Does Flag Waving and Flag Stomping Define Marriage?

“The ultimate question is whether we will interpret our sexuality through the lens of the Scriptures or whether we will interpret the Scriptures through the lens of our sexuality.” The answer, of course, is in the question.”~ Dr. Michael Brown

This post is a response to the questions of the homosexual affirming John Shore’s rebuttal of the divorce and remarried affirming Kevin DeYoung’s post, “40 Questions For Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags”.  John’s post is here. 40 Questions for (fear-mongering) pastor Kevin DeYoung, now stomping the rainbow flag.


Kevin’s post asks some very good questions, but his false understanding of marriage does not provide a strong foundation for the Gospel, nor does it provide a complete defense against marriage re-definition. When one defends marriage they must do so to make it perfectly clear that marriage is in co-definition with the Gospel. Overall, I believe Kevin was sincere in asking pointed questions that everyone needs to answer.   

“These questions aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical. They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.” ~ Kevin DeYoung

John’s post is not specifically answering Kevin’s questions but as he puts it, he believes he is “turning the tables” on what he believes are “bullying tactics” of Kevin DeYoung. Since John knows his audience like Kevin knows his audience, it should be easy for John to ease the fears that John believes Kevin instills with his “fear-mongering”. But we should remind ourselves that perfect love casts out fear and that the message of the Gospel is the power to save for those who need a Savior. (1 Cor 1:18)

The context of John’s post is typically known as a Red Herring fallacy. John distracts the reader from the questions so that he can steer the audience to a false conclusion. John also asks questions to Kevin’s succeeding questions that would require him to answer the preceding question. Thus, I did not answer a few questions that fell under this category. 

John also makes us believe that Kevin DeYoung does not have a genuine love for people, and as he puts it, he is persecuting an “innocent sub-population”. I believe Kevin does have a love for people, albeit with his own false understanding of marriage. The log in Kevin’s eye keeps him from truly speaking in the Spirit on this issue. Thus, John believes Kevin comes across as being hypocritical. I believe John is correct on his assessment, but not from the understanding based on spiritual discernment, rather John comes to this conclusion based on his love for the world.

“DeYoung’s core premise informing every one of his questions is the same: Any Christian who affirms LGBT equality is sinning against God and destined for hell.”-John Shore

The context of any “Christian” post should be written so that it exhibits the love of Christ. That would mean the post should include both grace and truth as Christ came in grace and truth. If Kevin believes that those who affirm homosexuality will go to Hell, then John must prove that affirming homosexuality is not a sin, or John must prove there is no such place where God pours out His wrath against those who reject the gift of grace through the Gospel.

The whole intent of my post is to lead both Kevin and John to the true definition of marriage that centers on the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This requires Kevin to repent of his belief that the Lord Jesus Christ allowed for divorce and remarriage of a one-flesh covenant between regenerated, blood-bought, new creations in Christ. This requires Kevin to relinquish his grip on the traditions of men. I pray that John’s eyes would be open to the truth of the Gospel and that he would repent of sin and come to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. I also pray that anyone who reads this will see how the creation of marriage gives glory to the Creator, and that His grace to create a man and woman in His image and how that union is a perfect reflection of His love for us. 

1.     Kevin: How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?  
 John: How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be condemned?

Me-I believe there is no such thing as “gay-marriage”. If it is referring to “same-sex marriage” or “homosexual marriage” Kevin is giving the affirming homosexual the benefit of the doubt by saying, “gay-marriage.” If Kevin would have asked. “How long have you believed that sin is something to celebrate”, maybe John would answer the question. 

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind? What Bible verses led you to override your own innate moral sense?
You cannot ask a question here without you answering the first question related to this question. There are no bible verses that would lead a person to believe that homosexuality is natural and moral.
3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated? How would you make a positive case without Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is an abomination to be condemned?
The answer to Kevin’s question is that there is zero reference that sexual activity between the same-sex is celebrated in the Bible. In fact, ALL sexual activity outside of a one-flesh covenant marriage is sinful. Thus, the answer to John’s question is found in the following scriptures…Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9, and Eph 5:31,32. 

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church? What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex cannot adequately depict Christ and the church?

