Tag Archives: romans 1

False teachers, Politics, Sexuality

Simple responses to Romans 1 pro-gay theology errors

6 Comments

The entire Bible is very clear that any sex outside of a one man, one woman marriage is a sin*, yet “Christian” Leftists and atheists use all sorts of fallacious sound bites to deceive and distract people.  One of the passages that they work the hardest to dismiss is Romans 1:26-27.

First, read or even memorize this passage.  Also review the entire chapter to note the context: Paul is explaining how the world is upside down in rebellion against God and that deep down people all know it.  Then he gives his “exhibit A” as an example.

Romans 1:26–27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Pretty clear, eh?  It describes the behavior of gays and lesbians and notes how it is a prime example of rebellion against the created order.  Note that if you keep reading the chapter you’ll see that we all have rebelled in multiple ways, so don’t be smug just because homosexual behavior isn’t a temptation for you.  But the point here is that the passage does clearly state that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Here are some of their objections to Romans 1 and some simple responses.  Note that you can give much more detailed responses, but those usually aren’t necessary.  Just these basics will show people how ill-informed they are on this topic and reveal whether they love the world or whether they love God.  For starters you can ask people when the last time was that they read Romans carefully.

“But Paul didn’t know any better about homosexuality” (and similar responses). This is a big tip-off that you are talking to a non-Christian, if the person saying it is a leader, or a layperson who is “saved and confused” at best.  Paul’s writings are just as much scripture as any of the Gospels.  Those writings are from Paul and the Holy Spirit, and turned out just as God intended.  Paul does not disagree with Jesus.  And those using that argument no proof that Paul wouldn’t have known about homosexual relationships.  In fact, he describes them precisely in the passage.  Also see this refutation of the related “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” sound bite.

“The passage was about temple prostitutes.”  The passage doesn’t mention temple prostitutes, temples or prostitutes.  And I have seen zero evidence, ever, that lesbian temple prostitutes have ever existed, so the description of lesbian behavior also refutes that.  You don’t need to know Greek to see that simple truth.

“The passage was about pederasty (adult/child) or coercive relationships.”  No, the passage refers to “men” and “women” every time. And note how they “gave up” relationships willingly and “were consumed with passion for one another.” Not a hint of coercion.

“The passage is about people abandoning their natural desires, so the real sin is if a gay behaves in a straight manner or vice verse.”  That is the most laughable objection, but you hear it often.  First, the Greek word is tied to natural functions, not desires. And it notes that they “gave up” natural relations.

And using their logic this key passage applies to exactly no one.  Think about it: Whatever anyone did — gay/straight/bi — they could claim is was their nature, so they hadn’t sinned.  And very few people do things they don’t want to do, so everyone could cite that as proof that they are sinless on this account.

“They were born that way.”  No, they weren’t.  The causes can be complex (abuse, bad relationships, rebellion, or some combination of those), but even if they were born that way then everyone could use that excuse for the laundry list of sins at the end of the chapter.  Good luck with that on judgment day.

I hope you commit those to memory or refer back here when you come across these objections.  They are so simple to refute, and should convict those who use them as to how badly they are  butchering scripture.  You don’t need a degree in theology or Greek to see how clearly and quickly the pro-LGBTQX arguments fail.

If you really love your neighbors you won’t lie and tell them that this behavior is without consequence.  The same goes for other sexual sins, and other sins in general.  Don’t love the world and your popularity more than you love God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Homosexual behavior is rebellion against God.  Affirming anyone in that behavior or in other sins means that you have joined them in the rebellion.

Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

More stuff!

The main categories of pro-gay theology and why they are all false and un-biblical.

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments

*The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people** (religious or not) can see these truths:

– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.

Having said that, I believe that Christians should support and encourage those who are fighting same-sex attraction. And no one needs to grandstand on the issue before getting to the Good News of the cross.  Here’s an example.

** The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Christian worldview

God, George Carlin and me

Leave a comment

From Ray Comfort’s Facebook page:

In 1999, atheist/stand-up comedian, George Carlin, said: “If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody’s okay? All right, tell you what, I’ll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened.”1.

God answered his prayer on June 22, 2008…

May George Carlin speak to more in death than in his life.

Source: 1. http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm

I said something very similar to Carlin once.  A friend and I were talking about God and I yelled* that if He was real He needed to prove it to us right then.  Needless to say, He didn’t respond.

