Pages

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Why Protestantism is caving into Homosexuality

In my last post talking about the HomoHeresy (the agenda to normalize homosexuality) having strong roots in the Catholic Church, I felt it important to point out that the HomoHeresy is infact far worse outside the Catholic Church. Things are particularly worse in Protestantism, since they have no good way to stop it. Just last month a prominent Evangelical Pastor of a large congregation came out in favor of gay marriage. The fact that homosexuality is such a central issue today is a clear indication of the failure of the Protestant-Enlightenment experiment in the West. The sin of sodomy has always been around, but never in the 2000 years of Christianity has it received public support on the popular and legislative level. Never has it been viewed as just as normal as a heterosexual marriage. What was unthinkable a generation ago is now mainstream and taking over fast, and there's no stopping it. In fact, the main reason why homosexuality is gaining ground in this country and the world is because of Protestantism, which is caving in more and more each day to this plague.

We all know the Liberal Protestants are already fully engulfed in supporting and even advocating for this agenda, but what most Conservative Protestants don't realize is that it’s becoming more and more difficult to make a case against homosexuality from within a Conservative Protestant framework. The following are the main reasons why.

1. Natural Law is denied, particularly in light of Total Depravity. 

Natural Law (natural revelation) is the moral law which God has encoded into creation and our conscience so that man is able to use his mind (Reason) to discern right and wrong even if he lacks divine (super natural) revelation. Apart from the Bible (divine revelation), all humans can have a pretty decent idea of right and wrong, and thus why Natural Law is supposed to be the basis for all human (civil) law. But Protestants deny there is such a thing as Natural Law, both because they don't distinguish between natural and supernatural revelation, and they believe after Adam fell man's use of Reason was so corrupt that he couldn't discern these things even if he wanted to. 

The problem with rejecting Natural Law is that now there is no basis from which to derive moral laws without turning to the Bible. While turning to the Bible is a very good thing, this doesn't help because in a society where the Bible is unknown or not accepted as a basis for laws means the government cannot make laws that are based on objective moral principles. Instead, laws touching upon moral issues become based on popular opinion and other subjective criteria. This is why it's perfectly logical for Western nations to see no problem saying homosexuality is fine as long as it's popularly supported by the people. (See: This Article for a better idea of the role of Natural Law on this issue.)

2. There is no magisterium in Protestantism, so no pastoral body can rule definitively on moral issues. The result is a go-it-alone denominational mentality of joining whatever “church” fits your tastes, which in turn leads to theological indifferentism.

Within Protestantism itself, there are no Christian dogmas, strictly speaking. Instead, there only exists a scholarly consensus which amounts to a well educated opinions/theories on various theological and moral issues. And from this there is no clear line between what is an "essential" and what is a "non-essential" doctrine. So to add an even greater tragedy to the tragedy of #1 above, Protestants cannot technically base civil laws even on the Bible in any definitive sense. 

Protestants are taught that you join a denomination based on what you think is meeting your spiritual needs. This means that "church" isn't about being a definitive guide, but rather about which pastor or community in town you feel most comfortable with. The result is that doctrine really does not matter, paving the way for a practical if not formal indifference to theology. This happens even among Conservative Protestant denominations, who basically operate as if only Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the only important doctrines, with everything else from Sacraments to Liturgy to Ecclesiology to Divorce all left up to individual preference. But if Baptism and Eucharist and Sunday Worship and Divorce are all left up to personal preference, then this signifies doctrine and morality in general are not what make someone a Christian.

3. The Biblical testimony against homosexuality can be argued around or at least heavily attenuated given the inconsistent and erroneous approach Protestants have on exegesis and morality.

