As we continue to look rather thoroughly at Romans 1, I can’t emphasize enough how important this passage is for the debate about Christians and homosexuality. In fact, without Romans 1, there would be much more ambiguity about what the Bible roman gayssays about same sex relations.

As we said many blogs ago, the story of Sodom (Gen 19) talks about gang rape, not consensual, monogamous sex. Leviticus 18 and 20 forbids male-male sex, but since Leviticus forbids eating catfish, bacon, mole rats, and wearing poly-cotton blends—all of which I enjoy (save the mole rats)—we need other texts to confirm that Leviticus’ statements about gay sex are still relevant. The rest of the Old Testament doesn’t mention homosexual relations (Judges 19, like Gen 19, is about gang rape) and neither does Jesus. Apart from Romans 1, Paul mentions some sort male-male sexual activity by using the words arsenokoites (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) and malakos (1 Cor 6:9), but the words are difficult to define, even more difficult to interpret. Romans 1 is really the one main passage that deals  explicitly with same sex relations, and it’s the only passage that mentions lesbian sex (Rom 1:26).

Now, the scarcity of biblical passages that talk about homosexuality head on are supplemented with many other passages that talk about marriage (Genesis 1-2; Song of Songs; Eph 5; etc.), gender, and sexual ethics, which are all relevant for understanding homosexuality. Also, we have to realize that the Bible was written in real time to real people with specific needs and questions; meaning, that some issues were addressed more than others simply because they needed to be. Jesus never mentions incest and bestiality, but that’s probably because he never needed to, not because he had no opinion on these issues. Paul also never mentions bestiality, though he does mention incest. Why? Because some dude in Corinth was sleeping with his step mother, and Paul didn’t think this was okay. So he addressed it (1 Cor 5).

All that to say, there are few passages today that demand more critical attention that Romans 1:24-27, which is why I’m slugging through this passage blog by blog, argument by argument. And the argument I deal with today is this:

Paul doesn’t actually condemn same sex activity committed by those who are oriented toward the same sex; rather, he’s prohibiting homosexual sex by heterosexual people. Gay and lesbians don’t “exchange” heterosexual sex for homosexual sex. They simply pursue homosexual sex because that’s the way they’re wired.

According to this argument, the word “nature” in the phrases “exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (vs. 1:26) and “gave up natural relations” (v. 1:27) refers not to some moral code embedded in the created order; rather, “nature” refers to one’s own personal nature, disposition, or more specifically, one’s sexual orientation. Now, for this argument to work, Paul has to believe that all people are born heterosexual and those who pursue gay and lesbian relations “give up” their heterosexual nature to pursue homosexual sex.

This argument has the appearance of strong textual support, since Paul does say that they “exchange” that which is natural for that which is unnatural. Now, most gay people I know don’t say that they “exchange” greek-homo-1anything. They simply act according to their nature—their homosexual nature—and pursue relations with the same gender. Therefore, some gay Christians would say that they agree with Paul here, that heterosexuals shouldn’t have gay sex. Gay people, though, are not the target of Paul’s argument.

A sort of footnote to this argument is the assumption that Paul didn’t have any concept of sexual orientation. Paul is a backwoods first-century Jew, who’s never read the works of Freud, Kinsey, or Foucault and therefore didn’t know much about sexual orientation. Paul thought that all people are born heterosexual and those who are hyper-sexed or über-lustful leave their “natural function” to pursue gay sex. If Paul had known a thing or two about sexual orientation, then he would have nuanced his argument a bit better. As for us more enlightened folk, we know better and can therefore add an important exception to Paul’s prohibition. Those of us who are born gay are not whom Paul is addressing in Romans 1.

Instead of offering you my thoughts on this argument, I’d love to hear yours. What do you think about the argument I’ve presented? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Most of all: Does it have textual support? Does it make sense of Romans 1 and Paul’s historical context or not?

After reading and interacting with your thoughts, I’ll offer a few of my own in the comments.

Series Navigation<< Maybe Romans 1:24-27 Is About Purity But Not Sin?Does Romans 1 Address Specific Idolatrous Forms of Homosexuality? >>

20 COMMENTS

  1. HI Preston –

    I can’t give you a theological answer here. What I can tell you is that this passage was critical in being able to reconcile my faith and sexuality.

