Category Archives: gay theology
Joseph L Williams; Juandalyn Stokes appearing at gay church anniversary?
As more and more false teachers, particularly those who ascribe to homosexual inclusion theology, flex their influence, collusion is bound to occur. But what is a believer, faithful to the truth to do (or say) about it when a respected leader links up with false teachers?
A flier for unannounced homosexual cleric Kenneth Samuel’s church anniversary features gay bishop OC Allen and card carrying inclusionist DE Paulk. No surprises there as birds of a feather are expected to congregate together. Here’s the documentation on Paulk, Allen and Samuels, respectively.
But what of the appearance of Joseph L. Williams, son of reknowned Atlanta pastor Jasper Williams? Or Juandalyn Stokes, a local gospel personality? Are these two making small steps towards embracing the specious inclusion doctrine? While one appearance at a gay/gay affirming church is not to be taken as full approval or partnership with doctrines of devils, it is nonetheless disturbing trend in the contemporary church. And then again, Samuels would have never invited someone to speak at his church who he knows openly opposes his false teaching and immoral sexual lifestyle. So what conclusions can we draw? Williams, a theologically educated man, surely knows the implications of 1 Cor 5, Eph 5:14,1 Cor 15:33 and other passages which warn believers not to associate with those who work undercover for satan.
Tetuan Moffett, who produced the popular EXMinistries series “Thieves in the Temple” says that false teachers have no redeemable qualities.
But what about the false teachers (2 Peter 2:1)? What about these men who lead hundreds, thousands, and sometimes millions to the second death (2 Peter 2:2, “many will follow” Revelation 20:14-15; 22:15)? DO WE PRAY FOR THEM? No. The instruction Paul gives in Galatians1:8-9 (for those who preach any other gospel) is that we let them go to hell. (be accursed). The Lord says that false teachers are like “brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed.” In other words, God has made false teachers for the express purpose of destroying them forever. As the above says, “they will utterly perish”, and they “will receive the wages of unrighteousness.” The wages of unrighteousness is the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). False teachers are beyond hope. In fact, note Jude 11. It says of them that they have “perished” in the rebellion of Korah.”
In both the old and new testaments, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles use extremely harsh and condemning language, metaphors and pronouncements in dealing with false teachers. To lend aid or support to one was considered just as grave a transgression as being one. But many have been deceived into thinking that false teachers are actually part of the body, but just having minor differences with the truth.
In properly understanding the serious evil of a preacher who has been trained (brought up) by a wolf, Jesus’ words are referenced – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15) The bible says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Therefore whether if its Michael Green, Daffy Duck or whomever, if you have endorsed and/or supported these false teachers then what spirit is leading you? AN ANTICHRIST SPIRIT? Now how is that for JUDGING? (see: Luke 12:57, I Cor. 11:13, 6:3, 10:15, Matt 7:15-20. Let no man deceive you by any means. How can we tell the “sheep” from the “wolves” unless we “judge” or “determine”? How can we do as our Lord commanded and “beware of false prophets” unless we “judge” them by the word of God? If we do not “judge” or “decide” their error by the word of God, how do we even know they are in error?
Are you a member of Williams, Joseph Williams or Jaundalyn Stokes church? If you are, do you approve of your pastor keeping company with known false teachers and lending support to sexually immoral religious leaders?
Related: CeCe Winans releases statement in response to Witness’ call to cancel concert
Gay christian cleric offers candy coated religion
Judge for yourself. The lesbian minister from the Metropolitan Community Church talks as if religion and relationships are like picking what type of candy you like at the supermarket check out line. Maybe gay religion is like a box of chocolates?
All humor aside, is there anyway to qualify whether a relationship is good or bad? Does the scripture leave it up to the individual to decide what is “natural” to them? Are Christians given the freedom to define what sexual relationship is acceptable and unacceptable? Standards exist in every facet of life: home, government, education, law, even the arts. Contestants can’t even remain on American Idol for long if a certain standard of entertainment –and talent– isn’t maintained. Yet, the gay christian movement would have the church believe that homosexual relationships are somehow just…exempt. GCM Watch would like to issue a 7 day challenge any member of the gay christian movement to please submit a list of criteria whereby we may adequately judge the validity of homosexual relationships.
