Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Paul warns that evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving one another and being deceived.
The reason Paul told Timothy that was because he needed to be ready to spend the balance of his life in uninterrupted warfare for the truth.
The most dangerous people alive today are always, always, always ordained ministers.
They're the most dangerous people in the world, especially the ones that people think are Christians who will sell you theological poison to the damnation of your soul.
Folks, I just want to warn you about something. Every heretic in the entire history of the church, without exception, has taught their heresy in the name of being faithful to scripture.
What happened when Jesus was nailed to the cross? That was the day of wrath.
That was the day of judgment. That is the day of final salvation, brought back in time and applied to us once for all at the moment of our effectual calling when we repent and believe in our
United Christ. This is
Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church. And today is part two of my response to Matthew Bynes' book,
God and the Gay Christian, the Biblical Case in Favor of Same -Sex Relationships. This is an issue that is sadly being shown to be definitional to our time.
And it is extremely important that the church rise up and answer these objections and answer these arguments in a biblical and humble way, so that we can press forward with the building of Christ's kingdom and the
Great Commission and the evangelization of the world and calling people to repentance from every kind of sin that is out there.
And so I hope that you will find this helpful and edifying to your soul and that it will equip you to that end.
I hope you'll please turn in your Bible to Proverbs 28, verse 4, as an introduction to this last sermon on the topic of homosexuality in the
Bible, responding to Matthew Bynes. Proverbs 28, verse 4, and we'll look at one other passage before we begin.
Proverbs 28, verse 4. This is
God's Word. Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them.
I think we'll turn over to Romans 16 again. I want to read this passage again in your hearing.
And before I read it, just to say, the need for discernment is at an all -time high in our nation now, especially in the church.
And so we have to be ready to discern truth from error, right from wrong, and to do so in a way that's glorifying to God.
Romans 16, verse 17. Romans 16, 17. This is
God's Word. Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
For your obedience has become known to all, therefore I am glad on your behalf. But I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil.
And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Amen. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we're thankful again to be here together, and we're thankful that we're able to look into the
Word of God, that there be no question about what the truth is regarding this matter of marriage and human sexuality, and the blessing that it is in the context of marriage.
And we pray that you would help your church in this nation as it has struggled, as it has in many ways left the faith and departed from the standard of your
Word. We pray, Father, that you would stir in the hearts of your people a firmness to stand upon your
Word, a commitment to that Word, to its simplicity and clarity, an ability to answer those who oppose it, and to do so with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, and to do so in a way that brings glory and honor to your name, so that we're able to call people to repent and to call them to believe in Christ and the gospel, that they too might have the wonderful freedom that is in Christ and know the grace of God and forgiveness that is in Him.
Bless us now as we study how to answer. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen. This evening,
I want to close out this three -part series on this issue before us, responding specifically to a young man named
Matthew Vines, who's written a book that's become wildly popular, called God and the Gay Christian, the
Biblical Case in Support of Same -Sex Relationships. And I wanted to go through specifically some of the arguments that he gives and some of the ways in which he tries to diffuse what the
Scriptures specifically say about same -sex behavior. So with that, I want to dive right into this, and eventually what
I'd like to have maybe next Sunday or the Sunday after that is a laminated sheet that has, here are the basic arguments you're going to hear from those who are trying to make this case from inside the walls of liberal churches and sadly even some conservative churches.
And here's the way to respond to each one of these. But the first argument that Vines gives is this, based upon Genesis chapter 2, when
God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.
I will make him a helper comparable to him. And then we all know the narrative. God brings the animals and Adam names them all, and then no help is found suitable for him.
And so God puts Adam into a deep sleep and pulls out one of his ribs and closes it up and then makes a woman and presents her to Adam.
This is a beautiful passage in which God creates the perfect spouse for Adam, a woman. She is his complement.
Remember, when I preached through that long ago, when we started Genesis, that word that's translated comparable, when he says,
I will make a helper comparable to him, that Hebrew word negev, if you want to write that down, n -e -g -e -t -h, negev, means, quote, that which is opposite, that which corresponds.
God made a helper who was his opposite, that which was corresponding to Adam.
