Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
And good afternoon welcome to the dividing line a mega edition of the program today two hours I want to get as far as I possibly can in concluding our review of Matthew Vines presentation on The subject of homosexuality and his defense of the concept of a gay Christian.
We have gotten a tremendous number of Contacts about this particular subject there is a real need for continued Dialogue on this subject not dialogue in the sense of well We need to understand the other side better or well there needs to be a compromise anything like that no what we need to continue to do is to dialogue with people who are confused or deceived Or are involved in deceiving others into believing that the Bible is unclear on this and that homosexuality is just simply one aspect of The way that God made things and that simply is not the case it is a perversion of God's intention, and it is a destructive behavior and While we still have the freedom to do so because for some reason Homosexuals do not want us to have that freedom to say what we are saying.
They try to shout you down or legislate you down and that is happening all around us anyone who denies that's happening is just simply denying. There's a sun in the sky or that's blue or whatever else and so we will dive right back in we for those of you who have the Presentation we are 35 minutes and 18 seconds into the presentation.
It's only a little over an hour long so I Unfortunately doubt we are gonna get all the way through it as much as I would like to attempt to do so. We'll we'll give it a we'll give it a shot here. So let us let us press on for unnatural ones in.
The same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Well now it seems the case is finally closed. Even though the verses in Leviticus don't apply to Christians here. We have Paul in the New Testament Explicitly teaching the unacceptability the sinfulness of same-sex relationships.
Now. I just a pause for a moment.
We've already seen that. Mr. Vines isn't is of course an error. Concerning the application of the Levitical passages. We saw why and if you're just now tuning in haven't heard that before please look in the archives.
I think what we will be doing is taking all of these programs putting them into one Single whole and making that available from the front page of the of the website for people to be able to access that so that you can go through it point by point, but Certainly the same Apostle who has said we do not Do away with the law we establish the law by faith, etc. Etc.
This same Apostle is drawing from that very same Levitical law in his Understanding of God's revelation of what is and what is not appropriate human sexual behavior as well. That needs to again be emphasized even though the normal Homosexual attempt to deal with these texts atomizes it just this it disconnects them.
You're not gonna ever hear. Well, I hesitate to use term ever but you almost never hear a Homosexual apologist dealing with these texts as a whole unless they take the the position that the Bible's witness should just be rejected.
And Toto. Which I would think would be about the only consistent position that a homosexual can ever take on this particular subject.
And even though he only speaks of lustful behavior and not of loving relationships and.
Notice.
Reading into the text a category that Paul does not acknowledge as we saw and we looked at this before. This is talking about the the it is an illustration of Idolatry that is an abandonment of the truth that has been revealed by God and a twisting of the creator-creation Relationship and that's exactly what you have going on here in that you these individuals are those who God has given them.
Over to dishonorable passions. Now the homosexual will say well since God made me this way. Then and since I am NOT an idolatry the Christian the quote-unquote Christian homosexual, which again is an oxymoron.
But that's the terminology they use they want to hold on to a form of religiosity. The quote-unquote Christian Homosexual will say I am NOT engaged in idolatry. I haven't done all these things. I haven't suppressed the knowledge of God therefore I can't be described in these ways.
The problem is that the Apostle identifies this kind of sexual behavior as an illustration of the very twistedness of what idolatry brings and so you can go at this this backwards and establish your own position and then try to cram it into the text or you can actually listen to the text and See how it consistently flows from the Old Testament text that we've already seen.
Mr. Vines has inappropriately and improperly attempted to get around primarily utilizing the argumentation of countrymen and Scroggs and and Skenzonian Mullen Cod and and and especially Boswell. Some of whom are homosexual some of whom are not but all of whom have a particular agenda.
They are they're seeking to.
Attempt to promote. He labels same-sex unions Unnatural. They are outside of God's natural design Which was set forth in Genesis 1 and 2 and is exclusively heterosexual. So even if a same-sex relationship is loving and committed it is still sinful now.
I just want to emphasize something in regards to the actual language that Paul uses in verses 26 and 27 when we talk about the Natural function or the natural relations notice that it says for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and then the Parallel in verse 27 is and the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman.
So when we're talking here about nature, we're talking about the natural Function we're clearly talking about the sexual function. We're talking about the complementary nature of the female body in the male body that which produces life.
Etc. Etc. That is clearly what is in in view in what the Apostle is saying in these texts. It's not just simply what's natural for them as in these are heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity. That is reading a category into it.
That is not being derived from the text. It's being enforced upon the text. That is the normal Attempt of most quote-unquote gay Christians and quote to get over this particular problem.
That is the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 26 to 27. How solid of an interpretation is that? Does this passage require us to reject the possibility of loving relationships for gay people?
We have already of course addressed the issue of what love is how the Bible Defines love and that true Christian love is defined on biblical parameters that that is defined on the basis of complementary relationship and All the things that have already become a part of at least three hours.
I think we've done so far. Yeah, I think three hours we've done so far just in response the first half hour of.
This presentation and if so, how does that make sense given the problems that I outlined earlier with that position? Was that Paul's intent here to teach that God desires gay people to be alone and notice the completely.
Esoterical decontextualization of the text. That I mean there's just this this is completely loading the conclusion this is not exegesis. This is not going to the text. This is not honestly dealing with the text.
This man has an agenda. He has a position that that he is seeking to force into the text. This is this is a comp. Well, it the man has perverted his own life. And now he's seeking to pervert the scriptures as well and is an unfortunate thing to observe.
It's a sad thing to see but that's exactly what is going on to. To even ask such a question of the context of the text is Just completely inappropriate on any meaningful basis for a Christian a person who claims to be a Christian at the very least and Shows a tremendous bias on.
On his part for their entire lives. Because their sexual orientation is broken and it's outside of his created.
Natural design. Their sexual orientation is rebellious. Not just broken. It is a rejection of God's intention and it is an acceptance of desires so much so and in so much of an abandonment of the fight against What would be considered the appropriate mechanism of of resisting temptation that it becomes definition of the person and very much a part of The entire worldview that is created around it and then brought to the text which resulting in the kind of Reading that we're seeing right now.
How we understand. This passage hinges in large part on how we understand the meaning of the terms natural and unnatural. It's commonly assumed by those who hold to the traditional interpretation but these terms refer back to Genesis 1 and 2 and are intended to define heterosexuality as God's natural design and Homosexuality as an unnatural distortion of that design now.
One of the problems with this is that the the term natural that is found in this text for example in verse 26 fussacane creasin. That is the natural use. It's it's the term natural here is used in a phrase and on a lexical basis.
You need to allow a phrase to be defined by its context you can't just take one element of that run off to some other text like oh, let me just guess first Corinthians 1114 and Take that particular reading and bring it back into this text.
And so you have a natural use that is being exchanged for that. Which is para fussing against nature. And then as I pointed out it's important to see verse 27 homoious likewise also the men. Abandoning the natural usage again in in parallel of.
The female then burned in their lust one for another and so clearly this is any and all. This this is this is any homosexual activity lesbianism male homosexuality. This is what's being described here by the Apostle.
This is in perfect harmony with how the Apostle interpreted God's law the Levitical law. How how Jesus? Interpreted the creation of man and woman Matthew 19 all of these things that we have already seen we see a perfectly Harmonious testimony so far in all of these texts.
But of course we're being told that well, I can't mean that because that means that I'd have to be alone. Well, if you choose in your rebellion against God To violate his ways then yeah, you will be alone in your violation.
But that's not a an argument against this interpretation of Scripture and the consistency of this interpretation of Scripture.
But once again Closer examination does not support that interpretation. In order to understand what Paul meant by the use of these terms we have to consider two things. First we have to look at the broader context of the passage in order to see how the concept of nature functions within it.
And secondly, we need to see how Paul himself uses these terms in his other letters and. And how they were commonly and widely applied to sexual behavior in particular in the ancient world. First the passages context.
In chapter 1 verses 18 through 32 Paul is making a larger argument about idolatry and. That argument has a very precise logic to it. The reason he says in verses 18 through 20, but the idolaters actions are blameworthy is because they knew God.
They started with the knowledge of God. But they chose to reject him. Paul writes. What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen.
Being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse. The idolaters are without excuse. Because they knew the truth they started with the truth, but they rejected it. Paul's subsequent statements about sexual behavior follow this same pattern.
The women he says exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones now immediately.
Once again, Matthew has demonstrated a real inability to engage in meaningful exegesis. Because in verse 24 you have already had The the summary statement made by the Apostle Paul that they knew God. They did not honor his God or give thanks to him, but they came futile in their thinking their foolish hearts were darkened so he's just jumped over skipped a transitionary section that begins to deal with the results of Idolatry and the result of idolatry is a futility of thinking a darkening of the heart a becoming foolish even though they claim to be wise an exchanging of the glory of the Immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things in other words.
There is an impact there there is a fundamental perversion of the created order that follows from the existence of idolatry and from the existence of the suppression of the knowledge of God. Catechon zone.
They are holding down the knowledge of God and when the creature suppresses the knowledge of the Creator the result is a deformation of the created order and part of that involves the mind the thinking Claiming to wise they become fools.
The exchange there is an exchange going on now in verse 23. The term that is found there a lasso is The same term that's going to be found in verse 25 they exchanged the truth of God and then in verse 26 Where likewise you have the same term?
It's meta there, but the same root the exchanging of natural relations and so if you're going to follow this if you're going to and at all Claim that you are even pretending to honestly deal with this text then you must note the context appropriately and so after the assertion of the exchanging of the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things in other words.
