Recording of Gay Christianity Debate with Rick Schaeffer and Initial Review of Barry

This is the Dividing Line, the Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

And now with today's topic, here is James White. And good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, my name is Rich Pierce, I'm sitting in once again for Dr.

White and I want to welcome you to the Dividing Line. Well today I have a special treat for you.

As many of you know, just the night before last, James White debated

Reverend Barry Lynn on the subject of homosexuality and whether it is consistent with Christianity.

Well I unfortunately can't exactly give you that particular debate at this moment, but about two weeks ago,

Dr. White did debate on WMCA Radio Live a gentleman, a

Reverend from the United Methodist Church who is pro, I guess, pro -homosexuality.

I don't believe the man himself is a homosexual, I'm not real sure about his persuasion, but he seems to feel that that is something that is consistent with Christianity.

So what we're going to do today is we are going to play you a CD of that tape from that event and that's going to leave us about 15 minutes left in the program and once that is over with, then we, once that's over with,

Warren Smith, who was in fact at the debate the other night, will be able to, or he will be giving us an update on what will be going on or what happened,

I'm seeing, watching the chat room, it is extremely distracting how James does it, I have no idea, anyway,

Warren will be giving us an update on what happened at the debate the other night. And so without further ado,

I'm going to go ahead and start that debate right now. Firstly, let me just say,

Dr. White, thank you for joining us. It's great to be with you again, Andy. Yes, indeed, and Reverend Schaefer, thank you for being with us as well.

You bet, and hello to Dr. White. Hello, sir. Well, Reverend Schaefer, you have opted to go first, so you can start your eight minutes whenever you're ready.

Well, okay. I don't know that I opted, but anyway, I'd be happy to talk.

Well, go right ahead. I'm going to. You know, people just banter these biblical texts and take them out of context, and it seems to me that we in the

Christian community are really doing a lot of harm. Mel White talks about when he gets so many emails of people who are on the verge of suicide because of what they believe

God condemns them, the church condemns them, their parents condemn them, and they know in their heart that God made them homosexual.

And so they don't have any alternative but to look at suicide. Those stories go on and on and on.

Many of us encounter those kinds of comments. People are depressed, people are floating around, and God is not in their life.

Because the church has alienated so many gays and lesbians, they do not have a foundation in their lives.

And so we see the kind of behavior that we would see in anybody who does not have a foundation of God in their lives.

With regard to the Bible, you know, when we talk about a piece of legislation, for example, in Congress, we ask the question, what would the founding fathers say?

If I want to listen to a Bach piece the way Bach probably heard it,

I could go down to the music store and buy something put out by maybe Society of Ancient Music and hear it played on period instruments.

If I want to go see a Shakespeare play, I can sit in the audience and think, oh, well, that's the way they talked way back then.

I wonder why we don't give the Bible that same consideration. We are easy to brush off the idea of historical context.

We can talk about what were the Roman road systems like, when was the start of Bethlehem, who was

Pontius Pilate. But the why and the how, those are subjects of new biblical understanding and biblical knowledge.

It's the cutting edge of biblical interpretation. So if we look at the biblical text and try to hear them the way the ancient people heard them, and again we're talking about Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven, looked at these texts that Christianity banners about now condemning homosexuals.

We tried to hear that in terms of the why and the how. Therefore, the

Bible and the text later, if you'd like, and we can talk about those.

We have to look at the lens of Christ. Christ certainly did not talk about homosexuality, but he did talk about condemning other people.

Christ spent much of his time healing and restoring people back to society. And so I would like for us as Christian people to tone down the rhetoric, to try to...

I'm at the end of my eight minutes. Well, not quite, Duke. Then I concede them. Go ahead.

You concede them. All right. Then we'll go to Dr. White. Dr. White? Yes. Well, thank you very much,

Andy. And it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to address this very, very important subject in the

Gospel of Matthew. The Lord Jesus addressed the issue of the relationship between man and woman.

In Matthew 19, verse 4, he said, and he answered and said, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

I believe that an honest reading of the text of Scripture in its original languages, in its original context, taking into consideration its consistency as a revelation from God, leads any unbiased person to the recognition that God is our creator.

And as our creator, he has the right to determine the bounds of human behavior.

He is the one who, so to speak, wrote the manual for our behavior. He, as our creator, knows what is best for us and how he made us to function.

And the Lord Jesus said that God created us male and female. And he said that it is the foundation of that relationship, that a man and a woman come together in marriage.

Now the idea that we're addressing today, that homosexuality is an orientation that is not even addressed in Scripture.

In fact, it was just said that there is no modern concept of homosexuality in ancient times, and therefore the

Bible is silent on homosexuality. This perspective is certainly very, very new.

And in point of fact, the large amount of literature that has been developed over the past about 50 years or so,

Boswell and Bailey and Scroggs and all the rest of them, this body of literature seeks to, in essence, establish the idea that the

Scriptures do not address the subject of the modern view of homosexuality.

Now, interestingly enough, when they address the many passages that most people down through the course of history have believed address homosexuality,

Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1 .26 and following, 1

Corinthians 6 .9 -11, 1 Timothy 1 .10, when they address these, interestingly enough, if you gather all of these books together, they all contradict one another.

If what is said by one is right, then what is said by another is wrong. Some actually just try to pile up all the excuses together, in essence.

But all of them share, in essence, one overarching purpose, and that is to say that the

Scriptures are insufficient to give us any guidance in regards to homosexuality and to the practice of homosexuality today.

And yet, when we go into those passages and do exactly what we have been exhorted already to do, and that is take nothing out of its context, recognize what the contexts were, when we allow those passages to speak for themselves, they speak very, very plainly.

And so, those who attempt to get around the teaching of these passages, in essence, are forced to redefine various of the

Hebrew or Greek terms or engage in some sort of misdirection to say, no, no, no, we just simply need to be accepting these things don't fit into the worldview that the modern world really wants to hear.

And so, I think during the course of this conversation, people need to listen very, very closely.

I hope that people will take their Bibles and they will look at the context of the passages as they come up, as we make reference to them, and really, they have to sort of decide for themselves as to what these things say.

Now, the Lord Jesus said that he did not come to undo or to destroy the law.

And it is a fundamental truth of New Testament teaching that the Lord Jesus, as indeed the one who is the incarnate

God, is the one who gave his moral law to his people. And therefore, when that moral law speaks with the clarity of Leviticus 18 .22

that says, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination. And that that very same section of verses also is that which gives to us the law's references to, for example, the prohibition of incest, for example, is found in that very same section.

