10 Responses to A Selection of Logical Fallacies from God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines

  1. Colin Smith April 26, 2014 at 8:23 am #

    Hamilton is being unfair to Vines in claiming that his treatment of Jude 7 involves an etymological fallacy and a red herring. Vines’s interpretation is backed up by Richard Hays in “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. Hays states that the phrase “went after other flesh” (apelqousai opisw sarkos heteras) refers to their pursuit of non-human (i.e. angelic) flesh. The expression sarkos heteras means “flesh of another kind”. Thus, it is impossible to construe this passage as a condemnation of homosexual desire, which entails precisely the pursuit of the same kind. (p. 404). Further, just as verses 6 and 8 are both talking about angels, so verse 7 is also talking about angels.

    • Ron July 27, 2014 at 10:48 am #

      Genesis refers to the angels as “men” (Genesis 18:22), and the inhabitants of Sodom use the same term (19:5).
      The word “angel” can hold at least 13 meanings, the most usual being “messenger.”
      Vines has Hays, but Hamilton has Scripture; which authority shall we choose?


  1. Matthew Vines Misrepresents the Apostle Peter | For His Renown - April 23, 2014

    […] also: “A Selection of Logical Fallacies from God and the Gay Christian by Matthew […]

  2. God and the Gay Christian Reviews - Kuyperian Commentary - May 6, 2014

    […] Here is a list by James Hamilton of some of the logical fallacies in the book. […]

Leave a Reply