Category Archives: apologetics
San Francisco based author Erik F. Wait has jumped to the forefront of scholarly exposition on gay christian theology with his new book Do Not Be Deceived: A Christian Worldview Response to Gay Theology and a blog of the same name.
We’ve known Erik for many years and his work is a welcome addition to the massive task of educating the church and equipping the saints on one of the most insidious attacks on the faith in recent memory.
The 674 page book is no lightweight read. It thoroughly addresses flawed epistemological foundations, as well as the hermeneutical errors of this growing movement and provides a thorough exegesis of the relevant Biblical texts on human sexuality.
Sadly the gay church movement and its parasitic theology has caused massive damage to foundational beliefs which have sustained the church through many challenges. But this is an internal spiritual infection and its unassuming until the symptoms began to appear.
Deception and spiritual identity fraud is just as much a growing problem for the church as it is in the secular world. They take it very seriously and have developed all types of protective measures but the church still treats identity fraud as a low priority issue. This is why gay church theology has been able to deceive so many so quickly.
You can protect yourself and innoculate yourself with this powerful resource Do Not Be Deceived.
Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an apologetics ministry based in Phoenix, is part of a growing cadre of Christian leaders responding to the threat of the gay christian movement. Fueled by the rise of new false teachers like Matthew Vines, more and more Christian leaders are taking on the apostate movement head on and with determination. In a newly released video White, dismantles many of the shallow gay christian theological arguments.
Watch Part 2 here.
A very good read and alternative perspective on Rev. Samuel Rodriguez’ Imago Dei campaign. The religious PR effort was launched to widespread fanfare, but all is not what it seems according to Dr. Robert Gagnon, a top Christian theologian. Rodriguez said his intent was only to end the “rhetorical bullying” and facilitate “redemptive and reconciliatory” interactions — not to “condone any behavior” or “endorse anything that runs counter to a biblical worldview.”
Although he drops a new social buzzword, Rodriguez doesn’t provide any examples of “rhetorical bullying”. For instance is it “rhetorical bullying” to say publicly that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Or is he referring to the Westboro Baptist Church?
The ID campaign’s ideology also includes a fair measure of diaprax. Diaprax is an emergent church concept which attempts to forge unity between believers and nonbelievers under a false banner.
Writing in the Christian Post, Gagnon acknowledges the campaign as “well meaning, but flawed”. In particular the ID tries to hard to diminish the severity of homosexuality by couching it as some benign social disparity like the homeless. The problem is that ID is more about —as a previous article stated— converting Christians on the issue of homosexuality than it is about converting homosexuals by the gospel of Christ.
The ID seems to be a religious version of the famous Rodney King line “Cant we all just get along?”
I appreciate the fact that this “campaign” apparently continues to view homosexual practice as sin (though in extremely muted tones) and that it wants to promote love for those who engage in it. However, its half-orbed message that “the image of God exists in all human beings: black and white; rich and poor; straight and gay; conservative and liberal; victim and perpetrator; citizen and undocumented; believer and unbeliever” is flawed.
It lumps together very different categories. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about ethnicity, social status, party affiliation, citizen status, or even the mere experience of sexual attractions to do what God forbids.
I have a suggestion: In order to make clearer the message that affirmation of one’s creation in the image of God does not lead to support for all behaviors, the organizers of the campaign should add something more explicit like: “serial pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and the people they victimize.
The framers of the document probably won’t be amending anything they wrote but in case they are interested in comprehensive critique, here it is:
(1) It appears to regard a strong expression of disapproval of homosexual practice as equally at fault with a strong expression of its approval.
(2) It fails to address the crucial point that homosexual activity, like egregious immorality generally, threatens to mar the image of God stamped on people, dishonoring and degrading what God created in his image by treating another’s gender as only half intact in relation to its own sex.
The theme of marring the image of God is clear enough from Genesis 1:27 where the proclamation of the Imago Dei is immediately followed by an implicit affirmation of a male-female requirement for sexual relations: “In the image of God he created [the human] / male and female he created them.” It is clear too from Romans 1:24-27 where Paul speaks of the “dishonoring” or “degrading” effect of males having sex with males and females with females, with Gen 1:27 echoed in the background.
