The bible is clear in the following passages as to what a Christian must do in seeking to correct error of this magnitude. Two of most clearest texts are the following ones:
Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 1timothy 2:14-16.
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.It is right here that we meet the much emphasised teaching regarding a primary Christian duty in regards to God word. We are to "correctly handle it" as Paul says to Timothy; or "hold firm to the trustworthy word .... to give instruction" as he says to Titus. But the question arises from here: What constitutes as true and sound doctrine?
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach Titus 1:9-11.
Well that which is in line with scriptural truth regarding who God is ... his trinity, his method of salvation being a gift granted through Christ, or even what acts are identified as sin in which needs atonement for.
For us to correctly identify a true biblical presentation of any number of biblical truths; we must examine the arguments for consistency, for sound presupposition, and fair use of scripture. And this is the aim in this article.
Now let us turn to Matthew Vines reasons which he put together with some Woman that is a Lesbian:
Reason Number 1For the non-biblical, non- thinking and very irrational person, this argument may seem to make a lot of sense; but for the biblically grounded believer, they will immediately recognise three error in this argument. And of course, this argument will not survive any rational scrutiny. But here are the errors of this kind of thinking:
Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to L.G.B.T people; Jesus taught on the sermon of the mount: "Good trees should bare good fruit." Meaning if you are a good person and you treat others with love and respect; it'll bring more love and respect to everybody else and yourself in the world.
First, when he says ... "Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to L.G.B.T people;" this is not biblical argument much less is it a Christian argument. It is an argument of one who identifies themselves with their sinful flesh and desire. But lets step up the game shall we, since he is introducing as a positive assertion: can we ask for some consistency in the thought "condemning anyone for their sinful activity is hurtful to that individual and others who do the same thing as him." It is worse, based on the fact that this group of people (called the L.G.B.T) take their sexual perversions as a normative pattern for living their lives. A Christian (if he is truly a Christian) must never do this; his identity is not in the flesh of carnal desire but is found in the Spirit's uniting him in Christ. His identification is "a Christian."
For one to promote his sexual sin as a part of his Christian life as Matthew does is really open attack on the redemption found in Christ; and it is an attack on the sufficiency of scripture on the matters of sin. There is really no way to be gay and a Christian it is contrary to scriptural truth and what Christ teaches us in his own words and the Apostles words.
Second, when he says of Christ's words, "Jesus taught on the sermon of the mount: "Good trees should bare good fruit."" This is a blatant man handling of scripture. Firstly, he dissects a little piece of a sentence, than twists it fit his own skewed interpretation. Let us briefly consider the passage in full manner:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.In this context we are being taught by Jesus about how we are identify a "false prophet" from the "true prophet" based on their fruits. It is based on the fruits of salvation, particularly righteous living. There is nothing in this passage about this arbitrary sexual sin being "a fruit," it is way off base.
There is another issue in this point, when Matthew uses this partial reference and ignores Jesus actual point; he is in reality calling himself a false prophet.
Third, then we have this really weird application given by the dialogue partner... she says, "Meaning if you are a good person and you treat others with love and respect; it'll bring more love and respect to everybody else and yourself in the world." It appears as though she is using a false understanding of tolerance mixed with Matthew 7:12 to over throw the actually context of Matthew 7:15-20. and yet misses the whole point in doing so.
True biblical tolerance is based on have love and respect for a person as an individual, and enough concern to actually point out their sin. Is it correct of me to say, this argument actually destroy the truth of declaring sin .. sin.
This is what happens when buy into such folly as post-modernism, pragmatism and relativism: the idea that what is true for you is true for you.
Reason number 2Here we have the second argument which as we can see has no biblical reference to support its conclusion; still we do need to respond to it as it is a blatant misrepresentation of the key issues at hand. It is the classic revision of history itself to suit their own perversion.
Sexual orientation is a pretty new concept; Christians of the past tended to see same-sex as a vice of excess like drunkenness or gluttony and not as sexual orientated, loving committed ways. So Christians don't have to reject faiths traditions to accept same-sex relationships; they just have to recognise they were in a new environment and issue.
Firstly, Matthew states, "Sexual orientation is a pretty new concept;" we must recognise the presupposition in this argument; it is saying, "in the days of old people did not understand the orientation of sexual desire." This a redundant position to take for he would have to be there in those times in order for him actually know this is the case. It is a mere assertion.
