As Paul makes the case that every person has sinned and that every person falls short of the glory of God, he cites homosexuality as a prime example of wickedness. This judgment is offensive to non-Christians, and even a significant part of the contemporary Church rejects it. They offer a number of powerless arguments.

There is the “love is always right” argument. They say, “How can it be wrong for two people to love each other, even if they are of the same gender? If they love each other, then it is right and good.” Love is never wrong, that is true. But what is love? The Bible says that love is a summary of God’s law (Romans 13:9). It is a summary of what God tells us about how we are to treat people. Since God forbids homosexuality, homosexuality never comes from love, and love never leads to or coexists with homosexuality.

In fact, to entertain or even act on a homosexual attraction to another person is to treat that person in a way that is forbidden by God’s law, and to invite that other person to also think and behave in a way that is forbidden. Therefore, homosexuality comes from hate, and not love. Love is often mixed into the equation because the homosexual experiences physical and/or psychological attraction, dependence, and affinity to another person of the same gender. But the proper word is lust, not love.

This way of thinking is contrary to the philosophy of man. To illustrate, the Bible says that if you do not discipline your child with the rod – if you do not hit him for the purpose of instruction – then you hate him. But people who refuse to use physical punishment appeal to precisely the opposite reason – they say it is because they love their children. So we return to the definition of love. The Bible says that love is obedience to God’s law in the way we treat people. If you love your child, you will use physical punishment whenever it is needed. If you do not, you hate your child.

Likewise, homosexuals do not love one another. They hate one another. They want to use one another to satisfy their own lust, and they want their partners to cooperate in continuing a lifestyle that incurs God’s punishment. How is that love? If I love you, even if I am unable to resist temptation, I would urge you to flee this thing that has ensnared me: “Run! Save yourself! Do not be like me! Do not be punished as I surely will be!” If, like Eve, you disobey God, and then invite another to disobey God along with you, there can be hardly a more vivid depiction of hate. If I decide to rob a bank and ask my wife to help me, it can only mean that I do not love her as much as I say I do.

There is the “no harm done” argument. They say, “As long as we are not hurting anybody, it is none of your business.” The standard is arbitrary. On what basis do they say that right and wrong is determined by whether it hurts someone? Without a basis that they can defend against me, I have no reason to accept this as a standard of ethical judgment. Certainly, they cannot appeal to the Christian worldview to support this principle, since it is the Christian worldview that condemns homosexuality, and it is the Christian worldview that they oppose.

Also, what is their definition of harm? Even if their lifestyle does not directly and obviously harm me in the physical sense, is harm limited to the physical? What if their lifestyle affects me psychologically? That is, what if homosexuality offends and repulses me? If that does not count, then do they give blanket permission to the whole world to harm them psychologically? Thus as long as we do not directly and obviously harm them in the physical sense, we can say anything we want about homosexuality, and it is none of their business. Perhaps this is unacceptable to them, but in any case, it is necessary to define harm. Otherwise, the argument is arbitrary and meaningless, and can be dismissed without further consideration.

There is the “mutual consent” argument. They say, “As long as the relationship is consensual, it is no one else’s business what two people do with each other.” This is just as arbitrary as the “no harm done” argument. Who established this standard, and why must I accept it? And it is like one argument for abortion: “Does a woman not have the right to do what she wants with her body?” Of course not. We are God’s creation, and only he has the right to decide what we should do with our bodies. Similarly, mutual consent between two people is irrelevant. They need God’s consent to proceed. But he does not consent. He forbids what they consent to do with each other.

There is the “animals do it” argument. Some animals seem to exhibit homosexual behavior. This is irrelevant. Just because animals do something does not make it right even for them, let alone for us. Just as homosexuality has arisen in humans because of sin, the Fall of Adam has also brought down a curse on the rest of creation. If animal behavior is used as a standard for human behavior, then maybe the reverse is also true. Since I oppose homosexuality, perhaps chimpanzees should speak up too. In any case, some animals are cannibals, and some eat their own excrements. If you are going to appeal to animal behavior, at least be consistent about it.

