CARM article on homosexuality part1

[Originalist]

Does Romans 1 Condemn Homosexuality?

by Robin Schumacher

http://carm.org/does-romans-1-condemn-homosexuality

There are many in today’s culture that do not recognize the Bible as any kind of moral authority, especially on the matter of homosexuality. It should come as no surprise that atheists and skeptics hold this position; for example, the late Christopher Hitchens once remarked, “What do I care what some Bronze Age text says about homosexuality?”1 As noted apologist William Lane Craig has observed, “One of the best ways to defend the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is to become an atheist.”2

There are, however, a number of practicing homosexuals and activists who are not atheists and argue that the Bible legitimizes general homosexual behavior. Their core argument is that the Bible has been misunderstood and misinterpreted where homosexuality is concerned.

Let’s be honest: if they’re right, and God’s Word really does not condemn homosexual behavior, then a whole lot of angst and effort that’s occurring in churches and society could disappear in a flash. But the $64,000 question is, are they correct?

There are six primary passages of Scripture that reference homosexuality: Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Of these, I’ve personally seen more debate over the Romans passage than any other, with only the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah coming close in regard to heated discussion.

Does Paul’s passage in Romans 1 (specifically Romans 1:18-32) condemn homosexuality or not? Let’s take a close look at the key pro-homosexual arguments that say it does not, and then perform a brief exegesis of the passage to see if the positions are correct.
Primary arguments against Romans 1 condemning homosexuality

Almost all espousing a positive homosexual theology admit that Paul is condemning some sort of homosexual behavior in Romans 1. It’s clear that a plain reading of the passage displays some kind of censure in that regard.

That being the case, pro-homosexual advocates say Paul is only denouncing certain types of homosexual activity. The three most common assertions put forward are these:

Argument #1 – Paul is condemning homosexual acts that occur in conjunction with idol worship.

Those supporting homosexuality argue that vv. 23 & 25 of Romans 1 set the context of the passage to be one purely of idolatry. They say the verses following 23 & 25 that concern homosexuality are to be understood as occurring during the lewd sexual rites that often accompanied idol worship (e.g. shrine prostitution).

Taking this position, Troy Perry writes: “The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.”3

Argument #2 – Paul is condemning homosexual acts with children.

A second argument says that Paul is addressing the topic of pederasty (homosexual sex between men and boys). Sadly, such a thing was not uncommon back in the first century, and so homosexual proponents argue that this is the behavior Paul is speaking to.


Argument #3 – Paul is condemning “unnatural” homosexuality.

Another interpretation of homosexual supporters is that Paul is condemning heterosexuals acting in an ‘unnatural’ way as homosexuals. For example, John Boswell says: “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 stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on.”4

While there are other arguments homosexual supporters employ to deny that Paul is condemning the general practice of homosexual behavior in Romans 1, the above three arguments appear to be the most widely circulated.

Again though, the question is, are they correct?


A Brief Examination of Romans 1

Paul wrote his letter to the Romans most likely from Corinth (cf. Rom. 16:1; Cenchrea was a port city in Corinth), a city widely known for its sinful sexual practices. In chapter 1, after making a number of introductory remarks in vv. 1-17, the Apostle turns his attention to the consequences that come from rejecting God and His truth from vs. 18 all the way through Chapter 3.

In vs. 19, Paul says each person innately/naturally knows there is a Creator, and then in vs. 20, he makes a subtle cosmological and teleological defense of God’s existence by saying that God’s divine fingerprints are all over creation so that no one can say they were unaware of the Creator; all are “without excuse” (vs. 20). Paul’s statements here echo Psalm 19:1-2, which says: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.”

Unfortunately, says Paul, humanity has rejected God’s truth, and in vv. 21-23, the Apostle describes how humankind has “exchanged” (vs. 23) the naturally given worship of the true God for the unnatural and false worship of idols. The connection between the lists of idols Paul gives in vs. 23 and the classes of creation described in Genesis 1:20–25 is definitely not by accident. Neither is the obvious link between Paul’s use of the words “image” and “form” (or “likeness”) and the well-known statement in Genesis: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Gen. 1:26).

Because of this rejection, Paul says there are two broad judgments laid down by God. Three times in Romans 1 (vv. 24, 26, 28) Paul says God “gave them over” to sin, and three times (vv. 23, 25, 26) he says the end results were that the people “exchanged” a good thing for something sinful, which served as their punishment.

