Posts Tagged ‘Homosexuality’

Should the government change the definition of marriage?


Read Full Post »

Is there such a thing as a Christian gay?

Is it like saying, “a dog cat?”  Is it a dog or a cat? Does the dog looks like a cat? It must be a play of words to communicate something that is not literal, right? Unless you do a revision of the definition of dog and cat.


Read Full Post »


The question, “is homosexuality sinful” is not asked or questioned as much now in your regular Starbucks time with your typical Sunday “Christian” friends because it is overwhelmingly stated in the Holy Scripture. It is really difficult to twist Scripture when it says “homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

The issue of same-sex attraction is not as clear for some. But, this is an issue that every thinking Christian should have a Biblical answer.

And I do believe that the Scripture is clear about the issue.

Romans 1:26 speaks of this attraction. The clause “degrading passions”, “vile passions”, “dishonorable passions” and “shameful lust” speaks to same sex attraction. The context and the following verse speaks about homosexual relation. Even the attraction that has yet to physically materialize is unnatural. Verse 27 states that they will receive the due penalty of their error.

Paul does not diminished the seriousness of this error. This error will lead to eternal punishment. Friends, this is a costly error to make.

For a detailed write up, see this paper that was presented at Evangelical Theological Society.

Read Full Post »


Would I attend a gay wedding?  This could be answered in a few different ways depending on how the question is tailored. First, I would not attend a gay wedding in token of support of a sinful union.  Why? because marriage is a monogamous relationship that is between one man and one woman (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:22-24).  That is how God constituted marriage.  No matter how hard the LGBT community fights to change the law concerning marriage, God’s definition of marriage will never change. It is a grievous attack against God when sinners try to assault this institute that is one of the cradles of human civilization.  So to attend a wedding in support/recognize the sinful homosexual union as a marriage is a direct contradiction to Christianity.  Calling yourself a Christian and at the same time approve of a gay wedding is a oxymoron.  Paul states in Romans 1:32, “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” (NASB). Wow, Paul said those who practice such things are worthy of death.   Clearly Paul warns against one practicing sin and approving of sin. Although sin is sin and any sin can take one to Hell without Christ, not every sin is viewed in the same manner.  Some sins were deemed enough for capital punishment in OT times.  Hence, certain sins were considered abominations (Deut. 22:5).

Can I attend a gay wedding by not supporting the homosexual lifestyle?  Some Christians would have no problem with this.  Even though there is no explicit verse and chapter concerning this scenario, it does not mean that there are no principles in Scripture whereby we are unable to extract from.  We can, it is there.  For example, Scripture does not have a chapter or verse prohibiting internet pornography, abortion procedures, or human cloning, but we can extract biblical principles that are embedded in Scripture in order to make a clarion call against those sinful activities. To ignore biblical principles, because there is no direct chapter and verse that speaks specifically about the particular matter is faulty and dangerous hermeneutics.  Those who attend a gay wedding in this case and; believe they can attend a gay wedding without any repercussions;  have no qualms about it, and treat it as a light matter, justify their attendance as a symbol of relationship building so that they can win the homosexual to the Lord.  They will quote passages from Scripture which I think is taken out of context.  One passage in particular is from 1 Cor. 5:9-13 (see also Matt. 9:11; to name a few).  Although both passages do not prohibit interaction with rank and file unbelievers, it does not mean one can use it as a justification to attend an event that celebrates sin.  To do so, is to go beyond the author’s intention. Interacting with sinners does not mean to be subjected to the terms and conditions of the expectations of unbelievers.  Yes, Jesus spent time with sinners, but He was not subject to their terms nor approved their love of their sinful condition. Nor did He stood quiet or remained neutral about their sins. And He did not substitute relationship building in place of the Gospel.  He came to preach repentance and hope for the lost (Mk 1:14-15).  That was His way of relationship building. There are many ways to reach out to a gay person rather than taking the route of attending a gay wedding.  Logically speaking, a gay wedding has a purpose.  It’s purpose is to invite guests to celebrate their immoral and abominable lifestyle.  Attending their wedding propagates their lifestyle.  I use abominable, because Scripture refers to that particular sin as abominable, immoral, and an unnatural (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27) lifestyle.

