Same Sex Controversy part 1 of 3: Sodom, and more from the JW Martin Smart

This is the dividing line The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence Your host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good afternoon. Welcome. Please ignore that man behind the screen

It Will begin in five minutes and it will begin in five minutes for a long long time until someone tells that guy to stop saying

Well, hey live webcasting is live webcasting everything worked perfect last week

So every 15 seconds during the entire this program We will hear the dividing line will begin in five minutes and that's rich doing his radio man impersonation voice

Anyways, and this is the dividing line. Oh Gracious sakes we have some interesting things to talk about today on the program a

Couple things right up front. I want to spend a few minutes at the beginning of the program bringing you up to speed on some developments in regards to the topic of last week and you might say how in the world could a

Long -winded sermon on John chapter 15 have developments during the course of the week. Well Mr.

Smart who I was responding to last week listened to the program and Then I finally and I know

I was promising it over the weekend, but I only got it up on the web But I believe Friday yesterday, maybe

Thursday I finally posted the article that I was writing on John chapter 15, which included two of the emails that mr

Smart had sent to a particular email list and mr Smart that came into our chat room yesterday, and we had a lengthy conversation

Which was very disappointing very frustrating. Mr. Mr. Smart likes to focus upon minutia and avoid the big the big issues and Then he snuck back in later on under a different name.

He does that all time He very frequently misrepresents who he is doesn't have a problem doing that whatsoever and has spent all day yesterday

Writing a post that he is now busily posting in many as many different places. He can accusing me of misrepresenting

Dan Wallace Even though Dan Wallace would say that Martin Smart is a heretic for some reason

These folks like to quote Dan Wallace when they think that he's supportive of them And then when he demonstrates they're completely wrong on other issues, then they attack him

It's really a wonderfully inconsistent use of scholarly sources by people like Martin Smart and others. But anyways, we'll talk a little bit about that and Then I want to actually this week look at Genesis chapters 18 and 19

Some of you know that I am working or trying to work on a book entitled the same -sex

Controversy I am co -writing this and it's such a joy to have a co -author on this work especially someone with that I respect

Jeff Neal a very good friend of mine a tremendous scholar in his own right a tremendous communicator a tremendous researcher and it is really really really neat to have a book that I know is going to be

Blessed of the Lord in regards to the defense of his truth. Oh and that reminds me that reminds me

I've totally forgotten even mention this need to put this on the web page I know that we need a current calendar section on the web page.

I It's my fault Everyone keeps saying we don't know what you're doing

And the main reason you don't know what I'm doing is because I don't know what I'm doing

I have to know first and generally I have so much stuff going on That as I sort of look down the calendar it just it all melds into one

It's difficult for me to throw it out on the web page. Anyways got word this week now, you know

I know we've already got a place lined out for it We've got an agreement, but sometimes people back out of things but as of today anyway

So if you're listening to six months down the road, this didn't happen. Hey as of today We have received an agreement from mr.

Barry Lynn of the executive director of Americans United for the separation of church and state someone you've seen frequently on on like the

NBC News or firing line or Politically incorrect or Geraldo.

I mean he makes the rounds. He used to be legislative counsel for the

American Civil Liberties Union That gives you an idea where he's coming from Mr.

Barry Lynn has agreed to debate yours truly on the subject of homosexuality is

Homosexuality consistent with Christianity he is a United Church of Christ minister and He will be debating me on that subject in May of this year on Long Island now

I'm already scheduled for May 31st to be debating Father Peter Stravinskis on the subject of purgatory and that'll be on May 31st in Long Island the

Huntington townhouse is The location that that will be at on May 31st

But sometime either before or after that I would assume If it's after it would have to be the next night, and I don't necessarily want to do two debates over two nights.

I mean it's Sadly the simple fact the matter is I'm getting older and keeping up with that kind of a pace is not easy in any way shape or form

But it'll either be the night after the purgatory debate or within two weeks beforehand

I don't have the specific date yet. I had just heard yesterday that we have lined up a church that seats about 800 that has agreed to host the debate and So details will be forthcoming.

I'll try to share those With everyone as they are forthcoming

But the most debates I ever did during the Long Island swing was three in 1999

I debated Oh, it would have been Roberts and Genes on the

Mass The debate with Hamza Abdul Malik on the deity of Christ in the

New Testament and the debate on the Trinity With the oneness Pentecostal scholar

Robert Sabin and so Maybe we'll be up to that record on this one

I don't know because I know that we are looking to also find someone to debate abortion against me and We're always open to finding someone in the

New York area that would actually do a serious debate on the subject of Predestination election

So who knows we'll see what happens. It's gonna be a busy time. I'm gonna be on Long Island starting

January 19th as well I'm not really sure where I'm speaking yet. Maybe next week.

I can have that list I can let those of you who listen in the New York area know in case you want to Listen to the program and so on and so forth there listen to come and listen to the program you're listening to the program in case you want to attend the

Any of the events we have going on so I forgot about that. So anyways, where was

I? Oh, yes We want to look at Genesis 18 and 19. I'm writing the book the same -sex controversy against the subject against those who are defending homosexuality as a

As being commensurate with a biblical worldview those of you listening to the

Program in the Phoenix area May find our topic today, especially interesting in light of what's been going on with the chaplain to the

State Senate Charlie Coppinger and his coming out and saying that he is a gay man and has been made by God a gay man

That is not a biblical teaching in any way shape or form And so I'm sure there's going to be more discussion of that in the future.

