Changes

From the beginning, attempts have been made to both negate what God in the [[Bible]] has clearly commanded not to be done, and misconstrue its words in order to promote prohibited actions and attitudes, sometimes by quite sophisticated forms of sophistry. One of the most recent manifestations of such has been in the area of [[homosexuality and the Bible]]. The historical/traditional position evidences that the Bible uniquely establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. Rather, such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27). In response, proponents of [[homosexuality]], and more specifically, homosex (also referred to as "homoeroticism" or homogenitalism<ref>homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref>) and [[same-sex marriage]] have strove to cast doubt and to outright deny what God has  stated on the matter, and then to present assertions to the contrary. (cf. Gn. 3:1-5).  

The conflict between [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions. Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual bonding which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27),  In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

The study of homosexual apologetics progressively evidences that its revisionist school overall operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally destructive (Psa 11:2-3). Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

 

The study of homosexual apologetics progressively evidences that its revisionist school operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole. Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

“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 homoeroticism 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 homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to 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 universal and 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 homoeroticism 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 certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism  and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Writers of holy writ are essentially deemed too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for it's censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture. This effect of [[homosexual revisionism]] may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]].

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism 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 certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism  and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Writers of holy writ are essentially deemed too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for it's censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture. This effect of [[homosexual revisionism]] may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]].

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill,<ref>Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest</ref> Robin Scroggs,<ref>Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary</ref>  Episcoplian Professor L. William Countryman,<ref>Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific</ref> Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,<ref>Assistant Professor of Psychology</ref> and lesser know writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first advancing their novel view (1955), was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual polemics represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it, with one of his last books being, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.   

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill,<ref>Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest</ref> Robin Scroggs,<ref>Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary</ref>  Episcoplian Professor L. William Countryman,<ref>Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific</ref> Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,<ref>Assistant Professor of Psychology</ref> and lesser know writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first advancing their novel view (1955), was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual polemics represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it, with one of his last books being, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.   

It is noted that most of the pro homosex polemicists which effectively turn "the grace of God into lasciviousness" (Jude 1:4) are by souls who yet profess to be Christians, which historically is not without precedent, nor warning, as the apostle foretold,  "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)

It is noted that most of the prohomosex polemicists (charged with "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness": Jude 1:4<ref>http://www.takeheed.net/SEPTEMBER2004.htm</ref>) are by souls who yet profess to be Christians. Conservatives see such as a manifestation of that which the apostle Paul foretold,  "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)

Among evangelical responses to the above, the foremost contributor is Robert A. J. Gagnon,<ref>Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. B.A. degree from Dartmouth College; M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School; Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. http://www.robgagnon.net</ref> ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice") Adding to his numerous and extensive reproofs of pro homosexual claims<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> is Thomas E Schmidt<ref>Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California</ref> ("Straight and Narrow?"),  Guenther Haas<ref>Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College</ref> ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice),  James B. de Young <ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon</ref> (Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other apologists.

Among evangelical responses to the above the foremost contributor is Robert A. J. Gagnon,<ref>Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. B.A. degree from Dartmouth College; M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School; Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. http://www.robgagnon.net</ref> ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice") though he is neither a full Biblical fundamentalist or inerrantist, and in that regard is somewhat like his counterparts. Adding to his numerous and extensive reproofs of pro homosexual claims<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> is Thomas E Schmidt<ref>Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California</ref> ("Straight and Narrow?"),  Guenther Haas<ref>Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College</ref> ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice),  James B. de Young <ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon</ref> (Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other apologists.

== Terms Defined ==

== Terms Defined ==