Not sure if this is relevant, but I was 6 yrs. old at the time.  I hadn’t read Romans 1 yet.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

You can’t dictate the terms and conditions to parents, bosses, teachers, police, or even a McDonald’s cashier, so don’t be foolish and think you can do that with God.

*Because of course He couldn’t hear me if I didn’t yell.

Politics, Sexuality

The X stands for QQAOPA

4 Comments

After reading this you will only wish that the title referred to some sort of bizarre algebraic equation.

Alternate title: Sometimes I hate being right.

Back around 2005, before I started my own blog, the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) term was fairly ubiquitous, but I started adding an X to the end of it (LGBTX) when commenting on other sites to emphasize how it was just a matter of time before they added more letters. I just meant it as a placeholder, but what has happened in less than a decade is beyond parody.

Via About – Queer Resource Center – College of Arts and Sciences – Lewis & Clark (your college education dollars at work!):

Beyond providing support and resources, the QRC* seeks to advocate on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, asexual, omnisexual, pansexual and allied community (LGBTQQAOPA).

Yes, in less than ten years the “X” placeholder exploded to QQAOPA.  Who knows what they’ll add next?

These haters must be discriminating against all the “cis” gender people and more (look it up), because LGBTQQAOPA isn’t inclusive enough.

I submit that they should go ahead and add PPP for Pedophilia, Polygamy and Polyamory, because — as predicted — they are using the same arguments that the gay lobby used (born that way, same love, if-you-disagree-you’re-a-hater, etc.).

And there is the obvious overlap for many of the letters: Famous Gay Rights Activist Now Also Famous for Child Pornography Habits.  Yeah, he was just a famous gay rights leader caught with baby-rape porn, so he only got 6 months in jail and won’t lose his government pension because that crime “obviously” doesn’t violate his moral turpitude agreement.  And of course the mainstream media would never tell you about this case.

They should consolidate their unwieldy term as “R” for rebels.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

It is fascinating/horrifying to see how faddish sexual perversions have become.  It isn’t cool enough just to claim to be gay, lesbian or even bisexual.  People seem to want to have their own individual identity.  I pray that they discover that God’s way is the best way.  Always.

And I pray that those claiming the name of Christ will have the courage to speak the truth on these topics instead of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  

*QRC = Queer Resource Center.  And yes, if you use the word queer it is hate speech, but if they use it then it is fine.

Intelligent Design, Science

Things like this make me feel sorry for Darwinists

3 Comments

Take a close look at the wings of a particular kind of fruit fly.  They contain clear images of ants. Then keep this example handy when Darwinists insist that macro-evolution is true.

Via Fruit fly with the wings of beauty.

When threatened, the fly flashes its wings to give the appearance of ants walking back and forth. The predator gets confused and the fly zips off.

Now the Darwinists would have you believe that these changes were the result of small, random, gradual changes over time that are almost always destructive yet just happened to end up with precise pictures of ants on both wings in this case.  As I often note at work when summarizing investigations involving highly implausible claims, you are welcome to believe that if you like.  I don’t.

Of all the resplendent beauties in the insect kingdom, few might look to the humble fruit fly for its delicacy or charm.

But a closer examination of the transparent wings of Goniurellia tridens reveals a piece of evolutionary art. Each wing carries a precisely detailed image of an ant-like insect, complete with six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen.

“The image on the wing is absolutely perfect,” says Dr Brigitte Howarth, the fly specialist at Zayed University who first discovered G tridens in the UAE.

It is a member of tephritidae, a family – there are two – of 5,000 species of fruit flies whose colourful markings have earned them the name “peacock flies”.

In the UAE alone, 27 picture wing species are known. Some have wings bearing simple shapes but others, like G tridens, are far more complex.

Dr Howarth first saw G tridens on an oleander shrub in northern Oman. “I was looking at the stem of the leaves and I noticed that there were some insects crawling around. When I sort of honed in I started to notice what I thought was a couple of ants moving around.”

At first she suspected an infestation on the fly’s wings. “But it was so symmetrical that I thought, ‘oh this is not possible’. When I got it under the microscope I realised that these were insects painted onto the wings.”

In contrast to its wings and brilliant green eyes, the fly’s body is a dull greenish grey – “almost cryptically coloured,” says Dr Howarth – that blends into the leaves where it is found.

When threatened, the fly flashes its wings to give the appearance of ants walking back and forth. The predator gets confused and the fly zips off.

