Apparently Nicholas thinks that the Church is being hateful for speaking out against something, in this case homosexual acts, that it has held as a sin since the time of Jesus, and even longer when you look back to see when God gave us the 10 Commandments. Homosexual acts are a grave sin, and no amount of whitewashing will ever make it acceptable. The problem isn't that the Church is being hateful, it is that people who engage in homosexual acts are sinners and the Church is doing her duty to speak out against it. As far as hate goes, I've seen a lot of hate expressed by the homosexual crowd while the Church speaks in Christian love.

As far as John's "medical" evidence supporting homosexuality as a natural state, poppycock. People who engage in homosexual acts do so because they want to. To use John's argument, heterosexuals who engage in fornication or adultery are just doing what comes naturally. WRONG!!! Heterosexuals make a choice to engage in sinful sexual behavior or not, just as homosexuals make the choice to engage in sinful homosexual acts or not.

there is a book that will give you a real understanding of homosexuality and lesbianism. It is entitled BIBLE FACTS: knowing the Truth. go to www.verilybooks.com

B Squared,

I'm a college student. I need my laptop, sorry. And most of my friends are women, so how would that change anything? Your logic fails.

' The problem comes in thinking that the Bible is only talking about voluntary slavery. '

That's where I'm sure most of my confusion is and sorry for beating a dead horse, and for being a smart a-- John.

Whenever I think of slavery in the Bible I can't help but think of Genesis 47. Egypt is selling themselves into slavery because of famine. Their money, their livestock, themselves, and then the land. Israel prospers. When Exodus begins the Egyptians are hot that the Israel's are still prospering and then enslave them for the next 400 years or so. God's Hand has/is certainly directing this and His plan is unfolding. How are we to understand this?

[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/30/the-church-and-homosexuality-ten-commitm... Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in KFD. Bookmark the permalink. ← The Mysterious Embryonic Stem Cell [...]

"First, please note my two previous statements above regarding slavery. Then, “knock it off.”"

The issue of slavery (and the view of women in the Bible) is completely pertinent to this issue. It provides a cultural context to many of the things in the Bible and demonstrates that many of them are no longer relevant in our world.

I've read many of your posts, John, and it's clear you are a fanatic opposed to homosexuality and gay people. While Paul may have stated that homosexuality is contrary to nature, I'm sure many gay people would disagree. So how many gay friends or family members do YOU have? Here are a few other questions for you?

1) Do you believe women should remain silent in church as Paul did? Why or why not?

2) Do you believe women should keep their hair covered? Why or why not?

3) Do you believe that a monogamous homosexual relationship between consenting adults is a greater sin than owning another human being?

These are all simple yes/no questions and will demonstrate if you truly believe in Biblical infallibility.

"Second, you’re assuming that “man is the measure of all things”, that something is bad because it hurts people. That’s essentially an atheistic ethic."

Hogwash. Of course something is wrong if it hurts people. Ever read the Sermon on the Mount? Are you trying to say that slavery is NOT wrong simply because it robs people of their liberty, because the Bible NEVER indicates it is wrong in principle, simply that there are right and wrong ways to practice it.

Hi John,

Thanks for responding; I truly have to get some work done today (and no one pays me for responding to comments on blogs).

Hi Barry,

First, please note my two previous statements above regarding slavery. Then, "knock it off."

Second, you're assuming that "man is the measure of all things", that something is bad because it hurts people. That's essentially an atheistic ethic. Something is wrong because it is contrary to God. Now, He created an order in which human beings are made in the image of God and shouldn't be kidnapped and made perpetual slaves because of their race. He also created an order in which homosexual practices are a violation of.

Third, there are no such things as homosexual acts done in a "loving relationship", because the acts themselves are unnatural and damn those who indulge them to hell. No one who "loves" another person would encourage them to do such things. There maybe relationships in which people agree to arrangements of mutual self-indulgence but those aren't really loving.

Fourth, your rejection of the infallibility of the Word of God and replacing it with your own worldly ways of thinking is the problem. You've rejected the truth of God. You personally need to deal with this.

Hi Phil,
1. I lived in Ethiopia for two years. There is a class of servants there, maids, guards, gardeners, etc. It's not based on race, as everyone, except for foreigners (like me), are black. The servants can quit and they are paid. But since there is nothing else out there to provide for them, the effect of quitting could be dire: literally starving to death. And the "pay" is a pittance (often far less than a dollar a day, maybe half that.) You could go to Ethiopia with an army and free all the servants and the result would be that you would have sentenced most of them to death. That is a situation remarkably like the "slavery" found in the bible.

2. That being the case, to assume (as I would guess you have) that the slavery of the Bible is morally the same as the race-based, perpetual slavery, often begun with kidnapping, of the American South, is fundamentally wrong. Therefore, when you realize that the statements about slavery in the Bible, often meant to mitigate an institution for which there simply was no other viable alternative until the modern era, then you are wrong to say that we have to make "ethical judgments contrary to the Bible." The person who thinks he's reached a superior ethic to that found in the Bible is either ignorant of what the Bible really teaches (in it's context) or is simply naive.

3. The homosexuality issue is remarkably different. Not only does God's holy and inerrant Word condemn it out-right, repeatedly. But in Romans 1 Paul asserts that it is so observably contrary to nature, that the Bible isn't even necessary to know it is wrong. In other words, the Bible tells us that we don't need the bible to know homosexuality is perverse.

p.s. Ethiopians have a very negative view of homosexuality.

Paul,
But doesn't the fact that the Bible never condemns slavery make your point about authority/infallibility a dubious one? Scripture brings it up numerous times in OT and NT and never condemns it. I think that's the point. Shouldn't the Bible be more "upset" about human slavery than homosexual acts (especially if done in a loving relationship?)?
Some Christians advocate a lower view of canon in part for these types of reasons. The Catholic Church who chose the canon over a period of centuries is not thought to be infallible by any Protestant-- so why should their canonical choices (or a view of an infallible canon in general) be held as sacrosanct? Can't we say that the Bible has some wonderful ethical teachings-- but that Yahweh killing infants, or sending lying spirits, or condoning slavery suggest that we're not looking at perfection here? Jesus with his comments on OT law (the flaw with eye-for-an-eye thinking, etc.), point to a higher ethic as well to me.

John,

I concede that this topic is--more or less--off point. (Although a strong argument can be made it is tangentially related.) That is why I have merely responded to other posters.

With regard to your three points,
First, I agree.
Second, yes, I do believe the slavery argument undermines the authority of scriptures. I believe it is a serious and deep challenge. It is one of the prime reasons I am not a "Bible-believing" Christian. You are welcome to respond to my argument (from an earlier comment) about why I believe it undermines scriptures. You have not done so. (Although, to be fair, you believe it to be off point.) Insofar as it is related to the topic at hand, I believe everyone (including Christians) makes ethical judgements that are contrary to the Bible. If people were to recognize this, it would allow for people to make other ethical judgements (that they believe to be right), but are "contrary" to Biblical language (for example, it would allow people to conclude that homosexuality is ok).
Third, that's an interesting point. Hmmmmm. Not sure what to think of it.

The last several comments have done what is typical when trying to undermine Biblical authority- try to find a parallel issue that appears to have conflicting supporting verses... The problem with these arguments is multifaceted-1. Homosexual sex has an uninterrupted thread of condemnation throughout scripture...2. It has it's own line of background unique to anything else so it must be dealt with uniquely 3. Unlike slavery there is never, not one, none, zip, zero, positive/favorable/good thing that is said about it in scripture. Which is why Deyoung's list is appropriate and timely.

" Knock it off. "

Lighten up Francis..lol.

I agree Phil. An example:
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
This would certainly imply that there is no problem under the Law with beating slaves...
There are different degrees of abuse and manipulation in slavery, but it is inherently problematic ethically (to say the least).
I think this wholly relates to the topic of homosexuality at hand, because it demonstrates how the Bible has unethical precepts in it. This is not to say that there is a problem with the golden rule though, I think that gives the basis for a higher ethical standards that more closely represent the core value in Christ's teachings.

Hi Andy & Phil,

Yesterday I corrected those who were trying to take the discussion aware from homosexuality onto slavery. Now I'm doing it again. Knock it off. First, the argument that "all slavery is the same" is simplistiic and ahistorical. Second, the purpose of the topic is pernicious. It is to undermine the authority of scripture so that it cannot be referred to as an infallible source on any ethical issue. Every Christian needs to have it settled in his/her mind that the Bible is the word of God and so such tactics will not work. Third, the entire assumption (likely on both sides) is that the Christian objection to homosexuality is purely a matter of submitting to the authority of the Bible. That's not quite true. In Romans 1, Paul uses homosexuality as an example of how many in the pagan world, without scripture but with a sufficient knowledge of God in nature, were suppressing the truth and doing what was "unnatural." His point is that homosexuality is so obviously unnatural that even without a special revelation, the pagan people should have known (and some did) that it was wrong. Hence, the Christian should be able to make a good case against homosexuality based on natural revelation.

Hi John,

I googled Fogel's time on the cross, and I am confused. I thought you were saying I was ignorant of how slavery operated at the time of the old and new testament. My posts have related to that time period; I don't believe I have made any claims about slavery in 17th-19th century America, nor am I particularly interested in arguing about it.

Given that, what should i read that explains how slavery at that time primarily benefited the slaves (if i understood you correctly--or feel free to correct my misunderstanding)?

The problem comes in thinking that the Bible is only talking about voluntary slavery.

" If you honestly think that the slavery mentioned is not what we think it is or that it’s ok, you are delusional, plain and simple. "

I must confess to being delusional or at least not fully understanding then. I've always thought this was a reasonably interesting issue. I can think of a lot of bad things about slavery, yet, I can see why it was necessary also. With no government supporting people in the way we do now, housing, foodstamps, and a litany of other programs for the poor and needy, people did what they had to do to survive in that not all slavery was forced but some sold themselves into it.

"Why do you appeal to scriptural authority here when you reject scriptural authority? Are you not doing the same thing you are accusing others of?"

Hi Henry. I do not reject scriptural authority; I simply do not hold to a hard inerrant view of scripture. I believe that much of scripture needs to be reinterpreted in our day and age. Certainly most of the Torah is completely irrelevant for our world. Everything in the Bible must be considered with respect to the political and social climate in which it was written.

No problem at all John. My fault for jumping into the middle of the discussion and asking an off topic question. My apologies.

James Rednour,

p.s. in the meantime would you answer a question about this comment for me:

Of course something is wrong if it hurts people. Ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

Why do you appeal to scriptural authority here when you reject scriptural authority? Are you not doing the same thing you are accusing others of?

Thanks,

Hi Phil,

Fogel's work on slavery is "Time on the Cross" (and others). Out of that he became the professor of business ethics at the University of Chicago and wrote a book, "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism". He says that slavery disappeared due to the work of evangelical Christians. He is a self-professed "secular Jew."

Hi Robert Fretz,

Fogel won a Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of slavery. Everyone who has tried to say that his work was "misleading" has been proven wrong. But the constraint of his work on this subject is that he only deals with American slavery, which John Wesley rightly called the worst in history.

Hi Barry, so you come to a site that you know you disagree with and attack. That's the mark of a true fanatic.

Hi Andy, I'm sorry if I ham-fistedly lumped you with the scoffers! :)

James Rednour,

I'd answer yes to all 3 of your questions (which the proviso that the 3rd (headcoverings) may just be in corporate worship settings).

I'd like to respond to your slavery argument, I hope to get a chance to do so tomorrow. Would you be interested?

Many thanks,

To Phil - None. It’s been a long time since I read Fogel’s book but, he is an “accountant.” His book, “Time on the Cross,” does a cost analysis between slavery and northern “free” farm operations. Surprise… the slave farms were more cost effective. But Fogel’s attempt to conclude the slaves had a better life than northern industrial workers is misleading in that he uses limited materialistic, and at times, misleading measurements (like how often slaves were whipped – “not often” because it would be counter productive – a myth created by slave owners prior to the Civil War and the post Reconstruction South.)

I would recommend two books – “The Puritan Family” Edmund S. Morgan. New England slavery was neither financial nor racial in the early Colonies. It was punishment for those who committed capital crimes: European, Native American, and African. Racism as permission was a later development.

Also, “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” and “Confederate and Neo Confederate Reader” Edited by sociologist James Loewen and E. H. Sebesta.

John,
I appreciate your comments and I believe that you are trying to help others through your rebukes and such. No offense taken at all. However, I still don't think that you have come to grips with your own fallibility. You remark on the Lordship of Christ, the infallibility of the canon,and the certainty of your interpretations as if those things (and in the way that you believe them) are obviously true, you could not possibly be wrong, and that everyone that disagrees with your opinion is necessarily being dishonest and is of the devil. IMO, you cannot separate those beliefs with your own role in ascertaining if they are true or not-- your fallible self is part of the process.

Last I checked, there were about 38,000 current Christian denominations. Especially when one considers all the different theological beliefs that have come and gone before the present day, it would seem that you would have to admit that there is some possibility that you have an incorrect view of Jesus and what the Bible is and represents. If you are sincere in your beliefs then you need to hold them, but I'm wondering if you have really asked yourself if what you believe is plausible and carries the amount of certainty which you ascribe to it.

To answer another part of your post, I have never claimed to be a Christian. It would be best to call me an agnostic. I log on to different blog sites-- atheist, liberal Christian, and conservative Christian-- as I like to challenge and be challenged. I also want to believe what is the most accurate or true, no matter what the source. I do believe you are in the wrong and would not mind it all if I planted some seed that caused you to re-think your beliefs, but this is certainly not malicious in any way.

' HI Barry, Andy, Phil, James, etc.

Again, Your attempts to take the discussion aware from homosexuality onto slavery..'

John, I was just reading the thread and had a question. I thought it was interesting whether on topic or not. I have no disagreement with your stance on homosexuality, nor the Bible, nor what it says and so on.

From Phil..

' I was sincere in my belief that slavery poses “a serious and deep” challenge. '

There are many things in the Bible I can't say I have a great grasp on. I accept them regardless. My questions are mine but before the God of the universe they seem quite insignificant.

Although, I still seriously wonder and I'd love someone to give me a decent answer to the question: It seems to me that God lead Israel into slavery to 400 years later lead them back out through Moses.

What should I read by Mr. Fogel?

Phil,

1. While I'm not the world's greatest expert on slavery (he's Robert W. Fogel at the University of Chicago), I did work for him as his TA. So . . . you don't know what you're talking about.

2. It's your refusal to submit to the Word of God, to accept the Lordship of Jesus, that is the ultimate spiritual issue. That is what is producing your attack on the reliability of God's word and your rejection of the truth.

3. I didn't say you are accountable to me. That's just another red herring (and a predictable one). But you have rejected His word and trusted your own opinions (as uninformed as they are). If you remain in this state, you will find yourself as a sinner in the hands of an angry God and all your smart-alecky derision at His word will not help you.

4. God created nature and it testifies to the order He has decreed. One of the characteristics of modernity is to fragment the world as if the natural tells us nothing about what is right or spiritual. Even Christians have fallen victim to this, hence the rarity nowadays of seeing a natural revelation argument against homosexuality, even though such an argument is easy to construct.

A sincere person doesn't go to a blog he fundamentally disagrees with, profess to belong to a religion (I assume that you claim to be a Christian of some sort -- although I'd encourage you to reject that profession if you're not going to accept the truth) which he also fundamentally disagrees with, and make ahistorical and naive arguments about a subject he knows very little about in order to justify a practice that nature itself clearly shows is perverse. There's nothing at all "sincere" in any of that.

Hi Vicki,

Thanks for that. You provide anecdotal evidence for what I've read elsewhere of formal studies: that truly "committed", lasting homosexual relationships are very rare and among those they are almost always what would other-wise be called "open relationships". Thus, you're right that there is a "rosy" picture being presented, as if homosexuals tend to be just as committed and monogamous as heterosexuals. It simply isn't true.

John, some quick thoughts:

1) I do not believe my discussion of slavery has been "ahistorical and naive." Indeed, I believe yours has been (as explained above). That being said, if you have any particular books/studies/literature on slavery that you'd recommend, I'd be curious.

2)"If the word of God supports slavery, then the word of God is correct and you should submit to it." Ummm. No. Exactly the opposite.

3) If you believe I have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ himself, so be it. You are not the one to whom I am accountable for my actions.

4) Also, I believe it is very dangerous to base our ethical system on what is "natural." That is a very, very difficult word.

Finally, it was not my intent to "bait" you (or anyone). I was sincere in my belief that slavery poses "a serious and deep" challenge.

#10 covers them all....

My Sister and I have known many gays who have been in relationship. We once thought that gays who are in committed relationships are in "real" commited relationships. In all honesty.. we really cared about our gay friends and went through many of their relationships. But as we get older and realized that their relationships always recked with sexual infidelities but in these gay relationships they just accept it. A lot of them allow swinging, where they engage with sex with multiple people (threesome etc). But the couple accept it as being part of their "Committed" relationship. OR for the really serious serious relationships.. they openingly accept porn in their relationship and become entreched into it. Also.. I have never never never met gay couples who thought it was possible to never engage in sexual acts prior to being in a "committed" relationships. I think lesbians are way more serious about their sexual commitments, but there are so many emotional things going on in their relationships.. it just sad to watch. I think gay people want to present a very rosy picture about their relationships. But its only rosy because they keep things hidden in their relationships.. and I know me and my sister's heart have been hurt by watching our gay friends engage in relationships searching for something desperately and just lying to themselves in thinking it will heal whats going on. And I think many feel like if they Normalize their relationships.. it will eventually it will magically change things inside them.

HI Barry, Andy, Phil, James, etc.

Again, Your attempts to take the discussion aware from homosexuality onto slavery are attempts at undermining the authority of scripture (and thus denying the Lordship of Jesus) and are pernicious. That they are ahistorical and naive is beside the point. I don't think you actually know much about slavery nor do I believe you really care. I think you just want to attack the truth of God's Word; as Paul says in Romans 1, you are seeking to suppress the truth of God, exchanging it for a lie. I had hoped that some explanation of the context might correct you. I see now I got baited away from the topic at hand. It's evident that you are haters of the truth and came here to harass Christians.

That you reject the authority of the Word of God is the relevant spiritual issue. It is tantamount to rejecting Jesus as Lord. Let me say it clearly: If the Word of God supports slavery, then the Word of God is correct and you should submit to it. If you do not, if, like Phil, you say "I do not receive my morality from the Bible", then understand that you have rejected the Lord Jesus Himself. Please have at least have the integrity to admit that you are not a Christian, even that your suppression of the truth by advocating for perversion is part of your attempt to suppress the truth about God.

Third, one of you actually came to this page, under this excellent article, and called me a "fanatic" for believing what nature plainly tells us: that homosexuality is wrong. But what is it that drives you to a blog you obviously don't share the basic convictions of but blind fanaticism?

Finally, your attempts to attack the veracity of the Bible are really beside the point since homosexuality is plainly unnatural and perverse to all but the propagandized. Nature itself tells us it is wrong. In Romans 1, Paul uses homosexuality as an example of how many in the pagan world, without scripture but with a sufficient knowledge of God in nature, were suppressing the truth and doing what was “unnatural.” His point is that homosexuality is so obviously unnatural that even without a special revelation, the pagan people should have known (and some did) that it was wrong. It doesn't matter that a small minority (about 2%) says that those unnatural acts "feel" natural to them. Murder may "feel" natural to someone with an inclination to murder. Basing your ethical system off of what is plainly unnatural because a small minority of people say it "feels" natural to them, is irrational and calling it being purely "man-centered" isn't "hog-wash" but the truth.

[...] The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments While some Christians may be called to speak to one group in particular, we must keep in mind that in this technological day and age anyone from any group may be listening in. This means that we will often be misunderstood. It also means we should make some broad basic commitments to each other and to our friends and foes in speaking about homosexuality. [...]

Great post Kevin. Very gentle and clear. You are a great writer. Keep it up.

John,

1. I take your argument to be that the slavery in the Bible is the functional equivalent of working for low pay where there are no other options. Therefore, it was ok (or at least it performed an understandable social function) at the time. As an initial matter, I disagree with this equivalency. Slavery is fundamentally different from choosing to work for low pay. The legal relationship is entirely different, among other things. [Thus, it is meaningless to talk of hiring an army and going to “free” the servants in Ethiopia.]

