SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
Matthew Vines Launches 'Reformation Project' to Make Churches Gay-Affirming
Matthew Vines, a Harvard-educated gay Christian who sparked a great deal of controversy in the church community last year with his in-depth analysis on why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, has launched a new leadership training conference aimed at teaching Christians how to lead LGBT-friendly churches and communities.
In a video announcing the project, Vines says The Reformation Project will "train, connect and empower gay Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on homosexuality from the ground up."
Vines gained a wide recognition and stirred controversy last year with his hour-long YouTube video, which has gained over half a million views, where he presented a detailed argument on why he believes the Bible does not condemn gay people....
John for JESUS wrote: It is one thing to be a believer who struggles with sin and another to openly approve and endorse a particular sin, such as Matthew Vines does.
I am not speaking necessarily to Mr. Vines. In fact, I hadn't heard of him 'til this article and I'm uncertain why anyone is paying attention to him. His claim to fame is that he's 22, once went to Harvard and now he's a Bible expert?
You cannot be in habitual homosexual sin and be a born from above believer and follower of Christ. Repentance is wrought by God the Spirit as He brings a sinner out of sin's bondage; they forsake their sins, fleeing from it and pursuing holiness.
Someone has already recommended Dr. White's biblical rebuttal of this lost homosexual's attempt to twist holy writ; I second that recommendation. Dr. White tears this guy's false teachings apart. They {homosexuals} go so far as to say 'arsenokoites', which is Greek and translated as 'homosexual' in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 is not part of the classic Greek, however, I recommend reading http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf for a more in-depth understanding on Paul's usage of arsenkoites.
Any sex outside of the covenant of marriage God established in Genesis 2:24 is sin, homosexuality is condemned in Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Verse 11 shows us what repentance is, 'and such WERE some of you'. The apostle Paul gives a clear picture of one who turns from sin and to Christ, thus, there is no such thing as a 'gay' Christian. 1 John addresses the phony Christian and the true Christian.
Rufus wrote: Sodomy is indeed forbidden in the Holy Word of God. So too is slothfulness, gluttony, lying, fornication, adultery, lack of charity, drunkenness etc. Yet, believers do all of these things. If you are saying one can not be walking a sanctified, holy life and be a sodomite, I concur. However, if you are saying one can not be a believer in the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and be a sodomite, I disagree.
It is one thing to be a believer who struggles with sin and another to openly approve and endorse a particular sin, such as Matthew Vines does.
Susan Louise wrote: How can a Christian be a homosexual? It is forbidden in the Holy Word of God. Either we believe the Word of God or we do not. A person who does not believe the Word of God is not following Christ Jesus.
Sodomy is indeed forbidden in the Holy Word of God. So too is slothfulness, gluttony, lying, fornication, adultery, lack of charity, drunkenness etc. Yet, believers do all of these things.
If you are saying one can not be walking a sanctified, holy life and be a sodomite, I concur. However, if you are saying one can not be a believer in the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and be a sodomite, I disagree.
Watchman wrote: ... Hold your tongue until you are wise and stop contradicting the judgement of God!
I have not contradicted the judgment of God. If you believe David righteously managed Amnon the rapist and righteously managed Absalom the rebel, then we must indeed part ways in disagreement. How he managed his sons was directly related to the Uriah matter.
I would have been interested in your evaluation of Ananias and Saphira but it would seem your rebuke took precedent, so be it...grace and peace to ya.
Rufus wrote: The matter of Uriah did not begin and end at Uriah's death...ended with the fulfilled judgment of God resulting from David's inaction/sin towards his house caused by his own sins. 2Â Samuel 12:11 ...
Your perverse assessment of David's life, against the judgement that God offers up of his life is quite astonishing.
Yes, David, who was a public figure sinned in the matter of Uriah and for this God pronounced a very public punishment which was carried out. He suffered turmoil in his own house and in his kingdom.
This is one of the principles that we learn from God's word that often when we sin, even though the sin be confessed and forgiven, we have to live with the consequences of our sin!!
But your trying to suggest that he continued in sin during the time of this punishment when we have clear evidence that he had repented with bitter tears is outlandish. Even if you could show that his judgement was impaired, which I seriously doubt (read Lawson on David for a corrective), this falls far short of demonstrating that he sinned!
The wise would fall in with God's assessment of his life.
Hold your tongue until you are wise and stop contradicting the judgement of God!
Watchman wrote: As I said your assessment of David's life differs from the Lord's assessment and I for one agree with the Lord. Your first paragraph does nothing but fill out the episode with Uriah. ...
The matter of Uriah did not begin and end at Uriah's death. The Uriah matter began with slothfulness and ended with the fulfilled judgment of God resulting from David's inaction/sin towards his house caused by his own sins.
2Â Samuel 12:11 - Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
Who fulfilled the preceding? Absalom. How did it get fulfilled by David's mishandling/bad judgment/sin towards his children as a result of the Uriah matter. The Uriah matter did not consist of a single sin but many sins that was placed under the descriptive context of the Uriah matter.
So you say David was not in habitual sin and was eternally saved. So be it. What if we go the other way. Were Ananias and Saphira in "habitual" sin prior to God judging them? Were they not eternally saved? Or did the fact they lied to the Holy Ghost mean they were not saved to begin with?
