Introduction
This post is long, but I think it is worthwhile and hope you read it all. I like to run it every couple of years.
Many churches today are being torn apart by false teachings about human sexuality, so we can’t ignore this topic. I am continuously disappointed that so many Christians who don’t get educated on this topic and stand up for the truth. In addition, the rapid and radical changes in public schools are a serious issue and hate speech laws and activist judges are a blatant attempt to shut down debate and curtail religious freedoms. Barely a week goes by without hearing about a business owner forced to cater to gay couples (e.g., bed-and-breakfasts, wedding photographers), LGBTQ indoctrination in elementary schools, religious organizations forced to hire LGBTQ people, people losing jobs for saying that skin color is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not, laws being proposed that will make it a crime to criticize homosexual behavior, and so on.
Many people who hold the orthodox Christian view would love to move on to other issues, but the problem is that the pro-gay theologians aren’t giving up. Therefore, we need to stand firm and do a better job of educating those in the middle ground.
While this issue isn’t an essential of the faith, such as Jesus’ divinity and exclusivity for salvation, those who take the pro-gay theology view typically have to deny the essential of the authority of scripture to arrive at their conclusions. And that is a dangerous thing.
The general Biblical ignorance of many Christians on this topic isn’t helping things. I know of people who have gone to church their whole lives and have been in multiple Bible studies but still ask questions like, “Does the New Testament say anything about homosexual behavior?” (Short answer: Yes.) And it goes downhill from there.
Before I dive in, let me state that while I firmly believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, I do not think it is something we should grandstand on. We all have temptations and stumble and fall at times. Romans 1 explains in no uncertain terms that homosexual behavior is an affront to God, but it also lists greed, gossip, deceit and other things as serious sins (anyone squirming yet?).
And we should act as suggested by a believer I am friends with who is tempted by same-sex attractions: Pray for them and be their friends.
Do homosexuals have a legitimate complaint when they point out how many Christians are softer on divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex than they are on homosexual behavior? Sometimes, yes, although it should be noted that those aren’t being forced down our throats as the others are. No one is trying to make it illegal to criticize those topics. Grandstanding on sins that aren’t a temptation for us and downplaying or ignoring sins that are a temptation is not a Christian thing to do. But the lesson is to hold consistent Biblical views on all sins, not to water things down more. We need to raise the bar back up on all these sins because they have huge consequences and, more importantly, because that is in line with what the Bible says.
But we shouldn’t call evil good and good evil. I support the Methodist position on homosexuality, which regards the behavior as sinful but the people as having worth. (Sadly, I left the Methodist in large part due to their lack of adherence to their own positions!) I think it should be illegal to abort babies just because they might be homosexual (Ironically, that position puts me at odds with many liberals whose support for abortion is such that they think it should be legal under any circumstances). I mention these things simply to pre-empt any nonsensical allegations that I am homophobic, a childish and false put-down designed to stifle debate. The real homophobes are those who are so scared of being politically incorrect that they deny God, the Bible and common sense rather than state the obvious.
I also believe that homosexual behavior is a forgivable sin and can be overcome by the power of the Gospel. When I meet gays I don’t view it as my job to change them. I treat them like I would anyone else, developing relationships and hoping to be able to share the Gospel with them at some point. The real work is the job of the Holy Spirit.
I was sharing the Gospel with a young man once who happened to be gay. He was all over the place with his religious beliefs and questions. At one point he asked, “Doesn’t the Bible say homosexual behavior is a sin?” I could have glossed over it and said it was a debatable matter, but that wouldn’t have been true or loving.
I also could have spent an hour explaining all the verses around this topic, but that would have been overkill. Instead I just confirmed that yes, the Bible does say it is a sin, despite how some try to twist it. Then I just shifted back to the basic Gospel – namely, that we are all sinners in need of a Savior and Jesus is that Savior. It was a great back-and-forth conversation on a lot of topics and I pray that it planted a seed and that the young man kept searching.
Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories.
- The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
- The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
- The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.
—
Category 1: The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.
Regarding the first view, many liberal theologians deny that part or all of the Bible is the Word of God. Unlike those in the second view, these folks seem to understand that the Bible does describe homosexual behavior as being sinful. They just dismiss those parts.
Some appear to believe in Leopard Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. If God wasn’t capable of inspiring all of the original writings of the Bible to be error-free, then why should we trust him to communicate with such clarity to these people regarding what is inspired and what isn’t?
The problem is that this view is very hard to reconcile with the 2,000 year tradition of the church and, more importantly, of the clear text of the Bible itself. People are certainly entitled to hold that view, but it doesn’t seem logical for them to refer to themselves as Christians.
The Bible claims to speak directly for God roughly 3,000 times, so if someone believes that all of those are mistakes then why on earth would he take this faith seriously? Why would he want to be a leader in the Christian church?
Remember that Jesus validated the law and the Prophets, among other parts of the Old Testament, right down to the last little mark. He unapologetically referred to the most controversial parts, too – Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah and Sodom and Gomorrah. Christians should strive to view the Bible in the same way that He did.
Note that many of these church “leaders” are liars: They either lied at their ordination vows about believing the essentials of the faith, or they changed their minds later and didn’t do the honest thing and resign. Their views are usually not just a little different than historic Christianity, they are the opposite. I believe in religious freedom, so they are entitled to their beliefs. I also believe in honesty: HP salesman shouldn’t endorse Dell products, and Christians shouldn’t promote non-Christian beliefs about the Bible. If either one breaks those rules they should be quickly fired.
It is challenging to argue with those who hold the first view, because you tend to go in circles. They claim to be Christian, which should mean we can refer to the Bible as a “final court of arbitration” of sorts. But whenever you find a passage they don’t like they’ll claim it was written just by men, not God, or they’ll pull out the false argument that you are being a Biblical literalist.
They may say things like, “But Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior.” That is called arguing from silence and it is poor reasoning. Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.This view is also part of the 2nd type of theological error noted above.
They may jump through hoops trying to dismiss the plain reading of verses like Leviticus 18:22 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”) yet gladly take other plain passages literally. They may claim there were “only a few verses” but are quick to make all sorts of firm statements on other topics with less verses. And just how many times does God have to clearly say something before we believe it?
They may try to dismiss passages like that by misreading other passages, such as saying that “God said that eating shellfish was an abomination, so why aren’t you opposed to that?”
To have a rational discussion on the verses referencing homosexuality you have to convince people in this group that the Bible is reliable and authoritative first. And that may be impossible.
Here’s a sample quote from a person in this camp:
A 21st century [Martin] Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against “sodomy”-shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own-should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’
Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of women’s studies and religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY, responding to the recent decsion by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to expel a minister who admitted to a physical homosexual relationship-a violation of the denominations “Visions and Expectations” statement.
She really tips her hand with the “worldview vastly different from our own” comment. The worldview she is referring to is that of Middle East Jews and Christians a couple thousand years ago or more. But she misses the obvious: The Biblical commands weren’t always the Jews’ worldview – they rebelled against that view over and over! The worldview is God’s, and Ms. Stange is absolutely right that it is vastly different from hers. She apparently doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God. And if she ends up in Heaven I think Martin Luther will have a few things to clarify with her.
The verses aren’t “shaky,” and there are plenty showing God’s plan for human sexuality and his disapproval of homosexual behavior. Some (but not all) people in this category may be predisposed to only consider verses that affirm their views, and they typically don’t have a problem drawing all sorts of conclusions from less clear passages. Therefore, they won’t like these facts:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
—
Category 2: The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.
The second view is generally better than the first (“the Bible is not the Word of God”) with respect to being able to guide people towards the truth, because you have a common authority to appeal to.