Adultery with a neighbor's wife, sacrificing children to idols, all of these come from the very same section.

And so when it is argued that, well, that's just the Old Testament law, that's just a purity code, is there a consistency in carrying that through to likewise these other things in the very same context are also just relevant to a purity code, or have

Christians always been right in recognizing that in point of fact the Lord Jesus, by his teaching on the law, established those things as being normative for all people, and that the moral element of the law is just as much for our guidance today as it ever was.

It seems that that is most definitely the perspective of the New Testament writers. For the

Apostle Paul, when he addressed the church at Corinth, said, Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

And then he says, Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified, in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ, in the spirit of our God. Now we'll have a chance to look at Romans 1 and 1

Timothy chapter 1 as we move on during this period of time, but I think that we need to recognize that this passage is really focal.

Because the fact that Paul says to the Corinthians, Such were some of you, but you were washed.

That is, these individuals in Corinth recognized that those lifestyles, and it's the whole list, including homosexuality, that those lifestyles were wrong.

He was not writing to people who refused to recognize that those are not lifestyles that are a part of the

Christian faith. Okay, you got a minute, Jim. I'm sorry? Yes, I realize that. I'm watching it real close.

So we need to keep that in mind, and hence there is a message of hope. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified.

Now, we read on the webpage of the organization, the No Longer Silent webpage, that we believe that God is unconditional in his love.

Well, we need to recognize that that love brought Jesus Christ to the cross to die for sin.

We need to recognize that unconditional love takes place within the context of the necessity of God's righteousness.

And so with that in mind, I think it's vitally important that we stand firm for the truth of the gospel and the truth of the

Bible's ability to define what is and what is not sin. Thank you,

Andy. Okay, that was Dr. James White. What we're having is a debate here this afternoon. Is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?

And defending homosexuality is Reverend Rick Schaefer, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas.

We're going to have some rebuttals here in a moment. Let me take a break. We'll be right back. Okay, we're back. The debate this afternoon is is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?

Dr. James White is opposing homosexuality and defending homosexuality is

Reverend Rick Schaefer. He is pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas.

And now we'll have rebuttals of four minutes apiece. And Mr. Schaefer, I guess you're on tap.

Can I have my two minutes back? No, I'm kidding.

Well, why don't you take your four minutes now? We'll see how far we go. Okay, I'm only kidding. No, cut me off at my four minutes.

Okay. Okay. We talked earlier about this, trying to hear the original text the way the ancient people would have heard it.

To take all of these texts and to lump them into one song, which has been insinuated earlier, that's a process called harmonization.

For example, you can't say that Genesis says the same thing about homosexuality that Romans does because they address two different issues.

And to put them both, and Leviticus, the same thing. You put them all together and say they condemn homosexuality is a process called harmonization.

And it's not being true to the text. If we really want to hear what the text says, we need to listen to it again from the ancient perspective.

And if we do, we will find out that Genesis talks about hospitality. And if it has anything to do with homosexuality, it has something to do with gang rape.

It certainly has nothing to do with the modern concept of homosexuality where one man loves another man or a woman loves another woman.

If we look at Leviticus and we're going to apply those laws, that's fine, but we better apply all of them, not just part of them.

If we're going to condemn homosexuality with Leviticus, we also need to get away with those surf and turf dinners and all those macho guys on the football field throwing around that pigskin on Sunday.

We better not be wearing clothing of maybe nylon and cotton or polyester and cotton mixed fabrics.

We better be applying all of those laws, not just the specific ones from the book of Leviticus.

And then going to the Romans text, which has been cited, again, we're not talking about modern homosexuality.

I personally happen to agree with Paul because Paul is addressing pederasty. That's a practice in the ancient world where we had an older homosexual and a younger male prostitute.

Today we even have laws against that kind of thing. It's called child molestation. And so I would have to agree with Paul in that respect.

But again, none of these texts, in their original form, in their original voice, address the issue of modern homosexuality.

If modern homosexuality and the ancient mindset had existed, perhaps Jesus would have said something about it.

But in their mind, all they thought of was an ancient concept of marriage, a man and a woman.

And by the way, to equate those texts to today's modern marriage is, again, taking the text out of context.

It's being totally anachronistic. That is, we are reading this from an American, Western perspective.

And again, these are ancient Middle Eastern texts. So even to say that the ancient marriage was the same, the texts address ancient marriage as they address modern marriage today, is not trying to hear the text.

In terms of being washed, I know countless, countless churches that they can let down the suicide rope.

Just because somebody is washed of God's clean blood does not automatically, quote, cure them of homosexuality.

All you have to look at is the number of people who have joined these ex -gay movements, and it turns out that they indeed turn out to be ex -ex -gays.

So I think I would conclude my remarks at this time. All right, before we go to Dr.

White, let me take a break here so I get back on track, and we'll be right back. We're back. We're doing a debate on homosexuality.

Is it compatible with authentic Christianity? And we just heard from Reverend Rick Schaefer, who is pastor of the

Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas, defending homosexuality. He has formed a rebuttal to Dr.

James White, and Dr. James White now will offer a rebuttal to Reverend Schaefer. Dr. White, go ahead. Well, thank you very much.

I wish I had more than four minutes, because there is much that was said that takes a long time to demonstrate as an error.

For example, in Genesis chapter 19, it was said that the only issues there are hospitality or gang rape only.

That is not commensurate with the text at all in its original context, in its original languages.

Even Ezekiel, when he talks about this particular passage, speaks of abominations in regards to that which were done there in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

We also then discovered that my opponent does watch the West Wing, because he used the exact same type of argumentation that was presented there to mock

Dr. Laura, including the error that people throw around a pig skin. That, by the way, sir, is actually made of calf skin, which is a clean animal.

But the idea was that, in point of fact, we need to apply all the laws of Leviticus, and therefore this is irrelevant.

And I pointed out in my presentation that this kind of confusion concerning the prohibition on homosexuality in Leviticus leaves us with nothing in Scripture that would condemn adultery, incest, child sacrifice, or bestiality.

Therefore, we are being told that in reality, well, if we just listen to the text, then these things are no longer relevant.

Or is it not the case that Scripture is very clear, and that we can tell the difference between a holiness code law in regards to pig skin, or the issue of homosexuality being an abomination before God?

In Romans, we were told, without any substantiation being given, that all Paul is talking about there is pederasty.

The problem is, that makes no sense. Romans 1 .26 says, For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.

