

Galatians 4:8 Idols by nature not Gods. Not their inherit property to be God’s

Romans 2:14 Gentiles do the law by nature (instinctively) Built into them (natural law)

Romans 11:21, 24 Natural branches on a tree. The inherent property of a tree is a branch.

Ephesians 2:3 all human beings by nature children of wrath.

All the other texts speak of the way things are or how they were intended to be by God. They all use the same word for nature that Paul uses in Romans. There’s no indication in the text of scripture that nature means customary rather than intended by God. 

1 Corinthians 11 is about the distinction between male and female needs to be culturally preserved. Males and females need to present themselves as males and females in whatever culture they’re in. Males are to be males and females are to be females. This is very similar to Romans 1. When I was in India men there would hold hands. We would walk down the street and they would grab my hand like they were my wife but they were not gay. It was culturally acceptable to them as men. The men still present themselves as men. That is conceptually what Paul is after in 1 Corinthians 11. 

4.) Paul was speaking of pederasty and cult prostitution not monogamous loving gay relationships. This is a huge stance for those who are pro-gay but there are a few problems with this position as well. First and foremost the text does not say men sleeping with boys. It says men sleeping with men. As well, this passage also indicts lesbian relationships as well. Women tend to be more emotionally connected i.e. loving but Paul makes no qualification that loving relationships need not apply. The logic here is more like the abomination listed in Leviticus. Homosexual behavior is the result of rejecting God.

While some may want to avoid the reality that Paul spells out here it is clear that Homosexuality is not something that appears in any obvious sense to be honoring to the Lord. The fact that people have to scrutinize the scriptures to find even the minutest of details related to homosexuality is an indication that the bible does not speak favorably to the issue. Something as significant as sexuality God appears to have spoken very clearly on. Why would he make something so central to who people are so obscure? While it is a hard pill to swallow, for many who are gay, as is parts of the bible for me that call me to act contrary to what I feel is who I am (sinful anger, lust, forgiving others that offend me etc.) Jesus always calls us to act contrary to how we feel inside, even when the desire is strong. In that sense, we all have the same issue.

There are many variations of this argument. The idea is to make us throw out Leviticus altogether from our thinking on the homosexual issue. It is argued that, since shellfish are an abomination in Leviticus, to be consistent Christians should speak out against seafood restaurants, and since it is wrong to wear clothes of mixed fabrics, we are all in dire straits if we apply the Levitical laws to ourselves.
 It is argued by some that there are “moral” and “ceremonial” laws in Leviticus, and the moral laws still apply to Christians while the ceremonial ones don’t. I agree with that, but it doesn’t necessarily help us convince others that homosexual acts are contrary to moral law. As far as many pro-gay apologists are concerned, none of Leviticus applies to Christians and even if it did, homosexuality is covered by ceremonial rather than moral laws and is no longer wrong today.



There is actually a very simple answer to this. There are two kinds of abominations in Leviticus. There are things that are eternally abominable to God, and there are things that are temporarily abominable to the Israelites. Scripture always perfectly indicates which things are temporarily abominable, and which things are eternally abominable to God. When Scripture says something “is abominable,” then it is referring to something abominable to God. When Scripture says something “shall be abominable” or “abominable to you,” it is indicating something abominable only to the Israelites.
 The things that are eternally abominable to God apply to people whether or not they are under the Mosaic Law. 1 Kings 14:24 says, “They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel.” The reason God dispossessed those nations was because they did the abominations that defiled the land. Leviticus 18:24 warns, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.”
Those nations were not under the Law, but were cast out because of their abominations; therefore, the punishment for acts which are abominable to God apply to people whether or not the Mosaic Law applies to them.

The list of things that God made temporarily abominable to the Israelites included only food restrictions. Israelites were not permitted to eat anything in the water that does not have fins and scales, eagle, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, raven, ostrich, owl, sea gull, haw, owl, cormorant, great owl, white owl, pelican, carrion vulture, stork, heron, hoopoe, bat, all winged insects that walk on all fours (except for those with legs built for jumping like the locust, cricket, and grasshopper), the camel, rabbit, shaphan, pig, and swarming things and things that crawl on their bellies. 
All of those restrictions were lifted with a vision to Peter in Acts 10. But the things that are eternally abominable to God have never been cleansed.

