40 questions for Christians who oppose marriage equality (GUEST COMMENTARY)

Print More
Founder and President of The Reformation Project Matthew Vines, in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014. Photo by Stephen Voss.

Founder and President of The Reformation Project Matthew Vines, in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014. Photo by Stephen Voss.

I occasionally include guest commentaries that advance a public discussion (see one here). In this post, Matthew Vines responds to a recent The Gospel Coalition post that has resonated among conservative Christians. Together, the two posts show the many questions facing Christians as they respond to developments on marriage and LGBT rights. 

Guest post by Matthew Vines

Kevin DeYoung wrote a widely-shared article at The Gospel Coalition this week called “40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags.” Given that I’ve already answered many of his questions in my book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, I decided instead to pose 40 questions of my own to Christians who oppose marriage equality.

Founder and President of The Reformation Project Matthew Vines, in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014. Photo by Stephen Voss.

Founder and President of The Reformation Project Matthew Vines, in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014. Photo by Stephen Voss.

Too often, LGBT-affirming Christians are the only ones asked to explain and defend their views. But there are many pressing questions that non-affirming Christians frequently do not address. Here are some of them:

  1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?
  2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?
  3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?
  4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?
  5. How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?
  6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?
  7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?
  8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?
  9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?
  10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know?
  11. How many married same-sex couples do you know?
  12. Do you believe that same-sex couples’ relationships can show the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?
  13. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?
  14. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery?
  15. If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery?
  16. Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?
  17. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s passages about slavery before you felt comfortable believing that slavery is wrong?
  18. Does it cause you any concern that Christians throughout most of church history would have disagreed with you?
  19. Did you know that, for most of church history, Christians believed that the Bible taught the earth stood still at the center of the universe?
  20. Does it cause you any concern that you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible?
  21. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?
  22. Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20th century who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships?
  23. If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?
  24. Do you believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that all gay Christians must be single and celibate for life?
  25. If not, do you feel comfortable affirming something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible?
  26. Do you believe that the moral distinction between lust and love matters for LGBT people’s romantic relationships?
  27. Do you think that loving same-sex relationships should be assessed in the same way as the same-sex behavior Paul explicitly describes as lustful in Romans 1?
  28. Do you believe that Paul’s use of the terms “shameful” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-27 means that all same-sex relationships are sinful?
  29. Would you say the same about Paul’s description of long hair in men as “shameful” and against “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11:14, or would you say he was describing cultural norms of his time?
  30. Do you believe that the capacity for procreation is essential to marriage?
  31. If so, what does that mean for infertile heterosexual couples?
  32. How much time have you spent engaging with the writings of LGBT-affirming Christians like Justin Lee, James Brownson, and Rachel Murr?
  33. What relationship recognition rights short of marriage do you support for same-sex couples?
  34. What are you doing to advocate for those rights?
  35. Do you know who Tyler Clementi, Leelah Alcorn, and Blake Brockington are, and did your church offer any kind of prayer for them when their deaths made national news?
  36. Do you know that LGBT youth whose families reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth whose families support them?
  37. Have you vocally objected when church leaders and other Christians have compared same-sex relationships to things like bestiality, incest, and pedophilia?
  38. How certain are you that God’s will for all gay Christians is lifelong celibacy?
  39. What do you think the result would be if we told all straight teenagers in the church that if they ever dated someone they liked, held someone’s hand, kissed someone, or got married, they would be rebelling against God?
  40. Are you willing to be in fellowship with Christians who disagree with you on this topic?

Matthew Vines is Founder and President of The Reformation Project. He is author of , God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. His work has been featured recently in the New York Times and Time.

Don’t miss any more posts from the Corner of Church & State. Click the red subscribe button in the right hand column. Follow @TobinGrant on Twitter and on the Corner of Church & State Facebook page.

  • Christina Walden

    Thank you. So much.

  • Azia DuPont

    YES! This! Thank you!

  • Pingback: (Not my) Answers to Kevin DeYoung | Christian on the front line()

  • Donald Johnson

    I really like this list by Matthew Vines.

    One minor comment on his question on 1 Cor 11:14, Paul was Jewish all his life (see Acts 21) as such he knew about Nazirite vows where one hair grows the length of time under the vow, so it is just not possible for Paul to say that long hair is always shameful and if a translation implies that, I think it is wrong.

  • Jill

    Matthew Vines, how would you define the Gospel?

  • Josh

    Crock of sh*t list. If that’s the best counter points you can make then why bother writing. Even your professional credentials sound made up!

  • Pingback: 40 Questions for Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality | Living the Daring Way()

  • Pingback: Why I…Have No Idea What To Title This Thing | Why I...()

  • JR

    Is this list of questions supposed to humble or accuse Christians for negative attitudes toward gay marriage? You must already know the answers you will get from those faithful to God with these loaded questions.
    Stating truth is never easy to ears that are staunchly deaf to it. If I have gay friends or family, must I overlook the truth and back a lie in order to prove I love them? Born with homosexual tendencies gives one the right to redefine marriage in order to make an aberration a norm?
    Does celibacy drive people to suicide? If it does, do we change the truth to stop people? Then alcoholics can imbide without discrimination. Prostitutes, since women own the right to their body, ala abortion, can offer themselves without shame or fear of arrest.
    If you don’t have a religious center, if God doesn’t exist, I suppose the moral bar is low if not nonexistent. Don’t demonize the religious ethic as unattainable or irrelevant. It asks humans to rise above their animal…

  • Michael Oliver

    How would you like these answered because they are easily answered. I would love to talk seriously about these to anyone willing to listen. Using rational logical thought and God’s revelation of Himself through His word,they are answered. The answers will be truth; not Osteen and Oprah truth. It’s not feel good stuff. Sin always produces heartache to the ones aware of who they are and who God is.

  • Doc Anthony

    Very surprising that Matthew Vines completely omitted 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 1 Cor. 10:13 from his “40 Questions” gig.

    But then again — maybe it’s NO surprise at all !!

  • MJ

    Spoken like someone that doesn’t have to worry about lifelong celibacy for themselves. And totally misses the point regardless, that nowhere does the Bible advocate or talk about this, and say that celibacy is what gay people are being asked to commit to. How can you call it “truth” when it’s not even in the Bible? It’s just the last ditch attempt of evangelicals to the problem of what we now know of as homosexuality NOT being a choice, but being a natural born state of being, in other words what GOD has chosen for people, not what they chose for themselves. Once that is accepted as true, if you AREN’T going to allow for gay relationships and marriage, then you are forcing people into a state of celibacy….of which there is no support whatsoever for in the Bible. Matthew’s point as well is that we are supposed to know truth by the fruit it bears. Forced celibacy vs. loving, lifelong relationships. It’s no contest in my eyes (and no, I am not gay myself).

  • Pingback: 40 Questions for Affirming Christians Part 1 | Anabaptist Redux()

  • I have one answer for every one of these questions. The answer is this: WITH GOD All things are possible. God can and wants to change you into a new creation, releasing he bonds of Satan that keep you in bondage to your flesh, which is enmity with God be a use of our rebellion. These same questions could be asked about a murderer, or a liar, or a theif. The answer is always the same, Jesus came to pay our sin debt and He came to set us free from the bondage of sin, which is, by definition, anything that is not in harmony with God’s loving instructions on how to live a long, fruitful, and abundant life. Jesus came to make our joy full. There is no excuse for being in bondage to homosexuality. It can be fixed by our Lord. Jesus died for everybody, but not everybody wants to hear it. That doesn’t excuse the sin. Only a relationship with Jesus, who makes us a new creation, excuses us of sin. Satan’s lies are very convincing. Scripture is our defense.

  • Jill

    Also, where did you draw the conclusion that Calvin supported slavery?

  • larry

    “Using rational logical thought and God’s revelation of Himself through His word,they are answered.”

    The two are mutually exclusive. Religious belief is not congruent with rational thought. Only the dishonest, delusional and arrogant are willing to say their religion has any basis in the rational. People who deny faith in public, but depend on it entirely for their belief. You believe because you have faith. To say otherwise is to bear false witness.

  • Eric

    That’s exactly what the translation implies and that’s exactly what Paul meant. He was writing to non-Jews, who likely had no knowledge of Nazirite ritual and who likely did have some familiarity with elite Greco-Roman views of men’s hair styles and masculinity. In other words, Paul was most definitely trying shame the women (and men) at Corinth by drawing on cultural understandings of acceptable gendered behavior. Sorry, Matthew is correct and you can’t save Paul here.

  • larry

    The post is a rhetorical fail on the part of Mr. Vines. A more direct approach would have worked better Those who have a vested interest in maintaining religious based bigotry don’t really have the patience for this kind of format.

  • Eric

    Best rebuttal today OR best rebuttal of all time?! Huh, huh? Amiright or what? Can I get an “AMEN”?!

    Yeah, maybe you should stick to commenting on topics you understand. That would spare the rest of us from your proud displays of ignorance.

  • Eric

    “You must already know the answers you will get from those faithful to God with these loaded questions.”

    You’re talking about DeYoung, right?

  • Shawnie5

    It seems that most of this boils down to the notion that we simply can’t expect celibacy out of those who don’t desire heterosexual marriage for one reason or another. Yet I’m sure we wouldn’t have a problem expecting it of people who are exclusively attracted to children, or to animals, or people bound in marriage to an incapacitated spouse unable to participate in sex, or a person who simply has never found a spouse (I know of many such). And in any case, Christ’s primary aim in His ongoing work of sanctification is our holiness, not our earthly happiness–which is elusive without holiness, anyway.

    But #37 was simply astonishing — it is the book of Leviticus that groups these offenses together. How exactly do we “vocally” object to the writer of Leviticus, or to Jesus who not only endorsed it but raised the bar on its standards?

  • Becca

    So… None of those points even matter… And do not reach the true heart of all the issues regarding this matter..

  • Eric

    No, Anthony, he said at the beginning that he wasn’t going to address every single question asked by DeYoung. Why? Because he *already* addressed most of them, including 1 Cor 6, in his book. Maybe you should read it, eh?

  • Jet

    Articles like this are going to corrupt Christianity, here are answers to some of the questions
    #1 I would assume that gays do not go out of there way to be attracted to the same gender. However married men are naturally attracted to women other than their wives yet it is still a sin to act upon that. Also pedophiles are probably also naturally attracted to children,  it doesn’t make it right.
    #2 ALL sin is highly resistant to attempts to change it.
    #6 If a man never meets a woman that he is in love with. Then obviously he won’t get married.
    #7 As long as he continues to believe the lie that homosexuality is not a sin. Then yes he will remain in that sin.  Through Christ we can overcome such sin, just as any other sin in our lives. I believe that they have made it illegal in California to have counselors for young poeple that have gay tendencies. It’s hard to help someone overcome a particular sin when you have the whole world and even fellow Christians telling them it is…

  • Eric

    Here’s one overview of Calvin’s acceptance of slavery:

  • Eric

    Shorter Becca:

    “Nannah nanah na nah, I put my fingers in my ears so I can’t hear you! Nannah nanah na nah!”

  • Eric

    “Yet I’m sure we wouldn’t have a problem expecting it of people who are exclusively attracted to children, or to animals, or people bound in marriage to an incapacitated spouse unable to participate in sex, or a person who simply has never found a spouse (I know of many such). ”

    Way to repeat the slanders he called out. Good job!

    “And in any case, Christ’s primary aim in His ongoing work of sanctification is our holiness, not our earthly happiness–which is elusive without holiness, anyway.”

    And yet you’d deny gays and lesbians access to that which sanctifies sexuality, namely marriage. How noble and charitable of you. Especially when you rely on the tired assumption that gays and lesbians are defined by a hyperactive sex drive and that all “they” want is undisciplined happiness.

  • Eric

    Meh, I don’t know. The questions work, in and of themselves, don’t they? I think the mistake was to respond to DeYoung’s insincere concern trolling in the first place.

  • Gary

    If Matthew Vines seriously thought he could defend his position against anything but emotionalism and post-modernistic ideas of truth, he would debate Dr. James White in a formal moderated debate. He originally said he would but then went back on his word. He has essentially said he will only debate Dr. White if Dr. White first concedes Vine’s position.

    But of course, Matthew Vine’s position is indefensible.

  • Gary
  • Doc Anthony

    Actually Larry, Rene Descartes utterly proved you wrong on that argument, at least 280 years before you were born.

    A devout Catholic, Descartes attempted to rationally prove the existence of God.

    The extent to which he succeeded or failed on those attempts, will always be a matter of dispute. (But at least he gave an explicit rational critique of atheism, if nothing else.)

    However, one fact that is still taught in today’s philosophy classes, is that as part of his overall attempt to rationally prove God’s existence, Descartes came up with the famous and enduring rational statement “I think, therefore I am.”

    So when you say false things like “Religious belief is not congruent with rational thought”, all you’re really saying is that you have never taken an introductory philosophy-of-religion class. Hmmm!

  • Eric

    “But of course, Matthew Vine’s position is indefensible.”

    This is why a debate would be pointless. People like you think you already know the truth. All the rest of us can do is bear witness to what we know to be true–and pity people like you as your importance fades from history.

  • Shawnie5

    “And yet you’d deny gays and lesbians access to that which sanctifies sexuality, namely marriage.”

    A marriage ceremony/license/contract or what-have-you doesn’t sanctify a union that is outside of God’s will. Herod’s “marriage” to Herodias was not sanctified, although we know he loved her. The greatest man who ever lived until Christ lost his life for pointing this out.

  • Shawnie5

    Or, you could accept an open debate challenge occasionally…

  • MV is continuing to argue primarily with emotional rhetoric and by making sweeping inferences regarding Biblical “interpretation”, yet has yet to meaningfully address the cogent and consistent hermeneutical work by his “opposition”.

