H
This
is a summary of a great sermon by Voddie Baucham, pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Houston,
Texas. This is on a delicate subject,
homosexuality. Those in favor of
homosexuality have four arguments often used to debate Christians. His sermon
is so logically done, I have summarized it in outline form.
·
Their
first argument we shall consider is that they say that Jesus never addressed
homosexuality. They say, “Since you’re a Christian, you’re a follower of
Christ, right? Then why make a big deal
out of something that Jesus never mentioned one time.” Christians have typically had a weak
response. Here’s your response: Jesus did address it!
a. In Matthew chapters 5
and 19, when He talked about marriage. He referred to Genesis 2, when God
established marriage was between a man and a woman—for the purposes of
procreation, illustration (of God’s marriage to the church), and sanctification
(to avoid promiscuity of the flesh). God is the author of marriage, not man;
and God is the One who defines marriage, not man. Therefore man does not have the right to
introduce the concept of same-sex marriage.
Such a union is not marriage; it goes against God’s law in Genesis
2.
b. Jesus is a member of
the Godhead. There is one God who has
existed eternally in three Persons—and all thoughts and actions of God’s
members are in perfect unity. The point is, Jesus was there at Sodom and
Gomorrah; He was raining down fire and brimstone. Jesus is the author of Leviticus, which calls
homosexuality an abomination (chapters 18 and 20). In order to say that Jesus had no opinion on
homosexuality, you have to argue that Jesus had a different opinion than the
Father. Or, He would have to change His
doctrine, since the Bible is a revelation of His doctrine on its sinfulness.
Either way, you’re talking about a breach in the Trinity—but such talk is heresy.
c. The Bible is one
story, not many, and is all perfectly inspired (infallible), and has one goal. So
if a book was written by Paul, it was written by God. You cannot separate Jesus from the words
given to Paul any more than you can separate Jesus from the Father or the Holy
Spirit. Those things written by Paul or
Peter never disagree with Jesus’ teachings. So, what did Christ’s apostles
teach? Try Romans 1:26-27:
Because
of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion.
d. You’re assuming that
if Jesus didn’t speak on an issue, He approved of it. A flawed assumption. Jesus never spoke to the issue of pedophilia,
either. Are we supposed to believe that
He approved of it?
·
Their
second argument begins with a book. Authored
by Matthew Vines, called God and the Gay
Christian. He calls himself Reformed,
evangelical, and an inerrantist; he seems to hold to a careful exegesis. He claims that there are only six Bible
passages that have to be explained away for us to accept homosexuality. Specifically, he supports monogamous same-sex
relationships. His book is highly
favored even among young thinking Christians, and his idea has risen to the
point that this is lately the most popular argument they use against us, namely
this: That the writers of the Bible were really
addressing pederasty (popular in the Greek culture of the day), not
homosexuality. Pederasty is where heterosexual men used boys
for sex (the depravity is sick; imagine how they ruined the sexuality of those
poor boys). Supposedly Paul was saying, “How dare you heterosexual men engage
in this practice, which only homosexual men should engage in.” (Paul would have to be incredibly insensitive
to the boys’ sexuality to say that!).
Your response:
a. We question that any
person was born with a homosexual orientation in the first place, so Paul wouldn’t
have said that. Today, however, even
Christians increasingly accept that there IS such a thing as a “homosexual
orientation,” or that a person can call himself a “homosexual.” They’re
assuming there exists in some people an immutable biological characteristic. BUT,
there is no portion of the brain, upon autopsy, that can be so named. Nor in the genes. Nor in the pheromone study
either. So where is their proof? Mostly
in the testimony of the young men and women; they say, “I’ve known since I was
a small child…” Wait a minute; kids don’t
think about sex that way, they’re not sexually aware, not sexually
developed. That’s a lie—and we let
people get away with it.
i. The Bible does not
recognize such an orientation, either. I Corinthians 6 points out that people
who practiced it, by God’s grace, lost it.
This cannot be done with someone who really has a permanent orientation.
If that were the case, and you cannot make it go away, Scriptural advice would
be to restrain, or channel it. Think of
how Paul addressed the issue of sex in young men. Normal sex is of course an orientation. Paul said because of the persecution of the
day, they would ideally remain single; but because of their obvious needs
(their orientation), he suggested they get married so as to channel it within
marriage. He doesn’t suggest that they ask God to remove their natural sexual
desires, their orientation. That would not work, in most cases. But the point is, no Scripture reads that way
when it comes to homosexuality. It is
simply called perversity. The thing behind it is a rebellion against God and
past hatred against people—not a made-up orientation.
