Through
a proper theological understanding of God backed with Scripture and properly understood logic it is conceivable that this argument can be refuted without getting into myopic scientific minutiae (but I'll touch on it now a little to make my point). It is critical to
refute this argument because the modern theological division is divided at this
point. I suspect this is the avenue down which I will receive the stiffest opposition and be savagely attacked for this particular argument.
On one side we have conservative theology that believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and is the position of this paper. On the opposing side are those that believe or accept that homosexuals are made the way they are or have little or no choice in the manner (Holtam 593). The recent trend culturally is that even the wordage of this phenomena has even changed over the last few years to enforce the idea that homosexuality is now an "orientation" rather than a "preference" which would indicate a choice. These terms (like those of abortion) become exceptionally important when dealing with legal or litigious issues concerning respective legalities. It needs to also be mentioned that no studies have ever conclusively proved there is any genetic linkage to the behavior of homosexuality. As this is primarily a biblical and theological series on homosexuality and so that I do not bog down this post with unwarranted scientific complexities I reference some of the most recent scientific references here in their source material: Mustanski et al-Human Genetics 116, 272–27 ; Rice et al-Science 284: 665-667.
Having tentatively mentioned that the genetic argument for homosexuality stands on extremely shaky ground I now move to the main gist of my theological/biblical polemic.
On one side we have conservative theology that believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and is the position of this paper. On the opposing side are those that believe or accept that homosexuals are made the way they are or have little or no choice in the manner (Holtam 593). The recent trend culturally is that even the wordage of this phenomena has even changed over the last few years to enforce the idea that homosexuality is now an "orientation" rather than a "preference" which would indicate a choice. These terms (like those of abortion) become exceptionally important when dealing with legal or litigious issues concerning respective legalities. It needs to also be mentioned that no studies have ever conclusively proved there is any genetic linkage to the behavior of homosexuality. As this is primarily a biblical and theological series on homosexuality and so that I do not bog down this post with unwarranted scientific complexities I reference some of the most recent scientific references here in their source material: Mustanski et al-Human Genetics 116, 272–27 ; Rice et al-Science 284: 665-667.
Having tentatively mentioned that the genetic argument for homosexuality stands on extremely shaky ground I now move to the main gist of my theological/biblical polemic.
First,
based on previous argumentation it can conclusively be shown that homosexuality
is a sin (among many others). Sin by its nature is not of or from a holy God per se as this would contradict God’s
nature being holy. Therefore God could not have made a human homosexual or sinful. Additional Scripture validating
the attributes and nature of God are as follows.
1 John 1:5 ~
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is
Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
Habakkuk 1:13 ~ Your
eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do
you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up
those more righteous than themselves?
When
confronted with sinful sexual circumstances including immoral or wicked
thoughts humans are confronted with a choice (freewill) to violate the rules
and statutes that God has ordained for human sexual activity. The truth is that
the only acceptable sex acts are those within the covenant of marriage between
man and woman (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5). What we choose to do with our minds and
subsequently our bodies when dealing with temptation and sin is choice (Enns
209, Erickson 210-212, Grudem 333). If our fantasies and acts of sexuality are outside of
marriage they are in violation of Scripture, therefore they are sin and an
offense against God. The Bible is replete with examples of sexual sin being
sins of choice. From the mouth of Paul
we again see the following about adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, etc.
Or do you not
know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were
washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11
The
implication in the above passage is that the believers made a choice to believe
and become part of the Church. Paul then states that it was a past action / condition.
Therefore by entering the Church they were to put away the old behaviors such
as homosexuality. It is clear that because Paul needed to address these sins in
such a manner, some within the Corinthian church were still choosing to commit
the aforementioned sins. They would now need to make a choice to stop committing
these sins. More specifically, they having been told these sins are clearly out
of bounds for Christian behavior and the Corinthians should at least now be
convicted of their immoral behavior enough to feel guilt and wish to stop these
sins of their own volition.
When we begin to combine the idea of sexual thoughts / sexual acts being choice with the idea that a person may have homosexual inclinations we see an inconsistency. The first premise logically invalidates the second premise or claim. Even though a person may be homosexual and have homosexual proclivity - like unmarried heterosexuals, they have a biblical obligation to control not only their physical sexual life but also their sexual thought life just as Jesus said:
When we begin to combine the idea of sexual thoughts / sexual acts being choice with the idea that a person may have homosexual inclinations we see an inconsistency. The first premise logically invalidates the second premise or claim. Even though a person may be homosexual and have homosexual proclivity - like unmarried heterosexuals, they have a biblical obligation to control not only their physical sexual life but also their sexual thought life just as Jesus said:
Matthew 5:27 ~
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to
you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed
adultery with her in his heart.
Although
the passage above does not speak directly to homosexuals the underlying principle
is clear. To look at a woman (or object of desire) and have sexual thoughts
about her/him outside the bounds of marriage (adultery) is to sin. To think a
sin is to have committed the sin in your mind. It therefore follows logically
that any sexual thoughts about another human being (or animal) outside the bond
of marriage is improper and sinful. Since homosexuality is not within the
acceptable confines of what is considered legitimate biblical marriage, we see
a compounding of sin (Romans 1).
No comments:
Post a Comment