Much of the remainder of the first proposition debated was citing sources over the definitions of words. Clearly, brother Eaves used the lexicons and translations correctly while Johnson tried to cast doubt on what is obvious to most people. Although the debate was to examine what the Scriptures presented, John-son spent most of his time citing various “authorities.” One of those was a priest, Henry Fehreu, from an article in U.S. Catholic, 1972. Perhaps unintentionally, Fehreu stated what is the crux of the matter:
The many studies of homosexuality cannot agree on the source of homosexuality, but whether homosexuality comes from one’s own genetic makeup or from early conditioning, a homosexual is a homosexual through no fault of his own (54).
Isn’t that the mantra that advocates of homosexuality have been trying to get people to accept? A man who prefers other men neither knows nor cares what the cause is; he can’t help it. It is through no fault of his own! Could not anyone exhibit this same wrong attitude—the pedophile, the transgender individual, the adulterer, the fornicator? Who wants to take responsibility for his actions? The gambler and the drinker would like for their problems not to be their fault, too. The problem is that God does not accept such at-tempts—even if they were well-meaning.
Johnson cites Arno Karlen, who wrote the book, Sexuality and Homosexuality. He quotes Dr. Stanley Jones on page 487 as writing in 1947 that getting homosexuals to change was “quite indefensible.” He added: “Attempted treatment or alteration of the basic personality of an inborn homosexual can only be de-scribed as a moral outrage” (55). None of these “doc-tors” and “experts,” however, are as wise as the Holy Spirit who through Paul told the Corinthians regarding this and other sins, “Such were some of you.”
So, the first principle of the theology of homosexuality is that they cannot help it, and the second principle is that it is wrong to try to get them to change. The third principle implied in the book and made quite plain three decades after this debate occurred is: “You had better like it.” We now have laws against any form of homosexual “discrimination,” and who knows where this insanity will end up and how much those who affirm what the Bible does will be punished for their convictions?
The Second Proposition
The second round of four speeches each revolved around this proposition: “I know the Bible, which is the inspired word of God, teaches that sexual intercourse between certain human beings of the same sex is not sinful.” Johnson affirmed the proposition, and brother Eaves denied it. Johnson began by defining the words in his proposition and the terms he would be using in the discussion. His main points (which follow) are not based on the Scriptures at all, nor when he cites a verse does it always relate to the subject.
Without a reference to any principle in the Bible (and actually contrary to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), Johnson says that one’s sexual orientation “is God-given, just as God gives us all our talents and grace” (76). One can-not help wondering, with this line of reasoning, if God gives certain individuals the ability to lie and be deceptive? Or is such not learned behavior? Of course, no Scripture accompanies this wild assertion.
His Rule No. 1 is: “God does not hold a person responsible for a same-sex act over which he or she has no control” (78). He cites Romans 2:14, Matthew 19: 11, and Luke 12:48—none of which pertain directly to the “rule” set forth. The first of these talks about the Gentiles doing by nature what is in the Law of Moses. Johnson does not bother to explain how it relates to what he just asserted. The second passage describes heterosexual marriage, and the third establishes the point that “to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” Again, if these are supposed to be relevant to the “rule,” Johnson fails to specify how.
If Johnson means that a person is not at fault when he is victimized by another, we would all agree with that, but the way he words it would also allow for any homosexual to say, “I was born this way and have no control over it.” All who know the Word must take strenuous objection to that meaning.
Johnson’s second rule is: “The Lord is a God that wishes for all his children happiness and love (even people that do not conform to the average), John 9:2; 3:16; Luke 22:10; 7:2; Matt. 24:40” (78).
This is certainly the claim of everyone who deter-mines to contradict what the Bible teaches. How many times have we all heard someone (who is not Scripturally divorced and has no authority to marry again) say, “I just think the Lord wants me to be happy”? Apparently, a person’s personal happiness takes precedence over the will of God and obedience to His commands. One would think that physical happiness was the highest good that there could possibly be and that there is no such thing as making a sacrifice.
If such were the case, would Jesus not have been happier to remain in heaven, and would He not have been happier if He had not gone to the cross to die for our sins? He put aside His personal happiness for the greater good. John 9:2 is irrelevant to this issue, as are Luke 7:2 and 22:10. In fact, they seem to be cited to fill up space since they are in no way related to the “rule.” John 3:16 is pertinent, but it contradicts the rule. If God had desired His own personal happiness and been as selfish as human beings, He would not have sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins (John 3:16). Matthew 24:40 should probably be Matthew 22:40 (perhaps some of the others are misprinted, also). But again, love makes sacrifices, and all who are in unlawful sexual relationships should give them up in order to please God.
In Johnson’s third rule, he actually reverses the meaning of Matthew 19:12: “God does not expect people who cannot contain to live sexless lives (even people who do not measure up to the physical standards suggested in the Bible)” (79). To be certain that Mat-thew 19:12 is not misapplied, we need the context of the entire passage. The Pharisees came to Jesus with a question about marriage in order to test him. They wanted to know if a man could put away his wife for just any reason (Matt. 19:3).
Jesus appealed to the creation as a pattern for God’s design for marriage. He made them male and female (which authorizes heterosexual but not homo-sexual marriage). God also designed marriage to be permanent (“let not man separate”) (vv. 4-6). They asked why Moses allowed for divorce; Jesus answered that the reason was the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so (vv.7-8). Then Jesus states the New Testament teaching on the subject of marriage, which will last as long as the earth stands:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9).
