Franklin Graham Responds to Jimmy Carter’s Claim That Jesus Would Approve of Gay ‘Marriage’

TURLOCK, CA - MAY 29: Rev. Franklin Graham speaks during Franklin Graham's 'Decision America' California tour at the Stanislaus County Fairgrounds on May 29, 2018 in Turlock, California. Rev. Franklin Graham is touring California for the weeks leading up to the California primary election on June 5th with a message for evangelicals to vote.

By Nancy Flory Published on July 14, 2018

Former President Jimmy Carter said in a July 9 interview with HuffPost Live that Jesus would approve of gay “marriage.” Franklin Graham responded this week on Facebook.

Carter said he’d never “run across any really serious conflicts between my political obligations and my religious faith.” Gay marriage was “no problem.”

When asked, Carter said Jesus would approve. “I believe Jesus would. I don’t have any verse in scripture … I believe that Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that’s just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any quote love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else. I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Graham addressed Carter’s statement in a Facebook post Tuesday. Graham said he would “respectfully disagree” with the former president. Graham posted:

He is absolutely wrong when he said Jesus would approve of gay marriage. Jesus didn’t come to promote sin, He came to save us from sin. The Bible is very clear. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. God defines sin in His Word — it’s not up to our opinion, the latest poll, or a popular vote. What is very troubling is that some people may read what President Carter has said and believe it, whether it was this week or from a video 3 years ago that is now recirculating. God loves us and gives us the truth in His Word. He warns us of the serious consequences of sin.

Graham then quoted Romans 1:24-27:

‘Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.’

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.

    I know Carter says he believes, but in what I have no idea.

    • Chip Crawford

      He pulled away from fundamental – considered legalistic – Baptist circles, but it looks like he didn’t keep to the word along the way. I don’t know if Rev. Graham is a Southern Baptist or another kind or whatever, but I have not heard him speak legalistically, and this weighing in here is very apt for a man of God needing to speak up. He did it and he did it well. We need more of that in our culture today.

  • John

    I pray that it is more senility than heart that Carter is speaking from.

  • Brand New Key

    Carter, the eager accepter of lots of Arab money. He would do better as a spokesman for Islam, not Christianity.

    • Willam Nat

      No, he tries to be compassionate, but true compassion is leading folks with homosexual tendencies to Christ not the other way around.

  • Trilemma

    Nothing divides Old Testament Christians and New Testament Christians like the issue of gay marriage. The Bible says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of gay marriage and Romans 1 does not talk about gay marriage.

    • KS

      Perhaps the Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage because it was unthinkable, given that the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin?

      • Chip Crawford

        Plainly so. The texts are clear and unambiguous. In fact, they are so clear, you have to have help to misunderstand them. And sadly, that help is available. However, most just lie and bluster about it.

        • Trilemma

          Where does the Bible clearly and unambiguously condemn lesbianism?

          • Scott

            See my reply to your first post. Although verses can be referenced in regards to homosexuality being sinful, even without those it is implied through the marital covenant the Lord established when He created us.

          • Chip Crawford

            Do you mean marital?

            Christians are not looking for a way to become more perverted and find excuses for that which greatly displeases God and defiles his work because we know and love him.

          • Scott

            Yes, thank you.

          • Chip Crawford

            Hey, go ahead and play around with the things of God and wallow in filth if you like. God gave free will. In fact, you have to choose him deliberately. He wants those who want him. You don’t have to. You’re free to go on to hell if you like, but you’re stupid if you do. He’s made himself available, but on his terms. You may think you’re roaming free, but you are in the devil’s hands by default, the god of this world system, and you’ll draw his judgment when you die. Your choice. Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Get it: Hint, Hint: Choose life; it’s better, a no-brainer as a matter of fact.

          • Up_Words

            Did you read the text quoted by Franklin Graham? What is ambiguous about that?

          • Trilemma

            I’ve read Romans 1 many times. It does not clearly and unambiguously condemn lesbianism. It says the women were doing something shameful and against nature. In relation to idolatry and the worship of animals, that could be temple prostitution, or temple orgies, or temple sexual relations with an animal. It could also mean the women were leaving their families to join the feminist movement which Paul also thought was against nature.

          • Willam Nat

            For 2000 years Romans has been interpreted as referring to homosexual activity- both male and female. Trilemma you play with words to confuse people.

