Homosexuality: The Biblical Witness

The Christian Post ^ | September 24, 2013 | James R. Aist

[ReformationFan]

I think many today don’t seem to realize that more than being anti-homosexuality, the Bible is very much in favor of the procreation of the species and the continued creation of human beings who might come to faith in God through Christ. Homosexuality is just one of many things that work against that possibility.

[arthurus]

It is an abnormal trait

It is not an abnormal trait in pagan societies, at least in the West. Western Civilization, though, was made possible by its suppression and the control of sex.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php

Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Sorry this is not a link. I can't make a link work today. It works with cut and paste, though.

[HarleyD]

The Bible condemns homosexual sex acts, but it does not condemn the experience of being tempted by same-sex attractions.

This is a Catholic explanation and it is wrong. Please consider the following scripture:

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted [sic: to sin], when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

There is no such thing as temptations that does not give forth to sin. If people are "tempted" with same sex attraction, they must flee from it before it gives forth to lust and sin. People don't just live with temptation. Lead us not into temptation.

Please consider the following excerpt from Ligonier:

For example, some people today tout homosexuality as an “orientation” equal in virtue to heterosexuality. They appeal to the “love” shared between two persons of the same gender, and on that basis, contend that equality and public acceptance must be guaranteed. To some, these sexual passions are so strong as to appear innate. Moreover, we are told that homosexual desires are private, harmless to others, and beyond the censure of society.

But if that is true, what are we to think of a passage like Romans 1:26–27? The Bible defines homosexual desires as “contrary to nature,” not an equal alternative orientation. Homosexuality is a “dishonorable passion” that “consumes” men and women, leading to shameless behavior. The strong emotional pull of lust and the affections shared between persons in a homosexual relationship — whatever those affections may be called — cannot properly be called “love.” After all, love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing” (1 Cor. 13:6), and homosexuality is wrongdoing. Moreover, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah over what today would be called “private” decisions indicates that lust is a serious social problem.

And herein is the ultimate problem with lust: Those overcome with lust “receive in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:27) and will face the Lord as “an avenger in all these things” (1 Thess. 4:6). God keeps “the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:9–10). Lust blinds men to the fact that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a holy God.

Ligonier-Lust and Chastity

[HarleyD]

BTW-Except for this one sentence I thought your article was excellent.

[Venturer]

I didn’t think that needed a sarcasm sign.

[ReformationFan]

It didn’t. I was just joking.

[daniel1212]

Years ago by God's grace i was able to extensively examine prohomosexual polemics here .

God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) Homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept.

And attempts to force homosexual relations into passages it does not belong extends even to pro homosexual apologetics on the Bible.

However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.

[daniel1212]

They typically argue that Lev 18 and related texts and Rm 1 only condemn homosex as part of idolatry due to the cultural contrast these occur in. However, this is also the case with the 10 commandments as well as the giving of much moral legislation or exhortation elsewhere. Thus the effect of the prohomosexual hermeneutic is to allow the negation of most any moral command.

[daniel1212]

But the unique compatibility and complementarity btwn male and female, and sexual sanction in marriage, extends beyond procreation. But there is no Song of Solomon glorifying romantic and erotic love btwn same gender couples.

[ReformationFan]

Either way, there’s no such thing as a pro-homosexuality perspective in the Bible. I read where a liberal agreed with this perspective and said something along the lines of “the church didn’t give the world ‘gay rights’. Secularism gave the world ‘gay rights’.” And I have to agree with him. The only reason folks even try to push a non-existent pro-homosexuality perspective into Scripture is that in America and the Western world, Christianity is the dominant religion(at least nominally) and they’re trying to con enough of the nominal and Biblically illiterate folks to believe that so their agenda can be advanced.

[ReformationFan]

“Thus the effect of the prohomosexual hermeneutic is to allow the negation of most any moral command.”

That’s their true goal. In the end, it’s about replacing the church with the all-powerful state.

[Pollster1]

That criticism (only condemn homosex as part of idolatry due to the cultural contrast these occur in) is so weak that it is not even reasonable. I dismiss it completely.

[daniel1212]

The only reason folks even try to push a non-existent pro-homosexuality perspective into Scripture is that in America and the Western world, Christianity is the dominant religion(at least nominally and they’re trying to con enough of the nominal and Biblically illiterate folks to believe that so their agenda can be advanced.)

Yet i believe that beyond that, the devil seeks to defile that which honors God, which both the Bible and the male-female union in marriage does, and the demonic powers behind the homosexual agenda seem to be driven by lust to bring all to affirm the perversity of homosexual relations. The pressed Lot (naively seeking to reason with lust) upon the door to break it down, and today press upon all barriers that are against homosexuality, and fail to affirm it.

Thus they cannot tolerate Scripture opposing them, and therefore they have expended an inordinate amount of labor seeking to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual homosexual relations, and to assert sanction for the same.

And in so doing, as in real life, they force sex into passages it does belong in. To their own damnation, with perverting Scripture being even (not diminishing the other) more damnable.

[daniel1212]

That criticism (only condemn homosex as part of idolatry due to the cultural contrast these occur in) is so weak that it is not even reasonable. I dismiss it completely.

As you should, but as many others do not, it must be refuted, and is.

[MrB]

The only reason the homo agenda is being pushed is that it is an effective vehicle to achieve the goal of criminalizing Christian beliefs.

[James R. Aist]

Did Satan’s temptations of Jesus lead to sin? You seem to be saying that temptation can lead to sin, which is what I was saying. BTW, I didn’t get my understanding of this point from the RCC; I got it from the Bible. That said, I’m glad you liked the article.

[James R. Aist]

I agree; well put.

[James R. Aist]

Good point.

[James R. Aist]

Perhaps you would not be confused by the questioned passages if you would read them in modern English translations...any of them. I find it necessary to continually translate the KJV into modern English in order to understand it’s meaning. Or, you could study it out using the KJV and a Strong’s Concordance keyed to it. Then you would not find these passages confusing anymore. At least that’s what I found.

[HarleyD]

I reread the article once again. I hope I don't sound hung up on semantics but I guess I am confused by this statement:

The Bible condemns homosexual sex acts, but it does not condemn the experience of being tempted by same-sex attractions. If the Bible did condemn the experience of being tempted, then Jesus would not have been without sin, would He?

I've never thought about an "experience of being tempted". Scriptures tells us we experience patience and hope. Either we succumb to temptation or we resist it by fleeing from it. I'm not sure what is meant by experiencing temptation.

Temptation is defined as "the desire to perform an action" contrary to God. At the risk of sounding like I'm splitting hairs, while our Lord Jesus was certainly tempted, did He actually experienced temptation (the desire to rebel)? I think we would both agree that our Lord never had a desire to perform an act contrary to God, even when tempted.

For sure, the difference between being tempted and experiencing temptation is subtle but important. Being tempted is external just as our Lord was in the wilderness. Experiencing a temptation would have to be internal. We would consider it, think about it, lust after it. This is part of our old nature. Consider the verse in James:

Jas_1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

James tells us that a man is tempted WHEN he is drawn away by his lust. This is entertaining a temptation. After a time of lusting it brings about sin. And James seems to indicate this natural order of entertaining a temptation naturally will "conceived" sin-just like the birth of a child; just like Cain couldn't stop himself from murdering Able once he entertained the thought. If we entertain a temptation we have well gone down the path to sin. Satan never brought up the idea to Cain. He thought of it all by himself.

You asked the question, Did Satan’s temptations of Jesus lead to sin? Although tempted, do you think our Lord ever entertained any of the temptations of Satan in the wilderness?