Changes

“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 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>   

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, 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 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."   

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 partners are considered universal and transcendent. In examining such it becomes evident from the beginning that all sexual relations outside marriage are 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). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned. 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 basic 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 would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Writers of holy writ are essentially deemed by them 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]].

Primary homosexual apologists,  such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<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> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, and instead it is seen as a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making God into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

Primary homosexual apologists,  such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<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> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, and instead it is seen as a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making God into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==