The Tsunami of Pro-Homosexual Books from “Gay Christians” and Their Supporters Plus Calls

And welcome to The Dividing Line, my name's James White, just got off the Janet Mefford show about, I don't know, 45 seconds ago, maybe that. And we're right on into The Dividing Line, which is okay. Two hours straight behind the microphone, nothing new.

Yesterday, we did The Dividing Line, tried to, everybody's asking, where is it, where is it? Well, it's going to take some time to fix. We had a sound card fail, basically, and so we're going to have to mess around with the sound and do all that kind of stuff to get it fixed and get it put together.

So it'll be up, maybe, someday, eventually, whatever.

We're currently running on our backup sound card, which I'm really hoping isn't distorting. I'm really hoping sounds good, and we'll see how that progresses. But, if there is a lesson I learned from yesterday at all, it is, in the middle of a live program, don't go messing with the sound card, because it'll go from bad to worse.

It really will.

Okay. Well, I'm glad that you learned that important, important lesson. But I don't know what else you could have done, because as soon as we started, everybody's going, oh, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, and stuff like that, so it was a mess.

But anyways, once that was over, we had, what, just an hour or so? Yeah, we had an hour or so, and then I, for the first time, and I'm excited about this, taught a remote class. For two hours, without a break, I taught a class on apologetics, intro to apologetics.

Michael Brown asked me to join his students, and we got it all set up, and we did it via Google Hangouts, yeah, Google Hangouts is what it was called, and so, and it really worked well, it was really, I could do everything I can do here, I used the, what's it, Wirecast we use, or something like that, is what we use to, you know, I could go to Accordance, I could go to Keynote, I could put it all up there, and then I could take breaks, and the students would have questions, and they'd take a microphone over, sort of looked a little bit like how Jehovah's Witnesses do that, though, if you've ever been to a Kingdom Hall, you know, they put the microphone down there, but we did the whole thing, and two hours was not a long time to do an intro to apologetics lecture, but we managed to get through it, and it really worked well, so in the future, what we really want to do is try doing some of this with some churches, you know, instead of me having to pack up and visit with all my wonderful friends at TSA, and get to unpack my bag and take my shoes off, and all that neat fun stuff, and all the money it takes to fly places, and get exposed to all sorts of diseases, and hotel costs, and trying to find food that I will eat, that kind of stuff, maybe it's just time to get some folks that have some technical savvy, and put the projection screen up there, and we can either send a DVD, where I've got my presentation on it, and then we hook up afterwards, we can do the live interaction, or we can just do what we did last night, and I actually do the presentation, and then we have interaction afterwards, there's all sorts of stuff that we can do these days, the technology is truly amazing, and yeah, okay, Tuesday, yesterday, it threw us a curve, that happens, but it's getting better and better, I mean, think about it, 10 years ago, we wouldn't have even thought about something like this, but you know, there you go, so yeah, Figgy in the channel is going, but how we share chips and salsa, if you are remote, well, that's true, that's true, but just think about how many more churches I could go to, if I gave, you know, two weekends a month, a Friday night, and a Saturday night type thing, and if we worked it out, you could actually do Q &A, after a presentation with a church in the East Coast, and then right afterwards do one, you know, Central Time, and a third one, West Coast, you really could, I mean, if it worked out that way, so that would be very interesting, so we're going to keep seeing how things work together, and I would like, if there's a church out there, if there's a geeky pastor, no such thing, right, there's a geeky pastor out there, you've got good, you know you've got good connection, you've got the projector, you know how Google Hangouts works, and stuff like that, and you want to give it a shot, contact us, let's see if we can work something out, we might be able to do something real quickly, because it's not something where I have to go, well, okay, you know, during that time, I'm going to be in this country, or something like that, we might be able to work something out, and it'd be fun, be fun, so we'll see how that works, that may be one of the only ways we can do things in the future, is that kind of direct thing, instead of public podcasting, broadcasting, who knows, that may be something we really have to look into in the future, I don't know, but, so, there we go.