What is more important in this is that every person who has identified themselves as being "homosexual" in history has known the inclination of his affection. And God condemns both the inclination of the act and the act itself. There is simply no justification in this revision.
Secondly, he states, "Christians of the past tended to see same-sex as a vice of excess like drunkenness or gluttony and not as sexual orientated, loving committed ways." While the first part maybe partially correct; in saying at certain points all sin can be seen as excess. It is not true that in all cases this is a fact. The fact remains, that no matter how one cuts it the act and desire of "homosexuality" is condemned in the bible. God never design man or women to act in such ways contrary to what he instilled in their genetic structure. Man was made for women and women for man .. that is marriage. It a complimentary giving of one's self to another who completes you only heterosexual union fulfils that measure for God designed to be the way.
To dispel the idea of "same sex orientated committed ways.. I refer to a survey by some one which Michael Brown compiled in his recent book on this matter:
A major study titled "sex in America" indicated that gays and lesbians, combined in one group, had 12 x as many sexual partners as heterosexuals and 7 times as many sexual partners in the 12 months prior of the study. Even more striking was the fact that heterosexual couples we 41 times more likely to be monogamous than Homosexual couples.All of this is to say, that because God never created mankind to be sexually involved with members of their own sex at all. And in fact, it is clear based on the fact, even when you see such couple one partner always personifies member of the opposite sex. That is how integrated true sexuality is in mankind .. a man for a women and a women for a man. It is clear that in all reality same-sex relation is a degradation of God's intended provision for marriage.
Third, when he states this, "So Christians don't have to reject faiths traditions to accept same-sex relationships; they just have to recognise they were in a new environment and issue." He is in fact, making it clear he is a heretic and is not under biblical submission. For if he were under the biblical authority and under Christ Lordship; he would know this is a dishonour to Christ. Notice what Paul has to say on this matter:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.To redefine the bible sharp condemnation of same-sex acts is to render this passage useless. And that is what all revisionist like Matthew does with this passage, when he says that the term, arsenokoites "The concept of sexual orientation, and of same-sex orientation in particular, didn’t exist in the ancient world."
It should be noted that the first term "Malakos" is referring to the passive partner, the one that takes on the role of the passive partner in homosexual "relationship." And the second term, "arsenokoites" is the one who is the domineering partner or active. This is what God communicate through Paul about this sinful act.
The key of this section, however, is not found in the acts that denunciated but in the forgiveness that provided to sinners; which is seen verse 11 "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." A Christian can no longer be associated with these sinful acts.
Reason number 3Here we come to the third argument by Matthew and once more we have serious undermining of scripture based on an erroneous presupposition being forced into it. the thought at this point is that "homosexuality" is not a sin but is in fact an identity. Which is foolishness. Since we are speaking about the biblical truth -- it must start there. And when we do we find the following:
Celibacy is a gift not a mandate. So I studied the bible a bit in college; and I remember it talks specifically about being celibate and how it is better than not being celibate. But Paul also says that celibacy cannot be forced on people, it can only be chosen by people who have that gift.
Firstly, God created man and women to be a unity in marriage. He designed it to the case, Jesus re-affirmed this in Matthew 19 and 22 and all the prophets and the Apostles made this a clear fact of God's creative order.
Notice what is said in Jesus very own words:
"He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”Is Jesus Christ the head of all believers? Does his words on any given subject whether directly or indirectly said by him matter? And is the bible the final authority on all issues included subjugating our feeling to it's final declaration? Who knows where Matthew truly stands. But one thing is certainly clear .. he is making himself out to the judge on what is sin.
And such a move renders his profession to be inconsistent with biblical truth.
Secondly, I do not believe that intention of any pastor or churchman is that Matthew or anyone else be forced to be celibate. In fact, I believe is the fact, all sin must be dealt with in a biblical fashion, and a God honouring manner ... by coming before the cross and truly surrendering one whole life to Christ and allowing him to deal with it.
Essentially, what Matthew is doing is making excuses for his continual rebellion in sin. Notice what the bible teaches:
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:21-24)All mankind are sinners by nature Paul tells us in these first chapters, but he also reveals to us that God has made the way for man to be made right before God (justified standing) and that is in Christ alone. Since In romans one Paul through the Spirit makes it clear that all manifestation of sin is a result of man rejection and suppression of God's existence. Therefore, all sin; even sexual sin that is a defilement of God ordained institution of marriage between man and women.