Pederasty amongst women was basically unknown at that time, so that wouldn't follow. And then listen to 1 .27.

It says, In the same way also the men, not the man and a boy, but the men abandoned the natural function of the woman, which would be natural sexual intercourse, and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts, and receiving in their own persons a due penalty of their error.

There is no possible way whatsoever to take those clear words, which talk about mutual sexual behavior between a man and another man, and say, oh this is just pederasty, as was just said to you.

The text simply will not allow it. It says, men with men committing indecent acts.

There's a Greek word for children, if we want to go that particular direction, but it isn't there.

Now we've been told that none of these passages address modern homosexuality. So does that mean there were no modern homosexuals in the ancient world?

That homosexuality, in the modern sense, has developed since that time? Certainly.

Anyone who's read Plato, anyone who's read any of the extra -biblical documentation, knows that there was homosexuality in that particular time.

Now I would point out that the idea of one person with one person monogamous homosexuality was not only known back then,

Plato specifically refers to it long before the writing of the New Testament, but that is the vast minority, even in the practicing homosexual community today.

The vast majority of homosexuals have had more than one sexual partner. All the studies demonstrate that.

So to continue to limit that down to just a small subgroup of the larger issue, really

I think is a great error. So I think we've seen that in each one of these, when we do listen to it in its own context, in its own language, they do directly address this specific issue of homosexuality, and for the

Christian, they cannot stay in that lifestyle and claim the cleansing of 1

Corinthians 6, that we had just been talking about. All right, Reverend Schaefer.

I've never even watched the West Wing. I'm glad to know that they picked up on my notion.

It says right here, I'll read to you from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, just for brevity, no

Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality, and ancient Mediterranean societies did not practice, treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life.

That's my authority on that. Now, are we asking each other questions?

Are we debating, or what? In the next segment, we'll do that, yeah. I'll need to take a break, and then when we come back, you can ask the first question.

So I'm doing a rebuttal to his rebuttal? Right. So we each have four minutes for a rebuttal, is that what you're saying?

A second rebuttal, Andy? Well, each debater has a four -minute rebuttal period.

Dr. White just did his. Reverend Schaefer, you're up now. When we take the break, we'll come back with questions.

Actually, he had his four minutes before we took the break, remember? Yeah. I already shot my rebuttal.

Oh, okay. All right. Well, I can have a double rebuttal if you want. All right,

I guess I'm losing track of time here. Let me take this break, and then we'll come back, and we'll do questions. Okay, we're back.

We're going to go to some questions, and Reverend Schaefer, you have the honor of the first question.

Okay, thank you. We're talking about the Romans business. How do you, in your using that text to judge other people, how do you justify that in light of the following verse in Chapter 2, which says,

Well, actually, sir, if you would read the rest of that context, it says he then goes on to demonstrate that A, he's talking to the

Jews, and B, he is then saying, you who have the law do not follow the law. If I was claiming to be a perfect and sinless person, in fact, if I was engaging in homosexuality myself, then obviously

I would be committing the sin of hypocrisy to say these things. However, the scripture is very, very plain in that passage, sir, that the

Jew agrees with Paul in regards to what he has said in Romans Chapter 1, that that is what God's law is, and then he turns around and says, but you

Jews break that very same law, the result being in Romans 3 .19, that every mouth is shut, and every person is brought guilty before the bar of God so they can hear the message of justification by grace through faith.

All right. Dr. White, go ahead. You've got a question. Oh, okay. We're just going to go back and forth then? Yeah. Oh, all right.

We can do that. This is way structured here. Well, I'm sure once the callers start, that will change a good bit.

Now, sir, you have made the statement that you've talked about,

I know of people who have been washed in the context of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, and yet they've then gone into the church and they have heard the word of condemnation, and so on and so forth.

Is it not clear in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 11, that there is a break between the two statements so that Paul says, such were some of you, but now you have been washed?

Is it your position that you can continue in those lifestyles and yet be washed?

I think that I know from practical experience that people have been saved, if you want to use that terminology, they've studied the

Scripture, and indeed, they've even been called into the ministry, and they have not been called to change their sexual orientation.

So, therefore, I think it's a problem in our interpretation. It's not a problem in them.

May I follow up on that, or are we just going back and forth? Well, that sounds to me like what you're saying is, when you said they were not called to change their orientation, that scriptural interpretation is to be subjected to a subjective feeling or experience rather than the subjective feeling and experience being subjected to the objective revelation of God in Scripture.

No, whether we're speaking or objecting, I know a number of people who have read those texts and say, gee, that text condemns me.

Therefore, God, I come to you. I ask for your salvation. I ask for your cleansing. Help me change my orientation so I can be in line in the

Scripture and it doesn't happen. Okay. I guess it's your turn to ask a question.

Go ahead. We can stay on this line if you want. I don't care. Well, so, is it your position then that if they subjectively do not feel a deliverance that this means that we're misinterpreting the text?

So, what is the interpretation of the text then in regards to verse 11 when it says,

And such were some of you, but you were washed. How do you look at the text and come up with...

Are you in Romans or Corinthians? First Corinthians 6 .11 where Paul, after making this entire list of various things, then says,

Such were some of you, past tense. He uses there the form of I need that's a past tense.

But, and then he goes to You were washed. You were sanctified. Well, again,

I'm arguing that this has to do with pederasty, not with homosexual where you have a monogamous relationship between two males and two women.

I thought you said that in regards to Romans chapter 1, not 1 Corinthians. In regards to the whole society and those are the issues to which

Paul is addressing. So, the Romans 1 is pederasty and the use of arsonic coites in 1

Corinthians 6 is also pederasty? I would say that, yes. Now, the only caveat to that would be in Romans he talks about the man who gave up, or God gave him over for their natural lust.

Well, if you take a homosexual person, their natural orientation is towards another male.

I mean, they've known that from birth. I think Paul could be addressing straight men who maybe gave up their natural inclination for women, in which case, you might have something there.

So, but your assertion then is that when the term that is found in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, arsonic coites, that that is actually not someone who is quote -unquote naturally homosexual?

And what basis, can you give us any substantiation for that assertion? Outside, or is your substantiation your experience?

No, I'm saying that according to my sources, that they did not have the same concept of homosexuality.

We've kind of been over this ground again. Okay. And to take these Greek words and try to twist them and turn them around and make them to apply to today's contemporary homosexuality, that's the abomination.