b. Finally, if we
approve homosexuality because it was their “orientation,” what do we do with
the pedophile, who also asserts he has “always been that way?” Do you want me to assume that’s his
orientation, too? Then you’d have to accept him like you want us to accept the
homosexual. Gee, what if my orientation
were violence? I ‘get off’ on that. So I beat my wife, but because it’s my
‘orientation;’ so you can’t judge me either. Or, let’s say my orientation is
promiscuity. As you can see, the logical
extension of this argument is ludicrous--it opens the door to waves of immoral
behavior. We supposedly should shrink back into the corner and say, “It’s a
sin, except where we feel deeply that we are oriented this way.” So, you get a pass; you don’t have to pay
attention to the Bible on this. Supposedly.
c. Even if we find a
homosexual gene, such an attitude that you want, as I just pointed out, still
leads to more sin because the Bible calls it sin, and that should be the end of
Christian speculation. Do not be guilty
of putting a hole in the definition of sin that the sinner can do whatever
without feeling shame or guilt—or the judgment of God. You want to give him no constraints? Will God judge you for that? Giving the homosexual excuses for his evil
behavior would pave his way to hell.
What God calls sin, on the Day of Judgment, He judges as sin, and he
will suffer the consequences that go with it.
Our enlightened reasoning does not change the ultimate penalty. Mr. Vines says there is only six passages of
Scripture that have to be explained away to get us to agree with him. A lie.
Every passage that deals with marriage, with sexuality, and there are
close to a hundred, have to be considered to formulate a proper doctrine on
this subject of homosexuality. Mr. Vines
seems too eager to excuse it.
d. If, in Romans 1, for
instance, all Paul was dealing with, supposedly, was pederasty, why does Paul
bring lesbian practices into the picture, too, in Romans 1? That’s not
pederasty.
e. We conclude that he
is simply not dealing with the topic of pederasty.
·
Their
third argument of our paper: The Beatles
theology: “All you need is love.” Since
love is the overarching ethic of the New Testament, they argue, if a same-sex
couple has love, it’s the height of the New Testament, and not wrong. Your
answer:
a. When the Pharisees
asked, “What is the greatest commandment of the Law?” Now, know that the first four Commandments,
the first table, express our vertical responsibilities to God; the fifth
through the tenth express our horizontal obligation towards men. When Jesus
replies that the greatest commandment is love towards God, in our heart, our soul,
and our mind, that covers the first Commandment table. Then when He says, “Love your neighbor as
yourself,” that’s a summary of the second table of the Law. Thus, when He was asked, “What’s the greatest
commandment?” He’s basically saying, ”I’m
going to have to say ‘1 through 4, followed closely by 5 through 10.’” But people carelessly read what He said and
mistakenly go, “See? He’s substituted
love for law: It’s love, not Law.” But, wait.
Since His ‘love’ is a summary of the Law, as we have just
shown, there is no war between love and the Law, as people imagine. As Paul says in Romans 13:8, ‘love fulfills
the Law.’ It is therefore a gross perversion that at homosexual marriages, some
read I Corinthians 13, the Love chapter. But look at Romans 13:6: “It (love) does not rejoice in
wrongdoing…” Thus, Biblical love must
never encompass homosexuality because homosexuality is by definition wrongdoing
in Scripture. Rejoicing in homosexuality is not love.
·
Their
final argument that we shall consider.
They accuse us of hypocrisy by asking “Why do you pick and choose?” The take-off for this argument is a series,
West Wing, in which a Christian woman was verbally ripped apart when she
brought up the “clobber passages” against homosexuality, mostly from the
Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible).
The president sneers against her by saying, “I’m interested in selling
my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7; oh, and my chief of
staff insists on working on the Sabbath, but Exodus 35:2 says we should put him
to death…” and such like. As they’re
not-so-subtly pointing out, she constantly talks about one area of the Law but
ignores others—supposedly hypocrisy.
(By the way, we
should consider that Hollywood always keeps one eye on its conservative advertisers;
thus, for them to rip into the “Christian” like that on American TV is not a
good statement on where our society is heading.
Pastor Baucham preached this sermon two years ago, and look what we have
now! It is required, seemingly, to have
a very nice gay person in every new series, Tommy, 911, FBI, etc etc—and it
always helps to surrounded them by empathetic co-workers. Never is Scripture discussed, of course). TV is Ground Zero for the war to establish
homosexuality. It’s working, because in
a 2014 survey (sorry I couldn’t get any up-to-date) done by Pew Research,
adults, in total, who felt that homosexuality should be discouraged were only
31%; yet it was only slightly better among “Christians,” where a weak 38% felt
homosexuality should be discouraged. In any event, pro-homosexual groups are
actually marching their demonic soldiers into our ground, making an argument
from Scripture in their favor! Keep in mind, here, that our goal in our defense
is not just to win an argument on homosexuality; we want to bring the Gospel to
them. So, here is your reply.
a.
