Error #6 Dr. J. Brownson Has the Wrong Person Dishonored
Dr. Brownson states that according to ancient views, a man dishonored the other man when he required the other man to play the role of a female. Therefore Dr. Brownson concludes that when Paul writes about dishonor he is prohibiting excessive acts where one man forces himself upon another (passive) man and forces him to play the role of a woman.Verse 26a reads, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.” (Bold added.) This verse states specifically that the passions were dishonorable. Therefore, contrary to Dr. Brownson, the man with the passions, the sexual drive and desire to engage in the sex act is the one who owns the dishonor, not the passive man, the one who played the role of the female. This is a very important distinction. Unless someone can show that I’ve missed something here, this is a very serious error in his argument used to support accepting same-sex marriage.
Error #7 "For" Refutes the Meaning of Excessive
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature . . .” Romans 1:26 (Bold and italics added.)
Some commentators hold that the “for” of verse 26b is causal in nature. If this is true then the women exchanging natural relations for those contrary to nature are the reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions (verse 26a). Then this is a matter of cause (26b) and effect (26a). Dr. J. Brownson holds that the passions of verse 26a describe or define the exchanging of 26b in an all-inclusive manner. He holds it is an all-inclusive manner such that all that is bad about the exchanging is passionate in an excessive manner. However, in this case, since the two parts of the verse would be linked by a causal for it is not possible for the passions of verse 26a to be an adjective describing the exchanging of 26b in this way. Since it would be cause and effect, then verse 26b describes in total what is wrong, what is sinful about the passions in verse 26a. And that sin is plain and simply same-sex erotic acts.
If the “for” which opens verse 26b is an explanatory “for” as some believe (reference Gagnon page 235) then the exchanging of 26b explains what the dishonorable passions of 26a are. In that case, the passions are no more and no less than that the women traded sex with men for sex with women. Verse 26b describes simply same-sex erotic acts, there is nothing there describing same-sex erotic acts done in an excessive manner. Once again, Dr. Brownson’s position is not correct. What is sinful is simply same-sex erotic acts.
In either case it is important to note that verse 26b describes verse 26a. Dr. Brownson holds verse 26a describes verse 26b and more of the passage. If that was true, then verse 26a could not be described by verse 26b, rather, verse 26a determines what is wrong here, and that would include verse 26a describing verse 26b. The preposition “for” is an important part of the passage because it helps to clarify what Paul is saying here. One cannot truly understand a given statement if all parts of the sentence are not dealt with fully. In his book Dr. Brownson does not deal with what meaning the word “for” brings to this passage.
Click on the following link to provide your thoughts as feedback:
If you would like to add the Dialogos email to your list of approved senders, Click Here.
To Go to The Next Email, Click Here.