In this regard, I believe your example of servants in Ethiopia fundamentally undermines your point. It shows that it is possible to have a social structure where servants have some freedoms (in theory, can leave employment/switch households/freely marry etc.), but still receive sustenance from others [“owners/masters”]. There is no need for a slave system; but the Bible doesn’t say that. On the contrary, it supports the current (then) system.

The essence of your argument—that slavery was good for the slaves—is an old argument, and is not convincing.

At any rate, there were all kinds of slavery at the time of Paul. He does not make any sort of distinction among the different reasons people have been enslaved. I see no reason to believe that when the New Testament/Paul/etc talks about slavery, he is doing so because he recognizes that those people are receiving sustenance which they otherwise would not receive. That is, IMO, beyond anything the Bible says or even implies. [In effect, you just "made it up."] Moreover, it isn't historically accurate to say (as you seem to be saying) that slavery only consisted of those people. Under this interpretation, everyone (or the majority at least) who was a slave would "want" to be a slave (lest they starve). [And no one would run away (like Onesimus).] I don’t find that plausible.

2. Again, you’ve read slavery as mentioned in the Bible to be “only” (in effect) voluntary slavery. There is no basis for doing that.

3. Finally, and most importantly, even if I were to concede ALL of your points, you are still left admitting that (under certain circumstances) slavery is morally acceptable/permissible in the Bible. One possible example, there is nothing wrong (Biblically) with a person selling himself into slavery due to debt. If we believe that it is fundamentally immoral to allow someone to do this to himself/or herself (that is, we want to reject this on moral grounds), there is no Biblical basis to object. And yet, I would argue that everyone would reject this (and is right to think it immoral). Therefore, I do not receive my morality from the Bible. (Nor do you, I would argue. Rather, we merely use the Bible as support for our morality--as determined by other factors.)

" Do we let people sell themselves into slavery now? "

In the dark recesses of my alleged mind I wonder if in the way the government provides for people that we already aren't. Except, of course, we don't really expect anything of them in return.

While soiling myself in making a comment like that I'll cringe at the responses or hopefully lack thereof.

Hey John,
Thanks for the comments. Personally, I think it's a good discussion. In my (admittedly fallible) mind, you have reinforced why the issue of slavery (insofar as it relates to Biblical ethics in general) is highly relevant here. It has a direct bearing on how we approach the Bible and its apparent condemnation of homosexual acts.
With that in mind, I would say that you are presenting your opinion on both inerrancy and homosexuality as infallible positions. Are you saying that you cannot be wrong about your view on Scripture? Do you also think you can define infallibly how to interpret passages? There are, of course, many different views on inerrancy specifically and on Scripture in general. IMO, no one gets a "pass" on these kinds of bedrock issues.
This, I believe, is actually a weakness of some Calvinist approaches. Correctly recognizing how prone people are to error, personal weaknesses are not consistently applied to the formulation of doctrines.
I think that I have tried to deal with the Bible in a truly honest way. Sure, I have no authority over that of my own opinion-- which is certainly not in any way infallible. Luther, who was also infallible, did not care how many fathers, how many councils, or how many fellow Christians looked at passages differently, he thought that he must strive to be honest and that his conscience should be his guide. I think that being honest with oneself is the best anyone can do. (Incidentally, I would also say that the ethics of Jesus demand it.)
If the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church or Reformed traditionalists or a Sunni Muslims or whomever else tells me to believe something on pains of hell, I should not let fear be my guide but only an honest assessment to the best of my ability.
Lastly, I still disagree with your opinion on OT slavery being wholly different than American slavery. (That must have been a great experience in Ethiopia though-- sounds fascinating!) You mentioned that American slavery was worse because it (1) involved racism, (2) the perpetual holding of individual slaves, (3) and kidnapping. True, American slavery was not identical in all respects to OT testament slavery. However, it did have the legally sanctioned beating of slaves (Ex 21) like American slavery and also had:
(1) an element of racism-- Israelites were to have slaves from other nations only (Lev 25:39-46)
(2) a perpetual nature-- foreign slaves and their children were to be perpetually owned (again Lev 25:39-46)
(3) just like in the south, something analagous to kidnapping was sometimes commanded -- i.e., taking of slaves by threat/against their will(Deut 20:10-14)

Andy,

Come to think of it, it is a problem to have voluntary slavery as well. Do we let people sell themselves into slavery now? Why not?

[...] comes to the whole gambit of issues lumped into pansexuality, I think Kevin De Young said it well: different conditions require different responses for the Church. When it comes to the public sphere of debate, you will have to deal with political theory and [...]

No James, it's my response when I encounter arguments so laughably bad that it's a waste of my time to refute them.

Repentant sinners should be given guidance and support. Unrepentant sinners bent on corrupting the innocent and destroying western civilization should be unflinchingly opposed. It's that simple.

"I hope you get the Gospel one day."

No kidding. There's not even any notion of "love the sinner, hate the sin" in that post. Just vitriolic ugliness.

"*beep, beep, beep, beep!*"

yankeegospelgirl, is this your usual response when posed with arguments that you are unable or find difficult to refute?

*beep, beep, beep, beep!*

Dang, that little thing is getting a workout today.

Jay, out of curiosity, do you believe Jesus was an actual historical figure? If so, how can you still believe he was no more nor less than a wise teacher, when that's the very thing he could not have been given his bold claims to be one with God?

yankeegospelgirl,

Great advice! Just make sure you explain to the homosexual that you're not hiring them based on their sexual orientation so they have ironclad proof for the discrimination lawsuit. I'm glad that you wouldn't deny a homosexual access to life saving treatment, but you would deny them access to a life.

I can't think of a better way to demonstrate Christ's love to sinners than by denying them a place at your dinner table. Surely Christ would never have welcomed tax collectors, thieves, and whores around his table. Can you imagine how awkward that would be? Having to share dinner with sinners and hear about their lives and realize that they're just people who are hurting like anyone else?

And great point about church-attending homosexuals covering up and lying about their feelings, I wonder if that strategy would work as well for the deacons, elders, and pastors whom have found themselves involved in pornography, adultery, theft, and child molestation.

Most likely one of your friends or family members is struggling with homosexuality, and comments and attitudes like yours are what keep them from ever seeking counsel or feeling loved and contribute to higher suicide rates.

I hope you get the Gospel one day.

*beep, beep*

Oops, sorry, that was my troll alert going off.

You missed a group: Christians who believe that the "truth" that was once delivered for the saints was an incomplete picture and is not relevant in today's society with our current understanding of genetics. For those who want to claim that the Bible is unchanging, I would point to the Bible's lack of denunciation (and arguably, its implicit endorsement) of slavery. No Christian would attempt to justify slavery nowadays. Very few Christians (even the most ardent complementarians) would agree with Paul that women should remain silent in church or cover their hair in church either (at least they wouldn't VERBALIZE it). The arguments against homosexuality in the Bible are mostly a consequence of the culture that is no longer relevant to us in the 21st century.

Jay, thanks for being willing to have a sensible, respectful discussion. While we may fall on different sides of the issue, as a Christian, I appreciate when someone who isn't a Christian and disagrees with me does it with respect and without automatically using labels like "bigot" and "homophobe." Sadly, respectful discussion is a lost art in America, and every group out there contributes to the problem. I think we can both agree to pray that respectful dialogue becomes more commonplace in our culture.

Thanks Pastor Kevin - I am thankful for you and how you articulate truth, bathed in grace & Gospel. And I appreciate commitment #9.

I think you missed a group in your list. Those like me who do not despise your beliefs ,but merely disagree. While I am not Christian I have an extensive knowledge of the religion and find the words of Jesus to be a good guide in life. I appreciate your attempt to reconcile your faith with respectful actions in regards to a hot button social issue. I would guess I will get a lot of prayers for Jesus to open my eyes just as I will "pray" that God will open yours. So at least with that much prayer for understanding something good should come.

[...] including pastoral wisdom on understanding who you are speaking with and the ten commitments, go here. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

I appreciated this post. I guess I'm a former conservative calvinist...ghaaaasp!! While I struggle with the question of the issue of homosexuality, and many other issues. I have a point Ii want to make just to encourage further thought on this from you Kevin, as i deeply respect and follow your ministry!

You seem to indicate that the only reason, at least the way you put it, that one might be tempted to think homosexuality may be, or is, acceptable is due to a form of selling out to the culture. While that may prove to be a hot selling and highly manipulative way of causing people to fear questioning the issue, it is certainly inaccurate and quite offensive to assume you can know why anyone would dare come to a less than evangelically acceptable conclusion. You presuppose, and id agree, that any deviation from truth in our thinking would have its ultimate root in some kind of rebellion and sin. I have no issue with this. However, to assume you know which it is is less than helpful and actually works against your stated purpose...i know i am not selling out to culture on this. If I were I would be a very bad sell out as I have not sold out on many other culturally controversial issues. So, be challenged here. I understand you see this as clear, cut and dried issue, therefore for anyone to even toy with it can only be from a position of sin...that is true to your position without
making erroneous judgements about motivations youll never understand nor know in the hearts of the myriads who disagree with you. Just a thought.

We will insist upon immediate and total repentance, but be patient with toilsome and incomplete sanctification.

When formative discipline is employed and fails, we will employ corrective discipline, not fearing to be thought of as intolerant but rather fearing to dishonor Christ or endanger His body.

We will stress that our identity in Christ is hostile to even the slightest accommodation of the flesh, so that we can exultantly announce "such WERE some of you!"

A Pastor's open apology to homosexuals---http://matthewstevens.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/an-pastors-open-apology-to-homosexuals/

Define "hate." I agree it would be hateful to, say, refuse to perform an operation on a homosexual just because he's gay. But things like this aren't hateful:

1. Tell openly gay couples they cannot serve in any capacity in your church or become official members.

2. Tell those same couples that if they wish to keep attending without becoming members, they must conceal the nature of their relationship so as not to corrupt young minds. No public kissing, hand-holding, etc.

3. If you're running a Christian business and you want to project a wholesome atmosphere, don't hire someone openly gay.

4. If you're a pastor, don't officiate gay "weddings."

5. If you have other services like photography that are solicited by gay couples seeking to get "married," withhold them.

6. If you have an openly gay friend, keep some distance, especially if you have kids. Don't regularly have him over to your house for dinner. Make it abundantly clear that you don't approve of his lifestyle.

7. If you're working in the Christian music business, don't record new songs or utilize production or arranging services from people you know to be openly gay, most especially if they also claim to be "Christian." You don't want their name on your product.

At the risk of being called "hateful and judgmental," these are all perfectly reasonable things that fall well within the bounds of basic human decency. We need to stop worrying about what the world thinks and be unafraid to fight homosexuality in practical ways.

I think this is helpful but before you jump to this I would strongly recommend reading the book "Love is an Orientation" by Andrew Marin. There is no better companion in how, as a Christian, to engage in conversations about homosexuality particularly with those who are homosexual. Please read this book. It does not ask us to set aside what the Bible says about homosexuality. It offers us a different way of conversing about it.

I was a homosexual but Jesus saved me using the first five step you outlined. From my struggle these past thirty years, steps 6 through 10 have been most difficut for the Church, sometime even impossible.

Sam Shepherd got it right: "The Gospel changes the most important thing initially and the Gospel changes all things eventually." Indeed, we are a community struggling toward that upward calling of Jesus Christ.

Seem many are blogging on this issue as precipitated by President Obama's affirmation of same-sex marriage. You might go over to the Pyromaniacs blogspot to see the discussion on this issue this past week.

Dear Kevin,
You seem to have set up workable “types” which account for all the possibilities you can imagine that would contradict your conclusions. Only three groups of Christians are identified: The Haters are easy to point out and provide moral outrage at their un-Christ like behavior (round them up in a concentration camp and they will die out); the shiftless cafeteria Christians who cannot stand being socially unpopular; and the “liberals” who have abandoned the Word of God as interpreted by the Saints and Fathers of the Faith.
While I agree with your condemnation of the haters, they take their cue from the same sources you use to defend your position – tradition – “hate the sin, love the sinner.” As for the “weak” Christians, they are not the only ones who play to the crowd for approval. It seems some people will do almost anything to sell more books.
Finally, who are the “liberals?” I am not sure what you mean by that. Is it a political position like being a Republican or a Democrat? Does that mean they are people that don’t pay attention to scripture? The people that I know who support the inclusion of the LBGT members of their congregations are inspired by the Word of God in its completeness. Their position is based in a clear understanding of scripture unencumbered by eisegesis. These are the same type of people who in past generations understood God’s relationship with his people promoted their sanctified lives as they sought righteousness and justice to flow down like an unending stream. In so doing they ended what appeared to be biblically sanctioned behavior such as slavery and treating women like second class chattel.

Anthony,

I'm heterosexual, but right now I'm going through a celibate period. I've struggled with sexual sins but I've been celibate for a significant amount of time. You're absolutely right, it IS hypocricy for Christians that have had sex before marriage (ESPECIALLY when this takes place after they were supposedly "saved") to even speak about homosexuality. That doesn't, however, make living an unrepentant homosexual lifestyle ok with God. The things we say to people living in unrepentant homosexual lifestyles we should be saying to heterosexual Christians who regularly view porn, cheat on their wives (or husbands), or have premarital sex.

Another thing. Let me make this point very clear. It IS POSSIBLE to be celibate. It's not impossible, trust me. Being in regular sexual activity makes the body used to that, but if you will take drastic steps, you can be celibate. I recommend getting rid of internet, your laptop and television. If you have homosexual desires then you should spend all your time around women. If you have heterosexual desires, then spend all your time around men. I don't want to hear this crap about your sexuality being your identity. Thinking that way is weak and it's not going to be allowed as an excuse on the judgement day. Eventually your body will get used to being celibate and it will become easier.

[...] The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments – Kevin DeYoung [...]

I had to look up ' hortatory '. :)

Wonderful post Kevin.

I am so tired of this shallow "born this way" argument. I know something about you, and if you are a Christian, you know something about me. The way we were all born, was as sinners. Genetics gets no sinner off the hook, whether they are tempted and commit homosexuality, or tempted and commit adultery, or my frequent sin, lusting after many women who I am not married to. God, forgive me and sanctify me from my "born that way" sinful nature.

You people are so easy to judge, none of you are gay and know what it is like. Furthermore, you get to enjoy your sexual relationships and expect gays to remain celibate (I refused to do that a long time ago). And tell me, if it's a choice, when did you choose to be straight?

Amen! I am so glad to see that there are some Christians who are bold enough to stand for God's truth in our culture. Not in a judgmental and hateful way but in a firm and loving way. Thanks for encouraging the church to no longer be silent, that there may be sober, loving, discussions about this issue. It's time we stop letting the ones who come across as hating bigots speak for us, and speak loudly and lovingly for Christ and His word!

James,

I know you've been assaulted in this thread, but, concerning your first comment, I'd like to point you to an article that talks about the relation of genetics to homosexuality. About halfway down the article it begins to talk about genetics and homosexuality.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2233/Genetics-Environment-TWIN-STUDIES.html#ixzz1vcgoMVQ9

What I take from it all is that homosexuality is not 100% genetic; there are environmental factors in play, as well as personal choice. All three of these coalesce together and form sexual orientation.

Because I absolutely agree: I think that if homosexuality was completely based on genetics, then Christians would be absolute fools to try to say that it's a sin. But, I just don't think that's the case, and neither does the article. It's not 100% genetics. And if it isn't 100% genetics, then we can't insist that people are just "born that way," and we shouldn't resist calling homosexuality a sin. More specifically, we shouldn't resist calling homosexual behavior a sin, because there is a difference between attraction and acting on that attraction. That's my 2 (or 3) cents on it :)

God bless.

Hi Chase,
I worked as the TA for the man who won the Nobel Prize for studying the economics of slavery and I also lived in Ethiopia for two years. You're wrong that "slavery is slavery." There's many differences between American, race-based, perpetual, inheritable, slavery than that found in the Roman empire, which some people then would chose rather than any viable alternative. In an economically desperate place, people will choose (still today) what is basically the same as slavery. John Wesley said that American slavery was the worst that humanity had ever known. And he was right.

But, the worst thing is that this is all irrelevant to Pastor Deyoungs excellent article. Please consult some experts on slavery and the Bible, and until you've done so stop mentioning slavery and stay on topic.

LOL at the people saying that the slavery found in the Bible is not as bad as the modern version of slavery that we are familiar with. Slavery is slavery, period. The Bible clearly endorses it in the old testament and most certainly indicates that it is less severe in terms of morality than homosexuality. If you honestly think that the slavery mentioned is not what we think it is or that it's ok, you are delusional, plain and simple. And you are degrading the knowledge we have of history from that time period.

And Yankeegospelgirl, I hope you mature in your thoughts and opinions. It is such a sickening and terrible attitude to take that you actually wouldn't invite a homosexual person over to dinner or some of the other things you mentioned. This is just hypocrisy at its best and is one of the reasons why so many people in the world think Christianity is a complete joke. If a person enjoyed coveting their neighbors possessions for example, would you refuse to be around them also? Would you refuse to be around non-believers or people of other faiths who aren't Christian? They are unrepentant in the exact same way, but just not homosexual. Something tells me you still would.

This is an excellent article. I recommend it.

I can see now why Kevin Deyoung came in second for the 2000 Acton essay context! :)

Yankeegospelgirl. I believe there was a man that many details were attributed to. As for being a great spiritual teacher .....well I believe as he exists today you would have to say yes. I find his words in Luke 10:27 to be the core of his teachings. In fact it is the center of my faith. I believe when he spoke of himself it was in an enlightened Everyman way. To me the trinity are one in that the holy spirit is God and that the Jesus living in your heart is referring to the small part of the overall that is your soul. That is a very small drop for a big question. But it is the best I can do in the space provided.

Phil,
Good point. Of course, that's what pro-slavery Christians said in the Civil War. If God had slavery as part of the societal framework in the OT and allowed it in the NT, how can it be sin? No matter what form slavery takes, it is stripping a person of their freedom and always involves some element of selfishness and manipulation on the part of a master. One verse could have solved it,"You shall not make slaves of anyone." I think it is a very good example of how the Bible is a flawed book-- but with some wonderful ethical principles.

Bob & Jim,

I've been thinking a lot about the slavery issue lately, and the problem as I see it is that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. Indeed, it is permitted. There is simply no condemnation of the slavery that is happening at the time of Jesus; the Bible has numerous passages that explicitly allow for slavery ("slaves obey your masters," among others).

While we can get into an argument about whether slavery as practiced in America was permitted under the Bible (or whether it is permissible to enslave Christians), the undeniable fact is that slavery as practiced in the old testament and at the time of Jesus is permitted. Given this, I don't see what basis (in the Bible) Christians have to condemn ALL slavery?

Since there is no Biblical basis to condemn ALL slavery, why do we do so? To me, that means that there is a morality that exists independently from the Bible, and, indeed, allows us to come to moral conclusions that are contradictory to the Bible.

I actually think this is a pretty powerful indictment of using the Bible as a basis for what we find morally acceptable. But I would like to think that I am open to other thoughts/ideas.

James,

I would not advise engaging with yankeegospelgirl. She'll just disappear (if she hasn't already):

http://southerngospelyankee.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/some-thoughts-about-the-internet-and-blog-debates/

We as Christians are taught by our Lord to deal with "all" sin as He deals with it. So getting caught up in a "crusade" against one particular sin isn't perhaps the way to go, when all sin is just as deplorable and evil as the other - in the matter of how God deals with it and sees it and teaches us about it from a eternal viewpoint. Saying that, there are certainly sins which damage and harm the person(s) and society as a whole more than others. For instance, abortion - the killing of babies is certainly a prevelent sin which is very hideous and needs to be addressed perhaps more than others, realizing that "any" one sin is still what seperates a person from God (point Garden of Eden). Again, murder and homicide bombers/terrorists is another. Perhaps we could mention "pedophiles" and their abuse of the child and even incest. So, those do perhaps require a more forceful or demand upon us to address the Church/body of Christ about and the society as a whole also, because the Lord destroyed entire nations and tribes because of these things in the past. Certain things God even states He hates above other sins are expressed in Proverbs. I think perhaps the reason again is because these things harm the individual, the Church and society more than others. Certainly in His presence sin is sin and is hated equally regardless of what it may be. He strikes "sin" down when in His presence. I agree with your comments basically and perhaps I can say fully. I just think we must not allow culture to dictate our responses, not must we allow a fearful approach to develop, nor must be not warn that homosexuality is a very serious sinful crime against God and others, as well as the individual caught up in it. Romans is clear on how terrible it is, as God gave up people to these baser things in their life because they rejected Him and worshipped the creature more than the creator. Worshipping others and sexual desires out of control is a serious problem for a person. True Love warns, prays for, tries to help others and certainly our approach is most important in all of this. A negative hateful attitude approach toward any sin of another is not the approach the Lord would take, however, as John the Baptist did, he warned Herod of his sin and the consequences of his approach brought him death! Being bold on any issue for God may bring suffering or even death, but we should not back up for one moment in declaring the whole councel of God on the subject.

