Review of Matthew Vines, God & the Gay Christian, Part 3: Gay Sex & Leviticus

I like your use of forward-slashes to identify emphasis as well as my quotes; I’m gonna use that in this comment. 🙂

There really is much more I would like to respond to, but this post is already long as it is, so I’ve refrained from commenting on other things that I really would like to comment on. I’m just enjoying this discussion very much that I want to continue it. I believe it’s been edifying. As always, I appreciate your thoughts. They cause me to think more.

// Your “answer” that you’ve given is about unbelievers who’ve rejected God and you’re applying it to blood bought, born again, spirit-filled Christians …. Sigh…anyway, I prefer allowing God to make those kinds of calls. //

I recognize that my answer is offensive. That wasn’t my /intent/. It’s so easy to become detached from the emotions of /real people/ when communicating online, which makes it easy to say insensitive things (plus, I can be more of a Spock than a McCoy). I hope anyone offended would accept my sincere request for forgiveness. I recant my answer as I consider the question more (although I do still believe that homosexual desires always stem from excess lust, even if not consciously “intended”).

The answer I provided stems from a much deeper question that I’ve wrestled with. The thing is, I have a hard time understanding how the /Holy/ Spirit—who is grieved by our sin—could reside within one who
unrepentantly practices and approves of sin (cf. Rom. 1:32). So when one practices homosexuality, which I obviously believe is a sin, then I /question/ that one’s salvation. I definitely would never claim with certainty that such a one is /not/ saved! I only /question/ it.

Similarly, How do we know who are blood-bought, born-again, spirit-filled Christians? Good fruit? A profession of faith? Good deeds? Sheep’s clothing? Crying out “Lord, Lord!”? What about fruit worthy of repentance? I get that we’re all sinners. There’s no doubt in my mind that I sin everyday. But I grieve over my sin and seek to mortify the deeds of the flesh by the power of the Spirit. So when someone claims to be a spirit-filled Christian yet lives in and approves of unrepentant sin, then I /question/ the validity of their salvation, just as I would expect one to question my own if I were living in unrepentant sin.

// Gay marriage isn’t okay /because/ Paul doesn’t say anything about it, but it seems relevant to note that Paul doesn’t say anything about gay marriage. //

Thank you for that clarification. That is definitely a relevant note. I agree.

But if I may use your own terminology, I would say that—imo—it seems more relevant to note that whenever Paul /does/ speak about marriage, it is always between a wife and a husband. He does not use the gender-neutral term
ανθρωπος (anthropos) when speaking of marriage. Actually, in Romans 7:1 Paul /does/ use the gender-neutral ανθρωπος when speaking of a /person/ (whether male or female) who is bound to the law in life only. Having begun with this gender-neutral noun, it seems
relevant to note that in the very next verse Paul uses gender-/specific/ terms in his example of marriage. If Paul—a chosen instrument of Jesus (Acts 9:15)—had permitted gay marriage or if he had considered it a valid “alternative” to heterosexual marriage, I imagine that he would have used gender-neutral
terminology when speaking of marriage, especially after using gender-neutral terminology verse 1.

I think the same is true for 1 Corinthians 7: he uses gender-/specific/ terminology. But there’s something more significant in this passage. Paul’s counsel—as a
chosen instrument of Jesus—regarding sexual immorality (πορνεία/porneia) is /very specific/. In
fact, it seems relevant to note that Paul offers two—/not just one/—options regarding sexual immorality: 1) Each man must have his own wife, and 2) each woman
must have her own husband. In my finite mind, I think either option 1 or option 2 would have been sufficient. Paul, however, as led by the Spirit, included /both/ options. Why? I can’t say for sure, but it seems that Paul wanted his counsel to be clear and complete (I think there’s a hermeneutical term for this). I imagine that he could have included the following two additional options: 3) If you’re so inclined, a man may have his own husband, and 4) a woman may have her own wife, because, after all, not everyone has the gift of
celibacy. Instead, however, he offers only two options. It seems to me, then, that Paul regarded marriage to be between a man and a woman. There are no alternatives.

//…so I’ve refrained from commenting on other things that I
really would like to comment on.//

I’m open to hearing more of your comments. 🙂

//I’m just enjoying this discussion very much that I want to
continue it. I believe it’s been edifying. //

Well, that’s refreshing to know. I’m delighted it’s been a fruitful
conversation for you. It has been for me as well.

//I hope anyone offended would accept my sincere request for
forgiveness.//

You are readily forgiven by me. (hug!)

//The thing is, I have a hard time understanding how the /Holy/ Spirit—who is grieved by our sin—could reside within one who unrepentantly practices and approves of sin (cf. Rom. 1:32).//

Even if your interpretation is right and theirs is wrong, do you honestly think that Ford1968 or Matthew Vines (well, he’s not married yet), who are both Christians and there is no reason to believe otherwise, are “consciously” unrepentantly practicing and “consciously” approving of sin? Do you honestly believe their hearts have malicious intent to do harm? These are guys who have painstakingly worked through Scripture, among other things, to come to their current conclusions. They didn’t flippantly come to their conclusions and they know what’s at stake, so I feel the least one should do is respect that, step back, and trust that the Spirit who brought life to their souls is capable of taking them through the journey He has them on. That doesn’t mean disengage from fruitful conversation but simply take a breath and find freedom in knowing that Life doesn’t depend on you, your arguments, and your discernment.

//So when one practices homosexuality, which I obviously
believe is a sin, then I /question/ that one’s salvation. I definitely would never claim with certainty that such a one is /not/ saved! I only /question/ it.
Similarly, How do we know who are blood-bought, born-again,
spirit-filled Christians?//

Why is that your concern? Maybe you should work toward liberating yourself from the bondage of discerning others’ salvation and simply demonstrate Christ through words and
deed and trust Him alone with their souls.

//whenever Paul /does/ speak about marriage, it is always between a wife and a husband.//

Well, sure. Why wouldn’t he? That was the norm.

//I think the same is true for 1 Corinthians 7: he uses gender-/specific/ terminology…//

Paul writes that it is /because/ of immoralities that each
must have his own “such and such.” This is in line with his comment that if one lacks [sexual] self-control, let them
marry (1 Cor. 7:9). Just how does this apply to you (considering that you are attracted exclusively to men)? Paul is telling YOU to marry so that you don’t “burn with passion.” Just how are you to do that? Marry a woman for whom you have no sexual desire? And, yet, it may be you have not been given the gift of celibacy either. Then what?

As always, I appreciate very much your insight Julie. They’re helping me to refine my own understanding of this topic. For this I am grateful.

Might I briefly say that as a man who has SSA, I would be pleased to be convinced that gay marriage is approved by God. My /desires/ would love that very much. Yet when confronted with Scripture, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that gay marriage is absolutely prohibited.

//Even if your interpretation is right and theirs is wrong, do you honestly think that Ford1968 or Matthew Vines (well, he’s not married yet), who are both Christians and there is no reason to believe otherwise, are “consciously” unrepentantly practicing and “consciously” approving of sin? Do you honestly believe their hearts have malicious intent to do harm?//

They may in fact /not/ be consciously unrepentant. They may in fact be sincerely believing that they’re living obediently to God. I in fact do not believe their hearts have malicious intent to do harm. It does not follow from these facts, however, that they’re /not/ sinning against God. It is possible to sin unintentionally. The Law speaks of /unintentional/ sins that render the ignorant offender guilty, requiring atoning sacrifice (cf. Lev. 4; Num. 15:22). The fact that these unintentional sins required /atoning sacrifice/ shows just has serious it is to sin unintentionally. True, such sins are not “as bad” as defiant rebellion; they nevertheless render one guilty and in need of atonement. I believe it is equally true at the present hour for people to sin unintentionally.

//…take a breath and find freedom in knowing that Life doesn’t depend on you, your arguments, and your discernment…. Maybe you should work toward liberating yourself from the bondage of discerning others’ salvation and simply demonstrate Christ through words and deed and trust Him alone with their souls.//

Oh I am definitely free from the mistaken notion that Life depends on me, my arguments, and my discernment. The Holy Spirit gives life; He calls me (and others) to simply proclaim and live the Word of Life.

Hebrews 13:7 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

I do trust Christ alone with the souls of His people. This does not negate the fact that as a leader within my local church—as Hebrews 13:7 indicates—Christ has given me (and Christian leaders everywhere) the responsibility to keep watch over the souls of those whom I lead. Thankfully, I /do/ get to do this with joy and not with groaning. Keeping watch over the souls of others is not a bondage from which to be liberated. It is definitely a huge responsibility, hence the clause “…as those who will have to give an account.”

Granted, I don’t lead all the Fords1968s and Vineses in this world, and so I’m sure I’m not going to be required to give an account of how I kept watch over their souls. Nevertheless, the prophets of the Old Testament called upon people to repent from their sin. John the Baptist called upon people to repent from their sin. Jesus called upon people to repent from the sin. So when I see people who claim to be Christians living in sin, my desire is to call them to repent. Consider also 1 Cor. 5; Galatians 6; et al. It is not a bondage to do so! It is a joy to call upon people to turn from that which displeases God.