This defence mechanism may also make the fly attractive to potential mates – something that is less of a concern for the average housefly.

“A lot of flies, if a male sees a female that is suitable it just flies up and tries to latch on,” said Dr Howarth. But G tridens has an altogether more amorous courtship, showing off its wings in a colourful dance. And Dr Howarth believes it is no exception.

“If you look at the behaviour, it tells you a lot about the functionality,” said Dr Howarth. “Not everybody gets to mate. The ones that do have something about them that make them more attractive.

“Is it the same in other invertebrates, who knows? It’s very possible that those are in fact for courtship behaviour.”

This elaborate behaviour may be a response to the fly’s restrictive environment. “Something that can survive anywhere doesn’t need to have as many protection factors,” said Dr Howarth.

The more realistic the picture on the wing, the better its chance of survival and reproduction.

“It’s all about optimising your possibilities of survival. There’s always variety and some individuals, for whatever reason, have more of a success because of that variation.”

Really, Darwinists, please give it up.  Whether it is the highly ordered, specified information of DNA, gears that allegedly evolved, fruit fly wings, or millions of other examples, the universe screams out design.

And despite the assumptions of Darwinists, even if Darwinian evolution was true, it wouldn’t disprove God.  They haven’t come close to explaining how life could have come from non-life, or how the universe came into existence from nothing.  In fact, they are so desperate on the latter point that they have started pushing the multiverse theory (aka the Atheist Concession Speech).

Here is a good summary of Intelligent Design: “The simplest living cell includes highly sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms and their implementation.”  If you believe that the universe came from nothing, that life came from non-life and that it evolved to what we see today, then you are the person described here:

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

More bad news: You’ll be judged on the standard of Jesus, not by comparing your best traits to your neighbor’s worst traits.  All your deepest, darkest secrets will be brought to light.

Romans 2:15-16 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

It is foolish and rebellious to think that you get to define whether God exists and what He must be like.  Repent and believe while you still have time.  Eternity is a mighty long time to suffer for your foolish pride.  Seek God on his incredibly gracious terms and not only will your past, present and future sins be completely forgiven, but you will have the righteousness of Christ imputed to you.

Hat tip: Uncommon Descent

Also see:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels – J. Warner Wallace

Christian worldview, Intelligent Design

Sure, those gears in living organisms just happened to “evolve”

13 Comments

insect gear

It takes a lot of blind faith to believe that the universe came into being from nothing without a cause, that life came from non-life and that it evolved into everything we see today, including having highly ordered information in DNA that could not have been brought about by chemical reactions.  Oh, and highly functioning gears.

Via Mechanical gear fund in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism | Uncommon Descent.

With two diminutive legs locked into a leap-ready position, the tiny jumper bends its body taut like an archer drawing a bow. At the top of its legs, a minuscule pair of gears engage—their strange, shark-fin teeth interlocking cleanly like a zipper. And then, faster than you can blink, think, or see with the naked eye, the entire thing is gone. In 2 milliseconds it has bulleted skyward, accelerating at nearly 400 g’s—a rate more than 20 times what a human body can withstand. At top speed the jumper breaks 8 mph—quite a feat considering its body is less than one-tenth of an inch long.

This miniature marvel is an adolescent issus, a kind of planthopper insect and one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. As a duo of researchers in the U.K. report today in the journal Science, the issus also the first living creature ever discovered to sport a functioning gear.

How does selection arrive at such coordination? What good is one gear without the corresponding gear? The challenge of IC for Darwinism remains.

There has never been a valid reason for denying God’s existence.  How much more so is this true with the vast amount of evidence we have today?

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Bible

Exposing the foundational errors of postmodern / emergent Christianity in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Leave a comment

I came across The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already via the blog of a recent commenter.  The author is heavily into postmodern / emergent church thought, which is basically just theological liberalism described with fifty cent terms.  The title pretty much says it all about their worldview.  The post is a logical fallacy-fest trying to have Jesus while teaching the opposite of what He does in his word.  As usual, they downplay or even mock the importance of sound doctrine.

It was largely a straw man argument implying that Bible-believing Christians are never friendly to gays.  I know a “few” conservative Christians and that isn’t the case at all.  These critics fall prey to the truism that the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  Of course we should be friendly to them.  But you don’t express your care for people by teaching them the opposite of God’s word.

