Earlier on this blog, desparaging comments were made about Robert Gagnon with regards to his views on homosexuality. Walter Wink was offered as a better choice for understanding the relationship between the Scriptures and modern (and ancient) homosexuality.
How interesting then that I came across this quote by Walter Wink who makes a major concession to Robert Gagnon’s exegesis in The Bible and Homosexual Practice:
Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme [of homosexual practice]. This section is filled with exegetical insights. I have long insisted that . . . efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it. . . . Gagnon imagines a request from the Corinthians to Paul for advice [about how they should respond to a man in a loving and committed union with another man], based on 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. “. . . . When you mentioned that arsenokoitai would be excluded from the coming kingdom of God, you were not including somebody like this man, were you?” . . . No, Paul wouldn’t accept that relationship for a minute.
Walter Wink, “To Hell with Gays?” Christian Century 119.13 (2002): 33
It is true that, as Gagnon and Wink say, Paul wouldn’t accept a same-sex relationship for a minute. But it is also true that the Biblical prohibition on full sex between men (homosexual activity) does not apply to men today when the sexual activity causes no harm Also, the prohibition does not apply to men today because it applied only to the ancient Israelite and Greek-Roman cultures (Paul’s culture). Full reasoning for these conclusions are given on the “Gay and Christian” site (www.gaysandslaves.com).
Hopefully, P.W., et al we can discuss the current popular debate on this new thread.
I wanted to comment on some of the things that are presented here as it relates to Keith’s post.
First, I think I have to change my original stance a little bit as I have found out some things about homosexuality that complicate things. I do not think they damage my/our? position but actually support it. But it is important I think to note a few things as they relate to this post.
Besides the fact that I think what Paul has said about homosexuality in Romans, etc. only partially treats the issue of homosexuality today, I do think that if Paul had been introduced to it (or the kind that I think is permissible) in his time he would still feel about as he does in his writings.
However, in saying that it doesn’t follow that all his thoughts (outside his writings) are “words of God” or the “word of God” (however you prefer), and thus I am left to treat only what he *does* say of it as it relates to the kind of conception he has of it.
Now I concede to the point of P.W. that homosexuality would not have been seen as “adulterous” (1st century sense), since “adultery” was really only a concept that identified a situation between a male and female. However I do think that he could have seen it as “extra-marital” and for that reason he would have stigmatized it (as any Jew would); and he doesn’t even have to consciously assent to it as though it were some proposition he was assessing. The point is, it is something that exists without the marriage institution (however you want to look at marriage) and for that reason the question of homosexuality being in any way good can never come up. The minimum requirement for him of “good” sexuality has to be that it exists between a woman and a man—though it is not the case the sexual relations between a man and woman are always “good.”
Now, P.W., I hear you about citations and the like, which I fully plan to produce when I have collected them for us to discuss. The things said above are more of a way of presenting preliminary issues as you have done in the post where you show us the Greek. Notice at the beginning of your post therein you do not cite some of the early comments you made, though you take them (as I do not every single one of them) as though they were common knowledge: more will follow as regards my criticism of them.
I think Wink is right in saying that “the bible is negative toward same-sex behavior” and that “Paul wouldn’t accept that relationship for a minute,” but I also think that these points are irrelevant. Caution! –there plenty of issues the bible is negative about which have by our time worked themselves out as being culturally, ideologically, etc. idiosyncrasies and were more an issue particular to the time and place of the words spoken. So please don’t jump on me for attempting to say that the bible is irrelevant–I am not making that statement. And whether or not Paul would accept what we think the real issue of homosexuality is, is besides the point if the brand of homosexuality he is speaking about is not the one we are questioning.
If “harm” is the determinate factor in determining if a behavior is permitted today, then your point is undermined by the actual health of homosexuals (see my comment here and discussion following). But even if there were no health issues, your point is not valid because the creation story is seen by the majority of Christians (in all time and all places) to have universal validity with regard to sexuality. Thus, both Paul and Jesus appeal to the Creation story in their moral teachings on sexuality. They did not see the Creation as culture specific, but applicable to all human beings.
In the eschatological perspective of the NT, sexuality is believed to be a part of this age; thus, even redemptive texts which refer to there being neither male or female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, and the gospel text which says that no one will marry or be given in marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven, for they will be like the angels: This permits celibacy as a clear option to marriage and to all other sexual relationships, but it does not suggest that somehow in the Kingdom of Heaven that homosexuality would be ok. The point is that when it comes to application of the Bible and sexual ethics, Christians first look to the creation story which determines the pattern for this age. We may then live according to that pattern (which is heterosexual marriage). But if we are particularly zealous and wish to serve God exclusively in this age, then we may embrace the lifestyle of the kingdom of God and refrain from sexual relations altogether. But nowhere does the Bible say that sexual morals are culture specific. In fact, Paul must tell the new Christians in Thessalonica (ch. 4.3f.): ?
In 1 Cor 6.15f. Paul instructs the Corinthians that they may not go to prostitutes, which was allowed in Greek culture and, to my knowledge, not forbidden by Roman law:
Again, Paul appeals to the creation story. Thus, we see that the NT applies a much higher sexual ethic than the Greek culture of his day. He continues by saying that each person must abstain from sexual relations outside of the marital relationship.
The majority of Christians have always followed the advice of Jesus and Paul regarding the standards of sexual conduct. They seem to me in our day and age very wise because most people in our culture have no bearings with regard to sexual conduct, and this causes very serious problems of alienation and frustration.
It is cavalier to say that Paul is irrelevant, on this or any point. I’ve taught evangelical hermeneutics at the seminary level. I would never say that a passage is irrelevant, but that it is time specific, in that the prophetic word is spoken or written in a specific time and place to people who speak a specific language and live according to the norms of a specific culture. But never would I say it is irrelevant to me or to my culture: this is a facile position for Christians believers to hold, while being the standard line of the skeptic and the unbeliever. Klein, Bloomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (401f.), suggest by contrast that there are timeless principles underlie every Scripture, because God has inspired the Bible and in it He reveals his heart for humanity. But the timeless principle in this case is clear: God has created human sexuality for a purpose. Homosexuality does not fulfill that purpose. Therefore, any attempt at sugarcoating what happens today by demonizing the practice in antiquity (which is a bizarre argument in view) seems to me an attempt to say not to Paul, but to God himself, “We know better.” But we don’t know better, and that’s why we’ve made a shambles of this world. And the more we turn away from the Creator and his loving purposes for Creation, the worse it becomes for us.
