Homosexuality and Scripture

"clear teaching"?

Three passages from the epistles, two of which are paranetic laundry lists which have questionable correlation to commited, monogamous relationships and one of which is a generic statement against licentiousness that is not even focused on homosexuality. That's hardly a preponderance of biblical evidence.

Weighed against the clear and repeated examples of Jesus in choosing the spirit over the letter of the Law, and the general principles which He outlined for interpreting the Law, I think these texts are the ones that come up lacking.

Of course, that's the nature of biblical interpretation - prayerfully weighing various texts against each other and coming to the best conclusion we can. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. I'm almost definitely wrong about something, as are you. I trust in the mercy of God to be larger than my ignorance.

Joshua

 

I'll readily concede that Paul and many of his contemporaries thought homosexual intercourse was unnatural. That does not mean that God does.

Here lies the problem, you deny God spoke through Paul, while most of the others on this board do. If God didn't speak through Paul, are we to believe he spoke through John or any other prophet of the new or old testament? If I don't like something taught in scripture, can I just say" Well that was just Luke's opinion"? You seem to deny the inspiration of scripture. Which parts do you believe as truth?

 

Joshua, I appreciate that you might feel that you are backed into a corner on this issue. It is a difficult place to be in. So now you say that you might be wrong, and I might be wrong as well. I see this as diversionary. Yes, I stipulate to the fact that I am not omniscient. There have been many here who offered scripture to backup their position on the topic "Homosexuality and Scripture". When a request for scripture supporting the position that homosexuality is not a sin (anymore, as you seem to be saying), we have yet to read it. Until that scripture is offered, I cannot help but believe it does not exist.
(Edited to correct spelling)

[ September 25, 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

Joshua, I would be interested to know exactly what this means. What is your conclusion based on these "clear and repeated" examples? And which examples - does Jesus' forgiveness of the woman taken in adultery mean adultery is not sin? Does Jesus' equating looking with lust to adultery mean the spirit of the law is stronger than the letter? Give us some concrete idea of what you mean. Thanks.

 

James,

I don't feel backed into a corner at all. The fact that a few vocal members of this board (where the farhest right wing of Christianity predominates) can't understand my approach to the Bible isn't even troubling. I'm not posting for you. I'm posting for the people who are willing to at least try to understand.

My argument that homosexuality is not a sin has not changed one inch from what it was when I first came to this board - or from what it was when I was ordained.

Joshua

 

Folks, I keep saying the problem is not the translation of the Bible, Paul's interpretation of God's law or whether we are talking about one man or ten. The bottom line is that we have a professing Baptist minister who does not believe the Word of God as the literal "Word of God". That is the bottom line, period.

A church full of Christians would swiftly and firmly show him the door, but no, the church is full of nonrepentant homosexuals still practicing including a deacon.

Simply, this shows what is happening to many churches of today. Satan is attacking and this country is going to pay. The Reverand keep repeating documents from the middle ages in Europe---well goodness, any historian would tell you that religion was so abused and sin so rampant during that period that these documents he refers to are worth nothing, but to him they are worth as much as the Bible, which he considers as just another history book.

That's it------period!

 

OK....so I got blew right over again. I really wanted someone to answer those questions so I can see where this scripture does not apply.

I would like to say for those that like J. Vernon McGee, In the "Thru The Bible" studies, McGee also sees the very scripture I am implying, as perversion.

"Thru The Bible" J. Vernon McGee
Matthew through Romans
page654 last sentence on the page.

I quoted scripture and my reason. Now if this scripture is wrong then tell me why using scripture. If not I will assume I am right.

Sherrie

OK...back to scripture! The reason I choose Romans Chapter 1 is because of the words :

God gave them up to uncleaness through the lust of their own hearts ....Romans 1:24

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themseves that recompence of their error which was met.

Romans 1:26-27

Who did God give up?
Define natural use, please?
What is against nature?
What would be unseemly?

What did God do because of doing that which was against nature?