Kevin began with discern before your speak and proceeded to list ten commitments the church should have toward all sin prevalent in our lives and world. He wrote of a strong, loving Gospel community.

How did this turn into a issue of who is liberal or orthodox or well-schooled in apologetics or not? How are we not addressing the issue of how to boldy, patiently, humbly, persistently and seriously speak and act toward others?

I agree with Stanton: the Gospel preached proceeds repentance which leads to a desire for righteousness.

James Rednour statement, "For those who want to claim that the Bible is unchanging, I would point to the Bible’s lack of denunciation (and arguably, its implicit endorsement) of slavery." is false. The Bible nowhere endorsed the type of slavery practiced in Europe and North America in the 15th to 19th centuries. And it was the Christian faith that ultimately brought down that institution.

Hi Bob. In your opinion, which is the greater sin, slavery or homosexuality? Do you believe that a consensual, monogamous homosexual relationship between two adults is worse than owning another human? The Bible seems to indicate that is the case.

James, I am sorry, but you are clearly not an orthodox Christian when you bring up the slavery issue. That is a standard line of all liberal "Christians." The fact is, the Bible does not endorse slavery. But, where it does exist, it encourages slaveowners to be decent masters and encourages slaves to respect authority. Sounds fine to me. It does not ever say slavery is great.

Homosexuality is not a cultural issue. It is all throughout scripture from OT to NT as being wrong. I have no issue with those who struggle with it. I do have an issue with those that UNREPENTANTLY practice it and then say they are Christian. You can be a homosexual Christian in the sense that you struggle against homosexual desires. It's a whole other matter to call sin wonderful.

And I am not interested in getting into an argument about the historical Jesus. That is way off topic for this thread. I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy in stating that you don't respond to "laughably bad" arguments when, in fact, you threw out one of your own that is laughably bad. There are many reasons to believe in the Gospel, but the liar, lunatic or Lord argument is a logically bankrupt one particularly for those who are already skeptical about the historicity of the Bible.

Yes, you have read C.S. Lewis and the old "Liar, Lord, or Lunatic" meme. It's not very persuasive at all. I have read a ton of Christian apologetics (McDowell, Lewis, Strobel, Zacharias, et. al.) Those arguments only appeal to those who already are in the believer camp.

I ask you again since you avoided the question: How many homosexual friends/family members do you know?

Here is just one lecture to get you started, on the Resurrection. I would recommend perusing the related videos as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHofTmolbi0&

And if you refuse to do so just because the lecturer happens to be a Christian, well then so much for any accusations you might throw out about not being willing to listen to the other side's arguments.

"•If we are speaking to liberal Christians who have deviated from the truth once delivered for the saints, we want to be serious and hortatory."

Very serious indeed. Some liberal "Christians" may be false converts.

"No James, it’s my response when I encounter arguments so laughably bad that it’s a waste of my time to refute them."

And yet you throw out the old "You can't think Jesus was a good teacher without acknowledging he has God" argument. That's a laughably bad one itself. The answer to that question, of course, is that Jesus may have been an historical figure and a great teacher, but the accounts of his divinity are not reliable. For instance, the Gospels all specify a different number of people visited Jesus' tomb on Easter Sunday. Which one is right? You do not have to believe every word of the gospels is literally true to accept that Jesus was an historical figure and his teachings have merit.

Anyway, I attribute your self-assuredness to your youth. Someday you will probably see that the world is not as cut and dry as you would like to believe.

"Repentant sinners should be given guidance and support. Unrepentant sinners bent on corrupting the innocent and destroying western civilization should be unflinchingly opposed. It’s that simple."

@yankeegospelgirl, just curious. How many homosexual friends/family members do you know?

[...] Lansing, Michigan and a leader among younger evangelicals. Kevin’s blogs on same-sex marriage and homosexuality attracted considerable attention. The author of eight books, Kevin has made strong contributions to [...]

I read DRT's long argument for homosexual practices by both men and women, and I couldn't help notice that he doesn't have a basic understanding of what abhorrent and abomination mean. If something is an abhorrent act or an abomination it IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST GOD. And if he would read a little further, verse 24 reads, "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves." So you see that clearly God also disapproves of those practices in other countries and cultures, and this also includes lesbian sex. Paul tells us clearly that ALL practicing homosexuals, men and women, will not inherit the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6:9, "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators not idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALS (emphasis mine)." So please spare us the claptrap about the Bible not prohibiting homosexual sex by either male or female.

@DRT

My point is that this verse cannot be used as an argument against racism without also being used as an argument against complementarianism. The "neither Jew nor Greek" is no different than the "neither male nor female" statement. The point of that verse is to say that we are all equal in Christ. Comps have always indicated that that verse cannot be used as a starting point for egalitarianism. I disagree.

I think Henry is absolutely right that that verse is an argument against racism, but I also think it is an argument against complementarianism.

Now that I have clarified myself, I wish to apologize for leading the discussion in that direction. We are way off the original topic and I should not have directed the discussion down that path.

James Rednour, I agree. The plain reading of the text obviously points toward a non-patriarchal relationship between men and women. I view the term patriarchy to be more accurate than complementarian. Some strain out gnats but swallow camels, this is an obvious text against complementarianism.

I usually don't comment on articles like this but I'm making an exception. Well said! I hope my church and others will utlize these 10 commitments.

[...] 5. The Church and Homosexuality: 10 Commitments. [...]

Bob,

Good observation.

As I am sure you are aware, I fall on the side that it is always immoral for one person to "own" another human being. But that is not a Biblical view.

[And I find the argument that "slavery was good for the slaves" to be deeply troubling.]

DRT,
Let me put as best as I can...

Homosexuality is a direct result of Sin...where Sin is defined as Man's rejection of God and his sovereign rule...which leads to various sins lying, sexual immorality, greed, homosexuality amongst others...

To the guys on the slavery debate...just had an amusing thought...one side says homosexuality is wrong no matter the context(inherently sinful) and slavery becomes a cultural issue...AND the other side says slavery is sinful/immoral no matter the context and homosexuality becomes a cultural issue :D

Hey Henry,
Thanks for the Wenham recommendation.
You're probably familiar with Calvin's remark in the Institutes that "Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color..." Seems like an assertion to me-- and a much easier one to make in the 16th century than the 4th.
Have you heard of Eusebius of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263-339)? He's famous for his Eccelesiastical History. A lot of facinating stuff in it, but I want to call attention to his remarks about the disputes over which books were canonical.
Here's a link if you want to check me (just a few short paragraphs for each "chapter", see Book 3, Chs. 3 & 25). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

This, as you may recall, is before Athanasius lists the eventual canonical books all together for the first time in 367 (which is after the Council of Nicaea in 325 of course). Councils and luminaries like Augustine, Jerome, and Pope Damasus helped seal the deal as the 4th century drew to a close.

At any rate, Eusebius lists among the books that are debated in the Catholic Church:
-2nd Peter, Hebrews, The Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation, James, Jude, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews
(Of course, some of these made it and others did not. I have read elsewhere in primary sources that the Apocrypha was debated intensely as well. Augustine I know accepted as canonical, Jerome did not I believe. I have also read that there was significant Catholic debate about the Didache and 2&3 John.)
-Eusebius also cites other gospels, acts, and epistles which Catholics generally rejected but other Christians accepted.
-A huge criteria was which Catholic writers had accepted which books-- ie, the tradition of churches of apostolic succession.
-It should be remembered that the folks making these decisions believed in (and made scriptural arguments for) saint veneration,relic veneration, praying for the dead, the authority of councils, the authenticity of episcopal government, baptismal regeneration-- and did NOT believe that the scripture taught justification by faith alone.
I think this will help illustrate my point that canonical issues are not nearly as cut-and-dried as some assert. I saw that you just asked someone else if they were serious about knowing the truth. Are you as well?

James, and Henry,

I guess I don't really understand what James is saying. First, I assume he just misspoke and he meant "men should not have headship". But I don't have a clue why complementarians would think this is has newness in Christ as part of the idea. Would someone enlighten me?

James,

Do you really want answers or are you just feigning a search for the truth?

"However, the bible does condemn racism (e.g. Gal 3:28)"



I stepped out of this discussion quite a while ago, but I find this line of argument very interesting. Egalitarians often use this verse to argue against the idea that men should have headship over their wives, but complementarians always shoot this argument down to say this verse is speaking only in terms of newness in Christ and that it should not be taken literally. So if you want to make the point that this verse argues against racism, do you also want to make the point that it argues against male headship?

Barry,

I'm sorry I don't have time here, please consider reading Wenham, thanks.

Dear Phil,

I cannot engage with you when your arguments consist of mere assertions. I challenge you to go through your response and delete all parts that do not rest on mere assertion. You will find there is little left.

You need to interact with the actual reasoning set forth instead of just saying 'I disagree'. Who are you? Why should I care about your mere opinion?

I forgot to added a 10th point:

10)

Unlike things such as feminine deference, slavery is not commanded or held up as a positive ideal in the bible.

I should also like to challenge those who say the bible positively argues for the institution of slavery to provide an argument. It is nowhere to be found.

The bible neither monolithically condones nor condemns all forms of the institution of human slavery, rather, like obedience to wicked rulers, it just gives instructions for how we should conduct ourselves if found in such institutions.

However, the bible does condemn racism (e.g. Gal 3:28) and the stealing of innocent men to sell them as slaves (Ex 21:16), which is why American slavery is condemned by the bible.

I don't actually see that anyone has provided anything to argue against in relation to the bible and slavery. If anyone wants to bring up slavery they need to put some clear arguments on the table as to what exactly is being objected against and which verses show this. Thanks.

Henry,

Thanks for the link. I found it very interesting. Having said that, I'm not sure how it helps you. Indeed, it seems to support entirely what I have been arguing.

I found the second to last sentence in the piece to be puzzling, though. "None of this is to suggest that slavery is a good idea in the modern world." What is the basis to condemn slavery in the modern world? It is not the Bible.

Or, are we to conclude from the piece, that the Bible was writing for a different people at a different time, and thus doesn't apply now?

Henry,

Let me give it a last stab. You got on Phil's case for making "mere assertions"-- but I'd say that's what your claims about Scripture look like. You are claiming that God has provided a perfect set of books. Fair enough. But I'm not conversing with God-- I'm conversing with you. Since God is not a party to this discussion, you have to provide reasons to me for your theory of canon for me to accept it. You would also see why I might take issue if you used forms of argumentation to respond to my objections that were all based on your theory of canon, but disallowed any of those same forms of argumentation to apply to your theory of canon itself.

Here's what you would have basically just read if you were in my shoes:

"that I am nobody is precisely the reason I don’t make absolute truth claims on my own authority. And it should be clear to you that ‘I’ don’t pronounce the Qu'ran is the perfect word of Allah. I deny the strong post-modern sentiment behind your argument about fallible interpreting. That you are engaging me here refutes you! There are good answers to your other questions, if you truly have a willing heart the truth is not far away…"

See why that makes no sense? A person who claims that the Qu'ran is perfect must be able to argue that in order to engage someone else. I really don't think this is post-modernism we're talking about. You are saying you are fallible, but won't admit that you could have a wrong view of Scripture. That would seem to be a stark contradiction-- and one with very significant implications for the heart of the discussion.

Here's another thought. How would you argue with someone who believed the Qu'ran was inerrant? You would no doubt bring up inconsistencies and contraditions in the text, note how the date it was written makes the stories about OT figures and Jesus seemingly less reliable, suggest potential problems with the theory of revelation in the Qu'ran, describe the violence and cruelty in the Qu'ran, etc. If someone kept answering "It's the Holy Word of Allah, and you're just a fallible being" there would be no discussion to be had. My point to the Muslim would be the same-- is it possible that, being a fallible person, your theory of the Qu'ran could be mistaken? I think you would probably make that same argument to a Muslim.

So, that's why I'd say if you are not willing to admit that your theory of inspiration might be wrong, then you have claimed limited infallibility for yourself. (Note: the Bible could still be inerrant under this construction. It's just you, as a fallible being, would not be certain that the Bible was in fact inerrant.)

As an aside, have you ever looked at a textual apparatus in a Greek NT or Hebrew OT? There are tons of variants. Most of them are fairly minor, but there isn't anyone claiming that they have an autograph or perfect version of any of the texts. Yet still, some Christians will insist on saying that a text they have never seen and no one has is perfect. This would also seem to be more of an example of an assertion than anything Phil wrote.

Henry, wish you all the best. If you could concede that you could be wrong about your theory of inspiration, we could still continue if you wanted to. Otherwise, I think we'd probably both agree that we're at loggerheads here. Enjoyed the conversation though!

Phil, enjoyed all the comments my man. Sorry for buttin' in.

Bob, I have been thinking about your perspective and wonder if you can expand it a bit more. Do you feel that paganism is a direct cause of homosexuality, or that people who are apart from Christianity are more likely to sin a variety of sins?

Henry,

There is nothing preventing you from arguing that slavery is ok and permitted in the Bible.

But I don't agree that slavery is ok. Nor do I believe that "we are all slaves to Christ" is remotely similar, or that the modern day work place is anything like slavery, or that the slavery of the old/new testament was ok because everyone understood that it was ok to go into slavery for debt or as a POW, or that "we must get beyond monolithic good or bad" with regard to slavery.

I hold that slavery (as an institution) is monolithicly (sp) bad.

Arguing that slavery in the old/new testament was, in realtiy, good for the slaves is not historically accurate, or convincing in any manner.

Finally, your attempts at finding that God actually disapproves of slavery (becuase it is like divorce, which God permitted by disapproved of) are extra Biblical. We have actual words in the Bible explaining God's attitude toward divorce--you have to just make it up to find the same thing about slavery. [And the fact that Hebrews freed slaves after 7 years has no relation to the slavery Paul was talking about.]

Henry,

I likewise agree that further dialogue would be futile as your irrelevant responses demonstrate you are either unable or unwilling to understand what I have written.

DRT,
I see your points and I think I get where you coming from...but I still disagree and I'm sure we both know where we differ :)..

That being said Kevin's article I think presents a very godly attitude that people with my point of view should approach this issue...

Phil,

I don't think I can help you. Since many of your objections either do not engage with what I said above the level of assertion, or otherwise mangle it, there is nothing more I can do.

Barry,

that I am nobody is precisely the reason I don't make absolute truth claims on my own authority. And it should be clear to you that 'I' don't pronounce the Bible is the perfect word of God. I deny the strong post-modern sentiment behind your argument about fallible interpreting. That you are engaging me here refutes you! There are good answers to your other questions, if you truly have a willing heart the truth is not far away...

Henry,
OK, I'm a nobody. Guilty as charged! Aren't you too though? If you admit you are a fallible interpreter, who are you to claim that you can interpret the Scripture? (And if you make mistakes interpreting, how do you know that-- if you had omniscience-- you would not see the Bible as imperfect?) And who are you to pronounce that the Bible is the perfect word of God? Who are you to say the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita aren't? Who are you to know what the canon of Scripture is and what books should be included or excluded? Who are you to know if all of the words claimed to be spoken in Scripture actually were? Or if all the deeds written in there actually happened? Or if God had anything to do with it? Who are you to claim that your metaphysical opinions are objective?
We're just a couple of fallible people trying to make sense of a complicated world...

Henry,

Thanks for giving me much to think about.

I think part of the disagreement is that where you see "nuance" I see something irrelevant. I'll start with your 9 points:

1) I am not arguing about the morality of individual acts within a slave system, I am arguing about the morality of the institution as a whole.

2) I am talking about the institution of slavery as practiced at the time of the Old/New testament. I am not talking about metaphorical slavery to Christ.

3) What is your Biblical basis to assert that slavery only existed because of people's hard hearts, and that God actually disaproves of such slavery? We know this about divorce because Jesus said so. We have no reason to believe this about slavery. Indeed, we have lots of reasons to believe the opposite.

4) I am using the word slavery to mean the practices of owning people as existed in the old and new testaments, including what Paul was referring to. While you may call these other things "slavery," they are not what Paul was referring to. These other forms of "slavery" are not relevant to the Bible's use of the word, or to the institution as existed then.

5) Same as 4.

6) I am not sure I follow your point here. Are you asserting that slavery under these circumstances is good? Wouldn't it have been better for the Bible to condemn slavery (even under these circumstances) and command that 1) people pay off their debts, anyway? and 2) not enslave enemies? With regard to your enemies, why are the only options 1) death or 2) slave? Clearly these aren't the only options, as we don't do that now. The fact that the Bible permits slavery for debts, and slavery for enemies, means that slavery for these things is ok. Right? So on what basis do we condemn them now?

7) Paul doesn't tell anyone to free their slaves after 7 years. He could have. I think this shows that slaves are to be kept forever.

8) I freely admit that the Bible says you are to treat Christain slaves fairly (although this seems to be because he is a Christian, not because he is a slave). We aren't arguing about the proper treatment of slaves. Again, we are arguing about the morality of the institution.

9) Under this understanding of the world, there is no reason to condemn slavery.

10) Hmmm, I don't know the verses off the top of my head, but I think feminine deference and slavery are pretty much hand-in-hand in the Bible. As a slave is to obey his master, so is a woman to obey her husband. (I may have this very wrong). Regardless, my point is that there is no biblical passage that condemns slavery, so why do we?

The essence of your argument seems to be that (even though the Bible doesn't say it) God doesn't really like slavery, but let it happen because 1) it was a lesser evil, or 2) people's hearts were hard.

I seen no Biblical basis for either of these positions. Indeed, I think you (and others) just "made them up" in order to justify why you think slavery should not happen now.

Moreover, and most importantly, there is no Biblical basis to condemn all forms of individuals owning other individuals (what I am calling "slavery") now.

Barry,

Don't you realise that on your own terms, every single one of your ethical pronouncements never rises about your own subjective opinion?

Who are you? Why do you even open your mouth?

Thanks for your engagement, I'll leave you with the words of Jesus:

If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. John 7:17

Henry,
Interesting points! I am working off of an idea that there is such a thing as "cruel and unusual punishment." Biblical punishments of stoning and burning people to death would fit in this category to me. (I also take issue with the Proverb that "sparing the rod is spoiling the child"-- and I think beating children with rods is cruel and unnecessary.) Beating slaves seems to fit the bill well to me too.

I would say that the Ex passage is saying that there is no infraction of the law if a person beats a slave as long as he doesn't kill him. I guess you could make an argument that there are in fact good reasons for beating slaves-- but I think that beating people is a bad direction to go. The reference also seems to suggest that a person can do what he wants with his "property" (short of killing).

I think, probability wise, masters punish slaves for good and bad reasons. Abuse is inherent in the system of slavery-- there's no real redress to law, very limited rights that masters need pay attention to at all, etc. Unfortunately, slavery has a detrimental moral effect on master too. ("Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and such.)

You've got a point for sure about suffering for wrongdoing. Jails are necessary for a civil society. Slavery is not though.
The Bible calls some people "righteous"-- but I would agree that all people are imperfect morally. I wouldn't see infants as culpable though. Also, I don't think that the punishment fits the crime all the time in the Bible (stoning a disobedient child in the OT, torturing people in hell forever for a few decades of sinning, etc.) Point is, that God, in the view of the Bible, punishes people who have no actual sins. Infants, etc. The biggest example of this is probably found in the doctrine of original sin -- which is inherently unjust because it transfers guilt to those who have not yet done anything wrong. It also makes it impossible for them to not sin-- so that, IMO, God would necessarily share in their guilt under such a doctrine because he has made it so people cannot help but be sinful by cursing them for Adam's sin. (And speaking of punishment not fitting the crime-- all this pain and misery because someone ate a piece of fruit?)