Gay theology is rooted in an old heresy. As we explained before, antinomianists argued their exemption from moral conduct and restrictions on the basis of grace. It allowed them to do whatever was “natural” in their ideological habitat and still claim relationship with Christ. Antinomianists assert that salvation is based on faith in God and therefore obedience to God’s law is not necessary at any stage in a Christian’s life. Reportedly, it was the Christian reformer Martin Luther who first used this expression, antinomianism, to refer to the views of his friend, Johannes Agricola, in the sixteenth century. Agricola taught that the moral law of God was in no way binding upon those who are justified by faith alone. Johannes Agricola taught Christians are entirely free from the moral law of God. This is completely false and has no scriptural basis.
In fairness, antinomianism is not exclusive to gay christianity, but it is personified most in gay christianity. According to Christian theologian Dr J.I. Packer’s view of antinominianism, its adherents elevate following the “spirit” above scripture thereby creating an easy out from moral restrictions.
“What matters is not what the Scripture tells me. I am a spiritual person, filled with the Holy Spirit. I am above the law of the Scripture. I am led by the Spirit, and the Spirit overrules the Scripture. The Spirit can even contradict the Scripture. I am a spiritual Christian, and I am led by the Spirit. I do what the Spirit tells me, and I don’t worry about the Holy Scriptures.”
Perhaps you remember the United Church of Christ’s “God is still speaking” and “dont place a period where God has placed a comma” mantra, which draws heavily from antinominic ideology.
Applicable scriptures: Judges 21:25, Romans 6:1, Titus 2:11, 1 John 3:4-7, Jude 4.
This story is a repost from June 2007 archives.
Blind leading the blind: Matthew Vines’ dime store gay theology
Gay christians get very offended when the truth about homosexuality is presented to them. Perhaps Jesus’ stunning metaphor in Matthew 15, explains why.
Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
After an oped by gay wunderkind Matthew Vines on the Christian Post, several theological scholars were drafted to take a serious look at his claims, assertions and the loophole type theology being used to rally the spiritually blind to his cause. GCM Watch has reported on Vines before here and here.
The conclusion (as if serious theologians were really needed to deconstruct Vine’s patently superficial arguments) left Vines looking like a foolish and petulant child who skipped Sunday School classes.
The scholars: Dr. Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Seminary, Dr. Evan Lenow in Fort Worth, TX and Professor Sean McDonough of Gordon-Cornwall Seminary joined in on the collaborative critique.
We’ve pulled out some of the highlights of the fairly comprehensive theological smackdown of Vines’ juvenile assertions. Although MV insisted he spent two years “studying the bible”, its evident he actually spent two years memorizing rehashed false teachings from blind teachers of religion. Vines’ rise to attention echoes his youthful predecessor, John Boswell who traveled this same path only to meet with a tragic death from AIDS at 47. But unlike Boswell, Vines has an obvious intellectual deficiency. Part of his strategy seems to be creating trite, soundbite memes like “being gay is not a sin”.
Being gay is not a sin” is the mantra that one young Harvard student is trying to promulgate. But while Matthew Vines has attracted a growing following with what some are describing as accessible, scholarly arguments, evangelical scholars don’t believe he’ll make much headway in the Christian community.
“His arguments are not new, and his predecessors failed to win the day within the Christian community,” said Dr. Evan Lenow, assistant professor of Ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Therefore, I doubt he will have significant impact in the long term.”
But the arguments he presents have been rehashed from the work of such scholars as Finnish Old Testament scholar Martti Nissinen, homosexual New Testament scholar Dale Martin (Yale), and homosexual church historian John Boswell [see our expose of Boswell's teachings here and here], according to Dr. Robert Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, who is considered the foremost expert on the Bible and homosexuality.
Of course the scholars immediately recognize that Vines is pouring out old, sour wine from an old wineskin.
“Every one of these rehashed arguments I have refuted in previous work, of which Vines shows not the slightest awareness,” said Gagnon, who studied the issue for 15 years after completing a masters of theological studies at Harvard Divinity and a Ph.D. in New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary.
His (Vines’) take on Genesis 1 is theologically incoherent. He seems to concede the goodness of God’s creation of man and woman (which forms the basis for subsequent biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality), then claims that in the current state of things homosexual desire is natural, and therefore good, for homosexuals. But this spectacularly avoids the problem of the Fall in Genesis 3.