According to Scripture, this list is:


1) Eating the flesh of a votive or freewill offering on the third day after the sacrifice is made

2) Lying with mankind as with womankind


3) Idols


4) Serving other gods


5) Sacrificing blemished animals to God


6) Passing one’s son or daughter through the fire


7) One who uses divination


8) One who practices witchcraft


9) One who interprets omens


10) One who is a sorcerer


11) One who casts spells


12) One who is a medium


13) One who is a spiritist
1

4) One who calls up the dead


15) Cross-dressing


16) Remarrying your ex-wife, if she married another man after your divorce


17) Having differing weights and measures (in business, to bilk your customers)


18) Devious people


19) A proud look


20) A lying tongue


21) Hands that shed innocent blood


22) A heart that devises wicked imaginations


23) Feet that are swift in running to mischief


24) A false witness that speaks lies


25) A person that sows discord among brethren


26) The sacrifice, way, and thoughts of the wicked


27) One that justifies the wicked, and one that condemns the just


28) The prayers of one that turns away his ear from hearing the law


There are other moral laws in the Law that still apply but for the purpose of this exercise, I only want to count the abominations. You’ll note that the first and fifth items are linked to sacrifice, which is no longer required for Christians. Because we don’t make sacrifices today, we’re in no danger of the associated abominations. 
I can’t imagine that even pro-gay activists would argue against the immorality of any of these abominations, except lying with mankind as with womankind and cross-dressing. So when they say that you are a hypocrite if you oppose homosexuality and yet eat seafood or wear blended fabrics, they are knowingly or unknowingly mixing apples and oranges because they are comparing ceremonial laws to abominations.

It’s hard to imagine any Christian being in favor of the other things that Scripture notes are abominations to God Himself.
 Another thing I have to note is, the people who argue in favor of homosexuality are in grave danger on the last two points, “one that justifies the wicked, and one that condemns the just” and being “ones that turn their ears away from hearing the law.” As Paul warned in Romans 1:32, “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”


I’ve been leading my church to help them understand what the bible says about homosexuality. Here is what we over last night. 

The basis of this argument is Ezekiel 16:49-50

 Ezekiel 16:49-50

49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

The tex in question that people are saying is about hospitality not homosexuality.  

Genesis 19:1-11

19 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5  And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8  Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

There are a few problems with this objection:

1.    It makes the issue in Sodom and Gomorrah an “either or” black and white issue but that would not be true when you look at the some of the other verses that explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:6-7, Jude 1:6-7).

2 Peter 2:6-7

6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked

Jude 6-7

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Neither of these other passages that mention Sodom and Gomorrah give any indication that sexual sin was not the problem and that hospitality was. 

2.    While Ezekiel does indicate that failure to be hospitable was present it is clearly a result of pride not the sole cause of it. This objection to an anti-homosexual view here does not take into account what the abomination was described in Ezekiel 16. It appears as if the abomination was separate from the categories of pride, excess food and not aiding the poor and needy. It is rather fascinating to note that the “guilt” of Sodom was arrogance, and having an abundance of things yet refusing to help the poor and needy. The result of their guilt was being haughty and committing abominations. These abominations evidently included (but were not limited to) homosexual activity (referred to as an abomination in Leviticus 18:22), but it is important to note that committing abominations was the result of their guilt, not the cause of their guilt, and this is an important distinction to make. This cycle of guilt for sin and resulting consequences is seen also in Romans 1, where Paul does not actually name homosexuality as a sin, but as a result of sin.

3.    It fails to take into account the churches understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah for thousands of years.

4.    If hospitality was so serious that God would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and use them as an example of what will happen to the ungodly, why isn’t hospitality commonly listed in the categories of sin that incur God’s wrath in the NT?

5.    It is obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was not just one sin but many, with homosexual (along with other sexually perverted acts, such as rape) activity as the resulting abomination.

Counter Objection: If these men were homosexuals then why would Lot offer his daughters to men who only wanted men?

This statement imports into Genesis 19 a gay identity that does not exist in scripture. In fact the “gay identity” is a new ideology within the last 70 years. No one is saying these men are exclusively homosexual. But that homosexual acts are included in the sin that displeased God enough to destroy the city.