Man's mind and his worship is turned away from its proper object to that which is inappropriate. Then you have verse 24 starts off Diya Pareto Ken altoos hot they asked therefore God gave them over in the loss of their hearts to impurity and.
So whatever he's describing is Impurity it involves the dishonoring of their body among themselves their bodies amongst themselves. But it is a part of God's giving them over they want to suppress the knowledge of God.
They want to pervert the relationship of the Creator and the creation.
All right.
Here comes the result God gives them over in the loss of their heart to impurity because They exchange the truth about God for a lie and worship and serve the creature around the Creator who is blessed forever.
So what is Paul stating. Paul is stating that there is a absolutely necessary result of the perversion of the created order on the part of the created order. God gives them over to degrading passions.
He gives them up in the loss of their hearts to impurity to the dishonoring of their bodies amongst themselves. You can't skip that and pretend That you're dealing with verses 26 and 27. I mean, it's just it might work and sadly in a Methodist Church Where very few of the people sitting in front of you anymore even bother to read a Bible.
But it's not gonna work if you're actually Claiming to be dealing with the text itself. Remember and people say oh, you're just so mean to set hey remember. I'm the one that sat in the debate With Barry Lynn.
Yes, Barry Lynn who's on Fox News all the time and CNN all the time. Barry Lynn used to be head of the Americans. I was temporary church state. I'm not sure if he still is but I I think they might be.
I don't know. I haven't checked for a long time. Barry Lynn who does not like me. Let me assure you and we are in a debate on this very subject and I was asking about this very text and I had to let him borrow my Bible to read the text.
Because he came to a debate Where he was one of the debaters on the subject his homosexuality consistent with biblical Christianity, and he didn't bring a Bible and. So when I say something about people.
Not reading.
Not really looking at the text not really driving their beliefs from the text. I think I've got a basis for actually saying that. That's been my experience because you know what it has been and.
The men abandoned relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality.
Really?
What do you mean? They started with heterosexuality? Are you trying to you know? These folks didn't figure out Whether they are going to assert that the Bible knows nothing about Quote-unquote sexual orientation or whether it does know about it.
If you can say it doesn't then you can't be talking now about well these were heterosexuals. They're acting like homosexuals because now you're assuming that it knows something about you know make up your mind.
Which one is it? The whole idea actually is a is a reading in of something is not only not necessary But it misses the whole point, but which ones which ones are gonna be.
They were naturally disposed to it. Just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God.
Just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God. No, Paul's point is that all of the created order testimonies the testament testifies the existence of God and That all men and all women Until they bow the knee to Jesus Christ are involved in the suppression of that knowledge of God.
Not that it's quote-unquote natural It is a part of the witness of all of the created order. But by skipping verses 24 and 25 he's now able to provide a completely different context and therefore not even follow the thought of the text and Explain why.
Why is there a diya tuta? Verse 26 diya tuta Pareto can now now he had already used Paradidomi in verse 24 therefore God gave them over in in verse 24. It was already there. But then he repeats it. But he uses diya tuta in verse 26 for this reason.
God gave them over To dishonorable passions. So are we being told here that the reason that these are dishonorable passions is simply because these are.
Heterosexuals.
Pretending to be homosexuals. You really think. That's Paul's point. You really think in in establishing this this grand theme of idolatry and the perversion of the created order. That Paul's point is to refer to that the Paul actually knows that there are people who are by nature Homosexual and he's excluding them.
No, no, they're fine. They can go do what they want to do that. That's fine but if you're actually a heterosexual But you engage in homosexual behavior. I'm gonna use you as the example, but they rejected their original.
Natural inclinations for those that were unnatural for them. Same-sex behavior. Paul's argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange. The reason he says that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him exchanged him for idols.
Paul's reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force in Order for it to make sense within this argument the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and.
Then abandon them. No that does not follow in any way shape or form because of the verses that Matthew either in Self-deception or deception led by others skipped over. Therefore God gave them over. God gave them up.
Those who suppress the knowledge of God and that's everybody God gives them over now in grace.
God.
Thankfully does not do this to everyone in the sense of giving them over to the same kinds of sinful behaviors but but notice that this whole text is going to continue on and It's going to after talking about homosexuality is going to continue to say and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God God gave them to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done and they were filled with all manner of and then you have one of them a couple found in Paul's writings of the vice lists the sin lists all manner of unrighteousness, so all manner of unrighteousness.
Evil covetousness malice full of envy murder strife deceit maliciousness. They are gossips slanderers haters of God which might be translated actually hated by God. Insolent haughty boastful inventors of evil disobedient to parents that disobedient the parents is in the middle of this.
It's identifying the source of all human sinfulness in The refusal to have the right relationship with God himself. It starts with God. Human sin cannot be defined separately from the fact that we are creatures and That therefore there is a law that we must Be held accountable to in regards to our creator and so To try to say well this this means that they were heterosexuals or the Analogy doesn't doesn't hold Misses the fact that this is something God gave them over to and That results in the perversion of the natural order.
The natural order is that men and women together engage in sexual behavior producing life but a man to have sex with a man does not produce life. A Woman with a woman does not produce life. There is no complementary element and by nature the bodily functions do not fit and so to go against nature is to see as Man sees in the universe around him.
I see the evidence of God, but I am going to go against that. We see the natural relationship of man and woman. I'm gonna go against that and I'm going to lust after men and notice something the text specifically says in verse 27.
It doesn't say this about the women, but the I think the Homo Eos would would allow this. Homo Eos means in the same way. Likewise the men gave up natural relations with women and Were consumed with passion for one another.
How much more obvious does it have to get. The description is of a man who lusts after men. Is that not homosexuality? Is that that the very description and definition of it?
Seems to be.
We might put another way it might ask Matthew another way. How could could would it be possible for the Apostle to have actually described Homosexual behavior as that desired by Matthew vines in this text and if so how.
What words could be used? That that's what I'd like to that's what I'd like to know. Because I'm starting to wonder that no matter Is there is there any way scripture could describe homosexuality that a homosexual could not find a way around.
It could not find a.
Some mechanism to say that it really doesn't refer to me and that is exactly how he describes it. But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural permanent orientation for those of the same sex.
It's not something that they choose and it's not something that they can change.
What has been my statement from the beginning. That is his assertion. That is his position and he will do whatever he needs to do with the biblical text to maintain that. He's not deriving this from the text.
He's derived this from this is his conclusion. His conclusion is this is how I have been made and It's good. And that's it. That's how it's supposed to be. That's the end of the discussion.
They aren't abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality. That's never an option for them to begin with.
No.
Once again, it is an option. It has become an option for many who were consumed by homosexual lust. But they are able. By the grace of God because they are human beings who can be influenced by the Spirit of God and changed by the Spirit of God.
To not only resist those things but to change those things as well.
And if applied to gay people Paul's argument here should actually work in the other direction. If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature Be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual Then just as those who are naturally heterosexual Should not be with those of the same sex.
So to those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex.
Well, there you go folks if you can take a text like this and actually turn it into its opposite.
Then.
You have Demonstrated that you are doing the exact thing that Paul described. You are twisting The creator creation relationship and you are twisting the very words of Scripture themselves. It's it's right there in front of you and it is amazing.
For them that would be exchanging the natural for the unnatural in just the same way. We have different natures. There is.
Absolutely, no evidence. I mean if he's actually saying this then what he's saying here is that Paul did understand most of these writers. Will say oh this was this was beyond Paul's understanding but now it sounds like he's saying Paul did understand the concept of sexual orientation and that he would have had a Positive view of it as a Jewish man, and I would challenge him or anyone else to prove that From history show me anybody in The Jewish milieu of Tanniatic Judaism Second Temple Judaism.
That was promoting What this man is promoting and that's the big thing today, isn't it? The big thing today you want to be in the cutting edge. Let's talk about Second Temple Judaism and let's talk about Paul as a as a Jew from the Second Temple period and and okay, let's do that.
Show me a context that would substantiate this. I've never seen anyone even try. There's anyone even try. Because it just doesn't exist.
Just it just wasn't there when it comes to sexual orientation. But is this just a clever argument, yes, it has no grounding in the historical context of Paul's world. Yes, and therefore yields an interpretation that could not be what he originally intended.
Yes. After all the concept of sexual orientation is very recent. Uh-huh. It was only developed in the past century.
Except he just used it and asserted that Paul would have understood it.
Didn't he. And it's only come to be widely understood within the past few decades. So, how can we take our modern categories and understandings? And use them to interpret a text that is so far removed from them.
But that level of removal is precisely the point in. The ancient world homosexuality was widely considered not to be a different sexual orientation or something inherent in a small minority of people.
But to be an excess of lust or passion.
Some people did have that view. Not Jewish people. Uh not in the context from which Paul would be speaking. But but but watch the mixture of stuff here. When it's when it when it's convenient to try to interpret Paul as a Second temple Jew they'll do that.
When it's then convenient to completely ignore that and Say well, we need to look at how the Greeks viewed it or how Philo viewed it or how the Romans viewed it or whatever. Then they'll do that.
The.
Don't even bother trying to find consistency in pro-homosexual readings of scripture because the only thing you're going to find find consistent in that is inconsistency that.
Anyone could be prone to if they let themselves go too much just a couple of quotes. To illustrate this a well-known first century Greek philosopher named Diocritus them wrote the following. The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things referring to heterosexual relations will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love as a thing too readily given and Will turn his assault against the male quarters believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure.
A fourth century Christian writer said of same-sex behavior. You will see that all such desire stems from a greed which will not remain within its usual bounds. The abandonment of heterosexual relations.