In addition, Scripture commands all to honor marriage (Hebrews 13:4).  Homosexuals who want others to recognize their union do not honor marriage. Marriage is only between a man and women.  Even if a believer marries a unbeliever, they are married, but not so in a gay wedding.  Do you think you are honoring marriage by attending an event that attacks the institute of marriage? God’s anger and wrath is directed against fornicators and adulterers.

I have a problem when a Christian attends a gay wedding and acts nonchalant or have no qualms about it.  Perhaps one needs to meditate on Scripture more in order to have these heavy truths of the true nature of marriage simmer in one’s mind.  How can one attend a gay wedding which God considers immoral? How can one lift up the toast that is used as a token of recognizing their union?  If you lift up your toast, you are one who gives approval of the sin ( Romans 1:26-27).

What if I attend the gay wedding and let people know clearly my position?  Even though you attend a gay wedding, it is still mainly and significantly an event that celebrates sin.  Plus, how clear you make your position known will depend how many people you share with.  It is safe to say that not everyone will know your Christian position and most will still probably treat you as an advocate of the gay wedding. If one invites me to a gay wedding, it would be to preach the Gospel, but it will not be beautiful.  It will be ugly.  Why?  Because the message I preach, although loving, will be very offensive to the hearers, because as a Gospel minister, I am obligated to expose the sin that is before me.  But I highly doubt one will invite me.  If one was invited to preach, you better make sure you are one that is not ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16) and one who preaches with boldness, passion, and conviction.  Moreover, I do not believe that attending a gay wedding is helping the person.  It is not helping, because it is magnifying and emboldening their sin that is being celebrated.  If you want to help a friend, there are others ways to do it.  If you want to help a person enslaved to pornography, you are not going to take him to a strip club or the Playboy Mansion.  Or if you want to help one who has trouble with drugs, you are not going to bring his old friends who are drug dealers with you near him. Attending their wedding only permeates their rebellion. I think you get my point.

I admire Christians who desire to seek for opportunities in order to reach out to sinners, but I think that some of the ways that it is being done is actually doing much more harm.  The motive to help a friend by attending a gay wedding is misguided.  We must stand up for truth–even if it means there will be division (Luke 12:51-53; John 15:18) and serious backlash.  We must be holy in our endeavors.  We must be distinct and separate from the world because Jesus is different. That was a biblical truth seen in the Book of Leviticus.  It’s major theme was on the holiness of God and how His people were to maintain a holy relationship with Him.  He was clear because He made categorical distinctions between the clean and the unclean.  His people’s lives that spans from what they eat, said, and wore, were all governed by God.  It was done in such a way that the nations saw a difference between them and Israel.  Their difference reflected the holiness of God.  May we too, apply those biblical principles when we discuss the LGBT movement.

What are the dangerous implications of attending a gay wedding?

  • First off I would like to reiterate that Jesus did hang out with sinners, but He never associated with their sin or condoned their sin.  Attending a homosexual wedding is tantamount to associating and condoning their sin.  Unless you protest against the wedding, then I think that would absolve you from associating and condoning their sin.  But I highly doubt they will invite you for that purpose.  One antidote, I like to remind myself so that I can mortify the temptation from being a people pleaser, is to approach evangelism and the Gospel through Jesus’ example.  I can’t see Jesus attending a gay wedding and keeping quiet about their sin (See 2 Kings 10).
  • My friend brought up a good point concerning the dangerous implications of attending a gay wedding for the sake of relationship building: “I think a similar question would be, ‘If my Hindu friend invites me to celebrate a festival in celebration of his gods, should I attend and participate?’ I think we all know the answer to that.”  Or “Why not pay money that goes towards the facility whereby babies are murdered so that you could build a relationship with the abortion doctors?”  As you can see, it opens up the flood gates of logical incoherence and inconsistency. You are bound to have a plethora of problems if you exalt relationship building above the Gospel. The Gospel is about repentance and faith in Christ.  As important as relationship building is, that is not what the Gospel is about.  The Gospel is about His glory and about saving sinners from their sin and Hell.
  • I believe that using 1 Cor. 5:9-13 for the purpose of justifying the right to attend a gay wedding is an example of twisting the Scripture.  The passage in 1 Cor. 5:9-13 is giving procedures in how to deal with hypocrites.  It is not a passage that is intended to teach how to deal with the reprobate.  This passage must be read carefully in its context.
  • Will attending the gay wedding violate your conscience (Rom. 14:13-22, 23) or stumble others (Rom. 14:23)?  If so, you are sinning against God.
  • Will it rob God of His glory that is revealed through His holiness?
  • Will it cause you to compromise the Gospel?
  • Will it cause others to view you as a supporter of this celebration of sin?

