The root of love as happiness in God

A Meditation on the Pursuit of God: The root of faith and love

            Is joy a necessary side effect of love, or is it both the root of love and the fruit of love? I will argue the latter. First, definitions are necessary. I will be using the terms "happiness" and "joy" interchangeably-"happiness", as dictionary.com defines the word "happy", refers to "feeling or showing pleasure or contentment". When one asks "are you happy with your life", they aren't asking "does your life make you giddy?" When one asks "are you happy with your choice of college", they are asking of whether you are satisfied with it. True happiness refers to the deep, lasting satisfaction of the soul. It is a lasting pleasure of the soul in its state of affairs.
            If one were to say, "Go eat an apple so that your hunger will be satisfied", the purpose clause, indicated by the phrase "so that", is the cause or the foundation of the former clause. The pursuit of satisfying hunger causes the eating of the apple. A cause of an action, as it is used here, is the foundation from which the action springs. It is the reason for the action-the telos. It gives rise to the action. Hunger gives rise to the action of eating an apple. No one would ever say "Go eat an apple so that your hunger will be satisfied" if "satisfying your hunger" was not the purpose-and therefore the reason-for which one ate the apple. No one would ever say that the satisfaction of hunger at that point is a side effect of eating the apple.
            A side effect, however, as an effect that happens as a result of a certain action, but isn't the intended effect (but not necessarily a bad effect either). It's not the consummation of the pursuit, but a welcome effect nevertheless. For example, one might "go eat an apple so that their hunger will be satisfied", and yet while on the way to eat the apple they meet a friend and converse. The meeting of the friend was not the consummation of the pursuit-the pursuit's consummation lies in the satisfaction of hunger. It was a side effect-a welcome effect that was peripheral. In fact, this is the common usage of the term "side effect". When one talks about a "side effect" of a certain treatment, they are talking about an effect other than the one that was pursued. I will argue that satisfaction/pleasure in God is not peripheral, but essential to the Christian life. It is not a side effect, but the wellspring of love and the fruit of love to God.
            When Jesus says, in response to the Jewish people who ask Jesus to give them the bread of life always, He says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) In response to their question to "give us this bread", He says "come to me and you won't hunger". The Jewish people, while thinking of physical wants, are still asking the question from a heart of desire. Their pursuit of satisfaction is motivating their question, and Jesus says in response to their pursuit of satisfaction that He will satisfy them. He is encouraging-motivating-their belief by an appeal to desire.
            Or one might note the chain of logic in John 14 and 15. In John 14:21, Jesus states that "whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me." In John 15:10-11, Jesus states, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full." Note the chain of logic:
Loving God (14:21) --> Keeping commandments (modus tolens: If you love God, you will keep the commandments) --> abiding in His love (by keeping the commandments, you abide in the Father's love) that (hina clause-expresses the purpose of the previous clause, which is why it is translated "that") Christ's joy might be in His people, in their joy might be full. If loving God yields obedience, and we obey to abide in God's love, and if Jesus is telling us all this SO THAT our joy might be full, then He is motivating abiding in God's love, and therefore obedience to God, and therefore loving God, by having the fullness of His joy! The pursuit of joy-everlasting pleasure in God per Psalm 16:11-in God is what causes our love-otherwise why would Jesus say that He spoke these things (i.e abiding in God's love via keeping the commandments from loving God) so that our joy would be full? Joy is the consummation of love, not a side effect. The pursuit of joy is what Jesus is using to cause love.
            This is explicit in 1 Peter 2:2: "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation --if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." The tasting of the Lord precedes growing up into salvation (i.e sanctification). We ought to have tasted that He is good before we long for the pure spiritual milk. This is also explicit in Psalm 30:
"Sing praises to the Lord, O you his saints
and give thanks to his holy name
For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime.
Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning." (Psalm 30:4-5)