Why would a child have to repent of his father's sins? (I see Ez 18:20 as a correction of some earlier faulty thinking on this point.) I see your argument that the Bible does not necessarily teach that it's good that the innocent suffer-- nonetheless, God's curses and punishments make that happen regularly to infants (as well as others who are generally "innocent" of crimes although not morally perfect).

My point with the Deut passage was that those infants would have been born into/reared in slavery for no fault of their own. (The towns were also unjustly attacked in my opinion, but that's another issue.)

I do have a view of Jesus that's my own, true. You have yours as well. (Since you hold to inerrancy you might think yours is better than mine-- but since your interpretation is fallible and you too are sinful, then it would seem that even under your own system, yours would have flaws.) I don't think anyone has a clear view of who exactly the historical Jesus was though. I am just taking words attributed to him about not hitting back, and assuming that would also imply that you should not hit people to begin with. But, maybe Jesus had an inconsistent ethic too-- and thought that it was fine to beat slaves-- but if someone hit you, you should never hit back (?).

I think more of the issue with your view (and Packer's-- never read any Wenham) is that the inerrancy of Scripture is untenable and requires you for you to use your mind to make some of the most strained kinds of arguments. I know you are questioning my ethical sense for refusing to "submit to Scripture." My response is that I can't, because Scripture is inconsistent and at many places suggests unethical behavior. Because of these contradictions, I don't think that anyone can really "submit to Scripture" in fact. (Of course, I'm not saying there's nothing good in the Bible! 1 Cor 13, golden rule, etc.)

I hold with Thomas Huxley that inerrancy can be an intellectual issue, a moral issue, or both. Intellectual, because there is so much evidence to show that the Bible is errant-- it just needs to be looked into. (I can tell you are intelligent-- how much you've looked into issues regarding biblical errors I don't know.) Moral, because intellectual honesty (of the deep-down type) requires that the problems be admitted. (This is not meant to be insulting. I have tried to make the same general kinds of justifications as you have-- I am not meaning to throw stones as I have done the same things!) Ultimately, I was forced to see that I was making types of arguments that I would not accept from anyone of another religion-- or in any other area of life in general. That seemed very inconsistent to me and seemed to speak to the heart of what kind of honesty I should be striving for.

At the end of the day, it seems that all those here who are arguing against the bible's authority are left in the unenviable position of having to give an account of why they are right, and Jesus, the apostles and prophets and godly saints throughout history are wrong.

To these claims I simply respond:

Who are you?

In two of the above comments this line:

There is a difference between something being ideal and something being good.

should instead read:

There is a difference between something being not-ideal and something being positively sinful. Eg Namaan and the temple of Rimmon.

Barry,

This, in principle, would seem directly antithetical to Matthew 5:39

!

Again you have not read the text with care. The text forbids retaliation against an 'evil' person. What has that got to do with just punishment inflicted by the just? Should we close down our prisons and law courts? Should we disregard Peter's words on if we suffer for wrongdoing? Should we tell God to cancel Judgement Day?

Seriously.

Also, it seems to me that enslavement of innocents (incl. children) is permitted/commanded in some places in the OT

Where does the bible teach that there are human beings who are innocent before God?

Where does the bible teach that in this fallen world 'innocents' do not suffer because of the sins of others?

Have you ever suffered because of the sin of another?

Where does the bible teach that it is good that 'innocents' suffer because of the sins of others?

Where does the bible teach that on the Final Day all those who wrongly suffered will not be recompensed?

In addition, just to be clear, the cities in question rejected God's offer of peace. It is unlikely the babies did forced labour. And it is unlikely that when the babies grew up that they repented of the sins of their fathers in rejecting God's offer of peace.

Do you see how many myriad of unproved assumptions your arguments require to work?

It just seems much easier to me to say that Jesus had a better ethic here

No, he didn't.

Do you really think Jesus renounced the Old Testament and the God who commanded such things?

Read Wenham or Packer and you will see clearly that the Jesus you have fashioned is not the Jesus found in scripture. He was the one who continually referred back to the authority of 'It is written' and said things like 'the scripture cannot be broken'.

Barry,

As mentioned previously, beating slaves does not appear problematic from the OT

?

First, the text actually recommends punishment for the man who beats his slave to death. In that context, it is not a valid deduction that the Bible does not have a problem with beating slaves.

Second, probability wise, do you think most masters beat their slaves for doing something right or doing something wrong? Should wrongdoers be punished? Or should the disobedient be rewarded instead of punished? You seem to be working with the unbiblical presupposition that discipline is nasty and mean.

I also note that you still have not engaged my 9 points.

What the slavery example shows is that morality is not based on the Bible alone

What? Name me, with quotes, a single godly conservative evangelical who rejects the Bible's teaching on slavery?

I don't know of a single one who, if they were slaves in receipt of Paul's letter, would disobey the Apostle Paul when he said 'slaves submit to your masters'.

I also don't know of a single one who, if told to treat their own slaves justly and fairly, would disobey this.

You are again assuming the Bible command us to go out and take slaves. It doesn't.

You are again forgetting that American slavery was condemned by the bible on the two counts I noted above.

our society (and all Christians) do not allow for slavery (and we think this is correct).

Wrong. Our society, and all Christians, are only unanimous in the abuses of American Slavery (racism and stealing innocent men to sell on the slave trade, contra Ex 21:16).

3) The Bible states that slavery (in at least some forms) is permitted.

You are way overstating your case. Even though I don't have a problem with this premise, you will find nowhere in the bible that 'states' that slavery is permitted. You have to make an indirect inference.

If you reject any/all forms of slavery, you are using a morality that is not Biblical.

?

Why do you use the word 'all'? Have you read Exodus 21:16? Which I have quoted to you multiple times?

The only way to conclude that slavery (in any form) is not permitted is to reject the notion that the Bible is the final authority on behavior discussed in the Bible.

So?

Again you are starting out with your own personal, parochial, preconceived starting point about what 'must' be the case, and doing anything, even throwing out the authority of scripture to get there. You are correct only in that *you* don't need the Bible to get any of your morality. Your approach to morality is man-centred, self-determined and Godless.

Please don't take that the wrong way.

The only way to conclude that slavery (in any form) is not permitted is to reject the notion that the Bible is the final authority on behavior discussed in the Bible.

Like being slaves to Christ? Do you believe that is wrong also? That we are 'owned' and must 'submit' to a Master?

Phil,

your argument is not considering some important nuances i've indicated.

My point is that I don’t believe slavery (in any circumstance) to be ok.

Well, is putting people in prison for life ok? Is it ok for Army employees to be refused exit of service whenever they want it? Is it a better choice to die than to become a slave and have your debts covered by your enslaver? Is it better to be slaughtered instead of being made a slave after being made captive from war?

It's not that simple. Fact is in a fallen world we must endure some choices that the elect will not have to endure in heaven. There is a difference between something being ideal and something being good. You should carefully note that difference in your evaluation.

My point is that I don’t believe slavery (in any circumstance) to be ok.

In addition, if the Apostle Paul by the authority of the Holy Spirit allows for slave-holders to keep their slaves but treat them fairly and justly, and commands slaves to submit to their masters, then you should fear lest God rebuke you for rejecting His servant's teaching.

But, yes, I merely assert that (because I find it to be obvious).

Can't you see how narrow-minded this kind of approach is? People find all sorts of things 'obvious' today (like unbelievers and the legitimacy of fornication) that past generations thought was 'obviously' wrong? Who is right? You or history? When you choose your own subjective opinion all the time above that of the prophets and apostles of Christ you show that you have not repented of your own conceit and submitted to the Lordship of the Christ you profess.

Do you think the warning in Proverbs means anything: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death".

Do you think God is trying to teach us anything with the repeated refrain "Every man did what was right in his own eyes"?

But, yes, I merely assert that

Your attitude to morality is one of self-determination, man is the master of his own ship, man is the one who will decide what morality is best, God is only allowed to speak if he says certain things that fit into my preconceived moral box. It is incredibly parochial. As though you can write off great swaths of history by your mere assertions. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but what reason is there to think you have repented before God? Is there anything in this culture where you go against the grain and become unpopular and suffer for it?

If someone wants to advocate for this (that is, bring back certain forms of slavery) there is no Biblical basis to object.

Who is advocating this? And if they are, so what? Who are you?

Phil,

your argument is not considering some important nuances i've indicated.

My point is that I don’t believe slavery (in any circumstance) to be ok.

Well, is putting people in prison for life ok? Is it ok for Army employees to be refused exit of service whenever they want it? Is it a better choice to die than to become a slave and have your debts covered by your enslaver? Is it better to be slaughtered instead of being made a slave after being made captive from war?

It's not that simple. Fact is in a fallen world we must endure some choices that the elect will not have to endure in heaven. There is a difference between something being ideal and something being good. You should carefully note that difference in your evaluation.

My point is that I don’t believe slavery (in any circumstance) to be ok.

In addition, if the Apostle Paul by the authority of the Holy Spirit allows for slave-holders to keep their slaves but treat them fairly and justly, and commands slaves to submit to their masters, then you should fear lest God rebuke you for rejecting His servant's teaching.

But, yes, I merely assert that (because I find it to be obvious).

Can't you see how narrow-minded this kind of approach is? People find all sorts of things 'obvious' today (like unbelievers and the legitimacy of fornication) that past generations thought was 'obviously' wrong? Who is right? You or history? When you choose your own subjective opinion all the time above that of the prophets and apostles of Christ you show that you have not repented of your own conceit and submitted to the Lordship of the Christ you profess.

Do you think the warning in Proverbs means anything: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death".

Do you think God is trying to teach us anything with the repeated refrain "Every man did what was right in his own eyes"?

But, yes, I merely assert that

Your attitude to morality is one of self-determination, man is the master of his own ship, man is the one who will decide what morality is best, God is only allowed to speak if he says certain things that fit into my preconceived moral box. It is incredibly parochial. As though you can write off great swaths of history by your mere assertions. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but what reason is there to think you have repented before God? Is there anything in this culture where you go against the grain and become unpopular and suffer for it?

If someone wants to advocate for this (that is, bring back certain forms of slavery) there is no Biblical basis to object.

Who is advocating this? And if there are, so what? Who are you?

Phil and Henry,
Great discussion.
I found Henry's list to be thought-provoking. Here would be a couple thoughts on why I think Phil is on the right track.
As mentioned previously, beating slaves does not appear problematic from the OT:
Ex 21:20-21
20“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
This, in principle, would seem directly antithetical to Matthew 5:39 which forbids striking people at all-- let alone striking first "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

It could be argued that we're in different covenants here, etc. But I would say that the idea of beating chattel slaves (as long as you don't kill them)is an inherently unjust principle and should not be part of a just system of laws.

Also, it seems to me that enslavement of innocents (incl. children) is permitted/commanded in some places in the OT during the conquest of Canaan. Deut 20:10-14 says:
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, **all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor** and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. ***As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.***”

Henry, I understand your efforts to defend the scripture. It just seems much easier to me to say that Jesus had a better ethic here; and some of the OT ideas are bad ones for organizing a society. Could they be God's judgment on the wicked? I'm not sure that children could apply to that-- especially for those pregnant women or women with infants who would fall into slavery here.
Also, it would also seem that this type of judgment would only have the effect of making people more sinful-- as slavery encourages abuse of people in so many ways. That's my two cents anyway...

Here is a "clear" argument:

What the slavery example shows is that morality is not based on the Bible alone, since the Bible allows for slavery, but our society (and all Christians) do not allow for slavery (and we think this is correct). Given that morality is not based on the Bible alone, it is possible to believe that other behavior may also be moral, despite Biblical language to the contrary (for example, homosexual behavior).

Let's try this formally:

1) The Bible is the final authority on whether behavior discussed in the Bible is permitted.
2) Slavery (in at least some forms) is behavior discussed in the Bible.
3) The Bible states that slavery (in at least some forms) is permitted.
4) Therefore, slavery (in at least some forms) is permitted.

The only way to conclude that slavery (in any form) is not permitted is to reject the notion that the Bible is the final authority on behavior discussed in the Bible. If you reject any/all forms of slavery, you are using a morality that is not Biblical.

Henry,

I think we don't really disagree, because you seem to think (if I understand you correctly) that slavery is ok (see point 6 above), while I also think the Bible says slavery (in at least some circumstances) is ok.

My point is that I don't believe slavery (in any circumstance) to be ok. But, yes, I merely assert that (because I find it to be obvious). That is, I believe it is morally wrong to enslave someone. Even if the enslavement is due to indebtedness, for example. But the Bible clearly permits it. If someone wants to advocate for this (that is, bring back certain forms of slavery) there is no Biblical basis to object.

[...] Commitments [...]

Thanks Bob, this is complex and takes some time to lay out. FWIW, I was very anti-gay (homophobic) until the past 8 years or so. I have gradually been researching this issue and now believe we should allow unions. DRT from 5 or 10 years ago never would have agreed. I am 50 years old with 3 teens, and none of us is gay, that we are aware of :)

So with that backdrop, we look at the New Testament.

First Jesus. Jesus is pretty much silent on the specific application of his teaching about homosexuality. For Jesus we would have to look to the rule of love.

But Paul is not silent, and the most frequently cited passages that people point toward, and that I feel are representative of the other references in the new testament, are those in Romans 1.

Before I look at the actual text, let's review where we are. We know:

1. The old testament says that male to male sex is towebah
2. The old testament is silent on female
3. Paul and Jesus are Jews

So given that, and also given that society is largely unchanged since the writing of the old testament then I would expect that Paul would fall in line with the teachings of the old testament.

This is particularly true given that one of the major activities continues to be ritual sexual relations in temples, likely even emphasizing homosexual acts. Remember though, loving monogamous homosexual couples are not pointed out as a problem here. So let's take a look at the text.

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people 39 who suppress the truth by their 40 unrighteousness, 41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, 42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings 46 or birds or four-footed animals 47 or reptiles.

1:24 Therefore God gave them over 48 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor 49 their bodies among themselves. 50 1:25 They 51 exchanged the truth of God for a lie 52 and worshiped and served the creation 53 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

I contend that the primary reading of this section goes about as follows:

1. People should have recognized that there was a god based on what they see in creation
2. People did not seek to worship god, despite this knowledge, instead opting to worship creation.
3. Creation in this sense consists of everything not in heaven, animals, trees, and importantly people.

Now there is nothing here yet about homosexual relations. Given the context of Paul choosing to frame this up in terms of exchanging worship of god for worship of creation it seems clear that he is talking about paganism and all the practices that go along with paganism. To continue:

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 54 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 55 and were inflamed in their passions 56 for one another. Men 57 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

This is clearly about homosexual relations. There clearly is no doubt that Paul feels that the homosexual acts being committed in the context of the pagan worship are “unnatural”. But this does leave open the idea that Paul may not be against long term monogamous homosexual relations, but I don't think so. I do believe that Paul, a first century Jew had no basis to believe otherwise than was taught to him in the old testament.

But let's call out a couple points here.

First, the use of the words natural/unnatural. If you recall in the OT the law did not say that homosexual relations are unnatural. Likewise, it did not say that it was a sin against god. So what is the problem with homosexual relations? Paul was an educated jew and based on his logic here I can think that it is pretty safe to say that the Pharisees determined that they were prohibited from it because it is unnatural. What else do they have to go on? How else are they to defend their stance that it is bad when even the god portrayed in the old testament did not really give a good reason?

Second, it is unnatural from a rather obvious perspective. Males and females are obviously made to fit together in a certain way, and perform a certain function. I can certainly see why Paul and others would view it as unnatural, and with the prohibition in the OT in the back of their mind they certainly are going to condemn it.

Let's finish the text in Roman's before I go to the next layer of argumentation.

1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, 58 God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 59 1:29 They are filled 60 with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with 61 envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, 62 heartless, ruthless. 1:32 Although they fully know 63 God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, 64 they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. 65

Now Paul goes back to his primary theme he started earlier, that they are worshiping the created things instead of the creator. All of these things in this last part are fruits of the spirit that are evident when one goes against god, and Paul contends that he sees all of these fruits of the spririt in these people. This is more evidence that they are wrong in worshiping creation instead of the creator. Homosexual relations (likely in the temple) and one of the evidences.

So here is where I am with Roman's 1.

1. Paul is critiquing paganism
2. Paul uses homosexual relations (presumably as he saw them being used) as evidence against paganism because it is unnatural. But it is only part of the evidence.
3. Verses 28ff are not really about homosexuality, though that may be part of some of the sins listed.
4. Paul is clearly talking about homosexuality in the context of pagan worship. He is not making a commentary on long term same sex unions, he is talking about people engaging in sex outside of wedlock for pleasure and to experience creation.
5. This does not mean that Paul would be for same sex unions, it is just that we can't read into this that he is thinking of the loving gay couple that are good christians, he is thinking about this in the context of exchanging worship of the creator for worship of creation.

I will write more in another response.

Militant Gays drove me out of the Episcopal Church in 1995. As I recall, they called themselves 'Integrity." My, how they distorted the King's English. Any way, it was a great blessing for me because ECUSA continued its path away from Scripture, away from their historic liturgy, away from the male priesthood, and on and on. I have found the true church in Orthodoxy. I accept both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in its various traditions (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, etc) as the two true churches, which I hope will some day reunite. the governance of ECUSA was patterned after the U.S. Constitution and ended up with the laity voting on and imposing doctrine which followed secular trends. Orthodoxy accepts its faith as being revealed and follows the counsel of its bishops who follow an unbroken line of apostolic succession. To God be the Glory!!

DRT,
Thanks for the comprehensive answer....
Since that takes care of the old testament....what do you say about the new testament writings on homosexuality?...

The following links give the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality:
Pastoral care of homosexual persons:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOP.HTM

You say preach all the Bible's counsel. In Leviticus, where it says:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
It also says:
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Disability:
21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

Don't just continue preaching your hate against homosexuality. Preach that we must stone adulterers and burn preacher's daughters if they fornicate and never let people with disabilities participate in communion. Thanks to God that sane people are moving beyond these archaic rules.

I really like this article, but one small statement in #9 (about joking "inappropriately about homosexuals") made me wonder. Is it ever appropriate to joke about homosexuals? I don't think so. Hopefully this is what the author intended to communicate, but he seems to leave the door open to an "appropriate" form of joking about gay people, which is certainly the opposite of compassion and empathy.

Above all, we must remember we don't decide who will live eternally in God's presence - that is God's call completely. I suspect, like God's children through the ages, we will be very surprised at God's answers.

Now I believe that most of the problems concerning the plain meaning of scripture is present in the references to Leviticus. So I will deal with those directly by using the arguments put forth by Friedman and Dolansky in their wonderful book, “The Bible Now”.

Here are the passages in Leviticus that most people base their prejudice
on.
You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual
intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
and
If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual
intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an
abomination.

Seems pretty clear, right? The thing that most people point to as the real force of the law is when they read the phrases at the end, “a detestable act” and “an abomination”. I have several points that I want
to make about this. If this said, "is OK for other by not you", then even conservatives might think differently about this.

Please note that in no way does the OT bible say anything bad about female homosexuality. Somehow people gloss over this. Now if the OT really thought that girl on girl was bad, don't you think it would have said so? There is every opportunity to simply say that homosexuality is bad, but the bible goes out of its way to say male homosexuality. So for the rest of this I will just discuss male relationships, recognizing that female likely has a much lower bar.

Next, note that the bible tends to be very specific in the nature of the offense when it is laying down the law in the Old Testament. For example:

Deut 22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the YHWH your God.

Here it is quite clear that the offense is an offense against YHWH. I can see it being set up that way because on the surface it seems that cross dressing is probably not all that bad of a thing to do. But then
again, it is inherently deceptive. So YHWH is the one offended. This certainly comes into play when applying the rule of love, is it loving to god and loving to others.

But that is not how the Leviticus laws about male homosexuality are laid out. There it is simply said that they are “a detestable act” and “an abomination”, but not to YHWH.

