Tag: Robert Gagnon

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 11

What should we do about the environment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Something I note about Longman’s book is that many times, I don’t disagree with what he says, until he gets outside of the area of Old Testament studies and gets into personal application. Here, he normally does not look at both sides of the matter and speaks on topics he is not informed on. If he wanted to write on the subject, he would have been far better presenting just what the Bible says or when looking at the issues in application saying something like “Some people think X and here’s why, and others think Y and here’s why.”

So it should not be a shock that when we get to an end of a chapter on the environment, what is brought up is climate change. Longman brings up that this is the settled science so we should accept it. Sorry, but after Covid, many of us are not so quick to accept the “accepted science.”

For instance, here is the settled science from 1978:

Now let us suppose that in that time we had said, “Dang! We have to stop this! We have to take steps to heat the Earth!” Where exactly would we be now if we had done that according to the climate change alarmists? At this rate, we would be well underwater due to the ice caps melting and everything else.

But this was the settled science.

When Covid came, we were being given all these alarmist policies and told about how many people would die if we didn’t do this. Now we look back and many people now see what those of us who actually thought about the data then saw, that this was not the case. The precautions we took were highly unnecessary. I realize this is anecdotal, but I went about my business as usual, only wore a mask when I had to do my job, and never got a vaccine.

I have also never had Covid to this day.

Also, color us suspicious when every time that there is a “crisis” the solution is always along the lines of “government intervention” which usually leads to communism or socialism. Generally, I have made it a policy to not take national “panics” seriously. So far, this has worked well in my life.

Longman didn’t go to a site ever like the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. I find this strange since if one is an evangelical writing for an evangelical audience, you would think that you would, I don’t know, go to an evangelical environmental association. Could it be he just doesn’t want to hear the other side?

He also brings up the argument of religion vs science, but notice that in all of what I said above about climate change, I did not make it a point about religion. It is not religion vs science, but scientific models vs other scientific models. To bring up the argument of religion vs science in the climate change debate is a red herring.

So in the end, I still say what I said at the beginning. I wish that Longman had largely just provided the biblical data and then if he had to go with application, at least give both sides of the issue.

Next time, we’ll talk about poverty.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 10

Should we redefine marriage? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start, it looks like there’s not a lot to disagree with. To his credit, Longman does agree that the desire to redefine marriage in the church even is something new. The Bible speaks about flourishing sexual relationships, but those are only heterosexual ones, and only in a certain context, between a husband and a wife.

So let’s go to the end where we do find disagreement. Should Christians try to seek to have the Supreme Court ruling on redefining marriage overturned? (I will not use the term “same-sex marriage” because that is as meaningful as talking about a square circle.) Longman doesn’t address that directly, but he does say some things that are concerning.

Rightly, he says we should not be anxious when the world does not go the way Christians prefer. The world will be the world. With this, I am in complete agreement. I understand that this is difficult and yes, I do struggle at times with this as well. That being said, this is our Father’s world and He will have the final say. Psalm 2 reminds us that the one who sits enthroned in Heaven laughs at the plans the wicked make.

He then says the church should not try to impose its sexual ethic on the world and this is where we start having problems. For one, what is imposing? If I go and vote according to my Christian principles? Am I imposing? If so, then why did he even write this book? Why write a book on how Christians should think on political issues if we are not to act at all on these political issues?

If it is not imposing, then there is not a problem. A worldview is going to be enforced one way or another. If Longman thinks all Christians have is the Bible, then I see his cause for concern, but Christians also have natural law thinking. It is not as if Christians just arbitrarily say “Scripture says it and there’s no other reason for it so we go along with it.” I am not saying that would be bad, but I am saying we do have more and Longman needs to acknowledge that. Most any book on Christian ethics would have helped him out in this case.