Ten points:
1. Appealing to health issues does not solve the problem since (as I have said before) it does not take into account lesbians nor gay men who do not practice sodomy.
2. The Bible does not take into account the biological problems associated with homosexuality. It assumes that all men are biologically heterosexual. So the creation account as a basis is, while not invalid, certainly short sighted.
3. Does “The point is that when it comes to application of the Bible and sexual ethics, Christians first look to the creation story which determines the pattern for this age” imply that if one does not do this then he is not a Christian?
4. “But nowhere does the Bible say that sexual morals are culture specific”—even if this is true sexual morals are culturally specific.
5. All of the examples you cite are clear examples of things I would agree with. You seem to imply that the certain brand of homosexuality (which is in effect consistent with the demands Paul makes, save for the fact that involves two people of the same sex) which I am advocating is as clear as these issues. I disagree with this presupposition. Moreover, I don’t think that gay men and women should join themselves to prostitutes anymore than I think that heterosexuals should. I also very much affirm chastity whether it is gay or straight. Lust ought to be rejected whether while being a man you desire a man or a woman.
6. “He continues by saying that each person must abstain from sexual relations outside of the marital relationship”—this I agree which I had mentioned in the previous post.
7. Jesus only spoke about divorce and lust (inasmuch as the gospels are concerned).
8. Your mention of me being “cavalier” is ad hominem.
9. Also if you read me carefully which you almost certainly have not you will never (I repeat) never find me saying that Paul is irrelevant. Inasmuch as he is speaking to his own culture he is relevant. And inasmuch as his words are particular to our needs today he is relevant. I find it interesting that as a teacher of hermeneutics you can’t even read me.
10. You insinuating (whether you think you are or not) that I am an “unbeliever” will not tolerate by me. If you wish to enjoy any more conversation with me whatsoever, you’ll refrain from such talk. I will not be threatened by your scare tactics nor the fact that you seemingly think yourself irreproachable because you possess a PhD while others of us do not. I am interested in rational inquiry; I affirm the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the atonement for sins (including my own), I believe he will come again. If there was no dispute as regards the bible a large part of what “The City of God” is for I think would be gone.
excuse some of my type-Os; I was apparently going faster than I thought I was.
Your point (2): The Bible doesn’t take into account “biological problems associated with homosexuality” and is thus short-sighted. This view puts our cultural view as above biblical authority. I am contending with this very attitude, which I consider to be contrary to the biblical and the traditional Christian view and seriously undermines the basis of authority in the church, which is based upon the Bible and the Rule of Faith. To insist upon the inadequacy of Scripture and the Christian tradition is to place oneself and one’s cultural point of view above these things.
Your point (3): Question: “Does “The point is that when it comes to application of the Bible and sexual ethics, Christians first look to the creation story which determines the pattern for this age” imply that if one does not do this then he is not a Christian?” It would not be recognizably Christian from a biblical or traditional point of view. If Paul and more importantly Jesus call upon the creation story to define the parameters for sexual behaviour, then I would suggest that that is the definitive Christian position.
Your point (6). The Bible only recognizes heterosexual marriage. Anything else is not marriage at all, regardless of civil laws that may be in place, or the commitment of same sex people to one another. So you only think that you agree with this point in Paul. But you argument is contrary to the biblical view of marriage and sexuality. Paul doesn’t say “each man should have his own wife or man.”
Your point (8). My statement that your position is cavalier is not meant to be ad hominem; as I explained, it appears to me as an example of saying to God, “We know better.” So in my view, it is cavalier to reject biblical authority on this matter for the prevailing cultural views in the Western world.
Your point (9). I see you are right. You don’t say that Paul is irrelevant. You say that the points that the Bible is negative about homosexuality and that Paul would not accept homosexuality is irrelevant for us today. I clearly point out that my view that every Scripture is relevant because God has inspired it. This is, by the way, the biblical view (cf. 2 Tim. 3.16).
Your point (10). I only mention that I said your position is “facile” for a Christian believer. It is a view that takes the apparent cultural distance to say that a passage of scripture is irrelevant for us today–but doesn’t take into account the complexity and nuance that whatever the Scripture, something of God’s character and his will for humanity is revealed. “I am interested in rational inquiry.” And in this spirit, I have responded according to my ability.
1. “The Bible doesn’t take into account “biological problems associated with homosexuality” and is thus short-sighted. This view puts our cultural view as above biblical authority.” Once again, I said that the Bible is not invalid though: “So the creation account as a basis is, while not invalid, certainly short sighted.” I do think it takes into account everything relevant to the circumstances of its time. To expect it to take into account everything that is relevant to our time also is simply unreasonable. And to dismiss it on the grounds that it does not because I think it ought to is simply unfair. Your supposition that it is wholly relevant to our time I believe to be the unreasonable position.
2. “Traditional Christian views” (not including the ones which if undermined would destroy Christianity itself) have time and again shown to be suspect and certainly worthy of discussion as to their relevance and necessity.
3. The basis of the authority of God and the church is the Holy Spirit (and always will be); if he chooses to use the bible, rational inquiry, etc. to show what he wants then this is how he will do it. Thus, the bible becomes a tool (among others) for his truth and authority to be revealed, contrary to bible being that absolute authority.
4. Once again, if you read me properly you’ll notice that I am not “insist[ing] upon the inadequacy of Scripture and the Christian tradition.” I have maintained (or at least tried to) that Scripture is not always adequate (something different) and thus that applications in light of other scripture texts (or other culturally relevant texts) need to be consulted in order to clarify issues not explicit in the text itself. The seven rules of Hillel, for instance, presuppose this need: they are intended to render clear things not transparent.
