Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evangelicals Review Matthew Vines' 'God and the Gay Christian' Book
Christian Post ^ | 04/23/2014 | BY STOYAN ZAIMOV

Posted on 04/23/2014 8:23:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last
To: SeekAndFind
Let’s be clear, Luther was not against tradition or reason.

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has, it never comes to the aid of spiritual things" - Martin Luther

That sounds like "against" to me.

Luther was always for JUDGING tradition and reason in the light of what is written in scripture

There's the hole in the argument. As long as you are doing the private judging of what Scripture actually says, then the "Scriptural" judging of tradition and reason is really a private judging of Scripture, tradition, and reason all together - Matthew Vines style.

In reality, Vines is fighting against an objective moral reality that exists outside of his private judgment or my private judgment, and which either of our judgments is powerless to change or deny.

51 posted on 04/23/2014 10:42:52 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The gay marriage left depends on the vote of the Catholic denomination

Actually, the record shows that it tries to avoid voting altogether.

and wrote a law promoted by the Catholic president

Who wrote which law, now? And which "Catholic president" promoted this law?

"to import millions more Catholic voters"

From where, exactly?

the Christians who are most hated by the left, the Evangelicals

So the left is really upset by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Or the National Baptist Convention? Tony Campolo? Jim Wallis? Those Evangelicals?

Your analysis here is pretty murky.

Very thin on argument, very heavy on supposition and innuendo.

52 posted on 04/23/2014 10:50:45 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Define "SOUND JUDGMENT", please.
53 posted on 04/23/2014 10:52:15 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

RE: “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has, it never comes to the aid of spiritual things” - Martin Luther

Read it in CONTEXT. By that, he meant RATIONALIZING away the intent and context of what scripture teaches.

What Luther is saying can be explained in simple terms of illustration; I could say that the mind is the worst enemy of swimming, for a child learning to swim often does not want to swim through fear, which is from the mind.

For a child who will not learn how to swim does so because he or she is afraid to get into the water through fear in the mind, thus you could say that ‘the mind is the greatest enemy that swimming has, even though we know that when a person learns how to swim, the mind is the greatest asset the swimmer has. Thus, if we take this understanding and apply it to Luther’s quote, we see that reason which stands in the way of taking the step of faith towards believing in Jesus, is in fact the enemy of faith, for it prevents people from believing in Jesus as savior, because of doubt and human reasoning.

Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by PLAIN REASON…I cannot and I will not recant”. Note the words, “plain reason” thus, we must conclude that Luther was not against ‘Plain reason’.

RE: As long as you are doing the private judging of what Scripture actually says, then the “Scriptural” judging of tradition and reason is really a private judging of Scripture, tradition, and reason all together - Matthew Vines style.

Nope, not so. Scriptural judging of tradition is WEIGHING what tradition teaches in light of scripture, its context, the historical basis for its teachings from the beginning of the church, and then determining whether it is valid, or has any prescriptive effectiveness in a Christian’s life.

Vines’ argument are PLAINLY AGAINST scripture and his use of “reason” is nothing but rationalizing away what scripture plainly teaches.

The fact that tradition also supports scripture is another basis for rejecting his argument. But hey, if one rejects scripture on this issue, I don’t see how having church doctrine or tradition will guarantee that such arguments will disappear.


54 posted on 04/23/2014 10:52:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

RE: Define “SOUND JUDGMENT”, please.

St. Paul tells Timothy:

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[a] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).

What does rightly handling the word of truth mean?

It most definitely does not mean giving up your right to study the word and leaving it to the Vatican to do it for you.

Here are some basic principles of good handling of the truth which serious students of the Bible will follow:

1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.

And in all of these, you study the word in COMMUNION with like minded students of the word. And PRAY for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who Christ promises to be our guide and teacher and helper ( See John 14 ).


