When Liberals Debate

In Romans chapter 1, you had indicated in your interpretation, and I guess this is good to go directly into that, you said that unnatural is not necessarily evil, that these actions are simply unexpected.

So is it your perspective that in Paul's words in Romans chapter 1, that he is simply saying that the homosexual, both lesbian and male homosexual activities, verses 26 and 27, that these are simply unexpected actions?

There are two lists in Romans. There are two lists. One is, I believe, a list that is in the category of unnatural, that is to say rare occurrences, and others are wicked sins, which he puts in a different category.

I read the context of that letter and that passage as containing two different kinds of lists of what he sees as wrong.

One is wrong because it is unnaturally rare. The other is wrong because it is wicked and sinful.

In verse 26, Paul says, For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions.

Could you explain from the text what for this reason means? How is it connected with what came before?

Because he is talking about idolaters. And he said those who commit this sin, this wickedness of idolatry, do two things.

Number one, they can do two things. They can, one, do things that are outside of the norms of the society.

They are outside the culture. Or, they can also, by virtue of their idolatry, commit wickedness and sin.

They can do either one. They can fall into either or both. So, when it says in verse 24,

Therefore God gave them over. And in verse 26, Using the exact same Greek verb paradidomi.

You're saying that it's a different them in verse 24 as in verse 26? No, it's the same.

Well, it actually is a different them. Because some are described as those who are performing that which is uncommonplace.

And often, by the way, unclean. And then there are others that are wicked.

There are two lists in that passage that we're talking about.

So, even though he uses the exact same words, you are insisting that the text tells us that there is a complete disjunction between the two.

It was intended, if he wanted there to be a single list, and every act that was wrong was in the same list, there would be no need for two lists.

There would be one list. These are the things that have happened because of this idolatry. He does not do that. He specifically has two lists.

And I would suggest, again, that people go back, read the text, and see if you think there is a reason for that difference.

What is a degrading passion, sir? What is a degrading passion?

For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passion. Well, I think any lustful sexual activity of any kind is included as a degrading passion.

Are those sinful? Degrading passions?

Not necessarily, no. So, you can degrade someone in your passion, but that's not necessarily sinful?

Could I just see the text? Maybe we could add a few sentences here, because I do want to do this.

Verse 26, sir. That's the small print edition. This is very, very, very strange.

It's... It says, for God gave them over to degrading passion.

I think that is... That's pathe atomias. I believe that it is very hard to read this,

I must admit. It says, for even their women exchanged...

Yeah, no. I believe that that is in the category, as I reread it, in the category of those unnatural acts, which are not the same as being filled with wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slanders, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil.

So degrading passions are not sins? They're not in the same category, or he would have put them in the same list.

I mean, again, just as you look at the structure, you can decide that Dr. White is correct about it.

I believe that there are two distinct events that can occur in the life of the idolater.

And that is, one, to engage in these passions, these unclean acts, and secondly, to engage in the sins, the list of which

I've just read. Are all possible sins listed in 28 to 32? Well, one would hope not, because then there would be acts that are occurring today, for example, that would not be considered sinful, because they aren't mentioned there.

Using heroin, for example. So Paul did not say that these are the only sins of an idolater?

No, he didn't, but I think the structure makes it absolutely clear. I mean, I don't know how many times to say this, that he has two distinct lists.

One is wickedness and evil and sin, and the other is falling away as an idolater into unclean practices.