So while celibacy is a noble way of life some, it is certainly not for all. There is a deeper issue of willing being submissive to what God says at the heart of this. God has declared Homosexuality in all forms to be sin. And that is final.
Reason number 4Here we come to the first real mention of a biblical passage which contains the wrathful act on God's part for sinful activity of the people of Sodom. And of course, in this attempt we see two things happen on Matthew part which I will discuss below; but first, it must be noted that the passage was not dealt with in any real fashion rather it was ignored.
So there is a story in the bible about two cites Sodom and Gomorrah; most people believe God had condemn them for them being gay. A lot of people in these two specific cities were homosexuals and that's not really the case, is it! No! there was an attemptted gang rape of men by men in Sodom; but that is pretty different from a loving relationship. Sodom was destroyed for it's arrogance, apathy towards the poor. Not for being "gay."
Firstly, on both sides of the issue; when it comes to this passage many kind of take a selective or redaction manner as far as what they high light. And in this case, Matthew only wants to highlight the aspect of the issue at hand. He picks out the peoples inhospitality towards outsiders. We should consider the whole array of different sinful acts of varies kinds
Secondly, when he says this, "No! there was an attempted gang rape of men by men in Sodom; but that is pretty different from a loving relationship." It is important to note in this argument we meet the re-invention wheel. There is no such thing in God sight nor in his word "a loving 'gay' relationship, it is seen as sin.
We must stress the text does not present it as "rape" of any kind. Of course, even rape is evil and sinful before God but this is misidentification of the events.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.It is important for us to see that Rape is not a conceptual act, but a forced act .. And these men ask first, "Where are the Men who came toy you tonight? bring them out to us, that we may know them ." This is straight forward they were seeking for a gay union. And that is highlighted by the term "know" in such context as this it is a sexual knowledge and activity.
But it gets worse, after these men are identified as being "wicked" there out burst is to counter with how dare you "judge us;" then the angels strike them blind... instead of stopping and saying "I cannot see" they are still trying to fulfil their sexual urges of have sex with these men.
Third, the sin that condemned these places is more fully seen in two New testament passage one from Jude 1. And they are clear on what the sin is which brought on this destruction. Notice the words:
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)In this verse we should take note of these words, "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" in this statement we have a very strong statement, it means that any sexual act which is committed without being married it is an immoral act before God .. and homosexuality is one such act that not only defiles marriage and it defiles man. It is sin.
And it is unnatural it is not speaking of personal preference; it is in fact an objective statement about how man was created... man and women were designed to be united, all else is a perversion. A key point here is that the marriage relationship and what constitutes that union God has establishes and firmly so.
Reason number 5Here is one of the most bizarre statements that Matthew Vines has to say on this subject; and it is because the Law has been fulfilled in Christ, therefore, Christians can run rampant in committing sin to their own desired level. This again, ignores the nature of regeneration and undercuts the act of sanctification of the saints.
Leviticus in the old testament condemns male same-sex intercourse. But Leviticus is actually never applied to Christians as moral law! What about eating pork, shall fish or cutting the hair on the side of your head? Well, Christ fulfilled the law as Christians understand it, which is why Christians don't have to follow all those restrictions in the Old Testament.
There are a number of issue that need to be highlighted:
First, in the opening words they both recognise the fact that Old Testament does condemn same-sex relations. But they then turn this on it's face, when they claim that Christians are not under the law. Just because we are not under the commands of law; it does not mean that we cannot read and study the book to see it portray God's holy nature and the sinfulness of man.
Second, to make the correct point: of course no Christian is under the Old testament law; we are now under the new Law in Christ. The first were physical in nature and brought about the sense of bondage of sin. The second is Spiritual in nature and brings about the sense of true freedom that Christ provides his people.
Having said this, it needs to be noted that what is deemed by God as sinful by nature in the Old testament is still seen in the New Covenant. So when it speaks against Homosexuality, it means it is a sinful degradation to mans Soul and should never be seen as holy and virtuous for a Christian.
