Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Welcome welcome welcome to the harvester podcast we're glad that you can join us today for
season two episode number seven and we are continuing our discussion about homosexuality
and uh...
in in the first session while summarize and just a moment but i'm brian and along with me
is
Steven Ford
Forest Antemesaris
George Beals.
And George Beals is our guest today in this episode as well, and he has had much uh
experience in debates and so forth with homosexuality.
Having a debate in 1994 at the University of Michigan and one in 2023 in St.
Petersburg, Florida.
And we're glad that he is with us today.
And today we're going look at some of the objections to what the Bible teaches on
homosexuality.
but before we get into that i want to just recap what we uh...
talked about in our last episode we looked at basically two arguments uh...
about homosexuality or against homosexuality from the bible one from the bible romans one
twenty six twenty seven and then we looked at a non-biblical argument when we look at
romans one twenty six and twenty seven we noticed that uh...
the language there's unqualified men with men or women likewise women etc
And so it's unqualified.
Also we notice some condemnatory language within those verses, such as vile passions.
We looked also at uh words such as lust, receiving in themselves the penalty of their
error, and things of that nature showing that the text itself condemns it just by the very
language.
And then also we notice that passion and lust
as well as the behavior is condemned and sometimes people will try to say well you know
the same-sex attraction is not sinful just to behavior but this passage says that both of
those things are condemned and then we looked at a non-biblical argument that is a just a
look at nature the design of the human anatomy in nature shows us male and female and that
there's a complementary anatomy
which indicates God's design and God's purpose.
And so anything that would go against that design and purpose, of course, would be sinful
as well.
And so now let us consider some possible objections that people will raise.
And we'll look at about five of them today as time permits.
And so George, lead us off in that discussion about the possible objections.
Thank you, Brian.
I just want to reiterate what we said in the previous session regarding the fact that God
loves everyone.
He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and that includes all
homosexuals, all heterosexuals, and everybody.
Furthermore, no sinful behavior can be the basis of identity or dignity.
What we want to do is conform our thinking and behavior to God's will.
And on this particular subject, have that clearly revealed in Romans 1, 26 and 27.
And also, as Brian summarized, there is a non-biblical aspect to that as well.
One can just examine the complementarity between the anatomies of the human male and the
human female, not
not the animals in the woods, but the human male and the human female, uh from that
determine the intent of God and anything that violates that is uh something that we need
to repent of.
Jesus said in Luke 13.3, we repent or perish.
And that is an act of love because we're trying to be heaven-bound and persuade others to
be heaven-bound as well.
So looking at some of the objections that we hear out there, first regarding so-called
homophobia.
uh This term isn't even correct.
Homophobia is a misnomer.
What is a true phobia?
I'll give you an example.
Phobia means a fear.
I worked with a man several years ago who said he has a phobia about spiders.
And I looked that up, it's acronophobia.
It's an intense fear of spiders.
He said if he were at a stop sign and a spider came down from a limb in front of his
windshield, he would get out of the vehicle and run.
Now with respect to the term homophobia, we can begin decades back with a 1972 publication
by psychotherapist George Weinberg reprinted in 1991.
It is titled Society and the Healthy Homosexual.
Weinberg is said to be the person who coined the term homophobia.
He contends in this book that this is a disease, the quote, disease called homophobia,
unquote.
But psychologist Anderson Rowan had it right.
He is concerned about the use of the term among his colleagues.
In the September 1994 issue of behavior therapy,
He refers to a computer search way back then that shows the increasing use of the term in
recent journals.
Homophobic is used so widely, Rowan explains, that it is even used in reference to those
who object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds.
But, he continues correctly, these do not show the diagnostic criteria of a phobia.
He puts it like this, quote,
Given the diagnostic criteria for simple phobia, a homophobic would be expected to a,
experience persistent fear of gay persons or homosexuality related situations.
B, experience an immediate anxiety response upon exposure to the stimuli.
