Progressive Pastor’s FALLACIOUS Argument DEBUNKED!

The Shellfish Argument and Levitical Law

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to Fight For Truth, the channel where we bring you Christian commentary about the things that matter. In today's video, we're gonna be talking about a progressive Christian gentleman on TikTok, and this particular individual is a progressive Christian pastor.

He made a short video responding to a comment that was left on his channel. The comment took issue with his pro-LGBT views, and it makes the case that they do not align with the Scriptures. Let's go ahead and read the comment.

Look up Leviticus 18, verse 22, and tell me what Bible your church preaches from. Man lies with man is an abomination. This is, of course, citing Leviticus 18, verse 22, which says in full, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.

It is an abomination. Now, this is a popular passage, often used by conservative Christians against the homosexual lifestyle. But this progressive pastor, well, he's not having any of that. He attempts to utterly refute this argument and demonstrate why he thinks it's ridiculous.

Watch this.

Well, buddy, listen, I hope you've never worn a mixed-blend shirt or eaten shrimp, catfish, pork, or a steak that wasn't cooked well done. I hope you've never sat in the same seat that your wife sat in after she had her lady time.

See, because if you've done any of those things, you've actually broke one of the 613 Levitical laws.

So this argument is one that we like to call the shellfish argument. It basically goes something like this. You conservative Christians think that homosexuality is wrong. In defense of your position, you quoted a passage from the Old Testament law, specifically the book of Leviticus.

But guess what? You don't actually fully agree with the entire Old Testament law, do you? That same book of the Bible, in Leviticus 11, verse 10, says,. But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

See, if you're a conservative Christian, and you like eating shrimp or lobster, but at the same time you oppose homosexuality, you're being a hypocrite. You're cherry-picking which Old Testament laws you follow and which you don't, because you're just that homophobic.

That is essentially the argument being made here. And if it is used on the unsuspecting Christian, it may actually work, despite the fact that it's wrong. The problem is that this argument is utterly absurd.

Here's why. First, it does not recognize that there are different laws given for different purposes in the Old Testament. They're not all exactly the same. It seems obvious that a law that tells the people of Israel to, say, not murder each other is going to be there for a different purpose than a command that tells them not to eat shrimp or pork.

Context is important in deciding what the utility of each law is. Second, this same line of logic could be used to simply disregard any and all Old Testament laws that one disagrees with. Exodus 20 verse 13 says, quote, you shall not murder, for example.

But that doesn't apply to me today. If you tell me that I'm not allowed to murder someone, and you still think it's okay for you to eat pork or shellfish, you're being inconsistent. You're being a hypocrite.

If you're allowed to eat shrimp, then I'm allowed to kill you. That's how this works, and those are the rules, and I see no problem. Again, obviously, any rational and moral person can see how absurdly unethical this argument is.

You can't just disregard any law you want in the Old Testament just because Christians eat shrimp. It doesn't work that way. But with that, let's watch the next clip and see the outcome of this argument.

Watch this.

The New Covenant and the Fulfillment of the Law

See, because if you've done any of those things, you've actually broke one of the 613 Levitical laws. As for me, I don't have to worry about any of those things because I live under the New Covenant, the grace, the mercy, the love of Jesus.

Now this argument is wrong for several reasons. Most importantly, it utterly fails to take any other scriptures into account. The New Covenant, the one that's all about Jesus' mercy and grace and love, actually affirms the Old Testament law.

In Matthew 22, Jesus is asked what the two greatest commandments are for us to follow as Christians. In what has become one of the most popular Bible passages in our culture today, Jesus responds. In Matthew 22, verse 37, here's what He says.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

This is absolutely true, and it is the standard which Christians ought to follow. But let's not forget to read the verse which comes directly after it, also from Jesus Himself. In Matthew 22, verse 40, Jesus says,.

On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. This would be easy to disregard if it wasn't also found in many other passages as well. The Apostle Paul says virtually the same thing. In Romans 13, 9, he says,.

For the commandments you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandment are summed up in this word. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore, love, and get this, is the fulfilling of the law. So evidently, there are indeed Old Testament laws that are still binding on Christians today, and Christian love does not negate the law.

Simply saying, I'm under the New Covenant does not mean that the Old Covenant standards all do not apply to you. In fact, Jesus, who Himself gave us the New Covenant, never taught this, despite what many progressive Christians might say.

Jesus, Paul, and many others confirm that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Testament law. The question then becomes, why do Christians obey the Old Testament when it says, for example, do not murder, and we don't obey it when it says that you should not eat shellfish or pork?

There's a very simple reason for that. We're not cherry-picking laws we like and ones we don't. That's not what's happening. We're simply following what the New Covenant actually says in context, what it actually teaches.

Peter's Vision and the Food Laws

For example, on the topic of food laws in the Old Testament, there's quite an easy explanation. In Acts chapter 10, the Apostle Peter was given a vision. Peter was told by God in the vision, quote, rise, kill, and eat, after he was presented with a plethora of different animals.

Peter responds by saying in Acts 10 14, quote, by no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice came to him again a second time, what God has made clean do not call common.

So we can clearly see that Peter was following the Old Testament food laws. He was not going to eat anything declared unclean in Leviticus. But God came to him and gave him, and by proxy the rest of the Church, permission to eat these things.

You see, the reason behind this kind of law was a separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. So it's no coincidence that at the end of the chapter, Peter tells us what he learned through the whole ordeal.

In Acts 10 28, he says, quote, you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean, end quote.

