The assault on marriage and the family in the United States has been carried on in a number of fronts: the courts, the world of academia, and the Hollywood entertainment industry. the acceptance of a life style of homosexuality in the churches today reflect the deep error and apostasy in the churches.
To challenge the morality of homosexuality in today’s climate of “enlightened” ethical sensitivity is considered “wrong-spirited and wrong.” Those who dare to do so are often perceived as “uninformed,” “un-compassionate,” and “judgmental”. But should Bible-believing Christians be intimidated? Should they remain silent or neutral when established biblical doctrines are being undermined? The courage of biblical convictions requires that we “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21; cf. 2 Tim 4:1-5).
Let the truth be known that all manner of sin, including homosexuality, can forgiven. But there can be no forgiveness when sinners are in denial–when they insist that their lustful desires and practices are not sinful, when they re-interpret Scripture to justify their sins, and when they defiantly maintain that they will not turn from their sinful ways. Such is the case today with a sin called homosexuality.
Homosexuality Has Come Into The Church.
The gay crisis has come into the church. Some homosexuals are coming to church not only for forgiveness and mercy but to say to the church, as they have to the world, ‘Homosexuality is not sinful; it is natural to me. God made me this way. He accepts me and my homosexuality as good. Therefore the time has come for the church to accept me as I am and join me in saying that gayness is good.
Churches and support groups of today have been advocating the “born-a-gay gospel and these churches and support groups for the most part do not teach homosexuals to repent of their particular sin. Instead, they suggest that the church itself must except it and try to understand” and recognize homosexuality as a morally legitimate lifestyle.
Advocates of gay theology have employed two major methods to silence or challenge the Bible’s negative valuation of homosexuality. First, they argue that the Bible texts which have been understood historically as condemning homosexuality are either obscure or refer to the abuse of homosexuality. By this they mean certain kinds of homosexual practices, notably gang rape, idolatry, promiscuity, and prostitution, but not genuine homosexual orientation as we know it today.
Homosexuality In Old Testament history
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
Some scholars interpret these verses in Genesis 19 to suggest that the sin of Sodom was something other than homosexuality. As early as 1955, the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey suggested the theory, used by many homosexual activists today, that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality.
Some suggested that the statement “that we may know them.”does not refer to the desire of the Sodomites to have sexual relations with Lot’s angelic visitors to but instead to “get acquainted with” and to “examine the credentials” of Lot’s visitors. But as good bible students context determines the meaning.
The word Hebrew word yada’ ( know) is used twice in the passage refers to sexual relations When Lot offers his two daughters who have “never known [yada’] or slept with a man,”the word has an unambiguous sexual meaning. If the passage in verse five has no sexual meaning then Lot would have had no reason to shut the door defensively or to appeal to them not to do “this wicked thing.” That their demands were sexual is clear by Lot’s offering his two virgin daughters to the men, adding, “and you can do what you like with them.”
Other passages con rm the sexual depravity of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49–50 condemns the men of Sodom, stating that “they . . . committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.The Hebrew word “abomination” is to’ebah, which signifies the gravest moral censure possible in the Hebrew language.
Homosexual behavior is a abomination (see Leviticus 18:22). In addition, the Book of Jude in the New Testament states that Sodom and Gomorrah “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire” (v. 7).
So the initial intent of the Sodomites in Genesis 19:5 was to have sexual relations with Lot’s visitors. In what may have been the debauched ancient equivalent of “let’s party!” the men of the city called out to Lot: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with [yada’] them.” It was only after the Sodomites were rebuffed that they became violent.
The rampant homosexuality of the men of Sodom constituted a primary reason for the city’s judgment, as indicated by the Lord to Abraham: “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!” (Genesis 18:20).
Another Example Of The Homosexual Sin.
Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
As with the Sodom storyline Genesis 19, revisionist scholars typically deny any sexual intent on the part of the men of Gibeah. As at Sodom, the men of the city demand that the visitor be brought out so that they might “have sex”(yada’) with him.
