Preston Sprinkle On Sodomy and Christians

In Febrary 2016 at the Christ Hold Fast conference, reformer Preston Sprinkle's session on the first night was based on his book, "People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just An Issue". The review  of the book is at "The 'Gospel' Coalition" by Trevin Wax. As expected the book is dumbing down the issue of sodomy from a biblical perspective combined with church-shaming. That is to say, it's just another social justice restructuring of biblical Christianity's understanding and treatment of sodomy. It seems to be an echo of all the other articles written over at "Desiring 'God' Ministries" as well as what comes out of Tim Keller (as I've previously written about on this blog). In other words, it takes the Post-Modern view that truth is not clear, mixes it with some truth about the error of sodomy, and then slams Christians for not dealing with sodomy the way he thinks they should. "Same sex attraction" and sexual identity are also brought in as if that clouds the issue (it doesn't). Interestingly Wax had this to say in his review:

The first half of this book is a journey with Preston through the Scriptures, as he leads us to “lay aside our assumptions and genuinely seek to know what the Bible, not our tradition, says about homosexuality” (10). Preston is a Bible-guy, and a Reformation-guy as well, meaning that he believes Scripture stands over tradition, and so he returns to the text in order to understand and resubmit himself to the Word of God.

Most helpful in Preston’s survey of the Bible is the attention he places on creation, on God’s making of humanity male and female, on marriage, and how our relationships shine light on the gospel. He also does the historical work of showing what same-sex relationships were like in ancient times. And he makes a vitally important point when discussing Jesus’ sexual ethic:

“If we say that Christians should endorse same-sex relations, then we will need to recreate a rather un-Jewish Jesus and an un-Jewish New Testament” (68).

Indeed. And that is why some are making the case today that Jesus then was bound by his Jewish upbringing and held ancient perspectives on sexuality, but that Jesus now would affirm what 21scentury revisionists say is the way forward.

In some places, I disagreed with Preston’s biblical exegesis, most notably his claim that homosexuality (at least as we understand it today) is not in view in the account Sodom and Gomorrah. Preston is right that there were multiple sins at work in Sodom’s wickedness, as the Scriptures indicate, but we shouldn’t overlook the interpretive support throughout Jewish and Church history for the idea that homosexual practice was one of those sins. (Preston interacts with Kevin DeYoung on this topic. For further reading, check out the chapter “Sodom’s Sins” in Unchanging Witness.)

In places like this, I found that Preston’s “Bible-only” or “Bible vs. Tradition” mindset hindered rather than helped his project. When he claims that “for many years, the church stood on the wrong side of the question of slavery,” he is oversimplifying the subject in a way that distorts the true picture.

End quote. (Bold, my emphasis)

As in typical fashion, however, the reformer doesn't hold to Scripture only. He mixes the culture (and science it seems likely) as part of his exegeting Scripture. In other words, he doesn't go to Scripture alone for God's clear teaching against sodomy, he appeals to culture, first the Jewish one and then the current American one. The issue isn't so much how Jews and Gentiles in ancient or modern times viewed homosexuality (and trying to blur the issue by use of "same-sex attraction" labels and nonsense along with "sexuality identity", but rather that these things have been around for millennia and Scripture alone is sufficient to destroy every argument that sets itself up against Christ and His Word. To set aside biblical thinking on the horrific and perverted view of sodomy as if either there's some "new" way of understanding sexuality today, or presuming that it's wrong to start off with biblical presuppositions, is wrong. I would go so far as to say that the disgust at sodomy is actually normal because God is disgusted with it.

I consider this book and author and teaching to be another attempt at shaming Christians for their rightful disdain for sodomy. It is an attempt at trying to shame a normal reaction to such utter perverted wickedness such as sodomy (and in increasingly with pedophilia). It is to side with the world on this, even if he claims that he's in the "non-affirming" camp. That, by the way, isn't the same as rejecting all of homosexuality. It's a step down to seem more "balanced" and not as sharply against it. God however, is against sodomy and sodomites: it is a damning sin and one so wicked and perverted that He destroyed entire cities (at least three or four) because of it.

