A response to Matthew Vines Part 1
Once again, Matthew Vines has been at his usual games of trying to dislodge the Christian faith and it clear guideline on what a Christian is or is not. In an article by RNS (Religious News Service) named “40 questions for Christians who oppose marriage equality,” a set of deliberately rigged or stated questions which has the purpose to seek to justify a position which cannot rightly be made the norm in the Christ’s name or his church in any way, shape or form.
In this article it is our intention to give biblically grounded reasons for the fact that such a position is untenable and grossly misinformed and misdirected. There have of course been several good responses to these questions by James White of Alpha and Omega ministries (AOMIN) And also Douglas Wilson of Blog and mablog. But it is important that the Christian Community stand together against this issue that is related to the issue of Christian Purity.
Now let us begin to consider these questions, and that will be done in Order to give some clarity to the Christian position on this. Matthew begins with this question:
Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?
In this first question, we see the main view that “Homosexuality” cannot be something chosen but must be something that one is born with! In order for such a person to be fully realised as a human being. But once again, we have to really examine this question to be able to answer correctly.
It is important to note the following things: first, it is not a question of Christians “accepting” or “not accepting” something as a legitimate life-style choice; it is in fact, more what does God tells us is the correct way of living or not the correct way of living as Christians. And second, the bible clearly defines a Christian as someone whom has been regenerated and set free of all their sinful enslavement. And the bible also makes that Homosexual desires and acts are sinful because it is an act that is repellent and defiant against God holiness and his purpose in creation.
The Idea of “choice” is dubious term, in this matter — clearly, when one acts on their feeling and desires (Orientation) it is a conscious and active choice. And in this case, it is a rebellious one for a Christian to partake in
Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?
Clearly Matthew’s mind is not being transformed by the inward work of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12:1-2) as he presents this question. We can take such a question and forcefully make it against other sexual deviations which are clearly laid out in the bible as things a Christian should not Identify themselves by. As a Christian, a believers only identity is as Paul says to the Christians at Colossians, ‘for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God’. He then states:
“Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being [i]renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
A Christian, one who has been regenerated by the work of the Spirit — has come into new life in Christ who has set them free from the very former pattern of living which is classed “evil” in this passage by the Spirit who led Paul pen this Epistle for all believers to known who they are in Christ— our Sovereign Lord. Therefore, for a Christian to even suggest that his Old way of life is what should define them instead of Christ is pure insanity and blasphemous by its very nature.
How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have? How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?
None. Because it is as Paul states in Second Corinthians 6:
“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (Vs 16-18)
This description applies to many different relationships in this world; but in a specific fashion, it has a very deep connection to this issue as well. For the simple reason of the fact that it is by your own words above “openly LGBT people” I don’t believe that is a good position for any one to in as to Identify themselves with a perverse way of living— much less for anyone outside of it to be identified as some who is a friend to those who are “inside.”
There is such a thing as “guilt by association” and it is this very principal God will judge many people as Romans 1:31-32 make plain. That of course goes for any kind of evil sin; but nevertheless it applies here even more forcefully.
How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?
Me, personally none. But the issue here is seen in the fact that you would even being to identify such person as “LGBT Christian” in the first place. Can we replace the acronym with “Murderous, Rapist, Stalker, Incestuous” —- not as a comparison; but merely to make the point that a Christian does not identify themselves by what they were but by whom they have been saved in and through CHRIST.
I seem to recall these words from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Either these words mean something or they are pointless. But the fact is they do— Man is identified as a sinner and a particular kind before God redeems him to which he can no longer be identified as after.
Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?
Your thoughts and feeling in regard to a particular thing are insignificant to the reality of the thing. God has only given one kind of Marriage: that of One man and One Woman; they become Husband and Wife, Father and Mother. And no matter how perverted man’s intentions are a redefinition is nothing but a whole sale demolishment of the sacred union God gave from the beginning. (Matthew19:1-12; spec. 4-6)
Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?
The question is very much designed to mislead people. First, God never created “gay people” that is a sinful act on part of man, and to make it a community “gay people” is sheer foolery. How about taking this line of reasoning and applying to Rapists — they would be called “the rapist community” or “rape people” see the problem, there is no reality to it. Second, the idea of “Same sex relationships” they are hardly relationship as God would define them. They are sinful acts being promoted to a position they can not actually live unto or fulfil.
How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?
The question presupposes a conclusion that has not been made clear. And that is, of course, the error of thinking one is a Christian all the while claiming to “gay.” It is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terminology. A Christian is one that has been regenerated by the work of the Spirit — has come into new life in Christ who has set them free from the very former pattern of living which is classed “evil;” and homosexuality is an evil sinful act according to the Bible.
The real question to ask here is: Are you or any other Christian who identifies themselves as “…. Christian” (fill in the blank) actually a Christian? The answer is very clear from your continual parade that you are not one, and never were in the first place.
What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?
The only answer one can give— but before we get that! We need to dispel this falsely implied idea of there being “gay Christians” there is no such thing. You are either a redeemed Christian who has turn away from that life or you are a sinner engaged in that life of sin. Either way you as a practicing homosexual are not a Christian— and that is plain reality of the matter.
Now what is my answer to you: the same I would give to all unrepentant sinners. Repent of your sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. As it is clear you do not believe in him as the Saviour or you would not dishonour him by tampering with his word (2 Corinthians 3).
Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know? How many married same-sex couples do you know?
Personally, I am not sure where this idea of “celibacy” is coming from — I know that Paul addresses it in 1 Corinthians 7. But the context does not permit those who have “same sex” attractions to even enter in on it. It is addressing the creational relationships of Man and Woman.
