Author: Nick Peters

1 Cor. 6:9-10 tells us that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. In fact, we are told to not be deceived on this. (Could it be because we are likely to be deceived on this?) 1 Tim. 1:10 tells us the same thing about homosexuals. Now friends, I have to be blunt and say that I see no way around saying that this is referring to those who practice a homosexual lifestyle.

Some might think that this refers to those who offend homosexuals. This kind of reasoning really makes me puzzled. Why would Paul just single out those who offend homosexuals? Why not those who offend liars or robbers or any other group? The only explanation I know of is to accept Paul at face value. He is speaking about homosexual offenders.

Now let’s get to the grace side of this.

I think this is referring to people who do practice this kind of lifestyle with the activity going on. I do not think this relates to the person who wrestles with homosexual desires and yet, chooses to maintain a celibate lifestyle. There are such people in this world and some Christians would include themselves in that category. Grace and counseling are the key.

And friends, that is what we need to be doing and this is a strong reason we need to push what masculinity and femininity really are. I think one reason the homosexual movement got so much thrust here in America is because men don’t know what it means to be men and women don’t know what it means to be women. Those ideas have been lost to us.

It also happens when we lose what sin is. When we say that homosexuality is no longer a sin, we don’t do a service to homosexuals. We do a disservice to them. It does no good to speak to one living in sin as if they were not. It does not good to say of what is evil that it is good. I’m not saying we should like saying it. I’m not saying we should be gloating in our attitude. I’m simply saying we should speak the truth and speak the truth in love. These are people created in the image of God also.

Let’s also be clear on the good news of the text. Paul says that this is what some of his listeners once were, but they were cleansed and transformed by Christ. We dare not limit him also. Paul believed strongly in the power of Christ through the Holy Spirit to change someone’s life. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have those same kinds of beliefs today. This is not about tongues and this is not about prophecy. This is about the power to transform lives. Either Christ still does it or he doesn’t.

I’m on the side of that he does.

If we preach to the homosexual and condemn his sin and don’t tell of the grace of God to change lives, then we have not done the job. We must also remember that this is done because we do see the homosexual as a person and someone we want to enter into the full joy of life that God has prepared. Remember that part of that joy is true sexuality. Yes my fellow young men and to you young single women waiting also for us. God does want us to enjoy the gift of sexuality. I think it would be a huge blessing to those of us in the church if we could get this message to the youth when speaking about sex instead of just the list of “donts.” This is a good thing!

And let’s remember this also. Paul does speak of the power of transforming these lives. He mentions many others as well. Let us not forget that Christ is still in the business of transforming lives and he can transform ours as well as we grow more and more to being conformed to the likeness of his Son.

Romans is a very interesting book in church history. It was a passage from Romans that encouraged Martin Luther to start the Protestant Reformation. It was hearing Luther’s opening to the book of Romans that made John Wesley’s heart feel “strangely warmed” and led to the great revivals that swept through England and produced Methodism.

I sum up the opening chapters this way:

Chapter 1: God’s really ticked off at Gentiles.

Chapter 2: Sorry Jews, but God’s angry at you also.

Chapter 3: All are under the wrath of God deservingly.

Chapter 4: Deliverance has come!

And we can go on from there.

Tonight though, we’re simply looking at Romans 1:24-27.

The passage speaks earlier though about God’s existence being known by the creation. This isn’t a design argument per se, as Paul did not know about DNA or anything like that, but it’s a basic argument that creation exists and the wonder and beauty of creation need a creator to explain them. Thus, it’s evident that God exists.

Now what he says happens though is that people suppress this truth in vain speculations. (Wow. He’d be impressed with how much that happens today!) They become foolish and in the world of that time, idolatry will be the next step. Everyone has to worship something. One wonders if our comparing ourselves to the animals is getting us to that route.

What is the end result? Homosexuality. Men exchange natural desires and gave themselves to desires for one another. The women did the same thing and desired other women.

Is this about homosexuality?

Yes.

