Author Archives: Dan C.

Pro-Gay Theology: Does the Bible Approve of Homosexuality?

Posted by Dan C. on

by Steve Golden on January 29, 2013 at Answers in Genesis

What exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? And how do pro-gay Bible scholars try to work around those passages?

One of the most pervasive issues of our time is the movement to embrace homosexual behavior, same-sex “marriage,” and the marred versions of masculinity and femininity that accompany this lifestyle. References sympathetic to the homosexual lifestyle appear now in books, on television, in films, and in video games and graphic novels. Even the popular social networking platform Facebook announced the addition of “gay marriage timeline icons” for users.1 And of course the crowning moment for the LGBT movement was the decision to legalize gay “marriage” by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Our children and teens are inundated with a message of “tolerance” and “acceptance” of homosexual behavior, and sadly even some professing Christians are preaching this message.

Scripture makes clear, as I will argue, that engaging in homosexual behavior of any sort is sinful (Genesis 18:20, 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10). But some in the church (such as Matthew Vines) have taken to reinterpreting key passages on homosexuality or even denying outright that these passages mean what they plainly say. So what exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? And how do pro-gay Bible scholars try to work around those passages?

The Queen James Bible

In 2012, a pro-homosexual group published a Bible translation dubbed the Queen James Bible, based on the 1769 King James Version. Their rationale for the name was that King James’s alleged homosexual acts led his contemporaries to refer to him as “Queen James.” While the evidence for King James’s homosexuality is shaky at best, the editors of this “translation” have only made a mockery of a beloved Bible translation.

The changes that the editors made to various passages on homosexual behavior exemplify the ways in which pro-homosexual scholars twist Scripture on this issue. This article will examine a variety of Scriptures dealing with homosexual behavior and four primary arguments that pro-gay scholars use to justify it, using the editors’ summary of changes in the Queen James Bible as a springboard.

The Creation Order in Genesis

The early chapters of Genesis provide a clear example of what marriage looks like as God designed it. After creating Adam, God declares, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Genesis 2:18). And so He puts Adam in a deep sleep, and forms Eve from his side.

Adam’s immediate response to meeting Eve, his suitable helper, is to declare that she is his counterpart, made from him, and to name her: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23). The chapter closes with a beautiful illustration of marriage:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:24–25)

Marriage, as God designed it, has certain hallmarks that are evident in Genesis 2: a man and a woman joined in a monogamous marriage (verse 24), who complement each other in their gender roles (verse 18), and who can enjoy the fruits of marriage without shame (verse 25).

This is what makes homosexual behavior so morally perverse in Scripture—homosexuality is a direct violation of the creation order. Under the government’s current definition of “marriage,” it is no longer between a man and woman, but between any two people who apply for a license. Moreover, same-sex partnerships lack the complementarity that Adam and Eve’s marriage exemplifies. Men and women were created with unique masculine and feminine roles that, when brought together in marriage, create a harmony that same-sex relationships cannot adequately mimic. Finally, same-sex relationships rarely last and are often not monogamous.2 Regardless of what pro-gay scholars claim, God’s Word is very clear about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. Same-sex “marriage” turns God-designed marriage on its head.

Sodom and Gomorrah3

Beginning in the Old Testament, the first passage dealing with homosexual behavior is Genesis 19. Here, two angels visit Lot in Sodom and stay with him and his family for the night. In the course of the evening, the men of the city demand access to Lot’s guests:

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis 19:4–7)

Just as in many other occurrences in Scripture (e.g., Genesis 4:1, 17, 25), the word know in this passage refers to sexual activity. The angels eventually strike the men of the city with blindness (Genesis 19:11) and declare that the Lord will destroy the cities, “because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it” (Genesis 19:13).

