.
Dr. Wolterstorff, a renowned Christian philosopher, comments in his response to the Human Sexuality Report that one possibility for anyone who does not agree with what the report claims is a clear biblical teaching is that such a person might be obtuse. It is easy to see how one might come to that conclusion. If a biblical teaching is clear, anyone who does not understand it might not have the required mental faculties. Merriam online provides the following definition of obtuse: “. . .lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID. . .”
.
Response
Christians have long disagreed with each other on controversial topics. They have often vehemently disagreed. However, that doesn’t mean that they considered the other person stupid. If John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon would debate infant baptism the debate would likely be filled with much insightful knowledge of the Scriptures. Both were convinced that their position on baptism was clearly taught in God’s Word. The matter of same-sex marriage is one that the church has not had to debate until only very recently. The Scriptures contain many calls to dealing patiently with each other. Isn’t it reasonable to think that one of the greatest needs right now is for us to be patient with each other in this process and diligent in searching out all the relevant teachings of Scripture?
In his response to the report on human sexuality Dr. Wolterstorff has the following to say:
“We should combine interpreting the biblical writers as condemning homosexual activity as they knew and understood it with developing a Christian sexual ethic from a holistic perspective.”
Doesn’t this do damage to the inspiration of Scripture????
If historic understandings of the relevant biblical passages are correct in that the prohibitions of same-sex erotic acts are stated in across-the-board terms that included all such acts, then doesn’t limiting the prohibition to only that which the human author of each passage comprehended undermine the biblical teaching of divine inspiration? Divine inspiration is a very important matter. If the Bible only prohibited some, but not all same-sex erotic acts, wouldn’t the Spirit have inspired words that would have indicated that?
With something as foundational to the Christian faith as divine inspiration at stake, doesn’t this render Wolterstorff’s position as a whole untenable?
Wolterstorff also makes the following statement:
“The more common rejoinder has been to argue that the biblical writers, when condemning same-sex activity, were condemning specific forms of such activity, not such activity in general. For example, Paul, in the first chapter of Romans, clearly has in mind homosexual acts as part and parcel of the orgiastic, licentious lifestyle of idol-worshipping pagans. It was that sort of homosexual activity that he had in mind and was condemning. It is untenable, so many writers have claimed, to interpret Paul, in Romans, as condemning all same-sex behavior. This claim seems to me correct.”
If the more common rejoinder is that Paul only condemned orgiastic, licentious forms, where is the evidence supporting that? What about the material in the Report to the CRC synod where Romans 1 states that men, “. . . ‘were consumed with passion for one another.’ The phrase ‘for one another’ indicates that the apostle is referring to consensual sex . . .” (page 104) This could include orgiastic sex but is not limited to it. Romans 1:26-27 specifically states that women were turning away from men and turning to women. This is the language of condemning homosexual and lesbian activity in general, not only specific forms.
When the most crucial passage in the Bible is being considered, it does not suffice for Dr. Wolterstorff to simply say many theologians say that passage only prohibits specific forms. Those theologians need to be named and each position considered on its own merit. On the contrary, the language of the Report and the particular wording of the passage seem to be quite clear in stating that all forms of same-sex acts are prohibited.
Since Wolterstorff’s paper calls into question the inspiration of Scripture and it is limited to generalized statements, it does not consider the specific wording of Scripture, can this paper be considered to lend credence to the position that the church should accept same-sex marriage?
If someone does not agree with the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report, is there benefit to be obtained in saying that person might be obtuse?
Can we at any time say a biblical passage is limited to the understanding of the human author without sacrificing the inspiration of Scripture?
Do the specific words of Romans 1 indicate God was only prohibiting “. . . the orgiastic, licentious lifestyle of idol-worshipping pagans . . .”?
Share your thoughts! Thank you.
2 replies on “Dr. Wolterstorff’s Response to the Report on Human Sexuality”
Herb,
There is no other way than agreeing with your conclusion at the end :
“When the most crucial passage in the Bible is being considered, it does not suffice for Dr. Wolterstorff to simply say many theologians say that passage only prohibits specific forms. Those theologians need to be named and each position considered on its own merit. On the contrary, the language of the Report and the particular wording of the passage seem to be quite clear in stating that all forms of same-sex acts are prohibited.
Since Wolterstorff’s paper calls into question the inspiration of Scripture and it is limited to generalized statements, it does not consider the specific wording of Scripture, can this paper be considered to lend credence to the position that the church should accept same-sex marriage?”
Dr. Wolterstorff, like previous attempts to go around the inspired Word of God, uses what is called ‘a circular approach’ to Scriptures. Another attempt to use that kind of approach has been recently taken by Calvin University, Grand Rapids, MI., when it tries desperately to prove its position in favour of the homosexual lifestyle (incl. LGBTQ lifestyles) by stating that the Reformed Confession does not reject such lifestyles. Unfortunately, they are wrong, as I have demonstrated that in my Pastoral Letter Two, called, “BLOWING THE SHOFAR:…TOO LATE? (not officially released yet).
Herb, I have heard and discussed that narrow argument you referenced with an ordained minister who continually used that very same explanation of Romans 1. it seems to be a popular fabrication for some in our modern day. He never attempted to site historical proof to support such a conclusion. He just stated it as if Paul was clearly making such a narrow reference. Nothing within the immediate context or the larger biblical context supports such a conclusion.
It is eisegesis and not exegesis. It serves the purpose of those who refuse to acknowledge the clear explanation and infer into it. Thus they add to the meaning so as to change it.
And to further support your argument, the terms for “men” where it says, “men did shameful things with other men… .” (Rom. 1:27b, NIV) is specific in the Greek with leading emphasis, literally stating, “male (gender) with male (gender)…” that it is “shameful.” The wording makes it abundantly clear that Paul is referring to wrongful sexual activity between the same sex.