//Well, sure. Why wouldn’t he [always speak of marriage as between a husband and wife]? That was the norm.//

It was indeed the norm: a norm that Paul believed—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—to be the God-intended norm. His view of marriage was /heterosexual/. He never spoke of gay marriage because in his mind such a marriage was not an option for followers of Christ.

//Paul writes that it is /because/ of immoralities that each must have his own “such and such.” This is in line with his comment that if one lacks [sexual] self-control, let them marry (1 Cor. 7:9). Just how does this apply to you (considering that you are attracted exclusively to men)? Paul is telling YOU to marry so that you don’t “burn with passion.” Just how are you to do that? Marry a woman for whom you have no sexual desire? And, yet, it may be you have not been given the gift of celibacy either. Then what?//

If I (or any other man) lack self-control and burn with passion, I (and any other man) am to marry a woman, for this is what Paul—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—commands men to do. The God who created the stars and who raises people from the dead can /easily/ empower a man with SSA to delightfully love a wife just as Christ loved/loves His Bride: the church.

Since you’re open to hearing more of my comments, the following come from a previous post of yours.

//Stealing can occur outside of greed when it’s to feed your starving child some bread, and many would not call that sinful. Murder can occur outside of hate. It’s called killing in self-defense or in protection of the innocent, and most would not call that sinful.//

The solution to hunger, though, is not “ungreedy” stealing. The solution is for godly people to feed the hungry, because even so-called “ungreedy” stealing is wrong (cf. Pr. 6:30f; Pr. 30:9).

Killing in self-defense and/or for “justice” was clearly advocated in the OT. Whether or not it is right according to the NT is still debated (cf. Preston’s book “Fight”). But it was commanded as the right thing to do in the OT. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has always been condemned in Scripture. Unlike your examples of stealing, killing, and lying, the Bible contains not one hint that homosexuality can ever be considered “acceptable” within certain contexts.

// Why qualify something inherently understood? I’m not saying it was inherently understood that homosexual marriage was permitted. I’m saying that it was inherently understood that actions are sinful based on intent of the heart.//

I’m not sure if it would have been inherently understood that actions are sinful based on intent of the heart. Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews, educated under Gamaliel with accuracy (ἀκρίβεια) in the Law (cf. Phil. 3:5; Acts 22:3). Accordingly, as I mentioned above, Paul would have known that the Law speaks of /unintentional/ sins that render the ignorant offender guilty, requiring atoning sacrifice (cf. Lev. 4; Num. 15:22). I don’t believe, then, that Paul “inherently understood that actions are sinful based on intent of the heart.” On the contrary, I believe that Paul understood that actions can be sinful whether or not one intends it to be.

Thank you for taking the time to read these thoughts of mine.

//As always, I appreciate very much your insight Julie. They’re helping me to refine my own understanding of this topic. For this I am grateful.//

My pleasure. It often helps me, too, to have discussion with others who have opposing views. I appreciate your pleasant approach with me.

//Yet when confronted with Scripture, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that gay marriage is absolutely prohibited.//

I wouldn’t dream of trying to persuade you otherwise and I hope that’s not what you perceive me to be doing. My intentions are to share where I’m currently at with this and find where my views are strong and where they’re weak. I’ve been wrong way too many times to assume I’m right about this. I understand that, considering this is very personal to you, you don’t have the same luxury of being wrong that I do. If I were in your position…I don’t know…I think I’d err on the side of caution and remain celibate. I tell you, though, knowing what I know now, it’s the relational aspect of marriage I’d miss the most rather than the sexual aspect of marriage. Of course, the sexual aspect is often the very thing that deepens the relational aspect, so…

//…I in fact do not believe their hearts have malicious intent to do harm. It does not follow from these facts, however, that they’re /not/ sinning against God….//

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

What do you make of Hebrews 9:7ff? Wouldn’t those who put their faith in Christ but unintentionally sin against God have atonement for their unintentional sins? In other words, won’t they, too, be raised along with the rest of the righteous based on Christ’s sufficient sacrifice?

//Oh I am definitely free from the mistaken notion that Life depends on me,…//

Again, thanks for the clarification. It had appeared you were, perhaps, struggling with this.

//…Keeping watch over the souls of others is not a bondage
from which to be liberated. It is definitely a huge responsibility, hence the clause “…as those who will have to give an account.”//

I understand, but with the added pressure (“must give an account”), it wouldn’t surprise me that one might feel a burden leading to the false need to discern another’s position in Christ. I don’t know how such discernment could possibly add to one’s ability to keep watch over souls by leading them through correct teaching and exhortation.

//…So when I see people who claim to be Christians living in sin, my desire is to call them to repent…//

Absolutely. I didn’t mean to suggest you should do otherwise. My suggestion was related to what appeared to be a burden on you that led you to feel obligated to question another’s salvation. We can still call others to repent while not questioning (or worry over) their position in Christ.

/It was indeed the norm: a norm that Paul believed—under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit—to be the God-intended norm….//

God-intended norm? Paul also thought short hair on men was the norm (or according to nature) and based this view on the Genesis account. Does that mean it was a God-intended norm? I don’t think so. I think it was a cultural norm.

//…He never spoke of gay marriage because in his mind such a marriage was not an option for followers of Christ.//

I don’t see it that way. It’s not that he didn’t see it as an option (that he knew about it and intentionally excluded it as an option); it’s that it simply wasn’t relevant at the time (iow, it wasn’t even on his radar at all because it wasn’t necessary to be on his radar).

//If I (or any other man) lack self-control and burn with passion, I (and any other man) am to marry a woman, for this is what Paul—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—commands men to do.//

And many Christian gay men have married women.

//The God who created the stars and who raises people from the dead can /easily/ …//

If it’s so darn “easy” then why doesn’t God simply do that for all the gays who were willing to kill themselves over this?

//…empower a man with SSA to delightfully love a wife just as Christ loved/loves His Bride: the church.//

And many Christian gay men have been able to love their wives. And many of those marriages resulted in children. And many of those marriages ended up in divorce with the gay spouse admitting they were never really changed within. Behavior changed but not the orientation. And guess what this has led to? 1) Children as the victims. 2) More judgment by the extreme right saying, “See, God can change orientation, but they just wanted self over God.” 3) More judgment by the extreme right saying, “Look at the studies that show children of gays are worse off than children of straights. Clearly, gays don’t know how to parent.” Well, sure, it looks this way because children of gays are from broken homes. Why? Because we have forced them to get married to the opposite sex when they were never meant to be married to the opposite sex. Sexual orientation doesn’t change. Those who appeared to change are bisexual and their sexuality is more flexible. We need to stop telling gay people to get married to “control their lust for the same-sex” when that just brings children into the mix who will end up in dysfunctional situations, and then when this happens, we’ll just blame it on the gays. Unbelievable.

//The solution to hunger, though, is not “ungreedy” stealing.//

Yes, clearly.

//The solution is for godly people to feed the hungry,…//

And when that doesn’t happen and someone does steal, many
would not call that “sinful.” My point was to show that things labeled “sinful” can occur outside of that which qualifies that thing as sinful.

//because even so-called “ungreedy” stealing is wrong (cf. Pr. 6:30f;…//

And exactly how is he to “repay sevenfold” and “give all the substance of his house” if he doesn’t have “pay” or any such “substance of house”? This proverb speaks of some guy who wants to “satisfy his own hunger”; it’s not a guy who seeks to feed his starving child near death. And perhaps the proverb speaks of guy not willing to work for his food.

//…Unlike your examples of stealing, killing, and lying, the Bible contains not one hint that homosexuality can ever be considered “acceptable” within certain contexts.//

That’s true. Again, my point was to simply point out that even though a prohibition may be written, it doesn’t mean that it’s absolute in that the action is a sin in any and all cases. All of the vices are prohibited because they cause harm (as far as I can tell), and most times the harm in question is caused by an action motivated out of malicious or lustful intentions.

//I don’t believe, then, that Paul “inherently understood that actions are sinful based on intent of the heart.” On the contrary, I believe that Paul understood that actions can be sinful whether or not one intends it to be.//

I don’t think Paul believed any of the vices in his lists were unintentional sins, though. He thought them quite intentionally practiced.

//Thank you for taking the time to read these thoughts of mine.//

Sure! 🙂

Peace.

//I tell you, though, knowing what I know now, it’s the relational aspect of marriage I’d miss the most rather than the sexual aspect of marriage. Of course, the sexual aspect is often the very thing that deepens the relational aspect, so…//

I have more to say on this down below. 🙂

//What do you make of Hebrews 9:7ff? Wouldn’t those who put their faith in Christ but unintentionally sin against God have atonement for their unintentional sins? In other words, won’t they, too, be raised along with the rest of the righteous based on Christ’s sufficient sacrifice?//

This has definitely made me think. Thanks! I definitely agree that Christ has atoned even for our unintentional sins. I am definitely humbled and amazed at such amazing grace of our Lord! Yet I see in Titus 2:11ff that grace trains/instructs/disciplines us to deny worldly desires, and to live
self-controlled, godly lives. I also see in those same OT passages that the
people eventually /realized/ their unintentional sins. So, I’m inclined to believe that the Holy Spirit leads His people to repent of their unintentional sins.

