That only works to a certain extent. Sooner or later we must delve into the OT to get our definitions for terms that aren’t concretely defined in the NT. Such as “abominable” in Rev. 21:8. The Greek “bdelusso” means “stinking, disgusting, detestable, abhorrent, abominable.” There are a number of behaviors that were identified as “abominable” in the OT, but there’s only a handful of “abominable” behaviors that are damned in both OT and NT. See 1 Cor. 6:9-10.
But Rev. 22:15, the parallel verse to Rev. 21:8, leaves no doubt that unrepentant homosexuals are the ones being damned in both places. “Fearful” and “unbelieving” are no-brainers. The remaining behaviors are identical except for “abominable” in Rev. 21:8 and “dogs” in Rev. 22:15. So this is an “abominable” behavior where the practitioners are derogatorily called “dogs” by the Holy Spirit. In the Greek, “dogs” (kuon) just means “dogs,” so it’s no help. But the NT was likely spoken in Aramaic, closely related to Hebrew, and in Hebrew the mystery is solved. In Hebrew, “dogs” (keleb) is a euphemism for “male prostitute.” Homosexuals, in other words, are the “abominable dogs” the Holy Spirit is damning. Unless they repent.
Thanks for that study!
Yes, and if I was presenting a class on Christian theology to Christian believers I would thoroughly cover all that. But I am talking about apologetic witness to casual Christians and skeptical outsiders. They are not going to hang on for a long involved dissertation in this regard. But they will be swayed by the "so, are you saying we can't eat shellfish either" argument. Sticking to NT prohibitions helps avoid going down that rabbit trail immensely.