I tried to post this on Facebook as a response to a fellow brother in Christ in the Facebook forum: Den of Christian Apologists. However due to technical issues, I was unable to do it, so instead I'll respond as an open letter to my fellow brother in Christ. So to protect his identity I'll simply refer to him as: Fellow Brother.
***
Hi Fellow Brother,
You said:
"Any argument that supports the ban on gay marriage from Christ's point of view is an argument from silence or "inference" which is the same exact thing. ... Inference is still an argument that has nothing concrete, otherwise it would be fact."
In my previous discussion with you Fellow Brother I showed you an example of an argument from silence. Jesus does *not* need to talk about homosexuality in order to have his views on it shown. Matthew 19, is *not* an argument from silence, nor is it an argument from inference. It is a conclusion from a proper exegesis of Scripture. At worst, arguing against homosexuality from Matthew 19, is an “inductive argument” that is “the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning). When we hold John 8:58 and 17:5, that is he is God and 2 Timothy 2:13b, that is God cannot deny himself, to be true then God’s original design for sexuality and marriage leaves zero wiggle room. God is God; any compromise on his standard will compromise that and that is simply impossible for God to do, that is God cannot compromise on his nature; in sum God cannot decide not to be God. Therefore taking this into account, Jesus’ non-support of homosexuality is *fact*. The assumed inductive argument is really a deductive argument. That is linking “...premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning)
Premise #1: God cannot deny his nature and he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good, (cf. Genesis 1:31).
Premise #2: Jesus is God (cf. John 1:1)
Conclusion: Jesus cannot deny his nature and since he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good: (cf. Genesis 1:31); and therefore *any* alternative sexual orientation, including but not exclusive to, homosexuality, violates his nature, i.e. is a sin.
In sum: Jesus is against homosexuality and thus any behaviors that spins from it may it be sexual or political (i.e. legal marriage) is a no-go; and we as followers of Christ should likewise represent that. Just as an ambassador of a country represents the policies and values held by their country, we are ambassadors for Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20) and therefore we represent the policies and values held by Christ.
And then just as I posted Part 1 of my response, because Facebook didn’t allow me to post my entire message in one shot forcing me to partition my response you (without waiting for the rest) responded as follows:
"Jesus never said gay marriage is wrong and yet you assert He did. There is no difference, only selective reasoning and at the least blind ignorance."
Translation: Did not!
This, Fellow Brother is not a valid argument. And then you advised me to not read “...Wiki for the record, that's a bit elementary.” Let’s translate that: “I’m not going to see what your ‘elementary’ recourses state, I am going to attack the medium of the message and not look at what the message is.” Again not a very good apologetic tactic.
You then wrote a big paragraph where you added within:
”...we'll pick the laws of Leviticus that suit our needs and toss out the rest."
Some of the Levitical laws were exclusively for the OT Jewish people, i.e. eating shrimp; others were universal to everyone Jew or Gentile, such as homosexual behaviour. There are two Hebrew words that are translated into ‘abomination”: Sheqets (Shelfish - Lev. 11:12) & Tow`ebah (Homosexuality - Lev. 18:22). I didn't do an exhaustive search into which verses are declared 'Sheqets' while other are 'Tow`ebah', but considering that in the main stream eating selfish is often brought up when arguing for homosexuality I'll use Lev. 11:12.
"Sheqets' means: “detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8263&t=NASB). Tow`ebah means, a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in a ritual and or ethical sense. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8441&t=NASB) So homosexual behavior according to Old Testament Scripture is a disgusting, ethic; or a disgusting ritual, or both: a disgusting unethical ritual. And the wrongness of this disgusting unethical ritual is reestablished by Paul, in the new covenant, via Christ’s authority (cf. Acts 9:15-16, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
So as I said in my previous post: “By proxy of the authority given to Paul by Christ to speak Scripture, homosexuality is explained to be a bi-product of a corrupted original design, (cf. Romans 1:26-27). Of which again isn’t a new decree but an old one carried over from Moses.” The same Moses who spoke Scripture by authority of God, who is Christ. Moreover, Paul also reestablished God's decree that the requirement to keep “The Law” such as those pertaining to dietary laws was completed in Christ, (cf. Matthew 5:17, Acts 10:9-16, Galatians 2:16). I am sure that you won’t disagree that Paul declared, or mimicked Christ’s declaration that “...man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” - Galatians 2:16. Why then do you fight against his words, via his authority given to him by God himself to speak Scripture regarding homosexuality?
You said:
"I have a Degree in Religion and Masters in Divinity and Counseling."
So what?
You said:
"What about slaves in your home? Paul seems to think women shouldn't lead and having slaves is just."