There is the “born this way” argument. Some people, they say, are born homosexuals. They cannot help it. It is in their genes. But genetics is irrelevant. First, science cannot provide rational support for a genetic argument, because as I have repeatedly shown, science itself is irrational. Science depends on sensation, induction, and experimentation. But sensation is unreliable, and an empirical epistemology is easily refuted. Induction is a formal fallacy, and the conclusion is never a necessary inference from the premises. As for experimentation, it involves a repeated use of sensation and induction, propelled by a method that is characterized by the fallacy of asserting the consequent, so that the whole thing spirals into one arbitrary and impossible conclusion after another. They call these scientific theories.

But for a moment let us pretend that science can discover truth. Let us pretend that there are such things as genes. Let us pretend that genes are what science says they are. Let us pretend that science has discovered a gene that is associated with homosexuality. Then let us pretend that man cannot change his genes. After all this pretending and supposing, the whole argument still suffers from irrelevance. So what if some people are born homosexuals? So what if they cannot help it? This does not make homosexuality right, and for that matter, it does not make homosexuality wrong. It is entirely irrelevant. Does not even science say that some people are born more violent or more susceptible to alcohol addiction? Ah, I will not press this point, since science may change its verdict tomorrow, next week, or ten years from now. They call this scientific progress.

The Bible says that all men born after Adam are sinful at conception. We are all born sinners. Whether something is sin has nothing to do with birth, with choice, or with freedom. The Christian’s definition of sin has to do with God’s command. If God says something is wrong, then it is wrong to do it, regardless of the context or choice, and regardless of freedom. In fact, the Bible says that the non-Christian is unable to obey God’s law. If sin presupposes the freedom or ability to obey God’s command, or to not sin, then all non-Christians are already sinless, since all of them are unable to obey God, and they would require no salvation. However, it is precisely because they are sinful and unable to change that they need Jesus Christ to save them.

If homosexuality is inseparably tied to a person’s genes, then this means that even if he becomes a Christian, he might still experience temptations in that area. He might still experience temptations even if it is not tied to his genes. If he is tempted after conversion, is homosexuality still a sin? Sure. Is this person saved from his sin? Certainly, if he trusts in Christ to save him, and in the Holy Spirit to help him overcome his temptations. What is unacceptable is for this person to deny that homosexuality is a sin at all. Nevertheless, our thinking does not need to stop at this point. If homosexuality is tied to a person’s genes, then this only means that God can change the genes after conversion. Why not? And God can deliver a person from homosexuality even without changing his genes. There is nothing impossible with God. But if the person fails to receive deliverance at this time, he can still practice endurance without surrendering to temptation.

There is the “there are other sins” argument. Is this a defense, or an admission? Certainly there are other sins. Perhaps the point is that Christians should not focus so much on homosexuality. My first answer is that we do not. We also talk about unbelief, envy, greed, murder, theft, and many other sins. If they think that we only talk about homosexuality, it is because they pay attention only when we talk about homosexuality. And my second answer is that, if they want us to talk even less about homosexuality, and give other sins a greater share of our attention, then they should not spend so much time rubbing it in everybody’s face, and trying to legitimize it and glorify it.

There is the “it’s the idolatry” argument. Some smart alecks who call themselves scholars assert that, in a text like Romans 1, the Bible is really condemning idolatry, as pagan worship was commonly accompanied by homosexual acts. Now, I have the suspicion that those who would excuse homosexuality this way will likely find some other excuse for pagan religions if that were the topic. In any case, the argument fails because the Bible refers to the lust of the homosexuals and calls their relations unnatural. These factors stand independent of idolatry. The association with idolatry is significant, but it is incidental and unnecessary. Homosexuality can occur apart from idolatry, and when it does, the lust is still there and the relation is still unnatural, contrary to what God regards as natural. This argument makes things even worse for the homosexuals, because it draws our attention to the fact that God does not condemn only the overt act, but also the very desire of the homosexuals.

This brings us to the “none of your business” argument, which is attached to many of the other arguments: “If there is love, it is none of your business. If there is no harm, it is none of your business. If there is consent, it is none of your business.” So, they say, “What gives you the right to interfere with our affairs?” My answer shall remind us that our disagreement is really an effect of a prior and broader disagreement – it is a result of the clash between the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview, the Christian basis of thinking and judgment and the non-Christian basis of thinking and judgment.