I'd be really interested in knowing why he didn't identify that particular person so we could look at the context for same-sex lust.
Was frequently compared to gluttony and eating or drinking? Sexuality was seen as a spectrum with opposite sex relations being the product of a moderate level of desire and Same-sex relations the product of an excessive amount of desire.
Now that is incredibly simplistic.
Incredibly simplistic and none of this has anything to do with the Jewish perspective which again would be what he would have to establish To come up with any meaningful Foundation for interpreting the Apostle Paul within this context.
Personal orientation had nothing to do with it. But within this framework as I said same-sex relations were associated with the height of excess and lust and That is why Paul invokes them in Romans 1.
His purpose is to show that the idolaters were given over to unbridled passion.
That would not be a part of his argument at all. It wasn't a matter of excess. He wasn't he wasn't saying well There are some idolaters that are less idolatrous than other idolaters and being a really big idolaters a really big bad idea.
Wasn't his point? His point was the exchange. It was the twisting of the creator-creation relationship and the result that God gives them over to dishonor themselves. You see it's it's it is something that is honorable for the creature to recognize and honor the Creator.
If You choose to suppress the knowledge of the Creator Thereby seeking to dishonor him The Creator will actually bring about your own dishonor and that this dishonoring takes place in the mind their foolish hearts are darkened and also in the body in that they engage in behaviors that bring about the destruction of their own flesh and.
That has been going on for a long long time and it should end to depict a scene of sexual chaos and excess that illustrates that and That is completely consistent with how same-sex relations were most commonly described at the time.
But the only reason that he referenced the same-sex behavior helps Paul illustrate general sexual chaos Is because the people he is describing first began with opposite sex relations and then in a burst of lust Abandoned them exchanged them for something else.
None of which do you find anywhere in Romans 1. We have not found any foundation to accept what Matthew has said to this point. This is a gross twisting of the scripture rather than an exegesis of the scripture and.
Surely, it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful casual behavior. There's nothing about the people in question falling in love Making a lifelong commitment to one another.
Which again falling in love and making a lifelong commitment to one another. Yeah, there's nothing about love here because From Paul's perspective there can't be in this context. Because love involves that complementary aspect which can't be there.
And what's this momentary thing? Where's this lifelong thing? Yeah, there was no one promoting the concept of Homosexual marriage or anything of the kind in this day in Paul's context. And so he doesn't say anything about it because it wouldn't even cross his mind.
That's true because it's even it's it's to take a Perversion and pervert it even more. It's one thing You know, you know I can understand the homosexuals. That I mentioned last time in the study from Macquarie State University.
Who 50 plus 50 plus year old male homosexuals? Where 50 if I recall correct, I'm going off top my head here if I recall is 80 had had 11 or more Sexual partners in their life 50 had 100 or more and 25 had 500 and more in their life.
That I can understand from a a human perspective. The vast majority of homosexuals do not want what Matthew is describing here. And In nations where homosexual marriage has been made legal 90 plus percent of homosexuals do not get married.
They're not interested. And those who do have divorce rates significantly higher Than the heterosexual population might want to mention that in passing.
But.
The point is.
That.
To address This as he is addressing it is to take a tiny minority and the president United States is the exact same thing a large portion of. It's of the the apologists for the homosexual perspective.
We'll do the same thing. They'll talk about committed monogamous relationships. Why? Because they know That if they were to represent homosexuality as it actually exists and as people know it exists No one would ever accept it.
They would never even begin to give consideration to it within the context of a moral discussion. But you're talking about maybe maybe The 1 in that ironic. You're talking about the 99 versus the 1 here so you're you're judging a movement of the 99 on an argument for the 1
Think about that. And so to say what will Paul doesn't mention is nobody was promoting this in that age. It was not it was not an issue. You you you cannot even begin to establish that there was anybody in his context.
They would even begin to make this argument so the honest way of dealing with Paul is to say well Paul you're just ignorant and Just abandon the scriptures. That's the only honest way to try to make this kind of argumentation.
Don't twist them. You don't like what they have to say, okay. We understand that we understand why because you're in rebellion against them. It's all there is to it starting a family together.
We would never dream of reading a passage in Scripture about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and then from that condemning all of the marriage relationships of straight Christians.
Especially because we have all these wonderful positive direct Teaching passages that talk about marriage as a symbol of Christ and the church and the in the intention of God. Where is that for? Homosexuality.
Where is that?
We noted the the glaring absence in Matthew's presentation of any discussion of Matthew chapter 19 and Jesus's own teaching. Why is there a glaring absence of that. Because it just can't be twisted far enough.
Well, I guess anything to be twisted, but you just you can't do it the straight face.
There is an enormous difference between lust and love when it comes to our sexuality between casual and committed relationships between promiscuity and monogamy. That difference has always been held to be central to Christian teaching on sexual ethics for straight Christians.
Why should that difference not be held to be as central for gay Christians? How can we take a passage about same-sex lust and promiscuity and then condemn any loving relationships? That gay people might come to form.
Notice again, we don't have to define loving relationships from the Bible. We define quote-unquote loving relationships based upon some external thing and then Read that back into the Bible somehow and say well we know these exist because well we are here and we experience these things and Therefore the Bible can't be condemning these things.
It is it is a completely Anachronistic backwards twisting of the scriptures you take a passage specifically talking about the homosexual activity of males and Turn it into a positive statement defending what can at best be a 1 activity a 1 maybe at best of Homosexuals would ever experience a quote-unquote monogamous relationship.
It just doesn't happen it's it's so rare and I really wonder if these guys are Really out there making these arguments. Why don't we see them protesting at the gay pride parades? You'd say why would they be doing that because if you've ever been to one I haven't.
But I have seen the videos and what's going on the side streets is the exact. It's it's exactly what we just read in Romans 1. Okay, it's it's disgusting in public. Why aren't these guys out? There protesting that saying you you people are giving us all a bad name.
You're giving us the majority of is a bad name because they know they're not the majority. They know they are the tiny minority. They know that and so it sounds like what he just said it sounded me like a denunciation of at least 90 of the quote-unquote gay community.
I Would think that the gay community would be a little upset about that.
That is a very different standard than the one that we apply to straight people. And again the primary argument that is advanced in support of this kind of a different standard is that Paul doesn't merely condemn same-sex lust.
He also calls same-sex desires shameful and labels same-sex unions unnatural. I've already explained why Paul's use of the term unnatural Requires the idolaters willful spurning of their natural heterosexual desires.
Actually the willful spurning of God's creative action of Them as male and female which is exactly what Matthew Vines is doing.
It's right there. And that's how this term functions within the passage as a whole mirroring the idolaters exchange of God for idols. But before we leave this passage We also need to consider how Paul himself uses these terms in his other letters.
Now this is something you tune into if you sort of if your mind has wandered and you're going out, okay. Okay, you tune in here because it is very very common. This is another conversation stopper you need to be aware of the fact and this is why I mentioned this before but.
What.
Homosexual apologists will do is they will run over to two passages like first Corinthians 11 14 and They will take the term nature and they'll say see over here it has a Limited meaning or a cultural meaning or it can mean something else and Therefore we really can't know what Paul means in Romans chapter 1 so a real common argument is because Paul says does not even nature tell you That it it is wrong for a man to have long hair see nature means cultural norm therefore cultural norm in Romans 1 and That's how you get around it.
All right. So that's why I emphasize what I emphasized earlier. I Emphasized earlier that it talked about not just nature. It doesn't just say it's just say para fusas Which is against nature, but it used a specific term.
It used fusa cane Clayson the natural use of the woman natural use of the man. So you can't just take a phrase That has a specific meaning in one context and because one of the words is used differently someplace else overthrow what it means and that's exactly what you have here and again, if you just want to see what happens when you get these apologists into a debate rather than a Talk show where the hosts are all on the liberal side anyways, but into a debate where they actually have to answer questions just listen to.
Debate that I had with Barry Lynn on this very subject and listen to the cross-examination. That must have seemed like the longest cross-examination he had ever experienced in his life, and he's an attorney.
He was so Angry after that and it wasn't because I was playing games. I just held his feet to the fire and held him to the text. It happens very rarely. And how?
The terms natural and unnatural were commonly applied to sexual behavior in his day. One of Paul's most significant references to nature outside of Romans 1 comes in 1st Corinthians chapter 11. There in verses 13 through 15 he writes.
Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a man for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? It's not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him. But that if a woman has long hair it is her glory.
This is actually the most similar passage in the New Testament to Romans 1 26 through 27. No not even close not.
Even close. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever Parallel To the use that is found in Romans 1 26 of Tain Fusakane Creason. It's not there. It's not there. It is untrue to make the statement that is made.
Now, I don't know if he knows it's untrue or if he's just following the deceivers who have deceived him. Whatever it is, but that is not a true statement because not only does Paul refer to nature here.
He also speaks of the concept of disgrace. Which is the same term that is translated as shameful in Romans 1? But the way that we interpret these terms in 1st Corinthians 11 is very different than how the traditional interpretation wants to read them.
In Romans 1 one of the most common meanings of the Greek word for nature is custom. And. That is how Christians widely interpret this passage in 1st Corinthians today. And. The reference to what is a disgrace or shame is taken as specifically being shameful given particular customs.
So how we read Paul here in 1st Corinthians is basically this. Do not the customs of our society dictate that it's considered shameful for a man to have long hair, but honorable for a woman. This reading aligns with ancient Mediterranean attitudes about gender and hair length.