Vine's comments about this passage betray his very clear agenda. I want you to listen carefully to what this young man wrote, page 46, quote, about this passage, quote,
But what's remarkable about Genesis 2 is that despite the need for procreation, the text doesn't focus on the gender differences between Adam and Eve.
Rather, it focuses on their similarity as human beings. Adam commented only on the qualities that he and Eve shared together, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.
So the passage where God creates the other gender is not emphasizing the gender differences, we're told.
And that Adam doesn't emphasize their differences, but we both have bones and flesh. A couple of things to say in response to that.
The phrase flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone is not a commentary on their anatomical similarities.
The phrase flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone is actually used in other places in Scripture. It's a term of familial connection.
We are brothers, we are together, we are family. In fact, when Laban first meets
Jacob, remember, they were related, they were family. And he says to him in Genesis 29 -14,
Surely you are my bone and my flesh. Meaning what? We're family. In the book of Judges, when
Abimelech makes his bid to rule over the house of Shechem, one of the arguments he uses is that he's a family member of the house of Shechem.
In Judges 9 verse 2 he says, Remember, I am your flesh and bone. He's not saying we both have bones and are made of flesh.
That's not his point. His point is we're connected in a familial way. That's what Adam is saying to Eve when he sees her.
You are now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. We're family now, together. Matthew Bynes continues,
Adam said, she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. Adam and Eve were right for each other, not because they were different, but because they were alike.
That is exactly the opposite of what the passage says. What does the Hebrew word negev mean?
The word means opposite. I will make a helper negev to him.
Corresponding to him. Opposite of him. It's remarkable. When the passage is screaming one thing, but someone is so blinded by their own desires that they will not let the passage say what it says.
Listen to Bynes' comments again. Adam and Eve were right for each other, not because they were different, but because they were alike.
The Hebrew word negev means opposite. It was because they were different that they were right for each other.
That's the point of the passage. And then Bynes goes on and says, According to Pope John Paul II, the phrase suitable helper in Genesis 2 .18
and 2 .20 literally means a help similar to himself. Other common renderings include a help answering to him and a help corresponding to him.
The Hebrew term for suitable, which is that word negev I just told you, as a number of commentators have pointed out, can also encompass a sense of difference.
No, it doesn't encompass a sense of difference. The word means opposite. That's what it means.
This is one of the most remarkable sentences in the book. But that's not an adequate basis on which to import the entire concept of gender complementarity.
Import the concept of gender complementarity? The passage where the other genders created?
We're importing the idea of gender complementarity, we're being told here. This is desperate argumentation.
He is actually arguing that when we look at the very passage in the Bible in which the female gender was created by God to be the basis of gender complementarity, that we're importing that into the text.
Bynes goes on and says, Gender isn't the only way a person can be different.
And Eve was different from Adam in more ways than her gender. She was also a different person. Well, what could be more obvious?
Of course she was. He continues, And the Genesis text focuses only on what these two have in common.
Adam and Eve's sameness, not their gender difference, was what made them suitable partners.
Is this not striking argumentation? In the text of God's word, where we are given a beautiful narration of the moment in time when
God created woman, the opposite and corresponding gender to man, that the thing that made them suitable partners was not that she was a woman, but that she was a human being like Adam.
That's what we were just told. We're told that we're forcing people to be alone.
And God said it's not good for man to be alone. And for gay men, this book,
Matthew Bynes' book says, for gay men, the only suitable partner is another gay man. We're not forcing anyone to be alone.
As I mentioned last time, they're forcing themselves to be alone by choosing to define themselves as a sin.
And that is just the strangest thing. I want to encourage you, as you enter into the world, as you dialogue with people about this issue, do not let them talk about the gay community.
The LGBTQ community. That is as ridiculous as saying the thieving community.
Or the adulterous community. Or the covetous community. We are not defined as sins.
There is no gay community because there's no such thing as gay people. There are men who are designed to be sexually compatible with women.
There are women who are designed to be sexually compatible with men. And they choose to engage in perverted behavior that we label that way.
Do not let people define themselves as a sin. Remember what I said to you, if someone comes into my office and is struggling with a sin, they're struggling with thieving, with lusting, with whatever,
I would never say that's just what you are. You need to go find the thieving community and be affirmed and supported.
No, you tell people to fight. You fight those things. You fight what you know is evil. What you know is sinful and wrong.