    What I knew on an essential level, and what was confirmed by studying scripture, is that humankind is a relational creation. God intends for us to be in relationship. Emotionally intimate relationships are deepened and uniquely nurtured by selfless physical intimacy. The unitive property of sex serves an important purpose to bond us to other human beings. Sex within the bounds of a covenant relationship is good.

    When I look at Romans 1 through that filter, I hear Paul saying “use sex as it’s intended; don’t distort this gift from God”. He’s focused on the act of sex in a lustful context and calls it unnatural. We’ll never know what, exactly, Paul was referring to here: it’s unknowable. But it doesn’t seem likely to me that he was describing the selfless coming together of two people in a covenant relationship.

    What I began to understand through much prayer and study was the my biggest sin – the thing that was keeping me far away from God – was living an inauthentic life and rejecting His gift of sexuality. The way I was distorting God’s gift was by repressing it. This sexual repression, viewing this essential piece of me as broken and deformed, was a barrier to meaningful relationship. I’m not just talking about dating. Sexual repression kept me from understanding what it’s like to live into the fullness of the human experience. Accepting myself as a whole person in Christ – a wonderfully-made child of God – was the most liberating epiphany I’ve ever had. I was free to love others – to know and be known – in an entirely different and better way.

    All that over-sharing to say this: Taken in isolation, the argument as you presented it here is facile and falls flat (that’s not a criticism, just an observation). I’ve heard it posed in intellectually suspect ways (i.e., Boswell). HOWEVER, when the *meaning* of Romans 1 is laid over the rest of what the Bible says about humankind, the argument becomes profound and life-changing. Or at least it did for me.

    I know I’ve said this before, but any theological exploration of homosexuality that is confined to the clobber passages is woefully incomplete. That’s because the clobber passages only deal with the sex act. Sexuality, and it’s expression, are about so much more than sex.

    My best to you
    David

    • Thanks for your personal and well-thought-out thoughts, David! Always a pleasure to hear your perspective. One of these days we’ve got to sit down and chat. I’d love to hear your story.

      Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying before I respond. In sum, you’re saying that God intends his relational beings to enjoy intimacy with other human beings, and sex within marriage is the ultimate expression of our relational being.

      In jumping down to your last couple paragraphs, you’d therefore say that what the Bible says about being human, relationship, gender, and intimacy are all important features to bring to the “clobber passages.” (For our readers, the 7 passages that mention homosexuality are often referred to as “clobber passages” for obvious reasons.) When this is done, then those larger themes prevent us from interpreting Romans 1 (and others) as prohibited consensual, monogamous, gay and lesbian relational intimacy (which, obviously, will express itself ultimately in sex).

      Am I tracking you correctly?

      I need to mull over this and see how it applies to the debate. There’s much of what you say that agree with. Let me throw this out there, though:

      If in those larger discussions about being human, gender, relationships, intimacy, etc., it can be shown that God intended that to be confined to man and woman, would this change things for you? I assume that you have consider this but have concluded that the Bible doesn’t confine such intimacy to man and woman. Of course, the Bible seems to present a heterosexual view of marriage; the question, though, is does the Bible therefore preclude homosexual marriage WHEN (or BY THE WAY) it presents heterosexual marriage. A lot of this comes down to Genesis 2, other passages that refer to Gen 2, and what Paul says about “nature” and “against nature” here in Rom 1. Would you agree?

      Also, just so you know, I don’t want to use the “big 7” to clobber gay people! I’m only focusing on these passages (for the time being) since they speak most directly to the issue; they are the only passages that directly mention some sort of homosexuality activity, and it just so happens that they focus on the sex act. So, it’s not that I’m racing to passages that speak negatively about homosexuality, or racing to those passages that speak specifically about homosexual sex; rather, I’m looking at those passages speak most directly about homosexuality–it just so happens that they speak both negatively about it and focus on the sex act.

      But ya, those overarching themes are HUGE and I need to consider those too.

      • Hi Preston –

        Nice job of summarizing my thoughts. Two brief thoughts in response.

        First, I think using the word “marriage” is problematic in this discussion. Our modern conception of marriage is miles away from the pre-modern understanding. And, because of the culture wars, the word itself is freighted and understood to mean myriad things. I think we’re better served using something like “covenant relationships” to avoid further muddying the water.

