Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

The ‘Nashville Statement’ on marriage1


Published: 14 September 2017 (GMT+10)

In late August 2017, 159 prominent evangelical theologians and pastors signed a declaration known as the ‘Nashville Statement’.2 This statement of faith consists of a preamble followed by 14 short affirmations and 14 denials dealing with biblical sexuality—specifically focusing on the subject of homosexuality, gender and marriage. The affirmation/denial format was in the grand tradition of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (1978), with which CMI agrees.


The Nashville Statement defines marriage as a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife; and sexual intercourse is only permitted within the boundaries of such a marriage. This biblical definition of marriage necessarily excludes homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous relationships.

The confession affirms that the differences between male and female are divinely ordained by God, since God created Adam and Eve as real people. It goes on to clarify that these differences do not in any way render male and female unequal in dignity and worth. Male and female reproductive structures, as defined by God, are integral for God’s design for self-conception as male and female. As such, the adoption of a homosexual or transgender self-conception is not consistent with the Bible. Similarly, same-sex sexual attraction is not part of the natural goodness of God’s creation, but the result of a fallen world.


The confession asserts that Christians who continue to struggle with same-sex attraction may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith and repentance in Jesus Christ. All followers of Christ are called to walk in purity. As such, a desire for sexual immorality, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not a valid justification for sexually immoral behaviour.

However, the grace of God is merciful, transforming, and forgiving. It has the ability to enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. This grace enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male and female. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and everyone “who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure” will be saved.

There are a number of outstanding statements in this confession. For example, in dealing with the question of biological defects often raised in transgender debates, the Nashville Statement clarifies in article 5 and 6: “We deny that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.” The creed goes on to explain that physical and psychological anomalies do not nullify the male and female distinction. Insofar as it may be known, faithful followers of Jesus Christ should embrace their biological sex.

Such people are acknowledged by the words of Jesus Christ as “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb” (cf. Matthew 19:12), but even then, they, along with everyone else, are capable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ. This addresses the common objection by opponents of biblical sexuality that: “they are born that way“. “Eunuchs who were born from their mother’s womb” refers to those with physical bodily defects that render identification of their sexual organs impossible. It does not refer to those who claim to be ‘transgendered’, and it does not refer to those who claim to have ‘same-sex attraction’. “Even if one is ‘born with same-sex attraction’ (and there are scientific reasons indicating that this is not the case), it is not a valid excuse to ignore biblical morality.

When dealing with those who give approval of transgenderism and homosexuality, the confession explicitly affirms the biblical position that, “It is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.” It continues: “… we deny that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.”3

The Nashville Statement is to be commended for its uncompromising adherence to the Word of God when it comes to this subject matter.

Re-definition of marriage?

Since God is our creator, He owns us and we are accountable and responsible before Him. When God issues a divine command to man, it is good when it is obeyed and evil when it is disobeyed. Sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4)4, and God himself is the measure of morality.

In other words, the Bible tells us that man is not free to define morality anyway he chooses. Morality is not something subjective, nor is it a man-made construct. Morality only makes sense in the light of God’s commandments. God defines morality, and He will hold all men accountable according to the standards He set. And if we are going to be held accountable to God’s standards, then God alone defines marriage, sexuality, and gender; and we come to know His commandments through His revealed Word—the Bible. (See Gay Marriage: right or wrong? And who decides?)

Man does not, and cannot, redefine sexuality. Since God sets the standard through which all men are accountable to Him, God alone can define morality. Man can only pretend to redefine sexuality. But changing the common usage of a term in our culture does not in any way change God’s standards. In other words, the attempt by some to re-define marriage only serves to pervert and deny the true meaning of marriage. The true definition is that which is declared by God; who is Himself the measure of morality and the measure of truth. God declares marriage in His Word to be a covenantal union between one man and one woman—a reality that has been established from the beginning of creation through the covenantal union of Adam and Eve before God.

Nashville Statement and creation

The repeated emphasis on biblical creation throughout our Statement of Faith provides a strong foundation for understanding biblical sexuality. Marriage is a creation ordinance. God himself establishes, and therefore defines, marriage from the beginning of creation. As a creation ordinance, marriage does not only apply to believers, but also to unbelievers. This is why we recognize the married status of unbelievers who are married. But a true marriage has to be one that aligns with God’s definition. All other attempts at redefining marriage are a perversion of this established truth.

