The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 2 – By What Standard?

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will reiterate that God defines marriage, and He defined it as being between one man and one woman.

In yesterday’s first instalment, I briefly outlined the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Today’s second instalment is an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage. The issue that Ideal with in this article is at the very foundation of the issue: presuppositions.

“Get up” and support Gay Marriage because I think it is “the right thing to do”:

On December 3, the ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a ‘conscience vote’ on the issue of gay marriage. The party voted to in favor of changing their official party doctrine to support gay marriage by a margin of 208 votes to 184. Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, rejected calls for the opposition to likewise hold a conscience vote on the issue. Abbott, who opposes gay marriage said in an interview with Sky News that "the fundamental duty of every politician is to keep his or her commitments”, so because  “every single one of us went to the last election saying marriage is between a man and a woman”, his party will not hold a conscience vote. In the absence of a conscience vote within the Coalition, the bill will be unable to obtain a parliamentary majority, which will mean that gay marriage will remain illegal in Australia.

In the weeks before the Labor Party conference, the Australian left wing lobby group “Get Up” created a public petition promoting gay marriage, which they delivered to the ALP Conference on the day of the conscience vote.

“Get Up” is a group of radical leftists. For example, in 2006, they lobbied the Government to release David Hicks (a terrorist found guilty of providing material support for terrorism) into the Australian community. Although the views of “Get Up” do not represent the majority of leftists on every issue, their advertisement has been very popular among those in favour of gay marriage.

So, according to the campaign, why should gay marriage by legalized? The advertisement used a technique wherein they made the protagonist appear genuine and likeable to force the audience to positively empathize with the protagonist, before it was revealed that he was a homosexual. This is nothing but an appeal to subjective and emotional reasoning.

Suppose that Craig created a home video showing snippets of his life. In the video, you saw Craig enjoying a cruise, laughing at a theme park, playing beach cricket, spending time with his family and helping other people move furniture. Craig so far seems like a genuine and likeable guy. But, in the final scene, he takes a ring out of his pocket, gets down on one knee, and proposes: not to a woman, not even to a man, but to a toddler. You can substitute “toddler” for “dog” or “mother” if you would rather. Do you still think Craig is a genuine guy?

Apart from the proposal being man to man, rather than man to toddler, the “Get Up” add is exactly the same. It proves nothing; the debate on gay marriage is still at square one: is it moral for a man to marry another man (or is it moral for a man to marry a toddler)?

The video concludes with firstly a famous political slogan from the Whitlam era (“It’s Time”) [my American readers can substitute Obama’s slogans about change], then secondly with a plea to “end marriage discrimination”. Said otherwise, the advertisement asserts that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage”. The problem is that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage” is nothing but a subjective opinion. If I were to present the rebuttal of “I disagree”, on what ground could the gay marriage advocate say that their opinion is right, but my opinion is wrong? By what objective moral standard can the gay marriage proponent prove that their position is correct? A subjective opinion is just that.

The ‘Get Up’ campaign slogan is “the overwhelming majority of Australians support full marriage equality and it is the right thing to do”. Why is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? By what objective standard is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? The reason why you cannot think of an answer is because there is no answer. If God does not exist, then absolute morality cannot exist. If God does not exist, no one cannot prove that anything is moral or immoral; in fact morality cannot exist, period. But, proponents of gay marriage are already borrowing from and supressing the Christian worldview in asserting that morality exists.

“Helping other people is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising gay marriage is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising adult to toddler marriage is ‘the wrong thing to do’” is only your opinion.

Only if the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself in the Bible is presupposed, can objective morality exist. Morality expresses the holy and righteous nature of God. Something is moral because it is in conformity to the character of God. Something is immoral because it is not in conformity to the character of God. God’s commands are in conformity to His character. So, according to God, is homosexuality moral or immoral?

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…” – Leviticus 20:13

“Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.” – 1 Timothy 1:9-10

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

By God’s standard, the only objective standard, legalising gay marriage is not “the right thing to do”. Homosexuality is a sin. That is the objective truth.

(c) Jonathan Williams, Created December 2011, Updated April 2012.

The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 1 – A Biblical Introduction

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will begin by noting that God defines marriage, and He defined is as being between one man and one woman.

In today’s first instalment, I will briefly outline the biblical perspective on homosexuality. In tomorrow’s second instalment, I will release an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Then later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage.

The Bible on Gay Marriage:

God instituted marriage at creation to be between one man and one woman:

Genesis 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

God commands marriage to be between one man and one woman:

Matthew 19:4-6 “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.  “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Homosexuality is sin; it is an abomination:

Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those tho lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…”

Romans 1:24-28 “Therefore God gave them over tin the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonoured among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, me with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their sin. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “realising the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men, and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”

Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (C.f. Genesis 19:5)

Governing authorities are required to illegalise same-sex marriage:

Governments are instituted by God “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14). Same-sex marriage is a final hallmark of a sinful nation; God destroyed the exceedingly sinful (Genesis 18:20) Sodom over homosexuality (Genesis 19:5, Jude 7). God commands Governments to restrain sin (1 Peter 2:13-14); in functioning to restrain/punish sin and maintain good order in society (Romans 13:1-4), Governments are to oppose and punish homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).