You've probably heard a lot of Discussion concerning homosexuality will begin looking at some of those issues as we're working on writing this book and of course the the book itself will have a full discussion of all the passages relevant to the subject of homosexuality as well as a a full presentation of God's intention in creating man male and female and The relationship of man and woman in that way so on and so forth

So we'll be doing that along with John 15 and taking your phone calls at eight six six five five zero thirty nine fifteen eight six six five five zero

Thirty nine fifteen is the toll -free. I know I had never heard of eight six six myself either

Eight six this is eight six six didn't I knew eight eight eight and I knew 800, but I did not know eight six six

Was the strange? New toll -free prefix, but it is toll -free eight six six five five zero thirty nine fifteen if you would like to participate in the program and And one other thing

I forgot Last week we played some music on on the program.

We played some soul Smith and There were certain individuals in the audience who were just you know, basically made their day made their week and So I also mentioned that there were some other people

I wanted toward the end I wanted to try to play some music from another group called for his namesake now for his namesake is a local group and they're out of one of the churches that actually supports the ministry and We know the folks there.

In fact, one of the folks who is a regular in our chat room I I do not see her in there today She goes under the nick

Monarch on Katie's actually her name She Messaged me while we were playing the soul

Smith stuff yesterday or last week and said well how about how about promoting for his namesake and Actually, it would be very consistent for me to do so because those of you who have read the

Roman Catholic controversy know that toward the end of the chapter on justification

I Quote the words to one of their songs and it's a beautiful song called save for the cross and it really does summarize the

Protestant doctrine the biblical doctrine of justification and You may have listened last week.

I tried to bring it up toward the end the problem able to do so So what I'm gonna try to do here Is a little bit tricky because I'm going to be using the same internet connection by which we are broadcasting

To be playing this real audio file for you But I think we're gonna be able to get through without any difficulty

You're that or we'll just simply disappear for a while But we'll be back one of the two, but I'd like to you to get a chance to hear for his namesake

Which by the way, you can listen to these at www .fhns for his namesake org fhns .org

is the Address you can go to to get the I think they have two CDs out right now

It just came out with a new one But this is good music with excellent words And I'd like to play for you before I get started today the program the song

I wanted to play last week called save for the cross The words he cherished the most

Became his filthy rags before a holy God nothing to his credit

Save for the cross Save for the cross

He'd stand condemned Save for the cross

He'd be dead in his sin, but for the sacrifice

Of the holy land He could not stand

It was the moment of truth Oh His life could never be the same

For now we can clearly see My See for the cross

He'd be dead in His sin, but for the sacrifice of the

Holy Lamb, He could not stand.

Safe for the cross, where His blood was shed,

Safe for the cross, He knew destruction would be His end,

But for the sacrifice of the spotless

Lamb, He could not stand. Safe for the cross,

He could not stand. Safe for the cross, safe for the cross.

And the reason Mr. Smart does not understand that passage, that message of the

Scriptures, is because he's a follower of a false religion called the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

And the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has no divine Savior and has no divine gospel because of the fact that the

Watchtower denies the deity of Christ and turns Jesus into Michael the

Archangel. And so the Watchtower has a very man -centered, the specific term is anthropocentric, a man -centered gospel.

And therefore, when people have a man -centered gospel, they read

Scripture with blinders on. They read Scripture with glasses on that filter out the passages from Scripture and the words from Scripture that so clearly point to the fact that it is

God who is the one who saves. And last week on the program, you will discover, if you go back and listen to the archive or if you were listening, we talked about John chapter 15, the vine and the branches.

And we saw that this passage specifically teaches that it is the work of the vine dresser, that is the

Father, to bring glory to himself by increasing the fruitfulness of the vine, who is

Jesus, and the branches, who are his disciples. Now, if a person were simply to allow the text to speak for itself, obviously the point then is focused upon what the vine dresser does in bringing glory to himself in increasing the fruitfulness of the vine.

This is clearly brought out in John chapter 15, verse 11, when Jesus says, I have spoken these things, so your joy may be full.

That is, it is something that Christians rejoice in to recognize that it is God who is at work within us, both to will and to do according to his own good pleasure.

And so a person who, because the work of the Holy Spirit in his or her life understands the truths of Scripture, they are able to see the

Scripture for what it really says and see the theocentricity of Scripture. Theocentricity, the centrality focused upon God, that God and what

God is doing in salvation is the central element of Scripture over against anthropocentrism, which places man in the center and says, this is what man is to do to gain salvation, etc.,

etc., etc. Well, those of you who were listening last week know that we went through the exegesis of the text, it took us an hour and a half almost, and then

I took the time to put on our website, it's www .aomin .org

slash capital J for john15 .html.

John15 .html, the J is capitalized. If you go there, you will see the article that we put together, and in that article

I listed about five or six things at the end of the exegesis of John 15, which demonstrate that the initial assertions of Mr.

Smart, that is, he simply posted a post where he went through various places in the

Bible where the phrase, in me, is used, and he assumed that since John 15, too, says the branches are in me, that that means that they are in union with Christ, that they are true believers, and since some are taken away and gathered together and burned, that that means that true believers can be believers for a while, then stop being believers and end up in hell, and therefore this contradicts

Reformed theology. Well, we went through the passage, and I listed all these things at the end on the website, demonstrating that that was a gross misinterpretation of the text, that it simply is impossible because of all these considerations.

The fact that, for example, Jesus says that the only branches that bear fruit are those that abide in him.

Those other branches do not abide in him. I pointed out that only those who bear fruit are disciples, etc.,

etc. A number of issues that were brought up. The fact that Jesus says, you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

These other branches were never clean. They had not received that word of God that brings regeneration, and so on and so forth.

Well, I believe it was Thursday. Maybe it was yesterday. Late Thursday evening,

I posted the article on the website. Then, yesterday morning, Mr.

Smart came into our chat channel, and I gave him the URL to the article, and we started discussing it.

As I said, it was very disappointing. Disappointing, but I guess educational.

It's educational because, as I say in the article, and this comes out, I think, even more, in the discussion in the article in regards to what

Jehovah's Witnesses are all about on the Internet, and things like that. What was helpful,

I think, is to see the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses will utilize all sorts of incredibly poor argumentation, but what they'll do is they will couch it with citations all around it, and they will shift grounds so quickly that most people simply can't follow them.

