Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So many things wrong with this article, but this seems to be the direction that many evangelicals are heading in. The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality, however since the Bible condemns it, people who experience such attraction must remain celibate. While it is certainly good to encourage anyone who is not lawfully married (in God's eyes, not the state's) to practice abstinence, it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.
Odd indeed. This statement, esp: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that same-sex attraction and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."
Hmm..let's try that with a little twist: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that adultery (or fornication/thievery/pride) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."
They DON'T mix. They are diametrically opposed. Godliness would not mix itself with sin. Full stop.
The wicked human heart, however, would like to think that they can mix.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the author?
The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality... it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.
Meanwhile concupiscence must not be confused with the natural impulses, so far as God has created them and has willed their satisfaction: Bucan (XVI, 31): "Concupiscence is not, however, natural appetition for food, drink, procreation, and delight in the senses; in itself this is not sin, provided it is ordered and seeks after what is lawful. Nor movements of the heart so far as they are affections. Nor just αταξια of the appetitions. It is the propension of all the forces to do what is prohibited by the law of God, such as confusion or doubt in the mind about God and His providence; in the will and heart, contumacy against God."
Sin does not merely consist in the external act, but also in the vile disposition. Both are to be mortified. Shaw seems to convey that homosexual attraction (the disposition) is incurable; therefore, godliness consists in mere restraining of external actions. Is the grace of God not powerful to gradually purge even the disposition? Godliness consists in cleansing (through God's grace) both the nature and the deeds. Our sinful passions and their streams must be purified and mortified even if no great change is evident for some time and even if it crosses our wills and comfort.
Whatever you think of James White on textual issues, skip to 40 minutes in. He is spot on.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2015/12/03/total-insanity-start-important-issues-secularism-homosexuality-regeneration/
The article cited in the OP is an extract from a book. Having just read the extract, the author appears to be attacking something of a straw-man. I have never heard anyone argue that godliness was merely heterosexuality. Does anyone serious think that adulterous heterosexuality is godliness? Of course not.
By using the term "same-sex attraction" the author has created a lot of unnecessary confusion. It is not a sin for someone to be tempted by homosexuality. It is, however, a sin for someone to indulge in homosexual thoughts, just as it is also a sin to indulge in thoughts concerning heterosexual activity with someone other than one's spouse (assuming, of course, that the person is married; if the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful). The long and the short of it is that same-sex attraction is sinful, and the best way to stop that sin breaking out into external actions is to mortify such thoughts.
But I believe a far worse trend has happened for a long time. And it has truly been the mistreatment of unbelieving homosexuals, and the mistreatment of those who struggle with homosexuality.
Leviticus 20 lists homosexual practice among a first tier of sexual offenses (adultery, the worst forms of incest, and bestiality; 20:10-16) that are worse than a second tier of sexual offenses (20:17-21). In Leviticus 18, although in the concluding summary (Lev 18.26-27, 29-30) all the sexual offenses in Lev 18 are collectively labeled “abominations,” “abhorrent” or “detestable acts” (to’evoth), only man-male intercourse in 18:22 (and 20:13) is specifically tagged with the singular to’evah. Outside the Holiness Code in Lev 17-24 the term is normally used for various severe moral offenses (not merely acts of ritual uncleanness), including occasionally homosexual practice (Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 14:24; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; probably also Ezek 33:26).
Many evangelicals like to say that "Homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins." Or they will say gay lust or gay acts are bad, but so is hetero lust or hetero fornication.
However, Romans 1 seems to say that this state is not merely sin, but also a judgment upon sin - i.e., qualitatively worse. "Therefore God gave them up..."
Sodom and Gomorrah remain as examples of great sin.
And in the OT, there seems to be a gradation of sins, such that homosexuality is listed in the first tier:
Leviticus 20 lists homosexual practice among a first tier of sexual offenses (adultery, the worst forms of incest, and bestiality; 20:10-16) that are worse than a second tier of sexual offenses (20:17-21). In Leviticus 18, although in the concluding summary (Lev 18.26-27, 29-30) all the sexual offenses in Lev 18 are collectively labeled “abominations,” “abhorrent” or “detestable acts” (to’evoth), only man-male intercourse in 18:22 (and 20:13) is specifically tagged with the singular to’evah. Outside the Holiness Code in Lev 17-24 the term is normally used for various severe moral offenses (not merely acts of ritual uncleanness), including occasionally homosexual practice (Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 14:24; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; probably also Ezek 33:26).
I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a land, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.
Here is a good link:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/is_homosexual_practice_no_worse.htm
We act like it's a switch and that once they give up "being gay" they don't struggle with homosexuality anymore.
One thing you hear quite frequently these days is that we need to eliminate "binary" thinking.