Romans 1:25
Who changed the Truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

Who changed the Truth of God into a lie?
Who is the creature?
And who is the Creator, who is blessed for ever?

Well lets start with this. And as asked before...lets stay with scripture. If you have other scripture to go with/or against this please show it.

Sherrie

[ September 25, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Who did God give up?

Those who committed idolatry (v23)

Define natural use, please?

In the example Paul gives (and in the minds of his audience at the time), non-heterosexual intercourse.

What is against nature?

According to Paul's understanding of what is natural - any non-heterosexual intercourse. Of course, a cosmology where the Earth went around the Sun would have also been "unnatural" to Paul.

What would be unseemly?

Again, in the opinion of Paul and his audiend, men having sex with men.

What did God do because of doing that which was against nature?

Nothing. Verse 28 makes it clear that it was because people refused to acknowledge God (a reference to the idolatry mentioned in v. 23) that they were given up to "a debased mind."

Who changed the Truth of God into a lie?

The idolators (v. 23)

Who is the creature?

mortals, birds, four-footed animals, & reptiles (v.23)

And who is the Creator, who is blessed for ever?

The God of Abraham, Yitzach, and Yakov

_______________________________________________

Again, the focus of the text is not imprecation against homosexuality. Paul uses homosexuality (which was commonly viewed by his audience as depravity) as an example of the consequences of the idolatry described in verse 23.

Joshua

 

Rev. Joshua said:

The fact that a few vocal members of this board (where the farhest right wing of Christianity predominates) can't understand my approach to the Bible isn't even troubling.

Au contraire. We understand your approach just fine. We simply reject your presuppositional commitment against the divine origin of the words of Paul and Moses.

On the contrary, we affirm the same starting point as the Apostle Paul: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Beginning with the proper starting point, we can see that God's normative design for human sexuality has its origins in the very beginning of creation: male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27). God created not male and male, nor female and female, but male and female.

God told them to e fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). God designed man and woman so that when they come together, the natural result is procreation. Man and man cannot procreate; neither can woman and woman.

It is [f]or this reason, the Word of God says, that a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). The creation account culminates in this statement. The covenant of marriage is between a man and a woman, because that covenant reflects the divinely ordained, natural order. There can be no marriage covenant between man and man, or woman and woman. It is the man and his wife that were made naked and not ashamed (Gen. 2:25).

The sexual union of two members of the same sex goes against the created design. It is unnatural (Rom. 1:26). This twisted caricature of creation is the result of, and one evidence of, a deliberate rejection of the sovereign Creator (Rom. 1:18-32).

The issue of homosexuality is not merely one of culture. Culture is mercurial because it is the product of ever-changing human opinion. This issue goes right back to first principles.

 

The facts are this - either Paul wrote under inspiration and correctly used homosexuality as an example of depravity (because it is an example of depravity) or Paul was a man of his times writing about what he incorrectly understood to be depravity (because he and others just thought it was). Since you, Joshua, only see Paul's statement as culturally biased, you say that Paul's seeing of homosexuality as unnatural "does not mean that God does." How have you determined how God sees homosexuality? That is, what scriptural teachings reveal anything to us as to how God feels about the matter?

 

I have looked into this issue in the view of the Jews or Judaism and have found that Judaism has moved towards the following:

Homosexual men should be encouraged to change to heterosexual relationships as God intended.
Rabbis believe that these men can find satisfying relationships as God intended.

Yet, they state that if a man cannot for whatever reason move into a heterosexual relationship then he can have a loving relationship with another male providing it does not involve coitus. This form of sexuality is considered an abomination and should never be practiced.

They believe that Homosexuals were not created that way by God or born that way but were created by their upbringing. This is why they believe that homosexuals can decide to have heterosexual relationships. That you can change their way of thinking.

Rabbis are now saying they will accept them in their midst if they are in a loving relationship that is non sexual.

