Re-Examining Romans 1:18-32

[Leah]

Ok, I've studied these scriptures and have came to this conclusion. I may use alot of repetition, so bear with me.

In Romans 1:27, the error is not homosexuality. The error is not giving thanks to God or acknowledging and honoring Him as God. Therefore, verses 2 and 26 says that He (God) will give one over to the lusts of the heart to impuritya nd degrading passions, that the body may be dishonored. Now, though it does, indeed, say that homosexuality is unnatural (which says to me that one is not born gay), that is not the point of Romans 1:18-32. The reason why all that sin that is described in those verses is because one does not give God thanks, acknowledge or honor Him at all.

When one leaves God out of his/her life and suppress the truth in all kinds of unrighteousness (in other words, leading a ragedy life by submitting to the lusts and desires of the flesh), all kinds of sin reigns over that person. And God will not not stick around and bless any of that anyhow just because one thinks He's such a loving God.

So, not acknowleding, thanking, or honoring God is the error that leads to all kinds of sin. And guess what, all the sin that's in the world today very clearly proves the reality of Romans 1:18-32.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Imana,

Re-Examining Romans 1:18-32

Firstly I would like to aks you whether you have re-examined any other passages? If not what is your motive to re-examine this one?

In Romans 1:27, the error is not homosexuality.

So you seem to have re-examined the passage with a specific agenda to condone same-sex sex.

The error is not giving thanks to God or acknowledging and honoring Him as God.

So are greed and malice acceptable as they along with men commiting indecent acts with other men instead of women are condemned as well?
No Romans 1 is turning away from God and being given over to errors such as same-sex sex idolatry, greed malice etc. You cant say verse 1:27 isn’t the error of same-sex sex as it says it is.
The encouarging part is that Romans 1 doesnt just challenge believers who have homosexual attarction but heterosexuals as well, and all believers.

 

[OllieFranz]

Talk about knee-jerk reactions.

If you have read Imana's many other posts, you will know that she believes homosexual acts are a sin. But in the specific case of Romans, the phrase "God gave them over" jumps out at her. She is saying that her reading of the passage tells her that the "degrading passions" are not a separate defiance of God's law, but a consequence of rejecting God as God. But giving in to those "degrading passions" would still be a separate sin.

I don't agree with all of her position, but I do read all posts here with an eye to understanding why the poster believes the way he or she does.

Dear Imana,

Re-Examining Romans 1:18-32

Firstly I would like to aks you whether you have re-examined any other passages? If not what is your motive to re-examine this one?

So you seem to have re-examined the passage with a specific agenda to condone same-sex sex.
So are greed and malice acceptable as they along with men commiting indecent acts with other men instead of women are condemned as well?
No Romans 1 is turning away from God and being given over to errors such as same-sex sex idolatry, greed malice etc. You cant say verse 1:27 isn’t the error of same-sex sex as it says it is.
The encouarging part is that Romans 1 doesnt just challenge believers who have homosexual attarction but heterosexuals as well, and all believers.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear OllieFranz,
Yes I agree with you on this occasion it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction., and Imana might be rightly upset with the criticism. However I think I have agreed with Imana in principle just disagreeing with her comment about 1:27, whilst Romans 1 isnt about homosexuality, 1:27 is about the error of same-sex sex as one example of turning away from God.
You say

I don't agree with all of her position

Which aspects of her position?

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear OllieFranz,
Yes I agree with you on this occasion it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction., and Imana might be rightly upset with the criticism. However I think I have agreed with Imana in principle just disagreeing with her comment about 1:27, whilst Romans 1 isnt about homosexuality, 1:27 is about the error of same-sex sex as one example of turning away from God.
You say

I don't agree with all of her position

Which aspects of her position?

My two main disagreements are in her understanding of the phrase "against nature," and what is the focus of the sin described in verses 26-27.

"Against nature" (para physin) and its opposite "according to nature" (kata physin) do not appear in the Hebrew scriptures or in any Jewish literature. They are Greek concepts. Although at the time the later epistles were written the phrases were begining to aquire meanings similar to the way we understand the phrase, originally the phrases were ethical proscriptions. To call something "against nature" meant that it was "that which ought not be done." It was the closest equivalent in pre-Christian Greek to calling it sin.

