Critique of the Moral Argument for Homosexuality
Pim Pronk, Author Of Against Nature? Types of Moral Argument Regarding Homosexuality, has laid down a challenge to anyone who uses moral argumentation to oppose homosexuality.1
Specifically, he objects to the use of Romans 1 and its description of homosexuality as “unnatural.” His is a very elaborate presentation that makes some interesting contributions to the discussion of Pauline parenesis. I will give an overview of his position, citing positive contributions, and explaining my criticism.
Pronk’s Reasoning
Pronk’s chief point is that moral arguments or positions precede an appeal to revelation. While Christians may appeal to Scripture for teaching content, they must use some additional criterion to determine whether the teaching truly is God’s “good,” His will, for them. This criterion is our insight into good and evil, the consensus of discussion or “deliberation in the human community as a whole” (315, 323, 325).
11. Christians can approve of homosexuality, Pronk says, for ultimately they cannot appeal to Scripture for moral guidance. Moral issues precede the theological. An interpretive framework—a theological position—determines what the text says.
Pronk’s chief point is that moral arguments or positions precede an appeal to revelation. While Christians may appeal to Scripture for teaching content, they must use some additional criterion to determine whether the teaching truly is God’s “good,” His will, for them. This criterion is our insight into good and evil, the consensus of discussion or “deliberation in the human community as a whole” (315, 323, 325).
Before settling the matter, the community must test the positions on homosexuality to decide which passages are suitable for a “biblical view” (312). Only then can one equate an observation about theology, “this is what the Bible says,” with the normative statement, “this is God’s will for us” (312).
Pronk rejects the “model of revealed truths,” or “propositional truths,” which he says is a “model considered refuted in theology” (319). He rejects this “distinct way of knowing” because “revelation is by definition what people consider to be such” (319). So “God is, therefore, knowable, but assertions about God require testing” (320).
We also can know God’s will (the good) without knowing God. So “theology is involved, not as the epistemological source of the knowledge of good and evil, but to make clear that morality is the will of God. For the what of morality more is needed than theology: moral education, a capacity for critical thinking, rational argumentation, etc.” (322).
So Pronk asserts that moral objections to homosexual intercourse “do not stand up” (323; see his chapter 3); neither do theological objections.
Pronk rejects the “model of revealed truths,” or “propositional truths,” which he says is a “model considered refuted in theology” (319). He rejects this “distinct way of knowing” because “revelation is by definition what people consider to be such” (319). So “God is, therefore, knowable, but assertions about God require testing” (320).
We also can know God’s will (the good) without knowing God. So “theology is involved, not as the epistemological source of the knowledge of good and evil, but to make clear that morality is the will of God. For the what of morality more is needed than theology: moral education, a capacity for critical thinking, rational argumentation, etc.” (322).
So Pronk asserts that moral objections to homosexual intercourse “do not stand up” (323; see his chapter 3); neither do theological objections.
Even if the entire Bible considers homosexuality to be sin, the issue is not decided “for any Christian by exegesis alone” (324). The interpretation of texts is “mediated by interpretive frameworks,” or models of revelation (324). So “in reality moral positions are antecedent to the appeal to revelation” (324).
Pronk supports this last statement through eight assertions, which summarise his position about moral argumentation. They are worth quoting in full.
A well-founded moral judgment requires testing
Pronk supports this last statement through eight assertions, which summarise his position about moral argumentation. They are worth quoting in full.
A well-founded moral judgment requires testing
(1). Epistemologically speaking, testing is something other than an appeal to the origin of knowledge [that is, revelation]
(2). But an appeal to revelation always means an appeal to its origin: God
(3). This does not yield a final conclusion, however, because in order to distinguish between what the Bible says and what is really the will of God for us (= “biblical” in the normative sense), a criterion is always needed
(4). That criterion can be no other than testing what is good and what is bad by the world of experience. Accordingly, this is how theologians work, even conservative ones like Douma and Velema
(5). Thus our best judgment of what constitutes good and evil is the criterion by which to tell what is and what is not the will of God
(6). The Bible is not, therefore, a necessary condition for knowing what good and evil are. Accordingly, that is why moral positions are antecedent to the appeal to revelation
(7). In taking this position we are not placing human insight above divine Revelation: the fact that the Bible is not indispensable for knowing what good and evil are does not mean that God is uninvolved in the knowledge of good and evil. But one does not need to know God by way of the Scriptures in order to know his will (which is the good). In classic theology this is accounted for by the distinction between General and Special Revelation
(8). Pronk believes theology “does not need to play a role” in formulating moral guidelines, because that is the task of ethics (324). “The function of an appeal to Scripture is to reinforce the position one finds convincing before making that appeal” (324–25). One can make this appeal provided that one has first tested the position “in moral deliberation within the human community as a whole” (325). Pronk concludes, “There is every reason to remove the homosexuality issue permanently from the church’s agendas as a moral and religious, i.e., as a scientific, problem” (325).