The second argument that he gives is this. Sexual orientation is a pretty new concept that was unknown to the biblical writers.
We are in a new environment faced with a new issue. Those are his words. A new environment with a new issue.
It's at this point that we see the cards that Bynes is really playing with. We're told on page two of his book, please listen to this quotation, page two,
Bynes said this, right out of the gate of the book. Like most theologically conservative Christians, I hold what is often called a high view of the
Bible. That means I believe all of scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life. While some parts of the
Bible address cultural norms that do not directly apply to modern societies, all of scripture is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
End quote. He claims to be a theological conservative with a high view of the inspiration of the text.
But then later on, under this category, when we're told that, well, the idea of sexual orientation is a modern concept, then we see the true cards he's playing with.
Is he really a theological conservative? Well, let's listen to what he says. Page 48, quote, when we study biblical writings about marriage and celibacy, the question is not whether Jesus, Paul, or anyone else endorsed same -sex marriage, or whether they instead enjoined gay people to lifelong celibacy.
They didn't directly do either one. We saw in chapter two, our understanding of same -sex orientation is uniquely modern.
So the question we face is how to apply the basic principles of the Bible's teachings to this new situation.
End quote. Okay, let's boil that down in the Bunsen burner and see what's really being said there. Jesus, Paul, the biblical writers, they didn't know about this.
They didn't know about the concept of orientation the way we do. Jesus evidently was ignorant of that, and so was
God. What does that say about his view of the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture? It's nonexistent, obviously.
And yet we were told at the very beginning, I hold a high view of the inspiration of the Bible. Remember Romans 16, by smooth words of flattery, they deceive the hearts of the simple.
Notice what he said in that. He says the idea that loving, committed, monogamous, lifelong relationships between people of the same gender, first.
Secondly, our modern understanding that people are created with a same -sex orientation, which cannot possibly be changed, that those ideas were unknown to Jesus, Paul, or any other biblical writer.
That's, of course, nonsense. The Greeks wrote extensively about monogamous homosexual relationships.
They wrote about every kind of sexual perversion. Those things were well -known to the biblical writers. The idea that they would not need to talk about marriage, though, makes perfect sense because marriage is defined as one man and one woman.
There's no need to talk about marriage in any other context than that because it's outside the definition of what the word marriage means.
Now think carefully about what Vines has told us here. What must this mean if we really do believe that passage in 2
Timothy 3 .16? I mean, he quoted it. That scripture is God -bred and authoritative for doctrine, reproof, correction, training in righteousness, and so forth.
If we really believe what Jesus meant when he quoted these scriptures to his Jewish opponents, he would say, have you not read what was spoken to you by God?
Followed by quotations from the Old Testament. It's very simple. Matthew Vines is telling us that God himself didn't know about loving, committed, same -sex relationships and marriage.
And I want to point out to you, this really is the only option for those trying to argue for this position. You have to attack the
Bible. You have to. There is no way you can prop this thing up and hold to a high view of the inspiration of the
Bible. So if someone tells you that they do, listen closely, listen carefully, because they're going to speak out of both sides of their mouth, as Matthew Vines does here.
There's no possible way that anyone who loves the Bible, loves the Lord, loves the gospel, and wants to live under the
Lordship of Christ would actually believe that Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, God in human flesh, did not know what we moderns have discovered.
God didn't know about this entirely new and unheard of situation before us now. God didn't know about the idea of lifelong loving, committed relationships between people of the same gender.
So much for divine omniscience, I guess. Why aren't loving, lifelong, committed, monogamous, same -sex marriages and relationships addressed in Scripture?
The reason is actually simple. That's not love. You know what's interesting?
In that long talk that's out there on YouTube, 67 minutes long, he talks about this issue. His book, he does not define that word, love.
That's missing. Two men cannot love each other because there's no correspondence between them. You can't love a mirror.
No one can. Two women can't love each other either because there's no opposite correspondence between them.
Because all same -sex desire is contemned as sin in Scripture, and marriage and marital love are defined clearly, explicitly, and exclusively as heterosexual, the
Bible doesn't address same -sex marriage because it's an oxymoron. It makes no sense to even talk about it.
The phrase itself is entirely unintelligible anyway. Marriage by definition and the creative decree of God itself and the created order is only heterosexual.
