From lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu Thu Dec 10 15:04:48 1992 Received: from aramis.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA16732; Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:04:45 EST Received: from andromeda.rutgers.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA13381; Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:04:43 EST Received: by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23592; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:50:29 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9212101750.AA23592@andromeda.rutgers.edu> Received: from ihb.compuserve.com by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA22316; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:32:15 EST Received: by ihb.compuserve.com (5.65/5.910516) id AA17876; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:32:12 -0500 Date: 10 Dec 92 12:19:35 EST From: Tobias S Haller <76675.3032@compuserve.com> Subject: Homosexuals deserve death? Message-Id: <921210171935_76675.3032_DHE37-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-To: luti@andromeda.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:50:26 EST Resent-From: Louie Crew Apparently-To: luti Status: R TO: Tom Albrecht CC: Louie Crew The story so far... My thesis is that we cannot distinguish between the moral and cultic law in the Old Testament on the basis of the ascription "abomination" (_tow'evah_) to a particular act. _Tow'evah_ indicates a matter is "taboo" -- whether or not it is also immoral. We must use some other criterion to determine if homosexual acts, called _tow'evah_ in Leviticus 18:22, are in fact violations of the moral code as well as the ritual code. Tom Albrecht offered the following observation. > Any solution to the apparent dilemma between different uses of > tow'evah must deal with the punishment for violations of Torah > commands. There seems to be a distinction made between purely > cultic prohibitions, i.e., food and clothing, and moral ones such > as murder and adultery. Cultic violations were dealt with via > (temporary) excommunication. While this at first appears to be a logical solution it is erroneous on a number of points. "Let him be cut off..." -- a fate worse than death -------------------------------------------------- First, Albrecht appears to confuse uncleanness and the separation entailed through it with "excommunication." Temporary uncleanness results from any number of actions, including any emission of semen (v. Lev 15), contact with menstrual flow, contact with a dead body, and so on. Certain diseases, such as leprosy, generate permanent uncleanness. But cultic violations such as eating non-kosher food (Lev 7.27, 17.10,14,25) or eating in an impure state (Lev 7.20-21); and weightier breaches of the cult such as idolatry or sorcery (Lev 20.2- 5,27), entail punishment by what our translations call being "cut off from one's people." The Jewish legal term is "excision," _karet_. There is considerable debate on the exact nature of _karet_, but all agree it to be far from temporary! It is not inflicted by an earthly tribunal, but by God. Some commentators, including the Qumran community (v., 1QS 8.22-24) consider it to include execution; and certainly some of the cultic acts which entail _karet_ *also* entail execution (as in the case of Molech worship). Maimonides (Teshufa 8.1) considered _karet_ to be *more* serious than the death penalty, since punishment suffered through execution could expiate sin, while _karet_, unaccompanied by earthly punishment, entailed the "death of the soul" in the hereafter. One is "cut off" both in this world and in the world to come, by divine retribution. Others understand _karet_ as either premature death, or the death of all one's descendants, or dying childless. To the Jewish people, for whom the notion of "havdalah" or distinction between them and the rest of the world fixed their identity, being cut off from that identity is the most tragic and serious of punishments. This is far from a minor or temporary punishment. It is a fate worse than death. Let the punishment fit the crime -------------------------------- Albrecht continues: > In the case of moral violations the mandated punishment is > corporal/capital. The punishment for homosexual activity would > seem to place it in the latter category rather than the former. > Death is too severe a punishment for cultic violations. Again this is erroneous. There is no easy equivalence in the Old Testament between "moral crime and death." Death is _precisely_ the punishment meted out in the case of clearly cultic violations. The most obvious, of course, is idolatry. But "lighter matters" such as gathering sticks on the Sabbath are punishable by death (Numbers 15:32-36), as is the improper eating of dedicated food (Numbers 18:32), wrongful exercise of priesthood (Num 3:10), and trespass of the sacred precincts by a non-Levite (Num 1:51). These are all cultic violations, for in the absence of the cult there would be no crime. Paul to the Romans ------------------ Finally, Albrecht notes: > I think the Jewish apostle Paul understood this distinction. > Certain moral sin deserves death (Romans 1:32). Homosexual > activity is in the context of the discussion. And Paul doesn't seem > to indicate that homosexual sin is culturally relative. The context of Paul's discussion is idolatry, not homosexuality. Homosexual acts are incidental to his argument. He is saying precisely that homosexual acts _are_ culturally relative, a direct result of the practice of idolatry. Moreover, your suggestion that the death sentence is contextually connected with homosexuality is not borne out by the text. Homosexuality appears, from the text, to be punishment in and of itself for having departed