So any arguments from science are superfluous. The verse simply calls the action a sin, something which ought not be done. There is no "naturalistic" argument that can change that fact.

But the "vile affections" and "burning in lust" that is the degrading passions God gives them over to is not confined to same-sex relations. Although that is the example used, the original source of the example makes it clear that the "slavery to passion" is not confined to same-sex lusts, but to any lusts that seek out personal gratification without consideration for the other person as anything other than a warm body to be used.

Likewise Paul points out the nature of the degrading passion by highlighting the five aspects of impersonal erotic passion: epimythia (the lusts of their own hearts), pathos (vile affections), ekkaio, orexis (burning with lust), and (their error).


So, the "uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts" to which God gives up the hardened sinner are not confined to homosexual attractions but all forms of sexual gratification withuot love or consideration of the other person.

 

[Leah]

I'm not upset by any kind of criticism from anyone in this entire forum. Why should I be?

The OP was not targeted at homosexuality. It was my sincere effort to actually understand what Romans 1:18-32 is really saying, being the fact that many christians use them in anti-homosexual discussions. And no, I'm not condoning same-sex sex so don't even go there.

If you really want to understand why I do what I do, read Matthew 5:6.

 

[Polycarp1]

I like Imana's perception on this. I'd like to work with it and look at the surrounding context. First, in the verses in question, we're given a portrait of the evil behavior of sinners who have turned their back on God. It's not just that they're burning with same-sex lust; they are backbiters, slanderers, filled with covetousness, boasters, disobedient to parents, proud, and a host of other things. This does not describe the typical gay person of today, even the stereotype. But Paul must have had a point in writing that indictment of character.

We find that by looking at the big picture -- what he wrote and who his intended audience is. Romans is different from nearly every other letter in being a 15-chapter-long dissertation of Paul's theology (chapter 16 being the usual greetings, benediction, and such with which he typically closes a letter). And it's written to the fledgling church at Rome.

The overall structure is worth looking at: God's natural law is ascertainable from nature itself (1st half of 1st chapter. Those who turn from it become mired in moral turpitude (2nd half). But everybody sins; everyone is subject to the same indictment as those he's painted as so despicable. The Law cannot save us. But Jesus Christ can. And He sends the Holy Spirit to strengthen and guide us. The purpose of the Law to act as 'pedagogue', the slave sent to guard the heir as a child, and to demonstrate to the Jews that one cannot save oneself; it must be God wo does it. Therefore, we should live lives shaped by the Spirit in renewal of mind, not condemning one another but helping build one another up.

For his example of the ultimate in moral turpitude, Paul paints a picture of the dissipated Roman elite that matches contemporary non-Christian depictions of their decadence. That is what Romans 1:18-32 is intended to portray -- and then he goes on immediately to say that his readers also are condemned by the same judgment, since they too have fallen short of God's commandments, have been sinners just as evil in His eyes -- but that, as a God of justice and mercy, He Himself has acted to save them.

You can prove anything by prooftexting out of context. ("The Bible says 'there is no god'; see Psalm 14:1b. In context, of course, that's what the fool says in his heart.) That's why it is so vitally important to 'rightly divide' Scripture, with an eye to context, to culture and custom of writer and intended audience, to try to determine what the writer was saying and how it applies to us today.

 

[OllieFranz]

I like Imana's perception on this. I'd like to work with it and look at the surrounding context. First, in the verses in question, we're given a portrait of the evil behavior of sinners who have turned their back on God. It's not just that they're burning with same-sex lust; they are backbiters, slanderers, filled with covetousness, boasters, disobedient to parents, proud, and a host of other things. This does not describe the typical gay person of today, even the stereotype. But Paul must have had a point in writing that indictment of character.

We find that by looking at the big picture -- what he wrote and who his intended audience is. Romans is different from nearly every other letter in being a 15-chapter-long dissertation of Paul's theology (chapter 16 being the usual greetings, benediction, and such with which he typically closes a letter). And it's written to the fledgling church at Rome.

