Changes

   

   

The prohomosexual polemic at issue also attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and Rm. 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there by physically circumcising the Jews (as uncircumcision is by nature),

The prohomosexual polemic at issue also attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and Rm. 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there by physically circumcising the Jews (as uncircumcision is by nature),

and then by grating Gentiles into the true vine of Israel, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homoeroticism (thereby shocking the Jews). Countering this is the traditionalist response which sees these attempts as misappropriations due to a misunderstanding of the text. The prohomsoex polemic first has “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 referring to the act as unnatural, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Jews by birth, just as they are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15, versus being  Gentiles by birth, or by nature. The second text does refer to God acting contrary to nature, that of grafting the “branch” of Gentles into the “vine” of Israel.  However, this analogous argued to be specious in multiple ways.

and then by grating Gentiles into the true vine of Israel, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homoeroticism (thereby shocking the Jews). Countering this is the traditionalist response which sees these attempts as misappropriations due to a misunderstanding of the text. The prohomsoex polemic first has “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 referring to the act as unnatural, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Jews by birth, just as they are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15, versus being  Gentiles by birth, or by nature. The second text does refer to God acting contrary to nature, that of grafting the “branch” of Gentles into the “vine” of Israel.  However, this analogous argued to be specious in multiple aspects.

*1. Analogies can work both ways. God violates normal rules of nature every time He works a miracle, but such does not sanctify demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)

*1. Analogies can work both ways. God violates normal rules of nature every time He works a miracle, but such does not sanctify demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)

*2. Rm. 11:24 is not a negative “delivering up” to iniquity, but a grafting in of believing Gentiles into Israel, and requires repentance from such “Gentile” practices as fornication. (1Cor. 6:9-20)

*2. Rm. 11:24 is not a negative “delivering up” to iniquity, but a grafting in of believing Gentiles into Israel, and requires repentance from such “Gentile” practices as fornication. (1Cor. 6:9-20)

*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. The 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)   

An attempt to use atimazō (dishonour) in Rm. 1:24 to liken homosexuality to something that is socially disapproved but not sin, and therefore may be sanctioned by God, is countered by the argument that, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour,  shame, blush, etc., describe a consequence of something, and depend upon context to define a moral connection, with the word ''atimazō'' being contextually used to denote morality. Its next use is in Rm. 2:23, in which one dishonors God by breaking His moral laws, including those against sexual sins. Likewise the word ''atimia'' (dishonors) in 1Cor. 11:14. Its next use is in 1Cor. 11:22, to denote evil treatment being done to people  by not sharing food with poor and hungry fellow members of the body of Christ, while the accused feasted. As used in Rm. 1:24 the dishonoring is done toward each other by perverse sexual (implied) practices, while vs, 26,27 are specifically sexual and perverse.   

An attempt to use atimazō (dishonour) in Rm. 1:24 to liken homosexuality to something that is socially disapproved but not sin, and therefore may be sanctioned by God, is countered by the argument that, like judicial penalties, terms such as dishonour,  shame, blush, etc., describe a consequence of something, and depend upon context to define a moral connection, with the word ''atimazō'' being contextually used to denote morality. Its next use is in Rm. 2:23, in which one dishonors God by breaking His moral laws, including those against sexual sins. Likewise the word ''atimia'' (dishonors) in 1Cor. 11:14. Its next use is in 1Cor. 11:22, to denote evil treatment being done to people  by not sharing food with poor and hungry fellow members of the body of Christ, while the accused feasted. As used in Rm. 1:24 the dishonoring is done toward each other by perverse sexual (implied) practices, while vs, 26,27 are specifically sexual and perverse.   

   

   

Boswell also uses the analogy of the grafting in of the Gentiles to sanction homoeroticism, though he sees Romans 1:26,27 as condemnation. But he convolutes “nature” as to mean heterosexuals acting as homosexuals; inferring  an ignorant Paul would not have understood homosexual desire as normal, and could not have operated out the concept of “natural law,” but only condemned heterosexuals going against their normal desire. Countering such is a traditional response, which contends that the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals that,  

Boswell also uses the analogy of the grafting in of the Gentiles to sanction homoeroticism, though he sees Romans 1:26,27 as condemnation. But he convolutes “nature” as to mean heterosexuals acting as homosexuals; inferring  an ignorant Paul would not have understood homosexual desire as normal, and could not have operated out the concept of “natural law,” but only condemned heterosexuals going against their normal desire. Countering such are traditional responses, which contend that the immediate and larger context of the Bible reveals that,  

*1. The theme leading up to the two verses at issue is not that of acting in an allowed preferential matter, though contrary to someone else, but that of being contrary to what is ordained of God. The Gentile idolaters are not condemned because they were monotheists/Jews/Christians worshiping idols, but because idolatry itself is wrong, and is unconditionally forbidden as is homoeroticism. Some false gods themselves were portrayed as being homosexual. Verses 1:26,27 are a progression of acting contrary to nature as originally revealed and immutably upheld, and which declension includes other iniquities. (Rm. 1:28-32)