from the true God to worship idols, "receiving in their own persons the due punishment for their error [i.e., of worshipping idols]." (Rom 1.27) The condemnation of death follows not upon the mention of homosexual acts, but as the culmination of a long list of _other_ acts indicative of total depravity: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. -- Romans 1:28-32 A conclusion ------------ If one is to conclude that homosexual acts are morally culpable, one must look elsewhere than the Old Testament. The moral and cultic are too tightly entwined there for us to untangle, except by applying some external criterion. Neither the vocabulary nor the penalties will suffice for clarity. As biblical scholar Robin Scroggs points out in his book on homosexuality and the New Testament, the New Testament has nothing to say about faithful, loving, and life-long homosexual relationships either. Thus, those who wish to condemn such relationships on a moral basis have no support from the Bible. Every effort I have seen to condemn such relationships on humanistic or rational grounds, or through the application of "natural law" are hopelessly flawed or tautological. There remains only "tradition," which in this case is, sadly, "error long in use." We, as Christians, have a workable standard to determine morality: the Golden Rule. Why is that not enough for some people? If you continue and read the rest of Paul's Letter to the Romans, you will find that he rejects the Law as a way to salvation. Jesus similarly suggested that the Mote Searching League revise its bylaws and become the Beam Extractors Society. Jesus took on from humanity the role of the rebellious son (Deut 21.20-23), became _tow'evah_ for us, was slain and hanged on the tree, nailing the Law to it, deader than a doornail. Can we not accept that? We have incredible freedom in Christ. I accept that freedom. If you want to be a slave to the Law, that is your prerogative. But please do not seek to saddle me or mine with your burdens. (Matt 23.4) -Tobias ==================== Tobias Stanislas Haller, BSG President, The Catholic Fellowship of the Episcopal Church CompuServe 76675,3032 2462 Webb Avenue + Bronx NY 10468-4802 From daemon@linac.fnal.gov Tue Dec 15 13:55:14 1992 Received: from linac.fnal.gov by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA02232; Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:55:14 EST Received: by linac.fnal.gov (5.65c/IDA-1.4.3); Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:55:10 -0600 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: newsaintmail From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov Subject: Exegesis of NT & Homosexuality Message-Id: Sender: daemon@linac.fnal.gov (The Background Man) Nntp-Posting-Host: admec1.fnal.gov Organization: FNAL Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:55:00 GMT Lines: 333 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@linac.fnal.gov [again, special thanks to Drs Marvin Pate, Steve Tracy and special thanks to works of Michael Ukleja] I. The Greek Terminology The prohibition against homosexuality is mentioned three times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). In 1 Corinthians and I Timothy two Greek words malakos and arsenokoitas- are usually translated "homosexual." Prohomosexual advocates insist that malakos means "soft" or "weak" with the implication of moral softness or moral laxity. They insist that arsenokoitas means "males who go to bed," or "male prostitutes." "There is no reason to believe that either "malakos" or "arsenokoitai" connoted homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every reason to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts."(1) These two words are hotly contested words in homosexual theology. Most Bible translators have rendered them "effeminate" and "homosexuals," respectively. A proper understanding of the words is essential. A. Malakos Both words are found in 1 Corinthians. Malakos means (a) soft of things; clothes, " or (b) "persons; soft, effeminate especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."(2) The Greeks used the word with a nuance, probably similar to the way parents used the word "fairy" or "sissy," however, my generation hardened into "fag" or "queer." The Greeks took this word, which can have feminine overtones, and applied it to a man. According to the context it can have the idea of being weak or loose morally and being effeminate. This may relate to the Greek practice of paiderastia ("lover of boys"), which involved homosexual relations between men and boys. Pederasty was common in the Greek educational system. It was not uncommon for a strong sexual union to result between a young man and an elder teacher who was his model, guide, and initiator.(3) In classical Greek, malakos was also used to refer to boys and men who allowed themselves to be used homosexually.(4) It was also applied to a man taking the female or passive role in thehomosexual relationship. [I might add here, that this has been noted by many an archeologist studying the ancient mystery religions, so this conforms to a very old format] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote Roman Antiquities around 7 B.C., described Aristodemus of Cumae as malakos because he had been "effeminate" (thaludrias) as a child and had undergone the things associated with women.(5) In classical literature the word malakoos is sometimes applied to obviously homosexual persons. Lucian describes the blood of some priests he condemns for passive homosexual behavior as malakos.