In my understanding it's not perfection, that a homosexual or hetero will never have wrong thoughts or even actions, or a person who struggles with anger will never be angry, etc. Rather it means a change of mind, a change of heart about it. Saying 'I don't want to do that anymore it's wrong'. I don't know how you get around repentance as a genuine Christian.

I have never heard any Christian leader attack the sinfulness of greed in rich capitalists.

"Rich capitalists" are not necessarily greedy. Even the poor can be greedy. In the same way, a fat person is not necessarily a glutton. Even a skinny person can be a glutton.

greed is not only embraced but also protected and honored in evangelical circles.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. The people I know, both rich and poor, would be shocked to see any sin, including greed, be embraced or protected. It is not uncommon for many sins to be overlooked or ignored, but "embraced" and "protected" and "honored" are entirely different.

I have often wondered why we are so focused on sexual sins, but so lenient or dismissive of others. I think one reason we see Evangelicals being very clear about their opposition to the sin of homosexuality is because we also see so many explicit advocates for it.

how can we attack homosexuality so much and turn a blind eye on greed.

I agree we should not ignore greed or any other sin. But I would not characterize standing for Biblical truth regarding homosexuality as an "attack". It's far more a defense of Godly sexuality.

I have never heard any Christian leader attack the sinfulness of greed in rich capitalists. Quite the contrary, greed is not only embraced but also protected and honored in evangelical circles. Jesus spoke a great deal about greed and it's sinfulness.

I am pro-capitalism. But how can we attack homosexuality so much and turn a blind eye on greed. Greed and the love of money has done so much damage and brought so much pain to our country. We still cannot get out of the financial mess brought to our country by greed.

A person is saved by faith alone, and yet will still sin after the point of salvation. This is the "free grace" and "grace alone" of Ephesians 2:8-9. God saves his enemies (Romans 5:10) with his mercy, and doesn't decrease his mercy when his enemies become children.

At the same time, if a person says they are (for example) a "dishonest Christian" or a "gay Christian" but also says they have no conviction when they "embrace" dishonesty or homosexuality, then this indicates they do not have the Holy Spirit working in them (cf. John 16:8, Gal 5:17). No work of the Holy Spirit = no salvation (Romans 8:9) -- their profession of faith is false. The "lordship" of God will prompt us to be obedient to Him.

Often, those setup a "free grace vs. lordship" scenario are actually creating a false opposition of the two. They are not acknowledging the biblical standard that real faith DOES produces fruit (faith and fruit are inseparable, James 2:14-24), the biblical STRUGGLE (Galatians 5) between conviction and action, and the biblical reality that much of the New Testament is written to help saved persons deal with the real possibility of committing sin.

I too am curious about what a systematic theological answer would be! In my understanding, it is also dangerous to follow the thread of this argument if we view sins as just embracing 'actions' of disobedience to God and it leads to the two problems you stated above.

Each sin listed in the bible reflects an even larger sin - of rejecting Christ - and it is this ultimate sin that leads to death. This stems all the way from original sin and is a violation of the first commandment. So even if our hearts are full of unrepentant sin and even if OT heroes engage in sin, we are justified under Jesus on the cross and hence are saved. However this knowing 'engagement' of sin reflects a rebellion of God and yes, it can encapsulate homosexuality and even gluttony. But in my unknowing and unrepentant sin, I still hang on to the cross - I am justified and the Spirit will slowly expose them. On the flip-side, a person can still say he is saved solely by Christ, but in fact, as evidenced (but not proven) from his unrepentant sin, his heart does not treasure it dearly, and it is mere 'talk'.

This is just my understanding! Hope other views will come out for discussion.

I am very interested in getting the perspective of some Reformed theologians (professional or lay) on how to deal with these objections.