The overall structure is worth looking at: God's natural law is ascertainable from nature itself (1st half of 1st chapter. Those who turn from it become mired in moral turpitude (2nd half). But everybody sins; everyone is subject to the same indictment as those he's painted as so despicable. The Law cannot save us. But Jesus Christ can. And He sends the Holy Spirit to strengthen and guide us. The purpose of the Law to act as 'pedagogue', the slave sent to guard the heir as a child, and to demonstrate to the Jews that one cannot save oneself; it must be God wo does it. Therefore, we should live lives shaped by the Spirit in renewal of mind, not condemning one another but helping build one another up.

For his example of the ultimate in moral turpitude, Paul paints a picture of the dissipated Roman elite that matches contemporary non-Christian depictions of their decadence. That is what Romans 1:18-32 is intended to portray -- and then he goes on immediately to say that his readers also are condemned by the same judgment, since they too have fallen short of God's commandments, have been sinners just as evil in His eyes -- but that, as a God of justice and mercy, He Himself has acted to save them.

You can prove anything by prooftexting out of context. ("The Bible says 'there is no god'; see Psalm 14:1b. In context, of course, that's what the fool says in his heart.) That's why it is so vitally important to 'rightly divide' Scripture, with an eye to context, to culture and custom of writer and intended audience, to try to determine what the writer was saying and how it applies to us today.

What he said.

Seriously, though, I always learn something useful from one of Polycarp's posts. Thank you.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear OllieFranz,

My two main disagreements are in her understanding of the phrase "against nature," and what is the focus of the sin described in verses 26-27.

Ah but then for you Romans 1 is about homosexuality.
The second part of Romans 1 is about the sin resulting from turning away form God, be it greed, same-sex sex, malice, idolatry etc. Your focus of attention on Romans 1 seems to be disputing a couple of the verses which are about the same-sex sex sin.

Regarding your particular points, I basically agree, but

are not confined to homosexual attractions but all forms of sexual gratification withuot love or consideration of the other person..

Not quite homosexual attractions, committing indecent same-sex acts is described as a sin. And yes the sin is not just confined to same-sex acts, but general fornication, ‘porneia’, is also mentioned.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Polycarp1,

I like Imana's perception on this. I'd like to work with it and look at the surrounding context. First, in the verses in question, we're given a portrait of the evil behavior of sinners who have turned their back on God. It's not just that they're burning with same-sex lust; they are backbiters, slanderers, filled with covetousness, boasters, disobedient to parents, proud, and a host of other things.

That’s true.

This does not describe the typical gay person of today, even the stereotype. But Paul must have had a point in writing that indictment of character.

Paul isn’t writing to gay people or straight people, he is writing to Christian believers and there is no specific mention of anyone’s sexuality; except perhaps homosexuals being those who turn away from proper relationships.

As to the nature of Romans, yes a lot of what you write is evidently the case.! As to the specific issue of same-sex sex, the church at the time was mainly gentile, the Jewish believers having been persecuted, so teaching on idolatry was more appropriate perhaps. In the context one must also note that sexual immorality, that the Jewish believers would understand obviously wasn’t as clear to the gentiles, and with specific reference to same-sex sex, it is to the churches in Greek and Roman cultural strongholds where same-sex is rife that Paul writes, hence the condemnations and warning for Rome and Corinth and Ephasus.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Ok, I've studied these scriptures and have came to this conclusion. I may use alot of repetition, so bear with me.

In Romans 1:27, the error is not homosexuality. The error is not giving thanks to God or acknowledging and honoring Him as God. Therefore, verses 2 and 26 says that He (God) will give one over to the lusts of the heart to impuritya nd degrading passions, that the body may be dishonored. Now, though it does, indeed, say that homosexuality is unnatural (which says to me that one is not born gay), that is not the point of Romans 1:18-32. The reason why all that sin that is described in those verses is because one does not give God thanks, acknowledge or honor Him at all.

When one leaves God out of his/her life and suppress the truth in all kinds of unrighteousness (in other words, leading a ragedy life by submitting to the lusts and desires of the flesh), all kinds of sin reigns over that person. And God will not not stick around and bless any of that anyhow just because one thinks He's such a loving God.

So, not acknowleding, thanking, or honoring God is the error that leads to all kinds of sin. And guess what, all the sin that's in the world today very clearly proves the reality of Romans 1:18-32.

