There’s been a good bit of discussion about the nonsensical statements of the so-called “Biola Queer Underground” of late. To be candid, the only justifications they can offer for their revisionist position have been refuted so many times that you almost feel sorry for the research skills of these supposed university students. For instance, the “champion” for their revisionist eisegesis is one Justin Lee, director of the “Gay Christian Network“. What might be interesting to our readers is that this same Justin Lee debated Dr. James White on May 16th prior to the Reformation Montana Conference. I will be sure to let our readers know when the audio and/or video of this debate is available. Unfortunately for the Biola Queer Underground, Dr. James White is also a veteran of debates with Barry Lynn, minister in the United Church of Christ, as well as Bishop Shelby Spong, former Episcopal Bishop, as well as co-author of the book “The Same Sex Controversy”.

The real crux of this issue lies, however, in the curious tendency of homosexuals and their advocates to define their own identity around their sinful sexual proclivities. Make no mistake; Justin Lee, Biola’s Queer Underground, and practically every other homosexual in western society has bought into the meme that their identity centers on their activity. However, let’s think through something. Set Justin’s revisionism aside for the moment. We’ll return to it shortly. If their assertion is correct, would it not be the case that any “identity” which one might profess can become the basis for an “X” Christianity? (Where X is replaced by whatever supposed identity one has.) Well, let’s return to Justin, and examine his argumentation. As we are most concerned with their attempts to revise the reading of Scripture in line with their revisionist, truth-suppressing presuppositions, we’ll examine his eisegesis of 4 Scriptural texts he cites, then proceeds to butcher. It’s (blessedly) short, so we should be able to give it a thorough examination.

Prooftext #1: The Sodom Story (Gen. 19)

This passage is most often referred to by people who haven’t read it. Of all the prooftexts, this one is the least relevant and the least helpful.

According to popular belief, “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality.” If you read the passage for yourself, you’ll see this isn’t quite the way it happened. Sodom and Gomorrah were set to be destroyed by God for a number of reasons (Ezekiel tells us they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned” and “did not help the poor and needy,” among other things [Ezekiel 16:49]). Like any other city in Bible times, these cities were populated primarily by heterosexuals; Lot found husbands for his daughters there.

The only reason people today think of Sodom as “a gay city” is that passage in Genesis 19 where two angels come to warn Lot of the city’s impending destruction, and the men of the city respond to these visitors by forming an angry mob and threatening to gang rape them. What most people don’t know is that this isn’t an isolated incident in Scripture. Judges 19 tells a very similar story about a town mob threatening to gang rape a male visitor in the city of Gibeah, though in that story they end up murdering his concubine instead. Does this mean that in Bible times, the landscape was dotted with “gay cities” everywhere that loved to rape men? Of course not. A threat of gang rape should be interpreted as an act of humiliating violence – a way of saying to a visitor, “You are not welcome here; we’re the big dogs.” (Just imagine if you were in prison and a bunch of big, burly men threatened to rape you. You wouldn’t assume they were gay men hitting on you; you’d realize that they were threatening you with the worst punishment imaginable!) Although it might sound strange to our ears, this would have made sense to the earliest readers of these texts.

Generally, serious Traditionalist scholars don’t use the Sodom story to make their arguments, anyway. They do, however, use the following passages.

Note, first, the well-poisoning at the beginning and end of the discussion. This text is said to be “most often” used by those who “haven’t read” this text. So, since we actually do care about the text, (which, you’ll notice, he doesn’t himself cite, thus perpetuating his own criticism) we will actually cite, and deal with properly.

Then the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? “For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” And the LORD said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. “I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.

Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? “Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? “Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.”

And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. “Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.”

Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” And he said, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.” Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place.

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”

But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, “Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city.” But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting. When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city.” But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city. When they had brought them outside, one said, “Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away.”

But Lot said to them, “Oh no, my lords! “Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved.” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken. “Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar. The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. Now Abraham arose early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before the LORD; and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace. Thus it came about, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived.
-Gen 18:16-19:29

First, the greater context – note that Genesis 13:13 says this. “Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD.” As new Testament believers, we also have to account for the New Testament interpretation of a passage. In Jude 1:7, it says “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

Second, note that God is seriously ticked at Sodom and her sister city. It isn’t that God doesn’t know that they really are wicked. He has something to demonstrate by dealing with Abraham and Lot. Abraham, as others in Scripture, is put into a position of intercession, much like that of Moses interceding for Israel before the Lord later on. Also, note that there aren’t even 10 righteous persons in the city.

Third, note that Lot already knew something was wrong in Sodom. He tells the angels not to stay in the open square. He urges them strongly – and his plan, obviously, is to get them into his house while the men of the city are otherwise engaged, and to get them back out early the next morning. Debauchery, as we know, doesn’t lend itself to early mornings.

Now, starting in verse 4, let’s go through in detail.

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

Note carefully that “men” is repeated twice here. “The men of the city, the men of Sodom”. Further, that they surround the house. This is a big group. Not only that, it’s an exhaustive group. All the people (and people has already been defined – the men), and not just young men. Young and old, “from every quarter” – poor and rich, tradesmen and land owners. The sense there is of removing exception. Every single male in Sodom is there.

and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”

This mob is out for sex, and note that these are all men, and seeking for sex with men. This is the “variety” that is the hallmark of homosexuality. Much is made of “long time partners” and the like, but the fact remains that the vast majority of homosexuals engage in sex with a staggering amount of partners.

Of course, it must be pointed out that many revisionists argue that “relations with them” actually means simply “to know”. So, this is the welcoming committee for the town, and the real sin here is Lot’s lack of hospitality. Of course, this disagrees with multiple other arguments, including Justin’s. Lot’s response to follow is a bit odd, if this were the case – and his insistence that they shouldn’t stay out in the square, and that they take his daughters, rather than to violate the hospitality of his home looks rather odd. Not to mention that they try to break down the door, and the subsequent events.

But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,

One other note. One common interpretation from revisionists is that the sin of Sodom is solely “the lack of hospitality,” and they typically use the section from Ezekiel to do so. Notice, incidentally, that he doesn’t quote verse 16:50, only verse 49. I wonder why? Go look it up, and the surrounding context. You’ll see exactly why he doesn’t. This is quite obviously not the case, and it is quite interesting to see Justin’s interpretation contradicting that of his fellow revisionist apologists. In any case, Lot shuts the door behind him. Wouldn’t you?

and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

They quite obviously don’t like this, as we can see in vs. 9. However, this is probably Lot’s strongest attempt to act righteously in the passage, for what that is worth.

“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them [fn]whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Now, here’s something interesting for Justin’s argument. He cites Judges 19 in his interpretation. In that passage, they accept the concubine offered. I don’t know if Lot is trying to pull a fast one here, because he knows they won’t be interested, but it is still an interesting thought. It might be the case that in the Judges 19 passage is a man trying to emulate Lot. The story has a variety of parallels. Including the total destruction of the city in question, incidentally.

But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

Now, of course, here they include Lot in with the others – and they prepare to carry out their intentions. The two angels snatch Lot inside, and strike the assembled men with blindness. What follows is one of the most damning indictments in Scripture; so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Even after being struck with a judicial blindness, they still didn’t give up. Look, folks. This story involves some serious, heavy-duty, utterly amazing depravity. What should strike us as odd about Justin’s attempt here is that he is focusing only on the mode of their sin. The fact that it was rape doesn’t exclude the fact that rape is a more heinous form of… fornication. So, by the same logic, homosexual rape is a more heinous form of… homosexual intercourse. Right?

Just as an aside, were Justin’s assertion concerning “dominance” or some such correct, Lot himself would have been subject to such “hospitality” upon entrance to Sodom. Their comments to Lot suggest that such was not the case. Lot himself was a man of substance, and though he was an alien, their comments suggest that he had not been previously treated in such a manner.