    If homosexuality is not only “normal” but acceptable and even potentially “blessed and affirmed” by God, what is your view point on the person and character of Jesus? If you believe He is fully God who KNEW the hearts of men, how could he ignore the suffering of these sexual “minorities” during his era? Instead of affirming and supporting them(while they faced greater oppression at that time then they have today) he instead re-affirmed the Biblical ethics on marriage and sexual behavior. If 1-20 people are sexual minorities, he interacted with literally hundreds of them, yet never said a word.

    If you would argue that He DIDN’T know about it which is why he didn’t say anything, then we have completely differing views on the person of…

  • CP

    Interesting article but I still am less than convinced. Since the court ruling, I’ve been reading and trying to understand the LGBT Christian position, but have to admit I still don’t understand. Admittedly, I don’t personally know any LGBT Christians; plenty of LGBTs but none are Christians. I have no problem with loving my friends for who they are and the lifestyle they find themselves in, but I’m unequivocal in my belief with them that same-sex relationships are sin, just as adultery, drunkenness, and a myriad of other behaviors and actions are sin. I don’t try and elevate one over the other, or theirs over my own. The sins I commit and struggle with are no different before God, just different sins. So from the LGBT Christian viewpoint or those Christians that affirm and support a LGBT lifestyle, are you really saying that to engage in same-sex relationships is not a sin? Is that really what is at the root of your position? I’m seriously trying to understand.

  • Bob Kundrat
  • Star

    The Bible says homosexuality is wrong period. There is no way around this if you believe the Bible. It is an absolute and you either believe it or you choose not to. Whether you choose to believe it or not does not change the meaning.

  • Shawnie5

    “Articles like this are going to corrupt Christianity,”

    Well, only if you’re not familiar with the stuff…which includes many these days, unfortunately.

  • Doc Anthony

    Matthew Vines has already been refuted — nay, SERIOUSLY refuted — on 1 Corinthians chapter 6. Here is a good demonstration.


  • Pingback: A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 1 | The Apologetics Minion()

  • This is an absurd argument. The only way to possibly have a DEBATE on ANY issue is to have two sides who feel convinced of their position and a willingness to engage with the position of their “opposition”. It is an absolute embarrassment to logic and basic reasoning skills to argue that the only people who can enter into a discussion are those who aren’t really quite sure what they believe in the first place.

    The downfall of the West is not because of “gay marriage” but in the daily visible evidence of a lack of the moral and intellectual fortitude necessary to honestly think and challenge ourselves to do more than just emote.

  • Pingback: A Response to Matthew Vine’s “40 questions” | Katherine's Bookshelf()

  • Shawnie5

    It’s quite common for those on MV’s side of the issue to shrink from open debate.

  • Peter

    As a believer, I would like to answer question 1:
    1. I do not accept that, because of the bible and testimony of those who have confessed that they chose their orientation, usually after a difficult time relating to a father figure in their lives. It is something we are instructed not to chose.

    That actually sets up the rest of the answers, I think. If we chose a biblical perspective, our answers will not probably be to delightful to the author of the questions.

    So many testimonies of individuals who have been set free from homosexuality… so many. Either by forgiving (usually a father figure who let them down) or simply engaging in a relationship with the Lord. Homosexual sin is not much different sin in that a relationship with God is the key to true freedom. This is why churches that are lax on the Word of God also have higher divorce, homosexuality, alcoholism… but churches that preach the truth in love has more people walking in freedom, with powerful testimonies.

  • ben in oakland

    If you are truly trying to understand this, then perhaps you should start with the idea of “lifestyle.”

    It’s not a lifestyle. a Lifestyle is going to Church every Sunday and pretending that you have the right to judge others for their alleged sins.

    it’s not a lifestyle. It’s a life.

  • Pingback: 40 More Foundational Questions for Christians Talking about Marriage Equality | pontifications. and stuff.()

  • Eric

    That’s hardly a refutation. A response, sure. But for the most part it fails to take Vines’ argument seriously; it also conjures some straw man arguments (Vines really thinks “fornication” is ok now? C’mon–that’s hardly good faith reasoning); and, most importantly, the section on translating the key terms in 1 Cor. 6 is problematic and amounts to proof-texting from dictionaries, some of which incorporate clearly modern assumptions into their definitions. Sorry, Vines’ argument stands and is in fact backed up by the best recent scholarship on the New Testament and sexuality in the Greco-Roman world. Try Dale Martin’s Sex and the Single Savior for starters.

  • Eric

    I notice you didn’t address you use of negative stereotypes of gays and lesbians. But since that’s the only leg you have to stand on–why would you?

  • CP

    Hey Ben in Oakland – fair enough; “life” it is then. But come on, I’m not judging. To have an opinion on something as being right or wrong is not necessarily being judgmental in a harsh way as you suggest. I’m not saying the LGBT Christian is going to hell, or not even a true believer, or anything like that. That would be judging. I’m just interested to hear the discussion on whether the LGBT Christian sits in church and honestly believes they are right with God in their life before Him. That they’ve taken MV’s arguments and find them compelling and applicable to their life. That’s all.

  • Eric

    Adam, the debate wouldn’t be pointless because neither side is open to persuasion. The debate would be pointless because West and company have no interest in honestly representing and engaging Vines and company. To debate requires good faith and that kind of interpretive charity is rarely extended to Vines and others, as other examples have shown, because to do so would already be a compromise in the eyes of West and others. So, no honest debate, ergo pointless debate.

  • Eric

    Shawnie, is there no lie you are unwilling to tell? Or are you really just that uninformed? So, how about Robert Gagnon and Dan Via? Or Robert Gagnon and Jennifer Knust? Or Gagnon and Jayne Ozanne?

  • Eric

    “MV is continuing to argue primarily with emotional rhetoric and by making sweeping inferences regarding Biblical “interpretation”, yet has yet to meaningfully address the cogent and consistent hermeneutical work by his “opposition”.”

    Thank you for providing an excellent example of why a public debate would be pointless. You can’t even represent Vines’ basic argument fairly–why should anyone think you’d represent sophisticated exegetical arguments fairly? The idea that Vines has failed to use reasonable arguments or do his homework or respond to his critics is so plainly false that you are either wantonly lying or willfully ignorant. In either case, you should stop commenting.

  • Rantimi

    If someone does not hold your position that immediately makes them a bigot? Mmmmm. If I wanted to engage in meaningful dialogue over these questions how would i be encouraged if this is the kind of stance you don’t hesitate to start from.

    There are a significant number of people on both sides of the debate who are wrestling to ascertain what God wants in this debate. I suggest that you be slightly more humble if you actually want to have a loving and gracious dialogue

  • Rantimi

    Marriage does not sanctify sexuality for either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

    What kind of a notion is that. The only thing that sanctifies any aspect of humanity is Christ’s death on the cross, his shed blood and the sanctification we gain through that act.

  • CV

    This is all heresy. Would someone please read Karol Józef Wojtyła’s “Theology of the Body.”

  • ben in oakland

    So many have been set free form homosexuality?

    This is just one of many of the delusions that antigay, so-called Christians live by. When actually examined, this “so many” reduces to the same handful of paid, professional, homosexual-hating homosexuals, who cannot swear by their god that they are now heterosexual, but only not committing homosexual acts.

    Exodus, the leading “ex-gay” ministry, closed its doors two years ago. Alan Chambers and a host of others admitted that no one changes.

    The Jones and Yarhouse study could only find 100 people to study, despite their ties to the anti-ex gay industry. 13 people “changed”, a “change” the authors themselves described as difficult, ambiguous, and complicated. In other words, they wanted to change. but they didn’t.

    The unfortunately named david Pickup has often claimed he offers true authentic change. except that he himself has never changed. But he is still making a lot of money out of it.

    Come up with something…

  • Eric, the main thrust of nearly his entire response(and in general most of his arguments) can be summarized, NOT by Biblical exegesis, but by, “do you have gay friends??” Nearly 25% of his 40 responses/questions are about how this makes someone “feel”.

    He assumes the position that homosexual behavior is morally neutral, without proving it to be so, and then from there generally argues that we have deeply wounded people by claiming that it is NOT morally neutral. This is meant to engender “shame” upon the hearer which in turn causes them to rethink whether or not it is actually morally neutral(or positive) without every addressing the foundational biblical argument for whether or not it is morally wrong. He is winning people through EISIgesis, not exigesis,

    Not to mention the historically and theologically problematic of inferring that if you are now against slavery you can now be for gay marriage, without ever addressing the realities of biblically described slavery.

  • As an addendum since I ran out of room….Eric, NO WHERE does MV do original textual work, make original claims, nor, proves reasonably any of his assertions. I again, re-read this post wondering if perhaps I did indeed miss his point…but again…it is virtually completely about “feeling” arguments.

    Do YOU, Eric, believe that Jesus was God in the Flesh and KNEW the hearts of men? If he did, why did he IGNORE those who were suffering by being told that their acting on their felt desires was a sin. Sexual minorities suffered far more under Jewish law than under 21st American culture, yet JESUS did NOTHING to affirm, alleviate, or, encourage them. He AFFIRMED the Old Testament sexual ethic and AFFIRMED GOD’S purpose for human sexuality.

    Why was Jesus unwilling to support the “LGBT” of his time?????

  • Tory

    All of these are easily answered actually.

    Medical science now knows that people are literally born with predispositions to steal, murder, or be attracted to children…I must assume it’s ok for these people to succumb to those sinful fleshly desires by reading your commentary here.

    I must also assume that you condone sodomy between homosexual males (anal sex for the layman’s term) despite medical professionals strongly advising against this type of sexual intercourse even for heterosexual couples as the “rectum is not equipped to handle nor recover from repeated abuse” i.e. The vagina was divinely created to birth a child and shrink back to also or normal, but the rectum never can which leads to anal fissures, scarring, diseases, and total loss of bowel control resulting in colostomy bags. Don’t google it…it’s even more grotesque than I deacribed.

    If God made homosexuals to act on their desires they’d be able to enjoy healthy intercourse with each other like a…

  • Rantimi


    I came to this forum as a Christian genuinely challenging myself about these issues. Ready to really think. I have been disquieted.
    I still am. I will continue to think.

    But thank you so much for demonstrating that no matter what I come to believe at the end of my journeying over these issues whatever side I choose to believe is God’s understanding of the issue , I will always meet ungracious and non loving Christians such. Your comments have reminded me not to have an idealised concept that at the end of the day we are all trying to truly live out Christ in attitude and deed. I hope you can read yourself from the point of view of what it looks like and realise that if you debate 100 people there are 1000 who are not just looking at what you say but if how you are handling people reflects the Lord we ultimately serve. Fruits of the Spirit can also be demonstrated in debate. Even on the net.

    I will go and do my thinking elsewhere.

  • SL

    Eric, PLEASE define the gospel for me.

  • Addendum dos…no one answers this question about Jesus silence instead of support because….1- It would require denying divinity of Christ and/or 2—Denying innerancy of scripture…and/or…3— Require promoting or believing the heresy of Open Theism—which would mean you have already lost the argument with virtually all orthodox and evangelical believers before you even started

  • Daniel

    Thanks. That should have been his first question. An exhaustive definition of the gospel and it’s power

  • Shawnie5

    I already discussed that elsewhere. When Leviticus itself groups same-sex behavior with bestiality, incest and adultery, then there’s not much for us to add.

  • Eric

    You could, you know, read his book?

  • Shawnie5

    Yep — a few examples that demonstrate quite effectively why most decline. Because their scriptural case invariably falls apart leaving them to rely on emotion alone, just like Vines does.

  • Pingback: Homosexuality and What it Means to Love Like Jesus()

  • Michael

    Calvin is not infallible. While he is a giant of reformed theology, perfect he isn’t. Only God and His word are truth.

  • Eric

    “There are a significant number of people on both sides of the debate who are wrestling to ascertain what God wants in this debate.”

    Not really. This discussion and debate has been going on for at least twenty years now. The issues have been defined. The texts have been interpreted. The counter-questions have been posed and addressed. The lines have been drawn. The field itself has tilted in favor of one side.

    I can understand people who haven’t been paying attention or doing their homework being disoriented by the tilt. But there can’t be that many of them. What I can’t understand are people like DeYoung, people who want to pretend to debate everything all over again as if the tilt reset the game instead of declaring a winner. Most people who want to reargue the case are insincere and operating from motives that are transparent to everyone. Those motives aren’t a desire to determine what God really wants in this debate. They think they still know.

  • Eric

    “I already discussed that elsewhere. When Leviticus itself groups same-sex behavior with bestiality, incest and adultery, then there’s not much for us to add.”

    You forgot to add that you surrender your ability to think when you read the Bible and that you take ethnic slanders (in Leviticus, of the Canaanites) at face value if it suits your other prejudices. Like I said, you can’t even be honest about your reliance on discredited stereotypes that Vines calls out because that is all you have left.

  • Eric

    “Yep — a few examples that demonstrate quite effectively why most decline. Because their scriptural case invariably falls apart leaving them to rely on emotion alone, just like Vines does.”

    So the answer is no: there is no lie you are unwilling to tell. Gotcha. We’re done.

  • Eric

    “Why was Jesus unwilling to support the “LGBT” of his time?????”

    Why was Jesus unwilling to support the slaves of his time? Your reductio is, in fact, quite absurd.

  • Michael

    Authentic change only comes through Christ and his spirit. If you desire the sin more than Christ, change is extremely hard. Even after chang, one is still susceptible to sin anew. With Christ however, turning again from the sin and starting without penalty is why He gave His life for all who desire Him.

  • Eric

    “Eric, the main thrust of nearly his entire response(and in general most of his arguments) can be summarized, NOT by Biblical exegesis, but by, “do you have gay friends??” Nearly 25% of his 40 responses/questions are about how this makes someone “feel”.”