As a parallel to the Sodom story, the story of Gibeah recounts the unchivalrous offering of women to the townsmen in a desperate attempt to prevent the outrage of homosexual relations compounded by violence. This passage in Judges 19:22 confirms the sexual interpretation of the Sodom account in Genesis 19,. The textual evidence from the two stories indicates that those cities were inhabited by men so sexually depraved that they were prepared sexually to violate not only males, which they evidently preferred, but whomever was made available to them.
The Law Of Sexual Sin In The Bible.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon the
Leviticus does not limit its condemnation to that of homosexuality in a ritual context; no mitigating circumstances are mentioned that would permit such behavior, such as within the context of a “loving, committed relationship. The laws in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion.
DEUTERONOMY 23: CULTIC PROSTITUTION
There shall be no whore [prostitute the Hebrew word qedeshah]; of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [prostitute qadesh] of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
The Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, indicates that qadesh which is applied to the sons of Israel is because they are engaged in homosexual conduct.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Here in Deuteronomy 22:5 ‘likely refers to a particular variant of homosexual practice called transvestism, the adoption of the dress and behavior of the opposite sex.
The Septuagint the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible uses several words to translate qadesh, but of special interest is endiellagmenos, used, in 1 Kings 22:46. In this passage the Hebrew word qadesh is translated in the Septuagint the Greek translation of the Hebrew as endiellagmenos, “one who has changed his nature” as transvestism.
Why are Christian churches favorable towards this practice today?
Why are Christian churches favorable towards this practice today? Probably the major factor is the vigorous campaigns by various homosexual lobbying groups and by civil rights organizations to end not only discrimination against homosexuals generally, but also to decriminalize homosexual practices between consenting adults. Beyond this, they seek to liberalize public opinion, attitudes, laws, and policies on homosexuality.
In their effort to remove homosexuality from the category of sin, advocates of gay theology have employed major methods to silence or challenge the Bible’s negative valuation of homosexuality.
One attempt is they put forward some Bible characters as examples of allegedly healthy and loving homosexual relationships they use David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18-20) they interpret to mean sexual love (eros). Consequently, they present these Bible characters as Christian models of lesbian and gay relationships.
Let’s take a look at the the story of David and Jonathan which has been used by homosexual to defend their sinful lifestyle of homosexuality. We will see that David and Jonathan were not homosexuals.
1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 19:1-2
And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself:
1 Samuel 20:41
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
2 Samuel 1:26
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan:
very pleasant hast thou been unto me:
thy love to me was wonderful,
passing the love of women.
These bible passages that have been misinterpreted and misapplied by the gay community to justify their sinful lifestyle. To inject a sexual component into any loving human relationships outside of marriage—including those between parents and children, siblings, as well as friendships would be both morally wrong and destructive.
David’s description of his love for Jonathan as “more wonderful than that of women” speaks of the wonderful blessing that is found in a deep human friendship. The apostle Peter teaches the church of believers to have that same holy love that also Jesus taught that we ought to have for one another, when Peter told the church “Honor all men love the brotherhood” (1peter 2:17).
Friendship is an essential form of meaningful human affection blessed by God, and which does not in any way denigrate the love between husband and wife. By sexualizing their relationships it destroys the possibility of genuine friendship.
To misinterpret Jonathan and David’s relationship as sexual is morally wrong. In 1 Samuel 19:1 that says Jonathan “delighted much in David” the Hebrew word delight used means “ to be very well pleased with joy of the heart”; it is never used in the Hebrew Bible to denote sexuality.
When it says in (1 Samuel 18:1,) that “the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David”that signifies the depth of holy and sincere friendship between David and Jonathan in God. The same is commanded of believers in the church (Philippians 1:27).
To misinterpret the holy friendship and brother hood of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:41
“and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded”,or wept more
inject a sexual relationship show the great ignorance of Middle Eastern culture. The references stating that David and Jonathan “kissed each other” during their tearful parting have nothing to do with romantic or erotic kissing.