Jesus himself appealed to biblical creation as the basis for his teaching on marriage:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and 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.

—Mark 10:6–9

Here Jesus affirmed the historical reality of the creation account in Genesis. In Genesis, the Bible teaches that all mankind descended from a male and female human couple created by God—Adam from the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib—and who were joined by God in a permanent covenantal marriage, from the very beginning of creation. This contradicts evolution and the idea that the universe is billions of years old. God created Adam and Eve from “the beginning of Creation”, not billions years after the beginning, and this was just ~6,000 years ago as recorded in the biblical chronogenealogies.

Jesus taught that the universe was around ~6,000 years old.

As this timeline above illustrates, any attempt to insert billions of years into the Bible requires placing Adam and Eve at the end, rather than at the beginning of creation. By teaching that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation, Jesus denied that the universe is billions of years old. It follows that any consistent attempt to insert billions of years into Earth’s history requires professing that Jesus got it wrong—but doing this would commit the kenotic heresy.

As Jesus Himself said:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?—John 3:12.

Do you believe Jesus? What does it mean to believe Jesus? Does it not mean that we believe His words—including what He tells us about creation? And does not the Bible teach that all of Scripture is God’s word? Since the Nashville Statement accurately presents God’s word on the subject of biblical sexuality, a denial of the Nashville Statement is in essence, a denial of God and the Bible.

Creation consistency

As we have shown earlier (and as Jesus Himself taught), the created order in Genesis provides the foundation for the doctrine of marriage and biblical sexuality. Even gender itself is established in Genesis 1:27—“Male and female he created them.” Those who reject the historical reality of biblical creation ~6,000 years ago, undermine the words of Christ, and in so doing, undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the foundation for biblical marriage and sexuality.

Towards the end of the Nashville Statement, one is greeted by a list of well-known evangelical theologians and pastors who are listed as initial signatories. While the Nashville Statement is consistent with the biblical orthodox position of creation taught throughout history, some of the signatories listed are not actually biblical creationists. Some of the signatories are known for their rejection of a literal six 24-hour day creation, approximately 6,000 years ago. This is most unfortunate. However, there are several Creation magazine interviewees: John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Randy Alcorn, and Rosaria Butterfield.

In Creation 39(3):46–48, 2017, Lita Cosner interviewed Dr Rosaria Butterfield. Dr Butterfield is a former lesbian who has now been transformed by the Gospel. She is now a public speaker, pastor’s wife, and mother. One part of the interview is as follows:

Biblical marriage is a creation ordinance
Rosaria emphasizes the need to approach this issue from the standpoint of a biblical view of creation. “Evangelical Christians only want to talk about the New Testament, and you cannot argue for the sanctity of marriage from the New Testament alone. You must understand biblical marriage as a creation ordinance. … You can’t defend the binarism of male and female and the integrity of the male/female binarism in marriage—which is at the centre of the Gospel, not its margins—without understanding it as a creation ordinance, which you can’t do in the New Testament. So if you’re just a ‘New Testament Christian’, you’re part of the problem … The biblical ground is that there is no such category of personhood as sexual orientation because we believe Genesis 1:27 is true.5

Do not get me wrong, we certainly appreciate the theologians and pastors who have taken the time to make a brave stand for biblical sexuality and marriage. However, quite a significant number of these signatories are not biblical creationists. Some of them hold to the idea of millions of years and other compromised views. But biblical gender and marriage can only consistently be defended by first affirming the truth of biblical creation. Jesus Himself based His teaching on marriage on a historical Adam and Eve pair from whom all humanity descended, and who were made that way from the very beginning of creation. If Jesus was wrong on this point, then His entire teaching collapses, and there no longer remains any basis for biblical sexuality.

In spite of this inconsistency by some of its signatories, we should note that the Nashville Statement itself is consistent with biblical creation, and we commend the authors of this confession for a clear, bold, and concise statement that declares the biblical position on marriage and sexuality. The authors of the statement seem to demonstrate a clear understanding that the doctrine of creation is foundational to understanding biblical marriage and sexuality.

