GAY TRUTH

  Objection Stated “All you need is love.” But this is consensual. We’re not harming anyone. Biblical Response “All You Need Is Love” is a Beatles song that does not make for good theology or ethics. We will not argue about the prominent place of love in Christian theology and practice; without it we would not have redemption (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10).  Nor will we argue about the Christian requirement that we love one another. It is unquestionably Christian doctrine that “the one who loves his brother abides in the light” (1 John 2:10).  Furthermore, “we know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren” (1 John 3:14). We agree that we should “not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 John 3:18). The loving of one another is evidence of the life of God abiding in us (1 John 4:12). Truly, “we love, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19), and we must love one another if we truly love God (1 John 4:20). While these ...

Objection Stated Arsenokoites should be defined narrowly to refer to “male prostitutes.” Biblical Response We have already noted this primary objection of revisionist authors5 or merely to pederasty.6 But these sources ignore the role of the LXX in the formation of Paul’s vocabulary and cannot be taken seriously outside of this consideration. What is more, many revisionists, upon asserting the term is basically beyond our meaningful definition, are forced to fall back on the assertion that the modern view of homosexuality, involving “orientation” and “loving monogamous relationships,” was unknown to Paul, and hence what he meant in using arsenokoites is for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the modern situation.  Revisionist arguments all lead to this singular conclusion: that the biblical text cannot speak to the modern expression of homosexuality. How they support that conclusion may differ, but the goal is always the same. Even if it could be established that the apostle P...

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 ...

  Objection Stated What is “natural” in Romans 1 is not what is “natural” in the sense of “natural law,” but what is “natural to me.” The reference is not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who go beyond their natural bounds and engage in homosexuality . Thus John Boswell writes, On the other hand, it should be recognised that the point of the passage is not to stigmatise sexual behaviour of any sort but to condemn the Gentiles for their general infidelity.… The reference to homosexuality is simply a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux of this argument.… What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons.  The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatise persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question w...

  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26–27) Few sections of Scripture are more profound, more foundational to Christian thought, than the opening verses of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. The first chapter has provided Christian writers with insights into the human condition that have resulted in some of the most important published works on the Christian worldview.  Western culture’s view of law and ethics has been deeply influenced by these thirty-two verses. So it is hardly surprising that those who seek to undermine that Christian worldview and foundation invest great effort in reinterpreting these words, at least until they can be safely and ...