Let’s get real. Most objections of this nature attempt to atomize, or break into disparate and unconnected sections, the text of Scripture. In Jude, which we referenced for you earlier, the objection is sometimes made (contra both Justin AND the “hospitality” proponents, that what is involved is an attempted sex with angels. One problem there. They didn’t know these were angels. Nice try. But in any case, in Jude, this is called “gross immorality” – ἐκπορνεύω – ek, added to porneuō, which serves as an intensification. Porneuo should be fairly familiar to anyone. The other key word in this passage is ἕτερος σάρξ – strange flesh. The JFB commentary remarks that this refers to “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural.” In the preceding phrase we discussed, it remarks “following fornication extraordinarily, that is, out of the order of nature.” Now, is this consistent with the interpretation of the other 3 passages he discussed? Let’s see if consistency remains for Justin, as well as for our own discussion.

What is the second reference? A passage which I have done extensive work on, actually. In my Romans exegesis in the initial issue of In Antithesis, I actually skipped over addressing the primary section addressed by Justin, because of space considerations. I did, however, do the same amount of work on this section in my preparation, which I’ll relate to follow. Let’s look at his treatment of the passage.

Prooftext #2: Idols and Consequences (Romans 1:18-32)

Of all the prooftexts, this is the longest and most complex. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul talks about a group of people who “knew God” but “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.” Their hearts are darkened, and they begin worshipping idols. As a direct result of this idol worship, they begin engaging in homosexual behaviors (which they previously were not doing). Ultimately, they become depraved and God gives them over to a whole list of sins.

Most Traditionalists read this passage as referring to all humanity, with the idol worship used as a metaphor rather than a specific event. In their reading of the passage, Paul is essentially saying, “People (in general) have turned from God (represented by idol worship) and as a result, have become sinful (including homosexuality).” I don’t think the language of the passage quite supports that interpretation, however.

Paul begins by talking about all of humanity, to be sure, but he quickly moves to a specific example as a demonstration of humanity’s fallenness. The specific example is one his Roman readers would be immediately familiar with: the fertility cults in Rome, where men and women engaged in sexual orgies that included both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites. Remember, Paul wants a vivid example of fallenness for his audience, something they can all nod their heads in agreement with, because he’s getting ready to turn the tables on them in the next chapter. In ancient Rome, “homosexuality” as a general phenomenon wouldn’t have been the vivid illustration he was looking for (unlike today, when many conservative pastors use it for just that). [3] Roman fertility cults, however, were a great example that served his purpose nicely and required no explanation to his readers.

Notice that Paul talks about homosexuality in connection with the fertility rites (look for the “therefore” in v. 24 and “because of this” in v. 26), and not in the list of sins at the end of the passage. This is our clue that Paul isn’t bringing it up as “another example of sinful behavior.” Why, then, does Paul make such a big deal about the homosexual aspect of these rites? For two reasons: 1) to highlight the “unnaturalness” of turning from God; and 2) to describe the rites in the most unappealing way he can think of, to unify everyone in saying, “Yes! How disgustingly immoral!”

Now let there be no mistake; Paul has nothing positive to say about homosexuality in this passage. Clearly he views it as a bad thing, or at the very least, a “shameful” and “unnatural” thing. We must recognize that. At the same time, we must also recognize that homosexuality is not the point of this passage, even though some Christians today try to use it that way. It’s mentioned for a specific reason in connection with specific acts that were familiar to his audience.

So this passage speaks negatively of homosexual behavior, but on the other hand, it does so in a context which is clearly sinful. Paul does say homosexuality is “shameful” and “unnatural,” but he says the same thing (using the same Greek words) about men with long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14, and we generally consider that to be cultural. Is this a prohibition for all time, or is it a matter of context, like with the tax collectors? Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s tough to say. I wouldn’t put too much faith in either reading without something a lot more concrete to back it up.

If I might repeat something of the preceding to begin my reply; I wouldn’t put too much faith in Justin’s reading without something a lot more concrete to back it up. Why do I say that? Let’s examine the text, and Justin’s interpretation of it.

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ” BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Now, note that this is the very beginning of Paul’s exposition of the Gospel of God. I won’t duplicate my comments from my article in this space, but you may find it here: In Antithesis, Volume 1. There are 8 pages of exegesis found for the initial remarks of Romans 1:16-25. To set the stage for the discussion that Justin embarks on, I would just point out a few things.

1) The context for the entire discussion of the remainder of Romans 1 is found in vs. 18. “[M]en who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” From that point on, follow the pronouns. In vs. 19; “them”, twice. In vs. 20, “they.” In vs. 21, “they” three times, “their” once. 22; “they.” 24; them, their, their. 25; “they.” Notice this, as well – in verse 26, does the subject change? In the following verses it is still “they”, “them,” and “their.” Paul is still talking about the same people.

2) There is a fundamental connection between the “For” introductions in the successive sections. Paul’s argument throughout Romans is linear. This initial section is quite obviously linear as well. Paul, as is his custom, introduces each section by reference to the preceding, by linking them all together successively. The underlying reason for Y is X. When he is speaking of parallels, he typically says “in the same way” – and here we have an example of this pattern demonstrated.

3) Note the significance of “gave them over.” This phrase is used several times in this text, and has great bearing on what this text discusses.

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ” BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

I’m not going to reproduce the entirety of my exegesis here, obviously, but will point out several key points. Firstly, the following discussion relates to truth suppression. That which is known, and “held down”, or “suppressed.” All of the discussion to follow is related to this point. Secondly, note that those who suppress the truth are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Again, just a few points, and responses to Justin’s assertions.

These men know God. Not honoring God, or giving thanks to God as He is due is idolatry. This is not metaphorical for idolatry, nor is it a “placeholder” for other sins by use of this metaphor. At base, all sin is fundamentally idolatry. As Calvin says, the human heart is a veritable factory of idols. Every wrong desire, every wrong thought is an idolatrous one. The worship of a carven image is the most obvious example – but only the most obvious. All sin is idolatry. The contrast with “honor” and “thanks” is “futile speculation” and “darkened hearts.” Their profession of wisdom is actually foolishness. Yet… look at the next phrase; “and exchanged.” This is also going to be important. There is a thematic comparison of exchange he will follow here, and it behooves us to pay attention to it. The attempt Justin makes to insert “Roman fertility cults” is purely eisegetical. He doesn’t support this contention, nor does he argue for it in the slightest. It’s simply assumed, as if it’s something that goes without saying. What strikes us as strange is that one the one hand, we’re being told that “homosexuality wouldn’t be all that strange” on the one hand – but open aspects of the very cultural religion of the day somehow would? Further, it also bears mentioning that many revisionists attempt to say that there was no homosexuality in ancient culture, only pederasty! So, which is it? Back to Justin’s point, why on earth would homosexuality not be odd, yet Roman religion would be odd… in Rome? This is an exceedingly odd statement. Justin makes no attempt to support this assertion. He just throws it out there, seemingly in the hope that nobody will think through the implications of it.

