Three Highly Important Resources Regarding the “Gay Christians” Movement

longerandsicker

I’m currently spending several hours in the hospital every day, lying on a bed, getting IV treatment that is strengthening my body in order to prep me for the upcoming treatment that I’ve been fighting for (and my health insurance provider recently agreed to pay for – Praise the Lord!).  I’ve been using this time to catch up on various things I’ve wanted to listen to, and today I listened to some very helpful resources I wanted to make known to my readers.  The first is this:

1.  The Moody Bible Radio interaction/debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Matthew Vines.  For those of you who don’t know, Matthew Vines has gained significant notoriety as a Harvard drop-out who has published the book God and the Gay Christian, and that book has made no small dent in the evangelical landscape as of late.  Dr. Michael Brown is a name familiar to my readers as I’ve been quite a critic of his criticisms of the Strange Fire conference and book, but Dr. Michael Brown is actually more widely known for his absolutely stellar defense of the biblical position on homosexuality.  He’s recently released a book called Can You Be Gay and Christian? and it’s a book that, in these troubled times, every believer needs to have on their bookshelf (as well as Dr. Brown’s other book on the subject: A Queer Thing Happened to America).  Matthew Vines debated Michael Brown on the issue of scripture and homosexuality and, well, you be the judge:

For those of my readers who don’t necessarily watch debates, I’d recommend it as it’s very informative to see two acclaimed intellectual defenders of opposing positions squaring off on relatively equal ground.  It’s interesting how when there’s direct interaction and response, one position tends to show itself as having the clear strength of the biblical support and the other position manifests its weaknesses overtly.  It’s worth watching and learning from as Dr. Michael Brown is in absolute top form on this one.

2.  Dr. James White has released two videos of him addressing the issue as well, and when it comes to defending the biblical position, Dr. White is one of the most able defenders alive today (and he’s also written a book on the subject that you should most certainly buy, and purchase Robert Gagnon’s monumental work on the subject as well; four books you need to own).  If you’re wondering about the issue or think you’ve heard an evangelical and biblical response to all the various arguments why Homosexuals can be Christians in good standing (or why Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t apply anymore, Why Paul was condemning temple prostitution instead of “loving and monogamous” homosexual relationships, etc.), you haven’t really heard a strong biblical defense until you’ve heard Dr. James White on the issue.  Here’s both videos.

Part 1:

(the audio starts at 1:26)

Part 2:

I strongly recommend that you invest some time in learning about this issue; it’s not going to go away and you need to turn off the television and prepare yourself for the coming onslaught that our sin-obsessed culture is in the process of unleashing upon any Christian who dare suggest that the Bible is clear and condemning of homosexual practice.  If you’re not prepared to take a biblical stand on this issue, you’re going to find yourself either buckling when you cannot give an answer or fighting people in your own church (possibly including your own pastor) who get tossed around by the sheer tsunami of attacks that evangelicals will be facing.

This is street-level spiritual warfare that will hit every town in every province and state in North America.

Get ready.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Stand Firm in the Gospel” Unger

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Three Highly Important Resources Regarding the “Gay Christians” Movement

    • Because it’s a gospel issue and the issue is open warfare against the gospel and the scriptures.

      Speaking of obsessed, why are you here within minutes to get your $0.02 in? I post stuff on how I’m dying and need prayer and Claire doesn’t show up. I post something on homosexuality and Clair is here within minutes to mock me.

      I guess I’m on someone’s watch list or what?

      • You tagged it “homosexuality”. I often go to the tag reader, to find f****** like you obsessed about homosexuality. The church is leaving you behind, so you get angrier and more divorced from reality. I come to laugh at you.

        Admin – Claire has decided to display the Jesus in her heart by resorting to muckmouthery and then calling me the angry one.

        Consider this your first and kindly warning. I don’t tolerate swearing or straight-forward insults against anyone on here. This time you’re edited. Next time you’re blocked.

        • Claire, I’ve edited your comment to remove the unnecessary vocabulary.

          The church isn’t leaving me behind. The church has always stood firm on the word of God and those who “play church” have always abandoned it.