So what is it that makes these things bad? Both of these are from the same Hebrew word, tow`ebah. If you look at the other occurrences of tow`ebah you will see that many of the patriarchs of the bible engaged in acts that were seen as tow`ebah. Abraham marries his half sister yet Leviticus again has this act in the section of things that are tow`ebah. So the law changed. So one of the characteristics of tow`ebah that something that is tow`ebah is subject to change.

In Jeremiah, he says:

2:7 I brought you into a fertile land
so you could enjoy its fruits and its rich bounty.
But when you entered my land, you defiled it;
you made the land I call my own tow`ebah to me.

Again, tow`ebah is not something intrinsic of the thing itself, it has more to do with the relationship between the thing and the culture. There are many places where tow`ebah is used. It is used when Joseph tells his brothers to not say they are shepherds because it is tow`ebah to the Egyptians. The Egyptians do not eat with the Israelites because it would be tow`ebah to them.

It seems that the bible treats things as tow`ebah specifically when it is a culturally based thing that is subject to change based on when and where people find themselves.

So, in reality, Leviticus is actually saying that male homosexuality (it says nothing about female) is tow`ebah for cultural reasons. NOT A SIN AGAINST GOD.

I will quote directly from Friedman and Dolansky in their book, “The Bible Now”, page #38.

“So, whatever position one takes on this matter, Left or Right,
conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does
forbid homosexual sex, between males but not between females. And one
should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is
eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so
long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This will
depend on further presentation of evidence and arguments about whether
it is inborn or not, whether is is properly regarded as psychologically
healthy or unhealthy, and whether most people in a community are or are
not in fact offended by it. Those arguments are for specialists in
biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise
as Bible scholars.”

I believe this is a very serious subject. There is no victim, no harm done in same sex relations and it seems that the only reason people give is because it is a sin against god. Well, IT IS NOT A SIN AGAINST GOD. God is not up there being offended every time there is a same sex act. What he did do is prohibit for Israel as a marker for them as a people.

So this is the first leg of my argument that same sex unions should be OK. I will write some more later.

Bob,

Thanks for asking that question. I am going to write this in a couple posts, and I really do need to get this on my blog so I can send people there. But I am learning as I am here to understand people's objections.

Let me lay down a couple of key ideas here.

First, all of scripture needs to be interpreted through the lens of Jesus. Specifically we need to use the rule of love to help us with understanding the position of the bible. Loving god, loving others.As I have interacted with the folks on this blog I have come to realize that the rule of love has a problem with very conservative people in that they will come back with something like "it is loving to the people to tell them they are sinning". That combined with a the fact that scripture really does say that it is sin, then my argument carries no weight.

But I think we need a much more nuanced view of this. So let's begin.

I really wish someone would post on preaching about gluttony and being obese. This is a much more serious issue and faces so many MILLIONS more people in our country, yet we focus on one sin and seem to MAKE it more important than any other. There is only one sin that is worse than any other, and that is denying our Holy Spirit...period. All sin is equally sinful. When we preach the Bible, there should be no problem preaching about any topic in it. We have the authority...He GAVE it to us! It's only when we forget that, that we stumble with worldly issues.

Barry, thank you so much for that link. It seems that he has gone down many of the same thought paths that I have.

I don't know that I will continue to write my argument for same sex unions here, but this sure gave me a good start to actually putting these thoughts together in a written form.

The rest of the argument goes roughly like this:

- Establish that we do not obey the bible exactly as it is written, slavery, divorce, holy kisses are all examples.
- Clearly state what the position of the bible, male sex was forbidden to Israel, and Paul feels it is unnatural.
- Compare the evidence of the bible to the current knowledge of same sex relationships, conclusion we have info they did not have that mitigates their reasons for the ban
- Apply the rule of love to anything left over. Is it dishonoring god? No, it is not a sin against god. Is it loving to people? Yes, it is, there is no harm and we understand why there is this kind of diversity now.
- Make a judgment call, on the whole, is it better to allow them to marry, same sex long term monogamous people, or should we continue to torment them. I think it is quite clear that we should celebrate their god honoring love, in same sex monogamous marriages.

Take care

Barry, thanks for talking and your kind words. Yes, I have thought about this a bit ;)

And thanks for the link, I will check it out.

Dave

Some belated thoughts on slavery and the Bible.

This article is a very helpful read:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html

And here are a few other points:

1)
Romans 13, Titus 3:1 and 1Pet 2:13 tell us to ‘be submissive to rulers and authorities’ and to ‘be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution’. The early Christians obeyed this in the context of Nero, a most brutal ruler.

What if God put slave-holders in charge of us? As Peter went on to say: ‘slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust’. If you were a slave recipient of Paul’s letter, would you disobey his command?

Why do some say Christians must submit to a most brutal and cruel ruler (Nero), and yet a slave submitting to his master is beyond the pale?

2)
Slavery will always exist. We are called slaves of Christ. We are OWNED. We are not our own, we are bought with a price. So can we say slavery is always and inherently bad?

3)
Just because God commands slaves to submit to their masters, this does not mean that God approves of the master’s behaviour, or that he necessarily approves of the institution of slavery among men.

For example, Jesus said some of the laws regulating divorce in the OT were given because of Israel’s hard hearts, and should not be understood as an approval of divorce. Could not the same be said of the regulations concerning some types of slavery? Calvin (and probably many others) saw slavery as a judgment upon mankind.

4)
In practical terms, slavery is just a matter of degree. We are all under the orders of someone for at least some of the day (usually 9-5). We must do what our bosses say or we’ll be subject to discipline. A step further would be being in the Army. That requires very strict obedience all day and definite terms of service. Slavery merely extends this further. (And I’m sure they were allowed time to themselves to sleep at night – that’s 7hrs of freedom).

5)
Some modern parallels. Prisoners. Are they more free than slaves? What if we introduced slavery as a punishment for certain crimes? Is that worse than being locked up in the same building for the rest of your life? Is that worse than the death penalty?

In South Africa (and many other nations) a milder form of slavery still exists. Indentured servanthood.

Or take prisoners of war doing forced labour. We would not say these are necessarily bad. They are necessary in a fallen world.

6)
There are all sorts of ways a person could become a slave:

a) Voluntary slavery – is that necessarily sinful? That was how people coped with debt in the Roman world.
b) War captives – is that bad? Both sides accepted this was the outcome for the loser – better than being put to death. A modern form of this still happens – POW camps etc.
c) Stealing of a man and selling him – this particular way the bible condemns in Exodus. 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

7)
The fact that Hebrew slaves were to be freed after 7 years showed that scripture did not think slavery was an ideal situation. (Consider also the themes of Israel being in slavery in Egypt.

8 )
Paul did not seem to have a problem with Philemon owning a slave. But he commanded masters to be fair and just to their slaves. Presumably Philemon had not violated Ex 21:16 in the manner he acquired his slave.

9) We need to get beyond seeing everything in monolithic ‘perfectly good’ and ‘totally evil’ and recognise that in our fallen world all sorts of less than ideal situations exist, and it is not wrong for God to ordain that we must live in them and conduct ourselves in a certain way.

DRT & Bob,
I have enjoyed reading your discussion.
Bob, I really appreciate your respectful attitude and listening ear. People will always disagree, from what I've seen here you are a model of how to do it.
DRT, Man! You've done some thinking and reading on this. I've read some stuff on John Shore's (progressive Christian) website on the issue-- frankly, I think you do a better job of expressing the position.
If either of you want to check out that website, you may like the discussion http://johnshore.com/ FYI though-- The blog crowd has some stimulating ideas but do not always have the great attitude that you all do. (Just a forewarning if you check it out! As a general comment, I find the level of respect to be too low on every religious or a-religious blog site that I've been to...) BTW, if you think that I was disrespectful in any way during my previous discussions I'd love your FRANK opinions. I want to improve as much as I can with that.
Barry

DRT,
Sorry to budge in again...its good to know that you believe that the Scripture finds its source in God and the question is now interpretation...

Now in connection to this article...(a break from the all so fascinating talk on inerrancy)...
Can you please explain to me why homosexuality is not sinful based on how you interpret scripture?

I have read a good majority of these comments that many of you have posted. I agree to disagree with a few comments. All I have to say is that in my heart as a believer in Jesus Christ, God the Father, I have to admit that having a relationship with another of the same sex is incorrect. You all can say that the bible says this, the bible says that, but what does your heart say? I know for a fact that I am a sinner but I have the blessings of Jesus Christ to be reborn from the world of sin. Does that give me the right to keep living in sin? No. It does not. What it means to me that I must do my best to live out of sin and if I fall short of the glory of God, then I must repent with all my heart for that/those sins I have committed and try not to repeat them again. I just do not understand why it is that we as people ( God's people) make it so darn difficult to understand what it is God is telling us. Jesus made it very simple for us to understand the purpose of God, "Know that there is only one God and to love each other as He loved us!" I know I have read this in the bible, I just don't remember where exactly. I want to say in the book of Matthew but I know I read it. If people are going to portray in the act of same sex relationships, well then that is he/she decision on doing so and we do not need to bash them for it. But we do need to keep loving them all the same. Love the sinner and hate the sin. Educate! If those that are involved in same sex relations and are not convicted by the truth.........well I pray for them and those that are convicted by the truth and stay numb........well I pray for them as well. From what I understand in scripture is that if I do not know any better, I can't be held accountable but I have been convicted with the truth....then I am held accountable for all my actions that I am aware of. The truth being, "The Holy Spirit" Brothers and sisters, I pray that we all start doing what is right in God's eyes and not of our own because time is short and I hope to see everyone in the new Kingdom that God is preparing for all of us! God bless to you all! My prayers go out to everyone.

So now I would like to discuss the nature of homosexual relations. I am confining my comments to something that is not really represented in the bible. I would like to discuss that nature of long term, same sex, monogamous unions. I am not talking about “the homosexual lifestyle” that people dream about. I am not talking about premarital sex. I am not talking about flings or anything along those lines. I am talking about same sex relationships that are exactly like non-same sex relationships except that the participants are of the same sex.

My purpose with this part of the discussion is to get a level set of the true population that we are talking about. As you know, I would be equally dismissive as Paul was by people hooking up to have gay sex as part of the pagan worship service or as part of their generalized worship of creation.

So, many folks who are not supporting same sex unions seem to feel the issue is rather black and white. Guys and girls are different but they should be together. But we now know that gender and sexual preference are not either or, they are on a continuum. Most things in this world are like that, there are clear examples of male (I am quite male), female (my wife is decidedly female), but then there are those with all types of anatomy in between. There are people with different hormones that affect orientation and development, there are poeople with ambiguous and non existent genitals, and just recently there was a news article about a middle aged man who went to get an MRI and they told him that he was actually biologically female. Then it made perfect sense to him.

Believe me, I know that the sight of two guys kissing, or worse, is not exactly a turn on for many of us, though I kind of like to see two girls, but that is no reason to immediately judge that our thoughts are the same as everyone else.

Studies have found that same sex attraction is prevalent in all societies at relatively low rates. They have also studied animals and found a similar conclusion. The point is, whether you like it or not, it is perfectly within the normal range of behaviors for people to be same sex attracted.

Further, we have done a lot of studies over the years relating to the physical effects of same sex and found that there are no inherent physical problems with it.
So now we can see from rigorous studies that there is a true minority segment of the population that prefers to engage in same sex relationships.

So how does that relate to the bible?

Unfortunately, it seems that same sex couplings and flings are engaged in by normally heterosexual people. And, there is enough of them and enough of it going on in society throughout history that it has been difficult to separate the loving two older ladies who are always traveling together from the republican senator with a wide stance. The heterosexuals perverse behavior is giving the god loving same sex monogamous long term relationship people a bad name.

In the bible we did not have the same level of communication. Just imagine a city of 5,000 people and with a 5% same sex rate that would be 250 people. Now these 250 people would certainly not be going around saying “hey, I'm gay, are you?”. Isn't that something that they would get stoned for or something like that?

So the folks in the OT who were good, god fearing loving gay people were very much under the radar while the flamboyant expressive gay and heterosexuals were what was seen.

But with increases in communication now, we are finding that there are segments of our population that are small compared to the whole, but they are real people with legitimate non-harmful lifestyles. In the united states, a 5% rate out of 300 million is about what, 15 MILLION people.

These people are now able to get together and find each other wihout having to come out of the closet in a society filled with heterosexuals, and with no idea if they were the only one like them, or there are others.

So, unlike in biblical times, we now know:
1. Same sex unions are not physically hurtful
2. Same sex attraction is seen in all human cultures, and many animal too.
3. We have better information now about the causes, benefits and detriments to same sex relationships than any other time in history, particularly biblical times.

So you see, it is not that we are suddenly saying that we want to change the morality of the people for no good reason. There are very good reasons why this change is happening now. We have better information about it and the people who like same sex relationships have much more ability to find others like them than every before.

For most of history, committed same sex people were hard to find, but not now.

Bob, I also do not know if I was explicit in my view of the "worship of creation". Another part of the reason that I view it as non-causal is because I believe that people engaged in these sex act AS an exercise (no pun intended) in worshiping creation. In other words, we are to admire and celebrate and worship the human body in all of its forms, therefore having sex with all of the forms would be part of that creation worship. You see, I don't think he is talking about long term relationships here, he is talking about exercising in a worship of the human body by experiencing it in it most raw and natural forms. That is the type of homosexuality we are talking about here.

I don't think, and would guess that you would not either...?.... that the two single women who never got married and travel a lot together are lesbian because of paganism! They are good Christians!

Bob, the only commentary on Romans that I have on hand (NT Wright) pretty clearly lays it out that the people were given responsibility for their actions and when they acted that way, god did not stop them, he allowed them to continue to act that way. He "gave them up" to their own actions.

I think the most straightforward reading says that he did not stop them from doing what they were doing. They were worshiping creation, having sex and all kinds of things, and the natural question for most people would be, so then why did not god stop them from doing it. Well, he "gave them over".

The other place where I was thinking the same concept is present is in 1 Cor 5

5:1 It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with 1 his father’s wife. 5:2 And you are proud! 2 Shouldn’t you have been deeply sorrowful instead and removed the one who did this 3 from among you? 5:3 For even though I am absent physically, 4 I am present in spirit. And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present. 5 5:4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, 6 and I am with you in spirit, 7 along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved 8 in the day of the Lord. 9

Here, the person was already doing these behaviors while a member of the church, so Paul gives the person over to his desires.

I think our point of disagreement is in the causal relationship, but even at that there is another nuance to be had.

Suppose that they were worshiping beef statues. Then god disliked this so he, like I said, allowed them to continue to worship beef statues. Yes, it could be that after that time they added homosexual relationships to the worship service, but I don't see where the causal part is there.

It is NOT a sin to be a homosexual. Some people are born that way. What is wrong are the sins committed in practicing a homosexual lifestyle. Sodomy is forbidden in the Bible and that is one of the main sins that is committed by homosexuals. But no one can expect a person born as a homosexual to become heterosexual. That just doesn't happen. I don't think those who are homosexual should expect to have the rights that heterosexual couples have in marriage.

This is great, Kevin- saw it first at exodusinternational.org. Thanks for the truth!

Hi Bob, thanks for recognizing that I am trying to base this on sound interpretation, I appreciate that.

I honestly have never heard it interpreted that way, but I can see how you may say that. I know of at least one other place where Paul uses the "give them over" type of language, and in that case he is not using it as a cause, but since I will have to research and pull that out (I don't remember where it is off the top of my head). I am getting my car inspected right now.....

I will look into it. But I have finished another section of the argument, and will post that next.

last point was just an aside :D

DRT,
Thanks again for quite a comprehensive a answer...there is no doubt to (at least to me) that you are trying to be true to scripture...

That being said I disagree with your conclusions from Romans 1 (can't say much about the OT references since I have not looked at them as thoroughly as you have)...
For example... "1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,... "
seems to suggest that homosexual relations is a RESULT of pagan worship, a judgment on their rejecting God ("God gave them up...") and not just describing an act taking place within the context of pagan worship (if i understood you correctly)...A rather sobering kind of judgment if you ask me, one that steps back and allows instead of stepping into. verse 24...seems to show that they were allowed to do what they wanted to do and felt right to them...So homosexuality is not being within the context of paganism but being shown as a result of paganism (and at this point we clash...because I am sure you agree that this changes the entire meaning of the passage).. just as the other results of paganism(rejection of God) includes v29-31(which I am sure you will agree are all sin) and I think v32 is very telling.

I get this from Romans 1...
God is wrath is being revealed on the world (v18)
because man has rejected God for his own idols and ideas (v18,21,25 ..)
As a result man has been given up to follow his desires (v24,26,28...)
these desires includes sexual sins v24,26,27 which include homosexuality(male and female)..
and all manner of wrong doings v29-31

why is that people can't have a sensible discussion without getting heated and emotional...debate the points and if you don't get the point ask for clarification...

Thanks Kevin -
Your 6. is the stumbling block for every unrepentant sinner, whether "gay" or "straight".

Is it not telling that the world celebrates when one "comes out" as to their sexuality, and that the world hates those who "come out" for Jesus?

Jesus twice tells us that "There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents!" in the two parables of the "Lost Sheep" and the "Lost Coin". Please read Luke 15:1-10.

And there is "joy in heaven" over two sinners who repented - Christopher Yuan and his mother Angela Yuan. Please read "Out of a Far Country", subtitled "A gay son's journey to God. A broken mother's search for hope." Christopher searched the Scriptures to affirm his same-sex attraction but reached the conclusion that God only affirms "Holy Sexuality" - one man and one woman in marriage, or celibacy in singleness.

Are not true Christians persecuted and even martyred for their faith in Christ Jesus?

I have been "up close and personal" with both repentant and unrepentant lbgt persons, it's called living by the fruit of the Spirit which is love. Much more difficult for me to love are those that i've met whom Jesus warns of as "false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15)

John Carpenter, I know you wrote to Barry and not me, but I have a difficult time standing by watching someone butcher the faith the way you do. You are somehow equating believing in Jesus and following Jesus with having an irrational belief that there are no errors in the bible. The two are not related except in your mind. It is grossly insulting to people, fellow Christians, to say that they are not Christians because their view inerrancy different from you.

First, we are debating the inerrency of scripture. Therefore you cannot just assume that there is no error because you believe there is no error because you believe you are in inerrantist. That is circular reasoning.

Second, you reduce it to somehow saying that he rejects Jesus as Lord. I too find the discrepancy and in no way reject Jesus as Lord, I affirm him as Lord! You are attacking us with personal, insulting attacks that have no basis in reality.

Likewise, you last statement again makes no sense whatsoever. I put myself under the authority of scripture. I put to you that the problem is the YOU are not aware of the what you are doing and are being irrational in your arguments, which my preceding paragraphs point out. You are taking a clear example given, and you quoted, and refuse to see the evidence on the table. That is not faith, that is being irrational. And if what you want to hang your hat on is that you don't consider it an error, then you are in the same boat as me. Call it what you will, you cannot read both of them side by side and know what it is telling you. There is an inherent incompatibility. They are wrong.

I believe you should apologize to all of the good and faithful Christians who are out there who do not have the same inerrentist view of the bible as you. You have insulting the faith of every single one of us.

Thanks for the comments John. Good discussion.

I don't follow you on how everyone is an inerrantist. I have to follow my own judgment, but I'm not infallible and I make mistakes. (To extend the thought, I could follow your pastor's opinions without question, but that would still be my fallible brain making the decision to do that.) I see the contradiction for you is that you would admit that you're fallible, but still think you can be certain that something is inerrant. To ask bluntly, as a fallible person could you be wrong about inerrancy? If you were, how would you be able to tell?

You said NT writings must be apostolic. Who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews then? How do you know that it was commissioned by an apostle since its author is not known? (And, as memory serves, no other book in the NT refers to it.) What if certain scholars are right and 2 Peter was not written by Peter? If a better argument could be made for that position, would you still reject it?

Not to sound sarcastic, but would you rather give me $100 or receive a $100 from me? Could there be a resolution to this passage that would show it as not in error? Perhaps. My point (in general) would be that you are trying to build the best case for inerrancy that you can-- and not trying to find out what's really true.

A final thought. Is there anything that could happen that would allow you to acknowledge that there COULD be an error in the Bible? If not, how do you separate that from delusional thinking were you to find it in someone else? (I.e., what if you were to see that someone else followed a church, a leader, a scripture, etc without willingness to admit error? how would you talk them out of it?)