The relevance of the Nashville Statement in a ‘post-truth’ culture

The biblical view of marriage and sexuality is under constant assault by the enemies of the Gospel. Yet, 2 Corinthians 10:5 tells us that Christians should “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and to take every thought captive to obey Christ”. If we want to be faithful Christians, we cannot sit on the fence or be passive about this issue. All Christians should stand firm upon this biblical teaching.

Is it unpopular in today’s ‘post-truth’ culture to herald biblical marriage and sexuality? Absolutely! But that does not mean we ought to shy from declaring the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible sets for us many examples where believers are commended for standing firm on truth even when they had to pay the price for it.

The prophet Nathan stood up to the King David by exposing David’s adultery and subsequent murder. Likewise, John the Baptist stood up against the culture of his day and declared God’s word (Matthew 14:3–12). Addressing the subject of sexual immorality and marriage, John declared to Herod the Tetrarch that “It was not lawful” for him to have his brother’s wife. He was imprisoned and later lost his life for proclaiming the truth.

These biblical characters go before us and show us the way to live as faithful Christians today. They show us the importance of affirming biblical sexuality in the face of a culture that is hostile to biblical morality. The historic confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, and many other major evangelical confessions have similarly affirmed biblical sexuality. The Nashville Statement adds to those historical confessions by specifically addressing the huge confusion surrounding homosexuality and transgenderism. In a culture of political correctness, the Nashville Statement is a breath of fresh air. Its strength lies in its clarity and brevity, and in its straightforward declaration of biblical truth.

Some people claim that the Bible is no longer relevant in a ‘post-truth’ culture. But it is actually the opposite. The Bible is relevant not because it is like the culture. It is relevant precisely because it is trans-cultural and, if necessary, counter-cultural. God’s word speaks into a world devoid of truth. It is a herald, proclaiming truth in a world shrouded with darkness. It is a prophetic voice that beckons, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). The greater the cultural confusion: the greater the need for biblical doctrine and direction. For these reasons, we highly commend the leaders who have added their names as initial signatories of the Nashville Statement.

How should Christians respond?

Some liberal theologians have come forth opposing the Nashville Statement, which is not the first time that compromise on Genesis leads to compromise on marriage. They are not just rejecting the Nashville Statement, they are rejecting the biblical position of marriage and gender, and they are rejecting God Himself. The Apostle Paul warned us, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” But Paul did not stop there. He also told Timothy how he should respond: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2).

Biblical love involves reproving that which is contrary to God’s law. Love speaks the truth even when it is unpalatable. Love corrects and rebukes; and the willingness to rebuke false doctrine is even listed as one of the qualifications required for eldership! (cf. Titus 1:9) Love hates all that is contrary to good. And since love itself is defined as an attribute of God Himself (cf. 1 John 4:8: God is love), anything that contradicts His teachings and commandments is unloving. Consistent with this definition of biblical love, those who promote homosexuality and transgenderism in the name of ‘love’ are actually unloving. Likewise, one of the most loving things a Christian can do is to warn others of God’s coming wrath (Romans 1:18, 24–27) and to call them to repentance. As Proverbs 27:5-6 explains:

“Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”

Some others have complained that the Nashville Statement is too focused on sex at the expense of other aspects of Christianity. In response:

First, who is really obsessed about sex, but those who define their whole being according to their sexuality (‘we are gays and lesbians’), then demand that all Christians affirm—on pain of being fined, fired, livelihood destroyed, denied adoption or fostering, or even jailed?

Second, the historic creeds were fundamentally negative statements, refuting a key error of their times. For example, the Nicene Creed refuted the Arian heresy that taught that Jesus was created.

The Nashville Statement in its bold declaration of truth is an expression of love and hope. More than just a declaration of biblical sexuality, the Nashville Statement goes on to affirm the transformative power and grace of God in salvation and sanctification. It speaks of forgiveness of sexual sins and the power of God to enable the believer to put to death their sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. The Nashville Statement ends with this declaration: “We affirm that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure. We deny that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach”.6 Or as the Apostle Paul taught:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, … nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, …will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)