*1. The theme leading up to the two verses at issue is not that of acting in an allowed preferential matter, though contrary to someone else, but that of acting contrary to what is ordained of God. The Gentile idolaters were not condemned because they were monotheists/Jews/Christians who were acting contrary to their "orientation" by worshiping idols, but because idolatry itself is inherently wrong by anyone, and is unconditionally forbidden, as is homoeroticism. Some false gods themselves were portrayed as being homosexual.<ref>Mythology of same-sex love, http://dic.academic.ru</ref>

*2. Paul was indeed using a form of “natural law,” that of what God has revealed by design and originally by innate knowledge. The invisible God was manifest by His visible creation (Rm. 1:20) and it was obvious by such that mere corruptible men (by nature, as opposed to the incarnated Christ) or animals did not create the cosmos, and that such were worthy to be worshiped. But what Paul further describes is not simply worship as a product of ignorance, but of changing what they did know, referring to an original monotheism (for which there is even more evidence of late), to idolatry. As creation does not represent the moral authority the Creator is, it is seen today that such an exchange of worship of God for worship of nature is taking place, in order to escape moral conviction of personal sin, which is also manifest in making God into an image more in conformity to contemporary immorality in order to justify it. Write comments, "while Paul may be describing something in the remote past in presenting a Decline of Civilization narrative, the pattern may be repeated: whenever humans opt for idolatry they are abandoned to their lusts."<ref>Wright, N.T. “The Letter to the Romans,” The New Interpreter’s Bible.  Leander E. Keck, ed.  Vol X.  Nashville: Abingdon, 393-770.</ref> 

*2. Paul was indeed using a form of “natural law,” that of what God has revealed by design and by uncorrupted innate knowledge. The invisible God was manifest by His visible creation (Rm. 1:20) and it was obvious by such that mere corruptible men (by nature, as opposed to the incarnated Christ) or animals did not create the cosmos, and that such were worthy to be worshiped.  

*In addition, evidence indicates that the concept of "natural law" existed among the Greeks in Paul's time. Stoic-Cynic philosopher Dio Chrysotom referred to Aphrodite as one "whose name stands for the natural intercourse and union of the male and female."<ref>Discourse 7:135</ref> Also in Plutarch, Daphnaues contrasts a "union contrary to nature with males" with the natural love between a man and a women," and goes on to disparage homosexuals as "acting contrary to nature" when they "allow themselves to be covered and mounted like cattle."<ref>Dialogue on Love, 751C, E</ref> furthermore, Plato is seen using "according to" and "contrary to" nature argumentation, and describes sexual aberrations as the latter.<ref>Plato, On Abraham, 135-36</ref>

Evidence indicates that the concept of "natural law" existed among the Greeks in Paul's time. Stoic-Cynic philosopher Dio Chrysotom referred to Aphrodite as one "whose name stands for the natural intercourse and union of the male and female."<ref>Discourse 7:135</ref> Also in Plutarch, Daphnaues contrasts a "union contrary to nature with males" with the natural love between a man and a women," and goes on to disparage homosexuals as "acting contrary to nature" when they "allow themselves to be covered and mounted like cattle."<ref>Dialogue on Love, 751C, E</ref> furthermore, Plato is seen using "according to" and "contrary to" nature argumentation, and describes sexual aberrations as the latter.<ref>Plato, On Abraham, 135-36</ref>  

*3. Evidence indicate Paul would have indeed been culturally enlightened, having been born and educated in Tarsus in the region of Cilicia, one of the three centers of Greek culture in his day (Acts 21:39).  E. M. Blaiklock states that Tarsus "became the Athens of the eastern Mediterranean, the ancient equivalent of a university city, the resort of men of learning, the home town of Athenodorus (74 B.C.-A.D. 7), the respected teacher of Augustus himself, the seat of a school of Stoic philosophers, a place of learning and disputation, and the very climate in which a brilliant mind might grow up in the midst of stimulus and challenge and learn to think and to contend."<ref>Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. Tarsus, by E. M. Blaiklock, 5:602). Also see P. Michael Ukleja, "The Bible and Homosexuality; Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October-December 1983): 354.</ref> And that Paul manifested extensive awareness of Greek culture, as "He could talk and think like a Gr. and quote his native Cilician poets to the intellectuals of Athens. He could write strong Gr. in closely argued documents."<ref>Blaiklock ibid.</ref>  Malick notes that Paul was hardly an isolated Jew in a Greek world, and would thus be well aware of the homosexual activities of his time without depending on "Jewish rumor mills."<ref>David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:  599 (1993): 327-340.</ref>