Okay, so arsonic coites, which comes from arsena, which is male, and coites is the foundation of coitus, males having coitus, sexual relationship with males.

Again, you're talking, you're talking about straight males again. Where does it say that? Can I ask you a question? Sure, sure, please.

Be my guest. Okay. I'm wanting to know, is scripture your sole basis of authority from God?

Yes. In fact, as Paul instructed Timothy, he said that the, that which is theanoustos, that which is

God breathed, is sufficient for equipping the man of God for all good works.

So, yes. What about revelation from God outside of scripture? I do not believe in revelation from God outside of scripture.

I'm a Protestant. So am I. Well, then you shouldn't believe in revelation outside of scripture either.

I shouldn't? Not if you're familiar with the doctrine of sola scriptura, yes or no? Well, again, we're going back to the, we're going back to the text, and I believe,

I do believe in revelation outside of the scripture. Is that revelation? I think scripture is a tool, one of the ways that God can speak through us, but God certainly can speak through us outside of scripture.

Well, are you saying that those words then would be equal with scripture, or are they subordinate to scripture? Could be equal, could be superior to.

So there is, there is God breathing revelation outside of the Bible. Yes.

Okay, that is not a Protestant position, sir. I don't care. Okay, that's good. I just want to make sure people understand that's not a

Protestant position. How much longer do we go on this examining each other virtually?

Well, I can take a break right here, and we can move into some questions from our audience if you gentlemen care to do that.

Sounds like a good idea. I'm up for it. All right. Let me just very quickly say to those who are just...

Hey, wait a minute. When do we get We've got a debate going here concerning homosexuality. Is it compatible with authentic Christianity?

Dr. James White is opposing homosexuality. You've heard him frequently on this broadcast as well as the

Bible Answer Man. Defending homosexuality is Reverend Rick Schaeffer, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas.

Let me take a break right here, and we'll take some calls from the audience. But before we do that, let me just say very quickly that Dr.

White is coming back to the New York metropolitan area next month to preach at churches in New York and New Jersey.

And there will be two public debates. The first debate will be on Thursday, May 24th, at Central Presbyterian Church Huntington, Long Island against a well -known liberal activist,

Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. And the topic is, is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?

We'll tell you about the second one in a minute. Okay, we're back. Let's go to the phones. Connie in Queens. Go ahead, Connie. You're on the air.

Hi, Andy. How are you? I'm doing well. I just got in the car a few minutes ago, so I'm only hearing the tail end.

And just a lot of what I'm hearing is really disturbing me because I'm not sure where it is. Maybe it's in Revelation.

The Lord says that we're not supposed to add to or subtract. And in Malachi, I know He says that He changes not.

The way His word is in the beginning is the way it is now. And Sodom and Gomorrah was not,

I mean, it sounds like people are saying, because I'm not sure who said what. But it sounds like people are saying that things are different now or different there.

We're talking about men, not boys. Homosexuality is not right. And that's what the

Bible says. We're not judging. Let me get Rick Schaefer in here because he was the one that made some of those statements.

Rick, how do you respond to that? Well, I didn't finish. Yeah, I know. But I want to get his side because he was the one that made those statements.

And before you go off and we lose what you said initially. Okay. Well, she brought up several subjects.

What do you want me to respond to? Homosexuality today is not the same as it was in the ancient world.

Okay. So you have these texts that are ancient. How can you take an ancient text and say that it addresses a subject which didn't exist?

All right. But her main concern seems to be that you're adding to Scripture which is unscriptural.

I'm not adding anything to Scripture. But you're talking about Revelation. I think I'm trying to hear the Scripture in its original context to the original audience.

And I'm not adding anything to Scripture. Are you talking about the Revelation idea? I think God can reveal self to us outside of the

Bible. In other words, God speaks to... God is not limited to speaking to this wonderful person just through the

Bible. God doesn't need to use the Bible to reveal self. Okay. My answer to that is any revelation that you get from God always agrees with what he has always said in his

Bible. You're not going to get a... I mean, I'm not going to get... My daughter is married.

The Lord is not going to tell her, leave your husband because that is not what he's about. This is not scriptural.

Very quickly, Andy, just two things very quickly. First of all, the Scripture itself teaches that...

Jim, can you hold it because the computer is going to take it away from you here and you're going to get cut off. Let me go to this break and we'll come back on the other side at 3 o 'clock and we'll have more time to develop these things.

We're back. We're having a debate this afternoon and it is... Is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?

Opposing homosexuality is Reverend Rick Shaffer, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas and opposing homosexuality is

Dr. James White, frequently heard on this broadcast and the Bible Answer Man as well. We're going to devote this hour to questions which our debaters will handle for you and if you care to call us our number is 1 -800 -345 -WMCA.

Jim, you were about to make a point there when I rudely cut you off. If you still remember what you were going to say, go ahead.

I do. Clocks are absolutely unmerciful, Andy. You know that I know that. First and foremost in regards to this concept of revelation that's equal to or superior to Scripture, the

Bible says that it is Theanoustos, that it is God who breathes, it's God's actual words and to put anything above that I think is to demonstrate that really the authority of Scripture is no longer an issue at that point and secondly,

I just have to ask if my opponent is seriously suggesting that there were no homosexuals in the quote unquote modern sense of the word in the ancient world.

I mean Plato's Symposium, I can give the references. I'd suggest anyone look at James B.

de Young's Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims, examine the Bible and other ancient literature and law which gives you extensive portions of the writings of the ancients where they talked about these very things.

Is this a new condition, a new nation that has developed since that time?

I don't see any basis for that whatsoever. The words in the text refer to sexual activity between two males, between two men and if that is not what homosexuality is then

I think we need to try to explain where the difference comes in. I just quote from the

Oxford, it's right in front of me and it says the ancient Mediterranean societies did not practice, treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of public life.

Now you can talk about Plato and Socrates and all that other stuff and that is a different culture than the ancient

Jewish society. But your quotation there is not saying that homosexuality did not exist.

It's saying they did not treat it in similar categories. That's not the point. The point is, is the scripture very clear in I think it is exactly the point.

Certainly there were homosexuality, there have always been homosexuality I assume since the beginning of time if indeed it's a genetic thing as modern medical science is saying that.

But I'm saying in the socially operative society of today it's not the same as in the ancient world.

So when the words of the Old Testament say it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman or the word is arsenikoites which means to have coitus between men, somehow for some

Oxford dictionary reason that's not relevant to homosexuality? No. You're talking.

