Sean McDowell & Preston Sprinkle On Homosexuality

MCDOWELL : The basis of the affirming position seems to be that biblical writers did not understand sexual orientation or have knowledge of the kinds of consensual, committed, loving same-sex relationships we see today. How do you address this claim? That may be what a great many affirming writers believe, but that’s direct function of Ecclesiastical Tradition & Liturgical Philosophy that has ruled the hearts & minds of people for several centuries.  What the biblical authors believed isn’t really germane to this discussion.    What made it to the page is the determinant of what the Bible teaches, not what the author may or may not have believed. SPRINKLE: It’s a great point to raise, and evangelicals need to understand and consider the argument. My response it twofold: First, we do see examples of adult consensual same sex relations in and around the first century. So those who say that “they didn’t exist” are simply wrong. I show why in my book. True. Second, th...
Post a Comment

Pop Quiz! Romans 1:18 - 32

 Specifically what theory am I deploying?

Which words did I “‘make up?”

Answer these questions: According to Romans 1:18 - 32 …

1. What is the purpose of the created order?

To testify to God’s design for human sexuality so we can do sexual ethics? OR Is its purpose to testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority as the basis for all ethics.

2. How did the nations wind up with idols with sexual characteristics? By looking to God’s image & authority or by looking to their own & others?

3. Does God indict humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own & others or for failing to look at the human image & understanding & believing that the human image is heteronormative?

4. Apropos 3, since the text indicts humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own & others, how can “natural” mean “heteronormative” if God has no sexual characteristics? How can God indict some people for refusing to understand & believe in heteronormativity by way of rejecting God’s created design expressed via human anatomy, physiology, &/or psychology while indicting us all for reasoning from the human image to worship & sexual ethics?

The answer is: Heteronormativity isn’t the subject of 1:26 - 27, because if so, you have to divorce worship ethics (theology about God’s image) from sexual ethics (theology about the human image) in a text that binds them together. God’s image — not ours — is the source of worship & sexual ethics, & since He has no sexual characteristics, “natural” has nothing to do with heteronormativity. If so, then God has sexual attributes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

City Of God Study Module 2

            ✨ 👑 GALLIFREY 👑✨                       EDISON/ADONAI                           CAMBRIDGE BASTILLE & PLUME     SAGACITY & THORN                            Zodiac ICONOCLASTS LAW & ORDER         Bishop     Vanity Fair          Forge      Toymaker    Archibaptrix     Chameleon         Enigma     Governess         Corsair       Jodpurs         Sextant       Dauphin       Carnevale       Libertine           Arsenal                  Mosaic  ...
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more