Eph 5:31,32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Genesis 2:24 is the main verse that is reflected through what the Lord Jesus Christ has to say about marriage. Kevin would most likely disagree with me on some points (namely his understanding of divorce and remarriage), but marriage is a reflection of the Gospel and is defined as a one-flesh covenant between one man and one woman for life. This does not bode well for the self-professing homosexual affirming Christian’s case, nor does it bode well for the self-professing heterosexual divorced and remarried Christian.   

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship? Do you think Jesus ever said a single word about homosexuality?
The Lord did not say a single word about homosexuality, in fact he didn’t have to. He did address the definition of marriage, and once you understand that He said marriage is as it was from the beginning (Genesis 2:24)…one man and one woman for life, you will understand that your foundation is on sinking sand. (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Again, this is not what John or Kevin can seem to understand. I believe it has to do with embracing carnality instead of denying the flesh and living in the Spirit. In Kevin’s case I believe it has to do with embracing the writings of the Westminster Confession and traditions of men concerning divorce and remarriage instead of trusting in faith that the word of God points to one man and one woman for life. 

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman? If so, why do you think it’s okay to quote from the Bible without any reference to the context of that quote?

Kevin did not complete this question. He should have ended this question like this….”for life”? As for the context of Genesis 2:24…A man (who was created in the image of God) will leave his father and mother. Notice it doesn’t say, father and father, or mother and mother. He will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh. God made man out of the dust of the earth, and created a suitable helpmeet which was woman. Everything that God did in the beginning was GOOD. This is the law of marriage….one man and one woman, till death do they part. This law was before sin entered into the world, thus marriage from the beginning is one man and one woman for life.  

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding? Why do you think it’s okay to quote from the Bible without any reference to the context of that quote?

If we simply answer the question, we would conclude that “porneia” was specific to sex between a man and a woman outside the bonds of consummated marriage. Kevin must not use “porneia” to describe all kinds of sexual immorality. In fact, this question is answered by questions number 9 and 10.

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1? Why do you think it’s okay to quote from the Bible without any reference to the context of that quote?

If John simply answers the question, he would have to somehow validate what he believes in homosexual marriage as not being sinful. 

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven? Do you believe that the money you make teaching that homosexuality is a sin plays any role whatsoever in your continuing to choose to interpret the Bible as saying that homosexuality is a sin?

The money Kevin makes will not matter in eternity, the only thing that matters is if Kevin speaks to the permanence of marriage. I believe that most (P)astors (a.k.a hirelings) do not speak the truth about marriage concerning divorce and remarriage(Let alone, preach the Gospel)...affirming homosexuality is just another step in capitulating to the love of the world and the fear of men. Fear God, not men.

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Kevin’s ESV version states that “porneia” is used for the sexual immoral. Why would Paul use “porneia” as a broad term for sexual immorality and then use “arsenokoitai” for the homosexual? Why would Paul use fornication, adultery, and same-sex separately in a sentence, and then say “porneia” is a broad term that is not specific to fornication?

This simple error not only exposes Kevin’s understanding of divorce and remarriage, it confirms that John would rather attack the person rather than have anything convincing to affirm his own position. This is typically referred to as an Ad hominem fallacy. This was John's intent in the whole post. Not to mention, these simple hermeneutic errors also give credence to the fact that the true definition of marriage is one man and one woman for life. A divorce never ends a one-flesh covenant marriage and all “remarriages” are not lawful marriages, they are what the Lord says they are…adulterous unions...adulterous unions that the Protestants have sanctified based on false lexicons and twisted scripture. The affirming same-sex crowd is only riding the coattails of the men like Kevin DeYoung who believed a marriage in the Lord was anything other than for life. 

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to? Do you think there’s anything unhealthy about the amount of time and energy you spend thinking and worrying about the “sexual sins” of others?

I can help you with this John…1 Cor 6:9 makes it perfectly clear that those who remain in the sins of fornication, adultery, and homosexuality will not inherit the Kingdom. Fornicators are heterosexual people who have sex outside the covenant of marriage and do not affirm this as sinful. They will not inherit the kingdom. A “remarriage” after a divorce of a one-flesh covenant marriage is adulterous and remains adulterous until repentance. Remaining in adultery and calling it a marriage is affirming adultery. A person who remains in and/or affirms a homosexual lifestyle, and does not see these actions as sinful, will not inherit the kingdom. 