Okay. You're going to keep pulling out this one little line from Leviticus and you're not going to talk about the rest of them?

Well sir, actually since we haven't gotten an answer to that one we can keep talking about it but we've looked at Genesis, you've got

Leviticus, you've got Leviticus 18, 20 and 20. You've got Romans chapter 1 that says this is paraphusis, it is against nature and you have not given me any sources that say that arsenikoites in 1

Corinthians 6 or 1 Timothy 1 do not mean what the word itself means. I haven't heard anything from you and I've read

Bailey, I've read Boswell, I've read Scroggs, McNeil, Countryman. Oh I know you've written what, 12 books?

More than that actually but not on this subject. I've read these books that have come from pro -homosexual advocates and their arguments to try to get around the meaning of these words fail.

So I'm just asking if you're going to say that well, that's pederasty there. There needs to be something more than just simply the direct assertion.

This is a very important subject. Can I just say my last two comments so I can hang up? Yeah, go ahead

Connie. Okay, I think it was Reverend Schaefer was saying something about we were judging.

We're not judging. You're supposed to help someone in love to come to whatever it is that the Lord wants them to get out of.

When I came to the Lord and I was doing things I was not supposed to be doing and that doesn't say that I was not called to change.

I knew I had to change. You know, you're not supposed to be doing drugs or sleeping outside of marriage or any of the things that many people are doing today.

It doesn't take a thunderbolt to figure out, wait a minute, I've come to the Lord, you're supposed to be a new creature, you're supposed to change, or it's not real.

That's all I had to say. All right, Connie, thanks for the call. Reverend Schaefer, you wanted to say something? Yeah, I mean, what do you say?

She just equated drugs and all those other things with modern homosexuality. They're not at all equatable.

What happens, of course, when you come to God, what happens when somebody comes to God, they cleanse their soul with God, they open their life up to God, God validates their lifestyle, and then they listen to this other stuff.

What are they supposed to do? God doesn't validate that lifestyle, sir. That's the whole point of a person who holds to Scripture is being able to listen to the revelation from God, is that God is consistent.

How can you account for the number of gay and lesbians who are in ministry today? I would say that that is a demonstration of apostasy from the truth, not

God contradicting himself. And your truth is based exclusively in Biblical interpretation.

Well, the Lord Jesus said the Scriptures could not be broken, and he's the one who died and rose again, so yes, I do listen to what he has to say.

You're quoting the Scripture. You're not allowing for revelation outside the Scripture. Because any revelation that comes from God will not contradict what is within the canon of Scripture, sir.

And your basis for that again is Scriptural. Of course. If it is God speaking, that is the ultimate authority, is it not, sir?

Was it not the ultimate authority for the Lord Jesus Christ? If we follow him, will we not follow his own view of Scripture?

Isn't that very Pharisaic? Pharisaic? No, actually he took the Pharisees on because they added their traditions to Scripture and therefore undercut its ultimate authority, which

I would point out, sir, they did believe in revelation outside of Scripture in the form of tradition, and that's exactly what you're doing,

Matthew chapter 15, verses 1 through 9. Okay, good point. All right, let me take a call from Dave in the

Bronx. Hello, Dave. Hello, gentlemen. Now you can sit back and have a conversation from me like I listen to you.

Well, make it short, Dave. Okay, I'll talk quick two things. Revelation, I don't think revelation could be given.

That goes against what God's word is, but I think if God wanted to tell somebody something like tell

Andy tonight in three weeks there's going to be a major earthquake in Inner Mongolia and three million Mongolians are going to die, and Andy predicts it and it happens, that can be done.

God's word has not changed, even if homosexuality didn't exist. God put it in the Bible and the

Old and New Testament for a purpose so it can be applied today, even if you don't think it existed 3 ,000 years ago.

John, I believe it was, said something about judging people by the word, but I think there's a word somewhere between Genesis where it says in, and Revelation where it says amen.

Andy, maybe you can help me with the word, it starts with an R. Oh yeah, I remember repentant, something neither of you have mentioned, especially you

Mr. Schaefer. I think there's something in the Bible also about the Holy Spirit being our greatest teacher, judging them by our fruit, and the false teachers are the people who you mentioned

Mr. Schaefer are the gay priests who are preaching today and are going to be held even more accountable because I think it says somewhere in the

New Testament those who teach are going to be held more accountable, just like we're going to be held more accountable to God for our actions the more we study the word and the more we disobey as we learn what that word means and how we didn't obey

God's word. It seems those gay people seem to be the Episcopal church and when you said you were a

Protestant, I almost fell right off my chair because I figured you to be an Episcopal. Thanks Andy, take care.

Alright, thank you Dave. Since everything was kind of directed your way, Pastor Schaefer, do you want to respond to that?

Well I would but I couldn't hear what he said but he was saying something about Episcopal. Well he thought you were an

Episcopal from the Episcopal church and he said he almost fell off his chair when he heard you were from the...

Actually the Episcopal is our Protestant. I didn't understand the point either. Well actually we were kind of torpedoing the notion of tradition earlier and that is one of the foundations upon which the

Episcopals based their faith. I wish I could have heard what he said but I'm sorry I just didn't hear everything he said.

Alright, well let's move along then. Richard in New Jersey. Richard, go ahead. Yes, I have a question. Is it wise for people with different views to stay in the same denomination?

For example, the Presbyterian Church USA they recently voted down a ban against same -sex union ceremonies.

Do you think it's time for evangelicals to leave? Isn't it unwise for people who believe homosexuality is a sin and those who hold the opposite view to believe it's a sin to discriminate against homosexuals to be in the same denomination?

Shouldn't they be in separate ones? That's a question for Pastor Schaefer. Alright, Dr. White, you want to start? Well, first and foremost, it is interesting to note that the debate between myself and Barry Lynn in May will be at a

PCUSA church that is still standing strong against that. But certainly, speaking from my own denomination, if we can use that term

Reformed Baptist, I don't believe there's anyone who could possibly in good conscience stay within that denomination and believe that homosexuality is proper in God's sight.

We have very clear beliefs on homosexuality on the subject, and I really don't think that there is a possibility for that.

But what we have seen over the past number of years is a tremendous fight for the heart and soul of many denominations, and in many instances, as soon as biblical authority, the ultimacy of biblical authority in Scripture as Theanoustas, Revelation from God, has been abandoned, then that fight was lost.

I think that's just history here in the United States. Alright, Reverend Schaefer, any thoughts on that? Well, I happen to serve a merged

United Church of Christ Presbyterian USA church, and so I can speak a little bit about that in terms of practicality.

