In recent years, a popular argument has gained traction among progressive theologians and LGBTQ advocates:
Paul lived in a patriarchal, pre-scientific culture. His views on sexuality—especially homosexuality—reflected the norms of his time, not divine moral absolutes. We’ve evolved since then. Love is what matters.
This argument sounds reasonable to many modern ears. After all, we don’t follow Paul’s cultural instructions about head coverings or women not speaking in church in the same way today. Why should we take his views on sexuality as eternal moral truth?
But this line of reasoning doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny—especially when approached with a faithful hermeneutic.
Hermeneutics: Learning to Read Scripture Faithfully
Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. It answers the question: What did God mean by what He said through the human authors of Scripture?
A faithful hermeneutic:
- Seeks the original author’s intent
- Respects literary genre and historical context
- Integrates Scripture with Scripture
- Distinguishes between moral law and cultural application
- Assumes the unity and authority of all Scripture
Progressive readings of Paul often violate these principles. They reduce moral commands to cultural artifacts, pit Paul against Jesus, and elevate personal experience over divine revelation.
Let’s now consider the progressive case—and dismantle it, piece by piece.
The Progressive Argument: Paul Was Culturally Biased
Those promoting LGBTQ affirmation in the church often assert:
- Paul’s views reflect Greco-Roman patriarchal norms, not divine moral law.
- He likely didn’t understand consensual same-sex relationships like we do today.
- His prohibitions were aimed at exploitative practices like pederasty or temple prostitution.
- Therefore, Paul’s sexual ethics can be reinterpreted, recontextualized, or even disregarded.
Key proof-texts often include:
- Romans 1:26–27
- 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
- 1 Timothy 1:9–10
These are claimed to be misinterpreted, mistranslated, or misapplied. However, a proper hermeneutical approach reveals these arguments to be deeply flawed.
What Did Paul Actually Say?
Romans 1: Homosexual Desire as a Result of Idolatry
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature…
—Romans 1:26–27
Key Points:
- Paul condemns both male and female same-sex relations.
- The behavior is called “against nature” (para physin), a moral category, not just a social norm.
- This passage is part of Paul’s larger universal indictment of human sin (Rom. 1:18–3:20).
- His argument is theological, not cultural: sin flows from rejection of the Creator.
1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1: Naming the Sin
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral… nor men who practice homosexuality…
—1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Here, Paul uses two key Greek terms:
- Malakoi (lit. “soft,” often referring to the passive partner in male homosexual acts)
- Arsenokoitai (lit. “male bedder,” a compound word drawn from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Greek OT)
Paul isn’t condemning exploitative relationships—he’s addressing all homosexual acts.
Context Proves Paul’s Intent
Paul didn’t write in a vacuum. His teachings on sexual ethics:
- Affirm the Old Testament law (Lev. 18, 20)
- Reflect Jewish moral consensus
- Are repeated in multiple letters (showing consistency, not cultural appeasement)
When Paul condemns same-sex behavior, he does so as a theologian, not a cultural copycat.
Answering the Cultural Conditioning Claim
All Scripture Is God-Breathed—Not Just Paul’s Opinion
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…
—2 Timothy 3:16
Paul’s writings are not just his own musings. They are Spirit-inspired, authoritative Scripture.
To say “Paul got it wrong” is to say God got it wrong—a claim no faithful Christian can accept.
Jesus and Paul Agree
Some claim Paul and Jesus contradict each other. But this is a false dichotomy.
- Jesus affirmed male-female marriage (Matt. 19:4–6)
- Jesus condemned all sexual immorality (porneia) in general terms
- Paul’s teachings merely expand and apply Jesus’ foundation, not replace it
The two are united. Paul is not more harsh than Jesus. He simply expounds what Jesus implied.
Culture Doesn’t Determine Morality—God Does
Some cultural practices in the Bible are temporary (like head coverings), but others are rooted in creation.
Sexual morality is:
- Tied to creation order (Gen. 1–2, Matt. 19)
- Repeated across covenants (Law, Prophets, Jesus, Paul)
- Universally condemned outside God’s design
You can’t discard sexual ethics as “cultural” without also discarding biblical marriage, gender roles, and even monogamy.
Presentism and Progressive Hubris: The Arrogance of Rewriting God
What Is Presentism?
Historians use the term presentism to describe the fallacy of interpreting past events, people, or texts solely through the lens of modern values and beliefs. It distorts history by imposing current ideological assumptions onto people who lived in very different cultural and intellectual settings.
Progressive interpreters of the Bible routinely engage in this error.