While the sin issue in view in Genesis 19 is clearly homosexuality, homosexual advocates typically reframe the issue in two ways, lack of hospitality or gang rape.4

Advocates of the inhospitality view claim that the issue in the text is with Lot’s refusal to introduce his guests to the men of the city. According to this view, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 19:5 for “know,” yada, commonly means “to be acquainted with.” This is indeed one of the primary definitions of yada, but as with all languages, particular meaning is determined by context. Based on the context of Genesis 19, yada is a reference to knowing someone sexually.5 If yada simply refers to acquaintanceship here, Lot’s refusal to introduce his guests to the town was a breach of the rules of hospitality—and the sin is Lot’s. So why did God see fit to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and spare Lot? Within the context of Genesis 19, the definition that some pro-homosexual scholars insist on for yada makes the passage ludicrous.6

The second view, that the sin is not homosexuality but gang rape, is the position that the Queen James Bible takes. In a convoluted fashion, the editors argue that Lot was pleading with the men not to rape his guests. They continue, “We know from Leviticus that one is not allowed to have sex with a beast, and angels are not human. . . . Rapes such as this one are common between men in prison; they aren’t sexual acts, they are power-dominating acts.”7

As for the Queen James Bible’s claim that the men could have been guilty of bestiality by having sex with angels, there is no textual support for including angels in the category of “beasts.”8 Additionally, the text gives no indication in Genesis 19:5 that the men of the town were aware of the real identities of Lot’s guests. The two angels were men, insofar as the residents of Sodom could perceive. Finally, Jude 6–8 makes clear that the men of Sodom were not simply trying to commit a “power-dominating act”—they had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” The editors’ own line of reason as well as the biblical language of “know them carnally” shows that this gang rape was a sexual act.

Of course, the men of the city did intend to rape Lot’s guests, and rape is indeed a sinful act. However, if the sin issue in Genesis 19 is rape alone (regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual), we must ask a similar question as before—why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for a sin that never actually occurred? The only reasonable answer is that the city was guilty of regularly participating in homosexual behavior, and the attempt to rape Lot’s guests was just the latest occurrence.

Levitical Laws

There are two verses in Leviticus that clearly condemn homosexual behavior as sinful:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Homosexual advocates typically challenge this part of the Levitical code by reframing these sanctions against homosexual acts in the context of pagan idol worship. Indeed, the editors of the Queen James Bible have done just that, adding wording to these verses to fit their argument:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22, QJB, emphasis added)

If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13, QJB, emphasis added)

There is no textual support in the Hebrew manuscripts for the additional wording the editors of the Queen James Bible have introduced. But the added phrase “in the temple of Molech” suggests that, in the view of these particular editors, homosexual behavior would only have been prohibited when associated with pagan rituals. The editors reached this conclusion by arguing that the Hebrew word for abomination, tow’ebah, means “ritually unclean.” Uncleanness related to pagan idolatry is one of the definitions of tow’ebah; however, it is also used in Scripture to denote something that is morally (ethically) repugnant in God’s sight, such as homosexuality (see, for example, Proverbs 6:16).9

Furthermore, chapters 18 and 20 in Leviticus are lists of prohibited behaviors for the Israelites, including incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice. To be consistent, the editors of the Queen James Bible must apply their changes to the whole of these chapters. But the implications of this hermeneutic are severe—incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a number of other behaviors would all become acceptable except in the context of pagan idolatry.10 Surely pro-homosexual scholars do not intend to argue for the acceptability of all these practices. The clearest interpretation of these passages is that homosexual behavior is an abomination in the sight of God, whether or not it is in the context of ritual pagan idolatry.

Romans 1:26–27

The Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains a substantial New Testament passage on homosexual behavior. In Romans 1, Paul is explaining the sinfulness of man, “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,” and man’s willing rejection of God. He sums up the results of this rejection in verses 26 and 27:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In a plain reading of this passage, the Apostle Paul demonstrates that, because of man’s rejection of the truth for a lie, God gave humanity over to their sin. Homosexual behavior is a prominent part of these consequences. Romans 1:29–31 is a list of further sinful acts and behaviors associated with this giving over. And in Romans 1:32, Paul condemns not just those who practice these things, but also those who approve of them.

But pro-gay scholars and church leaders disagree. For example, John Shelby Spong, a homosexual advocate and retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, attempts to damage the Apostle Paul’s credibility and characterizes the Pauline statements on homosexuality as something other than the Word of God:

Yes, I am convinced that Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial, bound by the law that he hoped could keep this thing, that he judged to be so unacceptable, totally under control, a control so profound that even Paul did not have to face this fact about himself. But repression kills. It kills the repressed one and sometimes the defensive anger found in the repressed one also kills those who challenge, threaten or live out the thing that this repressed person so deeply fears.11

In Spong’s view, the Apostle Paul was allegedly repressing homosexual desires and that led him to condemn homosexual behavior in general. Furthermore, Spong argues that in Paul’s time, homosexuality was socially unacceptable, so Paul was supposedly forced to react negatively to homosexual behavior. When asked in one interview how he could so easily dismiss the Bible’s words on homosexuality, Spong replied, “I don’t see the Bible as the Word of God. I see the Word of God as that which I hear through the words of the Bible. There’s a very big difference.”12 A big difference indeed—between the orthodox Christian view of Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and Spong’s heretical view that accords divine authority to his own thoughts.

