6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?
I think that Jesus was talking to a group of people over 2000 years ago. He was using an example that would speak to them directly. When I preach, I change my sermon based upon the crowd I am speaking to. I do this in order to ensure that my words have the most impact.
Once again, what kind of biblical hermeneutic is being presented here? Every single thing Jesus said was to a group of people 2,000 years ago. According to this standard, how could Jesus’ teachings on anything be applied and believed today? Why should we teach our youth that sex before marriage is sinful?
‘Sure Jesus condemned fornication, but it was a specific sermon illustration to a group of uncivilized people 2,000 years ago. He just wanted to make His message have the most impact on that specific audience. Besides, sure rampantly sleeping around in college is bad, but is that really the same thing as a loving, committed boyfriend and girlfriend living together and only sleeping with each other? Jesus didn’t have that in mind when He condemned fornication. Jesus was talking about temple prostitution. The Bible really only condemns sleeping with prostitutes and people married someone else, it doesn’t have the kind of loving boyfriend-girlfriend relationships that we see today in mind.’
According to the biblical interpretation espoused by modern pro-homosexual advocates, they cannot consistently argue against the caricature just presented. It fits their interpretive paradigms comfortably.
‘Jesus also tells us to sell all we have and give to the poor, and I don’t see very many Christians living by that example.’
First of all, no He doesn’t. He said that to one specific, unbelieving, self-righteous man. It was a specific commandment to a specific unbeliever to demonstrate the falseness of his own claims about himself and expose the true nature of His heart’s desires. Jesus then used this unique moment to preach about the overall danger of wealth and the impossibility of salvation apart from Him. How does one know this? Is it because feelings dictate this interpretation? Is it because we simply can’t know when to take Jesus literally or seriously? No, it’s because of consistent biblical interpretation methods. For example, none of Jesus’ apostles sold everything they had. They left everything they had, but nothing was sold and given to the poor as Jesus clearly says. If this commandment was for everyone, why did Jesus not take that opportunity to remind His current disciples they lack the same thing? Jesus Himself didn’t sell everything He had. Once Jesus resurrected and ascended, His apostles never sold everything. Then, in all of their many writings to all the churches and Christians, they never once commanded this, mentioned this, rebuked someone for neglecting this, or expected it. How about the immediate context of the passage that demonstrates Jesus said this to one person who struggled with worshiping wealth over God? How about the fact that for two thousand years of Church history, no Christian has ever interpreted the passage of the rich young ruler to be a binding commandment for all Christians? What about the fact that this principle never showed up in any of God’s perfect and righteous Laws prior to Christs’ fulfillment? Why didn’t the Jews have to sell everything they had?
When one applies consistent immediate and biblical context to a verse and matches that with Christian history one can understand this. However, even though homosexuality does show up in the OT as breaking God’s Law and is called an abomination, and it once again shows up as being a sin in three NT passages, and it doesn’t show up when Jesus defines marriage and gives positive teaching about sexuality, and the church has always clearly and overwhelmingly interpreted these passages in the same way, pro-homosexual advocates still find ways to ignore these things.
Lastly, notice the hermeneutic again. Even if we assume the “sell everything you have” text is one of the times Jesus spoke in a non-literal way, apparently, because Jesus at times spoke in ways that we ought not to take literally, it must mean we have to be agnostic about everything Jesus stood for. That is what just happened. Because Jesus told one man to sell everything He has, we must now all admit we can’t know what Jesus feels about homosexuality. That’s an incredible non-sequitur and an egregious leap of logic. And that biblical hermeneutic is being passed on to our youth.
7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?
Some pretty broad assumptions are made when talking about the word porneia. For those of you who are not greek scholars, such as myself, the word porneia may mean sexually promiscuity. It is used in a very liberal sense to refer to homosexuality by those who are against homosexuality. But to answer the question, I believe that Jesus was forbidding sexual promiscuity and sex outside of marriage, and not homosexuality.
Apparently only people who are “against homosexuality” are the ones who interpret that word that way. The first major reason this accusation of bias is wrong is that every Christian up until roughly the 20th century was “against homosexuality”. From the moment God created man and woman with specific creative purposes, to the time He destroyed Sodom, to the time He had Moses pen Leviticus 18 which made homoesxuality a civil crime worthy of death, to the time Jesus came not to abolish but fulfill the Law which shall not pass away, until the time the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to condemn it three separate times, throughout the early church, up until modern America, Christians have always been “against homosexuality”.
