Changes

=== Overview===

=== Overview===

As with the Levitical texts, pro-homosex revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homosex. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref>  Though Scroggs himself will attempt to restrict the homosex of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, extreme attempts at “grammatical gymnastics” and eisegesis accompany him in seeking to change the condemnation of homosex to allowance.  Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homosex, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth. And in which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref><ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Scroggs also sees the condemnation of homosex but supposes that Paul's condemnation of homosex only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> More akin to Scroggs, Boswell and others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) in refering to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” of choosing one's orientations, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>), and that the Catholic church did not condemn homosex, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp.  108-113</ref>) New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early church censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such), and sees female homoeroticism (which she supports) as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, and recognizes Paul as universally condemning female and male homosex as a violation of the social order created by God. But rejects the prohibition of female homosex due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>  

As with the Levitical texts, proponents of homosex (favoring homosexual erotic relations)<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html Why use the word "homosex"?]</ref> revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homosex. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref>  Though Scroggs himself will attempt to restrict the homosex of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, extreme attempts at “grammatical gymnastics” and eisegesis accompany him in seeking to change the condemnation of homosex to allowance.  Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homosex, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth. And in which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref><ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Scroggs also sees the condemnation of homosex but supposes that Paul's condemnation of homosex only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> More akin to Scroggs, Boswell and others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) in refering to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” of choosing one's orientations, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>), and that the Catholic church did not condemn homosex, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp.  108-113</ref>) New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early church censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such), and sees female homoeroticism (which she supports) as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, and recognizes Paul as universally condemning female and male homosex as a violation of the social order created by God. But rejects the prohibition of female homosex due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>  

Countering such renderings is traditional means of exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but requiring heart repentance and resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff; Acts 26:20)<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17; Acts 26:20</ref> including forsaking all sexual immorality. Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible  and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homosex. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union. While idolatry corrupts this, homosex itself is a manifestation of idolatry (or ignorance) as it is inconsistent with obedience to God. And which is revealed more precisely in His word.  

Countering such renderings is the traditional exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but requiring heart repentance and resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff; Acts 26:20)<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17; Acts 26:20</ref> including forsaking all sexual immorality. Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible  and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homosex. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union. While idolatry corrupts this, homosex itself is seen as a manifestation of idolatry (or ignorance) as it is inconsistent with obedience to God. And which is revealed more precisely in His word.  

Gagnon notes eight points of correspondence between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27 , in a similar relative order, between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27: human, image, likeness; birds, cattle, reptiles; male, female.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture]</ref>   

Gagnon notes eight points of correspondence between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27 , in a similar relative order, between Romans 1:23, 26-27 and Genesis 1:26-27: human, image, likeness; birds, cattle, reptiles; male, female.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture]</ref>   

Beginning in Rm. 1:28, further fruits of idolatry in moral declension are described,  similar to the fruits of the flesh seen in Gal. 5:19-21, which Paul reminds Christians later they were manifesting, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”,  (Eph. 2:3) the end of which is spiritual death. (cf. Rm. 8:13)  Gagnon comments, "Those who disoriented themselves by a turn from the true God were more likely to be disoriented in their behavior...Gentiles were rendered liable because they sinned against the revelation about God and God’s will available to them in creation/nature.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>  

Beginning in Rm. 1:28, further fruits of idolatry in moral declension are described,  similar to the fruits of the flesh seen in Gal. 5:19-21, which Paul reminds Christians later they were manifesting, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others”,  (Eph. 2:3) the end of which is spiritual death. (cf. Rm. 8:13)  Gagnon comments, "Those who disoriented themselves by a turn from the true God were more likely to be disoriented in their behavior...Gentiles were rendered liable because they sinned against the revelation about God and God’s will available to them in creation/nature.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>  

Having shown the Gentiles as sinners according to the light given hem, Paul can then move onto the Jews in the next chapter, indicting them also as capital sinners, disobedient to God in the light of the more precise and comprehensive relation of the Scriptures.<ref>Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible</ref> This twofold use of revelation (natural and written) is seen elsewhere in Paul's preaching to both groups respectively. (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29; cf. Acts 13:16-41; 24:25; 26:22,23; 28:23)  Paul can thus conclude in the next chapter that “we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”, (Rm. 3:9), before moving on in the proceeding chapters to establish how convicted sinners may be justified before the holy God of both creation and Scripture, and live accordingly.

Having shown the Gentiles as sinners according to the light given them, Paul can then move onto the Jews in the next chapter, indicting them also as capital sinners, disobedient to God in the light of the more precise and comprehensive relation of the Scriptures.<ref>Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible</ref> This twofold use of revelation (natural and written) is seen elsewhere in Paul's preaching to both groups respectively. (Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29; cf. Acts 13:16-41; 24:25; 26:22,23; 28:23)  Paul can thus conclude in the next chapter that “we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”, (Rm. 3:9), before moving on in the proceeding chapters to establish how convicted sinners may be justified before the holy God of both creation and Scripture, and live accordingly.

=== Uncleanness and Nature ===

=== Uncleanness and Nature ===