(The following is an edited message sent to members of our mailing list on 01/02/2004. Now that we have created this blog, we will use our mailing list to send out only major updates. If you would like to subscribe, please send a blank message to subscribe@rmiweb.org.)

In his book, The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law argues that if Christians are against homosexuality because of what the Bible says, then they must also avoid or condemn eating lobster, because the same authority (Leviticus) forbids both homosexuality and eating shelled seafoods.

Whereas the prohibition against eating shelled seafoods was a ceremonial distinctive that ended with the death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 10:9-16), the Law considers homosexuality as both a ceremonial and a moral abomination. God does not revoke this condemnation against homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather reinforces it in the strongest terms (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

In any case, even if the prohibition against shelled seafoods had never passed away, Stephen Law's argument still fails. All it would mean is that Christians are still prohibited from eating lobster and other shelled seafoods, and those who do are sinning against God. So even if Stephen Law is right about the lobsters, all he manages to prove is that many Christians are sinning, but there is still nothing here that is logically destructive to the biblical worldview or in favor of homosexuality.

Nevertheless, as mentioned, Acts 10 shows that these ceremonial dietary laws have served their intended purpose and have passed away by God's own decree. On the other hand, rather than revoking the condemnation against homosexuality, the New Testament repeats it.

Therefore, Stephen Law's argument is based on a very superficial and amateurish reading of Scripture. Now, he has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford, and he is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of London. But as I have stated in several other places, the best of the anti-Christian scholars are nothing but stupid and careless lunatics. And here I have given you yet another example.

Does he really expect to refute the Christian position with something as pathetic as this? If I were to see this same argument in an essay written by a high school freshman, I still don't think I could make myself give it more than a "C." A high school student might not be a Bible scholar, but then I could still tell him to "LOOK IT UP!" in a commentary. Zero research makes you look lazy; partial research makes you look stupid — like Stephen Law. Perhaps that preacher was right who said that "Ph.D." stands for "posthole digger," with apologies to posthole diggers.

We expect non-Christians to be morons. Many Christians hesitate to say this because they have an unbiblical respect for anti-Christian scholars, and a false concept of biblical gentleness. But in hesitating to affirm the mental feebleness of all non-Christians, they have denied an important aspect of the gospel message. The biblical gospel is that man is both sinful and stupid without Christ, not just sinful.

Thus in denying that all non-Christians are stupid, these misguided believers also implicitly deny that Christ saves us from both our wickedness and our irrationalism. The implication is that we were doing quite well intellectually even without the mind of Christ, and that we only need salvation from our sinfulness. To put it mildly, this is a partial denial of the gospel, the depravity of man (including the noetic effects of sin), and the ministry of Christ. It is a serious defect in many people's theology and preaching.

So we expect non-Christians, even the best of them, to be complete morons, and morons give only stupid objections like the one you have just seen. What is really inexcusable is that many Christians are stumped by objections like these. But they don't have to be stumped; they don't have to be stupid. They now have the word of God and the gift of faith — divine wisdom is freely available to them. All they need is to renew their minds with biblical knowledge, and this is why we must diligently study the Scripture and diligently teach it to other believers. Only then will the Church as a whole become stronger and stronger, and unbelievers will no longer be able to get away with stupid objections.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, "Professional Morons"
Vincent Cheung, "A Moron by Any Other Name"
http://www.rmiweb.org

Vincent Cheung, "Gay Marriage"

Posted in Theology, Apologetics, Current | Permanent Link