Natural and Unnatural Interpretations

Romans 1 is clear and easy to understand. Here are 7 reasons it can't mean what ex-vangelicals claim it means

God is our Creator and His design is perfect. He knows what's best for us....

Sadly, our modern culture is redefining values, and Gay Revisionist Theology is emerging.

Perhaps the most difficult Scripture for ex-vangelicals and gay revisionists to explain is Romans 1:26-27:  

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

God is an excellent communicator and this passage is clear. Homosexuality is "shameful" and "unnatural" because it goes against God's design and damages people's souls. And God loves us enough to warn us.

Because there is no logical explanation besides the obvious meaning, gay revisionists claim that God is actually saying it's "unnatural" for heterosexuals to have same-gender sex but natural for homosexuals to have same-gender sex. 

Let's examine the reasons this belief is completely un-Scriptural

Romans 1 is clear and easy to understand. Here are 7 reasons it can't mean what ex-vangelicals claim it means

1. When God created male and female, He said woman was a "suitable helper" for man (Genesis 2:18-23).

2. When God defined marriage, He spoke only of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24-25).

3. When Jesus defined marriage, He spoke of God's original design of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6).

4. Same-sex intimacy is not "natural" biologically. Gay couples who are perfectly healthy lack the two natural ingredients for producing children (i.e. sperm and eggs). Methods of intercourse are not natural to the human body.

5. God's Word is eternal and unchanging, and every mention of homosexuality in Scripture—without exception—is strongly negative.

6. The context of Romans 1:26-27 does not reflect this gay revisionist meaning. There is no reason to believe that this or any other sin only applies to heterosexuals.

7. They are defining "natural" by feelings and desires, not facts, and feelings and desires are never a reliable basis for moral behavior. 

Basing what's natural on feelings has additional problems as well:

A. Gay revisionist theology accepts bisexuality (source). 

If Gay revisionists approve bisexual desires as natural, i.e. a person having both heterosexual and homosexual desires, then the only people this passage would condemn (according to their explanation) are those who have homosexual relationships without having any desire to have them. Other than victims, I'd say that group is almost non-existent. 

However, the gay revisionist believes this group is so important that God highlighted them in this important passage about moral decline.

B. Basing what's "natural" upon sexual desires and attractions requires acceptance of every sexual practice.

Pedophilia, rape, and bestiality are all based on desires and attractions. You can even find some "scientific" studies claiming that people are born pedophiles and cannot change their orientation in the same way some studies claim homosexuals are born homosexual and cannot change their orientation. 

Scripture never bases morals on desires and attractions. In fact, Christians are commanded "to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires" (Ephesians 4:22).

A child raised by thieves might find it "natural" to steal. And some children seem to be born with a natural propensity to lie. If God's laws are dependent on what's natural and desirable for each of us, then we can excuse every sin.

This gay revisionist argument is a very poor attempt to contradict the obvious message in Romans 1. To believe it, we must ignore the clear message of Scripture and deny basic principles of context and logic.

Ironically, after claiming that this passage only addresses heterosexual perversion, Matthew Vines, a leading gay revisionist, goes on to offer an additional explanation that contradicts his first explanation - an explanation that involves cultural bias against homosexuals having same-gender sex. To read about this second false teaching on Romans 1, see Comparing Apples and Oranges.

For more on the errors of gay revisionist theology, see the articles linked below: 


 

No comments:

Post a Comment