# Biblical to call homosexuals a filthy pig?



## Max Hase (Oct 4, 2021)

I need your honest advice: Is it biblical to call homosexuals a filthy pig in the sermon? Is that too harsh a phrase or is it justified?

I find it very upsetting how much homosexuality is being played down more and more, even in Christian circles. It is pretended to be a sin like any other. But Homosexuality is one of the worst sins of all.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 4, 2021)

What is a pigin?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Max Hase (Oct 4, 2021)

Oh sorry, I made a mistake. (Can I change my headline afterwards?) Unfortunately, English is not my mother tongue. I meant filthy pig.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 4, 2021)

_Ad hominem_ arguments are rarely if ever useful. One can speak directly to the sin without calling people names. I am giving a link to an article as an example of being clear about sin (it shreds the idea of "identifying as") without making an attack on a person. 

Sometimes a man may indeed be called by his sin. "When you drink to excess, you are a drunkard who defies the image of God," uses the terminology of scripture. "When you drink too much you are a lousy jerk," merely calls names with no real explanation as to what is wrong.

Reactions: Like 7 | Edifying 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 4, 2021)

Max Hase said:


> I need your honest advice: Is it biblical to call homosexuals a filthy pig in the sermon? Is that too harsh a phrase or is it justified?


Note Eph 4:15 "speaking the *truth *in *love*"


Max Hase said:


> But Homosexuality is one of the worst sins of all.


Bear in mind that when the Bible speaks about homosexuality if often lists other serious sins as well. See Rom 1:29-31; 1 Tim 1:9-10.

Rosaria Butterfield, a former Lesbian and godly Reformed Christian, has written much on this topic. She says unbelief is the worst sin. It is unbelief that sends a person to hell.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 4, 2021)

Many types of sinners are filthy pigs. Focusing on the most literal definition of a filthy pig, have you ever heard a sermon calling morbidly obese people filthy pigs over their sin of gluttony though? Well, there might be a lesson there. It is not needful and it won't serve your purpose well.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Santos (Oct 4, 2021)

Max Hase said:


> I need your honest advice: Is it biblical to call homosexuals a filthy pig in the sermon? Is that too harsh a phrase or is it justified?
> 
> I find it very upsetting how much homosexuality is being played down more and more, even in Christian circles. It is pretended to be a sin like any other. But Homosexuality is one of the worst sins of all.


Why would you want to call a homosexual a filthy pig? Do pigs do what homosexuals do? Or do homosexuals do what pigs do?

I don't know what calling out sin and hurling insults at people have to do with one another.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 4, 2021)

Love the sinner (figuratively speaking) and hate the sin. I think the pastor used a poor choice of words in this particular instance.

There's little doubt in my mind that the day is fast approaching, if not already here, when the church will be persecuted for calling sin what it is, sin, and homosexuality, among many other transgressions is certainly sin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (Oct 4, 2021)

Pigs are brute beasts with no impulse control.


----------



## jw (Oct 4, 2021)

Hesitations 3:43

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Oct 4, 2021)

JM said:


> Pigs are brute beasts with no impulse control.


Specieist


----------



## jw (Oct 4, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> What is a pigin?


Where one doesn't eat much, as opposed to a pigout.

Reactions: Funny 4 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 4, 2021)

Perhaps use biblical language. It is harsh enough.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hLuke (Oct 4, 2021)

Max Hase said:


> I need your honest advice: Is it biblical to call homosexuals a filthy pig in the sermon? Is that too harsh a phrase or is it justified?
> 
> I find it very upsetting how much homosexuality is being played down more and more, even in Christian circles. It is pretended to be a sin like any other. But Homosexuality is one of the worst sins of all.


Everyone is made in God's image, to degrade another person and call them a filthy pig because of their sin is not loving or Christ like in my view. Yes, homosexuality is abhorrent... So is pride, so is haughtiness, and all sin is filthy and worthy only of God's holy indignation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Oct 4, 2021)

I would prefer to speak about homosexuals in the way scripture does. Rather than calling them filthy pigs, it is best to call their acts an abomination. Lev. 18:22.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hLuke (Oct 4, 2021)

ChristianLibertarian said:


> call their acts


This is an important distinction. The act is the issue. 

Still not disregarding the fact that the person willingly contributes to the issue.

Isaiah 64:6: But we are all as an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
And we all do fade as a leaf;
And our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


----------



## Edward (Oct 4, 2021)

JM said:


> Pigs are brute beasts with no impulse control.


Pigs are highly intelligent. And taste pretty good.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 4, 2021)

hLuke said:


> This is an important distinction. The act is the issue.