And so the idea that orientation is a new concept and what he's talking about was unknown to the biblical writers, that's an attack on Scripture itself.
The desire for this is itself sinful. That's what Romans chapter 1 points out so clearly to us.
It's against nature. It's a sin against God because of that. Thirdly, the arguments being put forward, celibacy is a gift, not a mandate.
It's wrong to force gay people to be celibate. This is a long argument in his book.
He goes on, this one, for page after page after page. He goes through Jesus' and Paul's teaching on the gift of celibacy and argues that it's wrong to force celibacy on gay
Christians. And again, that's begging the question. We don't accept that label. There's no such thing as a gay
Christian. There's no such thing as a gay person. There are males and there are females. And some people struggle with perverted sexual desires and they have to fight them in the same way they would fight the propensity to steal or covet or do any other sin.
The passage itself that Paul uses assumes the constant biblical definition of marriage that's set forth in Genesis 2, 18 -25.
Anyway, let's look at this passage because this is very commonly used. 1 Corinthians 7, 8 -12. If you'll turn there please.
1 Corinthians 7, 8 -12. 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verses 8 -12.
1 Corinthians 7, 8 -12. Now, keep in mind before I read the text here, Vine cites this passage saying it's wrong for people who hold to the traditional interpretation to force gay people to be celibate.
But notice the assumed definition of marriage in the very passage. 1
Corinthians 7, verse 8. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am.
But if they cannot exercise self -control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Now, to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, a wife is not to depart from her husband.
What's the assumption there about marriage again? See it? Verse 11. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest
I, not the Lord, say if any brother has a wife who does not believe and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
You see? Him and her. Him and her. Husband and wife. Wife and husband. That's right.
It's wrong to force people to be celibate. But what is the only outlet for that is to be married to someone of the opposite gender.
The passage that he's using himself cannot possibly be referring to what he's saying it refers to.
We're not forcing quote -unquote gay people to be celibate. That's right. Celibacy is a gift.
Some people have that special gift, that special calling, and they're able to devote themselves entirely to the service of God because of that.
But the idea of gay people being celibate, it has nothing to do with this passage before us.
It's talking about people in normal marriage relationships or not in normal marriage relationships.
Fourthly, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah comes in for a great deal of attention from Matthew Bynes as it should.
Anyone that's going to address this issue has got to take on Genesis chapter 19. Now, we're not going to have time to go through that.
We're coming right up to it in the Genesis series. We'll be going through that in much more detail on Sunday mornings. But the basic argument that revisionist scholars have tried to use to diffuse this passage was this.
Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for gang rape, not loving relationships, and they were also condemned for arrogance and apathy towards the poor.
It wasn't specifically homosexuality. It was just the fact that they wanted to gang rape the people there in Lot's house.
In his YouTube video, Matthew Bynes cites this passage on Sodom and Gomorrah. I want you to look at this with me.
Ezekiel 16, 49. He cites this passage as an argument for his position.
And as I read this verse to you, I just want to point out, he doesn't cite or read the very next verse, verse 50, in his video presentation.
But look at verse 49 of Ezekiel 16. Ezekiel 16, verse 49 says,
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom. She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness.
Neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And that's where he cuts off the citation.
He says, see, there's nothing here about homosexuality. There's nothing here about raping men. There's nothing here about any of that.
They were condemned, see what it says in the text? For pride, fullness of food, abundance of idleness.
She didn't strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy. Look at the next verse. Brothers and sisters, look at the next verse.
And they were haughty and committed abomination before me. Therefore, I took them away as I saw fit.
Now I have a question. What kind of honest discussion of this issue ignores that verse?
See what it says? They committed abomination. Albert Muller, in his book that they wrote in response, it was in God's providence,
God smiled on the church. Their book, Responding Divines, was published the same day. They got it out the same day.
Albert Muller wrote this about that passage in Ezekiel. Quote, Ezekiel, who makes abundant use of the book of Leviticus, describes various sins of Sodom, then concludes, they were haughty and did an abomination before me, so I removed them when
I saw it. This indicates that the abomination committed by Sodom led to their destruction.
