by Matt Slick
Matthew Vines is a young homosexual who on March 8, 2012, spoke at College Hill United Methodist Church in Kansas in defense of Biblical support for homosexuality. His approach was polite and delivered in an amiable manner. He tried to address various Scriptures head on as he sought to justify the idea that homosexuality is not a sin for Christians today. Of course, I strongly disagree.The following articles examine aspects of his talk and address the various errors that he has made in his presentation. I've tried to contact Mr. Vines but have not received a response.
- Matthew Vines, an introduction--Matthew seeks to justify homosexuality within the Scriptures and uses various methods to do it. Does he succeed?
- Matthew Vines on Genesis 2:18--"It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." In this article, Mr. Vines changes the focus from God's created order and on what God has stated is good for man, to what the homosexual perceives is good for himself. This approach misses the intent of the text.
- Matthew Vines on Genesis 19 and Sodom and Gomorrah--Mr. Vines says that there are scholars who say that Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be used to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin. However, he provides no such scholars to back up his claim. He simply states that they are there. Are we to be convinced by such an approach?
- Matthew Vines on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Christians not being under the Law--Mr. Vines attempts to dismiss the clear condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus (which he admits is there) by saying Christians are not under the Law. But in so doing, he fails to differentiate between those things addressed only to Israel and those things addressed to other nations. In addition, his logic could easily be used to say that Christians are not obligated to be honest, treat your neighbor well, or be faithful to one's spouse. Check it out.
- Matthew Vines on Romans 1:26-27--Mr. Vines focuses on what is natural to a person. So, if a person is naturally attracted to the same sex, then it's okay. However, Paul talks about natural function which is dealing with the biological aspect, not one's orientation. Again, Matt misses the mark.
- Matthew Vines on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10--Mr. Vines tries to say that the words in question ("effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind") cannot be used against homosexuality because "There is no contextual support for linking this term to loving, faithful relationships." But then, why does homosexuality get the only pass among the other sins listed in the context?
- Matthew Vines on 1 Timothy 1:10--Mr. Vines seeks to separate a person's orientation from the homosexual act. Again, he tries to use a person's orientation as justification for the act of homosexuality. But, that isn't what Scripture teaches.
- Response to Mr. Vines' conclusion on the Bible and homosexuality--Mr. Vines makes numerous mistakes including begging the question, reading into the text what is not there, mistakenly separating orientation from action, and changing the focus of what the verses actually say. All this is done in an attempt to justify homosexuality from the Word of God. He has not succeeded--in spite the accolades to the contrary.
James White and Matthew Vines
In May of 2012, Dr. James White produced a five-hour response to Mr. Vines as a part of his webcast, The Dividing Line. We believe that this thorough refutation of Mr. Vines' presentation will help strengthen Christians and equip them to respond to the arguments presented by Mr. Vines. To that end, we would highly recommend that you download Mr. White's response titled, "Gay Christianity Refuted" from Alpha and Omega Ministries.