Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

[This post is part of a series. The previous one is here and the next one is here.]

Here in my fourth post in dealing with Matthew Vines’ Ten Biblical reasons to support homosexuality, we will be dealing with the consequences for homosexual activity. No Biblical passage gives a clearer picture than the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. However, Vines makes the case that homosexuality was not the actual cause of bringing down God’s judgment. He cites a passage in Ezekiel where it was arrogance and not taking care of the poor are the cited reasons for the judgment. Vines then points out the problem of the scene at the door of Lot’s house was gang rape, not the loving, committed relationships he promotes. So what is the deal with this passage?

Genesis 19 is one of six passages in the Bible that deal with homosexuality, according to Vines. I’ll deal with the others ones later. Vines makes three major statements: 1) That Sodom’s sin was not homosexuality. 2) The problem cited deals with rape and not love. 3) Because loving homosexuality is not the problem, therefore the “traditional interpretation” that homosexuality is sinful must be wrong.

First, let us address what the judgment of Sodom was really about. The first indicated there was a problem is found earlier in Genesis 13:13. When Lot moved towards Sodom, we learn that Sodom was “exceedingly wicked.” Because this is concept is repeated in Genesis 18 when God tells Abraham he was going to destroy the city. We need to understand what “exceedingly wicked” entails.

I’ll examine one commentary for the sake of space. Clark’s Commentaries, as reproduced on Godvine, describe this exceedingly wicked/sinful lifestyle as seeking happiness and pleasure excessively, but continually missing the mark in achieving it. It is doing what man wants to do and defying any who would tell them otherwise. Clark includes sensual gratifications in his list, so from Clark’s position, sexual deviance, including homosexuality, would be in this list. If homosexual relationships were not a big part of this picture as Vines claims, how else did Sodom become synonymous with such acts? Vines is correct that there were other factors involved, however he never actually showed that homosexual relationships were NOT involved.

Vines references Ezekiel 16:49-50 in suggesting that Sodom’s judgment-inducing sin was arrogance, gluttony, and not tending to the poor. But he never mentions that they committed abomination before the Lord. Again, what is the commonly held context about such abomination? It is homosexual activity. Vines needs to understand that while these others reasons were cited, to make his case, he needs to get affirmative citation that homosexuality was NOT one of the reasons for Sodom’s destruction. Let’s look over to Isaiah 3:9. In addressing Jerusalem’s fall, Isaiah compares them to Sodom, who flaunted their sin. What sins have any people done which were flaunted? The primary one is sexual deviancy. One can make a case for witchcraft on days like Halloween, but we usually don’t see society widely embracing it and flaunting it. We do today with homosexuality. And again, what have the Jewish people and early church leaders thought of at the mention of Sodom? Homosexuality. Arrogance was one of Sodom’s sins, and what greater form of arrogance than to be proud of one’s sins?

Vines argues that Sodom and Gomorrah was about a gang rape, not a loving, committed homosexual relationship. I applaud Vines by condemning such gang rape activity, but let us ask what separates the two. It boils down to one thing: consent. I honestly cannot think of another argument anyone has given me to suggest otherwise. Does consent make it any less sinful? If the Bible describes homosexuality as sinful, rape makes one person guilty of sin and the other person a victim. Consent makes two people guilty. Being a willing participant does absolutely nothing to change the standard. Is a “loving, committed,” consensual homosexual relationship any less sinful than a gang rape? This is a question Vines never answers and it is because he seems to think consent removes the sinful part. Being a willing participant does not make the activity right. It just makes you an accomplice.

It is easy, then, to conclude that Vines’ argument, that the “traditional interpretation” is wrong, is founded on unestablished arguments. If Vines is right on this, he did not prove his case. All he did was attempt to put question and doubt into the “traditional interpretation.” That does not justify his case. That does not make him right. He is trying to sound smart and scholarly, and I can easily see how people would follow him. However, his claim is that these 10 reasons I am addressing show Biblically-based support of homosexuality. This is the fourth, and have any of them shown what he claims they do? No, they haven’t. You will find this tactic very common among the homosexual agenda, among the emergent church, and among old earth creation supporters. Their whole tactic boils down to “Hath God really said?” When you see this, especially directed at the Word of God, you know where it is coming from.

One small tangent to wrap up. Sodom and Gomorrah are synonymous with homosexuality. They are also synonymous with judgment. Vines never made a case that homosexuality was NOT a key reason for the judgment. He claimed that, but never backed it up with solid evidence. Now, I am not going to condemn Matthew Vines to hell for being a homosexual. But there is a judgment awaiting those who living in sin, who promote their sin, and love their sin. There is a way out: repentance.

The Christian is someone who is born again and who detests their sin, because it grieves their Father who is Holy, Pure, Righteous, and Just. They still will sin. We are far from perfect, but when we sin, we don’t like it, we don’t regularly plan it, we don’t regularly strategize over it, and when confronted by the Holy Spirit, we are cut to the heart and we hate that we did it. Some may say, “David planned his sin with Bathsheba.” Yes, he did. But when he was confronted, he repented, to the point that when he died, he had never slept with another woman who was not already his wife.

Matthew Vines has not made a case to say his position is not “sinful.” He admits every Biblical reference to homosexuality is negative. That is a strong hint that God’s take on homosexuality is negative. When Paul struggled with his inner self, he never embraced it. He never said “this is how God made me.” Instead he said “Who can deliver me from this sin?” This is the mentality of a Christian. Do we have this mentality? I know in my life, I have an area in my thoughts that I have struggled with for years. But instead of saying “This is who I am,” I say, “That is not what I am supposed to be.” I say, “That is sin.” It keeps coming back and I have not had mastery over it yet. Why? It’s because I have a sinful nature that has not yet been subdued into submission to Christ. And how I long for that day.

Judgment is coming to all. And it boils down to: “Is our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, or not?” Those who surrender their lives to the Lordship of Jesus Christ will see paradise. Those who wish to live their own ways, by their own standards, even if they call themselves Christians may not. Many are “Christian in Name Only.” Think about where you really stand. Examine yourselves and see if you are indeed in the faith, or if you are disqualified. That’s between you and God.

Next week, we’ll deal with Vines’ claim about how the homosexual laws in Leviticus do not apply to Christians.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.