Changes

This page is presented as a conservative Christian response to the frequently manifested attemps by pro homosexual apologists to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, otherwise referred to as homoeroticism, and to read such into Scripture.

 

'''<font size=3></font>This page is presented as a conservative Christian response to frequently manifested attempts by pro homosexual apologists to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, otherwise referred to as homoeroticism,<ref>homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> and to read such into Scripture.  

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle have put pressure on the evangelical church to respond in  some way. Homosexual spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle.  They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position.  Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7.  The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself.  The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church,</ref>  

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle have put pressure on the evangelical church to respond in  some way. Homosexual spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle.  They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position.  Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7.  The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself.  The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church,</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>   

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoerotisicm 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 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.

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 conclusion, such a statement could be used toward all the laws regarding basic sexual behavior. This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]]. 

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently explicitly stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with him sexually, in marriage “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently explicitly stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with him sexually, in marriage “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref> This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden. However, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable.  Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality was primarily based upon <ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>. Yet women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. This latter aspect is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is indicated in the New Testament, where marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), and the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4), with celibate singleness being esteemed as the only other option: 1Cor. 7:6-11).  

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref> This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden. However, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable.  Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality was primarily based upon,<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref> Yet women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. This latter aspect is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is indicated in the New Testament, where marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), and the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4), with celibate singleness being esteemed as the only other option: 1Cor. 7:6-11). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of love and companionship <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>.

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. And to suppose sanction for a radical new type of marriage without legal legislation is untenable. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.   

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. And to suppose sanction for a radical new type of marriage without legal legislation is untenable. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.