There are some who argue all other manner of things, but friends, the word here is function. It only means function. Paul is talking about taking something proper and exchanging it for something improper. Men gave up the natural desire for women and instead desired other men. By the way guys, keep this in mind. Our desire for women is good! God made us to desire them! (Thank you Lord for that.)

Some think this refers to Pederasty where men in the army would train “young boys” but why think that? This seems to be a decision of two people that are knowing the actions that they are doing. Instead, it just seems that people are willing to do whatever they can to deny the natural meaning of the text. Paul condemned homosexuality.

Well why didn’t Jesus?

Simple. Jesus lived in Israel. Jews followed the law. Homosexuality was not an issue. They dealt with them.

In the Gentile world, it was one. Paul had to address it then.

We shall look at other texts tomorrow.

Writers like John Shelby Spong try to tell us that the reason Sodom was destroyed was for inhospitality rather than homosexuality, or as has often been called since then and as we saw last week, was called so by Josephus, Sodomy. Sodom has never had a positive connotation in the Scriptures and came to be a symbol of wickedness. Let’s look at other places it’s mentioned.

Deuteronomy 29:23

The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in fierce anger.

32:32

Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

Isaiah 3:9

The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

Jeremiah 23:14

And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”

Ezekiel 16:48-50, which we will be looking at more later:

48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 ” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

2 Peter 2:6

if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

Jude 1:7

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The account of what happened is located largely in Genesis 19. God was looking for ten righteous people in the city and did not find them. Instead, the angels visited Lot’s house and he did not want them to stay in the public square. (Geez. Could it be that Lot knew that the men would be gang-raped?) Granted, there was the rule of offering shelter to visitors as hospitality was valued back then, but I suspect there’s more here.

Then come the men of the city and they say they want to know the men who came. The word know does not mean an interview. This was not a fact-finding mission. We know Lot understood it this way because he tried to offer his daughters to appease them.  The intent is clear. They wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels, who they thought were men.

But what about Ezekiel? He doesn’t put homosexuality on the top!

As if that means it isn’t there….

Verse 50 speaks of the detestable things. The Jews would have known what that was, especially in a passage rampant with figures of adultery. In fact, this seems to be the natural progression that takes place in Romans 1. There comes the pride and separation from God and that ends in homosexuality. Could it be Sodom was just the end-result of living life apart from God?

Now again, someone can deny the account or say that God was wrong in what he did, but let’s be clear on what the account means.

A good friend replying to my last blog said that we need to be up on our defense of how the Bible speaks on homosexuality.

He is correct, indeed.

So let’s do that.

In Leviticus 18:22, we are told that one is not to lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable. In some translations, an abomination. Let’s be clear.

First, the word abomination is a specific term and it is only used in Leviticus in chapters 18 and 20 in regards to sexual sins. Thus, anyone who uses the shellfish canard is missing the boat.

Is it being interpreted properly though? I had that charge brought to me once. I suggest someone consider these words I am reading from Josephus in “Against Apion” 2.30:

“Now the greatest part of offenses with us are capital, as if anyone be guilty of adultery; if anyone force a virgin; if anyone be so impudent as to attempt sodomy with a male; of, if upon another’s making an attempt upon him, he submits to be used.”

Notice how Josephus can seem to understand how someone could force a virgin to have sex, but when he gets to Sodomy, he adds on “If anyone be so impudent.” Josephus apparently saw this as a particularly heinous sin.

And friends, I really know no other way to interpret it. What is being condemned is clear and I’m not sure how it could be clearer.

Well, maybe it just relates to cultic practice.

Look at the verses before and after. Before it, child sacrifice is condemned. After it, bestiality is condemned. Are we to think that this just related to priests and is okay today?

If you think it is, then whenever I have children, I’ll make sure not to hire you as a babysitter.

Okay. Well maybe this is all the law of Moses!

Um. Check the verses to the end of the chapter. Why are the nations being cast out? Because they did all these things. Did they have the Law of Moses? No. Were they ever under it? No. The same applies to those of us who are Gentiles today. We were never under the Law. However, this is outside of the Law of Moses though it is recorded in it. The Law of Moses did have moral aspects that still continued though the punishment was different.