        Second, I personally don’t believe that man/woman relationships in the bible are prescriptive but rather they’re normative. I believe that God blesses mutually sacrificial relationships, both straight and gay, because they are a reflection of the divine and a benefit to community. However, even if one believes that m/f relationships are truly God’s ideal, does that automatically render same-sex relationships morally impermissible? As relational beings unequipped for opposite-sex relationships, perhaps covenant same-sex relationships could be considered the best that gay people can do with the cards we’ve been dealt…the way to live the “most moral” life possible. I sometimes hear conservative Christians say they’d rather see gay people try to be celibate and “stumble” with casual hookups than see them in a covenant same-sex relationship. That’s always left me scratching my head.

  2. Preston,

    This is a really interesting argument. I’m not sure of how helpful my comments will be, but since you are asking, I’ll throw in my initial observations which are limited to reading only an English translation.

    I recognize that this is one of the arguments which you are leveling to the surface and not necessarily what you are arguing for. That being said, the point you bring up about the word “exchange” and how it is used by modern the gay community is interesting. Homosexuals would never say that they are “exchanging” their orientation for anything, but are rather acting according to the way that feels most natural to them. However, to come to the conclusion that heterosexuals abandoned that which was “natural” for them to do was the condemned sin Paul is speaking of in v.27 seems like a standing on a layer of thin ice. Every act which Paul lists from 1:18-32 seems to fit under the umbrella of “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” which are the very reason why the wrath of God is being revealed. Whether or not the men and women were naturally gay or not, didn’t seem to be a concern of Paul’s.

    According to the argument, Paul is only condemning heterosexuals abandoning heterosexuality and doing what is “unnatural” and committing a homosexual act. The conclusion therefore, is Paul doesn’t condemn people born gay because they are only doing that which is natural to them. I’m sure you’ve come across this sort of response, but my reaction to such a statement is that sin is a natural tendency for humanity as we lay in our fallen state. With Romans 7 as part of the subsequent context and whether or not Paul has a Christian struggling with sin or a representative Jew in mind, it is a human tendency to struggle against “the desire to do what is right.”

    Even though Paul was not familiar with sexual orientation and the contributions of Freud, Kinsey and Foccault, it seems to be a stretch to say “As for us more enlightened folk, we know better and can therefore add an important exception to Paul’s prohibition. Those of us who are born gay are not whom Paul is addressing in Romans 1.” This seems to undermine and degrade the work of the Spirit in Paul’s writing of Scripture. Although I don’t disagree that Paul may have said something different had he been versed in what we have access to today, but it’s a bit scary in my mind to offer an “exception.” This makes me wonder, how many other places in Scripture are being compromised due to this line of reasoning?

    To sum up my main point: this argument isn’t strong enough to say that Paul affirms homosexual activity to those who are naturally inclined to do so. In fact, this reasoning can lead us in theologically and biblio-logically scary places.

    Thanks for all of your much needed research on this very important subject! Keep at it!
    Scott Leming

    • Hey bro! Here’s some thoughts.

      2nd paragraph:

      But it’s the EXCHANGE that illicits God’s wrath, not homosexual relations ACCORDING TO ONE’S NATURE. (I’m not yelling; I just can’t use italics 🙂 So, the behavior that is deserving of God’s wrath–according to this argument–is not homosexual sex inherently, but straight people having gay sex, or, by implication, gay people having straight sex.

      3rd paragraph:

      May be true, but again, it’s the exchange that’s the specific sin. The question isn’t so much “is it okay to act according to one’s sin nature” but “is one acting according to one’s personal, sexual orientation.”

      4th paragraph:

      See my response to David above. There are a lot of cultural things that Paul said, though, that we don’t follow. He seemed to say that it was shameful for men to have long hair (1 Cor 11), but we would say that Paul is speaking out of his own culture. So, perhaps Paul is assuming a cultural view of sexual orientation–that all people are born straight and only engage in gay sex when they are given into excessive lust and get bored with straight sex–and then, based on that cultural view, condemns homosexuality on his own cultural grounds; grounds that we now know are not valid. (Scott, I’m playing Devil’s advocate, trying to get inside the skin of this argument.)

      • For Devil’s advocate…what is our basis for practically disregarding Paul’s pronouncement on long hair, women’s head coverings etc, but not his guidelines on other things such as qualifications for elders/teachers, dealing with sin in the body, wine for our stomachs and so on?

