Written by Terry L. Johnson |
Friday, August 12, 2022
So it is with our sexual nature. God made us for heterosexual, monogamous marriage. That is the physiological and biological reality. That alone is the context in which sexual expression may safely take place. The lifelong union of one man to one woman alone is suited to our design. The sexual act is a procreative act. It has other dimensions, but that is its fundamental meaning, its basic biological meaning. When we make other meanings primary, or when we move sexual expression outside of marriage, we pervert it. When we “exchange the natural for the unnatural,” to use the Apostle Paul’s language, we do harm to ourselves, as when we pretend to have gills or wings (Rom 1:26,27).

How can a secular society make moral distinctions? How can it separate right from wrong? This is more of a problem than most people realize, especially in the realm of sexual ethics. A generation of “everything is normal” sex education, mixed with “everything is desirable” Hollywood sit-com and cinema seductions has morally disarmed our civilization. Politicians frame the issue as, “the freedom to love whom you choose,” which it is not. Of course we can love whomever we choose. We may love our parents, our children, and our neighbor’s children. However, we may not have erotic relations with them. The language of freedom and equality, as in “marriage equality” has added to the confusion. Can we say that any form of sexual expression, any form at all is wrong? Or must we say, as it seems we must, that various lifestyle choices are merely a matter of personal preference lying outside the categories of moral judgment? After all, who can be against freedom and equality?
Human nature
The traditional Christian view is that humanity has a God-given nature. There are those things that are consistent with human nature (e.g. breathing air with lungs; walking with feet) and others that are inconsistent (e.g. breathing underwater; winged flight). Humanity has a given design, purpose, and nature. We ignore that nature at our peril, as when we try to breathe under water or flap our arms as we leap from tall buildings.
So it is with our sexual nature. God made us for heterosexual, monogamous marriage. That is the physiological and biological reality. That alone is the context in which sexual expression may safely take place. The lifelong union of one man to one woman alone is suited to our design. The sexual act is a procreative act. It has other dimensions, but that is its fundamental meaning, its basic biological meaning. When we make other meanings primary, or when we move sexual expression outside of marriage, we pervert it. When we “exchange the natural for the unnatural,” to use the Apostle Paul’s language, we do harm to ourselves, as when we pretend to have gills or wings (Rom 1:26,27).
Christian-influenced civilizations understood this for over a millennia. The west was never in doubt – until recent times. “Everything is normal” sex education, has given us “anything goes” sexual ethics, with dire results.
Are homosexual acts natural or normal? Of course not. They are physiologically unnatural. They are “contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26). As such, they are “shameless acts” driven by “dishonorable passions,” and a “debased mind” (Rom 1:28). Again, western civilization understood this for the better part of 1500 years, and its legal systems were designed to discourage this form of human degradation.
The campaign to normalize homosexuality has been successful. With the acceptance of the “gay” way, a wall came crashing down that may never again be rebuilt. What wall? The wall separating the moral from the immoral. We warned years ago that if and when homosexuality was normalized our ability to make sexual moral distinctions would vanish. Many scoffed at the suggestion.
Read More
Related Posts:

Irenaeus compared and contrasted the two Adams of the Bible in relation to salvation. The first Adam (Gen 3:6-20) led the human race astray through the original sin, so, “the last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45), the Word-become-flesh came to bring fallen humanity back to God (John 1). Jesus of Nazareth, came in flesh and blood, the living Word, in Mary’s womb in order to redeem a fleshly, fallen race.