“One might equally argue that while peace was a desirable state for Adam and Eve in Eden, murderous envy was the ‘natural’ state of Cain, and thus he cannot be condemned for acting on his innate desires. He also suggests that the only possible way not to be alone in the world is to be in a sexual relationship. Why would this be so?”
Like most arguments in support of homosexuality, they are heavy on emotional manipulation primarily because they have no foundational truth to stand upon. That’s another cog in the wheel of trickery the scholars pointed out.
But for McDonough, Vines’ main appeal is emotional, “with a thin dusting of logic on top.”
“Vines presents himself as a sensitive, rational soul simply trying to figure out what the Bible really says. But underneath the veneer there is a pretty manipulative premise: if you disagree with me, you are by definition cruel and oppressive,” McDonough commented. “Who wants to be cruel and oppressive?”
The evangelical scholars agreed that Vines may be able to sway some believers.
“We are living in a time when many younger folks are looking for alternatives to traditional Christian views about sexuality,” said Mouw of Fuller. “Unless we do a much better job of ministering to people with their very real dilemmas, arguments like those set forth by Vines will arise, even though they are highly speculative as interpretations of biblical teaching.”
Finally, as Jesus said those who follow someone blind will fall into a ditch. Vines’ superficial theology manipulates shifting emotional instability, rehashes shallow heresies and seeks to destroy the very foundation of biblical teaching.
True of most if not all of gay christian theology is its serpentine logic. Lenow noted:
“If one were to follow Vines’ logic, that calling homosexuality a sin marginalizes homosexuals, then the church would have to approve of all things that the Bible calls sin “lest we marginalize any segment of society. This would, in effect, eliminate sin from Scripture and eliminate our need for a Savior. By doing so, we would eliminate the church and Christianity.”
Resources: A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement by Joe Dallas [amazon]
The gay [religious] agenda ad naseum
Courtesy of Eden Political Cartoons
That’s basically the gist of it folks. Over and over and over. Its the same old regurgitated revisionist religious vomit all wrapped up in a recycled rainbow package and sealed with the kiss of spiritual death.
A ‘gay christian’ salvation lie
There’s no easy way to say this but here it is. Gay christians are liars. And so are those that support them. That’s not a difficult thing to state if you are familiar with the vortex of ideology currently being disseminated in churches across America by a small army of religion’s newest inbred religious movement. In an article about Exodus International in Christianity Today a gay christian supporter made this statement in the ensuing comment war: “Salvation doesn’t change one’s sexual orientation any more than it changes one’s gender.”
Sound like it might be plausible? Actually, its not. Its a stunning concoction of lies.
This is what is termed a “false parallel” and an example of how homosexual apologists intricately layer falsehoods to confuse and deceive you.
First, the gay christian uses a false construct as a shield to hide his false parallel. Sexual orientation is the false construct as it was crafted to reinforce the unproven idea that homosexuality is innate. Since they could not scientifically prove homosexuality to be innate/genetic (tho studies have been done) they created language as if it had been proven. Using this false foundation, he attempts to build a case which would reinvent the whole biblical understanding of salvation.
Evoking sexual orientation as a direct line equal to gender is false because gender is immutable, —never changing— whereas sexual preference (the appropriate term used prior to the invention of sexual orientation) does in fact, change.
Secondly, according to the scriptures salvation has no original intent to change gender or any other immutable human characteristic nor has it ever. Thus the supposition about salvation is also false. The intent of salvation is to change the heart of man.
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:8-10
But if a man experiences no change in the heart, there will be no subsequent change in sexual behavior. This is where gay christian ideology is like a wild weed amongst Christian truth. It excises the need for repentance, a significant prerequisite for salvation. Or they simply exempt themselves by declaring that same sex love is no sin.
The entire gay christian apologetic premise is built upon a presumption of deserved salvation. What a specious affront to both the cross and the blood of Jesus Christ.
As Pastor Paul Washer said, “No one who boasts of a right standing before God based upon personal virtue or merit understands either who God is or who they are.”
Critiquing Matthew Vines’ revisionist rhetoric
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
