Fourth, I have concerns about the exhortation that Christians "affirm the biblical mandate that all persons, including LGBT persons, are created in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect." A first problem is adopting the "LGBT" nomenclature, as though doing so were part of this deserving "dignity and respect." Another is the failure to add that homosexual practice itself dishonors the dignity of the person engaging in it and threatens to mar the image of God stamped on the person (hence the close proximity of being made "in God's image" and being made "male and female" in Gen 1:27).
Click Here to Read Gagnon's blog post
Showing posts with label Gay Christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Christians. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Putting The Gay Argument In Its Place
18. For
|
|
19. Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
|
|
20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
|
|
21. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
|
|
Participial clause, modifying those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Professing is actually strong asserting, or affirming themselves to be wise.
|
22. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
|
kai is a conjunction joining "the previous sentence with this one." Fallen humanity exchanged the glory of God for an image, singular. This has nothing to do with the Greek pantheon. It has to do with the fact that if the true God is not worshipped, then a created god will take his place in the mind of man. Man worships and image of his own making. Man has not created gods that are all derived from an image of man's own making. This image may take the form of man, birds, animals and crawling creatures. But it is one image; a created image.
|
23. And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
|
dio, therefore. The principle here is that this sentence relates an inference drawn from the previous section. dio is an inferential conjunction and it is giving a deduction, conclusion, or summary to the preceding discussion. It was not because men were engaging in same sex relations while worshipping false gods that God gave them over to impurity. It was because they 1) suppressed the truth in unrighteousness by refusing to acknowledge God and 2) because they worshipped their own created image of God. For this reason, God poured out His wrath on them so that they were given to impurity. The idea of this impurity is sexual in nature. It is recognized as filthy behavior. God turned them over to this state.
|
24. THEREFORE God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them
|
Actually, "who": this is a relative clause. The relative clause refers back to v. 22, the ones that had become fools.
|
25. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
|
Dio touto. The clause introduced by dio touto is constrained to have a causal relation with the preceding discourse. In other words, God gave them over to degrading passions not because they were engaging in degrading passions during idolatry, but rather, because they were idolaters. It was their idolatry that provoked God to give them over to these degrading passions.
Note the epexegetical gar in the next sentence, expounding on the specifics of these degrading passions. In addition, we have elaboration of the point "men with men." The cause of this state was produced by humanity's suppression of the truth and its consequent idolatry. Confusion in worship produces confusion even in the most basic of natural behavior such as human sexuality. |
FOR THIS REASON God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
|
Kai conjunction now connecting the results of God's wrath with the sinful behavior of human autonomy. Because they did not acknowledge the truth of God and because they refused to worship the uncreated God, God gave them over to a depraved mind.
|
28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
|
Participial clause expounding on "those things which are not proper."
|
29. being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
|
continued exposition of "those things which are not proper." This is a bleak description of the human condition.
|
30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
|
Two groups are condemned: those who practice these things stand condemned along with those who approve of such things. This is a sobering rebuke that every interpreter should heed. Cranfield notes, "and a good many others have seen, that the man who applauds and encourages others in doing what is wicked is, even if he never actually commits the same wicked deed himself, not only as guilty as those who do commit it, but very often more guilty than they."
|
32. And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
|
The "gay Christian" debate is so lacking in credibility that it hardly merits much more than an answer and a sharp rebuke. We would not debate with a prostitute or a whore or a murderer or a pedophile would we? I suggest we answer these cavils with the kind of sharp and stinging rebuke their vile teachings deserve and excommunicate them and their supporters from the Church. This debate is a debate about men wanting to have sex with men and still be in the Church. It is a debate about women wanting to have sex with women and still wanting to be in the Church. It is about a group of perverse humans engaging in unnatural acts and demanding to be treated as if their behavior is perfectly natural. We must answer their challenge. That is a given. But we must do so in a way that makes it clear that we do not give any consideration to their claims for even a second. Their arguments are baseless, without exegetical support, and deserve ridicule and rejection. We cannot afford to inadvertently communicate even an ounce of respect for their claims.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Ben Corey, John MacArthur, and A Gay Thing
In my last post I
wrote about Ben Corey’s issue with John MacArthur’s perspective on how
Christians should deal with the professing Christians that also claim to be
gay. I wanted to return to this issue briefly to point out a couple of things
that I did not mention in my most recent post.