C, avoid gay persons or related situations or endure such situations with intense anxiety.
D.
Experienced significant interference with his or her normal routine or with usual social
activities or relationships with others due to these fears and avoidant behaviors or
experienced marked distress about having the fear.
And E.
Must consider his or her fear to be excessive or unreasonable.
of quote.
Rowan explains that quote,
Opposition to a homosexual lifestyle as exhibited by many Christians is not a sign of
irrational fears, but is evidence of their understanding of God's moral standards for
humankind." Indeed, the lack of running in this debate or girding up our loins and getting
ready to run demonstrates
that homophobia is a misnomer.
We're engaged with these folks.
We want to be engaged with them.
As a matter of fact, it's oftentimes the case that they don't want to discuss it.
have a suspicion that because they don't want opposition demonstrated out there in the
front of the public, but we're willing and we believe able to look at these matters and
invite listeners to uh engage with us.
And we are here and ready to do that.
So the very term homophobia is a misnomer.
yes i think it kind of goes with our culture today of course even at that term was in then
a long time ago there's almost like an ad hominem thing against anybody who would have a
question to oppose uh...
based on the court you said because based upon them moral you know biblical morality uh...
and so just the word homophobes is kind of way to brush that off and kind of attack the
man so to speak but it's as as you say there's no basis for it at all uh...
because anybody who's that true phobia like with the example of spiders
They're not going to sit around and discuss with the spider.
They're going to get up and go.
I don't know they'd whack it dead or not.
anyway, like Garfield, know, the cartoon Garfield, he's always whacking spiders.
anyway, yeah, he may not have, he just had the annoyance maybe.
But, but yeah, so I, wrote a paper a long time ago called homophobia or homo harmartia.
And harmartia of course is a word for sin.
And I dealt with some of that stuff back then, even in the nineties.
But yeah, homophobia is just a
Just try to dismiss those that object to it.
Yeah, I was just gonna add you mentioned the kind of ad hominem attack and that's exactly
what it does it takes out of the realm of morality though Because it makes it more of a
thing.
Oh, you're afraid of this and I've even heard people making the other more What are you so
afraid of?
You know, why are you so angry?
What is it you have against them?
And it's not that we are afraid of them or we are disgusted at them It said we recognize a
behavior is sinful and we want to address it intellectually and so when they take it out
of a out of that realm
out of morality, out of an argumentation from the Scriptures, then they just make it, you
know, the fear.
It's a whole other discussion now.
And now you have to go chase down that rabbit and it takes you away from the authority of
the Scriptures.
And I think that is kind of a, I guess I'll say a ploy or a tactic to kind of change the
grounds upon which you're arguing.
good.
Yeah, I would say it's not just a misnomer.
It's like a pejorative term.
You know, it's like an insult.
And now we've got like transphobia on top of that and all that kind of stuff, you know,
but if you were to frame it, you know, choose another moral topic, and use different
words, if you were to show what you know, if you were to explain what they're saying, or
those who use this term, usually are saying is essentially, if you think my behavior is
morally wrong, then you must be mentally unwell.
Right?
So imagine if you were to say, if you were to correct me on some immoral behavior I had
and said, well, you're just afraid of, you know, or you're just mentally just so really
like you were saying, it takes it out of the moral sphere.
And it kind of puts the onus back on you.
I'm not the one with the problem.
You're the one with the problem.
You're the homophobe.
Right.
I'm just living my life or whatever it may be.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, but it's kind of more like a tactic.
A rhetorical tactic than anything.
This is reminded of Isaiah 520, woe to those who call evil good and evil and good evil.
It's a switch.
Yeah.
So I guess you could then put that phobia on the end of anything.
Could you be a uh robber phobia?
for listening.
Why are you locking your doors?
You're robberphobia?
you're robber-phobe.
And you know, I kind of say that tongue-in-cheek ingest.