The flawed theme was the claim that there are just a few verses addressing homosexual behavior, so we should just ignore that unpopular topic.  Yes, and there are just a few about child sacrifice (don’t), bestiality (don’t), loving your enemies (do) as well.  And that proves what, exactly?

They also ignore the flip side: How many verses describe God’s ideal for marriage and parenting?  Hint: More than a few.

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Here are sections of the post along with my comments:

But presenting a coherent biblical argument for why homosexuality is not a sin and why our gay brothers and sisters should be fully welcomed into all areas of the church and ministry is not my point here.

Well – if that’s the problem – then I say, “Enough with the Bible already!”

That’s a concession speech right there.  The provocative title says we need to ignore the Bible.  But notice how he doesn’t ignore the Bible when propping up the rest of his claims.

This issue has been on my mind a lot recently, for a variety of reasons, but most recently because Sarah and I gathered with some friends from our church and watched the documentary, “For the Bible Tells me So.” If you don’t know anything about the film, you should really watch the trailer . . .

Better yet, read about the trailer here.  It was full of all sorts of bad reasoning.

. . .  I became increasingly upset that there are people in this world (primarily Christians) who think our gay and lesbian friends should not be allowed to marry, adopt children, have the same rights as straight people or be ordained to follow calls to ministry. Rather, they should be “fixed” or changed. And for those who are Christian and believe these things, these beliefs come from a very selective reading of a very small amount of texts from the Bible.

Yes, we think that homosexuals should not be given the title of marriage (“the union of a man and a woman”) because it doesn’t apply to them and is un-biblical.  But I don’t know one single Christian trying to prevent their “loving” relationships.  We also don’t think they should adopt children, because we love children and want the best for them.  And of course they shouldn’t be ministers.

Note how he cheats by claiming that Christians use a “very selective reading of a very small amount of texts from the Bible” while he does nothing to address the texts.

If it is truly the Bible that is causing some to hold these discriminatory beliefs, then perhaps we need to set the Bible aside for awhile. Perhaps we need to not construct a belief system about LGBT folk built on the foundation of a couple verses in scripture. Perhaps that isn’t healthy, fair, just or Christian.

“Discriminatory beliefs” = question begging.  He assumes what he should be proving.  Some discrimination is quite rational.  He needs to prove that this is the bad kind.

How convenient to set the Bible aside for a while when it conflicts with your cherished views!  That is classic Dalmatian Theology, where they claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and they they are inspired to spot the spots.

Christians have a history of using the Bible as a weapon (this is a bit of a caricature – but probably not far from the truth). Whether being used to condone slavery, oppress women or support wars, it’s clear the Bible has been misused by many [insert here accusations that I as well am misusing the Bible with my hope for acceptance of LGBT folk]. When the Bible becomes used as a weapon, as a tool for discrimination, as a way in which people can justify beliefs of hatred and injustice – one has to think and wonder if we haven’t gone horribly wrong somewhere.

Yes, and the Bible has been used to free slaves and oppose wars.  His argument proves nothing, except that the burden of proof is on those claiming support of the Bible.  But wait, I forgot — he wants to throw the Bible out of this conversation!

For some, I believe the Bible has become an idol.

That’s possible, but unproven and irrelevant here.  We tend to view the Bible as God himself does: His inspired word, carefully given and preserved for us to know what He wants us to know about him.  Does he make the Bible an idol when he quotes it, or is it just when we refer to it that it is an idol?

Some place the Bible above Jesus’ compassion and love, Jesus’ radical inclusivity, and hold steadfast onto what they believe to be the correct interpretation of a small amount of verses that speak about same-sex relations.

Straw man.  If you really love people you’ll want to tell them the truth.  Jesus’ “radical inclusivity” means including everyone who repents and believes.

To those who repeatedly start quoting Leviticus and Romans verses as soon as anyone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I’d suggest perhaps you stick your Bible back up on the shelf for awhile. Perhaps it should collect a little bit of dust. And maybe, just maybe, you need to go out and grab coffee with someone who’s gay. Maybe you need to hear their story, learn about what they’ve been through, how they’ve experienced Christians and the church.

Why not do both?  I know plenty of gays and we get along well.  I don’t try to “fix” them before sharing the Gospel any more than I try to stop anyone from being lustful, greedy, selfish, etc. before I share the Good News.  But of course I don’t encourage them to pursue those sins, either.  That wouldn’t be loving.  Here’s one encounter where I shared the Gospel with someone who was gay.