          • Trilemma

            From the Benson Commentary on Romans 1:26. “From whom the strictest modesty might reasonably be expected; did change the natural use of their bodies into that which is against nature — Prostituting and abusing them in the most abominable manner.”

            From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible. ” for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the “sodomitical” embraces of men, in a way that is against nature…”

            Based on these commentaries, it’s obvious that Roman 1:26 is not clearly and unambiguously condemning lesbianism. It’s quite possible that Paul was referring to cult temple prostitution.

          • Chip Crawford

            Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
            Commentaries are not determinative. Better to use Strongs or other concordance which references the Greek or Hebrew word in that exact verse. That tells you what the verse says including nuance, not someone’s opinion.

          • Trilemma

            Commentaries are written by people who have studied the Bible more than the average person so I think they are valuable for seeing how other people interpret the Bible. I agree that using a concordance and interlinear Bible are also good resources. If you do a literal word for word translation of Leviticus 18:22 your get this.

            And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.

            What sort of woman needs multiple beds for sex other than one who runs a brothel?

          • Kevin Quillen

            “And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.” Lev 18:22 YLT

          • JP

            All homosexuality is condemned in Romans 1 including temple prostitution.
            Women doing that which is unnatural in the same way men were doing that. That is a description of homosexuality. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Genesis 1

          • Chip Crawford

            Then you are ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

          • Hmmm…

            Spot on

          • JP

            In Genesis 1
            “26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

      • Trilemma

        Sexual relations with an animal is unthinkable but the Bible talks about that.

        • KS

          Do you think that the Bible condones premarital sex?

        • JP

          And sex with the same sex is an abomination.

    • Tim Pan

      Please repent of your sins.

    • Scott

      The Bible doesn’t need to say anything about gay marriage because God established the marital covenant when He created the world (see Genesis 2:19-25). Jesus reaffirms this when the Pharisees ask Him about divorce in Matthew 19:3-6. I encourage you to take a look at the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5-7) as well. Considering all the corrections Jesus made about misunderstandings of scripture and the importance of marriage to the well being of our society don’t you find it strange that He wouldn’t take the time to correct our misunderstanding about this if there was/is one?

      • Trilemma

        What marital covenant in Genesis 2? God gave Adam a woman to be his helper and to give him children. What were the details of this formal, solemn, and binding agreement that Adam made with this woman? An answer to a question about divorce has nothing to do with homosexuality or gay marriage.

        • Chip Crawford

          Here’s another troll which needs to be flagged and blocked. Just comes to sow confusion. He’s had time to turn around, but continues to try to make trouble.

          • John Connor

            Grow some thicker skin. You don’t seem to handle disagreeing very well

          • Chip Crawford

            Put a sock in it bub.

          • John Connor

            Get over yourself

          • Chip Crawford

            Actually, I do; that’s why it chafes you.

          • Vincent J.

            I say let him stay. If you can’t deal with his ideas, then you need to work on your apologetic. Putting a gag over his mouth won’t help you grow.

          • Chip Crawford

            One of the writers here who gets tired of all the niggling junk offered that “Aw, shut up” goes really well at times. He’s right, but I don’t see you out there in the thick much, if any, come to think of it. Hey, show us how it’s done Vince … We’re watching now.

          • Vincent J.

            So. let me see if I understand you correctly: You’ll agree to not censor somebody, if I can mix it up in the debate well enough to impress you. I’m confused. How are those two things related? Is it not incumbent upon you to do the right thing regardless of how well I debate?

            I saw this article for the first time today, and I have added a few comments. I tried to stick with scripture. Perhaps you’ll actually agree with some of what I’ve written.

          • Chip Crawford

            I agreed to nothing. Sorry, I’m not impressed with you as you seem to be fishing for there at the end. You are not the first to come breezing in over what others have contributed, telling everyone how it’s done and adding your two cents, I hope it would interest you that elsewhere on this board, this person is asking sincere questions about coming to the Lord. Please do not go blaring in over there, treading on that. I hoping there is some wisdom and genuine caring to go with your other characteristics displayed here.

          • Vincent J.

            You’re not impressed with me? Oh, no. I won’t be able to sleep tonight, heh, heh.

            You certainly have a lot of negative energy, and all because I suggest that you should not attempt to censor somebody. Where’s all that energy coming from?