Third, the new Law is one of eternal love and it binds all believers in Christ; it is what unites us as people. But a transgression such as the sin of homosexual activity is a violation of this grand act of God in the believers. Take Pauls words in Romans 13 for example: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. ....Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
In other words, because we love God, and because we love our brothers in faith; we will not seek to dishonour God through dishonour the brother. For sin is an act of hatred, and we cannot love God and hate our brothers. And this sin does both.
Reason number 6This kind of argument may sit well for those who are either caught in this perversion and those who champion it from the side lines. But once you peel back the layers of folly; you will see the unfounded supposition in the argument. Let us consider a few points:
Paul condemns same-sex lust not love. Well, Paul like a lot of ancient writers saw same sex behaviour stemming from out of control lust. That's pretty different from gay people in committed relationships.
First, When he says "Paul condemns same sex lust not love," If we are speaking in terms of being a Christian and the bible being our authority. Then Paul does not condemn any acts or desires; it is in fact God who condemns both the desire and the act of Homosexuality through Paul. As Christian we must never allow personal feelings interfere with what God has clearly denounced as sin in both major covenants.
And the bible does not give recognition to "committed gay relationship it is sin; and even so, the reality is there is no such thing because most gays have no concept of faithfulness.
Second, this distinction of "lust" and "love" are not biblically founded when it comes to sin. All sinful acts that are based on sexual immorality are forms of lust; for him to say "loving homosexual relations" according to what standard, and according to whom. Because the bible is clear, there is only one kind of love that it recognises and is hetero-sexual union. There is only one that is honoured between a Man (the husband) and a woman (the wife).
Third, when he says, "Well, Paul like a lot of ancient writers saw same sex behaviour stemming from out of control lust." There maybe some truth in this point; but let that not cover the major error in this argument. Not all "ancient writers" were like Paul and the other Apostles, they were not godly men and neither were being used to communicate God truth on matters of salvation. Still, yes, I would agree that all sexual sin does rise from "out of control lust" and homosexuality is no different. It is sin nonetheless.
Reason number 7Here we have the final argument and it is based on the premise that the term "homosexual" was not known until the last couple of centuries; therefore, it cannot be condemning same sex relationships. And once again, we run into several issues on this claim:
The term "Homosexual" didn't exist until 1892 (is that the right date). Yes. The last 50 years a number of bible translations have started to say in a couple of verses "Homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God." But that term and concept didn't exist at the time the bible was written.
Firstly, the idea that we label a sexual impurity such as that of same sex activity with the terms "Homosexuality," or even "Gay and Lesbian," is hardly a issue. It is a modern day term that describes such an act which has always existed from the old day till now; but the only real different in the former day it was more kept hidden from the public because it was seen for what it was a sexual inversion and a perverted way of life.
Secondly, since we are dealing with the translation issue; might we look at from a different angle in that all translation at the particular places such 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10-11 are in fact describing all forms of same sex activity. And in doing so, sweeps it all into one category of sinful activity in God's sight. And it is only in the modern day the "gay Christian" who has seeked to make a distinct category in order to justify the unjust.
Third, in claiming "such a concept did not exist in those days" Matthew Vines has unknowingly made himself his own God; for one to know this is the case, he would have to be omniscient (All Knowing) in order for him even being to verify the claim he is making. But we can just shut this down by pointing out the assumption in this is unfounded claim and what is worse is the fact that he is clearly not doing an honour when it comes to his handling of scripture.
Conclusion
As it has been demonstration in this examination of Matthew Vines "7 biblical reason for gay relationship," not one holds up to scrutiny of proper sound interpretation of scripture and some biblical reasoning. The bible is clear on this matter, all forms of sexual impurity and immorality are against God intended purpose in creation; and that of course, is found solely in heterosexual union of marriage.
It is important that we understand one thing here: there is hope for all people caught in this sexually degrading activity; and that is that they place their lives in the hands of Christ. Because he alone can heal them of their sinfulness. And of course, over the years many who falsely identified themselves as "homosexuals" have been restored in Christ to their true identity.
I leave off with one scripture that makes this a clear reality for every sinner; especially those in this way of perversity:
Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”Only in Christ can one find true forgiveness through his redemptive sacrificial atonement; this mean all sin will be forgive include sexual perversions such homosexuality. Trust in Christ fully and completely and he will strip away all your sins.