//…with the added pressure (“must give an account”), it wouldn’t surprise me that one might feel a burden leading to the false need to discern another’s position in Christ…//

I agree. I didn’t mean to communicate that I /need/ to discern another’s salvation. I do, however, want to do my best—as empowered by the Spirit—to /ensure/ the salvation of others (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16–NASB).

//I didn’t mean to suggest you should do otherwise. My suggestion was related to what appeared to be a burden on you that led you to feel obligated to question another’s salvation. We can still call others to
repent while not questioning (or worry over) their position in Christ.//

I think 2 Corinthians 12:21 corresponds perfectly to how I feel when confront with unrepentance. Paul speaks of /mourning/ over those who have not repented of their sin. Whether a professing Christian refuses to repent from their lying or from their porn addiction or from any other sin, I mourn over it, because I desire to see them growing in holiness and sanctification. So it’s not that I feel obligated to question another’s salvation; it’s just that when I see fruit of habitual unrepentance in one’s life, I just “end up” questioning whether or not the tree is good.

//Paul also thought short hair on men was the norm (or according to nature) and based this view on the Genesis account. Does that mean it was a God-intended norm? I don’t think so. I think it was a cultural norm.//

I definitely have much more thinking, praying, and reading to do on this passage. It may indeed be true that Paul is speaking of a cultural norm in 1 Cor. 11. But why demand that interpretation back onto Romans
1? Does Paul really ground his understanding of men’s hair length on the Genesis account, or does he /only/ ground his understanding of a woman being the glory of a man on the Gen account? Verse 10 suggests to me that Paul brings up the Genesis account specifically with regards to a woman being the glory of a man.

//If it’s so darn “easy” then why doesn’t God simply do that for all the gays who were willing to kill themselves over this?//

Right. I feel much empathy for those who have despaired unto death. Yet it was also very easy for God to visit all the widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, but he sent Elijah only to one of them. Moreover, it was equally easy for God to cleanse all the lepers in Elisha’s time, yet /not one of them was cleansed/ except Naaman (Lk. 4:25-27). I sure would have liked to have been visited by a prophet of the Lord if I were a widow, and I sure would have liked to have been cleansed by the Lord if I were a leper. The fact that the Lord didn’t do these things for them does not mean it’s not easy. He has His wise purposes in all things.

//And many Christian gay men have been able to love their wives … And many of those marriages ended up in divorce with the gay spouse admitting they were never really changed within. Behavior changed but not the orientation … Sexual orientation doesn’t change. Those who appeared to change are bisexual and their sexuality is more flexible…//

Again, I have much empathy with those who struggle with SSA within a heterosexual relationship. I’ve been there! I understand the difficulty. I /get/ that sexual attraction is a beautiful thing (the Song of Songs/Solomon is a great example of that). Nevertheless, these things don’t deny the truth that God /can/ and /does/ empower gays to love their wives like Christ loves His bride. Christ came from heaven and sought His bride. I imagine His bride
was not very attractive to Him. She was a filthy, wretched, sinful mess! Can anything unholy be attractive to the One to whom the heavenly hosts cry “holy, holy, holy”? Yet Christ came, sought her, and loved her by giving His life for her to make her holy. Since marriage is a reflection of this, why should I listen to the world who expects me to pursue a beautiful wife who will satisfy my desires? Christ came to serve, not to be served. Beauty is vain, but a woman
who fears the Lord is to be praised. I think it is very Christ-like when a man /chooses/—according to his own good pleasure—to set his love upon a woman who he’s not attracted to. Love isn’t about attraction. If the woman is so insecure as to be appalled at that, I think she needs her mind renewed with Scripture like Pr 31:30.

//even though a prohibition may be written, it doesn’t mean that it’s absolute in that the action is a sin in any and all cases. All of the vices are prohibited because they cause harm (as far as I can tell), and most times the harm in question is caused by an action motivated out of malicious or
lustful intentions.//

And ultimately I would argue that any and all gay relations are harmful in that they prohibit one from entering into the kingdom of God.

//…So, I’m inclined to believe that the Holy Spirit leads His people to repent of their unintentional sins.//

Right. Which is why I’m even more convinced that Christian gay married couples aren’t in sin. Otherwise, the Spirit would lead them to repent rather than lead them to have exceedingly fruitful lives in their churches and communities.

//Whether a professing Christian refuses to repent from their lying or from their porn addiction or from any other sin, I mourn over it, because I desire to see them growing in holiness and sanctification.//

Right. And lying, porn, adultery, etc. leads to observable and definitive destructive results in the lives of people who practice such things.

//But why demand that interpretation back onto Romans 1?//

Because he used the same interpretation in Romans 11:24. Against nature meant unconventional or against the ordinary realm of experience rather than against a God-intended norm.

//Right. I feel much empathy for those who have despaired unto death. Yet it was also very easy for God to visit all the widows in Israel in Elijah’s time,…//

Wait a minute here. I reminded you that Paul said that a man who lacks sexual self-control should marry. Many gay men have heeded Paul’s advice yet God did NOT change their sexual orientation and it resulted in children and divorce. And then you tell me that men should not expect to be changed just because they obey “God’s command” to marry if he lacks sexual self-control. Sounds very inconsistent to me. It’s exactly these arbitrary assurances that get people into trouble. I urge you to rethink some of this, in particular.

//I imagine His bride was not very attractive to Him. She was a filthy, wretched, sinful mess!//

It’s not about beauty or attraction. I can be attracted to women (even give my life for them), but that doesn’t mean I want to have sexual intimacy with any of them. Jesus doesn’t have sexual intimacy with his bride. It’s beyond such things, so I think your comparison is defective. Being a straight woman, there is no way I could have sexual intimacy with the most attractive woman and feel the same way I do with a man. There is no way. Sure, I could fake it for God (ever hear of “fake it until you make it”)—if it’s between that and killing myself, sure, I’d give it a go. And I bet the most dedicated to God would give it go until they, at least, had a couple children.

//And ultimately I would argue that any and all gay relations are harmful in that they prohibit one from entering into the kingdom
of God.//

Truth, words of life, should be anything but harmful.

The following is something I wrote in response to listening to a video today. Some of the words are from the pastor in the video.

The homosexual behavior that took place and was condemned in ancient times was not what it is today. The homosexual behavior in ancient times was filled with violence and abuse and rape and humiliation and oppression and slavery and temple prostitution; and THAT is the homosexuality that was condemned by the writers of Scripture.

But even if you have no knowledge of the historical context in which Scripture was written, is truth reserved only for those who are debating scholarly research and all of us have to align ourselves by faith in one scholar over another? Did God intend for His truth to be revealed to the learned or also to the simple?

We’re wired to recognize hatred and injustice. We don’t have to have all that scholarly knowledge in order to recognize fruit. Do you want to know how to respond to issue of homosexuality? Look at the fruit.

Truth offers words of life. Truth bears good fruit. In speaking to those struggling with sin, Danny (the pastor) would offer truth and tell the one involved in adultery, pornography, or drugs their need to remove themselves from such a lifestyle. This truth would resonate with them as the Spirit affirmed within their being that heeding such words would bring them liberty from such bondage. But when the pastor offered the same advice to gays, it would not resonate in the same way, and the Spirit did not affirm within their being that heeding such words would bring them liberty but, instead, enslave them to a lifetime without the possibility of intimate love. The pastor began to recognize that of all the commandments that imparted life, this one was different in that it seemed to impart a feeling of dread and fear and anxiety.

Matthew Vines says: “Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self- esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.”

// I’m even more convinced that Christian gay married couples aren’t in sin. Otherwise, the Spirit would lead them to repent rather than lead them to have exceedingly fruitful lives in their churches and communities.//

The other alternative is that they don’t have the Spirit. But no matter how fruitful someone is, if they’re living in unrepentant sin, I’m gonna question whether or not the Spirit is truly in their lives. Please know that I don’t say this carelessly.

//Because he used the same interpretation in Romans 11:24. Against nature meant unconventional or against the ordinary realm of experience rather than against a God-intended norm.//

It’s truly important to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. But I’m not 100% confident that Romans 11:24 is referring to that which is unconventional or against the ordinary realm of experience. I do understand the argument in its favor; it’s definitely reasonable. Indeed, there’s at least one person I know of whom I respect and trust who hold to this belief. Nevertheless, that alone still does not demand Romans 1’s “against nature” to mean the same.

I say I’m not confident in this understanding of Romans 11 because it is also linguistically and contextually possible for “against nature” in Romans 11:24 to be referring to the act of taking a branch from where it naturally belongs and grafting it on to where it naturally does not belong. Paul has already identified the Jews as /natural/ branches (v.21), and he has already identified the Gentile’s olive tree as being /naturally/ wild. With Paul’s emphasis on what is naturally cultivated and what is naturally wild, it seems reasonable that he would describe the grafting as /against nature/—because the Gentiles /naturally/ belong to their own tree from which they /naturally/ grew; they do not naturally belong to the cultivated tree.