*3. Evidence indicate Paul would have indeed been culturally enlightened, having been born and educated in Tarsus in the region of Cilicia, one of the three centers of Greek culture in his day (Acts 21:39).  E. M. Blaiklock states that Tarsus "became the Athens of the eastern Mediterranean, the ancient equivalent of a university city, the resort of men of learning, the home town of Athenodorus (74 B.C.-A.D. 7), the respected teacher of Augustus himself, the seat of a school of Stoic philosophers, a place of learning and disputation, and the very climate in which a brilliant mind might grow up in the midst of stimulus and challenge and learn to think and to contend."<ref>Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. Tarsus, by E. M. Blaiklock, 5:602). Also see P. Michael Ukleja, "The Bible and Homosexuality; Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October-December 1983): 354.</ref> And that Paul manifested extensive awareness of Greek culture, as "He could talk and think like a Gr. and quote his native Cilician poets to the intellectuals of Athens. He could write strong Gr. in closely argued documents."<ref>Blaiklock ibid.</ref>  Malick notes that Paul was hardly an isolated Jew in a Greek world, and would thus be well aware of the homosexual activities of his time without depending on "Jewish rumor mills."<ref>David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:  599 (1993): 327-340.</ref>

*4. The  word “likewise” in the beginning of v. 27 denotes a like contravention of the natural order by men as with women. Whether contrary to nature in v. 26 refers to women using devices, as some suppose, or sex with other women, is not a relevant distinction, as both were unnatural. There is however, evidence that what is referred to as homosexuality existed among women,<ref>Seneca the Elder [55 BC - 40 AD]; Martial, [40-103/4 AD]; Dorotheos of Sidon (25-75 CE) (implied); Pseudo-Phoc/kylides, 30 BC-40 AD;  Brooten, pp. 43-47, 19-123, 63-64, 248, note 99</ref> such as expressed in such works as  Amores of Lucian, in which Charicles argue in support of heterosexism, “you will have to sanction carnal intercourse between them; monstrous instruments of lust will have to be permitted, in order that their sexual congress may be carried out; that obscene vocable, tribad [lesbianism], which so rarely offends our ears--I blush to utter it--will become rampant, and Philænis will spread androgynous orgies throughout our harems."

*4. What Paul further describes is not simply worship as a product of ignorance, but of changing what they did know, referring to an original monotheism (for which there is even more evidence of late), to idolatry. Verses 1:26,27 are seen as a progression of acting contrary to nature as originally revealed and immutably upheld, and which declension includes other iniquities. (Rm. 1:28-32) Responding to pro-homosexual Anglican Primate Alan Harper of Ireland, Gagnon states,

*5. Martti Nissinen, who is moderately prohomosexual, and to whom many of that school selectively reference,  acknowledges that, “Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would '''not''' have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior”<ref>Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Fortress, 1998)</ref>

Nothing in the language of Rom 1:24-27 suggests "homosexuality" is a chosen condition of  

constitutional heterosexuals. The "exchange" that Paul portrays is not the "willful" exchange

of felt heterosexual desires for manufactured homosexual feelings, as Harper contends.

Rather, the exchange is that of (1) the truth which God has revealed in creation concerning

what is natural intercourse for (2) the gratification of preexisting desires for unnatural

intercourse between members of the same sex.<ref>[http://www.holytrinitycarrick.org.uk/gagnon.pdf  Response by Robert A J Gagnon to Archbishop Harper’s USPG Conference Address – July 2008]</ref>  

*6. 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 homosex.  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).

It is seen today that such an exchange of worship of God for worship of nature is taking place, in order to escape moral conviction of personal sin, which is also manifest in making God into an image more in conformity to contemporary immorality in order to justify it. Write comments, "while Paul may be describing something in the remote past in presenting a Decline of Civilization narrative, the pattern may be repeated: whenever humans opt for idolatry they are abandoned to their lusts."<ref>Wright, N.T. “The Letter to the Romans,” The New Interpreter’s Bible.  Leander E. Keck, ed. Vol X. Nashville: Abingdon, 393-770.</ref> 

*7. 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.

*5. The  word “likewise” in the beginning of v. 27 denotes a like contravention of the natural order by men as with women. Whether contrary to nature in v. 26 refers to women using devices, as some suppose, or sex with other women, is not a relevant distinction, as both were unnatural. There is however, evidence that what is referred to as homosexuality existed among women,<ref>Seneca the Elder [55 BC - 40 AD]; Martial, [40-103/4 AD]; Dorotheos of Sidon (25-75 CE) (implied); Pseudo-Phoc/kylides, 30 BC-40 AD;  Brooten, pp. 43-47, 19-123, 63-64, 248, note 99</ref> such as expressed in such works as Amores of Lucian, in which Charicles argue in support of heterosexism, “you will have to sanction carnal intercourse between them; monstrous instruments of lust will have to be permitted, in order that their sexual congress may be carried out; that obscene vocable, tribad [lesbianism], which so rarely offends our ears--I blush to utter it--will become rampant, and Philænis will spread androgynous orgies throughout our harems."

*8. 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)

 

 

*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.

 

*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)

===Pederasty===

===Pederasty===