He does say Christians aren’t arguing for laws against adultery, but an important difference between that and the redefining marriage laws is that government can take one of three positions on actions. They can prohibit, permit, or promote. Now I would not object to a prohibition on adultery, but until that happens, the state simply permits it. If it were to promote adultery, that would be another matter. However, in a way, they are, because they are not only permitting the redefinition of marriage, but promoting it, and giving it the power of the State such as if you want to support a realist position on Christian ethics, you are going against the State. Redefining marriage gives more power to the State.

If the State promotes something, then that means it gets some benefit out of it. What is the benefit in this case? How is the State helped by having a registry of people of the same-sex being together who are incapable of producing children on their own for society? This lowers marriage down to just friends with benefits.

Longman would have been better served by reading material by the other side on natural law thinking and ethics. He should listen to his sparring partner Robert Gagnon. He should also consider a group like the Ruth Institute.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 9

Should we build the wall? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Friday was about abortion. Today, it’s immigration. I told you it would be fiery topics from here on.

Longman brings up several examples of people being wanderers as he calls them, including Abraham and Moses. That part is not so controversial. He also talks about laws to care for the foreigners among other groups in Israel and to make sure that they get justice.

So let’s get to something more interesting. Foreigners were expected to observe the Sabbath. Keep in mind, the Sabbath was a law that breaking it was possibly a capital offense. Thus, when a foreigner came in, they were expected to also abide by those laws.

The unstated assumption of a foreigner seeking a refuge in Israel would be that he would, even if he didn’t embrace YHWH, heed the laws of the new country and adapt to their way of life. It would be unheard of to have a foreigner come to Israel and set up “Alexander’s Idol Shop” in the kingdom’s center. This is something we need to keep in mind in our American context today.

Unfortunately, when he gets there, Longman has nothing to say about our nation’s laws and how immigration should be done. For instance, can people come here seeking asylum? Yes, but when you are asylum seeking, you are to declare that in the first safe country you come to, which in many cases would be Mexico. You don’t just declare asylum when you get to where you want to go.

Second, those seeking asylum are to do so through valid ports of entry.  Most major cities have one in or near them. These are called airports. There are other obvious ones like Ellis Island and there are checkpoints on our norther and southern borders for immigrants to come through.

If you come into a country illegally, you are already disrespecting the country you are wanting to come into. Not only that, there are several people who spend time seeking to get into the country the legal way. Rewards people who come in illegally encourages the wrong behavior and disincentivizes the right behavior. Most Americans have no problem with immigration. They just want it to be done legally.

Longman also comes out in favor of sanctuary cities, but in the Bible, those were set up for people who did not intentionally commit a crime. Sanctuary cities today are for people who DO intentionally commit crimes. Longman thinks the Christians should show compassion for those who come here illegally, but why? If they commit crimes to get here, why should I reward that?

What about the part about separating families? Happens every day in America even to citizens of our country. It’s called jail. (It’s also called divorce, sadly) Suppose a father goes to jail. We don’t lock his kid in there with him. If a drunk driver gets pulled over and the kid is in the backseat, the family is getting separated.

Longman needs to show me why it should be different in this case.

Unfortunately, it looks like Longman is supporting that we encourage behavior that is illegal and I argue immoral in the name of compassion. Such compassion is not compassion to all the people who work to come here legally. Longman says we can’t let everyone come into our country rightly, but why should we reward those who cheated to get in?

No answer from him. Again, Longman seems to make a mistake of not looking at the legal issues here in our own country and does not study the laws surrounding immigration.

Next time, we’ll cover what Longman calls “Same-sex marriage”, which I argue makes as much sense as a square circle.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 8

How should we treat criminals? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Longman looks at criminal justice. I think we can all easily agree that capital punishment is taught in the Old Testament and even performed by God Himself at times. However, it also has the famous rule of lex talionis. The idea is that the punishment must fit the crime. There cannot be more and there cannot be less.

Naturally, things change in the New Testament to an extent. This is no longer a nation one is talking about, but rather a community that has no legal power to enforce something like a death penalty. Longman brings up the man sleeping with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians. In the Old Testament, there would be no question. Death awaits both of them. In the New Testament, it’s being cut off from the community.