Ezekiel's reference to Sodom's abomination uses the singular form of the Hebrew term
Toeva, which means abomination. And that term is used in the singular only twice in Leviticus when same -sex intercourse is called an abomination in Leviticus 18 .22.
Now I can certainly understand why the whole citation would not be read in his presentation. It doesn't exactly fit well with the point he's trying to make.
But as I said, what kind of honest handling of this issue would ignore that? Muller continues, and when the death penalty is prescribed for it in Leviticus 20 .13,
the singular form of Toeva, abomination, is used only in those two passages, and the singular is used there in Ezekiel 16 .50,
referring to the sin of men being with men. That's the whole point. Muller continues, the four other instances of the term in Leviticus are in the plural, making it likely that Ezekiel uses the term from Leviticus 18 .22
and Leviticus 20 .13 to reference the same -sex intentions of the men of Sodom.
The next argument is this, and this is another one that's quite remarkable.
Leviticus condemns same -sex behavior. You saw it in Leviticus 18 .22, Leviticus 20 .13.
Matthew Bynes actually says in his video presentation and in his book, Leviticus is never applied to Christians as moral law.
This is one of the most common arguments found on the internet. Quote, well, if you can eat shellfish and pork, then you're just as much violating the
Levitical holiness code as the homosexual is. I know Christians eat bacon all the time. You guys are hypocrites to allow that, but to condemn this.
And again, dietary restrictions have been explicitly listed in the New Covenant, right? Acts 11, remember the sheep that comes down with all the animals, and Christ tells
Peter, kill and eat. Remember He says, nothing unclean has ever entered my mouth. And then He says, do not call unclean what
I have pronounced clean. The shellfish and pork arguments have nothing to do with this issue.
Nothing. The dietary restrictions are gone. They have been listed. Jesus said in Matthew 7 .19,
because it does not enter his mouth, but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.
Those dietary restrictions are gone now. It is astounding that Vines makes the sweeping statement he does about this.
It's not qualified at all in his book, in his presentations. Christians are not under the moral law.
The very same passage of Scripture that condemns same -sex behavior, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, also condemns bestiality, idolatry, stealing, lying, cheating, sacrificing children to Moloch as burnt offerings, cursing father and mother, and also positively commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves.
And many other basic moral principles are right there in those Leviticus holiness codes. Leviticus 18, 19, and 20.
And we're told by this man that those are not binding on Christians. You don't have to love your neighbor anymore.
You can steal. You can curse your father and mother. What kind of argumentation is this?
How can this be working? How can this be persuasive? To anyone who loves the
Bible, if Vines is going to argue that the Levitical holiness code has been fulfilled by Christ in such a way that they're no longer binding on Christians, then we're no longer obligated to love each other.
Again, this man wants so badly to erase and change what the Bible says about his behavior, but he's doing it at a cost that guts the
Bible of its authority, its inspiration, and of the entire foundation for its laws concerning human conduct altogether.
Sixthly, Vines argues that in Romans 1, Paul condemns same -sex lust, not love.
Paul in the ancients saw same -sex behavior as stemming from out -of -control lust, and that's very different from a committed, loving, monogamous relationship.
Let's look at that passage one last time. Look at Romans 1, 24 and following. Romans 1, 24 and following.
Paul, after explaining the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against the ungodliness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, so that men are without excuse.
In verse 24, he then begins to speak about the consequences of this suppression of truth. He says,
Therefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, to exchange the truth of God for the lie, and worship and serve the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions, for even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
That Greek phrase there. Very, very important. Paraphusen. Against nature. What is it that makes same -sex behavior wrong?
Is that it's against nature. It's paraphusen. It's not that it's out -of -control lust, or it's not really committed love.
It's against nature. That's the point. This whole idea. Well, Paul condemns same -sex lust, but not love.
Love between two people of the same gender is not possible. It is paraphusen.
It is against nature. That's not love. In any way. In Pastor Danny Cortez's sermon,
Danny Cortez, that Southern Baptist convention pastor of New Heart Community Church, has split that church right down the middle by preaching that sermon, coming out in favor of homosexuality and gay marriage and all the rest of it.
He actually said, when he spoke to Romans 1, that what Paul was referring to here was the
Roman Emperor Caligula and his perversions and the activities that were taking place at a temple somewhere in Rome.