    Like I said, you can’t be honest for half a minute. You think if he fails to write an entire monograph for RNS he hasn’t done his homework. Never mind that he’s published a widely-read book on the topic. It is not his responsibility to rehash every minute point. It is your responsibility to know something about the topic at hand before you open your mouth to utter your inane comments.

    Don’t post another word until you read his book.

  • Eric

    “Medical science now knows that people are literally born with predispositions to steal, murder, or be attracted to children…I must assume it’s ok for these people to succumb to those sinful fleshly desires by reading your commentary here.”

    I must assume you are a liar or a fool based on the nonsense you just posted.

  • Eric

    “Eric, PLEASE define the gospel for me.”

    No. I don’t have to show you my papers to get in the gate.

  • Brian Smith

    Did you forget to mention that Jesus only defined marriage between one woman and one man? This is explicitly clear in Matthew chapter 19 – not to mention all the statements of a one man one woman marriage from the Apostles.

  • JR

    Celibacy is certainly mentioned in the Bible as the most perfect state of life, and if it can’t be maintained, marriage is the solution. Read the Acts, Peter and Paul’s Epistles. Virginity and Chastity are virtues closest to living like Christ.
    No one forces celibacy, it is a chosen state using one’s Free Will. Catholic priests choose the path, and lay people are just as free to choose it….even in a married state! As to the homosexual, his/her choice is to resist his sexual impulses, or surrender to them. Surrendering to them is a forgivable act if the sinner tries to restrain himself in the future and to recognize it as sin. Now gay “marriage” implies ongoing homosexual acts under the false guise of a marriage…..which it is not.

  • Eric, It was unnecessary for Jesus to address slavery because 1- It had already been addressed in the OT, namely what was expected of God’s people in relation to slavery, so, therefore, as Jesus affirmed God’s law it would be ridiculous for him to say something.

    Now, if your point is, “slavery is bad and the OT says it was ok, there must be a problem here”, you do not understand the historical, theological, cultural or sociological context of slavery as practiced by the Jewish people which would be in STARK contrast to chattel slavery practiced by the US.

    Furthermore, Paul does address in a direct way the expectations and conduct of slaves and slave owners in the NT. And if you are to claim Evangelical Orthodox beliefs(as MV does) then to compare Jesus’ lack of support for “slaves” to my question regarding Jesus’ lack of support for LGBT is the height of absurdity and have zero correlation.

  • JR


  • This is an absurd argument…I can’t comment on this particular post that MV made public unless I read something else he has written…?? If the case for LGBT practices is a Biblically sound one with unassailable exigesis and textual work than it should be no problem for him to summarize such points in a much shorter and more manageable article than these 40 points.

    The case needs to be made Biblically. And if it is possible to be made, he should care about widely making that case available whenever he is given media space to do so. If the only fall back is, well, he doesn’t prove his point HERE, you just have to go buy his book, and then you will totally get it, then you have proven the criticisms correct….Namely that there is not a hermeneutical leg for his argument to stand on under cross examination.

    You still haven’t answered why would Jesus AFFIRM one man and one woman while KNOWING that this simple statement would heap SHAME on LGBT people who heard him say it.

  • JR

    No one is judging….homosexual acts are sinful, same as running a red light is a crime. It is stating a known fact irregardless of the person committing the act.

  • Addendum: To argue that because his book has been widely purchased in some way gives more validity to the case he is trying to make is intellectually vacuous. EL James wrote a book celebrating sexual abuse and perversion that has been purchased TENS OF MILLIONS of times, it does not therefore follow that she is writing a valuable guide to healthy sexual conduct.

    Popularity is no indication of Truth.

  • Ben in oakland

    And as always, the first place A certain class of so-called Christian goes, with nothing else to say, is anal sex. Right there that disqualifies you from making a comment. You obviously don’t know much about it.

    I don’t discuss my sex life in public. I don’t intend to start doing so now. But all your comments about what is healthy and what is not are nonsense. I have never yet met a gay man who has suffered from the illnesses that you claim we must suffer from. And of course, not all gay men like anal sex, and of course, lesbians are pretty much exempt from all of that. In fact, by that standard, lesbians must be that God’s chosen people, because they exhibit far less venereal disease than the average for heterosexual women.

    And, if what you had to say was even remotely true, the 40% of heterosexuals – as the CDC – who enjoy anal sex would be suffering from all of those illnesses. But they’re not, are they?

    Right wing anti gay websites have little to offer in actual…

  • I’ve heard the argument already this week that criticizing Christianity “only strengthens the Devil”, who is trying to destroy (white, conservative, American) Christianity and all it stands for. If you’re afraid that an article like this will corrupt your (white, conservative, American) Christianity, then I think your God is way too small. I don’t think either side will be able to move forward until we learn to be okay with disagreement in the faith, and we can stop saying that someone else’s view is destroying OUR Christianity.

  • Soli

    Wow. Apologist James White actually composed a reply to very questions asked by Vines. Worth reading at aomin.org

  • A.W.Messenger

    In Genesis 3 we see the first example of Satan using his deceitful charm (of a serpent) to lure Eve into justifying rebellion against God. He was very clever in the way he did it. He preyed on Eve’s weaknesses (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life) and he used clever questions to sway her from the Truth.

    In this object example, we see how deception is used to produce sin: Deception usually comes by way of rational sounding questions.

    With this in mind, I would re-title this article:

    40 Rational Questions to Deceive Christians Into Justifying A Lie

  • Craig from Australia

    It depends on your view of sin. Is it more sinful for a gay person to “act” straight that it becomes an unnatural act that flies against our orientation. Hmmmm? Most are pushed into marriage that ends up in divorce because the gay person realised that the advice of pastors and counsellor say that the heterosexual pet yet will cure them. What a complete cop out and you sir are in the same basket!

  • Craig from Australia

    36. Do you know that LGBT youth whose families reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth whose families support them?

    In Australia the figure is 14 times more likely to attempt suicide. It’s kind of really sad that people forget that Jesus spent his time with real people like the tax man, and sex workers etc. What would Jesus do? I think that’s where it pales against the arguement going on here. Most of you would agree to disagree and that’s your view. It doesn’t help those who will commit suicide because of your hardline beliefs – like it or not. It’s just blood on your hands and when the day of being asked what did you do for least of me? What will be your answer when all truths are right there in front of you. In all honesty, I would say not much and hang my head in shame. That’s why Christ died for us because we’re not perfect.

  • Pingback: 40 Questions from Matthew Vines | Orthodoxy()

  • Blake

    The debate is not won. There is no way to prove from scripture that God could ever support something he calls an abomination.

  • Nina

    There is only one question for all Christians, and it is this: Jesus said to His followers, judge not, lest ye be judged. Are you willing to give up your judgement of others in accordance with Christ’s directive, and follow His instruction that we all “love one another, as [He]I has loved [us]”?

  • Craig from Australia

    Star – how can you say that and what if you missed the point. Pontus Pilate knew Jesus was innocent as he couldn’t find anything that Jesus did was worthy of the death penalty.

    Your ignorant tells me you don’t read the bible much. It’s the classic head in sand approach. If you really read the bible you would find that no the bible is not against same sex orientation. Homosexuality was only a recent term developed and it was not in the bible 2000 years ago. If you were able to put aside your ignorance, put aside your pride and ask what would Jesus do? He would do the opposite to what you would humanly do. I gather you couldn’t answer a lot of Matthew’s question? I as a Gay Christian person wouldn’t even have you in my circle of friends because I don’t time to spare with such negative vibes coming from you. That’s a personal decision. I’d rather be with hurting people and spend time with people you call as sinners. We’re not perfect. God bless you.

  • JustMe

    Marriage doesn’t sanctify anyone. Jesus does. And Jesus alone.

  • A heartfelt reply to Matthew Vines 40 questions about gay marriage, and an open letter with a personal plea:

    This is sincere, I did look at your questions and answered them. Mr Vines, will you read the response?


  • Jeremy

    All of your points are easily dismantled. There is not such thing as a “gay christian”. They do not exist on any real level.

    All 40 of your questions dismantled entirely:

  • Zack

    Don’t thank this man. I asked him for a healthy discussion on his stance, and he blocked me when I called him out on his lies.

    These questions are laughable in comparison to the 40 posed to the professing Christians who support same sex marriage.

    Just another wolf in sheepskin. James White destroyed this man’s argument time and time again. He needs to give it a break and give up the satanic message he spews.

    His questions are all based on “homosexuals feel like killing themselves, clearly God would never want that.”

    You know how many times my sin lead me to despair? Complete and utter despair? I never accepted the sin because it would make my life easier. I keep on fighting the good fight of faith, reliant on Christ and faithful that God will fulfill His promises.

    Please do not let this man lead you astray…he is a wolf in sheepskin, and not even a very good one.

  • Michael

    Not our view of sin. God decides what is sin because above all He is holy. Morality changes like the wind as does the cultural view of it. Ethics are immutable as is the creator of them. Pastors and counselors can err because they are human. If one marry’s out of the wrong advice that’s unfortunate. If one makes a commitment in marriage and enters a biblically defined covenant with someone of the opposite sex,and finds later they are not “happy” they must work and seek God’s help. Divorce is not an option. God doesn’t divorce His elect when we sin. That is the example to strive for.

  • Shawnie5

    Vines’ arguments are no more convincing now than they were when Boswell first offered them 35 years ago — except to those who desperately want them to be true.

    Give the generalizations a rest and get into the specifics of the scriptural and historical arguments. THOSE are what nobody wants to touch.

  • Michelle

    Your questions are stupid and don’t do anything to help the LGBT you kiss up to. You are living a lie. First off I personally believe gas can be saved and the acts of gay or same sex as you put it are wrong. Paul’s statement is in the Bible. God’s word has nothing to do with culture views of the time. It’s part of the new testament. Being gay and slavery are both horrible sins!

    I have had gay friends and once foolishly believed it was ok. Love is love I said. I am so ashamed that I ever let the world lead me along. I used to think if the world is ok with it then it must be good. Then I got closer to God and realized that if the world says that it is good. You as a Christian need to question the world view and turn in prayer to God for the answer. I have mine and I will not be swayed by your liars. I do not read the liars books or articles. I do not need to read the world’s view to know what is right.

    I am not perfect but I know that I stand firmly where I am. God’s…

  • Shawnie5

    “…you take ethnic slanders (in Leviticus, of the Canaanites) at face value if it suits your other prejudices.”

    It doesn’t suit me at all — I’d love for someone to offer a sensible scriptural argument for affirming homosexuality so this whole annoying issue could go away, but it hasn’t happened. As for face value, as a Christian I’m rather obligated to take at face value what Jesus obviously took at face value.

  • Shawnie5

    “…because West and company have no interest in honestly representing and engaging Vines and company.”

    Vines has been asked repeatedly, and honestly (how does one “dishonestly” request an open debate?). He has been eviscerated before and he is evidently unwilling to go through it again.

  • Ben in Oakland

    So, Star, maybe you can explain megachurches and CBN to me.

    Matthew 6:5– And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    Seems pretty clear to me. what do you think?

  • Ben in Oakland

    No true Christian strikes again.

    who are you to determine the relationship of god with any other person on the planet, since you are blinded by sin?

  • Ben in Oakland


    jesus blah blah blah is all you have to say? Not facts, just your opinions on a completely different subject.

  • Doc Anthony

    Actually, not only does CARM’s refutation take Matthew Vines’ arguments seriously, but I notice that you have no answer for the Greek dictionary analysis that was given.

    Actually, some serious **overkill** could have been placed on Matthew Vines’ false position, if CARM had also included the authoritative Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker (3rd ed) Greek Lexicon. BAGD clearly supports and reinforces the CARM dictionary analysis regarding the Greek wording, and thus it reinforces the linguistic confirmation that Matthew Vines got things wrong.

    As for your guy Dr. Dale Martin, he has been duly “taken care of” by New Testament professor Dr. Robert Gagnon in “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” (Abingdon 2001). Nice textbook.

    Also, if you’d like to specifically see Gagnon burn up some of Martin’s “Sex And The Single Savior” mess, just go here:


    Meanwhile, just being honest, Matthew Vines is as good as DEFEATED!!

  • NA
  • Doc Anthony

    Sure would like to see those gay-marriage supporters around here, deal with this.

  • Joe doe

    Theres no debate here…tht Bibles clear Gods despises homosexuals and usa and the world will be judged just like sodom and Gomorrah.

  • Tony Armour

    The brilliant Dr James R. White has responded. I hope you will read it Matthew, and respond?


  • Sid

    Hey Eric,

    Chill out. There are lots of people who care about what they believe in AND have good reasons. You treat people as if any sort of disagreement makes them stupid.

  • Sid

    You sorta hit the nail on the head with the last part of that. “Lack of intellectual and moral fortitude.”

  • Be really, really careful about slavery references. One of the most horrifying things I’ve ever experienced was a lay pastor who proudly presented me with a link to a rather long blog post (3-4000 words) he’d written rationalizing why slavery was actually totes okay as long as it was what he quaintly termed “BIBLICAL slavery,” which he was totally convinced (thanks to irresponsible historical-revisionist evangelical apologists) was just like a job at McDonald’s or something–in fact that was his exact example, IIRC–and he was convinced that Southerners had RUINED EVERYTHING with their pesky non-Biblical slavery. I was completely freaked out by his spritely, blithe insistence that there’s a magically proper way to do slavery that works out wonderfully for everyone including the happy, well-tended, harmonious slaves.

    So… just be careful. You and I might assume that everybody is on board with atrocities being horrific, and that ain’t so at all, not with that crowd.

  • A.M.