Where in the text is there talk of “Roman fertility cults”? Nowhere in the text. Yet, it is confidently asserted that this is speaking of Roman fertility cults. We aren’t told why, nor is any argumentation forthcoming. This is an example of eisegesis. Paul’s audience is the same audience to whom he quotes large sections of the Old Testament. Are we honestly expecting his audience not to consider homosexuality abominable under the moral law? ALL of the Roman religious system is abominable. It wouldn’t matter whether it was meat sacrifices to idols or sexual fertility sacrifices. It isn’t speaking about physical idols, and there is no evidence that he is speaking of fertility cults. Justin speaks of “turning the tables” in the next chapter – but in a typically antinomian style, he simply dismisses the law without explanation of why a statute is considered not part of the moral law. As with the implication he draws for Paul, he seems to feel he needs to give no explanation to his readers. His treatment of Romans 1 is exceptionally shallow.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural

“For this reason” – διὰ τοῦτο – the same phrase from Matt 6:25 – “For this reason I say do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” This immediately follows Christ’s antithetical statement – no man can serve two masters. For this reason… these men who suppress the truth cannot serve two masters. For this reason, God gave them over. Notice, in the preceding verses. There is an “exchange” that takes place. One cannot escape the talk of an “exchange” here. In verses 23, 25, and 26, a form of ἀλλάσσω is used. In 23, the corruptible is exchanged for the corruptible. In 25, the truth for a lie, the creature instead of Creator. In 26, the natural function for the unnatural function. This is not merely “the worship of idols” which, supposedly, as a “direct result,” ends up at homosexuality. In contradiction to Justin’s unsupported assertion, let’s look at the text.

Regarding vs. 23, I say in the above paper; “The suppression of the truth seen earlier is here expressed. The exchange of glory for the Creator is with glory for the creature. Of the incorruptible, the immortal (ἄφθαρτος), for the corruptible, the mortal (φθαρτός). Note the antithesis in the forms here – ἄ is the only change in the two words – the negation of φθαρτός. This exchange is of the real thing, for the image of the real thing. The ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ for δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ. I cannot help but note the connection of this exchange to the “darkened” (σκοτίζω) in vs. 21. The picture hearkens back to Matthew 4:16, Luke 2:32, Ephesians 5, and will be seen shortly in 2:19; it also finds parallel in 1Tim. 6:16; μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον. The light of the incorruptible wisdom and glory of God is exchanged for the darkness of corruption, foolishness, and dishonor.”

Followed by: “We again see διό used to tie the previous verse and this verse together. Because of the preceding, God delivers them up, gives them over (παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς). What does He give them over in, or to? ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν – in the lusts, or desires of their foolishly darkened hearts, to impurity. They are in the state of their lustful foolishness, and God gives them over to impurity. For what reason? τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς – that their bodies might be dishonored among them. Interestingly, this seems to be a direct tie to their refusal to honor God in vs. 21. If God is not honored, he gives them over to dishonor the very things that they are professing to honor, instead. That which they have exchanged for is thus shown to be just as worthless as their speculations are.”

Notice something – it is the desires they are given in, and in those, to impurity. Let’s make a connection here.

The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. Isaiah 3:9

Notice here; The subjects of this prophecy bring evil upon themselves. In vs. 24, we see that they dishonor their own bodies. In verse 26, we see that in their own persons they receive the due penalty of their error. There is a direct tie to Sodom, and not to gang rape, but to homosexual intercourse. It is quite obvious that homosexuality brings about bodily harm. The life expectancy of homosexuals is far lower than that of heterosexuals. There are ravaging diseases that go along with this behavior. In the greater context, we see many of the same sins listed, we see arrogance addressed, as with the Ezekiel passage.

The example of homosexuality is used because, quite simply, it demonstrates the twistedness of sin. Sin twists you upon yourself so that you exchange the creature for the Creator, the corruptible for the incorruptible, a lie for the truth, and the unnatural for the natural. Note; this is not a series of “direct causations” – it is a a series of condemnations. Given over, given over, given over. Exchanged, exchanged, exchanged.

The passions called “degrading” in vs 26 are recapitulated in vs. 27, where “in the same way” men burn with desire toward one another. This isn’t a temporal thing. This is a consequences of the giving over – of the exchange that takes places when they are given over. Dare I say it, reprobated. When God’s common grace is lifted, the depravity of man is loosed, and this is being used as an example of the overall whole. There is a reason the phrase “given over” is repeated in vs. 28 – but there is a very interesting phrase in 28 as well. As stated in my paper, “The opening clause, καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν, speaks of a voluntary act – a refusal to acknowledge, deem worthy, or fitting, having God in their knowledge. God’s response, since they do not deem it fitting (οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν) to have Him in their everyday knowledge, gives them over to an unfit mind (ἀδόκιμον νοῦν). In essence, the judgment is commensurate with the crime – as we saw in the last two verses.” “For Paul, (and for Christ, of course) the operation of the mind is just as morally culpable as the work of the hands. Thus, in every thought of every mind, there is a moral element inherent in it. Hence, we cannot look at knowledge as simply intellectual; we cannot separate out the effect of sin on the mind, nor can we separate out the moral culpability of our mind from the equation, if we are to have a truly Biblical epistemology. In fact, our conception of epistemology cannot be divorced from the rest of our theological system; it must be organic to it, and be taught by it as part of the system as a whole. What knowledge is, what it consists of, is moral as much as it is intellectual.” In other words, Paul is drawing our attention back, after giving this example of God’s judgmental “giving over”, and the requisite “exchange” involved, to call our attention to the rest of the sins caused by a “darkened heart”. It is fitting to note that “darkened” is used of the worldly – and that the initial phrase is “and just as”. Paul is continuing the same thought, while redirecting the attention. He hasn’t introduced a whole new category here, and starting afresh. He is drawing our attention to the rest of what a darkening shows itself in.

He brings us full circle, in essence. He begins with “filled with all unrighteousness,” which references that truth suppression in unrighteousness that he began with. Incidentally, I would make the case that the sin he outlined previously, that of homosexuality, is included in this. He treats “them” the same way throughout all of the preceding, and all of the sins listed thereafter are all still referring to those who suppress the truth. Thus, it is the cardinal head of the list. It’s not necessary to list all of these sins, but I would ask – would Justin be up for sponsoring a “Deceitful Christian Network”? Ergun Caner would be happy to get on board, I’m sure.

So, in summary for this text: Justin eisegetically inserts roman fertility cults; assumes direct causation from worship of physical idols, although no such discussion is within the text; and ends up with “well, we don’t know, and it’s all so confusing!” Which, while quite helpful in demonstrating that he doesn’t really believe that we can know these were Roman fertility cults being discussed, doesn’t do much of anything for his contention.

Prooftext #3: The Sinful “Arsenokoitai” (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)

Aside from Romans, the only other New Testament reference to homosexuality occurs in two passages known as “vice lists,” in which Paul casually mentions the “arsenokoitai” as a group of sinners. People spend a lot of time debating about the translation of this word, because it appears only rarely in ancient writings. Even the translators of the NIV couldn’t seem to make up their minds about it; it’s translated as “homosexual offenders” in 1 Corinthians, but as “perverts” in 1 Timothy.

The word arsenokoitai is a compound word in Greek, and the parts of the word make reference to “male” and “bed,” which indicates that this word probably referred to some kind of male homosexual behavior. The same Greek words (“male” and “bed”) appear in the Greek translation of the Leviticus passage I’m going to discuss in a moment, which tells men not to lie (“bed”) with a man (“male”), giving support to this theory. On the other hand, we must be careful not to assume too much; Greek compound words don’t always mean what they might appear to mean. “Cyclops” in Greek is a compound word literally meaning “round eye,” but we know from ancient literature that a cyclops was a mythical giant man having only one eye – which makes sense once we get the connection, but isn’t something we could have figured out without all the literary references.

Still, I think that it’s fairly safe to assume that the arsenokoitai of Paul’s day were men engaging in some kind of homosexual behavior. But what kind of behavior? That’s pretty much impossible to know for sure. Whatever it is, it would have to be something fairly common and well-known to Paul’s audience; these are very short lists of common sinners (e.g. thieves, greedy, liars, etc.) everyone would be readily acquainted with. The most likely explanation is that Paul is referring to a practice that was fairly common in the Greek culture of his day – married men who had sex with male youths on the side.