Cortez also said that Romans 1, 24 -27 is referring to violent sexual sins taking place at a temple in Rome somewhere.
That there was a temple in Rome, and there were these violent, horrible, sexually perverted acts taking place, and the
Roman Emperor Caligula probably was alive at this time, and he was engaged in all this horrible filth. And that's really what
Paul was turning to. I remember watching that on YouTube, watching his sermon, and pushed pause and re -read the passage, and thought, there's nothing here about a temple.
There's nothing here about Caligula or an emperor. There's nothing here about violence. What does the passage say?
Why is this a sin? Look at the last phrase of verse 26. It's against nature.
That's the problem with it. Remember from last week, that last phrase, para fucem.
What's wrong with it? It's against nature, and everyone knows exactly what that means. The attempts to get around Romans 1, 24 -27 by revisionists are astounding to read.
And it's more astounding that people actually believe them. But it stands unalterably opposed to any supposed biblical blessing on same -sex relationships.
The Bible simply cannot be made to fit this idea. Seventhly and finally, we're told the term homosexual didn't exist until 1892.
And again, reading this argument, I just thought, what could be more irrelevant than that? The issue is not the
English word. The issue is, what do the Hebrew and Greek words mean? And what did they mean to the people that originally heard them?
The last 50 years only have used the term homosexual in saying, for example, in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 -11, that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
I want you to look at this passage with me. 1 Corinthians 6, 9. 1 Corinthians 6, 9. 1
Corinthians 6, verses 9 -11. It's a shame that this passage is treated the way it is because it's a glorious passage.
It's a beautiful text. Speaking about the deliverance of people from these kinds of things, along with lots of other kinds of sins.
Let's look at it together. 1 Corinthians 6, 9 -11. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.
Okay, stop right there. There are two important words that are used there in the Greek language. The word that's translated as homosexuals in the
New King James Version. I know other translations will translate that word as effeminate. Some of your translations might say effeminate.
The Greek word there is malakoi. If you want to write that down, it's M -A -L -A -K -O -I.
Malakoi. Malakoi. It's a very simple word. A very easy to understand word. You can look it up in any
Greek, English, New Testament lexicon. It refers to the passive partner in homosexual sex.
That's what the word means. That's what malakoi means. And then the next word that Paul uses in the
Inspired Text, where that's translated sodomites, in the New King James Version, is the word arsenokoites.
Now, that's a little bit longer. If you want to write that down, it's A -R -S -E -N -A -K -O -I -T -E -S.
A -R -S -E -N -A -K -O -I -T -E -S. Arsenokoites.
Now, that term means one who engaged in sex with someone of the same sex. That's what the word means.
Now, do we have to have the word, the English word? Does that word homosexual have to exist for us to understand what this means?
Of course not. But Paul is pointing out there were people in Corinth who were formerly like this.
Who formerly did these things. And look at verse 10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified.
But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus. And by the spirit of our God. Such were some of you.
Not such are some of you. And I affirm you. And God blesses you. No, those are the things we turn away from.
When we come to Christ, he washes and cleanses and delivers us from all of those things. There are many revisionist writers who have tried to narrow down the true meaning, especially of the word arsenokoites.
The word is unique. And most agree that it was not used prior to Paul using it here in the New Testament. Vines is correct.
The term homosexual is a more recent English term. Prior to that, the word sodomite was always used in English.
That's the common way of referring to the sodomite. One of the common tactics used by people trying to overthrow the
Bible, and Danny Cortez does this in his sermon in support of gay marriage, because gay marriage being blessed and approved by God in the
Bible, is simply this, to cast fog over the meaning of words. Cortez, after quoting a wide array of pro -gay scholars, basically leaves everybody in a thick fog.
Nobody knows what arsenokoites means. Nobody really knows what that term refers to. Yes, we do. The word means a person who has sex with people of the same gender.
That's what arsenokoites means. But whenever someone's grand conclusion of their scholarship is, we don't know and nobody knows, always remember this one quotation, a great quotation from John Calvin.
Years ago, I remember reading this going, man, this is something everyone needs to have tattooed to their brain. Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.
When people give their wide array of scholarly argumentation, and the grand conclusion is, who knows?
I say, I think there's something else going on there. Because when God speaks, he doesn't have a speech impediment.