What are your thoughts readers?  

Read Full Post »




In January 2012, I was fortunate to take a class with Dr. John S. Feinberg, the son of the famous professor at Talbot Seminary: Dr. Charles L. Feinberg, who went home with the Lord.  Dr. Charles Feinberg was a major “think tank” at the seminary he was teaching at and had a major influence in the life of Pastor John MacArthur.  Dr. Feinberg was “professor of Semitics and Old Testament.   He has written books on prophecy and the Old Testament.  For Pastor MacArthur’s statements concerning Dr. Feinberg’s father, please see this interview: A Retrospective on 40 Years: John MacArthur with Rick Holland on January 25, 2009.

Moreover, his son, Dr. John Feinberg is a scholar in his own rights too.  I am glad I was privileged to take a class with him on ethics.  In light of the class lectures and book, I came across many concepts.  For example, we came across “Christian decision making.”  In light of the concept called Christian decision making, Dr. Feinberg takes these categories into account: “the issues involved, fundamental definitions, distinctions, and principles (i.e. ethics and morality and descriptive and prescriptive language); approaches to ethics or ethical theories that confront the Christian, Scripture and ethics (discusses the Bible and modern ethics, OT Law and NT era, etc.), Christian liberty, and the decision-making procedure used for moral decisions.[1]

For the sake of clarity, in this post, I will not only share about what I read from the book, but I will add some content from the class lectures because the lectures are somewhat related to the book.

There are so many topics to discuss from the book and class lectures.  But for the sake of the post’s length, I will try to narrow the topic.  With that said, I will first cover euthanasia.  Euthanasia is a topic that Dr. Feinberg does not take lightly.  It is an issue that he somewhat was confronted with.  Some of the ethics surrounding it is somewhat related to abortion and have similar principles.  If one understands the biblical implications towards euthanasia, one will somewhat have a good grasp of how to approach abortion.

According to Dr. Feinberg, the term euthanasia comes from two Greek words that mean “good,” “well,” and “death.”[2]  In other words, it means to die well or die a good death.[3]  However, it is really not a good death because the practice has negative moral implications.[4]  In the sections of the book that covers euthanasia, Dr. Feinberg, investigates the different types of euthanasia, presents the arguments used to support euthanasia; and he then presents the Christian argumentation.[5] The key issue at stake regarding this topic is whether euthanasia is ever justifiable or whether one is obligated to preserve life in all circumstances.  In some cases, euthanasia is easy to answer, but in others, it is more complex and requires more critical thinking.  Since euthanasia carries many ethical implications, understanding the terminology is helpful in order to work through the different types of euthanasia.


The different types are as follow: voluntary/non-voluntary/involuntary euthanasia, active vs. passive euthanasia, direct vs. indirect euthanasia, death with dignity, mercy killing, managerial euthanasia, death selection.[6]


Besides the importance of understanding the different terminologies, Dr. Feinberg, presents the case for euthanasia by covering non-Scriptural arguments concerning personhood, quality of life vs. sanctity of life, one’s understanding of God, consequential ethics, freedom of choice, justification of some cases of euthanasia, economics of euthanasia, double-effect arguments.[7]  He also provides biblical and theological considerations concerning these categories of euthanasia: the command against killing isn’t absolute, the valuelessness of suffering, self-sacrifice, Phil. 1:21 (to die is gain).[8]


In order to make the book more comprehensive concerning euthanasia, there are not only talking points of the case for euthanasia, but also talking points of the case against euthanasia.[9]  It is here, where, the book covers some details of the non-Scriptural arguments such as the double-effect argument and the wedge argument.[10]  The wedge argument believes that an action that is apparently unobjectionable in itself would set in motion a train of events leading ultimately to an undesirable outcome (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995).  In other words, the point of the wedge argument in euthanasia is the belief that some lives are not worth living.  If so, where do you draw the line?  This opens up the floodgates to immorality.  Under the umbrella of the case against euthanasia, Dr. Feinberg also covers the biblical and theological considerations concerning the value in suffering, life, death, and afterlife.