The extramarital relationships of men with boys in ancient Greece are infamous even today. Archaeological and literary evidence prove that these relationships were common for centuries in Greece, though they were frowned upon by many even while they were publicly practiced. This would make a perfect target for Paul’s vice lists, and it would explain why, in both lists, he mentions the sin of the arsenokoitai separately after he mentions adultery – because technically, by Greek thought, having a boy on the side wasn’t adultery.

Another piece of evidence for this interpretation is the Greek word malakoi, which appears next to arsenokoitai in the 1 Corinthians passage. Malakoi literally means “soft ones,” and could be translated simply to mean “morally lax.” However, many scholars believe that “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” are meant to be taken together, so that the malakoi are the young men who service the arsenokoitai. For this reason, the Jerusalem Bible translates malakoi to mean “Catamites” (that is, young male prostitutes), the New American Catholic translation says “boy prostitutes,” and the New International Version reads “male prostitutes.” [4] Personally, I don’t think that “prostitute” is the best word to use to describe these relationships, but it does at least convey the idea of a sexual relationship outside of marriage without getting into an entire history lesson.

That’s it for the New Testament, but there’s still one Old Testament passage we haven’t covered.

As usual, the revisionist talks about “arsenekotai” while throwing fluff to see whether he can obscure the issue. As Jeff Neal says, it refers to “what men do with men in bed – and it ain’t eating crackers.” Again, note the Ehrmanesque appeals to history, but then the “but we don’t know!” appended to it. He does this over and over, and over – while making confident assertions concerning what was true in ancient societies. Convenient, that. It’s almost humorous. “Without all the literary references?” Folks.. he’s talking to a New Testament church. Granted, a rather rowdy and not especially well-behaved church, but he’s directly referencing the Old Testament in using this word. It’s obvious what is referred to. Since the next appeal is going to be to West Wing type “but we don’t know what the law is!” nonsense that evangellyfish eat up with spoons, it equates to a non-answer. Hear me plainly. Justin doesn’t even answer the objection here. All he does is obfuscate and throw dust in your eyes. When Paul directly appeals to the law as if they know what that law is – and Justin says “but we don’t know what the law is” – this is a non-answer. A Casey at the Bat of monumental ignorance. He swings, and misses. Mighty Casey has struck out. He appeals to a “most likely” explanation. Why? Why on earth would members in a New Testament church think “whatever arsenokoitai means”, after having been visited by Paul prior to this, and second, why on earth would that have any relationship to pederasty? Is it just me, or does Justin have an obsession with reading it in any other way but that which flows plainly? Lastly, note the variety of bad translations and paraphrases that he cites for the meaning of malakoi. There is a reason for that, folks. To sum up; Justin not only doesn’t make an argument, but wouldn’t know one in these passages if it smacked him upside the head. It always amazes me that these folks take interpretations nobody has ever assigned to these passages, and say that they’re all of a sudden “obvious” or “most likely”. Folks, if they were that obvious, or “most likely”, don’t you think there would be early commentators, closer to the scene, who would have noted that? Come now. Let’s be serious. Be honest. Why is it that Justin is dodging the historical, plain reading of the text? He does so to attempt to justify things that he is suppressing the truth concerning.

Just a word to the wise about these sorts of arguments. If you’re going to engage in these arguments, you need to have a fairly good idea of what the law is, and how it is applied. For instance, Justin’s argument is that this is essentially “cultural” in Leviticus. Immediately, one would want to ask whether the command to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength is likewise cultural. However, we have to be able to clearly articulate what falls under the ceremonial and what falls under the moral law of God. So many of these arguments are not only contradictory to those of other revisionists, but even self-contradictory, such as Justin’s “we don’t know” coupled with his frequent historical appeals. I’m not going to respond to his whole article. My primary concern was his faceplant in Romans 1. I’ll be posting as soon as I know where Dr. White’s debate with Justin is available. His debates with Barry Lynn, Shelby Spong and others are also quite informative as starting points for your study.

My personal note to students at Biola; I’m fairly adamant in opposing the apologetics program at your school. What I would encourage you to do is surpass your teachers when it comes to sound exegesis of the Word. Only then will you be equipped to answer this sort of superficial objection, but plausible from the standpoint of the world. Fight the good fight! Don’t let them simply assert all of this nonsense. Make them prove it. Take them to the text. They will not do well there, I assure you. For Biola Queer Underground; Get a better champion. I don’t mean Matthew Vines, either.

Dr. William Edgar of Westminster Theological Seminary has published a new book geared towards teens to answer a lot of common questions they have. I have not read this book yet but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that this book will likely be helpful for parents in answering these questions right along with their teens. Dr. Edgar is the Professor of Apologetics at WTS and edited and footnoted some of Dr. Van Til’s works for their latest editions. Having read those I am confident that this is a book worth looking into.

Check it out:  http://www.wtsbooks.com/you-asked-pb-edgar-bill-9781781911433

Thanks to chat channel regular Pat for linking this in channel.

Doug Wilson gives some excellent thoughts on the Christian’s duty to his culture and fighting spiritual decay.

Notable quotes:

“Considered generally, is the Church today in an offensive or defensive stance? Leave aside the compromised sectors of the church are, which are actively doing damage in what they do. Just think of the uncompromised sections of the Church — even there our stance is most emphatically defensive. We think we have won, for example, if we successfully prevent them from establishing homosexual marriage in our state. But that, while good, is not victory at all. You haven’t won the war simply because your city makes it another day without collapsing because of the siege.”

“Many theological/doctrinal issues work into [cooperation]. Should we cooperate with evangelical Arminians? Should we cooperate with strict regulativists? Should we cooperate with charismatics? The answer to the question should be settled by whether or not Christ is cooperating with them. Always remember the crucial distinction between fellowship and leadership. We may cooperate with someone in worship, for example, without having to maintain that he is the next John Knox.”

At some point, it’s time to step up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C_0fyUYB3cA

Sample #1:

33 “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and  knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
³⁴ “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
³⁵ “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
³⁶ For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

Paul here, after discussing the sovereignty of God in spite of the rebellion of Israel, speaks of the incomprehensibility of God. This is not the only time he has done this in the epistle to Rome (c.f Romans 9:19-20).

But what of the Fristian who holds to this letter? Even though Paul might reject what he’s saying, wouldn’t Paul be begging the question?

Sample #2:

1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. (Colossians 2:1-3)

Presented here is the application of Paul’s doctrine of Christ, and the nature of wisdom. Paul naturally begins the application of the doctrine after spelling out just who Christ is (c.f. Col 1:15-18). However, we must not let Paul make too strong of a metaphysical claim. Just because It is indeed true that all of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ, in whom we have those benefits through Spirit-wrought union, however we must place that aside, given the possibility of a plausible argument from a position that opposes the doctrine set forth. For instance the Fristian, who accepts the book of Colossians, may say that he too believes this, and that Paul, and the Christians that follow, are begging the question in attempting to apply this principle of thinking against him. For the Fristian can just mirror these objections insofar as it suits him to do so. Paul may call it a delusion, but we would call his doctrine a delusion.

Allow me, for a moment, to explain some of my initial thoughts concerning what denial of God’s existence entails with respect to Design. If you hold that there is no God, and that there is no Design to the universe, there are a few things that follow. If there is no Designer, and if there is no Design, then there are no “designers” and there are no individual “designs.” None, at all, anywhere. I will now proceed to explain the same thing in probably too many ways and in probably too many words.

There is only cause and effect. “Intention” is reducible to material cause and effect products of the synapses of your brain inflicting cause and effect activity outside the brain. Wherever we detect what might be considered “intention,” we must see it as entirely incidental to the production of any particular object. If Mathematics, Logic, Geometry, et al came into being as a result of non-design, then absolutely nothing predicated upon those things can rightly be called or considered “designed,” without a healthy dose of special pleading. Why do we have patent laws? Why do we frown upon plagiarism? Why are we all of a sudden not guided by natural selection, and now rather feel entitled to the works of our own hands, taking credit for what was wrought through us by “nature”? What part of nature *isn’t* guided by natural selection?