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp? Do you have an organic, internal moral sense, or compass, that operates within you, by which you are capable of judging right from wrong without having to first validate that judgement by checking it against the opinions of historical figures?

I think Kevin asks a very good question, John. In fact, I truly believe Kevin has an eternal love for all people, regardless if they cannot give serious answers to serious questions. Do you love Kevin, John? As believers, we are to have an eternal love for those who we deem as “enemies”. Do you love your enemies, John? 

Well I can tell you that I do love both John and Kevin, or I would not bother writing this response to this post. I would hope that both John and Kevin would read this because I believe both are in serious error when it comes to defining the one-flesh covenant of marriage.
As for Kevin’s questions, a simple search on what these men thought about the definition of marriage might surprise you. I think what Augustine and Aquinas had to say about marriage just may help us to understand that Luther and Calvin may also have disregarded earlier writings, or perhaps would choose to respond as John did…

"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit adultery. Therefore to serve two or more (men), so to pass over from a living husband into marriage with another, was neither lawful then, nor is it lawful now, nor will it ever be lawful. To apostatize from the One God, and to go into adulteress superstitions of another, is ever an evil."  ~ Augustine (354-430AD)

"Nothing happening after a marriage can dissolve it: wherefore adultery does not make  marriage cease to be valid. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i, 10) "as long as they live they are bound by the marriage tie, which neither divorce nor union with another can destroy." Therefore it is unlawful for one, while the other lives, to marry again." ~ Thomas Aquinas(c.1225-1274)

   
12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned? What arguments would you use to explain why you’re incapable of determining right and wrong for yourself—of having to first gather together the opinions of people all over the world before formulating an opinion of your own?
John should answer his own question here.

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman? Do you find that questioning the morality of others in any way benefits your own moral condition?

If I thought having multiple sex partners was “morally” acceptable, would both John and Kevin correct me? If you said it was “ok” to have multiple sex partners, would this benefit your moral condition, or should this prompt someone who loves you enough to correct you if you in fact, lost your understanding of a moral condition? If the written word is for our own moral benefit, as well as a necessity for entering into eternity with our Creator, what do you think will happen if we deviate from this path?
If what Kevin says is the truth about the immorality of same-sex, would John hold it against him if he never responded to what John believed about same-sex? Should Kevin expect the same from John? Maybe it’s my fault for not understanding John's theology on Eschatology… 

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father? Do you think that what most matters for a child isn’t the sexual orientation of his or her parents, but rather the quality of their characters?

John, what if the quality of their character includes their believing homosexuality is acceptable to God, when it is not?  Kevin, do you think children should have a “say” on a parent’s decision to divorce? If a child has to obey their parents because it honors God, what do they do if their parents do not honor God by breaking their vow of marriage? What is the response of the Church? Should the Church be responsible for the spiritual, financial, and emotional well-being of a child if their parents disobey the Lord? Should the Church be responsible to make sure that a marriage covenant does not end as it is the will of God that all parties come to repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation where applicable to each parent required of such actions?

I will refrain from responding to the next two questions until I get answers to these questions. 

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion? If not, have you ever met any families?

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad? If yes, have you ever known any parents who wanted the church and/or state to tell them how to live their lives?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment? Does the end and purpose of your sophomoric questions point to something more than your emotional and sexual frustration? (And why do you think that people are incapable of understanding for themselves the reasons for which they got married?)

 I think Kevin is trying make the case that our sexual identity is determined by our identity in Christ. What is “emotional and sexual frustration” and how does this compare to denying yourself and taking up your cross to follow Christ? Can this apply to a marriage if you are a believer and your spouse suddenly abandons you?

18. How would you define marriage? How would you define bigotry?

Bigot- One who stubbornly or intolerantly adheres to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a bigot when He said, ^“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”?

If you define marriage, you are a bigot…no mistake. The 'kicker" is do you define marriage as the Lord Jesus Christ defines marriage? That is the only way, the only truth, and correctly defined, it leads to eternal life. 