          • Chip Crawford

            You certainly have a big nose into everyone’s business. Offering your opinion is redundant if you have been paying attention, but hey, ADD is everywhere these days.

          • Vincent J.

            So, other people consider my opinion redundant and unwelcome. More reasons for me to toss and turn all night long. Now, I’ll never be able to sleep. Oh no!

            How did this become about me? I’m pretty sure that the article was not about me. Oh yeah, I remember. You didn’t like what I said, so you launched a personal attack on me. Now that we’ve discussed what a horrible person I am, would you like to discuss the article?

          • Chip Crawford

            You came blaring in censoring me for my response to someone else. This article has pretty much run its course at this point. Ciao

          • Vincent J.

            Yes, it’s my fault. (Have you been colluding with my wife? She blames me for everything, too.)

            Actually, I suggested that you stop attempting to censor someone else.

            Blaring? Perhaps I was tapping my keyboard too strongly that day. Notice that the word “blaring” is a loaded word, meant to imply negativity. Have you ever considered sitting down with a mental health care counselor just to see what sort of insights into yourself which you might gain?

          • Chip Crawford

            No

          • Vincent J.

            You might want to consider it. It could help you with all that anger.

          • Chip Crawford

            Well, it’s nice you have so much time on your hands to play on the computer. But I don’t, so I’ll say goodbye again (that’s what ciao meant btw) and let you have that last word I know you crave. (It’s the little things … )

          • Vincent J.

            Well, thank you.

        • Scott

          With all due respect Trilemma, I never said that divorce has something to do with homosexuality or gay marriage. What I said was in Matthew 19 Jesus reaffirms that the marriage covenant was established by Him when He created the world. Genesis 2:20-24 says the following:

          But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

          23 The man said,

          “This is now bone of my bones
          and flesh of my flesh;
          she shall be called ‘woman,’
          for she was taken out of man.”

          24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

          When the Pharisees ask Jesus about divorce in Matthew 19:4-6 He says the following:

          4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

          By saying this Jesus reaffirms that when marriage was established in the beginning it was to be between male and female, and the formal, solemn, binding agreement that Adam made with Eve was that he was to, “be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

          When the Bible refers to sexual immorality, anything that falls outside of God’s creation which is outlined in scripture above would fall under that category. (Trouble with posting this because I attempted to add a link. Sorry if this posts twice.)

          • Trilemma

            I don’t see a wedding having taken place. Adam didn’t make any vows to Eve and Eve didn’t make any vows to Adam. Nobody pronounced them husband and wife. I don’t see how you can say there was a marital covenant. So, it looks like Eve was cohabiting with Adam. The agreement or covenant appears to have been between Adam and God. God gave Adam a woman and Adam agreed to make children with her. Did Eve have a choice in this arrangement?

    • GLT

      “Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of gay marriage,…”

      Well, Trilemma, why don’t you educate everyone and tell us why God really destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

      While the Bible nowhere mentions gay marriage per se, it condemns homosexual practices, which, to anyone capable of logical, rational thought, makes the implications for gay marriage rather obvious. But still, as you obviously see yourself as so much more intelligent than the rest of us, go ahead and educate us on the real reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

      • Trilemma

        Here is the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

        Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.. Ezekiel 16:49-50 – ESV

        Nothing about gay marriage or homosexuality.

        • Chip Crawford

          Homosexuality is the abomination. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The name of the sin of sodomy comes from the city of Sodom where it was prevalent. Genesis 19:4-5 speaking concerning Lot’s guests: “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Notice it says ” the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” The abominable sin dominated the population of the city. If you read on, you find God struck those assaulting the door with blindness, yet they kept coming, literally groping about trying to find the door.

          • ARB

            To be fair, I do think we Christians have a tendency to focus on homosexual activity as the single fatal sin of Sodom and Gomorrah out of our own self-interest. While we must recognize that homosexual activity was indeed one of the sins which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for, we should also be wary of perpetrating upon ourselves exactly the same self-deception that we are defending homosexuals against: we cannot absolve the city of its other sins and heap its guilt all on homosexual activity because that is a safely distant sin from our own consciences. We ought to see that we find our own sins condemned in these cities if we want our own fates to be that of Nineveh rather than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

          • Chip Crawford

            Okay, there were other sins causing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

          • Jim Walker

            As in the days of Noah…. its happening now… again and again.

