Here is a response to Matthew Vines’ defense of this on the Christian Post. He asked for specific responses to what he wrote, and I did just that.
Matthew, you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing and one of the top enemies of authentic Christianity.
“In God and the Gay Christian, I contend that “the overwhelming majority of visible same-sex behavior (in antiquity) fit easily into a paradigm of excess” (104).”
That proves nothing. The overwhelming majority of visible same-sex behavior today fits in a paradigm of excess. Maybe that is part of why God prohibits it?! Either way, he prohibits it. Example: If you really love people you’ll warn them that the gay lifestyle is a coin flip away from getting HIV. From — http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/25/behind-the-increase-in-hiv-infections-among-gay-and-bisexual-men/ — “Gay and bisexual men represent an estimated 2% of the U.S. population but more than half of all people living with HIV and 66% of new HIV infections. They are the only population group in the United States for which HIV infections are rising. Projections have shown that if current trends continue, half of all gay and bisexual men will be HIV-positive by age 50.”
“Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of a same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation”
No, you just made that up out of thin air.
“non-affirming theology has had a devastating impact on LGBT people”
That is a question-begging non-argument. You assume the behavior isn’t sinful then say it makes them feel bad to say it is sinful. But the Bible is spectacularly clear on the topic. We can share the truth in love with LGBTQX people. If not affirming them makes them sad then your problem is with Jesus. Using your logic we would have to affirm covetousness, lust, greed, etc.
“which is inconsistent with Jesus’s teaching that good trees will bear good fruit”
More question begging.
“that celibacy is a gift, not a mandate”
Now that’s just a lie. Nowhere does the Bible say that any sex outside of marriage is OK>
“mandatory celibacy as a rejection of gay Christians’ sexuality corrodes the meaning of celibacy as taught by Scripture”
That’s more question-begging nonsense.
“that no Christians prior to the 20th century ever specifically prescribed lifelong celibacy for gay Christians, because same-sex orientation was not acknowledged by Christians until the 20th century;”
More question-begging: It isn’t an orientation! You should know better. Even pagan psychologists concede that preferences change over time.
And those earlier Christians didn’t have to waste time refuting false teachers like you!
“that the Bible never teaches that the sin of Sodom was same-sex behavior”
Other than in Genesis, Ezekiel (“abomination”), Jude, 2 Peter . . . Example: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/05/22/what-does-jude-7-mean-by-other-flesh/
Sadly, most people want to believe you and won’t research real scholarship.
“that Romans 1 addresses unrestrained lust rather than sexual orientation”
You just made that up.
“that Scripture moves in a liberating direction on women’s roles and, consequently, that the patriarchal norms informing much ancient antipathy toward same-sex behavior are not normative for Christians;”
Yes, Christianity is the best system for women (and men). But you just make things up when you pretend that it justifies LGBTQX behavior.
“and that condemning gay Christians’ capacity for covenantal love mars their ability to faithfully bear the image of our relational, covenant-keeping God.”
That’s a straw-man. We give people with same-sex attraction way more credit than you do. We think they can love in the agape sense but that they don’t have to add sex to the relationships.
“My point here is not that Paul was anything other than negative toward same-sex relations, but that lifelong, monogamous same-sex marriages today are substantially different from the lustful same-sex behavior Paul had in view in Romans 1:26-27. Keller presents no evidence to counter that claim.”
Because it is a bogus claim. Using that logic, a little bestiality is OK, just don’t get carried away with it, folks!
“It is not enough to say that “male and female have unique, non-interchangeable glories.” In order to make a persuasive argument from Scripture, Keller—and anyone else taking this approach—must define specifically what those “unique, non-interchangeable glories” are, and must then demonstrate that the Bible itself teaches that one or more of those aspects of gender complementarity is exclusively and universally normative.”
That is gibberish. https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/problems-with-pro-gay-theology-2/ The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:
– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.
Having said that, I believe that Christians should support and encourage those who are fighting same-sex attraction. And no one needs to grandstand on the issue before getting to the Good News of the cross: https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/evangelism-experiences-1/ .
* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:
1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)Bonus: Vines actually responded to me!
Have you read my book, Neil? It doesn’t sound like it.
Hi Matthew, I read your link and responded to it, quoting you directly. That is amusing that your only response was to plug your book and pretend that you gave a legitimate response to my point-by-point refutation of your link. I read plenty of “Christian” Left heresies online for free, thanks, so I don’t plan on paying for it.Thanks for the concession speech :-).
One of Vines’ supporters insisted that Jesus had gay sex with the apostle John. She also just married an atheist. And so on. This is the “Christian” Left.