One man-and-one woman for life. This is a true definition of marriage as it was in the beginning and it is a perfect reflection of Christ’s love for His bride, the Church. (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 29:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; Eph 5:31,32) A marriage in the Lord is until death of either or both spouses. (Romans 7:2,3; 1 Cor 7:39) No excuses, no exceptions.

·  God created man in His image and though a man and woman are equal in value to Him, God designed them with specific roles for society, family, and church. (Genesis 1:27)

·  God created woman from man to be a helper for man because God desired that a man would not be alone. (Genesis 2:18; 1 Cor 11:9) This demonstrates God’s grace.

·  God designed this union as what we define as marriage. It is a man and a woman in a one-flesh relationship. (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) Two become one through vows to each other in God’s presence. (Genesis 2:23) The first marriage was one becoming two, and then two becoming one.

·  God designed and blessed man and woman to procreate, have dominion over all the creatures of the earth, and tend to the herbs of the earth as food. (Genesis 1:28)

·  God designed specific roles for husband, wife, and children in order that His perfect design would bring Him glory. (Eph 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:7)

·  This union is a binding covenant that no man may break. (Genesis 2:24; Mal 2:14; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Cor 7:39; Romans 7:1-3)

·  This holy covenant shows the world the relationship of Christ and His church. This is true love that comes from God. The grace of Christ equals grace in marriage. (Eph 5:31-33)

·  God desires that we be holy as He is holy (Lev 11:45; John 17:11; 1 Peter 1:16), therefore, happiness and self-gratification are never prerequisites of marriage.


19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married? Do you think you should be a guest on The Jerry Springer Show?

This is a sad question, John.
20. Should marriage be limited to only two people? Should you replace Jerry on The Jerry Springer Show?
Another sad question.

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married? On what basis, if any, do you think it’s acceptable to foster the persecution of an innocent sub-population by posing inflammatory and irrelevant questions as if those questions were thoughtful, legitimate, and pertinent?

I thought a lot of these questions were legitimate questions. John has made it quite clear that he will not answer these questions because they will compromise the fact that his position is weak, unsubstantiated, and immoral.  John needs to define what he means by “innocent”? Is there really an “innocent” person, or did God send His only begotten Son to save us from what...nothing? The moment you classify anyone who affirms sin is the day you believe, worship, and serve a different Jesus. You do not believe in the Son of God who is the propitiation for our sins.

John's own answers only serve to the fact that he loves the world and not God. John cannot answer these questions , because he is a reprobate. He needs to repent of his sin and believe that the Lord Jesus Christ breaks the bonds of sin and death. By defending a person’s sin, John is leading them to Hell, eternity without Christ. 
The easiest way to find out if a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is to know that person’s view of the world in light of eternity. The homosexual, the fornicator, the adulterer, they all place their flesh over and above living in the Spirit. John's answers, or I should say, his questions are from a person who reads the Bible but is not saved. The demons know how to read the Bible John, and they are not saved either. John, it is never too late to repent of your sin, and believe that the Lord Jesus Christ paid in full the penalty against sin that you deserve. 
 
The Gospel breaks the chains of sin, regardless if you are tempted by any form of lust, which is idolatry. Homosexuality is idolatry in its purest form because it is contrary to what God made to be good. The same can be said for “remarriage” after a divorce. Those who have “hard hearts” to divorce or believe a divorce ends a marriage, also believe that God does not hold His end of the covenant. 

 22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license? Do you think it’s acceptable to foster the persecution of an innocent sub-population by posing inflammatory and irrelevant questions as if those questions were thoughtful, legitimate, and pertinent?

I would classify John's questions as inflammatory and irrelevant.

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage? Do you think it’s acceptable to foster the persecution of an innocent sub-population by posing inflammatory and irrelevant questions as if those questions were thoughtful, legitimate, and pertinent?

John has yet to "ask" a serious questions without being snarky, or merely rhetorical. 

24. If not, why not? If so, why?
n/a
25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion? Is it ever okay for anyone to teach and preach that innocent people are abominable offenses to God?

Kevin errors again because he is making reference that John would believe that he is a brother in Christ. You cannot be saved if you affirm sin. It is one thing to know you sinned, and ask for forgiveness, and repent from sin, but to deny sin all together leads to death. Also, the Holy Spirit would convict you that homosexuality is a sin. If you deny the Holy Spirit, you will die in your sins. Therefore, Kevin cannot recognize him as a brother in Christ because he is saying that what John affirms is sinful. John's hatred of Kevin and his position is evident in John's post. John's response to this question is revealing.