          • Trilemma

            The abomination was idolatry. In Leviticus 18:22, the men were involved in idolatry which is why it was an abomination. Idolatry is the abomination that leads to desolation. The men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors which is not a homosexual relationship.

        • GLT

          I’m just curious, Trilemma, does your Bible not contain Genesis chapters 18 & 19? If it does I think you will have to revise your thinking on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

        • JP

          This was about homosexuality: “and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” Genesis 19:5

          • Trilemma

            It was not about homosexuality. It was about rape. There’s no indication the men were homosexual. There’s no indication the men were sexually attracted to the visitors or that they wanted to form a monogamous relationship.

          • JP

            It was about both. Homosexuality is condemned in every place its mentioned in Scripture and never affirmed in any form or situation.

          • Chip Crawford

            The men at Lot’s door were not after the virgin daughters in the house, just clamoring for the “fresh meat” in the form of male visitors. Increasingly spurious and intellectually distorted (at best) statements coming from this person’s attempt to twist the scriptures from what they plainly state.

        • m-nj

          in Ezekiel, God is highlighting other sins of S&D… that doesn’t mean the sexual sins of S&D were any less vile to God or not the cause of what happened. The Genesis narrative is quite clear what the men of S&D where up to sin-wise at the time right before they experienced God’s wrath upon them.

          • Jim Walker

            To many people like Trilemma, their knowledge are in little boxes in their mind.

            If you say do not litter, they will say OK not here, but its OK to litter somewhere else.
            If you say God says all sexual lusts are an abomination, they will say God was referring to Pagan temple prostitutes only.
            When you say gay marriage is wrong, they’d say Jesus didn’t mention its not OK for gay marriage.

            Their mind is unable to link facts. Deception by omission. False Prophets are good at that.

            This is a growing trend. Why? I really think the spiritual warfare has gone up a few levels. We need to pray.

          • Vincent J.

            Yes, all we can do is pray, and learn scripture better, so we can answer people like Trilemma as Jesus answered satan: “It is written ….”

            Revelation 11:8 seems applicable to this discussion.

          • Trilemma

            The men wanted to rape the two visitors. There’s no indication the men were sexually attracted to the visitors or that they wanted to form a monogamous relationship.

        • Vincent J.

          Ezekiel 16:49-50 appears to be a reference to Sodom, but it’s really a metaphorical reference to Jerusalem (Judah) and Israel (the ten tribes). Look at the first verse of Ezekiel chapter 16: “… Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices ….” If you continue reading through the chapter it’s easy (well, it’s easy to me) to see that this is all about Jerusalem / Judah, metaphorical Sodom and Gomorrah. John tells us in Revelation that Jerusalem in metaphorically called Sodom and Egypt: Revelation 11:8 “Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified.”

          To see a clear declaration that Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed for sexual perversion, look at Jude (only one chapter) verse 7: “… Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion….”

          • Trilemma

            Ezekiel says Sodom is Jerusalem’s sister. Ezekiel says why Sodom was destroyed and then says Jerusalem was worse. So, Sodom was not being used metaphorically. Jude 7 doesn’t specifically mention homosexuality.

          • Vincent J.

            The chapter starts with a reference to Jerusalem, then changes to Sodom. Why would it do that? Revelation tells us why: The reference to Sodom is a metaphorical reference to Jerusalem, so Ezekiel is telling us why Jerusalem was destroyed, not Sodom.

            Jude does specifically mention sexual sin, and Genesis does tell us that sin was homosexual activity.

            The context is the entire bible. All verses must be considered.

            Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Yes or no.

          • Trilemma

            The chapter is about the sins of Jerusalem. It says why Sodom was destroyed and then says Jerusalem was worse to show that God was surely going to destroy Jerusalem as well.

            Jesus was a man so he was a son of God the same as any other man.

          • Vincent J.

            Do you believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God?

          • Trilemma

            No. I believe Jesus was a man with a human father and that Jesus is not God.

          • Vincent J.

            OK, I see where you’re coming from now.

            I’ll be praying for you.

          • Vincent J.

            Jude tells us why Sodom was destroyed. It appears to directly contradict Ezekiel. The only way to resolve that conflict is by realizing that Sodom is used as a metaphorical name for Jerusalem, just as Revelation says it is used.

