(Part 2) Does Jesus Affirm LGBT? A Biblical Response to John Pavlovitz
Continuing to address progressive christian arguments
Audio Intro
Today I’m continuing my 2 part series to answer the question:
“Does Jesus Affirm LGBT?”
Last week we began to unpack John Pavlovitz’s progressive theology in regards to homosexuality. We found that just in the levitical verses & Pauline letters alone, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as a sin.
But there is more scripture (and objections) that we need to cover to further analyze the progressive view. Let’s dive in.
AI to the Glory of God
Trained on 4.5M words of apologetics and theology content, BahnsenAI is a faithful clone of the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. Ask it anything about theology, politics, apologetics…even hyper-specific personal situations you’re dealing with.
Table of Contents
1. Genesis 1-2
A. Genesis IS normative
B. What is Marriage?
C. “But Polygamy Was in the Bible!”
Romans 1
A. Idolatry & No Excuse
B. “It’s Their Nature, Not Nature Itself!”
The Sin of Sodom
A. “That’s not Sodom’s sin!”
B. Mentioning the genders
C. “Lot was just being hospitable”
D. Further Clarification from 2 Peter 2:6-8
E. Further Clarification from Jude 7
“God is Trans”
“Sexuality isn’t covered in the Bible”
“Jesus Never Said”
Conclusion
The Creation Account
In Genesis 1-2 we see God creating Adam and Eve, and showing us an example of God’s design for marriage and the natural order of the family.
Justin quoted Peter J. Gomes in his book about Genesis:
...the authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question ‘Where do we come from?’ Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman...The creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem” (pages 49-50).
A. Genesis IS Normative
For one, there are many passages in Gen 1-2 that are entirely normative, not just historical accounts. To write them off as only a descriptive story of what happened with no tie to how we ought to live is, to be blunt, ridiculous.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:27–28Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24
In fact, in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus explicitly affirms the creation narrative as the foundation for marriage when asked about divorce. He didn’t say “Divorce is okay, Adam and Eve were bonded but that was descriptive”, he used the normative principle that is given to us from the text, and then applies it to a specific situation.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:4–6
This also completely refutes the claim that Justin made later in the article saying:
The issue addressed in this passage, however, is divorce. Jesus is responding to a hard-hearted test of his authority. Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text. Moreover, it is uttered by a single Christ who did indeed leave his mother and father to engage in his Incarnate mission. So long as we are dealing with a single Christ who left father and mother for a different reason, we must be open to other possible options, especially options that fulfill the ends of Christian marriage traditionally understood.
Why is divorce not okay? Because God has joined husband and wife together. The proof? The Genesis account. The implication is that ANY sexually immoral act outside of what God has specifically joined together (you can guess what that is) is sin. Jesus didn’t quote a divorce verse, he took the principle from Genesis and applied it to a specific situation.
Jesus had a specific role and duty while he was on earth. Jesus has already spoken in the rest of the Bible for what our commands are as people. For example, Jesus was not a governor, he did not decree laws. And yet under the inspiration of the holy spirit (who only professes what Jesus says according to John 15:26, John 16:13-14, John 14:26, John 14:16-17, and Acts 1:8), Paul writes that the civil magistrate is a terror to evildoers. Jesus could not have fulfilled that command while he was fulfilling his mission, but the governors could.
B. Marriage is a Picture of Christ & the Church
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:31–33
Paul calls this a “mystery”, which in biblical terms refers to something that was previously hidden but is now revealed by God. In this case, the mystery is that marriage was always intended to point to the covenantal relationship between Christ and the church. Just as a husband and wife are united as “one flesh,” Christ is united with His church in a bond of love, sacrifice, and covenantal faithfulness.
This truth elevates marriage far beyond a mere human institution. It shows that marriage is not just about companionship, procreation, or societal stability (though it includes those things). At its core, marriage is a living parable of the gospel, reflecting Christ’s sacrificial love for His people and the church’s loving submission to Christ.
