Skip to main content

My Facebook Exchange With a Homosexual

I recently had this exchange with a homosexual on FB. I think this should be our direct answer to anyone in, or who supports, this sin. It's the gospel. The homoexual is replying to someone else when I chimmed in. Let this be our most central and loving response to all who oppose God's creation ordinance of marriage between a man and woman. 

Gay man: “Making it to where gays can get married (Like myself) isn’t a privilege. It is EQUAL RIGHTS. A privilege would be 'Gay people don’t have to pay taxes.' You know, like Churches.
You are allowed to have your beliefs all you want too, but when it comes down to equality, if your religion doesn’t support it, shut your mouth. There are about 1500 Gods out there in this world, and you believe in 1 of them. You are about as atheist as everyone else."

John: "There is really good news. God loves you. He really does love you. So much so that he took the form of a man. And as a man, the man we know as Jesus Christ, he sacrificed himself so that you and I can be forgiven and be reconciled to our heavenly Father. Christ died for our sins. He bled and died, taking upon himself all the guilt and condemnation due us for living apart from him. He then rose triumphantly from the dead, thus conquering death so that we can have new life in his name.

What he did is applied to our lives by faith. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). That means that if you trust that Christ died and rose again for you personally, not just for the world, but for you personally, and that what he did is ALL you need to be forgiven of your sins, you are instantly forgiven and Christ comes to live in you.

There may be 1500 gods. But all of them call upon us to make various sacrificial acts in order to appease them. The problem is that we can never do enough. Plus they are fabrications. The living God appeased his own anger against our sins by taking all our sins upon himself whereby he died with them, once-and-for-all. Imagine. The offended party met the standard of his own justice by taking the role of the accused (you and me). That is mercy, full and free.

I don’t expect you to accept the Good News of the Gospel. It is utter foolishness to people, as it was to me. That is, until God changes our hearts to understand it. My hope for you is that He will shine His light of understanding into your heart and mind and that you will see the unparalleled love of the Father as it is demonstrated at the cross of Jesus. Be blessed." 

I did not hear back. Not yet. 


  1. Well put..I love how you do not address the subject of homosexuality.
    But rather focused on Christs love and sacrifice.
    And brought yourself into it as it as it should be.
    We were all dead in our trespasses and sins..
    But through faith in Him ..He alone saves..
    Be blessed John ..thank you for sharing.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…