In our desire to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, it’s important to consider Paul’s other “nature” texts. I find it interesting that when Paul speaks of /humans/ (rather than horticulture), he does not speak of “nature” in reference to that which is or isn’t conventional, but in reference to a condition as determined by birth.
For example, in Romans 2:27 he speaks of men who are by nature (“by birth”) uncircumcised; men are /naturally/ uncircumcised. In Galatians 2:15 he speaks of being Jews by nature—viz., they’re /born/ Jews—as opposed to being born Gentiles. In Ephesians 2:3 he speaks of being children of wrath by nature—we are /born/ into sin. Paul even speaks of false gods as being “by nature … not gods” (Gal.4:8).
He’s not referring to convention or realm of experience: he’s saying that the physical “reality” or “essence” of these entities is /not/ divine. The only two exceptions are Romans 2:14 (which may actually be referring to that which is innate as opposed to convention) and 1 Cor. 11:14. How, then, do we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture with these other uses of “nature.” I would argue that these other “nature” passages add more weight to the traditional interpretation of Romans 1.

//Μany gay men have heeded Paul’s advice yet God did NOT change their sexual orientation and it resulted in children and divorce. And then you tell me that men should not expect to be changed just because they obey “God’s command” to marry if he
lacks sexual self-control. Sounds very inconsistent to me.//

To clarify: I was not referring to God changing anyone’s sexual orientation. I didn’t even have that in mind. I understand that many gay men married, had children, and then divorced. But I’m honestly confused at what you’re second sentence is trying to say. I don’t understand it. The “just because” is throwing me off.

//Jesus doesn’t have sexual intimacy with his bride. It’s beyond such things, so I think your comparison is defective.//

Nevertheless, husbands are commanded to love their wives like Christ loved the church. Gay men /can/ love their wives like Christ loved the church. Gay men /can/ serve their wives and give up their lives for the wives just as Christ did for His bride. The Spirit of God makes this possible.

//Truth, words of life, should be anything but harmful.//

Is it really the words of the traditional understanding of marriage that are harmful? Or is it fallen, human flesh (read: “sinful passions”) that brings about harm (see below)?

//Truth offers words of life. Truth bears good fruit. In speaking to those struggling with sin, Danny (the pastor) would offer truth and tell the one involved in adultery, pornography, or drugs their need to remove themselves from such a lifestyle. This truth would resonate with them as the Spirit affirmed within their being that heeding such words would bring them liberty from such bondage. But when the pastor offered the same advice to gays, it would not resonate in the same way, and the Spirit did not affirm within their being that heeding such words would bring them liberty but, instead, enslave them to a lifetime without the possibility of intimate love.//

This seems like a fallacy of bifurcation. The other alternative that Danny misses is that the Holy Spirit /does/ affirm within the gays’ being that heeding such words would bring them liberty. This is precisely what the Holy Spirit affirms within me. The Holy Spirit affirms within my being that I need not fear enslavement to a
lifetime without the possibility of intimate love: The Lord is my portion! The fellowship and intimacy I have with fellow Christians is wonderful! I can rejoice /at all times/ and give thanks /in all circumstances/ (1 Thess. 5:16ff), even in my circumstance of being a single SSA-male. And I’ll tell you what, I sure don’t “feel” like I have the gift of celibacy. But I live my life by faith in Jesus, not by my feelings. Therefore, I can/do rejoice and give thanks
even amidst the struggle I have with SSA.

//Matthew Vines says: “Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.”//

Indeed, good teaching /cannot/ bear bad fruit. But sinful people /do/ bear bad fruit. I wonder (and I’m thinking out loud here), if Romans 7:5 &12-13 corresponds to this. (it’s clearly not a one-to-one correspondence, but it seems similar nonetheless). Paul says clearly that “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (v. 12). But /sinful passion/ within a person bore bad fruit (v. 5). Finally in verse 13 he says clearly, “Did that which is good [the law/commandment], then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good…” Similarly, the traditional teaching on homosexuality /is/ good (because all God’s Word is good); yet our sinful passions respond negatively to that which is holy & good, thus producing bad fruit.

It seems to me that people with low self-esteem and self-worth and spiritual devastation are too self-centered. If we’d set our minds on things above (cf. Col. 3:1ff) and
fix our eyes on Jesus (Heb. 12:1ff), then “self-esteem” and “self-worth” would be absolutely no concern for a Christian. There is no room for emotional and spiritual devastation in view of the fact that God has “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, even as He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before even in love having predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Him according to the good pleasure of His will to the praise of His glorious grace with which He has blessed us in the beloved (Eph. 1:4-6).” There’s no room for loss of self-esteem and self-worth in view of the fact that “we have been justified by faith … [and] we have peace with God” (Rom. 5:1) and God “has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3).

//But no matter how fruitful someone is, if they’re living in unrepentant sin, I’m gonna question whether or not the Spirit is truly in their lives.//

This Spirit is not in the lives of Christians who ignorantly sin? Who sets the timeline on when the Spirit leaves them because they keep ignorantly sinning?

I can’t be sorry for something I don’t believe is sin. And just because you say something is a sin doesn’t make it a sin. And if I’m living out every part of my life in obedience to God for 20 years and I’m still not convicted by the Spirit of God that what you claim is a sin is a sin, who am I to believe?

//…because it is also linguistically and contextually possible for “against nature” in Romans 11:24 to be referring to the act of
taking a branch from where it naturally belongs and grafting it on to where it naturally does not belong…//

Okay, but that just shows that something against a “God-intended norm” is not necessarily immoral.

//For example, in Romans 2:27 he speaks of men who are by nature (“by birth”) uncircumcised; men are /naturally/ uncircumcised….I would argue that these other “nature” passages add more weight to the traditional interpretation of Romans 1.//

That probably just means “physically,” but, again, this just
shows that a “God-intended norm” can be broken without it being immoral.

So, as we’ve seen with the unnatural acts of men wearing long hair and of grafting a wild branch into cultivated olive tree, unnatural acts are not necessarily immoral. Whether you want to say they’re out of the ordinary realm of experience or against God’s intended norm, they’re not immoral.

Nevertheless, I do think the acts in Romans 1 are immoral
but not because they’re against nature. As we’ve seen, just because something is against nature doesn’t mean it’s
immoral. However, something immoral can be against nature. What define these acts as immoral are the excessively lustful desires that drive the acts. This excessive lust arose as they cast away that which was made evident within them, and acting out in excess lust was always considered against nature. Acting out in excess lust was always against God’s intended norm or God’s design or however you want to put it.

//To clarify: I was not referring to God changing anyone’s
sexual orientation.//

So you advise men with same-sex orientation to marry women
for their lust issues (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8)? If so, I think that’s a huge mistake.

//…The Spirit of God makes this possible.//

I’m sure a gay man can love his wife like Christ loved the church, but it does nothing for his sexual desires. And she’ll know he’s faking his sexual interest which would most likely have a devastating effect on her. Paul says they should marry if they burn with desire but here you have them in a marriage with someone they have no sexual desire for.

//Is it really the words of the traditional understanding of
marriage that are harmful? Or is it fallen, human flesh (read: “sinful passions”) that brings about harm (see below)?//

It’s not sinful to want to be sexually attracted to the
person you marry.

//…The other alternative that Danny misses is that the Holy
Spirit /does/ affirm within the gays’ being that heeding such words would bring them liberty…//

When a man stops using drugs, he feels set free from bondage. When a man stops cheating on his wife and
repairs his marriage, he feels set free from bondage. When a man stops looking at porn, he feels set free from bondage. All the damage that resulted from such sin clears away and he is set free.

Are you telling me that when you stopped pursuing a lifelong
commitment with a man you felt set free from bondage? What damage results from two men in marriage that is cleared away when the two men separate from their marriage? And please don’t say “death” because all sin brings death. I’m talking about identifiable damage.

I don’t doubt you don’t fear living life without love because you have Christ, but some men don’t have that same confidence, and that doesn’t make them sinners.

//…if Romans 7:5 &12-13 corresponds to this….//

Again, this is something that the person knows within they need to be set free from (Rom. 7:24). Man senses the struggle within, because it’s wired within us (i.e. conscience) to know when we’ve transgressed the law of God. It’s something his spirit understands is wrong (Rom. 7:16, 19).

//Similarly, the traditional teaching on homosexuality /is/
good…//

The teaching on stopping adultery, porn, and drugs is good. We want to do it because it feels good in the moment, but we know it’s wrong. That’s why when we heed the good teaching, we feel set free. The teaching on ending your relationship with
your lifelong partner does not have the same “good” effects as the other teachings. It’s not like they do it because it feels good in the moment but they know it’s wrong. And when they heed the “good” teaching, it tears apart their marriage and leaves them feeling in bondage while their supposed sinful marriage never did.

//Who sets the timeline on when the Spirit leaves them because they keep ignorantly sinning?//

I firmly believe that the Spirit never leaves anyone whom He’s entered. Either He abides in someone or He doesn’t. Evidence of spiritual fruit doesn’t prove the Spirit’s abiding presence. Many atheists evidence love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc.

//…just because you say something is a sin doesn’t make it a sin.//

Clearly. Not sure why you felt compelled to say this. I can equally say that just because you say something is not sin doesn’t make it not sinful. These are obvious statements. We’re both looking to Scripture to make such claims. 🙂

//I do think the acts in Romans 1 are immoral but not because they’re against nature…. just because something is against nature doesn’t mean it’s immoral. However, something immoral can be against nature.//

I wholeheartedly agree. Context is the determining factor. And in this context—with its allusions to the creation account in Genesis—it seems to me that these acts are immoral /because/ they are against nature, viz., these acts deviate from female (θῆλυς) and male (ἄρσην) relations as established by the Creator.

