Recently, apologist Frank Turek has written a short but excellent article on the hypocrisy of LGBT activists who accuse Christians who oppose homosexual behaviour of being bigots. He also shows how they abuse the term “bigot” by mis-applying it to everybody who disagrees with their position, even when they have valid reasons for doing so. In the process, they expose themselves as the real bigots. Here is Turek’s article in full:

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Original Article

• Frank Turek  - Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

Aaron from the Apologetic Junkie blog, and an associate in the Christian Apologetics Alliance, recently offered some thoughts on the question of whether or not all sin is the same, and I think it is well worth a read. He tells how the answer is both yes and no, depending on the context of the question. In the legal context of our guilt before a most holy God, the answer is yes. In the existential context of the damage sin does to others and the church and to our relationship with God, the answer is no.

Click here to read more from Aaron.

In the comments field to one of Adam’s recent posts, [1] a visitor called Trolando asked the following question regarding John MacArthur’s explanation of the word boulomai with respect to its appearance in 2 Peter 3:9.

Then what do you make of 2 Peter 3:9? … Not only is it stating that God wants (boulomai) all to be saved, but also no one to be lost, which makes an even stronger case for universalism. [2]

Since I know that I have addressed this passage before, [3] I went looking to see if I had published it anywhere on this web site. But I could not find it so perhaps I never have published it here. So allow me to correct that and simultaneously answer Trolando’s question. My comment at the Duane’s Mind blog was answering the question posed to me by Marc Kay, “What do you think 2 Peter 3:9 means?”

~*~

Very simply, 2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what it says. Every time this passage is brought into question, the problem hinges less upon what it means and more importantly upon what it says. You see, most people don’t even know what it says because they have become accustomed to using the passage as a proof-text, reading it in isolation rather than interpreting it in context, as though Peter’s second epistle was not actually a complete letter but a collection of pithy sayings. When you start asking relevant questions about Peter’s second letter, like who he was writing to, you move beyond proof-texting errors into responsible exegesis and consequently discover what it says…

…and therefore what it means.

But before we get into that, let us first assume that it means what you think it does, that God does not want anyone whatsoever to perish. And let us further assume along with you that there are no distinctions in what God wills, that he has but one will. If we understand his singular will here in the decretive sense (i.e., that which God decrees or ordains shall happen), then we discover a violent contradiction between this understanding and what the Bible declares elsewhere, in so many places, about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. If this passage means that it is God’s holy decree that no one whatsoever perish, then the fact that so many ultimately end up perishing means that God can—and does—fail, that his purposes can be thwarted, that he sometimes cannot do as he pleases, that he is neither almighty nor sovereign. It shipwrecks countless scriptures.

In every case I have observed, the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will, a notion for which there is not a single shred of scriptural evidence. That is bad enough in itself, but it is made all the worse by the wealth of scriptural evidence of God not only being able to violate man’s free will but his precisely doing so, from Genesis clear through to Revelation (cf. Exo. 21:13; Gen. 20:6, Rev. 17:17). So the fact that this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 creates such violent contradictions, plus the fact that its underlying assumption is without scriptural support at best and contradicted by numerous biblical passages at worse, we have ample, solid reason to consider such an interpretation as highly improbable.

If we understand his singular will here in the prescriptive sense (i.e., that which God prescribes or commands should happen), then we find no overt contradictions with other scriptures. But it does create a problematic dissonance in the context of the passage, for it seems out of harmony with not only the text itself but the context of the letter overall. It does not exactly make sense to understand it as saying, “God is patient with you, not commanding anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.” While it is certainly true that God commands everyone to come to repentance, it is nonsensical to think Peter is reminding his readers that God does not command anyone to perish. That creates a monkey wrench in the flow of the text that gives us reason to think it is a rather improbable reading.

So if God’s will here is in neither a decretive nor prescriptive sense, what other sense is there for us to take it in? Well, that is a conclusion I do not feel we have reached yet. This passage certainly is referring to God’s will in its decretive sense, but the question is less theological and more exegetical; in other words, the issue is not about the nature of God’s will so much as the identity of who Peter is talking about. Many people like you use this as a proof-text that God’s purpose was to save literally all mankind without discrimination, an easy and tempting instinct when this verse is isolated from its context—the chapter, the letter overall, and the letter that preceded it. But the passage itself is clear about who is being referred to. First of all, the complete verse reads:

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

And that is the vital key so many people overlook, “toward you.” Peter has a specific group of hearers; the context of “anyone” and “everyone” that Peter is referring to is defined by the “you” he is writing to. That direct relationship is important to note. Consider the following illustration.

Imagine that you have called a staff meeting. As you stand looking over the people gathered in the board room, you announce, “We cannot afford to have anyone miss this information, so before I get to what I have to tell you, I need to know if everyone is here.” Obviously you are not asking if all six billion people on the planet are present in the board room; moreover, you are certainly not asking if all people who have existed, do exist, and will ever exist are present. The “anyone” and “everyone” are directly related to the “you” being addressed—your staff members.

The Lord is patient toward you, Peter said. That is a vital key too often missed. The Lord does not want anyone (of those he is patient toward) to perish; he wants everyone (of those he is patient toward) to come to repentance. So then who is this “you” that Peter is addressing in his letter? All mankind indiscriminately?

Back up to the first verse. We find Peter saying, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” So those he is speaking to in this letter are not all mankind without discrimination but rather his beloved who he has already written to once before. Moreover, the beginning of the letter (2 Peter 1:1) is addressed even more clearly still; Peter is writing to “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Obviously what Peter has to say is not addressed to all mankind because not all mankind has obtained a faith of equal standing with the apostles by the righteousness of Christ. He is addressing the faithful flock of Christ. Peter had a specific mission with a specific message.

There is further importance to the fact that this message is being addressed to friends that he has written to before. What will we find out about these people from that first letter of his? We will find out that they are (1 Peter 1:1-5) “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” whom God has mercifully caused “to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

That is who God is patient with in 2 Peter 3:9, who he will not have perish but have come to repentance. God is patient toward you, my beloved, to whom I have written before, God’s faithful elect, chosen by the Father through the Spirit for the Son. God is patient with you, such that every single one will be redeemed.

This understanding gains even further support still when you read elsewhere in the Scriptures that God has a select remnant of Israel chosen by grace and a select number of Gentiles. God is not slow in keeping his promise; he is being patient, waiting until that full number of God’s chosen has been fulfilled (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15). In other words, the day of the Lord will not come until all those he has chosen have been brought forth and redeemed. Believers must not be impatient with God and his timetable, but faithful and praising the glory of his plan set from eternity, humbled and giving thanks to his incomprehensible mercy. Not only does this interpretation make sense, it is the only one that does.

Under an unbiblical understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very little sense because it holds that God’s plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet untold masses have and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet untold masses have not and will not. On this view the sinful desires of mankind is more important to God than his own righteous glory.

Under a biblical understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes perfect sense—within the context of that verse itself, the chapter, the letter overall, the previous letter, letters written by other apostles, and so forth. God’s own righteous glory is more important to God than the sinful desires of mankind. As John Piper has said: for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory, “he would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry … Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable?”

1. Morgan (2011).
2. Trolando (2011, August 1). Comment to Morgan (2011).
3. Smart (2009, November 3). Comment to Proud (2009).

References:

• Morgan, Adam (2011, July 20). “It is God’s will that all men be saved.” Aristophrenium. [Blog]
  http://aristophrenium.com
• Proud, Duane (2009, October 1). “God Saves! (Or, Jesus is not a rope).” Duane’s Mind. [Blog].
  http://home.people.net.au/~DuanesMind/