Defending Monogamy Against Homosexual...

[Cotton Mather]

Hi everyone. An acquaintance of mine who is a youth pastor in the United Methodist Church has recently embraced his so called "identity" as a homosexual. I've presented the gospel to this man many times, calling him to repentance and faith in the person of Christ. Last night, he asked me a question. "Can I be a homosexual and a Christian? More specifically, am I going to hell if I remain a homosexual." I replied that unless he repents of his error, receives and rests in the righteousness of Christ alone for salvation, and beckons God for a new heart, he will most certainly go to hell. He replied by asking me on what basis such a skewed view could be grounded in. I answered by saying that the inspired holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments unanimously reveal that homosexuality is a sin against God, a rebellion against God's heterosexually monogomous purposes for a man and a woman, and a blatant suppression of truth in unrighteousness. As a "liberal Christian" he believes that the Scriptures are outdated, bigoted, contextually conditioned, erroneous, and fallacious. According to Bill, God created him a homosexual. He didn't choose this lifestyle, he was born into it. Presumably, I have no objective basis on which to make my claims since he thinks that the Bible is erroneous. I felt as though I handled the situation somewhat well. I'm no skilled apologist, but did my best to defend the faith against this particular attack.

My question is this: As a pre-suppositionalist or evidentialist (I want to see both sides) how would we defend the objective authority of the Scriptures when someone like Bill outright denies the possibility of its divine origin? How can I defend the validity of Biblical truth over against Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc. Because this seems to be the difficulty every time. According to an unregenerate person, the Bible is about as true as any other ancient religious literary compilation. Now I'm obviously aware of how total depravity becomes significant in these squabbles. This guy is unregenerate, suppresses the truth, and can't understand divine truth due to the deadness of his heart. Apologetically though, how would any of you respond in this sort of situation? Thanks.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well we are all born into sin, so his "birthright as a homosexual" is pointless first of all.

Second as a Pre-Suppositionalist I believe you cannot argue a person, In my humble opinion, into innerency.

 

[Cotton Mather]

Right. When he said he was born into his homosexuality, I replied that he was born into a state of original sin and proceeded throughout his life to degenerate into a more abhorrent state of depravity where suppression of truth rose to a much higher degree.

 

[toddpedlar]

Well we are all born into sin, so his "birthright as a homosexual" is pointless first of all.

Second as a Pre-Suppositionalist I believe you cannot argue a person, In my humble opinion, into innerency.

exactly. There is nothing a presupp can say to someone who is unwilling to bend his knee to God's sovereign authority. If that doesn't happen (and that only by the grace and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit) then there is nothing that can be done. So, a proper presupp approach would not be to start with the Scriptures, but to start with probing what the ruling purpose and controlling influence in this person's life is - and show the illogical nature of his serving whatever god it is that he serves... etc., etc.. You would not go to the Scriptures at all - for until God's authority is reckoned with and submitted to, no amount of discussion about the authority of Scripture will carry anywhere with this individual.