A good teaching from John Corvino. More here: http://www.youtube.com/user/johncorvino?feature=watch
Recent Comments
Kasia on Richard Rohr on Homosexuality… Ben Dubow on In Defense of Steven Furtick a… cathy on In Defense of Steven Furtick a… Pete on Richard Rohr on Homosexuality… Todd Ferrell on What Would You Do?
FAITH AUTOPSY 
Bruce
April 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm
I’m in favor of being equal about our usage of scripture in each of the topics mentioned… but slavery and divorce were both permitted under the law… and even “allowed” in the NT under certain circumstances, though the goal was to eradicate them through love. Homosexuality has no such precedent.
Jesus said it plainly… marriage is when God joins a male and female together and makes them one flesh. (Matt 19) Any sexual activity other than that is considered sinful… period.
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Heb 13:4
Fornication—any sexual activity outside the marriage covenant
Adultery—any sexual activity in addition to the marriage covenant
It is not that all of us stumble in many ways and there is grace and mercy under the blood for us, but to make homosexual union a God blessed sacrament is to approve that which is sinful, which can not be approved.
LikeLike
Ben Dubow
April 17, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Bruce, that is not what Matthew 19 says. At least be honest in your reading of the passage.
Jesus is asked whether it is lawful for a man to divorce a woman. He answers that question, citing Genesis. This is a proper answer to the question — but it is not a definition of marriage nor a universal command from Jesus about the limits of marriage. This form is very rabbinical. A question is posed, the rabbi answers by citing a passage, etc etc.
This is not Jesus saying: “this is what marriage is”.
I don’t doubt that one can argue by implication that this passage suggests a definition of marriage… but that is an interpretive jump (even if a good one), not Jesus saying “plainly” what the definition of marriage is.
The truth is that the “institution of marriage” has changed throughout history (and throughout the Bible — just as slavery has changed, divorce, etc.
LikeLike
Bruce
April 17, 2013 at 5:13 pm
No… that IS the origional deffinition of marriage… and yes it has changed, hence, that is why Jesus went back to the beginning… correcting their error with “but it has not been so (the way they were thinking) since the beginning”. This is just really hard to refute from either scripture or history… Paul reaffirming the same thing. Even the mystery of marrige being symbolic of Christ and the Church involves a MAN being joined to a WOMAN.. (Eph 5). in every case it is so.
It is just so hard to try to justify same sex unions using the scripture… you just have to go somewhere else to get your reason. (that is the main reason for my contest… it is the twisting of God’s explicit deffinition and purpose for marriage.)
Go ahead and use all of the secular references you want, but scripture must be modified to make the case.
LikeLike
Ben Dubow
April 17, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Bruce, it is simply not that case that “in every case it is so”. We see polygamy on scripture, harems, women treated as property, etc. At least be honest about that.
The real issue you and I have is hermeneutics.
But, for the sake of argument, assume a literal reading of Genesis. In that reading, there is no such thing as premarital sex as sexual union is the definer of marital union. Of course, that puts you in the awkward position of believing that all people who have had sex together are, by Biblical definition, married. Of course, this will be a shock to many teenagers, etc, and it means the functional divorce rate among Christians is very high.
I’m not sure what secular references you think I am referring to…
And, to be clear, my argument has never been that the Bible affirms explicitly same-sex committed relationships, but only that the Bible does not prohibit such relationships.
LikeLike
Bruce
April 17, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Yes, but the errors do not reflect God’s intent…. and yes, even if you join yourself to a prostitute, you become one flesh with them… but a marriage it does not make. God set these parameters for our own good, and it is folly to exceed them. There are examples of marriage happening through sexual union, (as Issac), but that was also followed by the walking in covenant. (Teenagers would be well warned to abstain… not popular, but it is wisdom.)
Not trying to argue here and go around and around again…. the secular refference was in reply to the video, where he was trying to use scripture to refute opposition, and I am saying that doing that is not tenable, so to make his case one would have to go somewhere else to do so, hence secular sources.
LikeLike
Ben Dubow
April 17, 2013 at 6:07 pm
No need to argue… again, I am okay with agreeing to disagree… I affirm a generous orthodoxy and a graceful God!
LikeLike