Paul includes homosexual behavior as a serious sin. But Christians—including those who were guilty of that—are transformed. They are no longer slaves to sin, but have been forgiven, made a new creation, and have been given a renewed mind that seeks after the things of God. Faithful Christians strive daily to conform their thinking to the mind of Christ. We are not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewal of our minds. We are no longer to walk as unbelievers do, in the futility of their minds, and who are darkened in their understanding due to their hardness of hearts, and who have given themselves over to sensuality (cf. Ephesians 4:17–19). Instead, we are called to conform our values and our thoughts to the Word of God—to put off our old self, and to be renewed in the spirit of our minds in true righteousness and holiness (cf. Ephesians 4:22-24); being renewed in knowledge after the image of our Creator (cf. Colossians 3:10). We are not to engage in hermeneutical gymnastics, twisting the Word of God to fit our agenda. Instead, we are to approach Scripture with humility, submitting our entire lives, mind, and even moral values to God’s word.

As Jesus sums it up:

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).

References and notes

  1. Nashville Statement, cbmw.org, 2017. Return to text.
  2. This figure of 159 refers only to the initial signatories of the declaration and does not include many others who have since added their names to the confession. At the time of writing, the Nashville Statement has listed an additional 89 prominent theologians and pastors in addition to the initial 159. This new figure is selective rather than exhaustive and does not include many others who have added their names as signatories. For more information on the signatories, please refer to: cbmw.org/nashville-statement Return to text.
  3. See Article 10 of the Nashville Statement. Return to text.
  4. Or as The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates: sin is the breaking of law. The King James Bible: sin is the transgression of the law. Return to text.
  5. Cosner, L., Conversation with an unlikely convert: Lita Cosner chats with Dr Rosaria Butterfield, Creation 39(3):46-48, July 2017. Return to text.
  6. See Nashville Statement: Article 14. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Gay Marriage: right or wrong?
by Gary Bates, Lita Cosner
US $3.50
Soft Cover
Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati
US $17.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Peter N.
In discussing whether church congregations should “change”, “accept”, or “affirm” homosexuals for ministry in the church, an Australian group noted that: “affirm” was out; that some congregations would insist on “change”; while others would “accept” that “people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life,” i.e. quoting the first part of Article 8.

However, neither the rest of Article 8, nor Article 7, were quoted, which should disqualify people defining themselves as same-sex attracted from leadership roles in the church.

We must realise that 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 says:

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were [not “are”]. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (emphasis added).

Further, 1 Timothy 3:10 says:

But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.

That clearly should mean that leaders should no longer identify as same-sex attracted—all things should be new.
Robert T.
Great comment on a great statement that unfortunately is several years too late. The momentum is with the apostate churches that are so-called pro-diversity. I fear it will take more than this to turn the tide.

I lamented it in my book Magna Carta R.I.P? in 2015. The rapid decline to impose transgenderism by so many Western governments and their educationalists, together with the ridiculing of any Christian politician, certainly in the UK persuades me that the ‘?’ I placed against Magna Carta is now redundant. …

Does this mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and hunker down? No! The darkness comes when no man can work. But we are to ‘be found doing the Lord’s will when he comes’. Jude speaks of rescuing some ‘with compassion’ and others ‘snatch out of the fire’ so there is still a window for salvation. Signing the Nashville Statement is contending for the faith as Jude exhorts us to do would be a good start.
Philippus S.
The perfect truth as given in God’s word.
Michael A.
I think the whole thing is incredible and necessary. In this day of baseless shifting morals, the Church must take a stand and proclaim what is true.

I think polygamy being mentioned up front was less necessary. The tribes of Israel were created using the vehicle of polygamy. The bible doesn't record the mere having of more than one wife as a sin so I think it is perhaps a baby in the bath water.
However, the bible is certainly clear about polyandry (see also: flagrant adultery) , and homosexuality, as both are things that God must judge a people and a nation for. Woe betide the Church that does not speak up about them!
Jonathan Sarfati
Your first paragraph is right on.

Not so much your second. See Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy?
Nathan V.
The passage referenced in Matthew wherein Jesus quoted from Genesis was in response to divorce. God's original design was for marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. We, as the church, have taken it upon ourselves to redefine that original design to include divorce and remarriage. Sometimes as many times as we want.
It should come as no surprise then that the world redefines marriage even further.
If christians refuse to adhere to God's design for marriage, how can we expect the world to adhere to God's design for marriage? We emphasize one MAN and one WOMAN but we should not forget to emphasize ONE man and ONE woman. It doesn't say one at a time but rather ONE.
Jonathan Sarfati
But then, it was the atheists who led the way with increased ‘no-fault’ divorced laws, plus a welfare system that (at least in the short term) rewarded some people for being single parents and penalized marriage. So it’s chutzpah for some atheists to throw divorce in the face of the church after doing so much to promote it.