            Last night I found another example of Sodom being the metaphorical name for Jerusalem; I found it in the first chapter of Isaiah. That’s at least two places where that metaphor is used. I suspect that I’ll find more in the prophetic books. (I began re-reading the prophets last night.)

    • Patmos

      Trilemma is a fake Christian troll. They’ve popped up on this site from time to time, and could be coming from any number of sources, but this particular one has already been exposed as such.

      • John Connor

        The only fake troll here is you. Are you a moderator? Nope. Pathetic

        • Chip Crawford

          Correct. He is a “fake troll,” not a real troll. So, he is no troll. You are a real troll.

          • John Connor

            Censorship….sad.

    • LgVt

      …Wait. Let met get this straight. Romans 1 talks about gay sex–and not in an even remotely positive light–but you think that because it doesn’t talk about gay marriage, you’re in the clear?

      Are you kidding me?

      • Trilemma

        Where does Romans 1 explicitly and unambiguously talk about gay sex?

        • LgVt

          If you have a plausible alternative interpretation of “the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another,” I would really like to hear it.

          • Trilemma

            Most likely the women were engaging in cult temple prostitution as part of worshiping idols. Likewise the men were also involved in cult temple male prostitution as part of worshiping idols. These men were heterosexual. If a heterosexual man has sexual relations with a heterosexual man, it cannot be called gay sex because the men aren’t gay. They’re doing it because it’s part of their religion and not because they’re sexually attracted to the same sex.

          • LgVt

            So they “burn in their lust for one another,” but they’re not sexually attracted to each other?

            Sorry, try again.

          • Trilemma

            The practice was widespread. Most of the men involved in these cult practices would have been by nature heterosexual and not interested in a homosexual relationship.

          • LgVt

            Okay. First of all, you didn’t answer my objection–Romans 1 explicitly describes men and women committing homosexual acts because they are lusting for their own sex. This is very clearly not the cult practices you are describing.

            Secondly, recall where this conversation started–you were claiming that Romans 1 doesn’t talk about gay marriage. When confronted with the fact that it doesn’t have to, because it does talk about gay sex, your rebuttal has been, in essence, that some gay sex acts are not actually gay sex acts.

            You are getting more and more incoherent the further we go. I strongly recommend that you cut your losses here; your position is indefensible, and you are only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

          • Chip Crawford

            totally; 5* answer

          • Trilemma

            Romans 1 does not explicitly say the women lusted after each other or had sexual relations with each other. The lust was for personal physical gratification like lusting for a cheeseburger when hungry.

            Suppose a drunk heterosexual man who is happily married to a woman has sexual relations with a drunk heterosexual man who is happily married to a woman. Would you call that gay sex?

          • Terry Lewis

            Oh, I don’t know… ask his wife if she would feel any better that he hooked up with a dude because, after all, he’s really straight!

            If a guy who was normally very peaceful got drunk and in a drunken rage, killed his family, would you call him a murderer?

            Besides that, it doesn’t matter what label you give it… it’s still clearly wrong, according to scripture!

            Oh… one other thing…

            “…God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” — Romans 1:26b-27, NIV

            You really have to strain this to the limits to claim the women didn’t lust after or have sexual relations with each other.

          • Trilemma

            The peaceful man who killed his family in a drunken rage is not a murderer. He would probably be charged with manslaughter. Drunk drivers who kill people are typically charged with manslaughter.

            Romans 1:26 says the women exchanged their natural use for unnatural. How is it obvious that it must mean they were lusting after and having sexual relations with each other? Some commentaries say the women were getting involved in cult prostitution.

          • Terry Lewis

            Romans 1:27: IN THE SAME WAY, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men…

            Men were consumed with lust for men, and the women were acting in the same way. The most straightforward reading of this passage is that these people were practicing homosexuals. There’s no evidence in the text for any other understanding.

            You’re missing something more important however. If there’s one right way to act, then any other way is wrong. God is more interested in protecting the holiness and sanctity of marital sex between husband and wife than giving us a list of how many ways we can get it wrong. We’re good enough at finding those ourselves! Regardless of whether it’s heterosexual sin or homosexual sin, it’s still sin, and God hates it just as much. Indeed, God did give a list of other types of sin just a few verses down:

            29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

            And perhaps most applicable to the modern church:

            32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things *but also approve of those who practice them.*

            Murder, manslaughter, homicide… whatever name you put on it, the (hypothetical) family is still just as dead. If it were your family that he killed in a drunken rage instead of his own, would it make you feel any better that he committed manslaughter, not murder?