[Originalist]

As a quick aside: we oftentimes think that when we sin and nothing happens (no lightning bolt strikes, etc.) that God either didn’t care or didn’t notice. However, Romans 1 tells us that the first stage of God’s wrath is actually not to discipline or correct the person, but rather He abandons the individual, giving them up to their sin. His initial wrath and judgment results, as Paul says, in them “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (vs. 27).

In vs. 24, Paul makes the initial mention of the first judgment, a sexual sin that is a consequence of the rebellion described earlier: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” The reading of this text is unmistakable – God delivered the people over to sexual lust (the word “impurity” is akatharsia in the Greek, which literally means immorality; a state of moral corruption5), a kind that resulted in their bodies being ‘shamed.’

What kind of moral corruption and shame? Paul explicitly tells us: “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” (Rom. 1:26–27).

There is no mistaking Paul here. The reference is clearly to the practice of lesbianism and male homosexuality.

The second judgment is one that also results from the people not acknowledging God and His truth – a corrupt mind: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:28–31).

In summary, Romans 1:18-31 deals with the fact that God has innately made Himself known to humanity, but He has been rejected and replaced by other objects of worship. Because of this, God has delivered two judgments: one of homosexual behavior and another of an immoral mind, each of which demonstrate His ‘abandonment’ and wrath toward humanity’s rebellion.

Just a cursory view of the present state of the world validates that these judgments continue to be handed down today.


Examining the Pro-Homosexual Arguments

Let’s now briefly revisit the three primary arguments that say Paul is not condemning ‘natural and loving homosexual relationships’ in Romans 1. We can quickly dispense with the second argument of pederasty as Paul does not mention children at all, but instead specifically says: “men with men committing indecent acts” (vs. 27).

The first and third arguments can be taken at the same time because they somewhat blend together. While interpreting Scripture with a key to the historical backdrop is a worthy exercise in which to engage, in this case the pro-homosexual interpreter is creating linkages between the text and history that have no evidence of support in Paul’s text. Indeed, shrine and homosexual prostitution certainly existed in the first century, but there is no explicit textual evidence in Romans 1 that indicates Paul is referring to that. He simply cites homosexuality as degrading, a judgment of God, and adds nothing more.

Further, the argument of linking homosexuality and idol worship is also unsustainable due to the fact that it would involve extending the argument to vv. 28-31. In other words, if the context is maintained, and homosexual behavior is moral outside of idol worship, then all the other sins listed that result from a depraved mind (vs. 28) must also be deemed right and good apart from idolatry. It is difficult to see how anyone could support such a position.

The argument of homosexual sex performed in conjunction with idol worship and/or shrine prostitution is clearly one of eisegesis (reading into the text a person’s presuppositions and agenda), as is the idea that Paul is addressing ‘unnatural’ homosexuality vs. one that is ‘natural.’ Why think this assertion is true?

Let’s first ask, why does Paul specifically cite homosexuality vs. all the other sexual sins that were committed at the time? The reason he does this is because it follows his argument from nature that begins in vs. 19. Paul is saying that in the same way people naturally know God by instinct, with creation itself demonstrating God’s existence through what He’s made, that people naturally and instinctively know right sexual practice because of how the human body is made.

In other words, Paul’s argument is that when people abandon God and His ways to any unnatural worship (which can include any invented deity, including distortions of the true God), God can abandon them to the lusts in their heart and the unnatural sexual practice of homosexuality. Just as creation is “clearly seen” leaving the unbeliever “without excuse” (vs. 20), it is also “plain” (Greek: phaneros, meaning “clear”, vs. 19) from the way God made human bodies how sex should naturally be carried out. Man complements woman and vice versa, and this is true anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically.

Those championing a pro-homosexual theology are right in that Paul is making an argument of what’s natural and unnatural, but they are in error as to the crux of the argument itself. It is one where the Apostle is arguing that, just as God created humanity in a natural way (i.e., it is “within them,” vs. 19) to know and acknowledge Him as the Creator vs. any false deity, He created humanity to innately know and acknowledge natural (heterosexual) sex as true and not homosexuality. Just as idolatry is contrary to what God intended when He created humanity, so too homosexuality is contrary to nature in that it does not represent what God intended when He made men and women with physical bodies that have a ‘natural’ way of interacting with each other and a ‘natural’ desire for the opposite sex.