Also we noted in US Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage—now what?:

America capitulated on marriage long before the homosexual lobby wanted in. A culture with far too many marriages ending in divorce (although evangelical Christians, unlike the stereotypical accusation, have lower rates of divorce), children frequently being conceived outside of marriage, and an increasing preference for cohabitation instead of marriage showed that it lacked real conviction about marriage.

And most Christians were, quite frankly, unprepared for the organized, strategic assault on traditional morality waged by a small number of politically savvy activists. Gay people are such a small proportion of the population (most reputable estimates are around 5 percent, much less than the ten percent myth that is usually paraded as fact) that many simply did not see them as that much of a threat.

David J.
Thank you for replying to my post, Dr Sarfati. It's commendable to affirm a “high view of women” in Scripture, but we should not let a desire to do that extend to mistranslating the text. The Hebrew of the second phrase in 1:27 is otow, an accusative singular. It can only be referring to Adam, not both Adam and Eve. The third phrase which says God made them, is otam, an accusative plural. So God made both Adam and Eve, but only man was made in his image. See 1 Corinthians 11:7 for a NT statement to the same effect. Your understanding of the passage supports viewing God as bisexual.
Jonathan Sarfati
Rather old-fashioned Strong-type transliterations of ’ōṯô and ’ōṯām, but no matter. You are reading a lot into these pronouns, and ignoring the interplay of singular and plural in this text, for both God and man.

Note, in v. 26, God said, “Let us make man in our [plural] image).

Then v. 27 has threefold parallelism, with threefold use of the verb "create" (bara’):

So God created man in his [singular] own image,
in the image of God [the Triune God has singular and plural aspects] he created him [singular];
male and female he created them [plural].

Hebrew parallelism should make it clear that the man(kind) [singular word] that God created was the same as that which He created as male and female. (Compare: in the NT, the Church is the bride of Christ comprising individuals who were male and female.)

If your way were correct, then the parallelism loses all meaning, and we are left with wondering, “female what”? But as understood by the best commentators over the ages, the male and female obviously referred to the man(kind).

In Genesis 2, we see that there was only one of each.
David J.
In article 3 of the Nashville statement it states that man and woman were made in God’s image. This is not what the Bible says. It says man was made in God’s image. Jesus is a male. He is not bi-sexual.
Jonathan Sarfati
Here is what ‘man’ meant in Genesis 1:27—

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

See also The Bible’s high view of women grounded in the creation account, and further discussion about the image of God (letter 1 and reply).
Margaret K.
So timely for Australia, as we are being constantly badgered by big business, TV, newspapers, and wealthy ‘gays’ to accept same-sex marriage into law. The discrimination is breath-taking in its blatancy and Christian witness is cut off or shouted down. But God is still God, almighty and eternal, and our hope is in Him.
Andrew M.
While this article refers to the lack of scientific evidence that people may be "born with same-sex attraction", it neglects the scriptural reason given for the origin of same sex attraction - that it is the revealed wrath of God on them that hold the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:26). The article suggests that this passage is about the future wrath of God, rather than the present wrath of God.
Paul M.
I’m not sure what marital or property rights gay people don’t have under law, but I am unsure how to respond when a gay person says that they should have equal rights under law as I do. Apart from sharing the biblical view and the gospel, what should their legal rights be under a democracy? Is it simply their right to vote as such?
Jonathan Sarfati
In most western countries, the soi-disant GLBT nowadays have all the same rights as anyone else. Contrast this with many Islamist countries, GLBT people are jailed and even murdered by their own governments. But we hear little about that from the more aggressive GLBT activists while they simultaneously rail against freedoms of speech and religion and against the Church).

But there is no right to a ‘gay marriage’, any more than there is aright to be a married bachelor or to draw a square circle. Marriage for almost all human history, starting from Genesis 2:24, has been a man and a woman. Decrees from the US Supreme Court or elsewhere can’t change this logic.
P. O.
One of the best that you have written so far.
Congratulations and well done.
David H.
When I first heard of the Nashville Statement, I was very encouraged that people were taking a stand for what the Bible actually said rather than trying to filter it through postmodern and Progressive culture.