C. Marriage as a Reflection of the Gospel
Paul elaborates on this in the surrounding verses of Ephesians 5:22-33, where he describes the roles of husbands and wives in light of Christ’s relationship with the church:
Husbands are called to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). This is a sacrificial, self-giving love that seeks the good of the other, even at great personal cost.
Wives are called to submit to their husbands “as the church submits to Christ” (v. 24). This is not a demeaning or oppressive submission but a joyful recognition of the husband’s loving leadership, modeled after Christ’s care for His church.
The relationship between Christ and the church is the ultimate reality, and human marriage is a reflection of that reality. A homosexual relationship distorts this picture, and does not give glory to the bond between Christ and the church.
D. “But Polygamy Was in the Old Testament!”
Another objection John brought up to the Genesis narrative was this:
They like to say that the Bible declares that marriage is strictly between one man and one women, while the Old Testament, as early as Genesis’ fourth chapter is teeming with bigamy, polygamy, and extra-marital sex practiced by the lauded pillars and Patriarchs of the faith (Abraham, Gideon, Solomon, David) - not as cautionary tale, and not with rebuke, but simply as the story of God’s people. There are no definitive statements on marriage spanning the breadth of Scripture.
As we’ve already seen, Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:4-6 clearly declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can also take a look at Proverbs 5:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, Ephesians 5:31-33.
It’s true that some of the patriarchs and kings of Israel, like Abraham, David, and Solomon, practiced polygamy or committed sexual sins. But to claim that these actions are presented without rebuke or as morally neutral is simply false. The Bible doesn’t shy away from recording the sins of its central figures, but it also doesn’t endorse those sins. In fact, the consequences of polygamy and sexual immorality are consistently shown to be disastrous:
Abraham: His relationship with Hagar (Genesis 16) led to strife and division in his household, as well as long-term conflict between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.
David: His adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) and subsequent murder of her husband brought severe judgment from God, including the death of their child and ongoing turmoil in David’s family.
Solomon: His many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:1-8) turned his heart away from the Lord and led to the eventual division of the kingdom.
Romans 1
Romans 1:18–32 were the next verses for John to cover since it is one of the most explicit passages condemning homosexuality. From the progressive viewpoint, it’s very important that this passage is handled because it actually connects idolatry with homosexual activity.
Verses
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Here’s what John had to say:
They’ll quote Paul in Romans Chapter 1, describing people consciously “trading their natural attractions” for same-sex desire and corresponding physical acts), failing to connect the dots, that for most members of the LGBTQ, there is no such exchanging taking place. They aren’t feeling one thing, and choosing an alternative simply to choose. They aren’t acting in opposition to any primary inclination. Their same-sex orientation is their natural. (If pressed, these Christians need to admit that this passage refers to a specific sex act tied to pagan worship practices, and cannot be superimposed over identity and orientation—and it’s certainly not appropriate to use it to categorize committed, loving relationships by people along the full LGBTQ continuum.) When trying to use Paul’s references in this way, they’re trying to separate LGBTQ people from the capacity to love and be in mutually beneficial relationships—and that’s simply wrong.
1. Idolatry & No Excuse
The first portion of this text is crucial, because it connects the following truths
All people know God exists
People decide to not glorify him regardless
People worship the creature rather than the creator, and exchange the truth for a lie
So people worship something else besides God, even though they know he exists. But notice, in verse 18 it says that people “suppress the truth,” and what can be known about God has been shown to them in the things that have been made (creation). They KNOW something is true, but they push it down and self-deceive themselves.
Whatever the natural, objective order of things God has already made, that is what is given to man as a testimony of God’s existence and attributes. Considering God also gave us a mandate to be fruitful and take dominion (Gen 1:28), it doesn’t take a lot of intelectual study to conclude that homosexual relationships (whether long term or exploitive), go against that very created order.
It is against God’s natural design for pro-creation, and prevents more image bearers from being born, not because of fallen world consequences (miscarriages, empty wombs), but because of a morally wrong decision by the person. The following verses will further clarify this.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:26–27
Same-sex intercourse is what follows, and it’s incredible how explicit Paul is about it. Paul is defining “dishonorable passions” by saying “for their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature.” However, we still have objections to answer.