I note the connecting "for". We sing praises because His anger is but for a moment, but His favor with His saints is for our lives. We may cry, but joy comes with the morning. The "for" indicates that this is the basis of our praise. We sing praise to you-FOR your anger is but for a moment. The second half of verse 5 reiterates the first half: your anger is but for a moment, which leads to weeping. Yet your favor is for a lifetime is parallel to "joy comes with the morning". We sing praises to God and we give you thanks because His anger is temporary, yet His favor is enduring. Our weeping may come with the night, but your joy comes with the morning. In Psalm 27:4, David says, "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire (or meditate) in his temple.". Why doesn't David say, "one thing I have asked of the Lord: to love him?" Why does David say that he only asks one thing of the Lord, when clearly he has made plenty of other requests? It's because all of his other requests boil down to this one request. This is the chief thing David asks. His love for the Lord consists in David's longing to gaze upon His beauty.
            Love for God, then, is this: the overflow of delight in God which yields longing for more of Him, and expresses itself in radical acts of obedience towards God and neighbor. As Jesus argues, joy in God is the consummation of love for God. Paul says that we must "believe in our hearts" that God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus identifies the heart as the place where our treasure is. That means that our Treasure must be the Lordship of Jesus Christ, implied by the Resurrection and manifest in the confession we make from our lips (Romans 10:9).
            This then, is the test of a true child of God: do we have new affections for Him? God, in Jeremiah 2:13, boils down the multitude of the sins of the nation to two sins: "one, they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and two, they have hewn out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water." God is claiming that the very reason for their sin is the fact that they are pursuing the satisfaction of their thirsts in something other than the fountain of living water. It is no surprise then that Jesus, who urges belief on the basis of the satisfaction of desire, identifies belief as the origin from which living water flows from our hearts (John 3:37).
            In Matthew 13:44, Jesus says that "the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." Jesus says that the kingdom of God is like treasure, and then he talks about a man who in his joy sells all that he has to buy this kingdom. Giving all that we have for the kingdom springs from joy, not from a sense of joyless duty or commitment, with joy sprinkled on top. Joy is the foundation of our commitment to the kingdom.
            In Matthew 15:18, Jesus remarks that from the heart proceeds our speech, and our sinful thoughts and emotions and actions. In Matthew 6:21, He identified the heart as the location of our treasure. If sin proceeds from the heart, and our treasure is where our heart is, then sin proceeds from treasuring the wrong thing. The antidote, as I've argued, is treasuring the right thing-God Himself! In fact, in the same chapter, Jesus quotes Isaiah to rebuke the Pharisees in verse 8: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." External obedience without the heart being wholly God's is worthless to Him. Even Jesus' most oft-quoted command of self denial is motivated by gain: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done." (Matthew 16:24-28)
            But with all this emphasis on joy, might one say that I'm placing the emphasis in the wrong place? Jesus emphasized love, and I'm over here emphasizing joy, right? Wrong. In fact, to even make that accusation distorts what Jesus Himself meant by the term "love", and thus (potentially damningly) misleads God's people as to Jesus' own commands. As a Protestant, I believe in tota Scriptura-the whole witness of Scripture. Hence, isolating Jesus' command and ignoring everything else is a hermeneutic that leads to heresy. Jesus does in fact identify love to God as the most important command. Yet when we ask, "how must we love God", or "what does love for God look like or entail", we must listen to the entire witness of Scripture. As I summarized above, the Biblical evidence tells us that love for God originates in the affections, and is consummated in joy. Love is the overflow of delight in God, yielding desire for more of Him and radical acts of sacrifice. When David says, "one thing I have asked of the Lord-to gaze upon His beauty and inquire in His temple", he is expressing the very essence of what it means to love God. Loving God consists in delighting in God's radiant perfections and expressing that delight-otherwise David's statement that this is the "one thing" he asks of the Lord would be sinful, as love is the greatest command in the Torah as well and ought to be what we ask for. In other words, joy in God and love for God ought never to be pitted against each other as antithetical, nor the former as a mere side effect of the latter. Or when Jesus says that we ought to abide in God's love (aka keep His commandments-which is the overflow of loving God) that our joy may be full, He is saying that the purpose (i.e the reason and therefore cause) of our abiding (and therefore loving) is that the joy of Christ may be in us. Delight in the radiant perfections of God is the wellspring of love, and love for God yields more pleasure in His perfection and expresses itself through joyful obedience and love towards neighbor.
           
            

Joshua 11:20 - God hardens hearts

"[20] For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses."
(Joshua 11:20 ESV)

A friend brought this text up to me as somewhat troubling. At first glance, it is. It seems as though YHWH is hardening hearts in order to destroy them. That is, God is making them worthy of His judgment, and enacting that judgment. In fact, I think this is exactly what God is doing. The challenge then is this: how is this just? How can we affirm that God does this, and yet simultaneously "does not tempt" according to James 1? I will pose a Biblical solution here-yet be aware that this solution does not solve all the mysteries of God's divine determination of all things. Rather, the solution will suffice to show that God can bring about the damnable state of a people in order to judge them without impugning His character. First, we need to take a look at Romans 2 and Romans 1.

Romans 2

[14] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16 ESV)

Note that verse 15 states that the work of the law (i.e the standards to which God holds humanity) is written on our hearts. For those who don't know the Gospel, they will be condemned when their conscience testifies against them. If we consider that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23), this means that any sustaining activity on God's part after this is pure grace. Grace is unmerited, undeserved favor. God has no obligation to give it to us. Hence, even the law God impresses on our hearts He does so by what theologians call common grace (the grace God gives to all people everywhere). If God impresses His law on us by grace, that means that God is free to revoke that grace at any time; He has no obligation to anyone to act graciously at all times. With this in mind, how does God harden hearts? 