In other words, this is part of the innate moral law. God is saying “These nations should have known better. They did not need the written law code to know this is wrong.”

Now please be sure in all of this. We can say the Bible is wrong in condemning homosexuality. (I don’t think it is, of course, rest assured) However, we can make no mistake in the fact that it is condemning homosexuality.

A man is suing Zondervan and Thomas Nelson for Bible verses that condemn homosexuality saying that they are improperly translating them and that the usage of those verses has caused him much pain and has made him an outcast from his family. He has suffered emotionally and physically from this. On hearing this, one response comes to mind immediately.

“Grow up.”

Let me put this clearer. Let’s suppose his family made him an outcast. That is not the fault of the verses. That is the fault of the family. If they had been following the Bible, they would have realized he was family. Now if he’d wanted acceptance from his family for his actions, that’s another matter. You can accept the person though without accepting the actions. I have had a homosexual friend before. I had no problem with him as a person, but I did with his actions. (I don’t now simply because I moved away.)

Also, this man is giving way too much power to those around him. Is he going to say that others forced him to be uncomfortable? Could it be his own sense of right and wrong and he’s just wanting to blame it on others? This is a showing of our victimization culture in that everyone is a victim and everyone else is responsible for what happens.

In fact, let’s be clear on some other issues with lawsuits.

I went out for ice cream. There are a lot of beautiful girls at the ice cream parlor tonight. I come home and get on facebook and seeing friends I see other friends and there are a lot of beautiful girls there as well. Facebook also advertises dating sites and guess what they use in their pictures. You got it! It’s beautiful girls again.

I should sue for lust being condemned. It causes me pain.

I see people come through my workplace with better jobs and making better money and I wish I was in that position.

I should sue for covetousness being condemned.

I sometimes think of myself more than I ought because of my skills in philosophy and theology and apologetics.

I should sue for pride being condemned.

I’d really like to be able to call in sick for work tomorrow.

I should sue for lying being condemned.

The point is, the Bible says a lot of things that cause me discomfort. Now I can turn to the Qu’ran and read that Muhammad claims Allah says saying that God has a son is the sin of shirk.

I’m not losing any sleep.

Suppose I knew some Muslims. I wouldn’t sue them. I’d discuss it with them and state my reasons for my worldview.

Suppose they wanted to execute me.

Then we’re getting into legal grounds and in America, that can go to the proper authorities, but to say homosexuality is a sin is not to violate the law. It is to state what you believe to be the truth and frankly, like the sin of shirk, it either is or it isn’t. If it is, then you need to deal with it regardless. If homosexuality is truly a sin, then the person should be grateful for telling them such. If it isn’t, then why worry? How much stock are we to put in opinions that aren’t true?

Bottom line though? This is simply our victimization culture rising up and a culture that is trying to regulate the thought life of America. Friends. There is a threat from the active homosexual lobby and we need to be prepared biblically, philosophically, and legally.

I said in last night’s blog that I was listening to a debate between Mike Licona and Dan Barker. Someone commented on a part that especially amused me and I was talking to a friend this morning and out of the blue, he mentioned the same part. When trying to explain the conversion of Paul, Dan Barker offers the idea that maybe he was struck by lightning.

Earlier, Barker had said that we should only believe in a miracle if that which is used to explain it is more miraculous than the miracle itself. In other words, if the explanations that are given stretch credulity, maybe it’s time to be open to a miracle.

It’s time.

Danny. Don’t you think his companions would have said something to him like “Dude. You got struck by lightning!” Don’t you think he would have noticed his burnt flesh and the clothing that smelled of smoke if that happened? Do you really think that if it had been storming in such a condition that he’d be out traveling on the road anyway?

Ravi Zacharias has said that if you ever want your faith in the resurrection increased, look at the other explanations given.

That is well said.

The problem with being a skeptic is not that you don’t believe the truth. The problem is that you will believe anything else. For Dan Barker, it’s more likely that Paul got struck by lightning than that he really encountered Jesus of Nazareth on the road and was converted. The conversion account explains everything. The lightning account explains squat.