Rufus wrote: Uriah... Then Amnon raped Tamar and David executed poor judgment against Amnon which provoked his son Absalom to wrath. He executed poor judgment I suspect due to a lack of moral authority on the matter due to the matter with Uriah. Then Absalom killed Amnon since David didn't take care of it and Absalom tore up the kingdom for a time. I don't have a thesis for habitual sin and still be saved for I know not the definition of habitual. I do know believers can sin and sometimes they do a whole bunch of it. Doesn't mean they are no longer eternally saved. As to reprobate equalling worthless, there is such a thing as an unprofitable/worthless servant.
As I said your assessment of David's life differs from the Lord's assessment and I for one agree with the Lord. Your first paragraph does nothing but fill out the episode with Uriah.
What you previously called David's sin in dealing with Amnon, Absalom etc you now downgrade to poor judgement, but interestingly the Lord found no sin in the matter on David's part! You need to reconsider how you read the Bible.
A precious person may be unprofitable but the person is precious nonetheless. You're trying to read in reprobate where it does not belong! IOW unprofitable does not mean rep
The matter of Uriah did not start and stop with murder, it started with a little fox and became bigger and bigger sin. Slothfulness - King David stayed home during a time when kings were to go to battle. Adultery of the eye - David looked with lust upon Bathsheba. Adultery in deed / theft - David took another man's wife. Deception - David tried to get Uriah to be with Bathsheba so David would not get found out. Causing a brother to stumble - David commanded Joab to murder an innocent man. Murder - David had Uriah killed.
Then Amnon raped Tamar and David executed poor judgment against Amnon which provoked his son Absalom to wrath. He executed poor judgment I suspect due to a lack of moral authority on the matter due to the matter with Uriah. Then Absalom killed Amnon since David didn't take care of it and Absalom tore up the kingdom for a time.
I don't have a thesis for habitual sin and still be saved for I know not the definition of habitual. I do know believers can sin and sometimes they do a whole bunch of it. Doesn't mean they are no longer eternally saved.
As to reprobate equalling worthless, there is such a thing as an unprofitable/worthless servant.
Yep, Ive listed to it. Yes, he alleges Bible mistranslation. And he says the Romans passage is condemning straight people who have gay sex, but not condemning gays themselves. He also uses selective quotes from antiquity to claim that people of the era did not understand homosexuality, and on that basis he claims that what they wrote in the Bible on the topic isnt authoritative. His video seems quite persuasive until you review some of the quality refutations of it.
Has anyone listened to his 1hr YouTube presentation? I haven't yet but will be. I am very curious to know how they rationialize clear Biblical doctrines. I am assuming that he tries to confuse with erroneous word interpretations or version errors?
Yeah mr vines. Homosexuality is a sin. What bible you reading? Oh ... One that suits your lifestyle cause you don't want to give up your sin. You ain't fooling nobody but yourself
Dr.James White at Alpha & Omega Ministries,www.aomin.org,devoted several of his "The Dividing Line" programs to refuting Matthew Vines. Dr. White edited these programs into one five-hour program that is available on his homepage.
I recommend this program even though it may be a little bit repetitious because Dr. White teaches Greek and is able to go back to the original language and explain the different sins enumerated in the texts that Mr. Vines uses. For example, 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns both "male prostitutes and homosexuals" (NIV), but these are two different categories of sin. The male prostitute feminizes himself to attract men and takes the female receptive role. "Homosexuals" are gay men who have sexual with men.
One of Mr. Vine's arguments is that his love for another man is the same as that between a husband and wife. God is love, and He defines what is love.
One of the favorite weapons of the gay lobby is to claim that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It was just that "mean" Paul who condemned homosexuality. Jesus affirmed heterosexuality, "For this reason, a man shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
I recommend listening to Dr. White's response to Mr. Vine.
Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that it is full of warnings against false teachers, i.e. those who twist scripture for their own satisfaction or gain.
Here's just one part that speaks for itself (as God's holy word always does, if one just listens to what it actually says):
Paul's letter to Timothy, 1 Timothy 1:3-11 (English Standard Version)
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. 8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Rufus wrote: He repented after the messenger of the Lord (Nathan) lighted his darkened heart. Later however, King David sinned in his approach to a son who raped and sinned in his approach to a son who murdered and rebelled against the king. One might say the tenor of his life was not good. Now I love King David so I don't want to impugn him as much as magnify the mercy of David's heavenly father and demonstrate that one who is Godly can start out with a little bit of sin and watch that turn into a whole lot of sin and throughout the whole process still be eternally saved.
Why is your judgement of David 's life soooo different to the judgement that God gives of his life? Read 1 Kings 15.5
I would suggest that you're reading your bible incorrectly!!!
God looked at the tenor of his entire life and only saw one blot viz. the episode with Uriah. You look at his entire life and see nothing but sin after that episode. Who is right?
As God's verdict can never be incorrect, then your thesis that a person can continue in habitual sin and still be saved goes down the pan!
BTW the word 'reprobate' means worthless and is never used of any true believer.
Rev. Colin Mercer | 11/19/2012
COMMENTS | 