2. “It’s Their Nature Not Nature Itself!”
Immediately, our progressive responders will rush to tell us “No Joe, Paul is talking about what is contrary to THEIR nature (orientation), not nature itself!”
This is entirely false. The greek used here (φυσικός χρῆσις) directly translates as “natural use”, and is used to describe the objective, natural and repeatable way things are in the cosmos. The ancient greeks used both of these terms in the objective sense in many disciplines including medicine and philosophy. Paul then says this natural use was exchanged for what is contrary to nature. But what was he talking about specifically?
Paul continues “and the men likewise.” With Paul using the word “likewise”, whatever he says next is going to be the exact same thing the women did. And what does he say? “(they) gave up natural relations with women...” The KJV version even translates “leaving the natural use of the woman.”
What is the natural use of the women? To have intercourse with a man. How do we know? Because it is the opposite of what the men exchanged it with. Paul says “and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” They were consumed with passion for one another, men consumed for men, and this is seen as “contrary to nature.” Paul is talking about homosexual intercourse, as a creation level sin, without qualification, and using the term likewise, he universally condemns homosexuality in the male and female context.
John threw one more objection at us at the end:
If pressed, these Christians need to admit that this passage refers to a specific sex act tied to pagan worship practices, and cannot be superimposed over identity and orientation—and it’s certainly not appropriate to use it to categorize committed, loving relationships by people along the full LGBTQ continuum
To try and make this passage be hyper-specific to pagan worship practices is more than an astronomical leap. The context of Romans 1 is an indictment on all of mankind at the creation level, and as we’ve discussed already, Paul is using terms to describe the objective natural order, which are applicable to all people. No pressing needed. It is the progressive who is being pressed to show, in the context, original language, and the plain reading of the text, that this is not a universal indictment on all same-sex activity.
The Sin of Sodom
Next up we have the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, who was destroyed for several reasons, one of which being their sexual immorality.
Verses (shortened)
Genesis 18:16–19:29 is the full passage, for the sake of brevity, here is what God did to the city:
Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Genesis 19:24–25
To refresh your memory, when the angels visited Lot, the men of Sodom surrounded his house and demanded to have sexual relations with the visitors (Genesis 19:4-5). This act of attempted homosexual gang rape is a vivid demonstration of the city’s moral depravity.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Genesis 19:4–5
A. “That’s Not Sodom’s Sin!”
Some argue that Sodom’s sin was primarily pride, gluttony, and neglect of the poor, citing Ezekiel 16:49:
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
However, Ezekiel 16:50 clarifies this further, and says they “did an abomination before me.” The word abomination (to’evah in Hebrew), is a term often used in the Old Testament to describe sexual sins, including homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). This is used in the singular, meaning that God witnessed them commit a specific abomination, and then goes on to say “so I removed them, when I saw it.” Ezekiel is talking about the events of Genesis 19, further defending the notion that this was at the minimum, a major part of the sins that God judged them for, and likely what we can call “the final straw.”
Some may argue that “the sin was merely fornication (rape, sex outside marriage, adultery for some of them)”, not the principle of homosexual acts in general. They may even argue “all of those men could have had consensual homosexual marriages, but they broke their covenant by wanting to rape someone else” But this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
The Bible consistently presents marriage as uniquely between one man and one woman. Sexual immorality is defined as anything outside of that context. This includes adultery, homosexual intercourse, beastiality, etc.
Even if we grant that ALL of these men in Sodom were in consensual homosexual marriages and tonight, and only tonight, they went off the rail and wanted to rape someone else that was still in their same orientation, those homosexual marriages are sinful by definition because they are already outside of God’s design as we’ve seen in the creation account above. The fornication following is the wicked fruit of a debased mind that falls farther and farther as God gives it up (Romans 1).