Technical Issues, Remote Teaching, and Future Ministry Logistics

Speaking of traveling, I have to get up very early in the morning, and head to New York, I will be on Long Island, New Hyde Park Baptist Church, on Saturday night and Sunday, and then on Wednesday and Thursday of the week afterwards, I will be in, now they're saying it's starting to sound bad, that's not good to hear, but someone's saying it sounds bad, but anyways, I will be in prior Oklahoma, I've put that information on the website, you may wonder, well, if you're done Sunday in New York, you're not there till Wednesday, what are you doing between time, actually being interviewed in Nashville, and I haven't gotten permission to actually talk about that yet, so I'll wait and see if I get permission, but maybe afterwards I can tell you what it was about, but doing a lengthy interview, looks like on Tuesday in Nashville, and then flying from Nashville to Tulsa, and then over to prior, and then back from Tulsa on Friday, so what that basically means is, I think Rich is going to have plenty of time to be getting everything straightened out out there and working together, because I don't see that we'll be doing any dividing lines next week, so it'll probably, well, it's possible Friday, it's possible Friday, I'm supposed to get in around 11 Friday, so we'll leave open the possibility of a Friday afternoon dividing line, possibly, you know, who knows, maybe some stuff will have happened and we end up wanting to do something even earlier than that, there might be some time during the day so we could do something, though don't ask me how we would do that remotely, we haven't even gone there, though the Google Hangouts thing might be, you know, a possibility when I'm on the road, so we'll see, we'll see, there may be ways around it, because I have one of these little cameras that I will carry with me if I'm going to do a screen flow type thing, so it might work, we'll see, we'll see, anyway, this morning I was directed, and yeah, we can open up the phone lines today, I suppose, 877 -753 -3341, can barely see that thing anymore underneath those two lights, but that's okay, 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, first thing I was directed to this morning, it's the Mail Online from the UK, I found some other postings of the same article basically, but the title is, here comes the bride, and another one, and another one, meet the world's first married lesbian threesome, and they're expecting a baby due in July, doll, kitten, and brin, there's, well, okay, all from Massachusetts, married last August, kitten, 27, had in vitro fertilization using sperm donor, and let me point out, it's not one of the other two, sperm donor, and is expecting daughter, poor thing, in July, and there are pictures, and all the rest of this stuff, and the pictures of them in their white wedding dresses, blue hair, and so on, and so forth, and there's just so much that is wrong here, so much that is morally repulsive and sad, but this poor daughter, I consider that child abuse, I consider the situation this child will be born into to be child abuse, instantaneous creation of utter confusion, three mommies, no daddy, and the chances of it holding together, not very good, not very good, what a sad situation, never know who the real daddy is, and all the rest, it's just, but the real question is, upon what basis should anyone who is now promoting this moral revolution say this is wrong?

I mean, right now, we're getting all the monogamous same-sex relationship stuff, but where's the monogamous part come from? Why only two? Why the number two? I was listening, I re-listened to a debate that Michael Brown did with Dr. Small a number of years ago, I reviewed it on The Dividing Line, if you want to go back and look for it, and Michael asked the question, why the number two?

And he said, it was very frustrating, because his opponent said that he had agreed with the people who were organizing the debate to not address issues such as incest or polygamy and things like that, and Michael said, I never made an agreement like that, I think it was a complete cop-out, personally, but anyway, so he really wouldn't get into it, but Michael had to press him on it, so why, what's, what, what is relevant about the number two?

Why not three? Why not four? Why not five? Well, we all know why it's two, because it's a male and a female, and that's husband and wife, but you're not allowed to believe that anymore, you see, in fact, you're evil, and non-inclusive, and all the rest of that stuff, so why the number two?

What's, what's wrong with this? Why not three women? Why not three guys? It is, it is perfectly valid to ask for a moral reason, a consistent moral and ethical reason why two brothers, such as the brothers in Germany, should not be allowed to marry.

If they say that's how they experience love, if that's the desires that God has given to them, no, I don't, should they not only be allowed to marry, but why would someone like Matthew Vines say that that would be inappropriate?