5. I don’t think my cultural view is above any other; so your argument is a non sequitur. I think it is definitely different, but it is also (and this why I must work from it) the only cultural position I know. It is the lens through which I have to see; hence the seeming placing of it as above. However, this is only a semblance and not my true attitude. I don’t subscribe to it as being above; though I take it as real something worthy of its say.
6. Your point about my point 6 actually presupposes the truth of your own position. Of course I don’t concede to your premises, so we are going to be in disagreement. I think that bible adequately treats sexuality inasmuch as it is relevant to the sexuality that they are speaking about. However, I think that the sexuality I am speaking about is outside that purview, which is the reason for attempting to think clearly about it, and the reason for pronouncing judgement about something I don’t think it discusses. Your position is reductionistic; I just don’t think the issue is as simple as you want to make it. (more on this later)
7. Point 8; if you ask me I would never say that I think we or I know better than God’s authority. Our differences lie in how this works itself out, however. Our constructs are different. You think it is unequivocally the bible, I do not. Thus, while I might be rejecting biblical authority (as a concept) I am not rejecting the authority of God, which I think comes in more forms than merely the bible. Not that it doesn’t come through the bible at all, I just think God is bigger than always putting it down to one thing.
8. Your mention of 1 Tim 3:16 is moot. Apparently “C H Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated “Every inspired scripture is also useful…” nor does the verse define the Biblical Canon” (Biblical Inerrancy, Wikipedia). Almost certainly Paul is not referring to his own writings.
9. You will have to explain more thoroughly what you mean by the fact that my view is “facile” for a believer; if anything, I would think, that inerrancy, etc. is more facile (if by it you mean “arrived at without due care or effort”)—I would have to be more careful in my position than your position is if I am to make it work. You, on other hand, reduce it to, “well, its word of God; you can’t have that opinion.”
10. Moreover, your position that I think “that a passage of scripture is irrelevant for us today” as regards the one we are talking about, once again, presupposes that your own position is the right one. So you are not even arguing with me to show that my position is inconsistent. It’s as though you were saying “your position is wrong, because my own it the right one,” which is true but only trivially so; or “I side with the biblical view, you do not.” But from my perspective I am siding with the biblical view (whether you think I am or not) thus I do think I have a biblical view; I am only thinking that the one you are citing as against my view doesn’t actually relate to the issue that is in question.
On Timothy 3.16
Dodd’s translation of 2 Tim 3.16 is possible, but it is not the way that the passage was interpreted by the church or intended by Paul. Take for example, Gregory of Nyssa (Against Eunomius 3.7.1): “The Scripture is “given by inspiration of God,” as the apostle says. The Scripture is of the Holy Spirit, and its intention is the profit of men. For “every Scripture,” he says, “is given by inspiration of God and is profitable” (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, IX.268).
But even if we were to accept Dodd’s translation it would not be a question of whether any particular Scripture in the canonical texts were considered inspired. The actual consistent use of Scripture in the NT and in Paul for example as authoritative and profitable for doctrine undermines the position that Paul could have meant that certain passages in canonical texts were inspired by God and others as not. We never see Paul or any of the NT writers fretting about whether an OT passage is inspired or not. But like Jesus they cite the Scripture as authoritative. For example, Jesus says that not a single iota, or the smallest stroke would fail from the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5.17-28), shows a very high regard for Scripture as a whole.
Finally, though Paul, in 2 Tim 3.16, referred to what we call the OT, Christians accept the NT on the same or higher level as OT scripture, so what applied then to the OT applies in the Christian view all the more to the NT. Obviously, this is a theological position on 2 Tim 3.16 as opposed to a strictly exegetical position.
I know I’m way out my league here
1) I agree, straight people get STD’s too etc
2) but when John mentions “The Bible doesn’t take into account “biological problems associated with homosexuality”. I feel as thought that statement ignores a great breadth of scripture that acknowledges a fallen humanity. It is true that men (I don’t believe it has been discovered formally in women) are born as homosexuals. However, people are also born violent, born as thieves, born murderers and liars. For all of these sins no man has an excuse and yet some how the statement “I was born this way” is supposed to make right what the scriptures clearly condemn. We are all born screwed up in one way or another but we are still called to obedience.
3) Is this Jon Bolton?
Your position would lead to unmitigated chaos and subjectivism in the church. But not only so, it is not biblical, for the NT is clear that the spirits must be tested: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4.1); “… do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil”(1 Thes. 5.20); “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said” (1 Cor 14.29). But on what basis are the spirits tested? Clearly in the early church, everything had to conform to the Rule of Faith, which was the teaching of the Apostles. It is therefore incumbent upon Christians today to subject the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the living voice of prophecy, to the standards of the Bible and to the test of sound doctrine (as defined by the Rule of Faith, Apostles’ Creed, and Nicene Creed).
Now, if you were to insist, as Poser-Prophet has likewise implied, that the Spirit is now teaching that homosexuality is allowable today, it fails both the scriptural and doctrinal tests. We are thus forced to conclude that you are either trying to promote a purely human doctrine or that the spirit that you are following is not the Holy Spirit: So says Paul too, that we should not believe spirits who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim 4.1-2): “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared.”
Some more points:
1. “Christians accept the NT on the same or higher level as OT scripture”—this is generally true but only half a truth. I am a Christian (unless you are calling that into question) but I would actually say that portions of OT scripture are “more inspired,” if you’ll allow me that for the time being (I don’t want to get into this right now; I’d rather deal strictly with homosexuality for the moment), than NT. Now this doesn’t mean that I reject NT. I believe that where important NT is historically reliable where history is relevant, and ethically important; these are the earliest documents of the faith I happen to subscribe to, so inasmuch as they are that I think valuable.
