Changes

*3. This grafting in is done in the spiritual realm, as are things like “eating” God's words (Jer. 15:16) and the abolition of marriage, (Mt. 22:30) which does not translate into a change in physical laws relating to such. Like the essential spiritual equality of all believers (Gal. 3:28) does not alter the basic positional/functions distinction between the man and the women (1Cor. 11:3), so the grafting in of Gentiles does not relate to or change injunctions against sex with same genders, or the foundational basis against such and for heterosexual marriage, and which is clearly affirmed. (Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 5:31)     

*3. This grafting in is done in the spiritual realm, as are things like “eating” God's words (Jer. 15:16) and the abolition of marriage, (Mt. 22:30) which does not translate into a change in physical laws relating to such. Like the essential spiritual equality of all believers (Gal. 3:28) does not alter the basic positional/functions distinction between the man and the women (1Cor. 11:3), so the grafting in of Gentiles does not relate to or change injunctions against sex with same genders, or the foundational basis against such and for heterosexual marriage, and which is clearly affirmed. (Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 5:31)     

The following is a summation of and supplementation to traditional responses regarding Boswell's polemic.  

The following is a summation of and supplementation to traditional responses regarding Boswell's polemic and derivatives.  

*1. . The theme leading up to the two verses at issue is not that of acting contrary one's own "orientation," but contrary to what is ordained of God, as a result of perverted desire. The Gentile idolaters are not condemned because they were worshiping idols while being actually being  monotheists, but because idolatry is wrong in and of itself. Likewise homoeroticism is presented as a perverted practice, acting contrary to to what God revealed, by design and decree, as ordained by Him,  and thus is unconditionally condemned, as are the other iniquities which are also listed as a fruit of this spiritual declension. (Rm. 1:29-32)  Regarding the latter,  Kyle Butt states, "No scholar would remotely contend that “unloving,” “unforgiving,” and “unmerciful” were cultural traits that do not transcend the passage of earthly time and culture.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2291 Apologetics Press, Scripturally Speaking: Homosexuality—Sin, or a Cultural Bad Habit?]</ref>

*1. . The theme leading up to the two verses at issue is not that of acting contrary one's own "orientation," but contrary to what is ordained of God, as a result of perverted desire. The Gentile idolaters are not condemned because they were worshiping idols while being actually being  monotheists, but because idolatry is wrong in and of itself. Likewise homoeroticism is presented as a perverted practice, acting contrary to to what God revealed, by design and decree, as ordained by Him,  and thus is unconditionally condemned, as are the other iniquities which are also listed as a fruit of this spiritual declension. (Rm. 1:29-32)  Regarding the latter,  Kyle Butt states, "No scholar would remotely contend that “unloving,” “unforgiving,” and “unmerciful” were cultural traits that do not transcend the passage of earthly time and culture.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2291 Apologetics Press, Scripturally Speaking: Homosexuality—Sin, or a Cultural Bad Habit?]</ref>

*7. In no place does the New Testament deal with laws regarding sex between illicit partners as part of the ceremonial law, and as Paul does in other places, he would be affirming such laws in condemning homosexual relations.  All forms of homosexual activity were considered sin by Jewish writers in Paul’s day. Josephus wrote to his Roman readers, “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).   

*7. In no place does the New Testament deal with laws regarding sex between illicit partners as part of the ceremonial law, and as Paul does in other places, he would be affirming such laws in condemning homosexual relations.  All forms of homosexual activity were considered sin by Jewish writers in Paul’s day. Josephus wrote to his Roman readers, “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).   

*8. As Gagnon reveals,<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus]</ref>  even Louis Crompton, a modern homosexual scholar, acknowledges that “However well-intentioned", the interpretation that "Paul’s words were not directed at 'bona fide'homosexuals in committed relationships…. seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian."<ref>Crompton, ''Homosexuality and Civilization''</ref>  

*8. Further refuting the idea that Paul was condemning only one kind of homosexual relationship,even Louis Crompton, a modern homosexual scholar, acknowledges that “However well-intentioned", the interpretation that "Paul’s words were not directed at 'bona fide'homosexuals in committed relationships…. seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian."<ref>Crompton, ''Homosexuality and Civilization''</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus]</ref>  Gagnon adds, "Committed homoerotic relationships lay within the conceptual field of the ancient world (even Via concedes this), as did the idea of some congenitally connected and relatively exclusive homoerotic desire. These contextual factors did not make any difference to some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians. Why, then, should they have made any difference to Paul, who incidentally was aware of the malakoi (often lifelong participants in homoerotic practice), rejected same-sex intercourse on the basis of the structural incongruity of homoerotic unions, and viewed sin generally as a powerful, innate impulse?"<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/2VRejoinder.htm</ref>

*9. As we are all born with sinful nature and its affections, but are called to resist sin, (Gn. 4:7; Col. 3:15) we cannot justify actions that are contrary to the Bible based upon our desires. As Schmidt  notes, Boswell's solution “shifts the meaning of 'natural' from Paul's notion of 'that which is in accord with creation' to the popular notion of 'that which one has a desire to do.' But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity.”<ref>http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?number=T348 Thomas E. Schmidt,  Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Homosexuality, Romans 1:26-27]</ref> This recourse in pro-homosexual polemics to making one's own inclinations the basis for morality, is seen as being exactly contrary to the commands of God, and to actually be a form of idolatry, making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right rather than the almighty who commands, "that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring" (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9)

*9. As we are all born with sinful nature and its affections, but are called to resist sin, (Gn. 4:7; Col. 3:15) we cannot justify actions that are contrary to the Bible based upon our desires. As Schmidt  notes, Boswell's solution “shifts the meaning of 'natural' from Paul's notion of 'that which is in accord with creation' to the popular notion of 'that which one has a desire to do.' But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity.”<ref>http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?number=T348 Thomas E. Schmidt,  Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Homosexuality, Romans 1:26-27]</ref> This recourse in pro-homosexual polemics to making one's own inclinations the basis for morality, is seen as being exactly contrary to the commands of God, and to actually be a form of idolatry, making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right rather than the almighty who commands, "that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring" (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9)