The United Church of Christ, there certainly would be room under that tent for various dissenting views because it's not a quote, top -down denomination.

In other words, it's a covenantal relationship, one congregation and covenant with the other. In terms of the

Presbyterian church, however, I would like to see the

Evangelicals leave because that is a place where a hierarchical organization, and so as the organization goes, all the other churches kind of have to toe in line.

I think it depends. The answer to the question is I think it depends on the individual denomination. Alright, let me take a break right here.

We'll be right back. We are back, and the topic is, Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?

Opposing Homosexuality, Dr. James White, frequently heard on this broadcast on The Bible Answer Man, and Defending Homosexuality, Reverend Rick Schaeffer, Pastor of the

Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas, a congregation which is a merger of United Church of Christ and the

Presbyterian Church, USA. And we've got callers online. Let me go to Noella.

Noella, in the Bronx. Hello, Noella. Hi, Andy. Go ahead. You're on the air.

Hi. First of all, I'm a Christian. I'm born again for 14 years, and I commend

Dr. White, just his patience and I don't even know how to put it.

God bless him. Thank you. I'm just in shock at what I'm hearing by Pastor Schaeffer.

Many of the things that he said, he refers to the Bible. He mentioned Romans as the Romans' business, and he stated that the

Bible is not his only authority. I'm just very appalled at what he's saying. God made man and woman, and he says basically sex outside of marriage.

And I'm just appalled.

He's basically a liberal, and to be honest, I just feel he's leading people astray.

I know many people, I've met many people who were homosexuals, and God saved them and delivered them.

And when you talk to them, they're born again. They're brand new. Many of them are married now with children, and God has transformed them.

And they'll tell you that they lived a life of sin. And I'm just in shock, this entire program.

As I said, I commend Dr. White, and I commend you. But I've just been appalled at what I'm hearing by Pastor Schaefer.

I just feel that at some point, he needs to seek the Lord, and he needs to ask

God... Let me go to Mr.

Schaefer. Pastor Schaefer, any thoughts? Well, yeah, I'd say that I do return to the Lord daily. The Lord is my authority.

The Lord is my authority in superior position to the

Bible. The Bible is not a recipe for life. It is not a manual on how to live life.

It is a witness of various people in their relationship to God. It's the story of those people in their relationship to God, and therefore

God can speak to us through that revelation. But I do talk directly to God, and in fact, have been led to this very point.

I would like to ask the caller one thing. How many of those people do you really know that were homosexual in their lifestyle, and they actually changed, and how long have they been in this, quote, changed position?

Well, when they gave their hearts to the Lord, God... When was that? I mean, how long have they lived in this new, straight, sinless life?

I don't think she said sinless. their hearts to the Lord, God started working on their hearts, and it was in their lives, and God started to change them.

God was the one who changed them. Yes, but I'm asking, when did that occur in their lives, and how long ago was that?

How long have they been straight? Well, when they gave their hearts to the Lord, God made them new creatures.

And so just... Was it instantaneous? As they sought the Lord and prayed, and et cetera, many of them, they sought counsel, but as they sought the

Lord and they spent time with Him and prayed, et cetera, belonged to fellowships, became accountable, and so God did a work in their lives and transformed them.

And how long did they stay in this new lifestyle? How many years? Well, forever.

Once you're born again, you're becoming new. Well, but can you give me a couple of examples, because the history on this has been, many people are so guilt -driven with this kind of rhetoric that they can indeed go to these ex -gay groups and be brainwashed, and buy into this, and indeed transform themselves and become new, and so they try to make a psychological change and can do it for a while, a period of maybe three, four, five years, and then after a while they realize that it is unnatural to them, and that they were not led there, and they were fed a bunch of psychological stuff and misinterpretation, and then they revert back into the homosexual lifestyle, which they were originally born into, or they commit suicide.

And so the crux of my question to you is, how long have these quote, cleansed people been living a straight life?

And how many were there? Well, I've known people, as you said, five years, etc. But many people, they are happily married.

Do you know them personally? Excuse me? Do you know them personally? Yes. How many do you know?

Several. I've met several in churches here in the city. And how long have they been straight?

Well, which is to say, one, they gave their hearts to the Lord. That's the point. I think what he's looking for is a time frame.

One year, six months, five years, ten years, however long that might have been. Well, I'd like to...

If you know, Noella. Well, to be honest, I would say that I know someone for nine, ten years who are happily married, who were once living a homosexual lifestyle, a rebellious lifestyle against the

Lord, and they're happily married with children because God has transformed and changed their lives.

May I ask a question? Which is the teaching, by the way, of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verses 9 -11.

And we have not been given an alternate interpretation of that passage based on the text.

The lady's call originally was simply to say, look, it's very clear. You have the biblical position and you have a non -biblical position.

And when I brought you to that text, sir, you then went off into further revelation and all the rest of the stuff, which only shows that if the

Scripture is consistent with itself and it is the product of the Holy Spirit revealing to us the mind of God, then if you receive a revelation from the

Holy Spirit and revelation that contradicts what is in Scripture, then it doesn't come from the same Holy Spirit that the Lord Jesus sent to His church.

It comes from a different source. And that, of course, is the point that I would be making, and that is those who refuse to love the truth,

Paul taught, they are sent a strong delusion to believe the lie. And I would argue that this is not from the mind of God.

It is rather from inspired men who have witnesses and have a relationship with God and have written it down and therefore

God can use those words to inspire us as well. Again, that is not a Protestant perspective, that is not even a biblical perspective.

Again, biblical perspective. The Scripture never says men are inspired, sir. Paul said that the

Scriptures are the Theanostos, they are God -breathed, they are inspired. the Bible. Well, if we want to define what the

Bible says about itself, unless you want to say what the Bible says about itself is irrelevant, then where else are you going to go?

That is back to revelation again. Okay, so you have had a revelation from God that the Bible is not what it itself says it is.

Is that what you are claiming? No. Okay, so... I am saying that that is one of the ways that God reveals.

Does God ever contradict himself, sir? Oh, Lord, I don't know. Okay. I am not God. All right,

Noella, thank you for the call. Reverend Schaffer, you said very early on in the broadcast, I think in your opening statement you said

God made them homosexual. Do you have biblical reference for that documentation, medical documentation that that is a fact?