John would have to define "innocent" and then tell us why God would not believe the actions against His will for His creation are not abominable.

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue? Will you speak up for your fellow citizens when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?
You should have just answered…no.

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics? Will you speak out against the shaming and bullying that most often occurs in our schools and on our playgrounds?

I believe you need to re-read his question. Also, a regenerated believer will never shame or bully anyone. The only way that you may be offended is if you reject the Gospel. The power of the Gospel message usually spurns denial or acceptance. (1 Cor 1:18) Acceptance leads to spiritual transformation in the image of Christ (who is full of grace and truth), and thus leads to a love for righteousness, and denial can lead to disdain manifested in many ways…such as shaming and bullying.

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles? Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that the members of your church aren’t hypocritical bigots?

This question is so ironic. I would agree to John's question without using the words “unbiblical” and “bigot”. The word "unbiblical" is mis-defined rather than unmerited, that every divorce other than one repenting from legalized adultery or sodomy is unbiblical, hence Kevin's reference to unbiblical divorce is not misplaced, only defined in an unscriptural manner.   I would rephrase this question… "When will the evangelical church take one-flesh covenant marriage seriously?"
Please re-read my response to question 18. Then read this passage of scripture...


Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ calls all "remarriages" adulterous unions (Luke 16:18), it is safe to say that God never "approved" of  "remarriages". These are adulterous unions, and to repent of adulterous unions is the same as repenting from homosexuality. A repentant homosexual is that person who does not affirm homosexuality, they recognize it as a sin to God and either remain celibate or marry in the Lord. A repentant person of an  adulterous union leaves the "remarriage" because he or she confirms that the divorce from their first one-flesh covenant marriage can only end in death. Thus, they will remain single, or reconcile the marriage.

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline? Should anyone in any relationship be subject to anything as immaturely draconian as “church discipline”?

Read Matthew 18:15-17…in fact, read all of chapter 18. I believe John should read Matthew 18 as it pertains to sin and what it means to repent of sin. Kevin needs to read this and how it applies to divorce and remarriage, in particular, how an unrepentant adulterous husband can remarry after his wife divorced him.
 
 If he repents of adultery, can he remarry, or is he still in covenant marriage with his wife? If he cannot marry after she divorces him, why does she divorce and remarry if the Lord calls her to remain unmarried? (1 Cor 7:10.11) Would church discipline make it possible that a marriage cannot end in divorce if there is a real possibility of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation? Would this be an example of the Gospel, or is divorce and remarriage a better solution for all, as well as a better example of the Gospel?

How can Kevin DeYoung write a post on flag waving Christians affirming homosexuality when he most likely has adulterous unions as congregants, "tithe" givers, and staff members? 

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage? Do you really not understand that it’s impossible to judge the sinfulness of any sexual intercourse without first establishing the emotional context of that intercourse? Do you fail to grasp the moral difference between loving consensual sexual relations and, say, rape?

How can John ask those questions when he didn’t answer question 18? If human sexuality is reserved for one man and one woman for life, your position fails. There is always consequences to any sexual activity outside of a one-flesh covenant marriage. Kevin has to answer why he sanctifies sexual activity in adulterous remarriages when a divorce cannot sever a one-flesh covenant. 

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found? What will closed and condemning churches do to stop themselves from the ego-delusion that they’re “prophetic,” and then from rotting into oblivion?

When will conservative churches take the log out of their own eyes?

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love? If “hate wins,” how would you define hate?

This is the most significant question of all, because if love is defined as God loved us, homosexuality is a sin, thus the loving thing to do is to tell someone that if they do not repent of this sin they will spend eternity in Hell. Also, it is loving as Christ loved us to tell a “remarried” person that to repent of adultery requires ending the adulterous relationship less they both die in sin and spend eternity in Hell.   

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition? What verses would you use to establish that definition?

1 John 4:7-17 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are so are we in this world.

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love? How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

John 15:12,13 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make? Do you believe it’s possible to sound profound while asking questions a four-year-old could answer?

