Objection: Genesis 1:27 :
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
God created Adam male & Eve female. This is the created ontology of all people, insofar as Adam & Eve represent us all. Since God created them male & female, this text serves as a prooftext for heteronormativity.
The disputant then imports this into the text of Romans 1:26 - 27 on the premise that what Genesis 1:27 says about the created anatomical/physiological &/or psychological state of Adam & Eve, the natural (meaning physical &/or psychological) state is what Romans 1:26 - 27 is referencing.
The same disputant reads my own statement about the meaning of “natural” & “unnatural” as a reference to the **moral** not the **physiological/anatomical/psychological order & accuses me of committing an illicit totality transfer.
By way of reply:
I haven’t claimed that the term “natural” means the same thing in each & every text regardless of its context. I fear he doesn’t understand the fallacy.
The Illicit Totality Transfer is defined as taking the meaning — the sense or concept — from one part of Scripture and lifting that idea and wrongly applying it to another Scripture that may deploy the same words or is about the same concept or a very similar concept, when in truth the 2 texts deploy totally different usage.
Think of it as Conceptual Incest in which a disputant maps one author’s usage onto another author’s usage & proceeds to argue accordingly. It’s analogous to reading James use of the term “justify” in James 2 then mapping James’ usage back onto Paul’s usage. The proper procedure is to exegete/exposit them separately then harmonize them not use one to interpret the other as if “justify” & the concept of justification in Romans & the manner in which James uses “justify” in James are one & the same. That process is what Rome does when explaining James & Romans & winds up with justification by faith & works — th antithesis of Paul’s (& James’) understanding of forensic justification.
The disputant describing your own interpretation in which you are using “natural” as a cipher for “heterosexual” from Genesis 1:27 then insisting that because Romans 1:26 - 27 discusses sexual behavior, the term “natural” in Genesis (as to the state of the created order) is what “natural” means here. Genesis is referring to human bodily ontology (sex/gender). Romans is referring to the **moral** order, the result of using the human image as a moral warrant.
Comments
Post a Comment