At some point, nature gave you thought-matter and idea-matter that reacted with your brain-matter (also from nature) that caused you to produce a particular thing that you suddenly want to take credit for. How dare you presume upon some sort of “intention” or “design” in the formulation of your thought or product, affirming that there’s a designer, and that it is you! But you do not merely insist “that there’s design.” In fact you also insist upon your own designs, even wishing to prohibit (where you can) others from copying it and claiming credit for it! You “designed” it, and so you feel entitled to the profits of the works of your hands.

By reducing the mechanics of the universe’s origins to unguided cause and effect in order to avoid any notion of “design,” we are forced to conclude, therefore, that any subsequent claim of design concerning things *that are a result of* the original undesigned singularity must also be reduced to the same, unguided, natural processes. They have precluded any notion of “free will” and thus, intent, by offering what amounts to a deterministic universe. If we are not willing to grant that “design” presupposes a “designer,” then we must be consistent in regarding all “designs” in this same way. Otherwise, we must either provide an example or identify a precedent that allows us to rationally feel entitled to the designs of our own hands. Of course, any available example would come from within this universe, which is either designed or undesigned, depending on which side you’re on, and so any example would beg the question in at least that way. Unless it is the case that the universe has been designed, there is no precedent for “design.” Can those who deny the Omnipotent Designer God meaningfully differentiate between something “designed” and something not? They want to hold that the existence of the universe is entirely incidental to any god’s intent, but at the same time they want to make a direct causal connection between their own intent and whatever they produce. This is inconsistency.

It seems to me that if the universe is not the result of intention and design, then neither can any particular aspect of it be considered “intentional” or “designed.” This is assuming, of course, that human beings and their actions are part of the universe; not afforded a special status superior to the rest of the universe. If there is no “Design” in a cosmic sense, there cannot possibly be “design” in the terrestrial sense. You cannot derive milk from filtered water.

If you’re an atheist, you will object to this, probably by saying there does exist a concept called “design” that we subconsciously presume upon in everyday life. But as I said above, this only begs the question. If there is no “ultimate” design, there cannot “just be” particular designs. Otherwise the atheist should have no problem with our saying there “just is” a God.

In our last post, we examined Philippians 1 as a bit of a survey, and covered some high points and contextual issues. Now I want to dig a little more into the text and bring out some points in higher relief. We started the post with the observation that neither Rome nor the health and wealth preachers are possessors of the Biblical Gospel. Rome, in particular, makes enough additions and subtractions to make the Judaizers look like amateur heretics. We then made the connection with the term “Evangelical” – which essentially means “those who are about the Gospel”. We hear much talk about being “Gospel centered,” but the proof is in the pudding, as it were.

1:1 Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1:3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 1:4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, 1:5 in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 1:7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

In Philippians 1, Paul opens his letter with his typical salutation – but this time, he includes Timothy, who he promises to send to them later in the letter^[1]. Unlike many letters, this letter to the church at Philippi is full of praise. It includes reminders to continue, of course, but has very little to say in a negative light.

In verse 3, he begins the text by informing them that he thanks God every time he thinks of them. He also tells them that he prays joyfully for them, as well. The reason he does so, verse 5 tells us, is because of their participation in the Gospel together with him from start to finish. We discussed the meaning of the term “participation” sufficiently in the previous post. In vs.6, he tells them why he is so joyful in his prayers for them^[2] – it is due to his confidence that 1) The Spirit began a good work in them – he can see the evidence of that work in them, in their perseverance 2) That the Spirit will be faithful to perfect, or complete that work. He can, therefore, in vs. 7, affirm this confidence. Why? Because of their participation with him – Paul states that they are close to his heart, and are partakers of grace, or partners in grace, with him. The word there is συγκοινωνός – a compound of συγ and κοινωνός, the term for fellowship; also the same term used earlier in vs. 5. However, what are they partakers of grace together with him in? In the text, there are two linked terms, also discussed in the last post. Let us expand that discussion somewhat.

The terms, of course, are τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει; the defense and confirmation. Further note that these are not “of themselves” – they are of something in particular – the Gospel. By “defense”, in Paul, we see a “vindication” of what it is the Gospel conveys. It is the God-centered Gospel – the monergistic work of the Triune God in uniting a particular people to Himself. This defense is directed outward in response to attacks upon it. In “confirmation:, we see the “building up” or “production of” confidence in this Gospel. This is the inwardly directed fostering of the faith once for all delivered, and meant for the church. The term ἀπολογίᾳ is a response to – an answer for – objections or questions directed toward Christianity from outside it. The term βεβαιώσει is inwardly considered – a building up, improvement of, or production of confidence.

Again, recall, however. This is a defense of what? The Gospel. This is a production of confidence in what? The Gospel. Not a minimalist Gospel. Not a merely philosophical Gospel. Not merely a historiographical resurrection account, either. In Paul, the Gospel is full-orbed, unedited, and is the power of God for salvation. We like to quote Romans 1:18 – we like to say “I am not ashamed of the Gospel” – but do we prove it? If we aren’t ashamed of the Gospel; why instead of defending it in its full-orbed glory, do we defend selected, mimimal facts about the resurrection? Why, instead of defending the Gospel itself, do we argue for the greater probability of the existence of a God? Is that the fullness of the Gospel? Do we, and can we, defend Colossians 1:13-23? Do we, can we confirm Philippians 2:1-18? Do we, can we defend Romans 4 and 5? Do we, can we, confirm Romans 8 and 9?

This calling is ever so high, and ever so lofty. It is not something to which we may lightly skip merrily toward without care; but something concerning which we are to strive to the point of bloodshed. The calling of the believer – because ever believer is called to defend and confirm the faith, and called to be partners together with those specifically appointed to it as well^[3] – is a call to be steeped in the Word of God. We must know and believe the Gospel in order to defend and confirm it. Additionally, however, we must know and defend the Gospel of Scripture, not something we find it more palatable to defend. We must, further, defend it in the way Scripture demands that we do so.

1:8 For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 1:10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; 1:11 having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

It is an act of love, according to Paul – abounding love, in fact – for the believer to grow in real knowledge^[4] and discernment. Notice what follows – so that they might approve that which is excellent. This approval, in turn, is so that they might be sincere (pure) and blameless. What brings this about? Well, this is the Gospel of God, after all. The source of this purity and blamelessness is sanctification – the fruit of righteousness which comes along with Christ – which the Spirit works in His people conforming them to the image of the Son. What does this bring about? The chief end of man; the praise and glory of God.

The believer’s growth in real knowledge and discernment follows the Scriptural pattern – the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and is brought about through regeneration. It is the Spirit’s work which brings growth, and conforms us to the image of the Son. This growth is accomplished by the ministry of the Word, and the believer’s response is a confirmation as well as an evidence of he Spirit’s work in them.

This brings us to the focal point I’d like to concentrate on. This might seem like an almost throwaway statement that Paul makes – that the Philippians are his partners in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel. However, along with many of the things that Paul says, almost in passing, there is great depth to be found in his nearly doxological introductions. If what we are to defend is indeed the Gospel – how is this defined? Well, the first thing we need to realize is that the same Gospel that we are to preach is that which we are to defend. Do you preach the Gospel of minimal facts concerning the resurrection? Obviously not. If this is the case, why do so many defend this, rather than the Gospel? Do you preach the Gospel of bare theism? Obviously not. If this is the case, why is this what is defended, rather than the Gospel? It is both absurdly easy and unbelievably hard to define the Gospel. Absurdly easy, because it’s given for us so many times in the Scripture. Acts 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 – the list goes on and on. Peter, Paul, and others present the Gospel almost continuously in the book of Acts. There are 4 Gospels we can refer to, as well. It’s absurdly hard for precisely the same reason. There is so MUCH said in the Scripture that is called “the Gospel.” What this should tell us is that there is a center to this proclamation. A particular center, a particular someone, who is central to every instance the Gospel is proclaimed. The particular person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God.