Returning to 1
Corinthians 5 where we have the case of what I think is a man that has married
his former stepmother. The Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures prohibit such an act
in the strongest of language. Paul uses a word that I think is vital to this
discussion. It is translated immoral in the English translations of our Bible
but in the Greek the word is pronounced PORNEIA. This is very broad Greek word
that means any kind of illicit sex whatsoever. In other words, in sex outside
of the context of marriage as defined by God would be classified as PORNEIA.
Adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and so forth
would all be included in this definition.
Now, the interesting
thing is that this word is used to describe an illegitimate marriage. It was
immoral in Jewish culture as well as Greco-Roman culture for this sort of
arrangement to occur. The sin was no less serious than if the two were carrying
on an affair. However, an affair is highly unlikely because of the public
nature of this incident. What man would allow his son to humiliate him by
having sexual relations with his wife? It is much more plausible to think that
these two were in a relationship and that the father had either died or was no
longer in the picture. Paul called the arrangement immoral and ordered that the
man be removed from the community immediately and without hesitation.
Now, I want to draw
your attention to this word PORNEIA as another biblical author uses it. Jude 7
uses a form of PORNEIA, specifically, EKPORNEUW, which means debauchery. THE
NAS translates it “gross immorality.” What does Jude mean by gross immorality?
How can we get a glimpse into some of the behavior that is classed as gross
immorality? It is really quite simple; Jude references Sodom and Gomorrah as
his example. Our next step then is to understand the sin of these two cities so
that we can understand Jude’s characterization of this behavior he is
referencing.
We get a glimpse of
God’s attitude toward Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 18:20, And the Lord said, “The
outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly
grave.” For those who wish to take a casual approach to this issue, I suggest
you read the story in Genesis 18-19 very carefully. So far we have recognized
that Jude was inspired by God to classify the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah as
immoral. Second, God has said to Abraham that their sin is exceedingly grave.
As the messengers of
the Lord arrive in the city, Lot recognizes their uniqueness and compels them
to spend the night in his home with his family. The men of Sodom, all of them,
surround Lot’s home and demand that Lot send the men out to them so that they
may have sexual intercourse with them. Now, some modern scholars have attempted
to recast this story in an attempt to defend homosexual behavior. Perhaps the
most developed is Morschauser’s contention that when the men say they want to
“know” the visitors, they are expressing distrust in Lot’s ability to protect
the city from spies and they want to “interrogate” the men.[1]
The problem with this view is that the Hebrew word “to know” always connotes
sexual relations when used with a personal direct object. In fact, when Lot
offers his daughters, Morchauser argues that he offered them as hostages just
in case the men were spying out the city. The problem again is that Lot uses
the same word “to know” in the context of his virgin daughters. They have never
known a man! Hence, such an interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, while
creative, has nothing to commend it and should be dismissed as modern liberal
bias.
Lot referred to the
act of homosexual sex as he pleaded with the men of Sodom not to do this
“wicked thing.” But the men would have none of Lot’s pleading and began to
force their way into his house. It was at this time that the angels smote these
men with blindness and rescued Lot and his family from the wrath of God that
was to be poured out on those cities.
Jude refers to the
men of Sodom and Gomorrah as behaving immorally when they went after strange
flesh. This is a reference to homosexual behavior. Jude actually uses the idiom
ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, which means to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse
(BDAG). There can be little doubt about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when it
is read without bias in its historical context and allowed to stand on its own
two feet. Paul spoke about homosexual sex and stated plained that it was
unnatural. In Rom. 1:27 Paul refers to same sex relations as indecent and
shameful acts that are disgraceful and a violation of the natural function of
the human body.
Wolves have existed from the very inception of the Church. In fact, wolves
were here long before the Church was born. We have always had to contend with
them. They have had a history of being more sneaky, more stealthy than what we
are witnessing today. Today, they show up with their new ideas of what
Christianity is supposed to be about, plant seeds of doubt about established
doctrine, play on the dissapointments of thousands, and use their
counter-Christian thinking to gain acceptance. They begin with the end in mind.
Ben Corey, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and several others have twisted, bent,
rehaped, and contorted nearly every ounce of histroric Christian orthodoxy in
an attempt to hi-jack Jesus and His gospel. They are not the only problem in my
opinion. What is just as much a problem are the silent pastors, teachers,
professors, and Christians who refuse, for whatever reason, to call these false
teachers and heretics out publicly. We have a duty to honor God by standing for
truth, defending the truth, proclaiming the truth living the truth, and
teachers others the truth. Its about time we got on with it and stop worrying
so much about how unpopular and marginalized we will become. Persecution is a
way of Christian life. We need to let that settle in and get used to it.
[1] John
H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 93.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)