55 posted on 04/23/2014 10:57:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I could say that the mind is the worst enemy of swimming, for a child learning to swim often does not want to swim through fear, which is from the mind

This mixes terms. We are discussing all mental phenomena, or even strictly mental phenomena. We are discussing "reason" or ratio (Vernunft in German), or logical argument.

Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by PLAIN REASON…I cannot and I will not recant”.

That was early in Luther's career. As his career progressed he became more and more opposed to reason, with his final sermon in Wittenberg in 1546 referring to reason as "the Devil 's greatest whore."

You see, between 1521 and 1546 he encountered many learned men, Protestants and Catholics, who made strongly reasoned arguments against his views. He began to argue more and more that feelings were more reliable than reason.

WEIGHING what tradition teaches in light of scripture, its context, the historical basis for its teachings from the beginning of the church, and then determining whether it is valid, or has any prescriptive effectiveness in a Christian’s life

Again, what is the scale to be used in doing the weighing? If we have already interpreted Scripture for ourselves, we are weighing tradition against our own sentiments.

But hey, if one rejects scripture on this issue, I don’t see how having church doctrine or tradition will guarantee that such arguments will disappear.

If one begins from the premise that the Church and not the individual is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then one has to either cleanly break with the faith or accept it.

Ultimately it comes down to whether one thinks one has the personal authority to decide on what is true or not, or whether one thinks that this authority lies outside oneself.

56 posted on 04/23/2014 11:05:22 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

You wrote, “The Church is the Body of Christ.”

That is true. The Church is indeed the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ is The Church.

Now, if by “The Church” you’re meaning the Roman Catholic Church ... well, then, you’d be incorrect.

The Body of Christ includes all those adopted into God’s family, all those who follow Christ, and not just those in your denomination.


57 posted on 04/23/2014 11:07:46 AM PDT by Theo (May Christ be exalted above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It most definitely does not mean giving up your right to study the word and leaving it to the Vatican to do it for you.

That's a non-answer.

Here are some basic principles of good handling of the truth which serious students of the Bible will follow

Why will they follow it? Because you say they should?

I'll point out that to carefully follow the principles you have laid out, one needs to have an education that surpasses the means and ability of 99.99% of the world's population.

How does one know if one has a "precise" English translation of a Hebrew text? Really only by learning Hebrew, negating the need for a precise English translation.

To get back to the original article that began the thread: Vines has precisely this level of education. Although he is wrong, he knows far more about the language, syntax, historical context, and lexicography of the Scriptures than 99% of actual Christians do.

Bart Ehrman, a far more radical critic of traditional Christianity than Vines, has an even more rarified knowledge of the original languages and the history than Vines does.

If the only authority is based on careful study and deep textual knowledge, then Ehrman and Vines are highly authoritative.

Vines is doing everything he is "supposed" to do: exercising private judgment, carefully studying the Scriptures, etc.

As a result he finds in the Scriptures exactly what he wants to find there: full justification for what he thinks and feels and does.

58 posted on 04/23/2014 11:16:35 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Now, if by “The Church” you’re meaning the Roman Catholic Church ... well, then, you’d be incorrect.

Hmmm, then you go on to say:

The Body of Christ includes all those adopted into God’s family, all those who follow Christ

I have no disagreement with this, as far as it goes.

Here's the problem, Theo: on whom does Christ bestow earthly responsibility and leadership for His Body?

59 posted on 04/23/2014 11:21:31 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

RE: This mixes terms. We are discussing all mental phenomena, or even strictly mental phenomena. We are discussing “reason” or ratio (Vernunft in German), or logical argument.

And have you proven that Luther was against using such reasoning?

RE: That was early in Luther’s career. As his career progressed he became more and more opposed to reason, with his final sermon in Wittenberg in 1546 referring to reason as “the Devil ‘s greatest whore.”

You see, between 1521 and 1546 he encountered many learned men, Protestants and Catholics, who made strongly reasoned arguments against his views. He began to argue more and more that feelings were more reliable than reason.

Luther’s basic argument is still correct.