Conclusions

In the end, the three primary arguments used by homosexual proponents to say Paul is disapproving only of specific homosexual behavioral types and not homosexual behavior in general fail when analyzed against the actual text of Romans 1.

This being the case, I find it important to say something to those wishing to support a homosexual lifestyle through texts such as the first chapter of Romans:

It can’t be done.

No set of interpretative gymnastics or arguments of how certain words in the original languages don’t mean what they mean in our translations will ever make the text fit the lifestyle for which you want Scripture’s approval. This is true of Romans 1 and every other passage in God’s Word that mentions homosexuality.

I know this makes you angry and that you disagree with me on my analysis of the Romans 1 text and probably most everything I’ve said thus far. But, I hope that what we can agree on is that the truth about this topic matters, and it matters a lot.

If homosexual behavior is a sin in the eyes of God, and you believe that it is not, what you believe won’t matter in the end. Paul makes this clear in another letter of his: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

All that will matter is God’s truth and the truth about the consequences of homosexual behavior. Believe me when I say that I desperately don’t want you to experience that end. Instead, I want how Paul finishes his thought in the first Corinthian letter to be true of you: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11, my emphasis).

It’s my hope and prayer that you consider what’s been presented, seek God in prayer, and ask Him to reveal His truth to you

[Originalist]

Totally Twisted

This is quoted from your post,

"Three times in Romans 1 (vv. 24, 26, 28) Paul says God “gave them over” to sin, and three times (vv. 23, 25, 26) he says the end results were that the people “exchanged” a good thing for something sinful, which served as their punishment."

Shall we try and verify that claim? Romans 1:24, 26, 28 Did Paul say that God gave them over to SIN?

(Romans 1:24)
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

(Romans 1:26)
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:

(Romans 1:28)
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

NO.

And in Romans 1:23. 25 and 26, DID Paul write that they exchanged a good thing for some thing SINFUL?

(Romans 1:23)
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

(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. (Romans 1:26)
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:


AH there! The IS ONE SIN listed at verse 23
they made a graven image of GOD - that IS in fact a sin, listed in the 10 Commandments.

Do you not begin at least to see the problem with claiming sin where it is NOT?

You are intentionally confusing the laws of Moses that Christ ENDED with the Commandments from God that Christ restores us to.

There are MANY acts that are against MANY laws.. but the sins are only defined by God - and the list of sins is actually very short.

Abomination is NOT the same thing as sin, as the sins remain sins, but the abomination laws of Moses are all ended for we who are saved by Christ, for us, JUST like Paul:

(1 Corinthians 10:23)
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

By intentionally not recognizing the difference between the laws of Moses and the sins cited by God, AND by not accepting that Christ saves us FROM the law of Moses, just as Paul wrote so MANY times, you are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

Jesus IS the Holy Spirit, He said so Him self:

(John 14:15)
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

(John 14:16)
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

(John 14:17)
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

(John 14:18)
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Christ IS the Holy Spirit, and the one unpardonable sin is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.. why? Because Christ is the ONLY way you can be saved. Not by the law of Moses. Paul understood that, he certainly wrote it often enough, but you want to deny that, so that you can attack homosexual people.

Tell me sir, who is being carnal, who is being flesh-minded? Who is clinging to the curse of the law that justifies no one? Who is judging others against the law that is not of faith?

Since the New Testament made a VERY big issue of Jesus saving us FROM the laws of Moses, and restoring us TO the Commandments from God - it is important that Christians learn the difference between them,

And it is even MORE important, for your own salvation, that you do not turn away from grace, back to the law of Moses, for as you judge others, so shall you be judged - and you do not even know half of the sick evil of the law, the racist, sexist, abstract laws of Moses, that allowed for slavery, that allowed for rape, that allowed for polygamy, that allowed for usury against foreigners.. You have broken the law of Moses every time you wore a shirt made from two different types of cloth. You broke the law of Moses every day you did NOT wear fringe over three quarters of your vestment, you broke the law of Moses every time you ate pork or lobster or crab... and you want to attack other people for the number of penises in their relationship???