It’s recently become more and more clear to me that there is an increasing amount of fear and ignorance connected to this topic. We may be living in the 21st century, but there is still so much fear connected to gay people in our world. Fear of the unknown is strong and rampant in so many people’s assumptions about gays. Fear comes from ignorance, from a lack of knowledge. I wonder how much fear could be laid to rest if those who feared gays the most actually got to know someone who was gay.

More straw.  How will shelving your Bible make you less ignorant?  There is nothing wrong with getting to know people better, but no matter how much I like someone who is cheating on his wife I shouldn’t encourage the behavior.

The fear argument is just your basic “homophobe” accusation.  The real homophobes are those who are so politically correct and fearful of rejection by the world that they defy their (alleged) Savior and common sense and teach the opposite of what Jesus did.

. . . So I’m not arguing that we should throw out the Bible; but at least for some people, it might be more productive – and better for society – if they put the Bible aside for awhile, stopped listening to the hateful rhetoric of James Dobson & Friends, and engaged in some thoughtful reflection and conversation with the LGBT community.

Ah, the “hateful rhetoric of James Dobson and friends.”  Here’s a wild guess: This guy doesn’t listen to Focus on the Family Podcasts.  They are anything but hateful.  Again, the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  And he assumes that we haven’t given thoughtful reflection to this issue or the people involved.

Christians need to get over their infatuation with a very select few verses, and get over their infatuation with a literalistic interpretation of these texts.

Even more straw.  Nobody light a match!  Notice how he says we interpret them wrong but won’t say why.  How convenient.  And notice how he ignores that 100% of the verses describing God’s ideals for marriage and parenting involved one man / one woman marriages?

Christians need to look more to Christ than to the Bible.

LOL.  And where do we learn about Christ?  If he claims personal revelation, then after I stop laughing I’ll point out that I’m going to trust the personal revelations given to the writers of scripture before someone who wants me to ignore the Bible.

Christians need to actually live out the radical love and compassion that Jesus exemplified in the scriptures. Christians need to realize that the world will not end when gays are given the right to marry – or when we finally fully welcome LGBT brothers and sisters into pastoral ministry.

He has yet to prove why we should ordain people who come into the church shaking their fists at God and defying his clear teachings.  His love and compassion are the fake, indulgent kind that point people to Hell.

If it is the Bible that is causing us to delay accepting and celebrating LGBT persons as being fully human and fully created in the image of God, just as they are, then perhaps we need to say, “Enough with the Bible already…”

That’s the final bit of straw.  We do realize that they are fully human and created in the image of God.  We have their long term best interests at heart.  That’s biblical (agape) love.  The writer is the one who loves himself more than the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people he claims to care about.

Also see Left Wing Pomos Comment on Bible v. Homosexuality for more false teachings, primarily where they assume that the need for “community” trumps the need to obey God.  Got any Bible verses for that?

Those posts are quite typical for the postmodern / emergent types.  Making a god in your own image is not exactly a new sin.  Run, don’t walk, from those mocking accurate references to the Bible.  Don’t love the world more than you love God.

Also see for some accurate teachings:

False teachers

The slightly bright side

Leave a comment

warning.gifAs frustrating as the oxymoronic “same sex marriage” debate is and as destructive as it is to the church, there is a bright side: It enables you to spot false teachers and churches with great precision.  They not only deny what the Bible clearly teaches about sinful behavior but they encourage the behavior.

As I’ve often noted, all Christians are saved and at least a little confused in that none of us have an absolutely perfect grasp on theology.  But at some point people aren’t just confused but are outside the realm of Christianity.

While Romans 1 has the clearest and most emphatic condemnation of homosexual behavior as sin in the New Testament, there is so much more to the chapter and the book.

Paul was laying out how upside down the world is, morally speaking, and how people suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness and what a grave sin that is.  He describes how their worship has gone completely wrong, and how they worship and serve created things rather than the creator.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Then he gives an example of just how wrong the world has gone behaviorally.  What does he pick?  Homosexual behavior is the prime example, where people mock their creator by using their created bodies in the opposite way from which they were intended.   

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 

Then he lists other acts of rebellion.  Note the last section where he notes how they don’t just do these things but they encourage them:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Ignoring sins is bad enough.  But when “churches” openly promote sin they are just poster children for Romans 1.  That is what you get with theologically liberal churches today.  They promote homosexual behavior, abortion (see the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) and more.