          If I’m so angry, how come you’re the one swearing at me?

          There’s definitely divorce from reality somewhere in this comment thread.

          If you’d like to interact, feel free to present some sort of response or riposte.

        • Oh dear. I am not my readers, nor do they represent me (assuming someone has said something unbecoming of one who professes Christ).

          They may certainly learn many things from you Claire and I would encourage them to consider what you write and evaluate it against the scriptures.

          I embrace critical but serious engagement with those who disagree with, and even openly hate, the biblical positions I take on any and all matters.

        • Do you get some sort of points for me hearing you? Do I?

          So now that we’ve established that I’m an idiotosaurus, do you have any actual comments or feedback on any of the three videos or are you afraid of hearing what we have to say?

          You might learn something too.

        • Any response to Dr. Brown maybe? Is he wrong on one of his points?

          I don’t even really know what your position is on this stuff, though I generally assume you would support Vines. Do you find his arguments persuasive or do you take a different line of reasoning?

          i.e. did the apostle Paul simply not know about loving, monogamous same-sex relationships?

          Did he know and leave then unaddressed?

          Did he know and somehow implicitly affirm despite his harsh words in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and other places (which is, I believe, the line that Vines takes)?

          Did he know and condemn them all (and betray the “central message of Jesus”)?

          Just curious.

        • I am aware that you have a huge amount of verbiage to defend you from the truth. I am not going to indulge you. If you will not listen to Matthew Vines, you will not listen to me.

        • Ha!

          You haven’t said a thing and haven’t even tried!

          I listen to Matthew Vines just fine. I can repeat his arguments and I’ve both watched his video presentation and read his writing. The fact that I don’t simply turn off my brain and believe him blindly doesn’t mean I am not listening. I respond to his arguments with biblical exegesis and I think carefully about what he’s saying and his whole position crumbles the minute I attempt to examine it.

          If your position is true, you have nothing to fear from interaction. If your position is not true, then the truth will reveal your pseudo-truth for what it is.

          John 3:17-21 is quite relevant on this concept.

          Claire, I’m an idiot dinosaur and you’re the enlightened 21st century intellectual. You should be able to walk all over my buck-toothed idiocy with ease, but you don’t even make a single argument or criticism.

          Either you must think that I’m some sort of vegetable who actually is unable to follow your arguments, or you are actually afraid to interact because, somewhere in your heart, you are fearful that I actually may say something reasonable that you may struggle to respond to and my knuckles may be further from the ground than you’d like to believe.

        • No, actually. You have all this mass of rubbish to defend your view. You are defended from truth. The more silly a view, the harder it is to dislodge from a person who has adopted it.

          Say something reasonable, then.

        • Jesus Christ was God, the one know as “Yahweh” in the Old Testament, incarnate. This is an inescapable conclusion that one arrives at from exegetically working through several passages like Hebrews 1:5-14, John 1:1-5, John 12:37-41, Titus 2:11-14.

          Agree or disagree?

      • Well, I’m here praying for you brother. My Dad has dealt with Hep-C and got on some treatments that turned his situation around. You mentioned something about going to Vancouver. Is that where you are at?

      • Clare, you are deceived and have believed a lie. You will perish in your sin. All of us are vile sinners but by the grace of God, we have been redeemed and transformed. We don’t glory in our sin, thinking that by promoting it and making it acceptable to everyone that this in itself transforms it into not being sin anymore. Men love darkness more than light.

        You must recognize your sin for what it is in the eyes of God – SIN – and repent. Jesus Christ suffered the wrath of God to pay the penalty for our sin, a penalty that we all deserve. Because He paid our penalty our sins are forgiven. Why will you perish? Why? Because you wish to hold onto this sinful life? It is because of sin that the wrath of God will come. Flee His wrath, Clare. Flee to Jesus. Come into the light by seeing your sin, repenting of it and God will graciously forgive. He is merciful and full of grace. But if you continue in this futile belief that your lifestyle, etc. is acceptable to God you will perish in your sins.