The book also speaks about the importance of decision-making and the different forms of euthanasia.[11]  In tackling this issue, the author raised a series of considerations a Christian should take into account as he approaches this matter. Once he does that then he could respond with proper responses based on biblical principles.  When dealing with euthanasia, the person must take into account the criteria of death, consequentialism/non-consequential­ism, views on personhood, freedom and moral responsibility, Scriptural principles on life, death,  afterlife, and the moral assessment of major forms of euthanasia.[12]

One of the major points mentioned earlier was the criteria of death.  The author conveys that the criteria must be observed critically before assuming that the patient is dead.  For example, the family of the patient must ask the doctor if the patient is actually dead before removing the technology.  The family member must very hesitant if the criteria is not met.  The criteria can be as follows: observe if the patient is receptive, responsive; check if there is a flat brain wave (EGG) for at least 10 minutes, check for movements, spontaneous breathing for one hour or more.  Also find out if they will still breathe if the machine is taken out and check for reflexes and fixed dilated pupils.

I know I mentioned earlier the terms: consequentialist (decisions are based on consequences) or non-consequentialist.  But in order to make a case against euthanasia, Dr. Feinberg points out that accepting and understanding one of these terms will determine if a brother, sister, wife, husband, etc. will agree if ending the person’s life is biblical or not.  Some who decide to end a person’s life observes the contemporary view instead of the biblical view.

The contemporary view believes that your body is yours and you are to decide to end one’s life based on the resources given.  The biblical view conveys that we are told not to take innocent life because the body does not belong to us (Ex. 20:13; Ecc. 3:2; Job 14:5; James 4:13-15).  Before trying to end a person’s life, people also need to calculate the risk.  For example, Dr. Feinberg mentioned that when he was preaching at a youth service, a couple approached him and told him they wished that they heard about his views on euthanasia earlier because the couple knew someone who was dealing with terminal illness.  The biblical knowledge of euthanasia would have helped make the decision easier.

On another note, the author also mentions that people need to understand that they cannot manipulate death with technology because if God wants to take someone’s life, God will do it.  However, just because God can take someone’s life at any moment, does not justify a person to take out one’s feeding tube or breathing tube for example.  The feeding tube and breathing tube are one’s basic necessities for life.  If one takes takes out the breathing tube, then one might as well suffocate the patient with a pillow because the pain would be faster.  And if one takes out the feeding tube, then one might as well not feed an infant.  Hence, what is the difference between the infant and the adult that is ill?  They are both made in God’s image.  Moreover, just because God can take someone’s life away does not mean one should take out the use of technology and let the person die.  We are to be good stewards of what God has provided to society.  We cannot let our own definition of personhood dictate who lives and who does not.  Life and death belongs to God.  And the resources and technology that has been given are to be used for His glory.

He further argues that life needs to be preserved because death is not our friend.  It is our last enemy.  In Philippians 1, Paul’s zealous desire was to save the lost.  He is not saying that death is pleasant or that we should be zealous of death.  The Lord is not pleased with death and His desire is that all will be saved; and that one day He will overturn death.


Due to the complicated nature concerning euthanasia, Dr. Feinberg ventured into the practical recommendations.  He stated that it is irresponsible (he did not say immoral) to not have a living will.  That is something I will need to get in the future.  Do not leave your family to the medical professions because many do not have a biblical view.  Nor can you rely on a pro-life doctor because he maybe on vacation if there is a crisis.  You must come up with biblical convictions beforehand.


In this section, Dr. Feinberg covers basic definitions, distinctions, biology (brain differences and hormonal differences), homosexuality and genetics.[13]  He also covers those areas because proponents argue that homosexuality is linked to biology and genetics.  As a result, Dr. Feinberg gets into the specificity concerning their claims by researching the twin studies, chromosome/gene linkage studies, biological and genetic studies to see if their claims are correct.[14]  After going over the studies, many of their claims are frivolous.

The author stands firmly committed to the position that Scripture teaches that homosexual and lesbian orientation and behavior are contrary to the order for human sexuality that God placed in creation. Hence they are sinful. It must be clear, that from a judicial standpoint, those who engage in this sin are no more and no less guilty before God than those who lie, steal, or break other moral rules. All sinners, which includes all of us, need to repent. But sin also has a social dimension, and sexual sin, including homosexual sin, is a form of behavior whose impact on others is far more devastating than the impact of some other sins. The enslavement of some sins is harder to escape than that of others (Rom. 1:26-27). Homosexuality and lesbianism are truly enslaving sins, but for those who think a person caught in them cannot change, we respond: never underestimate the power of Jesus Christ to transform a life! Christ loves all sinners, and he died to pay for all sins! He can both pardon the sinner and liberate the sinner who places his faith and repentance in Christ! 