Hi John,

Did you ever see my May 31, 9:11 p.m. comment? At any rate, I'm still interested in your response, because you said (repeatedly) that I didn't know what I was talking about.

I came away from that exchange thinking it was the other way around. Your pointing to Dr. Fogel's work actually just reinforced the conclusion.

Hi Barry,

Hmmmm. I'm not sure of the point of the scripture citations but, let me interject. The church is the pillar of the truth and the true church is based on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (the teaching of the Apostles in the New Testament and the prophets in the OT). Hence, sola scriptura.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 would highlight this since it tells us to "hold fast" to the teaching of the Apostle, which we have in scripture. Any institution which tells us to respect it's word over the teaching of the Bible is therefore not the church.

The Apocrypha is not scripture as it was neither affirmed by Christ or written by His Apostles. The canon of scripture centers around the Lord Jesus. So He affirmed all of the OT (Laws, Prophets & Writings, in the Jewish order of Genesis to 2 Chronicles, excluding the apocrypha) and commissioned the Apostles to write the New (or have their disciples do it, e.g. Luke-Acts).

Further, Paul doesn't commit an "error" with the Psalm but changes it (assuming that the LXX reads like the Hebrew and that the verbs in Greek for "receive" and "gave" aren't synonymous). Since Paul is as inspired as the Psalmist, what He writes there is authoritative scripture. Your assumption that Paul committed an error is entirely dependent on your assumption that he wasn't an inspired apostle, which is dependent on your assumption that the Lord Jesus didn't call Him, which is likely depend on your rejection of Jesus as Lord. That's the core issue at stake, beneath all the verbiage.

By the way, everyone is an inerrantist. Everyone has some ultimate authority they submit to. It's just whether one is aware of (and willing to defend) their functional "canon."

Great post. Thank you for it.

btw, my friend Jamaal Williams said he played basketball with you and you got some skills. You should bring it to Louisville. It'd be fun.

[...] Kevin DeYoung, Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, has some great... [...]

[...] DeYoung, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/30/the-church-and-homosexuality-ten-commitm... Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

Barry,

Likewise.

John,

Well I'm glad you're not upset-- but I'd hate to see how you write when you are!

At any rate, I have to say that I don't get where you are saying that I am being dishonest. I have given a lot of my opinions, told you that I'm a fallible human being, told you flatly that I'm an agnostic, and frankly that I don't accept your view of Scripture as accurate. I'm not sure what else I could have done. (I've probably hogged too much space as is!)

Unless of course you are saying that, by definition, anyone that does not accept that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the way that you are describing is dishonest. (That would explain why it would be hard for you to have discussions with others with different opinions though. I think that would just put you in "proclamation" and not "discussion" mode?? But if that's what you think, I can accept it.)

John, DRT, Phil, Birdseye, I've enjoyed it. Maybe I'll catch you on another string. I think we've hit an impasse (unless I read something that entices me back). Wish you all the best.

John, I think I am going to have to let Barry continue on without me.

When you equate debating the meaning of the bible with attacking Jesus you have totally left the reservation as far as I am concerned. I again feel righteous indignation that you could reduce my Lord to your interpretation. I am, frankly, appalled.

Good luck

Hi Barry,

I'm not upset. It's my day off. Why be upset?

Again, you are continuing to attack the Word of God, and thus the Lord Jesus Himself, and not being honest about whatever it is you believe. This is typical and why it is often impossible to have honest discussions with modernists who want us to assume that their assumptions are the norm while attacking the truth.

If you accept that Jesus is Lord, you accept His Word. If you don't, then you've denied that He is Lord. You want to pretend that you are neutral, a mere searcher for the truth. But Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life."

3. The Holy Spirit inspired scripture. It's not possible to know God without the Spirit. And the Holy Spirit will lead you to the Word He inspired.

John,

Sorry you're so upset. I'm not lying and I'm not trying to trick you. I just think that you are not getting me. I'll try to explain again.

I get that you said that you could make an incorrect interpretation of any particular biblical passage. So we're clear there!

What I'm saying is that you have not admitted that you could have an incorrect interpretation about your theory of the Bible itself, i.e., inerrancy. I am saying that you may not have the mind of God on this issue of inerrancy; I understand you to be saying that there is no other possibility and you can't be wrong about it.

IMO, you have left inerrancy as a doctrine that can't be examined. What I'm saying (and what I think DRT is saying) is that assuming that you know the mind of God on something without the possibility of being wrong is a brash position to take!

Also, I would say that my brain is not a "canon." It's just what I have to use to interpret things. So, I get your remarks on my canon as meaning merely that I insist on using my brain to try to figure things out. I would say, as flawed an instrument as that is, it's all I have to work with! I can try to use different parts of my brain, I can try to learn more to make a decision that is better informed, I can ask others to dialogue with me and challenge me so that I can hopefully see any errors I might have-- but after all is said and done, no one else can really make decisions for me.

So, if you're saying-- "you put your own judgment above all else" I would say, I have to make my own judgments. (Even if I defer to someone else, I still have to make the decision to defer.) Similarly, when you make a decision that you think the Bible is inerrant, you are deciding it. That opinion may be right or wrong, but I don't think you can claim that you know something about God for certain without putting your own knowledge (and ability to make a judgment on that knowledge) as part of the process.

Make sense?

Hi DRT,

First, a "cannon" is a piece of artillery! :)
A "canon" is a "rule". Since you have concluded that the Bible has errors, then you are evaluating the Bible by some other standard. That other standard is your canon. When you are willing to honestly tell us what it is, then we can have a "productive conversation." Perhaps you're not even aware of it yourself.

1. That's called exegesis. Whoever interpret best.

2. I asked you to "look it up." A quick google search of "Jesus on the Inspiration of scripture" will bring up articles that quote Him. An example would be, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35.)

By the way, I have lots of weeds around our house that you're welcome to come pull!

John, because you have been pretty good about responding, I also have one more question.

Number 3 - What role does the Holy Spirit play in this? Is it possible to know what god is like through the HS?

John,

I took a long walk, pulled some weeds, did some other things, now I think I can have a productive conversation.

First, my cannon is the same as yours.

So I have two questions that I would appreciate understanding how you think about this.

Number 1 - If you and I, or you and Kevin, disagree about the meaning of a part of the text that is in the cannon, then who is right? I do you determine the inerrant view?

Number 2 - Where does Jesus say the bible is inerrent? For me to appreciate your understanding of this it would be most helpful for me for you to define what inerrent means, and then show where the bible says that.

Thansk

Hi Barry,

You're not really dealing with the truths I laid out. You're just continuing to assume that you are right and continuing to attack. That's to be expected. It is the usual "liberal" (for lack of a better descriptive) approach. I wrote explicitly: “I can be errant in interpreting it. But that’s just me.” You just ignored that and said, “You are claiming, in at least in this one area, to be free from error.”

And then you go back on the attack against the holy Word of God without any attempt to honestly identify what source it is that you’ve crowned as “inerrant” and which you are judging everything else, even God, by. Because once you do that, then we can examine your canon. But by hiding it, you can be constantly on the attack without having to defend what it is you believe. You don’t even allow a possibility to exist that your canon be examined for errors.

Hi Barry,

Now you're just lying. I wrote explicitly: "I can be errant in interpreting it. But that’s just me." And yet you lied and said, "You are claiming, in at least in this one area, to be free from error."

There's no possible way of having an intelligent conversation with someone who lies so blatantly. And then you go back on the attack against the holy Word of God without any attempt to honestly identify what source it is that you've crowned as "inerrant" and which you are judging everything else, even God, by. Because once you do that, then we can examine your canon. But by lying about it, hiding it, you can be constantly on the attack without having to defend what it is you believe. You don't even allow a possibility to exist that your canon be examined for errors.

HI DRT,

First, if you don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then you are NOT following Jesus because Jesus believed that. Go look it up, then re-read my post, calm down, and be reasonable. Then, how do you know Jesus said to "follow Me"? Because the Bible says so? But maybe that part is in error too?

It's not "righteous indignation"; it's that your weakness is showing. You hypocritically berate people for believing differently than you, on the basis that they shouldn't correct people for believing differently than them.

John,

OK-- I think I understand what you're saying. I don't think it makes good sense though.

I make decisions, sure. Sometimes (more often than I'd like!) those decisions are not correct. When I make them, I am not making them with a sense that I'm infallible or my judgment is inerrant. I'd say you're the exact same way.

You are claiming, in at least in this one area, to be free from error. You think that it is not possible that you could be wrong about the Bible being inerrant. You asked, "Is there anything that can convince you that God is right?" But the way you ask that I think you are actually saying: "Is there any way that you could be convinced that John could have made a mistake when he formulated his views on the canon?" And that's a much different question. And yes, if the arguments for inerrancy were better than the arguments against, I should be an inerrantist. And it would be my disgrace if I wasn't!

Maybe the Bible's inerrant, maybe not. But you haven't allowed even a possibility to exist on this issue and claim to know the mind of God perfectly here. But since you're not an omniscient and infallible being, you could be wrong (and I might add, this would not necessarily say anything about Christ's character since men could have screwed something up, etc.). As I see it, you just feel really uncomfortable admitting your fallibility on this point. (Which I understand, I've been there man. This stuff can be rattling!) So what should we do? As I see it, we should look at evidence and make the best decision we can. What else can we do?


I'm not upset at all by the way. I understand that you think I'm a heretic, hell-bound, deceived by Satan, etc. Other kinds of Christians think this about both of us. I say, let them! Many Muslims think this about both of us too, that doesn't bother me either (and it shouldn't bother you!).

john Carpenter,

You are darn tooting right that the post you had struck a nerve. And it showed through in my tone. You have appointed yourself judge of many many Christians and said that they are not Christians. I do certainly have a weak spot when someone is judging the brothers based on his terms that have nothing to do with what Jesus says.

Jesus says to follow him.

You add on whole bunches of things like where it is acceptable for someone to get their knowledge about Jesus, What you have to believe about the only source that you find to be acceptable, and more.

John, it is just plain mean to tell someone who is following Jesus that they are not Christians because they do not have the same belief about the bible, we are not even talking about a belief about Jesus, but a belief about the bible here. John, I ask that you have some pity on my brothers and sisters.

Yes, you struck a very big nerve John, and what I am feeling is called righteous indignation.

Hi Barry,

Note above on inerrancy. When you "follow your own judgment", some criteria is guiding you at the moment which you assume to be inerrant. Perhaps tomorrow you will assume some other criteria to be inerrant or get more information and so change your mind on the basis of the same criteria. But to not believe in inerrancy at all would mean that you never come to any judgments to follow. It's just that Christians are honest by openly confessing that "Jesus is Lord", hence He is the inerrant canon, and has given us the Bible. I can be errant in interpreting it. But that's just me.

The writer to the Hebrews (whoever he was) notes that he learned directly from the apostles: "it was attested to us by those who heard" (Heb. 2:3). Further, there's no reason to reject the authenticity of 2 Peter as the only other example of Peter's writing we have is 1 Peter which openly tells us it was written with the help of a Greek amanuensis, Sylvanus. Likely, Peter dictated the 1 Peter to Sylvanus who put it into polished Greek whereas 2 Peter was written without such help.

First, you're arguing whether it was wise of Greek to have the same word that could mean "receive" or "give". If that is the case, you're argument is with the Greek language; not with me. Second, you missed the more important point that even if Paul did change the quotation, you just assumed that Paul had no right to do so, that he was not inspired. That is, you begin with the assumption that scripture is errant and conclude that a changed saying is changed, not because it is inspired, but because it is errant. Not at all persuasive.

Is there anything that could happen that could persuade you that the authority you've crowned as "inerrant" -- perhaps modernity, perhaps yourself -- is errant and that perhaps God is true? Is there anything that could convince you that God is right?

John,
Just realized that you may not have seen my 6/3 post at 11:25AM-- that's why those quotes probably seemed out of the blue to you. (I was on the world's slowest computer and I remember phrasing better than chapter/verse citations...) At any rate, that should give you the context.
DRT and Phil, good to see you back. Hope you enjoyed the weekend.

"Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" Revelation 6:15&16

Great Post.

Hi DRT,

If you reject inerrancy, then what "Jesus" is it that you are proposing is Lord? Not the one scripture tells you about because you've rejected that as having errors -- and likely the errors are just on the areas you disagree with what it says. There was no "evidence" given. The closest thing was that Barry rejected in the inspiration of Paul's words in Ephesians. That's circular reasoning.

You believe something is errant or you wouldn't have any criteria (the word is "canon") for evaluating other things as errant. No one can make the judgment that something is errant without a rule to judge by which itself must be inerrant. Therefore, whatever it is you are judging the Word of God as errant with, is inerrant in your mind. And your tone suggests that you are quite the fundamentalists in defending your inerrant canon, even if you won't admit what that canon is.

Your over-heated rhetoric shows that I've struck a nerve. Perhaps by exposing an idol or a weak spot.

A few citations, a correction, and a small biblical error...

1 Timothy 3:15-- church as pillar and ground of truth (Cath proof-text for church authority)
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:15-- unwritted traditions-- Cath proof-text
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Correction on 2 Maccabees and Augustine:
2 Macc 12-- praying FOR the dead. Augustine used THESE 2 Macc verses as a proof-text in his The Care to Be Taken for the Dead.
44 If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them.45 In his firm and devout conviction that all of God's faithful people would receive a wonderful reward, Judas made provision for a sin offering to set free from their sin those who had died.

2 Macc 15:14 is a proof-text for praying to the saints.
In this text, the deceased Jeremiah prays to God.
Rev 6:9-10-- departed saints pleading to God
Mt 17:3-- Jesus talks to Elijah and Moses at Transfiguration, therefore Catholics say we can pray to departed saints
So, the argument for praying FOR the dead is clearer in 2 Maccabees. Praying to the saints is more of an inference from reading of departed saints praying, etc. Augustine did believe in the veneration of saints though-- see Sermon 273. "Venerate the martyrs, praise, love, proclaim and honor them. But worship the God of the martyrs." I'm not entirely sure about his view on praying to saints-- I think he probably supported though. Sorry for the mix-up...

This part is new. Paul misquotes a Psalm and says something was "gave" instead of "received." A minor error, but appears to be a straightforward error nonetheless...

Ephesians 4:7-9
7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it[a] says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and **gave** gifts to his people.”

Ps 68:18
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you **received** gifts from people,
even from[a] the rebellious —
that you,[b] Lord God, might dwell there.

Would this error undermine the ethics of the sermon on the mount? Or 1 Cor 13? I don't think so. SOrry for being long-winded!!

Wow. So stinking good and helpful. Thank you.

Hey all,

Got to sign on again a little earlier than planned. Hope you all are enjoying this beautiful weekend!

Thinking about this string some over the past day or so, I think a lot of the clinging to inerrancy is the fear over the question "Did God really say?" and hell itself. The question of the serpent in the garden of course, and I think the verse is used to scare people into being afraid to honestly ask questions and seek the best answer wherever it may be.
I used to be afraid of hell too much to ask it in regard to the Bible, but I think that's not the best approach because it lacks courage and true honesty.

As an example, many Catholics hold that to question the Church is the sin of questioning God. Should we not ask "Did God really say?" A standard Catholic apologetic is that the the Church of the living God is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (Titus? Sorry, slow computer connection today...) Also that Christians need to receive apostolic teaching "whether by word or mouth or by letter" (to prove legitimacy of unwritten traditions, also a Pauline verse...). Of course, Peter is the proto-pope and has the power to "bind and loose" and the "keys to the kingdom of heaven." As noted before, Catholics like Augustine cited 2 Maccabees as part of Scripture and use as a source for a proof-text about praying to saints. "Did God really say"? To ask the question is to doubt God, and so sin and be in fear of damnation.

Likewise, the Qu'ran says that Jesus is only a prophet and that
Trinitarian thought is a sin. It claims to come from God and be perfect. "Did God really say?" The Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and the "fullness of the Gospel." "Did God really say?" The Bhagavad-Gita claims that Krishna is the true God behind all gods and the source of all Truth-- and to doubt that is sin. "Did God really say?"

We should not be looking to confirm a preconceived idea of orthodoxy. Luther did not, and his boldness in that respect is truly admirable. We should be looking for Truth, whatever form it comes in. It is tempting to say (and I used to say) that to question anything in Scripture is blasphemous and that you need to submit to God's judgment, not your own. But really, you have to use your own judgment to arrive at inerrancy. If you haven't questioned it, you are IMO playing the part of the Catholic or the Mormon or the Muslim. My paradigm is that one should be striving to make it as close to Truth as you can, admitting that you are a fallible person and make errors. Overlooking errors in the Bible (of the type you would criticise and reject if found in any other religious text) is, IMO, not being fair-minded and not acknowledging your own fallibility.

Another example, many evangelicals today don't think 2 Peter is authentic. Is it blasphemous to ask that question? Is it blasphemous to suggest that maybe the early Catholics got something wrong and included a spurious text with all those multitudes of them floating around?

As noted before, when early Catholics debated over which books should be in the canon, they had to ask "Did God really say?" Other types of Christians came to differing conclusions altogether. Revelation (a source of a lot of crazy ideas) and Hebrews were debated by Catholics fiercely for a long time. Books like the Didache was debated after being accepted by many. Were those Christians who rejected it being blasphemous by asking "Did God really say?"

Thomas Jefferson, who believed in God but was not at all a traditional Christian, put it well I think:
"Question with boldness even the existence of God. For if he is, he surely values reason above blind fear." (An imprecise quote, as mentioned, slow computer!!)

Very well written article. Thank you!

Birdseye,
Thanks for points for cool word! (I actually don't think that's mine but not sure...) The rest of this junk is one of the upsides of what is probably borderline OCD :-)
ANd we're all heretics to someone, an unfortunate fact that can't be avoided. So, we're both in the class already!
I went to a reformed Prot seminary, considered converting to Orthodoxy, converted to Catholicism, then became an agnostic who loves some of the NT still. So I've read a bunch of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant apologetics (which are fairly good at refuting each other I think...)and a bunch of other junk too.
If interested, the New Advent website has a ton of early church fathers stuff, councils (Nicea, etc), etc if that floats your boat. Some of it is short (more like a pamphlet in today's sense). That's a great place to poke around...
Out to play some b-ball...

I'm going to recommend that you get an A+ in that class.

I think the coolest thing you just said was 'proto-pope'. That's one of the coolest word's I've ever heard. I could do without the rest though. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Is this required homework for some Heresy 101 class? Homework assignment #1: Post some of your own home-brewed ideas about the Bible on a christian blog.

To continue, some words about error.

One of the keys in discussing this has to do with our definitions of error. If you go to wikipedia and look up inerrancy you come up with the following.

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

I would say that I am an inerentist (however you spell that) based on this definition, but clearly I have a different view than Henry does.

I am willing to be that the difference comes down to the definition of "error". We probably both look at the bible as follows, when it says two different things about the same occasion, or it gets the working of the world wrong we probably agree that there are very good reasons for this. The authors are not attesting to those precise facts. They are simply conveying the message in a form that everyone would understand. No problem, right?

But, there are things in the bible that I take to just be the authors communicating in the language of their listener, or not really trying to be specific, or something else, and you all take those same things to be specific and not in context. That is where we have the problem.

In other words, in one sense, we agree with the idea of inerrancy but disagree with which passages are to be rationalized and which are not to be rationalized.

What this does is it leads to divisiveness. When I say a passage needs to be read in the context of the time and interpreted, you say "no it does not! the bible is inerrant". But the fact is that there are plenty of passages that you feel should be interpreted in context and given some latitude too. It is not that one of us thinks the bible is inerrant and the other one does not, it is that we disagree about the degree of interpretation that needs to be done on some specific passages.

This is a very dangerous situation. The fact is that the right wing inerrantest will always look at the text and feel that they are plainly reading the text therefore someone who disagrees with them is wrong. In other words, you are thinking that you uniquely or your clan uniquely as the market cornered on which passages need to be nuances and which do not. This is not good.

Do you all understand this and agree with this? If not, why not?

Sorry I messed up the formatting on that last one. I think you can see which parts are Bob's and which are mine. Bob's parts are these two quotes:

"I think that you see scripture as finding its source in man therefore making it NOT an inerrant document since man is not inerrant."

and

"I see Scripture as the authoritative Word of God…since it does not find its origins in man but God (2 Peter 1:20-21). By that reason alone it is inerrant and the Gospel is not a man-made construct. I would argue that there is evidence to back that claim."