Luther used rational argumentation in his own apologetics, which at first seems strange and yet is entirely consistent with his view. We have heard him say that every argument based on reason can be overthrown by reason. He held that it was wrong, indeed, to defend Scripture with reason, but he was sure that it was perfectly proper to combat reason with reason.

In his De servo arbitrio, the answer to the Diatribe of Erasmus, he uses rational arguments again and again.

Erasmus had argued that man must have the power to repent and believe since God had commanded him to do this. Luther said that if Erasmus is right in this argument, then he is wrong in his basic theological position and the Pelagians are right. So, Luther says, the Diatribe has her throat cut with her own sword.

It must be noted throughout, however, that Luther never sought to establish the truth by reason. But what he attempts to do is to show that the arguments of those who attacked the Christian faith are not as foolproof as the men who use them seem to think. Again and again he applies the epithets unsinnig, senseless, and unvernünftig, unreasonable, to his adversaries. While Luther would never have written a book on the reasonableness of the Christian faith, he could conceivably have written one with the title The Irrationalism of Unbelief.

I think a great way to frame and understand Luther is to read them in light of Luther’s explanation to the first and third articles of the Apostles’ Creed.

In the first article, Luther writes: “I believe that God has made me and all creatures. He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them.”

Obviously here, reason is a good thing and a gift from God to us to help us figure out life in this world. Of course, in each of the quotes, Luther isn’t talking about figuring out the things of daily life.

Contrast this however with his explanation on the third article he writes,

“I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.” Here, when it comes to knowing God, our reason isn’t useful, rather, it gets in the way of the Gospel and grace that is so contrary to our reason. This would be what Luther’s referring to in the quotes.

Like with most of Luther, thinking in and discerning between two realms (before God and before people), is really helpful in understanding what he’s saying.

It’s useful to remember When Luther writes about “reason” it’s not just using our mind or skill. He’s not railing against having a good theological education either (he was a PhD after all).

He’s talking about Reason (let’s denote it with a capital ‘R’). At that time there was a strong emphasis in using Aristotilian logic (Scolasticism, Aquinas was it’s biggest star)to explain theological things. If it didn’t pan out in Reason, it didn’t have authority.

The biggest things about Luther’s theology like God’s grace, Theology of the Cross,etc. were things that contradicted Reason (Aristotilian or otherwise.) It had to be grasped by faith not worked out in Reason.

People were saying – God is loving, benevolent, even when we’re so bad and awful? God gave Jesus to us to die on a cross? We really eat God’s body and blood? It doesn’t make sense. It’s not reasonable. The math doesn’t work out.

He saw that Reason often directly contradicted faith. (And it does!) Therefore it was a whore (he was very hyperbolic too!)

*THAT* is how we must understand what he said.

RE: Again, what is the scale to be used in doing the weighing? If we have already interpreted Scripture for ourselves, we are weighing tradition against our own sentiments.

By the way in asking the above question, it is not simply directed against me. It is also directed against the Vatican, the Pope and any man who interprets scripture.

In answer to your question, there is not one scale, but the use of several measures if you will.

The most important law of biblical interpretation is that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

Literal Bible interpretation means we understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Many make the mistake of trying to read between the lines and come up with meanings for Scriptures that are not truly in the text. Yes, of course, there are some spiritual truths behind the plain meanings of Scripture. That does not mean that every Scripture has a hidden spiritual truth, or that it should be our goal to find all such spiritual truths. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing and symbolizing Bible verses and passages that should be understood literally.

A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that a verse or passage must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Historical interpretation refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation which prompted the text. Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. Contextual interpretation involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning.

THOSE are the “scales” by which we use to determine sound handling of the word.

And nope, that is NOT saying that one has personal authority over God’s word. It is OBEYING the command to Handle it correctly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who IS the ultimate authority.


60 posted on 04/23/2014 11:24:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

No, JFK new what he was doing when he started pushing mass immigration in the 1950s, the Catholic vote was always democrat, and the protestant vote was always anti-democrat, and the left still fights to import more Catholics from the Catholic nations.

