Two articles that pertain to the general subject of homosexuality are herein linked:
Regarding the idea that "Corinthians" was only given for Corinth and not for anyone else
is absurd. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts it to prove it. Simply making a statement is not sufficient and I
would challenge those who say such to prove it.
To make the moral code of "Corinthians" limited only to the city of Corinth makes God a
partial person, yet the Bible clearly tells that he is not:
Ro 2:11 "For there is no partiality with God."
Granted, there were incidentals/problems that were prevalent to a given church/person addressed
in certain letters, but the reason why these problems were addressed was because they violated God's moral standard of righteousness.
Now, lets present some evidences that the truth of "Corinthians" is not limited to Corinth but "every church."
-
What Paul taught in Corinthians contained the "commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37). Why
would the commandments of the Lord vary from one church to another or from one city to another?
-
The pattern for the collection had already been established to be done on the first day of the
week in other churches besides Corinth, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the
churches of Galatia, so you must do also" (1 Cor. 16:1). It is the same law for different
areas.
-
The scope of the message is for all:
"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ
Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1:2).
Do the Corinthians call on the name of the Lord any differently than anyone else? Any saint was made a saint by the
same sanctifying law. There was not one kind for Corinth and another for the churches of Galatia, but "all" in "every place"
do the same thing.
-
"For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord,
who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17; cf.
1 Cor. 7:17).
It is here stated that Paul's ways were taught "everywhere" in "every church." Paul
didn't change his message or cater it to some church's desire. His true ways were true ways everywhere. The geographics didn't
alter the message. The "gender" of marriage doesn't change with the geographical boundaries of man. Timothy was to teach Paul's
ways because he was an apostle for Christ. But Paul's ways eliminate homosexuality as an alternative to male/female marriage.
He taught against homosexuality to the church at Rome, to Corinth and to Timothy (Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-11;
note sodomites is grouped with murderers, fornicators, kidnappers and liars and is stated explicitly to be against
"sound doctrine" which is according to "the glorious gospel"). Timothy would have taught this in Corinth and "everywhere"
as Paul taught this in "every church."
If someone will not except these proofs, then they will not accept it even
if Jesus told them to their face. It is abundantly clear that homosexuality is "anti-God" and therefore cannot be constituted
as "marriage" because marriage is honorable (Heb. 13:4). I would press one last line of argumentation that I predict will
never be answered.
Just as soon as you change the "gender" in marriage you allow others to change the "number"
in marriage. If we can change the gender to Male to Male; then we can also change the number "two" to three, four, five. .
.etc.
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Eph. 5:31).
You can also change the "flesh" of marriage to human and animal, correct? Why cannot
a person marry his horse? Not only does the Bible clarify that marriage is defined within the framework of two persons
(one male to one female), but it also defines that homosexual marriage is not "one flesh" but "strange flesh. Consider.
. .
"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner
to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as
an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7).
Man and woman become "one flesh" in marriage because they are "one flesh" historically
in Adam. Yet "man to man" or "woman to woman" is called "strange flesh!" I challenge anyone to find a Biblical passage to
show that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative for any "church," for any "city," or for any "culture." They have the
burden to prove it from the scriptures. We can show that it is explicitly condemned in both testaments by different writers
yet marriage between a man and woman is lawful and honorable (Heb. 13:4; Gen. 2; Matt. 19:1ff; Eph. 5:22ff; etc.).