Dakotas Christian Believers Arena
Come on in and browse 
   Home      Controversial Issues 2

On Homosexuality

What follows are 9 articles on the issue of homosexuality taken from our sister website  www.theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com  We hope you enjoy and learn from these offerings. These are not the only posts on the issue so we encourage you to go to our sister website and search and read more.

1. Ms. Evans ‘Discussion’ On Christian Homosexuality

Before I get to the main points of her blog post I wanted to point out one of the comments made by one of her participants;

    #1. I love the invitation to non-affirming, straight Christians to start a movement of celibacy in solidarity with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I don’t see this one happening, though

It is a questionable thought to think that this might be remarks made by a straight Christian. It just mystifies the mind that someone would be so naive about sin, about what salvation does to a person, Christian teaching and who are your actual Christian relatives.

The question needs to be asked, why should straight believers give up the opportunity to be married when their supposed homosexual Christian brother or sister is free to marry an opposite sex mate? The do not have to do so but that option is still open to them. We do not need to ‘stand in solidarity’ with anyone on this issue but be biblical about it.

#1. http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-celibate-gay-christian-response

   #2.Since our conversation yesterday looked at Matthew Vines’ argument that lifelong celibacy is not biblically mandated for gay and lesbian Christians, I wanted to make space here for another perspective.

I would agree with a clarification. The converted homosexual is not limited to a life of celibacy. They are still free to marry someone of the opposite sex BUT they are not allowed to return to their pre-conversion days of practicing same-sex relations.

    20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 [h]It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter NASB)

My concern is that those who have repented of their sin of homosexuality or have not acted upon their same-sex temptations should not be identifying themselves as homosexuals.  If they want an identification, the word eunuch comes to mind because if they have received salvation they are not a homosexual anymore.

    #3. Julie writes about the angst of growing up gay in the church and the hope she finds in Christ’s story of restoration.

The lack of solid and correct biblical teaching in the church leads many a person to this angst. Instead of calling it a same-sex preference, maybe if we identified it as a sexual temptation we might be able to stop more young people from taking the homosexual path.

What clouds the issues and creates confusion is when people listen to secular experts or committed homosexuals talk about those young desires. They do not understand nor accept God’s view on the subject thus they come up with all sorts of false reasoning to explain their decisions.

Many homosexuals actually try to convince young people that they are indeed bound for the same-sex preference simply because their evil lusts influence their thinking and they desire to have their way with the child or teen.

Believers really need to seek God on this issue because how we handle this problem with our children is delicate and important. We shouldn’t condemn right away but find the source for their misguided thinking and go from there.

    #4. She says she “loves that He entered into the human experience and alleviated suffering in those around Him, and that He absorbed the pain of the world with His life, death, and resurrection

Yet no mention of providing freedom from sin. This is another problem which confuses th issue when talking to homosexuals. They refuse to admit they are practicing and in sin. They want their preference t be considered as natural, good and wonderful as heterosexual activities are. it won’t happen. Homosexuals need to be told what is right, what is wrong and what they must do to escape the wrong.

Jesus did not come to earth, live, die and was resurrected to keep people in their sins and make them feel good.

#2. http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-gay-christian-celibacy

You really have to wonder why someone who claims to be a Christian who has the word of God and knows what God says about certain topics, would seek to ignore God’s warnings and  alter his words all because they want to see unrepentant people be included in the church and the Christian faith. They are not doing the homosexual any favors by doing this and why they would want to bring sin into heaven is not logical.

Ms. Evans is one of these people. It boggles the mind that such fallible humans would attempt to go against the mighty God in this manner? Since I cannot participate in her ‘discussion’ she will have to visit this website to read my side of the issue.

    #1. So, both Matthew and I are affirming, in the sense that we do no consider monogamous same-sex relationships to be inherently sinful

Her confession to supporting sin and calling it good.  God disagrees with her and Vines and it is God’s opinion that counts here. This is just an end run around scripture, trying to make a loop-hole where none exists.

    #2. The predominant view among non-affirming Christians regarding gay and lesbian Christians is that if they wish to remain faithful to Scripture, they must pursue celibacy

This idea is probably a product of misunderstanding the work of Christ and the teaching on becoming a new creation. The option to marry an opposite sex mate is still there, as I said in point #1. above. They should not be forced to be celibate nor should they be forced to marry someone from the other gender.

BUT they cannot go back to their old lifestyle as clearly taught by Peter. There is no permission from God for believers to practice same-sex relationships.

    #3. Non-affirming Christians generally argue that the creation of Adam and Eve reveals the limits of God’s blessing for sexual relationships: one man and one woman. As an opposite sex couple, Adam and Eve were best suited to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”

So in Evans’ and Vines’ mind it is okay to be homosexual now  because there are enough people on the earth to keep the world full. The logic illustrated above is just dumb and makes no sense for no other book or passage later in the Bible provides instruction or permission for same-sex relationships.

There is no foundation for Evans or Vines to build their opinion upon. If they were correct, then God would have made that very clear in Leviticus and he would have given out instructions on how same-sex couples are to carry out their relationships just as he had heterosexual couples.

Every relationship passage concerns itself with heterosexual couples only. Not one word for the homosexual couple to guide their lives by.

    #4. Celibacy is a gift, Matthew argues, and those who do not have the gift should feel free to marry.

The bad logic continues. It is amazing how much gymnastics Vines does to twist the word of God in order to support his decision to disobey God and pursue  a same-sex relationship. Just because you are not given the gift of celibacy doesn’t mean you have permission to ignore the passages of scripture barring same-sex marriage.

Vines is very desperate here as he looks for any fragment or silence that would open the door to his sinful desires, even it is just a crack. The rules of God still apply even if you are not given the gift of celibacy. Those rules do not change–homosexuality is an abomination to God and those practitioners are not welcome in heaven.

    #5. It is better,” Paul writes, “to marry than to burn with passion.”

Their appeal to Paul is as illogical and naive as their appeal to Jesus was. They are taking a generic word forgetting Paul’s context for the word and applying their own ideas to his words.

Paul is not granting permission for same-sex couples to marry if they can’t be celibate with those words. His context has been and always will be God’s definition of marriage–between a man and a woman. There is no room in Paul’s words to shoehorn in same-sex ideologies.

    #6. Matthew works in some solid research here, which suggests the tradition teaching on celibacy, for most of Christian history, is that it was a calling, not a mandate.

Appealing to church history is even more desperate as those men were not talking about same-sex unions but heterosexual ones. Also, even if they were including same-sex unions, that doesn’t mean that God changed his mind about homosexuality. The people in church history are fallible and make mistakes about God’s word just like modern people do.

They do not have greater access to God or his intent than anyone else and they do not have the authority to change what God has declared as sin and an abomination. The people in church history are not writing new scriptures. Their words are not inspired like the words of the Bible. We need to be careful about how we use their words, checking with the Holy Spirit to see if they are in line with what God has taught in the Bible.

    #7. Matthew makes the case that— though broken and imperfect—“creation is good. The body is good. Sexuality, as a core part of the body, is also good.” Therefore, any doctrine that teaches Christians to detest their sexual desires is unorthodox, contrary to the most central teachings of the Church.*

If you want a good example of how a deceived mind works when it comes to scriptural issues, the above quote is it. Sexual desire is good only if the people abide by God’s rules. Adultery is not good because it violates God’s rules on how people are to have sex.

Homosexual desires and practice are not good because they violate God’s rules. The criteria for what is right and wrong do not include the idea that this is good, that is good thus everything is good.

We could go to the absurd and use his logic in this manner–man is good, woman is good thus rape is good. It is not what is good that makes something right or wrong. The rules determine right and wrong.

His conclusion is also off the wall and the mark.  He is saying that all sexual desires are good thus they all should be practiced. But I do not hear him make a case for polygamy, bestiality, incest and so on. He only wants HIS sexual desire to be included in Christianity and what is good.

He does not understand the word perversion at all or if he does he does not want that word applied to HIS sexual desire. The doctrine that says homosexuality is wrong and to be detested is not contrary to ‘the most central teachings of the church’. it is part of the central teachings of the Church and of God.

His reasoning and research is not very honest.

    #8. Mandatory celibacy for gay Christians does not fulfill that purpose. It undermines it, because it sends the message to gay Christians that their sexual selves are inherently shameful. It is not a fulfillment of sexuality for gay Christians, but a rejection of it.”

He really does not understand the meaning or idea of sin. No one is to support sexual fulfillment for the gay Christian if it means that they return to pre-conversion sinful practices.

He just doesn’t get what sin and repentance are all about. He has a personal agenda and in pursuit of that agenda he refuses to look for the truth but ways to get around the truth. He has no desire to be honest, objective or even fair when he handles God’s word or this issue.

He appeals to teachings about celibacy but those teachings do not open the door for monogamous same-sex relationships. His work is called ‘doing eisegesis’ and that is reading into the scriptures what one wants to see and it is the  opposite of exegesis which is taking out of scripture only what is actually there.

In none of the teachings on celibacy is same-sex unions addressed or being alluded to as a correct option for the believer. None of those teachings even refer to same-sex unions or grant permission for them to be conducted. God does not say in one part of the Bible that same-sex relations is an abomination to him, then in another part of the Bible and another topic say same-sex relationships are okay, especially if they are monogamous.

God is not inconsistent. He doesn’t change what is sin because the nature of the sin is practiced like those actions he approves. Sin is sin no matter how it is practiced.

    #9. Of course, let’s face it. There are also no examples in Scripture (or, to my knowledge church history) explicitly supporting same-sex relationships.  So it seems these are the two uncomfortable realities we hold simultaneously…at least for now.

Ms. Evans ends her article with these words. So we must ask, why is she supporting sin, calling it good and demanding that unrepentant homosexuals be allowed into the church? She ignores the truth because it suits her.