Romans 1

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

(Romans 1:24-27 ESV)

Here, Paul says that God gives people over to sinful corruption since they refused to worship the Creator. God gave them over to sinful desires present in their hearts (i.e the lusts of their hearts). Hence, God hardens hearts by giving us over to our own inherent sinfulness (and to see the truth that we are in fact inherently sinful, completely unable to please God, see Romans 8:1-9). Thus, God doesn't have to create sinful desires in us; He simply has to give us over to our own free will. Since we suck so much, we will not choose anything but sin. God, then, gives people over to their sinfulness at certain moments-and that's how He hardens hearts. He doesn't tempt people or move people to do evil against their will; rather, He simply gives people over to the natural flow of their hearts. God revokes the common grace of conscience and ceases to restrain the evil on our hearts. He isn't unjust to do this since He doesn't owe us grace in the first place. Humans therefore cannot make demands on how God ought to restrain our hearts; He ought to crush us in His holy wrath. Thus, God can give people over to sin at certain times, therein hardening their hearts, and yet still be completely just.

The Emotional Objection

Something in us still doesn't sit right with this, however. Logically, it makes perfect sense. God hasn't actually done anything to contradict His non-tempting character. I am convinced that the reason people abhor this is God's underlying motivation. According to Romans 9, God hardens some so as to display the glory of His justice. He demonstrates the worth of His justice. Against the backdrop of the vessels of wrath He prepares for destruction, His mercy shines that much brighter as God's people realize, "THAT is what we deserved." God's ultimate aim in creation is to glorify Himself. He demonstrates the depths of His holiness by displaying the depths to which He abhors sin, and opposes evil. He gives people over to evil so as to display the worth of His goodness as the One who opposes all evil, and so as to display His mercy and love in that He spares His people of the same wrath, and in fact takes their judgment on Himself. We, as the sinful human beings we are, desire to make God our butler. We dare object, "God! How dare you glorify yourself?! You're supposed to be OUR butler, pampering US! WE are supposed to be the center of your universe, not you!" I think if we honestly analyze the impulse behind our discomfort, we will see it in light of how petty it is. And we will see the glory of God's God-centeredness even more.

To help you along in seeing this, I made a video onwhy God's God-centeredness is actually ridiculously loving years ago, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA9hokDLPo

Soli Deo Gloria! 

They Knew God and Did Not Acknowledge Him

This is the first time I've written in over four months. Wow! I've started college, and I'm loving it. I intend to write again because there are a bunch of questions I'm working through (and I love working through them).

I'm going to revisit a question I've often seen in regards to what Paul says in Romans 1. A friend brought up the fact that he couldn't quite agree with what Paul seems to say-my exegesis seemed to sidestep what Paul says. This is actually an objection, as I've looked more into it, I've seen in many Christian and non-Christian circles. Paul seems to say that mankind knows, from looking at creation, "wow there is a God, He is good, He is the sovereign Lord and we ought to bow the knee to Him." This seems outright false though. Cultures throughout the ages, while they might know that God exists, do not know that they ought to repent of their sins or even exalt God above creation. So did Paul get it wrong? Well, let's take a look at the text. 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23 ESV)

What is Paul saying here? "What can be known about God"-right there, Paul mentions a limitation. He acknowledges that God cannot be known exhaustively in creation-there are only certain things that can be known about God. Let's continue"what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." So God has shown what can be known about Himself to mankind in creation. What exactly has He shown? "His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature". The word for "divine nature" is θειότης, which is not the word used to describe the essence of God in Colossians 2:9 (in Him the fullness of deity dwells bodily). In other words, Paul's not saying that people know all that God is in Romans 1:20, whereas in Colossians 2:9 He is saying that all that God is dwells bodily in Jesus Christ. Rather, He's referring to the attributes of God. The antecedent of the "it" is the power of God and the attributes of God manifest in His bringing forth the stars, the sea, the moon, the sunsets, in bringing forth lovers, friends, families, and in all good things. 

"For although they knew God" = "although they knew the power and attributes of God manifest in creation-His eternal power and divine nature (=attributes)", they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him = they did not praise the God or thank the God to whom those attributes pointed. In other words, in seeing the beauty and power of God manifest in creation, they did not seek the God manifest in those things. For that reason they are without excuse. 

So the objection then is this: well, why should anyone have known that they ought to have sought God after seeing His attributes manifest in creation? Why is that something they can be held accountable for? 

An analogy may be instructive. Suppose ever since you were little, you had a single mother who slaved away for you year after year. Suppose she gave you many good gifts-food, laughter, movies-she got you involved in clubs where you made the best friends of your life. And suppose you never thank her for it at all. Now suppose you never thanked her for it or showed an ounce of gratitude. If a friend of yours noticed your attitude towards your mother, and called you out on it, and you responded "well how should I have known that I ought to have thanked her for it? No one ever told me that!" Wouldn't you want to slap your theoretical self in the face? If your friend responded, "no one should have needed to tell you that-it should have been clear. The only thing that prevented you from seeing your moral obligation to thank her is your own hardness of heart", wouldn't we all applaud said friend? 

