Changes

=== Overview===

=== Overview===

As with the Levitical texts, proponents of pro-homosexual revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homoeroticism. 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 homoeroticism of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, other pro-homosexual revisionistsgo further in attempting to change the condemnation of homoeroticism to allowance.  Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homoeroticism, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and like Heliminiak<ref>Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay),  p. 76</ref> render it to being a polemic in which Paul quotes Jewish prejudice against homoeroticism in order to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, and have Paul liberating homosexuals from such oppression, by making it part of the abrogated ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon).<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  sees Paul condemning homoeroticism, but supposes that Paul's condemnation of same gender relations 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 any form of it.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> Boswell and many others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned homosexual acts as being “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) but was referring to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” being  choosing one's orientation, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>). Boswell (a Catholic) also argued that the Catholic church did not condemn homoeroticism, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp.  108-113</ref>) Comstock holds that there is insufficient evidence for Scrogg's pederasty conclusion as well as the contrary to nature argument of Boswell, and recognizes Paul as condemning homosexuality, equating it to Godlessness. But which condemnation he rejects, and akin to Walter Wink,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html  HOMOSEXUALITY and the BIBLE (Walter Wink refuted)</ref> seeks to use the Song of Songs as a basis for sexual ethics.<ref>Gary David Comstock, "Gay theology without apology." (1993) pp. 27-48</ref> New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early Catholic censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such). She also sees female homoeroticism as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, while allowing that Paul was universally condemning female and male homoeroticism as a violation of the social order created by God. However, she rejects the prohibition of female homoeroticism 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 pro-homosexual revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homoeroticism. 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 homoeroticism of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, other pro-homosexual revisionists go further in attempting to change the condemnation of homoeroticism to allowance.  Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homoeroticism, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and like Heliminiak<ref>Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay),  p. 76</ref> render it to being a polemic in which Paul quotes Jewish prejudice against homoeroticism in order to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, or to prohibit judging at all, and instead render Paul's words as actually liberating homosexuals from such oppression, by making it part of the abrogated ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon).<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  sees Paul condemning homoeroticism, but supposes that Paul's condemnation of same gender relations 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 any form of it.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> Boswell and many others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned homosexual acts as being “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) but was referring to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” being  choosing one's orientation, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>). Boswell (a Catholic) also argued that the Catholic church did not condemn homoeroticism, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp.  108-113</ref>) Comstock holds that there is insufficient evidence for Scrogg's pederasty conclusion as well as the contrary to nature argument of Boswell, and recognizes Paul as condemning homosexuality, equating it to Godlessness. But which condemnation he rejects, and akin to Walter Wink,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html  HOMOSEXUALITY and the BIBLE (Walter Wink refuted)</ref> seeks to use the Song of Songs as a basis for sexual ethics.<ref>Gary David Comstock, "Gay theology without apology." (1993) pp. 27-48</ref> New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early Catholic censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such). She also sees female homoeroticism as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, while allowing that Paul was universally condemning female and male homoeroticism as a violation of the social order created by God. However, she rejects the prohibition of female homoeroticism 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 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 homoeroticism. 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.<ref>Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21</ref><ref>Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215</ref> While idolatry corrupts this, homoeroticism 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.  

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 homoeroticism. 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.<ref>Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21</ref><ref>Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215</ref> While idolatry corrupts this, homoeroticism 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.