This chapter may say its issue is the act of celibacy but no one is forcing celibacy on any converted homosexual. At least they shouldn’t be. The option to marry an opposite gender mate is still available to them BUT the homosexual doesn’t want that option. They want their own sexual desires not the one that God says is good.

It is not the Bible’s nor the Christian’s fault that the homosexual refuses to embrace the truth. It is the homosexual’s  because they refuse to do things God’s way. I want to end my piece with the following words from 2 Peter 2

    But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (NASB) (bold mine)

I think you get the meaning of those words and how they apply to today’s subject

2. Homosexuality Does Not Have God In It

This may be stating the obvious but there are still many homosexuals and their supporters who claim that they are Christian and in line with God’s word. Jim West is an ardent anti-same-sex marriage supporter and he occasionally  posts different articles on the interaction of homosexuals with real believers. Here is his latest


His conclusion is quite interesting

The moral: unless you want everyone to tell you how to run your business, don’t go into business.  Sure, it’s your business, but it won’t be seen that way anymore.  Now it will be seen as everyone else’s business and they will tell you how to run it.

In today’s world if someone doesn’t like the way you treated them they have far more unsupervised options to retaliate against you.  In the old days, before computers, cell phones, twitter and social networking sites the options were word of mouth, the newspaper, or in person interaction.

These three options allowed for cooler heads to prevail and things were different attitude wise. It was very difficult to hurt someone when your own feelings were hurt or you didn’t get your way. Now-a-days people do not have the filters in place to get them to calm down and think things through before taking action against someone who rejected your request or disagreed with you.

They can just bypass wise counsel and head straight for the juggler, spewing hatred and get their revenge.

You would think that after the years of torment and the public claims of following Jesus the homosexual would know better. You would think that they would look at how they felt when they were bullied and would seek to implement Christ’s teachings to their own actions simply because they did not want to become like their oppressors.

You would also think that they would want to prove that they really do follow Christ by turning the other cheek and return good for any perceived evil. Sadly, those things do not happen or they just aren’t getting the press.  Then you would think that wiser homosexuals would publicly tell their hotheaded reactionary friends to calm down via media interviews and counsel them to take a wiser road.

We do not see any of this taking place. What we do see is homosexual bullying of those who do not agree with homosexual desires. If homosexuals want to claim to be Christian then they need to put Christ’s teaching into practice and seek the higher road instead of the legal one.

When you look at their words and actions everyone can see that the homosexual claim to being Christian and that God is with them are just not true. The following is just a brief look at the homosexual non-Christian reaction and you can read the whole story at the following link


But after the matter was posted online, homosexual advocates took to Yelp, Google, Facebook and other outlets to flood the boutique’s pages with negative reviews.

“This company is formed by religious extremists who practice hate filled-customer service,” one wrote.

Providing negative reviews is not a biblical teaching, especially when they are not true. Saying ‘no’ to certain requests are not ‘hate-filled customer service’ but simply expressing a preference– something the homosexual community wants to do with its sexual choice.

It is easy to see the double standard enacted by homosexuals. They want the freedom to express their preference but they refuse that same freedom to those who disagree with them.

Victoria Miller is a whack job that seethes hate,” another posted. “She will burn in hell for her statements about God hating gay people. I hope you go out of business.”

Name calling, insulting, and their negative comments here spew more hatred than the simple ‘no’ given by the boutique owner. Those words are certainly not biblical teaching nor are they the right thing to say when someone else expresses their preference on certain requests.

The only people ‘seething hate’ seems to be the homosexuals who wrote and supported such comments. But these hate-filled actions are not limited to just the homosexual community

According to BloomUToday, the Bloomsburg town council may now be seeking to pass a regulation barring businesses like W.W. Bridal Shop from declining requests from homosexuals and others despite their religious beliefs.

It seems that people get to violate the rights of believers and those violations will not be considered hate-filled but ‘anti-discrimination’; even though the council is now discriminating against the Christian and trying to bar them from practicing their faith. Hatred in reverse gets a new name to make it okay.

Instead of counseling the homosexual couple  to let this rejection go and go to another store that will accept their request, like cooler heads would counsel, the spoiled nature found in many homosexuals is reinforced by this council’s unwise actions.

Instead of resolving the problem wisely, the counsel has now made things worse. Yet again we do not see more mature homosexuals speak up and defuse the situation by using wise counsel that follows the teachings of Christ. Their silence speaks volumes and contradicts any claim they make about having God with them or that they are Christian.

The homosexual community has a responsibility to keep their more volatile members in check yet they do not do that. Every article I have read on the problems faced by individual homosexuals has been absent of this option. Instead I have only read comments inciting hatred in the homosexual against those who disagree with them and adding fuel to the fire by the supposed committees looking out for homosexual rights.

Someone once said that two wrongs do not make a right. Well if the Christian business has done wrong, then the negative and hate-filled reactions by the homosexual community, the different levels of government and the supporters of homosexual rights do not right that supposed wrong.

Committing wrong acts in answer to supposed wrong acts is not following biblical teaching nor God. So the homosexual community really needs to step up and rein in these miscreants who target Christian businesses and cause trouble for innocent people who exercise their preferences. If they don’t then they have become exactly like their persecutors.

No one is really fooled by the homosexual  community’s claim that they love Christ, etc., because their actions speak a lot louder than those words do. There is nothing of Christ or God in their ‘movement.’ So they need to drop all pretenses and simply be honest–they want to practice their sin, so they are not of God but of evil. Let’s call a spade a spade, and drop all the games.

The silent homosexuals who do not participate or support such reactionary legal maneuvers are just as guilty as those who do because they refuse to counsel them towards the right behavior. They also refuse to discipline these legalized bullies which adds to their sins.

The homosexual likes the idea that the playing field is tilted in their favor. They now have a safe haven within many levels of government who provides them with a big stick to persecute and bully those who disagree with them. That just isn’t right nor of God. But then those not of God do not care as they get to hurt his people and get their sinful ways.


One of the things that attracted me to this story was a comment made in the comment section

Perhaps there is a nice Muslim owned bridal shop the happy couple could try? I’d bet good money that the gay mafia are specifically targeting Christian owned businesses just so they can file their grievances and advance the immoral, leftist, agenda (ChuckAugust 10, 2014 – 6:15 pm )

This is probably true and some homosexuals may be willfully going to Christian businesses to purposefully cause trouble for those who are truly Christian. Don’t walk into such traps blind but be discerning, wise and careful.

Ask Jesus what to say when encountering those who practice activities outside of the Christian faith. Martyrdom is not for everyone nor should we childishly seek it. The homosexual has become the persecutor now, they have not gained God’s approval or acceptance. They act for evil only.

The trial of one’s faith comes in many forms and it is not always physical harm.

3. Homosexuality Is In the News Again

I think people are getting tired of hearing about the latest development in same-sex marriages or what celebrity has decided after all these years that they are suddenly homosexual. Yet the media cannot seem to get enough of these stories.

One of the most recent is the following decision in Arkansas:


Saying Arkansas had “no rational reason” to prevent gay couples from marrying, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza struck down a 2004 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage late on Friday.

“This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality,” Piazza wrote in a decision reported by The Associated Press. “The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent.”

I am not a homosexual or same-sex marriage supporter and I do take offense at what the Judge said in that quote. There is a ‘rational reason’ to prevent homosexuals from marrying because marriage has been defined for thousands of years as a ‘union between 1 man and 1 woman’.

That is rational enough but if we want more rational reasons we can point to the inability of same-sex partners becoming one, reproducing, and contributing to the general health of society as well.  I would say spiritual health but too many people either reject such ideas or have alternatives for that to have any effect but in reality believers do know that the spiritual health of a nation is very important to its survival and well-being.

The judge there  also said that homosexuality is a minority but that idea opens the door to allowing people to marry their pets, or farm animals, it opens the door to bigamy and allows for religious groups to claim minority status for their multiple wives doctrine and so on.

We do not change the definition of an institution because a few people refuse to follow the rules. By doing so, the judge has set marriage on a slippery slope it cannot recover unless it closes the door to same-sex marriage.

Biblically, and again too many people will not like what I will say as they hold to their own alternative ideas but, there is no admittance of homosexuals into the institution of marriage. Peter laid it out very clearly when he wrote:

and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter. (2 Peter 2: 6 NASB)

Homosexuality wasn’t the only sin practiced in those cities but it was not excluded either. Since there is nothing of God in the practice of homosexuality, it stands to reason that that preference would originate and allow other sins to be practiced as well.

We do not need a theological debate on the words ‘that we may know them’ to understand that the driving sin, the foundation sin in Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality. We see their sinful practices today as they ignore biblical teachings while claiming to be Christian.

If God was in homosexuality, the homosexual would not participate in so many other sins or allow their community to accept and endorse their use. Biblical teaching would permeate their lives but we know it doesn’t.

Now why did I use that scripture to support the point made? Because since homosexuality was the foundational sin of those cities, it stands to reason they allowed same-sex marriage. In order to say that one needs only to turn to the words of Solomon in Ecc. and read:

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. (1:9 NASB)

Same-sex marriage did not originate in the 20th or 21st century. It has been around for a long time and God has shown his displeasure of that practice by leaving Sodom and Gomorrah as an example for all time periods.

I have come to the realization, hopefully it is brought by God, that since the definition of marriage was made thousands of years prior to the writing of the American constitution, that constitution has no authority to include those who have been excluded by God’s defining of marriage.

Appealing to the constitution is a coward’s way out of a situation where no one will be happy with the conclusion made by a judge.

But this isn’t the only homosexual topic in the news today. McGrath does a book review at his website on the book God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines


Now the first problem with that author and book is that the only way for a homosexual to be Christian is to repent of their sins and give up the practice of homosexuality. Anything else, the homosexual do not have the right to call themselves Christian.

