Sunday, June 7, 2015

The “Gay Christian” Non-Debate

There can be little doubt that the homosexual movement has experienced tremendous success over the last 10 or even 5 years. Homosexual sex has moved from an unnatural and immoral lifestyle in the minds of the majority, to one that is celebrated by a large majority in Western society. The homosexual movement has waged a campaign that has seen such remarkable progress that even the pessimist has to be impressed. The movement has conquered corporate America, the boy scouts, marriage, and has even moved into the pseudo-Christian institutions we call mainline Christian denominations.

Regardless of the success of the homosexual movement, there is still the hard work that remains. You see, the basis for society’s rejection of homosexuality, while distant, has continued to be located deep within the Judeo-Christian ethic. As society moves away from that ethic, it has become more accepting of homosexual behavior. But the basis for the historic rejection of homosexuality remains a threat to the movement. And that basis is located within genuine Christian theism. That is to say, the basis for opposing homosexual sex remains fixed within ancient biblical Christianity. That is the one barrier that the homosexual movement has yet to cross. And it is that barrier that has been the target of the movement all along. The homosexual movement is charging full force toward the goal of annihilating biblical Christianity. It is my belief that the homosexual knows that his life is unnatural and perverse and deep down he is unhappy and discontent. He seems to have convinced himself that if he can wipe out the very core of opposition to his lifestyle that perhaps he will find the peace he is hopelessly searching for. Or, perhaps, he is just being vindictive and wishes to deprive the Christian of the sort of freedom he thinks he has been deprived of over the years. Either way, the Christian better understand that the homosexual movement is bent on his destruction. What should the Christian do? How should we respond?

First, there are homosexuals who do not pretend to be Christians. We love them and give them the gospel as we would any other unbeliever. We do not expect homosexuals to hear the gospel without being offended. We expect that Christ will offend most sinners. But we preach the gospel, undiluted, and pray that God will bring His elect to Himself. God has clearly elected some men from out of the homosexual movement. And those elect will only come by the preaching of the cross of Christ. That being said, we make no special accommodations for the homosexual. We treat the homosexual the same as we treat the liar, the adulterer, the pedophile, etc. We give them the gospel.

Second, for the “gay-Christian” movement, we have an entirely different response. We are now talking about a subset within the homosexual movement that wants to move into the Church without faith, without genuine repentance. Since repentance is the absolute fruit of genuine faith, it is obvious to us who possesses genuine faith and who does not. Those who do righteousness are born of God and those who love lawlessness remain children of the devil. The gay-Christian is an individual that claims Christ but who is still very much a child of the devil, the evil one. His faith is a pseudo-faith because he has no desire to repent of the sin of homosexual sex. Rather, he wants to claim the love of God purifies gay sex somehow. God, according to the gay Christian understands his lust as love and therefore wants the gay Christian to be gay AND to be Christian AND to be happy. The gay Christian is not interested in self-denial, the life of the cross, loving divine law. Instead, he desperately searches for as many possible excuses as he can to justify his lust so that he can continue to engage in that which he loves: epithumia, his burning lust (for someone of the same sex).

The purpose of this post is to ask the question whether or not Christians should even be debating the issue of “gay-Christianity.” I think the answer is that Christian Churches really have no flexibility to place the subject of homosexual sex on the table as something we should discuss in that context. On the flipside, I do think it is an opportunity for us to educate the Christian on what the Bible teaches about the subject. The Scriptures are not ambiguous when it comes to God’s view of gay sex. And that clarity exists for a reason. Therefore, we should educate our communities accordingly.
Additionally, we should study the “gay-Christian” arguments and present them to our communities as a way to help them understand the strategy and tactics of this group so that they can be good apologists on the subject when they encounter it or receive questions about some of the things the “gay-Christian” may be saying as they are getting on in daily life. This is critically important in helping Christians not only understand the issues but also in helping Christians feel confident to engage the antagonist.