While there are clear Scriptural texts that teach homosexuality is a sin, e.g. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Mark 10:2-12, these texts greatly lose their force when a Protestant espouses things that undermine this Scriptural testimony. For example, with a breakdown in a consistent sexual ethic within Conservative Protestantism regarding morals like divorce, abortion, masturbation, contraception, sterilization, and unnatural acts within marriage (e.g. sodomy of the wife), Conservative Protestants can no longer oppose homosexuality on the basis that there is something intrinsically wrong with it. In other words, Conservative Protestants permit sinful actions that are effectively homosexual in their essence, they just don't allow these sinful acts to be done between two people of the same gender. Instead, Protestants can only say homosexuality is wrong "because the Bible says so," which is akin to saying the Jews could not eat pork "because the Bible said so," and not because eating pork is intrinsically wrong. They can only oppose it for superficial reasons, such as that it sounds gross or that God hasn't changed his mind (yet). In fact, a Protestant could theoretically say that God someday could reveal that homosexuality is now acceptable, just we cannot make that conclusion until God first says it's allowed. In fact, this is precisely what pro-homosexual Protestants argue when they point out that the Bible changed the laws against eating pork and circumcision.

It is for this reason that liberal Protestants have already come to the logical conclusion that there is no good basis to stick with male-only clergy and male headship in marriage, since these are neither viewed as "essentials" nor anything more than "because God said so back then" situations. 

4. The Protestant approach to morality has led to the destruction of the family, which in turn undermines marriage as an institution and desire. 

As an add-on to #3, the Conservative Protestant view of marriage has so trivialized and tarnished Christian marriage that the institution of marriage is openly mocked and fewer and fewer people even find getting married desirable. Conservative Protestants deny the Sacramental nature of Christian marriage, and they deny any permanence to it. In Protestantism, marriage does not mirror the inseparable union between Jesus and the Church as Ephesians 5 teaches. Instead, marriage is no more than a human contract that can be negated upon various grounds. Taking this along with contraception, there's really no good reason to wait for marriage before engaging in sexual relations. Homosexuals argue that if marriage is this trivial and merely a human contract, then there's not that good of a reason to oppose gay marriage.

5. A "no sin can separate us from God" mentality in which no sin is grave enough to cause you to lose salvation. 

Conservative Protestants don't agree on whether a Christian can lose salvation, which in itself is a serious problem. But those who teach "eternal security" have always denied that the doctrine of "eternal security" is a free pass to live in sin. So just because a Christian cannot lose salvation does not mean they should be free to sin, especially if a Christian's life is supposed to be transformed by the Holy Spirit such that they wont desire to live in sin. Fair enough, but in practice this sadly translates into the Christian letting their guard down and not avoiding grave sins. Take the case of King David when he committed adultery and fornication: many Conservative Protestants would deny David lost his salvation when he gave into those moments of temptation. If that's the case, then the Conservative Protestant should not fret if they unfortunately give into weakness regarding pornography or fornication. And with that it's not hard to see that homosexual acts are simply one form of temptation someone could give into. Now the Conservative Protestant who has an addiction to pornography is not so far removed from the Conservative Protestant with a homosexual addiction. Plus, any Conservative Protestants who are divorced and remarried and/or are using contraception are effectively in a permanent state of grave sin, even further undermining the idea of the need to root out sin, with most of these people living as if their salvation is secure and there's nothing to worry about.


In conclusion, I’d say a Protestant who affirms at least 3 of these, and all pretty much do, then there really is no good case “against” homosexuality. This is precisely why Protestants are caving in more and more each day. This is not to say that there is not a homosexual agenda and problem among Catholic ranks, because there is (largely because of cultural reasons), but these Catholics are dissenting from official Church teaching, and this Church teaching is robust and consistent enough that there is no place homosexual ideology can take root. 

19 comments:

Vocab Malone said...

Such irony! Rome has an epidemic of MEN molesting BOYS! Not just homosexuality, but homosexual assault!

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

When one considers that Luther's divorce teaching was one of the things that drove the engine of the reformation, it shouldn't surprise anyone that other sexual sins would enter the picture.

Nick said...

Vocab,

Please address the arguments I presented. For example, how is the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality different from it's prohibition of eating pork?

I don't want to go on a tangent of the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church because (a) it doesn't decide anything on the doctrinal level, only that some men were not faithful Christians, (b) the abuse problem is far worse in Protestant denominations and public schools, but these are largely ignored by the media.

Vocab Malone said...