Or would he say it's being inappropriate? I don't know. Don't know. Gotta ask the questions. Gotta ask the questions. Then my, uh, my daughter, uh, pointed this out in Channel, and my, my daughter found out what it's like to write a blog article, it gets read by a lot of people this week, some of you saw her article, her letter to Rachel Held Evans, and the follow-up article after that, and I was just, I was just looking at Channel about, I don't know, about 15 minutes ago, and, and she said, you know, after reading all the comments on my blog article, I now understand why my dad does not have comments on his, and I said, yes, comm boxes are IIAs, Internet Ignorance Aggregators.

It's exactly what they are. So, um, uh, I was like, but she pointed this one out, uh, USA Today, and, uh, the date on it is, um, is actually today. Uh, movie star and Oscar winner Jodie Foster has a wife.

Her photographer girlfriend of less than a year, Alexandra Hedison. Foster's rep, Jennifer Allen, confirmed what E! Online reported today that Foster and Hedison got married this past weekend, although the location was not specified.

The two began dating sometime last summer. Foster's previous long-term partner, but not wife, was Sydney Bernard, with whom she is parent to sons Charles and Kit. How is she a parent exactly? Um, do Charles and Kit have a dad somewhere that they know of?

Don't know. Although they split in 2008, Foster specifically thanked Bernard when she accepted the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award at the Golden Globes last year. At the time, Foster, 51, didn't realize we were the exact same age, was vague about whether she's a lesbian, saying she craved privacy.

You want a real brilliant observation, check out this next line from USA Today. This wedding news would seem to clarify matters. Okay, uh, Hedison, 44, who dated Ellen DeGeneres for about three years before they parted in 2004, is an actor and a photographer whose work has been shown in New York and Los Angeles.

Her acting gigs include playing Dylan Moreland on Showtime's hit lesbian drama series, The L Word, for three seasons. Well, um, again we're at that point of saying, you know, if judgment doesn't come upon this nation, there will be an apology required for Sodom and Gomorrah.

And here we see it happening all around us. So in the midst of this, as I was just saying to, uh, Janet Mefford, in the midst of this we are seeing, uh, a large number of evangelicals expressing a desire to find a way out, to find a way out.

And there is a veritable flood, a tsunami, a torrent of books coming out that are specifically designed to give them that way out. Um, for many years, the go-to text, you know, you had Skenzonian, Mullincott, and Countryman, and Daniel Hominiak's little book was never a go-to text, but it was out there.

And, and, uh, but it was John Boswell. John Boswell, big, thick, lots of footnotes, so it looks very scholarly. Himself, an open, active, homosexual, uh, died at a very young age of AIDS. Um, and Boswell's book was the go-to book.

And it's still really, uh, fundamental to understand its argumentation because it's still at the root of a lot of what we're seeing, but it's getting dated. And so now we have these other books coming out.

And this is one disadvantage, unfortunately, to, uh, the Kindle concept, is that I have all these books sitting here, but they, I can only show one at a time, or I can only bring up one at a time. Um, probably the, the most important, um, um, at least from a scholarly perspective.

And I, I think if, um, if we do the series, and, uh, a friend over at ADF suggested this, I think he's, he's quite right. If we do do a series, it'd probably be best to focus upon this because it's sort of become the new Boswell, though it's coming from a different perspective in the sense that Boswell was a homosexual.

Uh, the author of this book is not a homosexual, uh, but is still, well, I'll explain that in a moment. James V. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships.

I didn't count it yet, but I, I would be willing to guess that the largest number of reference footnotes in Matthew Vine's book that came out yesterday, uh, are to Brownson. So now my recollection is, and could somebody check on this because I'm, I'm pretty certain, um, when did Matthew Vine's, uh, video come out?

I think it was 2012. So it would have been before Brownson's book came out. So it seems that Vines has, uh, grabbed a lot of scholarly, uh, material from Brownson. And, um, so, uh, he's utilizing this, this material.

Brownson is a credentialed New Testament scholar and had concluded that the biblical message is very clear that there is no such thing as same-sex unions in the sense of marriage, that the biblical teaching of marriage has no concept of this and could not have a concept of this.