The left really hates the 75 and 80% conservative Evangelical voters.

But members of the Catholic denomination? The more millions the better, for the left, it is what they count on to defeat America once and for all.


61 posted on 04/23/2014 11:31:06 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

RE: That’s a non-answer.

And you response is an answer? You simply make an assumption and then tell me it’s the correct one.

RE: What you have laid out, one needs to have an education that surpasses the means and ability of 99.99% of the world’s population.

Yes, so?

The problem with Christians is they REFUSE to educate themselves and leave it to pastors, priests or other person to do it for them.

A serious Christian SHOULD STRIVE to study scripture.

RE: How does one know if one has a “precise” English translation of a Hebrew text? Really only by learning Hebrew, negating the need for a precise English translation.

BY TRAINING ONE-SELF for it.

There is NO OTHER WAY.

YOU ought to do it, I ought to do it such that if a priest, bishop or pope gives his interpretation of something, we can rightly judge it to be “rightly” handling the word of truth.

RE: To get back to the original article that began the thread: Vines has precisely this level of education. Although he is wrong, he knows far more about the language, syntax, historical context, and lexicography of the Scriptures than 99% of actual Christians do.

And so, this does not absolve us from studying the same and determining whether his use of his education is rightly handling God’s word or not

RE: Bart Ehrman, a far more radical critic of traditional Christianity than Vines, has an even more rarified knowledge of the original languages and the history than Vines does.

If the only authority is based on careful study and deep textual knowledge, then Ehrman and Vines are highly authoritative.

Again, so?

When one person says, I studied the Bible and here is my interpretation, does that absolve you or me from looking at his arguments and determining whether it passes the test of sound doctrine or logical consistency?

I would argue it does not.

RE: Vines is doing everything he is “supposed” to do: exercising private judgment, carefully studying the Scriptures, etc.

I would argue with the use of the word “carefully” above. Vines did study scripture, but with a preconceived notion. Therefore, he DID NOT study it carefully.

And the responders to his book are similarly people who EXERCISE their judgement have shown us where the FLAWS in his study are.

Even if you were to refer to Roman Catholic scholars, they would show the same flaws IN THE SAME WAY.

RE: As a result he finds in the Scriptures exactly what he wants to find there: full justification for what he thinks and feels and does.

Therefore, he DID NOT CAREFULLY STUDY scripture. The above sentence is a succinct description of his flawed methodology.


62 posted on 04/23/2014 11:34:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
No, JFK new what he was doing when he started pushing mass immigration in the 1950s

It would be great to see a shred of evidence on that front.

I mean, I realize that you and JFK were close friends and you were privy to the inner workings of his mind, but it would be great to see some proof of that.

Also, it would be good for you to explain how JFK faked his own death and secretly promoted the Immigration Act in 1965.

the Catholic vote was always democrat, and the protestant vote was always anti-democrat

I see. So that's why the South voted for Lincoln?

The left really hates the 75 and 80% conservative Evangelical voters.

According to Barna, the guy who seems to keep the most statistics, 40% of Americans consider themselves Evangelicals, but Barna only considers 8% of Americans to be Evangelicals.

But make up whatever numbers you please.

It is clear that you have one goal: to foreclose on the First Amendment.

63 posted on 04/23/2014 11:43:01 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

God has provided “overseers and deacons” (or “bishops and deacons,” depending on your translation) to bear earthly responsibility and leadership for His Body.

Scripture describes these men, and their roles/responsibilities, in 1 Tim. 3:1-13, Acts 20:28, Hebrews 13:17, Eph. 4:11-12, 2 Tim. 2:2, Acts 14:23, and elsewhere.


64 posted on 04/23/2014 11:45:56 AM PDT by Theo (May Christ be exalted above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

The democrats have only won the Protestant vote in 1932, 1936, and 1964.