Evaluation
Contributions
1. In moral argumentation we must avoid the “naturalistic fallacy”—mixing moral, theological, biblical, natural arguments, with arguments from experience or science. One realm cannot comment on the other (as though biology can tell us that homosexuality is “unnatural”) (34, 47). The natural is distinct from the normal.
Evaluation
Contributions
1. In moral argumentation we must avoid the “naturalistic fallacy”—mixing moral, theological, biblical, natural arguments, with arguments from experience or science. One realm cannot comment on the other (as though biology can tell us that homosexuality is “unnatural”) (34, 47). The natural is distinct from the normal.
The normative (the moral, “wrong”) is distinct from normal (e.g., what occurs in animals; 95–96). We must also differentiate among ideas of “nature” (biological, metaphysical, the law of God, natural law), as well as different ideas of “normal” (140) and “function” (142). This means that moral discussion in the churches turns on two dichotomies: ethical-religious and natural-unnatural.
2. We need to acknowledge when we read something into Scripture (96). Even scientists bring value judgments to their studies (111) and embrace selective viewpoints (112).
3. We need to distinguish between behaviour (in the empirical sense) and conduct (which deals with intentions and meaning). The concern of morality is to assess human conduct, to make moral assessments.
4. The incest taboo presupposes an antecedent taboo on homosexuality. The prohibition of some heterosexual relations implies a prohibition of all non-heterosexual relations (151). The biological argument against homosexuality is the scientific rationalisation of an ancient taboo, rather than a rational argument.
5. The discussion about homosexuality ranges over a considerable breadth of issues and causes. Areas to consult or take into account in this endeavour include psychology, sickness, science in general, societal dynamics, human sexuality, biology, animal behaviour, hormones, sociobiology and genetics, freedom and determinism, constructivism, and essentialism.
6. He correctly sees the significance of worldview.
7. His interpretation of the texts of Scripture touching on homosexuality is straightforward and orthodox, though brief. He concludes that the Old Testament pronounces itself “exclusively with disapproval on homosexual acts” (271) and that 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy probably condemn “homosexual behaviour both in and apart from the cult” (272); that Romans 1 does not distinguish between the “act” and the “condition,” for both are sin.
2. We need to acknowledge when we read something into Scripture (96). Even scientists bring value judgments to their studies (111) and embrace selective viewpoints (112).
3. We need to distinguish between behaviour (in the empirical sense) and conduct (which deals with intentions and meaning). The concern of morality is to assess human conduct, to make moral assessments.
4. The incest taboo presupposes an antecedent taboo on homosexuality. The prohibition of some heterosexual relations implies a prohibition of all non-heterosexual relations (151). The biological argument against homosexuality is the scientific rationalisation of an ancient taboo, rather than a rational argument.
5. The discussion about homosexuality ranges over a considerable breadth of issues and causes. Areas to consult or take into account in this endeavour include psychology, sickness, science in general, societal dynamics, human sexuality, biology, animal behaviour, hormones, sociobiology and genetics, freedom and determinism, constructivism, and essentialism.
6. He correctly sees the significance of worldview.
7. His interpretation of the texts of Scripture touching on homosexuality is straightforward and orthodox, though brief. He concludes that the Old Testament pronounces itself “exclusively with disapproval on homosexual acts” (271) and that 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy probably condemn “homosexual behaviour both in and apart from the cult” (272); that Romans 1 does not distinguish between the “act” and the “condition,” for both are sin.
“Wherever homosexual intercourse is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned” (278–79). He finds no differences in teaching between the Old and the New Testaments (279).
Criticisms
1. Pronk denies elevating human insight above divine revelation (324), yet he repeatedly exalts the modern worldview and the rationalistic scientific disciplines over the Bible.