I also see that I put a believe in there, but it does not change the point.

Henry and Bob,

I think Bob does nail it. I really believe that inerrancy is the core issue dividing the church and certainly the core issue that makes my view different from most that follow DeYoung.

Bob made a good attempt to say how I view scripture, but he did not get it right. Let me say something first before I address this.....

Communications - I have been in corporate america for 30 years at various levels up to executive, and I also own a company. I have found that communication is generally the biggest issue we all face. For years I would tell my wife that when she is mad at me it is generally just because we have somehow miscommunicated, but she still gets mad at me.

The most basic societal gesture toward bridging the gap in communication is for one person to state their opinion and stance, and then the other person/side to restate their position/stance in their own words to see if it still matches up. That is the only way that we all will ever get to the point that we will be able to communicate because we must first strive to understand the position of the the other person.

I don't know if i routinely did it in this thread or not, but I tend to try and restate the position of the person I am talking with before I give my side of the argument because that makes it much easier to debate. If I misstate their position then there is little chance that my response is actually addressing the problem we are facing.

To illustrate, Bob says:

I think that you see scripture as finding its source in man therefore making it NOT an inerrant document since man is not inerrant.

in contrast to his position

I see Scripture as the authoritative Word of God…since it does not find its origins in man but God (2 Peter 1:20-21). By that reason alone it is inerrant and the Gospel is not a man-made construct. I would argue that there is evidence to back that claim.

I am grateful that Bob wrote both of these.

I can see that the key element of differentiation here is the definition of Bob's term, "origins in man". Even more specifically I see that it is Bob's vision of my definition that is wrong because I actually agree 100% with what Bob says about the inerrancy of scripture.

I believe that Scripture as the authoritative Word of God…since it does not find its origins in man but God (2 Peter 1:20-21). By that reason alone it is inerrant and the Gospel is not a man-made construct. I would argue that there is evidence to back that claim.

This is a word for word quote of Bob and I agree with every word of it.

So clearly there is still a difference here that has not been communicated well between us. I think I wrote enough for this response and will post this before I continue on. I would like to know if this resonates with you. I don't want to be someone shouting across the mote at you, I want to be the brother that I am who is discussing our shared faith with all of you.

DRT, Barry..

Just thought I would share have a final thought...

I think I realized where we differ...

I see Scripture as the authoritative Word of God...since it does not find its origins in man but God (2 Peter 1:20-21). By that reason alone it is inerrant and the Gospel is not a man-made construct. I would argue that there is evidence to back that claim.

I think that you see scripture as finding its source in man therefore making it NOT an inerrant document since man is not inerrant. I would agree with you that things which are man-made are bound to contain some wrong ideologies which are bound by culture and human bias. But there are good elements to it which must be upheld like the golden rule but certain elements must be left to the dark ages like homosexuality. And I'm sure you will find some evidence to back this up. (this is an assumption so please correct me if I'm wrong)

Is there any surprise why this argument can go on...unless I am persuaded that scripture is finds its source in man OR you are convinced that the scripture finds its source in God..
I like to articulate differences as well as I can cos it prevents us going around in circles which can be tiring :)


But I'm actually quite curious to know what you think the gospel is...and who you think Jesus is?

It's ok and I don't.

People talk about the will of God, like God is a person with wants, needs and desires. They say God says so in the Bible. Actually, there are two Gods in the Bible; the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. The God in the Old Testament is a God to be feared. He is vengeful and jealous and will send you to hell to burn forever and forever. The God in the New Testament is a God of love, compassion and forgiveness.

Any of the controversial subjects (abortion, gay rights, etc.) people will have strong convictions about and will have their own justifiable reasons for their beliefs. They will use quotes from the Bible. In today’s world with the Internet searches, there is much confusion.

So, who or what is this thing we call god? New Age advocates say it is an energy or force. Like they say in the Star Wars trilogy, “May the force be with you.” What does the bible say?

“God is spirit” (John 4:24). (Spirit is an essence.)
“God is light” (1 John 1:5). (Light is a form of energy.) Is Jesus the “Sun” of God?
“God is love” (1 John 4:8). (Love is an emotion and feeling.)
“Ye are gods” (Psalm 82:6, John 10:34). Really?
“I and my father are one” (John 10:30). (Does this apply to us also?)
“Kingdom of God is within” (Luke 17:21). (If God lives in heaven, is heaven within?)
“The works I do, he shall do also” (John 14:12). (Is it done unto us as we believe?)

It sounds like this god is a manifestation of our beliefs. Our will is God’s will.

[...] – Gospel Coalition: The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments [...]

Let me know when you are ready to tell me when it is OK for you to interpret scripture, but label it an affront to inerrency when I do. Perhaps you should go by the Amish view, it is more conservative than yours I am sure.

That last one was just to show that I haven't gone completely OT.

Because I believe strongly in the inerrancy of the Bible, the errancy of man's interpretation of it, and 'speaking the truth in love' to my friends whether their sexual sins are the same as mine or not.

so why do you?

'you should never argue with a crazy ma-ma-man.' -Billy Joel

birdseye, if you are not going to actually talk to me. That means to ask and answer questions, to exchange ideas then you will not know what I mean.

I have to say that when you use the phrase " I understand that you are confusing inerrancy with interpretation" I cringe because you are doing what is known as begging the question. I don't hold that against you, because I don't expect everyone to be up on logic, here is an introduction to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

It seems that you are smarter than that and you are simply choosing to not engage in the conversation. I wish you would actually engage with me so we can have a good talk instead of rhetoric that leads nowhere.

I am not confusing inerrency with interpretation. I contend that we all interpret scripture. I would like to know if you think otherwise.

Because after that we can actually start to discuss our interpretation of scripture. You interpret it and so do I. The word inerrency is strictly a red herring to put people who do not agree with your interpretation into a different group. A not noble trick to do to people.

Broseph, can I give you some advice? Don't take yourself too seriously. You're not as smart as you think. Enough said, I'm off to drink some barley-pop.

Did I seem reticent? I'm just not understanding your questions. I understand that you are confusing inerrancy with interpretation. I understand that you don't 'interpret' the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong. I also understand that you made up some words called 'strong'-inerrancy and 'soft'-inerrancy. What this other stuff has to do with it is beyond me.

birdseye, you are stalling. yes I have been drinking. I have been drinking and drinking. Occassionally I will even ingest alcohol.

You are stalling, but given that I have been drinking, it is somewhat entertaining.

birdseye, I understand your reticence to answering the question as asked.

But I am asking it in a much more generic way. If I were to get really technical in my language it would be better stated as: Do you believe that the saved will go to heaven when they die.

Is that better?

My point I wish to make is much bigger than the specifics regarding who is saved etc. I am trying to get at whether you think people, any people, will go to heaven.

And I thought the question was about inerrancy, not interpretation. Have you been drinking?

Who is 'we' and how does one 'feel' going to heaven? Can you re-state the question more coherently?

birdseye, BOOM! pwned!

Just kidding.

I think the only difference between your view and my view is our interpretation. We both interpret. The question is if we agree on our interpretations.

Let me ask this. Do you feel we are going to go to heaven when we die?

Is this a courtroom drama? I don't remember that being your 'claim', but I'll play along. Yes, I 'are interpreting' the inerrant Scriptures. Just like everyone else who reads the inerrant Scriptures.

Birdseye, my claim is that you are interpreting the scripture. Do you deny this?

I do with my wife!! BOOM! Doing inerrancy?!? Guy, you're losing credibility by the second. Um, last time I looked, "inerrancy" wasn't a verb.

Birdseye, OK, like I am saying, Paul says that we are to greet each other with a holy kiss, and I am pretty sure that you do not. Are you interpreting or doing inerrancy there?

Heh? I'm saying that your problem that you've been describing is not about inerrancy; it's about interpretation. Just sayin'.

Birdseye, to take a very simple example, when Paul says that you should greet each other with a holy kiss and you do not do that, do you think that you are not interpreting?

Buddy, you're not talking about inerrancy anymore, you're talking about interpretation. I think you're confused.

Gene, I know you did not address your comment to me, but I can help why I center on inerrancy.

The fact is that the bible says homosexuality is wrong. It says that in the text. If you believe in a strong form of inerrancy it ends there for you, and homosexuality is wrong.

I believe in inerrancy, but not in the same way. I believe that the bible must be interpreted in its language and cultural context to understand what it is saying. And when you do that I think it says that homosexuality should be fine, it is God glorifying.

Liberal and shaky Christians are just slurs. We have a real issue here to discuss.

[...] the entire blog here. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

DRT,

I'm afraid you just need to read the books if you want to represent and understand the other side accurately. I'm not aware that any of these writers make this distinction you are making between a 'strong form of inerrancy' and a softer form. There is just inerrancy and non-inerrancy.

The basic claim is that everything the bible affirms is true. There may be some differences about what people believe the bible affirms, but the starting point is Jesus and the Apostle's teaching about how we should view scripture, and it does not square with many of the comments you have made in your posts above.

I've not read Christian Smith's book, I know Kevin DeYoung reviewed it though. The basic issue for me is that it does no good to hunt around and try and prove the bible has errors, there are always counter arguments etc.. (a number of problems Christian Smith has are just because he doesn't like certain doctrines, I see that as an issue of submitting to the Lordship of Christ). Instead, a writer needs to first engage with Jesus and the Apostle's view of scripture. That is the determining factor for the Christian.

And that is the reason why your argument against the person who said we should believe the bible if it says slavery is fine, is poor. You did not engage with Jesus and the Apostle's view of scripture. If they taught that we should believe everything in the bible, then you have left untouched the cornerstone of the argument. It seems to me that your own set of cultural prejudices serve as the arbiter of truth in your worldview, I see this as set against the Lordship of Christ. If Jesus is God, and Jesus taught that the bible is without error in all it affirms, then we are fools to exalt our subjective cultural prejudices against Him.

I'm confused. (1) You have some VERY fine bullet points about approaches to talking about homosexuality. (2) Then you have a list that lets us know that you are addressing "liberal" and "shaky" Christians. (3) All the comments are on inerrancy, which isn't even mentioned in the blog post.

Where did (3) come from?

Will you address the other groups from (1) like "strugglers," "cultural elites," and "belligerant Christians"?

[...] * The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitmentsby Kevin DeYoung; * Talking About Homosexuality by Timothy [...]

Just want to say thanks for your "thoughtful" remarks. Thanks to you my family doesn't speak to me. Stop being a hatefilled church or start paying taxes.

[...] Speaking of Homosexuality [...]

Robert,

Thanks for the references. As I said above to John, though, I have never mentioned American slavery, and, indeed, I find it irrelevant to my point/argument. But thanks anyway.

Folks,

Please do not listen to Joe Carpenter. I don't know if he clarified after this comment, but what he is saying is absolutely evil and wrong and he should seek medical attention. He said
"That you reject the authority of the Word of God is the relevant spiritual issue. It is tantamount to rejecting Jesus as Lord. Let me say it clearly: If the Word of God supports slavery, then the Word of God is correct and you should submit to it. If you do not, if, like Phil, you say “I do not receive my morality from the Bible”, then understand that you have rejected the Lord Jesus Himself. Please have at least have the integrity to admit that you are not a Christian, even that your suppression of the truth by advocating for perversion is part of your attempt to suppress the truth about God.

It seems to me that he is saying you have to believe slavery is OK. Please do not believe this person. This is harmful. This is wrong.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/30/the-church-and-homosexuality-ten-commitments/?comments#comment-30830

Oh my.

John,
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1993 was awarded jointly to Robert W. Fogel and Douglass C. North "for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change" Nobelprize.org

While slavery may have been an example to support his economic theory, it was not the topic of the award.

And John, to paraphrase, "If you only want a friend who agrees with you, get a dog." Otherwise, cool down... listen... and you may learn a few things - even about the Word of God.

"That’s one of among many reasons I like the golden rule– it is pragmatic and demonstrably promotes better relations between people. That’s also why I think that views on homosexuality should be governed by it, especially in a pluralistic society"...

Funny enough I think Kevin's article strives to show how as a Christian we show how to apply the golden rule Biblically...I don't think golden rule calls us(Christians) to agree with everything my neighbor does and gives a thumbs to his lifestyle/choices/behaviors all in the name of love...it rather calls us to be loving in the way we disagree with our neighbors and the way we try to correct them (I agree that a some christians have not been that good at this...), not compromising on the truth but speaking the truth in love... That is true tolerance...I don't agree with you but I can be hospitable, caring etc towards you and we are not afraid to be truthful with one another...I think we are both defining "loving your neighbor" differently and I suspect we will define "loving God" differently as we and for that matter how God has loved us

And living in pluralistic society is good reason why christians should NOT allow its doctrines to be influenced by society...A pluralistic society is by definition one that has varied belief systems which do not agree (else it will be the same belief system and it would not be pluralistic)...If Christianity is shaped by society instead of scripture it ceases to be Biblical christianity and ends up being whatever different belief systems we have bunched up together we might as well put our Bibles down....

Here is the big issue with arguing that scripture is not inerrant...You would have to ask which parts of scripture is "flawed" and must be take out or ignored...Then you have to ask how do we decide which parts are "flawed" and must be taken out...Then scripture is now under the direct editing of man to take out and put back in as he sees fit....You might be a great believer in the goodness of man but I have seen the selfishness and greed of man...it will all go downhill...Then what you have is no longer christianity but syncrestic mix of man's ideologies

At this point I think we must agree to disagree :D ... I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ...I believe Jesus taught that scripture was inerrant and his teachings must be understood within the context of the whole of scripture...I believe that scripture must be understood as a whole in order to understand the bits and most of the supposed inconsistencies are as a result of inconsistent reading of scripture without taking into account context, author's intent, biblical storyline etc....And I believe this not only because of internal and external evidences but because of faith :)...and because of this I believe homosexuality is sinful because the Bible says so :D even if in monogamous, loving relationship just as I believe sex outside of marriage is sinful even if in a heterosexual monogamous, loving relationship....

thanks for the post, kevin. a well-written and useful manifesto. all those audiences and modes of conversation you mentioned are definitely difficult to hold in tension. i have no doubt that these issues will continue to be a struggle for the church, but i firmly believe and trust that God is faithful to sanctify His bride and bring glory to Himself. thanks for giving these issues your thoughts and attention in recent weeks.

John,
I understand where you are coming from actually. I was a conservative Christian for some years and even went to seminary (at a place you'd probably approve of). I didn't sign on to insult you or anyone else; I have tried to be respectful and if I have failed in any way I apologize. (You mentioned a while back that someone called you a "fanatic." I'm personally not offended by the term as I don't think it applies, but I have never used that term for you.)
I log on for a few reasons. I still have an intense fascination with Christianties of all types and I still think highly of many of Christ's teachings in the NT. Gandhi's a good example of someone who can value Christ's teachings and not be a Christian (I wish I was that good of an example!) I spent many years in a feedback loop wherein I would strive to be deeply honest as I thought Jesus required, then I would doubt the inerrancy of Scripture due to all the myriad problems with it, then I would fear hell, etc. It took me a while to break that loop and I had to be willing to go where I felt uncomfortable. I'd love to help anyone else do the same. If this blog is only for conservative Christians, then I'd respectfully stay off the site if the blog master so requested. Otherwise, I think this has been a great discussion and I'm enjoying it!)

Bob,
I agree that from Rev. DeYoung's theological perspective, he wrote an excellent post on homosexuality. I appreciated some of his sentiments-- especially the spirit that accompanied his convictions. His respectful tone says a lot about his character I think.

But I would again disagree still that this discussion we've been having is unrelated. The views that people take on homosexuality affect how they treat people and how they vote. In order for people to reconsider their views, they need to take a look at their bases for them.

Relatedly, I disagree that following the Bible according to the individual conscience either gives us a clear moral sense or keeps us from confusion. As John Henry Newman noted, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." Pre-Reformation Christianity, even with its typical high view of Scripture, did not produce the Reformation "solas." For example-- in my readings of early fathers, Augustine, councils, proto-reformers like Huss and Wycliffe, there appears to be no one who advocated Luther's sola fide. If this is the bedrock of the gospel, we have the curious issue of what the Holy Spirit was doing for 1500 years-- but we also have a seemingly strong argument that holding to Scripture as inerrant does not give uniformity on even what the most important doctrines are. I believe this is because of the incongruities in Scripture itself-- which is why there are so many thousands of denominations today who hold different views about its meaning. It would be nice if we had a thread of the most important doctrines that were held "always, everywhere, by all" by those who believed in divinely-inspired Scriptures, I just don't think we do.

So, I can appreciate the ethics of Jesus, I can appreciate the importance of honesty, and I wish that we had some access to infallibility-- I just don't think we do. We just do our best in a confusing world. That's one of among many reasons I like the golden rule-- it is pragmatic and demonstrably promotes better relations between people. That's also why I think that views on homosexuality should be governed by it, especially in a pluralistic society.

...and one more :)

It seems to me that inerrancy is something that the ruling religious people push on the others. That way they can simply say, "see, it says it here in the bible" and then people do not need to think.

They appeal to everyone's natural evil that says that they know better. That they can read the bible and the plain meaning will be true to them.

Well, then go out and buy some slaves. Make sure you women do not talk. Plead to go to let some of the rain out of the storehouses in the sky. And certainly, be thankful that god is not going to send another flood when you see a rainbow.

Those are not true in the sense that the strong statement of inerrency says. Even I can make up things that say something like "well, god knew that we would right the bible and when he designed the physics he made it so rainbows would happen and sure enough indeed they do remind people of the covenant with god because that is the way it was set up from the beginning."

That type of thinking is just not right. I too believe that god made the universe, that he participates in it, that we are in communion with god. But it is not even remotely likely that rainbows were made to serve that purpose. That is just plain silly.

But there are lots of truths about theology in the story. The story does try to tell us that we don't have to worry about god wiping us out arbitrarily. That is great! I am sure that is true! But it is not true in the sense of the strong form of inerrancy.

So what do those books you recommended say?

..and I probably need to say even more. I started to listen to Michael Horton at the ligonier conference and he is putting up stawmen like its going out of style! Terrible.

I am a theist. I am not a deist. I believe god works in this world, is an active part, I believe that Jesus brings salvation and reconciliation, I believe the bible is god's word.

But I don't believe the irrational view that the bible is some magic book that has everything 100% correct in it. So many people like Horton and folks with whom I have spoken here seem to think that if you don't believe in the bible you can't be a Christian, and then qualify that you have to believe in the bible exactly the way they believe, by some ridiculous theory of inerrancy.

Well, that is dangerous. It leads people to say things, like was said earlier in this comment train, that we should believe the bible even though it says that slavery is OK. That is simply evil.

Please tell me the approach those books take. I don't want to simply read someone's mental efforts to try and rationalize the bible to reality when in fact the bible is wrong on some things. I just don't understand why we have to have some perfect magic book to believe that Jesus fulfilled the law, lived and taught us, was killed by the ruling religious party and government, was risen from the dead by god, and is therefore the King, the rightful ruler of the world.

Why do I need to believe in this strong form of inerrancy to believe that?

Henry, I may take you up on that, but the problem is that if it is only some soft version of inerrancy then they will be preaching to the choir. I believe the bible. The bible is true. The bible is god's word.

What I don't believe is the strong form of inerrancy that causes people to take Genesis as literal 6 days, stops them from believing in evolution, believes that the world was flooded, thinks that Job is real, etc. I have no interest in that unless they have some sort of evidence that I can look at that would invalidate the rest of human knowledge.

Strong inerrancy simply is wrong. But if what people in those books are doing is some sort of concordance rationalization then I also don't care about that. I don't see why we should hold the bible to that standard given it does not hold itself to that standard.

Have you read Christian Smith's book The Bible Made Impossible? I think that is an excellent book on inerrancy and I have 4 copies of it so that I can give it away. Have you read that one?

James Rednour,

Thanks for taking some time to answer my question. If I may briefly respond to your comment:

I do not reject scriptural authority; I simply do not hold to a hard inerrant view of scripture

Is this not doublespeak? How can scripture be authoritative if some parts of it are in error? Are the places that are wrong authoritative? You are essentially saying that scripture is authoritative except in the places where it is wrong (like in it's dealings with homosexuality). Which is to say scripture is not entirely authoritative at all.