Not all the time. Proverbs 6:19 specifically says that, in at least that particular instance, it is the _person_ that is an abomination.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## JM (Oct 4, 2021)

Edward said:


> Pigs are highly intelligent. And taste pretty good.


Some psychopaths are highly intelligent and think people are tasty.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## hLuke (Oct 4, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Not all the time. Proverbs 6:19 specifically says that, in at least that particular instance, it is the _person_ that is an abomination.


Spot on. In that case-- for the unrepentant, God sends the sinner and the sin to hell. E.g. a practicing homosexual who denies the only True God. 
But for us to go against Christ's command to love and show mercy to sinners, calling someone made in his image a filthy pig, I believe, is wrong.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 4, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> What is a pigin?


I needed a good laugh today. I can't stop now. Lol


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 4, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> I needed a good laugh today. I can't stop now. Lol


Ha! Well, I was seriously scratching my head. I thought it was some odd was of spelling pigeon, but then I thought “filthy pigeon”? That didn’t make sense. Then I thought this was perhaps some slang word from one of those non-American places that speak English… but anyway… turns out it was a simple typo!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 4, 2021)

JM said:


> Some psychopaths are highly intelligent and think people are tasty.


They might be right.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 4, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Ha! Well, I was seriously scratching my head. I thought it was some odd was of spelling pigeon, but then I thought “filthy pigeon”? That didn’t make sense. Then I thought this was perhaps some slang word from one of those non-American places that speak English… but anyway… turns out it was a simple typo!


Pigs might be LESS filthy than pigeons. Birds have no sphincters.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 4, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Ha! Well, I was seriously scratching my head. I thought it was some odd was of spelling pigeon, but then I thought “filthy pigeon”? That didn’t make sense. Then I thought this was perhaps some slang word from one of those non-American places that speak English… but anyway… turns out it was a simple typo!


Yeah filthy pigeon is rather redundant...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 4, 2021)

Well, there is precedent in Scripture for referring to people as animals (many kinds, actually)… so I’m not prepared to say that it is sinful to do so… but I think it is profoundly ill advised to take the sin de jour, one that even sincere Christians are struggling to come to terms with, and then being so flamboyant and brazenly derogatory. Why? Different culture. Back in the day people were a bit tougher and could handle roughness. You could refer to mentally handicapped people as retards or imbeciles and no one thought you were being inflammatory. But now… people can’t handle that kind of thing. And instead of having their conscience pricked, they’ll just tune you out. So I advise against dehumanizing language for anyone.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Max Hase (Oct 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Well, there is precedent in Scripture for referring to people as animals (many kinds, actually)…


Which biblical passages are you thinking of?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 5, 2021)

Max Hase said:


> Which biblical passages are you thinking of?


I refuse to do homework for people who are too lazy to look it up for themselves, but to get you started: Jesus famously refers to (some people) as being “dogs” and “pigs” in Matt 7:6.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Santos (Oct 5, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I refuse to do homework for people who are too lazy to look it up for themselves, but to get you started: Jesus famously refers to (some people) as being “dogs” and “pigs” in Matt 7:6.


And then you did his homework...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Oct 5, 2021)

Mapping a particular sin to an animal is the cautionary tale, or tail.  Though it is done.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing is another example.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 5, 2021)

Santos said:


> And then you did his homework...


What can I say? I'm a marshmallow.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2021)

I have friends who are homosexuals. To be honest, I would rather have a few of my real homosexual friends next to me in a foxhole than I would some Christians. I have had discussions and talks with them. I prefer to use the word pervert. If God calls someone a filthy pig that is what they are to be considered. We are not suppose to cast our pearls before the swine. The picture painted is one of uncleanness. God emphasizes the uncleanness by adding the word filthy. It is not as other sins. It is a sin of depravity. Not all sin is equal in offence to the surprise of some Christians. 

When talking with people the attitude of a conversation reflects what is being said. We are not called to condemn. We are called to discern and and understand. We are to pass on our understanding for the sake of the hearer and for fellowship sake. The Law actually is the Law of Love. For us it is to life. For those who refuse it it is death. 

Yes, language matters and so does the context in how it is used and understood. Not many people understand the parallel of uncleanness and pigs today. Especially since pigs aren't considered unclean before the Lord any longer. So maybe we have to learn to communicate what is being said.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Edward (Oct 5, 2021)

JM said:


> Some psychopaths are highly intelligent and think people are tasty.


I'll have to yield to the expertiese of others on that issue.


----------



## JM (Oct 5, 2021)

I recall a Pastor saying something along the lines of "they are still looking for the gay gene. The only gay jeans are at Abercrombie & Fitch!"

