The author opines:
Vines and Wilson claim that they continue to hold to a high view of biblical authority, and that they believe the Bible is completely true, but that they dont think it teaches all same-sex relations are wrong. Vines argues that while the Levitical code forbids homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) it also forbids eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). Yet, he says, Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong so why cant we change our minds on homosexuality? Here Vines is rejecting the New Testament understanding that the ceremonial laws of Moses around the sacrificial system and ritual purity were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, but that the moral law of the Old Testament is still in force. Hebrews 10:16, for example, tells us that the Holy Spirit writes Gods laws on Christians hearts (so they are obviously still in force), even though that same book of the Bible tells us that some of those Mosaic laws the ceremonial are no longer in binding on us. This view has been accepted by all branches of the church since New Testament times.When Vines refuses to accept this ancient distinction between the ceremonial and moral law, he is doing much more than simply giving us an alternative interpretation of the Old Testament he is radically revising what biblical authority means. When he says Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong, and then applies this to homosexuality (though assuming that Leviticus 19:18 the Golden Rule is still in force), he is assuming that it is Christians themselves, not the Bible, who have the right to decide which parts of the Bible are essentially now out of date. That decisively shifts the ultimate authority to define right and wrong onto the individual Christian and away from the biblical text.
The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.
Vines asserts that he maintains a belief in biblical authority, but with arguments like this one he is actually undermining it. This represents a massive shift in historic Christian theology and life.
He is correct and the early Church fathers addressed the issue as documented in Acts 15:
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.
Yes, Tim Keller blew this nonsense out of the water. Sad thing is that just a few short years ago, the majority of Christians would know this as well or their pastors would make it clear for them. But no more. Certainly in the mainline, most pastors are false teachers and wolves among the sheep.
However, perhaps Vines thinks that the sex laws of the OT are in the ceremonial and ritual, rather than the moral category. (I don't know what he thinks, exactly, because I haven't read his stuff.)
One can refute that by making reference to what Christians have always believed is part of the moral law, for the last 2000 years. This business of man-on-man sex being OK wasn't even dreamed of as being OK until about 15 minutes ago, comparatively speaking.
I wonder if any of the conservative churchmen who "dialogued" with Vines are also against contraception? --- a very popular form of de-natured, radically non-Biblical sex.