Changes

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, 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 preceded 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 authority for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref> Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htm  Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?"]</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, 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 preceded 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 authority for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref> Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htm  Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?"]</ref>

In response, conservative scholars and writers have evidenced that such positions are 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 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 that God does not ordain morality according to majority vote.<ref>James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, p. 290</ref>  Some note certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as most had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment, and or do not address motive), 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 pro-homosex 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 understood as a desired one, as consistent with a [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism]].

In response, conservative scholars and writers have evidenced that such positions are 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> Those who make reliance upon one's own inclinations as the basis for morality are seen as manifesting a form of idolatry, that of making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right, whereas rather than the almighty. (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9) The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners 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 that God does not ordain morality according to majority vote.<ref>James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, p. 290</ref>  Those who seek to disallow the condemnation of homosex and who assert sanction for it, are show to be "handling word of God deceitfully". (2Cor. 4:2) Some note certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as most had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment, and or do not address motive), 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 pro-homosex 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 understood as a desired one, as consistent with a [[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>