Changes

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoerotisicm<ref>  homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> work from the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, and in which God, as the author of Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation (hermeneutics), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's moral laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoerotisicm<ref>  homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> work from the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, and in which God, as the author of Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation (hermeneutics), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's moral laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

As relates to homosexuality, consistent with the position that God in particular made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual conduct are considered transcendent. In examining such it becomes evident from the beginning that all sexual relations outside marriage is fornication (1Cor. 7:2), and as regards homosexuality, the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to that of any evidence for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). And as such this exclusive union remains part of God's immutable moral law. And in addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned (see [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]). These injunctions are understood as being part of the immutable moral law of God, and unconditional in scope, not simply applicable to certain cultural or behavioral conditions.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."   

As relates to homosexuality, consistent with the position that God in particular made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual conduct are considered transcendent. In examining such it becomes evident from the beginning that all sexual relations outside marriage is fornication (1Cor. 7:2), and as regards homosexuality, the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to that of any evidence for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). And as such this exclusive union remains part of God's immutable moral law. And in addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned (see [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]). These injunctions are understood as being part of the immutable moral law of God, and unconditional in scope, not simply applicable to certain cultural or behavioral conditions.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."   

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticim in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of moral commands and their immutability. While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve some texts which are necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to them and to wrest sanction for them, hermeneutics are employed by homosexual apologists which effectively would negate most any moral command, and the Bible as a moral authority. A primary homosexual apologist, a Professor Walter Wink, concluded that the Bible offers no coherent sexual ethic, but that basically sexual ethics are best determined by being in accordance with one's own understanding of Christian love. This and requires that the manifestly immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to what Wink sees as enlightened morality in today's society. (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt. 4:4)<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref><ref>"No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm</ref>  

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticim in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of moral commands and their immutability. While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve some texts which are necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism  and to wrest sanction for such, hermeneutics are employed by homosexual apologists which effectively would negate most any moral command, and the Bible as a moral authority. A primary homosexual apologist, a Professor Walter Wink, concluded that the Bible offers no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which he perceives as “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead he essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by being in accordance with one's own understanding of Christian love. This requires that the manifestly immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to what Wink sees as enlightened morality in today's society. (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref><ref>"No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> As again, due to  the hermeneutics employed in arriving at this desired conclusion, this statement would apply to all the laws regarding basic sexual behavior.

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==