B. Mentioning the Genders
Justin had this to say regarding the sin primarily being rape
First of all, in interpreting this event we must take into account the entire situation. Whatever is happening here it is a form of rape. The crowd of men wished to sexually assault or “gangbang” the angels. The situation is also sewn through with appalling violence
The text mentions the gender of both the perpetrators and the victims. If God was highlighting the act merely being rape, there would be no reason to specify. It could have just said “the people of sodom asked for the angels”, however we see men specifically who are asking for men. After Lot offers his daughters, the men of Sodom reject it, and insist on men. This is clearly highlighting homosexual desires, and when you couple this with the Levitical passages that already call this action an abomination, and that same word is also used in Ezekiel…it’s clear.
Once again, this was not the only sin that Sodom was destroyed for, but Sodom had an idolatry problem, and we’ve already seen what happens in Romans 1 downstream from idolatry; sexual immorality (which is defined as anything outside of the marriage design that God has instituted in Genesis). Everything connects together.
C. “Lot Was Just Being Hospitable”
Justin had this to say regarding Lot:
Many assert that Lot’s offer of his daughters instead of the male angels implies that homosexual sex would have been worse than heterosexual sex, but Lot himself gives his reason for his action: “Don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” In our time, this does not make entire sense, but in Lot’s time, hospitality was a nearly sacred concept, and it is that distinction that Lot expresses: the visitors are his guests.
Lot offers his daughters in response (which was wicked). Some may argue and say “hospitality was so important in the ancient near east, that households were expected to defend their guests, even at personal costs, so Lot offered his daughters.”
This is true, but it doesn’t account for the breadth of the passage. If Lot wanted to protect his guests, he could have offered himself. This would have satisfied the homosexual sin, and protected his guests. But instead, he offered his daughters, the only people in the house that would make unnatural intercourse a natural one. He was so grieved that a homosexual rape would happen, it would have been better in his eyes given the natural order of things, for the rape to at least be heterosexual.
This further demonstrates that homosexual behavior was one of the primary sins of Sodom, and also, that sexual immorality as a category, includes homosexuality. To say Sodom was judged for rape or fornication exclusively, is to also say that they were judged for homosexual relations; they are all sins from the same root; sexual immorality.
D. Further Clarification from 2 Peter 2:6-8
Justin did not mention the clarification we get from 2 Peter and Jude 7 regarding Sodom in his article.
if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);
2 Peter 2:6-8
“Sensual Conduct of the Wicked”: The Greek word here is aselgeia, which refers to unrestrained, shameless, and debauched behavior. This term is often associated with sexual sin. Lot was “greatly distressed” by the pervasive sexual immorality in Sodom, which aligns with the account in Genesis 19. Peter is confirming the focus on sexual sin.
E. Further Clarification from Jude 7
...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 7
Here, Jude explicitly identifies the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as sexual immorality and the pursuit of unnatural desire (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας), literally “strange flesh”. Let’s break this down:
Sexual Immorality (porneia): The term porneia in Greek refers broadly to all forms of illicit sexual behavior, including adultery, fornication, and homosexuality (deriving from God’s created order in Genesis which Jesus quotes in Matt 19:4-7). The text highlights that the cities were characterized by pervasive sexual sin.
Unnatural Desire: This phrase literally means “different flesh” or “strange flesh.” It points to desires that deviate from God’s natural design for human sexuality. In the context of Sodom and Gomorrah, this refers to homosexual acts, as seen in Genesis 19, where the men of Sodom sought to sexually assault the male visitors (angels) in Lot’s house. This pursuit of “strange flesh” is a direct violation of God’s created order for sexuality, which is exclusively between a man and a woman in marriage (Genesis 2:24).
Furthermore, Jude writes that they “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.” He is coupling the general category of sexual immorality (which could include heterosexual rape, adultery, etc), but then clarifies it further and now adds the “unnatural desire” (or “different flesh”).
Although it is still a violation of God’s law, heterosexual sexual immorality is not unnatural. You can live in God’s intended design biologically (man and woman) but then be sexually immoral by committing adultery, raping someone else, etc. But in Jude, we specifically add this category of unnatural sexual immorality as one of the things that Sodom was destroyed for. You need a blindfold to say this isn’t talking about homosexual intercourse (whether consensual or not).