(6) This cannot be dismissed as not indicating anything about the sexuality of the individuals in question. These were priests who spent their time seeking group sexual encounters. While there is some ambiguity with regard to malakos, it is not beyond reason to see the word representing the passive parties in homosexual intercourse. This is even more reasonable when it is in juxtaposition with arsenokoitas which does imply an active homosexual role. It is interesting that in Aristotle's Problems, a lengthy discussion of the origins of homosexual passivity, he employs the word malakos In its general sense the word does mean "unrestrained," but not without any particularly homosexual context. (7) B. Arsenokoitai The second Greek word, arsenokoitai, appears both in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: IO. It is a compound of two Greek words. The first, arsan means "male," with a strong emphases on sex.(8) It can refer to the sexual nature of man. The second word, koita, means "bed" in general but it is also a "euphemism for sexual intercourse."(9) Arndt and Gingrich translate arsenokoitas a "male homosexual" or a "pederast. "(10) Some try to dismiss the statements of these scholars: "The authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones, have traditionally contented themselves with corroborating the inference of biblical translators by giving the definition as "sodomite. There is a double irony to this since - as is now generally recognized - the Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality, and since "arsenokoitai" had only a tangential relation, if any, to homosexuality." (11) I think three things should be said conceming this statement. First, one should be cautious when going against the tide of scholarly opinion. "The authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones" have understood the word to refer to homosexuality. Second, it is an assumption based on erroneous exegesis to see the Sodomites not being punished for homosexuality. Third, even if arsenokoitas had only a tangential relation to homosexuality, it could have easily become a euphemism for homosexuality. This is even more understandable when it is considered that Paul already used words like "fornicator" (pornos), "adulterer" (moixos, "effeminate" (malakos), along with arsenokoitas. The second half of the compound, koita, is a coarse word. It denotes base or licentious sexual activities (Rom. 13:13). The word is rare, not only in biblical usage but also in other literature. But a strong possible translation for both malakos and arsenokoitas is "the morally loose (effeminate) who allow themselves to be used homosexually" and "the person who is a practicing homosexual." II. Paul's Teaching on Homosexuality There are several passages in the Pauline Epistles condemning homosexuality. Let the reader understand that homosexual theology's major thrust against these passages is what has been called the "abuse" argument. Justification for the practice of homosexuality is seen in interpreting Paul's condemnation to be against homosexual abuse and not against "responsible" homosexual behavior. Some argue that, although this cannot be deduced, it is a strong inference. Blair writes: "In his catalog of vices in which homosexual behavior is listed, it should be noted that it is included with what the apostle regarded as certain heterosexual sins such as adultery, fomication, Epicurean over-indulgence, and general abuse of the body. For perspective, note should be taken of Paul's equally weighty inclusion in this passage of drunkards and the repeated censure of the greedy, the grasping, and those who steal. Here are simply other examples of sinful abuse, since, for example, PauI advocated alcoholic temperence but not necessarily abstinence. He recommends to young' Timothy that he drink some wine for his health (1 Tim. 5:23). Elsewhere, Paul urges whole-hearted enthusiasm in all that one undertakes, but that does not mean the abuse of over-indulgence, greed, or coveting in the process (1 Cor. 10:31). One should not assume uncritically that there is in the Corinthian passage a proof text against aH homosexuality or even all homosexual acts. Of course, homosexual behavior can be perverted and sinful and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be - or any kind of activity can be - but this is not the same as rejecting either sexual orientation or specific acts as sinful as such." (12) Upon first reading this, the argument looks strong, but actually it is extremely weak when put to biblical and philosophical tests. Yes,I would say that it is true that an abuse argument in general is valid. Paul did advocated temperance but not necessarily total abstinence. With regard to I Corinthians 6:9, it is correct that Christ-centered worship is the norm as opposed to the abuse of idolatry. It is also true that fornication and adultery are opposed to the norm of sexual relations under the sanctity of marriage. But to use the abuse argument, one must be consistent. In each instance the Bible clearly states the responsible norm as opposed to irresponsible or abusive behavior. A specific and consistent approach of this nature leads to a clear answer as to what is the responsible norm opposed to homosexuality. The responsible norm clearly taught in Scripture is heterosexuality in marriage. Homosexual theologians say that "Homosexual love is not mentioned or condemned in Scripture." In so far as it goes, they are exactly right. Homosexual love is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. The Bible refers only to lust and degrading passions, as in Romans 1. Scripture, however, never approves any form of sexual love within a homosexual relationship. The polarity that brings people together was created to function *only between men and women.