2. “Your position would lead to unmitigated chaos and subjectivism in the church”—I hear your concern and acknowledge that it is a problem; and recognize that it is potentially problematic. I am not so sure that would lead to unmitigated chaos and subjectivism since it is not something that has yet been tested—if it were introduced over night and people were still of the current mind set, I could see if being very upsetting to the church. However, I do not think that it would be the case if it were slowly introduced and permeated its way through several generations. At one time the thought of music being played in Church was thought extremely wrong, and people objected to its introduction. There are probably few churches now that do not have some form of music in them. The great thing about it is that would stop us from mindlessly relying on the bible; and would actually force us to rely on the Spirit, a very dangerous but also potentially fruitful enterprise. I think Andrew’s comments in “What if” (Feb 13th) are actually with the kind of Christian living I am speaking about. It certainly does not follow that things must be chaotic if there was the case. Most of the Christian discussion I have with people in the church exist without the framework of the bible, and that is mainly because we do not know it well enough. We properly function on the basis of our willingness to commune together and not on an incentive to divide; we make judgments on a sense of what “seems” right to us, and hope that it is the prompting of the Spirit. I just don’t think that people who believe they are of the spirit (and who actually are) will work towards chaos if they reject the concept of biblical authority. Look, this is a very difficult issue and one worthy of any Christian’s utmost maturity. I don’t think anyone can just accept it—indeed it is really for those who can accept it. And I have no problem being a part of a church which cannot accept it and being subject to their demands. I just don’t think that it is something I have to accept personally. I’ll put before myself the common good of church in place of what I think is physically true or what truly works.
3. “Now, if you were to insist, as Poser-Prophet has likewise implied, that the Spirit is now teaching that homosexuality is allowable today, it fails both the scriptural and doctrinal tests. We are thus forced to conclude that you are either trying to promote a purely human doctrine or that the spirit that you are following is not the Holy Spirit [(fallacy of the false dichotomy)]: So says Paul too, that we should not believe spirits who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim 4.1-2): [(Does this mean I should not believe you?)] “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared.” [(Am I one who has departed from the faith? Or given heed to deceitful spirits and the doctrines of demons, is my conscience seared? I would like to know? Own it.)]”—so what’s it going to be? You may as well own your convictions. Am I not of the Holy Spirit? Am I teaching a human doctrine? Is what I am saying unsound? Have you tested it and found that it comes up short? Tell me. Keep in mind that you are presupposing your own argument once again in this case. I am not teaching that homosexuality is allowable today (as though it were the same kind that Paul professes to be against). I am teaching that a certain kind of homosexuality, which would be similar to what is permissible between a man and a woman might be allowable. (I really don’t understand your reductionist tendencies. Do you find things easier if you do that? You’ll have to explain).
The Roan:
1) You are not out of your league; if we can’t include you in this conversation, perhaps, we ought not to be talking about it. However, in saying that joining discussions like this takes one’s maturity and an acknowledgment of responsibility
2) The bible is definitely not ignorant of all of biology; you are quite right in saying that it acknowledges a fallen humanity. Violence I think is not wrong. We believe in a God who will one day become violent towards those who are evil. But if people are born thieves and the like I don’t see how God will judge them as though they had a choice in the matter. Though even if he did, he would be right in doing so.
3) I reject (otherwise I would not be arguing at all) that Scripture “clearly” rejects the homosexuality which is in question. I think it rejects a homosexuality that it all about itself, that is associated with lust, fornication, extra-marital-ness, with those who hate God (basically anything that would even be the case in a heterosexual union), but that is certainly not the empirical reality of all homosexual relationships. Look, I reject licentious gays who hate God just as much as the next guy. I think “Gay Pride” is fundamentally wrong. Just don’t tell me that all gays are this way, and have a need to be filthy, scheming God haters, otherwise we will have to disagree. (And that seems to be consistent with Paul’s view of them.) It is just simply not what I have seen to be case in all cases in today’s society.
4) Now if I am a part of church which disagrees with it; or, say for instance, I am a youth leader under a youth pastor who disagrees with homosexuality in all ways. I will not thwart his leadership, or become insubordinate to his desire for the sake of having to be right. If asked, I will in fact say that the church’s stance in this regard is that homosexuality is wrong. period. I won’t even mention that I have a differing opinion. But that is because I recognize the need for authorities in the Church, the subversion of which only brings the church down on itself.
5) :3) yes is the John Bolton
I repeat, If you were to insist that the Holy Spirit is now teaching that homosexuality is allowable, it would not pass the scriptural nor the doctrinal test, and therefore, we would be forced to conclude you are trying to promote purely human teaching or a that the spirit you are following is not the Holy Spirit. Your narrow restriction to certain kinds of homosexual relationships notwithstanding, your position does not conform to Scripture nor to sound teaching (Rule of Faith). My saying that a doctrine is either of human making, from divine origin (from the Holy Spirit), or demonic is not reductionistic but an attempt to narrow the possibilities. I suppose it could also come from extraterrestrials! (Have I missed something else?)
Now I have not yet observed you John to insist that this new doctrine is what the Holy Spirit is teaching. However, Poserprophet wrote:
And then Poser-Prophet writes:
These two invocations of the “Spirit” to work on me to change my position, implies that the Holy Spirit is on the side of allowing homosexuality marriage in the church. It practically forces us to test the spirits in accordance with 1 John 4:1. I countered your position that the Holy Spirit, not the Bible or church tradition, is the highest authority with the point that the Bible clearly requires that we test the prophetic voices in the church and that our basis today for that testing is Scripture and sound doctrine. If a person insists that the Holy Spirit is teaching this new doctrine, it escalates the debate to another level–it is no longer a rational debate over the meaning and impact of passages of scripture, and it becomes a spiritual battle.
I disagree; but I accept what your position and what you have said, and the overall maturity with which you have presented your position. We will perhaps have to agree to disagree.
Also, please accept my apologies to you P.W. for trying to force you into a position of owning your convictions and outright rejecting me; that was (from hindsight) a decidedly divisive request. And the Lord knows we do not need more division.
An overall observation: If we abided by the mentality that Dunn promotes, it is highly doubtful that slavery would have been abolished. The idea that societies change, that social institutions change, and that adapting to that change is somehow heretical – and I think you are calling your opponents heretics now, Peter, however sotto voce you are doing it – would clearly not allow an abolition of slavery.
Two of my direct ancestors, Edward James Dunn (1852-1933) and James M. Wilkinson (1842-1904), fought against slavery in the south of USA. I am very proud of that legacy. Evangelical Christians in Britain and the US wage a vigorous political battle against slavery–that is part of my church heritage. We are proud of William Wilberforce and John Newton.