        My hair is rapidly reaching the base of my spine, but having read and prayed about it my conclusion was that as long as it wasn’t an idol, and I don’t get too prissy (read girly) about it and taking care of it with lots of products etc, then it’s fine. Could Paul’s use in 1 Cor 11 of the word “natural” in relation to hair inform our interpretation of it in Romans 1? I realise Paul in Corinthians says one thing, but then says judge for yourselves and if it’s an issue then we don’t care one way or another in the church in the same passage, which does complicate things.

      • The emphasis on exchange is tripping me up a little bit. I understand the argument, but as I study the text I have a tough time getting around the argument.

        Perhaps Paul has Genesis in mind. He alludes to the creation of the world in v.20 and transfers us to the male/female task to be fruitful and multiply. So if the exchange is that which Paul cares about, then perhaps exchanging the primary task of humanity to fill the earth is that which Paul is addressing. The wrath of God, therefore goes against those who interrupt/corrupt the order which God had made man to do so.

        Just a few thoughts. I’m begging to know yours now 🙂

      • Preston,

        It seems to me that this language of “exchange” is key here. Earlier in the passage, these same folks exchange the glory of God for worship of created things. And now they are exchanging the natural sexual function for that which is unnatural. By (what I see to be) Paul’s reasoning, in order for the sexual “exchange” to be referring to one’s personal natural inclination, then the worship “exchange” would also have to be referring to personal natural inclination.

        In other words: “God made some people to worship him and others to worship idols. The only problem is for those who were made to worship God but exchange that worship for idol worship. But if God made me for idol worship, he won’t have a problem if I worship idols, since that is my personal natural inclination.”

        Obviously, that doesn’t work. God made all of us to worship Him. That’s kind of the point of the passage. Everything else is what happens when we stop worshipping God – he “gives us over” to our inclinations. When we exchange worship of God for something else, he allows all other kinds of exchanges that do us damage.

        Blessings, Josh

  3. Well, at the very least, I’d say Paul is talking about
    straight people who exchanged something.
    V. 26 says “their” women exchanged.
    So, the men’s women exchanged something.
    Could suggest the idea of women being the property of men. Not sure.

  4. I’m no biblical scholar, but this argument looks more like a possibility than a proof. Do you know if there’s any more evidence other than by arguing about what Paul knew about sex orientations and what he meant by the word “exchange”?

    • Fredrick,

      If I can defend this argument (which I ultimately don’t agree with), I’d respond to your question:

      “Paul explicitly says that the men and women in question EXCHANGED having heterosexual sex for having homosexual sex. This is exactly what Paul says. The specific sin, according to what Paul actually says, is straight people having gay sex. What more evidence do you need?”

      • Maybe it’s even more fundamental than that. Colossians 3:5 says that idolatry/lust
        elicits God’s wrath. The exchange was
        simply the manifestation of that idolatry/lust.
        Sure, the exchange was “sin” but the exchange happened within the
        context of uncontrollable lust (v. 27). We
        wouldn’t expect to see these kinds of exchanges happening outside of this kind
        of lust. The physical expression of the
        spiritual reality solidified God’s judgment in giving them over to a depraved
        mind to do all the things listed in vv. 28-31.
        Can we really say this applies to the selfless coming together of two
        people in a covenant relationship?

  5. Saying that “If Paul had known a thing or two about sexual orientation” then he would have written differently, while possibly true (he may have more directly clarified what we’re talking about), directly sidesteps any belief that scripture is inspired and says what it says because God intended it that way. To imply that modern knowledge would have changed the text’s criticism of a particular practice implies that if God had more knowledge, akin to saying the I don’t need to love *everybody* because Jesus never met my co-worker and if he had he would have listed some exceptions and addendums.

    I think an understanding of Paul’s intention when mentioning “nature” is important here. In my experience (not expert, but not in expert either, so feel very free to correct), the meaning in the ancient world is more connected with concepts of natural order than of natural inclination, the concept of “human nature” being Romantic term/concept, if not something coined in the modern era. If so, then would we not be guilty of eisegetically reading western modern/post-modern connotations and usage into a first century text? I think if that is true then at best we could say is that he’s not directly referring to people who would consider themselves born homosexual. We could infer that he would write against it if he were to refer, however, based on his criticism of drunkeness (what if an infant suffers from alcoholism/drug addiction because their mother was while they were in the womb, they were born addicted), or other things people in modern times would link to genetic predispositions – being born that way.