Irenaeus (AD 125–202) was the bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (modern Lyons, France). He was a stalwart opponent of heresy and an influential defender of the Christian faith. Irenaeus studied under Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. John’s gospel begins,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1-3).
The Word-become-flesh (John 1:14) was the rock upon which Irenaeus built his theology. The incarnation served as his Christ-centered theological starting point for understanding all things. Christ was the beginning and end all aspects of his theological understanding; creation, fall, redemption, and new creation. Therefore, Irenaeus rejected any and all attempts to pit creation against redemption. For Irenaeus, history is integral to the incarnation. Christ is taking on our entire story and in the life of Christ, we see all of salvation history recapitulated.
Thus, Irenaeus compared and contrasted the two Adams of the Bible in relation to salvation. The first Adam (Gen 3:6-20) led the human race astray through the original sin, so, “the last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45), the Word-become-flesh came to bring fallen humanity back to God (John 1). Jesus of Nazareth, came in flesh and blood, the living Word, in Mary’s womb in order to redeem a fleshly, fallen race. Irenaeus writes,
For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus.1
Read More

When God looked upon the plant and animal life that He created, He saw that they were good. Good creatures do not need drastic evolutionary improvement. Furthermore, creatures that God made and called “good” do not mutate because of broken genetics, and they certainly do not die. Therefore, the Bible rejects the possibility, the assumed necessity, and the proposed means of Evolution. And so must we.

As a freshman biology major, I needed no convincing of the Theory of Evolution. Raised on the Discovery Channel and Bill Nye the Science Guy, I’d been an Evolution evangelist for years. But by the end of my first year in college, I rejected the Theory I once loved. My grounds were scientific in nature.
I had realized that the untestable Theory runs afoul of the scientific method, is built upon the inexplicable singularity of the spontaneous generation of matter, energy, life, and all natural laws, it violates Newton’s second law of thermodynamics concerning total entropy of a system (i.e., chaos does not tend toward complexity), and the vaunted fossil record for human Evolution is as much plaster as it is fossil and could fit into the trunk of a Honda Civic. But years later, I was confronted by even better, biblical reasons to eject evolution.
1. The Span of Creation
Evolutionists claim that life on Earth descended from a single-celled, self-replicating organism via naturally selected, random mutations which were passed down from generation to generation leading to ever-increasingly complex organisms. How long does something like that take? In his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution, suggested that this process has been running strong for “an almost infinite number of generations.” His initial suggestion, hundreds of millions of years, has since ballooned to the current scientific consensus of about four-to-five billion years.
But the Bible presents a very different timeline: “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Ex. 20:11). There are compelling reasons to understand the six days of creation as literal, 24-hour days.
First, the record of God’s work of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 bears the linguistic, Hebrew hallmarks of historical narrative.[1]
Second, the plain reading of the text begs for a literal interpretation. Consider Genesis 1:5, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” We find that same formulation five more times in Genesis 1. What could Moses have said to more clearly describe a literal day?
Third, while the Hebrew word yom or “day” sometimes refers to an unspecified period of time, whenever it is qualified by an ordinal number (i.e., “first,” “second,” etc.) its meaning is always literal.[2]
Fourth, and most significantly, every other mention of the creation account in the Bible refers to a literal event as recorded by Moses. So, even if evolution could occur within five billion years (which it could not), the Bible does not allow for that span of time.
2. The Kinds of Creation
In 1831, Charles Darwin began his five-year expedition aboard the British Royal Navy survey ship HMS Beagle. In the Galapagos Islands, he noticed slight variations between species of finches on different islands. He concluded that these various specimens must have descended from a common ancestor and changed over time to survive in their varied environments. Darwin applied his theory of change, or Evolution, to all life on Earth which, he speculated, must have descended from a common ancestor.
This hypothesis is incompatible with the biblical account of creation. Every living thing God made was created, “according to its kind.” This phrase is repeated ten times in Genesis 1. As God separated light and darkness, the waters above and below, and the sea and earth, he also built biological barriers of “kind” that govern all life on earth. Though He kindly endowed His creatures with the ability to adapt to suit their environments, no creature can transcend the Creator’s wall of kind. Cotton seeds bring forth cotton. Chickens emerge from chicken eggs. And people make people. Darwin’s Evolution is a lie designed to rob God of His glory by seeking to explain the brilliance, beauty, and biodiversity of His world without Him.
Read More
Related Posts: