Posted on 02/07/2018 9:24:52 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
The issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage just won’t go away these days. Thus, Christians need to make sure they are well-equipped to meet the challenges of the post-Christian world we find ourselves in.
There have been many good books written to address this subject, but one of the most original I have seen is the recent volume by Don Fortson and Rollin Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (B&H Academic, 2016).
Don Fortson is the Professor of Church History here at RTS Charlotte, and Rollin Grams is professor of New Testament at Gordon Conwell.
What makes this book unique is simple. This book responds to those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Christianity by considering both the evidence from church history and the evidence from the Bible.
In other words, it considers not only what the Bible says, but what Christians have said the Bible says throughout the ages. I know of no other recent volume that does this.
And I can tell you, the result is absolutely devastating for the claim that Christianity and homosexuality go together. A person might be able to convince themselves that the Bible allows it (by reinterpreting even the plainest of passages), but it is a bit hard to explain away 2000 years of absolutely consistent church history.
And that is exactly what we find in the historical record. From the very beginning of the church, all the way to the modern day, Christians have uniformly declared homosexuality to be incompatible with the Christian faith.
This consistency is particularly noteworthy in the earliest centuries because the church was quite diverse and represented a variety of cultures, ethnicities, and pagan backgrounds. Yet, with one voice, the church was unified it its opposition to homosexual behavior.
In essence, this forces the pro-homosexuality camp to argue that only in the modern day, really only in the last few years, have Christians, for the first time, finally understood what the Bible really teaches about homosexuality. And, every other Christian generation, for two-thousand years, has been bigoted, discriminatory, and oppressive.
The arrogance and audacity of a claim is stunning. But, that is precisely what the pro-homosexual camp is forced to believe.
Of course, some who are committed to the superiority of the modern will no doubt respond by saying, “Just because the church believes something doesn’t make it right.” True. But, the key issue in this case is that the church believes something that is also clearly the plain teaching of Scripture. Thus, we have both the testimony of Scripture and the church on the same side.
And if the Bible and the history of the church both seem to be saying the same thing, then that is a compelling reason to think it is true.
For those who are intellectually honest, this just becomes too much to bear. After reading Fortson’s and Rollin’s book, they may not agree with what Christians have always believed. But, they would have to admit that Christians have always believed it.
Reformation ping?
Given the bible, arguing about homosexuality is like arguing about murder.
James White has a massive audio presentation on this very subject on his website. He spends 6 hours meticulously taking apart the arguments of Matthew Vines (who is pushing writing and lecturing on gay Christianity). White reviews not only scripture but 2000 years of Christian witness on this issue.
That's same approach leftists take with the Constitution, finding protections in it that were not there for 200 years (such as the right to privacy to have unlimited abortion), finding the "wall of separation" that is not there. They are now working on the "free speech does not include hate speech" interpretation of the 1st amendment.
Not quite the same (murder is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, buggery was consigned to Leviticus along with all the other Mosaic laws). But it still is unnatural, sinful, explicitly proscribed, and in the Torah the punishment was to be death. That does not mean forgiveness and redemption aren’t possible. But as always the forgotten requirement and hard part is acknowledgement, repentance, and that the redeemed “sin no more”. Not exactly “It’s OK, we understand and appreciate your flamboyance”.
Sodomite faggots argue the queerest things, eh?
Homosexuality blocks the core drive of all life forms — procreation. Leave out God and use only ‘nature’ to judge it: anything that blocks this universal core life drive is, by definition, unnatural, an abomination against nature.
Most of us want nothing to do with this perversion. Leave us alone.
Ping!
A heavy blow has been struck against the "gay community" at the Wellesley St area in Toronto Canada. The predominantly gay area there experienced five missing young men in about a year. Some are new and impoverished recent immigrants. A 62 year old man, with a landscape business has now recently been arrested. No, not a right wing homophobe, but a man involved in sexual encounters. Two bodies found, looking for five more. Police say maybe more than that.
Someone ought to buy a box of them at discount and mail them to the Pope and his close friends.
Arguably, in context, the Lev. 18 "Holiness Code" description of various sexual sins (including homosexual behavior and incest) are covered by the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
That, and the fact that penalty for homosexual acts was execution....means that yes, it was considered much like murder.
Common in the use of Hebrew are words used in a general, short-hand, kind of way--so "adultery" in the Decalogue would be understood as covering all kinds of sexual sins--beyond sex with another man's wife.
The fact that THE most evil people group in the Old Testament--a people so bad that God personally wiped out their cities--Sodom & Gomorrah--practiced open homosexuality....is an indicator of how wicked sexual perversion was understood to be.