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 4


----------



## C4MERON (Oct 6, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I refuse to do homework for people who are too lazy to look it up for themselves, but to get you started: Jesus famously refers to (some people) as being “dogs” and “pigs” in Matt 7:6.


Pastor Tim Conway recently delivered a sermon on this actually, based around the text which spoke of not throwing pearls before swine. Worth a watch

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Oct 6, 2021)

JM said:


> I recall a Pastor saying something along the lines of "they are still looking for the gay gene. The only gay jeans are at Abercrombie & Fitch!"


You must not be from Texas. Believe it or not these are pretty popular here. SMH

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## JM (Oct 6, 2021)

"You don't like my preaching go to Burn-It-Down Baptist on the corner of Haight-Ashbury and listen to Pastor Summer of Love tell you how the homos were born that way."


C4MERON said:


> Pastor Tim Conway recently delivered a sermon on this actually, based around the text which spoke of not throwing pearls before swine. Worth a watch


Link?


----------



## C4MERON (Oct 7, 2021)

JM said:


>

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (Oct 7, 2021)

Can't say I disagree with what I heard.


----------



## Max Hase (Oct 8, 2021)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> [...] When talking with people the attitude of a conversation reflects what is being said. * We are not called to condemn.* We are called to discern and and understand. We are to pass on our understanding for the sake of the hearer and for fellowship sake. The Law actually is the Law of Love. For us it is to life. For those who refuse it it is death. [...]



Thank you so much for your numerous answers. Well, but I still do not understand: Why must we not condemn homosexuals?

We also condemn, for example, *rapist* and *child abuser*, or not?

By the way, I would also call rapist and child abuser a filthy pig. Would you reject that too?

If I call someone a filthy pig, then I want to condemn him *morally*. I use this dramatic formulation so that the condemnation becomes absolutely clear. What's *theological* and *biblical* wrong with it?

Most of you have previously called *pragmatic* or *tactical* arguments against my position. But the real question is not how people see that, but as *God* sees that.

Homosexuals (and rapist and child abuser) are among the worst sinners at all. What these think, what these are, and what they do is one of the most disgusting and perverted sins that exist over.

That's why I call them as filthy pig. Of course, they are not animals in the word literally. Of course, they are still humans. Of course, I do not want to offend these. But I just want to express my complete disgust. What's wrong with it?


----------



## C4MERON (Oct 8, 2021)

I’m not sure Its even worth trying to form a rebuttal sir. I see absolutely no grace and no desire to reach out with the gospel to see people saved. All I see is someone who is desperately trying to justify calling a sinner (still made in the image of God) a ‘filthy pig’. You know yourself sir that you are not trying to make a biblical distinction about where the bible labels people as certain animals, you seem to be driven far more by your own disgust of the sin. A heinous one for sure but are we in the business of trying to snatch some from the fire with grace and truth or merely using ad hominem to express disgust? 
grace and peace

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 8, 2021)

"To teach morality [i.e. Law: precept, guilt, punishment] as a substitute to the Gospel is a sheer waste of time. The best it can ever do is to frighten certain timorous people against certain particular sins; it will do nothing more. It cannot change the heart, it cannot change the desires, it cannot change the man."

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (_Romans_, vol.6, p.81)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 18, 2021)

King David or Lloyd Jones?
Psalm 19
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. 
12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 
13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. 
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Who in the heck said anything about substituting the Law for the Gospel. This sounds like another straw man argument for not preaching the Law. The Law is a big part of the Gospel. It reflects who God is. God restores the Law in us as Bavinck notes in a way that is not the Covenant of Works but in the Covenant of Grace.



> *The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. *_Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> or Zacharius Ursinus
> 
> *But when it is joined with the gospel*, which is the Spirit, it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-law-is-joined-to-gospel-and-becomes-spirit/





Contra_Mundum said:


> "To teach morality [i.e. Law: precept, guilt, punishment] as a substitute to the Gospel is a sheer waste of time. The best it can ever do is to frighten certain timorous people against certain particular sins; it will do nothing more. It cannot change the heart, it cannot change the desires, it cannot change the man."
> 
> D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (_Romans_, vol.6, p.81)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 18, 2021)

Max Hase said:


> We also condemn, for example, *rapist* and *child abuser*, or not?
> 
> By the way, I would also call rapist and child abuser a filthy pig. Would you reject that too?
> 
> ...






Condemnation is God's job. He can only avenge his trespassers to the level of Condemnation. He has given authority to the Civil Ruler to wield the sword against those who do evil. Vengeance belongs to him. Romans 13
Romand 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Hebrews 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.



