Homosexuality and Biblical Inspiration

Homosexuality and Biblical Inspiration

The following e-mails are commenting on the items on homosexuality listed at Ethics: Homosexuality. The e-mailers' comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red. My comments to which the e-mailer is responding to are in purple.

Books and eBooks By Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light

Exchange #1

>Greetings Gary!

I e-mailed you years ago about some Election issues (infralapsarianism, etc.), and you gave me some great information. I haven't visited your site in a while, and I thought you had closed the site due to health problems, but I opened the site today to find MANY things in the "What's New" section! (o:

I skimmed over a few of your homosexuality articles. I attend a (quite liberal) Baptist college in Rome, Georgia. Being in the music department, it's tough to know how to deal with the homosexuality I find rampant. Many see absolutely nothing wrong with the sin. In fact, I've heard two such guys laugh at Falwell's comments on the issue, so I didn't consider it prudent to "preach" to them. I had the opportunity to eat dinner with one of those guys at a recent music competition many of us went to. We were discussing "religion," and he brought up the fact that a certain guy at the college was very overtly homosexual, and he thinks that other guy goes out of his way to act gay. I respected his opinion on that. Then, I told him that I was very conservative, yet I try not to be offensive. I was trying to impress on him the fact that all conservatives are not as prejudiced as he would like to believe. I figured the best way to influence someone for Christ is to show compassion.

Anyhow, I'm wondering if you have any additional thoughts about handling those that are predisposed against conservatives. Also, how do show that ALL of the 66 books of the Bible are inspired? It's hard to argue with them about Scripture if they consider Paul a mere "homophobe" like I've heard a former teacher of mine say. In discussing a passage in Corinthians, someone once told me that they didn't agree with that, and concluded his statement with, "There are a lot of things I disagree with Paul on." I just thought to myself, "how sad!" I didn't exactly know what to say.

Well...Thanks for any help you may be able to give! I would appreciate your prayers that I would become a bolder defender of the great Gospel of Jesus Christ. I tend to not speak loudly about certain sins due to the offensiveness of the topic. I recently read on your site that you try to avoid "Debates" at times, as well, and I can agree with that.

I pray that God will continue blessing your ministry!! It's great to see Biblically-thinking people are still out there!

God bless!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenny
3/9/2002<

Thank you for your comments. Homosexuality is definitely a difficult issue, and its even more difficult if the other person does not accept the authority of all 66 books of the Bible. But I'll give you a couple of thoughts.

First, the OT clearly condemns homosexual practices (Lev 18:22), and there is nothing in the NT that could be taken as overturning this law. So even without Paul, the law against homosexuality would still stand.

Second, Peter, places Paul's writings on par with "the rest of Scriptures" (2Peter 3:15,16). This passage shows both that Paul's writings were accepted as Scripture very early in Church history and that Peter, who was clearly one of Jesus' apostles, accepted the inspiration of Paul's writings. So for someone to say they disagree with Paul means they also disagree with Peter and the testimony of the early Church. And note also, there was never any disagreement in the early Church about Paul's writings being Scripture.

And note also how much of the Book of Acts is devoted to the ministry of Paul. And there is no indication that any of the other apostles disagreed with Paul's teachings and ministry. And again, there was no disagreement over the Book of Acts being Scripture. So again, the early Church looked at Paul's ministry and teaching as being from God. That is a lot for someone to disagree with.

I hope that helps.

Exchange #2

>>Thank you for your comments. Homosexuality is definitely a difficult issue, and its even more difficult if the other person does not accept the authority of all 66 books of the Bible. But I'll give you a couple of thoughts.<<

>It is definitely a challenge. It is almost like a doctor that accepts modern medical practice yet still practices blood-letting, yet the process of draining blood to cure illness has been clearly debunked. It doesn't make sense to accept most of the Bible, yet ignore sin. I can understand if someone doesn't quite understand ecclesiology, etc., but if you don't understand the true nature of sin, you have a damning error sadly.<

>>First, the OT clearly condemns homosexual practices (Lev 18:22), and there is nothing in the NT that could be taken as overturning this law. So even without Paul, the law against homosexuality would still stand.<<

>Let me play Devil's advocate. (o: Christ didn't come to overturn the law either, yet we can now eat pork and wear clothing with mixed threads and fabrics which is prohibited in Old Testament levitical law, so something happened to change that. Is it not the same case with homosexuality? God came to provide liberty from bondage, and now homosexuality is understood and can be accepted, just like we can eat pork now. (Once again, playing Devil's advocate.) (o:<

As regards eating pork and other "unclean" meats, the OT clearly stated this is wrong, but the NT has passages that can be taken to mean that it is okay to eat this foods. And I do agree that it is no longer a sin to eat unclean meats, However, I do not think that it is wise to do so.

When you look at the list of animals that are declared "unclean" in the OT, you'll see that, with only a couple of exceptions, they are carnivores, scavengers, or other animals for which their meat would most likely have higher rates of toxins in them. So there are very good health reasons for not eating these meats. I discuss this further in my Creationist Diet book.

IOW, it was not just a moral issue but a logical reason why God declared these meats unclean in the first place. And even though it is now "legal" to eat them it might not be wise:

[1Co 6:12] All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

In regards to mixed threads, there probably was some logical reason for this, possibly having to do with the textual strength of the garments. So the principle would still apply be that garments should not be made in a shabby manner.

Now, as regards homosexuality, there are no passages in the NT that could even remotely be taken as overturning the commandment against it. Plus, there are logical reasons for why the command was given in the first place that have not changed, i.e. the health consequences. No matter how much the homosexual community tries to cry otherwise, AIDS is primary a homosexual problem. And even AIDS in the heterosexual population is almost always due to pre- or extra-marital sex, both of which are also Biblically wrong.

So the point is, on what basis can the homosexual say this command no longer applies? There is no NT passage overturning it, and there are still logical reasons for its avoidance.

>>Second, Peter, places Paul's writings on par with "the rest of Scriptures" (2Peter 3:15,16). This passage shows both that Paul's writings were accepted as Scripture very early in Church history and that Peter, who was clearly one of Jesus' apostles, accepted the inspiration of Paul's writings. So for someone to say they disagree with Paul means they also disagree with Peter and the testimony of the early Church. And note also, there was never any disagreement in the early Church about Paul's writings being Scripture.<<

>The typical reply would be that you have a bias there in that the writers say their works are inspired. I don't exactly know how to counter that argument.<

Granted, if someone denies the idea of inspiration in general, then that's another issue. But my comments are directed towards the person that accepts some parts of the Bible but not others. There are too many cross references between passages to pick and chose like this. Parts of the OT uphold other parts, Jesus upholds the OT and predicts that the apostles will write Scripture; some apostles uphold the writings of others. The writings are woven together and stand and fall together. Either accept all of it or reject all of it, but it just doesn't do justice to the writings themselves to pick and chose.

>>And note also how much of the Book of Acts is devoted to the ministry of Paul. And there is no indication that any of the other apostles disagreed with Paul's teachings and ministry. And again, there was no disagreement over the Book of Acts being Scripture. So again, the early Church looked at Paul's ministry and teaching as being from God. That is a lot for someone to disagree with.<<

>I whole-heartedly agree! Thanks so much for the response! Keep up God's work!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenny Wells
3/15/2002<

Thank you. And I hope the above helps.

Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life
Homosexuality: Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life

Text Search Alphabetical List of Pages Subject Index
General Information on Articles Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian/

Click Here for Books and eBooks By Gary F. Zeolla