Criticisms
1. Pronk denies elevating human insight above divine revelation (324), yet he repeatedly exalts the modern worldview and the rationalistic scientific disciplines over the Bible.
He cites various modern theories of the cause of homosexuality, but he does not take into account what Scripture says about it as lust and sin (Rom. 1:26–27). What Pronk calls “moral argumentation” reflects the modern approach, in which reason and empirical evidence reign (322). Yet, other ways of knowing exist, including revelation, intuition, and tradition. Reason must submit to divine revelation. What makes even the current theory preferable over any other worldview (note 306ff.)? Pronk chooses the authority of experience or reason over that of Scripture and tradition, but Romans 1 itself warns that the mind is depraved and deceived.
2. Pronk urges that autonomy (deciding for oneself rather than looking to another) is necessary for a fair judgment (68). He writes of an “autonomous morality” (304–5).
2. Pronk urges that autonomy (deciding for oneself rather than looking to another) is necessary for a fair judgment (68). He writes of an “autonomous morality” (304–5).
It is not a moral solution, he believes, when the church or society makes the choice. In fact, “tolerance” regarding homosexuality is not acceptable, for it implies condescension, deficiency, and shortcoming. Homosexuals must have freedom from censure as they choose their lifestyle (68).
However, isn’t this just a form of prideful rebellion to reject God’s decision regarding homosexuality? Must we not all submit to God’s revealed will? In fact, autonomy reflects the very pride that Scripture associates with homosexuality. And self-definition is the sin committed by Satan and Adam and Eve.
3. There are, Pronk teaches, many ways to look at the moral law and no single infallible interpretation. Any single true interpretation is beyond discovery (75f.; cf. 265f., 284). He is saying that any time there is a variety of opinion, no one correct view exists or can be found. That is illogical and profoundly at odds with reality.
4. In Romans 1, Pronk claims that Paul is limited in his knowledge. He does not know of homosexual orientation or condition (72, 85, 101), nor does he appeal to natural moral law. This position ignores all that we know about either the Greco-Roman world or ancient homosexuality. It also disowns the logic that inversion has existed universally in world history (see pp. 156–57, 180).
5. Which comes first, Scripture or an a priori ethical position? Pronk says that the position comes first (105). This may work, so long as people remain in touch with their humanity.
3. There are, Pronk teaches, many ways to look at the moral law and no single infallible interpretation. Any single true interpretation is beyond discovery (75f.; cf. 265f., 284). He is saying that any time there is a variety of opinion, no one correct view exists or can be found. That is illogical and profoundly at odds with reality.
4. In Romans 1, Pronk claims that Paul is limited in his knowledge. He does not know of homosexual orientation or condition (72, 85, 101), nor does he appeal to natural moral law. This position ignores all that we know about either the Greco-Roman world or ancient homosexuality. It also disowns the logic that inversion has existed universally in world history (see pp. 156–57, 180).
5. Which comes first, Scripture or an a priori ethical position? Pronk says that the position comes first (105). This may work, so long as people remain in touch with their humanity.
Most moral principles are known within human nature through general revelation. It is more true that we can begin with a position in a society whose values were originally informed by Scripture.
One way or the other, the ethical “good” must at some point have come from revealed objective truth. An ethical system is moral if it reflects God’s true nature, not because enough people voted for it. The Ten Commandments settled specific issues of morality. We do not have to keep arguing about their contemporary meaning, unless Scripture itself changes the content, as happened with the fourth commandment.
6. Moral standards must be tested by discussion within the human community, according to Pronk. Not only is this demand subjective, but it conveniently restricts itself to current subjective desires. Why not also listen to the full 3500-year history of discussion (tradition) within the community regarding homosexuality?
6. Moral standards must be tested by discussion within the human community, according to Pronk. Not only is this demand subjective, but it conveniently restricts itself to current subjective desires. Why not also listen to the full 3500-year history of discussion (tradition) within the community regarding homosexuality?
In the community of faith there has historically been one verdict: Homosexuality is immoral behaviour because it violates the creation order and God’s revealed word.
7. Believing that the whole of Scripture, including Romans 1, finds homosexuality immoral or sinful, Pronk does not tell us what has happened in modern times to change this verdict. He cites the existence of the homosexual condition, an appeal to experience.
7. Believing that the whole of Scripture, including Romans 1, finds homosexuality immoral or sinful, Pronk does not tell us what has happened in modern times to change this verdict. He cites the existence of the homosexual condition, an appeal to experience.
