Kevin – thanks for your response. I would like to spend time in the near future to look in to the specific arguments you've given, but for now I'd like to generally comment with my initial thoughts. My response includes many Bible citations – I don't intend them to “bash” you over the head with them – I just want to insure that my arguments are based from the Bible and not my own reasoning.
I obviously disagree – Paul is not referring to heterosexuals doing homosexual activities, or the abuse of young people: He is referring to homosexuality per se, and the moral sin of such activities. A few reasons I believe this:
v27 “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another”: straight men who occasionally “do” homosexual activity do not burn for other men. The Greek indicates a very strong burning such that can only exists towards the one whom the man is sexually oriented towards (by inversion, not perversion).
Also, v27 says that “Their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural” - the Greek phrase for “That which is unnatrual” (para phusin) is a stock phrase in Greek ethical literature at the time for homosexual behavior among those who are homosexually oriented (not talking about perversion or abuse of young people) – Plutark, Josephus, Philo all only use that term “para phusis” to refer to homosexuality per se.
The most significant: there is a clear three-fold sequence that is repeated: 1) humans beings exchange the glory of God for what is more like us (v23,25,28a), 2) God hands us over to what we prefer (24,26,28b), and 3) consequently we act out externally and physically in our sexual relations a drama of the internal, spiritual condition of fallen humanity (24b,26b-27,28c). Though Paul is talking about something much bigger than homosexuality, for his argument to make sense, he must be talking about homosexuality per se and not anything else
To briefly respond to your three points:
I do not follow the logic that equates impurity with merely socially unacceptable = not morally wrong. When I read Romans 12:21-25, to me it seems clear that impurity is referring to what is morally wrong. In fact, every time Paul uses what is translated in my primary version (ESV) to “impurity”, it is (at least to me) clearly referring to moral impurity and even that heaven/hell is riding on the matter.
Galatians 5:19,21b: “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Ephesians 5:3,5: “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you … For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God”
I Thessalonians 4:7: “For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you”
The other places also give no indication of impurity referring to anything except moral sin. Romans 6:19, II Corinthians 12:21, Ephesians 4:19, I Thessalonians 2:3, Colossians 3:5
I see no indication that Romans 1 is “divided into two distinct parts: morally wrong acts and socially unacceptable acts”. I've read through it several times now and don't see even a hint at such a distinction. Leviticus, however, is very much divided into two parts: dietary/ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The New Testament clearly frees Christians from the ceremonial & dietary uncleanliness restrictions. The prohibitions to homosexual activity in Leviticus 18 & 20 are grouped as moral laws, and in their proximity is all kinds of other sexual sins that no one challenges as wrong – these are a part of God's moral standard that transcends their cultural or civic laws, and are affirmed in the New Testament.
In terms of the overall intent of Paul writing Romans, I wholly disagree – Paul does not indicate that “in Christ the purity concerns of the Old Law no longer matter”. Rather, Paul greatly desires that the Romans be pure – he just wants to free them from legalism & the myth of justification by works. The first 3 chapters deal with the condition of man: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Romans 4 & 5 give the solution to our fallen condition: faith in Jesus Christ that makes us righteous before God, despite our sin. But Romans 6 & 7 & 8 answer the common error: If we are free from the punishment from the law and justified by works, then our sin doesn't matter!?! No – that couldn't be further from the truth – Romans 8:13 says “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”. Yes, Christians are free from the law's punishments against sin, but we are still called to be flee from impurity and live holy lives (which now should become the very thing we desire – I John 5:3)
Bottom line: I believe that these texts are clear: God intended sexuality to be enjoyed between a man and a woman in marriage to dramatize the relationship between Christ and His church – any use of it outside that context is impurity and is sin. Many passages even directly address same-sex unions – and condemn them. I do not believe gay-friendly theology because I feel it twists scripture and makes a mockery of the holiness of God.
General exhortation to all: Our tendency as humans (myself included) is to decide what we believe, and then find zinger verses from the Bible, or quotes from like-minded scholars, to prove & back our arguments up. You must ask yourself this question: Do you believe the pro-gay theology because you really think it's true, or because (despite the most common sense & historic & majority opinion of Bible scholars), you want to believe it's true? Only you can answer that question.
Thanks for your response
Kevin – thanks for your response. I would like to spend time in the near future to look in to the specific arguments you've given, but for now I'd like to generally comment with my initial thoughts. My response includes many Bible citations – I don't intend them to “bash” you over the head with them – I just want to insure that my arguments are based from the Bible and not my own reasoning.
I obviously disagree – Paul is not referring to heterosexuals doing homosexual activities, or the abuse of young people: He is referring to homosexuality per se, and the moral sin of such activities. A few reasons I believe this:
To briefly respond to your three points:
Bottom line: I believe that these texts are clear: God intended sexuality to be enjoyed between a man and a woman in marriage to dramatize the relationship between Christ and His church – any use of it outside that context is impurity and is sin. Many passages even directly address same-sex unions – and condemn them. I do not believe gay-friendly theology because I feel it twists scripture and makes a mockery of the holiness of God.
General exhortation to all: Our tendency as humans (myself included) is to decide what we believe, and then find zinger verses from the Bible, or quotes from like-minded scholars, to prove & back our arguments up. You must ask yourself this question: Do you believe the pro-gay theology because you really think it's true, or because (despite the most common sense & historic & majority opinion of Bible scholars), you want to believe it's true? Only you can answer that question.