John makes that perfectly clear with the following words:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1 NASB)

There is no middle ground with God. Now I have not read the book and the following will be based upon what McGrath says the author wrote or what McGrath writes himself.

That is why Vines’ book is so important. It is written by a conservative Christian who is gay. It accepts the authority of Scripture. And it makes a convincing case within that framework that what the Bible says does not provide a basis for disapproving of same-sex marriage

There are many problems within that quote. First, one cannot be a conservative Christian and be homosexual. A conservative christian holds to the one man and one woman definition of marriage and does not allow for alternatives to be included in the marriage institution.

Second. How can one accept the authority of scripture yet still practice sin and say that that sin is good? One is calling God a liar by doing so.

Third, The Bible does provide a convincing basis for disproving of same-sex marriage. It says

because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:16 NASB)

Do a study on the word ‘holy’ and you will never see homosexuality or same-sex marriage included in God’s definition of that word or practice. Just because the Bible does not explicitly state the words ‘same-sex marriage is not marriage or right’ does not mean that the bible does not provide a basis to disprove of that act.

Vines points out that the Bible itself asks people to look at the fruit that is produced by people and by teachings.

This is a classic example of cherry picking the verses one wants to use in support of one’s faulty arguments. Yes the Bible talks about knowing someone by their fruit but it also talks about what happens to those who disobey. We only need to turn to the story of the conquest of Jericho and Ai to see that in action.

What kind of fruit does homosexuality produce? More disobedient people and disobedience is not favored by God. So we do know the homosexual by their fruit, its fruit is tainted and evil while not being of or blessed by God.

The second chapter starts with Galileo and how new information requires us at times to let go of earlier interpretations of Scripture.

The problem with this point is that ‘interpretation’ is not truth nor is it usually biblical truth. New information may dispel interpretation because interpretation does not usually contain inspired words.

Galileo’s and other astronomers’ work did not overturn any biblical teaching but it did expose what false ideas looked like when it comes to biblical references to the universe. It also shows how those who do not believe the Bible or God  do not understand what the Bible is teaching when it mentions things like,

He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. (Ps. 104:5 NASB)

Most people would not think that upon hearing the following words

Let heaven and earth praise Him, The seas and everything that moves in them. (Ps. 69:4 NASB)

You stretched out Your right hand, The earth swallowed them. (Exodus 15:12 NASB)

that the earth possessed a mouth, a stomach and a breathing apparatus thus we can say that those who held to the sun revolving around the earth when hearing the Ps. verses were misguided and the anti-creationists are simply ignoring how the scriptures should be read and  use such misguided thinking to for their benefit..

People will use interpretation to their advantage which is why we are not to follow it.

 For most men in the Greco-Roman world, sex with other men was not an alternative to sex with women, but something which was pursued, in the eyes of critics, because of the insatiability of their lusts, seeking novel pleasures.

If you read modern homosexual literature alone and did not find any heterosexual romance novels you would draw the same conclusion. The above quote is making an over generalization  based upon a few ancient manuscripts whose intent and purpose cannot be discovered.

It is an insult to the ancient world to draw such conclusions from sparse works. Homosexuality has been around for a very long time thus it is no stretch to conclude that they wrote their own literature, had their own plays describing their lusts, behaviors and desires.

It is like reading Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliette and deciding that every person of Shakespeare England killed themselves after a love affair went bad.

Chapter 3 focuses on celibacy, noting that there is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible that people may have natural attraction to people of the same gender and that they are called to celibacy

They are called to repent of their sins for acting on those attractions, which I doubt are natural, or looking to God to relieve them of such desires. The Bible only leaves room for heterosexual marriage thus that or celibacy is those people’s only choices. Because the Bible doesn’t speak on the issue doesn’t mean it grants permission for people to marry the same-sex.

Marriage has already been defined by God and why should he be redundant and say the same thing over and over throughout the Bible just to appease those who did not get the message the first time? Same-sex advocates are looking for any loophole to justify their pursuit of sin.

 noting that the attempted same-sex act in the story was gang rape, which is wrong regardless of whether the victim is male or female, as Judges 19 shows.

This is a very big stretch and the scene alluded to illustrates how depraved the people of Sodom had become because of their sinful pursuits and alternative lifestyle.  Homosexuality does not spawn godly behavior and we can see that today just by looking at the ‘gay pride’ parades, the homosexual bar scenes and the homosexual response when told ‘no’.

The desire to ‘know the angels’ does not provide any justification for same-sex marriage. The men of Sodom had anyone in their city to marry so that episode falls well short of providing any evidence in favor for modern same-sex marriage.

The chapter shows that not all rules about sexuality found in Leviticus carried over into Christianity, and thus Leviticus cannot be cited simplistically on the matter.

This is pure desperation on the part of the author of that book. He cannot find any real biblical support for his same-sex desires or marriage thus he grasps at straws and does the old ‘you ignore the food laws why should we obey the laws against homosexuality’ argument.

One reason is that the OT food laws are not repeated in the NT nor is a command to follow them placed there for Christians telling them to adhere to those laws WHILE repeated rejections of homosexuality and homosexuals are found in the NT. I Cor. is quite clear that the homosexual will not see heaven

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (ch. 6 NASB)

That is quite a difference thus that argument does not hold water.

we need to ask why Paul wrote what he did, so that we can understand the underlying principle and its application, and then seek how to relate that to our current context. Vines concludes that Paul was not speaking about “homosexuality” in the sense that we use that term today:

Really? So sin of Paul’s time is not sin in our time? Since God does not change that is a laughable idea. Actually the act of homosexuality has not changed at all since Paul’s time to now nor had it changed from Noah’s time to Paul’s.

Homosexuality is still the same unnatural act of man and man or woman and woman. There are no degrees of that sexual preference and what God has declared sin and an abomination doesn’t change either.

There is no biblical support for that quoted idea and it is all subjective eisegesis  that would even suggest such a change took place. Trying to change what sin is  shows a very desperate person trying to find some way to justify their decision to participate in what God hates.

Chapter 7 tackles the words malakoi and arsenokoitai. A survey of past translations highlights that it is only recently that the former was connected with same-sex intercourse.

This is another desperate ploy. Attack the translation of ancient words when all else fails. The problem for those who know ancient languages yet do not believe in Jesus is that they do not know what the truth is and would not be able to provide any replacement translated meanings to those passages that would be correct.

Their work is influenced by their bias and far from objective and even further from having God’s help. Translation of biblical words isn’t dependent upon knowing many ancient words and their meanings, it is dependent upon following the Holy Spirit to the truth.

Homosexuals trying to re-translate scripture are trying to change God’s word in their favor in order to claim they are following God by having same-sex relations.

Chapter 8 then moves from showing that these texts are not about committed same-sex marriages in our context, to making a positive case for same-sex marriage from the Bible.

The word ‘committed’ is being used here as some magic pill that makes sin go away. It won’t work because being committed to one’s partner (in the homosexual’s case) or spouse (in the heterosexual’s case) doesn’t mean one is obeying God.

Commitment is not necessarily obedience. One can be committed to their spouse and still slip and have an affair or a one night stand. Commitment doesn’t mean one is ‘saved’ or has repented from their sins. It just means one has chosen to stay with one job, one pet, or one mate/partner.

If that partnership is an adulterous one (pre-marriage) or a homosexual one then one is still wrong and living in sin and disobeying God. Being committed does not change what sin is.

And when we reject the desire of gay Christians to express their sexuality within a lifelong covenant, we separate them from our covenantal God, and we tarnish their ability to bear his image.

This quote shows that the unbeliever has no clue about what being the image of God is all about. They also ignore the fact that homosexuality is sin. They refuse to accept that fact and think that it is Christians that are separating homosexuals from God. It is their acceptance and practice of sin that is separating them from God.

Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil [c]has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is [d]born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is[e]born of God.10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: [f]anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3 NASB)

The homosexual is passing the buck to Christians instead of accepting the responsibility for their own choices and their desire to practice sin.

In the final analysis, it is not gay Christians who are sinning against God by entering into monogamous, loving relationships. It is we who are sinning against them by rejecting their intimate relationships.

This is just a lie. There is no scripture commanding that anyone accepts a same-sex marriage; there is also no scripture granting permission for same-sex marriages. There is scripture saying that homosexuality is wrong and sin and it is the homosexual who is deceiving themselves and sinning not the believer who rejects their sinful practices.

Vines’ book is full of sound contextual exegesis. None of it bothered me or seemed dubious to me from my perspective as a liberal, but none of it is a liberal interpretation or based on a liberal view of the Bible.

McGrath is no one to give recommendations about such topics. His anti-biblical stance is well-known thus his approval and  assessment  about this book means nothing. He is an unbeliever as well thus anything that goes against biblical views he will delight in. He also would not see where Vines goes wrong in his treatment of scripture and this topic.

It is the blind rubber stamping the work of the blind

4. On Homosexuality

If you are like me, you have reached your threshold concerning the topic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Mine came when an article appeared talking about a gay Spiderman


The question is, why does every character, every person, etc., have to be turned into a homosexual? is the homosexual community so intolerant that they cannot stand having heterosexuals in existence? It certainly seems that way.

Last night I was perusing  the book Old Testament Parallels by Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin and I came across this little tidbit on page 117:

If one citizen has homosexual intercourse with another, then, following due process, the defendant is castrated (Middle Assyrian Code)

An interesting law and one that shows that some ancient civilizations had no patience or tolerance for homosexual activity. We must be careful though, as the English word ‘homosexual’ is a recent invention, originating somewhere around the late 19th century


So people searching the ancient languages for evidence of the illegality of the homosexual preference will be surprised to find out that the ancients did not use that word . They had their own words to describe that sexual preference and modern researchers must be open-minded when looking for anti-homosexual behavior, laws and so on. The Bible uses words like ‘have sexual relations’ (and I am not going to go into the Greek and Hebrew words at this time) and other similar terms

“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does witha woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 18:21-23 (NIV)

So one must be careful not to dismiss phrases that refer to homosexuality simply because they do not contain modern words referring to that sexual practice. Some translations have updated English biblical terminology

for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

1 Timothy 1:9-11 (NIV)


Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6 NIV)

But you cannot rely on having the same service rendered with all ancient documents. Now just because some ancient civilizations had a tolerance for homosexual behavior doesn’t mean that behavior is correct or not sin.