Finally, we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a debate about whether or not one can be gay and Christian, at least not a formal debate that is. We can and should enter the discussion if for no other reason than to shut the mouths of those who contradict and refute the fool in his folly. But we will not, and cannot sit down at the table and have an open-minded discussion about the possibility that a person could practice gay sex and be in Christ at the same time. That is to say, one cannot choose the homosexual lifestyle in parallel with wearing the name of Christ. That is not a subject that we can be open to debate. The closest we can get to that is to refute, point by weak point, every line of reasoning presented in the “gay Christian” argument. And that is something we must do. Moreover, we can never grow tired of refuting the truth-hating arguments of all men who would despise Christ while claiming to love Him.

To the “gay Christian” we stand firm in our rejection of their claim to faith. We do so forcefully. To the homosexual movement we say that you have met your superior in the biblical Christian. If you thought the Church would wilt, if you thought the Christian would cave to your demands and be intimidated by your pressure, your persecution, your silly name-calling, you were wrong. Christians are built to handle slander, persecution, name-calling, isolation, etc., etc. We have been from the beginning of our community. No amount of threats, intimidation, persecution, or harm will change our view on the homosexual lifestyle. We remain, and always will remain, united in our condemnation of your lifestyle because we know with certainty that your lifestyle stands condemned by God. Because God resides in us, we stand with God who keeps us, who loves us, who pours His grace on us and who will always provide us the strength necessary to stand for His truth. The homosexual movement has met, in biblical Christianity, the one community that it cannot conquer, defeat, infiltrate, intimidate, or bully. This is a fight that you simply cannot win. The odds makers cannot put odds on this one because the possibility of the homosexual movement successfully entering and thus conquering the Christian community is non-existent.


  1. The purpose of this post is to ask the question whether or not Christians should even be debating the issue of “gay-Christianity.”

    Your problem on this point, Ed, if I may offer my view based on my experience, is that you're in a losing position.

    1. If you don't argue your point, you will continue to concede defeat on the point. People are looking at the topic and saying, "well, why SHOULDN'T gay folk be allowed to marry? A good marriage is a good thing - good for the couple, good for the community, good for families, good for society, why prevent it?"

    By refusing to respectfully engage in conversation on the topic, people will answer themselves, "Why, there appears to be NO reason not to support it..." and they will. This is partially why you all are losing so profoundly and so quickly.

    2. If you DO argue the point, but do so in a combative, arrogant, "I'm right and I CAN NOT BE MISTAKEN, I PERSONALLY AM A HUMAN WHO KNOWS PERFECTLY WHAT GOD'S MIND ON THE TOPIC IS...," then you lose the argument because you are written off as an arrogant know-it-all who presumes to speak for God.

    Additionally, when you argue the point in this arrogant manner, you are coming across as immoral on the face of it. You appear to be (and are, by your own testimony) seeking to tell others what they can and can't do and do so solely because it is your religious beliefs - NOT because you have any rational or innately moral reason to oppose it but because it is your unproven and unprovable religious opinion.

    When an extremist Muslim tells women that they MUST WEAR a burka, do we accept their religious opinion as a law or accept it as a rule from God, because THEY believe it is? Or do we reject such heavy-handed impositions of "god's rules" from someone else based on their say so alone?

    We reject the demand, don't we? And we do so because it is irrational and immoral to impose one's religious beliefs on another solely because "I think god wants it."

    Your second problem, then, is that you come across as arrogant and immoral and unjust and precisely because other people are seeking goodness, justice and humility, we reject your claims out of hand for their innate immorality and irrationality.

    We're not saying (just to head off a potential response from you) that we can't rationally say, "Don't do that..." about some topics/behaviors, but those are topics/behaviors where harm is caused. Thus, we can rightly and righteously say, "Don't drink and drive" because of the great potential for harm (and NOT because there is a line in some holy text that tells us not to). We can rightly and righteously say, "don't kill, don't steal, don't oppress, don't gossip, don't slander..." because harm is involved. But there is no harm involved when two consenting and rational adults are allowed to marry the person of their choice.