Then his son came out as a homosexual. And within a number of years, all of a sudden we've rethought everything. Now to folks on that side, that's a sign of open-mindedness. To me, it's a sign of compromise.

To me, it is, you are just as Boswell compromised his scholarship in a massive way, uh, to promote his sexuality, and his sexual experience. Uh, now you have someone who all of a sudden changes their perspective, uh, because of a child.

And I'm not saying that that's not a vitally important thing in a person's life. But what I am saying is if your entire understandings as a scholar of the biblical text can become completely reoriented by his, by the change in your own family situation, um, that's not a good thing.

That's, that's not a good thing because God's word didn't change. When were you right, uh, is, is the question. And so there's a huge number of books. There's another, uh, book. Let me, I want, I want to give you the proper subtitle here.

And I have a lot of books in my Kindle library, which I realized I don't actually own. I, I, I, y 'all don't need to send me all this stuff about how Amazon can make all this disappear. I, I know, uh, that's just the way it is.

Um, here it is. Uh, this one is another possibility for being the primary text to review, but it's called A Letter to My Congregation, An Evangelical Pastor's Path to Embracing People Who Are Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Into the Company of Jesus.

Ken Wilson, uh, pastor of the Vineyard Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Um, that's why I'm starting to question, okay, which book was it in that I just read? Because I've been reading a bunch of books on this subject recently, um, and have one more to go.

So, uh, no one, no one person I think could keep up with what's coming out. I was amazed back in 2001 when Jeff Neal and I wrote our book on homosexuality, how many books were coming out then. And that was a trickle in comparison to the flood we have right now.

It really, really was. Um, so you have these books, and then, uh, I was directed to, uh, an article from yesterday. Here's, uh, here's the title, Frontman for Christian Band Jars of Clay Speaks Out for Equality.

And, uh, so, um, Dan Hasseltine on Twitter said, uh, not meaning to stir things up, but is there a non-speculative or non-slippery slope reason why gays shouldn't marry? I don't hear one. Well, obviously Dan has not listened to this program, um, or Michael Brown or, uh, Robert Gagnon or any number of other people who have provided those answers.

He went on to write, I'm trying to make sense of the conservative argument, but it doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. Feels akin to women's suffrage. I just don't see a negative effect to allowing gay marriage.

No societal breakdown, no war on traditional marriage, anyone? Um, no societal breakdown, no war on traditional marriage. Really? So once you redefine marriage so that you no longer have husbands and wives, no longer have fathers and mothers, you already see states that are removing mother and father from birth certificates.

You blind to that, Dan? Didn't see that going on? Haven't looked over at Europe to see what's been going on there? That's not a war on traditional marriage. Maybe, you know, you might want to look at the article I mentioned just earlier about the three lesbians, one of which is pregnant.

You think it's good for a little girl to be born into that situation, Big Dan? I'm sorry. I don't know, Dan. Dan just may be a really ignorant person, but it really bothers me when you get this, oh, I don't see anything going on.

Looks good to me. I like this marriage equality thing. Dan, you don't believe in marriage equality. Do you think two brothers should get married? Why not? How about three? That's marriage equality, Dan.

And if three brothers got married, would that really impact your wedding, your marriage? Would the society break down tomorrow? Would the walkers take over, would we have zombies in the streets? But again, I finished the Matthew Vines book this morning, and I do think I had done a search, and there was only one reference I could find there.

Might have been a second, but it might have had my name in it. Maybe that's why I didn't find it, but I haven't looked for that yet. I finished the book this morning, and I felt like I encountered the one place where Matthew tried to respond to the five-hour interaction we had.

And again, I know some of you don't want to talk about this, but I was running this morning, and I did my longest run of my life this morning, a third marathon, one third of a marathon. And so I had plenty of time, especially at my speed.

And I remember, again, exactly where I was when I went, aha, aha, there it is, there it is. There's where he started to respond to having listened to what I said. And it was about the mirror image stuff.