And it makes much more sense than the idea that natural biological processes would lead men to have short hair. By nature it would grow long. But again this passage about hair length in 1st Corinthians is the most similar one to in Paul's writings.
To the passage about sexual behavior in Romans 1 it is not. So if we understand Paul's references to nature and a disgrace in 1st Corinthians as being about custom. Why do we not do the same in Romans 1?
Because that would require you to abandon sound exegesis and all principles of meaningful interpretation Because the term nature is used in a phrase that is defined by the context. I mean, this is this is really one of the most pitiful Arguments that is put forward and Anyone needs to be prepared to take this apart Because it is just so badly formed and is just so obviously an error that it can only work with people Who do not have the text in front of them and do not do serious reading of it on a regular basis.
And in fact unlike the traditional interpretation. That approach would be consistent with how the terms natural and unnatural were actually used in regard to sexual behavior by the ancient Greeks and Romans.
Notice ancient Greeks and Romans. Remember, how about by the Jews? We didn't hear anything about that. Did we? Now we Decided to go to a different background for Paul than that which from which he actually spoke in.
Those patriarchal societies in which women were viewed as inferior to men. The main distinction that they made when discussing sexual behavior was not orientation but rather active versus passive roles.
The Greeks and Romans along with other societies of biblical times Believed that a man's natural customary role was to be active in sexual relations. Whereas a woman's was to be passive. When either of those roles were inverted.
When a man was passive or a woman was active. They labeled that behavior shameful and unnatural in a sense of violating customary gender roles.
So we now go to Greek and Roman some Greek and Roman sources and read them back into Paul. Having ignored the use of phrases and things like that as if somehow we're actually Exegeting the text of Scripture and and I think even most of the folks in the audience could tell by now We're not exegeting the text scripture anymore, we're finding a way around it.
That is why they commonly called same-sex unions unnatural. But just like Greek and Roman attitudes about appropriate hair length their views about gender roles are specific to those patriarchal cultures.
In both of these cases Paul is merely using terms that have already gained a wide currency to describe things in the societies that he's addressing. And He uses the term nature in Romans 1 just as he does in 1st Corinthians 11.
So if we're going to be consistent as well as historically accurate in our biblical interpretation. Oh my then we need to acknowledge for Romans 1 what we already do for 1st Corinthians 11. The term nature here refers to social custom.
Not to the biological order.
Okay.
Now.
What you what you need to understand is this is another common pro-homosexual means of introducing confusion. That's not what he said earlier. What he said earlier was these are heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior behavior.
Now we have the idea of custom That this is against cultural custom. Well, which one is it? Many times I have found that Homosexual apologists will throw out Contradictory arguments without even sensing the contradiction.
The only thing that binds the arguments together is that it gives me excuse for my lusts and my activities but as it doesn't matter if my arguments actually contradict the other arguments I've already put forward as Long as it produces some sense of confusion in The the minds of people then there you go that's that's just how it is and That is exactly what we're hearing right now.
And it is a culturally specific term. Our two remaining passages are less involved than the others So I'll spend somewhat less time on them. They are 1st Corinthians 6 9 and 1st Timothy 1 10 and the debate here centers around the translation of two Greek terms.
In 1st Corinthians 6 9 through 10 Paul warns against those who will not inherit the kingdom of God and Then he lists ten different types of people who will not inherit the kingdom. Because the dispute here is about translation I'll start with the King James version of this passage which was published more than 400 years ago and so predates this modern controversy.
It reads. Know ye not that the unrighteous Shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers Nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
Nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor violers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.
You know, I wonder if he's gonna be consistent here and and also argue about the drunkards I Mean, aren't there people who are disposed? to a weakness to alcohol. I Wonder if he's gonna be consistent here.
I never never mind.
Our key words for the discussion here are the words translated as effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These somewhat ambiguous translations in the King James are consistent with how these words were actually translated into English for hundreds of years some kind of immorality or abuse.
But specifically what kind was never stated? This changed halfway through the last century when some Bible translators began connecting these terms directly to homosexuality. The first occurrence of this shift came in 1946 When a translation of the Bible was published that simply stated that quote homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.
By the way, if his argument here is that no one before 1946 has had understood arson a coy tie at first Corinthians 6 9 as Referring to homosexuals that is just absurd. This text has been understood to refer to homosexuality For a very very very long time not sent just since 1946, but there are many people who again 1946 sounds so long ago that it might as well be ancient church history and so I'm afraid we have to pick up with the discussion of arson a coy tie arson a coy taste and The meaning of the term which we've already addressed.
The next time and maybe since we're 50 minutes in there's only 15 minutes left I think we might actually make it through on the next one. But we'll probably take another hour. That's gonna be five hours of response.
Well, we're gonna do it next time, but we're gonna be back after this break. Keep listening. Last time we were together we were continuing our response to Matthew Vines and we need to try to conclude that someday and but I did not actually really feel like we've Completed and finished some of the comments that we needed to make on the subject of Romans chapter 1 now, you may want to go to sermon audio and Listen to the two-part Bible study series that I'm doing on Romans chapter 1 relevant to this for some of those comments.
But before we continue on with mr. Vines attempt to get around the meanings of Especially the term arson a coy taste at 1st Corinthians 6 9 I wanted to address Part of the issue that is raised by his comments on Romans chapter 1 if you recall the primary essence of his argumentation Was a Romans chapter 1 is about individuals who are not by nature Homosexuals acting in a homosexual way.
Now this went against the actual text itself which talks about adult males burning with desire for one another. That's a clear desire description of male homosexual behavior and orientation. But he then went on to try to say that nature is only just a customary thing.
So he used two different contradictory Definitions. First he said that they're those people who are by nature homosexuals and that Romans was only talking about people who by nature are not.
He then turned around and Attached a completely different meaning of the term nature contradicting himself. Now there are numerous other ways that Pro-homosexual activists today are. You are are attempting to get around the clarity of Romans chapter 1?
I want to read a section. This is from an online. This is from the enrichment journal dot AG org. Robert Gagnon Has written a great deal on this particular subject. I've been listening to a number of his lectures as well and Unlike Matthew Vines who clearly has Basically read Boswell, but not read any of the responses to Boswell.
I have not simply read Gagnon, and I'm just simply going with what Gagnon says. When I give you these citations Especially from other authors thanks to the kindness of God's people and certain people out there who keep an eye on the ministry resource list.
These books that I'm gonna be quoting from are sitting on the desk next to me. And they're marked and I've checked the context and You know done due diligence at that point. Some of these books are not exactly the type of books you necessarily want to have in your Library, but my library has a lot of odd stuff in it as it is.
And my section on homosexuality has grown a good bit over the past two weeks or so with the Discussions that we've been having. So I just want to read this because it completely and thoroughly Refutes the assertion that mr. Vines has made that look no one back then knew anything about Committed homosexual relationships, and we didn't know anything about orientation those people like they're just didn't know and As Robert Gagnon has said many many times if you hear anyone saying that the person you're listening to clearly has no idea What they're talking about none at all.
I'm gonna read the fifth point of a particular article Online from Robert Gagnon. Fifth contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions. There is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships including semi-official marriages between men and between women.
Moreover we know some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural. In Plato's Symposium circa 380 BC the comic Aristophanes is said to remark about male-male relationships.
They ie the two men continue with one another throughout life Desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity and to become one person from two. His remarks play off of the positive view of same-sex eroticism expressed by Phaedrus and Pausanias at the banquet.
Neither Phaedrus the beloved of Eric Smith Eric Simic us also the banquet nor Pausanias who was a lover of the tragic poet and host Agathon a relationship that began when Agathon now 31 was 18 years old advocate for same-sex hedonism on the contrary.
They stress an attraction for the soul or mind more than the body and the relationships inducement to moral excellence. Pausanias in particular emphasizes that quote love is neither right nor wrong in itself and quote.
But only right when it is quote done rightly and quote and quote for the right reasons and quote. That lovers who love rightly quote are prepared to love in the expectation that they will be with them all their life and will share Their lives in common as if having been fused into a single entity with and quote the soul of the beloved.
It is thus evident that Aristophanes reflects Pausanias his view of himself when the former states that men who love males quote are not inclined by nature. Foo side the same term we find in Romans chapter 1 by the way Toward marriage and the procreation of children yet are compelled to do so by the law or custom namas.
With the result of the two joined males quote live their lives out with with one another unmarried and quote in.
Plutarch's.
Dialogue on love late 1st 2nd century AD. Protagonist argues that man-male love is superior not because it is more hedonistic. But because instead of having as a net result the reaping of the fruits of pleasure it comes through friendship to the end and goal.
Of virtue.
Daphneus defending the superiority of male-female love concedes that homosexual relationships are not necessarily exploitative. For sexual intercourse that is contrary to nature with males does not do away with nor damage a lover's kindness or amorous goodwill.
Yet he declares that even the intercourse that comes about from joining males is done willingly it remains shameful. Since males are with softness. That's malachia. And that's a term that we're going to encounter in first Corinthians 6 again.
And a feminacy. Surrendering themselves according to Plato to be mounted in the custom of forfeited animals and to be sowed as if to produce children contrary to nature. Nature in Rome the epigram attest Marshall and the satirist juvenile early 2nd century AD Referred jeeringly to effeminate men who willingly commit themselves as brides to other men.
For example Gracchus a man renowned for his family background and his wealth became the bride to a common cornet player and signed semi-official documents. Lucian of Sama Soda tells of two rich women who regard themselves as married the masculine magia of lesbos from which lesbianism comes from and.
Her wife.
