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