Paul also says, “Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. ” (1 Cor 7.21-22). Paul writes to Philemon, the owner of a runaway slave Onesimus: “Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. ?I, Paul, write this with my own hand, I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self.”
But also, God brought the slave out of Egypt into the promised land because of his promise to Abraham and because he had compassion on their suffering. God does not want his people to be slaves. The fight against slavery is in keeping with the express will of God in Scriptures to free people from their bonds.
With regard to saying that societies change and social institutions change, that is not in itself heretical. Indeed, changes can at times lead to more just and hence biblical society, as in the abolition of slavery. Secondly, it is clearly the intention of God to reach all people for the gospel. This means that the gospel message must be adapted to different cultures. This is called contextualization. The precedent for contextualization is in the four Gospels themselves, because we have the teachings Jesus translated from the original Aramaic into Greek and adapted to a new cultural context. But the gospel must not be conformed to that culture; that is called syncretism. Saying that homosexual relations are not sinful is a form of syncretism because it places cultural considerations above the clear intention of God in Scripture. So also Paul knew that his new converts were committing fornication, maintaining homosexual relations, visiting prostitutes, etc. all in keeping with their Greek culture, he did not conform the gospel to their sexual norms, but insisted that they rise to the moral teachings of the Bible.
Finally, the Bible says that many false prophets have gone out into the world. That is true today as it was then. That I would regard these false prophets as heretics then would hardly be surprising, since I want to follow the will of God as it is revealed in the Bible.
He is certainly relying on his own authority in the matter. And other than stating (and restating) that the position he advocates is *clear* and the correct biblical one, I am no longer sure what he’s arguing.
Now it is a curious thing to be considered a pro-slavery bigot by Dan and a person relying on my own authority by John, because I have only been trying to contend for the biblical view of homosexuality, as acknowledged even by Wink (remember the original post?), as the one in force for Christians. The position that you are advocating, that there are homosexual relationships that should be allowed, is a new doctrine–not in keeping with the Bible, nor with longstanding Christian teaching on sexuality, nor with the majority of Christian churches around the world (remember those millions of poor African Christians that oppose the homosexual agenda–I haven’t forgotten them). So since I’ve asked that we consider the biblical view normative and authoritative, I am not relying on my own authority at all here. I would not have the audacity to do such a thing! On the other hand, you have advocated this new doctrine and a view of the Bible that greatly undermines its authority in the church. Upon what authority are you relying?
I actually think I understand your argument a little better. So correct me if I am wrong. You are saying:
1) My (yours) view of homosexuality is the biblical one (by extension this one is wrong)
a. It is a doctrine that is not in keeping with bible (I allocated it here because I thought it approximated the same)
2) It is a new doctrine
3) It is a doctrine that is not in keeping with “longstanding Christian teaching”
4) It is a doctrine that is not in keeping with the majority of Christian churches around the world.
5) Therefore, we should not believe it as a doctrine.
Sorry, one other thing: what is “the homosexual agenda” exactly?
That’s mostly right, but a bit convoluted. Let me restate:
The doctrine that homosexuality may be allowable by the Church (that it is not a sin in certain circumstances) or that the church should marry homosexual couples is:
(1) A new doctrine
(2) Against the uniform position of the Bible on the subject
(3) A position which contradicts, until very recently, the longstanding and uniform teaching of the church on sexuality (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) and the Rule of Faith (the teaching of the Early church).
(4) A position that the majority of Christian churches in the world oppose.
(5) To be rejected for the 4 above reasons.
But even if (4) were not true and the majority of Christians favored it, I would still reject it because of the first three reasons (cf. Martin Luther). A new doctrine is not always false, but the burden of proof rests in showing that it is in conformity to the Rule of Faith and to the Bible (in which case it wouldn’t really be new).
Never called you pro-slavery or a bigot. I do not believe you are either of those things. I merely pointed out that your framework would not really support ending slavery. I’m saying that since you are anti-slavery, how do you reconcile that with your views that another social institution can never, ever change?
The way I used the term “homosexual agenda” as a reference to the effort on the part of those who wish to increase acceptance of homosexuality in every sphere, not only in the public and private sectors, but also in the church.
Dan: Yes, I recognized your intention.
In the OT, a person can become a slave for a period of seven years because of poverty. If that person decides they would prefer the security that slavery provided, they could voluntarily become a slave for life. If they decide they prefer manumission, the owner is to lavish goods upon them in recognition of the seven years of service.
The New Testament strictly tells slaves to obey their masters and masters not to mistreat slaves. But it only accepts that the institution exists, and clearly there are passages that say that it is better for the Christian to be free than to be a slave. I presented some of these passages in my previous response (http://civitatedei.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/walter-winks-concession-to-robert-gagnon/#comment-2146). There are soteriological passages that refer to redemption and manumission. Thus, the Bible recognizes the superiority of freedom. Thus, the Bible would allow a society to ban slavery, and it speaks against brutal expressions of slavery and trafficking.
The institution of slavery as known in the 19th century does not resemble the institution of slavery in the OT; it was especially brutal (e.g., the slave trade), racist, and in most cases permanent. It was not a means to address economic destitution of the slaves but a form of oppression and trafficking that the OT opposes (e.g., Amos). It took many devote Christians who hold the same of view of the Bible as myself (evangelicals) to see through the cultural norms and to wage a long and arduous political campaign against this evil institution which was culturally accepted by the British Empire and by the southern USA. Today, the legacy of the opposition to slavery is assumed, but the few seem to recall that it was devote, Bible-believing Christians who pushed this agenda. The film Amazing Grace is a good source to remind people of this legacy of Evangelicalism.
While the teaching of the Bible on slavery is complex, the Bible stands uniformly against homosexuality. You cannot find a single passage that even tolerates homosexuals or homosexuality. It does allow, however, that a homosexual can become a Christian (1 Cor. 6.11: “Such [homosexual, robbers, idolators, etc.] some of you were.”).