Demanassa the Corinthian Remember Corinth had lots of problems and there you have an example of it. The astrologer Ptolemy of Alexandria writes of manly women born under a certain Constellation who are lustful for sexual relations contrary to nature and take the active sexual role with women whom they sometimes call their lawful wives.
Clement of Alexandria mentions in disgust women contrary to nature marrying women. Obviously marriage implies commitment yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship.
Some Greek and Roman moralists condemned all homosexual acts on the ground of a nature argument. Literature the first century CE bears witness to an increasing polarization of attitudes toward homosexual activity ranging from Frank acknowledgment and public display of sexual indulgence on the part of leading Roman citizens to severe moral condemnation of all homosexual acts.
If even some sectors the pagan world were beginning to develop absolute opposition. While forms of homosexual practice was a likelihood that Paul would have made exceptions for committed homosexual unions Paul operate out of Jewish scriptures and a Jewish milieu that were unequivocally opposed to homosexual practice.
Even of a committed sort for example first century Jewish historian Josephus Standard the obvious to his Roman readers the law of Moses recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature that which is with a woman.
But it abhors the intercourse of males with males. Several rabbinic texts forbid marriage of a man to a man. One referring to Egyptian practices even forbids marriage of a woman to a woman. Sifra on Leviticus 18 3.
It is hardly surprising then that even Lewis Crompton a homosexual scholar Acknowledges this point in his massive work homosexuality and civilization. However, well intentioned the interpretation that Paul's words were not directed at bona fide homosexuals and committed relationships Seems strained and unhistorical.
I stopped for a moment just to point out. That's exactly that is.
Exactly.
What pro-homosexual? Apologists like Matthew Vines and like another man. We're gonna listen to briefly today. It's exactly what they're saying. But here is a homosexual scholar saying. This seems strained and unhistorical.
Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance the idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Other Jew or early Christian.
Do you hear that? I Think it's very important that you hear that There is no evidence None whatsoever in history that there was any positive promotion of Homosexual or lesbian behavior amongst the Jews the time of Christ or Paul.
So you would have to pull both the Lord Jesus and Paul Completely out of their milieu and completely out of their context. To say oh well, but they wouldn't have had any problem with this. Nobody in their context was promoting such things.
It is a complete abuse of history To even begin to make that kind of statement. I Go back to Gagnon two more two more short paragraphs. Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital Influences on at least some homosexual development.
You catch that you will hear every Pro-gay apologist saying they didn't know about what we know about today. That is false. Now don't expect anybody on CNN or MSNBC or even Fox News that matter to challenge that it's just taken as a given anymore but it's not true as classicist Thomas K Hubbard notes quote.
Homosexuality in this era that is the early Imperial Age of Rome may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity exclusive of an antithetical to heterosexual orientation and quote and.
Finally Bernadette Bruton a lesbian New Testament scholar. If that doesn't tell you immediately that when you hear someone talking about New Testament scholar you need to ask a little bit further as to the Commitments of said person.
Bernadette Bruton a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book about lesbianism in antiquity Also acknowledges his point. She states that quote Paul could have believed. Paul could not have believed in fact what I'm gonna do.
Never mind, I think there's a typo in this so I'm going to open the book which is in my hand. And I'm going to get my reading glasses out because it is a small print book. This is page 244 chapter 9. I'm just gonna read you the entire quote here, which is longer than what Gagnon produced further even if Paul condemned only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.
Many lesbians in the church who feel that they have chosen to love women as well as all by bisexuals would fall under that condemnation or thereby not helped by this interpretation in Some the category of the innate homosexual who is thereby free of shame and whose sexuality counts as natural does Not fit the Roman world and does not address the self-understanding of many contemporary lesbian bisexual and gay Christians.
I believe that Paul used the word exchange to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and Left it behind. Paul uses the plural throughout Romans 1 18 through 32. Showing the communal aspect of the behavior as a people they suppress the truth about God and as a people they change their form of sexual behaviors.
In other words, I see Paul as condemning all forms of Homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God. Bernadette Bruton page 244 of her book love between women early Christian responses to female homoeroticism.
So what is her conclusion? What does she say should be the result of all this. We need to reject Paul there you go at least she's honest. We need to reject Paul he was his his viewpoints are culturally mandated and culturally culturally oriented and created by cultural Categories and so we just need to reject him.
So there you go that's. That's that's where it comes up. So I want to add that information. Because it I think it's important that you recognize that there is Factual historical evidence behind what we're saying and when they make these claims nobody knew anything about them.
That's a lot. It's a lot. It is it is untrue. And if Matthew Vines has been spending two years Studying this issue. Um, why hasn't he found this information two years? Now one other thing. I Was listening to a debate.
And.
I believe I'm 99 certain this was the debate between Harry Knox director of religion and faith program at the human rights campaign. Human rights campaign is a pro-homosexual organization it just angers me to no end they use human rights as a pro-homosexual thing, but my good brother Michael Brown debated Harry Knox in 2008 and I I had actually I had actually grabbed a bunch of Of Michael's material on Isaiah 53 to listen to In the middle of it.
I just accidentally grabbed this too. So I ended up listening to it on a on a ride yesterday and I'd heard it before but listen to it again, and I was struck by listening to Harry Knox's opening statement, and I want to just play a portion of this then we're gonna get back to Matthew Vines some of you're going you aren't never gonna finish this.
But I think you'll see why this is relevant and how it's relevant and how this is illustrative of The fact that you might think that you have come up with answers to the pro-homosexual apologists if you're listening to just Matthew Vines and Then you go listen to Harry Knox and all sudden he's got a completely different view that contradicts is contradicts Matthew Vines.
But you're not gonna ever to find them debating their positions because they don't mind they Don't care that they're contradicting each other as long as all of their arguments are against Christian Orthodoxy.
As long as all their arguments are contrary to contradictory to Christian Orthodoxy. Then they don't care if they are contradicting each other. It's the gather all of the arguments you can together even if they're self-contradictory and throw it like you're throwing everything in the kitchen sink and Just hope that if you can then connect that with enough emotion That you'll convince your audience and guess what folks it's working.
It is working just just look around and You will see that it is working now. Let's let's listen to Harry Knox's comments on Romans 1 all right, and what we're gonna. We're gonna listen to his comments, and then I'm going to stop it and Then I'm going to play the first section of his rebuttal what happened in between was that Michael Brown got up and Obliterated these comments he did so kindly.
Michael Brown is a much nicer man than I am. He did so generously. But he obliterated his comments with facts with language with linguistics with lexical sources Totally destroyed it and then listen listen to what happens.
Robert Gagnon has said that this happens in all of his debates. It's happened in my debates it happens in Michael Brown's debates. When you finally expose the biblical bankruptcy of the argumentation.
Then you always get the same argument back. So let's listen to what Harry Knox said in this debate on the subject of Romans chapter 1. In every conversation that I ever have about this I went to the wrong one.
That's the beginning of the second one. I thought it was queued up. Let's go to the right one here and go temples priests copulated with adolescents.
You know they were homeless kids with nowhere else to go. In hopes of ensuring good harvests and growth in populations threatened by disease and war the lives the feelings and well-being of individual children were sacrificed for what was perceived to be the common good and In the process it became a commonplace of the priestly life to take part in orgies that if they were not good for the children.
Were pleasurable for the adults. To leave that part of the story out of your study of Romans 1 is intellectually lazy for you and spiritually life-threatening to your lesbian and gay neighbors.
Explanation of Paul's writings in that context though scary and provocative offers you the chance to speak words of real hope and reconciliation to a nation obsessed with sex and talking about sex in every venue except church.
And please don't forget to go on to study Romans 2 Where Paul begins to admonish us not to judge our neighbors? How badly America needs to hear the message of hope through Christ expressed in 1st Corinthians 6.
So there he goes on from there.
So what is the argument. The argument that he just made was this is all about pederasty? It's all a pederasty now. That is not what Matthew Vines said. Matthew Vines interpretation is completely different than Harry Knox's interpretation.
It's all about adults. Using children even though Romans 1 actually says men. Lusting after other men with one another. The mutuality. It's right there. There's nothing in the text support of this, but that's what he says and Michael Brown gets up points that out.
Demonstrates that. And so what does Harry Knox do when he gets up? For his rebuttal.
Well here we go.
Whether the person with whom I'm talking values the. I don't know why this is starting just.
Slightly after what I'm telling it to so I'm going to back it up again here.
But we cannot and dare not to our own detriment change what God's Word said. Thank you.
Thank you Mike. Very good Harry. In every conversation that I ever have about this hard topic It becomes pretty quickly clear Whether the person with whom I'm talking values the experience of the Holy Spirit in my life and Whether they're going to be presumptuous enough to deny that the experience that I have had exists and not just me my lesbian and gay Christian and Sisters and brothers of many other faiths to So fully embodied the beauty of those faiths all over this world that we stand in stark contrast to any rhetorical argument on this.
The love of Christ I pray is simply available to you through my life and apparent to you through my life. I work very hard to make it be so every day and I know that that is something that the church over time has valued as highly as it has the Bible.
What it has sought not to do when it has been wisest is to make an idol of the Bible.
So what do you do? You you become completely subjective. You say this is you are questioning the Holy Spirit in me the Holy Spirits in me. You're making an idol of the Bible. No rebuttal. Now now in the first part.
He had actually said well the Bible means this. Then it's shown that he's wrong. That's not what the Bible means. And so what's the response?
Well.
How dare you turn the Bible into an idol and how dare you? Question that I have the Holy Ghost within me.