If the condition was known in biblical times (and few people seriously claim that it is a recent phenomenon), would not the rational position be that those with the condition should abstain from the behaviour? This ethical proscription is especially valid if Scripture emphasises God’s hatred of a behaviour.
8. Pronk identifies the biblical or Christian worldview as basically derived from Aristotle, in whose thinking natural meant the essential being of man. Pronk fails to account for the distinctives of the biblical worldview. This worldview is more Hebraic than Greek (see pp. 17–18).
9. This thesis demands that the biblical worldview submit to the modern worldview, which Pronk calls “mechanistic” (222). A mechanistic world picture drops the moral element and teleology. A mechanistic worldview has no goal; it is mutable through evolution. When we speak of homosexuality as “unnatural” in the moral sense, Pronk complains, we presuppose an ancient worldview that doesn’t reflect the modern, mechanistic view.
8. Pronk identifies the biblical or Christian worldview as basically derived from Aristotle, in whose thinking natural meant the essential being of man. Pronk fails to account for the distinctives of the biblical worldview. This worldview is more Hebraic than Greek (see pp. 17–18).
9. This thesis demands that the biblical worldview submit to the modern worldview, which Pronk calls “mechanistic” (222). A mechanistic world picture drops the moral element and teleology. A mechanistic worldview has no goal; it is mutable through evolution. When we speak of homosexuality as “unnatural” in the moral sense, Pronk complains, we presuppose an ancient worldview that doesn’t reflect the modern, mechanistic view.
It is not feasible, he adds, to mix the modern empirical sense of nature with the premodern idea of nature as “norm” (223–24). Yet this argument would have validity if the mechanistic worldview were true, but a central assumption of the Christian worldview is that a mechanistic worldview is untrue. Why should we give preference to the modern worldview when God calls us to maintain a biblical view and reject the world’s (see, for example, Rom. 12:1–2; 1 John 2:15–17)?
10. Pronk bases his understanding of unnatural in a modern concept of rules, which stands averse to the ancient concept of laws. One cannot equate natural in a normative sense with morally good (231). Religious authorities commit the naturalistic fallacy when they use biological reasons to identify something as morally natural, such as regarding reproduction as the purpose of sexuality.
10. Pronk bases his understanding of unnatural in a modern concept of rules, which stands averse to the ancient concept of laws. One cannot equate natural in a normative sense with morally good (231). Religious authorities commit the naturalistic fallacy when they use biological reasons to identify something as morally natural, such as regarding reproduction as the purpose of sexuality.
Pronk says, “No moral norm can be inferred from a biological datum. No morality can be built on (biological) nature” (232; see also 242, 247). Reproduction is merely a biological process. No moral good can be built upon it (232; see also 242, 247). But who says that no moral “good” is associated with a biological reality? If both are part of a created order, they should be complementary.
Pronk is stacking his arguments with contemporary worldview assumptions. Paul’s concern is about the central created order in Romans 1; reproduction has no place in the argument. Pronk has failed to observe and practice the hermeneutical circle. When I come to the text with my questions and worldview, I am to let the text affect me. I am not to impose my worldview on the text.2
11. Christians can approve of homosexuality, Pronk says, for ultimately they cannot appeal to Scripture for moral guidance. Moral issues precede the theological. An interpretive framework—a theological position—determines what the text says.
The latter premise contains some truth, that theological positions do help determine interpretation. But it is not a necessary conclusion that Scripture doesn’t in turn inform theology and moral judgment. Besides, throughout history the vast majority of societies have regarded homosexuality, at least in some of its forms, to be unacceptable. Even general revelation may support a condemnation of homosexuality.
12. While Pronk finds universal condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture, his interpretation of Romans 1 concludes that this is not God’s will for us. He draws this conclusion after interpreting contrary to nature to be an appeal to social convention, rather than to a normative creation order. The argument is that Paul views homosexuality as a classic element of paganism.
12. While Pronk finds universal condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture, his interpretation of Romans 1 concludes that this is not God’s will for us. He draws this conclusion after interpreting contrary to nature to be an appeal to social convention, rather than to a normative creation order. The argument is that Paul views homosexuality as a classic element of paganism.