So far, John has not answered one question. It takes 34 questions for him to write this question? I realize John thinks that Kevin is a manipulative bully, and that Kevin knows the spiritual condition of his audience. Since John judged Kevin on his motives and not in righteousness, will John lovingly correct Kevin so that he does not spend eternity in Hell? Or does John believe there is no such place for people who flat-out reject the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? 

If John believes there is no Hell and that we will all one day be with Christ, then why did he even respond to his post? Why not lovingly tell Kevin the truth? Is it because John believes that Kevin’s questions are below his mental capacity, or would John rather not answer to correct Kevin because he believes there is no help for him? 

Either way, John's crass responses add zero credibility as a witness to Christ. If he really loved as Christ loved, he would correct, rebuke, and exhort Kevin. John thought it was in his best interest to respond to Kevin, yet he has not responded at all, except to appear self-righteous in his stance. Instead John is “turning the tables”...To who’s glory? I wonder if Kevin would answer John's questions, would John answer his?
How about me? Would Kevin and John answer these questions? Would you?

  40 Questions For Christians Defending Marriage 

 

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith? If condemning gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith? Or have you always believed exactly as you were taught to believe?

You cannot condemn something that does not exist. “Gay marriage” does not exist in the same way a “remarriage” after divorce is not a marriage in the Lord. Same-sex marriage is defined as homosexuality and “remarriage” is defined as adultery.  Please read my answer to question 18 again on the definition of marriage. I also cannot condemn a person who affirms homosexuality, I can only lead them to the Gospel so that they would repent and be saved. A person is already condemned (John 3:16-18)

In the past, I believed that a “remarriage’ after divorce was a lawful marriage. I also believed that homosexuality was “ok” at one time…then I came to know my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and He changed me in many ways...one of which showed me the true definition of marriage. 

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost? As an evangelical, how has your condemnation of gay marriage helped you better understand any of those things?

The thought of becoming a new creation is foreign to a person who loves the things of the world.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples? What closed and condemning churches would you point to where people of every stripe feel unquestionably welcomed, where nobody is shamed, persecuted, and condemned for being inherently sinful, and whose leaders aren’t deeply concerned about how much money they’re making or how much power they wield over others?

1 Cor 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Flag waving and stomping...The SCOTUS decision will certainly cause division in every pew across America.

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead? Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead? And, if so, when do you think you might publicly proclaim that you’ve finally understood that it's no sin to be gay.

And here is the crux of the issue for John…John's problem with scripture is based on his experience of how he believes the Church should respond to sin, which includes his problem with scripture based on what he believes ought to be true. Obviously, if John believes homosexuality is a sin, he would have to agree that this sin requires repentance. Would John agree that fornication is a sin and that a man that is sexually attracted to woman is “innocent” because he can’t help but fornicate?

Could it also be true that the problem of dealing with the sin of homosexuality, divorce, and remarriage has more to do with the institutionalized churches ignorance on how to define marriage? If so, would this have a direct effect on how the institutionalized church handles fornication, divorce, remarriage, and homosexuality?

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind? Why do you think it’s of such vital importance to you personally to establish or “prove” that in those passages Paul had in mind gay people today?

Paul had in mind those people who denied the Gospel because they loved the world more. This would be compatible to the homosexual, the fornicator, and the divorced person who believes “remarriage” is more important than denying yourself and take up the cross of Christ.  

I love both John and Kevin enough to tell them that what they teach and preach about marriage is exactly what Jude warned would happen. Read these passages and tell me if these passages refer to those who desire and teach that fornication, divorce, remarriage, and homosexuality is more important than a life in Christ. 

Jude 1:3,4 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.  For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


In conclusion, I will comment on the quote Dr. Michael Brown used in his debate with Matthew Vines that was quoted at the beginning of this post. I shared this quote in light of knowing that Dr. Brown’s position on marriage is very similar to that of Kevin DeYoung. Dr. Brown needs to read his quote in light of what he believes of marriage. Regardless, whether Michael, Kevin, or John will change their positions, these kind of posts from these men have people asking what is the true definition of marriage, and how this definition represents the truth of a life transformed by the love of Christ. 

In Christ’s love,

Neil