Note also that Dan brings up the reason for denying the conversion that the accounts of it supposedly contradict each other. J.P. Holding of Tektonics brings to light what E.P. Sanders says in his book “The Historical Figure of Jesus.”

The author of Luke/Acts was not stupid; he doubtless knew that his stories varied. He could have told the same story the same way, but that would not have been as good a narrative. Like many other authors, both ancient and modern, he disliked repetition; like other ancient authors, he would change events in order to avoid it.

J.P. Holding states that while there is disagreement with Sanders on some points, there is not disagreement on one Dan Barker needs to learn. Luke was not stupid.

The explanation is actually simple. The words for hear imply different things. One has the idea of hearing a sound and one the idea of hearing with understanding. One thinks that Barker is being driven by something more than rationality here.

And isn’t that always the case?

Friends. It’s at the point where I’d say “If you want the surety that the resurrection happened, just read these counter-theories.”

Eh? But who knows? Maybe Dan Barker just deconverted and believes strange stuff now because he got struck by lightning.

Awhile ago, I started listening to this debate. It’s still going on now, but I’m just quite interested in writing about it because I find it going pitiful. I am literally groaning here at times hearing some of the things that Barker is saying simply because these are arguments from outrage and red herrings and then simply claims that are high school apologetics. For all interested, what I’m listening to is available here:

What amazes me in listening to a debate like this is how much credibility some skeptics give an atheist like Barker. I just got done hearing that the Bible is a sexist book, for instance, which is simply arguing from emotion. This is evidenced by a question Barker would often ask his friends who were Christians. Should he, as an honest person, go to Hell when he dies?

Well, yeah.

Ouch. Some think I’m cold, but it’s true.

And apart from Christ, so should I.

Now Barker thinks he’s shown that God is brutal. Not at all. God is holy.

We often think it’s so unthinkable that God puts some people to death. In Christianity though, when we sin, it’s essentially divine treason. What should shock us is not that God puts some people to death. What should shock us is that a holy God lets anyone live.

Now this doesn’t mean that I like that reality. I don’t. What’s right though is not always what I like. When a single guy like myself sees a lovely lady, I do have some thoughts that go through my mind and know what I’d like to be able to do, but I know it’s not right. At least, it wouldn’t be right until we each wear a ring and say “I do.”

I also think that Mike Licona has made a strong case for the resurrection based on the minimal facts approach of Habermas. Barker has really not replied and claims then that he has refuted the arguments. Barker doesn’t give a reason why the accounts are wrong other than the question-begging argument of Hume and others against miracles. Barker gives a story instead and it gives the impression that he’s saying “I have a story and don’t ask me to give evidence for it! It’s true because I believe it!”

In fact, there’s not really much to say because Barker’s argumentation is so weak. It’s all old hat stuff that we have been through several times before. A number of thoughts go through one’s head at this point.

“Dang. My faith is in good hands.”

“That objection AGAIN?! I can answer that in my sleep!”

It also makes one think of the importance of Christians being prepared in their apologetics. I don’t find Barker convincing at all, but I fear many Christians would. I wonder how many churches Dan Barker could tear through simply because the Christians are only living in their own world of emotional experiences and don’t have a clue about reality outside of that experience. This is emotion controlling rationality instead of the other way.

The objections are simple. They really are. There are people like Barker out there that are called the New Atheists today. It would be great if we lived in a world where those who are atheists were hesitant to put out books because they know the Christians are ready to answer. Unfortunately, they’re not. Most skeptics assume Christians are unthinking idiots that are simply emotional and speaking about a personal relationship with God and hearing the voice of God.

Unfortunately, many of us haven’t given them much reason to believe otherwise.

Dan Barker can do better in this debate. A lot better! We can do better though in our witness and preparation. Are we seen as soldiers of Christ bringing forth the kingdom or not?

A few weeks ago, in our company’s break room I saw a newspaper with a story about company boards needing to hire more diverse staff. To some of us, this might sound good, but it becomes an increasing concern of mine. Why hire diverse staff? Now I’m not saying that right off it’s wrong. The question I am wanting to ask is why should the staff be diverse?