Nick -

Sure, I'm glad you asked! Here is a sermon I gave on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - http://vimeo.com/52362992

BTW, none of the arguments we would give are along the lines of because the people in charge at Rome say so. When that is part of your process, you always have the possibility that 'the man' can change his mind.

Fortunately, the Scripture can not be broken!

vm

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is Rome that is soft on homosexuality because Trent condemned the Reformers for teaching that concupiscence, the desire to sin (which includes homosexual desire), is itself sinful

Anonymous said...

I clicked onto Vocab's video. He failed to mention that the sequence of 1 washed 2 sanctified 3 justified fits nicely into the Catholic scheme which says Baptism is the sacrament of sanctification/justification. Protestants say Justification/Salvation is by Faith Alone. Baptism is then merely an act of obedience that is done later.

Vocab Malone said...

^^Thank you for checking out the sermon. Yes, you are correct I do not speak on Rome in the video. That was not relevant to the thrust of the passage. And in this post, the main topic was Protestants, Rome, and homosexuality.

But I do (with a friend, who also happens to be a pro-life activist) speak on Rome's view of authority and salvation in this video - http://vimeo.com/46962650

Back to the topic, it seems odd for a Roman Catholic to blog like this when men such as Sergius III, Pope Alexander VI and Pope John XII are part of their "legacy".

Nick said...

Vocab,

I did not listen to all of your sermon, but I listened to the part where you talked about homosexuality. I thought you did a good job addressing the etymology of the terms, but this didn't touch upon my challenge/questions.

For example, you said the word for homosexuality hearkened back to the Greek OT of Leviticus that condemned homosexual acts. This is a great connection to make. But it doesn't address the "no pork" argument I made. In fact, why should Leviticus' 'no pork' be abandoned with impunity and yet Leviticus' no homosexuality remains? Unless there's more to the story, saying no to homosexuality is simply a temporary ban on an otherwise acceptable practice.

Anonymous said...

I did indeed click onto Vocab Malone's vimeo sermon on justification. The first half was an attempt to debunk the papacy by using Cyprian and other fathers.( Pretty weak). After 45 minutes Malone's fellow speaker, Jason Walsh ( a lapsed Catholic ) spoke on justification. He held a copy of Jimmy Akin's SALVATION CONTROVERSY in his hand while criticizing it for not addressing the texts dealing with imputation. Followers of this blog can save themselves the trouble as Nick has shown beyond a doubt that the reformers got Paul wrong on this point.

De Maria said...

Vocab Malone said...
Such irony! Rome has an epidemic of MEN molesting BOYS! Not just homosexuality, but homosexual assault!


Big difference. Any sins committed by any Catholics are done in spite of Catholic Teaching. Whereas, Protestants have mainlined sin. They have committed the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, calling that which is evil, good and that which is good, evil.

For example: Protestants do not condemn divorce and remarriage. Whereas Christ said:
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

They have also legitimized abortion, same sex marriage, gay ministers, contraception and masturbation, claiming that these things are good. Whereas they are sinful.

De Maria said...


Vocab Malone said...
^^Thank you for checking out the sermon. ....
Back to the topic, it seems odd for a Roman Catholic to blog like this when men such as Sergius III, Pope Alexander VI and Pope John XII are part of their "legacy".


If you are claiming that these men are somehow evil, I stand with my previous remark. Any sin they committed is against the Teaching of the Catholic Church. Not because of it.

Yet, the Protestants are committing sins which their churches have legitimized and in some cases call them necessary.

Anonymous said...

Vocab appeals to certain fathers against the Papacy. Does he know what the early Church fathers taught on abortion and contraception? Name one mainline denomination hasn't endorsed these sins as okay if done by married couples? Sorry Vocab, but only the Church built on Peter has held firm for 2,000 years. He isn't even in sync with the magisterial Deformers who all condemned contraception as forms of sodomy with as much zeal as they taught Faith Alone.

Anonymous said...

I'll start taking the Roman church's stance on homosexuality seriously when it starts disciplining its priests and theologians that advocate or practice the sin. A church that allowed Mary Daly, a lesbian pagan, to teach theology for about 3 decades at a Jesuit institution, is in no position to declare how faithful it has been on sexual morality.