And by who's authority does one pronounce which parts are authoritative and which are not? Are we not left with the shifting sands of man's sin-corrupted opinions?

DRT,

thanks for your comment, and I apologise for my snarkiness earlier on.

The definition of inerrancy is simply that scripture is true in all that it affirms. Yes there is a place for metaphor, approximations, general citations etc... no defender of inerrancy is arguing that every single line must be taken as a police report, the writers of scripture are free to speak like normal human beings! Inerrancy does not mean some kind of ham-fisted literalism. But at the same it does mean that the writers of scripture do not affirm anything that is false. I do not know what you mean when you say that Paul (including his errors) were 'inspired'. What is a God-inspired error? And who gets to decide what they are? The homosexuals? The evangelicals? The atheists?

I agree with you in that I don't want to have a doctrine of scripture that is not what the Apostle's and Jesus believed. But I honestly believe that if one takes some time to read gifted defenders of inerrancy like Wenham, Packer etc, then it becomes quite clear that Jesus and the Apostle's view of scripture does not square with errancy.

Interestingly, for me, I think the central thrust of Jesus and the Apostle's view of scripture as pertaining to the absolute authority of scripture - and inerrancy is a corollary that goes alongside. Scripture cannot be authoritative for our lives if it is wrong.

Regarding apparent contradictions and fabrications, I've looked into many of these and don't think there is anything insurmountable. That said, there are times when one can't think of an answer in one's own head and does not have the time to go and read all the scholarly monographs that have been written investigating some of these. But in those rare instances, given our Lord's view of scripture, and the view of the Apostle's he commissioned, it definitely seems best to take a posture of humility and hold judgement and trust that it will be made plain on the final Day. I've been proved wrong so many times in things I thought were clearly a contradiction, including in mathematics! that I've learned my lesson that my mind is very fallible and it would be arrogant of me to pronounce confidently that scripture has an error in it. I don't want to be a fool for my lack of faith on that last Day, and a central theme throughout scripture is faith in God when the promises seem to have fallen (e.g Abraham).

I really don't have time to get into the details, I am meant to be writing a comment on slavery, but I ask that you would take a little bit of time to at least read one book - perhaps go for either Wenham or Packer's as these are God's gifts to the church that we would do well to avail ourselves of.

I hope that you will give some more consideration to this issue. Thanks again for your interaction, and I hope that your soul profits from one or two of those books,

Kind regards,

Been reading the comments on this article and it seems to me that there are actually quite a few arguments going on which by themselves deserve their on blog....
We have..

1. The Inerrancy of scripture
...to which some will say scripture is inerrant and because it says homosexuality is wrong...well...then it is wrong. And others will say that stance is too strong (and the talk of inconsistencies come up..) and scripture has to be re-interpreted to fit the culture...basically Biblical interpretation must align with societal "norms" and standards of "morality" to be made culturally relevant.

2.The Interpretation of Scripture
...where some insist on the traditional interpretation of scripture using various hermeneutical tools to prove their point and others insist on a different interpretation using various hermeneutical tools...(and the debate quickly becomes my way is better than yours)...

3.Combination of both
....Basically the Bible is wrong about homosexuality because it is not inerrant(in the traditional sense)... and the traditional interpretation of scripture is wrong (two for the price of one)...

Discussions of slavery, women etc all seem to be trying to prove that the Bible is not the absolute authority on moral issues because it has got it wrong sometimes...if it was wrong about slavery then it is wrong about homosexuality....simply put it is not Inerrant therefore we can't use it as our sole authority regarding morality.

And where the argument becomes and infinite loop that will never end is when it is argued that different interpretations of scripture can be valid because interpretation is subjective and not objective...basically one can't say that their way of viewing scripture is right...

As fascinating as all this is...it has just taken a detour from the article and what Kevin DeYoung was trying to put across...which is actually quite sad...

I wonder what the next big issue being discussed will be...insisting that co-habitation of single people (who are in a "committed" "loving" relationship) is not really wrong or sinful and that our view of scripture has to change because society has changed its views on the issue???...

The Bible is God's Word (I accept this on the internal evidence of the Bible itself and faith)... Once we start to question whether God's word is completely true (inerrancy) and question whether we can ever truly know what He says (interpretation)...I can just see it going downhill from here...not just on the issue of homosexuality but on a variety of issues

"Henry, I would love for you to somehow convince me that the strong form of inerrancy is correct. That is exactly why I am here on this blog writing to you and others right now. I am hear to debate and discuss the bible and Christianity in search of the truth. The real truth.

Isn’t that what you are after? Do you want to know if inerrancy is wrong?"

Dang, I thought you were here to score points. Apparently I misjudged you.

"I also believe that the bible does not faithfully capture exactly what Jesus said. There are clear contradictions in there as well as fabrications."

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Henry,

It is obvious from your last comment that we do not speak the same language, and I would like to bridge that gap as much as possible. I agree that Jesus and Paul felt that their testimony is true. No question. I also believe it is true. I live under scripture. I do.

But you are putting things that are not there when you use the word inerrancy.

I do have a bit longer to talk, sitting on my deck on this wonderful afternoon, so if you would care to get detailed then I think it would be beneficial.

I am reminded of a conversation with my wife. She said, "you always think you are right!". And she is right. Everyone thinks they are right, because if they did not think they are right then they would change their mind.

I am absolutely certain that every single thing that Jesus said was inerrant. No question. I also believe that the bible does not faithfully capture exactly what Jesus said. There are clear contradictions in there as well as fabrications.

I don't believe that everything Paul said was inerrant, by your definition, but I think that everything he said was honest, true, inspired and largely true for all times, but he was still a product of his times and had limitations of his times.

Henry, I would love for you to somehow convince me that the strong form of inerrancy is correct. That is exactly why I am here on this blog writing to you and others right now. I am hear to debate and discuss the bible and Christianity in search of the truth. The real truth.

Isn't that what you are after? Do you want to know if inerrancy is wrong?

Not sure whether "rainbow unicorn" (italicized) points are points that will help me here....but I'll take them nonetheless. Thanks!

Sarcasm? Multiple spellings of 'inairancee'? +2 rainbow unicorn points for you. Don't spend them all in one place.

Barry, good talking with you , I hope your weather is as nice as it is on my deck right now! About 75, no humidity, big puffy clouds, a nice breeze and a favorite beverage :)

Birdseye,

How do I get a score? Can I get one too? I really want one--it's so helpful to know where I stand.

Barry,

As I said, you are a better man. I'm too tired/it's too late on a Friday; plus I have given so little thought to inerrency, or inerency, or even inerancy.

Birdseye, DRT and all,
It has been great, have to run now. Birdseye, good comments. I'll agree that we're all a mess. (I'll let you decide if I'm more arrogant, a pain in the neck, or both...)
I went to a conservative evangelical seminary and have read a bunch of books on inerrancy and advocating inerrancy. I think I've beat that horse to death. (You probably could tell that I'm a little OCD??!!)
Have a great weekend. I may not be able to sign back on until Mon!

Together we could take over the internet!

Wow, you guys are as arrogant as me. Looks like we found each other.

DRT/Barry,

Yeah that's quite bad. But better to have understood Jesus and the Apostle's view of scripture and misspell the word than not understand their view and misspell the word.

I challenge anyone to actually read some of the standard works on inerrancy (see esp. Mark Dever's annotated bibliography on inerrancy) and still say Jesus and the Apostle's did not view their writings as inerrant.

Barry, I walked to my garden and talked to the plant trying to encourage them after that last exchange. Thanks...

Inerrancy, I do want to point out to people that once you give up on the strong form of inerrancy you actually end up with a much more rich, lively, relevant bible than you do by trying to defend something that leads you down the wrong path.

Without literal inerrency, you are forced to look at the big picture of what is going on instead of the micro-focused particular passages. As Barry said, you then need to look at that verse in light of all the other testimony on the subject.

As one who has gone down that path, you find that the rule of love from Jesus becomes paramount in your view of the bible. The teachings take on a whole new meaning. You are to look for the ideas that Jesus was teaching. The ideas of what it means to love each other and love god instead of following some text like it is a book of laws. It opens the door to discernment that is impacted by multiple perspectives and not proof texts that someone can slam down in a debate to prove their point.

That is the richness of the world that we live in. Jesus is not some cruel overlord that we need to appease by ensuring that we obey the letter of the law of the writings! He is loving, he is our friend. Instead of being afraid of holiness, you should be attracted to it.

Folks, I pray that you consider that this inerrancy debate is quite important, and the Kevin DeYoung's of the world are hurting Christ's flock by supporting something non-biblical and against the teachings of our Lord.

Birdseye,
That's an interesting thought about Satan. But here are a couple more things to think about:
-Would not Satan want you to think the Bible was inerrant if it wasn't?
1 Cor 11:14 "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
-If my stats are right, God kills over 2 million people in the OT and Satan kills about 10.
-God sends lying spirits, tells people to kill infants and children (and does so himself), tells people to take slaves from non-aggressor towns after they take all the property, allows the beating of slaves, curses all descendants of one person so that they are spiritually very weak and will sin more-- and then gets upset that they're so weak (says Diderot "The Christian God is someone who loves his apples more than his children"), and tortures people forever in hell for living sinfully for a few decades of a life that he cursed. If Satan made a Bible (especially when you throw in all the apparent contradictions in doctrines and other difficulties, etc.), how much different would it be?
Now that's a little hyperbole because I think there are some wonderful ethics in the NT, but you understand what I mean.

"The Spirit's recording in Scripture of the satanic question and its devastating consequences reminds the church today that postmodern suggestions of new ways to handle God's perspicuous Word may not be innocent exercises of a new intellectual humility, but rather latter day echoes of an ancient and insidious voice." Carlton Wynne, Reformation21 blog

Henry,

I think if we get past the mispelling though (which I know that I'm guilty of sometimes too), DRT's points have been very good.

Inerrancy is a very tough argument to make-- I think that Bob's subjective one is ultimately all that the believer has. There is no comprehensive list of what books are in the Bible in its pages. Sure, many times references are made between one book and another but you have to establish that the references are infallible to establish that the Scripture referred to is. That kind of logic also does not account for variants, whether the writer of a text of Scripture could claim that Jesus said or did something when he actually didn't, or that a writer could claim that Scripture is "God-breathed" when it's not, etc. If a fallible document written by fallible people were to make claims of inerrancy, what weight would that hold anyway?

E.g.--When someone writes that Jesus said that the Law is without error, you also have to reconcile that with other things he said. For instance, he said (a paraphrase) that the OT said an "eye for an eye" but that he said instead "do not resist an evil person." This seems--both in context and in comparison to the OT-- that he is advocating a superior way. You also have to reconcile things like Jesus saying "Let the little children come to me" with Yahweh in the OT having infants killed (or directly killing them himself). I don't think this is easy to do with tremendous pains of conscience. (I know, because I used to try all the time!)

We are all fallible beings, so I can't claim that any of my arguments are flawless. But I think that also applies to the inerrancy issue-- in essence, you have to rely on your ability to subjectively decide by faith that something is flawless, while realizing that so many Christians have drawn on the Scriptures (and not necessarily the same ones) with differing conclusions about not only inerrancy, but hundreds of other doctrines as well.

At any rate, I probably have prattled on too long. Good discussion though!

And Phil, please jump back in. You've made some great comments!

Maybe the serpent was right?! Sounds like he was the first proponent of errancy. Did I spell that right? *shrugs*

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ” Genesis 3:1

Nice one! You are owning people on here! +1 to your score.

Birdseye, thanks for talking, goodbye to you.

Henry,

I must quote you exactly on this. This is too good to be true, this is a copy and paste of what you wrote:

With all due respect, I don’t think you have read any serious evangelical works on inerrancy. I can tell this from the fact that you continue to spell it wrong. It is not ‘innerent’, rather it is ‘innerant’.

It does seem that you too misspelled it when trying to correct me. That is soooo good. Henry, you made my day.

Ahh good point about the Psalm. Okay, you win, the Bible is errant. DRT - 1, Bible - 0. The comment section now belongs to you.
Good article btw, I fight against all sorts of sin in my life and I'm thankful to have friends that are loving enough to not disown me and yet tell me to repent when I'm wrong. Hopefully i can return that favor to one of my homosexual friends, if I ever get one. Cheers.

Henry, spelling has always been an issue for me. I was doubling the nns and the rrs for awhile then someone told me it is just the nns that need to be doubled. Frankly neither of them are in my dictionary on my computer so no matter what I type my computer tells me it is wrong.

You sir are a shallow person if you will judge the veracity of my arguments based on if I spell a word that is not in the dictionary correctly, though I too would think twice about it.

The fact is that I have read the statements on it, many debates on it, no, I have not read a book specifically about inerrency but it does not take much to realize that the strong form of inerrency that is supported by this site is a human construct and not something of god.

DRT,

With all due respect, I don't think you have read any serious evangelical works on inerrancy. I can tell this from the fact that you continue to spell it wrong. It is not 'innerent', rather it is 'innerant'.

For an excellent treatment of Jesus and the Apostles view of scripture read the early chapters of Wenham's book 'Christ and the Bible'. It is worth your time before you come debating here.

Birdseye, I read the quote you suggested and the only basis they presented was a Psalm. hmmmm. The inerrency promoted on this blog is a construct of man, not god.

lazy is winning today, here's a video:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/tough-questions-christians-face-2010-national/is-the-doctrine-of-inerrancy-defensible/

too lazy, just read this:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/biblical-inerrancy/

Birdseye,

OK, define inerrent and then show me how that quote means the same thing. The law is the law and it is not going away. The text will not change. No doubt. That does not say that it is inerrent. Actually, given that he says he came to fulfill it, it strongly implies that it is no longer relevant because it has (past tense) been fulfilled. Sorry, not even close to justifying a strong inerrency.

Actually he did say it was inerrant:
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17,18

Bob, thanks for attempting a clarification for me, but it does not alleviate my issues with your statement.

The bible never claims that it is inerrent. Please note that I am talking about the strong form of inerrency that is applicable here to this post and is a primary source of this problem.

You are setting up a false choice. Who says god's word has to be inerrent, based on the definition of inerrent that men have made up? God never claimed that the text is inerrent. The only ones who have claimed that are people. Why should we hold that up to be the standard instead of actually holding up god's word as the standard. By looking at the actual text we can see that there are factual misrepresentations, culturally based conceptions (like the slavery issue) and outright contradictions. None of that means the bible is not god's word or useful all sorts of teaching.

I see this over and over again. People make up their own definition, in this case for the word inerrent, then think they have put god in a box and must believe that.

DRT,
My apologies...I should have clarified that argument...

I should have started with...the Bible is inerrant because it is God's word...if it is not inerrant then it is not God's word...and we have man-based religion based on some things some men have put together...
Then the gospel is nothing but a nice ideology dreamt up by some fishermen...
And if we start to pick and choose the aspects we think is right because of perceived inerrancies then we just build a human-centric gospel which is no gospel at all....

But this argument wont end anytime soon...and these are my two cents...I doubt anyone will be even remotely convinced from reading them I think that is the work of the Spirit who convicts us of sin and points us towards Jesus Christ our Lord...

Here is a shorter one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzIwwXkN8Pk

oops, I posted two links and that gets screened out. Let me post seperately

Bob, as I understand it, the cannon was primarily chosen because it matched the theology and not the other way around. Many seem to think that we all knew that certain books were gods word so they are the bible. But it is the opposite, the bible is chosen because it matched the theology that people believed in.

Here is a pretty good video about this subject.

http://www.dts.edu/media/play/jesus-canon-and-theology-darrell-l-bock-daniel-b-wallace-and-ben-witherington/

Hey Barry,
Really good questions and will not even pretend the know the answers to them...
It would be interesting though to know on what basis certain books were rejected or accepted...is simply a case of personal preference?? or something else??

I have a very unsatisfactory reason why I believe we have the whole canon...
If God exists and the gospel is way of bringing people to Himself and the words of scripture is how He has chosen to reveal Himself to us now...The I believe that He is faithful God who would (and has) preserved His Word for us today and through the different acts of man a Big God has been in the background making sure that His Word and His Gospel is preserved...I have faith that God is faithful to His people
See what i mean by unsatisfactory...

Bob,

You said:

Here is the big issue with arguing that scripture is not inerrant…You would have to ask which parts of scripture is “flawed” and must be take out or ignored…Then you have to ask how do we decide which parts are “flawed” and must be taken out…Then scripture is now under the direct editing of man to take out and put back in as he sees fit….You might be a great believer in the goodness of man but I have seen the selfishness and greed of man…it will all go downhill…Then what you have is no longer christianity but syncrestic mix of man’s ideologies

It is interesting to note that your logic here makes no reference to whether scripture is in fact inerrent. What you are arguing is that you do not like the consequences of the conclusion and make no attempt to argue whether the conclusion is true.

Are you really saying that it is better to believe that the bible is inerrent, even if it is not?

Thanks Phil :)

Bob,

Thanks for the thoughts. We will agree to disagree then! One point of clarification and agreement with you though! I meant to make a point about how one believes as a particular kind of Christian who fully supports the American Bill of Rights and the freedoms it guarantees. People need to follow what they think is right I'll agree. I agree that you should not condone things you think are wrong. But I think much more caution needs to be taken when religious sensibilities conflict with those of others. Voting against gay marriage would be an example where trying to convince someone of your point of view went into forcing a religious perspective (it seems to me anyway!).

One more thought about the inerrancy of Scripture. When you decide things with the whole of Scripture, how do you know that you have that "whole"? Catholics debated Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews quite intensely before accepting them. The Didache, 1 Clement, the Diatesseron and others were debated intensely before being rejected. Of course, you're not a Catholic so how do you know that they didn't have a poor approach to gathering and deciding what should be in the canon? (These guys, even back then, were praying to saints, claiming miracles from holy relics, not believing in "faith alone" and a host of other stuff.) The Apocrypha was accepted by many early Christians (including Augustine)-- others accepted some but not all of these books. (Augustine argues that praying to saints is fine because of a passage in 2 Maccabees which supports doing just that.)

The Gospel of Luke mentions in 1:1 that there were many other accounts out there. Luther called James an "epistle of straw" and considered throwing it out; other Lutherans (before modern biblical criticism) did so. Of course, some modern scholars have thought some books in the modern canon to be spurious, being written by someone else besides the person that tradition claimed. Some churches (like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) have books that others don't-- like the Didascalia and the Sinodos. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have slightly different lists in their OT books. (Orthodox being longer.) Most conservative Christians now regard the woman caught in adultery in John as a spurious text. Most agree that there are some bogus alternate endings in Mark. Most now see 1 John 5:7-8's "Johannine Comma" as a spurious Trinitarian gloss (see KJV vs. NIV).

So how do you know if you have the counsel of God plus some junk or the counsel of God missing a view chunks? How do you know if there are not some more significant problems with the extent of canon? Or if you should perhaps consider an idea of canon that is something other than inerrancy?

Bob,

I disagree with you. But I think you said what you wanted to say well.

Barry,

You are a better man than I.

Everyone, including our Christian brothers and sisters, needs to look up the MEDICAL reasons for the rise in homosexuality before they continue in their blind and counterproductive crusade against the gay community. Google "xenoestrogens, sexual orientation", "right hand finger length study, homosexuality", "prenatal hormones, homosexuality" and related searches.

Yes...there are MEDICAL reasons for homosexuality and they help explain why gay individuals often unequivocally state that they have felt the way they do for as long as they can remember. In some, it MAY BE a lifestyle choice. However, in others (as in most gays that I know), they have felt this way...even fought the compulsion to be this way...their entire life. They are as convinced of their sexual orientation as any heterosexual.

NOW: This is not to say that "marriage" cannot remain defined as a union between a man and a woman" nor does it mean that homosexuals should be leaders in the church nor does it even say that people cannot change their sexual orientation if motivated enough to do so (e.g. by fervent prayer and acceptance of Scripture) The latter IS happening.

BUT...the church is going to have to deal with the fact that homosexuality is NOT simply a matter of being "seduced by the dark side". There is overwhelming medical evidence that sexual orientation CAN be changed in utero. Homosexuality is now much more than the “simple” lifestyle choice that the uneducated individual thinks it is.