You are guilty of a “bait & switch”. We are talking about homosexuality and you, in a defense of your view on this subject redirect the conversation to other and irrelevant subjects, (that is subjects that are irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality). This is a common tactic by many (but not all I’m sure) pro-gay activists; and all who present these arguments are guilty of ‘bait & switch’.
But since you brought it up I’ll address only one of your side-topics, slavery, as the “women in leadership” issue is too complicated to discuss as a tag-line on a discussion on homosexuality. You asserted that Paul “...saw slavery as just.” This is simply not true; but lets pretend that he was pro-slavery; it doesn’t negate the morality of homosexuality. Someone can be in support for something that is not good and be correct regarding the ungodliness of another view; but as I said this is just to illustrate the point, as Paul was not pro-slavery.
Moreover, you rehashed your fallacious type of argument, namely that Paul was pro-slavery whereas if he wasn’t “...he would have spoken against it...”. Just as Jesus doesn’t need to say the words “I am against homosexuality” for us to know that he is against it, Paul doesn’t need to say “I am against slavery” for us to know that he is against slavery. Another brother in Christ informed you that slavery was an institution in the first century that simply couldn’t have been abolished overnight. Paul had one topic on his heart, salvation for the lost and Christ as LORD in the lives of everyone. Our fellow Christian brother who I alluded to above asked you for references for your view that Paul supported slavery and you provided him: Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18 and Philemon.
Paul is Gospel focused; when he instructed Christians who were slaves to not disrupt the flow of society it wasn't because he was in support of it. He wanted his readers to put Christ ahead of the social institution. In sum serve with great passion (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22-23) their ‘earthly master’ so to show Christ and his love, (Ephesians 6:6, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18). In sum serve your earthly master as a means of serving Christ. Paul’s concentration is to redirect the persons’ attention from considering themselves as an slave to an earthly master to as a slave to Christ. (Colossians 3:24) Paul also reiterates that wrongs will be taken care of by God (Colossians 3:25). Given the surrounding context Paul is suggesting that slavery is wrong and it will be dealt with.
And with Philemon Paul states “[for] perhaps he [Onesimus] was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” - Philemon 1:15-16. Paul is arguing that Philemon’s former slave, Onesimus ran away and God used that situation to bring him to faith in Christ through Paul. Paul then says to Philemon to take Onesimus back, but as a brother in Christ, not as a slave.
Paul had to pick his battles and establishing ones eternal salvation and representing Christ in every situation was the most important battle for him to fight. But he did seem to way in on the subject in Col. 3:25. And then you implied that the church should be involved in current slavery abolishment. Many are: https://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=482 (FYI, read the first line on this webpage.) I believe this ministry is a Christian ministry but even if they are not a “Christian ministry” the point is moot because many members of the “the church” I am sure are involved either in this ministry or others like it and or other ministries, which deal with yet equally important issues.
Moreover, you asked are not gay people “...marginalized, oppressed, and cast out? Does that not make them the "least of us?” Unfortunately gay people have been marginalized due to their sexual orientation. In the context of Matthew 25:31-46, persons who have been beaten down either metaphorically and or physically would fall into the category of “the least”. And to a degree vs. 45 would in my view apply to many homosexual people.
However as I stated in a previous discussion, regarding marriage everyone was equal under heterosexual marriage. If a gay man wanted to marry, he was within his full rights to find a woman who would be willing to engage into marriage with him; and visa-versa for the gay woman. Instead however what the LGBT group wants is not equal rights for marriage, but rather marriage reformation. Read what Matthew Vines states on his Reformation Project website:
“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.” (http://www.reformationproject.org/about)
Homosexual Christians are abel to participate in church life. The only stipulation that any orthodox Christian church would expect from its leadership would be repentance of sin - something that is expected for everyone, irregardless of sexual orientation and nature of sin. So a church can have a homosexual pastor, a pastor who is an addict and so on, just as long as he is not a practicing homosexual, or an active addict or whatever. In sum just as long as they are living according to Scripture. A church can have people who are homosexual, or addicts teaching children’s church or singing in the choir, or sitting on the board of directors, etc., just as long as they are not a practicing homosexual, or drunks or druggies, etc. Again, just as long as they are living according to Scripture. What Vines and yourself are supporting is what Vines states in the first line of the aforementioned paragraph:
“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.”
An affirmation of homosexuality, not just the people who are homosexual. What you want is Biblical support to sin. Persons who are unrepentant of a sin (homosexuality, heterosexual sexual immoralities, drunkenness, etc.) should not be permitted to take up any leadership role in a church, may it be from pastoring a congregation or handing out bulletins to church members on a Sunday morning.
In Christ,
Ian
No comments:
Post a Comment