The problem with this view is that it is just plain incorrect. As hard as pro-gay theologians try, the truth is that the Bible is overwhelmingly clear. Pro-gay theologians are good at casting doubt about certain passages but they never seem to pay attention when someone points out how their reasoning is flawed.
Even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture. The heretic John Shelby Spong denies the authority of the Bible at every turn, he at least admits that:
The Bible can certainly be read as condemnatory of homosexual practice. Both sides admit that.
Luke Timothy Johnson, a more orthodox theologian said:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.
As noted previously, here is a summary of the Biblical view:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
I find those figures to be unambiguous and very compelling based on plain readings of the text and even more so when delving further into the context and the original languages. I think it is important to consider all those points because some people try to dismiss the traditional Biblical view because it “only” has a few passages about homosexuality. It only takes one clear passage to make a point, but there are many more than that in the Bible. These folks also don’t seem to mind making broad conclusions on verses that really do just have one verse behind them.
I have written on a couple specific mistakes pro-gay theologians make regarding Leviticus 18 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”), another article on the shellfish argument and another on Romans 1.
There are many other resources dealing with particular verses. Here’s a terrific outline on Romans 1 that explodes the myth that the real sin is acting outside your desires (as if anyone does that!).
My favorite resource is Responding to Pro-Gay Theology by Joe Dallas. I highly encourage everyone to read it. It is very thorough but readable. I don’t have time to cover all the passages here but if people have questions on specific verses we can cover them in the comments section.
There are solid answers for any question you can come up with, provided people want to really discuss the issue. I saw this commentary on an ex-ex-gay blog (i.e., someone who tried to leave the homosexual lifestyle and returned). She is commenting on Mel White, a leading pro-gay theologian.
Mel White is a passionate and articulate man who makes it clear from the beginning of the workshop that he has absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the biblical passages on homosexuality. Over the years he has suffered a barrage of debates on the issue and he is thoroughly burnt out. He refuses to engage in the discussion any longer. Instead, he passes out a booklet he has written on the subject and tells us to read it. Then, he encourages us to refrain from discussing the Bible with conservative Christians because fundamentalists have no interest in sincere dialogue. Mel also encourages us not to engage in the debate for another reason. By having the conversation, we expose ourselves over and over again to the “lie” that homosexuality is wrong, and when heard repeatedly, “deep down inside you will wonder if they are right.”
That is a clever dodge on Mel’s part. But I’ll be glad to have a sincere dialogue even if he won’t.
If you examine all the facts, I think you’ll find that the case is overwhelming: God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful and his ideal for marriage is one man and one woman.
So why do people twist the scriptures so blatantly? I generally don’t speculate on the motives of individuals, as only God knows their hearts. But I have seen some themes and evidence in various cases.
Some believe the lies out of ignorance or laziness. They may be sincere Christians who just haven’t fully examined the issue. There are issues I haven’t fully explored and may have the wrong views on, so we should approach things with humility. We should do the hard work to understand important issues.
Some believe them out of political correctness. It is much easier to go with the views of the culture. Have they noticed the the liberal theologians came to the conclusion that abortion, homosexual behavior, easy divorce and fornication were acceptable just after the culture did? What a coincidence. They should remember 1 John 2:15-16: Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world.
I won’t name specifics here, but I am aware of those in the pro-gay theology camp that pretend to be otherwise-orthodox Christians. But if you follow their own blogs, for example, you discover how thoroughly fraudulent they are. You need to watch out for those who use a veneer of Christianity to justify their preferences. They desparately want everyone’s approval – even though it will still leave them unfulfilled – and they especially want the church’s approval — or at least its silence.
There is also the passive-aggressive stance where some confidently claim that the Bible does or doesn’t say something about homosexual behavior, then when you go to analyze the verses they “humbly” say they don’t know that much (as if the subject were just too complicated or it is so gray we just can’t reach a conclusion).