    We must put our relationship with God first, even if it means sacrificing an earthly relationship, desire, lifestyle, material possession, career, etc. – even something “natural” or inherent to our human nature. Because even if something is “natural” in this life doesn’t mean we can use it as a reason to trump God’s law. He is a “jealous” God and our ways are not His ways. It is not necessary for us to comprehend all in order to obey.

  • AC Watson

    THANK YOU Matthew.

  • What a martyr you are! Fighting the good fight.

    News flash: The Bible never, ever said homosexuallity is wrong or sinful. Matthew Vines has done 100 times the reseach that you have.

  • AC Watson

    I feel the point is being missed here. When it is said that marriage sanctifies sexuality, it doesn`t mean that marriage saves us from sexual (or any other) sin, but rather that marriage is the state in which sexual relationships are holy and acceptable to God.
    In the words of the old English marriage service, one of the functions of marriage is as a `remedy for sin` – though of course there is muchm more to marriage than that.

  • Breed7

    This is why I’m now an atheist. Morons clinging to their bigoted beliefs, and morons trying desperately to rationalize their beliefs. The rest of us grew up and stopped believing in Santa Claus.

  • Ricardo

    The dirty little secret is that homosexuality and mental disorders of various kinds go together at a very high rate, even in countries where homosexual behavior is more accepted. These range from depression and bipolar disorder to even things like malignant narcissism. Every homosexual/transgendered person I became acquainted with in university all generally had the same dysfunctions, even the ones who seemed normal and happy. This would suggest that homosexuality is either itself a mental disorder, a symptom of one, or evidence of some other problem that results in all these psychological issues. And yet we must be obligated to accept these people as our best friends? To that question: yes, unfortunately, I once had homosexual friends– I lived with them. But the photos of me as I slept, and their abuse of my dog, and all the other weird and random behavior, pushed me over the edge.

  • Shawnie5

    True…it said “man-bedding” was wrong. Your point?

  • Doc Anthony

    What about Jesus’ specific instruction to “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24)?

    Are we supposed to “give up” that one, or are we supposed to follow it?

  • Doc Anthony

    So far none of the gay marriage supporters, are able to respond to it at all.

  • I will answer those questions later this week on my own website. I have addressed Michael Vines points there previously and are found under the title Ms. Evan’s Homosexual Discussion

    I find that people like Vines are deluding themselves and ignore the real meaning of scriptures because their research and work is not objective but coming from a viewpoint looking to justify their decisions to go with alternative sexual preferences.

  • The Bible has a whole lot more than 6 verses against homosexuality. Verses are in the old and new testament. The Bible will not say no gay marriages because it plainly says a marriage is between a man and a woman. You are not reading the whole Bible or you read what you want to read. WARNING: You had better wake up and believe what the Bible says and change your ways.

  • So True. They believe what they want to believe instead of what the Bible plainly says.

  • Perhaps it would be good to have 40 questions from biblical experts without any skin in the game, so to speak. And there are plenty of non-Christian biblical scholars who have no interest whatsoever in the Bible being right or true or God’s Word. And guess what? Without exception all of the disinterested scholars say that any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is forbidden by both the text, and the weight of the texts travelling forward from Genesis to Revelation. Their disinterest gives them a level of credibility that this author simply does not have.

    Having said that I don’t particularly care what the culture does with marriage, but when the church just hops on board at Woodstock and can’t seem to get off the ride, I have problems.

  • Adam Rassatt
  • Erik

    Gay Christian ?

  • Pingback: I See Your 15 & Raise You 25 | theologyarchaeology()

  • I did not wait for later in the week but decided to answer the questions this evening. You can find them at the following link


    I hope you read all the answers with an open mind

  • Kynewulf

    Why do people keep bringing up Sodom and Gomorrah in regards to this topic? If you’ve ever read the Book of Ezekiel, you’d know that the sin of Sodom was that it was affluent and abundant, yet refused to help the poor and the needy. A much more important issue.

  • Kynewulf

    I invite you to read more of the book of the Book of Leviticus, and what it considers abominations. Eagles are abominations. Eating shellfish is an abomination. Wearing clothes made of more than one fabric is an abomination. And so on.

    At a certain point, it becomes more than a bit hypocritical to use Leviticus to castigate one “abomination” while blithely accepting the others.

    Moreover, as part of the Mosaic Law, Leviticus doesn’t even apply to gentiles.

  • Pingback: Rebutting the Vines’ Deception » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch()

  • Rob

    While we debate issues like this we are not going out to make disciples.
    firstly it shows our false view of sin. Is homosexual activity a sin. Well I think the bible is pretty clear on it. Yes it is BUT and this is the big but. It is no worse or better than any other sin out there. All have sinned and fallen short of fhe glory of God. You could put any sin at the top of the discussion and we will try to justify sinning by often using cultural arguments or words of great philosophers.
    We are all sinners and are in need of the saving grace of the death and ressurection of our savoir.
    We are called to be holy and we will be tempted to sin. However it is on our ability to resist or not. But by the grace of God when it does become too much and we do fall, God’s grace can lift us.
    I struggle with sin in a daily basis. And wether that is homosexual desire, heterosexual desire it makes no difference, we can choose to say yes or no. And rely on God and not on some cultural bias.

  • Your questions are blasphemy.I don’t care what people believe about what sex they should be.Homosexuality,is unnatural and unacceptable to God,period!

  • Your questions are blasphemy.I don’t care what people believe about what sex they should be with.Homosexuality,is unnatural and unacceptable to God,period!

  • Michael Oliver

    Yes Ben… Jesus and him crucified. Isn’t that the issue? Please take a moment and read Romans 1. That explains the resistance to His ways.

  • Ben in oakland

    If you’re going to talk about Romans, then the context is idolatry, not homosexuality. That much is extremely clear, and like all of the rest of the alleged biblical stance on homosexuality, is ignored because it isn’t convenient for those who wish to justify their prejudices as the word o’ God..

  • Ben in oakland

    Well, doc, the whole question of righteous judgment is certainly a thorny one. But since according to your own theology we’re all doing the backstroke in the cesspool of sin, how on earth are YOU supposed to judge righteously? Why, one might think that your own capacity for sin prevents you from considering righteously the alleged sins of other people? ( I know that’s actually no problem for you at all, given your past record, but we’re talking theoretically here.)

    Someone who is certainly an important to fundamentalist, biblically literal Christian thinking said something about the forest of logs in your own eye preventing you from seeing the speck in the eyes of others.

  • Ben in oakland

    A God who describes himself as “jealous” while admitting that there are other gods for him to be jealous out doesn’t exactly inspire me as to his Holiness, goodness, or common sense.

  • Ben in oakland

    No, honey, you’ve been over the edge for quite some time. Only a big it would take the behavior of a couple of roommates and use it to generalize over a whole population of people he doesn’t know and clearly knows nothing about.

    From an early age, you teach us to hate the finest part of ourselves, do everything in your poWer tuning our lives as difficult, unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous, do everything you can to discourage us from having normal lives, and then triumphantly announce that we are sick and dangerous.

    You don’t know any gay people now, and you probably never did. Reviling and slandering a whole group of people because of your personal issues with some of them isn’t nice. But it does appear to be bible believing Christian,

  • Ben in oakland

    Pretty much like those wish to justify their prejudices as the word o’ God. Funny how that works, innit?

  • Craig

    LMAO at any and all of you debating these points. The US is not a theocracy, so appeals to scripture just do not matter, and should not matter. Based upon sound civil law, marriage equality is here to stay. If you don’t like it, move to some Christian theocratic nation like Uganda. They love to imprison the gays there. You will feel right at home. (By the way, there is plenty of scriptural evidence to suggest that Jesus was homo. He never showed one iota of interest in women and he loved John–John’s words, not mine. Before you ask me for direct evidence from the Gospels, please show your direct evidence for Jesus’ divinity from the Gospels.)

  • Andrew Love

    41. Do you agree with the constitution of your own country?

    42. If so, does that include the separation of church and state protected in the first amendment?

    43. Can you truly and honestly claim that upholding legislation that was chiefly informed by religious beliefs that are not held by an increasing number of citizens in your country is not a violation of the separation of church and state?

  • Ben in oakland

    I SEE.

    “Curing” gay people of their completely imaginary disease:

    It is the only cure for any disease that if the patient doesn’t improve, it must be the fault of the patient. His faith just wasn’t strong enough. He wanted to hold on to his sin more than he loved jesus.

    So very, very convenient.

  • Shawnie5

    Dietary laws were not given to Gentiles. No one ever cared how much shellfish Gentiles ate or what they wore (the mixed-fibers prohibition refers to linen-wool combinations only, BTW). Yet the same chapter which lists the prohibited sexual practices clearly states that God rejected and judged the Gentile nations for those practices — long before there ever was a Torah. There is no reason to think they are any less abhorrent to God post-Torah than they were pre-Torah, which is why the Torah-observant Christian Jews of the Jerusalem church decided to impose nothing from the Torah on Gentile converts other than what had always been expected of righteous Gentiles: avoidance of blood and known pagan sacrificial meat and all sexual immorality (Acts 15).

    Christians used to understand the Jerusalem Council as a matter of course. Why the sudden collective amnesia?

  • Pingback: A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 2 | The Apologetics Minion()

  • Shawnie5

    You think idolatry doesn’t exist any more? Idols abound, in every time and in every place in history.

    When you have people saying, as some around here have, that they wouldn’t worship a God who condemns homosexuality, then there is no doubt about who and what the idol is. It’s self. That is the essence of idolatry — anything that one puts in God’s rightful place.

  • Shawnie5

    Or others who don’t really have any prejudices on the subject but can not honestly rationalize away what scripture plainly says.

  • ‘Bait and switch’ questionnaires cannot be taken seriously. Surely you must know better than to attempt to entrap respondents by moving surreptitiously back-and-forth between categories in the way that you have done. I have a close friend who went through a very difficult marriage break-up due (I suspect) to his bi-sexuality. And I recognize that gay people do not fit into the various stereotypes ascribed to them. But nothing in your questionnaire is likely to change anyone’s mind. Surprised it changed yours.

  • Shawnie5

    Oh, please. The word John used for love was “agape” (the love of God) not “eros” (sexual love).

  • David Douglas

    As at least one other persons has posted, Doug Wilson takes the (non-loaded) questions head on.


    My only response to this is that many of the questions are grounded in experiential considerations rather than dealing with the scriptural assessment of the situation. Our experience must be totally submitted to and viewed through the grid of scripture. Not vice versa.

    The narrative arc and implications of these questions is that because life for homosexuals (broadly considered) is hard there must be the same outlet (marriage) for them as for heterosexuals. If we take scripture and original sin as our starting point, a better argument (again broadly considered for the sake of concision) could be made that life is hard because of their sin. Forsaking the sin might be hard and even be a thorn in the flesh issue, but it is less hard than being given over to deeper and deeper sinful lusts and passions.

  • There are many things that you do not appear to know. You’ve been born, raised, and taught what most have been. All the while, there’s information out there regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts and text that show information you’re, seemingly, not aware of. Read more to learn more.


  • Pingback: The Saturday Post(s) | A Pilgrim's Friend()

  • @Sandra Phillips: In your mind, maybe. Your mind is not the only mind that exists.


  • Elizabeth

    It’s sad how we have all gone from allowing mankind to worship how and what they like, to persecuting anyone who feels or thinks differently than we do. There is nothing wrong with my belief that same-sex relations are wrong. I don’t berate or diminish my friends for being gay or lesbian. Why don’t I get to be treated the same way? Bad news, people. I’m coming out of the closet. I’m heterosexual. I haven’t found the one God wants me with, so I’ve continually been abstaining from sex. I’m not suicidal or crazy for not having sex all the time. (so much for that question…) Allow them to live their lives, but do the same for us, too. Please.

  • Sportz

    It’s pretty clear that you are not really open to debate or discussion from the get go. Sorry the idea that there might be other ways to address spirituality or other interpretations of things in the universe other than your own seems so troubling to you. Camping out in your corner is certainly not growth oriented to say the least.

  • Pingback: Everyone Who Promoted Doug Wilson’s “Gay Marriage is a Far More Serious Problem Than Slavery” Article | R.L. Stollar //// Overturning Tables()

  • Ben in oakland

    No one is stopping you from living your life the way you want to. Nobody is insisting that you have sex when you’re not married. Nobody is insisting anything for heterosexuals.

    But someone is insisting that we should not be allowed to protect our families and children with the civil institution known as marriage. Someone is insisting that our desire to be treated just like all of the other people conservative Christians believe are going to burn in hell forever is persecuting those conservative Christians.

    That’s the difference.

  • Ben in oakland

    Or, you can just except the fact that a lot of people don’t take the Bible as their guide to life, and those that do don’t necessarily take every bit of the Bible as their guide to life. I don’t wish to look at my life through the lens of your scriptures, and I don’t understand why you insist that you have the right to insist that the civil law which governs all of us should reflect your purely theological concerns.

    As for the idea that our life is hard because of our sins, nonsense. Our lives are difficult because of the insistence of theocrat Christians that their beliefs about what God wants should govern the rest of us. Everything stems from that, not from Original Sin.

    If you were worried about “sinful lusts and passions”, then I suggest you worry about your own, and not mine. I don’t worry about yours, but then I believe in the dick to him, “treat others as you would like to be treated.”

    Who said that?

  • Ben in oakland

    Sorry. Dictum, though dick to him will also work. My iPad makes rather odd corrections sometimes after I post.

  • Ben in oakland

    Or you could simply accept the idea that all of your beliefs about homosexuality, and what the Bible allegedly says about it, it’s simply that: cultural bias. For 2000 years, the Bible has been twisted and perverted into supporting an ancient and vicious prejudice.

    Homosexuality may in your words be no different than any other sin. But it is.