“God is Trans”
John made the argument in the beginning of the article that God is actually trans. So we should affirm transgender people and their new identity in light of this:
Christians love to say that, by the way—that all human beings are “made in the image of God.” Yet they also contend that these same made-in-the-image-of-God human beings, are either created male or female; that any other non-binary expression of gender identity is against God’s will; some unholy bastardization of the original plan…
…Which ones were created in God’s image, the males or the females?
If our answer is both (which it must be), then God is decidedly non-binary, God transcends a single gender identity—God is by nature trans-gender. We cannot have God be a He and also make women in His image—and we can’t have a God capable of creating men and women, unless God is equally made of both. These Christians wouldn’t dream of excoriating God for the fluidity, would they?
A. God’s Image is Not About Physical Gender
The claim assumes that being made in God’s image must mean that God possesses or reflects gendered characteristics. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about the imago Dei.
Genesis 1:27 says:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Notice that the text does not say God is male and female. It says God created humanity in His image, and humanity is expressed in two distinct sexes: male and female.
The image of God is not tied to physical characteristics like gender or sex. Instead, it refers to the unique spiritual, moral, and rational capacities that humans possess as God’s representatives on earth.
God is also spirit (John 4:24), and as such, He transcends physical and biological categories like male and female. To suggest that God is “non-binary” or “transgender” because He created both sexes is to impose human limitations and categories onto God.
B. God’s Transcendence Does Not Make Him “Non-Binary”
The argument also conflates God’s transcendence with gender fluidity. Yes, God transcends human categories, including gender, but this does not mean He is “non-binary” or “transgender.” To say that God is transcendent is to affirm that He is not limited by the distinctions of male and female, not that He embodies or fluctuates between them.
The Bible consistently uses masculine pronouns and imagery to describe God - not because God is biologically male, but because this language communicates His authority, power, and relational role as Father, King, and Lord. For example:
God is called “Father” (Matthew 6:9), not “Mother” or a gender-neutral parent.
Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became incarnate as a man (John 1:14).
God is referred to as “He” throughout Scripture, never as “they” or “she.”
C. The Logical Fallacy of the Argument
The argument also commits a logical fallacy by assuming that because both men and women are made in God’s image, God must somehow be a composite of both genders. This is like saying that because a painter creates both landscapes and portraits, the painter must be part-landscape and part-portrait. It’s a category error.
God’s ability to create male and female does not mean He is “made of” male and female traits. God is the source of all things, but He is not composed of the things He creates. As the Creator, He is wholly distinct from His creation (Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:24-25).
D. The Biblical View of Gender
The Bible teaches that God created humanity as male and female, two distinct and complementary sexes (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:18-24). This binary distinction is part of God’s good design and reflects His purpose for human relationships, procreation, and stewardship of creation. Jesus Himself affirmed this in Matthew 19:
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:4–6
This passage reaffirms the binary nature of human sexuality and its connection to God’s design for marriage. Any attempt to redefine gender or introduce non-binary categories is a rejection of God’s created order.
Furthermore, as we already saw earlier in the post, marriage is a picture of christ and the church. That is the mystery that has been revealed. So to say you’re gender fluid, non-binary, or whatever is contrary to your biological gender at birth, is a distortion of the design God created. Our biological makeup is a part of our identity. Plenty of horrible things happen to people when they try to change their identity & responsibilities.
E. If God Designed It, Let No Man Alter
Now I can already hear the progressives in the back yelling:
“But Joe, we live in a fallen world. Don’t you hold to the Bible? If somebody thinks that they’re supposed to be a woman when they’re biologically a man, that is the identity that they need to be in. The fact that they’re a man is just a part of our fallen world, and they have to step into their female identity to fix it.”
We do live in a fallen world. The fallen world we live in distorts things. But the difference is when someone has a distorted mental state where they think they’re supposed to be another gender or even another type of being, the answer is not to redefine their physical body to match up with their mental state. The answer is to find Christ and to renew their mind, so they can step into what they were originally designed for:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:2
If they were a biological male wanting to be a female, their renewed state would be them identifying as a biological male as God intended. In Psalm 139, 13-15, we see God carefully assembling every child in the womb, including their gender, intimately making them for a specific purpose.