    I disagree with the assertion that Paul was backwards – I understand he was rather educated for the time, likely familiar with many Greek and Roman writers, as well as Jewish literature.

    The biggest weakness to this argument is that just because something is natural to someone, does not make it ok. Paul does advocate the exchange of natural behaviour in other parts of his letter to the Romans. We are naturally born sinners, for us to exchange sinful behaviour – our natural behaviour, for righteous behaviour, is a critical element in many passages in the New Testament. So I think that for the argument that homosexual behaviour is wrong only if it is not following our natural inclinations, then my wife and I really should rethink our vows, because my natural inclination isn’t to be faithful to her 100% of the time.
    The question would be, assuming the prohibitions in the Bible are legitimate prohibitions (murder, for example), not just prohibitions about acting contrary to our nature, then what can we see in Romans 1 that sets homosexual behaviour apart from other behaviours?

    • Thanks for your thoughts, David!

      Re: 1st paragraph:

      Your line of reasoning assumes a particular view of inspiration, though, one which downplays the human element of authorship. This is a way bigger discussion, of course, but I don’t think that divine inspiration invests Paul with divine omniscience (so that Paul would know everything about modern psychology, science, etc.), and neither do I think that God spoke past what Paul was saying, so that Paul didn’t really know what he was saying but was simply writing what God (who knows about sexual orientation) was dictating to him.

      Anyway, a very complicated discussion! In short, I think that the best way to interpret the text is to understand it as the product of a first century Jew living in the first century Greco-Roman world, whose words were breathed out by God.

      Re: 2nd paragraph:

      Ya, I think you’re right for the most part. “Nature” in Paul’s world could mean “one’s personal disposition” or “conforming to a social norm (not a moral absolute).” In fact, Paul seems to use the term this way in 1 Cor 11, when he says that “nature” teaches us that men should have short hair and women long hair. I don’t think we want to say that long hair for men is immoral since, according to Paul, it’s “against nature.” Here, in 1 Cor 11, nature = “social norm” which can change.

      However, when ancient philosophers and moral writers (Stoics especially) talked about gay and lesbian relations, they often called them “against nature” not because they violated one’s perosnal disposition or the norms of society, but because they went against the will of God (or gods) revealed in creation.

      Re: 3rd paragraph:

      True. In his own time, he wasn’t backwards.

      Re: Final paragraph:

      What you say is true. Just because something is natural does not mean it’s okay. I’m still mulling over the rest of our paragraph.

      Thanks or your thoughts, David! Always helpful.

      • I agree, God didn’t endow Paul with omniscience, but would it be correct to say He would guide Paul to write words that would be no less accurate and applicable later?

        I think we take a bit of license when we assume God “knows about sexual orientation” – not that he isn’t omniscient, but that he views things in the same terms and categories we would prefer to use. Other examples of this would be divorce/remarriage – we make up caveats such as well that was before I was saved, or now I’m forgiven, etc to muddy the waters, as it were, and we like to define categories of neighbour to justify our actions. Those are whole other topics, but I’m wondering if we’re trying to use terms, categories and language that would obscure and over-complicate the issue. My next thought is if homosexuality were allowed/sanctioned by Romans – what about bisexuality?

        As a side note, if this turns out to be somewhat ambiguous for our modern context, how does that sit with 1 Cor 14:33 with God being the author not of confusion but of peace. Do we relegate homosexuality to something of preference/conscience rather than rigid doctrine?

        As a further completely unrelated note – I just received Fight 🙂 I’ll be digging into it in the coming weeks along with Irresistible Revolution, which you recommended also.

  6. Preston,

    This is a really interesting argument. I’m not sure of how helpful my comments will be, but since you are asking, I’ll throw in my initial observations which are limited to reading only an English translation.

    I recognize that this is one of the arguments which you are leveling to the surface and not necessarily what you are arguing for. That being said, the point you bring up about the word “exchange” and how it is used by modern the gay community is interesting. Homosexuals would never say that they are “exchanging” their orientation for anything, but are rather acting according to the way that feels most natural to them. However, to come to the conclusion that heterosexuals abandoned that which was “natural” for them to do was the condemned sin Paul is speaking of in v.27 seems like a standing on a layer of thin ice. Every act which Paul lists from 1:18-32 seems to fit under the umbrella of “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” which are the very reason why the wrath of God is being revealed. Whether or not the men and women were naturally gay or not, didn’t seem to be a concern of Paul’s.

