Their Own Consciences Testify

Over at my Protect Biblical Marriage blog, I had posted a three-part series with links called "In Defense of Marriage." There are several comments to read there. Many of them were arguing in opposition to what was posted.

However, Wayne from Jeremiah Films had a great point in his comment:

I'm not going to debate if marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible; clearly it is, over and over again.

I will add however that if you go to the ends of the earth where nobody has heard of McDonald's or Cola, or Jesus. They understand the concept of a marriage being between a man and a woman.

Roman 2:15 - They show that what the law requires is written in their hearts, a fact to which their own consciences testify, and their thoughts will either accuse or excuse them.

Wayne is right. The affirmation that marriage is the union between a man and a woman is written in the Bible many times. In fact, it was directly affirmed by Jesus Christ:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

No other type of union is affirmed as marriage.

It is also "written on our hearts." In our heart of hearts, not matter what the homosexual agenda tries to push on us, WE KNOW that same-sex sexual behavior is a sin and an abomination to God. The fact that certain people refuse to recognize that fact does not change the truth. As Roman 2:15 informs us - their thoughts will either accuse or excuse them!

The gay christian movement is in the business of excusing themselves. They have chosen "to exchange the truth for a lie."

And, what's more, they will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to attempt to cover their sin and excuse themselves rather than what is truly needed - repentance! Why? Because whether one admits it or not, one's own conscience and God's Word accuses them.


In reply to Wayne's comment I wrote:

Really good points, Wayne. The gay christian movement is all about excusing sinful, same-sex behavior. As was pointed out by Romans 2:15, either one is accused of one's sin - or - one does all that he or she can to excuse one's own sin. That is precisely what is going on in this, as well as many other heretical and worldly elements raging against true Biblical Christianity in our world today.

The "do not judge" mantra being elevated by homosexuals who want to be Christians while willfully continuing in sinful sexual behavior may indicate that they have not truly repented and are still under the judgment of God.

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (KJV)

I think that a post done by Gary DeMar called, A Fool's Wager – Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage? reiterates what Wayne and I wrote. Romans 2:15, 16 directly address this as well. In fact, all of Romans 2 is very instructive on this issue.

Gay Christians often quote only a portion of this chapter that they think "favors" their "do not judge" mantra. However, a closer look (especially concerning correct judgment) tells us that proper judgment is imperative!

Romans 2

Matthew Henry's commentary goes into great detail about this portion of Scripture. Note this section:

(2.) In dispensing his frowns (v. 8, 9). Observe, [1.] The objects of his frowns. In general those that do evil, more particularly described to be such as are contentious and do not obey the truth. Contentious against God. every wilful sin is a quarrel with God, it is striving with our Maker (Isa. 45:9), the most desperate contention. The Spirit of God strives with sinners (Gen. 6:3), and impenitent sinners strive against the Spirit, rebel against the light (Job 24:13), hold fast deceit, strive to retain that sin which the Spirit strives to part them from. Contentious, and do not obey the truth. The truths of religion are not only to be known, but to be obeyed; they are directing, ruling, commanding; truths relating to practice. Disobedience to the truth is interpreted a striving against it. But obey unrighteousness—do what unrighteousness bids them do. Those that refuse to be the servants of truth will soon be the slaves of unrighteousness. [2.] The products or instances of these frowns: Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish. These are the wages of sin. Indignation and wrath the causes—tribulation and anguish the necessary and unavoidable effects. And this upon the soul; souls are the vessels of that wrath, the subjects of that tribulation and anguish. Sin qualifies the soul for this wrath. The soul is that in or of man which is alone immediately capable of this indignation, and the impressions or effects of anguish therefrom. Hell is eternal tribulation and anguish, the product of wrath and indignation. This comes of contending with God, of setting briers and thorns before a consuming fire, Isa. 27:4. Those that will not bow to his golden sceptre will certainly be broken by his iron rod. Thus will God render to every man according to his deeds.

2. There is no respect of persons with God, v. 11. As to the spiritual state, there is a respect of persons; but not as to outward relation or condition. Jews and Gentiles stand upon the same level before God. This was Peter’s remark upon the first taking down of the partition-wall (Acts 10:34), that God is no respecter of persons; and it is explained in the next words, that in every nation he that fears God, and works righteousness, is accepted of him. God does not save men with respect to their external privileges or their barren knowledge and profession of the truth, but according as their state and disposition really are. In dispensing both his frowns and favours it is both to Jew and Gentile. If to the Jews first, who had greater privileges, and made a greater profession, yet also to the Gentiles, whose want of such privileges will neither excuse them from the punishment of their ill-doing nor bar them out from the reward of their well-doing (see Col. 3:11); for shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

V. He proves the equity of his proceedings with all, when he shall actually come to Judge them (v. 12–16), upon this principle, that that which is the rule of man’s obedience is the rule of God’s judgment. Three degrees of light are revealed to the children of men:—