You are literally breaking the commandments of God when you bear false witness against others. And when you lie. Tell me, did God EVER declare homosexuality a sin in the Bible? Even once? No.
Did Moses have the authority to define sin? No. In the Bible, are ANY of the laws of Moses ever defined as sins? No.
When Jesus came and fulfilled the whole of the law of Moses, He said that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it because until it was fulfilled, none of the law could pass away - does that mean that Jesus meant to keep the law of Moses? or did He come to fulfill it to fulfill the covenant between Moses and God, to end the law of Moses for those who accept Him as the Bible actually states?

(Romans 8:2)
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

(Romans 10:4)
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

(Galatians 3:16)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

(Galatians 3:17)
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Galatians 3:18)
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

(Galatians 3:19)
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

(Galatians 3:5)
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(Galatians 3:10)
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

(Galatians 3:11)
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

(Galatians 3:12)
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

(Galatians 3:13)
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Sir i am only quoting the Bible to you to prove the point - the law of Moses is NOT the law of God, the Law of Moses is carnal, a curse, NOT of faith, NOT how we are justified and NOT how we are to judge the acts of others.

That IS what the New Testament teaches us - that IS what is written.

You make a damning mistake when you confuse the law of Moses with sin - you are trying to condemn others but you are literally condemning your self.

It is not me that you are denying - you are denying the words of Jesus Him self who said what He came to do and why and what the result of His act would be - to SAVE us, NOT to condemn us.. you are denying the words of Paul, who wrote 13 books of the New Testament, who established the first churches, who him self explained that he was FREE from the law SEVERAL times.

You are welcome to believe what you will - but do not call your self a Christian if you are here to judge others by the law of Moses.

[houston]

Did you read the whole article?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by houston

Did you read the whole article?

yes

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As a quick aside: we oftentimes think that when we sin and nothing happens (no lightning bolt strikes, etc.) that God either didn’t care or didn’t notice. However, Romans 1 tells us that the first stage of God’s wrath is actually not to discipline or correct the person, but rather He abandons the individual, giving them up to their sin. His initial wrath and judgment results, as Paul says, in them “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (vs. 27).

In vs. 24, Paul makes the initial mention of the first judgment, a sexual sin that is a consequence of the rebellion described earlier: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” The reading of this text is unmistakable – God delivered the people over to sexual lust (the word “impurity” is akatharsia in the Greek, which literally means immorality; a state of moral corruption5), a kind that resulted in their bodies being ‘shamed.’

What kind of moral corruption and shame? Paul explicitly tells us: “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” (Rom. 1:26–27).

There is no mistaking Paul here. The reference is clearly to the practice of lesbianism and male homosexuality.

The second judgment is one that also results from the people not acknowledging God and His truth – a corrupt mind: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:28–31).

In summary, Romans 1:18-31 deals with the fact that God has innately made Himself known to humanity, but He has been rejected and replaced by other objects of worship. Because of this, God has delivered two judgments: one of homosexual behavior and another of an immoral mind, each of which demonstrate His ‘abandonment’ and wrath toward humanity’s rebellion.

Just a cursory view of the present state of the world validates that these judgments continue to be handed down today.


Examining the Pro-Homosexual Arguments

Let’s now briefly revisit the three primary arguments that say Paul is not condemning ‘natural and loving homosexual relationships’ in Romans 1. We can quickly dispense with the second argument of pederasty as Paul does not mention children at all, but instead specifically says: “men with men committing indecent acts” (vs. 27).

The first and third arguments can be taken at the same time because they somewhat blend together. While interpreting Scripture with a key to the historical backdrop is a worthy exercise in which to engage, in this case the pro-homosexual interpreter is creating linkages between the text and history that have no evidence of support in Paul’s text. Indeed, shrine and homosexual prostitution certainly existed in the first century, but there is no explicit textual evidence in Romans 1 that indicates Paul is referring to that. He simply cites homosexuality as degrading, a judgment of God, and adds nothing more.

Further, the argument of linking homosexuality and idol worship is also unsustainable due to the fact that it would involve extending the argument to vv. 28-31. In other words, if the context is maintained, and homosexual behavior is moral outside of idol worship, then all the other sins listed that result from a depraved mind (vs. 28) must also be deemed right and good apart from idolatry. It is difficult to see how anyone could support such a position.

The argument of homosexual sex performed in conjunction with idol worship and/or shrine prostitution is clearly one of eisegesis (reading into the text a person’s presuppositions and agenda), as is the idea that Paul is addressing ‘unnatural’ homosexuality vs. one that is ‘natural.’ Why think this assertion is true?