Marriage is a creation institution common to both believers and unbelievers – providing a foundation for the continuation and development of society. The ability to have children is intrinsic to marriage (Genesis 1:28). Children are born through a mother and a father. If two men are two women are allowed to marry, that would mean that a child does not need both a mother and a father. Children can only be produced by one man and one woman; children need both a mother and a father (Genesis 2:24). So called same-sex marriages by definition cannot biologically produce children, so cannot be called marriages.

Societies consist of families; families are the building blocks of societies. This has been God’s framework since creation (Genesis 2:24). A society cannot continue or survive without a future generation. To have a future generation is only possible through the reproductive acts of a father and a mother. If procreation is abstracted from marriage, the private and public context for parental responsibility, societal order and the intrinsic responsibility for a biological father to care for his children are removed. Governments must regulate marriage as being between one man and one woman to protect the very foundation of society.

Conclusion:

According to God, marriage is the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. If you define marriage as anything else, you must appeal a standard. By what standard ought marriage by defined by? If marriage is not defined by God, it cannot be defined at all. If governing authorities are not permitted to illegalise so called same sex marriage, then by what standard are they permitted to illegalise incestuous marriage? As Christians, we must begin with God – the very foundation of morality. This point will be demonstrated in our second instalment.

©Jonathan Williams, April 2012.

The Importance of Doctrine

One disagreement within Christianity regards the importance of doctrine. The opponent of my “all doctrine is important” position will argue “Doctrine is Divisive”, “We should just focus on living a godly life” or “We should be evangelising to non-Christians instead” to justify their position.

Agreed, evangelism is a Christian duty, we should absolutely live a godly life and some false doctrines don’t warrant excommunication. Labelling someone a heretic for believing supralapsarianism or traducianism (dictionary at bottom) when I don’t would be radical in light of the conduct prescribed by Paul in Romans 14. However, pointing out doctrinal errors of varying magnitudes is not wrong as the notion that doctrine is unimportant is thoroughly unbiblical and dangerous.

It must be clarified that the statement that all doctrine is essential does not mean all doctrines are essential for salvation. Secondly, not all doctrines share equal importance; for example, the holiness of God is more important than liturgy. There is a difference between essential doctrines (all Scripture), and doctrines essential for salvation as such as:

- There is one God; the God of the Bible (Isaiah 43:10).
- Jesus Christ is Lord and God (John 8:24, Romans 10:9).
- Christ died for sins, was buried and rose again on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
- We are sinners saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9).

There are numerous reasons why all doctrine is essential, though citing brevity I’ll detail just four and answer objections along the way.

Firstly, Scripture itself affirms all doctrine is essential. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB) states “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”. The quoted traits are attributed to the entirety of the OT, and by implication the whole NT also (c.f. 1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Revelation 22:18-19). “All Scripture is…profitable…equip(s) for every good work”. This asserts that the Scripture - authenticated by its Divine origin - affirms its own importance and the requirement for it to be studied in its entirety to equip for every good work.

Further verses proving Scripture itself asserts the importance of all doctrine include Matthew 4:4 where Jesus commands Man to live “On every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”; 1 Timothy 4:6 where God describes “a good servant of Christ Jesus” as someone who is “constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine”.

 Hebrews 5:12-6:1 which contrary to the ‘doctrine is unimportant movement’ commands that Christians “leave the elementary teaching about the Christ” and instead “press on to maturity” meaning harder doctrine. "The milk" or "the elementary principles of the oracles of God" are not prescribed for the "mature" in faith: they are to press on to maturity: the "solid food". Just as newborns drink milk rather than eat steak, but eventually progress from milk to solid food, so to the milk (the basics) is for the new believer, while the mature Christian is commanded to press on to maturity: eat the solid food. It is clearly evident that God’s own testimony affirms that all doctrine is essential.

Secondly, Matthew 22:37 quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 by stating “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' Loving God isn’t only emotional - rather it includes the mind too; studying doctrine expresses loving God with your mind. Pursuing theological truth honours and glorifies God as learning doctrinally is an aspect of sanctification. Verses supporting this include John 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” and Ephesians 4:24 “and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” Learning doctrine is inseparable from loving God. Here we see that "doctrine divides" those who are eager to love God with their mind for those who would rather not.

Thirdly, it’s impossible to separate Christ from the Scriptural truths revealing Him. Therefore, to imitate Christ you must learn the truths about Him. (Ephesians 5:1-2, Matthew 5:48, Luke 6:36, Ephesians 4:32). This fact refutes the “We should just focus on living a godly life” argument, as the two are inseparable because knowing what a godly life encompasses revolves around knowing theology. How can anyone imitate Christ if they do not know what to imitate? Christ lived the godly life, for us to do likewise in gratitude towards Him, we must know about Him.