The Christian faith addresses people’s lives all the time, and when it does, it speaks to people’s very thoughts, desires, and motives. Thus when Jesus talked about adultery, he did not mean only the overt sexual act, but the lust itself counts as sin. The Bible certainly regards theft and fraud as sins, but covetousness is also condemned. As a Christian, I preach the Bible’s message. So of course your life is my business, and not only your actions, but your very thoughts. Now, you do not need to tell me your actions, and I have no power to see your thoughts. You are not accountable to me – I am not the one who will send you to hell. You are accountable to God, but he wants me to tell you that.

And this also answers the “who are you to judge” argument. This is the same argument that the people of Sodom used when they were trying to break down Lot’s door so that they could have sex with the handsome angels (Genesis 19). If God had not said a word about homosexuality, I would be perfectly happy to let you eat your own feces like the animals do. As it is, I am not the judge, but there is one who judges, and I am telling you about him, and what he will do to you if you do not repent.

So what will God do to the homosexual? The Bible is clear about this, but non-Christians do not want to hear it. Many of those who call themselves Christians refuse to accept it. So Paul says, “Do not be deceived.” Do not let someone lie to you, and do not lie to yourself about this. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). If you are a homosexual, God puts you together with idolaters, adulterers, prostitutes, thieves, and such. He says that if you are a homosexual, you will go to hell. There is a great temptation to disagree with this, or to explain this away, but any other opinion is deception.

There is hope. The Bible continues, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (v. 11). The Corinthians were some of these things. They were idolaters, thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, heading toward everlasting punishment, pain, misery, and madness that continue forever. Jesus Christ saved them and changed them, so they were no longer idolaters, no longer thieves, no longer adulterers, and no longer homosexuals.

Consider someone who has spent all his life practicing witchcraft. The Bible teaches that God would damn this spiritual rebel to hell. After this person is converted to the Christian faith, and before he has become skillful in the things of God, there may remain a strong temptation to go back to the things that he is familiar with. He had depended on them for a sense of security, control, power, for relief from worries about the future, and for assurance as he faced difficulties in life. The temptation itself does not mean that his conversion has failed, but it means that he must remind himself that these things that he used to believe in were untrue and unreliable, and that he must press on in faith and grow in it. He must learn to trust in Jesus Christ both for this life and the life to come. The worst thing that he can do is to convince himself that witchcraft is not forbidden after all.

It is possible for the homosexual to change, even if temptations remain. The convert must abandon his sinful past, his false love and evil desires, and learn to trust Jesus Christ, and develop the right kind of love and the right kind of relationships. When temptations come, resist. When temptations overcome, repent. Keep learning. Keep trying. Do not give up. Do not yield to spiritual fatigue. Do not escape guilt by excusing sin. The worst thing that a person can do is to convince himself that homosexuality is not a sin after all. That would be like a return to witchcraft, to murder, to adultery, and to idolatry. This person is deceived if he thinks that he is saved from hell.

Because a significant part of the Church now condones homosexuality, we must also consider the status of the people. The same passage that says God pours out his wrath upon the homosexuals also condemns those who approve of them: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32). Their status is the same as the homosexuals, and the status of homosexuals is the same as idolaters, murderers, thieves, and adulterers.

What are we to do with a non-Christian murderer? We preach Christ to him, calling him to repent and believe the gospel. What are we to do with a person who calls himself a Christian, but who preaches that murder is acceptable to God, or who endorses murderers for the ministry? We excommunicate him, and then treat him as a non-Christian, because that is what he is. The same policy must apply to homosexuals and those who support them. We preach repentance to non-Christian homosexuals, we excommunicate professing Christians who condone homosexuality, and we also excommunicate those who refuse to excommunicate them.

By excommunication, I mean that we must declare them as non-Christians, that we must decidedly declare that God will send them to hell, that we must shun them in all social and business transactions whenever possible, and that we must physically remove them from church and seminary premises. The only way for them to regain fellowship with believers is to renounce their former opinion and to declare that homosexuality is indeed a sin, and that to condone it is also a sin, and to offer an informed and sincere profession in Christ, that righteousness is as God defines it, and that though all have fallen short, Christ brings us into the kingdom of heaven by giving us faith in him.

Recommended:
Homosexuality and the Mystery of Christ