* Each homosexual prohibition in and of itself is the abuse. There is no such thing as nonabusive adultery; all adultery is wrong. There is no such thing as nonillicit theft; the Bible clearly states that all theft is wrong. Nor does the Bible teach such a thing as "responsible" covetousness. The Bible emphatically declares that all reviling and swindling is illicit. Without a doubt, homosexuality is placed in the same list of prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10. In the case of homosexuality, motives are not the issue. To make them such, finds no exegetical support in the Scripture. Homosexuality, according to the Bible, is wrong in and of itself. It is an intrinsic evil. We see in Romans 1:24-27, Paul discussing God's wrath over man's sin. It is a devastating passage for the practicing homosexual. But nevertheless it is used by prohomosexuals to affirm homosexual behavior. They say that the Romans passage discusses only a particular kind of homosexual activity and in no way condemns or proscribes the sexual activity of the 20th century person who is exclusively homosexual. It is impossible for a homosexual to "leave" the natural use of the opposite sex, because for him homosexuality is natural and heterosexuality is unnatural. Stablinski explains this position: "Note these keywords: change, leaving. In order to change from or to leave heterosexuality, one must first be heterosexual. What we have is an account of bisexual lust - and St. Paul does say lust, placing this behavior out of the higher realm of love and devotion. It is interesting to note that this is the only Old or New Testament scriptural reference to sexual relations between females." (13) The assumptions behind this type of reasoning are first, homosexuality is constitutional, and second, Paul was not aware of the different types of homosexuality that existed along with their causes. They say that what the Romans passage teaches is a disdain for hedonistic heterosexuals whose jaded appetites turn them from their own sexuality toward the unnatural state of homosexuality. "As far as Paul's knowledge of such sins is concemed, it must be remembered that Tarsus was the third intellectual city in the world, ranking behind Athens and Alexandria. Paul grew up there and would have learned about the Greco-Roman world along with its assorted philosophies and practices. He could quote the Stoic poets. He could cite familiar Stoic virtues. He had learned popular debating techniques. In Tarsus he would have learned about the homosexual practice called pederasty. He would have been familiar with the view among certain Greeks that homosexuality was a highly regarded form of love. This is important to consider when analyzing Paul's inspired writings on this subject." (14) "But there is also another explanation offered by homosexual theologians. In the letter, the practice is seen as a resultant and unfortunate structural problem in the world after the Fall from the original created order. Other listed evidences which Paul mentions are, disobedience to parents, envy, and gossip. The homosexual reference, however, seems literarily most fitting since it illustrates what was perceived to be a reversal of a norm variously described by Paul as the exchange of the truth for a lie, professing wisdom for foolishness, and honoring and serving the creature more than the Creator." (15) Blair is foggy here because he is having a hard time explaining this passage away. I thought it was rather naive because it is destructive to his cause. The "unfortunate structural problem" is a euphemism for sin. This is why envy and gossip are included in the list. Gossip and envy are "unfortunate structural problems." The "reversal of a norm" is also another way of saying sin and depravity. Calling sin "soap" does not make it any less dirty in God's eyes. This is exactly what I maintained that liberal/relativistic theology does. In this case, it does not make sense for Blair to say that homosexuality is just an illustration of depravity if homosexuality is not itself depraved. It is a self-defeating statement. Look, Paul gives the theological rationale for the mandatory condemnation of homosexual behavior. God's judgment gives the individual freedom to go their own way. "God gave them up" (paredoken) to do what they want. It is here that the extent of divine judgment is emphasized by the threefold use of paredoken: "Wherefore God *gave* them up in lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.... For this reason God *gave* them up to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural function for the unnatural.... And just as they did not see fit to retain the fun knowledge of God, God *gave* them up to a depraved mind, to do the things which are not proper" (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). The statement "God gave them up" describes a judicial act.(16) God did more than withdraw His restraining force from mankind; He gave men over tojudgment. Johnson elaborates on this point. "The interpretation is also in harmony with the occurrence of the precisely identical form in Acts 7:42 where, in speaking of Israel's apostasy in the days of Moses, Stephen says, "Then God turned, and gave them up (Gr. iTaQt6(oxEv) to worship the host of heaven." Both the Romans and the Acts passages describe the act of God as a penal infliction of retribution, the expression of an essential attribute consistent with His holiness."