Paul refers to the “nature known to him and all men in its normal functioning, hence to empirical observation” (277). The “non-normal” is not morally unnatural because Paul appeals to social convention or his understanding of biology. Instead, the unnatural is a sign of unbelief. The rationale behind Paul’s reasoning, Pronk asserts, is unbelief. Paul speaks against unbelief, not against nature (277).
13. Pronk is correct that justification by faith is in the earlier context (Rom. 1:17), but in verses 18ff. Paul has stepped back to pick up another thread: The human controversy with God is rebellion against general revelation, and God has responded in anger. Pronk cannot afford to accept such an interpretation, for his entire case rests upon his exegesis of Romans 1.
13. Pronk is correct that justification by faith is in the earlier context (Rom. 1:17), but in verses 18ff. Paul has stepped back to pick up another thread: The human controversy with God is rebellion against general revelation, and God has responded in anger. Pronk cannot afford to accept such an interpretation, for his entire case rests upon his exegesis of Romans 1.
However, he hedges his assessment with such terms as not likely, more likely, and cannot without qualification. Because his interpretation has immense consequences and runs counter to all of church history, Pronk should have withheld his view until he achieved virtual certainty.
14. In his eight-point summary (p. 166), Pronk makes several errors:
a. He elevates reason above revelation. What keeps the “human community as a whole” from embracing or even enforcing immorality, as did Hitler’s regime? Does popularity mean ethical good? Surely a more certain standard exists.
14. In his eight-point summary (p. 166), Pronk makes several errors:
a. He elevates reason above revelation. What keeps the “human community as a whole” from embracing or even enforcing immorality, as did Hitler’s regime? Does popularity mean ethical good? Surely a more certain standard exists.
Also, does a 3500-year consensus among the community of the Bible count for nothing? Pronk agrees that God has pronounced such things as adultery and homosexuality to be wrong. Had God left it to the “human community as a whole,” we would not have the Ten Commandments. The majority was committing idolatry while God was giving the commandment not to do so. Ethical absolutes do not change at the whims of the majority in a community or generation.
b. How a community arrives at its moral standards is the question. By appealing to the “community as a whole” for testing the ethics of homosexuality, we obviously will get positive votes from homosexuals. It would be candid thieves who would not find moral justification for their vocation.
b. How a community arrives at its moral standards is the question. By appealing to the “community as a whole” for testing the ethics of homosexuality, we obviously will get positive votes from homosexuals. It would be candid thieves who would not find moral justification for their vocation.
Adulterers find a moral good in their affairs, justification that applies to their circumstances. Those who abuse drugs justify their indulgence by an appeal to personal satisfaction. Would Pronk go to thieves to evaluate the morality of stealing or those having an affair to judge the ethics of adultery? Underlying moral commitments exist, in any society, as standards that should lift behaviour.
Do moral or immoral people set the standards, or is there an exemplar that transcends the personal standards of all people?
c. To decide whether the Bible offers God’s will for us is an issue of hermeneutics. The interpreter looks for universals within the exegesis of the text. If homosexuality shows every indication of being a universal prohibition throughout that text, which Pronk admits, why and from where did the consensus come about that it is God’s will?
d. Pronk denies that exegesis decides what is normative. A preceding theology and ethical position take precedence. Pronk does not follow that process when he exegetes Romans 1. He acts as if the text has the authority to be evidence for his view.
c. To decide whether the Bible offers God’s will for us is an issue of hermeneutics. The interpreter looks for universals within the exegesis of the text. If homosexuality shows every indication of being a universal prohibition throughout that text, which Pronk admits, why and from where did the consensus come about that it is God’s will?
d. Pronk denies that exegesis decides what is normative. A preceding theology and ethical position take precedence. Pronk does not follow that process when he exegetes Romans 1. He acts as if the text has the authority to be evidence for his view.
Assuming that Pronk is not simply promoting an agenda, has he not committed his own “naturalistic fallacy” (47, 89) in reverse in interpreting Romans 1?
Hasn’t he linked a “normal” or biological issue to a universal norm? Is the control for finding objective truth theology, or is it the interpreting of Scripture? Would Pronk and other homosexuals submit to the prohibitions of Scripture if, by his own exegesis, he found them to be valid? Exegesis really is the deciding issue for Pronk.
e. If biology and experience inform theology, then it is general revelation that Pronk defends. But general revelation comes from the Creator. Is not our interpretation at least partially dependent on God? That is theology informing ethics.
e. If biology and experience inform theology, then it is general revelation that Pronk defends. But general revelation comes from the Creator. Is not our interpretation at least partially dependent on God? That is theology informing ethics.