 

hrhema

The views among rabbis are a bit more diverse than that. I know several Reform rabbis (and one Reconstructionis rabbi) here in Atlanta who affirm homosexuality as a healthy sexual expression.

Joshua

 

Here then we must put the inspired Paul against the inspired Moses. Paul says in I Cor 7:8-9 that it is better for people not to marry at all. He clearly does not give a rip about being fruitful and multiplying, and says that the only reason to marry is if single people cannot control their lust.

Joshua

 

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:14

Joshua, what exactly was Paul trying to get across when he wrote this to Timothy? It surely doesn't sound like someone who could "give a rip" about being fruitful and multiplying.

 

Assuming Pauline authorship for I Timothy, the plain reading of the I Corinthians passage (which I thought was the one fundamentalists preferred) is that - in Paul's opinion - the best thing is not to marry at all. Presumably contemporary Christians either:

- assume that this was simply advice for a particular context (imagine that!)

or

- believe that they cannot control their lusts, so they have to marry.

Joshua

 

Rev. Joshua said:

Here then we must put the inspired Paul against the inspired Moses.

Not so.

First of all, Paul is writing "regarding the things about which you [the Corinthians] wrote" (1 Cor. 7:1). What their specific question was, we can only guess. He is also writing in light of "the present distress" (7:26), whatever that is, which suggests that at least to some extent his advice is a response to a specific situation.

Nonetheless, it does say, broadly, that both singleness and marriage have certain benefits.

There is no contradiction, though your attempt to manufacture one again betrays your naturalistic, humanistic presuppositions.

Moreover it is a distraction from the issue at hand: is homosexuality compatible with biblical Christian faith, or is it a perversion of the Creator's intentions?

 

Joshua,

Don't you mean heterosexual intercourse. Natural would be between a Man and a Woman.

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman...."

So it would be correct to say marriage was natural for a Man and a Woman.

That homosexuality is not natural.

Sherrie

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themseves that recompence of their error which was met."
Romans1:27

 

I reply:
They were given up. How can they come back to God? Can they stay in their wickedness and be seen by God. NO, they cannot. Why, beause it was unseemly. It was unbecoming, and not decent.

I reply:
Those who think they can remain unseemly and walk with God. God cannot be a partaker. God is Decent, Becoming, Handsome, beautiful, all Glory.

I reply:
Those that lust after their own hearts. All that is evil.

Sherrie

 

Truly my heart goes out to you sir.You may feel that you were born with these kinds of desires, like many others have suggested.I would say that all of us are born sinners.I know what it is like to have desires contrary to the Word of God, for years I was a drug addict, an equally hard thing to overcome but it can be overcome.Only problem is that we must not try and justify our sin.We must call it like it is.I am not going to waste my time trying to show you from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin,I think you probably already know it is.Surely you would have read about Sodom.Chapter 1 in Romans. Mabye your heart sunk as you felt the sting of God's word.Agree with God about your actions, this is the first step to real forgiveness.If you will not confess your sins He cannot forgive you.As a believer in Jesus, you will not be a slave to your sexual desires anymore, for whom the Son sets free is free indeed.I believe you are enslaved by the lifestyle you profess and Jesus is willing to set you free if you will humble yourself and seek His forgiveness.
concerned about you
in Christ

 

I'm new to this board, but not to this topic. Not only does Joshua's beliefs on homosexuality fly in the face of the biblical witness, they also fly in the face of two millennia of church tradition and teaching. I've debated folks like Joshua ad nauseum and my advice to you all of the orthodox mindset is stop wasting your time. Billy Graham, in his book "The Billy Graham Christian Workers Handbook," comments: "No matter how we may rationalize the practice of homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexual relationships, Romans 1 makes it clearly the product of a reprobate mind."

Whom do we believe, the inerrant Holy Scriptures, 2000 years of church tradition, and our national spiritual leader Billy Graham, or Joshua? I also submit the following link for your perusal:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosdisc-carlson.html

Blessings,

Russ Knight