For a Christian, there is no such thing as sexual sin.

A Christian must accept ALL scripture? Absolutely not! A Christian must accept and adhere to the Law of Christ and not the Law of Moses found in Old Testament scripture. That is the difference between a Jew and a Christian. A true Jew must follow the Law of Moses, and a true Christian cannot. If we must accept all scripture, then we are REQUIRED to stone disobedient sons to death at the city gates. If a woman is found not to have been a virgin at marriage, we MUST stone her to death on her father's doorstep. We also MUST NOT cut the hair at the sides of our heads, plant more than one crop, eat certain "unclean" foods, or wear cotton-polyester blend clothes. We also MUST sew tassels on our coats and build railings around the roofs of our houses. We MUST stone to death any woman who is raped in any city, because she obviously didn't scream for help. All of this is in Old Testament scripture. Additionally, if we accept Mark 16:17 and 18, we will drink drain cleaner and not be harmed. That is what the clear text says. About adultery … I agree that it is sinful; however, it is sinful not because of the sex but because of the harm done. Thus, it is not a sexual sin, as such. A sexual sin would be something considered sin exclusively because of the sex, such as the purported sexual sins of premarital sex, homosexuality/bisexuality, consensual incest, and bestiality. As it turns out, none of these are sins for a Christian. Things such as rape, abuse, and adultery are, of course, sinful but because of the harm – the lack of love of fellowman. Your entire argument rests on the erroneous assumption of the continued applicability of the Levitical morality code. What you espouse is not Christianity but a hybrid of Judaism and Christianity where we are subject to parts of the laws of both and parts of the scriptures of both. The new Testament couldn't be more clear that we have a new covenant or agreement with God and that that new covenant comes with a new high priest and a new law. What you want to do is make us subject to the law of the first covenant – a covenant that is no longer in force. You want to define sin and thus regulate our behavior according to the morality code of a law that has no authority over us. We have a new law now, so we have to define sin and regulate our behavior according to it and NOT according to the law it replaced. There are two types of definitions. There is the intensional definition, which is the dictionary definition, and there is the extensional definition, which is all those things that fit the intensional definition. The intensional definition of sin is a violation of applicable moral law. The extensional definition will be different according to what moral law applies. If the Law of Moses, with it's Levitical morality code applies, then a certain set of things are sinful, but if it does not apply – if we are instead subject to a different law, then the extensional definition of sin changes to include only those things that violate the new law. I have provided scriptures which state clearly and emphatically that a Christian does ALL that is demanded when he loves others. You have provided scriptures that seem to say other things are required. There is no way that requiring obedience to a sexual morality code does not blatantly contradict these scriptures. Which are to be given effect? They cannot both be true. I have also shown that the New Testament itself makes it emphatically clear that grace and works are mutually exclusive. You want to add works back into the equation, just at a different place. No matter where you add it into the equation, it is still works and it still negates grace. Your argument is that we do not have to earn our salvation before it is given but after. No matter how you slice it, your argument says we are not justified and are not saved in the end unless we adhere to a morality code. You are saying that the gift, freely given irrespective of (in fact because of) our failure to obey that code can be then taken away if we do not obey that code. You're saying we have to earn justification and salvation after the fact by obeying the Levitical morality code. You state that a person must try to follow a Biblical code of morals in order to enter heaven. This is works and is inconsistent with grace. The passage you referenced in James is often misunderstood because of its use of the word WORKS in the KJV. A survey of other translations makes it clear that the passage is about faith without good deeds – faith without love of fellowman, which is an impossibility. True faith will move you to truly love others. You offer a very few New Testament passages that seem, without deeper reflection, to require obedience to the Levitical morality code, but is that what they really say? For the most part, they use terms such as SIN and IMMORALITY and OBEDIENCE which have, since the earliest times, been interpreted by the Judaizers to refer to the Levitical morality code. This cannot be the case, because the Law of Moses, with its commandments and regulations, was abolished by Christ. We cannot interpret morality and sin according to a law Christ died to free us from. If we were required to still obey those ordinances, then there was no need for Christ at all. Gal 2:21 I don't turn my back on God's undeserved kindness. If we can be acceptable to God by obeying the Law, it was useless for Christ to die. (CEV) We are acceptable to God because of one thing and one thing only: our belief in Christ. Salvation is a free gift that cannot be revoked. Now, there are a very few New Testament passages that clearly advocate requiring obedience to select ordinances of the Levitical morality code. Those, however, are inconsistent with grace. The very premise and the practical effect of a prohibition is that compliance is required, so your position requires that we earn justification not by believing but by obeying the principles of a code destroyed by Christ. What if we believe in the Christ the New Testament says freed us from those? You see a grace which must be earned by works of obedience to an abolished law. The New Testament talks of a grace that is a FREE GIFT. It is called grace because it IS NOT DESERVED. Your theology has grace being first given and then revoked if we do not prove we deserve it by obeying the morality of a law Christ nailed to the cross. The New Testament presents us with a disjunctive syllogism. We are either saved by grace or works, but not by both. It can only be one or the other. Since the vast, vast, vast majority of the scriptures say it's by grace, and indeed the Good News itself was salvation by grace, it cannot be and is not by works of obedience to rules. Yet you and the rest of Judaized Christianity insist on adding works back in. By requiring obedience to moral rules, you require works. Rather than trust in the grace of God and the power of the blood of Christ to save us, you say that's not good enough. You say we must also strive to obey the moral rules he did away with. What an insult to Christ! You completely failed to discredit the passages that say all that is demanded of a Christian is love of fellowman or explain how requiring that we try to obey a Biblical morality code is not works and therefore a rejection of grace. I would love to see these two things in your response. Three choices for round 3: whether the morality of the Law of Moses is still valid; the scriptural requisites for justification and salvation; or sin and the changed person. You pick, and I'll start.