It just means that today’s permissive attitude towards that sexual preference is not new. The ancient Greeks and Romans seem to have a permissive attitude concerning homosexuality:


The largest amount of material pertinent to the history of homosexuality is from Greece, from notable philosophers and writers such as Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, and pseudo-Lucian, to plays by Aristophanes, to Greek artwork and vases. James B. De Young notes that homosexuality seems to have existed more widely among the ancient Greeks more than among any other ancient culture.


After Greece, Rome is the next most significant entity in the history of homosexuality, and this cultural practice in both is understood by scholars as being what the apostle Paul is immediately referring to in condemning homosexuality in Romans 1.[25] Romans emperors were sometimes the most notorious examples of homosexuality. Edward Gibbon, in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, wrote that “of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct (not homo-sexual]

This historical attitude towards homosexuality does not make the preference normal or equal to heterosexual unions. It does tell us that the ancient societies disobeyed God and that we should not be following their example.

Now many modern homosexuals tend to say that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexual practices but because of their selfishness, their intolerance, their greed etc. Well, if you look at the behavior of many of the homosexual community today and you would see selfishness, greed, intolerance, abuse of government rules and process, abuse of the courts  and so on.

In other words, homosexuality begets sinful behavior and attitudes towards others. There is nothing of God in that sexual preference. We see it today as the homosexual community refuses to take ‘no’ for an answer and appeal their case to a like-minded judge who has no tolerance for other people’s preferences or wishes.

Or in legal cases where homosexuals are suing heterosexuals simply because they were refused services. The homosexual doesn’t care about the beliefs or preferences of others and try to force people to do as they wish.

These are not isolated incidents but a demonstration that homosexuality does not have love, brotherly kindness, patience and other biblical characteristics within its boundaries. The homosexual preference is not rooted in God instead it is rooted in evil thus we see more and more evil practiced by those who choose to adopt that alternative sexual lifestyle. The bullying of heterosexuals, politicians, and the democratic process is rampant among homosexuals.

So we can say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their homosexual preference and practice. Nothing good comes from the acceptance of homosexuality and all it brings to society is not constructive behavior but destructive.

People can spin their facts any way they see fit and the modern researcher must be careful when reading works on historical or ancient issues as we are told that history is in the eye of the historian. We cannot blindly accept what ancient writers said for they are not God nor can we blindly accept what modern historians tell us about the past for the same reasons.

This is why we do not take archaeology, science, history etc., over God’s word. Those topics are subjective and can be used to support the agenda of anyone. God’s word provides right and wrong for all generations and it does not change with the latest fad or popular cause.

5. Homosexuality Will Always Be Sin

It seems the sports world in America is all afire right now by the confession of a basketball player who plays for a storied team. You can read the story at the following link


keep in mind it is a yahoo link and may not be active for a long time, so here is the player’s name and you can search for the different articles about his announcement:  longtime NBA center Jason Collins.

Why do those who claim to be homosexual need to make such public announcements?  For decades the members of the homosexual community have been  complaining about the violence they endure because of their sexual preference. Their argument against homosexuality as a choice is, ‘why would we choose a lifestyle that brings us so much abuse, hatred, discrimination and violent attacks, and so on?’

So if their lifestyle is so terrible why do these people have this compelling need to tell the whole world about their choice?  They might as well strap a target on their backs  and go into the woods during duck hunting season. They are pointing the arrow right at themselves and saying–‘here I am come get me.’

Here are some things that homosexuality is NOT:

It is NOT…1. …news. No one cares about your sexual preference except for you, your mate, and your parents, possibly other relatives. the world doesn’t care and doesn’t want to know about it.

2. … brave or courageous. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and it is not going away. Any person ‘coming out ‘ is not the first person to declare themselves as gay. This has been taken place for millenia and everyone is used to the idea that some people refuse to be straight.

3. …a badge of honor. There is nothing to be gained by making such announcements. World peace does not hinge upon the idea that each nation needs a certain allotment of homosexuals in their population to stop wars or conflicts. You are not going to get a medal for declaring oneself a queer.

4. …something to be proud of. Homosexuality contributes nothing positive to society or a homosexual’s life. declaring oneself as a gay is not like winning the various marathons, the Stanley Cup, the Presidency. It is a declaration that one is practicing sin and that is nothing to be proud of.

5. …becoming one with one’s lover. Sorry but to be one with a mate two people cannot have the same apparatus on their bodies. It just doesn’t work and the two are not producing what God intended–a joining together as one body and reproducing another human being out of love. Homosexuals can’t reproduce nor can they join together emotionally, romantically, and physically. Doesn’t matter how hard they try to justify their attempts with other ideas, the two remain two separate people and have no hope of becoming one with each other.

What homosexuality is:

Homosexuality is… 1. … an abomination to God. Why is that? Because it is throwing God’s creative gift to mankind back into his face and saying it is not good enough. it is saying God’s way is wrong and that God was wrong for not allowing sexual alternatives.

2. …sin. No matter how many people ‘come out’, no matter if the whole world turns homosexual, no matter if a person alters every translation of the Bible to make homosexuality okay it still remains sin.

God has said what is or isn’t sin and he is not going to be swayed by the homosexual’s argument to the contrary. Yes, you can alter those passages of scripture which speak against homosexuality but God didn’t make those changes thus homosexuality remains a sin.

Billy Graham could stand in the pulpit and declare homosexuality is good but guess what? Homosexuality remains a sin and not good. Why? Because Billy Graham is not God and he does not have the power nor authority to alter what God has declared sin.

3. …abnormal. Yes, it doesn’t matter if lesbians and male homosexuals love each other and live committed lives to each other. Homosexuality still isn’t normal. it is not what God created in the beginning, it is not what he blessed and it is not what he gave the command, to fill the earth to. Those honors belong to the heterosexual couple.

The heterosexual couple is the normal and no matter how accepted into society the homosexual union becomes, it is still not normal.

4. …bad for civilization. Sodom and Gomorrah need to be highlighted here as Jesus said those cities stand as an example and lesson for all generations. Yes, people try to provide all sorts of reasons for those cities destruction but homosexuality was still rampant and part of the reason why they were destroyed.

Think about it. There were not even 10 righteous people in those towns which means that the people of those cities were doing all sorts of evil, probably on the level of the pre-flood society, and homosexuality was practiced in those cities.

God destroys evil. He hates it and he has declared homosexuality evil and sin thus any society calling that preference good is calling sin and evil good and that is a mistake. People should take a hard look at the punishment meted out to Sodom and Gomorrah and change their ways–rejecting evil and repenting from it, turning to Jesus and  embracing his ways.

Nothing good comes from homosexuality but destruction follows it like a dog following a scent. Instead of going with secular society and calling evil good, separate yourselves from evil doers and call sin what it is–sin. Let the world know what is God’s right and wrong and let them make a choice but do not follow the crowd into sin.

God said, ‘he who is not for me is against me’ and those who support homosexuality are not for God at all.

Jesus said ‘let your light shine…’ but it can’t shine if you follow and accept the secular world and its ideas. There is no light to shine in that case.

Coming out is not a big deal. It is not brave because the world supports it. A person is brave if they ‘come out’ for Jesus and stop following the crowd.

6. Ms. Evans Homosexual Discussion- 2

Today’s topic is about the Bible and the verses condemning homosexual behavior. Right at the top a comment is made by Vines which is very disturbing and shows how little regard homosexuals have for God and his word. But first the link to the discussion


#1. Drawing from the work of biblical scholars, most notably James Brownson, Matthew looks at the context, language, and historical background of these passages to conclude that the Bible does not directly address the issue of same-sex orientation or the expression of that orientation. “While is six references to same-sex behavior are negative,” writes Matthew, “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation” and so these passages do not apply to gay, lesbian, or bisexual Christians in committed same-sex relationships.

The bold is mine as it highlights the disturbing words from Vines.  The very first question that comes to mind is, ‘Who is Vines that he gets to dictate which passages of scripture apply to homosexuality or any other part of life and which ones do not?

We do not see him acting on God’s behalf trying to straighten out a doctrinal error or misguided people. In fact we do not see him invoking God at all in his ‘crusade’. We do not see anything from God at all in Vines or his work.

There is no holiness, humbleness, no recognition of the work of the spirit or anything else that would tell people Vines’ words are of God or God approved. What we do see is a wild, reckless and desperate attempt from one homosexual to justify his continual participation in sin even though God has said it was abominable to him.

His logic fails because there is NO biblical support for same-sex orientation, let alone any escape clause allowing homosexuality to be good if it is done in a monogamous, committed relationship. Where are the scriptures that allow this splitting of hairs?

What is the difference between abnormal sexual preferences if they are done as a one night stand or a fling, an affair or just for fun, and their being done with one person for years on end?

For heterosexuality we have biblical teaching telling us that pre-marital sex in any form is wrong and sin. We have NO such teaching separating the practice of homosexuality into good and bad practices.  What Vines does is import his own desires into the biblical texts in order to justify his failure to obey God and the Bible.

#2.Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” (Ezekiel 16:49-50, ).

