I am curious about the absence of inspiration in these arguments. Even if the authors could not conceive of some of these specific sins, surely the Holy Spirit as part of the God head would know. Since all scripture is God-breathed 2 Tim 3:16, and the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit 2 Pet 1:21, the knowingly prohibits these forms of sexual immorality and upholds the traditional biblical view of marriage between one man and one woman.
Yes, these arguments error greatly in the way that they deny Jesus divinity as well as the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture. Nevertheless, as the author clearly demonstrates here, even without considering those realities, these arguments still come up short!
That's a fine point, Paul, and one that certainly could have been included. I generally try my best to provide arguments that I think those who disagree are most likely to see they must wrestle with. In my experience, the inspiration argument doesn't get much traction with those on the other side (not because they would openly deny inspiration, but) because they simply do not see that it was the Holy Spirit's intent to apply these prohibitions to all situations. So (in my experience) the argument doesn't get very far in terms of forcing them to see the hard questions they have left to answer. My hope is that the arguments I've included do. Thanks for reading and for engaging.
I’ve had conversations like this before, and I’m sure more of us will since this argument still gets used. Hopefully your work in this article can be used to point people in a more honest, and biblical, direction.
It is interesting and important to look at the primary sources. For example, here is Clement of Alexandria. Notice that Brooten's translation is broken out as perhaps a somewhat unreliable interpretation. The context to which Clement is speaking is a polemic against male grooming practices and male and female prostitution: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/clem-ped-3-3.asp
I am curious about the absence of inspiration in these arguments. Even if the authors could not conceive of some of these specific sins, surely the Holy Spirit as part of the God head would know. Since all scripture is God-breathed 2 Tim 3:16, and the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit 2 Pet 1:21, the knowingly prohibits these forms of sexual immorality and upholds the traditional biblical view of marriage between one man and one woman.
Yes, these arguments error greatly in the way that they deny Jesus divinity as well as the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture. Nevertheless, as the author clearly demonstrates here, even without considering those realities, these arguments still come up short!
That's a fine point, Paul, and one that certainly could have been included. I generally try my best to provide arguments that I think those who disagree are most likely to see they must wrestle with. In my experience, the inspiration argument doesn't get much traction with those on the other side (not because they would openly deny inspiration, but) because they simply do not see that it was the Holy Spirit's intent to apply these prohibitions to all situations. So (in my experience) the argument doesn't get very far in terms of forcing them to see the hard questions they have left to answer. My hope is that the arguments I've included do. Thanks for reading and for engaging.
I’ve had conversations like this before, and I’m sure more of us will since this argument still gets used. Hopefully your work in this article can be used to point people in a more honest, and biblical, direction.
For those interested, Matthew Vines has a response to Sprinkle, NT Wright, and others here in video and script format: https://reformationproject.org/same-sex-marriage-homosexuality-biblical-world/
It is interesting and important to look at the primary sources. For example, here is Clement of Alexandria. Notice that Brooten's translation is broken out as perhaps a somewhat unreliable interpretation. The context to which Clement is speaking is a polemic against male grooming practices and male and female prostitution: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/clem-ped-3-3.asp