The republicans have only won the Catholic vote about 5 times, there is dispute about the figures and 5 might be too many, for instance a question is whether the Catholic vote had gone republican once (1956) before JFK, or never.


“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.

In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960.
In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.

After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.”

Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”


65 posted on 04/23/2014 11:51:30 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
That's a lot of text.

To focus on the essentials:

(1) Luther, of course, used reason even as he condemned it. One cannot make an argument without using reason - yet Luther rejected the reasoning of others, while ascribing to his own arguments the influence of grace rather than reliance on base reason.

That is a rhetorical flourish, not a factual distinction.

(2) You can say that Vines or Ehrman are not really reading Scripture carefully - that doesn't mean it's so.

There are absolutely Catholic scholars who make mistakes in reading Scripture as well, but that doesn't mean that they aren't reading carefully either.

This is why there is interpretive authority in the Church. The Church is more than just a study group.

A person could literally spend all of their waking hours studying Scripture and never do more than scratch the surface.

This is not a merely human document.

66 posted on 04/23/2014 12:17:44 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; PetroniusMaximus; Resolute Conservative

I believe that part of the problem is that you don’t understand what many Protestants believe about scriptural interpretation.

“The Church” is not only the one headed by The Pope. “The Church” includes all of us who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior.

None of the Southern Baptists I know believe that we have the only true interpretation of Scripture because we have some private privilege of our own convenient interpretation. And your statement/insinuation that we do may make you feel justified in your beliefs, but it is false.

The “Protest” part of Protestant is more about someone telling us we don’t have access to God, and must go through someone else. It is more about the past injustices of the Church leadership (sort of like Jesus viewed the Pharisees).

In the past, it was mighty convenient that only priests and church officials could read. That way, “The Church” could be told anything the leaders wanted to tell them, and Christians had to bow down. Indulgences, anyone?

So stop your attacks on us because someone does believe he has a private interpretation (VERY contrary to plain scripture, by the way). Most of us don’t.


67 posted on 04/23/2014 12:29:21 PM PDT by HeadOn (God resists the proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

RE: That’s a lot of text.

Because your question requires it. Sorry if it bothers you.

RE: That is a rhetorical flourish, not a factual distinction.

There is a distinction. Luther uses Reason UP TO A POINT. He realizes that reason only gets you so far. Up to a point, FAITH has to come in, which is BEYOND reason.

He even quotes the book of Hebrews to buttress his argument.

That is why he understands that much of what Christianity (e.g., the cross, the incarnation, forgiving one’s enemies, etc. ) presents to an unregenerate world is
unreasonable”. And it is this “reason” that the world uses that he calls a “whore”.

it is NOT a rhetorical flourish, it is EXPLAINING what he meant.

Luther was most definitely against the legitimate use of reason ( as can be seen in his use of it ).

RE: You can say that Vines or Ehrman are not really reading Scripture carefully - that doesn’t mean it’s so.

Well, you just explained what Vines did with scripture in a previous post and I agreed with you. How is what he did “careful” use of scripture?

It is coming to scripture with a preconceived notion and then mining scripture to make legitimate what one already wants to believe.

You cannot legitimately look at the book of Genesis, Leviticus, the Torah, Jewish teachings and the New Testament and say that homosexual sex is acceptable to God. A simple reading of it already tells you that.

It does not take a Ph.D or a Harvard degree to determine that at all.

Therefore, Martin Luther has NOTHING to do with what Vines is doing.


68 posted on 04/23/2014 12:45:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Vines, who was raised in a Christian home in Wichita”

Very telling quote. If Vines was not raised in a Christian home but in say an atheist or agnostic home, would he be doing this?

I have more intellectual respect for secularists who will agree that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior but sadly reject it than I do for folks like Vines who are desperately looking for intellectually dishonest loopholes and scripture-twisting to justify their sins.


69 posted on 04/23/2014 6:14:33 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf

It doesn’t sound like Vines is saying anything new here. It sounds recycled from John Boswell arguments from about 30-40 years ago.