I don't necessarily mean to mock any person more than we're demonstrating that the term is
relatively futile and it loses its meaning when you actually say, okay, let's break down
the word.
know, like Brother George started with, okay, if you're talking about homo and then
phobia, what is a phobia?
And you just say, let's just look at the intellectual properties of the terminology.
it loses it and so if you start to just attach it to anything that you uh have opposition
against then it just kind of sounds odd.
know, again, know, robber phobia or any other sort of phobia.
attack?
Yes.
Yeah.
So that was uh an objection that I thought we would bring up and discuss that.
We're also, we're oftentimes labeled, if you oppose homosexuality, oh you're labeled with
such terms and this is a misnomer from the very start.
Well here's a second objection that we sometimes hear.
What about the standards are changing argument?
Or the you should become modern argument?
Well, after a segment of society get used to an era, what Ralph Waldo Emerson observed is
apropos, quote, nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing, unquote.
And I think it was David Hume who said people turn to logic until logic turns on them.
So take the proposition the Bible teaches that all homosexuality is sin.
Now,
The truth or falsity of this or any other statement is not determined by culture or by the
age of the ones who affirm or deny it or by the fact that I have white hair and another
has blondish hair or any other irrelevance.
The truth seeker rises above all of this.
What does determine the truth or falsity of this statement?
The statement again being that all homosexual behavior is sinful.
God.
And where do we find his direction on this?
What is written in his word?
Now, how Jesus responded, notice how Jesus responded when dealing with a particular issue.
Matthew 4 for example, this reads, he answered and said, it is written, man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
It is written is where moral determination is found.
The kind of the modern spin on things can take you.
way, way, on the left field.
That's why you mentioned Matthew 4-4, but later on in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus would
also say, hey listen, you have heard these things, but I say unto you, so it's always a
standard of God's Word, regardless of what men have said.
I'm also kind of reminded of Acts 17 where the Athenians were just kind of standing around
waiting to hear something new.
That was their desire.
What's the new wave of information coming in?
And that's kind of how people are today.
What's new?
What's modern?
And whatever is
modern new and accepted by the general masses that makes it right.
It may be uh common, but commonality doesn't make it morally right.
And I think that's where people are making the mistake.
Further the Bible anticipates something in here wouldn't we agree and that is to see the
truth We first have to have a love for his truth We have to want his truth and not add to
what take away from it according to our own wishes or our sexual desires uh Second
Thessalonians 2 10 to 12 is right along these lines as God's uh Through Jeremiah put it
also it is not
in man who walks to direct his own steps, says Jeremiah 1023.
And let us heed this principle from Jeremiah 616.
Thus says the Lord, stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths where the good
way is, and walk in it.
Then you will find rest for your souls, unquote.
So morality is determined by God and his word, not by our feelings,
not by groupthink, not by a lopsided redefinition of biblical love, and not by selected
scripture or resting of scripture to the denial of other scriptures.
Speaking the truth in love, Galatians 416, let's encourage all of us to heed the biblical
warnings, love the truth, and walk in the old paths of the Bible.
Yeah, that's a verse I was thinking of the one from Jeremiah because I think kind of
embedded in that idea is the ah The pre-supposition if you will that society is always
progressing Right and whatever the whatever the issue du jour is wherever the majority of
cultures on it that has to be right because we're always going forward we're always
progressing things are always getting better we're already you know and that
We know as Christians, hopefully, you know, know everybody in this room does, but we know
that society gets better not by, you know, manmade quote unquote, moralistic, idealistic
progress.
But really what we need not necessarily is not necessarily progress.
What we need is restoration.
You know, what does God say?
Let's get back to what God says and do what God says.
And that's how things get better, not by, well, this is accepted now.
Let's just go.
Let's just go with it.
You know,
And quote unquote standards might change, but the standard doesn't change.
I think that's what's missed by a lot of people, but you could plug in any, you know,
moral horror and say, okay, so if this is what people today are doing, then it's okay.