The editors of the Queen James Bible chose to apply the same criteria to Romans 1:26–27 that they did to the Levitical laws. In other words, they believe that Paul condemns homosexual behavior only in the context of idolatry. They write, “It is much more likely that Paul meant to express that women were ritually defiling themselves (sexually or otherwise).” They go on to claim that what was “shameful” among these people was pagan idolatry, not homosexual behavior.

Neither of the above views has any biblical support. Whether or not Paul dealt with feelings of same-sex attraction (and there is no biblical evidence for that), he was given the authority of an apostle by God (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1) and his words in Scripture are the Word of God (2 Peter 3:16). Spong’s basis for rejecting them is faulty: the entire Bible was composed by sinful men who were led by the Spirit of God to write what they did. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of their claims or the binding authority of their words for us today based on their humanity.

Finally, the idolatry position of the Queen James Bible editors still does not fit with the whole of Romans 1. Sexual perversion and excess were common in the Roman Empire during the Apostle Paul’s day, making his words in Romans 1 fitting for his audience. Once again, the clearest interpretation of this passage is one that takes hold of the plain meaning of the words: homosexual behavior is sinful in the eyes of God.

Arsenokoitēs and Malakos

In the New Testament, two Greek words appear in reference to homosexual behavior: arsenokoitēs and malakos. Paul uses these words together in 1 Corinthians, and arsenokoitēs appears alone in 1 Timothy:

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 effeminate [malakos], nor homosexuals [arsenokoitēs], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10, NASB)

. . . for fornicators, for sodomites [arsenokoitēs], for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:10, NKJV)

Conservative Bible scholars typically accept (based on solid historical and textual evidence) that arsenokoitēs refers to the active sexual partner in a homosexual act, while malakos refers to the passive partner.13 Pro-homosexual scholars, however, challenge the translations of these two Greek words. Some have tried to limit the words to adulterous homosexual relationships, while others have offered alternate definitions related to rape or sex with young boys (i.e., pederasty). For instance, the editors of the Queen James Bible chose to translate malakos as “morally weak” and arsenokoitēs as “promiscuous.”

The first term, malakos, “means literally ‘soft’ . . . and in Paul’s day served as an epithet for the ‘soft’ or effeminate (i.e., passive) partner in a homosexual (pederastic) relationship.”14 Even secularists recognize that in a homosexual act, one of the partners must act as the opposite sex—one of the males plays the female, and vice versa. It is an absolute inversion of the order set forth by God. The definition of the word arsenokoitēs has been the subject of much more debate.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburg Theological Seminary and an authority on sexual issues in Scripture, explains why the word arsenokoitēs so clearly relates to homosexual acts. Among the evidences Gagnon presents, one of the most compelling is the context of 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, where the apostle Paul is rebuking a man who was sexually involved with his stepmother:

1 Corinthians 5 treats a comparable case of intercourse involving consenting adults who are too much alike or same (here, on a familial level), with echoes to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. . . . For Paul, as for early Judaism and Christianity generally (and even us today), there were structural prerequisites for acceptable sexual unions that transcended appeals to loving dispositions. Gender and degree of blood unrelatedness were two such prerequisites.15

In other words, since 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 is dealing with sexual sin between two closely related family members (adultery is not the whole issue), and arsenokoitēs appears in a vice list in the midst of that, it is reasonable that this word references homosexual acts in general. Indeed, the definition of arsenokoitēs provided in BDAG (a standard Greek lexicon) is “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex,” specifically, “one who assumes the dominant role in sexual activity.”16