First,
you cast a bait--you quote Leviticus 18:22 among your scoffing co-workers: You shall not lie
with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Assume they will then jump and accuse us of “picking and
choosing” what Law to abide, what to ignore—and accuse us of being a
hypocrite. They think that they can win
this argument, but actually you have suckered them into a Biblical
discussion. Here is what you say
then: first, knock them down off their
moral high horse. You say “Everyone picks and chooses. You have chosen to
ignore Scripture on Leviticus 18, but how do you feel on Leviticus 19:11, which
says: ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one
another. Or, how about verse
13? ‘You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor
rob him. You would agree with those verses, right?
You would pick with me on those, but do not choose on other verses in Leviticus
18 against homosexuality. So you do the
same thing you accuse me of doing, picking and choosing.
Yes, there are certain quotes in
Leviticus I don’t hold to--for good reason, actually, and there are quotes on
abomination that I do agree with. But
for you, there are certain things in Leviticus that you hold to, and a couple that you don’t. So you pick and choose like I do. The fact
is, you did not invent those ideas (about stealing or lying) of what’s moral; the
Bible did. So the Bible has shaped your
morality, whether you know it or not. You can, if you wish, claim the Bible is
not authoritative—but if you say that, that means you no longer believe that
lying is wrong, that robbery is wrong, etc.
This is what you’d have to do if you don’t want your morality to be
lined up with Leviticus.
b.
Now you say to them: “There is a difference between your picking
and choosing and my picking and choosing.
You probably don’t know why you pick and choose. But here’s why I do it”: With only a small amount of hermeneutics, you
could explain that there are three different types of Law. Moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. Moral law is the one that transcends time and
culture—they’re still true for all people in all places, and in all time. The
civil law was given to Israel to have them function as a culture. That was limited to their culture at that time;
it does not transcend to us. The ceremonial
law taught Israel how to worship; those things cannot be brought over either.
(Ed. Note: They are, though, useful for
symbols. You definitely should, in your
answer, point out that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law. You could point out, with a few specifics,
that His Passion fulfilled the Jewish Passover. If the Jews would notice, there
are also many symbols in Passover that are indicative of what Jesus did in His
suffering and crucifixion). To continue,
say: “Here’s an example of why
ceremonial law does not stand today: Since
Jesus was our once-for-all sacrifice for sin, there is no need to see His
sacrifice re-lived over every week, such as the Catholic priests do. It would be heretical for a Christian to
offer weekly sacrifices for sin, since it would be a denial that He has paid
the full price for our sin.” (By saying
these things, you’ve given the gospel, too!).
c. Quote I Timothy
1:8-11: But we know that the law is good if one uses it
lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person,
but for the lawless
and insubordinate, for the ungodly
and for sinners, for the unholy
and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for
kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is
contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the
glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. Reader, did you notice that Paul is listing
Commandments 1-9, in order, in those verses? Note, therefore, that the Law is
called “sound doctrine.” This is proof that the moral Law in Leviticus is
applicable for today’s New Testament Christian.
Also note, based on the underlined, that homosexuality is condemned
within that Law. Therefore it is also
part of the ethics of our New Testament life.
Thus a ban on homosexuality is consistent with the morality and ethics
of the Ten Commandments, as Paul (or, really, God) is saying. Remember that Mr.
Vines claimed that there were only six problem passages to get past to accept
homosexuality? Uh, this isn’t one of
them that he had in mind. Vines doesn’t
deal with the Ten Commandments. In
reality, when you consider what we’ve gone over—Jesus’ comments on marriage,
this passage, and so forth; there are double, triple obstacles for Mr. Vine to
worry about. He will be buried under the
contrary weight of evidence, folks.
d.
We can’t win the scoffer’s love by knocking
him off his high horse and then educating him on hermeneutics, etc. Remember, we’re not in this to win an
argument. We must win his soul for the
Lord. We do that by getting off the moral high horse that we just built for
ourselves. Offer him a face-saving, truthful testimony of your life. You want
to include, “You know why this is important to me? I know that I am a hypocrite. I’m a sinner in need of a Savior. Left to my
own devices, I would live in hypocrisy. I
am in need of a moral standard outside of myself. Otherwise, I would consider
things that I approve of as
being “moral” and things that I
disapprove of as being “immoral.” I
would become a law unto myself. So I
need to search objectively for what God says is righteous or unrighteous. Because I’ve admitted that to God, He will
have mercy—and I trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, Who kept the whole
Law where I could not. He could then
impute to me His righteousness, and He was willing to take on the penalty of
sin that I owed. I cannot stand before
you “holier-than-thou” because my salvation was obtained by the blood of the
Lamb, Who laid down His life for sinners such as me. He is my only hope to stand before God as
justified one day. My conversation with
you is just one beggar telling another beggar telling him where he found bread.”
With such words you might win the scoffer’s soul and achieve the greatest win
you can—a soul for the Lord!
No comments:
Post a Comment