What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuals – Some of my former students, many of whom were brilliant students, believed that homosexuality was acceptable in the Bible. I’ve seen this trend especially among those who have embraced homosexuality or who are close to others who have adopted this lifestyle. In a conversation with one of the students recently, he said I should read more on the subject. I chose the book
I see the charm of the book. Written in a simple and sweet style. Also, author Matthew Vines defends the authority of Scripture from beginning to end. He tries to defend the acceptability of homosexuality in the biblical corpus. To those unfamiliar with the arguments advanced for his cause, the mountain he chose to climb may seem invincible. Yet many found his case convincing. I read the book, hoping to understand how my former students accepted such a position.
What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuals
As with most arguments, it comes down to the fundamentals that matter most. I’d say Vines makes two main arguments for the pro-gay position. First, Jesus said that a good root produces good fruit. Second, when Scripture speaks of homosexuality, they are not talking about the same kind of homosexuality that we are talking about today. Then let’s examine these.
The Bible Does Not Condemn “homosexuality.” Seriously, It Doesn’t.
Vines opened the book by quoting Jesus, who said that a good root bears good fruit (Matthew 7:17). Vines later claimed that same-sex unions of the type he suggested (monogamous, loyal, loving, etc.) bear good fruit and therefore come from a good root. On the other hand, the Church’s rejection of same-sex partnerships leads to personal hatred, disruption of lives and often suicide. These are clearly negative and therefore the rejection of homosexual unions has a rotten root.
I am simplifying his argument now, but I maintain that it is a fair representation of his situation in the first chapter. Different reactions are possible to this argument. First, Vines builds his argument on how Christians resist loving and committed same-sex relationships. However, this is far from the norm within the gay community. Watch a video of the pride parade (in fact, I highly recommend you don’t watch it) and it will prove the point. Obviously, I’m not denying that there are same-sex couples who have embraced these values; I’m just pointing out that this is far from the norm. It seems that there is a deep connection between homosexuality and the violation of God’s standards in other areas (I think this connection was confirmed in Romans 1).
Second, throughout the book, Vines addresses the horizontal element of sin: sin is that which harms others or oneself. Such a perspective is as good as it gets, but it is incomplete. The tail also has a vertical dimension. God created the world to work in a certain way. As creator, he has the right to determine how we should live. This brings me to a somewhat related point, Vines’ argument can also be used to defend animality because whoever applies it has great loyalty, devotion, etc. (good root?) church (bad root?).
Third, Vines assumes that feelings of rejection and self-loathing stem from rejection of the Church. To some extent, this is probably true because social exclusion is emotionally difficult. An object of ecclesiastical discipline is to alarm the sinner by causing him to reconsider his ways. He must be aware that the condemnation of the church is the prosperity of the eternal condemnation of God. Therefore, if homosexuality is evil, then the condemnation of the church is a gift of grace, and the sense of rejection is intended to call the sinner to repentance. Vines also never considers whether the individual’s conscience could be responsible for such feelings, which I think is the point.
Stop Using The Bible As A Weapon Of Hate Against Lgbtq Community
There is an exegetical commitment in the text, as may be expected from a writer who appeals to the authority of Scripture. It covers the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (chapter 4), “abominable” passages of Leviticus (chapter 5), Paul’s statements about homosexuality in Romans 1 (chapter 6) and his claim that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; chapter 7). At least the Vine test
It may not mean what we think, yet it speaks of a different kind of homosexuality than what we’re talking about today.
I cannot spend enough time analyzing his tafsir. However, as a friend in a reading group mentioned, it was interesting to see Vines, who talks a lot about the authority of the Bible, in his exegetical chapters citing scholars who do not believe in the authority of the Bible.
Rather than dealing with interpretive arguments, I want to focus on the main argument that the type of homosexuality mentioned in the Bible was different from that of the ancient world. The main argument here is that the ancient world condemned homosexuality because it feminized men. The Scriptures know nothing about men who are undoubtedly attracted to men. We know that such people exist today (like women who love women), but since the culture of biblical times did not know such people existed, the Bible could not speak of them. When “homosexuality” is condemned in Scripture, the feminization of men and the forced sexualization of others is condemned (for example, pederasty or homosexual rape).
Manny Pacquiao Posts Bible Verse That States Gay People Should Be Killed
Now Vines has introduced many assumptions into this argument. First, there are undoubtedly gays. He never defends this claim by assuming that everyone knows. In fact, he bases this claim on other arguments in the book. For example, he says that homosexual Christians should be allowed to marry other homosexuals, because if they cannot and burn with passion (1 Cor 7:9), they cannot escape their temptation (1 Cor 10:13). But is there any reason to believe that there are undoubtedly homosexuals? I have not seen such evidence. And by accepting the claim that such a thing exists, can’t God help them overcome their temptation? Moreover, if such homosexuals undoubtedly exist, is it possible that they did not exist in biblical times? Does God not recognize them and mention their unique situations?
One of the main difficulties of Vines’ argument is that he must support Scripture in his argument, but his argument necessarily criticizes the authority of Scripture. How? He claims that when Scripture speaks against homosexuality, it speaks against the feminization of men. He then says that this is patriarchy and that it is wrong. Therefore, these passages are not correct when you read the scriptures, because they require social norms that put women into perspective.
I conclude by considering Vines’ second argument, let’s take Paul and the Roman Christians: Imagine someone comes to Paul from Rome and just writes:
Therefore God gave them over to shameful desires. Even women replaced natural sexual relations with unnatural ones. Likewise, men abandoned their natural relationships with women and became lustful towards each other. Men committed shameful acts with other men and took upon themselves the punishment for their mistakes. (Romans 1:26-27, NIV)
The Bible And Homosexuality: Life Beyond Tradition — Another Story
The young believer then says to Paul, “But my wife and I tried to take care of the women, but we couldn’t; besides, we are committed to a loving relationship.” Paul’s “Oh, I wasn’t talking about you then!” it’s possible to say It’s hard to imagine anyone who would honestly answer “yes” to that question.
More could be said about this book. I don’t think the arguments of his lasting legacy are correct. Rather, it is the perceived “correctness” of his conclusions. This book is for the palpitations (itchy ears?)
Here’s a great summary of his argument. Reader’s review of the Vine 4-7. I think you’ll see that the case he made in the episodes is an honest representation.
Dr. Tim Miller is an assistant professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He received his MA from Maranatha Baptist University, M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary. The title of the dissertation was “The Theological Method of John Frame and Vern Poythress: Examining the Trinitarian Origins of Perspectivalism.” Before teaching DBTS, Dr. Miller taught at Maranatha Baptist University for four years. Having previous experience as a chaplain in Philadelphia, he is actively involved in providing pulpits to churches in the DBTS area. He is also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Dr. Miller and his wife Hannah have three daughters. In his spare time, he enjoys cycling, woodworking and reading a good science fiction book. Homosexuality is one of the most divisive issues in American culture.