Furthermore, even the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, draws on the word arsenokoitēs in its translation of Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man [arsenos] lies [koitēn] with a male as he lies with a woman . . .”), demonstrating that the word would seem to imply men in general who lie with other men. Lastly, concerning the appearance of arsenokoitēs in the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:10, Gagnon writes, “The fact that arsenokoitai appears here in the midst of a vice list that the author states is derived from the law of Moses (1:8–9) confirms that Paul would have recognized a link to the Levitical prohibitions.”17

Conclusion

Try as they might, the arguments of pro-homosexual scholars simply are not convincing. In the very first book of the Bible, we read that God created a man and a woman for the first marriage (not a man and a man or a woman and a woman). And just a few chapters later, God’s Word plainly condemns homosexual behavior—a condemnation that continues into the New Testament and is still binding today. The church must stand on the authority of Scripture in this matter, speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) about homosexuality, and clearly share the message that Jesus Christ has the power to forgive and heal everyone who comes to Him in repentance and faith, regardless of the kinds of sins that ensnare them. Paul reminded the Corinthian believers of this truth:

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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 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. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)

An Objection to God’s Sovereignty that Proves It

Posted by Dan C. on

clip_image002In Romans 9, Paul discusses God’s absolute freedom in His saving purposes. He uses the illustration of the twins, Jacob and Esau, stating that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with either of them. Rather, God chose “so that [His] purpose according to His choice would stand.” This choice was “not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Rom 9:11). He goes on to say that salvation “does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16), and then supports that claim by referring to God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for the expressed purpose of demonstrating His power and proclaiming His name through the events that followed (Rom 9:17; cf. Exod 9:16). Paul then summarizes his point by declaring: “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:18).

Then, Paul anticipates an objection: “You will say to me, then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’”

First, let us understand the objection itself. Paul’s imaginary (or perhaps not so imaginary) interlocutor has understood all that Paul has said about God up until this point.

  • He understands that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace, and owes to nothing in man.
  • He also understands that it is God’s will, not man’s will, that is determinative and decisive in salvation (again, Rom 9:16; cf. John 1:13). He asks a rhetorical question to underscore this very point: “Who resists His will?” That is to say, “No one resists God’s will.” “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps 115:3). He accomplishes all His good pleasure (Isa 46:10), and no purpose of His can be thwarted (Job 42:2).
  • The objector also understands that God still holds man accountable. “He still find[s] fault.”

So the question is, “Since no one can resist God’s will, how is it fair that He still finds fault?”

Making Sense of the Objection

This objection proves very helpful in the Christian’s understanding of the nature of God’s sovereignty in salvation. Because whatever our conclusions are about the doctrines of grace, they must make sense of that objection.

And the fact is: the only way that this objection makes any sense at all is if three things areclip_image004 true: (1) Man ought to repent and be saved as commanded by God, (2) Man lacks the moral ability to repent and be saved, and (3) God still holds man accountable to repent and be saved, and will punish them for their failure to do so. In philosophical terms, this objection only makes sense if “ought” doesn’t imply “can”—that is, if commanding something of someone does not necessarily mean that they are able to do what you command. In theological terms, this objection only makes sense if the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace are true.

But it is repugnant to the natural mind that we could be held accountable for something that we are unable to do—especially if we claim that it is a loving God that imposes this standard. And so different schools of thought devise alternative understandings of God’s sovereignty in an effort to save Him from what they believe to be unfair.  However, none of these alternatives make sense of the objection in Romans 9:19. Let’s consider these alternatives.

Universalism

One alternative is universalism. God has required something of humanity that they are unable to do, so he brushes their sins under the rug—after all, kids will be kids, right?—and He lets them off the hook. Now, aside from being patently unbiblical, this position would be to deny that God “still finds fault” with humanity. No one can resist His will, so He simply does not find any fault with them.

Conditional Election Based on Foreseen Faith

Another alternative is to deny that God’s election is unconditional, and rather to assert that it is conditioned upon faith which God foresaw in a particular person. Said another way: He chose them because He knew they would choose Him. Since our natural minds find it unfair to hold people accountable for something they are unable to do, this theological position maintains that we actually were able to do something—namely, believe—that would result in God granting us mercy.

But if this were the case, Paul’s imaginary companion would not have made the objection in Romans 9:19. It would be no mystery as to why God “still finds fault” with those who do not believe. They simply did not have the faith necessary to be elect.