Longman does bring up some concerns he has personally with the death penalty. One is that life in prison wasn’t as much an option there as it is now. Perhaps that is so, but again, what is the point? For one, they did still have prisons and someone could have easily been imprisoned for a crime. Second, the death penalty is done because human life is sacred and to wrongfully and intentionally take that life is a crime against God and an attack on His nature.

The second is a bit more problematic in that Longman appeals to fairness, claiming that poor, and likely black, defendants don’t usually have as good attorneys as do rich, and likely white, defendants do. If anything, I would say it is the opposite today. As soon as race is brought into it, the whole dynamic changes such that if anyone did sentence an “oppressed group” they are seen as the villains immediately. He also claims that there are studies that back this, but unfortunately, he does not cite them.

Also, we are told that sometimes the evidence has been retried and a person who got the death penalty turned out to be innocent. First, this is why I only recommend using the death penalty in cases of absolute certainty. Second, while it is true that we cannot bring back someone who wrongfully got the death penalty, neither can we bring back years of their life that they lose if we wrongfully sentence them to prison, but does that mean we should avoid prison sentences?

I also noticed that Longman did not cite Lewis’s final article that he wrote about the prison system that you can find here. While Longman encourages restorative justice, in this article, Lewis argued to return to retributive justice and this on behalf of the criminal. I cannot do his article justice in this post.

So in the end, I do not think Longman has made a case and when he has spoken out of his area, there is a definite lack. Those who are wanting something really controversial should know the remaining chapters all deal with that. We will start next time with immigration.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 7

So what about abortion? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Well, I suspect this chapter will get some responses from readers. After all, abortion is one of those hot topics today. So let’s dive in and see what it says.

Longman does say the Bible doesn’t say exactly when life begins, but even granting this, the evidence on when life begins is clear.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” — Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” –Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16.

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” — E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of life of a new individual.” –Bradley M. Patton, Human Embryology, 3rd Ed., (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), p. 43.

“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” –J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1974), p. 17 (cf. 23).

“We talk of human development not because a jumble of cells, which is perhaps initially atypical, gradually turns more and more into a human, but rather because the human being develops from a uniquely human cell. There is no state in human development prior to which one could claim that a being exists with not-yet-human individuality. On the basis of anatomical studies, we know today that no developmental phase exists that constitutes a transition from the not-yet-human to the human.” –Erich Blechschmidt, Brian Freeman, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: The Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Adulthood, North Atlantic Books, 2004, p. 7.

So even if the biblical witness was silent, the scientific witness is there.

What about a passage like Exodus 21:22-25?

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Longman brings up several translations and interpretations. I will not dare challenge him on the Hebrew of the passage. He concludes that this passage cannot really be used for either side in the abortion debate. I meanwhile think it’s interesting that the eye for an eye concept is there, including life for life. One aspect to consider is that if two men are quarreling, punching a nearby pregnant woman is likely not an intentional act.

What about the situation in Numbers 5 of a woman undergoing a ritual to prove she has not been unfaithful to her husband. Longman says in this case, a divine abortion could be going on, but I find this quite lacking. If a man has not been with his wife in a long time and she winds up pregnant, he doesn’t need a test. He knows the answer. I do not see anything in here that indicates an abortion takes place.

He does argue that according to Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, a stillborn fetus does not have the same position as a live child after birth. I do not think the Teacher is interested in saying that. I think he is saying a live child sees life, but a child that is dead never has to see it. It is not about the status of the persons involved.

On p. 150, he does say that abortion is the end of potential life and is wrong and sinful. The problem here is that it is not potential life. It is life. Why did Longman not cite any references in biology on this? Furthermore, what makes stopping potential life wrong? Is it wrong for a couple to not have abundant sex because they could be stopping life coming into the world? (Why do I suddenly picture a lot of my male readers insisting that yes, we should have abundant sex?)