I took out his emphasis here and also have skipped over his example of Sodom  for now. This passage is refered to a lot by homosexuals as they seek to feel good about their sexual preference. But of course they skip over the key words to make their distorted point:

If Sodom’s sin had indeed been homosexuality,” writes Matthew, “it is highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that fact.”  This is true for other ancient Jewish literature as well, he argues, where Sodom’s sins are identified as arrogance, indulgence, and lack of hospitality.

Of course, Vines forgets that many writings do mention homosexuality as one of the sins Sodom and company were destroyed for practicing. He also ignores the last line in that passage he quotes and which provide the key words that tells us the sin of homosexuality is included in the list of reasons for Sodom’s and company’s destruction.

The words ‘did other detestable things before me..’ seem to escape his attention. Does God have to list each sin individually before the homosexual gets the message that they are wrong? Are not the other verses in the Bible enough of a warning for them? apparently not as Vines thinks the lack of mentioning homosexuality in that passage is justification enough to conclude that homosexuality is good if it is done like a real marriage.

#3. So what about the men of Sodom’s threats to gang rape Lot’s guests?

As Matthew points out, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation or an expression of sexual desire. In the ancient world, for a man to be raped was considered the ultimate degradation, a sign of total defeat. Warriors who wanted to shame their conquered foes often raped them in order to humiliate them

Really? Homosexual gang rape has nothing to do with sexual orientation or expressing sexual desire? I have yet to hear or see any heterosexual man, whether as a conqueror or in meeting new men in their city express any desire to gang rape men.

The gymnastics it takes Vines to get to this weird conclusion makes Olympic athletes jealous. In quick research the raping of men is not mentioned anywhere but even some took place, Sodom, Gomorrah and the others were not at war, these men were not warriors who vanquished a foe nor even come close to overcoming them.

Their words were straight on lust and evil desire and nothing else was considered. it boggles the mind how homosexuals distort past events to eke out even a minute excuse to justify their decision to practice their sexual preference.

Then appealing to a subjective subject like history is always a dangerous thing to do because even if such practices took place it doesn’t mean it was condoned, legal or even encouraged. It also doesn’t mean that any male rape of another male came from any other desire than homosexual lusts.

As usual, you will notice that neither vines or Ms. Evans offers even one link to a credible and legitimate historical document supporting this reasoning. They take the generalization route and are dishonest about the whole issue.

#4. Notes Matthew: “Neither Lot nor the old man of Gibeah said, ‘Don’t do anything to these men, because that would be a same-sex act.’ Instead, they both expressed concern that the visitors had come under the protection of their homes. The men were their guests and the ‘sacred duty’ of hospitality…was paramount.”

So according to Vines the man was for same-sex relations if it were done outside of his home? That makes no sense at all. The host most likely knew what was going to happen to the men if he did not bring them into his home for protection. he wa snot for same-sex relations anywhere it took place.

Vines distorts scripture for his own selfish purpose. here is a verse that supports my position and not Vines;

20 The old man said, “Peace to you. Only let me take care of all your needs; however, do not spend the night in the open square.” (Jud. 19 NASB)

Clearly the words indicate that the old man had knowledge of the behavior of the inhabitants and took the unknowing men out of harm’s way. He wasn’t for same-sex relations, he was protecting these men from them. The ‘sacred duty of hospitality’ had nothing to do with it.

#5. Only the latter two passages make reference to Sodom’s sexual sins. Jude 7 says the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in gross immorality and went after stranger flesh.” But rather than referring to same-sex relationships, the phrase “strange flesh” seems to refer to the attempts to rape angels instead of humans

I think these are Ms. Evans’ words but it is hard to tell at points because there is such a co-mingling of thoughts in her article. Just what do both Ms. Evans and Vines consider to be ‘gross immorality’? Do they not think that homosexual preferences and actions are not immoral?

The words stranger flesh do not apply to rape of angels as no human is capable of over-powering any angel. That reference is a figment of their imaginations as they hasten to conclude that monogamous same-sex relationships are biblical and approved by God.

They reference Mt. 10 but that passage has nothing to do with the validity of same-sex unions or the reasons for the destruction of those cities. Same for the passage in Luke.

It was the Jewish philosopher Philo who first explicitly linked Sodom’s sins to same-sex behavior, and his idea caught on

No it was the Bible who did it first and we cannot say Philo was the origin of that reference because of the lack of extant ancient writings on the topic. Vines’ and Ms. Evans attempt to make the connection to Philo, means they are trying to make the condemnation solely human instead of divine. In so doing they then can claim that God does not disprove of monogamous committed same-sex relationships, even though the connection provides no  support for that claim.

They blame the human in order to escape divine condemnation.

#6. Even though it was decided in the Council of Jerusalem that Gentile Christians are not bound to Scripture’s Levitical law, discussions continue to this day regarding how those texts apply to followers of Jesus.

That is not true. The book of Acts records the topic to be circumcision not all of the Levitical laws. Acts 15 lays out the decision of the council and the people were not given a pass on all of the law.  The main issue of course was circumcision not homosexuality and you will see that no permission was given to have same-sex relations.

Of course, Ms. Evans and Vines ignore the word ‘fornication’ as it applies to the same-sex issue. I would imagine that some homosexuals want to have same-sex marriage legitimized and legalized in order to avoid thinking they are fornicating.  Here is a link to one discussion on fornication


In the Bible, the Greek definition of the word “fornication” means to commit illicit sexual intercourse.

The issue of course is did the council have authority to change what God said was an abomination to him? They did not thus their decision did not nullify God’s unacceptance of homosexuality.

#7. It’s easy to forget just how many of these laws are disregarded by Christians without much thought. Leviticus 3 and 11, for example, forbid eating animal fat or blood, shellfish, and animals that walk on all fours and have paws—all of which are denounced as “abominations,” along with having sexual relations during a woman’s period, and charging interest on loans.

Just because other people may sin or break the law doesn’t mean that you can break the law  or that homosexuality is suddenly deemed okay. The logic used by both Ms. Evans and Vines is astoundingly bad as we see in the next quote.

#8. As Matthew points out, in the vast majority of cases, the word “abomination” (typically the Hebrew, toevah, which is used in Leviticus 18 and 20) refers to what the Israelites associated with the idolatrous practices of the Gentiles, leading Old Testament scholar Phyllis Bird to conclude that “it is not an ethical term, but a term for boundary making,” with “a basic sense of taboo.”

The last line provides the key words. God used the word ‘abomination’ to make a taboo boundary for sexual practices yet Vines and others ignore that fact. God said heterosexuality is good and everything else is taboo.

But their illogical thinking continues:

Many other biblical scholars share this view, which helps make sense out of why eating shellfish and charing interest on loans might have been considered taboo to the ancient Israelites, but not Christians today. So while ‘abomination’ is a negative word,” Matthew says, “it doesn’t necessarily correspond to Christian views of sin.”

So he appeals to the practices of misguided people or misinformed people to justify his practice of what God said was sin.  Why not appeal to God and the truth and use his application of the word ‘sin’ instead?

But they do not stop with their lack of logic

 In addition, there are no condemnations of either polygamy or concubinage, which are in fact assumed within the text.

So because there is no direct condemnation of other relationship practices, this nullifies and over-rules the direct condemnation of same-sex relationships? Then they go on and say that because there were other sins subject to the death penalty, same-sex sin was not serious. It is hard to describe how illogical that makes their point of view.

#9. So as we read these ancient texts, we need to keep this question in mind: Do these writings suggest that same-sex unions are wrong because of the anatomical ‘sameness’ of the partners involved? Or is the primary concern a different issue?”

The desperation of both Vines and Evans is very evident as now they look to secular ideas about same-sex relations and try to apply those views to God’s holy perspective. It doesn’t matter how the secular world views homosexuality. They do not decide what is or isn’t sin or how God defines what is an abomination to him.

That is like appealing to a rapist who claims that rape is not sin or wrong and that he should be allowed to continue raping. If these people are going to make a biblical argument about a biblical sin then they need to stick to those who believe the Bible and not appeal to those who live in sin and have no desire to do what is right.

Sinful cultures and people are in need of a savior and they are not an authority to determine who can practice what in the church or Christian faith.

“If the issue were anatomical complementarity,” Matthew argues, “female same-sex relations should be condemned on an equal basis. And yet, the text is silent on this matter…The entire question of how bodies fit together doesn’t seem to be on the radar. The concern we see is centered around the proper ordering of gender roles in a patriarchal society.”

The text is not silent on female to female relationships. They are considered homosexuals as well even though today they prefer the word lesbian. Female homosexuals go to hell just like the male homosexual will.

It has nothing to do with a society being patriarchal or not. That is just another phony argument to attack God’s order of things.

#10. Frankly, I’ve never found arguments against same-sex relationships from these Old Testament texts particularly persuasive,

They do not have to be persuasive, the OT texts just need to be obeyed. The main failure of most of these arguments is that both Vines and Evans use only 1 incident to make their case. On top of that, they do not know all the details involved in that situation and it seems they do not want to know yet they try to twist the scriptures to fit their point of view.

If any argument is not persuasive it is Vines’ and Evans’. They cannot point to one biblical incident or situation that confirms their point of view. There is not one monogamous, committed homosexual relationship recorded in the Bible and shown to be approved by God.

Their only resort is to twist what God has written in order to make God say something he did not say. They are not presenting a biblical argument against an unbiblical stance. They are trying to justify and legitimize an unbiblical stance and support of sin by attacking, twisting, redesigning, ignoring biblical words.

We do not even see the Holy Spirit behind their words. We just see people who disagree with God doing everything they can to practice sin and call it good.


Here is a link to a review of Brownson’s book on homosexuality that may be one of Vines’ resources


P.S. Ms. Evans is invited at ay time to write a rebuttal to anything I have said here in this article and in the article #1 as well as future articles addressing the information she puts on her blog.