Libertarian Free Will

clip_image006

Still another alternative, akin to the previous, is to claim that God is indeed sovereign, but God has sovereignly chosen to grant a sort-of-sovereignty to humanity in the form of libertarian free will. God commands repentance and faith, and He will find fault in those who fail to repent and believe. But according to this view, those who fail to repent and believe do so because they have the free will to accept or reject God. God did His best, and He would save everybody if He could, but He left the final decision for salvation up to man. In other words, they can “resist His will.”

Here again, we find that the objection in 9:19 would make no sense. There would be no mystery as to why God would find fault with those who reject Him. But Paul’s interlocutor makes the statement (via a rhetorical question) that no one resists God’s will.

The Genius of Grace

And so, if we are to make any sense of the objection Paul raises in Romans 9:19, we cannot explain God’s sovereignty and man’s inability by appealing to conditional election or libertarian free will. This objection only makes sense if the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace are true.

But how is that fair? How can God command that which is impossible, and still hold people accountable? How can He command people to be born again, even though the new birth depends entirely upon “God, who has mercy” (Rom 9:16)? Well, to the questioner who seeks to impugn the righteousness of God, Paul’s answer is a stinging rebuke: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” (Rom 9:20). If you seek to find fault with God’s character, you have a skewed understanding of righteousness, for there is no injustice with God, by definition. (Rom 9:14; cf. 3:5b–6). You, a creature of the dust, are contending with your Creator, and Paul says you better put your hand over your mouth fast.

But there is a way to ask the question out of a sincere desire to understand God and worship Him for how He has revealed Himself. And if the question is asked in that spirit, I believe there is a clear answer. And that is: God grants to His people what He requires of them. This is the genius of grace. By commanding something of everyone that is impossible for them to do, God magnifies mankind’s true helplessness and inability related to our spiritual condition. And because He commands only what is possible for God Himself to accomplish, He magnifies His own sufficiency and fullness of glory. As Paul goes onto explain, He does this “to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:23).

By granting what He requires, God displays Himself as all in all. He places humanity in our proper position, as needy beggars eager to receive from His hand. Then, as our benefactor, He grants what He requires and thus captures our affections, so that we see Him as altogether lovely, altogether worthy, and altogether wonderful.

Posted by Mike Riccardi at The Cripplegate

The Privilege to Speak of Christ – Truth for Life Devotional

Posted by Dan C. on

The apostle Paul felt it a great privilege to be allowed to preach the Gospel. He did not look upon his calling as a drudgery, but he entered upon it with intense delight. Although Paul was thankful for his calling, his success in it greatly humbled him.

The fuller a ship becomes, the deeper it sinks in the water. Idlers may indulge a fond conceit of their abilities, because they are untried; but the earnest worker soon learns his own weakness. If you seek humility, try hard work; if you would know your nothingness, attempt some great thing for Jesus. If you want to feel how utterly powerless you are apart from the living God, attempt especially the great work of proclaiming the unsearchable riches of Christ, and you will know, as you never knew before, what a weak, unworthy thing you are.

Although the apostle thus knew and confessed his weakness, he was never perplexed as to the subject of his ministry. From his first sermon to his last, Paul preached Christ, and nothing but Christ. He lifted up the cross and extolled the Son of God who bled on it. Follow his example in all your personal efforts to spread the glad tidings of salvation, and let “Christ and him crucified” be your ever-recurring theme.

The Christian should be like those lovely spring flowers that, when the sun is shining, open their golden cups, as if saying, “Fill us with your beams!” But when the sun is hidden behind a cloud, they close their cups and droop their heads. So should the Christian feel the sweet influence of Jesus. Jesus must be his sun, and He must be the flower that yields itself to the Sun of Righteousness.

Oh, to speak of Christ alone–this is the subject that is both “seed to the sower and bread to the eater.”1 This is the live coal for the lip of the speaker, and the master-key to the heart of the hearer.

1) Isaiah 55:10

Sanctification: Positional, Progressive and Perfected

Posted by Dan C. on

This reminds me of the same three “P’s” in our salvation!

SLIMJIM's avatarThe Domain for Truth

doctrine of sanctification

Do you know the three P’s of Christian Sanctification?  And why should it matter for the Christian life?  Is it mere “theologizing?”

