Footnotes

1His exact words were as follows: "It has clear guidelines that can objectively determine the meaning of the text..."

2While the word "unnatural" does not have a necessary ethical connotation, we must consider the action that is being contemplated. Helminiak offers Romans 11:24 as an example of something that God did which is "unnatural" but not immoral. (Paul likens the inclusion of the Gentiles into the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to the grafting of wild, "unnatural" branches into an olive tree.) Scripture regulates sexual activity in a variety of ways, and this invests such activity with the highest moral implications. The grafting of branches into a tree is not so regulated and therefore has no moral implications. An unnatural sexual act has grave moral implications whereas an unnatural gardening act has none.

3Consider the most telling example. In Romans 1:24, we have the following statement: "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them." The question is, does the Greek word for "impurity" have a necessary or even a possible ethical connotation? (Note: some translations use the term "uncleanness".) I will list below every single usage of the same Greek word in Paul's writings. I show the word translated "impurity" in all caps to make it easy to spot. In some cases, I give a verse or two of context to make it clear how Paul is using the term:

Romans 6:19:

I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to IMPURITY and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

2 Corinthians 12:21

I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the IMPURITY, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.

Galatians 5:19

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, IMPURITY, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Ephesians 4:19

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of IMPURITY with greediness.

Ephesians 5:3

But immorality or any IMPURITY or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;

Colossians 3:5

Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, IMPURITY, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,

1 Thessalonians 2:3

For our exhortation does not come from error or IMPURITY or by way of deceit;

1 Thessalonians 4:7

For God has not called us for the purpose of IMPURITY, but in sanctification.

From these passages, we learn the following about Paul's view of impurity:

I'm really glad that Helminiak forced me to prove my point. Frankly, I have no idea how Helminiak sees this as non-ethical in Romans 1:24. It is most certainly talking about the same activities described in the next few verses, because of the association with "dishonoring their bodies."

So, we can conclude that Paul uses the word "impurity" in a very strong ethical sense in this passage, and Helminiak's interpretation immediately falls to the ground.

4Helminiak mentions that the word often translated "homosexuality" in I Cor. 6:9 has been translated different ways in different ages. He therefore suspects that the translation reflects the prejudices of the various ages. That may be. However, one can take this thought a step further. The church has taught the sinfulness of homosexual acts for nearly 2000 years with virtually no dissent. In our pluralistic culture the acceptance of homosexuality is currently in vogue in all the fashionable quarters of society. Therefore, when the more liberal branches of the church begin to mimic this acceptance, one suspects that this "new insight" merely reflects the prejudices of our age in this matter.

5I do not mean to imply that the historic Christian view of homosexual acts has anything to fear from Helminiak's interpretation. However, if one must choose between reading Helminiak's book and reading Romans, I heartily recommend Romans as being of infinitely more value.