As irritating as these false teachers are, at least they are waving a big warning flag.  They snuck into the church pretending to be authentic, just as Satan masquerades as an angel of light.  But they are quickly abandoning all pretense of subtlety. 

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Apologetics

Dan Brown’s predictable story

Leave a comment

DaVinciBad answers from Christians don’t disprove Christianity any more than bad answers from atheists prove that there is a God.

Dan Brown is the author of The Da Vinci Code (and other works), which would have been a typical work of anti-religious fiction had he not claimed that it was historical fiction.  Either that was a lie or he is a spectacularly bad historian.  There were many serious errors that no decent historian would make.

But Dan is back, and shared the reason for his disbelief:

Interviewer: Are you religious?

Dan Brown: I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion.

It is a common story.  The movie Contact delighted in Jodie Foster’s character giving similar dramatic “evidence” that the Bible and Christianity must be wrong, even though the film makers shot themselves in the foot by insisting that design in a series of numbers was incontrovertible evidence of intelligent life.  Hey, we agree that design implies a designer!

 Gil Dodgen made a great parody of Brown’s response:

I was raised an atheist, and was very devout as a kid. I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a scientist, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, and that all the laws of physics were fine-tuned to make life possible. Wouldn’t this require design and purpose?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Only mindless, uneducated religious fanatics ask that question. It was all an accident. Stop asking stupid questions.” But I wasn’t mindless, uneducated, or a religious fanatic. I was an atheist!

A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.

There are poor and/or mistaken teachers in all areas.  Countless people are just looking for an excuse not to believe, but they aren’t fooling God:

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

The solution is to keep asking questions and for Christians to be better prepared with answers!  It is tragic how few Christians are equipped to defend their faith or to point people in the right direction for answers.

Check out the Wintery Knight for more.

Bible, Christian worldview, Favorites

Romans 1 and natural desires / functions

71 Comments

warning.gifIn Romans 1 and temple prostitutes I addressed the myth that the homosexual sins mentioned in Romans 1 were really just about temple prostitutes. 

Another argument pro-gay theologians try to use against the clear and emphatic teaching of Romans 1 is that it is only sinful when people act outside their sexual desires.  That is, if you have heterosexual desires but go and deliberately have homosexual sex then you are sinning.  If you have homosexual desires with homosexual sex that is OK.  But if you have homosexual desires and have heterosexual sex then that is a sin. 

As you might have guessed, that is a poor argument.

Who has consensual sex with someone without the desire for it?  For men, it would be virtually impossible from a physical standpoint.  Some think that prostitutes don’t have the desire, but that view was debunked in the link above and Romans 1 makes it clear that both parties are fully responsible and are sinning. 

And if everyone just follows their natural desires when it comes to sex, to whom is Paul speaking?  There would be no one to talk to!  And wouldn’t anyone charged with this sin just claim to be bisexual? 

And the born that way argument is irrelevant.  Even if it were true, predispositions don’t excuse behavior.  And this view would assume that the Holy Spirit wasn’t aware of this alleged genetic link.

The main problem for the pro-gay theologians is that the original Greek says that they abandoned their natural functions, not their natural desires.  Romans 1 mentions three times that “God gave them over . . .”  He gave them over to these desires.  They burned in desire for one another, so they weren’t acting outside their desires.  But they weren’t using their natural functions.  Read this carefully:

Romans 1:26-27 (NASB95) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,  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.

Some people try to say that function is synonymous with desire, and that the gays “function” as gays so they are doing what comes naturally.  But this view requires that you ignore the plain meaning of function plus the part of v. 27 that says “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another . . .” 

There is no way around this.  No matter how hard people try to twist it, this passage is about people abandoning the opposite sex for same-sex partners.   It is very tightly and clearly written – almost as if God anticipated all the arguments that would be brought against this passage today.

Homosexual behavior is rebellion against God.  Heterosexuals who help rationalize this behavior (and any other sins) join in the sin.

Romans 1:32 (NASB95) 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.

God’s way is the best way.  I plead with anyone involved with this to trust Jesus to help you overcome your false beliefs. 

Does that mean heterosexuals should grandstand on this sin because it isn’t a temptation for them?  Of course not.  We should defend the truth of the Bible against false teachers, but we should also teach that all sexual sin is sin, and that we are all sinners in need of  a Savior. 

Also see Romans 1 and homosexuality and Paul, Romans and Homosexuality by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.