There's an axiom or a principle we can draw from this. There are certain actions which are connected to a moral obligation necessarily. In other words, certain actions demand certain moral responses by nature of the action, even if one is not informed of that moral response. We ought to know to thank the mother mentioned above even if one does not tell us explicitly that we ought to thank her. In God's case, even if one is not explicitly told "you ought to thank God for seeing His beauty manifest in the sunset", one ought to know that-the only reason we don't know that is the same reason that the boy above doesn't know to thank His mother: we are so self-absorbed and/or so in love with the Creator's gifts and services that we forget the Creator Himself. 

Now the counter to this might be, "well okay, but in your example the mother's existence is really really plain. God's existence isn't." That's the very thing Paul's disputing. If one sat down and thought about creation, I think God's existence would be really evident. In fact, the majority of cultures throughout the ages have looked at creation and inferred the existence of Deity. Secular cultures are a modern phenomena. 

In any case, we could modify the analogy to perhaps make it fit. Suppose the mother cooks for you, cleans for you, gives you many good gifts, puts you into clubs-but you almost completely forget her existence. I mean, the thought crosses your mind every now and then, but you rarely give it a second or third or fourth thought. You are so enamored with what she does for you that you forget her, and you forget that she's the one who gave you all those good gifts.

Now before someone respond "but who would do that?!", let me make the point. This is, at the very very least, a possible situation. If the son of this mother responds, "well no one told me to spend more time with her, or to thank her, or to pursue her and look more deeply into what makes mother...well, mother", wouldn't that reflect poorly on the character of the son? Wouldn't that expose him to be immoral, self-centered-sinful? I think it would. If someone calls the boy out on his self-centeredness, and he responds "well I didn't know I was being so selfish and self-centered. You can't hold me accountable for being selfish when I didn't know I was being selfish!" Wouldn't we say "that's outright absurdity"? 

Yes, we would. I believe the Apostle is making a similar point. He's saying that we see the beauty of a sunset, the wonder of love, and it shows forth a creator. We know God in that we know the eternal power and divine attributes of God manifest in the creation. Paul seems to be saying that in knowing these attributes, it ought to be plain that we have an obligation to thank the One behind it all. No one ought to have to tell us to thank God for His beauty manifest in creation. It ought to be plain to acknowledge the Creator-yet how do we respond to God's revelation of Himself in nature? The rest of Romans 1 and the beginning of Romans 2 answer that. We make idols based off the creation to worship; we refuse to submit to the moral law God writes on our hearts, since we have all done immoral things. Suppose one beholds the glory of the sunset and doesn't give a second thought to the One who makes that sunset happen. Can that man be held accountable? I'd say yes-because he, like the thankless boy above, is so enamored with the gifts that he forgets the Giver. In knowing the beauties of creation, he ought to know to thank God. The only reason he doesn't is because he's enamored with the gifts of the Giver. We are selfish idolaters outside of Christ to the core-moreso than we know. That shows forth our selfishness and thanklessness. That's the basis by which God is just to declare us "guilty" in His courtroom-our depravity exposes itself in our forgetfulness. 

Does Paul make the claim that, in our worship of the gifts from the Giver, we forget the Giver Himself? Yes-read the rest of Romans 1. Hence, Paul isn't making an illogical point. His point actually squares with the moral reality-or perhaps, the Moral Reality-in whom we live and move and have our being. 

Justification in Pauline Theology

So here, I want to respond to my Roman Catholic friend Will Herb. The Roman Catholic view of justification is essentially this (and he can correct me if I'm wrong): when you are baptized, you enter into God's favor. You increase in righteousness upon doing good works and drawing on the merits of the saints and Christ from the Treasury of Merit. Thus, to be justified is to be made righteous-that is, one is justified not only by faith, but also via the charity in the heart produced by the Spirit. You can lose your standing with God by committing mortal sin or apostatizing; if you commit mortal sin or venial sin, you must confess and do penance. Otherwise one stands severed from the grace of God, and is under His wrath again. 

On the contrary, the Protestant understanding is that upon trusting in all that God is for you in Christ, God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to our accounts. In other words, Protestants believe in a Treasury of Merit comprised solely of Christ's merit; that merit is transferred to our accounts upon faith and faith alone. We do not deny that the only kind of faith that justifies is the faith that produces charity and obedience to God; however, we affirm that it is on the basis of faith alone (not a faith that is alone, mind you) that God counts us righteous. I want to argue for the Protestant view by doing two things. First, we must establish what the Greek term dikaioo means, and secondly we must analyze how Paul uses the term. 

The Greek for Justify
I think Luke 7:29 is the best NT verse outside of Paul to see what the term used for "justify" means. 