Some of you may recall, last year, oh, when was it?

It was sometime, would have been in the spring, because I was teaching systematic theology for Golden Gate Seminary down in Tucson on Saturdays.

And so there would be times when I would miss doing the program when we were on KPXQ. And Mr.

Rick Stamp, another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, called in while Simon Escobedo and Mike Porter and I think

Benny Diaz were filling in for me. And I happened to get out of class a little early, barely tuned in the station down in Tucson, and heard what was going on, that Rick Stamp was on the phone.

And so I had my cell phone, I called him, and it was fascinating. As soon as I came on the air with Rick Stamp, all of a sudden the subject changed.

And instead of going after the subject of John 8 .58, which is what he had been going after beforehand, all of a sudden it shifted over to Hebrews chapter 1.

And as some of you may recall, I was weaving through Tucson traffic, getting on to I -10 going northbound, in a truck that is a manual transmission truck.

And this was not a hands -free cell phone, so it's at my ear. The whole time, without a Bible in front of me, debating with this

Jehovah's Witness on the subject of Hebrews chapter 1. But it was interesting to me, all of a sudden everything changes.

Well, it was interesting, when Mr. Smart came in, everything changed. And what do I mean by that? Well, Mr. Smart comes in, and is the issue

John 15 .2 anymore? No, never mentions it. Instead, he focuses on one small little issue.

And that is, oh, well, what does Jesus mean by abide? It's in the imperative mode, you know. And I think you're misrepresenting

Dan Wallace, because I cited Dan Wallace, who defined a particular syntactical category in regards to the use of an imperative in statements of great importance.

And it is pretty obvious that when Jesus says, abide in me and I in you, for apart from me you can do nothing, that this is very important.

And so I identified that. And he said, well, so are you saying that Dan Wallace denies that Jesus is commanding us to do something here?

As if that is even a slightly relevant question. Grammars such as Dan Wallace's are not meant to address every single usage of a passage.

And yet this is the kind of thing they're doing. So what has happened is yesterday, Mr. Smart spent all day. I guess this is what he does for a living,

I don't know. Maybe he was off yesterday, I don't know. But he wrote this article, and he's now posting it everywhere he can, about how

I misquote Dan Wallace, and I'm misrepresenting Dan Wallace. Does any of this contain any exegesis of John 15, or rebuttal of what the article actually says?

Because of course not. But you see, for most of these folks, that's not the issue anyways. It is, can you attack one thing here or one thing there?

And I think this is somewhat important, especially for individuals that engage in apologetics. I remember one of the most important discussions

I've ever had with one of my dear friends, who helps with the ministry and responding to emails and things like that.

And the issue had come up, we were talking late after church one night, and we were talking about an assertion,

I think it was by actually a Jehovah's Witness in this particular context that was being made, about something in John 14, as I recall.

And my friend was very bothered by the fact that just in that context of John 14, and just in that one verse, there is more than one possible way that you could render it, and the simple fact of the matter is what

I said to him is, look, you cannot refute what he's saying about that one verse. You can demonstrate that that's not the only way to understand it, and the only way to refute the entirety of his position is through the entirety of Scripture.

And we had to have a discussion about the fact that that's something that you must understand. God's truth is a whole.

And when heretics, and let's use a politically incorrect term, but it is a descriptive term, when false teachers pervert the

Scriptures, there are times that they will pervert certain passages of Scripture when their narrow interpretation of a particular verse cannot be refuted simply on the ground of grammar, or syntax, or whatever.

It's possible to read just that verse the way they're reading it. Now, where it becomes impossible is when you take that verse and you connect it to everything else that is said, either within the immediate context, and normally it is just in the immediate context, within the larger context of the writer, which in the larger context of the

New Testament canon, Old Testament canon taken together, etc., etc., that's where you can demonstrate that that interpretation is not possible.

And that, of course, folks, is why there is no apologetic community amongst liberalism. Just woke everybody up there, huh?

You just took a hard left there, woke everybody up. What I mean by that is there is no apologetics amongst liberals because they have no consistent

Bible. They do not believe that you can bring what

John says and what Paul says together and it forms a consistent whole. So they have no apologetics.

They do not engage in a defense of the faith, and they look at those of us who do as fundamentalist wackos, in essence.

That's why liberalism is just as much an attack upon the Christian faith as atheism is.

Both fundamentally undercut the truth that God has revealed himself clearly and most perspicuously in Jesus Christ and in his

Word. Both are attacks upon the Christian faith. The problem is many conservatives, while they recognize the atheists as enemies, try to make friends with the liberals.

And yet for early in the, now we've got to call it the last century, early in the last century, in the 1930s, we have books like Christian Liberalism by J.

Gresham Machen, and those books make it very plain. Christian liberalism is another religion, and it is when we think about it.

So anyways, a little bit of discussion there about John chapter 15. There's no misrepresentation of Daniel Wallace.

The issue is how can you make sense of the words of Jesus when he commands us to abide in him and then commands himself to abide in us.

What it means is Jesus Christ very clearly is saying, this is of vital importance.

You must abide in me and I must abide in you. I am the vine, branches can do nothing in and of themselves.

Mr. Smart cannot touch the passage because it doesn't teach the heresy that has him bound.

Let's pray for him that he would be released from that heresy. 866 -550 -3915.

We're going to be taking a break. Coming back, looking at Genesis chapters 18 and 19. Hope you have your

Bible. We'll be right back. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White. I'm thankful that all of you are joining with us today. In fact,

Sky Man has just joined the channel. We just heard Sky Man preaching a few moments ago. That man knows how to preach.

Preaches better than I do. But I still, that was one of my favorite illustrations I've ever come up with though. That one we have in the conference on Rome.