//What define these acts as immoral are the excessively lustful desires that drive the acts. This excessive lust arose as they cast away that which was made evident within them, and acting out in excess lust was always considered against nature.//

I liked Preston’s comments on an earlier blog: “It’s not clear that Paul says that same sex intercourse is the RESULT of excessive heterosexual lust. The “desires/passions of their hearts” (v. 24), “dishonorable passions” (v. 26), and “burned with desire/passion” (v. 27) could simply be a description of same sex eroticism as such, rather than explaining the ordo-sexus (not a real phrase 🙂 of how the desire for homosexual sex comes about.” (from a comment to Ford1968 et al in his blog entry “Does Romans 1 Only Prohibit Illicit Same Sex Activity?”)

//So you advise men with same-sex orientation to marry women for their lust issues (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8)? If so, I think that’s a huge mistake.//

I understand with complete empathy. Nevertheless, as I’ve mentioned before, Paul clearly says, “/because of sexual immorality/, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). I don’t think it’s a mistake to obey God.

//I’m sure a gay man can love his wife like Christ loved the church, but it does nothing for his sexual desires. And she’ll know he’s faking his sexual interest which would most likely have a devastating effect on her.//

Faking is truly no fun. But there is a huge difference between faking and sincerely finding pleasure in giving my body for my wife’s pleasure. I imagine such a man would say something like, “My desires may in fact be oriented toward my same sex, but I love my wife so much that I’m /pleased/ to offer her my body for her own pleasure.” If a wife has such a man who loves her like Christ loved the church and who is pleased to please her physically, I have a hard time understanding why she would be devastated. I understand the temptation to be devastated by it. But as I said in another post, I think she would need a renewed mind in that case.

//It’s not sinful to want to be sexually attracted to the person you marry.//

I never said it was. 🙂

//Are you telling me that when you stopped pursuing a lifelong commitment with a man you felt set free from bondage?//

When I was confronted with Christianity, I was confronted with a Messiah who “bids me ‘come and die’”; a messiah who calls us to a /difficult/ life of denying self; a Messiah who calls us to a /shame-filled/ and /humiliating/ life of following Him while bearing our own cross—an instrument of shame and humiliation; a Messiah who calls us to a life of persecution, etc. etc. So when I stopped pursuing a lifelong commitment with a man and began pursuing a lifelong commitment to the God-Man Jesus Christ, I felt both free from bondage /to sin/ and yet /enslaved/ to a new Master. I knew I had to “count the cost” of discipleship, which would be difficult in many ways other than experiencing SSA.

//What damage results from two men in marriage that is cleared away when the two men separate from their marriage? And please don’t say “death” because all sin brings death. I’m talking about identifiable damage.//

Where does Scripture define sin as an act that entails identifiable damage? There sure wasn’t anything inherently harmful about eating a fruit. There really isn’t anything inherently harmful about rejecting God all one’s life—indeed, many Atheists live quite “moral” lives and bring no harm to anyone. Oprah is clearly not a Christian, yet she does much to mitigate harm in the world. Nevertheless, she is living in sin by rejecting Jesus as the only way to the Father. I’m reminded of another analogy given by Preston: A married couple both fall out of love with each other and happily remarry other Christians. No identifiable damage done; sinful nonetheless.

//I don’t doubt you don’t fear living life without love because you have Christ, but some men don’t have that same confidence, and that doesn’t make them sinners.//

My point was that Danny was misleading others—unintentionally, no doubt—by committing the
fallacy of bifurcation. Lacking confidence in and of itself surely doesn’t make one a sinner. But sin is sin no matter how one feels or doesn’t feel about it.

//Again, this is something that the person knows within they need to be set free from (Rom. 7:24). Man senses the struggle within, because it’s wired within us (i.e. conscience) to know when we’ve transgressed the law of God. It’s something his spirit understands is wrong (Rom. 7:16, 19).//

And again, I would argue that SSA folk like myself know homosexuality is a sin, but such truth is suppressed and/or diluted and/or confused and/or twisted. It is true that it has been wired within me (my conscience) to know that homosexuality is a transgression of the law of God and of Christ. In my spirit I understand it is wrong.

But my point still stands: the bad fruit that resulted from the law/commandment does /not/ negate
the goodness of it. Similarly, the bad fruit that has resulted from the traditional interpretation of marriage does not negate the goodness of it either. In fact, much good fruit has abounded as a result of the traditional interpretation of marriage, as many gay men and women have put their trust in Christ, married, etc.

//The teaching on stopping adultery, porn, and drugs is good. We want to do it because it feels good in the moment, but we know it’s wrong. That’s why when we heed the good teaching, we feel set free. The teaching on ending your relationship with your lifelong partner does not have the same “good” effects as the other teachings. It’s not like they do it because it feels good in the moment but they know it’s wrong. And when they heed the “good” teaching, it tears apart their marriage and leaves them feeling in bondage while their supposed sinful marriage never did.//

So the sinfulness of something is determined by our subjective feelings about it?

//…Many atheists evidence love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc.//

Jesus speaks of knowing the difference between two professing Christians, not between a Christian and an unbeliever. Every good tree bears good fruit. If a professing Christian (even a gay married one) bears good fruit, he is a good tree. Jesus gives us permission to appraise these experiences. These appraisals are no less valuable than Scripture in determining whether or not we are within God’s will.

//I wholeheartedly agree… it seems to me that these acts are immoral /because/ they are against nature…//

That’s not what I said, though. I said they are not immoral because they are against nature but because they’re driven by lust. Excessively lustful acts were sinful, and they were also considered against nature.

//I liked Preston’s comments on an earlier blog: “It’s not clear that Paul says that same sex intercourse is the RESULT of excessive heterosexual lust.//

It is clear the acts result from lust. Paul says the acts resulted from the lusts of their own hearts (v. 24).

//I don’t think it’s a mistake to obey God.//

Paul is not saying that if a man lusts for a man, he should marry a woman. We understand Paul to be saying that if a man lusts for a woman, he should marry a woman. Why would you think Paul is giving instructions for a man lusting for a man?

//But there is a huge difference between faking and sincerely finding pleasure in giving my body for my wife’s pleasure.//

I get it. If I thought I was supposed to be with a woman and I came to love a woman, I could pleasure her if that’s what I thought God wanted. I’d find pleasure in pleasing someone I care about but not sexual pleasure. I find that scenario dishonest with how you were created and potentially damaging in spite of the efforts made in doing what they think is right. Over and over again we see the fruit of when we ignore how we’re created—the fruit of divorce and often with children. There’s a reason God created us to have innate sexual attraction—it gives people the capacity for a romantic love that
leads people to fall in love and build a loving, committed relationship. This relationship is based on an intimacy that
includes sexual attraction, and this unique intimacy between the partners drives them together and keeps them together in a way unlike the intimacy in platonic relationships.

//So when I stopped pursuing a lifelong commitment with a man and began pursuing a lifelong commitment to the God-Man Jesus Christ,//

So, the freedom you felt may have been in response to your new birth in Christ rather than specifically in response to leaving your dream of pursuing a relationship with a man. Had you not been aware that the pursuit was “sinful” maybe you still would have felt that freedom in Christ. As I said before, those who are in sin will know it because the sin causes damage to their lives and their relationships.

//Where does Scripture define sin as an act that entails identifiable damage?//

Why assume it doesn’t?

All the items in Paul’s vice list causes harm.

//I would argue that SSA folk like myself know homosexuality is a sin//

I suspect that if no one had told you it was wrong, you wouldn’t have known it was wrong.

//But my point still stands: the bad fruit that resulted from the law/commandment does /not/ negate the goodness of it.//

The law does not bear bad fruit. The law simply points to the bad fruit that people can produce. When you steal, the law condemns you.

When one heeds the “good teaching” of the traditional view, it leaves many enslaved to a lifetime without the possibility of intimate love. It has become so devastating that many have
married only to later divorce and others who have taken their own lives. That is not producing good fruit like when one heeds the good teaching of the other laws.

//So the sinfulness of something is determined by our subjective feelings about it?//

If all the commandments hang upon love God and love others
as Jesus has told us, then we can know how to respond in all situations without having every single thing spelled out for us.
Jesus didn’t ask us to do something we’d have to guess to figure out how to do. Within each of us is the ability to love God and love others. Good teaching will not hinder but rather facilitate love. Facilitate love: stop adultery, stop porn, stop drugs. Put aside our momentary highs and, instead, put others (and our relationships with others) first by stopping these damaging things. But to tell someone to stop loving your spouse and terminate your covenant commitment with them because you’re the same sex is not something that facilitates love. It flies in the face of love God and love others. And obeying such a command has effects that look very different from obeying the other commands.