While I disagree with the subject matter, I think the author’s main premise is excellent. We got into several rather heavy discussions on “cultural” beliefs in scripture over the last two weeks, two occurring in two separate Bible studies. There is a belief circulating in my church that some of Paul’s writings reflect cultural bias and should be discarded. Some are arguing they no longer apply to us. Several areas brought up included homosexuality, women covering their heads in the church, preaching, baptism, etc.
At the time I really didn’t have a very good answer nor did our leader of the Bible study. Upon reflection the real answer is just what these authors have pointed out. Some items in scripture such as homosexuality are very clear and really should not be opened for discussion by anyone who is remotely honest about the scriptures. Some items such as women preaching can be determined based upon the scriptures, the historical traditions and early writings of the church. And still other items, such as covering of women’s heads in the church, reflect not cultural but attitudes of which we need to be careful to observe. Finally, some items such as baptism (e.g. immersion vs sprinkling) are not so clear in either scripture or history. These we have a bit more flexibility on what to believe.
Sadly I think what is driving this is an attack on the Word of God by well meaning Christians who are trying to be accommondating to a darkening world. I only wish I read this article two weeks ago.
sounds like the influence of NT Wright. He promotes something called "The New Perspective on Paul".
The “New Perspective(s) on Paul” are simultaneously more radical, and, in some ways “conservative” than the traditional views. Contrary to the Protestant understanding since the Reformation, Wright argues that Paul’s view of conversion was joining the covenant community (the Jews) which Jesus fulfilled...hence they discarded Kosher laws, making it easier for Gentiles to join God’s people. Wright under emphasizes (or even denies...) the substitutionary atonement—emphasizing Christ’ kingship instead...
All of this is based on a post-WWII understanding of 1st Century Judaism which sees it as covenantal and NOT legalistic (like the New Testament’s Pharisees)....in order to combat higher-critic’s anti-Semitism evident in German scholarship before WWII.
The old (liberal) view was the Judaism was “primitive” and legalistic...and Christianity evolved higher than that.....in essence that Christianity was the more-evolved, superior religion. Wright, following Sanders and Dunn (both very liberal theologians) tries to rectify that idea, by claiming 1st Cen. Judaism was not legalistic...and Jesus message was a continuation of that faith....so the main point of the Gospel was membership in God’s community, not personal salvation of the soul.
Wright though, is an otherwise conventional evangelical—in that he believes in the virgin birth, Jesus’ real death on the cross & a literal, physical resurrection. Wright was a key opponent, for example to the “Jesus Seminar” wacky liberals...who deny ALL the essentials. Wright also emphasizes the universal nature of Christ’ kingdom—in that it will physically redeem all of creation (not merely our souls....) Unfortunately he gets all muddy on the meaning of the atonement though.....the chief problem of the “New Perspective(s) on Paul.”
The way he can be considered “traditional” is that his atonement view looks a bit more like Roman Catholic ideas...than that of traditional Protestants. Being Anglican...that’s not all that surprising.
In any event, it’s wrong to label Wright a theological liberal (he’s not...in any conventional way), but nor is he a traditional conservative evangelical either....he’s one of those strange hybrids.
Your description seems to fit what I have read about NTW. I guess I didn't mean to throw him in with the liberation theologians of the 60s, etc. Thank you for making the distinction clear.
But, as you pointed out, he has a bit of bad and good in him...which in some ways makes him more dangerous.
I know young church leaders in my conservative Presbyterian denomination who think very highly of him and Karl Barth. Not good.
It depends on how discerning these men are—able to take the good from folks like Wright, or Barth, (or Bonhoffer, for that matter), and leave the bad. I’m an RTS graduate myself (very conservative Presbyterian seminary), and most of us, have a pretty well formed theology upon graduation. With a well formed theology—one can examine other theologians you differ with—get something out of them—and discern where they go wrong.
Where it is dangerous, is where pastors or other leaders read theologians uncritically, accepting them whole-hog—without the basic theology that scripture alone is our inerrant rule.
Some of the most significant theologians in history, men who were of great help to orthodoxy—had some area of their theology where they were weak....or outright wrong. Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther & Calvin among them.
It's both amusing and maddening how pervasively Western exceptionalism fuels the complete disregard for the whole of historical thought and understanding when it comes to issues like homosexuality and marriage. Unfortunately, the church in general has so succumbed to the anti-intellectualism accompanying it that they haven't been at all good at mounting any consistent defense. It doesn't help that the pro-growth reaching for "cultural relevance" has completely undermined most attempts. Hard to argue credibly against homosexual marriage when the church itself is full of those who turn their back on heterosexual marriages at a rate in line with the culture.
Have you read this?
Synopsis:A former lesbian, left wing college professor has her heart turned to flesh and marries a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
Knowing Dr Kruger personally, I will see what I can do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.