The second issue is that Minister Whetstone has just given himself away. He has admitted that tradition is his master, not the Scriptures. How so one may ask? He admitted he was not a Greek scholar. Thus, instead of turning to the overwhelming opinion of actual Greek scholars about this word, he writes them off as having an “against homosexuality” bias. Thus, it doesn’t matter what the scholars say, he cannot accept them unless they agree with the tradition he has first established and now seeks to impose on the text.
Notice he gives no reason for why ‘porneia’ does not include homosexuality. He can’t defend that why he believes that. Thus, it’s not for a scholastic or textual reason. It’s because of tradition and emotion.
8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” – Romans 1:26-27
I think it is safe to assume, in reading all of Romans 1, that Paul is not talking about normal homosexual relationships, but instead is talking about temple prostitution, rape, and promiscuous sex.
That’s actually not safe to assume at all. How could this claim be made without mentioning any other place in Romans to substantiate this claim? What about “all of Romans” forces this interpretation on the first chapter? Guess which words are never found in the book of Romans: temple prostitution, rape, and promiscuous sex. Paul moves into law, universal sin, salvation apart from works, imputed righteousness, justification through blood, dying to sin, dying to the Law, the sin still within us, living in the Spirit, predestination, salvation to the Gentiles, salvation to the Jews, living sacrifices, governmental authorities, judgment and loving the brethren. Never once is anything addressed after chapter one that would cause the reader to go backward, reread chapter one, and apply temple prostitution and rape into a chapter that does not mention those things. Again, what an awful biblical hermeneutic.
Notice the exact words of the text in Romans, “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another.” Apparently, according to Romans 2-16 we should read this as, “likewise also grown men raped people”. Read the first part, “for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:” Again, according to Romans 2-16, we should read this as “for even their women entered God’s holy temple and sold themselves to other men for sex.” This is simply ridiculous. The text explicitly defines that which is “natural” as men with women.
It is also frustrating that only the conservative Christians are listening. The liberal revisionists want monologue, historic orthodoxy wants dialogue. I am surprised so many answered Kevin DeYoung’s questions. That’s improvement. Now, Matthew Vines and Dr. Brownsen need to accept the countless invitations to debate their claims that have been offered by scholars like Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown. Every revisionist claim has been publicly, in literature, refuted. Yet, they are continually repeated in public with no response for what has been offered in response. It’s disappointing but very revealing.
You know, some times I think the Catholic Church was right in keeping the Bible out of the hands of lay people, because all of a sudden everyone is a Bible Scholar.
This is horrible. This comment needs public repentance. This is offensive and outrageous. The fact that a man could be called a minister of the church, and make this statement publicly, and not immediately be asked to step down from his position is beyond me. Apparently, the youth Whetstone is looking over don’t deserve his Bible; they’re lay people. I guess Matthew Vines is more of a scholar than Tyndale. The Bible is drenched in protestant blood. Tyndale is spinning in his grave. This shows the depravity our love for homosexuality will drive us to. We can be willing to spit on the graves of the Saints of God who were murdered to bring that Bible to the people. We are willing to spit on the tears of the lost people in other countries who don’t have bibles in their languages or don’t have the freedom to have one. Whetstone doesn’t mind that reality. This is awful.
Clearly, his love for this sin and his frustration for his inability to defend it have gotten a hold of him. The fact that the Bible is so clear on this issue, that any random lay person can refute his beliefs frustrates him to the point that he would rather those people not have access to the Bible at all. This is the most troubling moment of the entire blog post. This is devastating.
Now that I am done calling for repentance, let me establish two inconsistencies:
1) The fact that Christians believed Rome was wrong to keep the Bible from lay people is the only reason revisionists like Whetstone are able to re-interpret these passages! If it wasn’t for Christian men (who rebuked homosexuality) that gave lay people Bibles, Whetstone wouldn’t be writing this blog. He would be making penances, giving away half his money for indulgences to save himself from suffering satispaseo in Purgatory, he would be praying to Mary and other Saints, he would believe in works-salvation, he would believe in transubstantiation, he would believe in limbo, he would believe in baptismal regeneration, etc. And he most likely wouldn’t believe what he does about homosexuality. How ironic.
