Changes

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions and interpretive foundations.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> 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 partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. This position, especially as substantiated by [[conservative Christians]], holds that 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 unions. (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12) Additionally, this position evidences that only opposite gender sexual unions are explicitly sanctioned by God by the establishment of marriage (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), but which sanction is never established for same gender unions. And that instead, homosex unions are excluded by design and by decrees, with same gender unions being only condemned in places wherever they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref> 

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions and interpretive foundations. The Bible contains laws which prohibit homosex (same gender sexual relations, also referred to as homoeroticism or homogenital relations), and which traditionally and normally would be seen as being just as universal and immutable as laws against illicit heterosexual partners, as belonging in the same class. In addition, the positive sanction of marriage which is provided explicitly for opposite genders is not established for homosexual unions.

In contrast to the historical/traditional position, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] relegate these laws and principals to being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Those within the former camp typically see the attempts by prohomosex polemicists as unwarranted, "revolutionary and revisionist",<ref> James B. De Young, Homosexuality p. 135</ref> being a manifestation of the efforts 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 or being motivated by [[homophobia]].<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>   

Prohomosex polemicists have responded to this problem by asserting the injunctions against homosex are culture or contextually bound and do not apply today, or even that the Bible provides no transcendent universal sexual ethic. In addition, advocates of homosex propose or assert that homosexuality or perhaps [[same-sex marriage]] is seen in many close relationships between heterosexual persons in the Bible.

 

Those within the former camp typically see the attempts by prohomosex polemicists as unwarranted, "revolutionary and revisionist",<ref> James B. De Young, Homosexuality p. 135</ref> being a manifestation of the efforts 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. Those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and or being motivated by [[homophobia]].<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>   

== Interpretive Foundation ==

== Interpretive Foundation ==

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).  Lionel Windsor states that the real contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest.<ref>[http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/topical/Bible_Homosexuality.htm The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005])</ref>   

It is generally evidenced that the revisionist school of homosexual apologetics 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 faulty and aberrant (Psa 11:2-3).<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> As Lionel Windsor observes, the fundamental contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest.<ref>[http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/topical/Bible_Homosexuality.htm The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005])</ref>   

===Traditional/historical position===

===Traditional/historical position===

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 [[Holy 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 consistent 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. By such exegesis, historically Christian theologians have overall 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 [[Holy 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 consistent 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. By such exegesis, historically Christian theologians have overall 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. (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

 

Consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment 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 and for 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, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions 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."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

In addition, and consistent with the understanding that God made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent from the time of their institution, being directly applicable in all cultural contexts. In examining such, it is  evidenced that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are consistently categorized as fornication. (1Cor. 7:2). In contrast, in the places where homoerotic relations are most explicitly dealt with (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26,27) it is only condemned, with this condemnation being universal in scope, and not restricted to certain cultural, behavioral or motivational 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."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

===Revisionist/prohomosex position===

===Revisionist/prohomosex position===

More forward in this regard is Professor Walter Wink, who states "I have long insisted that the issue is one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." However, he and other revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws on sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love.<ref>Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality"</ref>  Pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs, who proceeded Wink, likewise states, “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> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “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> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary resource for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref>, while John Shelby Spong mocks the idea that if the Bible is opposed to something, then it must be wrong.<ref>"The struggle among Episcopalians," Email Newsletter, 2009-JAN-28</ref>  

More forward in this regard is Professor Walter Wink, who states "I have long insisted that the issue is one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." However, he and other revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws on sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love.<ref>Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality"</ref>  Pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs, who proceeded Wink, likewise states, “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> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “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> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary resource for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref>, while John Shelby Spong mocks the idea that if the Bible is opposed to something, then it must be wrong.<ref>"The struggle among Episcopalians," Email Newsletter, 2009-JAN-28</ref>  

In response, conservative scholars and writers evidence that such an attitude is contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively allowing the immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (cf. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are exegeted to be just as immutable and universal as those against heterosexual partners, and never conditional upon motive, and that the institution of such basic moral commands in a certain cultural context by itself cannot negate required obedience today. These are held to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom, (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4)) and are based upon the transcendent foundational purpose and precepts ordained by God. Additionally, it is argued that in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for that practice, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as many had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of prohomosex polemics is seen as effectively negating the authority of the very source they seek to claim for their own. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, as consistent with [homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

In response, conservative scholars and writers evidence that such an attitude is contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively allowing the immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (cf. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are exegeted to be just as immutable and universal as those against heterosexual partners, and never conditional upon motive, and that the institution of such basic moral commands in a certain cultural context by itself cannot negate required obedience today. These are held to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom, (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4)) and are based upon the transcendent foundational purpose and precepts ordained by God. Additionally, it may be understood that in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for that practice, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as many had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of prohomosex polemics is seen as effectively negating the authority of the very source they seek to claim for their own. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, as consistent with [homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>   

Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>