To the objection that “We should be evangelising to non-Christians instead”, I reiterate that evangelism is a commanded duty of believers (Matthew 28:18-19, Mark 16:15), but it isn’t the only commanded duty of believers as proven earlier. Furthermore, knowing doctrine and evangelism are not polar opposites but interrelated and interdependent.

1 Peter 3:15 commands “always being ready to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you” and Colossians 4:6 states we are to “know how you should respond to each person”. These verses command us in evangelism not just to be able to recite the gospel – but always be able to answer objections raised against Christianity.

Four of the most common objections to Christianity are:

1)      People believe in thousands of different God’s, why is the Christian God the true God and not Allah, Buddha or Zeus?
2)      Science has disproven
3)      The Bible is filled with scientific errors; for example it says that rabbits chew their cud (Leviticus 11:6), grasshoppers have four legs (Leviticus 11:20-23) and the earth is flat (Micah 5:4, Romans 10:18).
4)      You say that God is all powerful and without sin, yet there is evil and suffering in the world. So either God likes the presence of evil and suffering so is evil or He hates them but cannot stop it so he is not all powerful. Either way the Christian God cannot exist.

Obviously you require far more doctrinal knowledge than Romans 10:9 and John 3:16 to be able to answer these objections to Christianity, so rather than doctrine preventing evangelism, biblical evangelism actually requires doctrine!

To the first, you must understand the Attributes of God, the Trinity and the work of the Holy Spirit. To the second "Jesus died on the cross" will not suffice; the non-Christian would reply to that "the resurrection is scientifically impossible".

To the third,  the Hebrew doesn’t say rabbits chew their cud, rather correctly states rabbits practise refection – yes Hebrew required here! The grasshoppers two hind jumping legs aren’t included as ordinary legs as the passage states grasshoppers ‘go on all fours (and) have jointed legs above their feet’. ‘Ends of the earth’ doesn’t imply the earth is rectangular with edges; rather the ends of the earth are gentile nations. After Pentecost the gospel spread to semi-Jewish nations, then to gentile nations.

To the fourth, God is all-powerful, without sin, can stop evil and hates evil, but to actually refute the fourth objection, would require explaining the eternal decrees, the sovereignty and providence of God, which are "highly divisive doctrines"! I guess, "God is evil or has been defeated - take your pick" will have to do.

Conclusively, all doctrine is important because Scripture explicitly states so. Additionally, knowing doctrine is to love God with your mind and doctrine is essential to imitate Jesus Christ and for biblical evangelism.

Dictionary:
Supralapsarianism and Traducianism: Don’t bother what they are; they are theological jargon to express my point
Sanctification: Process whereby believers are conformed to the image of God until death

(C), J. Williams, September 2009.

What is Van Tillian Presuppositionalism?

Van Tillian Presuppositionalism is the Reformed and therefore Biblical apologetic school. This method proves that man cannot prove anything unless the Triune God of Scripture is presupposed; said otherwise, the Christian worldview must be presupposed (the Christian) or borrowed from (the non-Christian) in order to know anything. An Intelligible argument cannot be formulated from any assumption that denies the Triune God of Scripture. Cornelius Van Til in summarising his method stated that “The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

Van Tillian Presuppositionalism presupposes the existence of the Triune God of Scripture. There is no neutrality between the Christian and the Non-Christian, as the Christian accepts the truth of God, while the non-Christian suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1). God’s existence is ontologically necessary, and because man’s knowledge is dependent on God’s knowledge, our reasoning and logic must be in subjection to Scripture. The Christian interprets facts in light of the self-authenticating Scriptures; therefore, because Scripture has its foundation in the all-embracing plan of God, this God must be presupposed.

The Christian worldview is the only self-consistent worldview, as the atheist cannot account for the existence of anything without borrowing from the Christian worldview. Thus, the Triune God of Scripture is proven by “impossibility to the contrary”. Because the atheist denies the source of everything (God), they cannot account for the existence of anything; therefore, whenever the atheist uses logic, reasoning, morality etc., they are borrowing from the Christian worldview in doing so. Unless the existence of the Triune God of Scripture is presupposed, it is impossible to prove anything, as God is the necessary foundation for proof itself.

The Christian communicates to the Non-Christian the truths they supress; the non-Christian will either 1) continue supressing the truth of God in unrighteousness (Bahnsen compared this suppression to denying the existence of air while breathing it) or 2) by the Holy Spirit accept the truth of God that they formerly suppressed. In both outcomes, God remains sovereign: the non-Christian will continue to supress the truth of God, unless God appointed that specific time to effectually call them by His word and Spirit to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, monergistically enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God.

(C), J. Williams, July 2011.