When I read the counter statement, I was saddened but not surprised. I can almost get the logic, but it's worldly logic, not God's logic. And it might seem ‘loving’ to the world, but leads to nothing but damnation and eternal separation from God. The Bible is very clear on this.
Jonathan Sarfati
I understand where you’re coming from. But I would phrase it differently: the error of the anti-Nashville statements was starting with the world’s presuppositions or axioms instead of the true axioms, the propositions of Scripture.

God’s logic and man’s logic are the same, because we are made in His image. The difference is that God knows all true presuppositions and we don’t, and God never commits logical fallacies while humans are prone to them. Theologian Herman Hoeksema explained:

All of Scripture is given us that we might understand it … all of it is adapted to our human mind, so that, even though there be many things in that revelation of God which we cannot fathom, there is nothing in it that is contrary to human intelligence and logic. … Either the logic of revelation is our logic, or there is no revelation.

G. T.
With reference to being ‘New Testament Christians’, where do you sit with practices from the Old Testament that would be considered abhorrent now, such as stoning, or the right to kill your slaves, as these practices are Old Testament values, for which the New Testament does not support/mention?
The background to the question is that here in Australia we are about to have a vote on same sex marriage. Those in the Yes camp claim that the Bible is full of instructions that are no longer applicable (stoning and killing slaves). My justification has been “you are referring to practices from the Old Testament, but the New Testament specifically excludes same sex attraction.”
However, based on the assertion of the Article, if I am to embrace the idea of Homosexuality as being a sin and be a ‘whole-Bible Christian’, I should also support stoning and killing of slaves?
Please comment.
Many thanks.
Jonathan Sarfati
Actually, a while ago, we wrote about this issue:

Hoax ‘testimony’ and Hoax endorsement: Is eating shellfish still an abomination?:

Well, unless you’re a signatory to the Sinaitic Covenant, the question is moot because the command isn’t for you.

Again, you’re making the common mistake of equating an ancient institution with a modern one, and assuming that the ancient world was as friendly as the Western world is to those who have enough wealth and leisure time to sit around on the Internet making bigoted assumptions about an ancient text. Slavery, as referred to here in the Bible, as in much of the ancient world, was more like indentured servitude, or even modern employment— in the ancient world, the President’s cabinet would be called his ‘slaves’; you would similarly be the ‘slave’ of your employer. Indeed, anyone who is not self-employed would be in slavery by the ancient definition!

Note that slavery occurred throughout the world, in all continents and affecting all people groups (“races”). But atheists attack only the Bible and the Christian west for a humanity-wide evil, whereas it was only the Christianized west that finally abolished this evil and spread this abolition throughout the world (see Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero).

See also Are we allowed to eat all animals today?
Jenny A.
Thank you; that was a timely, pertinent and factual coverage, not coloured by emotionalism.
I would love everyone in our fair country to read it.
Mark G.
Great article. Accepting the lives of Adam and Eve for real people who lived in true history affects several key doctrines such as the origin of sin or Jesus as the Second Adam. Closer to many is the concept of marriage.

Though many believers seem willing to play with the origin of sin, they seem less willing to play with disturbing concepts of human sexuality. In the end, those who have tried to dismiss Genesis in the past will hit a wall of reality and realize that more hangs on Genesis that what they previously thought.

This declaration has the possible unintended consequence of drawing Evangelical Christians together around Adam and Eve as true, historical figures. Since Jesus is at the center of the discussion, loyalty to Him will be a persuasive factor.

This will force professing believers to think about implications that they previously thought irrelevant.

This is a good document and I predict that it will prove to be a dividing line, a water shed if you like, for directing the modern Church back to Scripture and forcing those who reject Scripture to be open and honest about it.

If nothing else, the future will be interesting. By the way, I signed the declaration and I did it gladly with the knowledge of its wider implications about creation.
Karl C.
Love the article and the statement on marriage criterion. Have you considered the idea of adding biological male and female? I am sure you know what may be down the humanistic cultural road?
Joel Tay
Thanks Karl,

I think this sentence in the article expresses the same idea:
"Male and female reproductive structures, as defined by God, are integral for God’s design for self-conception as male and female."
Paul M.
Tomislav O.
Even if one is ‘born with same-sex attraction’ (and there are scientific reasons indicating that this is not the case), it is not a valid excuse to ignore biblical morality.