//Every good tree bears good fruit. If a professing Christian (even a gay married one) bears good fruit, he is a good tree.//

If a professing Christian is unrepentantly gay, I believe that is a sufficient amount of bad fruit to conclude that he’s /either/ a bad tree, or the Spirit—according to His own sovereign wisdom—has not led that man to recognize it as sin just yet, or
he knows it’s sin but has convinced himself that it’s not. Many believers don’t automatically recognize their sin.

//That’s not what I said, though. I said they are not immoral because they are against nature…//

Oops. I know what you meant. My “agreement” was unintentionally ambiguous; I see that now. I meant that I wholeheartedly agree that “against nature” doesn’t automatically make something immoral.

//It is clear the acts result from lust. Paul says the acts resulted from the lusts of their own hearts (v. 24).//

Yes, verse 24 speaks of “lust/desire” (ἐπιθυμία), but not /excessive/ lust. As for verse 27, the participle “committing” (κατεργαζόμενοι) is grammatically dependent upon the main verb “burned” (ἐξεκαύθησαν), and seems (for multiple reasons) to be a “participle of means”, producing the following translation: “The men … burned in their appetite /by/ committing shameless acts with other men.” A participle of means /defines/ or /explains/ the action of the main verb; so in this case, the committing of shameful [homosexual] acts *defines* and/or *explains* the main action “burned in their appetite.” The very fact that the main verb is /aorist/ and the participle is /present/ also suggests that Paul is not speaking of a sequence of events whereby the committing of shameful acts /results/ from the burning of their appetite; instead, the aorist main verb /followed by/ the present participle suggests one whole, contemporaneous shameful act that is described /as/ a burning of one’s appetite. Such an analysis of the original language reveals the truthfulness of Preston’s comment, which I’ll quote again: “It’s not clear that Paul says that same sex intercourse is the RESULT of excessive heterosexual lust. The … “dishonorable passions”
(v. 26), and “burned with desire/passion” (v. 27) could simply be a
description of same sex eroticism as such, rather than explaining the
ordo-sexus (not a real phrase 🙂 of how the desire for homosexual sex
comes about.”

//We understand Paul to be saying that if a man lusts for a woman, he should marry a woman. Why would you think Paul is giving instructions for a man lusting for a man?//

The text surely has in mind a man lusting for a woman. So I admit that Paul may have provided different instructions for a man who lusts for a man. He may have instructed the man to remain celibate, or to marry a woman anyway, since that was God’s
original design. Nevertheless, since Paul (and God) makes it clear elsewhere in Scripture that homosexuality is a sin, he would not have instructed a lustful man to marry another man.

//This relationship is based on an intimacy that includes sexual attraction, and this unique intimacy between the partners drives them together and keeps them together in a way unlike the intimacy in platonic relationships.//

I definitely get that. I myself want to be in a relationship with someone that I’m attracted to. Very much (!) actually. Hence, I /know/ the heartache that other SSA folk feel when confronted with the traditional interpretation of marriage. Nevertheless, after 12 years of repenting from homosexuality, I also know the joy of obeying my Creator by repenting of homosexuality; I know the peace of trusting in God’s sovereign wisdom in prohibiting gay relations; I know the power of the Holy Spirit who enables me to walk by faith even in face of SSA.

//So, the freedom you felt may have been in response to your new birth in Christ rather than specifically in response to leaving your dream of pursuing a relationship with a man. Had you not been aware that the pursuit was “sinful” maybe you still would have felt that freedom in Christ.//

The fact is, I /did/ know it was sin, and I was pleased to repent of it in obedience to God. I felt no (and still feel no) spiritual devastation and low
self-esteem/self-worth.

//Why assume [Scripture] doesn’t [define sin as an act that entails identifiable damage]?… All the items in Paul’s vice list causes harm.//

I’m not assuming it doesn’t. I’ve made my conclusion based on Scripture. You’re claiming that /because/ monogamous, committed same-sex marriage causes no harm, then it’s not
sinful; yet there are sins recorded in Scripture that are not harmful. Thus I think the “no harm” argument should be dropped.

//I suspect that if no one had told you it was wrong, you wouldn’t have known it was wrong.//

It’s possible. Doesn’t make it right though. 🙂

//The law does not bear bad fruit. The law simply points to the bad fruit that people can produce.//

I did not claim the law bears bad fruit. I said bad fruit “resulted” from it. I assumed you would recall my previous comment, in which I explained that it is the “sinful passions” that bear the bad fruit when confronted with the holy/good law. The law doesn’t just point to the bad fruit that people can produce; the good/holy law is the environment through which our sinful passions bear bad fruit (Rom. 7:5). Thus, it is /sinful people/ who bear bad fruit, /not/ good teaching. It is the sinful passions of sinful people who bear bad fruit, /not/ the biblical/traditional interpretation of marriage.

Good Law + Sinful Passion —> Bad Fruit.

//When one heeds the “good teaching” of the traditional view, it leaves many enslaved to a lifetime without the possibility of intimate love…. That is not producing good fruit like when one heeds the good teaching of the other laws.//

Again, Good Law + Sinful Passion —> Bad Fruit.

Do you suppose /no one/ had a homosexual orientation in OT times, or do you suppose that such an orientation is something only “modern” people have? I would imagine that
people did have a homosexual orientation in OT times—that people did desire intimate love with their same-sex—yet God clearly forbade them /in His good law/ from acting out on that orientation.

//To tell someone to stop loving your spouse and terminate your covenant commitment with them because you’re the same sex is not something that facilitates love. It flies in the face of love God and love others.//

I would not tell someone to stop loving his/her spouse. I would tell someone to start loving God by obeying His command to repent from your sin.

It doesn’t fly in the face of “love God and love others.” One way we demonstrate our love to God and to others is through our obedience to Him. On the other hand, disobedience to God communicates not-love to God and to others.

I meant that I wholeheartedly agree that “against nature” doesn’t automatically make something immoral.

But if “against nature” ever makes something immoral, then shouldn’t it make all other things described as “against nature” immoral? If it’s immoral because it’s against God’s design or norm, then anything that’s against God’s design or norm is immoral. Shouldn’t we be consistent with the definition of the phrase? If it means “against God’s design” in one place, it means it in all other places. If it means “against the ordinary realm of experience” in one place, it means it in all other places. Do you think we get to be inconsistent with the definition because Paul uses Genesis as the foundation for his argument in Romans 1? If so, I feel that is taking liberties that go beyond the text. It’s a stretch and very well may be quite wrong. There is no way for you to be sure yet, from what I understand, that is the very thing that makes or breaks the Romans 1 argument for the traditional view.

…suggests that Paul is not speaking of a sequence of events whereby the committing of shameful acts /results/ from the burning of their appetite;…

Paul already told us in verse 24 that it was their own personal lust of their hearts that God turned them over to excessive lust. Therefore, we know the acts result from lust.

In Romans 1 Paul puts these acts in the context of lust. The word “arsenokoites” in his vice lists is among other vices that emerge from selfish desire or malicious intent. These vices don’t occur outside of selfish desire or malicious intent. Arsenokoites doesn’t occur outside of selfish desire or malicious intent. When Paul speaks of this act in Romans 1 (arsenokoites), he does not have loving, committed relationship (i.e. marriage) in mind. Therefore, we don’t know that Paul would condemn same-sex activity within loving, committed relationship.

Nevertheless, since Paul (and God) makes it clear elsewhere in Scripture that homosexuality is a sin, he would not have instructed a lustful man to marry another man.

That may be so. But, still, you have no command from God to tell a gay man who has romantic passions for the same-sex to marry a woman. It’s a mistake to advise gay men to marry women.

The fact is, I /did/ know it was sin

How?

You’re claiming that /because/ monogamous, committed same-sex marriage causes no harm, then it’s not sinful;

All the vices in Paul’s list (where we find the vice, “arsenokoites”) cause harm, and so we can conclude that the act of arsenokoites, too, causes harm. Arsenokoites doesn’t take place within marriage, because the arsenokoites listed causes harm and same-sex acts within marriage do not. Do you see my rationale on this point now?

It is the sinful passions of sinful people who bear bad fruit, /not/ the biblical/traditional interpretation of marriage.

It is not sinful passions to want to marry someone you’re attracted to. It is not sinful passions to engage in sexual activity with your spouse.

yet God clearly forbade them /in His good law/ from acting out on that orientation.

No, God did not clearly forbid them from acting on that orientation. What is forbidden is to partake in arsenokoites which is a harmful act that emerges from selfish desire or malicious intent and causes identifiable harm.

One of us is a false teacher. For example, a Conservative Traditional point of view (if FALSE) is causing immense harm to Gay Christians who want to get married.

What part of this logic is not clear? Sigh.

That does not mean that there were not ALSO loving, committed same-sex relationships in the ancient world.

In fact, typical lesbian behavior was not much associated with any of those things.

Paul placed the acts he condemned in the context of excess burning lust (Rom. 1:27). I don’t feel comfortable assuming Paul would condemn what we’re talking about today — loving sexual acts within a loving marriage between two same-sex oriented Christians.

“homosexual behavior in ancient times was filled with violence, oppression, humiliation, and slavery emerging from malicious intent, and temple prostitution, etc.”

Actually, no, it wasn’t. Even pro-homosexual historians and theologians don’t make such a contention. There are ancient writers of the time who write about mutual, loving homosexual relationships.