          • Trilemma

            Romans 1:26-27 – NASB: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function, of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,”

            The, “In the same way,” only applies to the fact they both left the natural function of the women. The women left the natural function of the woman and did something and the men also left the natural function of the woman and did something. It doesn’t mean they did exactly the same thing.

            For example, suppose a group of friends are eating Thanksgiving dinner together. After dinner, the men left the dining room and did something together. The women likewise left the dining room and went shopping together. What did the men do?

          • Vincent J.

            I’d call it homosexual sex. The word gay can mean anything you want it to mean.

            I’ve never boinked a cheeseburger. What a curious idea.

          • Trilemma

            Lusting for a cheeseburger doesn’t mean you want to boink it. Lust doesn’t always mean that. Sometimes it means covet.

          • Vincent J.

            The word “lust” implies a fleshly desire, which is not the same as covetousness.

          • Trilemma

            In the NIV, the same Greek word translated lust in Matthew 5:28 is translated coveted in Acts 20:33.

          • Vincent J.

            Clearly, just as in English, Greek words can have more than one meaning. The NIV translators worked with the context and came up with lust in one instance, and coveted in another instance. That means the Greek word was used differently in each case.

          • Chip Crawford

            Like I’ve said, you have to have help to misunderstand the Bible. Never seen anyone work so hard on it.

          • Vincent J.

            How do you know that?

          • Vincent J.

            “Most likely ……” ???

            How do make that assessment? What do you know for certain that you haven’t told us? “Most likely ” doesn’t cut it in most online forums.

          • Trilemma

            In Romans 1:26-27, Paul does not say exactly what the women and men were doing so nobody knows for sure what he was referring to. That means you have to go with “Most likely.” Since the context of Romans 1 is idolatry, then prostitution is most likely.

        • JP

          Romans 1 condemns homosexual sex:
          26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.-Romans 1

    • ARB

      While others have directed attention to your error of absolving “gay marriage” based on its supposed absence from scripture (the Bible also makes no declarations against married bachelors, because there’s no sense in decrying something that simply doesn’t exist due to its self-contradictory nature), you do make another major error here. There is no such division between “Old Testament Christians” and “New Testament Christians”—this is effectively to make the error of the Gnostics and imagine a separate Demiurge who was the OT “bad” God, vs a NT “good” God.

      Contrariwise, Christ’s word denies this error any foothold in Matthew 5:
      17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
      In this, we see that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are one and the same; indeed, it is impossible to escape the fact that Christ is here endorsing the very same Law which identifies homosexual activity as an “abomination.” This is only made more concrete in John 1, with which we recognize that not only does Christ endorse that Law, but even that he was with God as that Law was delivered unto humanity.

      We find then that so-called “New Testament Christians”—those who scrub the Old Testament Law of all meaning and disregard all that it says as if it was written by some God other than the one they themselves worship—these are seen to fail to understand either Testament, and worship not God, but their own petty pretention of “reason” and its self-gratifying morality.

      • Hmmm…

        Amen. Good work! That was overlooked and so important. Thank you.

      • Trilemma

        Jesus abolished the Law by fulfilling it. All has been accomplished. We are under a new Heaven and Earth.

        Ephesians 2:15 – ESV: “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he
        might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making
        peace,”

        According to Paul, Jesus has abolished the Law. If the Law has not been abolished, then Christians must be required to obey all 613 commands of the Old Testament Law of Moses.

        • Chip Crawford

          Fulfill and abolish do not conflate. It is also written: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. There is also a difference in the commandments, sometimes called the law, which abide, though fulfilled in Jesus, and the ordinances and sacrificial offerings, etc., mainly set out in Leviticus. Have you been fulfilled in Jesus?

          • Trilemma

            The Law delivered by Moses has 613 commands. How many of them have not been abolished and still apply to Christians?

          • Chip Crawford

            So, Jesus got it wrong? One needs the Holy Spirit when studying the Bible. Have you received him? We have one law, the royal law of love. It sums up the 10 Commandments or fulfills them.