About, yeah. Find that Israeli man that's a

Jewish man. Bowing down in front of a statue of Ashtoreth or something. He's taken in front of Moses.

Says, now Moses, you need to understand. I wasn't offering it. I wasn't offering that statue

Lotria. I was just offering it Dulia. And yet that's the excuse that is used for prayers to Mary and the saints.

And Mary's given hyper -Dulia and all this stuff. My goodness. Well, that is not the subject for today, is it?

No, it is not. Genesis chapters 18 and 19. We're looking at this passage of scripture.

Why? Well, over the next number of weeks, obviously what

I've done in the past. And I'm very thankful to both the folks of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. As well as to the listeners of The Dividing Line. That when I'm working on a book, you all haven't minded too much.

That I've taken the time to talk about that subject in the programs and things like that.

And obviously now working on a book entitled The Same -Sex Controversy. For Bethany House Publishers, my co -author

Jeff Neal. The pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church here in Phoenix. This subject is obviously heavy on my heart and mind.

And of course as I'm going to be debating Barry Lynn on this subject in the month of May.

Between now and then, that's where I'm going to be studying and doing my thinking. And so what

I'd like to do is talk a little bit about this passage of scripture. Now, one of the issues, one of the reasons that we are dealing with the subject of homosexuality.

You may well say, many will say. And let's go ahead and address this first. Many will say, look, what in the world are you talking about?

Oops, just about knocked my microphone over there. Why in the world would you write a book on the subject of homosexuality?

I mean, aren't there, there are obviously books out there. But isn't it an obvious subject?

Well, I suppose on one level it is. I mean, any person who simply listens to the scriptures and allows them to speak for themselves.

Understands what the scriptures are teaching in regards to God as our creator.

God as the one who gives us his law as a representation of his will for our life.

For that type of a person, what the scriptures say about homosexuality is, in point of fact, very, very clear.

But there's a problem. The problem is that most evangelicals today, and I use that in the broad scope of Protestants who believe the

Bible is the word of God. Most believing Christians today have never heard a homosexual apologetic.

A homosexual apologetic. I have, obviously, and have heard much more of an apologetic over the past number of months as I have been interacting with the best publications.

And I use the term best there in a very relative sense. The best publications that homosexuals themselves have put out.

But most Christians, if you've never heard an argument, are liable to be confused by an argument and not know how to give the best response.

Sadly, we live in a society that, because of its post -modernism, because of its rejection of God, its rejection of absolute truth, is absolutely begging for a tolerant

Christianity. They want a tolerant Bible and a tolerant

Jesus. Well, what does that mean? Well, they want a

Jesus who doesn't condemn anybody. They want a Jesus who doesn't talk about sin and hellfire and damnation.

They just want a Jesus who accepts everybody right where they are, as they are, and isn't active in doing anything in their lives that would bring them to a position of living in holiness or anything like that.

And so as a result of this, over the past number of years, as the homosexual movement has gained ground and strength in the

United States, there has been a corresponding attempt on the part of certain people to present a homosexual apologetic and assert that the

Scriptures do not in any way, shape, or form condemn, at least, at the very least, a monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship.

And so entire books have come out. On my shelf here, I'm looking up, for example, at John Boswell's book,

Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, which has gone through a number of printings.

Mel White, of course, you've heard of him, Stranger at the Gate. You have the

Catholic version, John J. McNeil's The Church and the Homosexual. And you have a book that I've heard mentioned even on the

Bible Answer Man broadcast. Someone called in and asked about it, Daniel Helminiak, another Roman Catholic, what the

Bible really says about homosexuality, etc., etc., etc.

How do we respond to these things? Well, it should require us to do some homework, to do some research, to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that's within us.

But some of these are written by quote -unquote scholars, and so they utilize biblical languages. And again, just as with any other cult movement, and there is many senses in which the eisegesis, the misinterpretation, the twisting of the biblical text that is inherent in the homosexual apologetic is the same type of twisting of the scripture that you see in the cults and Mormonism that you see in Jehovah's Witnesses as well.

And so we are responding to this because there is a need to. It's not that there haven't been books and articles written that have refuted in full, really,

John Boswell's book or Daniel Helminiak or things like that. There are. DeYoung's book on homosexuality or Wold's book,

Out of Order, have shown the tremendous weaknesses on a scholarly level of Boswell and others, and there's really only a small number in the sense that they just quote each other.

That's another common cultic maneuver to quote one another as if there's a wide consensus when there isn't.

The problem is that most of these books are not written for the everyday

Christian, the one who really needs to know this stuff. And as most of you who do know me know, I, in my writing, attempt to communicate to the person in the pew because I think that that is the greatest good that you can do.

Christian scholarship has an absolute responsibility to communicate its understanding to the people in the pews, not in a sense of we are superior to you, but that we are your servants.

We are here to provide you with information in an understandable way and to serve the body of Christ.

And so the King James Only controversy, the Forgotten Trinity, these are examples where I've attempted to take what is allegedly a quote -unquote scholarly or theological or difficult subject and demonstrate that every

Christian is called to be a theologian, called to be an apologist, and can do so if they will but invest the time and the effort to do so.

And so we are responding to this issue because the fact that the person in the pew needs to know that there is a scholarly yet understandable rebuttal to the homosexual argument.

And we need to be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us.

We need to be ready to explain to our society why it is that belief in God as our

Creator is absolutely essential for the continuation of our culture.

Our culture was based upon the recognition of the

Judeo -Christian ethic that is derived from believing in Scripture and the

God of Scripture. And it is only by completely and totally overthrowing the belief in God as Creator, which is what evolution is all about, that this kind of behavior can be said to be consistent with Christianity.