    Nobody is bannned from marriage if they have been divorced except for adultery. No other sin, including the failure to believe that Jesus died for your sins, has vast political campaigns and millions of dollars spent for those campaigns directed at it. I doubt you’ll find any of the anti-gay writers that post regularly also posting regularly on any other sinful issue. I’m certain that no other sin can get you banned from serving in the military.

    This is not about sin, and never has been. That’s just your excuse to exercise your prejudices.

  • Candy

    The main issue appears to be that the only other alternative is celibacy (which is not true in every case). Why is that so horrific? I spent most of my adult life celibate. It was certainly difficult, but not horrific. I know several older unmarried Christians who have lived celibate lives. I know for sure some of them would have chosen marriage if it had been possible. Are we now supposed to assume we’ve misunderstood the Bible’s (explicit, same as with homosexuality) passages on premarital sex because it seems unfair to those people? Shall we assume that none of these people wishing to be married struggle to the point of despair over this? How can we then assume that our loving God’s intend is for them to be celibate?
    Because He says so. Plainly.
    There is no point arguing over what the Bible says. We all can look up what is says-The problem is a blatant misunderstanding of the law and a refusal to accept that the law is for our good.

  • steve
  • Doc Anthony

    Jesus did say, “Remove the log from your own eye, SO THAT you can see to remove the speck fromm your brother’s eye.”

    So according to YOUR Bible, Mr. Ben, Jesus Himself **approves** of removing specks from a brother’s eye, and “judging righteous judgment”, as long as one passes the log test.

    Me, I’m not perfect. Like you, I’m familiar with logs and specks. But your never-ending quest to justify your own sin, has hit yet another spike-strip. Because NOW you’re forced to talk like EVERYBODY who reminds you of what the Bible clearly says about homosexual behavior and gay marriage has somehow got “logs in their eyes.”

    And we both know that’s not true.

    Looking at the words of this same Jesus, whose advice you so freely give out, we ALSO know what Jesus said in Matt. 19:4-6.

    So regardless of who has got “specks” or “logs” or “both” or “none”, the fact remains: Gay marriage is STILL against the very words of Jesus. But you know that already, Ben.

  • Doc Anthony

    One could ask why a gay activist who knows he is clearly living in violation of the Bible and God’s express intention regarding marriage, would even show up on a thread in which that topic is likely to be discussed on all sides. Hmm?

  • Doc Anthony

    Or maybe, as a gay activist, you’re just trying to justify your own gay marriage sin, day by day, thread by thread, post by post, knowing all the while that the Bible condemns gay marriage as sin, and knowing that getting right with God (who you don’t believe in because you know what He said already), will necessarily entail a breakup

    So yeah, you even say things like “this is not about sin” when the Bible makes clear that indeed it’s all about sin.

  • Benin oakland

    Well, Shawnie, it all depends whether you believe that God can be contained within the pages of the 2000-year-old, much edited, much redacted, much translated and much politically motivated book. Even were I not an atheist, I wouldn’t believe that.

    Maybe it’s not some mythiical version of “self” that is being “worshipped” — your words, not mine – but merely the acceptance of the fact that you – generic you, maybe – don’t represent God, and don’t know the mind of God outside of what you think the bible says.

    As always, you draw your lines very carefully to include that which you agree with, and exclude that which you disapprove of.

  • Pingback: 40 questions for Christians who oppose marriage equality – Answered | Deal of Theology()

  • Be Brave

    Mr. Vines,

    Fantastic piece of propaganda. Goebbels would be proud. Mr. Vines, how are you not a heretic? How are you not a false teacher? How is your theology not as foreign to the Gospel as legalizing prostitution and adultery?

    How is your new religious theology not exactly the same as other cults like Mormonism and Watch Tower theology?

    Mr. Vines, you have not one shred of Biblical support for homosexualizing The Church. Why can’t you just establish your own religious movement and stand your ground there? Why do you need to force honest, Bible-affirming Christians to bow to the rainbow idol?

    I am looking forward to the day when you try to force my Church body to submit to the inappropriateness of your gay authority. I will be there with Biblical truth to contend against you as Jude to your predecessors wen they invaded The Church in his era:

    For certain individuals secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into…

  • jim scaggs

    Do not waste your time responding to this and other articles, accept the fact (and yes I am familiar with the homosexual lifestyle I have several friends that are homosexuals and they know how I feel) that they have been deceived and those that claim to be Christians and accept open sin be it heterosexual or homosexual well that’s all I will say about that, anyway they have pen knife theology, if it doesn’t fit their point of view they simply cut it out.

  • tedzinck

    Item 40 is Are you willing to be in fellowship with Christians who disagree with you on this topic?
    I fear the answer is already there, known from the past.
    No denomination that changed to gay clergy managed to keep both revisionists and orthodox readers of Scripture in the same church. If not a split, then a rump protest group, or member attrition resulted.
    The hardest thing about the paradigm change in congregational (free) churches will be when your mother or long-time friend disagrees with you. Or when the pastor goes pro-change.
    Gay marriage is a bigger issue than slavery.
    Rod Dreher called it 2 years ago — well worth a read.

  • Liz

    I Do not see the relation among slavery and homosexuality. God destroyed nations because of homosexuality. This is a great sin against God. What exactly you do NOT UNDERSTAND about GOD LAWS? Being gay is a SIN as equal to steal, to murder, to slave. If Christians supported modern slavery, then they supported a SIN. They were not Christians.

    Revelation 22:15 “Outside the city are the dogs–the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.”

  • larry

    No I think someone who looks for excuses to publicly attack an entire class of people, advocate their denial of civil liberties, based on their personal prejudices are bigots.

    There are two sides in the debate here but they do not have equal weight in their arguments nor equal moral weight. One side appears to be driven entirely by animus and malice, the other side is motivated by notions of human dignity. I go with human dignity. Others do not. There is no such thing as well intention discrimination or well intentioned prejudice.

  • larry

    Well the problem with debate is the completely phony assumption that religious belief has any basis in rational thought and intellectual rigor. Proof-texting v. interpretation with dollops of appeals to unreliable authority. Truth of the matter is all arguments concerning religion are going to be self-serving garbage.

    Added to that the complete lack of any adherence to a given form. Fundamentalists only accept goalposts when it suits them. Gish galloping is their primary form of argument. Making crap up is so pervasive that the debate winds up degenerating into explaining what the fundy has completely misrepresented the facts.

  • Envicerated or just scored cheap points through posturing towards one’s given crowd.

    if you want dishonest requests for debates one has to look no further than Creationism v. Actual Science. Creationists love debates, hate dealing with credible arguments and evidence.

  • You can’t expect fundamentalists to be honest. The amount of dishonest bullcrap needed to maintain a public belief in Biblical inerrancy makes lying about a position a reflex action..

    Btw Adam, you are giving the perfect example of a gish gallop. There is so much incoherent bullcrap put up at once that anyone who fails to address it all must seem to have “lost the argument:”

    You beg the question in your first post and try to shift burdens of proof.
    You just make crap up by the second post and rely on complete gonzo analogy by the third.

    The fact that you have to go on for 5+ paragraphs just to avoid a simple and unambiguous request by Jesus to “love thy neighbor” doesn’t speak well for your POV.

  • Be Brave ng


    Matthew Vines is a classic gay activist. His arguments are classic gay positions right down the line. Everything you say he studied was to only “affirm” gay pride. He reads everything through the lens of his gay activism. He preaches the gay agenda and has discarded the truth for a lie. Otherwise he would have “affirmed” those that he supposedly calls brothers and sisters in Christ that rightly hold to marriage as Jesus described it and defined it. That being man and woman/husband and wife. Male husband and female wife.

    The most important aspect to gay activists targeting and attacking The Church and seeking validation ignore the many, many, many, pro-gay “churches” and desire to invade and infect the Evangelical Church. There’s a valid reason for seeking Christian Truth where it actually exists. Vines like the demons, knows that “real” Christian truth exists in the “conservative Evangelical” movement.

  • Rene Descartes took a lot of assumptions and logical shortcuts as part of his beliefs and much of his views of religion were thoroughly and effectively skewered by David Hume 250 years before you were born.

    The debate about Descartes’ effectiveness as rationally explaining God was over by the 18th Century. He lost. At best Descartes is an intro in philosophy classes, not an end point.

  • Except for the parts where you guys disavow Leviticus when many of its rules do not suit Christians.

  • Be Brave ng

    Jude describes the LGBT movement eerily perfect.

    “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    And this proves how prophetic Jude is:

    “For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”

    For certain individuals like Matthew Vines.

  • NotAdamAndSteve

    Whatever. I’ll stick with what Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, etc. had to say regarding homosexuality: it’s immoral. And as far as gay “marriage” is concerned, well you gays can pretend to be married all you like, and you can keep on punishing Christian bakers and ruining their livelihoods. But the fight will go on, and you perverts will never, ever be welcome in our Church.

  • Kevin

    No. Being a bigot makes someone a bigot.
    If someone is anti-gay, by definition, that makes them a bigot. It’s not because I disagree with that person. It’s because the definition of the word bigot makes them a bigot.

    You and so many seem to use this “logic”:
    Bigots are bad people.
    I am a good person.
    Therefore I am cannot possibly be a bigot. (and anyone who thinks I am is only mad I have a different opinion).

    I challenge you to find a widely accepted definition of the word bigot. And then tell me how that definition does not apply to people who are openly and vocally anti-gay.

  • Kevin

    Adam….The point that you’re missing is this: You don’t understand Vines’ argument. How can you tell us all that Vines is wrong, if you can’t actually and fairly describe what he’s saying?

    If I said: “Adam’s main point is that homosexuals aren’t people.” Would you think I was worth your time in a debate? Or would you think, this Kevin-person has no idea what I’m trying to say, why should I take him seriously?

    Until you understand what Vines is saying, no one needs to take you seriously.
    You’re basically writing a scathing movie review for a movie you’ve never seen before.
    So, to answer your question…No, you shouldn’t comment on something until you first have a basic understanding about the thing you’re about to comment on.

  • Kevin

    And I would love for folks like you to treat this discussion as aserious thing that impacts people’s lives. Not merely a debate for you to smugly declare victory about.
    Even if being gay is a sin*…you and your teammates (I use the word, because this really seems like a game to you) might consider what Jesus taught about things like how to interact with sinners? What we should render to Caeser?

    *It’s not.

  • Eric

    I’d just like to say that we really don’t need to do all this research into very specific little details when Jesus’ blood washes away all sin. The man who died by Jesus was a murderer, was he not? He sinned, he was punished for it, but he was saved. We all live with sin. Whether we’re homosexual or not, we can still be true Christians and go to heaven. We just have to be sure to reflect God’s word and provide a good example to others.

  • Shawnie5

    “Envicerated or just scored cheap points through posturing towards one’s given crowd.”

    You couldn’t be expected to know the difference, as you’re not familiar with the issues.

  • You are an apostate heretic who is condemning many to your thoughts. Leading them to a damnable lifestyle that God has and continues to assert as an abomination. Wake up and do not believe this wicked man.

  • Here is a great response to Vines’ questions. I would have preferred for Vines to do with DeYoung what White did to Vines. I am sure Vines’ answers would have been laughable. This kid isn’t even a college graduate, not a seminary student, and yet, he is held up as an expert on the subject. He has neither the education, training nor life-experience to overturn 2,000+ years of Christian teaching and scholarship. That we would even give him a voice is appalling in my opinion. You have to earn a seat at the table and Vines as NOT done that. He rides the wave of the entitlement mentality coupled with an insatiable media obsessed with sexual perversion.

  • KDH

    I recently sent this email to Matthew Vines. I don’t think that he is asking the right questions. Here are my questions for those who think Christians should raise the rainbow flag:

    I respectfully think that the content of the “40 questions” is, whether deliberately or not, completely skewed to make Christians oppose gay marriage. Focusing so much on homosexuality, out of context, and out of the context of all of the other things that parts of the Bible speak negatively about, completely misses the whole point of the alternative Christian view in favor of complete tolerance. So here are a few additional questions for people of Christian faith to answer, if they are going to honestly evaluate this issue and look deeply into themselves and into their hearts:
    1) Do you believe that the New Testament is a new Covenant from God that, either to a certain extent, or totally, supersedes the Old (especially the Mosaic Law)? [more]

  • KDH

    2) If so, how do you square that belief with the apparent contradiction of nonetheless still citing Old Testament Mosaic Law verses, but only in opposition to gay marriage or homosexuality in general? Why select such verses for this issue alone?
    3) Alternatively, if you are still willing to cite and subscribe to Old Testament verses to oppose gay marriage, are you also willing to cite Old Testament verses a) in support of the stoning of adulterors (and many other kinds of sinners), b) for eating no pig meat, c) for covering your head at all times, d) for wearing no mixed thread garments, e) for not cutting your hair or shaving your beard, f) for not planting two kinds of seeds in a single field, etc.? Related to this, are you merely opposed to gay marriage and homesexuality, or do you also think per Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals must be killed? If not, why not? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you are not willing to endorse killing homosexuals per Leviticus? If so, why?

  • KDH

    4) If you duly subscribe to everything in the New Testament, are you also willing to condemn all people who remarry after a divorce as adulterers, and should we therefore prohibit that? (Mark 10:11-12; Romans 7:2-3; Luke 16:18).
    5) Did Jesus fully endorse Mosaic Law in Matthew 5:18? If so, should we stone people more broadly according to the old Levitican prohibitions?
    6) Should we prohibit women from speaking in church at all? (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)? If not, why not? Can you still consider yourself a Christian if you do not follow this New Testament rule?
    7) What do you make of Jesus’ words in John 8:15: “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.” See also James 4:12 (“There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”), Galatians 5:14 (“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'”). Do your positions on these issues square with those verses? If so, how so?