2) Even ignoring the claim, non-lay people still have no authority for him! Dr. James White, Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Robert Gagnon are all biblical scholars. Dr. White is an elder of the Church and knows the Greek the Bible was written in. Michael Brown is a PhD in Semitic languages. These men know the original languages fluently, and yet, they still can’t speak in to this issue. Thus, this is actually a red-herring. Even those who are Bible scholars mean nothing to Whetstone.
You have to know and understand the history of the people that Paul was writing to. There was a problem with the Romans worshiping idols, in particular the Romans would go to the temple and worship by having sex with temple prostitutes, sometimes men, sometimes women and even sometimes children. Paul was disgusted by this; not only were they not worshiping the One True God, but they were worshiping pagan gods by having sex with prostitutes. Leading Paul to write a strong rebuke of the practice of temple prostitution/rape.
The first thing that has come out is that Whetstone has already refuted himself. It’s not safe to assume that reading the rest of Romans 1 can get provide his interpretation as he said earlier. What actually is the case, is we need to look to history in order to interpret Romans 1 (even though all of the Christians who were much closer to that context and knew the same history we do never interpreted the passage this way).
Was temple prostitution going on? Yes, but so was homosexuality. Isn’t that their claim? That homosexuality is natural and has always existed? How do we know that temple prostitution and not the other homosexual activities is what is being discussed here? I would encourage others to read my blog where I go into this claim much deeper, and purchase books like The Same-Sex Controversy, Can You Be Gay and Christian? Or Robert Gagnon’s exposition of homosexuality and the Bible. They will give the best, theological, contextual, grammatical, and historical responses to these modern interpretations. Those are the sources I have utilized. Again, remember that Romans 1 is condemning women exchanging natural relations and men likewise giving up natural relations for women and instead burning in their lusts for one another. There is nothing in it about temples, prostitution, or rape. Clearly, Paul makes it explicit that women lusting and sleeping with women is wrong whether it’s in a temple or not, and it’s also wrong when men do and desire that as well.
Not at all. I believe, as scripture teaches, that Jesus died once and for ALL. 1 Peter 3:18 says, ‘For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.’ Regardless of your sin, being a follower of Christ you will NOT be kept out of heaven.
The Bible speaks of only one sin that could keep you from entering heaven: Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit‘
If we are honest with ourselves and each other, we are all guilty of at least one of those sins listed, so none of us would stand the chance of getting into heaven, and really that’s the whole point, to show each and everyone one of us that we don’t deserve to enter heaven on our merits, but based on the merits of Jesus.
I won’t spend too much time with this one because I think he missed DeYoung’s point. DeYoung doesn’t believe that Christ can’t forgive these sins. However those texts literally say those sins keep people from Heaven, and no insight was given into that meaning. However, no one is arguing that homosexuality can’t be forgiven. However, the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 6 do teach that if it is isn’t repented of and forgiven, it will send one to Hell.
10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?
I think again that these sexual sins that are being spoken of are sins that have to do with sex outside of marriage, rape, sexual temple worship, prostitution, bestiality, etc… It is not referring to consensual sex between two adults who are in a committed relationship.
I believe I have answered this. See #7 above.
I await Whetstone’s responses to the other questions. One thing is clear: one side imposes traditions on the text, another side gets their traditions from the text. That’s just clear. One has history on their side, the other one doesn’t.
The problem is revisionists don’t care. Revisionists are not looking for truth. That’s why they don’t debate.
One has a lot to lose for not being a revisionist. Soon the government will take 501c3 statuses from churches, their pastors will be arrested for hate speech, nominal Christians will leave their congregations, and the culture will hate these churches. To take an orthodox, historical and biblical stance on homosexuality and marriage is expensive. It costs money in the form of taxes, fines, imprisonment, and smaller congregations.
Revisionists are looking for bigger churches, more tithing, less taxes, less persecution, acceptance, and freedom. That’s the motivation. Not only does a gay friendly church get gay people in their congregations, but they also get people who support homosexuality too. They get the government off their backs while they are at it, and they stay out of jail. They get more money, bigger churches, and more protection.
The motivations to reinterpret God’s Word are abundant.
However, like the rich young ruler, what isn’t a genuine Christian willing to do for Jesus?
That’s why Christians waving rainbow flags is a big deal. It’s huge. It’s potentially a dangerous reflection of a heart that fears man more than God, and longs to please man even if it means offending God.