    According to the argument, Paul is only condemning heterosexuals abandoning heterosexuality and doing what is “unnatural” and committing a homosexual act. The conclusion therefore, is Paul doesn’t condemn people born gay because they are only doing that which is natural to them. I’m sure you’ve come across this sort of response, but my reaction to such a statement is that sin is a natural tendency for humanity as we lay in our fallen state. With Romans 7 as part of the subsequent context and whether or not Paul has a Christian struggling with sin or a representative Jew in mind, it is a human tendency to struggle against “the desire to do what is right.”

    Even though Paul was not familiar with sexual orientation and the contributions of Freud, Kinsey and Foccault, it seems to be a stretch to say “As for us more enlightened folk, we know better and can therefore add an important exception to Paul’s prohibition. Those of us who are born gay are not whom Paul is addressing in Romans 1.” This seems to undermine and degrade the work of the Spirit in Paul’s writing of Scripture. Although I don’t disagree that Paul may have said something different had he been versed in what we have access to today, but it’s a bit scary in my mind to offer an “exception.” This makes me wonder, how many other places in Scripture are being compromised due to this line of reasoning?

    To sum up my main point: this argument isn’t strong enough to say that Paul affirms homosexual activity to those who are naturally inclined to do so. In fact, this reasoning can lead us in theologically and biblio-logically scary places.

    Thanks for all of your much needed research on this very important subject! Keep at it!
    Scott Leming

  7. David (Preston & all),

    Paul is most definitely not describing the selfless coming together of two people in a covenant relationship. He is describing a manifestation of lust/idolatry within the hearts of these people. This doesn’t manifest in making a choice to suddenly become gay. Paul said their idolatry manifested in “burning with desire toward one another” (v. 27). From what I understand, this means something like “inflamed with lust.” Paul is describing an all-consuming lust that we simply don’t see in typical, monogamous relationships (gay or straight). They didn’t become gay—they became idolaters obsessed with lust, which led to an exchange of wholesome sexual activity for unwholesome.

    I have to ask again. If this passage is admittedly ambiguous, why do churches feel justified in using it as their deathblow verse against gay unions? Anyone think they have a good answer to that? I’m genuinely curious.

    • Jesse, Francis Chan no longer teaches at Eternity Bible College (he now lives in San Francisco). Preston does teach at Eternity, and this Spring he will be teaching an elective course on homosexuality, the Bible, and the church. HIs views aren’t necessarily the official views of the school, but he will be guiding a group of students in thinking through this issue.

  8. Hey Preston! I’ve really enjoyed this series and want to say thanks for taking the time to go through this all so carefully (I’m looking forward to more!). It’s making me want to dive deeper into the text and learn what our Father really has to say about these super important matters.

    Since you asked for thoughts, I have to say that the argument about Paul prohibiting homosexual sex by heterosexual people (and vice versa) is a tough one for me to understand. It seems to me (and I may be wrong here!) but the categories Paul seems to lay out are men and women. More specifically, he says that men leave the natural function of the women and burned in their desire for one another, and women also exchanged the natural function (of men) for what is unnatural (other women). Those are the only categories I can see here in this text.

    With that in mind, it appears to me at least that any other categories that we may put forward, such as men who’s natural function is to be with other men, is not in the text and, therefore, is kind of a stretch unless otherwise supported elsewhere in Paul (which I don’t believe it is).

    To the counterargument that Paul just didn’t know what we know and that if he did he would have written things different, I would say that we ought to be careful because Paul was hand selected by Jesus to be His witness to the Gentiles. To say Paul didn’t know what he was talking about is to, by extension, say that Jesus either messed up by appointing Paul or that Jesus wasn’t able to ensure that Paul communicated the truth we need and, therefore, His Scripture is deficient in some way. Then, we’re saying Jesus isn’t able to do what He needs to do, so He’s an inadequate God who needs our wisdom to shed light on things. I don’t want to argue for that!

    Thanks Preston and feel free to push back on anything I said, I would love to think more clearly on this subject!