It was about the mirror image stuff. And he basically tried to argue, again, if you happen to see in Scripture and maybe the world around you, gender complementarianism, if you happen to look and you see a husband and a wife and their little baby and go, yeah, you know, that makes sense.

I see design here. In fact, this is how the species continues. And in fact, there's complementarianism here, and it's physical. There is a clear, physical complementarianism here. I mean, I'm not going to get too direct here.

We may have to put out a warning for children when we do the whole series. But they're designed to fit together and to have babies. Look at that. Hmm. Yeah, that's definitely there. But two women? Nope.

No, no. Hmm. Doesn't work. Two men? Nope, nope, nope. Does not work. No, no. But there's more than that because, you know, I knew that guy for years before he got married. And now that he's married, wow, he's different.

I mean, he used to do some crazy stuff. He really did. And I'll be honest with you, he didn't really think too much about himself or in the sense of his own safety. But he did pretty much just think about himself as far as what he did.

And he really wasn't oriented toward others. But, you know, she's had an effect on him and her too. Wow. You know, I mean, she's willing to do stuff now that she would have never done before. There's a complementary relationship between them mentally and spiritually and physically.

And now look at that cute little baby. They've created life. Yeah. If you happen to see that in the Bible and the world, you're a close-minded bigot. Shame on you. Not even a good Christian. You can't even be a good Christian if you think like that.

How dare you? That's what we're being told. That's what we're being told. You bigot. How dare you think that way? You should see that picture. It's right there on my screen right now. These three beautiful ladies and they're so in love.

Just rejoice with them. I don't rejoice with them and I can't. Their behavior and their relationship is self-destructive. They're in love with a mirror. They're in love with a mirror. So what you'll find in all these books is an attack upon gender complementarity.

They have to fundamentally undermine this. Have you ever noticed something? Have you ever noticed that when you look at these books, the whole thing that they are focused upon is primarily homosexuality.

But they'll always talk about LGBT. They don't talk about B and T because you just cannot make a biblical argument there. Can you? Can you make a biblical argument for transgenderism? For man actually taking control and mutilating the physical body to change gender?

Where do you pull that out of scripture? And how about bisexuality? I think there's a reason why they don't mention that because if the same argumentation is going to be utilized, then a bisexual would have to be allowed to be a polygamist, right?

I mean, given Matthew Vine's argument that you should not be alone, they might say, well, no, you could have one or the other. But what if as a bisexual, just one and not the other is not sufficient for you?

God made you that way. That's the given, isn't it? Isn't it? That's what we're being told. Gay Christians, why not bisexual Christians? So if you're a bisexual Christian, then you'd have to believe that true covenantal relationship would involve three, right?

Where am I wrong? Where have I missed the boat here? Can someone tell me? Why aren't these folks talking about, I've got all these books I'm reading. Spend all this money reading all these books, spend all these hours.

For some reason, they don't talk about that. Don't want to go there. For obvious reasons. Obvious reasons. Folks, we've got to think through this stuff. We've got to think through this stuff. We've got to be ready.

We've got to be ready. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. Let's get some phone calls in here and let's talk with James. Hi, James. Dr. Wyatt, good to hear from you. Well, actually, I'm hearing from you because if you were hearing from me,.

That would mean that I called you. Funny, funny. You got me. Hey, I got three points. You have a poem? The listeners might not know me, but I'm a former UCC pastor. I actually left the United Church of Christ over this issue.

So I have met somewhere between 200 and 300 people who are gay or lesbian. So this is an area that I'm fairly familiar with. And I can tell you that none of those people there, nobody had ever told me that bigamy or polygamy was wrong.

And the reason why is because if they say no to one group, they've been told no for so long,.

They're afraid to actually draw boundaries. They can't draw boundaries. Yeah, no.

So the second thing I wanted to point out was that I'd actually gone to a couple of these pride parades in Oklahoma City, and there were literally thousands of people there. And the church I used to associate myself with, with handout buttons and flyers and do all kinds of stuff.

But come Sunday night, come time for church, you know how many people would show up? No. About two or three.

Yeah, the UCC is not known for having a lot of megachurches.