It is extremely unjust to assign blame to people for something they cannot control.

"Evil people cannot understand justice, but those who follow the LORD understand completely." (Proverbs 28:5)

It is also extremely anti-God: temptation is never sin. That’s because sin is breaking the law and temptation is only wanting to break the law. There's a difference between being tempted and sinning, and it is only the later that gets you damned and never the former.
Jonathan Sarfati
One can be born with a tendency to alcoholism, which is not sinful per se, but if one acts on this temptation and gets drunk, then that is sin. So similarly, accepting, arguendo, that some people are ‘born with same-sex attraction’, it doesn’t mean they should act on this by having homosexual intercourse. That would be a sin.

Similarly, a few years ago, a certain village atheist activist claimed to come out as ‘polyamorous’. But even many of his fellow atheists were not impressed that he acted on his supposed inborn polyamory by cheating on his long-suffering wife.

H. S.
Your article says: “Eunuchs who were born from their mother’s womb” refers to those with physical bodily defects that render identification of their sexual organs impossible. It does not refer to those who claim to be ‘transgendered’, and it does not refer to those who claim to have ‘same-sex attraction’.

I always thought that "eunuchs who were born that way" was talking about people who LACK a sexual drive. Not people with bodily defects that make it impossible to tell whether they're biologically male or female (although this interpretation does make sense), but people who have no desire at all for a husband/wife and no desire at all for sex. Since your interpretation makes sense, it must be correct... but could it mean both? After all, being single isn't a bad thing, and not having a sexual drive might make it less of a struggle...? I'm guessing here; I'm asexual (meaning I DEFINITELY know what gender I am and have no desire to change it and if I were to by some miracle actually want to be in a relationship they'd be the opposite gender, but I have no desire for a mate and no desire for sex) and I see nothing wrong with that. However, I have no idea what single people who DO want a mate and who DO have a sex drive have to deal with. And this topic is really awkward, so I'll say right here that I mean absolutely no offence to anybody. :)

Or is asexuality kind of like a blessing from God for permanent singles? Again, I have no idea - I just know what it is for me, right now, and I honestly doubt it will ever change. Not that I want it to!

Anyway. It was a good article; it's just that little bit that I've never seen that way.
Joel Tay
Matthew 19 lists three groups: 1) Eunuchs who have been so from birth (Physical defects or ‎impotency); 2) Eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men (e.g. castration—a practice not ‎uncommon in those days for those serving in high governmental positions; 3) Eunuchs who made ‎themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven—those who have chosen not to marry ‎so that they can serve more effectively in serving God. It is important to note that this third ‎category should be read in the context of the disciples’ statement that if marriage was so ‎difficult, it is better not to marry. Jesus responds that “not everyone can receive this saying, but ‎only those to whom it is given.” It must be emphasized that Jesus is not talking about ‎singlehood out of ‘convenience’, but those who have deliberately chosen to forsake marriage for ‎the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Those in this third category will have to keep in ‎mind Paul’s teaching that it is better to marry than to burn with lust, and how in Genesis 1, God’s ‎mandate for mankind as a whole is to be fruitful and multiply. ‎

The closest thing in the Bible of a person having no or little sexual desires (i.e. a gift of celibacy) would be ‎the Apostle Paul who in 1 Corinthians 7:1–9 wrote:‎

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have ‎sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each ‎man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should ‎give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife ‎does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband ‎does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one ‎another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves ‎to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your ‎lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all ‎were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of ‎another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain ‎single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better ‎to marry than to burn with passion.‎

In other words, while it is better not to marry, the unmarried and widows who struggle with sexual ‎desires should seek to marry. (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:8–9) ‎

‎ “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has ‎called him.”—1 Corinthians 7:17; “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you ‎free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a ‎betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned.”—1 Corinthians 7:27–28‎

Each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another, and ‎whichever situation we find ourselves in, we are to live our lives in sexual purity, pleasing to ‎God. (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7)‎ In everyone of these instances, from those who are eunuchs, to those who are married, it is possible to live a live of purpose and sexual purity before God.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.