Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation: James Patrick Holding fails to defend God's honor

I made the argument at this blog that in light of Paul's express wording in Romans 7:7 that he wouldn't have known coveting was a sin except this had been explicitly prohibited in Mosaic law, Christians cannot call something "sin" unless it has been prohibited in Mosaic Law.

I made that argument as part of my larger argument that the bible-god must approve of sex within adult child marriages, one of my arguments intended to show error in the bible (here, moral error, even by Christian standards).  The argument itself was:

Fourth, if Holding thinks Romans 7:7 is inspired by God, then Paul's language there giving criteria for identifying sin, is so strong it leaves no logical possibility of being able to identify sin where the Law is silent on the act:

 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. (Rom. 7:6-8 NAU)

Does Holding agree with Paul, that Paul would not have known coveting was a sin, except this act had been prohibited in Mosaic Law, yes or no?  If yes, then because the Mosaic law doesn't prohibit sex within adult-child marriages, Holding cannot have a biblical justification to call that act a "sin".  Holding will say the bible teaches we can know sin through our conscience, but the only reason our conscience tells us what sin is, is because God wrote his law on our heart, as Paul said:

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
 17 But if you bear the name "Jew " and rely upon the Law and boast in God, (Rom. 2:12-17 NAU)

In context, the "Law" that is on the heart of the Gentile (v. 15) is no different than the written Mosaic Law that is otherwise exclusive to the Jew (v. 17), and that contextual link cannot be undone by citing to commentators who think "work of the law" is something different than the "law".

-------------------------------
The full blog post where that argument was made is here.

Mr. Holding responds now with, you guessed it, another "cartoon" response, which apparently is the only way he can channel his aggressive spitefulness without committing a crime.  By living in dreamland, Holding can watch himself beat up those bad 'ol atheists and causes all the fantasy injuries he wishes he could inflict in real life.

Holding tries to counter by asserting, again, typically, without recourse to any scholarly commentary (why would God need a commentary anyway when he is posting his cartoon videos to YouTube?)

At :40, Holding says Paul is speaking in the past tense of his own experience.  He says this while flashing the following text:

                


First, Paul's wording is absolutist:  he would not have known coveting was a sin except the law had said "thou shalt not covet", and this directly contradicts Holding's belief that Paul could have known sin by conscience alone.  Paul did not say it would have been unlikely for him to have known such sin apart from the Law, but bluntly that he would not have known coveting was sin, apart from the Law.

Paul's choice of wording is absolute, it is inconsistent for a person who thinks there are more ways the the Law to recognize sin. If you don't need a car to go to the store, you don't say "if it hadn't been for my car, I'd never have made it to the store."

If Paul believed he could know sin by some way other than the law, then he erred by speaking in absolute terms in 7:7.

Second,  allowing that Holding is correct to say the bible teaches we can also know sin by conscience alone, all he gains is the ability to show that people can know by conscience alone that sex within adult-child marriages is sin...but that would not be sufficient to speak that moral opinion dogmatically.

You are imperfect.  What bothers your conscience doesn't decide how God feels and doesn't dictate how other people should think.  If sex within adult-child marriage is disapproved by God, you don't prove this by telling everybody how much the whole idea bothers your conscience.

So Holding simply creates further problem with his conscience argument:  How do you persuade the Christian brother that his conscience isn't reflecting God's morals, if your only basis for proving it is your own conscience?

If Holding is so sure that his bible-god thinks sex within adult-child marriages is sin, let him provide the following evidence:

1 - Biblical or historical evidence showing the minimum age ancient Hebrews thought a girl  must reach before a man could marry her.  Why does he automatically assume it would have been 12 years old just because that's what the Assyrians and Sumerians and Egyptians believed?  If you find out that I live in America, do you automatically assume I love mom, baseball and apple pie?  Why can't we adopt that age into our consent laws today, the stupid way Mr. Holding automatically assumes that the riposte of honor/shame cultures in the ANE automatically applies to Christian apologetics today?

2 - Biblical or historical evidence showing the minimum age ancient Hebrews thought a married girl living in the days of Moses must reach before her adult husband can have sex with her.  Holding, in his effort to avoid my argument, has said a man's getting married to a girl didn't automatically allow him to have sex with her, so I'd like to know what biblical or historical evidence he has that any ancient Hebrew man ever a) married a girl too young for sex, and then b) waited until his wife was older before having sex with her.  Don't tell me it was possible, because you've so far produced no evidence that any such thing ever happened, while most scholars are agreed that in the ancient world, marriage was the justification for sex.  I said marriage, not "betrothal".  I can buy that a Hebrew man would refrain from sex during betrothal, what I cannot buy is your speculation that even after "marriage", the Hebrew man would still refrain from sex until his wife was "old enough" for it.

3 - Why God was silent respecting this horrific crime against children, but spoke several times, clearly prohibiting bestiality.  Holding cannot say God expected us to use our common sense, otherwise, the fact that God specifically prohibited bestiality means God didn't expect us to know from "common sense" alone that sex with animals was forbidden or immoral. 

4 - Why we cannot classify this "sex within adult child marriages" thing as a non-essential based on God's screaming silence, and therefore, as a non-essential, make the argument that disagreement over this practice is not a sufficient reason to justify disfellowshipping or excommunicating someone.  Either explain that, or demonstrate that God's beliefs about the minimum age for girls to get married, is an "essential" about which liberality of opinion cannot be tolerated.