They read Paul’s inspired words through:
- Contemporary sexual ethics
- LGBTQ affirmation ideology
- Post-Freudian identity theories
- Neo-Marxist suspicion of authority and hierarchy
Then they accuse Paul of being “backward,” “patriarchal,” or “ignorant.” But this isn’t scholarly analysis—it’s chronological snobbery, as C.S. Lewis described it. It assumes that modern man is superior simply because he is modern.
This error is not only academically dishonest—it’s spiritually dangerous.
Are We Improving on God?
When “Progressive Christians” suggest that Paul’s sexual morality must be reinterpreted to fit today’s enlightened views, what are they really saying?
They are implying that:
- God didn’t know what He was doing.
- The Spirit-inspired words of Scripture were culturally short-sighted.
- The moral fabric of the Christian faith needs to be edited or softened for today’s tastes.
This is not interpretation—it is correction. And to attempt to correct God’s Word is to place oneself above God.
“You shall be like God…” — Genesis 3:5
That was the first temptation. And it still echoes today.
What began in Eden as a whisper now manifests in theological faculties, progressive pulpits, and activist-laced reinterpretations of Scripture:
“God didn’t mean what He said. We know better now.”
This is not humble discipleship—it is blasphemous ambition and idolatry of self.
The Historic Pattern of Challenging God’s Word
Throughout history, man has tried to improve upon or reinterpret God’s commands:
- Cain thought his own form of worship was acceptable—God did not.
- Nadab and Abihu brought “strange fire”—and were consumed.
- King Saul offered a sacrifice he had no right to offer—God rejected him as king.
- The Pharisees added to God’s law—Jesus rebuked them as blind guides.
- Liberal theologians of the 19th century redefined the gospel—creating churches devoid of power.
The modern Progressive movement is just the latest chapter in this long story of spiritual hubris—man trying to do better than God.
They may not use incense or golden calves, but they offer strange fire nonetheless—affirming what God has called sin and silencing what God has proclaimed with clarity.
Theological Foundations: Creation, Male and Female, and the Image of God
Paul’s sexual ethics are not rooted in Greco-Roman culture. They are rooted in Genesis.
Male and female He created them… therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife…
—Genesis 1:27, 2:24
Jesus cited this. Paul taught from it. The biological reality of male-female union is foundational to the biblical worldview.
Progressives often speak of “love is love,” but they ignore what Scripture defines as holy love:
- Rooted in God’s created order
- Faithful, covenantal, and fruitful
- Reflective of Christ’s union with the Church (Eph. 5:22–33)
Same-sex sexual behavior cannot reflect this covenantal mystery. It is anatomically incompatible, theologically distorted, and spiritually destructive.
Regeneration: God’s Solution to Fallen Desires
When Progressives argue that Paul didn’t understand modern sexuality, they imply that our desires define who we are. But Scripture says the opposite:
“The heart is deceitful above all things…” —Jeremiah 17:9
“You must be born again.” —John 3:7
“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you…” —Col. 3:5
We are not called to affirm our natural desires. We are called to crucify them.
This is the power of regeneration:
- Not editing the Bible to match our hearts
- But receiving a new heart that matches God’s Word
Paul’s gospel is not only about forgiveness—it’s about transformation:
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified…” —1 Cor. 6:11
Those words directly follow his condemnation of homosexual acts. And they are followed by hope—not affirmation, but redemption.
Summary Rebuttal
| Progressive Claim | Biblical Response |
|---|---|
| Paul’s ethics are outdated. | Paul spoke with the authority of God (2 Tim. 3:16). |
| He only addressed exploitative sex. | Romans 1 condemns all same-sex behavior, mutual or not. |
| Love justifies sexual expression. | God defines love; it never contradicts His holiness. |
| Culture evolves, so morality does too. | God’s Word stands forever (Isaiah 40:8). |
Conclusion: We Don’t Need to Fix Paul—We Need to Obey Him
Paul isn’t a problem to be solved. He is an apostle to be heeded.
To rewrite his teaching is to:
- Reject the authority of Scripture
- Impugn the wisdom of God
- Embrace a gospel without holiness or hope
Progressives are not discovering a new truth. They are recycling an old lie: “Did God really say?”
Yes, He did. Through Paul. Through the prophets. Through Christ Himself.
And He is still saying it today to a confused and rebellious world:
“Repent and believe the gospel.” —Mark 1:15
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
“Progressive” is another such word. I don’t believe that “Progressives” are a positive movement. “Progressive” is a euphemism for wokeness, Neo-Marxism, or “political correctness”.
“Progressive” in this sense is actually corruptive and harmful to mankind. “Progressive Christianity” is an anti-Christian movement that reflects apostasy.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.