So the whole point here is that the distinction between Jew and Gentile, between clean food and unclean food, has been nullified in the New Covenant. It's been fulfilled in Christ. Even the Old Testament affirms this fact.

Indeed, it is prophesied. Isaiah 66 verses 17 through 18 say this, quote, those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens following one in the midst, eating pigs' flesh and the abomination and mice shall come to an end together, declares the Lord.

For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues, and they shall come and see my glory, end quote. So you see, laws regarding food are directly associated with the difference between Jew and Gentile.

In other words, let's ask the question again. Why is it okay for a Christian to eat shellfish and not okay for them to murder someone? Because one law was specifically used to make the Jewish people separate at one point in time.

And the other law is a creational, moral, and permanent command given to all people at all times. Again, this progressive pastor seems to completely ignore any part of the important theological context here.

It seems as though the only goal is to affirm homosexuality at all costs, even if that means violating the Bible. And that makes sense, because we know this topic hits quite a nerve when it comes to the secular culture around us.

And when I say secular culture, yes, I am referring to progressive Christians too. But there is one final piece of the puzzle that needs to be put into place. We need to answer this question. Why would Christians think that homosexuality specifically is wrong under the New Covenant?

Who's to say that this law has not also changed? But in a way, this is the wrong question to ask. The burden of proof is on the one who says that homosexuality is not a sin under the New Covenant. For example, the New Covenant does not anywhere expressly condemn bestiality.

But the Old Testament, it does. Leviticus 18, 23 says, and you shall not lie with any animal, and so make yourself unclean with it. Now, does this mean that bestiality might just be an Old Testament prohibition and under the New Testament it's perfectly acceptable?

No. Again, once it's already been condemned in Scripture, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that it's not a sin anymore. The argument this man presented is just a form of progressive Christian legalism.

The ultimate conclusion is that God has to condemn every single individual sin specifically in the Old Testament, and then again in the New Testament. And this kind of legalism demonstrates an inability to simply look at the continuity of the covenants, the ethical pattern of Scripture, and make wise decisions based on that.

Creation, Romans 1, and the Biblical Sexual Ethic

From the very beginning of Scripture to the very end, the ideal sexual ethic is always one man and one woman in marriage. Genesis 2, verse 24 says,. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, there's one marriage unit, and hold fast to his wife, there's another marriage unit, and they shall become one flesh.

This is what we see taught throughout Scripture. And on the topic of homosexuality, Romans 1 .26 -27 says this,. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.

And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed instead with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The clear pattern of Scripture is that heterosexual marriage is the only lawful way to become one flesh or to participate in sexual activity. On the other hand, homosexuality is never endorsed and, in fact, it is explicitly called a sin many times.

But at the end of this video, this progressive pastor responds to this argument. Watch this.

The Claim That Leviticus 18 Is About Pedophilia

Now as for me, I don't have to worry about any of those things because I live under the new covenant, the grace, the mercy, the love of Jesus. Plus the original translation of this passage wasn't talking about homosexuality, it was talking about pedophilia.

But I expect you'd know that since you follow the old covenant law to a T, right?

So now he makes the case that we're not talking about homosexuality in general. We're talking about a situation wherein an old man is taking advantage of a younger man. This is often the progressive Christian response.

Again, they are deeply legalistic and most often just looking for loopholes to affirm sinful behavior rather than following the obvious pattern we see in Scripture. But additionally, it is important to recall what we read in Romans chapter 1, especially where it's said in verse 26,.

"...for their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.". The relations were dishonorable, at least in some part, it says here, because they were not according to nature.

Now one might try to disregard this, but Paul says it a second time. Verse 27, "...and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women, and were consumed with passion for one another.". Here we see again the behavior is condemned as unnatural.

That seems to be a big part of the rationale here. And the Greek word for natural here is physikos, which means produced by nature, agreeable to nature, or governed by the instincts of nature. And the passage makes it abundantly clear that the natural relations being rejected sinfully were that of between a man and a woman.

This, along with the general pattern of Scripture which should not be ignored, refute this popular argument used by progressive Christians completely. They so often say that it's not loving, committed homosexual unions that are condemned in the Bible by Moses or Paul or anyone else, but rather they're talking about cases of unconsensual force.

But even a so-called homosexual union that is quote-unquote loving is unnatural both physically and spiritually by the standard of Romans 1. It's obvious. And in any case, it's clearly outside the pattern given to us in Scripture.

In other words, at virtually every level, this progressive Christian was offering fallacious argument after fallacious argument. He did not successfully disprove or critique the traditional view of marriage, nor did he come anywhere close to offering a solid biblical defense of progressive Christianity.

And by God's grace, we will continue to defend the biblical worldview against falsehood like this on our channel. I pray that this has been a blessing to you, and please know that this video isn't meant as a sinful attack, but rather as a biblical critique.

And let's pray for this progressive Christian, that he would stop his false teaching by God's grace and turn to the truth of God's Word. Thank you so much for watching that video. Please give us a like and subscribe so that you don't miss any content.

Also, don't forget to subscribe to our Rumble channel as well, just in case YouTube ever takes us down. The link is in the description. And before you go, take a look at this list here. These are the people who make all of the free content you see on this channel possible with their monthly support.

Today's highlighted channel supporter is Jeff T. If you also want to help and become part of the solution today, hit the link in the description. Your support keeps us independent and helps us immensely here on the channel.

So I hope you'll consider joining the Truth Army today, and until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open. Thank you, and God bless.