Yeah, the only one is up in Chicago. Doctrinally, a lot of what they do is actually somewhat Baptist-like. I mean, they have altar calls expressed. And the third thing that I noticed big time, and you may have not read it in your books, the books you've read, but the books I've read from Jack Rogers, this one minister out of South Carolina, a lot of them draw from liberation theology.

And so they're comparing their struggle with trying to get equal rights with the.

Struggle of African-Americans in this country. Oh yeah, that's very common in the media, but especially amongst Christians. You know, liberation theology, very closely associated with communism and things like that.

That would be in the really liberal churches, which the UCC is. These books that I'm reading are much more aimed, more of the conservative direction, or at least in a much more conservative bent anyways, which is why they might not draw quite as much on that kind of a background and source.

Well, I think the one weakness, the one area that.

We really need to emphasize, and by the way, I thank you for your book. That was amazing. And thank you for signing it, too. I still think The Forgotten Trinity is your best book, but the one area we really need to emphasize is the fact that, just like you said in that article, and you nailed it right at the beginning of the show, they do not have boundaries.

How can you say you are defending equal marriage for all people when you won't define what marriage is?

Or you will so have to redefine marriage, there's no longer any way of putting boundaries upon it,.

Is really what's going on, yeah. Yeah, because when I was in the UCC and I tried to say, you know, we need to define this as two people who love each other,.

Nobody would go for that. They couldn't handle that. Well, there needs to be a basis. I mean, I've heard some very weak attempts to substantiate the idea of two people, but they really can't go there because everybody knows why the number is two, because there are two genders.

But they can't go there, and so they avoid it.

So, just off topic question, are you going to try to stream the thing from fire? There's a.

Very good chance. I probably won't be able to make it next week. I doubt it. I mean, my recollection was that Grace Life Church didn't really have internet, but I'm not sure. I don't even know where we're meeting, so I can't answer that question.

You might want to give them a call, and maybe Derek could tell you or something like that. Well, if you just audio recorded it, I'm sure, you know. Oh, well, I'm sure it'll be recorded, but whether it'll be live will be the issue, so.

Yeah. All right, thanks for your call, James. Thanks, have a great day. You too, bye-bye. All right, let's talk with good old Johnny. Hello, Johnny. How's it going, brother? Still stuck in the People's Republic of California, huh?

Yes, I am. Okay, well, your freedom will be gone a lot sooner than mine, that's all I can say. Yeah, probably. I was going.

To ask you, because I tweeted this to you, and I wasn't sure if you had taken a look at it. It's an article found on the Daily Caller by David Benkoff entitled, Nobody is Born That Way,.

Gay Historians Say. Yeah, I saw it. I was talking, and there's only so much multitasking one can do, unfortunately. Right. Well, anyway, what the article is basically.

Saying is basically that the whole idea of sexual orientation, such as gay and straight, that that is actually, I mean, he says that these historians are LGBT themselves, and they have decisively shown that gayness is a product of Western society originating about 150 years ago.

So it's basically contrasting the idea of sexuality as something that you do versus sexuality as something that you are, identity politics. I didn't know if you had heard of this. This is actually kind of new to me, so I didn't know what your thoughts were on that whole idea.

Well, I'd have to look at this, but I need to know how they're defining things. I mean, the idea that this is a modern kind of an idea is very common in these books. But what they mean by this, there's always been an unwillingness on their part to believe that it's just simply genetically determined, because if a gay gene could be found, then the gay gene could be fixed.

And so there's always been a hesitation on thinking homosexual leaders to view it in that way. They want to be a much more complex thing where you can still have it being innate, but without just being merely genetic.

So I'd have to take a look at it. I can't comment on an article I.

Haven't read. Oh, okay. Well, because what the article is trying to explain is that in the ancient world, when you talk about the Greeks and so forth, that the idea of homosexual relationships was something that was done even by people that were married.

In other words, what they're basically saying is that the idea of saying this person is oriented towards same-sex versus this is oriented towards opposite sex, that that would basically be an anachronism that people.