Submission to the Authorities
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I believe we are not called to Condemn. We are called to discern and help our brother or neighbor after we get things correct first. We are tp preach reconciliation to God. 
Judging Others
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 

The Ministry of Reconciliation
2Co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. 
2Co 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. 
2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 
2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Morgan (Oct 18, 2021)

Edward's was harsh at times with his congregation, once calling them ungrateful beasts. But, I do not see the need to address people in the way that was mentioned. If it was quoting scripture then that would be different.


----------



## hLuke (Oct 18, 2021)

11 God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 13 he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. (Psalm 7:11-13, ESV)

5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill." 7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you. 
(Psalm 2:5-7, ESV)

15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 
(Revelation 6:15-16, ESV)

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." 
(Revelation 22:11, ESV)

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 
(Revelation 22:15, ESV)
15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (Revelation 19:15-16, ESV)

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20, ESV)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Oct 19, 2021)

hLuke said:


> 11 God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 13 he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. (Psalm 7:11-13, ESV)
> 
> 5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill." 7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
> (Psalm 2:5-7, ESV)
> ...


I'm not sure what your intent was in posting these verses. Without commentary I am left to assume what you are trying to communicate.


----------



## Anti-Babylon (Oct 19, 2021)

Santos said:


> I'm not sure what your intent was in posting these verses. Without commentary I am left to assume what you are trying to communicate.



I liked his list of verses. I still do. I like them a lot.

I am not certain one need *assume* what is being said when one takes them as a whole - rather, the verses are there for the discerning reader to *deduce* a Biblical truth taking them all together.

It seems a fair summary of these verses is that sin is filthy and God hates and judges sin in wrath and terrible vengeance.

I agree.

In regards to the OP, I would say that I would communicate to any sinner (including homosexuals) that God sees the sin as filthy and us as pigs or dogs and will either cleanse us in grace now or cleanse us in fire later.

I would not directly call them filthy pigs as if I am God, no. That is His place to say. Like Paul, I would say I am no better - even the worst of sinners - but I do not fear God's judgment thanks to His amazing and eternal grace. And they too can know the peace of God's grace for the rest of their lives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hLuke (Oct 19, 2021)

Santos said:


> I'm not sure what your intent was in posting these verses. Without commentary I am left to assume what you are trying to communicate.


The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.

They are posted in context of the discussion. I.e. not repaying evil for evil. "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." Like what @Anti-Babylon said I wanted to highlight God's sovereign denunciation of sin-- his holy wrath abiding on the wicked.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Oct 20, 2021)

hLuke said:


> The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.
> 
> They are posted in context of the discussion. I.e. not repaying evil for evil. "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." Like what @Anti-Babylon said I wanted to highlight God's sovereign denunciation of sin-- his holy wrath abiding on the wicked.


These verses do in fact speak for themselves. But when one sites a handful of verses without commentary it does not explain your intent. 

You could have been trying to communicate that since God clearly denounces sin as wicked with His holy wrath abiding on the wicked, it is therefore justifiable to call sinners pigs and dogs.

Or you could have been saying that since God clearly denounces sin as wicked with His sovereign denunciation of sin, and His holy wrath abiding on the wicked, and since He states, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", that we therefore have no business calling sinners pigs.


----------



## Anti-Babylon (Oct 20, 2021)

Santos said:


> These verses do in fact speak for themselves. But when one sites a handful of verses without commentary it does not explain your intent.



But if the verses speak for themselves, then his intent is irrelevant. Scripture leads to truth regardless of human commentary.


Santos said:


> You could have been trying to communicate that since God clearly denounces sin as wicked with His holy wrath abiding on the wicked, it is therefore justifiable to call sinners pigs and dogs.



He could have been trying to but what is more important: his intent or the direct thrust of the meaning of Scripture? It certainly would be unfair for one to assume that was his position since it is nowhere to be found in the post.



Santos said:


> Or you could have been saying that since God clearly denounces sin as wicked with His sovereign denunciation of sin, and His holy wrath abiding on the wicked, and since He states, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", that we therefore have no business calling sinners pigs.



Same comment as above. When I deduced its application to the OP, I made clear my conclusion from the direct summary of the verses as well as used other verses I am aware of like Paul claiming he is chief among sinners as an indication that it is inappropriate for any believer to think oneself beyond the filth to a point where they can call another a filthy pig.

But mostly, when I read the verses, I got the sense of the filth and nastiness of sin from God's perspective and it lead me clearly to the fact that all sin is filth and all sinners are as dogs before God. The unavoidable implication is that I am not nearly as holy as He.

And I cannot call a homosexual a "filthy pig" with a clear conscience of my own flesh nature added with a generous dash of hypocrisy if I ever did.