I'm just reminded as I listen to this exactly what happened to me when I debated burial in on this because remember The this man is a member of the same church as burial in the United Church of Christ.
And what burial in claim that he he receives the same kind of inspiration and revelation as balded the Holy Spirit in me says and Yeah, the Holy Spirit contradicts. We says in the Bible, but that's no big deal.
Absolutely Amazing. Absolutely amazing. So there you go you need to recognize all these different kinds of arguments are out there and We have responses they're factual. They're true. They're consistent.
They're defensible. They're documentable. But the time that we will have to be able to say those things in the public square is vanishing quickly unless God is merciful and There are certain people out there that aren't helping with that.
Dr. Al Mohler tweeted a reference to a video of a North Carolina fundamentalist pastor. Who in his quote-unquote sermon I hesitate to call it a sermon? Pastor Charles Worley of The Providence Road Baptist Church.
I'd wonder if someone in channel if it's gonna do this and I forgot this. I wonder if someone in channel can look at Providence Road Baptist Church in North Carolina and See if there's something about the King James version on the website someplace.
Because I just got the feeling listening the man that this just might well be. It's definitely a good old fundamentalist church and If you listen to Charles Worley he says we're again it and stuff like that.
What the man did is he in the middle of a sermon. Demonstrate exactly what attitude we cannot have we dare not have. That is utterly and completely opposed To the attitude any believing Christian should ever have on this subject, but the problem is the world thinks that's how we all are and We all suffer when people like this.
There are people who oppose homosexuality simply because they are bigots. There are homophobes. There are homophobes out. There's no question about it. There are people who have in irrational fear. They've never thought through Romans 1 they've never thought through 1st Corinthians 6.
They might quote Leviticus 18 or 20, but they've never they've never Invested 10 minutes and thinking about the Holiness Code. They've never even bothered to try to understand Jesus teaching of Matthew chapter 19 the positive aspect.
No, it's just well the Bible says is wrong. So it's wrong. It's just it's a it's a surface level. Mechanism for feeding Bigotry and hatred and it's real easy for them to do that because we see the bigotry and hatred on the other side.
So it's like well, it's.
There you go.
But he said in this Video which has gone viral and folks if you've got a camera on you and there's a microphone on your lapel Realize something you're speaking to the whole world. Think about it. Build a great big large fence 50 or 100 miles long and put all the lesbians in there whirly went on to say in his 13th May sermon at his maiden, North Carolina Church guess I could have given you the location there.
Sorry about that. Fly over and drop some food do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. And I'm not even doing a thick enough accent there.
Feed them and you know in a few years, they'll die out. You know why they can't reproduce. Well, thank you pastor whirly. Thank you very much.
For.
Assisting The world in recognizing that there are people who call themselves fundamentalists. Who will use the Bible as an excuse for not thinking things through and for being ignorant. Thank you very much, sir.
We needed that assistance and that help. What an amazing thing. What an amazing thing. So It's all on us folks. It's all on us. To not compromise. To speak the truth, but to speak it in love and to be ready to give an answer.
Not like that man did. But like we are trying to do here like Michael Brown's trying to do like how Moller's trying to do. Like so many others are attempting to do in that. In that way am I seeing that their website has disappeared or something like that because I saw something about it.
I don't know but we need to get back to Matthew vines or we're never ever ever going to finish this. So we've just gotten to the point where we're transitioning out of the Romans 1 material into the first Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 material.
Our two remaining passages are less involved than the others. So I'll spend somewhat less time on. Hello, our two remaining passages are less involved than the others. So I'll spend somewhat less time on.
Okay, I have no idea why it's doing that. Let's see if we can fast-forward past it.
But with the King James version of this passage Which was published more than 400 years ago and so predates this modern controversy it reads. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor violers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Our key words for discussion here are the words translated as effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These somewhat ambiguous translations in the King James are consistent with how these words were actually translated into English for hundreds of years.
Some kind of immorality or abuse but specifically what kind was never stated. This changed halfway through the last century when some Bible translators began connecting these terms directly to homosexuality.
The first occurrence of this shift came in 1946 when a translation of the Bible was published that simply stated that quote homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Several decades later after the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior came to be more widely understood.
This was changed to say that only practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. But these terms and concepts regarding sexual orientation are completely alien to the biblical world. Neither Greek the language of the New Testament nor Hebrew the language of the Old Testament.
Nor Latin the language of early Christian translations of the Bible had a word that means or corresponds to the English word for gay. The concept of sexual orientation and of same-sex orientation in particular didn't exist in the ancient world.
The English now now I just stopped long enough. Did you catch all the quotes that I gave you just a few minutes ago, which demonstrate that this is? Pure mythology. I mean, it's it's just it. It's just sad.
I mean, I've actually had people contact me who said they had relatives who attended this talk and who were convinced by it. Well, if you can be convinced by this kind of thing and you don't check it out, then you can be convinced by anything.
You're obviously convinced by the sincerity of the person or at least the perceived sincerity and things like that. You're not convinced by facts, you know, you don't check things out for yourself because this is just absurd.
But anyway English term homosexual was not even coined until the end of the 19th century and so translations of these words That suggests that Paul was using these distinctly modern concepts and categories are highly suspect.
But today there are many translations of the Bible. There's certainly not all of them That link these terms in some way to homosexuality Rendering them variously as males who practice homosexuality. Men who have sex with men or male prostitutes.
What is the basis for this shift in translation? The word translated as abusers of themselves of mankind in the King James is a compound word in The Greek it is our Senate coitus arson meaning male and coitus meaning bed generally with a sexual connotation and.
So the argument is that we can determine the meaning of this term from its etymology. Male plus bed in the plural form must then refer to men who sleep with other men.
We have already Given the foundation here. We've already given the background. We've talked about this before but obviously it's it's important to point it out again. Because when we went through these texts I pointed out the fact that for example in Leviticus 2013.
Now what what's the term arson a coitus? Let me read Leviticus 2013 in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Greek translation that the Apostle Paul Utilized and would have been utilizing in fact the early church to whom he was writing.
This is their version of the Bible. Kaihas on koi mei fei meta arson oz coitain gunaikos. Now you have koi mei fei and Then you have meta arson oz with a man. Coitin arson oz and coitin are right next to each other in the text.
And I point out when we went through this before That it seems that the earliest appearance of this term Either is from Paul himself and hence. It's probably a term. He has made up to describe This sin straight out of Leviticus which remember Matthew Vines did not attempt to explain to us.
That Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are not condemning homosexuality all he said was it doesn't matter anymore. Because we don't believe any of these laws are binding on Christians. But he didn't even bother to try to argue that that's not what he was talking about because it plainly is.
So if the Apostle writing to the church, which is using the Greek Septuagint Uses the very language of the Greek Septuagint in Describing this activity, how can you come up with anything other than? Homosexuality.
Men lying with men in bed men doing with men what you normally do with a woman in bed. That's exactly what both texts are saying and as Jeff Neal said This is what this is one of those, you know, we you know, it's funny as Certain people look for ways of inflating their number of debates that they've done who remain nameless.
One of the debates that I've done which is Has never been heard by anybody but those who were listening that day sort of like the debate I did with the Imam a few weeks ago that only people ever heard it were the people who were listening live.
But Jeff Neal I were on The radio station here in Phoenix kpxq and we debated two homosexuals and They didn't record it. Or they lost the tape or whatever. I forget what it was. Yeah, I didn't record it.
And so no one ever got to listen to it again. But one of the things I remember very clearly Jeff saying in that debate in talking about arsena coites Was arsena coites means what men do with other men in bed and that ain't eating crackers.
That was how Jeff Jeff put it. That was it. That was a wipeout debate. It was not even close. It was it was just a massive destruction of the homosexual side but no one's ever heard of that again because unfortunately that's what happened, but.
So.
This is the information. It's right there. It's right in front of of our eyes. The source from which Paul is driving this. If you allow for any intertextuality in the Bible. If you allow for the relationship of Old and New Testament in the Bible.
It's right there.
It's clear if you want to know what the Bible is actually saying you can know if you don't want to know. Well, you can always just twist it.
But there are several problems with this approach. First simply looking at a words component parts doesn't necessarily tell us what it means.
There are many unless of course they're found right next to each other in the very.
Scriptural source that Paul would be driving them from many English words where this approach would fail. For example the words understand butterfly honeymoon and.
Television which doesn't mean far-seeing none of which is relevant to arson a quite ace because. Why. Because it does not have an established lexical meaning prior to Paul's usage of it. Therefore you must look at the sources from which Paul derived his technical vocabulary and remember Kai Haas on koi may they met our Sanos quite ane.
Good night. Haas Leviticus 2013. In the Greek septuagint the component parts here, honey and moon.
Really don't tell us anything about that. What that word actually means.
In.
Order to understand what a word means you have to consider how it's used in context. No. Yes, that's true. The problem with the word abusers of themselves with mankind are sine qua tease. Is that it was used extremely rarely in ancient Greek?
Uh-huh. In fact Paul's use of it in first Corinthians Is considered to be its first recorded use anywhere. Now, it's interesting because there is.
Possibly.
One previous use. I read you already the footnote on that subject from the same-sex controversy from my study of the term using this these Thesaurus lingua grecae CD-rom many many many moons ago.
And after Paul the few places that it appears tend to be in lists of general vices Which are not the most helpful of contexts. Fortunately, however, many of these lists are grouped by category and. This Greek word consistently appears among sins that are of a primarily economic nature rather than those that are primarily sexual.
This and some other contextual data indicate that this term referred to some kind of economic exploitation.