I think most people would say, no, that wouldn't just make it okay.
Well, the same applies to homosexuality.
Yeah, I think you have a good point there about, I was thinking when you were saying that
in the beginning of that, you know, there was a time when just divorce and remarriage was,
you know, in the closet.
You didn't come out and all that.
And I've heard several, and I think I agree with them, that once you allow divorce and
remarriage in a culture for any reason, then that puts a foot in the door that anything
goes after that.
and so it's no surprise then that eventually led to you know same-sex marriage and all
that kind of stuff because we've accepted the one with no grounds from scripture you know
we've gotten away from god god's word on that we accept the one and what you accept the
one there's nothing stopping you from everything and i've mentioned probably in my
lifetime that well maybe not with this current government but i still say within my
lifetime we'll see the endorsement of people marrying animals in the woods okay uh...
but but we can't we can't go there because god's word that's the standard and and that
doesn't change god's word
It's always the same.
Romans 1 shows it, excuse me, uh departure from God, then there's a departure from all
morality.
The same thing when uh in Matthew 19, know, hey, Moses allowed us to have this divorce.
Well, it's because the hardness of your hearts.
there's, so when the heart turns away from God, there is no limit to which people will
sink into depravity.
there'll be all sorts of things on the table.
And like you mentioned, it'll be a short time before you have people with animals
accepted, you'll have people with little children accepted, you have people doing all
sorts of things and it will become more more common and people will think that brings
along its morality.
ah But that will never change.
Morality will never change, though the times do change.
Would you say that the viewpoint of biological evolution, the idea that things progress
biologically, get better and better and better, which by the way is the opposite direction
that we have in Genesis.
In Genesis we have perfection and then it went downhill, whereas macroevolution starts
with, oh is an uphill uh claim.
and that the idea of macroevolution being transferred into societal behavior and therefore
we're going to get better and better and better.
We're learning more and more and more how to be more and more moral or right.
Would you think that there may be a connection there between the biological thinking and
then transferring that into social behavior?
Yes, absolutely.
Yeah, I think so.
You know, and it's almost like an enlightenment, you know, where we've, we've thrown off
the shackles of God's word that kept us in the quote unquote dark ages.
And now we're liberated for true progress, which looks like, you know, men becoming women,
women becoming becoming men not being able to define what a woman is men with men, etc,
etc.
And now that we're not shackled by those old restraints.
the older Eric.
Yeah, now we can really go forward.
We've got greater wisdom now.
Exactly.
And the they would use for that as per a few of our episodes ago is authenticity.
We are going against the status quo because it is evil and oppressive and so we're gonna
throw it all out.
And there are some churches that have in their theology the idea of listening to what the
community has to say.
And as the community is learning, then we're going to change church doctrine accordingly
and thereby make progress.
Another thing to observe here is back in the uh late 19th century, we do have evidence of
this uh enlightenment idea actually begins even earlier with.
and so forth, Immanuel Kant.
And then as time progresses into the 19th century, we notice that this took on steam, but
then people gave it up after World War I, and then World War II and the atrocities.
And so then the claim that we're getting better and better was contradicted by World War
I, World War II.
So again, it's not a matter of what's relative to the
to the current thinking, but rather the absolute objectivity of the Bible in God's word.
That's what determines what's right and wrong.
So there is a third objection that comes up, and I formulated it something like this.
The if in the body, then moral argument.
Some suggest if homosexuality is physically based, that is ingrained in the body by nature
or nurture,
then homosexual behavior is moral.
And a close examination of this argument shows that it is not sound.
Put into precise logical form, the argument proceeds along these lines.
Premise number one, all human behavior is traceable to a physical characteristic in the
body that is, I mean, say it again, all human behavior that is traceable to a physical
characteristic in the body is moral.
Premise number two,
Homosexual behavior is human behavior that is traceable to a physical characteristic in
the body.