Pronk asserts that something more than theology supplies the “what” of morality (322). The something more is moral education, critical thinking, and rational argumentation (322). However, Romans 1 teaches that human reasoning is distorted and leads to idolatry. How does Pronk know he can trust his thinking?
Would he know if it is darkened and distorted, especially when depraved thinking changes truth into lies, according to Romans 1, when dealing with homosexuality? Paul describes homosexuality as wrong because it is “contrary to nature” and because it is a sign of being given up in God’s wrath. It means being given “over to shameful lusts,” being “inflamed with lust for one another,” committing “indecent acts,” and receiving “due penalty for their perversion” (vv. 26–27). Can moral education occur until God enlightens the mind?
f. Testing what is good or bad by the “world of experience” should also include the world of Jesus, the apostles, and the Old Testament, as well as the contemporary world. Christians believe that only the experience of encountering Jesus and the biblical authors is fully authoritative for understanding morality.
g. Using “our best judgment of what constitutes good and evil” in seeking the will of God usually demonstrates honesty and humility. But best judgment is hardly honest or humble when it explains away, by an uncertain exegesis, strongly supported texts, the meaning of which has never been in doubt. “Best judgment” does not automatically mean truth; it can be distorted.
15. If Scripture identifies homosexuality as arrogance and rebellion, we have to deal with the matter of pride that is condemned by Scripture. It is not subject to the criterion of the “world of experience.”
16. Interestingly, a biblical author inspired by God often directly asserts that some moral norms are God’s will for the readers and, by extension, for us. For example, Paul affirms that the sanctification of his readers is God’s will, particularly in their abstaining from immorality (1 Thessalonians 4). Also, God’s will and His law seem implicit in the lists of 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:10–12, which identify homosexuality as sin.
17. The authority of Scripture continues to be central, although Pronk believes that it is totally irrelevant concerning homosexuality (300). If his interpretation of “against nature” is correct, then he has arrived at this position by “deliberation within the human community as a whole,” which he espouses and places above the revelation of Scripture.
f. Testing what is good or bad by the “world of experience” should also include the world of Jesus, the apostles, and the Old Testament, as well as the contemporary world. Christians believe that only the experience of encountering Jesus and the biblical authors is fully authoritative for understanding morality.
g. Using “our best judgment of what constitutes good and evil” in seeking the will of God usually demonstrates honesty and humility. But best judgment is hardly honest or humble when it explains away, by an uncertain exegesis, strongly supported texts, the meaning of which has never been in doubt. “Best judgment” does not automatically mean truth; it can be distorted.
15. If Scripture identifies homosexuality as arrogance and rebellion, we have to deal with the matter of pride that is condemned by Scripture. It is not subject to the criterion of the “world of experience.”
16. Interestingly, a biblical author inspired by God often directly asserts that some moral norms are God’s will for the readers and, by extension, for us. For example, Paul affirms that the sanctification of his readers is God’s will, particularly in their abstaining from immorality (1 Thessalonians 4). Also, God’s will and His law seem implicit in the lists of 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:10–12, which identify homosexuality as sin.
17. The authority of Scripture continues to be central, although Pronk believes that it is totally irrelevant concerning homosexuality (300). If his interpretation of “against nature” is correct, then he has arrived at this position by “deliberation within the human community as a whole,” which he espouses and places above the revelation of Scripture.
If his position is wrong, then he has also rejected the authority of Scripture because he continues to practice homosexuality and encourages others to do so. Either way, he has rejected the authority of Scripture and placed experience and reason over it.
1 trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
2 For a cogent defense of relying on the biblical worldview and its hermeneutic, see James B. De Young and Sarah L. Hurty, Beyond the Obvious: Discover the Deeper Meaning of Scripture (Gresham, Ore.: Vision House, 1995), esp. chs. 3–5, 6.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 165–173). Kregel Publications.
1 trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
2 For a cogent defense of relying on the biblical worldview and its hermeneutic, see James B. De Young and Sarah L. Hurty, Beyond the Obvious: Discover the Deeper Meaning of Scripture (Gresham, Ore.: Vision House, 1995), esp. chs. 3–5, 6.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 165–173). Kregel Publications.