    That is why you collectively have largely lost this debate, Ed, NOT because we "want to promote immorality" but the exact opposite. And when you make demonstrably false claims like that ("stand firm in our rejection of their claim to faith" when they disagree with you on some behavior or other false claims), you only exacerbate the problem, making you seem even MORE arrogant and less rational and more immoral. You are actively and purposefully promoting and stating demonstrably false claims, Ed, and people see that, and then reject you for your immorality.

    But they reject the position on the basis of seeking the Good and True and Just and Rational, not for selfish reasons or reasons of immorality.

    And when enough of you (whether it be extremist conservative Muslims or extremist conservative Christians) keep making false, unjust, irrational and immoral claims, then people start writing you off en masse.

    Something to watch out for, for those who have ears to hear.

    1. No one suggested that the Christian point on homosexuality shouldn't be argued, but rather, argued only within a very specific framework. The post is contending that the suggesting that gay sex could be acceptable is itself a position that is not open to Christian debate, that is, it cannot be taken seriously, like other issues. For example, we can debate credo versus paedobaptism. We can debate the rapture theory, the millennial reign, etc. But there is a plethora of Christian doctrine that is no longer open for debate in terms of overturning traditional Christian dogma. Eternal judgement, the nature of Christ, the Triune God, Salvation, Sin, the human condition, etc., etc. Wanting to debate something is not enough to place it on the table. There must be good cause to overturn centuries of Christian exegesis. In the gay Christian movement, all you have are a bunch of perverts demanding to be called Christians. They bring nothing other than they're modern ethic and societal pressure to the table. That is not enough to EARN the light of Christian debate. In this sense, I think I made it clear that to debate is to entertain the possibility that the Christian position could actually be wrong. On this issue, such foolishness is not a consideration. I realize you don't like that approach, but it is the only one that is open to genuine Christians.

      You are incredibly ignorant Dan, and especially so in your definition of arrogance. There are literally thousands of years behind Jewish and Christian scholarship not to mention tradition supporting the Christian view on gay sex and you and your quibbling perverts want to come along armed with nothing other than a wish and modern pressures and few adjectives like bully or bigot or homophobe, and you think you can overturn centuries of the biblical ethic. If that isn't the epitome of arrogance nothing is.

      If I am called immoral by a man who thinks that two men performing oral and anal sex on one another is moral, then I will celebrate that classification by that individual. You call evil good and good evil.

      Dan, you and your modern cavils do not get to exchange biblical morality for your own. God defines what is right and wrong, not you and your modern, biblically inept, unregenerate perverts who call blasphemy good and the gospel evil.

      The world has been writing off the followers of Christ since there have been followers of Christ Dan. Didn't you know that? You and your perverts are accepted only by pseudo-Christians, Christian in name only. You know, the ones Jesus mentioned in Matthew 7.

      Morality is not defined as something that can cause harm to others. Morality is defined by the nature of the ontological Triune God of Scripture. One can lie without harming a soul, but it is still immoral. Additionally, to claim that gay sex does no harm is utterly ridiculous. You do realize the promiscuity that exists in that lifestyle along with the things they do to each other, anal licking and such. If you research former gays and just do a little study, you realize that an overwhelming majority engage in things that are unmentionable. Not all, but a large majority do engage in the most bizarre sexual behavior known to humanity. What percentage of gay men are monogamous? You should try reading "The Gay Couples Study" out of San Francisco University on the matter. Additionally, where marriage is illegal, these supposed Christians just have sex anyways and as often and with as many partners as they want. Moreover, show me "gay Christians" who are virgins until marriage and then reject sex with anyone other than their partner...they are non-existent Dan.

      You fellows set up this myth about gays as if they want the same type of sexual arrangement that married heterosexual couples want. They picture is a lie, a myth, pure fantasy, nothing more than a gimmick designed to support your evil desires that run contrary to Christ from top to bottom.

