What Does I Corinthians 6:9-10 Teach?

I Corinthians 6:9-10, as all Bible passages, must not be used by anyone to clobber another person. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for training in righteousness, for edifying etc. (II Timothy 3:16-17).

The question in front of us today is, does this passage in Corinthians teach us that what is best for those who are same-sex attracted is to not engage in same-sex erotic acts, or does the passage contain a different message? One of the purposes of this blog is to provide opportunity for those who do not agree with the conclusions posted at the Dialogos website to provide feedback on this passage. Those who do not agree with the conclusions are encouraged to state their reasons here and those thoughts will be taken into consideration and replies will be given. Thank you!

I Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

To go to the main page of the website, click here.

Testing This Guideline Against Three Cases

How does this guideline apply to three specific situations of the past where the church changed its interpretation of some passage of scripture? (E.g. the Earth moving around the sun; whether slavery is permitted or should be prohibited; whether it is OK for Christians to charge modest interest on loans.) How do you believe this hermeneutical principle should apply in some or all of those cases?


Are the Bible’s statements on the relative movement of the earth and sun of the same nature as its statements on what is morally good about human sexuality and whether modest interest can be charged? Is it possible that with respect to the movement of the heavenly bodies the Bible uses language that humans at that time would have understood, perhaps language that was not strictly speaking correct in all regards? Does the Bible command the existence of slavery, or does it acknowledge its existence during biblical times?

What do you think about these two views?

Are A Number of People Not Clearly Male or Female?

A co-author of the Grand Rapids East Report states: A significant number of people made in God’s image are not clearly male or female (and those definitions have changed across cultures and time), so exegesis of Scripture related to gender roles starts from a very complicated premise; so I approach that exegesis with a spirit of extreme humility, considering science, culture, history, and, most important, the arc of Scripture–the work of the Holy Spirit and the radical love and inclusion the Gospel represents.

In response to this Dr. John Cooper, professor emeritus of Calvin Theological Seminary, had the following to say:

The GRE Report also appeals to this material as a reason to reconsider our understanding of “normal” gender and sex.  But it is a logical mistake and inconsistent with biblical-Reformed doctrine to suppose that current biology, psychology, and sociology can alter our normative understanding of sex, gender, and marriage, as the Report does.

The logical mistake is the is-ought fallacy, which confuses what is normative with what is statistically “normal”.  One cannot infer how things ought to be from the way they currently are, even if they are universal.  Racism and sexism are wrong even if all humans believe they are right.  Cancer and genetic defects are “fallen” even if they inevitably affect everyone.  In the same way, sexual disorientation, ambiguity, and confusion might be “normal” but not normative in a fallen world.

What do you think about these two views?