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

God says that even the desires of homosexuality is perverted (see Romans 1).

In Matt. 5 Jesus says that the lusts in the heart are tantamount to doing the sin with the body before God. Moreover in Romans 1 sodomy is listed as "LUSTS of their HEARTS" that God finally turned those who refused to acknowledge Him, over to; that He gave them up to "a debase MIND".Scripture also lists sodomy as "unnatural", "dishonorable passions", and"consumed with passion for one another". Such is the description of those who refuse to acknowledge God as Creator. For those in Christ, they DO acknowledge Him as Creator and moreover, love and obey Him, therefore they don't suffer such hardness of hearts. They have a NEW heart at regeneration. Previously I posted on God's plan for the homosexual agenda. In it I quoted John MacArthur and I think it bears repeating: God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age. - In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28) - In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) - In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50) - In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8) So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy. They try to use "science" and psychology, and even try to equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered). The sins of Sodom and Gommorah were sexual in nature and therefore earned God's special judgement. If He destroyed not only those two cities, but the surrounding ones because of such heinous sexual immorality, then how in the WORLD can "Christians" think He's any less angry and less holy now with sodomy? Both the Old and New Testaments show God's absolute consistency regarding sexual immorality. Or do these "Christians" fancy themselves more tolerant and "loving" than the HOLY HOLY HOLY God of Israel Himself? If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology, the great sin-equalizer, and victimization.

More on articles I've posted on the issue of sodomy and Evangelicalism here.

The other issue is, as the liberals in the world do, Sprinkle apparently tries to equate slavery with sodomy and condemn Christians for both in their treatment of both. To equate these two is totally ridiculous. Scripture never equates the two and yet it addresses both. In fact, Scripture never calls for social justice regarding slavery. It doesn't tell Christians to protest their government, walk off the plantation, riot, or disobey in any way slave masters. Quite the opposite:

1Pe 2:18  Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19  For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20  For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21  For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 

If a person had the opportunity to be set free, Scripture states the believer should take it:

1Co 7:20  Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 

1Co 7:21  Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 

1Co 7:22  For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 

1Co 7:23  You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 

1Co 7:24  So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. 

The letter "Philemon" deals with a run away slave by that name, who got saved through Paul's evangelism. Instead of keeping Philemon with him (thus "social justice"), Paul did the right thing and sent him back with instructions to his master to treat him as fellow heir of Christ and to forgive Philemon of anything wrong he caused or any debt he incurred (Paul was willing to have all if charged to his account). 

Yet in all cases homosexuality and it's lusts of the heart are condemned throughout all of Scripture. It is a damnable sin according to  1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8.

So neither in regard to slavery or homosexuality, does Scripture demand social justice (of course today's view of social justice isn't justice but vengeance, homofascism, and acceptance of such sin).

Also, if Sprinkle equates sodomy (or as some like to call it same-sex-attraction - and yes it is the same perversion as a result of not acknowledging God as Creator per Rom. 1), with any other sin, that too would be wrong. Not all sin is equal. And while one sin earns Hell, not all sin is equally henious. I've discussed this here:

So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy.  They try to use "science", psychology, and even equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered). The sins of Sodom and Gommorah were sexual in nature and therefore earned God's special judgement. If He destroyed not only those two cities, but the surrounding ones because of such heinous sexual immorality, then how in the WORLD can "Christians" think He's any less angry and less holy now with sodomy? Both the Old and New Testaments show God's absolute consistency regarding sexual immorality. Or do these "Christians" fancy themselves more tolerant and "loving" than the HOLY HOLY HOLY God of Israel Himself?

If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by  a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology,  the great sin-equalizer, and victimization.

 It is precisely because of man's sin that some choose sodomy. Respect for a person being a human being is limited in scope and application.  I suggest reading the Old Testament and Revelation to see how much emphasis God places on these people He made in His image and whether that affected His judgement against them or deflected His holy wrath.