Now, with that, we turn to one of the first passages that comes up in a discussion of homosexuality in the

Bible. Specifically, Genesis chapters 18 and 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

There is no question about the history of the interpretation of this passage of the

Bible. Christians, and Jews for that matter, from as far back as we can go, have understood that this passage is referring to homosexuality and it is doing so in strongly negative terms.

That the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, the great abomination that they committed, was based upon the fact that they were involved in homosexuality.

Let's look at the passage. Let's briefly look at Genesis 18, give some of the background, and then read specifically together

Genesis chapter 19. I'll be reading from the New American Standard Bible. If you have a

Bible, it would be good if you look through this passage because it is one of the battlegrounds that we need to be looking at.

Don't worry, I didn't go anywhere, I was just grabbing a book. That's what's really nice about doing this, sitting in the middle of your library.

That is a very, very good thing. Genesis chapter 18 gives to us the story of the meeting of Abraham with Yahweh and two angels.

In this particular encounter, the Lord reveals to Abraham what he's going to do.

If we look at chapter 18, beginning of verse 16. Then the men rose up from there and looked down towards Sodom, and Abraham was walking with them to send them off.

The Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?

For I have chosen him so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the

Lord may bring upon Abraham what he has spoken about him. And the

Lord said, The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.

Please note that's verse 20. Now, why do I emphasize that? Well, I suppose what would be good is before we even go through it, let me tell you what the homosexuals say.

And let me tell you what liberal, quote unquote, Christians say in defense of homosexuality.

I suppose that needs to be pointed out that it's primarily liberals who defend the issue of homosexuality in the place of the homosexuals.

But in essence, the most commonly offered defense against Genesis chapter 19, and please realize there are many who write today who say that the

Bible never once speaks about sexuality between two loving people, whether they are men or women.

They say that. And they will go to each passage, Genesis 19,

Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans chapter 1, 1 Timothy chapter 1, 1

Corinthians chapter 6. They'll go to each and every passage, and they have a defense for every single one of them.

And they will say that in reality, Genesis chapter 19 is not about homosexuality.

Some will even go so far as to say that there is nothing sexual in the passage at all.

Now, most of them today go, well, no, no, there is. But the sin of Sodom, according to the majority of individuals writing today from a pro -homosexual side, is that the sin of Sodom was inhospitability.

It was a lack of hospitality. Now, before you... They will say that, look, you need to understand that in the

Semitic culture of its day, hospitality was a very important thing.

You even had to bring your enemy into your house. And in fact, if you brought someone into your house, you were responsible for the defense of that person and for providing them with food and lodging and clothing.

This was how the Bedouin tribes survived. Excuse me. This is how the

Bedouin tribes even survived in those days where there were not all that many people on the earth and you didn't have roadways and cities every little while.

And when people came in, you had to be hospitable to them. Hence, they would say, in Genesis 19, when

Lot brings them in, since Lot bypassed the elders of the people and did not give them the opportunity of getting to, quote, know these strangers, that is, demonstrate their hospitality toward them, that Lot was in essence sinning against the elders of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And that this is demonstrated in their words to Lot, bring them out so that we may know them, that we may show them hospitality.

And that when Lot refused to do so, when they became angry, they were showing the sin of inhospitability.

And that was the problem there. Now, before, again, you might go, oh, this is so easy to respond to, and there really isn't anything here.

Let's go someplace else and do something else and let's ignore this idiot on the webcast.

Before you do that, turn to Ezekiel chapter 16 in your Bible. Ezekiel chapter 16.

And let's look at a passage of Scripture here that talks specifically about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, listen to what is said by the prophet here in Ezekiel chapter 16, beginning in verse 48.

As I live, declares the Lord God, Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

So, the sin of Sodom is listed as being arrogance, abundant food, careless ease, and inhospitability.

Is that not exactly what the homosexuals are saying? So, let's say you were on a bus somewhere, maybe you were leading a

Bible study, excuse me, a Bible study, something like that, and you went and opened your mouth and you presented

Genesis chapter 19 and someone sticks their hand up and says, well, but that's not even how the

Bible interprets it. Look at Ezekiel chapter 16, verses 48 through 49.

What about that? Well, how would you answer? That's a good question.

How would you answer? Well, right now

I'm actually playing a song about how you'd answer it, but I can't hear it and neither can you, so that didn't work very well.

Anyways, yeah, yeah, there, it's got the last three letters, three notes there.

Oh well. How do you respond? Well, by the way,

I would just point out that, yes, someone in the channel pointed out the obvious. I have a book in front of my hand,

Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, and he specifically brings up Ezekiel 16, 48 through 49, but as someone in the chat channel noted, as in so many of these books, context, context, context.

Forgot verse 50, which says, Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me, therefore

I removed them when I saw it, specifically referring to the context of Genesis chapter 19, and specifically in regards to, see that little ding, that nice ding?

Anyways, and specifically the abominations, that which is toevah, the abominations that God talks about in Genesis 18, even before there was a possibility of being inhospitable.

So, you know, context is a important little thing to look at at every single situation. But, inhospitability, and then the assertion, some say there's nothing sexual, others will say, oh yes, obviously it is sexual in Genesis 19, but the only homosexuality, and some will say there is some, some will say there isn't some, mentioned in the text, those who say, yeah, okay, there is homosexuality in Genesis 19, but it has nothing to do with the homosexuality that we're promoting, why?

Simple. They'll say that it is homosexual rape only. So the only abomination of Genesis 19 is homosexual rape.

That's what they'll say. Now again, before you laugh, ask yourself the question, how would I respond if I was in a situation where I had to?

That's, I think, something important. Back to Genesis chapter 18, notice what the

Lord says. Verse 20, the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.

What sin? What sin? This is a sinful city.

Was it sinful for them to want to know who these men were, as in get to know them and show them hospitality?

Are we to seriously believe that the sin of these individuals was that they were turning away strangers?