He speaks clearly, and we can understand what he's saying. Everyone knows what arsenokoites mean. That's why every
English Bible that's ever translated the word, since English became a language, has used terms that refer to same -sex behavior.
It was most likely, that word is unique, arsenokoites, it was most likely a term that was created by Paul based upon the
Greek Septuagint's rendering of Leviticus 20, verse 13. The Greek translation of the
Old Testament is often quoted in the New Testament. In Leviticus 20, verse 13, it says, if a man lies with a male, that word male in the
Greek Septuagint is arsenos. And the next phrase in the Greek Septuagint says, as he lies with a woman.
Listen to how it actually reads in the Greek Septuagint. Arsenos koitain. And Paul coins the word arsenokoites.
One who does that. And most scholars think, that's where he's getting that, from the Greek Septuagint. In Leviticus 20, verse 13, it reads, arsenos koitain.
A male who lies sexually with another male. That's what arsenokoites means.
It's coming right from that passage in the Greek Septuagint. Both of them have committed abomination.
They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. Arsenos koitain is how it's read in the
Greek Septuagint. And Paul simply puts them together. Arsenokoites. It's also the same word he uses in 1
Timothy 1, verse 10. Again, every English Bible that's ever translated until today, renders the word as homosexual.
Sodomite. One who engages in homosexual perversion. And so again, we're faced with another rather irrelevant argument.
The fact that the word homosexual is new, and appears in newer English translations, is really unimportant to the fact that the
Greek words Paul uses are very clear. And they refer not to excessive or violent forms of same -sex behavior, but all same -sex behavior.
It is all an abomination before God, because it's paraphusin against nature.
That's why. So in conclusion of this series, the thing that makes the book hard to read, is that overriding commitment on the part of Bynes and others like him, to the fact that he insists that he is only attracted to men.
That dominates his entire book. It's just on page after page after page. This is what I am.
It cannot be changed. This is what I am. It cannot be changed. No reparative therapy is going to change me.
This is the way God made me. Bynes is convinced that there are men and women who are not capable of being attracted to members of the opposite gender.
They're just not capable of it. God created them with this orientation. And unfortunately, the Bible just didn't know anything about it.
God didn't know anything about it. And here again is where his personal experience is being elevated over the clear teaching of the biblical text.
And we have to learn as Christians to simply apply this Bible verse, Romans 3, verse 4.
Let God be true, and every man a liar. If someone just insists, this is what
I am, this is what I am. I say, no you're not. No, you aren't. You are a man. You're a man.
Act like one. You're a woman. Act like one. Let God be true, but every man a liar.
Our experience of sin does not override. It's wrongness. It's wickedness.
Our attraction to things which are evil does not make that attraction right. Anyone here ever been attracted to something that was wrong?
How many of you have ever thought, that must just be the way I am, and I can't be changed? There's a lot of unbelievers that do think that.
Our desires, just like our behaviors, are all under the absolute authority of the Word of God. Remember the quotation
I gave you last Sunday evening from Vines. He said, quote, It's completely natural to me.
It's not something I chose or something I could change. Should it surprise us that people work hard to rationalize sin like that?
Should it surprise us that we ourselves often do the very same things in our mind with sins we're used to living with?
The human mind, heart, and body are fallen. It's a sad reality that the very same two sentences
I just read you from Vines, their same -sex attraction is natural to me. It's not something
I chose or can change. As I said, it's already being used to justify attraction to children on the part of adults, animals, and everything else you could think of and some things you would never want to think of.
If the Christian church accepts Matthew Vines' statement here as true, as Danny Cortez has, that God just created him as a gay man, that he can't help it and he cannot change it,
I want to tell you what the real implications of that are. We can't preach the gospel to anyone ever again. If the church buys this, get rid of the
Great Commission. Get rid of it. Matthew Vines, how do you share the gospel with anyone?
Do you ever share the gospel with anyone? How do you do that? If we can't define what sin is, and if we can take something this basic and try to say that the
Bible blesses it, then we can't share the gospel with anyone. Romans 3, verse 20, precious verse,
Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
How do I know what sin is? I look at the law of God. And it says about same -sex behavior, don't do that.
