Level 4
Statement Against Same-Sex Marriages
Statement
Dr. Brownson bases his conclusions on the general language of Romans 1 and ignores very specific statements.
Dr. Brownson’s primary objection to the historic interpretation of Romans 1 is his position that only acts which are excessive are prohibited in Romans 1. He refers to the four terms for the justification of his position. Those four terms are translated lust or desire (verse 24), passion (verse 26), consumed (verse 27) and passion (verse 27).
It must be pointed out that these terms of lust (desire), passion, impurity and dishonor (terms he also deals with at length) are all general in nature. Impurity could be caused in the Old Testament and in the New Testament by a wide variety of things. Dishonor, too, can be the result of many things. The same is true of someone who is or something that is shameless. Nowhere prior to verses 26 and 27 does Paul say they did “_______” (fill in the blank) which made them impure, or dishonorable. So up to verses 26 and 27 this is all very vague.
Nowhere in Romans 1 does Paul list a specific act and say because they did this act, which is self-destructive or over-the-top they were guilty of excessive acts. Dr. Brownson’s argument of excess is based entirely and solely on vague generalities. Dr. Brownson suggests that Paul is referring to sins such as Caligula committed. However, aside from same-sex acts Romans 1 does not spell out any of the atrocities Caligula committed. Dr. Brownson’s reference to Caligula is pure conjecture, there is nothing in Romans 1 to base it on.
Verses 26 and 27, on the other hand, are very specific. When they spell out that men giving up women and turning to men sexually is shameless, they define very clearly just what is impure, what is dishonorable and what is shameless. The four specific references are as follows:
- For their women exchanged the natural sexual use (implied of males) for those that are contrary to nature . . .
- . . . and the men likewise gave up the natural sexual use of women . . .
- . . . and were consumed with passion for one another . . .
- . . . men committing shameless acts with men . . .
We must not miss the forest for the trees. The message frankly seems to be very clear here. If the message is not clearly the historical understanding of this passage, then it will be possible for someone to write a clear rebuttal, which can be included in the Response section in reply to this statement.
Note: the four words Brownson covers in this regard are covered in more detail at the following links:
Epithumia Did Not Mean Excessive
Pathe And Non-Biblical Definitions
“Consumed” Indicates Mutual Love, Not Excessive Acts
.
“For” Specifically Refutes Excessive
Verse 27 Is Not Limited To Excessive Acts
Shameless Acts: A Noun, Not A Verb
“Shameless”: A Reference To Genitals, Not Excesses
.
Response
A response to the above would be appreciated.