  • KDH

    8) What is your evidence that the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah definitively relates to consensual homosexuality?
    9) Why do you think “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV) from 1 Cor. 6:9 got changed to “men who have sex with men” in the NIV? Did God make those edits in this version of the Bible that was, coincidentally, originally published in the 1970s?
    10) Do you think the apparently absolute prohibition in 1 Cor. 7:10 means that a woman cannot divorce her husband even if he commits adultery? Can you consider yourself a Christian if you endorse allowing divorce in United States’ laws at all, given all of the Biblical condemnation of it?

  • KDH

    11) If gay people should not be allowed to be married, should we also prohibit adulterers, murderers, and idolaters from marrying, on the theory they too are sinners? If not, why not? If your argument is that we are too uniquely permissive of this “sin,” how do you square that argument with any feeling you have that divorce is acceptable, even though the country is even more socially accepting of divorce and the Bible condemns divorce so strongly?
    12) Where does the Bible, even in the Old Testament, say anything forbidding the marriage of homosexuals? Are you sure about that? Do you really think that’s the best and only construction of Genesis 2:24?

  • KDH

    Unlike many of my friends (to whom Christianity is, frankly, an embarrassment), I’m still an actual Christian. If you want to get doctrinal, then let’s say I do believe the New Testament superseded the Old in terms of Mosaic Codes in particular. I think most people quoting the Bible on gay marriage or homosexuality have not got the faintest clue how many Biblical prohibitions they already blithely ignore, or they deliberately ignore now many things they ignore. Why? I also think Paul’s statements must be read in the context of a world with no conception of gay marriage at all, where Romans regularly practiced male-on-male rape as a form of population and slave subjugation, and, more importantly, that they must be read in the context of Jesus’ many completely tolerant and accepting and forgiving words, just as one would read a legal statute (as this basically is) in full context, not merely looking at isolated phrases. Jesus is Lord.

  • KDH

    Whoops, original post should have said “for those who think Christians should NOT raise the rainbow flag”

  • ralph

    If openly Chtristian leaders supported slavery as being Biblical due to cultural norms of the day, did that make slavery “OK”? If Christian leaders today support homosexuality as being Biblical due to cultural norms of the day, does that make homosexuality “OK”?

  • Pingback: A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 3 | The Apologetics Minion()

  • Ben in Oakland

    Really? which nations were those? Where are your citations? what about all of the nations that were virulently antigay that are no longer here?

    When you say that my being gay is no different than stealing, murder, and slavery, are you are saying is that you have absolutely no idea of what constitutes morality and sin. I bet that if i murdered your family, you would indeed see a huge difference.

    Your moral compass is in serious need of a lodestone.

    BTW, this is why you religiously antigay fanatics are losing the battle outside of your own little echo chamber. Anybody with half a brain reading this can only say that this lady is seriously bat guano crazy. Thank you for doing our job for us.

  • Ben in Oakland

    I know that I’ll never be welcome in your church. Thank the god I don’t believe in for that.

  • Me

    Jesus said, Your sins are forgotten (when speaking to the woman at the well) Then he said “GO, AND SIN NO MORE” Meaning you must repent of your sin, which means, you DO NOT continue to sin. You are in a very dangerous place if you think God is OK with you sinning to please your flesh continually

  • Ben in oakland

    I would take that even further. It’s one thing to believe that homosexuality is a sin. ( I agree with you that whatever is described in the Bible is not talking about homosexuality as we understand it today). It’s quite another thing to believe that it is some extra Icky, horrible, unforgivable sin that must be treated differently from all other sins. That’s just taking a deeply ingrained, ancient, and vicious prejudice and giving it some sort of cover by calling it “sincere religious belief.”

    It’s quite another thing to make up a bunch of stories about people you don’t know, and use the stories that you’ve just made up to inflict legal, moral, and civil harm on those people, again calling it “sincere religious belief.”

    We have 2000 years of anti-Semitism which did precisely that, and had absolutely nothing to do with sincere religious belief. It did, however, have a great deal to do with prejudice.

  • Ben in oakland

    I’ve read much the same thing several times. It wasn’t slavery as we understand it, it was slavery light, it was slavery covered with a nice coating of chocolate, it was anything but the owning of another human being who had no rights in the matter.

  • Ben in oakland

    Of course, Shawnie, that really is the topic of conversation, isn’t it? Some people believe the Bible is abundantly clear on the subject, and other people don’t, or even accept that the Bible knows what the subject is.

    For myself, all I have to do is look at the sodom story— A story which, according to Jesus and Ezekiel, is about in hospitality to strangers. A story which is clearly about the threat of rape, not on the sexuality. The story in which a man offers his virgin daughters to a mob of people bent on rape, Who are allegedly homosexual. I can tell you that you could offered 30 Virgin girls to me, and I wouldn’t be the slightest bit interested.

    In other words, a story which has been twisted and perverted by Homo hatred into saying something that absolutely does not say. And you’ve been doing that for 2000 years.

  • Ben in oakland

    Sorry, my iPad did it again. The phrase is NOT “not on the sexuality” but “not about homosexuality.”

  • Trent

    “The fact that MV would have to go on for an entire book just to make the simple point that “God Celebrates Gay Marriage” doesn’t speak well for his POV.”

    Some issues are complex and require/demand more ink on the page.

    Don’t be silly.

  • Doc Anthony

    For me, both Matthew Vines’ questions and James White’s answers are to be taken seriously. But I don’t see the pro-gay posters taking the latter writer seriously at all. That’s why I said what I said. I get to take Vines seriously, but you get to take White seriously. Fair deal.

    You say “being gay” is not a sin. Do you agree that the Bible says that homosexual behavior IS a sin? How about gay marriage? And if you are adopting a gay self-identity yet claimiing to be a disciple of Jesus (the Jesus specifically featured in 1 Cor. 6:9-11), isn’t that a contradiction?

    And while Caesar should certainly get whatever tax money we owe him, didn’t Jesus also say “Render to God the things that are God’s”? Is it your position that Christians should render to Caesar the things that belong to God?

    So this is most certainly not a game to me. The Gay Goliath is here, lives are being ENSLAVED by him, and it’s time for Christians to wake up and stand up to him.

  • Doc Anthony

    Ezekiel 16:50.

    “And they were haughty and committed **abomination** before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”

    So the tipping point was the homosexual mess. Sodom shouldn’t have done it. They did. The rest is history.

    That’s why people “keep bringing up Sodom and Gomorrah in regards to this topic,” as you worded it.

  • Shawnie5

    Ben, you don’t even need the Sodom story. The scriptures would be plain enough about same-sex behavior even if the Sodom episode had never been recorded.

  • Sheldon

    I think you’re missing the point here about Matthew’s education, Ed. If you had ever taken the time to look into Vines or his writings you would learn that he actually quit school because gathering knowledge on this subject was of great importance to him. He didn’t use school to become an authority on this. He taught himself through years of extensive work and research. He is SELF educated and SELF trained. You don’t need a diploma to prove your knowledge on a subject. You only need a medium to share your knowledge with the world. And that’s what Vines has done.

    Furthermore, I find White’s response to be asinine and immature. You can basically boil his response down to: “I’m not really going to answer any of your questions. I’m just going to spew narrow-minded vitriol at you because gay marriage is gross.” Marriage is NOT an inherently religious institution.

    Also…if you don’t think there’s room at “the table” for everyone, you might be doing this whole…

  • Hermit

    The original and most prominent definition for the word “bigot” is “(noun)
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”

    Now if you call me a bigot because you cannot tolerate my belief that homosexuality is condemned throughout the scriptures, then that makes you a bigot. I, on the other hand, am not denigrating you or attempting to silence you, indicating that I can tolerate people who have opinions different to my own, shows that I am not a bigot.

    Summary: If you call someone a bigot because you don’t like their opinion or belief, you are being a bigot. They are probably not.

  • Shawnie5

    And how would you know what any debate “degenerates'” into, Larry? You do not observe any debates, and you could not evaluate them if you did observe them because you are an admitted scriptural illiterate. Why do you waste your time and ours here?

  • Hermit

    And further to my other comment, if I accept your incorrect assertion, then I suppose anyone who is openly and vocally anti-paedophile is a bigot? Anyone who is openly and vocally against child slavery is a bigot?

  • Shawnie5

    KDH, most of your questions can be rather easily answered by a thoughtful reading of Acts 15.

  • Shawnie5

    If he’s so self-educated, why is he presenting emotional arguments instead of making his case from scripture and history? Of course he captures why we pity those ensnared by homosexuality, but he is not even close to demonstrating how same-sex behavior is compatible with biblical Christianity.

  • Shawnie5

    Don’t waste your time over “bigot.”. It’s been bandied about until it now has about as meaning as “goo goo gah gah.” Before long young people will be making jokes out of it like they do with “racist.”

  • Pingback: A response to the TGC blog post “40 Questions for Christians now Waving Rainbow Flags” | To Dust We Return...()

  • Bruce

    That’s exactly the problem he is self educated and self trained reading mostly from all the people that have agreed with his point and leaving the real Biblical study out, his exegesis of the Biblical passages is wrong and laughable, Vines is no expert but uses emotion sloppy study to prove a point that cannot be proven

  • Bruce

    I’m amazed that we are still talking about a debate, the debate is over it’s always been over The Bible is clear, let God be true and every man a liar, so let’s go on our merry way and believe what we believe if I refuse to have anal sex with a man or boy that’s my choice and you make yours and let God be the judge

  • George

    Matthew Vines’ questions are not about the Bible’s position on homosexuality, which was the point of the original 40 questions by Kevin DeYoung.

    Perhaps if Matthew Vines wants to debate the issue, he should ask questions related to the position the Bible presents about homosexuality, rather than emotional questions that attempt to use popular western culture as a means of tricking the reader in one way or another to think that the bible is wrong and the culture is right.

    As someone who claims a high view of Scripture, this post clearly screams otherwise Mr Vines.

  • Shawnie5


  • George

    R.E: question 9:

    I assume that you’re aware that the 1599 Geneva Bible refers to them as ‘buggerers’? As in men who have anal sex with one another.

  • Be Brave

    If Matthew Vines were concerned about Christians, he wouldn’t be trying to change Christian truth on what a marriage is. Vines has all he wants in the MCC or other homosxuality promoting religious places. You don’t see Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses doing what he is attempting. Most of the neo-religious movements that have spun off from Christianity have maintained their own place in the world and called all to their ways.

    Vines demands that everyone fall face down and swear allegiance to the rainbow idol. This isn’t rudeness and just intolerance, this is a hate crime as well as persecution of Christians. Vines knows full well that the rabid anti-Christ mobs will join him in attacking Christians labeled as hateful and bigoted. And yet, Vines, as he joins forces with the anti-Christ’s, sees nothing wrong in calling Jesus a liar, or worse, as can be attested to by looking at what his anti-Christian partners present. Vines is not acting like an honest man. Just an activist.

  • Be Brave

    If Matthew Vines were concerned about Christians, he wouldn’t be trying to change Christian truth on what a marriage is. Vines has all he wants in the MCC or other homosxuality promoting religious places. You don’t see Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses doing what he is attempting. Most of the neo-religious movements that have spun off from Christianity have maintained their own place in the world and called all to their ways.

    Vines demands that everyone fall face down and swear allegiance to the rainbow idol. This isn’t rudeness and just intolerance, this is a hate crime as well as persecution of Christians. Vines knows full well that the rabid anti-Christ mobs will join him in attacking Christians labeled as hateful and bigoted. And yet, Vines, as he joins forces with the anti-Christ’s, sees nothing wrong in calling Jesus a liar, or worse, as can be attested to by looking at what his anti-Christian partners present. Vines is not acting like an honest man. Just an activist.

  • Pingback: One Christian’s View | Sue's Simple Snippets()

  • larry

    Not at all. It just shows the level of bad faith in the opponents of Vines.
    Especially since Vines has the problem of dealing with several sects and centuries of prejudicial interpretation to work against in his arguments.

    Religious belief always comes down to interpretation. “Simple” only means that one doesn’t want to bother listening to anyone else. Being lazy.

  • ciara


  • Pingback: 40 Answers for Kevin DeYoung Part 1: A Panel Discussion! | John Fournelle()

  • Shawnie5

    God can not be contained in pages but we very easily can be, for we are finite. God ‘s word did not change but became flesh and lived among us — and He, the written Word made living Word, is everything that we are able to understand about God.

    Just like every scoffer today, Pilate looked into the face of Truth and asked “What is truth?”

  • Larry

    It doesn’t really make much of a difference. There is no sign of any form of love in an attitude which considers entire classes of people as less than worthy of basic human dignity as a matter of course.

  • Larry

    And it is so memorable nobody can bother to quote any of its finer points.

    Fundies can be so lazy.

  • Shawnie5

    It’s not up to us to make the case for affirming same-sex behavior in the church after 2000 years of unanimity on the subject. It’s up to Vines and his crew. Present the arguments (someone else, obviously — not you) one by one and they will be refuted them one by one.

  • Shawnie5

    Human dignity confers the responsibility for one’s own actions and the power to resist wrong ones, not the right to have them celebrated by others.

  • Larry

    Nice try.

    Hey, why don’t you put it in its original context, like incorporating the previous paragraph.

    “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy
    Ezekiel 16:50

    The “abomination” was spiteful and selfish attitudes. The only sodomites here are people like yourself Doc. The Bible is pretty clear if we are going to be using such quotes and it is not friendly towards your take on it. 🙂

  • Your premise is based on everyone saying yes to your first question, “Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?” What if someone believes wholeheartedly that the answer to that question is no? None of the other questions will matter to them.

  • Larry

    Except you guys are referring to the video nobody will watch as some sort of rebuttal. Evidently it is so unmemorable that nobody bothers to cite it. Vines made his case in condensed form here. The burden shifted to you guys to react to it. A blind link is a lazy rebuttal.

    Not like it makes any difference whatsoever.