I am very much in favor of social institutions changing, when that change is Christian and biblical. But I am against change, when that change will take us further from Christian and biblical positions.
As is seen here, whether relegating the condemnation of homosexual relations to being culture or context or motive bound, and or by making the Bible much the work of homophobic redactors, or elevating a subjective ethos or feeling of what love would do above the laws which define what is loving, the effective result of the contradictory efforts pro-homosexual apologetics is to negate the Bible as the transcendent moral authority is claims to be, and to allow a “love” which rejoices in what God unequivocally defines as iniquity.
Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, “It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God…Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject – or even ridicule – the church’s historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.” (Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal)
This is well evidenced, and their arguments refuted by the grace of God: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html
The Levitical injunctions against homosex are just as unconditional as the ones against adultery, and are based upon the only sexual union God instituted and sanctified, and Jesus Himself defines the uniquely compatible an complementary union of the male and female (Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:8-12; Eph. 5: 31) as constituting the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together”. (Mt. 19:4) He also condemned “fornications” (plural) which covers all sexual relations outside marriage (and more broadly, adultery) and in no place is marriage established btwn same genders, or btwn man and animals for that matter. Instead, it is only condemend wherever it is explicitly dealt with.
Meanwhile, while moral laws (if not the earthly penalty) regarding sexual sins are only intensived under the New Testament, the legislation on slavery, in addition to being in a different area than basic moral laws, is easily evidenced to be not only greatly ameliorating that condition, but to be moving toward the abandonment of it when conditions allowed. So great is the contrast between the treatment of illicit sexual unions, and homosexual ones in particular, and of that regarding slavery – in which slaves are actually enjoined to seek freedom, (1Cor. 7:21) and a master is required to receive back a slave no longer “as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved,” even as Paul himself, (Phile. 1:16,17) that it is the manner of the latter regarding homosexual relations that its advocates desperately need. Conversely, if laws regarding slavery had the foundation and manner of proclamation and one sided affirmation that laws against fornication do, then we would still be supporting it. Instead, the manner of eisegesis and sophistry which pro-homosexual polemicists require makes a mockery of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, in this area, and by extension, in others as well.
That said, there is room at the cross for all who want Jesus over sin, and trust Him to save them by His blood, and some of the first Christians were evidently former homosexuals. to God be the glory, great things He hath done!
P.W. Dunn wrote:
“The position that you are advocating, that there are homosexual relationships that should be allowed, is a new doctrine– not in keeping with the Bible… I’ve asked that we consider the biblical view normative and authoritative…”
By those standards you would have to affirm incestuous marriage on the Abraham and Sarah model or polygamous marriage on the Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah model.
Their marriages are in keeping with the Bible, were affirmed by God and yet, curiously, their marriage models, if practiced today by Christians, would be as excoriated as gay marriage.
The truth of scripture has not changed. What has changed is that we no longer accept incestuous or polygamous marriages. Those kinds of marriage were just fine with God before Law and under Law.
We can affirm the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture AND gay marriage without rejecting the Bible as our transcendent moral authority.
Every Bible verse alleged to prohibit homosexuality was given in the context of worshiping false gods. Wresting those verses from their original context to contend that originally, they only addressed homosexuality, insults common sense.
This last response is simply another example of specious pro-homosexual attempts to join together what God has placed asunder. While I have little doubt Brentlinger knows this, the reason why incestuous marriage is damnable by Christian standards is because it was in fact outlawed under the law, while Jesus and the New Testament later further intensified the laws regarding marriage, bringing it back to its original monogamous union, in contrast to polygamous marriage.
And as referenced above, in reproving lax divorce laws (which are more prevalent today among churches which affirm homosexuality), Jesus specified that it was the male and female which constituted the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” (Mt. 19:4; Gn. 2:24) in marriage. Nor is the allowance of polygamous marriage analogous to homosexual unions, as it only violates the authoritative Genesis establishment of marriage in relation to the number of wives, not the distinctive type of union.
In striving for a loophole, Brentlinger elsewhere tries to invoke the only incestuous marriage he can find at the time of Moses, (Exo 6:20; Num_26:59) supposing that because this unlawful marriage was blessed by having Godly offspring, then a radical new type of marriage must also be. However, besides the fact that having famous offspring does necessarily sanction how they came to be (think Jephthah), not only did this marriage take place prior to this law being given to Israel, but the allowance of incestuous marriage by God prior to the establishment of the law stands in stark contrast to that of homosexual unions, which are only condemned wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
Brentlinger must therefore not only do away with the law, but the morality it codified as well as expanded. He has thus elsewhere argued that the Law of Moses was only applicable to residents in the holy land, and for the sanction of homosexual marriage which God nowhere provides. However, the fact is that the Law did not invent sin or righteousness, and while the Law contained a type of law which is later cataloged under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New covenant as typological, (Col. 2:14-17; Gal. 4:10; Heb. 9:10) and it expanded prohibitions of unlawful sexual partners to include those of close kin, (Lv. 18), overall it largely codified existing morality, including adultery or premarital sex. (Gn. 20:3; 34:1-7,13,31)
Moreover, while the law was given to Israel, this did not sanction a lower standard for the Gentiles, as longsuffering as God was, rather Israel was to be the manifest standard bearer of righteousness for them. (Dt. 4:5-8)
And rather than the moral laws merely being given for purposes of making Israel distinctive, as the “team colors” arguments vainly postulates, God distinctly declared that it was because they did the abominations that He forbade (statements made in the context of moral legislation, not ceremonial)
(Lv. 18:24; Dt. 20:18; 1Kg. 14:24; 2Kg. 16:3,21:2)
In addition, while Christians are “not under the law”, which is holy, just and good, (Rm. 7:12), because they are justified by faith in Christ and His blood, rather than by the merit of their works, yet such faith, if it is salvific, will work righteousness, even “the righteousness of the law”, (Rm. 8:4) which goes beyond the letter of it (so that adultery can extend to the heart, not simply the flesh), though it is evident that this usually requires keeping the letter of the moral laws of Moses, which are appealed to and upheld under the New covenant, especially as regards fornication. (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) Thus rather than a liberalizing of laws regarding sexual partners, we actually see a expansion of them and intensification as time goes on, with the Genesis union only being further reinforced as between one male and one female. Violation of these laws is a manifestation of idolatry, which is the mother of all sins, and which includes making Jesus into an image more like unto corruptible man, which those do who seek to make Jesus into a homosexual, or wrest His words to sanction homosexual unions. However, those who willfully join what God has so separated must themselves be separated at the end, to their eternal horror. May we all fear the Lord and depart from evil.