He also says the most ardent pro-life supporter does not have a funeral or a gravesite for a miscarriage. Some do. At worst, he can say pro-lifers are inconsistent. If this is the strongest objection he has, it is a weak one.

In the end, I wish that Longman had looked at various other experts in the field before writing. It’s disappointing he did not seriously engage.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 6

War. What is it good for? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was quite surprised at the start to see that Longman says the Old Testament battles are not relevant to the question of warfare. Really? Imagine if we saw in the Old Testament this said whenever Israel went to war.

“And behold, the Israelites went out to meet the enemy and the Earth opened up and swallowed the enemy whole. The Israelites offered up sacrifices in praise to God and returned peacefully to their own towns.”

Would that be relevant if the Israelites never themselves actually engaged in warfare, but God fought all their battles? Could that not give a message then of saying, “God will handle all your physical enemies?” Instead, the Israelites were trained for war. Actually, Preston Sprinkle begins his case for pacifism in his book Fight by looking at the Old Testament.

Longman is right when he points out that while Israel fought battles and God fought their enemies at times, when Israel was disobedient, God fought them as well. God kept His standards the same. Impurity was not to be in the land and if that meant Israel was impure, then they could not be in the land.

Then of course, we get to the New Testament with spiritual battles and eventually, battles taking place in Revelation. (Which I largely think have already happened, but it is still warfare.) This is all well and good, but readers are left wondering, “Okay. That’s how it was then. What about today? Should a nation ever go to war and if so, under what conditions?”

Longman starts with self-defense. Here he looks to Exodus 22:2-3 where if a thief is killed robbing someone’s house, there will be no guilt if it happened at night, but there will be if it happened during the day. Why the difference? Longman thinks it is because the occupants will be gone during the day or more likely to tell if the thief is a threat or not. I think the latter part is more likely in that during the night, one can’t see if the thief is armed or not. During the day, they can.

As much as I hold the Bible allows for self-defense, I do not think Longman’s use of the New Testament Last Supper account where Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword is sufficient. What good would two swords do against the Roman army? If anything, this seems like exasperation on the part of Jesus that the disciples misunderstood again.

However, I do think a stronger case is found in that throughout the New Testament, and Longman does make this case, whenever military people are encountered, they are treated respectfully and never told to change their career. If anyone wants to say Cornelius dropped out of the Roman military after his conversion, the impetus is on them to demonstrate it. No one is ever told to cease being a soldier.

Also, it shouldn’t be a surprise the New Testament doesn’t give a direct answer to this question. It is not concerned with how a government should be run. It is concerned about the kingdom of God and the lives of ordinary Christians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Unchanging Witness

What do I think of S. Donald Forston and Rollin G. Grams’s book published by B&H Publishing Group? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

With the Supreme Court voting to redefine marriage and the rise of writers like Justin Lee, Matthew Vines, and John Boswell, the church faces a new challenge. Historically, the church has always held to a consistent sexual ethic when it comes to issues relating to homosexuality, but now the claim is rising up that an active homosexual lifestyle and Christianity can coincide. This is also causing splits across the church as new denominations are formed when Christians are convinced the one that they had has fallen away.

Forston and Grams have written in this situation to help Christians through this time by first off, giving an overview of history from ancient Judaism up to the present time to see that the new move is indeed something new and without any Biblical warrant at all. Some might want to claim that Christians have held to different stances throughout history, but it is up to the critic now to substantiate that in light of this research. This was a highly thorough part of the book constantly looking at primary resources and citing them.

After that, we get into the Biblical data, which while I enjoyed the history was the much more intriguing part to me as we get to see interactions with the arguments of the homosexual revisionists today. It’s not a surprise that the change of interpretation has come to coincide with what Western culture wants to embrace. Of course, there can be grounds for changing a long held viewpoint on how a passage should be interpreted, but we need to make sure that those grounds are valid grounds. It can be too easy to begin with the conclusion that we want and then go on from there.