Conclusion, therefore, homosexual behavior is moral.
But in order for the arguments conclusion, statement three, to follow, both statements one
and two must be true.
The discussion often focuses on two, which is homosexual behavior is human behavior that
is traceable to a physical characteristic in the body.
Discussion often focuses on that rather than on statement one, but statement one is false.
Therefore, if two were shown to be true, and I am not suggesting that it has been, the
conclusion still would not follow.
Statement one is false because there are at least some behaviors that may be traceable to
the body that are not moral.
For example, if drunkenness, if...
drunkenness in some people can be traced to an alcoholic tendency in their body.
It does not fall from this that drunkenness is moral.
First Corinthians 6, 9 to 10.
At least one thing that would fall from this is that those who had with such a tendency
toward alcoholism would need to work harder to avoid the sin of drunkenness.
Also take the case of a husband whose wife has an illness and injury is in a coma or by
choice
prevents the husband from having sexual activity with her.
If the husband's heterosexual desires are rooted in his body, it does not follow that sex
with another woman in the meantime is moral.
Whether or not a physical tendency exists in the body does not decide the morality of the
corresponding behavior.
What does determine the morality of human behavior, we ask?
God.
And where do we find God's direction?
In His Word.
But not all accept this, somebody says.
There still is sufficient evidence that it is of God.
For example, consider the unity of the Bible.
We are not claiming that everybody follows the teachings of God.
We are claiming that everybody should follow the teachings of God.
And as a matter of fact, that is what makes all of us sinners.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
And what standard did we
violate in order to become the sinners that we are, the Word of God.
And therefore, and the Bible does give us a remedy to that, namely to hear the gospel, to
believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be, to repent of sins, to confess this belief and
then be immersed in water for the purpose of God's washing away sins, and then remain
faithful.
Yep, and as you were talking about that, thought about...
because yeah, you're right, because when you gave that argument, I thought, well, there's
something wrong with that first premise, because that's not true.
And then I thought of 1 Corinthians 6 verses 19 and 20, where it says, are bought with the
price, and therefore glorify God in your body.
And he was just talking about fornication in the previous verses, and so...
there is something we can do to dishonor God in our body.
And so that fact alone would take away from that first premise right there, that there are
some things that we use our body for that are a dishonor to God.
And so, God wants us to glorify Him in our bodies.
And so it's possible for us to glorify Him in our bodies, but it's saying that, you know,
there is such thing as dishonoring God in your bodies.
And so that follows that it's not everything we do
that can be traced back to our bodies is good.
That's just false all the way.
Yeah, and even in that same context, 1 Corinthians 6 verse 13, now the body is not for
sexual immorality, but for the Lord.
Amen.
And the Lord is for the body, you know, so the purpose of your body isn't just to chase
whatever desire that may come up, you know, the purpose is devotion to God.
And I think that all of us, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, all of us have, you know,
passions and desires and lusts, etc.
that God expects us to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus, you know,
and there's all of us have things that we do need to deny and say no to in our
faithfulness to the Lord.
And I think that idea of just, you know, if it's in your body, then it's right.
Just totally takes like where's the moral struggle whenever is there a moral struggle or
whenever is there improvement or whenever is there moral?
action progress like true moral progress right because if we all just do whatever feels
right or whatever desire comes out of our body I that's just madness
All right.
And then we, let me get to a fourth objection.
And then I have one more after this.
The fourth is something like this, but love makes it moral.
Well, but love makes it moral argument.
So when put into precise logical form, the error in reasoning becomes plain here.
Premise one, all sexual activity that expresses love is moral.
Premise two, some homosexual behavior is sexual activity that expresses love.
Conclusion therefore some homosexual behavior is moral but here of course premise one is
false Premise one again all sexual activity that expresses love is moral that of course
does not work uh it would mean that some adultery for example is is moral and that of
course violates the will of God and then fifthly and finally the diversity makes it moral
argument quote
Homosexuals add diversity to our community.