“Wresting those verses from their original context to contend that originally, they only addressed homosexuality, insults common sense.”
If anything, this would imply we ought to move in the opposite direction: just as greed/covetousness was associated with idolatry, so also was sexual immorality of all kinds. We ought to think biblically, and move both into that category today, rather than try to find non-idolatrous forms of covetousness, greed, and sexual immorality. Or at least so it seems to me.
Andrew-
Concerning Lev 18:22 and 20:13, your response is an oddly illogical circumlocution.
Rob Gagnon devotes ten pages of his epic tome, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 100-110, to proving that prohibiting shrine prostitution is the most likely intent of these verses while also insisting they prohibit all gay and lesbian sexual expression, including civil unions.
In 1450 BC, Moses certainly was not addressing committed, faithful, non-cultic partnerships between two women or two men.
It is PC these days to assert that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit gay unions or gay marriages, never mind that they originally prohibited fertility goddess worship, and gay marriage wasn’t even an issue in Canaan 3400 years ago.
The anti-gay crowd, pushing a social and political agenda, rips the verses out of context and misapplies them to support their agenda.
And then, when called on their eisogesis, their answer is:
‘Okay, we took it out of context but shouldn’t we still be allowed to use these verses out of context against homosexuals (i.e., “move in the opposite direction”)?’
Why ignore the point of my previous post?
God used incestuous, polygamous Abraham and Sarah – their relationship was an abomination in the Holiness Code just like you assert that gay relationships are abomination – yet God blessed them and uses Abraham as our example of faith, blessing and justification in Romans 4-5.
Yet if they showed up today, I’ll bet they wouldn’t be welcome to teach Sunday School or preach in your church. Instead, they’d be attacked for their incest and polygamy. “We’re” too holy to use them but God used them.
If God can use a polygamist who also married his half-sister and if God can bless their lifelong incestuous union with a child (Isaac) and an everlasting covenant, it doesn’t seem a stretch to me that God can use a saved, partnered gay couple for His wise purposes.
Its called grace and while lots of heterosexual Christians know the term, they rarely exhibit grace toward their gay brothers and lesbian sisters.
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons are part of the body of Christ – saved, born again, eternally secure in their Savior, justified by faith alone in Christ alone.
I’m just sayin’
Rick: I wasn’t ignoring your point at all. My point is just that you assume the association of homosexuality (or as I said, sexual immorality in general) with idolatry is a disposable and merely cultural feature of the Bible’s discussion of homosexuality. I think it far more likely that the association is intended to be a judgment on what is a feature of all homosexual acts (which is what the Bible condemns primarily, and the desire to commit such acts only indirectly): all sexual immorality is idolatry, because it expresses a rejection of the one true God’s purposes for our bodies (and spirits) and instead expresses slavery to our desires.
And no serious scholar I have read who opposes homosexual activity says that they are taking verses out of context.
Also, I’m not sure using Abraham as a defense for your position is that helpful, unless you are also ready to defend incestuous polygamy as ethical today.
“In 1450 BC, Moses certainly was not addressing committed, faithful, non-cultic partnerships between two women or two men.”
Then neither was he addressing “committed, faithful, non-cultic” wife-swapping, pre-marital sex, pedophilia, bestiality, all of which you must honestly sanction, if you will be consistent with your logic. In addition, your specious hermeneutic would disallow multitude other MORAL laws which were given in contrasting the way of the people of God with idolaters, (even the 10 commandments begin with a censure of idolatry) not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. (Rm. 12:2; Eph. 2:1-13; 1Cor. 6:9-11; Col. 3:5-7; 1Pt. 4:3,4). The immorality of contemporary idolaters often serves as an occasion to condemn basic moral iniquities, while the contrasting righteousness is upheld as transcendent.
The fact is that all willful acts of sin, even perhaps by misinformed believers in the one true God, (2Tim. 1:3) is a manifestation of idolatry, whether it be formal deities or one’s own flesh, and the injunctions of Lev. 18 are not simply restricted to the context of manifest idolatry (such as laws against a certain way of cutting one’s beard, or worshiping in groves were), any more fornication is, or walking in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, etc., are, but are themselves a manifestation of idolatry, which are prohibited in any context.
When a basic practice is only conditionally sinful, then God can be seen making that manifest, as he did with incest, but homosexual relations are one of the few things in the Bible that are unconditionally prohibited. Again, NOWHERE in the Bible is sanction for homosexual relations, much less marriage, established, and instead it is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with. You would have more warrant for cannibalism.
In addition, your desperate analogy of incest with homosex not only lacks an example of any evident sanction for the latter, but homosexual unions are more analogous to bestiality as regards there being contrary to the Genesis institution which held as authoritative. And note that this unique union is upheld, and sexual relations btwn a man and his wife enjoined, even in the New covenant where procreation is not a priority. (1Cor. 7)
Moreover, incest was not an abomination prior to the giving of the Law, and its later prohibition was likely necessitated due to the progressive effects of the Fall, and the proscription of it can be seen being upheld in the New Testament. (1Cor. 5) In contrast, there is zero change as regards the treatment of homosexual relations.
In regard to this, Rm. 1 is not due to cultural or physiological ignorance, as homosexual apologists typically charge, not is the condemnation of the homosexual unions therein any more restricted to formal idolatry than the various iniquities of vs. 29-31 are, nor (again) in other similar contexts. consistent with Rm. 1, your own eisegesis (on your site and elsewhere) is a manifestation of making Jesus into an image more like unto morally corruptible man, while invoking him to sanction homosexuality constitutes taking His name in vain!