"When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,"

Now the Greek literally says that the people "justified God". You cannot make God righteous; but you can declare Him to be righteous. This is further confirmed when we look at the Septuagint. Exodus 23:7 says this: "[7] Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. [8] And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
(Exodus 23:7-8 ESV)"According to Victor P Hamilton, "The LXX uses the verb dikaioo to translate...("I will not acquit")...It is the verb for "justify" that Paul uses in some of in some of His letters, especially in the opening chapters of Romans"). It makes no sense to not kill the innocent and the righteous because God will not make righteous the wicked; He clearly does throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Rather, God will not declare righteous those who are wicked. He's commanding the people to not falsely charge others because God is just; He will stand over the person in judgment. In fact, the word is used to mean "declare righteous" elsewhere (Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 5:23). So then...how can Paul make the claim that God does justify the ungodly? We will address that question. But in answering how Paul understand justification, we have to note something first. The word "justify" outside of Paul itself means "to declare righteous" (i.e Luke 7:29, Exodus 23:7), not "to make righteous". This is a legal term, denoting a defendant being acquitted before a judge. There were other terms in use that Paul could have employed to denote being made righteous-but he chose to use a legal term that denotes a right standing before a judge. So let's go more deeply into this. Romans 4Does Paul understand justification this way? I think the answer is undoubtedly yes. In order to see this, we must examine Romans 4. [1] What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [2] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, [6] just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: [7] “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; [8] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” [9] Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. [10] How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. [11] He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, [12] and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.(Romans 4:1-12 ESV)Paul comes out of Romans 3 talking about how we're all under sin, and we've all fallen short. But since the righteousness of God has come through faith in Jesus Christ for all who have faith (see DA Carson's exposition of the text on youtube. It's like 9 minutes and I agree with it), that therefore we can be justified as a gift, by God's grace. Paul's further expounding on justification. If Abraham was "justified" (dikaioo) by works, he had something to boast about...but because he was justified by faith, he doesn't. What does that mean? ExegesisIn verse 3, Paul quotes Genesis in saying that Abraham believed God, and it was counted (logizomai) as righteousness. Let's survey the usages of the term "logizomai", as this will be central to understanding Paul's view of justification. Luke 22:37: For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

When the text says that Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors", the literal rendering is that He was regarded with the transgressors. It is a type of judgment that's being made of Jesus. 

"Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”

-John 11:50 

Likewise, Caiaphas the high priest says that his audience does not "understand" (i.e reckon, or count-referring to a judgment) that it is better for one man to perish than the entire nation. 

Going back to Romans 4, the NASB literally renders logizomai as "impute", or "reckon", or more specifically, "credited". Abraham's faith was "credited" as righteousness. So with this understanding let's proceed with our exegesis of the text. Keep in mind that in Romans 3, Paul has just said that we are justified by grace as a gift...this will be useful in understanding his argument here. In verses 4-5, Paul draws on the analogy of a worker receiving his wages. To the one who works, his wages are counted not as a gift but as his due. What's the assumption here? Paul's arguing that a gift isn't something owed us; it's not our due. That's why he can contrast a "gift" and something that's "due". Whereas a gift is not our due, wages are. Thus, for someone to count a worker's wages as his due is to give that person what he deserves. You are reckoning the wages for what they are. 

Note what Paul says in following. "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies (dikaioo) the ungodly, His faith is credited as righteousness."  Remember, Paul has made the contrast between what is due us, and faith being credited as righteousness. To the one who does not work, but believes, their faith is imputed as righteousness. Since Paul is drawing a contrast in verses 4 and 5 between a "due" and a "gift", it follows that God credits faith as righteousness as a gift, not as our due. Whereas one ought to credit wages as a due, it is a gift to credit faith as righteousness. He is counting faith as what it is not (since He's not giving us what is due for faith, but He's giving a gift, which Paul contrasts with a due). God's crediting faith as righteousness. If righteousness (as in practical righteousness rather than imputed righteousness) were inherent to faith, then it would make no sense to say that God is crediting faith as righteousness as a gift rather than a due-as what it is not rather than what it is, since practical righteousness would be entailed in faith. 

From this, we can draw out three conclusions. For one, Paul is using dikaioo exactly how it's normally used. He's using it to mean "declare righteous"-that's why Paul connects "the God who justifies the ungodly" to the one who's faith is "credited as righteousness". He's using it as a legal term to denote the forgiveness of sins before God, and the righteousness needed to be regarded as perfectly holy. Two, we can also surmise that Paul is in fact speaking of imputation, since God is imputing faith as something it inherently is not. John Piper gives an analogy where his son forgot to clean the room he promised to clean before going to a football game: 

"'Barnabas, I am going to credit the clean room to your account because of your apology and submission. Before you left for school this morning I said, ‘You must have a clean room, or you won't be able to go watch the game tonight. Well, your room is clean. So you can go to the game.'

That's one way to say it, which corresponds to the language of Romans 4:6. Or I could say, 'I credit your apology for a clean room,' which would correspond to the language of Romans 4:3 and 5. What I mean when I say, 'I credit your apology for a clean room,' is not that the apology is the clean room; nor that the clean room consists of the apology; nor that he really cleaned his room. I cleaned it. It was pure grace. All I mean is that, in my way of reckoning ? in my grace ? his apology connects him with the promise given for a clean room. The clean room is his clean room.