If I might suggest something else to you, there is a very good reason that the first 4 books in your New Testament are called “Gospels.” It isn’t the reason that a Bart Ehrman or Robert Funk might offer, but there is a very good reason for calling them “Gospels.” They are precisely what the subject of our preaching is to be, as well as that which is to be both defended and confirmed. Another good place to go is the book of Romans – what many call “The Gospel According to Paul.” A summary read through this book should give you that notion – however, a thorough read of it will not by any means disabuse you of it. In my own estimation, it might be the clearest and most detailed exposition found in the NT of what is to be preached to an unbelieving world. In layout, order, and detail, it covers everything concerning the Gospel.

So, what then are we to do? A sea-change, for many in today’s post-evangelical world, seems to be in order. Postmodernism’s encroachments have done absolutely nothing for the church. Its attempts to “sell” the message, make it “relevant” and other such nonsensical ideas have done precisely what you would expect such things to do. Fall flat on their face. On the other hand, the vibrancy of Gospel-centric churches, and their preaching has shone ever more clearly against the backdrop of this spectacular failure – as it always does. What remains for us, as heirs of the Reformation, is to match our apologetic to our preaching. If you shouldn’t preach it in the pulpit, you shouldn’t defend it. If you wouldn’t confirm it to your flock with a “thus saith the Lord,” it would stand to reason that you shouldn’t confirm it apologetically, would it not? For a very good overview of the subject “what is the Gospel”, let me commend to you an article by the inimitable D.A. Carson. In this article, he lays out several principles to be found in his selected text. What I’d like you to pay special attention to is this paragraph, although the entire body leads to this conclusion.

“One of the striking results of this summary of the gospel—eight defining words and five clarifying sentences, all emerging from one New Testament chapter—is how cognitive the gospel is. Here is what is to be understood, believed, obeyed; here is what is promised, taught, explained. All of this must be said, loudly and repeatedly, in a generation that feels slightly embarrassed when it has to deal with the cognitive and the propositional. Yet something else must also be said. This chapter comes at the end of a book that repeatedly shows how the gospel rightly works out in the massive transformation of attitudes, morals, relationships, and cultural interactions. As everyone knows, Calvin insists that justification is by faith alone, but genuine faith is never alone; we might add that the gospel focuses on a message of what God has done and is doing, and must be cast in cognitive truths to be believed and obeyed, but this gospel never properly remains exclusively cognitive.”

The context in which we find this statement concerning “the defense and confirmation of the Gospel” is in the midst of the introduction to what might be the premier example of instruction to mature believers of how they are to *live* the Christian life. It is no accident that the famous apologetic injunction we all adopt as our watchword says first, that we are to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” This is not an option, incidentally, it is a directive. Much of what I see to be wrong with the modern apologetic landscape has to do with a catastrophic failure of Lordship, and of a focus on personal sanctification of Christ as Lord over us. Not in the sense of “insufficiently moral” – but in the sense of “insufficiently focused on Christ’s Lordship, so that His Lordship informs and inhabits everything we do in His service, and as His service.” How many of the popular apologists in today’s world will actually defend the Gospel that your pastor would preach, as that Gospel, and to an unbeliever? Think about that for a moment, in all of its implications, and ask yourself something. Is that who I want to emulate? That is the glory, and power of Scripture. It is a timeless communicator of the truths of God. Neither modernity nor postmodernity changes that which it conveys. It cannot do so, nor will it do so. What has changed, brethren, is us. May God have mercy on us. What then shall we do? Repent and obey the dictates of God to His people, by the power of God. Defend and confirm the Gospel. That’s precisely what it says.

1. ^[1] Phil 2:19 ↩
2. ^[2] It’s hard to see what other referent this could have. The “for” which begins vs. 6 refers back to a previous element. The preceding is all one sentence. His thanks with joy is obviously due the subject of the “for” – and the participation in the Gospel is the ‘bearing out’ of what will follow. ↩
3. ^[3] Phil 1:16 ↩
4. ^[4] cf. 1 Cor 1:18-31 ↩

Fristianity, as I’m sure you all know, is a hypothetical, or stipulated worldview which putatively provides the same “account” for all things whatsoever despite the addition of “just one thing” to the worldview. In other words, it is, in the words of Choi, “otherwise identical” to Christianity. In this post it might be apropos to note that there is a variety of “flavors” to “the” Fristianity objection. Sometimes, within the same objection, there are multiple “flavors”, sometimes contradictory flavors, offered simultaneously. The continuing discussions on our facebook page and in our comments illustrate this point rather clearly. Both Chris and I have addessed Fristianity at length, and much of the discussion rehashes previous attempts at “flavors” of the arguments we have addressed, and to which I will refer to throughout this post. What they all have in common, however, is what is sometimes called “attenuated” VanTillianism, hereafter referred to as AVT. In this system, I argue, and Chris has argued previously, the attenuation is assumed in order to advance the argumentation.^[1]

In the initial post quoted, Chris writes;

Is Fristianity the same thing as the claim that TAG is an inductive argument? Is Fristianity the same thing as the appeal to mystery allegedly available to adherents of other supposed revelatory worldviews? Is Fristianity the same thing as the ‘apologetic mirror’ objection? Is Fristianity the same thing as the question of what the ‘Christian worldview’ is comprised of? Is Fristianity the same thing as the question of what the canon is comprised of? Is Fristianity actual or possible? Is Fristianity an argument or a worldview?

The first is not something Ben Askins refers to, thankfully. The second, however, Ben does seem to affirm, when he writes “This is a significant difference from ‘Fristianity,’ which contradicts a *mystery* revealed in, but unexplained by, revelation.” Further, in another comment, “I want to argue that there is an inexplicable mystery at the heart of Christianity which needs to be incorporated faithfully into our apologetic, so that our faith is in Christ and not in ‘the impossibility of the contrary.’” He affirms the next when he says “I understand that it’s hypothetical, it’s parasitic, it’s a “mirroring” objection, it’s a pseudo-Christian cult, it’s frustrating, etc. But none of those things demonstrate it is *impossible*.” He affirms the next point, when he says “You’ve missed the point of our prior discussions. Your proposed “Judainity” contradicts explicit *revelation,* such as large sections of Galatians or the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. This is a significant difference from “Fristianity,” which contradicts a *mystery* revealed in, but unexplained by, revelation.” He affirms the next in his initial postulate: “Let’s postulate that it’s in the forthcoming textual apparatus of the NA-29 of Matthew 28:19: τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [καὶ τοῦ φρεδ]. Hotly contested recent discovery of a lost, but undeniably strong, manuscript tradition. Many expect it to be incorporated into the main body of the NA-30 and UBS-6 (you can’t make these sorts of changes overnight).” Ben seems to be clear that it is only stipulated, not actual. On the other hand, I believe the discussion of how possibility is determined is very relevant to the dispute; because if what I have argued concerning possibility is true, then the distinction they are careful to introduce loses much of it’s “distance” from actual theological implication. Ben seems to have been careful to present Fristianity as a worldview, not merely an argument.

Ben seems to agree that an atheist cannot stipulate Fristianity successfully. This lead me to see why it was that we argued that Mitch LeBlanc could not do so. As stated in the conclusion of Chris’ response, “Unless Mitch shows that he is standing on something more than thin air in his utilization of logic to make his arguments, there is no real need for concern.”