    Fundamentalists in all faiths you have a position and use whatever scripture is available to justify it. Bigotry is not there because of the text, it is merely the tool for enabling it. You start off with bigotry and then convince yourself it is the only interpretation for the text from there. Its why any pretension of rational support for a given religious belief is an utter joke.

  • Larry

    Which is so unmemorable you can’t think of a single thing he says on the subject or consider important enough to share with the crowd.

  • KDH

    If you think so, I urge you to concretely try, rather than simply asserting this.

  • Kenneth

    Great post, lots to think and pray about for Christians who are not dogmatically sticking with what they were taught.

  • Kenneth

    Then Phil if it is not a choice, can you tell us when you chose to be straight? When you looked at males and females and said, hmmmmm both are viable options for me but I think I’m going to go with women.


    Once you find the roots of your lgbtt behavior, you will realize that being lgbtt is a choice for any of the hundreds of reasons thst surround you. NO you was not born fay, you were introduced tovthat style of life and you decidad to embrace it. This have anither component, the spiritual one, maybe too profound for your understandind. Remember we do not fight against blood and flesh but against spiritual beings, and you loose.

  • Pingback: An Honest Response to 40 Questions from Matthew Vines()

  • Pingback: My own response to Matthew Vines’ “40 Questions for Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality” | TheoLogic()

  • Shawnie5

    Everybody has cited to it, and to many other responses as well. Perhaps Mr. Grant should have a number of guest columns equal to gneiss one he granted to Vines, instead of a cumbersome and limitedlimited comments format, for answering 40 questions. Perhaps he should have featured the original 40 questions, for that matter, along with answers.

    “Bigotry is not there because of the text”. You can say what is or isn’t in the text after you familiarize yourself with the texts, Lare.

    But I’ll be generous. I care little for Dr. White’s responses (actually, I didn’t bother to read them all), for I have my own. Which one of the questions would you like me to weigh in upon?

  • Shawnie5

    I already did. Use my name in the Find functiom to look up my response from Acts 15.

  • Jack

    The writer’s a bit of a jerk, but here’s my answer to the 40 questions:

    1. Mostly 2. Yes 3. Several, including a beloved teacher 4. See #3 5. Many hours, with me listening and letting others speak 6. yes 7. Not necessarily 8. None of your business 9. I rescued one from suicide 10. of the 4 instances I know, yes to 2, no to 1, jury’s out on 1 11. One 12. Wrong question, Einstein. I know non-Christian couples who are kind and patient, so what’s the point? 13. Yes 14. Yes 15. N/A 16. Two different categories 17. yes 18. No 19. Say what? 20. N/A 21. Dumb question 22. Dubious premise 23. N/A 24. False premise 25. N/A 26. Yes 27. N/A 28. Depends on definition 29. Dumb question 30. No 31. N/A 32. Rather speak in person than to a book 33. Civil unions before they were “cool” 34. Telling all who will listen 35. Yes 36. More honest to say “several times more” 37. You’d better believe it 38. Nice try…not either/or 39. Nice try 40…

  • Jack

    I answered all 40 and the post got wiped out.

  • Jack

    In other words, if you don’t agree with Eric, you are insincere.

  • Jack

    In other words, if you don’t agree with Larry, you are insincere.

    Larry, meet Eric….Eric, meet Larry.

    For once I believe that Larry and a like-minded poster aren’t one and the same person.

  • Jack

    It’s hard to believe that after writing down those 40 questions, Matthew Vine came away satisfied with himself. If he were a 14-year-old, I’d cut him some slack. But for an adult to equate emotionalism with penetrating and incisive questioning is pretty pathetic.

    He’s the product no doubt of the cult of self-esteem, where all children get prizes for just being their perfectly wonderful selves, and nobody gets corrected for mistakes of any kind — which would be bad for….self-esteem.

  • Jack

    Uh-oh…an adult walks into the room.

  • Shawnie5

    Larry, you can say what is and isn’t in the text when you familiarize yourself with the text and its history, ‘kay?

    Nobody should have responded to Vines at all, for he never responded to the original 40 question but simply referred everyone to his book — a common tactic of those who are afraid of open debate. And I care nothing for Dr. White’s responses for I have my own responses. Which one of Vines’ questions would you like me to weigh in upon?

  • Jack

    In the vernacular (translating Larry-speak into English), “you can’t expect anyone who disagrees with Larry to be honest.”

  • Shawnie5

    Nobody should have responded to Vines in the first place, because he never responded to the original 40 questions but simply referred everyone to his book — a common tactic of those mortally afraid of open debate. Dr. White’s responses don’t matter a whole lot either, since we all have our own. Which one of the questions would you like me to weigh in upon?

  • Jack

    Well, Doc, I stood up to people bullying gays when I was in school, and I feel just as strongly today about leftists using gay issues to bully Christians and others who dare oppose their radical agendas.

    But the worst bullies here aren’t gays, but heterosexual lefties using gays as pawns against Christians. They do the same with race, gender, and ethnicity…..it’s a very old and cynical little game.

    I’m not buying it, nor should anyone else.

  • Jack

    It sounds like the other way around……The reason you are an atheist is that you wish God were Santa Claus and realize He’s anything but that. You want some half-senile old grandfather who rubber-stamps whatever you say or do ….but instead you ran into a Being who cares about you too much to put up with the lies and half-truths and self-deceptions that are part and parcel of living based on ego.

  • Jack

    Ricardo, while there is some correlation between homosexuality and mental illness, this doesn’t prove at all that homosexuality is itself a form of mental illness. It is certainly possible that the history of utter ostracism by society of homosexuals could lead in part to certain behaviors. That may not explain everything, but to dismiss this with the wave of a hand is a mistake.

    Moreover, I have known gay people who don’t appear, at least to me, to be suffering from such illness at all.

    Some of the worst cases of mental illness seem to be coming from heterosexual leftists who try to use gay people as battering rams against Christians. These Christophobes seem to me to be quite mentally ill. That’s why they’re not happy even now, with SCOTUS’s ruling.

  • Jack

    Ben, Scripture says what it says about homosexuality, but there are two kinds of extreme responses to it. The first is flat-out denial of the plain meaning of words — and of their interpretation not just by Christian commentators, but ancient Jewish commentators, who presumably understood their own texts better than others — and the second is to use such meaning as an excuse to hate gay people. The first offends truth and the second offends love. Christians who want to be both honest and loving do their best to avoid both extremes — honest regarding the meaning of the texts and loving in terms of how they treat their fellow human beings.

  • Jack

    LOL…..The idea that the traditional definition of marriage is some uniquely Christian concoction that requires some special religious justification betrays a stunning ignorance of world history and cultures.

    Andrew, you should sue your social studies teachers….

  • Shawnie5

    Mr. Grant should have waited to post Vines’ questions until Vines answered DeYoung’s original 40 questions. Except that we’d all still be waiting.

  • Jack

    The World According to the Left:

    Once upon a time, there was gay marriage everywhere…..in every culture and society across the globe.

    But along came those big bad sca-wy Christians — and they changed everything.

    They even conspired to rewrite the history of every society and culture — to make it look like none of them had ever even considered gay marriage, let alone sanctioned it.

    Bad…..bad Christians…..

  • Jack

    Larry’s the intellectual equivalent of people who have never stepped outside of their little hamlet…..because it’s too scary for them.

    Earth to Larry: Real life involves putting faith and reason together in just about everything you do. To think it’s suddenly different when it comes to religion is just silly. Faith means trust and most of what we trust in is based on some sort of rational calculus.

  • Jack

    Even Vine’s defenders can see his questions are those of an intellectual featherweight. And the funny thing is he thinks he’s being clever. Again, I’d cut him slack if he were a 14-year-old in his first debating class. But it’s sad to see an adult mind coming up with nothing better than this:

    “Oh, yeah? Well how would YOU feel if you were….bla bla bla?”

    And THAT is supposed to rock all the adults in the room back on their heels?

  • Jack

    Becca, meet Strawman Argument…..Strawman Argument, meet Becca…..

    Actually no introductions are necessary…..the two are seemingly inseparable.

  • Jack

    On the subject of miracles, David Hume takes the reader on his Magical Circular Reasoning Tour. For those who are more linear, Hume’s just another…..as lefties would say, dead old white lad.

  • bjt5

    Ben the atheist – You cannot believe in evolution and at the same time believe that homosexuality is genetic. Talk about a trait that would be long since be purged from the human genome, failure to procreate is it. Given differential reproduction as the means of selection, even reduced offspring is deadly. And there is no escape in recessive genetic tendencies that produce first generation homosexuality because that only pushes the extinction out a few generations.

  • Tim

    Seriously? These are supposed to be problematic for us who believe Scripture about this topic?

    Oh, and I just love question 21:

    “Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?”

    Oh, I don’t know…have you stopped beating your wife?


  • TheProdigal

    “Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?” No. Homosexuality IS a choice. To say it’s not a choice means your are saying one of three things:

    1. God is unfair. To call homosexuality a sin if it is genetic is just as unfair of God as it would be if God were to say having brown eyes is a sin. Sin ALWAYS means there is a choice; or

    2. The Bible is not God’s inerrant, inspired Word. The Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin. It says so in the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact, Christ defined marriage as between one man and one woman; or

    3. Both of the above.

  • Pingback: Rainbow Colored Questions With Replies | Gentle Reformation()

  • Pingback: A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality: An Afterword. | The Apologetics Minion()

  • TMM

    Calvin’s fallibility is precisely the point. The original article by Kevin DeYoung had a question that basically said “who are you to disagree with Calvin on homosexuality?”. Well, now the question is, “who are you to disagree with Calvin on slavery?”.

    If Calvin is not sufficient authority to prove a position on slavery, he isn’t sufficient authority to prove a position on homosexuality either. The same with any other figure from Church history.

  • TMM

    ” Do you agree that the Bible says that homosexual behavior IS a sin?”

    It’s funny. People take a Bible story where a man wants to rape another man and declare this is proof of homosexuality’s great wickedness.

    Somehow, when people read one of the several Bible stories involving a man raping a woman, it’s all about how bad rape is.

    In other words, I agree that the Bible says that certain examples of homosexual behaviour are a sin. I don’t agree that it is obvious that this is BECAUSE they are homosexual behaviour. I feel comfortable agreeing that the Bible has harsh things to say about homosexual rape and homosexual pagan orgies, but then the Bible doesn’t seem entirely keen on heterosexual rape and heterosexual pagan orgies either.

  • TMM

    There is far more heterosexual anal sex going on in this world than homosexual, and your parody of fissures, scarring and colostomy bags has been disproven time and again.

  • TMM

    Or we could also consider that our life is hard because of the sins of others.

    If we take Scripture as our starting point, we will quickly discover, for example, that the Bible clearly states that Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality. Ezekiel says what the sin of Sodom was, and understanding that sheds revelatory light on Jesus’ reference to Sodom in Matthew 10 and Luke 10. Light so revelatory, in fact, that it makes far more sense of the passage. Sodom was known for the sin of inhospitality, not the sin of homosexuality. Early Jewish commentary backs this up.

    So yeah, I’m more than ready to start with Scripture, thanks. What it actually says, not the clumsy summary version that people parrot which suggests that an entire town was homosexual and yet the population didn’t crash and Lot still offered his daughters to them. If you want Scriptural assessment, let’s assess your assumptions about Scripture.

  • TMM

    “God destroyed nations because of homosexuality.”

    If you are referring to Sodom, you simply have not read your Bible. It does not say that. If you actually sit down and think about what Genesis says, and compare it to what Ezekiel says and what Jesus says in Matthew 10 and Luke 10, you realise that it’s not true and that the word “sodomy” is a vicious, stupid lie.

  • TMM

    “The Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin.”

    No, it says no such thing. The Bible doesn’t mention homosexuality, once, because the term simply didn’t exist. The concept of sexuality didn’t exist.

    You are basing your “clearly” on various people’s interpretations. Interpretations that are, in some cases (such as the story of Sodom) demonstrably wrong from the pages of the Bible itself.

    Here’s a great demonstration of the assumptions involved: when the Bible depicts a heterosexual rape, do you include that all heterosexual sex is wrong? No. So why would you conclude that a homosexual rape is a condemnation of all homosexual sex?

  • Shawnie5

    The reference is not to Sodom. The reference is to Leviticus 20 where the sexual prohibitions are found, which goes on to state very matter-of-factly that God judged and rejected the Caanannite nations for these practices.

  • Ben in oakland

    No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It just means that you are repeating something you read somewhere, and have no more knowledge of the subject than a pig does of lipstick.

    The Mormon and catholic churches both disagree with you.

    virtually every medical, scientific, and professional organization in the entire civilized world disagree with you.

    The testimony of millions of gay people disagree with you.

    The failure of either Freud or the fraud of exgay “therapy” also disagree with you.

    but your numbered conclusions are otherwise correct. Thanks for offering them.

  • Ben in oakland

    Once you find the roots of your ANTIGAY behavior, you will realize that being ANTIGAY is a choice for any of the hundreds of reasons thst surround you. NO you was not born ANTIGAY, you were introduced tovthat style of life and you decidad to embrace it. This have anither component, the spiritual one, maybe too profound for your understandind. Remember we do not fight against blood and flesh but against spiritual beings, and you loose.

    See how easy it is? Anybody can be an illiterate jackass and a terrible typist.

  • Ben in oakland

    The world according to the right:

    Once upon a time, there was heterosexuality everywhere, and only heterosexuality…..in every culture and society across the globe. There was never such a thing as progress, the reconsideration of harmful, ancient beliefs.

    Jack, you should be well aware that of all arguments, the one from tradition is the weakest.

  • Pingback: 40 questions for Christians who oppose gay marriage–answered by a Christian. | livelaughlowrey()

  • Ben in oakland

    Well, then Phil. You would be wrong.

