Changes

m
Line 31: Line 31:     
*(Rom 1:26-27)  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
 
*(Rom 1:26-27)  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
−
{See also|Leviticus 18}}
+
(See also[[Leviticus 18]])
    
[[Romans 1]] was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and as such that is what would  hold to. The apostle Paul here is seen appealing to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged that natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature,  and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with their bodies.  The various theories pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation);  Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>  However, traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best refers to as pertaining to creation , not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations, while  in any case Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, while [[Greek homosexuality]] evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation." And that the [[history of homosexuality]] manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67;  Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215);  Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref><ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh
 
[[Romans 1]] was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and as such that is what would  hold to. The apostle Paul here is seen appealing to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged that natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature,  and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with their bodies.  The various theories pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation);  Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>  However, traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best refers to as pertaining to creation , not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations, while  in any case Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, while [[Greek homosexuality]] evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation." And that the [[history of homosexuality]] manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67;  Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215);  Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref><ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414

edits