Genetic engineering is a broad label for a series of genetic tools including genetic counseling, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning, and recombinant DNA research.”[15]

Dr. Feinberg goes on to say that the field of genetic engineering can be divided into two broad categories: (1) reproduction genetic engineering (i.e. artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, freezing embryos, surrogate motherhood, and cloning) (2) and other topic deals with the manipulation of the genetic structure of the human being.[16]

Some of the common objections against genetic engineering are as follows: it’s playing with their God, it’s unnatural, it addresses a selfish want, not a need, it will inevitably allow the most extreme uses of medicine and technology made available, it involves adultery, “separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual relations,” violates God’s ordained order concerning parenthood and the composition of families, treats the very elements of human life given by God (sperm and ovum) like commodities to be brought and sold), involves the rejection of God’s will about whether or not to have children; and it subordinates God’s will for each person concerning his physical and immaterial traits.[17]

In light of all the categories mentioned, the author and professor also covers the moral and legal implications involved in genetic engineering.  For example, for those thinking about using IVF, they will need to consider the success rate.

Whether you are going to be successful depends on a number of things.  Just because you use more than one embryo does not mean you will have a baby.  Then what is the point of transferring more than one embryo if you only want one baby?  This is so because it creates a greater success rate in being conceived. In page 409 of his book he gives his readers the percentages of the success rates:

In 1996, 6 percent of the cycles used one embryo; 10 percent used two; 23 percent used three; and 62 percent used four or more. In 2005, 9 percent used one; 43 percent used two; 30 percent used three; and 18 percent used four or more. Clearly, the major change since 1996 is that instead of using four or more embryos for most cycles (62 percent), in 2005 most cycles (43 percent) used only two embryos. However, 91 percent of cycles used more than one embryo!”[18]

More problems persist if you use more embryos.  If they all attach, then the doctor said it is good to abort one of them.  Another thing that affects success rate is the age of the mother.  See page 210 of the book concerning the statistics of how many embryos are discarded.  This is immoral because it is a human life!  Apart from the immorality of this procedure, it would cost you much money.  The aborting of embryos should be an objection because it is murder.  Moreover, the murder takes place in light of the baby never being consented.  Also people who murder a life needs to understand that a fertilized egg is a human being.  Out of these statistics, 1/5 of the embryos are born and 4/5 die.  The experiment in this context is not moral.

The author speaks passionately about the issue because it is immoral.  He also speaks about the issue because there are people in the church that can’t have kids and want to have kids.  We need to help counsel people like that so they do not make the wrong decision.  Adoption is another alternative.  Some churches have a budget for adoption; and that budget is to help families who want to adopt.  It is a good model for other church to follow.  I believer Pastor Voddie Baucham’s church does that.  Dr. Feinberg also encourages us to tell others about this issue.  The information needs to be passed on.  We can’t just share it one on one, but need to share it to the whole congregation.  Another reason to share with others is because IVF opens up the door to surrogate mothers, homosexuals and lesbian couples.


Because divorce and remarriage creates so many problems, one wishes the church would clearly enunciate biblical teaching on these topics. Instead, the church speaks words of confusion and adds to the level of confusion. Unfortunately, even among evangelicals there is no consensus on the proper understanding of biblical teaching on this matter. Finding a consensus is unlikely because of the complexity of the issues. Scripture says little on this issue, and what is said, especially in the teachings of Christ, can seem cryptic and ambiguous. It raises many questions. We cannot handle every question in this chapter (e.g., the question of whether a divorced person can serve as a pastor), but we want to address as many as necessary to elucidate biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.”[19]

A couple of foundations the author and professor covers are the basic principles about marriage.  Marriage is God’s idea (Gen. 2:18; Matt. 19:4-6), is for the benefit of mankind and indicates God’s goodness to man (Gen. 2:18-20), intended for a basic need for man (Gen. 2:20), informs that woman was formed not from dust, but from man, intended for propagating the human race and man’s need for fellowship, intended to provide for the removal of loneliness (Gen. 2:18); and marriage was created as a human institution (Gen. 1-2) for all.[20]

In  light of the basic principles concerning marriage, Dr. Feinberg spent much time on Matthew 19:1-12.  By going through the passage, he covers the questions of whether the marriage bond can be terminated or not.  By doing that he spends much time in the text by analyzing the religious leaders and Jesus’ words concerning God’s perspective on marriage.  Moreover, he covers the “exception clause” and the different views on divorce and remarriage such as the preteritive, offense, betrothal, mixed marriage, and the violation of laws of consanguinity views. [21] He also covers the view concerning divorce without remarriage, divorce with remarriage.