You can say it either way. Paul said it both ways: “Faith is counted for righteousness” (4:3, 5, 9) and “God credits (or imputes) righteousness to us [by faith]” (4:6, 11). The reality intended in both cases is: I cleaned the room; he now has a cleaned room; he did not clean the room; he apologized for failure; in pure grace I counted his apology as connecting him with a fulfilled command that I fulfilled for him; he received the imputed obedience as a gift."

Piper adds the caveat that the analogy isn't to be pressed in every way, since it's not an allegory. But the point is this: God counts faith as what it (in and of itself) is not: namely righteousness. Is God lying in doing this? No. DA Carson explains why: 

"For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that faith, because of its object, is imputed to the believer as righteousness. It was because Abraham was “fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised” (Rom 4:21) that this faith “was credited to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:22). These words, Paul immediately adds, were written no less for us, to whom the Lord will impute righteousness (Rom 4:24)—“for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom 4:24-25). In short, righteousness is imputed when men and women believe in this sense: we are fully persuaded that God will do what he has promised. What God has promised, this side of the “But now” of Romans 3:21, is the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. That is why there is no tension between believing the God who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:24) and believing in Jesus (Rom 3:26) whose death and resurrection vindicate God."

When God credits faith as righteousness, He's not saying "your faith is righteousness even though it isn't really righteousness", just as when Piper credits an apology as a clean room, he's not saying that the apology is a clean room. He's saying that he's going to treat the apology as though it was a clean room from his son in light of the fact that Piper will actually clean the room. In other words, his son's apology connects him with the reality of an actual clean room that's wholly provided for him apart from any practical obedience. Similarly, because faith connects us with One who is inherently righteous apart from any of our obedience, God can regard faith as righteousness. He's regarding faith as something it is not in one sense, since faith itself is not righteousness. But God can regard faith as righteousness because the object of that faith is righteous. God's not lying because He's not saying one's faith is actually inherently righteous; He's crediting faith as righteousness having already said that He's doing this as a gift in Romans 3. And once again, He can do that because faith connects us to the object of our faith-an infinite Treasury of Merit known as Jesus Christ. 

The third thing we can surmise (which reinforces the second thing) is that faith excludes works as a category (and thus excludes practical holiness as it pertains to justification). Once again, note the contrast between verses 4 and 5: to the one who works...the one who does not work, but believes." 

So to summarize, God is counting faith as what it inherently is not because of the object of our faith: Christ. This is a gift of sheer grace. Since faith unites us to Christ, it is on the basis of Christ that God can "impute faith as righteousness"-not because of faith itself, but because of the reality to whom we are irrevocably united. This faith excludes works; it is all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to God's word alone as our final authority, all to the glory of God alone! 

Response to Justin Lee's Article on the Gay Christian Network

So Justin Lee has written an article endorsing gay marriage that can be found here: https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

Here's my response:  As a side note, I would prefer to call it the new view, because the "Reformed view" carries the connotations of reformed theology. But that aside...