Exploitation, okay, so so. You've got Paul. You've got him using the Septuagint. There is no question in scholarship of the absolutely intimate relationship that exists between the Apostle Paul and the text of the Greek Old Testament called the Septuagint.
None whatsoever. And. You have Malakoi and arson a quite I right next to each other and. And. Yet this somehow is some kind of an economic thing it really. Yeah, all those all those people are translating.
This is homosexual. They they they just got an agenda there. They're just missing it likely through sexual means.
This may have involved forms of same-sex behavior, but coercive and exploitative forms. There's no contextual support for linking this term to loving faithful relationships.
Again.
Eisegesis taking a concept that would not have existed for the Apostle Paul that is the idea of loving faithful homosexual relationships utterly rejected by all there is not a a Single Jewish source contemporary with Paul.
Hundred years any direction. Two hundred years any direction? That could begin to substantiate this. Read it in and turn the text on its head.
That's how you do it. The other debated word in this passage translated as effeminate in the King James is mollicose in the Greek. This was a very common word in ancient Greek, and it literally means soft.
It was used as an insult in a wide array of contexts to refer to those who are considered weak-willed cowardly or lazy and. All of those failings were particularly associated with women in ancient times hence the rendering effeminate.
In a specifically sexual context the word was used to describe general licentiousness and debauchery. This wasn't limited to any particular kind of relationship. Men who took the passive role in sexual relations were sometimes labeled this term.
Which is the basis on which some modern translators connect it to homosexuality. But so many people were labeled this term for so many different things. Most of them not even sexual in nature. Now notice.
I notice how he's doing this.
I mean this takes this takes some effort to take something so plain so clear so obvious so contextually compelling and to sow confusion. You have to cut the text into little parts. Don't allow Malakai To be right next to arson a koi tie.
Why?
Because if you allow the text to stand as it is the two terms Contextually influence your translation of both of them. And see it's not because we just have a bunch of mean nasty Fundamentals Bible translators that are just picking on us loving Monogamous homosexuals about which 99 of us aren't.
That's not why it is.
You see translators honest translators. Recognize these two words are right next to each other and therefore contextually they mean something together. Don't they? And we know what arson a koi tie means.
We see the connection of Leviticus 18 and 20 and. So Malakai what's talking about here are both? Aspects of the homosexual sexual encounter. There is the aggressive male and. There is the passive Feminine.
And it's interesting what he didn't read. Did you notice what he read. He read verses 9 and 10. He did not read verse 11. He didn't read verse 11. Such were some of you. But you were washed but you were sanctified.
But you were justified in the name the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. You see that text is the great offer of hope. To the person who has become trapped in the soul and body destroying lifestyle homosexuality and because it is.
Those who refuse to repent find it tremendously offensive. Because you see it closes the door on quote-unquote gay Christianity. It says such were. Some of you not such are. Some of you. It's specifically used to form that cannot possibly allow.
It's the imperfect of I mean a ta and so. Some of you in the past. Not and it doesn't use a an heiress uses the imperfect. So it was an ongoing action in the past. Some of you in the past. This is how you Acted that was your lifestyle, but it isn't any longer.
There has been a change there has been a break. You were washed. That means you have to be washed of this. It is a dishonoring thing it is sinful. It's a rejection of God's purposes. It defiles. But you were washed, but you were sanctified.
But you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Spirit of our God. But you see it says you were. Not you are. And the man we're listening to has to change the Bible. To justify.
His continued rebellion against God's will and most of the sexual ones about men in relationships with women. But there's no valid basis for picking out one possible reason out of dozens and saying that that must have been what Paul had in mind.
See.
Lexical agnosticism. We don't know what it means. I mean we know this context thing. We just can't put can't put too much emphasis on that context thing you know.
It would be more faithful to the text to return to the ambiguity that prevailed for more than 1 ,900 years of translation. The notion that Paul is singling out gay people here and saying that they will not inherit the kingdom of God Simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny well as we have seen.
Matthew Vines argumentation does not hold up under scrutiny in the final passage.
First Timothy 1 verse 10 the first word abusers of themselves of mankind. Reappears in a list of people. Paul says the law was written against here. The translation is them that defile themselves with mankind.
The translation issues and debates here are the same as those from 1st Corinthians.
Again, the strongest in for in other words. It's it's arson a quite ace again except here. It's arson a quite ice because it's in the.
In the plural inference that can be drawn From other uses of this term plural data. We mean is that referred to economic exploitation through sexual coercion. Possibly involving same-sex activity. But a very different kind than what we are discussing.
So those are our six passages, so they're not exactly a compelling argument there either, but. He's just going back to what he's already said. And we've already demonstrated is untrue of our about our arson a quite ace, and it's used here right after the term poor noise poor noise arson a quite ice.
But it doesn't have anything to do with that homosexuality thing what men do with men in bed. No, that's not that.
The six verses in the Bible that refer in some way to same-sex behavior and Indeed they're all negative. But that isn't a conclusive argument. The majority of references to sexual behavior in general and to heterosexual behavior in the Bible are negative.
It's not because sexuality is a bad thing Because most of the references to it in Scripture are to lust to excess to infidelity promiscuity rape or violence and Yes, the Bible also contains positive affirmations of opposite sex relationships in addition to hundreds of negative verses about forms of them and It does not contain explicit positive statements about same-sex relationships.
It certainly does not. But it also hardly ever discusses same-sex behavior of any kind. And the very few references to it are in completely different contexts than loving relationships.
There are no loving relationships. Because there can be none because you have not even seemingly given consideration to the concept of mutuality. The concept of the fact that loving relationship is biblically defined on the basis of God's creative decree of Man and woman male and female.
You can not biblically love a mirror. Sexual Narcissism is not the biblical concept of love in.
Genesis 19. There's a reference to threatened gang rape in 1st Corinthians 6 and 1st Timothy 1. There's a reference to what appears to be sexual exploitation in Romans 1. Paul refers to lustful same-sex behavior as part of an illustration of general sexual chaos and excess and Though he labels this behavior unnatural He's using this term in a sense of uncustomary gender roles.
Just see now we now now what happens is you've you've had this argumentation presented. That has never taken into account the inconsistency of it the arguments against it and now these are being presented as facts as if it's already been established which of course they have not and unfortunately many many people.
Simply do not follow arguments carefully enough. They have not been taught to think critically. And so what's going to happen here in the last Eight minutes approximately maybe a little less than that is.
You take These false assertions that you've made. You weave them together and Then this is how you make this effective in our culture today. Use now cement it with emotion and.
That's how you make it work. Just as he's referring to social custom when he labels long hair in men unnatural. The only place in Scripture where male same-sex relations are actually prohibited in Leviticus Comes in the context of an Old Testament law code that has never applied to Christians the Bible never directly addresses.
And it certainly does not condemn loving committed same-sex relationships. There's no biblical teaching about sexual orientation. Nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people? But the Bible does explicitly reject forced loneliness as God's will for human beings.
Not just in the Old Testament when God says that it is not good for the man to be alone but in the New Testament as well. In 1st Corinthians chapter 7 Paul writes about marriage and celibacy. He was celibate himself, and he says that he wishes that everyone else could be celibate as well.
But he says each person has their own gift. For Paul celibacy is a spiritual gift and one that he realizes that many Christians don't have. However, because many of them lack the gift of celibacy Paul observes that sexual immorality is rampant and So he prescribes marriage as a kind of remedy or protection against sexual sin for Christians who lack the gift of celibacy.
It is better to marry than to burn with passion. He says. And Today the vast majority of Christians do not sense either the gift of celibacy or the call to it. This is true for both straight and gay Christians.
And so if the remedy against sexual sin for straight Christians is marriage. Why should the remedy for gay Christians not be the same?
It is.
You can marry any woman you want. The problem of course is you want to redefine out of the biblical categories what marriage is and We now. I hope you can see this how clear this is because if you can.
Many in our society cannot but you may be one of the few people that can explain it to them that can try to get them to see it, but there does seem to be a veil of blindness Certainly upon those who have deceived themselves into thinking That marrying another man is actually a marriage or a woman marrying another woman is actually a marriage.
But certainly amongst many others as well. And I think we know exactly where that's coming from when we go back to Romans 1.
The arguments and debates that we have Both in the church and in civil society about gay marriage tend to get lost in abstractions. Is it right for a man to marry another man? Or for a woman to marry another woman.
Well, it doesn't seem right. But isn't how God designed us. He made men for women and women for men. That is his design His definition of marriage. Amen, and it's not for us to tamper with or change true.
But these arguments are always made by people who are themselves heterosexual. That you mean the way the guy always fit in. Who haven't endured years of.
Internal torment and agony now see that's here. Here comes here comes the transition now what you do is you create a victim mentality and You start talking about How you've been hurt and you see people naturally are Afraid to say anything negative towards someone who claims to victim status.
We see this in the in the law courts all the time. I'm the victim here and that's why we have laws. And that's why judges are supposed to judge on the basis of law and on the basis of emotion. It's now you start talking about the suffering that has been there as well.
Sin brings suffering and All of us experience suffering in our lives some of it from sin some because we live in a fallen world. You lose a loved one you experience suffering Because our Abiding sin there's relationships that are broken.
We experience suffering, but you don't start redefining Reality itself based upon your suffering. It is such a massively self-centered Narcissistic thing to demand that all of society adopt and adapt and change just for you.
Just because of your desires and your perspectives and.
Yet, that's exactly we have going on here because they have a different sexual orientation than their friends than their parents. And seemingly everyone else in the world but those people gay people are just as much children of God and Just as much a part of his creation as everyone else.