Besides covering Jesus’ view on divorce and remarriage, he also covers Paul’s view on divorce by going through 1 Cor. 7:1-24.

Much has been said concerning euthanasia, biology, genetics, homosexuality, genetic engineering, and divorce and remarriage, but the book covers many other areas as well such as abortion, capital punishment, and the view on war.  But for the sake of this post’s link, I only covered some of the areas that was discussed thoroughly in class.

I encourage Christians to pick up this book and study ethics.  For those who think that the Bible may not have answers to the the contemporary issues we face concerning the rise of new technology that is being produced at breathtaking pace; and its implications on morality, then this is a must read.  Although, the authors of Scripture did not give us details concerning IVF, genetic engineering, etc., Dr. Feinberg does a good job by digging through Scripture to find timeless truths that covers the issues we face.  As Christians, we do not need to be afraid of the speculations and hostile attacks.  The Word of God has timeless truths.  Because we serve a great God, let us take heed to 1 Peter 3:15,

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”

As Christians, let us mimic the holy zeal and desire that the psalmist did in Psalm 119:18,

Open my eyes, that I may behold/Wonderful things from your law.”

The book is about 736 pages in Kindle and is about 848 pages in print.

To see his class lectures, please see this following link: Christian Ethics

[1]John S. Feinberg, “TH708 Christian Ethics” (unpublished syllabus, The Master’s Seminary, 2012), 1-11.

[2]Ibid., 15.

[3]Ibid., 15.

[4]Ibid., 15.

[5]Ibid., 15-27.

[6]Ibid., 15-16.

[7]Ibid., 17-19.

[8]Ibid., 20-21.

[9]Ibid., 17-21.

[10]Ibid., 21-23.

[11]Ibid., 26.

[12]Ibid., 26-27.

[13]Ibid., 28-29.

[14]Ibid., 29-32.

[15]Ibid., 33.

[16]Ibid., 33.

[17]Ibid., 33-36.

[18]John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 409.

[19]Ibid., 589.

[20]John S. Feinberg, “TH708 Christian Ethics, “ 44.

[21]Ibid., 47-48.

Read Full Post »

Michael Brown on A Queer Thing Happened to America

Read Full Post »

This is a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Eric Smaw on “Same-Sex Marriage: Should it be legal in America?” at the University of Central Florida. Don’t forget to check out Dr. Brown’s massive book, “A Queer Thing Happened To America.”


Continue to Part 2-10

Homosexuality: Speaking the Truth in Love by Edward Welch

Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope by Christopher Yuan and Angela Yuan

Read Full Post »

He supported Prop. 8 but now he says he never once endorsed it on Larry King Live.

Rick Warren says he never ONCE ENDORSED Prop. 8 to Larry King

Rick Warren says you SHOULD SUPPORT Prop. 8

What is going on Mr Warren? ashamed of the Gospel? under pressure from Mr King? Perhaps a mistake? We all make mistakes, so I am sure you will issue another video to explain the flip-flop.


from OneNewsNow.com

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California’s Proposition 8, and now claims he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN’s Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California’s voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has “never been and never will be” an “anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist.”

“During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going,” Warren claimed.

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. “We support Proposition 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8,” he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren’s comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

“The election’s coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you’re praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

“Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

“This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing — it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

“Now here’s an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

“This is not even just a Christian issue — it’s a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

“So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I’m going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views.”

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. “There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends — the leaders that I knew — and actually apologized to them. That never got out,” he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last week to legalize same-sex “marriage” because it was “not his agenda.”

Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. “For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that’s on his agenda is just something that’s hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice,” Fischer notes.

Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren’s decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.

“Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor — and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them,” he concludes.

Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.

Read Full Post »

Liberalism is a mental disorder according to Michael Savage.

Read Full Post »