        Clare, I pray the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and grant you repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

    • Ears to hear what? The voice of the world ushering away a bunch of false converts? Good riddance to most of those liberal denominations and everything un-biblical thing they stand for. It utterly floors me that someone would side with the broken rationale of men over the Word of the living God. There is no lack of clarity on the matter and whats funny about the whole thing is that, just like in the world, homosexuals want favoritism and special treatment over heterosexuals. Want to talk about equality? Why should “Repent and Believe” only apply to non-homosexuals? Why did I have to wage war against my members, deny my desires, and utterly turn against the grain of my own nature? But if your gay you get to embrace and celebrate a nature God PLAINLY says is evil?
      Hath God really said? Yes he did!
      There is no particular disdain in my heart for homosexuals. In fact, when I get upset about what is happening lately and want to make it personal, I often have to remind myself of my own background and the fact my own past perversions rival that of any homosexual. I grew up in a drug culture and have done a truckload of vile things, in fact when Christ found me I was in between cooking batches of meth in my Grandmas basement. As far as the perversions I’ve committed, there are many, and although they were not of the homosexual nature, they were certainly in the list of what the Bible calls abominable. I won’t lay out any details because they are shameful to speak of, but they were part of me. They were a powerful force in my natural heart that I could not control or change… But Christ CHANGED me, gave me a NEW heart, and new desires that are at loggerheads with my old nature.
      How dare you trade the truth of God for a lie! How dare you deny the power of God to transform the hearts and minds of men and women! How dare you embrace this emerging harlot of a false church that denies Christ and His Lordship over the true pure and spotless Bride of Christ!
      It is the same for you as it is for anyone else REPENT and BELIEVE!

      • For the record I must point out that LittleShaun and I are not the same person as that may not necessarily be clear.

        AMEN!!! Looks like offering time here. VERY good indeed.

  1. Pay no attention to the wailing banshees of blasphemy Lyndon. I say again. absolutely PLAN on every perversion and heresy continuing to increase. It’s a joyous thing as it signals the also increasing nearness of the Lord’s return. While painful to watch, the mangling butchery of God’s holy word is what we are told to expect.

    I got into it with a guy the other day on Kevin DeYoung’s site. I was telling him that even entering into dialog with the gay agenda is to fall prey to the devils ages old tactic of “hath God said?” Exposure and denunciation is the only legitimate path. (Like you are dong here and as are Brown and While and others)
    As usual he was contending that everybody except their homo emergent heroes has gotten this wrong for a few thousand years.
    ==================================================================
    “The interpretations regarding homosexuality are so clear and manifestly obvious as to have enjoyed literally unanimous singularity among those calling themselves Christians throughout the whole of the history of earth. Not even the doctrines of God, Christ and salvation were nearly as universally agreed upon. Until The United States and Europe turned themselves into whorehouses. Then the church followed. On this and a list of other issues.

    Watch closely please. God creates a man and a woman. He tells them (now follow me):

    “You can eat from ALLLLLLLL these trees. EVERY last one. EXCEPT that one.”

    Did ya see that? It is not possible, by any reasonable standard ever devised to get that wrong. The serpent comes and questions that hysterically simple principle. There was no need for discussion, or interpretation, or context even. The ONLY correct response is rejection and flight. “YES, God DID say that. Adios” >>>–ZOOOM!!!!–>

    Homosexuality in any form and for all time, IS THAT clearly and unassailably condemned as damnable perversion in the ancient Christian scriptures. To the point where the still unparalleled unanimity described above has been the case for thousands of years. (ya still with me?)

    Now. ANY challenge to that, 2000 years post the last tittle in John’s writings, does not pass the snicker test.

    If you are still unable to grasp this, I am afraid that I must confess myself unequipped to help you further.

    I would simply leave you with my outstretched hand always ready to take yours in welcoming you to repentance and new life in Christ. Upon which time the scales of self will and self exaltation will have fallen from your eyes and this will no longer be a question for you though it may certainly still be a war.

