Simple responses to Romans 1 pro-gay theology errors

The entire Bible is very clear that any sex outside of a one man, one woman marriage is a sin*, yet “Christian” Leftists and atheists use all sorts of fallacious sound bites to deceive and distract people.  One of the passages that they work the hardest to dismiss is Romans 1:26-27.

First, read or even memorize this passage.  Also review the entire chapter to note the context: Paul is explaining how the world is upside down in rebellion against God and that deep down people all know it.  Then he gives his “exhibit A” as an example.

Romans 1:26–27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Pretty clear, eh?  It describes the behavior of gays and lesbians and notes how it is a prime example of rebellion against the created order.  Note that if you keep reading the chapter you’ll see that we all have rebelled in multiple ways, so don’t be smug just because homosexual behavior isn’t a temptation for you.  But the point here is that the passage does clearly state that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Here are some of their objections to Romans 1 and some simple responses.  Note that you can give much more detailed responses, but those usually aren’t necessary.  Just these basics will show people how ill-informed they are on this topic and reveal whether they love the world or whether they love God.  For starters you can ask people when the last time was that they read Romans carefully.

“But Paul didn’t know any better about homosexuality” (and similar responses). This is a big tip-off that you are talking to a non-Christian, if the person saying it is a leader, or a layperson who is “saved and confused” at best.  Paul’s writings are just as much scripture as any of the Gospels.  Those writings are from Paul and the Holy Spirit, and turned out just as God intended.  Paul does not disagree with Jesus.  And those using that argument no proof that Paul wouldn’t have known about homosexual relationships.  In fact, he describes them precisely in the passage.  Also see this refutation of the related “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” sound bite.

“The passage was about temple prostitutes.”  The passage doesn’t mention temple prostitutes, temples or prostitutes.  And I have seen zero evidence, ever, that lesbian temple prostitutes have ever existed, so the description of lesbian behavior also refutes that.  You don’t need to know Greek to see that simple truth.

“The passage was about pederasty (adult/child) or coercive relationships.”  No, the passage refers to “men” and “women” every time. And note how they “gave up” relationships willingly and “were consumed with passion for one another.” Not a hint of coercion.

“The passage is about people abandoning their natural desires, so the real sin is if a gay behaves in a straight manner or vice verse.”  That is the most laughable objection, but you hear it often.  First, the Greek word is tied to natural functions, not desires. And it notes that they “gave up” natural relations.

And using their logic this key passage applies to exactly no one.  Think about it: Whatever anyone did — gay/straight/bi — they could claim is was their nature, so they hadn’t sinned.  And very few people do things they don’t want to do, so everyone could cite that as proof that they are sinless on this account.

“They were born that way.”  No, they weren’t.  The causes can be complex (abuse, bad relationships, rebellion, or some combination of those), but even if they were born that way then everyone could use that excuse for the laundry list of sins at the end of the chapter.  Good luck with that on judgment day.

I hope you commit those to memory or refer back here when you come across these objections.  They are so simple to refute, and should convict those who use them as to how badly they are  butchering scripture.  You don’t need a degree in theology or Greek to see how clearly and quickly the pro-LGBTQX arguments fail.

If you really love your neighbors you won’t lie and tell them that this behavior is without consequence.  The same goes for other sexual sins, and other sins in general.  Don’t love the world and your popularity more than you love God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Homosexual behavior is rebellion against God.  Affirming anyone in that behavior or in other sins means that you have joined them in the rebellion.

Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.


More stuff!

The main categories of pro-gay theology and why they are all false and un-biblical.

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments

*The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people** (religious or not) can see these truths:

– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.

Having said that, I believe that Christians should support and encourage those who are fighting same-sex attraction. And no one needs to grandstand on the issue before getting to the Good News of the cross.  Here’s an example.

** The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Simple responses to Romans 1 pro-gay theology errors”

  1. Very well written. I like how you organize the case you make, speak the truth, and show concern for people who sin in general and sin with homosexuality in particular. Opposing this sin today is unpopular but believing God is more important than having the approval of others. Great job.

    Like

  2. It’s comforting to be reminded of these things in the face of the continual barrage. I do have one question. When you write:

    “But Paul didn’t know any better about homosexuality” (and similar responses). This is a big tip-off that you are talking to a non-Christian.

    Is it possible that some inexperienced/naive Christians have been taught poorly/wrongly and are just in need of good instruction? I ask because I’ve run into two who are confused about Paul just in the last year. One said something like, “Whoa – I’m a baby Christian. I don’t know what I think about Paul”. With the other we got into a very long and slightly heated discussion. I corrected her *really wrong* ideas about the Christ of the Bible. Surprisingly, she really took in what I was saying. I’m fairly sure she had never had basic “orthodox Christian doctrine” explained before in a way she could understand.

    I guess the real question I’ve been wondering about lately is the amount of “right doctrine” we need to see someone assent to before we consider them brothers or sisters in the faith.

    Alec

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s