Instead of the new Martin Luther perhaps Vines is the new Joseph Smith?


70 posted on 04/23/2014 6:19:49 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Probably meant Lucifer.


71 posted on 04/23/2014 6:28:11 PM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

He won’t gain any traction past the gay sector.


72 posted on 04/23/2014 6:32:21 PM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Libtards truly believe that everything is politics - even God’s Word. Sorry, no sale here. Anyone advocating that Christians ignore God’s clear Word for political gain is not doing God’s work.


73 posted on 04/23/2014 7:22:24 PM PDT by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Matthew Vines is really no different than any other sinner who seeks to assuage his guilt over an action he KNOWS deep within his heart is an abomination to God. This is not something God forgot to lead us about, but He plainly and unequivocally commands those who want to live holy lives in honor of Him to FLEE sexual immorality - whether it is hetero or homo sexual acts. He leaves NO escape clause for those who claim to be in "loving and committed" relationships to rationalize their error. Sin is sin and nobody gets to tell God what they will or will not obey without having to expect the full consequences He has already warned us about. Vines is not fooling God and I suspect even he is not fooled either.
74 posted on 04/23/2014 10:23:26 PM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; SeekAndFind
Everyone thinks his own personal interpretation of Scripture is authoritative. Matthew Vines is standing on the shoulders of giants.

What's the Catholic's excuse then when they do the same? Are you aware that Reformation theology has NEVER condoned homosexual sin? That it never condoned ANY sin that God's word clearly prohibits? How typical to blame YOPIOS when self-professed "Protestants" go off the rails, yet they can be and are refuted by the SAME Holy Scripture God gifted to man. Catholics have some pretty large splinters in their own eyes to take care.

75 posted on 04/23/2014 10:35:17 PM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
What Vines is doing is quite different. He is insisting on two core Reformation principles: the sufficiency of Scripture alone and private judgment of Scripture. He is arguing that traditional morality is not sufficiently supported by Scripture alone and he is also arguing that his own prayerful, deliberate searching of the Scriptures supports his view. There Matthew Vines, he can do no other. And who can refute him on these grounds? Albert Mohler - a very intelligent and learned theologian of a thoroughly reformed background falls back on a 2,000 year interpretive tradition to refute Vines. As well he should, because he cannot fight Vines on either sufficiency or private judgment grounds.

Mohler can fight Vines on EXACTLY Scriptural sufficiency grounds because even two thousand years ago - heck, thousands of years before THAT - God had ALREADY spoken about what is sinful conduct. The way you put it, it took the Catholic church to decide what God was saying. Instead, we know that all along people of God KNEW what was and wasn't pleasing to God and He condemned homosexual sin as well as heterosexual sin from the start. Had the Bible been hazy or nebulous on the matter, you would have some grounds for your argument, but it wasn't and you don't.

76 posted on 04/23/2014 10:44:08 PM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; wideawake
On the private judgment of scripture -— what’s going to stop people like these from making their own private judgments of tradition?

Good point! People have ALWAYS tried to rationalize and justify their sinful actions - Catholics among them. The state of the Catholic clergy around the time of the Reformation and for hundreds of years before was complicit in the debauchery, simony, depravity and licentiousness of their own. Even a quick glance at St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah adequately demonstrates this fact. Here's a FR link to that topic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696871/posts

P.S. I find it ironic how quick some Catholics are to heap condemnation on fellow non-Catholic Freeper Christians when we post threads that actually AGREE with them on certain issues! Curious that.

77 posted on 04/23/2014 10:57:13 PM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Theo
My comments are precisely on topic and on point: Vines is using core Reformation principles to argue against traditional Christian morality. The SBC response is to either sidestep like Walker or, like Mohler, fall back on 2,000 years of traditional Scriptural interpretation. That's fascinating, wouldn't you say?

