Skip to comments.Arguments for same-sex behavior: outlines and inadequacies
Posted on 06/19/2005 8:26:15 AM PDT by sionnsar
click here to read article
I have criticised the Anglican Communion Institute from time to time, and not gently, either. However, although I believe that when they are wrong, they are very, very wrong, I also think that when they right, they are very, very right.
The ACI has published a piece by William Witt that is very, very right, and I heartily recommend it.
OK, read it now? Then I will only add that there are just two areas that Dr. Witt does not address as fully as I would have liked.
One is the eschatalogical error behind the shellfish argument. Dr. Witt rightly points out that this cannot stand in the face of Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. However (although he does speak to this to some degree), the real problem with all of the supposed moral flaws of the Old Testament, whether shellfish or slavery, is that Gospels and St Paul clearly see such Mosaic legislation as rooted in the temporary condition of fallen humanity, while they ground sexual ethics in the original purpose and eventual redemption of creation itself. There is a bibilical logic here, so to speak, of which the supporters of same-sex unions seem at times to be simply oblivious, or that they reject in favor of a gnostic view of sexuality.
The other is the idea of development. It has been explicity suggested that permission of homosexual relations comes under the heading of the development of doctrine, and the name of Newman himself has been invoked (by none other than Tobias Haller himself). Apart from the extreme irony of invoking Newman in defense of an innovation, it is forgotten by those who use the idea of development of doctrine that Newmans argument presupposed an infallible authority to sort out legitimate evolution from theological error, or true development from corruption. How many of those who promote same-sex unions as an example of development want any of the infallible authorities (Orthodoxy, Rome, sola scriptura, etc.) currently on offer? And if they dont want any of these, what alternatives do they suggest?
However, these are but minor cavils (and I have my own space to pursue them, after all). Altogether, a job very well done.
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous and heretical argument that I have ever heard. If people start saying the Bible was wrong about homosexuality, then what comes next? To begin to marginalize sinful actions will open the floodgates to every perverse and immoral behavior imaginable. I have heard the argument that we eventually dismissed Biblical teaching on slavery, but this is not true; scripture acknowledged the existence of slavery, and while it may not have condemned it, it certainly didn't condone it.
This moral relativism is designed to take mankind to the point where people will begin to view the Bible as an outmoded and unrealistic book. The secularists want to totally destroy Judeo-Christian culture and replace it with a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Spong is a heretical zealot who has an agenda that is anything but Christian, but what frightens me the most is the fact that he has an audience.
People just want to justify their own sinful behavior. It's fallen human nature.
Great article. Thanks for posting it. Witt very clearly sums up the various themes running through ECUSA. Liberation theology, radical "feminism", homosexual agendas, etc. As a seminary student, I cringe everytime I see "hermeneutical". I understand it to mean that we judge by our own experiences and desires.
This was an interesting article.
People should read I Thessalonians where it says that those that reject the standard of sexual purity reject God and His spirit that gave this standard.
As prophesy states the latter day will be as the days of Noah.
|*||Welcome to FreeRepublic||*|
Even if it ever is genetically determined, it is still sin. I'm genetically predetermined to sin, lust after sinfull flesh and lie, but God still requires that I repent and seek Him for forgiveness.
Thank you very much
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.