Our society is one that has taken several means and considered them as ends in themselves. We look at pleasure, for instance, and see that as the end in itself. Pleasure is instead meant to point us to what is good in itself. We have so many little ends set up that are merely means. They are such things as sex, money, power, etc.

In the realm of society, we see tolerance and diversity as ends in themselves. Why should we have diversity? Because diversity is a good thing. To what end? For a company board, it’s not necessarily the best. If all of the best applicants that can get the job done right are white men, then let it be white men. If they are black women, then let it be black women. For business, it is the best that should have the position. If I go to a doctor, I want to go to one who got hired because he’s good at what he did. Not one who got hired because they needed a minority on staff. If a minority is the best though, then hire a minority.

Diversity is good for discussion as well. Discussion is to be a search for truth where we all bring forward perspectives and ideas. In order to do that, we need all the ideas we can get. This is one area where religious pluralism fails. Religious pluralism assumes that once we have a diversity of religious views in discussion, then we have reached the goal. The goal of having such discussions though should be to find out which view is true and which is false.

In fact, religious tolerance makes no sense in this regard. You do not tolerate what is good and true. If my roommate decides to bring home pizza for us, his treat, I don’t tell him I tolerate that. I accept it and enjoy it. If, instead, he were to damage one of my books, I would tolerate that. You tolerate things that are not favorable to you and not what is good and true.

As a Christian, I take it as an insult to think my worldview is just as good as anyone else’s. (In truth, I see the position as saying all religions are equal. They’re equally wrong.) Try saying the same thing to a Muslim. Tell him Allah is the same God as the Trinity we Christians worship. See exactly how much your tolerance and understanding is appreciated?

If diversity is treated as the end in itself, then something will be sacrificed. In the case of business, that’s often the good. In the case of ideas though, it is much more serious. The truth is sacrificed at the altar of diversity. For people today, it is better to have a lot of ideas than to have true ideas. No one asks any more hardly about ideas “Are they true?” We get questions instead like “Do they work?” or “Do they make people happy?”

Diversity is a good. No doubt about it. It’s good as a means to something else though and not as an end in itself.

I was thinking on writing about something else tonight, but my last customers at work got me to change my mind unknowingly. It was a family talking about a trip. I asked where they were going and they said “To Israel.” I wanted to know why and was told that they lived there. I noticed some disdain when I said that I wanted to go there to to walk where Christ walked so I decided to touch base with the Old Testament then.

Thus, I had a good conversation as I think they were quite pleased that a Gentile knew some of the locations in the Old Testament. I heard them speaking in a language I didn’t know so I wanted to be sure. I was thinking it was Hebrew and sure enough, it was. I said I wanted to learn that language someday to which they taught me a few basic words. I’m hoping I left a good impression that not all Christians are anti-Semites.

Unfortunately, we’ve got that rep before and in some cases, it is justified. There are some things that were said by some of the church fathers and by people like Martin Luther that there is just no defense for. If you call yourself a Christian, you have no place in your worldview for anti-Semitism. Instead, we should have Philo-Semitism.

Why? I don’t believe in showing love to the Jews for eschatological reasons. I believe in it because first off, they are still human beings created in the image of God. They’re people that Jesus died for just like Gentiles are. Christ came to be the savior of the world and that is a world that includes both the Jew and the Greek. His offer is there for all.

Second, I value the Old Testament. Unfortunately, while I do believe strongly in the New Testament, it rests on the Old Testament and many of us are quite ignorant of the Old Testament. We can tend to look at it as an inferior testament. May it never be! Much of our theology and doctrine comes out of the Old Testament! We cannot understand the New Testament as we should also without a thorough knowledge of the Old.

It was the Jews who spent years preserving that Old Testament. It was the Jews that recorded the words of Moses and the prophets and copied them down throughout the centuries. Because Jews held a fierce devotion to these texts, I am able to read the Old Testament today. In fact, Paul says in Romans 3 that this is an advantage. The Jews are the ones through whom the oracles of God came.