Response to Counter Argument 1"Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done. None of us would call that "sinful."
The argument that "you shouldn't do that because that wasn't God's design" is really more of an excuse than a real argument. If anything becomes sinful just because it wasn't part of the original design of creation, we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods… well, you get the idea."
Sure, but we as Christians believe that these things are the result of sin (aka the Fall). The Fall brought a curse on creation and distorted God's original design for nature-hence deafness, heart conditions, birth defects are all results of the curse brought about by sin-God withdrawing and giving creation over to decay as a result of sin. Secondly, none of the examples he cites here are willful-actions on a sinful inclination. I will get to that later, since to say that right now without addressing "Argument 4" would be question-begging on my part. 
The original creation sets a precedent and shows us what God actually deemed "good". By creating Adam and Eve, and uniting them as one flesh, God communicated to us that that was part of the good creation-whereas any other sexual expression is not. 
Response to Argument 2Agreed-I never use the argument that sex is for procreation, because I find that unbiblical. Song of Solomon is all about enjoying sex in the context of marriage because it's a beautiful gift; it doesn't mention procreation (though babies are certainly a gift from God as well). 
Response to 3
Well, again, I agree-it's more because the Bible explicitly forbids it. More on that in 4
Response to 4Actually, it comes more from Jude: [7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
(Jude 1:7 ESV)
The Greek for "unnatural desire" is literally "other flesh". What is meant by other flesh? Well, we know what's being condemned here is "pornea" (sexual immorality-the greek word denotes any sexual activity outside of marriage), and pursuing "other flesh". Well, given that the author is a Jew, that most definitely means "flesh other than the one that we're intended to pursue" (and that's the view of the vast majority of commentators-from agnostic liberals like Bart Ehrman, to moderates like Luke Timothy Johnson who acknowledges that the Bible condemns homosexual expression but dismisses that teaching anyway because he has a homosexual daughter, to conservatives). If it meant anything else, "pornea" would've covered it, and thus the author wouldn't have even needed to mention "pursuing other flesh". *That's* why Sodom and Gomorrah is valid for this. Now, of course, they weren't just condemned for homosexuality; but that was one thing among many. 
"The specific example is one his Roman readers would be immediately familiar with: the fertility cults in Rome, where men and women engaged in sexual orgies that included both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites."
No, actually, that's not the only example of homosexual expression. In fact, Paul's roman readers were familiar with committed, homosexual relationships. Aristophanes speech in the Symposium speaks of both men who are having sex with boys, *and* committed homosexual relationships where both partners have affection for each other. 
"Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the tally-half of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them, and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.
Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,--if at all, they do so only in obedience to custom; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded;"
Plato's readers were aware of this kind of behavior-that's why Plato has Aristophanes speaking on an explanation for it. So when Paul condemns homosexuality in broad sweeping language (to use Matthew Vines' argument), he's doing so in light of knowing about homosexual relationships with affection. Now let's take a look at the text. 
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [29] They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
So verses 22 and 23 expand on the point made in 21; people knew God, but did not see fit to acknowledge Him, and started to worship things in creation. Verses 22 and 23 are an outworking of the heart of that refuses to submit to God in 21. Thus, what's being condemned here isn't just the fertility cults; it's every form of worship offered to anything else other than the one true God. In Paul's thought, everything we do is supposed to be a form of worship (Romans 12:1, 1 Cor 10:31 and Col 3:17). He also considers everything not done from faith sin (everything we do needs to be done on a God-glorifying trajectory). Verses 24-26 make an important point that the author misses: *because* of the idolatry of mankind, God gave people up to dishonorable passions. Because they worshiped the creation (verses 22-23, parallel to verses 24-26 in thought), God gave them up to the dishonoring of their bodies. So it's not the idol worship is a metaphor; it's that people chose to become idolaters and worshiped the creation (including themselves-i.e images in the likeness of mortal men) rather than the Creator. I in fact know of no "Traditionalist" who would say that Paul's using a metaphor here. Paul's saying that because of their choice to worship the creation, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. How does Paul define that? He defines it in terms of women giving up natural relationships for relationships with each other, and men doing the same. Paul doesn't need to therefore mention homosexuality again in the list of sins that resulted from turning from God because he already condemned it as a result of turning from God. It would just be redundant. 
Now as for "proof text 3", he only tells half the story. He's certainly right to say that such activity was frowned upon, as the Aristophanes quote shows. But the problem is that the quote also shows that some people (like Aristophanes himself) justified it. In other words, the activity wasn't universally condemned, and in fact was acknowledged as a reality (affectionate women loving each other for example). And again, the author doesn't tell the whole story with the term used in 1 Cor 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10. The NET translators (a Bible made under the direction of Daniel Wallace, one of the foremost koine Greek scholars in the US) has this to say: "On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG." 1 Corinthians 6:9, interestingly uses distinct terms to condemn both passive homosexual partners and active ones. Luke Timothy Johnson, who considers himself a "Christian" and yet rejects the Biblical teaching, acknowledges that the Bible does in fact teach it. He has this to say:
"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy—that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order."
Now I would indeed argue that this is being liberal despite the Gospel. I don't know how to see this any other way. 
Now I've already explained why Christians don't fulfill certain parts of the Levitical Law. I will copy and paste that explanation here:

 "Now, regarding why we don't follow the Old covenant laws. I do think it likely that the hundreds and hundreds of Christian scholars (some of which do not accept the "fundamentalist" doctrines of innerancy and such) have thought through this, and the answers that they give, and that Paul and Jesus give are in fact consistent with the Christian faith. In order to answer this question, we must first understand the purpose of Israel. According to the OT, God's purpose in establishing Israel was to consecrate a priestly nation to Himself, and to distinguish this nation from the surrounding pagan nations. In order to do so, God gave them certain ceremonial laws (ie, circumcision, food laws, dress, etc...). By these covenant markers, Israel was distinguished from the nations that were uncircumcised, or didn't observe Sabbath, etc (so all nations that were not Israel...the pagan nations). In consecrating this nation, God's purpose was to bless all nations through Israel through the Messiah. Until the time of the Messiah, Israel was to be set apart from all the rest of the nations, performing its priestly function through the sacrificial system, which pointed to the time of the Messiah (more on this in the next paragraph). So when we say that the law was fulfilled in Jesus, this is precisely what we mean: God's purpose for the old covenant was fulfilled in the Messiah, through whom God is carrying out His promise to bless the world. Therefore, since the purpose of ethnic Israel and the old covenant was fulfilled, those covenant laws no longer apply, since Israel's purpose was different from the Church's purpose and function. So the reason it's not sin for the Church, for example, to eat shellfish, is because God's purpose for giving that law has already been fulfilled in the Messiah. "
As for Leviticus 18, that *is* in fact valid to appeal to, because those are things God condemned pagan nations for. He didn't just hold Israel accountable for them; He punished the people of the promise land because of those sins they committed. And yes, I would affirm because of that passage that sex with someone during their period is immoral, and thus it shouldn't be done. As Michael Brown says, 
"“What about Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18, which speak against a man having sex with his wife during her monthly period? Well, this act was not considered worthy of the death penalty, so it is viewed with less severity than homosexual acts, and it is not mentioned in any lists of sins in the New Testament. Still, the Old Testament is clear that God is not pleased with this because of the sacredness of the blood. (See also Ezekiel 18:6.) Many Christians have come to this same conclusion even without the witness of Scripture. So yes, I believe it is wrong for a married couple to have sexual intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period, but it is clearly not to be regarded as being as fundamentally wrong and offensive in God’s eyes as homosexual practice.”"
I would also add that blood was sacred because it was meant to point to Christ. In other words, the shedding of the blood of human beings only happens because we live in a fallen world, and require atonement. Sex should not be bloody, because sex is supposed to be a good gift pointing to Christ. A period, then, is a reminder of the brokenness of creation; sex isn't supposed to be. 
So while Justin is right to say that other prohibitions were to distinguish Israel from the pagan nations, Leviticus 18 entails universal prohibitions. 
Now let me address the head coverings argument.  (1 Corinthians 11:2-16 ESV)