So we should welcome and approve of the behavior." But diversity does not decide the moral
question.
Thieves and adulterers add diversity.
In precise logical form, this argument proceeds like this.
Premise number one, some things add diversity to the community are moral.
Premise two, some homosexual behavior is a thing
that adds diversity to the community conclusion therefore some homosexual behavior is is
moral.
Well here the argument form is invalid and so then the conclusion does not follow even if
premises one and two were true.
One way of proving that an argument form is invalid is to show that the argument form
allows a false conclusion.
Notice some green things are pairs
Some apples are green things and so then some apples are pears.
So on all moral matters the question is what does God teach about it?
And God teaches that all homosexual behavior is sin and as has been shown ah from the
Bible and from the argument from uh God's general revelation.
And furthermore the picture is not ending there rather we have uh
more in the narrative and that is that God loves everybody.
We're all made in the image of God.
God so loved the world that he sent his son into the world.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
The thing to do is not to encourage sin.
That does a great disservice to the homosexual community.
Rather, let's all conform to the word of God, repent or perish as Jesus said.
yes in the great commission uh...
make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the father son the holy spirit
teaching them to observe whatsoever i've commanded you and low on with you always even to
the end of the age and george i think mentioned that earlier in this podcast this episode
that god loves everybody and force mention to heterosexual homosexual whatever and he
wants every single one of us
be forgiven of our sins and be saved.
so it's not like homosexuality is the unforgivable sin or anything like that, but uh as
long as we repent, God is there with open arms, willing to forgive us.
And so we want to make sure that we point that out to invite people to come to God no
matter what their sin, and that God can take care of it and forgive it.
I would just add to that that I've known several people and had very, very deep
conversations with various people who uh would label themselves as homosexuals.
many of them are, they are very well invested emotionally in their lifestyle.
And they would use terminology like love.
I love this person.
This feels natural.
This feels good.
And I would never,
you know, argue with them about what they feel.
I don't know what they feel, so I couldn't argue to say they do or don't feel a thing.
But I would argue to say that our emotions don't dictate morality in any kind of way.
The way I feel about a thing is nothing more than the way I feel about a thing.
That's all it is.
If I feel very strongly about something, that's just my subjective response to it.
That's nothing to do it's right or wrong.
If I love a particular thing, I can't argue, well, this has to be right.
Why?
Because my feelings are so strong.
ah I don't think any person would argue that in any other realm.
I could say, you know, man, that George has a really nice watch and I love watches.
I feel so strongly that it would look much better on me than he, because, you know, I like
that color better.
matches my suit better and you know I think I get more compliments I'm very strongly
committed to that I love that watch and so therefore I should have that watch you know
that's not a moral you know position to take it's not even a logical position to take so
the the emotions that we have and this is not to slight anybody but to just hopefully
bring light to those who may be under a delusion that your feelings do make right uh
feelings
can often mislead us.
One of examples I like to turn to in the scriptures is Israel is told that his son is dead
and emotionally he has a response.
He and his entire family mourn because he's under the impression that my son is lost.
If you had asked him at that moment what are you upset about emotionally, he would say, my
son is deceased, he was ravaged by an animal and all these things.
But his emotions were misguided.
so his emotions didn't make a thing correct or right.
And so our emotions can very often mislead us, which is why we have to use emotion and
intellect when we're trying to make decisions.
that a great insight that we can derive from the scriptures as an example of the all
sufficiency of the Bible as we examine it and compare it with life activities.
Well, we appreciate your being with us this episode and next episode we're going to talk
about cultural ideas, what's happening in our culture in relation to homosexuality.
So we appreciate your being with us and please check out our website www.fsop.net and if
you have any comments or questions or follow-up please let us know and we'd be happy to
study more with you.
But we're glad that you joined us and we pray that you have a great rest of the day.