God’s will is for two heterosexuals to remain married. Should a wife be unfaithful, the husband can divorce her and marry another (who is eligible) with God’s approval. If he does not have that Scriptural reason for divorce, then he commits adultery in marrying another and living with her. When Jesus taught these words, His disciples thought it over and said, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (v. 10). They were accustomed to seeing a society with looser attitudes toward marriage. But if a man could not divorce his wife at will, then maybe it was better to remain single.
At this point, Jesus says, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given” (v. 11). What saying cannot all accept? All cannot remain single rather than getting married. Some have that ability, but most do not (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7-9). Now this subject draws to a conclusion in verse 12:
“For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
If one desires to give up being married, along with its privileges, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and he has that natural ability to forgo sexual relations, that is a good goal. The wrong conclusion, however, would be, “Oh, then everyone else has a right to marry.” NO! Jesus just said that those who divorce their wives for some cause other than fornication do them-selves commit adultery by entering into “a marriage” with another. They may not have naturally possessed the gift of celibacy, but they must now make them-selves a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake anyway be-cause they are not authorized to marry. God does expect some to live sexless lives, and that includes any same-sex relationship, along with illicit heterosexual ones.
Rule No. 4 states: ”Since marriage is honorable in all and no specific prohibitions are given in the Bible regarding transsexual marriages then God accepts them (Hebrews 13:4)” (80). God does not need to condemn specifically every style of bizarre marriage arrangement, such as a couple reversing genders. The question is not, “Where does God condemn it?” but rather, “Where does God authorize it?” (Col. 3:17). All marriages that fit the original pattern are honorable—not those involving adulterers, et al.
Johnson’s fifth rule repeats this error; he claims that God accepts lesbian marriages because there is no prohibition against it (91-92). How warped is some-one’s thinking that, when a practice such as homosexuality is condemned, period (Rom. 1:26-27), he would then expect another Scripture forbidding marriage between those who practice what is wrong in the first place! Since the Bible condemns murder, is it really necessary to condemn mass murder, too? Again, what is needed is authorization, and none exists.
Romans 1:27
In order to try to get out from under the force of Romans 1:27, Johnson quotes from David Lipscomb. Below is what he cited:
Romans 1:27: For the women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. What the special form of this unnatural perversion of women’s lust was, we are not told. — David Lip-scomb, Commentary on Romans (Nashville, Gospel Advocate Co., 1935).
Then Johnson adds, but does not quote Lipscomb as saying that “it may have been bestiality that these women practiced together” (91). The 1986 printed edition does not have that wording, although the sense is the same. In fact, Lipscomb’s comments are on Romans 1:26—not verse 27. Johnson seems to get a great deal of his information wrong. But discounting all of his errors, what about Johnson’s use of Lipscomb?
First, Lipscomb, like any commentator is giving his opinion of the meaning of a text. It may be a well-grounded opinion, or it may not be. We cite sources to see what they thought on a matter—not as Biblical authority. Only the Bible is regarded as truth. Second, Lipscomb did not rule out lesbianism as being condemned, he just said that it might include more than that, based on Leviticus 18:23. Third, the text com-pares the sin of the women with the sin of the men by the use of the word likewise. Since the men were burning in their lust toward one another, then so were the women. Lipscomb acknowledges that the men were engaging in acts of homosexuality (40). Johnson wasted his time with this quote.
A Debased Mind
The mind that contorts itself, as Johnson’s does, is a debased and perverted mind. He cannot see any relationship (male-male, male-female, female-female) but what there is sex involved in it. Consider some of his claims throughout the remainder of the debate.
…David and Jonathan formed a sexual love unit… (92).
In Moses’ day, homosexuality was so widely accepted that it was only condemned in the most extreme situations (96). [He never explained Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, GWS.]
The most beautiful love song ever written was composed by one woman to another (Ruth 1:16). Joseph’s respect and love for Potiphar, Daniel’s lasting love for Nebuchadnezzar and David’s love for Jonathan have rightly been compared to the loves of Socrates… (107).
Johnson slanders the names of practically everyone named in the Scriptures—and some who are not. He accuses Cain and Abel of being homosexuals, as well as Ruth and Naomi, although he further accuses the virtuous Ruth of seducing Boaz as well. Joseph’s respect and love for Potiphar was not sexual in nature. Nowhere is such a thing even hinted at. If two people of the same sex have a fondness for each other, it is immediately assumed that something intimate is going on between them even though no evidence exists for such a perverted speculation.
David is probably the favorite target for those of a debased mind. He is accused of having a sexual relationship with Jonathan and Mephibosheth, his son, and we can only wonder why he omitted Uriah, since he did not go home to sleep with Bathsheba. No one has ever read these Scriptures before, but Johnson assures us that the following renderings are what they really mean:
And Jonathan lusted greatly after David.
The body of Jonathan was joined to the body of David….
Then Jonathan and David made a marriage covenant because he loved him.
And Jonathan went to David in the woods and sensually fell upon him.
Then Saul screamed, “You are a shameful intimate lover to the Son of Jesse.”
Then King David sent and married him (122-23).
That these are fabricated, the student of the Word already knows. It was “the soul of Jonathan” that “was knit to the soul of David” (1 Sam. 18:1). They made a covenant but not a marriage covenant. Saul called Jonathan the son of a perverse, rebellious woman! The kinds of claims that Johnson makes can only come from a defiled mind that does not even have the capability of understanding a true friendship expressed in mutual love and respect; he can only envision base, sexual expression.
These farfetched and tortured interpretations result from fleshly minds that are desperate to find some way of justifying their sins. They will impugn the righteous to justify their behavior, including charging the holy and lofty with their own ungodly actions. Apparently, they have no fear of standing before God in the Judgment, having castigated the character of the noble and pure. Some go so far as to suggest the very Son of God practiced what they do. They have no shame; neither can they blush, but God will repay them for their error.