…you were attempting to come up with different definitions of the phrase by defining a word within the phrase in different ways

The different definitions of “nature” show one reason why a phrase with that word can also be understood in different ways. It’s important to understand the definition of “nature” by itself in order to understand how “nature” can be understood within a phrase. I need to know what “nature” is by itself in order to know what is against it. If someone says that something is against nature, then I wanna know what “nature” means as intended by the author in a given context. Again, context and authorial intent are always the determining factor.

There is no reason to believe Paul has different meanings in mind for the phrase in Romans 1 and Romans 11. We have no grounds to change the meaning if the same meaning fits the context of both
passages.

And I humbly disagree. First, I don’t believe I’m “changing” any meaning. Rather, I’m recognizing the different meanings that the author intended to communicate. No one can “change” any authorial intended meaning: it is what it is. Second, the fact that a same meaning fits both contexts doesn’t demand it to be true. Third, I see at least two other reasons/grounds for different meanings:
1) It’s possible that Paul intended the meanings to be different
2) It’s linguistically and contextually possible for the meanings to be different.

The acts are shameful and worthy of penalty (God’s wrath) because they are immoral. The acts are against nature, but that doesn’t mean the acts are immoral. These acts that are immoral are also against nature…

That is also, definitely, linguistically possible. It’s possible that is what Paul intended. If true, it doesn’t persuade me in the least to become an “affirmer.” And I know— as you’ve said before—you’re not trying to persuade me. I’m just sharing my thoughts. 🙂

The acts receive God’s wrath NOT because they happen to be against nature but because they are immoral acts.

At the end of the day, we both agree that the acts are immoral. So the question that everyone is ultimately seeking to answer is “what are the acts?” Some say all homosexual acts; some say non-loving homosexual acts. I look forward to Preston’s book to provide more insight.

Paul COULD NOT have had those in mind when he wrote Romans 1 because arsenokoites results from lust as we see in Romans 1 (v. 24) and as we see it is listed among other vices that result from selfish desire or malicious intent.

Now that you know how to italicize words, are you yelling with those caps? Just curious.

I still believe that Paul could have had loving forms of homosexual acts in mind, because—as Preston and I have mentioned before—Paul could have believed that all homosexual acts—no matter how loving one may feel—is an act of lust/desire that exceeds God’s natural design. I’ve already demonstrated how the grammar very
clearly, imo, supports that belief. Even the word “lust” in v. 24 comes from a word that quite simply refers to the desires of one’s heart. God gave them up in the desires of their heart. They desired to do their own thing. The women and men desired same-sex relations. This is precisely true when gay couples feel love toward one another: they desire one another. And according to Paul, that desire in and of itself is immoral because it goes against God’s original design of heterosexual desire.

Sexually lustful desires at age 5?

Oh yes! Absolutely. 100% without a doubt, yes, I was aroused with desire for another boy.

Even if selfish on some level, was it not facilitated by others’ thoughtlessness to some degree? It is to that degree that the traditional view should take responsibility for its bad fruit.

Thoughtlessness? I don’t want to make assumptions, but it sounds like you’re saying that those who hold to the traditional interpretation are thoughtless. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but when you say, “it is to that degree that the traditional view…”, it sounds like you’re identifying the traditional view with the “others’ thoughtlessness.”

If people are thoughtless when communicating God’s Word, then indeed it is their own thoughtlessness that has “facilitated” negative emotions. Nevertheless, it is still my own choice how I respond to the
thoughtlessness of others. Is Jesus to take responsibility for causing the rich man to become deeply sorrowful? After all, the man would not have felt sorrowful had Jesus not given him the command. In fact, Adam and Eve would not have felt fear and embarrassment had God not given the original command to them. Is God to blame? Of course not.

Rather, I’m recognizing the different meanings that the author intended to communicate.

As I mentioned, it is not immoral to do something against nature, as we see with Romans 11:24. Therefore, we can’t say the Romans 1 acts are immoral just because they are against nature.

So the question that everyone is ultimately seeking to answer is “what are the acts?”

Well, for the men it’s called arsenokoites, right? And, again, this vice is listed among other vices that emerge from malicious intent or selfish desire, and all of the vices cause identifiable harm. This should clue us in on what sexual acts qualify as arsenokoites and what sexual acts do not.

I look forward to Preston’s book to provide more insight.

He believes that by calling the acts “against nature” Paul has outlawed all forms of same-sex relations. This is one of the chief places I disagree with Preston. Just because something is “against nature” does not mean it’s immoral (Rom. 11:24).

Now that you know how to italicize words, are you yelling with those caps? Just curious.

No, it was just for emphasis, but good point. It’s just a combination of habit and laziness.

Paul could have believed that all homosexual acts—no matter how loving one may feel—is an act of lust/desire that exceeds God’s natural design.

“Could have” is not enough for me to consider excluded from the Body of Christ those who have valid reasons for adhering to and/or applying the affirming view to their lives.

I don’t think Preston believes that same-sex activity within marriage amounts to inappropriate lust; I believe he simply thinks that since the acts are against nature, they are forbidden. I, on the other hand, acknowledge that simply because something is against nature does not mean it’s forbidden.

that desire in and of itself is immoral because it goes against God’s original design of heterosexual desire.

Then grafting of wild branches into a cultivated tree is immoral
because it, too, is against God’s original design. We can’t have it both ways.

The acts become immoral when they are driven by malicious intent or selfish desire. People who want to give themselves to another in self-sacrificial marital commitment are not driven by selfish desire.

it sounds like you’re saying that those who hold to the traditional interpretation are thoughtless… After all, the man would not have felt sorrowful had Jesus not given him the command.

It’s not “the command” that leads to bad fruit; it’s the entire approach in which the command is presented that leads to bad fruit. The traditional view has taken on an approach with LGBT people that goes far beyond any command. I don’t see the same treatment of remarried couples whose previous marriages ended in unbiblical divorce. They’re not looked down on, they’re not mocked, they’re not ostracized, and they’re not excluded from church and considered cut off from the Body of Christ.

As I mentioned, it is not immoral to do something against nature, as we see with Romans 11:24.

The first two exchanges in Romans 1 describe immoral acts:

1) They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal beings… (v. 23)
and
2) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie… (v. 25)

Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the next exchange—the exchange of natural for the unnatural—is also immoral. In other words, the “against nature” exchange is located within an immoral-vice list.

Perhaps “ungodly” or “unrighteous” (v. 18) are more appropriate words to use instead of “immoral,” because they are the words Paul used. When I read about the same-sex activity in Romans 1, I imagine a Venn diagram whose largest circle is “Ungodliness/Unrighteousness” (v. 18). Within that circle is a smaller circle of “the against-nature-acts.” In this context, Paul considers this act-against-nature to be ungodly/unrighteous.

…this vice [arsenokoites] is listed among other vices that emerge from malicious intent or selfish desire, and all of the vices cause identifiable harm.

I recognize that connection. But again I see a larger circle of “unrighteous acts.” Right at the beginning of 1 Cor. 6:9 Paul says that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, and the vice list that follows contains a list of unrighteous acts (i.e. the smaller circles within the larger circle). It’s not necessary to see an overlap between any of those smaller circles. The list in 1 Timothy also begins with the statement, “the law is not for the righteous.” What follows is also a list of unrighteous acts.

…Then grafting of wild branches into a cultivated tree is immoral because it, too, is against God’s original design. We can’t have it both ways.

No, because the grafting of the wild branches into a cultivated tree isn’t a “circle” embedded within a larger “unrighteous” circle

The acts become immoral when they are driven by malicious intent or selfish desire. People who want to give themselves to another in self-sacrificial marital commitment are not driven by selfish desire.

When people want anything that is opposed to what God wants, it is indeed a selfish desire. As I understand Scripture, wanting a self-sacrificial marital commitment with someone of one’s own sex is a desire that is opposed to what God wants, and therefore it is selfish. It’s saying to God, “I don’t want what you want for me; I want what I want for me.”

I don’t see the same treatment of remarried couples whose previous marriages ended in unbiblical divorce. They’re not looked down on, they’re not mocked, they’re not ostracized, and they’re not excluded from church and considered cut off from the Body of Christ.

The pastors/elders at my church refuse to officiate the wedding of anyone who has been divorced without biblical grounds. But why would anyone mock or ostracize or exclude a remarried couple if that couple has confessed their sin and sought the forgiveness of the Lord? Unless you think their new marriage is not legitimate, and that they need to divorce from their new marriage, then God has forgiven them, so who are we to mock and ostracize them?

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that it is
wrong to look down upon and mock and ostracize and exclude from church anyone who is unrepentantly gay. Jesus would never have done that! He loved everyone! Nevertheless, He also called everyone to repent, and this we must do without mocking and ostracizing, etc.

…The first two exchanges in Romans 1 describe immoral acts:…

The “first two exchanges” are immoral because they are driven by selfish desire leading to harming relationship with God. They’re not immoral because they’re against nature. The “first two exchanges” cannot take place outside of selfish desire. The next exchange—the natural for the unnatural—is also immoral because it is driven by selfish desire.

In other words, the “against nature” exchange is located within an immoral-vice list.