In the Middle East, both in ancient and modern times, family members and friends greet each other with a kiss on each cheek, a custom with no sexual connotation. This custom, also common throughout Europe and elsewhere, is re ected in the New Testament command: “Greet all the brothers and sisters with a holy kiss” (1 Thessalonians 5:26, NRSV). People in these cultures would reject any effort to attribute a sexual motive to this venerated custom.
New Testament Teaching On Homosexuality.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The apostle Paul condemns homosexual behavior with no qualifications and exceptions whatsoever. If a commendable expression of homosexuality were acceptable like many in the gay community try to say, then Paul would have distinguished between immoral and moral expressions of homosexuality as he did with other ethical issues; the fact that there is no distinction is further evidence that there are no “moral” homosexual acts.
1 CORINTHIANS 6: MALE PROSTITUTES SODOMITES
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The apostle Paul says “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves”. Let’s take a look at the meaning of two Greek words Paul used here
(mal-ak-os’) of persons: soft, delicate, effeminate. The other Greek word is arsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Although both arsenokoites and mal-ak-os generally refer to male homosexuality, their appearance together in 1 Corinthians 6:9 indicates a difference in emphasis.
Bartlett suggests that arsenokoitai signifies “men who have intercourse with males, specifically ‘sodomites’ in the narrower sense of one who takes the active role in male homosexual intercourse.” With regard to malakos. Bartlett, “A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality,” 25.
Arndt-Gingrichamong (the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek).[ also concludes that the term refers to “men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually.” Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon, 488.
Are We To Except The Belief Off Once A Homosexual,Always A Homosexual?
“Those who put their trust in Christ are not to be enslaved by any hereditary and cultivated habit or tendency. Instead of being held in bondage to the lower nature, they are to rule every appetite and passion. God has not left us to battle with evil in our own finite strength. Whatever may be our inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong, we can overcome through the power that He is ready to impart” (The Ministry of Healing, pp. 175, 176).
Again, “Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church” (The Desire of Ages, p. 671
Are People Born Homosexual?
Although future studies may one day bear this out, the research findings often cited as evidence of the “born a gay” condition are, at best, inconclusive and are questionable at worst.6 I am not suggesting that genetics has no influence toward a homosexual predisposition. I contend simply that the studies often cited for the claim that “people are born gay” are not as conclusive as proponents would have us believe.
Even if one could prove that homosexuality originates in the genes, the hormones, or the environment, would this make homosexuality morally legitimate? Does being “born” alcoholic, pedophiliac, or gay make alcoholism, pedophilia, or homosexuality right? It seems that “the studies” are put forth to imply that homosexuality is not a sin to be repented of, but a mark of one’s identity to be celebrated.
The studies are flawed because they are based on the deterministic philosophy of behaviorism. In such a view, people have practically no choice in their moral actions and therefore may not be held morally accountable for their actions. Human behavior, according to behaviorism, is largely, if not exclusively, predetermined by one’s environment and one’s genetic code.
But behaviorism or biological determinism is incompatible with the Bible’s view of man. Human beings are created in the image of God and endowed with freedom of choice. We cannot correlate a belief in behaviorism’s naturalistic philosophy with the biblical doctrine that we are accountable to God for our conduct (the doctrine of judgment). Furthermore, this “I did not choose, I cannot change” philosophy raises serious questions about Christ’s power to help us “overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to sin” (The Desire of Ages, p. 671; cf. The Ministry of Healing, pp. 175-176).
What then should we say in response to homosexuals who are coming to church “not only for forgiveness and mercy but to say to the church, as they have to the world, ‘Homosexuality is not sinful? Should the “born a gay” lifestyle be baptized?
In the light of our of our study that we had the church cannot condone homosexual activity without betraying God and its biblical, historical, and spiritual heritage. God can forgive homosexual sin and give victory of the lifestyle but is the gay community willing to except the truth and willing to truly give their hearts to Christ and make a change.
Advent Messenger church our “sincere and earnest desire in writing these studies has been to defend God’s Holy character and truth for these end times and to awaken the world to the truth.
318 total views, 1 views today