Let’s first ask, why does Paul specifically cite homosexuality vs. all the other sexual sins that were committed at the time? The reason he does this is because it follows his argument from nature that begins in vs. 19. Paul is saying that in the same way people naturally know God by instinct, with creation itself demonstrating God’s existence through what He’s made, that people naturally and instinctively know right sexual practice because of how the human body is made.

In other words, Paul’s argument is that when people abandon God and His ways to any unnatural worship (which can include any invented deity, including distortions of the true God), God can abandon them to the lusts in their heart and the unnatural sexual practice of homosexuality. Just as creation is “clearly seen” leaving the unbeliever “without excuse” (vs. 20), it is also “plain” (Greek: phaneros, meaning “clear”, vs. 19) from the way God made human bodies how sex should naturally be carried out. Man complements woman and vice versa, and this is true anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically.

Those championing a pro-homosexual theology are right in that Paul is making an argument of what’s natural and unnatural, but they are in error as to the crux of the argument itself. It is one where the Apostle is arguing that, just as God created humanity in a natural way (i.e., it is “within them,” vs. 19) to know and acknowledge Him as the Creator vs. any false deity, He created humanity to innately know and acknowledge natural (heterosexual) sex as true and not homosexuality. Just as idolatry is contrary to what God intended when He created humanity, so too homosexuality is contrary to nature in that it does not represent what God intended when He made men and women with physical bodies that have a ‘natural’ way of interacting with each other and a ‘natural’ desire for the opposite sex.


Conclusions

In the end, the three primary arguments used by homosexual proponents to say Paul is disapproving only of specific homosexual behavioral types and not homosexual behavior in general fail when analyzed against the actual text of Romans 1.

This being the case, I find it important to say something to those wishing to support a homosexual lifestyle through texts such as the first chapter of Romans:

It can’t be done.

No set of interpretative gymnastics or arguments of how certain words in the original languages don’t mean what they mean in our translations will ever make the text fit the lifestyle for which you want Scripture’s approval. This is true of Romans 1 and every other passage in God’s Word that mentions homosexuality.

I know this makes you angry and that you disagree with me on my analysis of the Romans 1 text and probably most everything I’ve said thus far. But, I hope that what we can agree on is that the truth about this topic matters, and it matters a lot.

If homosexual behavior is a sin in the eyes of God, and you believe that it is not, what you believe won’t matter in the end. Paul makes this clear in another letter of his: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

All that will matter is God’s truth and the truth about the consequences of homosexual behavior. Believe me when I say that I desperately don’t want you to experience that end. Instead, I want how Paul finishes his thought in the first Corinthian letter to be true of you: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11, my emphasis).

It’s my hope and prayer that you consider what’s been presented, seek God in prayer, and ask Him to reveal His truth to you

[houston]

Next time please copy/paste rather than quote the whole post. Thanks.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As a quick aside: we oftentimes think that when we sin and nothing happens (no lightning bolt strikes, etc.) that God either didn’t care or didn’t notice. However, Romans 1 tells us that the first stage of God’s wrath is actually not to discipline or correct the person, but rather He abandons the individual, giving them up to their sin. His initial wrath and judgment results, as Paul says, in them “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (vs. 27).

In vs. 24, Paul makes the initial mention of the first judgment, a sexual sin that is a consequence of the rebellion described earlier: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” The reading of this text is unmistakable – God delivered the people over to sexual lust (the word “impurity” is akatharsia in the Greek, which literally means immorality; a state of moral corruption5), a kind that resulted in their bodies being ‘shamed.’

What kind of moral corruption and shame? Paul explicitly tells us: “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” (Rom. 1:26–27).

There is no mistaking Paul here. The reference is clearly to the practice of lesbianism and male homosexuality.

The second judgment is one that also results from the people not acknowledging God and His truth – a corrupt mind: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:28–31).

In summary, Romans 1:18-31 deals with the fact that God has innately made Himself known to humanity, but He has been rejected and replaced by other objects of worship. Because of this, God has delivered two judgments: one of homosexual behavior and another of an immoral mind, each of which demonstrate His ‘abandonment’ and wrath toward humanity’s rebellion.

Just a cursory view of the present state of the world validates that these judgments continue to be handed down today.