    • Kevin Quillen

      1 Cor 7:1-16, Matt 19:4-6, Col 3:18-19.(AND MANY OTHERS) ALL references to marriage speak of MAN and WOMEN. never man and man. woman and woman. In the Matthew verses, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to disclose different kinds of marriage, like “a man will leave his father and mother and cleave unto his husband, or partner, or significant other”. You are way off on this. And by the way, Romans, though not speaking specifically about queer marriage, IS speaking of the SIN of being queer. I use “queer” in the dictionary sense, speaking of something abnormal.

      • Trilemma

        So, you agree the Bible says nothing about gay marriage. Romans 1 talks about behaviors. It doe not talk about sexual orientation. Since only about 3 percent of the population is homosexual, most of the people Romans 1 is talking about were heterosexual.

        • Jim Walker

          So homosex is an abomination but gay marriage is OK ? You need to take your meds.

          • Trilemma

            The only time same sex sexual relations are called an abomination is when they’re done to worship an idol.

          • Jim Walker

            Why sure ! its a sin and abomination when you only serve the devil.
            Pagan worship homosex is bad and bedroom homosex is ok.
            How convenient.
            Any homosex is abomination wherever, whoever you do it.

          • Vincent J.

            Where does the bible say that?

    • Andrew Mason

      Congrats you just justified sex with animals. From memory it’s only condemned OT. Guess your NT ‘Christians’ have no problem with animal relations.

      • Trilemma

        The Old Testament commands concerning sexual relations with animals have been abolished. That simply means you can’t use the Old Testament to condemn sexual relations with an animal. You’ll have to do that by using philosophy or appealing to natural law.

        • Andrew Mason

          You presume that philosophy or natural law provide grounds to oppose the practice. Again, you’re justifying unnatural relations.

    • JP

      The Bible condemns homosexuality. Homosexual ” marriage ” is just another fruit of this sin.

      • Trilemma

        The Bible also condemns heterosexuality. Should I then conclude that heterosexual “marriage” is just another fruit of that sin?

        • JP

          The Bible condemns any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Its called either adultery or fornication.

          • Trilemma

            The Bible doesn’t condemn cohabitation. Jesus didn’t condemn the woman at the well for cohabiting with a man.

          • JP

            Why do you think He said? -“16 He *said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” 17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus *said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.”

            Notice also what Jesus says in Mark 7: 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
            Clearly He condemns cohabitations of single people who have sex. That’s what fornication is.

        • Vincent J.

          Can you cite chapter and verse where the bible condemns heterosexuality?

          • Trilemma

            Leviticus 18:8-20 for some.

          • Vincent J.

            These verses don’t condemn heterosexuality. They condemn specific incidences of sexual activity. Nowhere in those verses is there any condemnation of heterosexuality.

            On the other hand, at least one verse encourages heterosexuality:
            Genesis 9:7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” (NIV)

            What about you, what kind of spirit do you have inside you? Can you say that you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

    • Dena

      Are you saying sodomy is not a sin? It’s clearly forbidden and called a sin in both the old and New Testament in multiple places.

      People who compromise with sin and make excuses to continue in their sinful behavior don’t love God. If you knew Jesus, you wouldn’t want to live a lifestyle of sin.

      • Trilemma

        The only times same sex sexual relations are condemned in the Bible are when they’re done as part of worshiping an idol.

        • Vincent J.

          Chapter and verse, please.

          • Trilemma

            Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27.

          • Vincent J.

            These verses don’t mention anything about idol worship, so your statement is not supported by these verses.

          • Trilemma

            Their context is idolatry.

          • Vincent J.

            In context (the other verses around them), there is no mention of idolatry.

          • Trilemma

            Leviticus 18:21 talks about sacrificing children to Molech which makes idolatry the context of Leviticus 18:22. Romans 1:23 talks about worshiping images of man and animals which makes idolatry the context of Romans 1:26-27.

          • Vincent J.

            One mention of idolatry does not make the entire chapter about idolatry. Those citations of idolatry are items on a list of items; that does not mean they encompass the entire list.

  • Chip Crawford

    More and more it is essential to be and remain grounded in God’s truth and his fellowship as is Rev. Graham so as not to be drawn away by the spirit of the age, relativism and all such.