I don't think so. Verse 21, I will go down now and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry which has come to me, and if not,

I will know. Then the men turned away from there and went towards Sodom.

Those are the two angels. While Abraham was still standing before Yahweh, Abraham came near and said, will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

And then we have the story of Abraham being put in a position very similar to that of Moses later on of interceding before the

Lord. The Lord has a way of putting people that he wants to be great leaders in a position of learning maturity by putting themselves on the line.

And so you have Abraham before Yahweh saying, well, what if you find 50 people?

Will you destroy the town for 50? How about 40?

30? 20? 10? It gets down to 10. And you see at the end of the chapter, then he said, oh, may the

Lord not be angry and I shall speak only to the righteous. Suppose 10 righteous men are found there. And he said,

I will not destroy it on account of the 10. As soon as he had finished speaking to Abraham, the Lord departed and Abraham returned to his place.

Now Genesis chapter 19. Now the two angels, isn't it interesting they were called men before, now they're called angels.

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

Hmm, seems he was hospitable. And he said, now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet.

Then you may rise early and go on your way. They said, however, no, we will spend the night in the square.

Now remember, they've gone down to find out, to demonstrate, to prove that the cry that has come out to God has indeed, in point of fact, been an accurate testimony of the sinfulness of the city of Sodom.

Now Lot knows, that's why he says in verse three, yet he urged them strongly. So they turned aside to him and entered his house and he prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread and they ate.

Lot knows you do not stay in the city square of Sodom and Gomorrah at night if you are two men.

Why? Well, because nobody will come out and invite you to dinner. No, that's not why.

No one ever thought that until this century. There's a reason for that. It's silly. But we continue on.

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, notice it's repeated twice.

The men of the city, the men of Sodom surrounded the house both young and old.

This isn't just the city elders. This is a demonstration that this perversion extends throughout the population of Sodom and Gomorrah.

They surround the house both young and old, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot and said to him, where are the men who came to you tonight?

Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them. Now, that's a New American Standard translation. That's a

New American Standard translation that we may have relations with them. And there will be those of them, well, that's just not accurate.

You're bringing your own understanding into the passage, yada, yada, yada, yada.

It's funny that I would say yada, yada because the specific term that is used here is yada.

And yada can simply mean to know them. And so there are those who are saying that, well, what this is about is bring these men out that we may get to know them.

You didn't give us a chance to be hospitable. But notice what

Lot does. But Lot went out to them at the doorway and shut the door behind him and said, please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

Now, stop for a moment and just think. This is why until this, the past 30 years, 40 years, no one ever understood this to mean anything other than what it obviously means.

Lot says, please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Well, Lot interpreted that we may know them as being something wicked.

Well, if their sin is inhospitability, the sin is Lot's problem, not the city of Sodom and Gomorrah's, is it?

Well, it's obvious. He understands that when they say bring them out to us, they're talking about engaging in sexual relations with these men, men with men, homosexuality.

That is what is in line here. And Lot understands it is to act wickedly.

Now, note something else. We do not see at this point any force being used.

Lot interprets their words to involve homosexuality, not rape yet.

So those who say, oh, well, this is just about homosexual rape. How do you get that?

Lot understands in verse 7, please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

Well, I think we need to take a break. According to my clock, it's coming up at 3 o 'clock, mountain standard time.

And so we're going to take a break and come back and look at the rest of this narrative here in Genesis 19. Maybe you have some questions about this.

The number, 866 -550 -3915. Give us a call. We'll talk to you about it as well.

We'll be right back. Welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name's James White. We're looking at Genesis chapter 19 today. And we are looking at the clear teaching of Scripture in comparison to the twisting of Scripture practiced by liberals and those who would attempt to find a way around the clarity of God's Word, the perspicuity of God's Word.

Before I continue with that, I forgot to mention at the beginning of the program, and I apologize. Next week, we have at least a tentative agreement from Mr.

Scott Windsor to join me on the program. Mr. Windsor actually was one of the first Roman Catholics I ever dealt with beginning back about 86, 87, and was really responsible for the first two books that I wrote being on Roman Catholicism rather than Mormonism, The Fatal Flaw and Answers to Catholic Claims.

He is the owner of the Acts Catholic list and website. He likes to post things where he claims he has refuted me.

Today, he was telling someone in our chat room, who was also in his chat room, about how often

I have been refuted and proven wrong, especially in regards to John chapter 6.

And so I told him, well, I'll tell you what. Why don't you come on the program and demonstrate this?

He specifically said in his channel that it is a misinterpretation of John chapter 6, verse 37 to believe that it presents the sovereignty of God and salvation, predestination, election, so on and so forth.

And since that's a misinterpretation, I said, well, why don't you come on our webcast and demonstrate that it's a misinterpretation.

And obviously put him a little bit of a corner there. But I can honestly say I don't have any reason not to have

Mr. Windsor on. I have been dealing with him for a decade and a half almost now.

I have researched things for him. I have provided him with things. I have sent him books. So I have done the patient routine for many, many years.

And yet he continues to present a false teaching. And so I will be more than happy to demonstrate the falseness of his teaching on The Dividing Line next

Saturday. And so make sure to be with us. We need to make mention on the website of this.

We also need to post that wonderful book that now all of you have purchased from someone else entitled

Disputations in Holy Scripture by William Whitaker. But we'll get up there eventually and let you all know about that.

All of a sudden his microphone disappears because Rich Pierce turned him off. Yes, well, anyway. Genesis chapter 19.

I know that I am waxing long again. I have done that many, many times. We need to get through this. Now, we've already seen how

Lot interprets. Bing! That bing, folks, is we're using a messenger service which is on my computer, which is connected to the program.

It's really cool. And poor, poor Mr. Pierce. You all can feel for him now because he just said, ouch, because, well, you know, we talked about the

William Whitaker book two, three weeks ago. And anyways. Genesis chapter 19.