[2] Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. [13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. [16] If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

There are only two readings I think are possible on this text. First of all, I'm inclined to think that the term translated "wife" should actually be translated "woman", as the NET translators do so-since the context is about men and women, not just about husbands and wives. Second, any churches across the nations actually take this quite literally, and their women wear head coverings to affirm the complemenatarian roles of men and women. This very well might be what the text is commanding. I take a slight different view, but affirm that the text commands a visible sign for complementarian roles.

Daniel Wallace explains here: "This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying6 would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed."

In other words, Paul is appealing to the cultural symbol of head coverings to make a point. Paul says that nature teaches that "a woman's hair is her glory". But if we look at cultures worldwide, that's not always true-some women have short hair in certain cultures. So what did Paul mean by saying that nature teaches "a woman's hair is her glory"? Well, we can infer a few things from the language. Paul doesn't have to argue that a man with long hair has done something disgraceful-he simply assumes his readers know this. So what's his point? Well note the contrast to this idea in verse 6-if a woman cuts her hair short, it's shameful, but if a man does it, it's not. If a man grows out his hair long, it's shameful, but if a woman does it, it is her glory. In other words, there are very clear distinctions between man and woman that need to be maintained. These distinctions can be culturally relative; but nevertheless men and women must strive to be men and women. They cannot confuse roles; and this text prohibits that. So what Paul is deeming shameful is the distortion of gender roles; the confusing of manhood and womanhood.

So what of head coverings? I agree with Wallace in that head coverings were a cultural symbol in the vogue. The justification for head coverings is given in verses 9 and 10. Since man was not made for woman, but woman for man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her head. Why must we take this seriously? Because the angels-who, in Jewish thought, report back to God and petition Him to act upon what they see-are gathering with us in worship.

So what's Paul doing there? He's appealing back to creation-in which a man has authority over his wife (and Paul makes that very point in verse 3). Now I want to emphasize this really quick: having "authority" doesn't equal being a tyrant (interestingly, tyranny is described as part of the curse of Genesis 3, where a man rules over his wife as we are supposed to "rule"-i.e dominate-over sin). The headship of a man over his wife is meant to be a microcosm of the headship of God the Father over God the Son. Both are still equally valuable, but have differing roles (with the Son having a subordinate role to the Father's authority).

Therefore, I affirm the principle being laid out here. Women, when gathering for public worship, are supposed to wear a symbol of authority (i.e a symbol that signifies being under authority) in order to emphasize the creation ordinance of the roles of men and women. The reason people like me (though my brother is inclined to disagree with me) take the symbol to be culturally bound is solely because I don't think the symbol communicates the same thing now as it did back then: namely, the fact that a woman is under the (what ought to be) loving and self-sacrificial authority of the male leadership.

The cultural-relativity aspect cannot be applied to Romans 1 or 1 Cor 6 or 1 Tim 1 for two reasons. For one, the principle in 1 Corinthians 11 is not culturally relative; complementarianism is supposed to be how the genders relate. Two, the other passages are completely about condemning universal sin. There's nothing culturally bound about them; Paul is talking about sins in light of universal human depravity. So when Rachel Held Evans or Matthew Vines or Justin Lee makes that kind of argument, it just doesn't work because the context isn't exactly the same. Those three passages, again, talk about sins in light of human depravity in general-they do not lay out a principle (complementariansim) in light of a cultural practice as 1 Corinthians 11 does.

I want to conclude with two things: a quote from Luke Timothy Johnson, and then a brief comment. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrre's Johnny:

"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy—that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order."

While I do care for homosexuals, and homosexuals who long for a relationship with God, we must take the Bible seriously. We have to be willing to be honest with what Scripture says, and we have to trust God that He alone is the One who can satisfy our souls. He is, in fact, the fountain of all joy. If we don't trust Him to be our joy, and to change our hearts and kill our sin, in what sense do we dare call ourselves Christians? Is that not to take the name of the Lord in vain?