No. The vicinity. That my opponent just did and he took it as being the writing of Moses and as being binding on the people of his day, and again

I take the Lord Jesus' view as being normative for anyone who calls himself a Christian. The point that she is bringing up is that God as our creator determines by that creation how we are to function in the sexual realm, and he has made it very clear that sexuality is to be expressed between man and woman in the bonds of marriage, and therefore to say that well, this just wasn't known back then, then is to think that the eternal

God who made man is not as wise as modern man who then develops these concepts.

The fact of the matter is the pro -homosexual perspective undercuts God's authority as our creator to tell us how we are supposed to live.

And that is one of the reasons that those who believe in the scriptures and believe in God as our creator must stand for this on this particular issue and many other particular issues.

We must stand up and say no, that is not scriptural teaching and no person will truly find happiness until they function the way that God created them to function.

Okay, Stephanie, thank you for the call. I need to take a break right here. Were you going to make a comment? Yeah, I had a question.

All right, can you hold that question and let me take this break and we'll be right back. Okay. We are back and we're having a debate here this afternoon.

Is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity? Opposing homosexuality is

Dr. James White. Defending homosexuality is Reverend Rick Schaefer. I might tell you very quickly, Dr.

White, we'll be having two public debates on Long Island. The first on May 24th with Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on the subject of homosexuality.

And the second on May 31st with Father Peter Stravinskis on the subject of purgatory.

Okay, well, it looks like whatever happened to the CD here happened again, so we're going to switch to a wave file that I've got on this thing.

Boy, I tell you, it just seems like something has to happen to throw a monkey wrench in my spokes.

Well, here we go. In the bonds of marriage, and therefore to say that, well, this just wasn't known back then is to think that the eternal

God who made man is not as wise as modern man who then develops these concepts.

The fact of the matter is the pro -homosexual perspective undercuts God's authority as our creator to tell us how we are supposed to live.

And that is one of the reasons that those who believe in the scriptures and believe in God as our creator must stand for this, on this particular issue and many other particular issues, we must stand up and say, no, that is not scriptural teaching and no person will truly find happiness until they function the way that God created them to function.

Okay, Stephanie, thank you for the call. I need to take a break right here. Were you going to make a comment? Yeah, I had a question.

All right. Can you hold that question? Sure. And let me take this break, and we'll be right back. Okay. We are back, and we're having a debate here this afternoon, is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?

Opposing homosexuality is Dr. James White. Defending homosexuality is Reverend Rick Schaefer. I might tell you very quickly,

Dr. White will be having two public debates on Long Island. The first on May 4th with Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on the subject of homosexuality.

And the second on May 31st with Father Peter Stravinskis on the subject of purgatory.

For more information, you can call toll -free 1 -866 -DEBATE -1, the word debate,

D -E -B -A -T -E -1. That's 1 -866, the word debate, and the number 1.

Let us go to Sal in Brooklyn. Sal, you're on the air. Go ahead. Yeah, I had a comment for all three of you gentlemen.

First for Andy, I thought it was maybe the April 1st rebroadcast or something. No, it's not

April Fool. No, that's what it sounded like. But for James White, I just want to say that you have a lot of patience, number one, to just keep you calm and keep you cool.

I disagree with you on a few issues that you've written books about, like Calvinism, for one, and the

King James Only issue. I usually disagree with you, but on this issue, I mean, oh my goodness.

Well, see, brother, I'm patient. I'll just let the Lord reveal those things to you. I mean, and my comment for Pastor Schaefer is, even though I'm King James Only, maybe we can get them

NIV children to start them off with or something, you know, start them off easy. Because it sounds like he's been drinking too many

Schaefers, if anything. I don't know. Too many what's? That's about it. That's as far as my comment goes.

Too many what's? Schaefers. There's a beer here in New York, and maybe elsewhere in the country, it's called

Schaefer Beer. Oh, it's spelled it right. Yeah, I thought maybe he worked at the plant, you know. All right.

I've got myself. All right. And any thoughts from anyone? Okay. Let's move along to William in the

Bronx. Hey, William, go ahead. You're on the air. Hi, Andy. Thank you for letting me be on the air. I'd like to make a comment to Dr.

Schaefer. First of all, I think it takes a great deal of courage for him to voice his opinion over the air.

Unfortunately, however, I think he's seriously wrong. First of all, modern medical science has by no means today proven homosexuality to be genetically based.

That's merely an assertion just in the same way that evolutionists claim that man evolved from monkeys and that someday we will find the missing link.

Dr. Schaefer refers to himself as a Protestant, and he obviously does not follow the major tenets of Orthodox Christianity, one of those being that the

Bible is the standard by which all secondary sources are to be compared with and not vice versa just to make a case for oneself.

It appears that, you know, his liberal teaching is unfortunately going to lead many homosexuals who may have an opportunity to be changed through the process of regeneration to damnation instead.

I personally know a man who was a homosexual for the first 20 years of his life, and at the age of 20 or 21 he gave himself to the

Lord, has since been married, has several children, and today is in his 50s and continues to be very happily married.

So I believe that Reverend Schaefer is not giving the

Holy Spirit the credit that is due to him. We know the process of change will not be easy for the homosexual, but just the same way that others can change a lifelong heroin problem or alcohol problem, so can...

All right. Reverend Schaefer, any thoughts on that? Well, he's correct. In terms of the medical science, as I said earlier, there is not one specific cause.

Nobody can label it, whether it's genetic, whether it's nature or nurture, whatever it is. They can't.

Just as they can't narrow down what causes heterosexuality, so I would agree with your caller on that.

But he cited a man who was homosexual for 20 years and then changed.

I know countless and countless and countless numbers of heterosexuals who have lived with this in their life.

There have been a tremendous pain, and they have finally decided that they have to deal with this on an honest level, and they have to live out their life as gay men.

There's thenationalinstitute .org, and that's almost exclusive of what they deal with. What do you say to a

Mel White, for example, who was married for so many years? He underwent shock therapy, alum therapy, talk therapy, all kinds of therapy.

He was a ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and the list goes on and on. And finally, you talk about somebody who had been cleansed.

Are you saying that he was never cleansed? I know many, many Mel Whites of various walks of life.

What do you say to them? Actually, that's exactly what I would say, that they were not. Is that you,

Dr. White? Yes. All right. Since you mentioned Mel White, I wondered if maybe you'd make a comment on that.

Well, that's exactly what I was going to point out. I said, well, you're going to say this person was never cleansed? Yes, that's exactly what

I would say, because again, when you go to the words of Christ and his apostles, they specifically bring this particular sin in, and they link it.

