It all comes down to pesky verses

Tony Jones is starting to sound more and more like a 2 Peter 2 teacher. He doesn't think those six pesky verses against homosexuality in the Bible hold weight? I responded.

If Jones is hesitant to acknowldege a settled Biblical issue due to controversy over clear verses and consistent ecclesiastic historical understanding then what doctrine is settled. All heresy comes from disagreeing with an established hermeneutic, which for the first 4 centuries was settled by a church wide council. Can anyone be a heretic in Jones' world? Is a Jehovah's Witness a heretic in danger of hell due to his different opinion on several key verses? What about a Mormon? How is their extra scripture any different from the new revelations of scientists, our modern priesthood? It's controversial because it means some people are wrong. Hurt feelings does not necessitate re-interpretation.

This Princeton PhD candidate even throws out the red herring about eating shellfish. As if the commenters never pointed to the principle of what is reinforced in the NT from the OT is what God views as important. Unclean food is a non-issue, see Peter's vision in Acts 10, sexual boundaries are. But I think he views science and experience as a third testament which can nullify things in the NT. In a subsequent post he acknowledges that everything is relative and, thus, there is no natural law. No surprises there. I suggested that his readers consider Robert Gagnon's website. It's the same thing from the beginning when Satan asks Eve, "Has God truly said?" Genesis 3:1