Fascinating for you maybe, but not for me. There WAS no sidestep since disputing Vines' novel idea is easily done by appealing to Scripture, in the first place, and tradition, since the true church of Jesus Christ has never strayed from His holy word from the start - the start of the WORLD, that is. Vines may be claiming to use what you call "core Reformation principles", but sola Scriptura is ALL that is needed to show his error. Personal interpretation of Scripture is NOT, no matter how many times y'all toss it out there, a core principle of the Reformation. Your straw-man argument is what is pretty weak.

The Roman Catholic church didn't INVENT the idea that homosexual sin was wrong, they already knew it because God already SAID it going back to Moses' time. The real conundrum Catholics have is trying to rectify what they SAY their church says and what their church actually DOES. Shouldn't that be the most important thing?

78 posted on 04/23/2014 11:16:18 PM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; SeekAndFind
Scripture ALREADY condemns homosexuality.

Indeed. It also condemns private judgment. Yet when one uses the principle of private judgment as one's starting point, once can justify anything.

Two things...where do you contend Scripture "condemns private judgment"? And what makes you imagine it is a "core Reformation principle"?

79 posted on 04/23/2014 11:27:23 PM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

And Luther’s great work continues.

...nice job of waking up all the Catholic bashers in Freeperville...


80 posted on 04/24/2014 7:10:31 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

Oh, they need to be woken up? Do they post 50 anti-Catholic threads a day in their sleep?


81 posted on 04/24/2014 7:17:56 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Should the proper reaction be to ignore what he is doing rather than try to pick it apart?

...don’t know...but the improper reaction to this particular article is to make a theologically charged statement, knowing that it will engender vituperative responses from the numerous Catholiphobes on this forum, and then engage these people with what can only be viewed as ancillary arguments, detracting from an article about which nearly universal agreement should result...


82 posted on 04/24/2014 7:35:25 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
Christian culture in the West is collapsing at a rapid pace.

Vines is turning some of the most potent destructive weapons of one branch of Christianity against it.

I'm sure most FReepers agree that Vines' position is immoral and wrong.

It is a boring FR indeed when we have 100 posts repeating the truism that Vines is wrong - the strength of FR is, or used to be, analysis. Discerning what it is actually going on beneath the surface journalism.

You cannot combat Vines' thesis by saying: "He's wrong because he didn't privately meditate on Scripture as effectively as I have privately meditated on Scripture."

That isn't an argument.

Who is using the right method to determine right from wrong?

Vines adopting Luther's methodology, or Mohler adopting Augustine's methodology?

I submit that Mohler is making the right counterargument from the right grounds.

83 posted on 04/24/2014 8:06:13 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Vines adopting Luther’s methodology, or Mohler adopting Augustine’s methodology?

I submit that Mohler is making the right counterargument from the right grounds.

...all of that is well and good, as well as the point about boring echo chamber, but my beef with your tactic remains...you took a topic about which Christians need to unite, and pointlessly developed it into a Catho-Prot brouhaha, and we get the inevitable surge of malediction from the usual Calvinist suspects, resulting in a degraded thread, as such threads normally do...


84 posted on 04/24/2014 2:00:54 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade; wideawake
Thank you for noticing that and making the point. For all the beefing some Catholics do over their perceived "anti-Catholic" comments made by "Protestant" Freepers, very few can even specify what was said that makes it appear that way to them. To claim "Protestants" post 50 anti-Catholic threads a day "in their sleep", is just nonsensical, hysterical rhetoric.

The majority of Religion Forum threads are posted by Catholics and those that end up being Catholic vs. Protestant extended battles usually were started BY Catholics intentionally to provoke those who are not Catholic. This thread was not one of them but it didn't take very long for someone to ignite the fuse. You're correct...this IS a subject that we CAN agree on and there was no need to start an argument by blaming Martin Luther for the misguided author's justification for his error. I guess some people itch so much for a fight that when there isn't one, they start one!

85 posted on 04/25/2014 12:22:03 AM PDT by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson