GAY TRUTH

  Objection Stated Paul is speaking solely of Jewish purity laws, and hence this is irrelevant in a modern, enlightened society . Biblical Response It needs to be acknowledged from the outset, and this illustrates the constant inconsistency found among the revisionist interpreters, that this is an admission that the Hebrew Scriptures do indeed condemn homosexual deeds and desires.  After all, if Paul’s condemnation of such sinfulness is drawn from Judaism, this is a tacit admission that Judaism opposed homosexuality. We have addressed the basic contention of the allegedly limited application of God’s moral laws in our discussion of the Leviticus passages. It seems sufficient at this point to note how such an objection completely misses Paul’s context as well as his argument. Paul surely did not embrace modern views of either God’s law or God’s revelation in the Jewish Scriptures. He would not have held to the concept that the revelation of God’s holy will in Scripture was some...

Objection Stated Paul is only speaking of pederasty here, not of adult homosexual relationships, and hence the passage is misused when applied to homosexuality . This is the viewpoint expressed by Robin Scroggs in his work The New Testament and Homosexuality . 6 It is commonly repeated in liberal theological institutions. Biblical Response The exegesis of the passage has already addressed this common error. Paul speaks of “males with males committing indecent acts.” He does not say “men with boys” (and there are appropriate Greek words that Paul could have employed if he meant to communicate this idea), nor does the text give the slightest hint that this should be read into it as an assumption.  The desire expressed is mutual between both the lesbians of 1:26 and the homosexual males of 1:27; that is, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is written in reference to pederastic relation ships. Indeed, the mutual kind of desire seen in these verses utterly refutes the simplistic ...

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).  Before settling the matter, the community must test the...

The only model of sexual expression contemplated in Scripture is that which finds its pattern in the Creation model of Genesis 1–2. This is the pattern taught by our Lord and the apostles (see, for example, Matt. 5:27–32; 19:3–12). It is to occur in heterosexual marriage. If in Romans 1 Paul opposes all forms of sexual expression between people of the same sex, then his judgments are, as Scroggs admits, “eternally valid.”97 Revisionist interpretations would do well to come under the meaning and authority of Scripture. So What? Several reasons seem persuasive that Paul does oppose homosexual lust and expression: 1. Paul writes as a Jewish Christian whose theology and ethics are formed by an Old Testament worldview, not Greek philosophy.98 Yet he speaks to Jewish and gentile readers with terms (the natural use and what is contrary to nature) that Greeks and Romans understood. 2. For Paul, what is “natural” (vv. 26–27) reflects the being or nature of the Creator (vv. 18–23) and His revea...

Authors Name Changed . Anytime I write about the ever-controversial topic of homosexuality, I anticipate and mentally prepare for some push back. Everybody seems to have a strong opinion on this issue, and many are not shy about expressing those opinions (as long as they can do so behind a computer screen). Most of the time, the arrows of criticism are launched from the bows of gay-affirming unbelievers or theologically liberal “ Christians ” who believe God blesses same-sex relationships. However, there are exceptions. Earlier this year, after one of my pieces was republished on the The Gospel Coalition’s website , most of the critical responses were composed by Bible -believing Christians who, like me, believe homosexual behavior is sinful. But, unlike me, they also believe merely experiencing same-sex attraction is a willful act of sin. A number of readers commended me for turning away from same-sex behaviors, but they also insisted that my ongoing struggle with same-sex attrac...

The official pin features the iconic Rising Sun badge wrapped in the rainbow colours of the same sex marriage campaign. It is a blatantly political symbol , disrespecting the Anzac spirit in order to make a contentious political point, in direct contravention of official Army guidelines in place since 1903 to protect Australian Army emblems. The rising sun badge “cannot be redrawn, recoloured, renamed, modified, cropped, rotated, manipulated or altered in any way...or used a part of a new logo”. And yet, here it is, authorised in 2013 by the diversity-mad former Army Chief David Morrison to be pinned on Army uniforms , where no pin for any other cause is ever allowed. Vietnam veteran Charlie Lynn , for one, is furious that the Rising Sun has been wrapped in the imagery of identity politics. “That’s the biggest insult I have ever seen to a badge that means so much to both serving and retired veterans. It wasn’t designed to be a catalyst for social change. It’s a symbol of sacrif...

Love confused with lust - banner incorrect A new study challenges progressives’ tall tales about sexuality. Here is the world according to the LGBT Left: Just as there are black and white, there are gay and straight. One’s sexual orientation, like one’s race, is fixed and immutable at birth. The process of “questioning” one’s orientation isn’t a process of deciding but of discovering. Similarly, when it comes to gender identity, there is “cis” and there is “trans.” A cis person’s gender identity matches the sex they were “assigned” at birth.  A trans person — well, a trans person is any one of the fifty-plus other genders on the entirely reputable Facebook spectrum. This, you see, is science. Anyone who contradicts it — whether relying on ancient, discredited “holy” texts or outdated notions of morality — isn’t just ignorant, but bigoted. And when it comes to bigots, why draw minute moral distinctions? Is there really much difference between a Klan member and a Christian ...

In contemporary discussions of homosexuality, it is commonplace to distinguish homosexual orientation from homosexual behavior. Usually, the distinction goes something like this: Orientation refers to one’s inner disposition while behavior addresses one’s moral choices. John and Paul Feinberg state it this way: Homosexuality as a sexual orientation means that a person has a strong and abiding preference for members of the same sex and desires to act on that sexual preference… Homosexual behavior refers to specific sex acts between members of the same sex. [1] Some Christian ethicists take this observation a step further and argue that we must make a moral distinction between orientation and behavior. On this view, homosexual behavior is a choice and thus morally blameworthy. Homosexual orientation is not a choice and thus not morally blameworthy. This point of view has become routine even among some who identify themselves as evangelical. A couple examples to illustrate the point. D...