Let us, however, refer to yet another post by Chris, which seems to bring in another piece of the puzzle.

The Christian worldview is a revelatory worldview. We know about the Christian God and worldview because the Christian God has revealed Himself to us. The Christian worldview also provides the preconditions for the intelligible stipulation of the Fristian worldview. This much is granted even by most Fristianity proponents. Inasmuch as the Christian worldview is thus sufficient the Fristian worldview is not necessary. It must be admitted that the Fristian worldview by its very nature cannot be the necessary precondition for intelligible experience, but it is never offered as such. It is rather offered as a sufficient worldview in this regard. However according to Choi, that “the Fristian God is a quadrinity is something we know to be true in virtue of stipulation.” But then how can the Fristian god and worldview ever be known apart from some other worldview? Since the Fristian worldview can never be stipulated in terms of itself as this would entail a contradiction the Fristian worldview can never be known apart from the necessary preconditions of stipulation provided in some other worldview. The Fristian worldview as described here provides neither the necessary nor sufficient preconditions for intelligible experience since it is admittedly stipulated in terms of another worldview.

(Formatting mine)

Notice something there. What was the grounds for Chris saying that Mitch’s objection failed, and with which Ben agreed? The inability of the atheist worldview to account for what was stipulated, correct? Can the “Fristian” stipulate Fristianity in terms of itself? Obviously not. So, as has been pointed out to Ben, and seemingly mistaken for objecting to Fristianity *for being* hypothetical, the objection is to Fristianity for being unable to stipulate anything in terms of itself, and secondly, for attempting to cut it’s own legs off at the knees. The claim of Fristianity is that it is “otherwise identical” to Christianity – but this is an empty claim. It cannot be stipulated in terms of itself – it needs an “operable worldview” to be actually in place and already deemed sufficient in order for the objection to be made. On the other hand, the objection purports to *refute* the sufficiency, and thereby the necessity of the very worldview it rests upon, and cannot be stipulated without. Fristianity requires another, operable worldview to be stipulated at all. Christianity does not. On simply those grounds, it might be advanced that Fristianity fails, in that it is not, therefore, “otherwise identical.”

However, this is not the only problem with Fristianity, nor is it the most serious. My most serious objection to Fristianity is not merely that it is hypothetical, as has been repeatedly asserted, but that there is an actual, and fundamental denial of Christianity which needs to be posited in order to *say that* Fristianity is “otherwise identical.” Van Til was always quite careful to note that theology is systematic, and that we presuppose the *entirety* of the Christian worldview. We presuppose “Christian Theism” – the Triune God of Scripture. This does not mean we presuppose merely that which Scripture says about God, or merely that which is known about God from general and special revelation, or merely a set of “minimal facts” concerning God and His revelation. It means that Christianity, when defended, is defended as Christianity. All of it. “The whole enchilada.” Recall that another Fristianity proponent (and fellow AVT) has defined Fristianity as “whatever subset of Christian claims the TAGster thinks we need for preconditions of intelligibility, *except that* the Trinity is a Quadrinity.” What was Chris’ response to such an argument?

In cases where a ‘Christianity +1’ worldview is offered one may appeal to Christianity to show that the +1 creates inconsistencies with the Christianity already accepted. To show that +1 is inconsistent with Christianity constitutes an internal critique of that particular worldview.

What is being said here? The ‘+1′ always, always, always results in more than just ‘+1′. Without exception. The nature of revelation demands that this be the case. If every singular doctrine is tied, coherently and unexceptionally, to every other doctrine, then it is necessarily the case that a change in one place will result in a host of changes elsewhere. The Fristianity proponent, seemingly without exception, does not address this, or account for this in their objection. In the recent exchange, this is seen to be somehow an “objection to it being a hypothetical.” Obviously, this is not the case. What this is, when looked at in terms of theological implication, is a case of unintended consequences. What this assumes is not merely an AVT – but an attenuated Christianity. When Van Til makes his case, he does not do so apart from the revealed doctrines of Christianity. In fact, he frankly asserts that he presupposes *all of* Christianity. Whether or not it is convenient for the Fristianity proponent to *admit* that his proposal would have far-reaching theological implications, and necessarily be, therefore, something other than “otherwise identical,” it remains the case that such cannot be avoided.

Which brings me to the last point. When confronted with a counter-objection, namely, ‘Judainity’, wherein the Judaizers are posited to be actually *right* – the rebuttal to that counter was that it wasn’t in regards to a mystery. With all due respect; this is utter, and absolute nonsense. The Gospel is a mystery. Ephesians 6:19 clearly states this. The relation of Christ to the church is likewise a mystery, per Eph 5:32. God’s will is likewise a mystery, per Eph 1:9. What I would just like to posit is this. The Biblical definition of “mystery” is, indeed, a “secret”, as was asserted by Ben – but he accuses me of an exegetical fallacy in applying the definition “a secret, once hidden, but now revealed” universally. While I can somewhat sympathize with Ben in his comment, he neglected one thing. To demonstrate that his definition of “mystery”, in this sense, as “the reality behind the paradox in Scripture’s revelation of the Trinity” is a Biblical definition. A “paradox” is what Van Til calls apparent contradiction – not a mystery. Mystery, Scripturally, is something once hidden, but now revealed. A mystery in the sense of “we still don’t know God fully, but we will yet know Him as He is” is, of course, still a valid definition. See DotF pg. 35 for a delineation at that point. However, my point was in regards to *what has been revealed*, wasn’t it? The criticism, as such, is irrelevant. Biblically, it is most certainly the case that we know God exists as 3 persons. This is, of course, directly contradictory to the Fristian claim that God exists as 4 persons. Using a doctrine that some do not know overly well as an excuse for “wiggle room”, or as a supposed “appeal to mystery” is, quite frankly, not overly compelling. I know the doctrine of the Trinity. I love the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not the case that God has not revealed with clarity that He exists as 3 persons. It is, on the contrary, quite clear, and abundantly so, that God has, in fact, revealed Himself to be 3 persons. We consider it to be so abundantly clear that we anathematize those who deny this doctrine. We likewise anathematize those who deny the Gospel. I’m not much of a “tension in the text” type, personally.

You will find, if you study μυστήριον and it’s linguistic relatives, that it is quite obvious what it is I’m referring to. In every single instance in the NT, a μυστήριον is something known, understood, and central. For instance, in Colossians 2, we have a “true knowledge” of this μυστήριον. How can this be so, if we don’t have a “comprehensive knowledge” of the subject? As Van Til discusses in the above reference, the Christian view of mystery is a *sufficient knowledge* of the thing in question. Yet, what is being advanced seems to be the very antithesis of this idea. That since we do not have comprehensive knowledge of the thing, there is therefore room to *question* the sufficiency of that knowledge we have been granted, in Christ, through the Spirit, by the Word. Such is not a Christian doctrine of mystery. Full stop. In Colossians 1, note something. In vs. 25b, we have “so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,” – straightforward, right? vs. 26; “that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,”. uh-oh. Tough words there. “Manifested”? Think “made known.” Notice earlier in the verse. Mystery – μυστήριον, then τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον – which has been hidden. Once hidden, now made known. vs. 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Catch that? God willed *to make known* – what? The riches of the glory of this *mystery* among the gentiles. As I’ve said, you’ll find that every single NT usage of this term follows similar lines. It is revelation of something once hidden. So, is it proper to appeal to *what we cannot yet know* about God to somehow overthrow what we *do know* about God? Not in the slightest. In fact, it’s not… possible to do so. What is revealed is what? Sufficient. If sufficient, therefore… what? Necessary. So, as I argued in my debate vs. Roman Catholic Dan Marcum, if there is already sufficiency, a claimed “likewise sufficient” is therefore superfluous. Chris has argued this in several venues as well, you’ll also note. In order to advance the Fristian hypothesis, what needs to be denied? The *sufficiency* of Scripture. On what basis?