Arsenokoites, which is against nature, is a vice that is immoral (ungodly/unrighteous?) because it is driven by selfish desire. The sin of arsenokoites does not take place outside of selfish desire. The sin of murder does not take place outside of malicious intent. The sin of lying does not take place outside of malicious intent or selfish gain.

What follows is also a list of unrighteous acts.

And all of them cause identifiable harm. So does arsenokoites. Therefore, it’s not reasonable to conclude that this act takes place within marital covenant.

No, because the grafting of the wild branches into a cultivated tree isn’t a “circle” embedded within a larger
“unrighteous” circle

You’re not making any sense to me at all. Sounds like (and I could be wrong) you are trying very hard to make this more complicated than it is. If the desire is immoral because it goes against God’s original design then the grafting of wild branches into a cultivated tree is immoral because it, too, goes against God’s original design.

When people want anything that is opposed to what God wants, it is indeed a selfish desire.

Selfless giving of oneself to another in marital commitment is what God wants.

it is wrong to look down upon and mock and ostracize and exclude from church anyone who is unrepentantly gay.

Josh, you’ve repented from “being gay”?

As I’ve sought to make clear before, I want to say again that I’ve tried to have a friendly dialogue. I do hope that is how it has appeared. It’s not my interest to “win” an “argument,” but to sharpen my own understanding of Scripture via dialogue. So I’m not disagreeing just to disagree or anything like that; I have a sincere desire to grow in my understanding of Scripture, and so I very much appreciating bouncing thoughts back and forth with you.

Josh, you’ve repented from “being gay”?

With all the definitions going around for “gay”, I see how that was a poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps a better way to phrase my intention is, “It is wrong to ostracize and mock those who unrepentantly celebrate their same-sex desires.” There may be a better way of saying it, but I think you know what I mean. If not, I’d be glad to clarify.

And all of them cause identifiable harm. So does arsenokoites.

I’m not convinced that Paul’s intention and/or point is to describe actions that cause harm. What is clear from the text is that Paul is identifying unrighteous acts. We can talk all we want about motives and physical consequences of these acts, but I’m not convinced that Paul wants us to identify the similarities of these acts. The acts are acts that God has forbidden, and that makes them unrighteous. Indeed, idolatry can come in many forms, including the form of a loving, committed marriage that God has forbidden.

I would add that my understanding of arsenokoites is not limited to these passages alone; it comes from my understanding of Paul and the rest of Scripture, including—as Preston has already mentioned—the LXX of Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, which Paul would have taught from as an apostle to Greek-speaking Gentiles.

Sounds like (and I could be wrong) you are trying very hard to make this more complicated than it is. If the desire is immoral because it goes against God’s original design then the grafting of wild branches into a cultivated tree is immoral because it, too, goes against God’s original design.

I’m not intentionally trying to make this more complicated. I actually thought I was being quite simple. Still, Scripture can be complicated. A former teacher of mine exhorted the students to expect to get Scripture wrong. This expectation motivates us to study hard so that we can get it right. When we approach the text expecting to get it right, we very often will get it wrong, because we didn’t take the time to study all its complexities.

To clarify what in my mind is “simple”, we’re looking at two passages where Paul describes actions that are “against nature” in different ways.

1) In Romans 1: This against-nature-act is ungodly/unrighteous.
2) In Romans 11: This against-nature-act is good.

Paul clearly views “against nature” to be immoral in Romans 1. It’s as though Paul were saying, “You should not have gone against nature in this case! Going against nature in this case is very wrong, because God originally intended man to be with woman; going against His original intention in that regard is immoral.”

Based on the grammar in Romans 1:26 (and based on the parallel with v. 25), I understand Paul to be “meshing” the burning and the shameless acts into one
whole against-nature-act. Therefore, rewording and simplifying v. 26 might look something like this: “The men received the penalty of their error
because they acted against nature.”

As I said before, I get that there are things that are “against nature” that are not inherently immoral (like Rom. 11:24). But it is a non sequitur to conclude that all things that are “against nature” are not inherently immoral. It boils down to the authorial intent. Paul intended Romans 11:24 to be considered the right thing to do. Conversely, Paul intended Romans 1:26-27 to be considered immoral.

Selfless giving of oneself to another in marital commitment is what God wants.

But if—as I clearly believe—it is true that God prohibits homosexuality in general, then God does not want the selfless giving of a man/woman for his/her own sex.

It’s not my interest to “win” an “argument,” but to sharpen my own understanding of Scripture via dialogue.

I believe you. 🙂

Perhaps a better way to phrase my intention is, “It is wrong to ostracize and mock those who unrepentantly celebrate their same-sex desires.”

Okay, I think I see what you mean. “Celebrate” as in those who have made peace with their sexual orientation before God and openly pursue same-sex life partners? Is that more accurate? That’s what needs to be repented of?

I’m not convinced that Paul’s intention and/or point is to describe actions that cause harm…The acts are acts that God has forbidden, and that makes them unrighteous.

Paul’s point was to address issues that related to problems of his day.

I don’t perceive God to be arbitrary. Every unrighteous act listed causes identifiable harm. I see that as very relevant.

which Paul would have taught from as an apostle to Greek-speaking Gentiles.

And knowing a little more about how Paul used the word in context gives clarity as to why it was prohibited for Israel by the Law.

Paul clearly views “against nature” to be immoral in Romans 1.

Paul views the act, which is against nature, to be immoral.

Going against nature in this case is very wrong,

True. It’s not wrong because it’s against nature, though.

because God originally intended man to be with woman;

It’s immoral because the act causes serious harm.

“The men received the penalty of their error because they acted against nature.”

“The men received the penalty of their error because of their immoral act, which was against nature.”

Paul intended Romans 11:24 to be considered the right thing to do.

This statement doesn’t make sense to me. Being turned over to the lusts of your heart to impurity is not a right thing to do.

When we talk about “against nature” acts, we’re describing the acts with that phrase. We’re categorizing the acts into a group described as “against nature.” Some of the “against nature” acts are moral and some are immoral. Therefore, the description “against nature” is not the thing that describes it as moral or immoral. The descriptive phrase “against nature” can’t carry both a negative and positive connotation (i.e. it can’t mean both healthy and unhealthy, both good and bad, both moral and immoral).

“Celebrate” as in those who have made peace with their sexual orientation before God and openly pursue same-sex life partners? Is that more accurate?

Correct. Love does not rejoice in
unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). I know the “affirming” position does not consider “loving, committed” same-sex relations to be unrighteous. I get that, and I empathize 100% with their disdain for my disagreement.

I don’t perceive God to be arbitrary. Every unrighteous act listed causes identifiable harm. I see that as very relevant.

I too don’t believe God is arbitrary, and I agree that harm results. I just don’t agree that arsenokoites necessarily has to involve some sort of “identifiable” harm other than the harm of incurring God’s wrath and being excluded from His kingdom. Even idolaters and the greedy don’t necessarily have to involve some sort of identifiable harm.

And knowing a little more about how Paul used the word in context gives clarity as to why it was prohibited for Israel by the Law.

That’s one way of looking at it. But I believe Paul used it in accordance to it’s context in Leviticus, and I believe that fits the vice-list contexts just fine.

It’s not wrong because it’s against nature, though…. It’s immoral because the act causes serious harm.

Whether or not the acts of Romans 1 cause harm Paul does not say. Paul, in fact, calls the acts “shameful” and “against nature,” but he does not call them “harmful.” We can speculate about these acts being harmful, but that is not what Paul says about them. The text itself (Paul) speaks of God’s wrath because (greek = γαρ) they went against nature:

Verse 25: “…For/Because (γαρ) the women acted against nature” (my paraphrase).
Verse. 26: “…likewise the men acted against nature” (my paraphrase).

This statement doesn’t make sense to me. Being turned over to the lusts of your heart to impurity is not a right thing to do.

Re-read my comment that you quoted. Just as you quoted me, I wrote “Romans 11:24,” not Romans 1:24. 🙂

The descriptive phrase “against nature” can’t carry both a negative and positive connotation (i.e. it can’t mean both healthy and unhealthy, both good and bad, both moral and immoral).

I agree! In Romans 1, “against nature” does not carry both a negative and positive connotation: it carries one, negative connotation.

Greed is simply a form of idolatry—placing things before Jesus. Idolatry harms relationship with Jesus. All the vices, including arsenokoites, cause identifiable harm to relationship with others. There is no such thing as arsenokoites in marriage since sex within marriage doesn’t cause harm to relationship with others. For those to whom I’ve spoken, the covenant of the two only strengthened their relationship with Jesus.

Romans 1:24 reveals that the dishonoring of their bodies followed the lust that began in the heart. The physical exchange was a reflection of what was already within their
hearts. The suppression of the truth (v. 18) is within the heart and God’s wrath is against this unrighteousness. God’s wrath is because of their suppression of truth in their hearts and the “turning over” (v. 26) was in the form of a physical exchange (vv. 26-27) which is described as “against nature.”

Acts against nature are not bad (cf. Rom. 11:24). But some acts against nature are immoral. Moral acts against nature are good and immoral acts against nature are bad. Acts are not immoral because they’re against nature. If that were true then the act in Romans 11:24 was immoral.