This is part 4 of our look at Matthew Vines’ pre-commitment or starting points that prejudice him towards rejecting the Bible’s rejection of same-sex relationship even before he began researching for his book God and the Gay Christian. Here in this post I want to address a paragraph in the book in which he thinks it would be hard for Christians to embrace the traditional interpretation of the Bible’s rejection of homosexuality.
Matthew Vines In His Own Words
On page 28 of the book Vines stated the following:
If you are like me, you grew up in a community that embraced this view of human sexuality without controversy. But increasingly, even for Christians who affirm the Bible’s full authority, the traditional understanding has become harder to accept. Especially for young believers, the trouble starts when we put names, faces, and outcomes to what the traditional interpretation means in practice”
In other words, for younger Christians who personally know homosexuals and what they go through, Vines believes that this would make them bent towards rejecting the traditional interpretation of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. Note here that Vines has said nothing about any consideration for what does the Bible objectively have to say about same-sex relations; just the mere knowledge of a homosexual makes it hard to accept that homosexuality is a sin according to Vines. But is this without it’s problem?
The Problem with Vines’ view
- Matthew Vines’ line of reasoning here does not logically follow. Just because one personally knows a homosexual it does not logically follow that the desire and behavior of homosexuality itself is not sinful. Vines commits a categorical fallacy since knowing a person with a certain desire and/or behavior is not the same thing as knowing the ethical value of a desire and behavior.
- The error of Vines’ reasoning is best illustrated when it is applied to other sins. Vines himself believes that adultery is a sin because he believes that Christians must be in committed monogamous relationships. Yet is Vines willing to say that his “traditional understanding” about the sinfulness of adultery “has become harder to accept” once he can put names and faces to adulterers? There are some “nice,” “kind” and “loving” adulterers out there. Does Vines know of any? Does knowing adulterers as persons somehow make the act of adultery somehow less heinous?
- Again, being able to “put names and faces” of individuals associated with certain pet sins doesn’t mean that it must be harder to accept those sins as sins. Think of all those who work intimately counseling alcoholics, drug addicts and felons as their calling. Their familiarity with those who practice sinful behavior and struggle with sinful desires doesn’t make them necessarily less inclined to see sins as sins.
- Make no mistake that Romans 1:26-27 does not speak highly of same-sex relationship: “26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.” This passage is situated in Romans chapter one that talks about the sinfulness of man and God’s judgement.
- What are we to make of those who personally know homosexuals and suddenly approve of homosexual desires and acts? After identifying same-sex relationship as sinful and part of God’s judgment Paul goes on to say in Romans 1:32 that “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.” God does not approve of those who call what is sinful as “good.”
- This problematic pre-commitment is a symptom of Matthew Vines’ misplaced role of experience over Scripture which we have documented and refuted in part 2.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging and commented:
I’m really enjoying this series Pastor Jim!
Thanks Vincent for the reblog!
Jim,
His logic absolutely doesn’t follow but it is common thought today.
There is a new reality show coming on soon about the life of a transgender teen. The obvious goal here is to get viewers to like, sympatize with, and get to “know” this person so it will be much harder to accept to biblical teaching that what he/she is doing is wrong. Same thing with homosexuals on Modern Family and on many other shows and movies.
Great post,
James
Good observation James. It speaks volumes when the other side present their case appealing more to feelings rather than sound logic
Great lines of reasoning SJ. It is a sad thing to see how blinded Matthew Vines is to the truth of the Word of God. Stop and think about what awaits him in eternity… not only embracing sin but attempting to pursuade others to do the same. May God’s grace intervene in his life and show him the truth concerning homosexuality and his own personal sinful condition before it is too late. may we all pray for his salvation.
This comment prompted me to pray for him
I wonder what Vines makes of older people who do know, and care about, individuals who are same-sex attracted, yet are fully committed to the Biblical standard of sexual morality. Does being older make us wrong?
I know right? Matthew Vines sounds like he thinks older folks must be ignorant bigots which is quite juvenile
This is a good post, and the same arguments that can be made against Vines position need to be made against false teachers as well. False teacher are always nice… but what they do makes them brood of vipers and wolves in sheep’s clothing. What this shows us is that sin is far more destructive than it appears to us, fallen humanity.
Thanks for reading this post. Good point about the parallels with false teachers
Did I say something false? If so, what was false? The command of Jesus in Matthew 18 applies to you.
Are you saying the voice of Jesus is NOT above every other voice?
Are you saying that the voice of Jesus is NOT different than, and more important than, the voice of Paul?
Are you saying that Paul was NOT a Pharisee? He specifically stated that he was – are you saying Paul lied about that because it was politically expedient at the time, and we should follow Paul’s example because “Paul said so”?
What have I said that is not true?
Matthew I have no idea what you are talking about and its not even related to this post. Please refrain from being a troll, this is your last warning.
[…] Matthew Vines’ Pre-commitments in His Case for Gay Christians Part 4: Knowing Homosexuals makes on… […]
[…] advocate Matthew Vines in which in the past I dealt with his theological method that assumes knowing Homosexuals makes one lean against Biblical View. That link is worth reading for a more thorough critique of Eugene Peterson’s sloppy […]