(17) Sexual rebellion is the retributive judgment of God. Romans 1:24-27 also looks back to the Genesis account. "For example, the phrases "to birds and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" (v. 23) is surely reminiscent of "the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth" (Gen. 1:26; cf vv. 20-25). And, further, the phrases "the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image (lit., the likeness of an image) made like to corruptible man" appear to come from the Genesis account's "Let us make man in our image after our likeness" (1:26). (18) The fact that Paul's argument is tied inseparably to the Genesis account of divine judgment destroys the "abuse" argument and the constitutional assumption! The act of homosexuality per se is wrong. It does not matter what the motives are. It does not matter about one's genetic make-up or hormone count. The act of homosexuality in and of itself is wrong. Paul speaks of individuals being consumed with passion for one another. That sounds definitely like someone with a homosexual orientation. When Paul wrote about women exchanging "natural relations" for unnatural (Rom. 1:27), he implied that they were exclusively homosexual in practice. They were confirmed practicing homosexuals, not heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. Because of sin, normal sex drives are channeled into parafusin ("against nature") expressions. There is no difference between what Paul is describing in Romans I and what the advocates of homosexuality today are trying to elevate to a respectable level. Paul traced mankind's suffering, sorrow, and sin back to the sin of worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. This rebellion caused an impossible barrier in man's relationship to God. But the barrier did not quit there. That was just the root cause. The consequences continued. Barriers began to develop between persons. An individual's relationship to himself and to his fellow man was disturbed. Homosexuality is a glaring example of this broken personal identity. The confusion in man's relationships began with a break in his communion with God. Sexualtiy is a part of this confusion. Paul was saying that not only idolatry but also certain sexual practices changed the created order. A male is supposed to worship God and in marriage to have sex with his wife. A female is supposed to worship God and in marriage to have sex with her husband. When people (or a people, plural; i.e. the West) defy God's order by worshiping creatures, they are judged with a further violation of the created order; they have intercourse with members of the same sex. (19) Paul made no distinction between homosexual lust and behavior. He rejected homosexuality and categorically condemned it as sinful. First Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10, discussed earlier, condemn male homosexuality. Only wild speculation can avoid the conclusion that Paul knew exactly what he meant and how he should be understood when he used these terms. III. Conclusion Believers are to love (accept) homosexuals, but the boundaries of that love must be defined. One must be suspicious of any position that approaches Scripture with a condescending mentality. If the Bible disagrees with their position, then homosexual theologians will try to win their argument with an emotional approach under the guise of love. To them, the real issue is not the Scriptures, but acceptance. "We need the Bible as a source to understanding Christ - but we need to spend more time observing His spirit as related there rather than the "letter of the law" given by His followers in attempting to spread His message. Pick up an edition of the Bible with Christ's recorded statements printed in red. Study only His words, comparing His positive approach throughout the Scriptures. Notice His emphasis on love - His silence on the means of sex but concem only with the motives behind it." (20) Christ had a "love morality," but it was combined with and defined by a "law morality. " "Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men to do so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19). For Christ there was no conflict between law and love. He spoke of love in terms of fulfilling the Law. Prohomosexual writers warp the Scriptures. They are more interested in the feelings of sinners than in the clear guidelines of God's Word. They are more concerned with making homosexuals feel accepted than they are in pointing them to the Savior. Love is "that which seeks the will of God in the object loved."(21) Homosexuality is not the will of God. Homosexual behavior can never be the "loving thing" to do. ______________ Notes: 1. John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality," (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 353. 2. William F. Arndt and F.Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1957), 4th rev. ed., s.v. "malakos," pp. 489-90. 3. Robert L. Sample and Randy Akers, "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and in the Christian Middle Ages," Explor 1 (FaR 1975):15. 4 . Arndt and Gingrich,A Greek-English Lexicon,s.v."malakos,"pp.489-90. 5. Dionystus Roman Antiquities 8. 2. 4. 6. Lucian 37. 7. Aristotle Problems 4. 26. (As quoted by Ukleja) 8. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. "arsenokaitas," p. 108. 9. Ibid., s.v. "koita," p. 440. 10. lbid., s.v. "arsenokaitas," p. 109. 11. Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality," pp. 341-42. 12. Ralph Blair, "An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality" (Chicago:MoodyPress, 1963). p. 6. 13. Kim Stablinski, "Homosexuality: What the Bible Does and Does Not Say," The Ladder, July 1969, n.p. 14 . Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament," n.p. 15. Blair, "An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality," p. 7. 16. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.,"God Gave Them Up,"Bibliotheca Sacra" (April-June 1972):127-28. 17. lbid., p. 128. 18. Ibid., p. 132. 19. DavidL.Bartlett,"A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality," Foundations: Baptist Joumal of History and Theology 20 (April-June 1977):140. 20. Stablinski, "Homosexuality," n.p. 21. Charles Caldwell Ryrie," A Survey of Bible Doctrine," (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 21.