Biblical Reason Against Homosexuality

Vines employs an old, Subtle strategy, Asking "Did God actually say? " (Gen 3:1). Calling for a reexamination of the Bible"s teaching, Vines doesn"t come out swinging but wooing. He wins sympathy by telling his own heart-wrenching story of not wanting to admit his own same-sex attraction. His father even told him the day he "came out" was the worst day of his life. With readers softened up by sentiment and compassion, Vines asks them to reconsider the Bible"s teaching. Tellingly, Vines does not encourage his readers to be like the Bereans in the Book of Acts"commended for testing all things by the Scriptures. Simply put, He can"t afford to have readers test his arguments 2. Sexual orientation is a new concept If the modern concept of sexual orientation is to be taken as a brute fact, Then the Bible simply cannot be trusted to understand what it means to be human, To reveal what God intends for us sexually, Or to define sin in any coherent manner. The modern notion of sexual orientation is, As a matter of fact, Exceedingly modern. It is also a concept without any definitive meaning. Effectively, It is used now both culturally and morally to argue about sexual attraction and desire. As a matter of fact, Attraction and desire are the only indicators upon which the modern notion of sexual orientation are premised. When he begins his book, Vines argues that experience should not drive our interpretation of the Bible. But it is his experience of what he calls a gay sexual orientation that drives every word of this book. It is this experiential issue that drives him to relativize text after text and to argue that the Bible really doesn"t speak directly to his sexual identity at all, Since the inspired human authors of Scripture were ignorant of the modern gay experience. Of what else were they ignorant? Vines claims to hold to a "high view" of the Bible and to believe that "all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life", But the modern concept of sexual orientation functions as a much higher authority in his thinking and in his argument. This leads to a haunting question. What else does the Bible not know about what it means to be human? If the Bible cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about us in every respect, How can we trust it to reveal our salvation? This points to the greater issue at stake here " the gospel. Vines"s argument does not merely relativize the Bible"s authority, It leaves us without any authoritative revelation of what sin is. And without an authoritative (and clearly understandable) revelation of human sin, We cannot know why we need a savior, Or why Jesus Christ died. Furthermore, To tell someone that what the Bible reveals as sin is not sin, We tell them that they do not need Christ for that. Is that not exactly what Paul was determined not to do when he wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? Could the stakes be any higher than that? This controversy is not merely about sex, It is about salvation. 3. Celibacy is a gift, Not a mandate, But a gift. Vines begs the question here, Though he would not admit that he does so. The Bible, As we have said, Renders homosexual behavior sinful. There is no context, However covenantal, However relational, In which Scripture countenances morally permissible homosexual activity. As the surrounding chapters make clear, Scripture deals with same-sex behavior in exclusively negative terms. This has major implications for Christians who feel such impulses. It means, Contra what Vines argues, That whether such persons experience the "gift" of celibacy or a sense of calling to this state, They are of necessity and for all their life called to abstain from homosexual behavior. This is true whether one is sexually attracted to the same sex, Non-humans, Multiple people at once, Preteens or any other perverse sexual attachment. The apostle Paul disciplined his body and kept it under control as we all must (1 Cor 9:27). Vines argues that such a state is both harmful and essentially impossible (18), But the testimony of countless Christians proves otherwise. Whether or not one marries, Self-control over all desire, Including immoral sexual desire of either a homosexual or heterosexual kind, Is God"s Spirit-shaped gift to all who trust Christ (Gal 5:22-23). Celibacy must be practiced by those who are tempted to give vent to any sinful, Fallen desire. Without holiness "no one will see the Lord, " the author of Hebrews reminds us (12:14). 4. Sodom and Gomorrah involved an attempted gang rape, Not a loving relationship Rape is obviously a violation of what God intended, But that does not mean that the same-sex aspect of Sodom"s sin was not also a violation of God"s intention. One thing you fail to notice is the significant connection between Genesis 19, The two passages in Leviticus and Ezekiel 16:48"50. Ezekiel, Who makes abundant use of the book of Leviticus, Describes various sins of Sodom (Ezek 16:48"49), Then concludes, "They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, When I saw it" (16:50). This indicates that the "abomination" committed by Sodom led to their destruction. Ezekiel"s reference to Sodom"s "abomination" uses the singular form of the term toevah, And that term is used in the singular only twice in the book of Leviticus, When same-sex intercourse is called an abomination in 18:22, And when the death penalty is prescribed for it in 20:13. The four other instances of the term in Leviticus are in the plural, Making it likely that Ezekiel uses the term from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to reference the same-sex intentions of the men of Sodom. Jude also speaks of "sexual immorality" and the Sodomites" pursuit of "strange flesh" (Jude 7). Vines tries to explain away this mention of "strange flesh" as referring "to the attempted rape of angels instead of humans" (69). But the Genesis narrative refers to the angels as "men" (Gen18:22), And that is how the inhabitants of Sodom designate them as well (19:5). For those who adopt the sexual complementarity taught in the Bible, The violation of the order of creation at Sodom is an abomination (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Ezek 16:50). That abomination is only intensified by the angelic identity of the men the Sodomites intend to abuse. 2 Peter 2:6"10 also treats the sin of Sodom as sexual immorality rather than as oppression, Violence, A failure of hospitality or some other kind of sin. The rest I will add to the comments.