    2. If you stay on this subject, I will begin to list specific behaviors that are COMMON among gay men so people can really understand what that life really is about. You boys like to keep the curtains up and defend something that doesn't even exist and what is worse is that you know it doesn't exist. And that makes you and the rest of the gay defenders liars. Plain and simple.

  2. That's it? Just ignoring the holes in your argument and the reasonable questions asked of you?

    What is it you fear so in addressing reasonable questions? Do you recognize that the answers point to holes in your arguments and you just don't have the courage of intellectually fortitude to address them head on or the moral wherewithal to admit your inability to address them?

    I have to believe that you're better than that, Ed.


    1. There are no holes in the argument Dan. Just ignoring a man who has chosen to abandon and now ignore the truth.

  3. Look, whatever you might think about my opinions, I am a good man who is sincerely striving to do what is right. I want my children to have happy, moral, rational, Godly lives and I want to live in a nation that is righteous and just. I could be MISTAKEN on some points, but my heart is sincerely wanting to do the right thing.

    Given that reality (and it is a reality, I hope you can see - look at my life, I have taught Sunday School, I help out with the homeless, the poor, the marginalized, I have raised two great kids, I have been a faithful husband for 30 years to my wife, I have been a deacon in my church, the music leader in my church, I have traveled the country in a Christian band, I am a hard worker, etc... I can be mistaken, but one can't reasonably look at my life and say that my desire is to be evil... - and all of that is not to build me up from a sense of arrogance, just pointing to reality like Paul did when he gave his Jewish credentials)... given that reality, I WANT you to make a winning, moral and rational argument IF you are correct.

    I don't want to "win" an argument against Ed, I want the Truth to be known. IF there is an actual case against my position and IF I am mistaken, my desire is for Truth to win out, not just my opinion.

    Given that, if you actually have a case to make, I want you to make it, but if I see holes a mile wide in your case... if your case appears to actually be supportive of IMmorality and UNjustice, then I have to stand against your position and in favor of the position that I believe to be moral and just and Godly.

    Given just that much, Ed, surely you agree? That IF your position seems to be unbiblical, immoral and irrational to me... a fount of arrogant ungodliness, then surely you agree that I MUST seek God's ways, and not merely bow to Ed's (or Ed's tradition's) opinions, right?


  4. These points Dan are prefect examples of how not to think if one has truly been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. All the terms you used merely beg the question because you fill their content with your own philosophical presuppositions top to bottom.

    Second, you may think you are a good person, I on the other hand know that I am not and I know there there are no good people. Jesus Himself said no one is good. Paul said no one is good.

    All your good works, so-called, are worthless unless they are mixed with genuine biblical faith.

    Keep watching my blog for the Christian position on things like homosexuality, Scripture, Sin, Judgment and so forth.

  5. And I would respond that I believe you are failing to understand figurative vs literal language. Of course, I am certain that you are a relatively good man, Ed. NOTE: I'm not saying perfect, but basically good. That is, YOUR DESIRE is to do the right thing. You do NOT wish to support evil, do you?

    Of course you don't. Your desire is to do good, to do the right, to support moral options. At least, that's certainly my desire, and I have to believe it is yours, as well.

    But you tell me, Ed: ARE you actually evil? Is it your sincere wish to do immoral, gross, horrible things?

    I bet you're not evil in that sense, any more than I am.

    Did Jesus/Paul/others use language like "we are all sinners..." "Evil from our mother's womb..."? Yes, but clearly, this HAS to be figurative language. HOW is a fetus IN THE WOMB doing anything evil? HOW does an infant tell lies? Just think about it rationally, looking at the real world evidence of your own life and those around you... were infants in your family actually evil? Are you?

    Think about it.

    With the love of God for my beloved brother in Christ, Ed,


    1. Dan, you cannot relegate things like men being wicked or humans being born in sin to figures of speech simply on the basis that taking them at face value destroys your theological house of cards.