Lot has recognized that what the men of Sodom want to do is wicked. Verse 8.

Now, behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man. Does that mean that they don't know men?

These poor two young ladies have been living in the house their entire lives and never seen a man? I suppose, since that is the word yada, that that would be the only way you could go if you actually believe that there's nothing sexual involved here.

Please let me bring them out to you and do to them whatever you like. Only do nothing to these men inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Now, immediately you go, well, thank you, Lot. You're a truly righteous dude. No, you're a jerk is what we automatically think when we hear that.

I would, I'm not completely settled yet in my own mind.

I still have some work to do on this passage. But I would at least point out the option.

I would at least point out the possibility that Lot well knew that his daughters were perfectly safe with these guys.

That he was buying time. That he was obfuscating the issue, shall we say.

That's at least a possibility. We'll try to at least hold that out for the possibility of saving

Lot here. Though the fact of the matter is he shouldn't have been where he was anyways. He was living amongst wicked people and the heart of a righteous man is caused pain.

As hopefully yours is when you look around and see. I heard someone calling into a radio program just yesterday saying that they had been watching television.

And they had seen the fact that like three programs on just one night had all presented homosexuality in a positive light and had homosexual characters and stuff like that.

You can hardly watch any television. And I don't watch much of it myself. But you can hardly watch any television and not see that being presented.

Verse 9. But they said, Stand aside. Furthermore they said, This one came in as an alien and already he is acting like a judge.

Now we will treat you worse than them. So they pressed hard against Lot and came nearer to the door. So they reject offhand his offer of his daughters because that's not what they're interested in.

They're homosexuals. Then they are attacking Lot personally saying that he is now acting as a judge amongst them because they recognized what he said in verse 7 was a moral statement.

It is a moral statement to say, Do not act wickedly. How dare you say we're wicked.

You're acting as our judge. Hmm. Nothing has changed much, has it? Isn't that what we hear today?

How dare you say that what we do is wicked. Well, it hasn't changed since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.

They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great.

Now stop just right there for a moment. Think about this situation for a moment. They are struck blind.

Maybe, just maybe, they might think about the fact that if you're trying to get into a place that has these two strange men in there and all of a sudden you can't see anything anymore, maybe, just maybe, that might mean something.

You know, maybe you should step back and go, Wow, hmm, Lot says what we're doing is wicked.

Hmm, we try to get in, we are struck blind. Hmm, it doesn't faze them.

Look at the rest of the verse, both small and great. So that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

They wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. They would not stop.

Things haven't changed. Things have not changed. It's a disgusting thing, but even try to read some reports about gay pride marches and the behavior of the homosexual who dives into the lifestyle.

They don't care about the threat of disease and AIDS. They don't care.

Even when they see those around them dying, they don't care. They keep going.

So that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Even the bringing of judgment will not stop them.

Then the two men said to Lot, Whom else have you here? A son -in -law and your sons and your daughters and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place for we are about to destroy this place because their outcry has become so great before the

Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it. What outcry? Is that not the very same outcry that we see in Genesis chapter 18 when

God says their outcry has come up before me and this was before anything that could possibly be twisted into an idea of inhospitability has come into the text.

We are about to destroy this place because their outcry has become so great before the

Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it. Lot went out and spoke to his sons -in -law who were to marry his daughters and said,

Up, get out of this place, the Lord will destroy the city. But he appeared to his sons -in -law to be jesting.

They didn't take him seriously. They didn't take him seriously. When morning dawned, that's what happens by the way, when you live amongst the world and you have no positive reinforcement of what you know to be true within the fellowship of righteous people.

It should be a warning to us all. When morning dawned, verse 15, the angels urged Lot saying, Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city.

Be obedient or you will feel the wrath of God. But he hesitated.

So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters. For the compassion of the

Lord was upon him. It's interesting. Someone who I think is actually in the channel even now,

I'm looking here. Well, yep, in the channel right now, had asked recently. Some other translations get a little bit dynamic here and say the compassion of the

Lord was upon them. It's not what the Hebrew says. The Hebrew says the compassion of the

Lord was upon Lot and therefore he took his wife and his two daughters along with because of his compassion for Lot.

And they brought him out and put him outside the city. When they had brought them out, one said,

Escape for your life. Do not look behind you and do not stay anywhere in the valley. Escape to the mountains or you will be swept away.

There still needs to be more obedience and Lot isn't willing. Verse 18, but Lot said to them,

Oh no, my lords. Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight and you have magnified your loving kindness, which you have shown me by saving my life, but I cannot escape to the mountains for the disaster will overtake me and I will die.

And now behold, this town is near enough to flee to and it is small. Please let me escape there. Is it not small that my life may be saved?

He said to him, Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.

And so there are others who receive mercy from God, not because they deserve it. Lot didn't deserve it either, but because of his intercession for them.

Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there. Therefore the name of the town was called

Zoar, which means itty -bitty, also known as small. The sun had risen over the earth when

Lot came to Zoar. Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

Now, just in passing, this has nothing to do with the subject of homosexuality at all. Small amount of apologetic trivia here.

Verse 24 is very interesting, because remember, the

Lord, Yahweh, had been walking with Abraham.

The two angels had gone down to Sodom and Gomorrah. Notice what it says in verse 24.

Then the Lord, Yahweh, rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

There seems to be, in this passage, a reference both to the Yahweh who had walked with Abraham, which we believe would be a pre -incurrent theophany of Jesus Christ, and Yahweh in heaven.

A very interesting tidbit to add there in regards to the pre -incurrent appearances of Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of John 118.

No one has seen God at any time. The unique God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. The one who has been seen in the appearances of Yahweh has been the sun, identifying the sun as Yahweh.

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven, and he overthrew those cities and all the valley and all the inhabitants of the cities and what grew on the ground.