False teachers aren’t necessarily gay themselves. They may have other motives for spreading their lies. Jesus warned that there would be false teachers in the church and Paul did as well. What better way to accomplish this than to infiltrate the church and bring it down from the inside?
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Of course, there are frauds at the other end of the spectrum as well, such as Ted Haggard, or hateful false teachers like Democrat Fred Phelps. Those aren’t Biblical models, either.
Some people have a “revelation” about the lack of sinfulness of homosexuality when a loved one is involved. Perhaps this is due to new information and a fresh look at the Bible, but perhaps it is due to major league rationalization. It is similar to pro-life Christians who change their minds when their child is pregnant and encourage the destruction of their grandchildren. Did they really change their views on the morality of abortion based on new information, or did their fear of embarrassment and/or inconvenience trump their moral views?
Some people just want to believe the lies. It is a strong delusion. And Satan’s oldest trick is still used today: “Did God really say . . .?” Hint: Yes. Yes, He did.
—
Category 3 – The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable.
This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.
The third view attempts to affirm scripture but makes a major theological mistake afterwards. Think about the premise: God is allegedly overturning a moral law and simultaneously making it immoral to quote the Bible.
One denomination has a slogan that “God is still speaking.” This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word. However, liberal theologians tend to use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws.
Some people appear to believe in Leopard Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. That is the first error above. However, those in this third category appear to hold to Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.
This category overlaps a bit with those who don’t think He communicated his laws in a discernable way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.
Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.” She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.
Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.
The problem is her poor Biblical analysis. There are at least nine things wrong with this view:
- The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church. It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
- The visions were clear and emphatic. Peter was given the vision three times.
- Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this “new revelation.”
- There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion.
- This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it. I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible. It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason. God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
- This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law. There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws. In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.). The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
- The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny his Word to begin with! So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations? Go figure.
- If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal? Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
- The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.
And as noted above, even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture. Again, Luke Timothy Johnson said:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.
There are simply no good reasons to believe that God is changing his moral laws (dropping those against homosexual behavior and adding those saying not to preach against it) and only informing selected people — as opposed to the Apostles and their direct followers — through revelation or “experience.”
—
Summary – Pro-gay theological principles in action
I have addressed the three commons ways pro-gay theologians make errors, namely by believing that:
- The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.
- The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.
- The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable and the “new” sin is saying that homosexual behavior is sinful.
Now I am taking the pro-gay theological reasoning out for a test drive, so to speak, to see how it applies to other passages. After all, if their principles are sound they should work in other situations as well.
We’ve addressed Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.) and some of the improper interpretations of it here and here. But I wondered how their reasoning would apply to a verse in the same passage, such as Leviticus 18:8 – Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. After all, the context of Leviticus 18 is abundantly clear because it starts and ends with the same admonitions: Don’t be like the pagan Canaanites and do the detestable things listed in the middle of the text, or you will be vomited out of the land like they were. These were obviously not ceremonial laws just for the Israelites.
You can use any verse from Leviticus 18 to make the same points (bestiality, child sacrifice, etc.). I chose this one because it happened to be addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5. Especially note how Paul chides them for being proud and boastful about this man’s behavior. Read it once, then read it again and replace the descriptions of incest with homosexual behavior. That is how I view the pro-gay theology community (especially the heterosexuals): Proud and boastful for ignoring God’s Word.
1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Now let’s apply the various lines of pro-gay theological reasoning to Leviticus 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 5 and see how well they work. I realize that not all pro-gay theologians hold all these views. I tried to convey their reasoning as accurately as possible. Using their logic, we could conclude that:
- Jesus didn’t specifically say not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife, so it couldn’t have been very important and probably wasn’t even a sin (the argument from silence). We should err on the side of saying it isn’t a sin. We ignore the fact that Jesus, as God, authored the Old Testament and that He fully supported it.
- The man was born that way (i.e., with the desire to have sex with females). It was his natural desire and function.