Didn't think along those categories. Well, that is a common part of the argument of Matthew Vines and these books. They're saying that's why we cannot say that the Bible addresses this, is because nobody back then understood that what we understand in regards to sexual orientation.

And so that is pretty much the same argument that is being made. And I would disagree, only in the sense that very clearly you had all sorts of sexual immorality in the ancient world, but it was well known that there were certain men who only wanted to be with other men.

Whether they use the same psychological terminology that would be used today is not relevant to the fact that it was recognized that such people as that did exist. And so in Matthew Vines' book, his constant refrain is, well look, Paul can't be addressing what I am because I want to be a monogamous, committed, gay Christian.

And they didn't know there were people like that back then. And that's what these people are saying. And therefore, nothing in the Bible is actually relevant to me because I'm a category that they didn't know about.

And that's why I say the whole homosexual movement like this destroys confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture because it fundamentally has to have us believe that someone like Jesus knew, well either Jesus did know that there were gay people like Matthew Vines and said nothing to help them.

Said nothing to promote marriage for them. Said nothing to alleviate their suffering because they would not have been allowed in the people of Israel. They would not have been allowed in the synagogue.

There was no concept of homosexual marriage. You have to come up with the idea that Jesus was just a man of his day, didn't know about him, and that's just the way it is. And all their other biblical writers also just ignorant of this.

Or if he did know, he didn't do anything about it. That's why I'd like to see some debates so we could ask these questions. But that's not happening yet.

So basically Matthew Vines, though I guess he believes in the inspiration of Scripture, what you're saying is that he doesn't believe in the sufficiency of Scripture?

Well yeah, I mean that's that, obviously he would say he does. But the whole argument that they're making is that we cannot apply these negative texts about homosexuality to him because the authors of Scripture did not know about people like him.

That his category of existence was unknown to the scriptural authors and therefore what they said about homosexuality is irrelevant to Matthew Vines. I didn't know that. Thanks very much brother. Okay, there you go.

I hope that's helpful and I'll take a look at that article and I'll keep it up on the screen here and see if I can get through it real quick. Okay? Okay. Thank you sir. All right, God bless. Bye-bye.

All right, let's talk with Corey across the pond. Hi, Corey.

Oh, hello Dr. White. How you doing? Yeah, first of all I just want to say thanks to your ministry. I find it very beneficial over the past pertaining to this issue. I find your argument, which I haven't really heard anywhere else, usually you hear homosexuality after Matthew 18 and Jesus' positive affirmations of human sexuality.

How would you respond then to somebody who says, okay, so that is exactly the argument that Matthew Vines makes. I was just on the.

Janet Mefford show the hour before this, raised the exact same issue because that is central to the current apologetic that homosexuals and those supporting them are using. And basically the argument is, well, in the vast majority of references to slavery in the Bible there is an acceptance of the practice.

There is a regulation of the practice. There's a differentiation of the practice from what was found both in the UK and in the United States, especially during the slave trading years. You respond to that.

Well, let's put it this way. The vast majority of Christians can't respond to it because they've never thought about it. That's why they get away with it. Same thing back when we had a television program here in the United States called the West Wing.

They had the famous incident where the president went after this conservative moralist that was supposed to represent Dr. Laura and went through the holiness code and says, well, do you touch a football?

Because that's a pigskin. And can I sell my daughter? And showing all this just horrific ignorance of the context of the holiness law. Yeah, just terrific ignorance. And they got away with it because most of our people have never read the holiness code and have never thought through any of these things.

And so the only meaningful answer to that is to turn around and say, so you really feel you've got a good grasp on what the Bible says about slavery? To which if they're honest, they're gonna say, well, no, I read this on the internet someplace.

And now you have to have a decent grasp and say, well, you do recognize there is a difference between Roman slavery and Hebrew slavery, that this was an absolutely necessary element of most of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

Because without it, there would have been mass starvation. Because in reality, a person who finally tipped over the scale into the, I can't come up with enough food to eat arena could become a slave and hence live.

I mean, you do realize that the economies of that day could not produce enough goods and food for the people who were alive. And so survival was a major issue. And that this was part and parcel of all of those societies.