1. The light of nature. This the Gentiles have, and by this they shall be judged: As many as have sinned without law shall perish without law; that is, the unbelieving Gentiles, who had no other guide but natural conscience, no other motive but common mercies, and had not the law of Moses nor any supernatural revelation, shall not be reckoned with for the transgression of the law they never had, nor come under the aggravation of the Jews’ sin against and judgment by the written law; but they shall be judged by, as they sin against, the law of nature, not only as it is in their hearts, corrupted, defaced, and imprisoned in unrighteousness, but as in the uncorrupt original the Judge keeps by him. Further to clear this (v. 14, 15), in a parenthesis, he evinces that the light of nature was to the Gentiles instead of a written law. He had said (v. 12) they had sinned without law, which looks like a contradiction; for where there is no law there is no transgression. But, says he, though they had not the written law (Ps. 147:20), they had that which was equivalent, not to the ceremonial, but to the moral law. They had the work of the law. He does not mean that work which the law commands, as if they could produce a perfect obedience; but that work which the law does. The work of the law is to direct us what to do, and to examine us what we have done. Now, (1.) They had that which directed them what to do by the light of nature: by the force and tendency of their natural notions and dictates they apprehended a clear and vast difference between good and evil. They did by nature the things contained in the law. They had a sense of justice and equity, honour and purity, love and charity; the light of nature taught obedience to parents, pity to the miserable, conservation of public peace and order, forbade murder, stealing, lying, perjury, etc. Thus they were a law unto themselves. (2.) They had that which examined them as to what they had done: Their conscience also bearing witness. They had that within them which approved and commended what was well done and which reproached them for what was done amiss. Conscience is a witness, and first or last will bear witness, though for a time it may be bribed or brow-beaten. It is instead of a thousand witnesses, testifying of that which is most secret; and their thoughts accusing or excusing, passing a judgment upon the testimony of conscience by applying the law to the fact. Conscience is that candle of the Lord which was not quite put out, no, not in the Gentile world. The heathen have witnessed to the comfort of a good conscience.

What the gay christian movement is attempting to do by professing that they are Christians - while at the same time NOT repenting of their sin - yet requiring all (including Biblical Evangelical Christians) to have "tolerance," "acceptance," and even going so far as labeling their aberrant sexual behavior as a "blessing" (with or without "marriage") - is actually an example of trying to get God and His people to be "respecters" of them and their sinful fleshly desires.

Act 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:


Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Of course, what I have just shared is definitely not politically correct in today's world of moral relativism. The point is, many of the most prominent and widely honored and accepted Biblical scholars (like Henry) are not being consulted by groups such as "Soulforce." No. They prefer the "new would-be scholars" of today who condone their sin for political, social, intellectual, and even spiritual expediency. That is the truth - my friends.

If you haven't already read Gary DeMar's article, here is a copy:

A Fool's Wager – Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage?
By Gary DeMar

State representative Alvin Holmes (D–Montgomery, Ala.) is putting his money where his worldview is. He is offering $5000 to anyone who can prove the Bible actually condemns homosexual marriage. Of course, it’s quite easy to prove the Bible does not support homosexual marriage, so why would a man make such a preposterous wager? No matter what evidence you put before him, he will explain it away, because he wants to support homosexual marriage. We’ve seen this same type of “reasoning” on the abortion issue. No matter how you go about showing that abortion kills a preborn child, there are those who still support abortion. There are some who even recognize that abortion kills a proborn baby, and they still support baby killing for “high social reasons.” The same is true on the homosexual issue. If homosexuality is explained away when it is self-evident in the Bible, then so much else can be explained away, including adultery and other sexual sins. The Bible becomes no more authoritative than Aesop’s Fables.

The nature of unbelieving thought is to interpret evidences in terms of a pre-constructed worldview. The resurrection of Jesus is denied because skeptics begin with the premise that resurrections can’t happen. When evidence is shown to the contrary, the evidence is explained away. The rich man appealed to Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of the consequences of their lifestyle choices. They would certainly listen to a man risen from the dead. Abraham’s response is not what the rich man wanted to hear: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. . . . If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:19-31). The Bible is plain enough on these issues. Rep. Holmes doesn’t want to listen.

The creation account sets the standard for proper sexual relationships, including marriage. Adam was incomplete until God created someone “suitable” (KJV: “meet” not “mate”) for him. God did not create a man and a woman, thereby giving Adam a choice. God created a woman, setting a standard. Even if the Bible never condemned homosexual behavior, the creation account alone would be enough to establish what God wants in marital and sexual relationships. Even the physical makeup of men and women is a rational defense of heterosexual relationships. The command to be “fruitful and multiply” can only apply to heterosexual relationships. The NT supports the one man, one woman standard: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–8). The Bible couldn’t be any more clear. In any normal world, Rep. Holmes would be $5000 poorer.

Then there are the direct prohibitions of homosexual behavior found in the OT and NT. If homosexual behavior is prohibited, then it follows that a marriage that is built on homosexual marriage has to be wrong as well. The story of Sodom should be enough to convince anyone that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible (Gen. 18-19). But if this detailed and irrefutable story isn’t enough, there are the stated prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.”

Pro-homosexual advocates argue that these laws are found among “purity laws,” therefore, they no longer apply. The same purity laws found in Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality also prohibit rape, theft, putting obstacles in front of blind people, sex with animals, and murder. Why haven’t these laws been abrogated under the new covenant?

Paul describes homosexual behavior as “degrading,” “unnatural,” and “indecent” (Rom. 1:26–27). If homosexual behavior is described using these terms, it’s hard to see how marriage makes the behavior Paul condemns legitimate. If two murderers marry, does this mean that now they are married, murder somehow becomes legitimate? Rep. Holmes is living in a world of his own making. The Bible condemns him because he “gives hearty approval to those who practice” homosexuality (Rom. 1:32). The leadership of Hutchinson Missionary Baptist Church should discipline him for his rejection of God’s Word, and the people of Montgomery, Alabama, should vote him out of office.

HT: The American Vision

Center for Christ and Culture