A stipulated worldview that cannot be stipulated in terms of itself, which denies the *sufficiency* of something it supposedly grants is sufficient, and which worldview is supposed to *also* be sufficient in “reflection” of this other worldview. Yet, as we can see, it not only is not “otherwise identical,” but not “sufficient,” and in fact denies the sufficiency of the worldview that it is using to stipulate itself, and cannot be stipulated apart from. Much like a house of mirrors, the reflections are meant to confuse, obfuscate, and turn one around in circles. Yet, in the end, each and every reflection is just that. A reflection. In which we can only see darkly.

My personal note to Ben; If you think about this clearly, you will see that you must “attentuate” in order to even make the objection that is somehow the basis for your attenuation. It’s obvious that your view of mystery is not that of Van Til. Your view of possibility is not that of Van Til; and, at least in practice, your view of the sufficiency of Scripture is not that of Van Til.

1. ^[1] “Fourth, someone who asserts that, “There are *some* things that are *not* part of this ‘necessary for intelligibility package’” assumes the failure of TAG in his or her attempt to show the failure of TAG, which is viciously circular and hence also fallacious.” ↩

From this attribute of God, he has one of his names, “Shaddai”, which signifies, who is sufficient, or all-sufficient; of which see Chapter 3. Three things may be observed under this attribute.

1. That God is a self-sufficient Being, and needs not anything from without himself to support himself, or to make himself happy. He is the “first” of Beings, the first and the last; before him there was no God formed, nor will be any after him; from everlasting to everlasting he is God; and therefore his existence is not owing to any; nor has he received any assistance or support from any; being self-existent, he must be self-subsistent; as he existed of himself, and subsisted in and of himself, millions and millions of ages, even an eternity, inconceivable to us, alone, before any other existed, he must be self-sufficient, and as then, so to all eternity. He is an “infinite” and “all-comprehending” Being; to what is infinite nothing can be added: if anything was wanting in him he would be finite; if there was any excellency in another, which is not in him, he would not be infinite, and so not God: being infinite, he is incomprehensible by others; and comprehends in himself all excellencies, perfections, and happiness; and therefore self-sufficient; “Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again for of him, and through him, and for him are all things” (Rom. 11:35, 36). God is the “summum bonum”, the chief good, and has all that is good in him; he is good essentially, originally, and inderivatively; the source and fountain of all goodness; every good and perfect gift comes from him, (James 1:17) and therefore must have a fulness of goodness in him sufficient for himself, as well as for his creatures, and can receive nothing from them; otherwise he would not be the independent Being he is: all have their dependence on him, and owe their being, and the preservation of it, to him; but he depends on none; which he would, if he stood in need of, or received anything from them. He is possessed of all perfections, as has been abundantly showed in the preceding chapters, and is sufficiently happy in them; he is perfect and entire, wanting nothing, and therefore self-sufficient: he is the Fountain; creatures, and what they have, are streams; and it would be as absurd for him to need them, or anything from them, as for the fountain to need its streams. Besides, God in his divine persons, God Father, Son and Spirit, have enough within themselves, to give the utmost, yea, infinite complacency, delight, and satisfaction among themselves, and to one another, and had before any creatures were made, and would have had if none had been made, and so ever will; the Father delighted in the Son, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person”; the Son in the Father, before whom he was always rejoicing, when as yet no creature existed; and both in the blessed Spirit, proceeding from them; and he in them, see (Prov. 8:30) for creation adds nothing at all to the perfection and happiness of God, nor makes the least alteration in him. It is indeed said, “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created”, (Rev. 4:11) but pleasure there does not signify delight, satisfaction, and happiness; as if they were made for the sake of that in God; to add unto it, and increase it; but the good will and pleasure of God; it is dia to yelhma sou, and should be rendered, “by thy will they are and were created: God has made all things for himself; that is, for his glory, his manifestative glory; but then this adds nothing to his essential glory and happiness; the heavens, and so the other parts of the creation, declare his glory; but to whom? not to himself, he needs no such declaration; he knows perfectly his own glory, which is always invariably the same; but to angels and men, that they may contemplate it, and receive benefit by it. The invisible perfections of God, his eternal power and Godhead, are seen and understood by the things that are made; but not by God himself, who needs no such glass to view them in; but by men; and the design thereof is, to make some better and happier, and others inexcusable. All creatures stand in need of God to supply them and support them; they consist in him, are upheld by the word of his power, live, and move, and have their beings in him; but he stands in need of none of them, being self-sufficient.^[1]

When considering possibility, one needs to consider what possibility is. In the case of the nature of God, all manners of possibility are in view simultaneously. Also in the case of God, His aseity demands that we treat statements on possibility with regards to Him in terms of His self-sufficiency. God is necessary; He exists of Himself. it is definitionally impossible that God be non-existent, or exist as other than He is. It is, therefore, logically impossible that God, a se, be other than what He is. God exists self-sufficiently; there is no question as to whether God could be other, as He is who and what He is, of Himself. Logically, it is impossible, given God’s self-existence and self-sufficiency, that He be other than He is. Epistemically, we know it is solely possible for God to be as He has revealed Himself to be. God’s specific and general revelation to and in us is unified, and necessarily true with regard to Himself. It cannot be considered possible that God be other than He has revealed Himself to be; our knowledge of God comes from the words of God Himself to us, so we cannot truly know God except as He has revealed Himself.

So, can the Fristianity objection assert that it is “logically possible” that God be other than He is, and that this “other” can account for all things “in the same way” as Christianity? Not in the least. First, this objection advances a god not revealed, but supposedly “like” God – what does Isa 46:9 say? A God comparable to Himself; What does Isa 46:5 say? Again, and again, and again God says “to whom will you compare me?”

Let the God of Fristianity answer this challenge: “Present your case,” the LORD says. “Bring forward your strong arguments,” The King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.” That is the Biblical test of a claimant for the throne. So, trot ‘em folks folks, and let them answer.

A god not known by God of Scripture? “Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” If the god of Fristianity is claimed to be “just like” the God of Scripture – let him prove it. I’ll be here. We’re waiting to hear how the God of Scripture doesn’t know the god of Fristianity, says there can be no other God like Himself; but yet the god of Fristianity is logically possible.

1. ^[1] Gill, Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 1, Ch. 24 ↩

Just the other day, I happened upon an amazing article about a new manuscript find. Of all things that could have been unearthed, what was brought to light but a set of instructions from Paul, to an antecedent of Marcion! What this means, essentially, is that Paul, under the guise of being “apostle to the Gentiles”, was a secret destroyer! What he did, you see, is to discredit the Judaizers – anathematized them, in fact, and even insulted them in one of his letters (in a quite vulgar way). Then, he proceeded to undercut their growing influence with the leaders in Jerusalem, to boot! Essentially, the Judaizers were right! You really do need to circumcise, as well as believe in Jesus! Who knew?

So, in light of this new discovery, I’d like to posit Judainity, as an alternative to Paul’s dastardly takeover plot. Basically, it’s everything Christianity is – exactly, except for one thing – adding circumcision to the Gospel proclamation. I mean, it’s logically possible – and you can’t fault me for advancing it as such, even though it’s anathematized, right? Certainly not *for* advancing a hypothetical of something! Besides, if it’s true, it’s that *Christianity* stuff that’s wrong, not Judainity. And before you ask, no, I don’t have any photocopies of the manuscripts. So just treat this as a hypothetical. Like an apologetic mirror. It can account for everything Christianity can – and therefore it’s an obvious counter for Christianity as the account for all things whatsoever… right?