Examining the Pro-Homosexual Arguments

Let’s now briefly revisit the three primary arguments that say Paul is not condemning ‘natural and loving homosexual relationships’ in Romans 1. We can quickly dispense with the second argument of pederasty as Paul does not mention children at all, but instead specifically says: “men with men committing indecent acts” (vs. 27).

The first and third arguments can be taken at the same time because they somewhat blend together. While interpreting Scripture with a key to the historical backdrop is a worthy exercise in which to engage, in this case the pro-homosexual interpreter is creating linkages between the text and history that have no evidence of support in Paul’s text. Indeed, shrine and homosexual prostitution certainly existed in the first century, but there is no explicit textual evidence in Romans 1 that indicates Paul is referring to that. He simply cites homosexuality as degrading, a judgment of God, and adds nothing more.

Further, the argument of linking homosexuality and idol worship is also unsustainable due to the fact that it would involve extending the argument to vv. 28-31. In other words, if the context is maintained, and homosexual behavior is moral outside of idol worship, then all the other sins listed that result from a depraved mind (vs. 28) must also be deemed right and good apart from idolatry. It is difficult to see how anyone could support such a position.

The argument of homosexual sex performed in conjunction with idol worship and/or shrine prostitution is clearly one of eisegesis (reading into the text a person’s presuppositions and agenda), as is the idea that Paul is addressing ‘unnatural’ homosexuality vs. one that is ‘natural.’ Why think this assertion is true?

Let’s first ask, why does Paul specifically cite homosexuality vs. all the other sexual sins that were committed at the time? The reason he does this is because it follows his argument from nature that begins in vs. 19. Paul is saying that in the same way people naturally know God by instinct, with creation itself demonstrating God’s existence through what He’s made, that people naturally and instinctively know right sexual practice because of how the human body is made.

In other words, Paul’s argument is that when people abandon God and His ways to any unnatural worship (which can include any invented deity, including distortions of the true God), God can abandon them to the lusts in their heart and the unnatural sexual practice of homosexuality. Just as creation is “clearly seen” leaving the unbeliever “without excuse” (vs. 20), it is also “plain” (Greek: phaneros, meaning “clear”, vs. 19) from the way God made human bodies how sex should naturally be carried out. Man complements woman and vice versa, and this is true anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically.

Those championing a pro-homosexual theology are right in that Paul is making an argument of what’s natural and unnatural, but they are in error as to the crux of the argument itself. It is one where the Apostle is arguing that, just as God created humanity in a natural way (i.e., it is “within them,” vs. 19) to know and acknowledge Him as the Creator vs. any false deity, He created humanity to innately know and acknowledge natural (heterosexual) sex as true and not homosexuality. Just as idolatry is contrary to what God intended when He created humanity, so too homosexuality is contrary to nature in that it does not represent what God intended when He made men and women with physical bodies that have a ‘natural’ way of interacting with each other and a ‘natural’ desire for the opposite sex.


Conclusions

In the end, the three primary arguments used by homosexual proponents to say Paul is disapproving only of specific homosexual behavioral types and not homosexual behavior in general fail when analyzed against the actual text of Romans 1.

This being the case, I find it important to say something to those wishing to support a homosexual lifestyle through texts such as the first chapter of Romans:

It can’t be done.

No set of interpretative gymnastics or arguments of how certain words in the original languages don’t mean what they mean in our translations will ever make the text fit the lifestyle for which you want Scripture’s approval. This is true of Romans 1 and every other passage in God’s Word that mentions homosexuality.

I know this makes you angry and that you disagree with me on my analysis of the Romans 1 text and probably most everything I’ve said thus far. But, I hope that what we can agree on is that the truth about this topic matters, and it matters a lot.

If homosexual behavior is a sin in the eyes of God, and you believe that it is not, what you believe won’t matter in the end. Paul makes this clear in another letter of his: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

All that will matter is God’s truth and the truth about the consequences of homosexual behavior. Believe me when I say that I desperately don’t want you to experience that end. Instead, I want how Paul finishes his thought in the first Corinthian letter to be true of you: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11, my emphasis).

It’s my hope and prayer that you consider what’s been presented, seek God in prayer, and ask Him to reveal His truth to you

Originally Posted by houston

Next time please copy/paste rather than quote the whole post. Thanks.

[Praxeas]

I went to the site and looked but could not find any copy limitations however they DO encourage copying and pasting of their articles