And there's something terribly unseemly About straight Christians insisting that gay Christians are somehow inferior to them.
Now again, we simply reject at its foundation the very concept of a gay Christian that has no more meaning than an incestuous Christian or a Christian who engages in sexual activity with animals. And there are actually a whole number of other realms of behavior That dr. Brown's brought up that I just I I can't mention on this program.
I just can't I mean there are things that Arouse sexual desire in people that just I mean, we know what necrophilia is. But there's even more beyond that that makes necrophilia look tame. Are we going to allow.
Because as As everyone will point out even the most perverse behaviors even the most perverse behaviors Have some kind of biological foundation to them. So are we going to if we're gonna go this direction?
Do we just simply allow? For any biological any behavior because it has a biological basis that's anarchy, that's the end of all ethics and morality and This closing statement that Matthew Vines makes Could be made by a person promoting intergenerational love.
Just change the words and the arguments are.
Absolutely identical.
Absolutely identical. How dare you straight Christians? Deny that God has made me this way and deny to me happiness and deny to me fulfillment. You are forcing me to be alone because you won't let me have sex with eight-year-olds.
How dare you do that and you think oh, no, no, no, it's happening folks. It's already happening. At the speed it's going. Who knows what's gonna be next or broken.
Or that gay people only exist because of the fall and the God really intended to make everyone straight like them. But you know, I am a part of creation, too including my sexual orientation. I'm a part of God's design see.
Put these words in the mouth of anyone a polygamist a person promoting incest a person promoting pedophilia bestiality. Let them stand up there and make the exact same Arguments. My sexual orientation comes from God.
I'm a I'm a child of God. I'm a part of his creation. How dare you do these things to me? And the sad thing is you'll have a bunch of people sitting at United Methodist Church going. Oh, I'd never thought about that.
Because they have abandoned any Meaningful biblical foundation.
That's the first thing that I learned growing up in Sunday school. That God created me that God loves me. That I'm a beloved child of God.
You know if you were taught that in Sunday school you were lied to because unless you've repented and Put your faith in Jesus Christ. You aren't any of those things.
Theology matters no more and no less valuable than anyone else. I Love God and I love Jesus. I Really do but that doesn't mean that I need to hate myself.
Or somehow wallow in self-pity, I love God and I love Jesus, but I hate my sin and It is not a Christian response to say I love God. I love Jesus. But even though Jesus died on the cross for my sin.
I'm gonna redefine my sin so I don't have to repent of it misery and loathing for the rest of my life. That's not what God created me to do. Our discussion of this issue of the gay issue Can't take place in the realm of abstractions of musings about ideal design and ideal gender roles as though gay people don't even exist.
Jesus placed a particular focus on those others overlooked on those who were outcast on mistreated and marginalized minorities and If we are working to emulate the life of Christ.
Then that's where our focus needs to be too. So now what you do is you associate your sinful behavior with marginalized and outcast minorities once again playing yourself as the victim and Trying to draw to yourself the sympathy that is rightly due to the widow and the orphan But now being attached to sexual perversion which in and of itself is a perverse action and Is very offensive and should be offensive to anybody Who for a moment honors what Jesus actually taught and What its actual application should be.
Romans 12 tells us to honor one another above yourselves rejoice with those who rejoice and Mourn with those who mourn. Hebrews 13 3 says Remember those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
Wow, that one is incredibly offensive to me since the context is talking about Christians remembering fellow Christians who were in chains and enslaved and persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ not about sexual perversion and not about perverting the message of Christianity as Matthew Vines has done this that.
Talk about something that is truly reason to be offended. There's a reason to be offended.
How fully have you absorbed. Not just the existence of gay and lesbian Christians.
We reject the existence of gay and lesbian Christians in the sense that you have defined it. There are Christians who struggle with same-sex attractions. But they do not allow those same-sex attractions to define the Christian faith.
They repent of them they seek God's grace.
To quell them but the depth of the pain and the hurt.
That their own brothers and sisters have inflicted on them. Their own brothers and sisters have inflicted this upon them. Here comes the absolute guilt trip. That if you do not accept the twisting of Scripture that we have just endured for Coming up. We're just past five hours now in this response.
If you do not accept these things all of the falsehoods all the bad arguments the contradictory arguments the fallacious arguments that we've documented. Then you are inflicting pain on others. How dare you do that?
This is Clear evidence that the twistedness that Matthew Vines Experiences in his sexual orientation is not limited just to his body. But to his mind and his spirit as well. Because if you can take God's truth and twist it like this To where you're projecting your own Rebellion upon others and accusing them of causing hurt when it's you who are bringing about this hurt to yourself by your refusal to repent.
An Amazing thing to see.
Does that pain grieve you as though it were your own and How aware are you of the ways in which you may be contributing to suffering and hurt in gay people's lives? It's still commonplace for straight Christians to say yes, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but don't blame me I'm just reading the Bible.
That's just what it says. Well, first of all, no, you are not just reading the Bible. You were taking a few verses out of context and Extracting from them an absolute condemnation that was never intended.
Notice that the arguments which have not been compelling at all, which we have refuted thoroughly and completely. I think any rational person would be able to see that.
They're absolutes. It's no longer just well, you know, it could be seen this way or it could be seen that way. Now they're absolutes and You're guilty if you believe those absolutes.
But you were also striking to the very core of another human being and gutting them of their sense of dignity and of self-worth.
So if you if you talk about incest if you talk about bestiality Intergenerational love you are gutting that person how dare. So in other words there can be no ethical or moral discussion whatsoever. Anything goes if you're gonna be truly loving.
You are reinforcing the message that gay people have heard for centuries You will always be alone. You come from a family. But you'll never form one of your own.
You can't form one of your own. You cannot produce life with another male. That is the facts of reality. It is a fantasy world for you to think otherwise.
You are uniquely unworthy of loving and being loved by another person and All because you're different. Because you're gay. Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin and for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and Family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things.
The Song of Songs tells us that King Solomon's wedding day Was the day his heart rejoiced to deny to a small minority of people. Not just a wedding day but a lifetime of love and commitment and family is to inflict on them a devastating level of hurt and anguish and.
By redefining reality itself. By refusing the categories that God has forced upon you. Mr. Vines by creation itself. You are the one who is inflicting this pain upon yourself. You want to have family.
Well family is defined by God's creative act. You want to have children. Children are wonderful. Children are fantastic. I Will never forget the birth of my children and I love them to this day. I'm really looking forward to Loving my grandchild that I'm gonna have by the end of the year Lord willing.
Yeah, I'm gonna become a grandpa soon and I'm gonna hold that little child and I'm gonna marvel that my youngest child Has now got a child too. And I'm probably gonna start singing sunrise sunset or something along those lines as I experience that Grandpa thing.
But you know what. The reason I'm experiencing those things because I didn't rebel against the way that God created me. I have a wife. I have a wife and Therefore we had children and Matthew. I'm sorry that you have given up the battle against unnatural sexual desires and You've allowed that to define who you are but I am not Inflicting anything upon you that you have not inflicted upon yourself.
To tell you the truth is not to inflict anything upon you. I've listened to you. I'm not like that guy in North Carolina. And by the way, someone did mention to me. It is a King James only church, which makes perfect sense.
It's King James only fundamentals Baptist Church. I'm not like him. I've listened to you. I've checked out your facts and Found you're wrong. But I know what arson a coitus means. I know what Malakai means.
I've looked at the original languages. I've looked at the historical sources Far more deeply than you have and I'm telling you your emotions Have become your ultimate authority and You are abusing Not only yourself by giving in to your sexual desires.
But you are abusing the Word of God. You are abusing the Bible and I have the honesty to tell you that and You say but that hurts me. When the doctor tells you you have cancer that might hurt you, but you need to hear that.
You need to know that so that you can take steps to do something about it. It is not love for someone to lie to them about their real situation their real state.
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Christians are called to perpetuate that kind of pain in other people's lives. Rather than work to alleviate it. Especially when the problem is so easy to fix all it takes is acceptance.
The Bible is not opposed to the acceptance of gay Christians or the possibility of loving relationships for them. And If you are uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women in love If you are dead set against that idea Then I'm asking you To try to see things differently for my sake.
Even if it makes you uncomfortable, I'm asking you to ask yourself this. How deeply do you care about your family? How deeply do you love your spouse and How tenaciously would you fight for them if they were ever in danger or in harm's way?
That is how deeply you should care and That is how tenaciously you should fight for the very same things for my life. Because they matter just as much to me. Gay people should be a treasured part of our families and our communities.
And the truly Christian response to them is acceptance support and.
Love.
Thank you, and thank you to everyone for coming tonight.
The question that was not asked is how much do you love God? How much do you love his truth and how much will you allow him to define his own creation? Because what Matthew Vines has done is in his rebellion against God.
He has chosen to rebel against God's creative order and Then to blame everybody else for the resultant pain and suffering that his own Capitulation to his sexual desires has brought into his life. Acceptance indeed of What mr. Vines of a completely different moral and ethical system?
That would allow you to salve your conscience. But in the process to destroy yourself and anyone else. That you would bring into that rebellious relationship. We have now spent at least five and a half hours.
I Think that's correct. Responding to an hour and five minute video and I know there are some of you that would rather I talked about Dave Hunt's new book or something else. But this is the issue of our day.
It's not because this is the most important issue in the Bible. It is because this issue is defining the cultural rejection of any kind of moral or ethical.
Sanity and that's why it's important.
And that's why we need to address it.