    There has never ever been, nor can there ever be, a practicing “gay christian”. Ever. From the moment God breathed into man the breath of life until the last trump.”
    ==================================================================
    The “church” that IS leaving us behind is that great apostate sea of idol worshiping Israel, drunk on the spirit of Jezebel. As the LORD told Elijah then, He always has His 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Israel was a million to a million and a half people then. That’s a pretty small remnant.

    The King of he universe sees your faithfulness my brother. The cackling cacophony of those whose rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft will never drown out the voice of the living God as He has so inescapably revealed in His inscripturated word.

    I would ask only that you reconsider one thing. I would NEVER block ANYbody. **** out their blasphemous profane language, yes, but let your readers see what they are. I’m not trying to run your site or your life, but there is much value in letting these pagans show their true demonic colors. Even the words of Satan are recorded in the bible. Just my three cents.

  2. The only thing I didn’t like about MB’s discussion with Vines is that he did have the tendency to talk over the kid. It was sort of reminiscent of his conversation with Phil. That is not to say it isn’t worth hearing, because MB, like you point out, did a stellar job of focusing the discussion and providing a wealth of information. I’d like to see them interact again, but more in a controlled debate format rather than just a radio interview for an hour.

    • I honestly have a hard time with Michael Brown because, although he has a number of good works, his views on Charismatic practices and the fact he would embrace guys like Benny Hinn as a brother wrecks his credibility. I will watch the video, but if I were a unconverted skeptic I could probably find a linked youtube of him speaking in tongues or some awful thing and dismiss anything he says based on that (I’m not saying there are any such videos but it’s likely documented). Also I consider him guilty by association by sharing a stage with Benny the Blasphemer. Seriously Dr. Brown, we love you, stop rubbing elbows with these guys if you want any credibility at all. My former Pastor in the Foursquare church looks up to you, and if their are any theologically minded charismatics out there, you’re their champion. Do not lend your more credible platform to guys like Hinn or his ilk, because you have no idea the kinds of blasphemies that get a free pass because you refuse to give a stiff arm their propagators.

      • Yeah, I knew that of all people, MY readers would have a hard time giving him an ear. I just say “listen to him where he’s good, even if it’s in only this one area.”

      • The MB video was good, and I thought he was very well spoken and gracious. Mr. Vines seemed to have a sort of desperate tone in his voice when he interrupted a couple times (though I can’t judge him for feeling pressed). It was very clear MB held to the Biblical and objective interpretation and Matthews points were all much more subjective and made to cast a shadow of doubt over what should be perfectly clear.
        I hope everything goes well with your treatments Lyndon.

  3. I still need to hear the debate; but sometimes I wonder if it’s worth it to have someone with various degree debate a kid who’s a college drop out with subpar arguments; but you are right we need to address these since its getting more and more popular

    • I think it was worth it to debate the kid. After all he wrote a book on the subject and people are reading it. Sadly, in spite of the fact he got spanked, there will be many people who can only see the debate through their own humanistic presups and still fall on the wrong side of the line.

  4. Although he gave one applicable volley with his “Elvis sightings” comment, I feel that Brown left himself open to the accusation of retreat when he actually did seem to be sidestepping Vine’s repeated question of 1st century representation of committed monogamous homosexual relationships. His deferral to some source he couldn’t actually quote looked weak IMO. This is deficient research and prep. I would not have used Wright as a source either 😦 Treating him as a legitimate expositor of scripture.

    His repeated statement of “31,000 verses of scripture must be overturned” seemed like a grandiose bald assertion rather than an argument too.

    Honestly? These moral heretics will probably not be convinced by ANYthing ANYbody says, but I thought Brown left some unforced holes for them to drive through. A shoulder shrug in the overall scheme of things is the best honest assessment I can give.

    • Well, the Vines question about 1st century sources was a silly question since we have next to no surviving documents from the 1st century outside the NT. Vines set up an unneccessary and absurd standard and Brown rightly brushed it aside. NT Wright is a fine source on that point as he’s a good historian. He’s not an expositor, true, but the question wasn’t one of expositional nature. Even Tom Wright is good on some stuff.