Her contact information states that any contact via wrong channels will be ignored and I am sure I would pick a wrong channel to invite her. So if any of you know the right channels feel free to pass this invite along.

i won’t edit her remarks and will give her a separate page to place her response so she is not lost in the crowd. for that matter Michael Vines has the same invitation.

7. Ms. Evans & Her Homosexual Discussion- 3

I wasn’t planning on using my 900th post on this topic but I had forgotten that this discussion was still ongoing and I had trouble accessing her website on a different computer. The lengths that people go to find some sort of justification to practice their sin is a sign of how wrong the practice really is. Today’s installment demonstrates the extremes Vines and Ms. Evans go in order to support sin and call it good.

#1. Perhaps the most significant passage in the debate regarding the Bible and same-sex relationships is Romans 1: 26-27, which opponents to same sex relationships often point to as a “clear” statement on the matter

These opening words set the tone for the rest of the article.  They tell us that Ms. Evans and Vines do not have a high regard for God’s word and think that opponents of same-sex relationships have it all wrong.

#2. According to Paul, the sins of the Gentiles are rooted in their worship of idols, which led them to indulge in vices like envy, slander, gossip, murder, arrogance, and “shameful lusts.” Here he notes: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” and the men “abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another

In other words Vines and Evans are trying to separate what God has called sin into different categories and saying that if sin were practiced in another way then it is not really sin at all. They are desperately looking for a loophole for their personal beliefs about homosexuality. I wonder how they view pedophilia if it were conducted in a loving and monogamous manner? Would they make the same arguments, have the same type of discussions or rearranging scriptures to support such a sexual alternative?

Why do they target only homosexuality? The answer to that question is because that is what they favor. I highly doubt they would defend a loving, monogamous pedophilic relationship with the same drive and perseverance. The hypocrisy involved in their side of the argument undermines any point they raise. We must ask, why is it that they ignore all other alternative forms of sexual practice? Are not those practitioners favored by God as well as the monogamous, loving homosexual couple?

#3. Pau’s depiction of same-sex behavior in this passage in indisputably negative,” acknowledges Matthew. “But he also explicitly describes the behavior he condemns as lustful. He makes no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So should we understand Paul’s words to apply to all same-sex relationships, or only to lustful, fleeting ones?”

Here is where the separation of sinful behavior really takes root. Evans and Vines try to divide sin according to Paul’s words refusing to accept the fact that what they advocate cannot be divided by the apostle’s words. The refuse to see that their style of  same-sex relations is exactly what Paul was talking about. Vines fails to see that even supposedly committed, et al, relationships can be done lustfully. To answer his question, Yes Paul’s words apply to all same-sex relationships because God did not separate the alternative practice into two parts like he did for heterosexual relations.

The biblical context for homosexuality is carried forward throughout the bible.There is no form of homosexuality that God calls good or gives permission for it to be practiced. Paul does not have to be word specific because the context is already known. All forms of same-sex relations are lustful and wrong. What Vine forgets to mention is that Paul does not make a word specific point separating loving, committed, monogamous same-sex unions as an exception to his words. Without that exception, Vines has no argument because Paul has not said homosexuality was good in certain forms.

#4. To make a case for abolition, Christians had to look beyond what appears on the surface to be an endorsement of slavery to examine why the New Testament authors wrote what they did. While Matthew doesn’t spend much time on this particular issue, this is what ultimately changed my mind about LGBT people and the Bible. The moment I realized I couldn’t win a “proof text” war with a slave-owner was the moment I realized that in discussions like these, we can’t rely on a few Bible verses pulled from their context—not when lives are at stake. But more on that at a later date…]

These are Evans’ words and her problem is that there has never been even a surface endorsement for slavery in the Bible. There are instructions on how to treat slaves but there is no verse stating that owning other humans is good and of God.  God has directed the people of Israel at specific times to take slaves but he did not tell them to establish a slave trade or have sexual slaves. God also did not have a word specific verse stating that owning another human was abomination to him.

Her argument is a clear case of comparing apples with oranges. What God and readers of the Bible said about slavery has absolutely no bearing on God’s view about homosexuality. The verses speaking against homosexuality are not pulled from their context, it is just people like Vines and Evans who want to alter their context to fit their desires.  They cannot point to one passage of scripture that declares certain practices of same-sex behavior are okay. The context for this issue is consistent and continuous–homosexuality in all forms is wrong and sin. They cannot be pulled out of context.

#5. .As has already been shown, same-sex relations in the first century were not thought to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation but were widely understood to be the product of excessive sexual desire wherein the one engaging in same-sex behavior did so out of an excess of lust that could not be satisfied.

The problem for Evans and Vines here is that how the secular ancient cultures viewed and practiced homosexuality has no bearing on God’s word or God’s opinion on the issue. The pair appeal to the cultural argument here and t won’t work. They are saying that culture influences God’s word thus biblical teaching on homosexuality is not God’s teaching but human thinking. Oh, and they are wrong about how the ancients viewed same-sex relations.

#6. The most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world, Matthew notes, were pederasty and sex between masters and their slaves, and the majority of men who indulged in those practices also engaged in heterosexual behavior with their wives. So we’re not talking about committed, monogamous, sacrificial relationships here. Not by a long shot

Even if it were the most common form practiced, that doesn’t make same-sex relationships that are monogamous,loving,committed, etc. good or right. it means that same-sex marriage was illegal in ancient times and those ancient people opting for alternatives could not marry their supposed loved one. They cannot say the word ‘majority’ because they do not know and we do not have specific records informing us of that statistic.BUT how does that supposed practice differ from today when we have one partner in a heterosexual relationship cheating on their partner with a same-sex lover?

Their view of the past and its sexual practices are skewed. How does being promiscuous in a heterosexual relationship make same-sex relationships loving, monogamous or committed? You will notice that neither Evans or Vines point to one ancient law allowing those same-sex behaviors or make them legal. They are making an argument without revealing all the facts surrounding the ancient behavior. That is dishonest and if it is dishonest then it is not of God. That means then, Paul was not speaking from secular culture but from God’s instruction and all forms of homosexuality are included in Paul’s words.

The pair try to make it look like same-sex practices were acceptable to the society in general when that is not the case. They certainly do not quote from any ancient wives and stunned husbands to provide a complete picture of the ancient view of homosexuality.

#7. Citing the writings of Philo, Plato, and Dio Chyrysostom, Matthew notes that same-sex relations were not considered objectionable to these writers because partners shared the same anatomy, but “because they stemmed from hedonistic self-indulgence.”

Vines and Evans are reading into the words of those ancient authors and making them say something they did not say. I wish Evans would cite actual references so we could double-check Vines’ conclusions but that is part of the dishonesty of those who advocate for acceptance of sinful behavior. I am not willing to buy the book just to get references.The pair complain about opponents to homosexuality taking verses out of context, yet have no problem in taking ancient writers’ words out of context when it suits them.

I am also kind of curious as to how Vines is capable of determining the intent of long dead authors and how he can see that they were siding with him on this issue. He says that they were condemning the practice because of lusts yet he points to NO ancient authors’ words that have them approving of monogamous, loving, committed, et al same-sex relationships. This failure only exposes their esigetical work and their failure to be truthful.

#8. The concept of same-sex orientation and the notion of committed same-sex relationships was simply not part of Pauls’—or these other writers’— worldview.

Really?  So Paul’s extensive and elite education left him void of any answers or conception to same-sex unions? This quoted thought is really hard to accept as a credible, though it is a laughable one, point.  Does Vines think that Paul’s rabbinic training would not have covered this topic or that his teachers who were well versed in the Hebrew Bible would simply ignore God’s revelation about what homosexuality means to him and take a secular view and apply it to scripture? Vines really has a low view of Paul and his teachers.

Vines also forgets Solomon’s words that there is nothing new under the sun so if Vine’s is arguing for the view that monogamous, committed, et al, same-sex relations are okay was not mentioned in ancient times then he is off the mark. Paul and his teachers would be well aware of this issue. We need to ask, how many of those people who came to Lot’s door asking for homosexual relations with his visitors were in monogamous, committed, et al, same-sex relationships? Vine doesn’t say but he can’t for no one knows for sure what their practices were.

For all we know, the inhabitants set up those cities in order to practice monogamous, committed, loving same-sex unions and just wanted to have lustful fun that night with the strangers. God didn’t make the distinction between one night same-sex stands and long-term unions. For Vines and Evans to be honest, they need to factor this point in with their arguments and re-think their stance.

#9. In Paul’s day, same-sex relations were a potent symbol of sexual excess,” writes Matthew, and so “they offered an effective illustration of Paul’s argument: We lose control when we are left to our own devices.”

As far as I know, we have no ancient testimony to this idea. I will welcome anyone to provide me credible links to legitimate historical websites that provide actual ancient testimony on this idea.

#10. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it cannot reasonably be called the same issue.

Uhm…no.  Again we must turn to Solomon’s words ‘there is nothing new under the sun to show how wrong Vines is. Do both Evans and Vines think that no one discussed Sodom and Gomorrah after their destruction or the reasons for it? He must think that the ancients lived in a vacuum if he thinks no one talked about it or used those cities as examples to support their points of view. Does he think that Paul was absent the day Sodom and Gomorrah were discussed in class? The justifications made by Vines and Evans are just ludicrous.

#11. Homosexuality condemned as excess does not translate to homosexuality condemned as an orientation—or as a loving expression of that orientation.”

This is the pairs’ own spin to biblical views and ancient ideas. Homosexuality condemned means that all forms of homosexuality are included in the condemnation. There is no splitting of hairs. Again, we see that Vines and Evans are not arguing out of honesty but from the point of personal perspective and desires. There is just no open-minded attitude on their part. Everyone else is wrong and they are right. 5000 years of saying homosexuality is wrong and sin are over-turned because two people, who cannot accept the answer, say otherwise.