You might think that if you’ve read Gagnon’s work on the topic, you need go no further, but I disagree. Gagnon’s work is indeed excellent and he makes the most thorough exegetical case that there is, but I think in some ways these writers build on the foundation and add in a few extra pieces along with the historical data. If you have read both of these books, you will be equipped to deal with those who wish to say that Christianity and an actively homosexual lifestyle can coincide.

In the end, the writers say it will come down to a question of authority. There are a number of people who are now saying “Well yeah, the Bible does condemn this, but we just realize that was the opinion of the writers in the time of the Bible.” If someone wants to say “We’ve changed our view on slavery and women”, the writers have a section at the end dealing with that kind of objection.

If there were some downsides, I wish more of the quotes from the church fathers had focused on homosexual behavior instead of pederasty. Also, if you want more of a Natural Law approach, you won’t find it here. I think it’s important that Christians have both Natural Law and Scriptural approaches, but I understand the writers could not give us everything.

Ultimately, if you want to know what’s going on in the church with this issue, this is a book you need to get your hands on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Homosexuality and the Bible — Two Views

What do I think of this book published by Augsburg Books? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Dan Via and Robert Gagnon come together in this book to discuss the view of the Bible on homosexuality. Via I have not known of prior to this, but I did know of Gagnon and I have to say that in this area, Gagnon is a force to be reckoned with. There is a reason people like Matthew Vines do not want to debate Robert Gagnon. Thus, when I saw that he was involved in a book debate on the topic of homosexuality and since I’m doing a research project on that in Romans 1 now, I thought this would be an excellent one to go through.

Unfortunately, if there’s a criticism I have of this, it’s that it is way too short. The book could be read in a few hours which I found troublesome. This is a serious topic and it deserves more time in the press than something this short. In fact, Gagnon had to restrict a lot of what he wrote because it was too long and so throughout his essay, he links to notes on his web site where readers can go to find a fuller treatment. I would have recommended that while Gagnon could have written something too long that Via would be asked to give a more engaging essay of greater length rather than just have Gagnon cut his. There are plenty of things that could have been said.

Much of Via’s arguments are exactly what you would expect along the lines of what was going on in Sodom and matters of that sort. Gagnon’s responses thoroughly show the weaknesses, though not at times as much as one would like in the book format and again, this is because Gagnon has a fuller treatment on the issue on his web site. Perhaps it would have also helped to have had other readers who were commentators on this debate. It might have even been better to have Via and Gagnon discuss separately the major Biblical passages on the topic in separate chapters.

This is also an issue the church needs to pay attention to as it has become the shibboleth of the day. Increasingly for Christians, it will become a major issue as many of our young people who are deciding what truth is more based on their feelings and experience than reason and Scripture are being thoroughly confused on all matters relating to sexuality. Sadly, few of them will pick up a massive tome like Gagnon’s and go through it and unfortunately, few of them will probably go to his web site to look at the in-depth research that he has done. It’s sad to think that we live in the information age but people today want all the information catered to them and are not interested in doing any work.

While short, I must say that it is good to see Gagnon demolish the opposition in this one. Those who are wanting to see a debate on the topic in book form can start here and hopefully more will follow and as this increasingly becomes more of an issue, I am sure that more will follow. I am also thankful that we have as astute a scholar as Gagnon on our side in this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters 10/5/2013 Robert Gagnon

What’s coming up this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Dr. Gagnon will be my guest and is an informed speaker on this area, having written the book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.” This is one of the most thorough works if not the most thorough (And certainly the most thorough I’ve read) on the matter of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Gagnon doesn’t even begin with Scripture but rather begins with the ancient society that the people of the Bible lived in. How was homosexuality viewed in their culture? What did the other societies do in relation to homosexuals or even to simple accusations of homosexuality? How did Israel behave in comparison to them?

