Is Homosexual Behavior a Special Sin?

While I would prefer to not address the topic, I feel like it is necessary. Like it or not, the hot button issue leveled against Christians is homosexuality. I don’t condemn anyone, my own behavior condemns me too because I am sinner myself (see Eph 2:8–9). Contrary to some obscurantists, the NT speaks clearly to the issue. Note the precision of translation in the Lexham English Bible and in the use of past tense:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And some of you WERE these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9–11)

Note it is not a “special sin” but listed along side drunkards and swindlers and greed… However, there are remarkable distinctions. For instance, have you heard tell of an “greed pride” or “adultery pride parade”?  Even more. how many times have adulterers gathered to vandalize churches?

Homosexuals ransack, tag NC churches with pro-gay slogans

Homosexual activists trashed two North Carolina churches over the weekend and spray-painted pro-“gay” messages over the church properties, which sustained thousands of dollars’ worth of damages.



“Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error.(Romans 1:26–27)

Vatican Says Gays Have ‘Gifts and Qualities to Offer’ – So What?

LGBT-CatholicsRoman Catholic gay rights groups hail the paper titled Relatio as a breakthrough, because it says:

50.        Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? source

While point 50 is being cited as a revolutionary step forward for Rome, it amounts to babbling incoherent nonsense. Here is the implied argument: 1) Gays have talents and gifts to offer the church; 2) Gays wish the church to welcome them; 3) Therefore, we should guarantee them space in our communities.

Reasoning carefully is important and this line of reason fails. Formally, it is called a non-sequitur (does not follow). Why? It is easy to demonstrated.

All groups of people have gifts but not all groups are consistent with Christianity. Extreme examples make this obvious. For example, predatory pedophile priests like  Fr. Robert Brennan have gifts too but the nature of such sin requires the church to break fellowship, correct? I only use an extreme example to prove that gifting alone is not the basis for acceptance. Even satan worshippers have talents but we do not want to worship with them.  It does not follow that the giftedness of homosexuals (or anyone) demands the church to “make space” for them (whatever that means).  Thus, the logic fails.

The New Testament teaches:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Co 6:9-10)

A Christian cannot “accept and value their sexual orientation” because it is sinful (1 Cor 6:9). This documents reveals that Rome does not understand the Gospel. One joins the true church by acknowledging ones sinfulness and need of the Savior’s redeeming blood. If a homosexual believes the Gospel (1 Cor 15:3-5) acknowledges that such activity is sinful, struggles and resists the proclivity then they are Christian. If they refuse to acknowledge that it is a sin, freely indulge it and ask the church to compromise, then they are in open rebellion no matter what gifts and talents they might offer.

Inside the Homosexual Agenda

This film is 20 years old but we just watched it in a Christian Ethics class at SEBTS. It’s astounding how those promoting the gay agenda have accomplished most of their stated goals since the film was made. They did so largely by manipulating an ignorant postmodern culture who cannot make basic category distinctions. For example, even many who claim to be Christians cannot make the distinction between the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the gay rights movement. They say, “we accepted other minorities, why not gays?” But homosexuality is a behavior based identity choice whereas race and gender are not. They are not the slightest bit comparable but the general population’s failure to make the distinction has led us down the road to the moral chaos that exists today. It’s really important to understand the distinction. Even though it’s old and a little cheesey, watch this film.

Taking the Roof Off While Eating a Chick Filet

By Cris Putnam
I recently read an essay by a Christian who thought Jesus might reply to a modern Chick-Filet protestor as He did the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. First, nobody is talking about stoning same sex marriage advocates. Furthermore, there is a more important distinction between the woman caught in adultery and the modern homosexual movement that was neglected. The woman caught in adultery was not marching in “Adultery Pride” parades. She had a sense of shame and knew her act was wrong, she was repentant. I cannot say the same about the Chick Filet protesters. The Bible is crystal clear on this issue: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,” (1 Co 6:9) Notice that homosexuals are not singled out, it includes unrepentant sinners of all stripes. I wish these protestors would understand that the issue for Christians is not personal. We love God and if you love God, you will also hate what God hates. It is not matter of Christians hating dysfunctional people rather hating unrepentant homosexuality and for good reason because it will lead people to eternal hell.

Thus, we hate sin. The homosexual might ask why it it a sin? We could cite the bible from Romans 1:24-32 or 1 Corinthians 6:9 but I have found it unsatisfying because it seems sort of like “Because God said so.” While that ought to be good enough, we all have a tendency to question such pronouncements with “Why?”  For that reason, I ground it in the creation order. It simply cannot be argued against that there is a definite biological order,  indeed a necessity, when it comes to sexuality. Same sex attraction is obviously a violation of this order and purpose.

Because God has communicated real propositional truth to man in the Bible concerning this issue. It follows necessarily that the antithesis of God’s truth is false and this is the basis of what Francis Schaeffer called “taking the roof off.”  The idea is that secular presuppositions invariably contain an incoherence that when pressed, lead to an absurd and intolerable conclusion. Without this realization, the unbeliever lives comfortably under a roof of irrational beliefs which shield him from the outside world. When the roof is removed, reality comes crashing in. One could use a reductio ad absurdum to take the roof off the idea that this is a healthy behavior as follows:

You say this is normal and healthy behavior and that we should all accept it as such.

If that is so then all normal healthy behaviors should be beneficial if universally adopted.

So as a thought experiment, let it be universally adopted and let’s ask how would man fare?

In one generation, the human race would cease to exist.

Therefore, there is a flaw in the idea that this is a normal healthy behavior.

The roof has collapsed and this is highly suggestive that the DSM II was correct in diagnosing this as a sexual attraction disorder. God forbade it for a reason, it is not simply an arbitrary rule meant to spoil someone’s fun. The principle point here is that there is a creation order and this behavior is a perversion of God’s intention for humans. It’s the behavior and the prideful attitude about it that we find offensive, not the mere proclivity, we all struggle with a sin nature. What I hate is the idea of giving in and calling it normal.