That's an abomination to God. Punishable by death. In Old Testament Israel. Matthew Vines wants to remain a conservative
Bible -believing Christian. In fact, he even states it that way in another YouTube video. He says, quote, I grew up in a strong Christian home and when
I came out, I didn't want to have to give up my faith. So what this book is, is showing how you can reconcile being gay and believing the
Bible. You see the agenda? It's as plain as the noonday sun. One of the strangest arguments
Vine uses is this, quote, Paul condemned same -sex lust, not love. But there again, he's begging the question, men can't love men in that way.
Neither can women love women in that way. Because there's no negev there. There's no correspondence.
There's no opposite correspondence. There must be a correspondence there for love to exist in that way.
My final thoughts to you in this series are these. The most dangerous people spiritually are the ones who masquerade as Christians, but teach contrary to the
Bible. Satan's attacks against the church are rarely a frontal assault. It's usually subtle.
Subtlety of speech. That's why Paul said in Romans 16, smooth words of flattery deceive the hearts of the simple.
They do the most damage. I have far more respect for the person who makes the decision to pursue their perverted sexual desires and simply says,
I no longer love Christ. I no longer believe his word. And I want everyone to know that I'm not in any way, shape, or form a
Christian any longer. That person, at least, is honest. But when people believe they are saving themselves by their works and believe that they're
Christians, that they can be unrepentant murderers, kidnappers, thieves, homosexuals, habitual liars, etc.
and still wear the name, Bible -believing conservative Christian, now we're dealing with simple dishonesty.
And I want to close with a conclusion from Albert Muller's treatment of Vines' book. Muller wrote this,
Has Vines thrown the knockout punch to the biblical norm? Has he refuted the view that the only expression of human sexuality the
Bible endorses is that between one man and one woman in marriage? Has he defeated the view that the
Bible regards all indulgence of same -sex desire sinful? In view of his logical fallacies, his failure to account for the big story that frames
Genesis 19, meaning that it was wrong because God created man and woman and that's what marriage and sex are about,
Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and his suggestion that the Old Testament presents women as inferior to men in spite of their
Genesis 1, 27 equality, I would say that Vines is not even in the ring. His attack on the
Bible's teaching is ultimately an attack on the one who inspired the Bible, God. In view of the way
Jesus interpreted Genesis 1, 27 and 2, 24 and Matthew 19, the attempt of Vines to overthrow the
Bible's teaching is more like a kid on the street trying to sucker -punch the champ. The Bible's teaching, however, is untouched by any attempts to lay it low.
My last illustration to you is this. Go back in your Bible real quick to Proverbs 28, 4. Proverbs 28, verse 4.
We open with this verse this evening. Or this evening, excuse me. Proverbs 28, 4.
Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them.
Think about that. Those who forsake the law praise the wicked. Danny Cortez, that Southern Baptist Convention pastor, preached this sermon.
It's all over the internet. His hour -long proclaiming the goodness and blessing of God on same -sex marriage.
Danny Cortez has been invited by our president to the White House. Those who forsake the law praise the wicked.
At least there's no ambiguity about where we stand. I don't expect to be getting any invitations to the
White House. John MacArthur can't expect to be getting any either, or anyone else that has preached forcefully, standing on biblical authority against this issue.
I just want you to remember that. There's no question about where our nation stands on this issue, at the highest levels, the very highest seat.
He's invited to participate in Gay Pride Month there at the White House with the president of the
United States, the world's most powerful man. Just remember that. It may come to where it costs us dearly to stand for biblical righteousness, but I'll tell you,
I want to encourage you, if we give in on this issue, we can't preach the gospel to anyone anymore. And we can't do that, because we are obligated to call all sinners of all types to repent.
And if we really love God and we really love them, that's exactly what we will do. Let's close in prayer. Father in heaven, again, we thank you for the simple clarity of your word.
And Father, it's heartbreaking to think that there are genuine Christian people who are being confused by this kind of argumentation.
And in some ways it's their fault, and in other ways it's not, because their shepherds have not equipped them to deal with this onslaught.
Lord, help us to remember the things we've learned here in scripture. Help us to be able to respond in love to the simple arguments here, and to have enough love in our hearts for you and for the truth to stand firmly on the wonderful blessing of marriage and family that you've created, governed by your word and under your lordship.