Sanctification can be broken down into positional, progressive and perfected sanctification.  Each of these can be understood temporally as past, present and future respectively.

View original post 805 more words

Is the VOICE Bible a Doorway to New Age Spirituality and the Emergent Church?

Posted by Dan C. on

It’s a question to consider. And if New Age spirituality and the Emergent represent apostate Christianity, or maybe even that which is heretical, it might mean approaching the VOICE Bible with extreme caution. Here are links to a two part in depth review that might be profitable for all of us.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/11/review-of-the-voice-new-testament—part-one.html

http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/12/review-of-the-voice-new-testament-part-two.html

“Gay Christian” Explains Why She Now Accepts Same-Sex Marriage

Posted by Dan C. on

Rodgers’s explanation—like her previous one—is long on personal experience and short on Bible

Written by Denny Burk | Monday, February 8, 2016

If she has a reasoned biblical rationale for her views, she doesn’t really share it. In fact, she says that when she held to the traditional view, it wasn’t based as much on biblical teaching as it was on her trust in what certain Christian leaders were telling her. When she stopped trusting those leaders, she stopped holding the traditional view. In other words, it doesn’t sound like her former faithfulness on the issue was rooted very deeply in God’s word.

I just read another public account of someone who is walking away from what the Bible teaches about marriage. Former Wheaton employee and self-identified “gay Christian” Julie Rodgers explains why she has embraced gay marriage. She has written about this previously, and I have responded previously. Nevertheless, this latest account is also worth some reflection. She writes:

Your beliefs don’t shift in an instant. We research and agonize, bouncing between hope and despair, until one day we hear ourselves say something a former version of ourselves never would have said. That’s how I came to support same-sex marriage in the church. When I came out as a teenager in Baptist circles in the Bible Belt, I never would’ve imagined God would still like me if I married a woman one day. And I want to try to explain, in theological(ish) terms, how I ended up here.

She goes on to tell the story, which I won’t rehash in full here. I will simply encourage you to read it for yourself. I offer here a short list of reflections on what she has written:

1. The apostles teach us that there is no greater joy than to see brothers and sisters walking faithfully in the truth (3 John 4). Likewise, they also teach us that there is almost nothing more heartbreaking than to see someone falling away from it (1 Tim. 1:19; 4:1). This issue of homosexuality is so fraught with emotion and pathos, and it only adds grief to grief to see so many running their faith aground over it. Such a public falling away can only cause sadness. There can be no joy in it.

2. Rodgers perceives that church leaders keep moving the goalposts on what Christian faithfulness looks like for same-sex attracted Christians. Although I don’t entirely agree with her account of things, I think she is right that some evangelicals have not always taught with biblical and theological clarity on this issue. We’ve been clear that homosexuality is immoral. But we haven’t always been clear about how a Christian can struggle well against unwanted same-sex attraction. But that is no argument for abandoning the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Rather, it is an argument for us to speak and to love and to minister in ways that reflect what the Bible actually teaches. Jesus’ teaching really is good for us—all of us. It is the path to life (Matt. 7:14). Abandoning what Jesus teaches us about marriage will not lead people to Jesus but away from him (Matthew 19:4-6).

3. Rodgers’s explanation—like her previous one—is long on personal experience and short on Bible. If she has a reasoned biblical rationale for her views, she doesn’t really share it. In fact, she says that when she held to the traditional view, it wasn’t based as much on biblical teaching as it was on her trust in what certain Christian leaders were telling her. When she stopped trusting those leaders, she stopped holding the traditional view. In other words, it doesn’t sound like her former faithfulness on the issue was rooted very deeply in God’s word. That may have something to do with her recent declension from it. In any case, we can draw a lesson from this. All of us need to have our consciences bound to the explicit teaching of God’s word, not to the traditions of men. Again, this is an argument for greater biblical and theological clarity in the life of the church, not less.

4. Rodgers connects this issue to the long-standing gender controversy among evangelicals. She reasons that if evangelicals are going to allow for egalitarian readings of scripture, then they must accept gay-affirming readings as well. She writes:

Thoughtful Christians have taught that all of Scripture points to a theology of marriage that involves one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment with a green light for sex in that context alone. This is based on the idea that the Bible is our ultimate authority, but it’s complicated by the fact that we bring an interpretive lens to the Bible. When we support women’s equality in all areas of leadership in the church, we trust one interpretive lens over another. Both sides are sincere Christians and both view the Bible as authoritative––they just differ on how the Bible, which was written in a patriarchal context in the 1st century, should apply to empowered women in the 21stcentury.