    But that never stopped anyone from using his religion to harm other people.

    The Mormon and catholic churches both disagree with you. virtually every medical, scientific, and professional organization in the entire civilized world disagree with you. The testimony of millions of gay people disagree with you. The failure of either Freud or the fraud of exgay “therapy” to turn anyone into a heterosexual also disagree with you.

    But that never stopped anyone from using his religion to harm other people.

  • Holly
  • Pingback: THIS & THAT and Favorite Quotes of the Week | Coram Deo ~()

  • Bill Trip
  • Pingback: 40 Questions, but only One Question is Needed - davidould.net()

  • Pingback: Link Wednesday 5: SCOTUS Ruled; Now What? | ilostmyprayerhanky()

  • Pingback: 40 Answers and 2 Questions for Matthew Vines | Pacific Piano Performance Posts()

  • Pingback: 40 Answers and 2 Questions for Matthew Vines - 101.3 Faith FM()

  • Pingback: 40 Answers for Kevin DeYoung Part 2: A Panel Discussion! | John Fournelle()

  • Melissa

    Or male husband and many wives? Male husbands and his wife’s slave? Cause that’s all in the Bible too. How about your divorced and remarried friends? Do you condemn them for their adulterous lifestyle? Do you allow them at your table and in your church? Are you advocating for polygamy and against divorce as stridently as you stand in your opposition to gay marriage? Cause THOSE THINGS ARE BIBLICAL TOO.

  • Kevin O’Brien

    Mr. Vines, answer directly, the two questions, with scripture supporting your answers, in Dr. Michael Brown’s article:

    Now, my two questions to Matthew Vines, since I noticed in our brief debate that he did not quote a single scripture in clear support of homosexual relationships.

    1. Can you give me a single, unambiguous biblical example of a God-blessed homosexual relationship?

    2. Do you agree that every reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is decidedly negative?

    I appeal to everyone reading this article to read with heart and mind, to search the Word carefully and prayerfully, to listen to followers of Jesus who have renounced homosexual practice, and to be moved by what our God says more than what our (often fickle and misleading) emotions might say. It is the truth alone that will set us free and, to repeat, Jesus is enough for all of us.

    Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/40-answers-and-2-questions-for-matthew-vines-141292/#gyjGgBE47eBqXhFW

  • Anthony

    I’m a Christian opposed to same-sex marriage, but I read all of these questions with an open-mind.

    Here are some questions that I would ask to anyone who thought that this list would provoke a change of heart:

    1) Do you accept that men struggling with pedophilia wish that they didn’t?

    2) How many pedophiles would say you are one of their closest friends?

    3) Do you accept that adult sexual relationships are not a realistic option for many pedophiles?

    4) If someone struggling with pedophilia didn’t believe that they could be “cured”, then would celibacy be the only option for them?

    5) What is your answer for pedophiles who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate, but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?

    6) How many pedophiles have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy? How long?

    7) Have these questions convinced you to change your attitude towards pedophilia?

    8) How do these questions become less unconvincing when the…

  • Kevin O’Brien

    Mark, forget the Leviticus chant that comes from the LBGT community claiming that Christian groups use THAT, and THAT alone as their objection to same sex marriage.

    One thing Mr. Vines cannot do, and apparently you as well, is support his position with sound scriptural reference.

    Try reading ROMANS 1, through to the end. Perhaps the word HOMOSEXUAL is not printed (because the word did not exist then) but it does clearly spell out homosexuality and that those who practice it are….. “and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” AND “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

  • Kevin O’Brien

    Jesus’ instruction was to follow HIM, not other Christians, so by making yourself seek other Christians as the standard on which your faith rests, has you chasing after idols and not on the true message of the Gospel.

  • pk

    I agree – Mr Vines’ questions are very weak in comparison!

  • Tyriq

    He answers your questions here


  • Tyriq

    The Bible says “lying, adultery, fornication” and all sorts of things that you’re doing is wrong. Lawd, Help us all. Paul was, AND STILL IS, right. There is NOT ONE who’s worthy of the Kingdom.

  • Pingback: 40 Eye-rolls from a Christian who’s been waving that rainbow flag for years | Kelly Thinks Too Much()

  • Joel

    Sure, the Bible never, ever said homosexuality is wrong or sinful if you ignore passages like Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; and 1 Tim.1:10 that do say it.

    I would have more respect for people if they would just admit that they’r ignoring these passages. However, they choose to dance around it, redefine and do what they do. This shows me their true character. It’s like a person appearing to be sincere, asking you to trust him when you catch him trying to steal your wallet.

    In the same vein, why would I trust a person like Matthew Vines or proponents like him to be sincere when they don’t even try to read and interpret the Bible legitimately?

  • Pingback: Michael Brown: 40 Answers and 2 Questions for Matthew Vines | Romania Evanghelica()

  • Kymberly

    Agree Totally! My statement when people come up and ask if I am accepting of this culture.. What does the BIBLE say? We are not here to stone you to death because you made a decision, I’m here to tell you what the word says and live by and for the WORD. Often times we don’t … well shoot, most of the time we don’t but know the difference in messing up and waddling in the sin.. Homosexuality is a SIN.. point blank and the sad part is I know most people who have chose this lifestyle know this… WAIT, and for those who tell the world that you didn’t choose this lifestyle… well… GOD makes us in his LIKENESS.. and he never makes mistakes… He made us to spread the gospel of HIM… He gave us instructions (THE BIBLE) to live by… along with GRACE and MERCY each day… so telling the world that you were born that way … um NO!
    Follow the light not the dark!

  • Pingback: Dr. Michael Brown Has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for ‘Gay’ Christian Matthew Vines — Charisma News | NUHISON()

  • Pingback: Dr. Michael Brown Has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for ‘Gay’ Christian Matthew Vines | Last Days News4Christians()

  • James Grimes

    Matthew has put himself in a position where he has to defend his sexual lifestyle at all cost. Biblical truth is of no concern to him. His only option is to exchange light for darkness and darkness for ;light. He has to create an alternate society in order to feel justified.

    Those who hold to the Bible as God’s absolute Word, inerrant and infallible in every way has known TRUTH. As Jesus had said, “the TRUTH will set you free.”

    Beware of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He only knows lies and deception.

  • James Grimes

    You are delusional.

  • Pingback: My Own Response to Matthew Vines’ “40 Questions for Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality” |()

  • 2 Timothy 3: 16
    16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Its very sad and unfortunate that the gay activists are no longer reverencing the Bible as the word of God. They see it as a compilation of men’s opinion on issues of life relating to their culture and generation. If they still believe in their heart that the Bible is the word of God and are sensitive to the Holy Spirit as the Author, they wouldn’t be defending their sinful lifestyle with human sentiments and emotions. What the Lord requires of every disobedient child of His is to repent and forsake their rebellious lifestyle and He would by His mercy forgive them and give them a clean heart. Its a pity that many have not accepted the love of God but rather harding their hearts against the TRUTH.

  • Adam


    Mr Vines, all you have done is ask people what they think about everything….where are the questions referring to scripture as in the original article? You avoid them because you know the answers you seek are not there!
    You base your entire argument on how people feel about the topic rather than the facts presented in the Bible.
    You are a false teacher and there is only one place you will end up by leading others down a sinful path!

  • Anonymous

    Apologies. Scrolling on my phone I bumped the Report Abuse button and it wouldn’t let me undo it. Clearly not an abusive comment.

  • Pingback: Answering the 40 Questions | Full Contact Christianity()

  • Pingback: 40 Answers and 2 Questions for Matthew Vines()

  • Roy Thomas

    Very well then. It stands to reason that since I was born with a genetic predisposition to obesity and that my continued failed actions in life demonstrate that changing who I am is folly. I shall stop all efforts to avoid gluttony as food brings me great pleasure. An over eater is who I am…

    Oh wait if I do that it will kill me. Sin leads to death. Mine or anyone elses.

    To the church – don’t expect the world to embrace Biblical morality.

    To the homosexual – stop looking for the Churches approval.

  • Chris Portare

    JR, “irregardless” is not a word, and asserting something is a fact does not make it so.

  • Chris Portare

    Ben makes sense and governments based on religion – basically any religion – impose the most toxic forms of tyranny. See Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and most recently ISIS or ISOL. “God” is NOWHERE mentioned in the foundational law of our country, the Constitution, and that for a strong reason. What we see now is the fundamentalist so-called Christians robing themselves in the mantle of martyrdom when their “special rights” (e.g. exemption of churches from anti-discrimination laws and, even worse, exemption from payment of taxes) are questioned and when they claim religious freedom when they mean religious prejudice.

  • Chris Portare

    Because those with your views use their tax-exempt pulpits to lobby for laws to make gay people criminals, to take away their children, to allow them to be fired for who they love, and to prevent them from enjoying the rights and responsibilities of state recognized relationship, i.e., “marriage”. If those with your view practiced “live and let live” they would be less worthy of vilification. Now go cry how this hurts your feelings and is just SO unfair.

  • Chris Portare

    I was with you until you asked whether they could still call themselves Christians if they did not endorse killing homosexuals. Many of the Christian nation crowd support exactly that, and it’s frightening that they wield influence in government. They’ve co-opted the Republican Party like cuckoos take other birds’ nests and turned it into a loon room.

  • Chris Portare

    Would anal sex with a woman be OK then? Is it about the anus or whether two guys or two gals are attracted to each other sexually? If both are consenting, free adults, where is your interest in it?

  • Chris Portare

    Being a Baptist is clearly a choice but it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion; so what difference does it make if being gay is a choice or not?

  • Chris Portare

    Rubbish! presented without evidence, and worthy therefore of being disregarded just as quickly.

  • Chris Portare

    The Bible is “inerrant” when it can be used to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with you. Funny how interracial marriage bans, once so very Biblical, were reinterpreted after 1967’s Loving vs. Virginia decision…today’s prejudices will pass away with the old bigots (“traditionalists”) just as other views did (such as that women should be silent and submit to their husbands…oh wait, that one is still moving). Younger people don’t care and you can’t persuade from the bumper sticker argument. (“God said it, I believe it, that settles it” – are you sure?)

  • Pingback: Conservative Christians Find A New Enemy: Other Christians | All-len-All()

  • Pingback: Christian Celibacy + Suicidal Despair = Matthew Vines’ False Teaching | gospelanalytix()

  • Pingback: Hanging With Sinners()

  • Peter’s Legacy

    You need to understand that many Christians like myself are not trying to lower the ‘moral bar’ as you call it. We are trying to raise it. We do recognize and affirm that the religious ethic for marriage is more than base animal instinct. It is the moral principle of two mature adults committing to a lifetime of fidelity, honor, support and respect. Think about it…if you define marriage as two people with complementary gonads–you’re talking about base animal instinct.

  • Donald McKinley

    I’ve read through majority of posts and repeatedly see Matthew Vine’s blog termed research. As a researcher, I see I valid research, only opinions. While the Bible never uses the term homosexuality,
    the act as well as people who practice the act are condemned repeatedly. At he end of the day, the Word, not our opinion is what matters

  • Pingback: Answers for Same-Sex "Marriage" Advocate Matthew Vines()

  • Pingback: 40 Shades of Sentimentalism | The 96th Thesis()

  • a LGBT Christian sitting in church is there for God. Every human being is a child of God (according to the countless religions out there, some far older than Christianity). Christianity used to be a religion of great evil (Crusades, Witch trials, Inquisition). This modern world has no room for conservative religion. The earth is round and orbits the Sun. It’s far older than 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs! If we didn’t have separation of Church and State Conservative Christianity would resemble ISIS without guns.

  • Pingback: How Empathy Is Killing Us | CAPITOL ZERO()

  • Pingback: Dr. Michael Brown Has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for ‘Gay’ Christian, Matthew Vines | Opinionated()

  • Pingback: How Empathy Is Killing Us()

  • Bruce

    These comments are too funny. How most of you are making up God’s mind for him really is interesting. I mean, who are you to declare what God wants huh? Can’t you all just leave personal marriages at a personal level and NOT get involved with their business?
    Why would God want you to attack two of his own creations? Why would he put his trust in you to decide Gay marriage is wrong? The day I believe its wrong is the day you can provide tangible proof that’s NOT interpretation that God dislikes the idea. But you can’t, so instead of worrying about God’s feelings and homosexual’s feelings, I suggest you worry about your own.

  • Addjoa

    Yes sexuality sanctifies marriage, but the biblical God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. How is this difficult to comprehend. God does not force us to obey him. If you want to enjoy your homosexuallity as a lifestyle don’t waste your time trying to get us to accept it just do it and let us who want to obey God obey our God.

  • Pingback: Answers for Same-Sex "Marriage" Advocate Matthew Vines()

  • Pingback: Answers for Same-Sex "Marriage" Advocate Matthew Vines()

  • Pingback: Answers for Same-Sex "Marriage" Advocate Matthew Vines()

  • Pingback: Answers for Same-Sex "Marriage" Advocate Matthew Vines()

  • Ben

    First of all, the bible says absolutely nothing about sexuality. Sexuality is “biological,” located deep withing all species. If you listen carefully, you hear that the “sounds of nature” are just creatures trying to get laid.

    Sexuality is part of our evolution. It’s why species dance, why they strut, why they wear flamboyant plumage… all to snag a date.

    The bible doesn’t know this. All it sees (through observational bias) is “behavior,” which it doesn’t bother to follow further or question with scientific method.

    The bible is not science, and should not be treated as such.

    If the only reason you have to hold an anti-gay opinion is “the bible,” then you’re using a book to hide your own bigotry behind, pure and simple.

    Teach the bible in bible class and leave it there. Teach biology in science classes. We are products of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution… and so is our sexuality. Let’s stop pretending that science isn’t relevant to who we are.