Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

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

Here is Round 7 in this series about Matthew Vines’ “Ten Biblical Reasons to support Homosexuality.” Today’s argument is this: The word “homosexuality” did not exist until 1892. The Bible never addressed committed, homosexual relationships. It did condemn lustful relationships, but not this and it is not deserving of condemning all gays and homosexual relationships. That is the argument.

This argument is very similar to Vines’ second argument, that the early church leaders did not understand the loving, committed homosexual relationship. Vines suggests that while recently Bible versions include the word “homosexuals” (in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), this is a concept Paul did not actually face nor understand. In this verse, the word “homosexual” was inserted into more recent versions because it fit the understanding of what it was. But is this so?

I again bring forth Ecclesiastes 1:9. There is nothing new under the sun. Nothing. Well, we have cell phones and computers. That was never here before. This passage is not talking about technology. But even if it does, what are all those things? Just different means of doing the same thing: communication and representing data. It is talking about concepts, ideas, behaviors, history. A very well-known statement is: “Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.” What is this talking about? Simple: history tends to repeat itself when people don’t learn from those who came before them. And Solomon in Ecclesiastes reveals that there is no new idea that had not been brought forth before.

Vines claims that his ideal of a homosexual relationship is unique, that it has not been considered before. But he never actually makes a case that his ideal is separate from the lustful kind he agrees the Bible condemns. He claims it, but never makes a case to defend such a claim. Remember two weeks ago, I explained how the whole sexual orientation foundation is rooted in sexual desires, and such desires are frequently mentioned throughout the Bible. Not only are they mentioned, they are all referenced in context of lust.

But let’s examine the core of his argument: this “term” did not exist until recently therefore any mention of such a term prior to that must not mean this. There is another issue similar to this in regards to evolution and creation. The Bible never mentions dinosaurs. It never uses that word. But why? Simple: the word “dinosaur” did not exist until 1841, invented by Sir Richard Owen. But did dinosaurs suddenly exist because the word existed? No, they were around the whole time. So what were dinosaurs known as prior to 1841? Dragons. Finding “dragons” is very common in ancient literature. The creatures never changed. Just the label they were given.

The same concept is true with homosexuality. Nothing has changed about what homosexuality is, just the label men have given it. Men were practicing homosexuality thousands of years ago. It was clearly recorded in Genesis. Many scholars as recorded in my second post on this series (see this link) suspect it was rampant prior to the Flood and was the final straw to bring in God’s judgment. It’s nothing new at all.

One of God’s attributes is that he is immutable. That means he does not change. That means his character does not change. It means his laws do not change. It means his standards do not change. What God said 2000 years ago at the cross does not change. What God said 3500 years ago at Mt. Sinai does not change. What God does said 6000 years ago does not change. If God said homosexuality is a sin, he means it is a sin. If he said it in Genesis and repeated it in Leviticus and repeated it again in Romans and Corinthians, it is still a sin… today.

But didn’t God change when he went from the Mosaic Law to the cross? Isn’t the New Covenant a “new” covenant? Not quite. The old covenants of the Old Testament were a picture and foundation-laying for the New Covenant. The standards did not change. Instead of being written on tablets of stone, they were written on the tablets of our heart. God did not change. Being under the law of grace does NOT give us luxury to do what we want.

Matthew Vines repeatedly asks the question: “Why can’t homosexuals have that which heterosexual marriages have?” That is covetousness. The Bible gives no basis for why they should do it. It actually gives a very strong basis that it cannot. Pay attention to the tactics used here. Vines never actually provides a defense for his position, or even a logical accounting for his position.

Is anything Vines offers new? No. Jesus warned that at the end of times, it would be like Sodom and Gomorrah. That it would be like prior to the Flood. And embracing of homosexual activity by the culture is traditionally held as one of the final actions before God brought forth destruction. That Matthew Vines is pushing this and claiming to be a question makes think of Jesus’ question: “When I return, will I find any faith?”

I expect people like Matthew Vines to come forth and present arguments like he has. I expect to see this type of thing presented in the church. Why? Because the enemy has always sought to bring in confusion and false teachings into the church. That’s his game. I do believe Vines is honest about his position and that he really does believe he is right. I do not believe he is a willing participant in an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture. While I do believe he is not intending to do that, it is what he is doing, and I know that is Satan’s agenda. But I am not angry that Vines has brought forth such arguments. I am angry that the church is more and more accepting of these messages, that the church as a whole has left truth fallen to the streets to be trampled. If you have not seen this in me by now, let me make it clear: that will not happen on my watch, not without me having a say in the matter. I write to uphold the truth of Scripture. Matthew Vines needs the true Gospel, repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, faith that Jesus died to save him from himself, just like any of us. Our biggest enemy is ourselves - our selfish, sinful selves. Let us nail it to cross and take on Christ.

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.