- He and his father’s wife love each other! Who are you to say that is wrong? Gene Robinson, a Bishop in the Episcopal church, left his wife and kids so he could be with his gay lover. Pro-gay theologians usually affirm and applaud this behavior. Living up to marriage commitments made before God isn’t nearly as important as indulging your sexual preferences.
- How do you know he and his father’s wife didn’t pray about it? Maybe God gave them a personal revelation permitting them to have sex and/or get married. That would make it acceptable.
- Maybe the couple says that Jesus told them it was OK. Who are you to argue with Jesus?
- Leviticus 18:8 was a ceremonial law. It was only for the Jews. It obviously doesn’t apply to Gentiles. If you eat shellfish then you obviously are a hypocrite if you don’t condone incest.
- The Bible never actually uses the word incest.
- There are only a few verses saying not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife [probably less than there are describing homosexual behavior as sinful].Therefore, how can we be sure about it? And they are kinda obscure as well.
- The man or the father’s wife was a temple prostitute or this was part of some pagan temple worship, and that is what made it wrong [even though the text doesn't even hint at that].
- Paul was an ignorant prude. He didn’t understand sexual behavior or have the advantage of all the knowledge we do. [This assumes that the Holy Spirit wasn't inspiring his writings, of course].
- You are just using the “yuck” factor and saying “Eeewww” because a man having sex with his father’s wife seems gross to you. There is really nothing wrong with it, though – you were just made differently.
- Judge not, lest ye be judged. Paul must be sinning here because he is clearly making moral judgments. [Please ignore the fact that I'm judging Paul for judging and that I've taken Matthew 7:1-5 out of context].
- You are just an incest-o-phobe. You need therapy for your irrational hatred. In fact, speech like that should be prohibited because it will incite violence against those who practice incest.
- You just don’t love the man and his father’s wife! If you did, you’d want them to be happy. Hater! Hate speech!
- Other parts of the Bible portray God acting in ways that don’t appear to be in line with his moral laws, so they obviously aren’t really from him. Therefore, Leviticus 18:8 may not be his Word either. When in doubt, we should ignore Scripture, because God’s revelation to my heart trumps anything in the Bible.
- Some parts of the Bible aren’t clear to us [even though this part is] so we can ignore it.
If that sounds like an unsound line of reasoning that’s because it is an unsound line of reasoning. These principles don’t work on the passages they are designed to dismiss, and they completely self-destruct when applied to other passages. Pro-gay theology is flawed, sinful and destructive and should be abandoned by any Christians who hold those views.
Once again, note that:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do. God is perfectly holy, but He is also perfectly gracious and merciful and will forgive those who repent and believe in Jesus. Hear the Good News:
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Comments are welcome, but please stick to the topic. We aren’t debating secular views, we aren’t demonizing anyone (pro-gay or orthodox) and we don’t need straw-man arguments (“You just don’t love them,” etc.).
Love LGBTQ people, be friends with them and pray for them. If they need to develop a friendship with you so they can see what normal relationships should look like, then do so. But don’t encourage them to participate in sinful behavior. If you do, then you are loving yourself, not them.
And remember, God catches his fish and then He cleans them. You don’t have to convert their sexuality before sharing the Good News that God adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.
Like this:
Like Loading...
If you are a Christian and you haven’t read the entire Bible at least once in your life, then it will be really awkward in Heaven when you meet some of the authors. Oh, uh, hi Obadiah . . . yeah, well, sorry I never got around to reading your book . . . OK, I can’t lie anymore, I didn’t even know you had a book in the Bible . . . oh look – a squirrel! [runs away].
. I’m just pointing out that they aren’t as far apart as people make them out to be on the emotional issues. Even if you are correct on this in-house debate and Reformed theology is in error, the emotional reactions to Reformed theology on this point are not warranted. God knew what people would do, including that many would spend eternity in Hell, then He created them anyway.