Polemically, in choosing to engage in the uphill battle to find sanction for same-sex marriage, you have resorted to insolent craftiness, charging the historical traditionalist with the tactics which pro-homosexual revisionist abundantly examples, as not only is it actually “PC” today to contend that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 do not prohibit gay unions or gay marriages (read the MSM), but it is well evidenced that it is the pro-gay crowd which is pushing a social and political agenda – which is even formally set forth* – wresting the verses out of context and misapplying them to support their agenda.
Finally, while hypothetically, Godly O.T. saints who married close kin could be welcomed in evangelical churches today, due to their overall faithfulness during their dispensation, as marriage btwn close kin could be allowed until a certain time, no practicing homosexual could be, as no where is that sanctioned under any covenant. Nor would homosexual churches welcome O.T. saints, as they would condemn them, while you do so to those who uphold the substantiated, warranted teaching of Scripture on this issue. While you imagine that practicing homosexuals -whom i assume you require to be “married” – can be Christians, the fact is that such are fornicators, and that of a perverse sort, with damnation-not salvation being assured by Scripture, and are need repentance, as the early Christians manifested. (1Cor. 6:9-11). To suppose they included practicing homosexuals is a strong delusion, which today is increasingly prevalent, “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.”
*Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 – 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted “jamming,” in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda are publicly smeared. “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector … The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.
In essence, that is being defended (as long as it is “Christian”), due to its pre-Sinatic dispensational sanction, and the antinomian notion that “not under the law” means that its morality is not binding today. However, even the pagans were condemned for practicing the very immoral practices which pro-homosexual hermeneutics approve of. While Lev. 18 proscriptions are relegated to pagan idolatry by such, no sanction of any premarital sex is found elsewhere (and Rick uses the broader word “partnerships”), committed, loving or no, and nor homosexual marriage, despite earnest pro-homosexual attempts to force sex into passages it does not belong in.
At least Wink is honestly perceptive to recognize what the Bible teaches, stating,
“I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it.” And that “Paul wouldn’t accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute.”
But instead of joining the majority of pro-homosexual revisionists, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one’s own subjective understanding of Christian love. and which foundation Moses, the man of God, addresses,
“Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.” (Deu 12:8)
Hey Daniel-
Did you need a ladder to climb up on your high horse?
Your tired old, “we’ve always taught it meant this” tirade ignores a basic rule of hermeneutics.
Scripture cannot mean now what it did not mean then.
Those of us who have had “our senses exercised to discern good and evil” are not intimidated by your obsfuscatory arguments.
The most likely origin of arsenokoites is the Greek Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 20:13.
Leviticus 20:13 – hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos
Philo believed that Moses’ use of “arsenos koiten” in Leviticus 20:13 referred to shrine prostitution.
What factual knowledge do you have 2000 years later, which leads you to conclude that arsenokoites means homosexual, apart from shrine prostitution?
Your brother in Christ,
Rick Brentlinger
Rick,
Philo absolutely condemned all forms of homosexual activity.
“Scripture cannot mean now what it did not mean then.” Exactly. And the various and often contradictory attempts by homosexual polemicists as yourself to restrict its condemnation of homosexual relations and to provide sanction for the same are contrary to the way the Bible treats homosexuality, from the foundational basis of its proscription onward. Which is only condemnation and zero sanction, it being contrary to design and decree, regardless of the meaning of arsenos koiten, which is what homosexual apologist are left to major on, as it is not as explicit as other texts, and plenty can be provided in response. I choose to ride the high horse of Scripture, rather than join man with men or animals, which is where your horse is heading.
Philo lived from 20 BC to AD 40. Here is what he actually wrote around AD 35.
“(40) And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy. At all events one may see men-women [androgynes] continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals;
and, impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple, and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres
[Ceres is another name for Cybele, the fertility goddess first century Romans referred to as the Mater Deum or Mother of the gods].
(41) And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes…
[Philo here describes the castrated Galli priests who served Cybele and other Roman fertility goddesses].
Now notice how Philo Links the shrine prostitutes he witnessed in the first century to what Moses described in Lev 18:22, 20:13 and Deu 23:17-18.
(42) But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, as was felt by our lawgiver…” [Moses]
How odd of you to insist that Philo REALLY meant “all forms of homosexual activity” instead of shrine prostitution.
How very predictable to restrict Philo’s condemnation to only homoeroticism as part of pagan ceremonies, or other than universally, by taking him out of context. While Philo is of limited value as an interpreter of Scripture, as his reasoning goes beyond it (and 1Cor. 6 is not a primary text here), his procreative basis for the condemnation of homosexuality and leaves no doubt that he would indeed condemn all forms of homosexual activity. Philo condemned the Sodomites, as “men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature”, resulting in effeminacy. (On Abraham, 135ff) He even believed it was a sin for a man to have sexual relations with a barren women, and stoically excluded pleasure as a cause for such, (Special laws 3:32ff) which the Bible does not do within the bounds of martial bonds of men and women. (Prov. 5:18,19; SoS)
As for the next section (3:40), preceding your references context Philo condemns pederasty, (cf. On the contemplative life. 59ff) not because it is part of paganism, but because “he pursues that pleasure which is contrary to nature”, being unable to procreate, while promoting, esp. by one partner, effeminacy. He then invokes the contemporary equivalent of today’s “gay parades”as blatant examples which promoted such. Thus as usual, the religious displays served as an illustration of what is universally condemned, as his writings show that his censure of homosexuality would know no bounds, due to his basis.
Other pro-homosexual apologists seek to use him to restrict Lev. 18:22; and 20:13 to pederasty, not shrine prostitution, rightly recognizing the former was the specific general form in view. However, the Bible is abundantly evidenced to make distinctions between men, children and young men when necessary, and for Philo’s to focus on the predominate form of homosexual behavior is to be expected, though he fundamentally condemns any form of it. And as Malick comments, Philo ” did not use the term Paul coined. His vocabulary is rich with other terminology common to pederasty.30 “Philo is well known for his tendency to Hellenize the Scriptures in order to relate them to his contemporary culture.”
Arguments here (if my coding works) and here http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Homosexuals_or_prostitutes_studies_of_homosexuality_volume_12.pdf