It would appear that there is an underline presupposition at work which is flatly denied even in this context. Marriage is always between two people of the opposite sex— a man and a woman. So the reasoning is faulty and the logic is too behind such a question.
Do you believe that same-sex couples’ relationships can show the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?
No. Such a question is misguided and does harm to the context if it is assumed such a position is Godly. Let us consult the context of Galatians 5 for a moment, to give us a little understanding:
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Verses 19-21)
These verses are immediate prior to the above quoted words on the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ and do we notice the acts that are associated with the flesh— “immorality, impurity” such terms are important as it refers to any act outside marriage which is not seen as apart of the covenanted participants. Obviously, it also include homosexuality which does not have anything to do with the fruits of the Spirit (mentioned above). the Christian life is one that exhibits the following qualities by the power of the Spirit as we see in the following words: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?” This is another description of sanctification.
Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?
No, true Christians should ever support “same sex marriage” as it is nothing short of a dishonour to God and a complete overthrow of what Marriage is and what God intended it to be— the union of one man and one woman in one flesh; a compatible and complimentary relationship. The one thing that this redefinition of marriage can never be and that is why Matthew take such an issue with these matters in his book “God and the gay Christian;” despite his best effort he cannot begin to disparage what God instilled in this beautiful union of the opposite sex union of marriage.
Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery? If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery?
Such a question show a fundamental ignorance of the reformers teachings in general; and more in focus, what they were seeking to present on such a topic (if they even taught on it). The difference between Hebrew slavery and the brutal form that took place in the passing centuries in the west are vastly different issues — and to mix the categories really shows the fundamental error on Matthews end. Beyond this, we must tackle yet another gross deceptive move in this reasoning:
in the first place, the black people of the world are born black; and the slavery movement was a fundamental dishonour to them as people who were and are created in God image. Nothing inherently sinful there.
In the second place, Homosexuality is a sinful practice as defined by God’s word from beginning to end. It is not something one is born into as the black people are born black; it is something man chooses to act up later in life.
Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?
This Sir, is one question that needs no deep response. They are both evil acts of inhumane depth (but as mentioned about your ignorance to the latter issue is outstanding).
Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s passages about slavery before you felt comfortable believing that slavery is wrong?
Look to the answer given to the question on the reformers to have some understanding on the difference between the two kinds of slavery. Beyond this, we can mentioned that the two acts are seen as being incompatible to link in such a way to overthrow the bible’s clear teaching on homosexuality being sin before God.
Does it cause you any concern that Christians throughout most of church history would have disagreed with you?
Disagreed with me on what! On Homosexuality I seriously doubt that to be the case; in fact, when the passages that deal with this deadly act were preached on — the preaching was done from an exegetical standpoint; and this meant that the truth of the scriptures were laid bare for all to actually know. Indeed it can be said that they disagreed with your view which is a fundamental eisegetical standpoint (reading unbiblical ideals into the text) and coming away with a false understanding.
And here is the proof that such is the case— allow us to consider one fine example:
ROM. I. 26, 27.-"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another."All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that "they changed the natural use." For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession.
Here we have John Chrysostom’s homily on Romans 1:26-27 pertaining to woman on women sexual sin. Now what of the man on man sexual sin— let us consider it too:
he goes on to the men also, and says, "And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman." Which is an evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both sexes are abandoned, and both he that was ordained to be the instructor of the woman, and she who was bid to become an helpmate to the man, work the deeds of enemies against one another. And reflect too how significantly he uses his words. For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, "they burned in their lust one toward another." You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy which endure not to abide within its proper limits. For everything which transgress the laws by God appointed, lust after monstrous things and not those which be customary.
Can it be any clearer that what is traditionally accepted in many Churches today that Homosexuality is a sinful act is what the church has believed biblically since its foundation and inception. Matthew is simply in error and must admit it. The example could be multiplied but this serve our sole purpose of demonstration the bible is clear and so is the the church on the issue: homosexuality is SIN.
Did you know that, for most of church history, Christians believed that the Bible taught the earth stood still at the centre of the universe?
What is the relevance of this question to whether homosexuality is a Sin? I cannot see it’s purpose. Only to note that this is fallacious reasoning to its core.
Does it cause you any concern that you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible?
This assumption has not been established as of yet. Care to provide some proof that they did give any fundamentally diverse understandings of the given texts Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1. As we saw two questions prior there is no foundation to this assumption, I have provided just one example that contradict your assertions regarding the early Christians.
Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?
Relevance, please sir. (consult the previous answer).
Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20th century who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships? If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?
There has never been a single Christian minister/ pastor or elder in the history of the Church who has taught that it acceptable for a Christian to identify themselves by their sinful pasts before the 20th century and the bible forbids such foolery. So why do you Matthew claim to be a Christian and insist on being known as a “gay Christian?” That is the question that must be considered.
I will here go to Paul’s important words in Ephesians 5— he states,
But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Verses 3-6)
These are the acts of evil to which Christian must not be partakers of or be associated with (verses 7-11). It is vital that these words are taken on board and applied correctly in the lives of all true believers. What Matthew is seeking though his effort is to fundamentally alter Christian purity.
Do you believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that all gay Christians must be single and celibate for life? If not, do you feel comfortable affirming something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible?
This is the most convoluted reasoning imaginable! As we have said before there is no such thing as a “gay Christian” — you are either a Christian or a sinner. It is like the fact that there is no such thing a devil worshipping Christian either; you cannot serve two masters. In this case, yourself and your own evil nature and desires as well as the Lord God.
If one who was once homosexual becomes a Christian and sees his life style as sin and decided to be celibate in one case or marries someone of the opposite sex in another point. Then both points are acceptable to the community of God. But the one thing they must not do is what you are trying to seek.