Last though, their line was the line that brought me a savior. Let’s always keep this in mind. Christ was and is a Jew. The Messiah of the world was born of Jewish parents in a Jewish world from a Jewish bloodline. He lived in a Jewish culture among Jewish people where he observed Jewish laws. Christ’s whole world was thoroughly Jewish and so was Christ. He fulfilled the law after all!

If we are prone to anti-Semitism, let it be reminded of us that Christ was born a Jew. Now I will say I do not grant the Jews special privileges in soteriology. Being Jewish will not get them bonus points at the pearly gates. They need the Jewish Messiah just as much as anyone else does. Jew and Gentile alike are guilty before God and in need of a savior, Jesus, the Jew from Nazareth.

So my customers left today and I was quite pleased. I had a reminder of the roots of the Old Testament and where my savior came from. We Christians should face up to the fact that many in our history have not been kind to the Jews. It is a sin and we should acknowledge that and show our love for the Jews, for they will know that we are Christians by our love.

Thus, I must simply say that I thank God for the Jews and again for those reasons. They brought me my Old Testament and they were the ones through whom my savior came.

I was talking to a really good friend of mine who’s a good and godly mother of older children. She is also a schoolteacher and was telling me about watching some boys that were, I think eight years old, talking about why it’s better to be a boy. However, a young girl stood up and said though that the girls have an advantage. They can have babies.

This friend told me what was already on my mind. A child already sees the truth of that statement. Today, many women seem to view having babies as a punishment.

Ironically, abortion is one of the most anti-female acts that there is today. If we were to castrate a man, we’d see that as a punishment on him. If we make it so that we destroy the fruit of a lady’s womb, we can see that as her moral right. What has happened?

The fight was for a woman to control her own body. Women have often complained of being seen as simply baby-makers. They’re to supposedly stay home and be barefoot and pregnant. Women should not be seen as just sex objects. If that’s the goal, then I agree, but what is going on with abortion. Why this demand to control sexuality?

Let’s suppose first off someone raises the objection about rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Now I think abortion is still immoral in those cases, though I understand the thinking on those who disagree on the last one. However, I would gladly accept a law that said that all abortions except for in those cases are declared illegal.

The only other reason I can think of then is that a baby is an inconvenience. Well yes. A baby often is. That also doesn’t cease. Getting up at 2 A.M. for feedings I’m sure is an inconvenience. Having to take kids to school is an inconvenience. Having to buy clothes for them is. Having to save up for their college. Having to teach them how to drive. Whatever you want, it can be an inconvenience.

How many parents though would trade away that inconvenience?

Could it be instead though that a baby is an inconvenience to a sex life?

Oh no. Our nation is not obsessed with sex at all! It’s only on public TV and in the movies and in the music and in the magazine rack and in the literature in the bookstores and on the radio and on broadway and in our school system! There’s no obsession though! Sure, we have people living together without marriage increasing and a rising teen pregnancy and a huge problem with STDs and the pornography industry, but there’s no sex obsession in America.

Pregnancy can kind of get in the way of that.

This is one reason I’m against birth control. I have a problem with separating intercourse from its final purpose. I’m not saying it doesn’t have other purposes. I’m all for pleasure and intimacy between a married couple. I’m just saying that it was designed to be the way to produce children. There are many other ways to have pleasure and intimacy also. Sex may be the best, but pleasure and intimacy are not its primary purpose.

Consider though if I am right, and I am sure I am, and giving birth is the most feminine thing a lady can do. If that is the case, then abortion is an attack on womanhood. It’s not pro-women. It’s anti-women. It is not allowing them to do what they were uniquely designed to do. Only a woman can bring a new life into this world.

Now naturally, I also think abortion destroys a human life each time, but at this point, I simply want to point out that this is not something good for women. Others have written of the after-effects of abortion on women and the medical and psychological problems. That’s not my area and not my point. I only want to point out that if a lady truly wants to stand up for women, she can start by standing up for the unborn against abortion.