@hLuke 's actual position became clear to me as day when I read each one carefully in the context of the OP and in the context of each other.

As an aside re: the thread starter's question, I also believe this to be the only defensible position Biblically.


----------



## Anti-Babylon (Oct 20, 2021)

hLuke said:


> The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.



I actually appreciate this kind of back and forth. I believe God Himself wrote the Bible to be used like this from one person to another.

Both as believer to unbeliever and also from one brother to another sharpening each other.

It kind of illuminates the difference between one person's opinion and truth gleaned from the Source of Truth. That is an important distinction that gets lost. Rather if you had simply posted your conclusion straightforward even with a general reference to "the Bible says", it still comes off as just another thought that passed through your neurons.

The way you framed it engaged the reader and let the processing of Scripture itself take root without *your voice* at all.

Brilliantly done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## itsreed (Oct 20, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I refuse to do homework for people who are too lazy to look it up for themselves, but to get you started: Jesus famously refers to (some people) as being “dogs” and “pigs” in Matt 7:6.


Would have been funnier if you added "dogs" to "lazy".

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Santos (Oct 20, 2021)

Anti-Babylon said:


> But if the verses speak for themselves, then his intent is irrelevant. Scripture leads to truth regardless of human commentary.
> 
> 
> He could have been trying to but what is more important: his intent or the direct thrust of the meaning of Scripture? It certainly would be unfair for one to assume that was his position since it is nowhere to be found in the post.
> ...


I do agree with his application of these scriptures. 

However, one person may believe that the scriptures speak for themselves and be dead wrong in their interpretation and application. And since I do not know him nor his intent I asked for commentary to help me, call me the weaker brother if you will, to better understand the point he was trying to make. I assumed he was making the point that he later explained but I could have been mistaken. 

This is a message board where the point is to discuss reformed doctrine and to convey the wisdom of scripture from a reformed/confessional point of tradition. I could and do read scripture often. But I come here for commentary and interaction.

I guess that there is no need for commentaries since scripture stands alone?


----------



## Anti-Babylon (Oct 20, 2021)

Santos said:


> I do agree with his application of these scriptures.
> 
> However, one person may believe that the scriptures speak for themselves and be dead wrong in their interpretation and application. And since I do not know him nor his intent I asked for commentary to help me, call me the weaker brother if you will, to better understand the point he was trying to make. I assumed he was making the point that he later explained but I could have been mistaken.
> 
> ...



That was unnecessarily defensive.

Scripture does stand alone, and my whole point was that homework can be done to go from a list of verses to a conclusion (and that's where commentaries come from). My point was I enjoy it when commentary is left aside and absent.

Yes, this is a message board and yes, if you only wanted his opinion, I suppose that is one way to engage yes. And yes, this is a message board where you could get to a conclusion and post it here engaging with his list of verses like I did.

I presumed you were a type like me that enjoys the deduction. I presumed so when you laughed at the other poster doing the homework for another on Matthew 7. And was taken aback when you wanted the conclusion given to you in this latter scenario.

I was mistaken obviously, mea culpa.


----------



## Santos (Oct 20, 2021)

hLuke said:


> The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.
> 
> They are posted in context of the discussion. I.e. not repaying evil for evil. "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." Like what @Anti-Babylon said I wanted to highlight God's sovereign denunciation of sin-- his holy wrath abiding on the wicked.


I apologize, I went back and read your previous comments and they made clear the context of your comments.

Reactions: Love 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 20, 2021)

I would not call homosexuals filthy pigs. Our culture automatically perceives name calling as hateful. I don't think this would do anything to adorn the gospel.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hLuke (Oct 20, 2021)

Anti-Babylon said:


> I actually appreciate this kind of back and forth. I believe God Himself wrote the Bible to be used like this from one person to another.
> 
> Both as believer to unbeliever and also from one brother to another sharpening each other.
> 
> ...


Thanks brother

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hLuke (Oct 20, 2021)

Santos said:


> I apologize, I went back and read your previous comments and they made clear the context of your comments.


No worries. God bless you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pgwolv (Oct 28, 2021)

jwithnell said:


> _Ad hominem_ arguments are rarely if ever useful. One can speak directly to the sin without calling people names. I am giving a link to an article as an example of being clear about sin (it shreds the idea of "identifying as") without making an attack on a person.
> 
> Sometimes a man may indeed be called by his sin. "When you drink to excess, you are a drunkard who defies the image of God," uses the terminology of scripture. "When you drink too much you are a lousy jerk," merely calls names with no real explanation as to what is wrong.


Thank you very much for the link, it contains excellent food for thought!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