Complementarians have been saying for decades that egalitarian readings of scripture will eventually give way to gay-affirming readings. While we are thankful that many egalitarians never made this leap, we cannot help but observe that their theological children have no problem making the connection. And they are doing so based on reading strategies that they learned from their egalitarian mentors. This was inevitable.

5. The Lord’s arm is not too short to save (Isaiah 59:1). He can always reach his children wherever they are. He will speak. They will hear his voice and come to him (John 10:3-5). Permanent departure from his word only leads to desolation in the end. I am hoping and praying that the departures we are seeing now will only be temporary—that the Lord would eventually get through to them. His patience and mercy are more vast than we can imagine. Perhaps the Lord would be pleased to draw back those who have turned aside. That is how I will be praying anyway.

Denny Burk is Associate Professor of New Testament and Dean of Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This article first appeared on his blog and is used with permission.

Related Posts:

‘God’s Way of Holiness’ – a short review.

Posted by Dan C. on

First a quote from the beginning of the book, one from somewhere in the middle and one from the end of the book.

“We do not undervalue love because we say a man is not justified by love, but by faith. We do not discourage prayer, because we preach that a man is not justified by prayer, but by faith. When we say that believing is not working, but a ceasing from work, we do not mean that the believing man is not to work, but that he is not to work for pardon, but to take it freely, and that he is to believe before he works, for works done before believing are not pleasing to God.”

“Thus, then, that which cancels the curse provides the purity. The Cross not only pardons, but it purifies. From it there gushes out the double fountain of peace and holiness. It heals, unites, strengthens, quickens, blesses. It is God’s wing under which we are gathered, and “he that dwelleth in the secret place of the most high shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty” (Psa 91: 1).”

“Let us then shine! Stars indeed, not suns; but still stars, not tapers nor meteors. Let us shine! Giving perhaps slender light, but that light certain and pure; enough to say to men “It is night,” lest they mistake, but not enough bring day; enough to guide the seeking or the erring in the true direction, but not enough to illuminate the world. The sun alone can do that. It is the sun that shows us the landscape; stars show but themselves. Let us then show ourselves beyond mistake. The day when all things shall be seen in full warm light is the day of the great sun-rising.”

More about the book:

Another quality eBook from Chapel Library! God’s Way of Holiness looks at sanctification–the process by which the Holy Spirit conforms a believer’s life to the will of God. Horatius Bonar (1808-1889) looks at the new life in the believer, which is the ground of holiness. He looks at Christ’s work for us and the Spirit in us and what that means for our holiness. Then he goes on to topics such as “The Root and Soil of Holiness,” “Strength against Sin,” “The Cross and Its Power,” “The Saint and the Law,” “The Saint and the Seventh Chapter of Romans,” “The True Creed and the True Life,” and, finally, “Counsels and Warnings” related to holiness in the believer’s life. Be challenged and refreshed by this careful look at the doctrine of sanctification!

Start reading it for free: http://amzn.to/1PGTdoz

Not being a professional or amateur book reviewer, I have to let the book speak for itself. I had a recommendation from a friend to read it, then read it, and am passing along the recommendation!

WHO ARE ‘THE WHOLE’ AND WHO ARE ‘THE SICK’?

Posted by Dan C. on

mikejeshurun's avatarJ.C. Philpot's Blog

They that are sick

WHO ARE ‘THE WHOLE’ AND WHO ARE ‘THE SICK’?

J.C. Philpot

“They that are whole (healthy) have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance!” [Mark 2:17]

Let us look, then, at the character pointed out in the text by the expression, “THE WHOLE.” I need scarcely say, that the word naturally means a person healthy, strong, and vigorous; one untainted by sickness or disease; one in all the enjoyment of robust health, without any constitutional ailment or bodily affliction. Now it is a truth, naturally, that such people “need not a physician.” They are not in circumstances to require such aid; their vigorous health, their robust constitution, their freedom from all disease, give them perfect liberty to dispense with the services of medical skill.

From this comparison we may easily gather who are “the…

View original post 2,370 more words