      A fetus has a nature, an essence within it. In terms of sin or not, that nature either has a sinful essence or it does not. If it does, then it is necessarily wicked. But to say that one is born wicked is NOT a figure of speech. It is not hyperbole and there is no corresponding picture to which it is being compared. One has to take it just as it is. Scripture calls the Church the Bride. That is figurative language. It calls false teaches ravenous wolves. That is figurative language. But in both cases, there is a corresponding literal reality behind the language.

      When Paul says in Romans that no one is good, he means it quite literally because he is talking about good in an absolute sense. But when he says the poison of asps is under their tongue, he employs figurative speech. It is literal asp poison under their tongue. It is literally something far worse.

      When God destroyed the earth by flood, a literal historical event, He saw that the continual imaginations of the hearts of men were evil. That was not figurative speech. It was not hyperbole. It was literally true and the earth was literally destroyed by water: men, women, children, and infants. Were all men equally wicked? I cannot see how that could be the case. But all men were exceedingly wicked. Did God (Jesus) spare the children or the infants when the floods came? He did not! You don't like the story? Tough! Get over your self. God is literally holy and all men are literally wicked. Only Christ can make the difference. This is why no man can enter the Kingdom apart from Christ, hearing the gospel, placing their undying faith in the Christ who redeems. When wicked men are regenerated, the sin nature is not removed, but the seed of God is implanted. Something in us then begins to love God's law and hate sin. If that is not present, God is not present. If one loves things like gay sex, a lawless act, and there is no hate in their heart for it, then God is not present. It is that simple.

  6. A fetus has a nature, an essence within it. In terms of sin or not, that nature either has a sinful essence or it does not.

    Do you have data to support this claim? Which lab has this measured, where is the research to support it?

    But to say that one is born wicked is NOT a figure of speech.

    Why? Says who? Based on what authority?

    It is not hyperbole and there is no corresponding picture to which it is being compared.

    Why? Says who? Based on what authority?

    One has to take it just as it is.

    Why? Says who? Based on what authority?

    You're making empty claims, Ed. Again, IF you have data to support your claims and you are correct, then I WANT to be corrected, and you know why? Because I, like you, WANT to know the Truth.

    But you can't just make empty and unsupported claims and demand to be taken as the authority just on your say so.

    And as for support for my position, I call on Ed to testify:

    But you tell me, Ed: ARE you actually evil? Is it your sincere wish to do immoral, gross, horrible things?

    Or, is your desire to do good, even if you fail to do so perfectly?

    Speaking for myself and most the people I know well enough to speak about, we desire good, truth, morality. You?

    1. You seem to think that science is without limitations. What lab was it tested in that science is a valid way to justify these kinds of claims? Job. 14:4; 15:14 Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:3.

      If you think that the proposition, "we are all born sinners" is a figure of speech you get an F in literature. What exactly does it figure? it is like my saying I was born a male and you claiming that that proposition is a mere figure of speech. There is no literary rule that says it is a figure of speech at all. Like I have said until I am blue in the face, your philosophy guides your decisions not rules or grammar, literature or otherwise.

      Look Dan, these are the very claims you have said I lied about regarding what you believe. I would be delighted to converse with you if you would just be reasonable. You are not. Your claim that born into sin is figurative language has no rules you can cite to classify it as such. You just want it to be that way. Additionally, do you even understand why men must be born again? Do you not understand why Paul says we are dead in our sins and trespasses? Literally, we are spiritually dead. We have a sin nature, a child of wrath by nature.

      Your view is outside historic Christian orthodoxy. It ripples back into the gospel with a serious perversion of divine truth.


Does Ephesians Five Really Tell Wives to Submit to their Husbands? Responding to DTS Professor, Darrell Bock and Sandra Gahn

With all the rage over feminist issues going on as a result of the #MeToo movement, it isn’t shocking that pastors and professors holdi...