  • Paul

    Yet another example of why I don’t value what Carter thinks, he’s been wrong too many times

  • Rick

    As Jesus said, (Matthew 7:21-23) claiming to be a Christian does not make it so.

  • Chip Crawford

    Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; If you read that lineup, you find that homosexuality is about the last place before a person is given over to a reprobate mind. Nobody starts at that place.

    We should preach and share about it because of what it does to people – spousal abuse among homosexuals is 300 times what it is among heterosexuals. Homosexuality takes 20 years off an average homosexual’s life, while cigarettes only take 7 years off, yet the government puts a warning on cigarettes. The suicide rate is 2 to 3 times higher. It destroys people’s lives.

    It is not hate speech. There’s a difference in not believing that homosexuality is not the right thing and hating homosexuals. The bible does not preach tolerance. It teaches love. There is a total difference between love and tolerance.

    Lev. 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD.

    Everyone knows that, but look up to the verse before it:

    Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.

    It’s loving yourself and hating the person if you do not tell them the truth. Love is not an excuse not to tell people the truth. It’s the truth that sets people free, not love. It’s the truth spoken in love that will set people free. Many are afraid to stand up and speak. We say we know they will reject it, but with that, you are, in a sense, rejecting the truth for them. We need to tell people the truth and take a stand about things that destroy their lives.

  • Matthew Wade

    “I don’t have any verse in scripture….” so you claim to be a Christian but propose to spew Christian doctrine, and even make claims you know what Jesus Christ would think(!), without providing even one scripture from the Holy Bible to support your conclusion. THAT my friends, is EXACTLY how the Gospel has been hijacked in the modern world.

  • Stephen D

    Trilemma may not be a troll but he/she is certainly a fake Christian of the worst possible type. That is to say Trilemma, like Satan, quotes the Bible in order to promote evil. Trilemma wants you to imagine that the Bible is a legal textbook. Legalism is a curse, as the Bible teaches. Trilemma is promoting a perverted, unbiblical legalism. My suggestion to people posting comments here is not to respond to Trilemma. It is pointless. Anyone who can read the Bible and think that God condones homosexual marriage is not being led by the Holy Spirit. Such a person is not capable of understanding the biblical text.

    • Trilemma

      Old Testament Christians view the Bible as a legal textbook. I don’t.

      • Chip Crawford

        You need Jesus. Come as a child and he will receive you and deliver you into a fulfilling and productive life. I hope that you do.

      • Vincent J.

        Are you a Christian?

        Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

    • Chip Crawford

      Also perhaps flag his/her posts to bring them and him/her to the attention of moderators, marking them as spam or similar. Anyone campaigning to undermine the faith of others has no place. It’s gone on a long time with no positive movement. John Connor also has come for some time offering just an ongoing contradictory and petty tit for tat.

      • m-nj

        Not sure flagging as inappropriate is correct… rather better to let him/her have their say, and opening refute it and correct it using God’s Word.

        • Chip Crawford

          The frustration beginning this particular thread is understood by all who have attempted to so engage.

      • John Connor

        Quit complaining. If you don’t like what someone has to say….ignore them.

        • Chip Crawford

          I guess you’re pretty much used to that. Some people just can’t take a hint.

          • John Connor

            Typical of those on this site who cannot fathom disagreement

    • Vincent J.

      Did Trilemma claim to be a Christian?

  • Dena

    I’m proud of Franklin Graham for standing up for Jesus and the Bible with no compromise.

  • bbb

    If only other pastors, reverends, ministers or preachers would stand by the inerrant word of God in the Bible there would not be many like Carter whose religious training left him with the impression that homosexuality was perfectly fine.
    Churches in America have a lot of work to do when it comes to returning to the truths in the Bible.
    A church that embraces homosexuality, abortion, illegal occupation of our nation, open anarchy against our President or elimination of any part of the Bill of Rights [these are called God-given rights] is not a Christian church. It is a club.

  • Po ol jimmuh he shoulda shut his silly mouth years ago, but he just keeps goin and goin, sorta like that bunny, PROVING every day exactly how silly and ignorant he is. Is there anyone out there who actually CARES what the pitiful thing thinks.

  • Ray

    An attack on the name of Jesus Christ. He will not be held guiltless, I’m sure of that.

Inspiration
Christianity Works Only in Its Most Radical Form
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us