#12. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians I know tell me they have experienced same-sex attractions for many years, often since childhood, and simply want to be in a committed, sacrificial relationship with someone to whom they are attracted

Yet no thought is given to the fact that evil was tempting, deceiving them as children. It is automatically assumed that those feelings were right and not sinful. If Evans and Vines want to use the Bible to justify their point of view then they need to be honest and use all of the Bible and all it addresses as they construct their arguments. They conveniently left out evil and its desire to destroy God’s creation just to make their sinful desires biblical.

#13. Matthew again returns to what no good biblical scholar would dispute: that many of the gender roles alluded to in Scripture are rooted in patriarchy.

But Evans and Vines cannot stop when they have made themselves and their arguments look ridiculous. The second part to her post takes them into the realm of utter foolishness. They are blaming God’s order for life on earth as the problem for what is natural or unnatural and are completely ignoring God’s feelings on the subject? I am sure they feel that straight males wrote those passages on the Bible opposing homosexuality and if women were in charge, the Bible would look completely different.

If patriarchy was the problem why are Vines and Evans trying to change the Bible to fit their desires? Why are they not producing God’s real words showing his approval for loving, et al, same-sex relationships? Why do we not have a manuscript track record of these alternative words? They can only make these foolish claims and accusations but they can’t prove they have valid point because they do not have any replacement scriptures to back them up.  They are not really attacking patriarchy, they are attacking God because they do not like his order of life nor his views on their desires.

To be honest, the rest of this section is so foolish that I can only respond to one more point. Their logic and reasoning is just off the charts and it would not be wise or prudent to go against Solomon’s words concerning answering a fool.

#14. Concludes Matthew: “For Paul, same-sex desire did not characterize a small minority of people who were subject to special classification—and condemnation—on that basis. Rather, it represented an innate potential for excess within all of fall humanity.”

Yet there is no biblical teaching to support Vine’s conclusion.  Both Vines and Evans appeal to dishonest research, dishonest biblical reading & study, and dishonest analyzation of historical times to make their point. Their failure to be inclusive of all sexual alternatives just shows how dishonest they really are. Why is it only committed, et al, type of homosexual unions that they are arguing for in their personal agenda? Why do they not make a case for polygamists since there is less biblical opposition to that marital practice than homosexuality? God certainly does not call that alternative an abomination.

We can see that God does not like committed, loving, monogamous homosexual unions any more than he likes lustful same-sex practices just by witnessing the dishonesty, they hypocrisy and the untruthfulness of those who argue for that particular style of homosexual relationships.  All the advocates of that style are doing is copying the thinking of those who used the Bible to legitimize the slave trade and owning other humans.

8. Ms. Evans Homosexual Discussion- 5

As a reminder I have been banned from participating in the discussion on Ms. Evans website so I offer my contribution here. You can read her side at the following link:


#1. Matthew points out that the two terms consider here are malakoi [sometimes translated “effeminate”] and arsenokoitai [sometimes translated “abusers of themselves with mankind” or, more recently, “homosexuals” or “men who practice homosexuality”]…New Testament scholar David Frederickson has argued that, given the context, malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is best translated, “those who lack self-control.”

We did this when we were young, and I am talking about my undergrad classmates. It became sort of a fad as once we learned Greek we started using greek words in our sermons.  The statement would go something like this– ‘The original Greek word means…’ But over the years God has shown me that we really do not have to go back to the original languages to get to his meaning. Why are we spending millions of dollars translating God’s word into different languages when all we have to do is teach the new converts of different nations Greek and Hebrew?

Seems like a waste of time, money and resources to do things the difficult way. We have to learn to trust God that he guided earlier translators and that the words used in certain versions carry correct form of the original languages.  We just have to make sure we follow the HS to the correct versions. The other thing that needs to be considered when reading other people’s translation efforts is ‘how do we know they got it right?’  How do we know that God is speaking through them to alter the meaning of the text that has been unchanged for 100s if not thousands of years? Why wasn’t the change made sooner?

Other questions we can ask are: ‘What bias do these people have? Do they have an ulterior motive for translating certain words the way they do? Why is this change taking place now? Is God actually leading them and confirming their correction? I do not care how many years a person has studied an original language, if God is not behind them in their work then their conclusions are all suspect. We should also ask, does the person believe God or are they an unbeliever or alternative believer?

Then we must, ask as it is an important question, ‘why would God use them to correct his word?’ I disagree with that guy’s translation above because it does not conform to God’s attitude about homosexuality. If you take a close look at both the OT & NT, you will not find one contradiction between them especially when it comes to God’s feelings and definitions about sin. So why that particular verse is there a supposed contradiction? Because homosexuals do not want to go to hell and want to get to heaven while practicing their sin.

When it comes to translation work, be confident God has led you to the correct version to use to find his words and do not let anyone fool you with ‘well the original language says..’ because they may be very wrong. God said he would preserve his word but he didn’t say it would only be in the original languages.

#2. While there are very few uses of arsenokoitai in Greek literature after Paul, some of the few uses that have survived indicate it referred to economic exploitation, not same-sex behavior. It’s also important to remember that the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were pederasty and sex between masters and slaves. (Pederasty was so common that Philo described it simply as the union of “males with males.”)

This is a desperation move by those who so want to justify their decision to practice sin and be considered a Christian. They are trying to change history to justify their desire to make homosexuality appealable to God. To tell you the truth, it does not matter how Greek literature uses the word, they do not believe God so they can use it any way they like. We need to discover how God used the word, that is what matters. I will state that the author of the quote is wrong about ancient same-sex behavior and they are misinterpreting what they have read because of their bias.

Again, it does not matter how the ancient world viewed or practiced same-sex behavior for the Bible is not recording the ancient attitude BUT GOD’s. God does not look upon same-sex acts the way secular people do. Their saying that the biblical authors took the secular idea and wrote against that is just pure blasphemy. The ramifications of their position are immense, too long to put here. So far all they are doing here is using the secular world’s ideas to justify their position, there is no biblical teaching to do that.

#3. Matthew points to an ancient text known as the Sibylline Oracles in which the word arsenokoites is used to describe injustice:

My answer to that is ‘so’. In English we have countless words which have several legitimate meanings and uses but those alternate definitions/uses do not disqualify the original definition/use from being valid. We also have cultural slang influences on many English words but that perversion does not over-rule or omit the legitimate definitions or uses of a word. It doesn’t matter how the word was used in ancient daily life for God’s use of the legitimate definition is not disqualified or changed. It just means that ancient Greek words had alternative definitions and uses.

To apply an alternative definition to God’s word without permission from him is violating God’s warnings in both Deut. and Rev.

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [a]from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Rev. 22 NASB)

This is the trouble such people like Vines and others face when they try to alter the biblical text to justify their desire to practice sin. Too many people ignore this warning because they do not want to obey God and God does give people the freedom to choose

15 “See, I have set before you today life and [t]prosperity, and death and [u]adversity;16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. (Deut. 30 NASB)

Sadly, people like Vine choose to disobey.

#4. But here’s the key point to remember,” writes Matthew. “Even if Paul had intended his words to be a condemnation of all forms of same-sex relations, the context in which he would have been making that statement would still differ significantly from our context today.”
That’s because same-sex behavior in the first century was not understood to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation but rather it was understood as excess on the part of those who could easily be content with heterosexual relationships, but who went beyond them in search of more exotic pleasures

This is splitting the sin in good and bad practices. Their reasoning is because some people in the ancient world viewed same-sex behavior in this manner then all people did and our version of that preference is not as bad as what they did so we are okay. Uhm… no.it doesn’t matter how many versions of same-sex behavior there are or how people viewed them, GOD did not separate same-sex behavior into unacceptable and acceptable practices. He put them altogether into one category. We do not have the authority to divide the sin into different categories and then claim God said this style was good. God covered all varieties and styles with his words

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22 NASB)

His words are quite clear on this matter. Notice that even monogamous, committed, loving same-sex relationships are covered by those words.

#5. So when the translation of malakoi and arsenokoites shifted in the 20th century to refer to people with same-sex orientation, “it fostered the mistaken belief that Paul was condemning a minority group with a different sexual orientation” when “in fact, he was condemning excessive and exploitive sexual conduct.”

This is just not true.

#6. The concept of same-sex orientation did not exist in the ancient world. Prior to recent generations, same-sex behavior was widely understood to be the product of sexual excess, not the expression of a sexual orientation. The issue we face today—gay Christians and their committed relationships—has not been an issue for the church in past eras…”  

As is this. For both quotes the words in Lev. 18 make it very clear that they were talking about all forms of same-sex sexual expression and were well aware of the concept of orientation. Vines & Evans’ mistake is that they are taking the views of the secular world and applying them to God, God’s people and scripture. That is very wrong. They also ignore Solomon’s words ‘nothing is new under the sun’. The issue today that those two speak of was well-known in the ancient world.

It may not have been an issue for the early church only because the homosexuals knew they were not allowed to be part of the church so they did not force their views upon others like the modern homosexual is doing today. It is not because the early Christians did not know the difference between orientation and excess.

#7. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about a threatened gang rape, not an intimate companionship. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were grounded in cultural concerns about patriarchal gender roles and religious ritual purity. Romans 1:26-27 refers to excessive sexual desire and lust and uses “natural” and “unnatural” to refer to customary gender roles, just as those words are used to describe men with long hair and women who cover their heads

Both Vines and Evans distort history and biblical events to fit their sinful desires. Just because the story of Sodom does not contain the words ‘committed intimate, monogamous, loving, relationships, doesn’t mean that they were not taking place in those cities or that they were excused from judgment. In fact we read nothing of that style of homosexuality being excluded from judgment, approved of for the church, or accepted by any biblical author. You would think God would have mentioned that exclusion if it were true.

Their argument from silence doesn’t work because they have no scriptural reference supporting their point of view. This division of same-sex sexual practice is important enough for God to mention in the Bible if it were okay but he doesn’t do it. He just lumps all styles together and calls them all ‘an abomination’.