At least in Protestant denominations that believe the Bible, such individuals are disciplined.

Vocab Malone said...

Nick, I greatly appreciate your comments.

As far as a reason now to forbid homosexuality? How about 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "... do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived..." Honestly, I don't see why the question you raise about this is considered such a challenge!

Again, Thank you so much for your analysis of the relevant portion of the sermon video.

vm

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
I'll start taking the Roman church's stance on homosexuality seriously when it starts disciplining its priests and theologians that advocate or practice the sin.


The Church has always done so.

A church that allowed Mary Daly, a lesbian pagan, to teach theology for about 3 decades at a Jesuit institution, is in no position to declare how faithful it has been on sexual morality.

Purportedly Catholic universities in the US have been disobeying the Church for years. The Church has tried to rein them in, but ultimately they will be disciplined by God.

]At least in Protestant denominations that believe the Bible, such individuals are disciplined.

How? By making them Bishops?

http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2013/01/a-gradient-in-the-ability-to-become-ordained/

Vocab Malone said...

To De Maria and the other (anon.) posters:

As mentioned by others, there is plenty of liberalism in Rome. Most of them I meet in day day to life are nominal, cultural, or relativists.

The only place I meet conservatives is when I do pro-life work. And there we are teaming up for a common cause - saving babies!

As far as protestants saying all those sins you mentioned are 'OK' - I have never been a part of that kind of thing and most Calvinists (or conservative Charismatics or traditional Wesleyans, for that matter) aren't like that anyway.

So, I really don't know what you're talking about, unless you strictly mean groups like the PCUSA or the ELCA. If that is what you mean, I encourage you to listen to this show I recorded, where we discuss this very issue and why it is unbiblical and causes many problems - http://backpack.podbean.com/2012/07/08/the-decline-of-the-mainlines-07082012/

Thx
vm

De Maria said...

To De Maria and the other (anon.) posters:

As mentioned by others, there is plenty of liberalism in Rome. Most of them I meet in day day to life are nominal, cultural, or relativists.


Then you have met Catholics who are disobeying the Church. But their sins are in spite of Catholic Teaching, not because of it.

The only place I meet conservatives is when I do pro-life work. And there we are teaming up for a common cause - saving babies!

You still don't get it. Who made you judge of the righteous and unrighteous? God alone judges His people.

Romans 14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

As far as protestants saying all those sins you mentioned are 'OK' - I have never been a part of that kind of thing and most Calvinists (or conservative Charismatics or traditional Wesleyans, for that matter) aren't like that anyway.

Which ones of them preach against masturbation, contraception, divorce and remarriage? As far as I am aware they all allow those sins and consider them their personal right to engage in.

So, I really don't know what you're talking about, unless you strictly mean groups like the PCUSA or the ELCA. If that is what you mean, I encourage you to listen to this show I recorded, where we discuss this very issue and why it is unbiblical and causes many problems

Its not all about you. I don't know half of what your talking about either. But this I know. All sinners commit their sins in contradiction of Catholic Doctrine.

This I also know. Protestants have permitted many sins to be legitimized. And they legitimize more and more sins day by day.

Thx
vm


You're welcome.

De Maria

Nick said...

Vocab,

The "problem" I have with your answer (appealing to 1 Cor 6:9-11) is that without a consistent moral theology, the "sin" of homosexuality cannot be seen as wrong because of the act being inherently sinful, but rather only sinful because God wants a temporary ban on it (just like no pork).

For example, a big name somewhat Reformed pastor, Mark Driscoll, came out last year as saying sodomy of one's wife (within marriage) is allowed. If that's so, then why is homosexuality wrong? It's the same act.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, Mark Driscoll was once a Catholic. He says he was an altar boy. As a protestant, he named one of his sons Calvin and the other one Martin ( after Luther )! Neither of these Deformers were know for living holy lives. Luther was totally disturbed as is evidenced by his penchant for the fecal art of Lucas Cranach, his foul language, visions of the devil, fear of lightening, lying about giving Philip of Hesse permission to have two wives, hatred for Jews, scrupulosity, fear and hatred for God, teaching that Christ committed adultery with the woman at the well, etc. etc.