I agree. I wrote a similar post like this ( i think in a thread reply) a while back. I basically broke down the passages into a cause and effect sequence.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear OllieFranz,
Ah but then for you Romans 1 is about homosexuality.
The second part of Romans 1 is about the sin resulting from turning away form God, be it greed, same-sex sex, malice, idolatry etc. Your focus of attention on Romans 1 seems to be disputing a couple of the verses which are about the same-sex sex sin.

No, it is not about homosexuality at all, except for the fact that in the example Paul is recalling to the minds of his readers (and which did not originate with him), the partners happen to be same-sex

Regarding your particular points, I basically agree, but

Not quite homosexual attractions, committing indecent same-sex acts is described as a sin. And yes the sin is not just confined to same-sex acts, but general fornication, ‘porneia’, is also mentioned.

Yes, general fornication is mentioned separately in the list in verses 29-31, because the sin of verses 26-27 is not just general fornication.

Verses 26-27 are about sex for sex's sake; merely a satisfaction of one's lust without regard any regard for one's partner, except as a body to be used. The sin is rooted partly the impersonality and casualness, but mostly in the mindset which allows the sinner to be trapped in his (or her) own disregard until it becomes an addiction,.

Like any addiction, the addict becomes a prisoner in his (or her) own sin, as the addiction grows to consume more and more of his (or her) life and provides less and less pleasure. This is the manner in which "God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." It is also the working out of the "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz,

No, it is not about homosexuality at all, except for the fact that in the example Paul is recalling to the minds of his readers (and which did not originate with him), the partners happen to be same-sex

What do you mean ‘no’? Sorry but I have already agreed that Romans 1 is not about homosexuality, but includes same-sex sex condemnation.

Yes, general fornication is mentioned separately in the list in verses 29-31, because the sin of verses 26-27 is not just general fornication.

Again that’s basically what I wrote.

Verses 26-27 are about sex for sex's sake; merely a satisfaction of one's lust without regard any regard for one's partner, except as a body to be used. The sin is rooted partly the impersonality and casualness, but mostly in the mindset which allows the sinner to be trapped in his (or her) own disregard until it becomes an addiction,.

That’s not the issue, one could argue whether that is the case and it would be in addition to what those verses actually say, which is that men committing sexual acts with men instead of with women is error. Until you can accept what the verses actually say and mean the rest is a secondary discussion.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear Olliefranz,
What do you mean ‘no’? Sorry but I have already agreed that Romans 1 is not about homosexuality, but includes same-sex sex condemnation.

The "No" was not to your statement that Romans 1 is not about homosexuality, but to what I read as your assumption that I thought it was. If I misread that sentence, I apologize.

Again that’s basically what I wrote.

Which is why I began that sentence with "Yes."

But while we both agree that verses 26-27 is about a sin different from general fornication, we disagree on what that sin is. Which is why my post did not end with that sentence.

That’s not the issue, one could argue whether that is the case and it would be in addition to what those verses actually say, which is that men committing sexual acts with men instead of with women is error. Until you can accept what the verses actually say and mean the rest is a secondary discussion.

I agree that as long as we disagree with which aspect of the sin is the focus of the verse and which is additional to that focus, we cannot make much progress.

In this post in the "Homosexual Lifestyle?" thread, I give most of my reasons why I believe that the primary focus is the mindset of hedonism which leads to addiction.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz,
No not quite. porneia or fornication/sexual immorality is described in Matthew 19 as breaking the faithful man/woman marriage which is God's purpose for man and woman. Therefore same-sex activity as in verses 26-27 is a specific example of fornication, not different.

I agree that as long as we disagree with which aspect of the sin is the focus of the verse and which is additional to that focus, we cannot make much progress.

No, your comment made an assumption which is not only an assumption but untenable according to what is previously written in Romans 1.

Verses 26-27 are about sex for sex's sake; merely a satisfaction of one's lust without regard any regard for one's partner, except as a body to be used. The sin is rooted partly the impersonality and casualness, but mostly in the mindset which allows the sinner to be trapped in his (or her) own disregard until it becomes an addiction,.

The sin of men with men instead of with women is a result of turning away from God's truth. There is not even an implication of it being anything to do with regard to the other, if they have lusts ofr one another they do have regard for one another, sexual regard.