For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Psalm 139:13–15
“Sexuality is too complex for the Bible to cover”
John also said this in a 2020 video regarding sexuality:
sexuality is a vast and complex idea, it involves gender identity and sexual orientation and sexual activities, so the way I see myself, the people I’m attracted to, the places I seek intimacy, and the tangible physical expression of those things. That complex idea of sexuality can’t be contained in a word or a phrase or a verse of the Bible and it’s really intellectually dishonest when we try to claim that the Bible addresses this because it simply doesn’t
First off, the claim that “it’s intellectually dishonest to say the Bible addresses sexuality” is itself intellectually dishonest. The Bible repeatedly addresses human sexuality, both in its design and its distortions (as we’ve already seen so far). From all of the verses we’ve gone through scripture affirms that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27), instituted marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24), and designed sexual intimacy to be enjoyed exclusively within that covenant (Hebrews 13:4).
It also condemns sexual immorality in all its forms, including adultery, fornication, and homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:18, Romans 1:26-27, and all of the verses we’ve already covered). To claim that the Bible is silent on sexuality is to ignore the plain teaching of scripture, in it’s original language & context.
Secondly, just because our modern culture adds new words and definitions to topics, doesn’t mean that it is now exempt from an ethical standard. Abortion is another great example of this. We can use words like “abortion” “fetus” and “pregnancy”, it doesn’t change the fact that God finds it so repulsive, He instituted that an accidental abortion was a capital crime in Israel.
“Jesus Never Said…”
Another objection John brought up was this:
They’ll try to say that Jesus opposes the LGBTQ community, when he never once corrects, cautions, or condemns anyone based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. In this case, we’re supposed to believe the unspoken damnation is implied, when in reality these people are making Jesus say things he never said—simply because they want him to say it.
A. This Is an Unsustainable Principle of Ethics
Jesus never said in the gospels that it was wrong to shoot your uncle Greg with a gatling gun, does that mean we should? Of course not, everyone applies God’s law (or satan’s) to specific and relevant issues in their life, even if it is not explicitly covered in the gospels. Jesus does not cover every particular item, he provides us principles and also upholds the previous revelation given in the Old testament.
Muslims try this too, when they ask “Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus specifically says the words “I am God, worship me”
To them I reply, “Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus specifically says the words “I’m not God, I’m just a prophet, don’t worship me“”
B. The Wrong Jesus
Underneath this statement is the presupposition that Jesus is not God. Many unbelievers (and progressives) will naturally assume this, so if Jesus didn’t say it in the gospels, it must not be a Christian principle. What they’re missing of course is:
Jesus is God, and God inspired the entire bible, and God has plenty to say about homosexuality, as we’ve already seen. Jesus in the gospels and YHWH at Mt Sinai are one.
Christianity is not exclusively following the 4 gospels, it’s obeying the entire counsel of God as documented in the Bible, cover to cover.
C. Cuts Both Ways
For the sake of argument, let’s grant for a moment that:
Jesus wasn’t God, and was just a really good prophet
Claiming Jesus condemns LGBT behavior would be “silent damnation implied”
The same argument would work against John’s own position. A Christian could merely ask John “We’re supposed to believe that silent affirmation is implied? Especially given the fact that Jesus upheld the law and quoted it throughout the gospels? Find me anywhere in the gospels where Jesus said “I affirm of homosexual relationships as long as they’re consensual, and you can change your gender identity to.”
Conclusion
As I said in part 1, I want nothing more that John to repent to the true Jesus revealed in scripture. John, if you bow the knee to him, and put your faith in what he did on the cross, you will be saved. When Christ is truly Lord, and you obey him rather than what is culturally acceptable, you will make enemies (on both sides of the aisle), but you will be with the truth. And what a testimony it would be for you to transform and influence your audience!
I pray that God would open your eyes if he so wills:
Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day…”
John 6:43–44
Thank you for this thorough refutation. We must expose the workers of darkness!