      The 31,000 verses statement was polemical and actually well spoken, imho. Brown was coming back at Vines’ “only SIX passages address this subject” with that statement, suggesting that not only are there FAR more than six relevant passages, but in fact EVERY text of scripture forms an over-arching theological framework in which Vines’ position is utterly absurd.

      I’d dare suggest that Brown is a better debater than you give him credit for. He was playing things up for the Moody Radio home crowd, for certain. He was still in top form and not too over the top though.

  5. “Well, the Vines question about 1st century sources was a silly question since we have next to no surviving documents from the 1st century outside the NT.”
    But see that’s my point. Why didn’t he say that? Vines says “YES OR NO!” and Brown goes off on his own thing. Why not say “NO, and I’ll tell you why……..”. I’ve heard Gagnon cite the sources. Brown could have done that. Instead he kinda hurriedly says “well, I’m not really gonna get into that, you can look that up yourself”. He couldn’t get away from there fast enough.

    I guess fair enough about Wright looked at that way. Gagnon would have been a much better source in my opinion, though he certainly ain’t perfect either.

    The “31,000 verses” thing works for you and I because we have a robust enough view of the history of special revelation to already view it that way. I just don’t see the ignorant undecideds being convinced by that. To be clear, I’m not saying ti’s not true, it;’s just that the average pew dweller will sit there and say to themselves “What’s he talking about? Didn’t they just agree there’s only these few places that talk about homosexuality”

    He’s clearly a sharp guy and I’m not saying what he was arguing wasn’t good, but few if any fence sitters will be convinced and the homo emergent squad will yawn and roll their eyes.

    I agree with whoever said about Vines, that if you write a book making the claims his does then you’re fair game. I’ll give the lad sincere credit for stepping up. Truly. However, this needs a decisive manhandling, shock and awe, overwhelming force of scholarship, bloody spectacular defeat to be effective. I don’t mean yelling and vitriol, but pure exegetical, expositional, historical substance in nuclear fashion. I don’t think we got that.

    I’ve wondered about the wisdom of engaging this on this level at all. I keep getting the feeling we’re replaying Eve carrying on a conversation with the serpent questioning God’s crystal clear word. is it possible a truly regenerate believer, in whom dwells the Spirit of Christ could really be undecided on this? Maybe I guess.

    • “I’ve wondered about the wisdom of engaging this on this level at all. I keep getting the feeling we’re replaying Eve carrying on a conversation with the serpent questioning God’s crystal clear word. is it possible a truly regenerate believer, in whom dwells the Spirit of Christ could really be undecided on this? Maybe I guess.”

      I would consider though, that newly converted homosexuals that have been told to wage war against their nature might find this as an opportunity to waver or fall back into old sins (even if for a season). If I can attempt to relate from a non-gay perspective, I certainly did my fair share of wavering as long as I could continue to make fresh semi-believable excuses for myself. That season ended quickly for me and fortunately I am still here, but in hindsight I am ashamed of how horribly I fell back into my old ways when I didn’t have a proper understanding of scripture or any accountability. Lacking a firm grip on the truth makes it much easier for someone weak or new to the faith to circumvent even a redeemed conscience.

      But I agree to some extent, as we are told: not to cast pearls at swine… The lovely example we are given by our guest above seems like a proper illustration of that, seeing as she basically called the Bible rubbish and trampled on every good word written to her.

      It is a jaw dropper that guys like James White and MB labor in the Word to bring out the plain meaning of the text and present the truth without a shadow of a doubt, yet the false one’s just gnash their teeth on it and have the audacity to still think themselves Christian.

  6. Hello Brothers,
    I listened to the MB/MV radio debate. Obviously MB had Scriptural position nailed, and probably could have gone into much more depth, thoroughly destroying MV arguments. MB can certainly talk over people rather well, reminding me of his discussion with Phil Johnson after the Strange Fire conference.

    I also noticed that MB stumbled a bit when asked by MV about 1st century citations about same sex relationships within the church. I’ve listened to those parts several times, and I cannot understand the point that MV was trying to make with that repeated question about 1st century texts.

    Can someone please clarify the purpose of MV asking that repeated question? Thanks!

    grace and peace

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s