Then, there’s the looking at the biblical texts and even texts that some people would think at the start have nothing to do with homosexuality. Does the story of Noah being shamed by his son have anything to do with homosexuality? It just might.

Of course, there is then time spent on accounts like Sodom and Gomorrah and looking at any argument against that being about homosexuality that can be found. Certainly, Gagnon takes us through the arguments of the holiness code in Leviticus and argues why it should be treated as a prohibition and explains why eating shellfish would not fall in the same category.

What about the writings of Jews outside of the Bible? Gagnon also looks at the positions of Philo and Josephus for instance to see what they say. Now some could say “Well Jesus never says anything about it?” According to Gagnon, Jesus in fact does say something about it and we’ll be definitely looking at that this Saturday.

Then we come to the NT and especially the passage in Romans 1. Is this a condemnation by Paul of homosexual behavior? Is it true that Paul knows nothing about loving and committed homosexual relationships? Do modern studies on sexual orientation change anything that Paul has said?

For those who want more, Gagnon also looks at modern discussion on the topic and even scientific studies on the matter. We’ll be discussing what the implications are of accepting the redefinition of marriage and why it is so important that we win this battle today.

I urge everyone to listen in and please be willing to call in and ask your questions, though I’m suspecting that some that champion tolerance in calling in might reveal themselves to be people who are in fact only tolerant of that which already agrees with them. In other words, intolerant. If you want to call in, the number is 714-242-5180. The time is 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: This blog entry is largely a copy of what I had back in August when unfortunately we had to reschedule so if some of you are getting a sense of Deja Vu this time, there’s a reason. The information he has is still just as relevant so please be listening.

Deeper Waters Podcast 8/3/2013 Robert Gagnon

What’s coming up on this edition of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The news has recently been talking about the striking down of DOMA and what it means for the future of marriage in our country. Right now, there are several people who are in favor of redefining marriage and unfortunately, a lot of them are Christians. For the church, it is said that the Bible really doesn’t say anything clearly on this issue.

Robert Gagnon disagrees.

Dr. Gagnon will be my guest and is an informed speaker on this area, having written the book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.” This is one of the most thorough works if not the most thorough (And certainly the most thorough I’ve read) on the matter of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Gagnon doesn’t even begin with Scripture but rather begins with the ancient society that the people of the Bible lived in. How was homosexuality viewed in their culture? What did the other societies do in relation to homosexuals or even to simple accusations of homosexuality? How did Israel behave in comparison to them?

Then, there’s the looking at the biblical texts and even texts that some people would think at the start have nothing to do with homosexuality. Does the story of Noah being shamed by his son have anything to do with homosexuality? It just might.

Of course, there is then time spent on accounts like Sodom and Gomorrah and looking at any argument against that being about homosexuality that can be found. Certainly, Gagnon takes us through the arguments of the holiness code in Leviticus and argues why it should be treated as a prohibition and explains why eating shellfish would not fall in the same category.

What about the writings of Jews outside of the Bible? Gagnon also looks at the positions of Philo and Josephus for instance to see what they say. Now some could say “Well Jesus never says anything about it?” According to Gagnon, Jesus in fact does say something about it and we’ll be definitely looking at that this Saturday.

Then we come to the NT and especially the passage in Romans 1. Is this a condemnation by Paul of homosexual behavior? Is it true that Paul knows nothing about loving and committed homosexual relationships? Do modern studies on sexual orientation change anything that Paul has said?

For those who want more, Gagnon also looks at modern discussion on the topic and even scientific studies on the matter. We’ll be discussing what the implications are of accepting the redefinition of marriage and why it is so important that we win this battle today.

I urge everyone to listen in and please be willing to call in and ask your questions, though I’m suspecting that some that champion tolerance in calling in might reveal themselves to be people who are in fact only tolerant of that which already agrees with them. In other words, intolerant. If you want to call in, the number is 714-242-5180. The time is 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here

In Christ,
Nick Peters