Nuclear blast. There is nothing left. But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Now, people like to laugh at such things. But the simple fact of the matter is that God had shown tremendous, and I do mean tremendous, patience and tremendous grace to Lot and to his family.

And the mercy of God was on Lot, not his wife and his daughters.

They were saved because of the mercy on Lot. But they were told, do not do this.

And they didn't care. They didn't care. They spurned the grace of God, and God struck his wife with judgment because she would not be obedient.

Her heart was in that place of luxury where her possessions were, and she died the death, the judgment of God because of it.

27. Now Abraham rose early in the morning and went to the place where he stood before the Lord, and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace.

Thus it came about when God destroyed the cities of the valley that God remembered Abraham and sent

Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot lived. Why such a tremendous judgment upon these cities?

It is absurd, absurd, a complete and total overthrow of the text to believe that God's fiery judgment came upon these cities because of inhospitability.

The outcry that came up to the ears of God was an outcry of an abomination, an abomination that demonstrated that the men of these cities were completely perverted in their view of themselves and in their twisting of God's created order.

That is why God's judgment came upon them. And that is the inspired interpretation provided to us in the

New Testament. In the little book of Jude, we read of God's judgment upon men throughout history, even angels,

Jude 1, 6, and angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode. He has kept an eternal bonds under darkness the judgment of the great day.

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these is indulged in gross immorality.

Ekpornuo is the word there. And pornuo, you've probably heard. Pornia, the noun form.

Ekpornuo. Gross immorality. Pornia outside the normal realm of pornia.

Not just normal sexual sin, but perverse sexual sin.

And it says they went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Strange flesh. Can you believe it? When homosexual apologists attempt to deal with these passages, they actually go so far as to say...

Well, in fact, let me just read to you. This is from Daniel Chominiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, page 98.

Well, 97. Jude faults the people of Sodom for lusting after strange or alien flesh.

Page 98. This is what the Greek says. Sarkos Heteros. The King James translation of the Bible accurately presents this meaning.

Then he quotes it. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude 7. What is this thing about alien flesh? It refers to humans having sexual intercourse with angels.

So, their response is, Oh, well, yeah, this isn't homosexuality.

This is the fact that they wanted to have sex to angels. Does anyone notice something really obvious about this?

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't know they were angels. They didn't know they were angels.

They thought they were men. That was their ekpornuo.

That was their gross immorality. They went after strange flesh. Yes, they were angels.

But the men of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't know that. Their gross immorality was not trying to have sex with angels.

Their gross immorality was trying to have homosexual sex with these men they did not even know.

It's amazing. Absolutely amazing when you listen to the futile attempts that men present and are lauded.

Oh, they are lauded for their open -mindedness. They're lauded for their tolerance and their love.

My friends, a person who uses this kind of thinking and this kind of perversion of the biblical text does not love

God, does not love Christ, does not love His truth, and does not love

His law. Don't call the perversion of Scripture loving.

It's anything but. It is anything but.

Genesis 18 and 19. Clear testimony. Clear testimony.

The fact that from the very first reference to homosexuality in Scripture, it is toevah.

It is an abomination. And notice that use. Why? Because when we get to the

Levitical section, Leviticus 18 and 20, and I think we'll probably have to do there since I'm going to be going out to New York.

One thing we might be able to work out is to have Jeff Neal come in and address

Leviticus 18 and 20. He's writing that section of the book. I'm doing the Genesis 18 and 19 part. He's doing Leviticus 18 and 20.

Have Jeff come in and address this particular issue of what toevah means.

Because the homosexual apologist will always say that toevah is only in regards to cultic purity.

That an abomination in the cultic law, the law of the people of Israel, an abomination is something that breaks that law, but not that it's in and of itself morally wrong.

That's what Hilminiak says in his book as well. And yet, before the giving of the law itself, homosexuality is identified as toevah.

An abomination that comes up before God. Why? Because it is a twisting.

It is a twisting in rebellion of the very form of the creation that God has given to us and made for us as our creator.

That's why Paul identifies it as the ultimate example of the twistedness of depraved man.

Just as man wants to twist the creator, creation distinction, in the same way, homosexuality demonstrates twistedness, perversion, because it says to God, I don't care that you made me this way.

I will be other. I reject your lordship. I reject your sovereignty.

I reject your law. I reject your revelation. And I will go my own way.

So when homosexual apologists say, ah, the Bible never says anything about homosexuality, you better believe it does.

And not just in Genesis 19, and Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1 and 1

Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, not just in those passages. The Bible addresses this when it presents to us in a positive way

God's will as to how we're to live. And to say it never addresses, as I heard

Charlie Coppinger say on a local radio station only this past week, to say it never addresses a loving relationship between two men or two women is to pervert the

Scriptures and to say that the Scriptures never give us a positive guideline as to how we are to express our sexuality.

It is clear that the Scripture does. The Lord Jesus is even pictured as the husband in the church, as his wife in the relationship of the church to her

Savior. Don't tell me it doesn't address this. If you use that kind of argumentation, then the

Bible also does not address pedophilia and bestiality. And we know that it does.

It's an important issue, folks. It makes us think about the revelation that God has given to us in regards to how we are to live, not just in this area, but in all areas of life.

Well, that's pretty much going to wrap it up for the dividing line today. We didn't... Someday we're going to have callers again.

I suppose if I didn't preach, then we'd have callers. But when you preach, well, people just sit around and they listen to you preach.

But we appreciate your being a part of the program today. I would like to remind you, next week, right now, we have at least a verbal commitment that Scott Windsor will be with us to tell us why, from the

Roman Catholic viewpoint, John chapter 6 and other passages don't teach the Reformed understanding of predestination and election.

I hope you'll join with us then and participate then by calling in and interacting with both of us.

And I hope that the discussion today has been helpful to you in looking at what the Scriptures say on this very important subject. We'll see you again next week here on the dividing line.