#8. The bottom line is this,” writes Matthew.  “The Bible does not directly address the issue of same-sex orientation—or the expression of that orientation. While its six references to same-sex behavior are negative, the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation. What’s more, the main reason tat non-affirming Christians believe the Bible’s statements should apply to all same-sex relationships—men and women’s anatomical complementarity—is not mentioned in any of the passages.”

He deludes himself.  That is about the only thing I can say here except he lies. The Bible has spoken directly on the issue of same-sex orientation but he refuses to listen to its words

9. Ms. Evans’ Homosexual Discussion- 6

You can breathe a sigh of relief because she says it is her last discussion on Matthew Vines’ book so that would mean this will be my last post on that work as well. I did this because she banned me from contributing to her discussion  not to be an activist. I do not believe same-sex unions are of God nor I agree with civil unions for same-sex couples. Marriage is between one man and one woman but the arguments of those who disagree with me still need to be exposed for how wrong the are.

All quotes are taken from the following link:


#1. Our question is not whether the Bible addresses the modern concepts of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage,” he writes. “We know it doesn’t. Instead, our question is: can we translate basic biblical principles about marriage to this new situation without losing something essential in the process?”

Actually he is very wrong. The bible does address the modern concepts of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage. Leviticus covers it all in one short verse:

Ifthere is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death (20;13 NASB)

That covers every possible variation a homosexual couple can invent or think of. A man lies with a woman in monogamous loving, committed relationships thus that covers Vine’s protest in the quote above. He lies with her according to his sexual orientation thus that aspect is addressed as well. We do not need to transfer anything because there is no new principle. Vines is just looking for a loophole and God did not provide him with one.

#2. “In marriage,” writes Matthew, “we are called to reflect God’s love for us through our self-giving love for our spouse.” This is something same-sex couples can do just as well as heterosexual couples, he says

Except same-sex couples are not reflecting God’s love for us because they are practicing sin and God does not sin. You will notice that Vines ignores an important part of the passage he refers to;

30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [r]respects her husband. (Eph 5 NASB)

The bold words are the key part he leaves out. Paul did not say that a man will leave his mother and father for another man, or a woman will leave her parents for another woman. This is a glaring error on Vines’ part. he is being very selective in his use of scripture in order to get his own way and not God’s.

#3. One of the most common reasons for opposing same-sex marriage cited by non-affirming Christians is that only a man and woman can biologically procreate. Appealing to Genesis 1:28 as a direct command rather than a creative blessing, they argue that the capacity to procreate is critical to a God-honoring union.

Pro-creation is an important part of marriage. Now some heterosexual couples may choose to not have children for spiritual reasons, they may not be able to have children but that doesn’t make same-sex unions correct.  The couple can still become one with each other, something same-sex couples cannot do. What Vines’ fails to realize is that the blessing does not include same-sex couples, in fact there is no blessing found anywhere in the Bible for same-sex couples.it really isn’t the procreation part that is important here. it is God’s  definition of what marriage is and the absence of his approval for same-sex unions.

#4. To support this, Matthew points to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, as well as his statement in Matthew 12:46-50 that “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” This new emphasis on being “grafted in” to the family of God brought those who had traditionally been left out—eunuchs, for example—in.

What Vines is missing here are the words I put in bold print. A person who practices same-sex preferences or other alternatives are not doing the will of God. God’s will is clearly stated in Lev. 20:13 yet Vines’ ignores that and hopes to confuse people with the words ‘will of my Father.’ He hopes people do not realize that God’s will extends to sexual preference.

#5. From a theological perspective,” Matthew concludes, “marriage primarily involves a covenant-keeping relationship of mutual self-giving that reflects God’s love for us….Marriage is only secondarily—and not necessarily at all—about having biological children.”

He doesn’t understand marriage at all as he continues to look for excuses to justify his refusal to repent from his sinful same-sex practice.He tries to redefine marriage to fit his ideology. I will grant him that procreation is not the best argument for defending traditional marriage but it is an important aspect to keep in the discussion. I am going to leave this point with what I originally said, he doesn’t know what marriage means.

#6. This, in my opinion, is the big one. Because some Christians interpret the New Testament household codes as prescribing hierarchal gender roles wherein wives function as subordinates to their husbands, their challenge to same-sex couples is, who’s in charge? 

It isn’t that some Christians have interpreted the NT after their own ideas, it is that God has defined who i sin charge of the family and union. we return to Eph 5:

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. (NASB)

God is very clear here who is in charge and you will notice that there is no additional words to include same-sex partners. There is no biblical instruction telling alternative people to discuss between them who takes which role. No matter how you slice it, those advocating for same-sex marriage have no biblical leg to stand upon. he continues:

Just as the New Testament household codes assume a hierarchy between master and slave, they assume a hierarchy between men and women.

There is no assumption of a hierarchy. The Bible makes it very clear who is the head and who submits to whom. Only those desiring an alternative will miss this very obvious point.

#7. Matthew points out that in his letter to the Galatians, Paul wrote that three types of hierarchies would fade away in Christ. One was that of male and female. The others were distinctions between Jew and Gentile and distinctions between slave and free

Vines will abuse scripture to get his own way. He i snot even close to correct in his application of that passage of scripture. If he is upset about other people interpreting Eph. 5 why does he think his interpretation of Gal.3. is going to be accepted? What makes his act of interpreting greater than other people’s? What spiritual support does he have for his twist on scripture? he says:

 In other words, “neither slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female” has to mean something more than shared access to salvation. It has to mean something radical about how relationships among Christians in this patriarchal culture were to change. 

Why does it have to mean more? Just because he wants it to? Why does it have to mean something radical? Again, just because he wants it to? This twisting of scripture shows that God does not support what Vines’ and others are advocating.

#8. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it a million times more: What makes a marriage holy and sacred isn’t the degree to which it reflects a rigid hierarchy, but rather the degree to which it reflects the self-giving, self-sacrificing love of Jesus.

He is wrong, of course, as what makes marriage holy and sacred is that it obeys God and follows his rules. But what can you expect from someone who is trying desperately to justify his disobedience of God’s will?  He redefines marriage to make it look like he wants it to look then he tries to bend scripture around that newly invented definition and it just won’t work. God defined marriage in the beginning and every attempt to alter that act is just wrong, sin and disobedience. His actions tell us that Vines does not want to give up sin to and wants marriage to be his way not God’s.

#9. A final argument against same-sex marriage is that two people cannot become “one flesh” if they do exhibit anatomical complementarity. Here Matthew cites Jim Brownson’s Bible, Gender Sexuality, where the Bible scholar argues that such an interpretation of Genesis 2:24 over-sexualizes the phrase “one flesh,” which in the Bible is used metaphorically to describe ties of kinship between all sorts of people.

Yet another appeal to an outside fallible source to support his unbiblical premise. Being anatomically correct is an important part of being ‘one-flesh’. The opposition to this fact is astounding as the sexual organs were made to fit together one way only. There is no alternative to this procedure. Physical oneness is as important as emotional, psychological, intellectual oneness between a man and a woman.Again, Vines abuses scripture to support his unsupportable argument. Homosexuals cannot be one with the other

#10. But for those who do not sense a calling to celibacy, God’s gift of sexual love in marriage should be affirmed. There is no biblical reason to exclude the covenantal bonds of gay Christians from that affirmation.” (bold mine)

I guess he hasn’t read the Bible then for there is one great biblical reason excluding homosexuals from same-sex unions. God is against it. Does he need any other reason? Obviously he is ignoring those passages of scripture to try to get his selfish way.

#11. In Chapter 9, Matthew makes a strong case that being created in the image of God cannot uniquely be tied to heterosexuality and points to the Trinity to show that part of being created in the image of God is longing for intimacy and relationship.

Is he saying that God is homosexual now? The feminist has said God is a female so I guess it stands to reason that the homosexual will make God after their image instead of their being made in God’s image. He doesn’t grasp what being made in the image of God is all about and distorts that teaching to justify his pursuit of what is not his to have. But that is the way it is with those who do not want to follow God’s rules–they have to distort biblical teaching to support and justify their disobedience.

#12. When we tell people that their every desire for intimate, sexual bonding is shameful and disordered,” he writes, “we encourage them to hate a core part of who they are. And when we reject the desires of gay Christians to express their sexuality within a lifelong covenant, we separate them from our covenantal God, and we tarnish their ability to bear his image.”

Hatred for a sinful desire is not reason enough to alter the definition of marriage and allow people to disobey God. All his arguments boil down to is that he and other homosexuals refuse to obey God’s rules. Instead of obeying, they want to change them in order to keep practicing their sinful desires. The reason homosexual unions are rejected by Christians is because they are sin and not of God. This is something that doesn’t seem to be getting through to his brain. He can twist scriptures all day long to justify his position but when the rubber meets the road, same-sex marriage or unions remain the same–an abomination to God.

Vines may pull the wool over some religious people’s eyes but he can’t do that to God. God knows what he detests and that position does not change.

Conclusion: Then Matthew concludes with this little truth bomb:  “Instead of asking whether it’s acceptable for the church to deny gay Christians the possibility of sexual fulfillment in marriage, we should ask a different question. Is it acceptable to deny gay Christians the opportunity to sanctify their sexual desires through a God-reflecting covenant.”

Yes it is acceptable to deny homosexuals any same-sex expression or desire through a ‘God-reflecting covenant’. Why? because same-sex unions are not God-reflecting. God did not create same-sex marriage or unions. Those come from evil. God created marriage to be between a man and a woman and that union is good.

Vines and Evans have NO argument. Their position is unbiblical and straight from evil.  Same-sex unions cannot be allowed in the church nor can unrepentant  homosexuals. We do not allow sin in the church.