(3) This “campaign” will do nothing to stifle the advance of coercive and abusive homosexualism in this country but may deceive many faithful Christians into silencing their own resistance to this advance as incompatible both with a positive proclamation of “a relationship with God … through Christ” and with “loving actions,” as mere “rhetorical bullying” and “polarizing rhetoric” toward the “marginalized” and the “oppressed.”
As Gagnon pointed out the false unity espoused by the ID is a sad reality of the contemporary church’s lust to hold hands with sinners in an attempt to make them comfortable and less resistant to the church’s “love is all we need” message. It is an epic failure. Offering sinners love and friendship while treating truth like a red-haired stepchild, is a grave disservice to their souls.
The Imago Dei hasn’t moved any mountains. Homosexuals and liberals have had a blase reaction to it. The only ones who seemed to be celebrating its release are Christians who desperately want the homosexual community to accept them. Like its predecessors, the Covenant of Civility , the Manhattan Declaration and the abominable Affirmation Declaration, the Imago Dei campaign will become another sad example of failed religion attempting to circumvent the Great Commission.
Watch and listen as Brannon Phillips, a minister from Lexington, NC systematically destroys arguments supporting homosexual ideology, including gay christian ideology.
Refuting a lie is not for the faint at heart. Liars, the bible says, spend a significant portion of their time devising their putrid concoctions. Lies, ultimately are about manipulating something that otherwise could not be breached under normal circumstances.
Woe to those who scheme iniquity, Who work out evil on their beds! When morning comes, they do it, For it is in the power of their hands. Micah 2:1
Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flatters himself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated. The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good. He plots trouble while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he does not reject evil. Psalms 36:1-4
While we sleep, liars lay awake planning their lies out and despising what is good. Having said that, lets look at four broad-based lies gay christians and their allies tell on the church and the bible.
1. Christians’ prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality.
Although as superficial a lie as one can tell, it nonetheless has made a serious impact of how some view the authority of scripture and the how it applies to sexual sins. This is the lie of misplaced blame. It supposes that Christians who disagree with homosexual behavior are the ones who created the biblical narrative opposing it, thus they are to blame for what it clearly says. To conveniently label all opposition to a sexual behavior —which carries a deadly spiritual and physical penalty— as “prejudice” is a ludicrous and illogical position. Its like saying opposition to suicide is prejudice against freewill. The truth is that the bible is straitforward about all sexual immorality and makes zero exemptions for homosexual behavior, no matter what context the behavior occurs in or whether the participants are willing or not. Prejudice is judgment without knowledge. But Christians who follow biblical teachings which clearly oppose all forms of homosexuality are acting with integrity and honesty to speak the truth despite the lies told against them.
2. Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality merely to raise funds and increase their visibility.
The lie of impropriety. Why not speak out to raise money? If the money is being used to further the truth, it becomes a necessary function of the mission, plain and simple. What media outlet is going to give Christian leaders free air time? Which ones will give free ad space? If free publicity is being denied due to media bias against Christian leaders who speak out against homosexuality, then raising money is ethical and should be expected. Homosexual activist organizations, particularly the religious ones speak out against Christian leaders while raising money and gain visibility but want to deny that same privilege to others?
3. Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior have actually been mistranslated.
This is what we can label a tactical lie. Nothing is lost by simple making broad, but untrue assertions. Ergo, this is just another convenient tactic to muddy the waters and avoid honest debate about the truth. Has the bible been mistranslated when it comes to homosexuality? It depends on what your definition of mistranslation is. With gay christians mistranslation means anything that isnt lock-step with their warped interpretations. CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) explains why there has been no mistranslaton. At the same time, every errant explanation spoken by a person claiming to be a Christian is no more applicable to the entire Christian faith as it is with any other group of people. We do know as an irrefutable statistical fact that 100% of bible passages [OT, NT] which mention homosexual behavior, condemn it using the strongest possible language. And each different writer who did so, did so independently of the other but all were guided by the inspiration of God.
4. Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior have been taken out of context and do not apply to our present society.
This is the second version of the tactical lie aka specious argumentation. By casting doubt on the context of scripture, it produces doubt about its truthful application. Homosexual social strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, write in their book “After the Ball” that homosexuals should “ muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.” This tactic is stenuously adhered to by the gay christian movement.
First, lets ask these questions in response to this tactical lie. What authority determined that God’s laws and condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to contemporary society? Is this authority credible? Did this authority receive direct revelation from God that his immutable, eternal word has no application to modern society? When did this happen and who is the authority who makes this brazen claim? I will wager that if such a person existed they would be indentified as a prohomosexual cleric who self serving ideology benefits only a small contigent of sexual outlaws and not the greater good of humanity and certainly not the Christian family.
The Senator Qheleth blog has taken time to deconstruct a great deal of the vortex of religious revision by the johnny come lately child false prophet Matthew Vines. Vines claims that he studied the bible for two entire years because he was dissatisfied that as a homosexual he wasn’t allowed to be happy and have sex with another man. Not surprisingly, his two years of bible study yeilded nothing different from the other false teachers before him.
Despite the obvious signs of a spiritual ineptitude, Vines was quickly snapped up by the religious homosexual world like he was fresh meat at a gay club. He may not be aware that he is simply a pawn to spread lies, but most his age are not. The insatiable thirst of those who spread lies about homosexuality and the bible are always looking for new faces to smooth out the deceptive poison and it looks like they hit paydirt with Vines.
According to SQ, Vines elementary argument is “so weak it would fail first year seminary. There are a tremendous number of problems with what he has said- especially his misplaced assertion that traditional interpretations of Scripture on homosexuality have done nothing but ‘damaged’ people- and I cannot deal with them all here.”
Vines’ type of shallow thinking and exegetically deficient rhetoric is what progay teachers thrive on. Consequently, the Theology-R-US approach to one of the most serious moral issues raised in our times is quite frankly disastrous. The reason they take such great pains to avoid honest exploration of the truth is because lies are always built on cleverly devised misinterpretations that produce a plethora of questions and doubt. Hath God said?
SQ does an excellent job cutting through the weeds and underbrush of Vines’ pitiful theology to show that behind the poorly crafted dog and pony show is whats behind most dog and pony shows: hype and no substance.
Vines’ position is undergirded by a feel-good theology of avoiding loneliness. Time and again throughout his talk, Vines made statements like “We’re now forcing gay men to be alone, calling what God has made to be not good … the Bible explicitly rejects forced loneliness as God’s will for human beings”. While loneliness is never an ideal state for man to be in (Prov. 18:1), neither do ends (finding a solution for loneliness) justify means (constructing whatever relationships one can to avoid being alone). Jesus Himself was a lonely, misunderstood man and not once did He complain about it: He took it to God and used it to honour God and bless others. Christian theology never sees loneliness- or, more accurately, aloneness- as an end in itself. Neither is it true that single, unmarried, ‘unhitched’ Christians are all alone and miserable (Heb. 13:5). If Vines really believe this, then he must be a troubled, insecure individual and have nothing but disdain for singles. Christ and Paul (Matt. 19:10-12, 1 Cor. 7:32) both are at odds with this, but Vines has not done the theological gruntwork through this and his theology on singlehood is on very shaky ground, and he would do well to take note that when the first man was alone that Yahweh provided a woman in a marriage covenant to alleviate the problem (Gen. 2:18,22). If a person is single and chaste, God can use them powerfully (e.g. Corrie ten Boom, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Stott, J.I. Packer, John Chapman, Paul, and Christ).
False teachers always craft their ideology out of personal conjecture using emotionally charged issues to refute biblical truth. That may be attractive to weak, biblically illiterate individuals who are looking for an excuse to sin, but it would never pass the muster of truth that makes people free. John 8:32