Christians commonly lose arguments with the philosophies of the modern age by accepting an erroneous premise. Often it seems benign and we do not think critically enough in our rush to make our points. This almost always leads to failure- we not only do not persuade, but end up looking logically inconsistent – and are.
This pattern is fully on display in many of the Christian responses to crusading homosexuality. For the most part these responses make the mistake of accepting the premise of what the world calls “genetic sexual orientation.” Often referred to as simply “orientation.”
A Reformed Baptist blog recently posed the question
“Could a man, in this fallen state, have an inbred orientation to homosexuality?”
and did not answer the question in the negative.
But granting even the plausibility of this primary tenet of homosexual orthodoxy is devastating. The idea of genetic “orientation” is one that arises out of an atheistic context that denies the very ideas of God, the soul and sin, viewing human behavior in terms of genetic inevitability and necessity.
But undiscerning Christians seem all too willing to accept it. The willingness in some cases proceeds from a gross mistake – mistaking the Christian doctrine of original sin for the homosexual establishment’s teaching of “sexual orientation.”They seem to fail to realize that when the homosexual mainstream says that they are “born like that” they are definitely not talking about original sin. They are saying something radically different- that a person is hard wired genetically to behave as a homosexual and cannot be changed and must not be judged. Therefore when professing Christians agree with genetic homosexual orientation they have completely left the context and meaning of original sin and find themselves disciples in the school of modern atheism and homosexuality!
A further effect of “orientation” is that it facilitates the full shift ultimately sought by sinful man of blaming God (to whatever extent he acknowledges Him) for his acts rather than himself. The argument is then quickly turned against us as Christians so that to question one’s homosexuality, we are told, is an attack on what God has created. This is precisely the way that it becomes allegedly “Christian” to recognize and accept homosexuality. Quickly perversion is redefined as a civil right, the outrage of same sex marriage in Christian churches is demanded and any who do not applaud the new normal are denounced as bigoted and hate filled.
But blame shifting sinful behavior toward God is the desperate extremity of the guilty. Paul contradicts it asking “shall the vessel say to the potter ‘why did you make me thus?’” He rebukes the audacity of man in denying full and total responsibility for his sin and which is exactly what the whole “orientation” position represents. Their actions, they claim, are not a choice and so there can be no accountability and no judgment about it, but we should not accept the false premise or the Trojan horse terminology of “orientation” in which it is expressed.
To bring the 1689 Baptist confession in, it says 9:1 that the will of man “is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.” Behavior is not necessitated by nature (genetics), it is the willful result of the spiritual condition of the immaterial soul.
The devastating effect of this dogma of “orientation” is something Christians should be able to see. For example, take the actions of New Jersey state governor Chris Christie. He stated his mainstream homosexual views in an 2011 interview “I’ve always believed that people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual” and since then has signed in effect a law that bans “the practice of seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors.” Can those believers adopting this mainstream view of a “physiological” basis of homosexual behavior really not see the anti Christian nature of it -even when it makes homosexual conversion illegal? The lack of discernment borders, evidently, on blindness.
A Christian must oppose every instance of the “physiological” view of human behavior because it is a denial of the soul and original sin and biblical morality. God’s word teaches that man’s problems are spiritual not physiological in nature. If homosexuality is just a genetic orientation some people are born with, as we are told, then it’s logical that it should be protected with civil rights and marriage, and it should be illegal to try to convert the person because genes cannot be changed. Genes have characteristics like blue eyes, you wouldn’t preach to someone that they need to change their eyes, but when you say homosexual behavior is genetic then it is just as amoral and unchangeable. That’s again, why its illegal to try to convert a homosexual in New Jersey. And if we accept the premise of their argument concerning inbred (genetic) orientation we indeed have no suitable gospel message for changing genes.
But the premise is wrong. Man is a free and responsible moral agent no matter what his genes are, and who has a spiritual problem affecting his immaterial soul- original sin. He can be saved because in regeneration there is a renovation of the soul and a change in relationship to sin, his real problem. This is the only hope of all sinners but we destroy the message when we accept the worlds atheistic definitions of genetic behavior.
The concept of “genetic sexual orientation” is utterly inconsistent with Christian doctrine and those who as Christians have mistakenly accepted it must be urged to fully and completely reject the lie. We need every soldier in this battle to have a coherent Christian witness and apologetic that is rooted in the Bible, long ago given and forever sufficient to reveal the true nature of man’s behavior and beliefs.
A strong argument can be made that the 1901 ASV is the most literal and accurate English translation ever. The degree to which it consistently translates a given Greek word by a consistent English word is unequalled and helpful, as is the fact...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
The increasingly accepted idea among Reformed Baptist churches of a “mother church” controlling a church plant rests on several unsound notions; but particularly the extension of church authority beyond one local assembly to another in...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
The position that the Ten Commandments are the moral law is an inarguable tenant of Reformed Theology. In the 1689 2nd London Baptist confession it refers to the Ten Commandments as “this law, commonly called moral” (19:3) and declares...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Advocates of Theonomy insist on the continuation of the Jewish civil laws as being the divine application of moral law. As such, they say they cannot become obsolete. This notion however, ignores an important principle of divine revelation,...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
For the sake of discussion one might say that Peter had a tendency to fallinto Theonomy. On at least two major occasions he stumbled, once inaccepting (Acts 10) and another time in maintaining (Gal 2) the changedapplicability of Jewish law. In...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
There are numerous extra-biblical mandates for church planting insisted on by the rule makers of today. A sampling are these: a church planter must be an ordained pastor, a church planter must be a member of a church other than the one he is...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
When we speak of confessionalism we do not mean to suggest any idea of finality in terms of the human document with which we identify ourselves. We cannot agree for example with the mindset of doctrinal termination expressed by B.B. Warfield in a...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Many expressions of a carnal mindset make a passable appearance of legitimacy and reason. Such is often the case concerning the role of means in the Christian life. Too commonly it is said that the great thing to be realized about means is their...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God 2Cor 3:5 It is a common misconception among believers that an adequacy to spiritual good has become ours by nature as a part of...[ abbreviated | read entire ]