And my opponent objected to this earlier, but he'd have to object to the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 -9, when he linked homosexuality with fornication, with idolatry, with adultery, with swindling, with covetousness, with drunkenness.

He put them all together and said, such were some of you, but you were cleansed, you were sanctified, you were justified.

How? In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God. Now, are there people who play at religion?

You better believe there are people who play at religion. They're all around us. The Scripture warns about that. You don't take a pole of experience and change the

Scriptures to fit your pole of experience. And there's one other thing I want to say. We are fortunate to continue to have the freedom that we have to have this discussion.

We could not have this in Canada. Pro -homosexual advocates in Canada have shut down the free speech rights of Canadian citizens to criticize homosexuality.

This could not happen in Canada. And if homosexual advocates in the United States have their way, the time is coming in our land when we will not have the right to do this.

A man in Canada was fined $6 ,000 for taking out a newspaper ad where he quoted

Leviticus 18 .22. Just quoting the biblical text. He was fined $6 ,000 for doing that.

The time is coming if we don't stand up for our free rights, our free speech rights, when we will not even have the opportunity to stand up and say, this is what the

Bible says. Okay, William, thank you for the call. Wait, can I respond? Yeah, can

I take a break first, and I'll come right back to you, I promise. Okay, alright. We're back, and Reverend Schaefer, you wanted to make a comment.

Well, did I understand Dr. White to say that part of the homosexual agenda is to stifle debate, and that we will no longer be having this debate if homosexual activists have their way?

Was there something to that effect? That's exactly what I was saying. Look at what happened with Dr. Laura. Look at the fact that in Hollywood today, just two weeks ago on Extra, while they were talking about the

GLAAD meeting and applauding Spielberg for stepping down from the Boy Scout Council, they then allowed one of their people to come on the air and say, you know what,

I hate Dr. Laura, which would not be allowed, obviously, in reverse, for anyone who did it like that. And they have accomplished this in Canada, where Christian ministries that broadcast up there must remove references to homosexuality from their programs.

This is exactly what is going on. The homosexual movement wants to have super rights, a position where they cannot be criticized, and people will not have the freedom to engage in this kind of activity under the alleged hate crime stuff.

Remember Katie Couric, sir. When Matthew Shepard was beaten to death, the very next day, Katie Couric, in front of a national audience, had no qualms but to accuse conservative

Christianity as the reason for this. This is all around us. The documentation is absolutely mountainous as to what the true perspective of the most liberal group, and I don't know if your group is involved or not, but there are homosexuals who are, and that is just simply a fact.

Well, I can tell you that I own and operate a radio station for 25 years, and your assertions are totally ludicrous.

There's no way that any special interest group would be able to stifle debate on a broadcasting station such as the one that we're talking now.

They could apply economic pressure, such as what they've done with Dr. Laura, but they certainly could never stifle debate.

And that is not their agenda anyway. They don't want special rights, they don't want mega rights, they don't want any kind of...

They want to be able to have a job and not live in fear of being fired.

That's all they want. They also want to have same -sex unions, so they want to fundamentally change the social structure and the structure of the family and things like that, correct?

That's true. And so you support that? Yes. And as a Christian minister, you believe that that is commensurate with the biblical teaching of the

Lord Jesus Christ that is man and woman? I would do a whole reunion in a heartbeat. And so what Jesus said in Matthew 19 means absolutely positively nothing to you?

Again, no. That's not true. Then what does it mean to you, sir? Why don't you subject yourself to it? They got the book of Old and Marriage 2 ,000 years ago.

Oh, so 2 ,000 years ago. So even though the words had been written 1 ,400 years before that, so they had been valid for 1 ,400 years, they're not valid 2 ,000 years after that?

When did they change? If you... which I'm sure you know the linguistic style of the writers,

Matthew had to quote from the Old Testament to gain credibility with his audience, so to speak.

And again, you're talking about an institution which was drastically different 2 ,000 years ago than it is today.

And you're talking about marriage. Wait a minute. You're saying that Jesus didn't say those words. You're saying that Matthew just quoted from the Old Testament to gain some sort of a...

No, Jesus might have said those words. Jesus might have said those words? Might have, yeah. And you have no way of knowing one way or the other?

I don't think anybody does. I see. Well, I think that certainly brings out the view of Scripture.

So if... Well, I know why you're making a pretty good leap there. No, I think you just pointed out that we can't even look at Matthew 19 and know whether Jesus said this or not, and hence you say, well, okay, that was 2 ,000 years ago.

And I ask you, when did it change? Well, I think we can look at Scripture. We can look at Matthew and say, why is

Matthew making this point? Why is Matthew placing this incident in this particular place versus where some of the other

Gospel writers place other incidences in other places? We have to look. We have to try to hear the message that Matthew's trying to give us.

And furthermore, Matthew, again, I say, is addressing the institution of marriage 2 ,000 years ago, and that institution of marriage was in no way like our institution today.

Well, wait a minute. How is the institution of marriage that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19 different than the marriage that I have had for almost 20 years to my wife?

Well, I assume that you had a love, you had romance, you had a ring, you had a courtship period. Your father did not arrange your marriage.

It wasn't a business deal. There was not a dowry involved. The list could go on and on and on.

I assume that you and your wife had a say in it. I assume that you proposed to her and she said yes.

Or maybe you proposed to somebody else and they said no. In the ancient world, that was arranged by the patriarchs.

Well, sir, if we want to listen to the text in its own context, how about we listen to what he said? Because he said,

He didn't raise anything that you just raised. You're bringing all that into the text. Where did

Jesus do that? I'm trying to lay a cultural background against which the text was written.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the original audience to try to hear what Matthew was telling me at that particular time.

What was Eve's dowry, sir? Who arranged her marriage to Adam? Is that not the example he used in Matthew 19?

I'm not even going to admit that Adam and Eve were literal people. That's fine. The Lord Jesus did.

That's very clear. The reason that we have such completely different views is we have such completely different sources of authority.

I think one thing has been absolutely proven here, and that is, if authentic Christianity, which was the thesis of the debate, is based upon and believes the

Bible to be revelation from God, I win. If it doesn't, you win. That's just all there is to it.

...that there is another voice, and you can find that on the web at nolongersilent .org.

You can find another one at Soulforce. You can find another one at thenationalinstitute .org.

I'd like to say if homosexuality is bothering you, try to reconcile yourself with God.

You've tried to find peace in the Scriptures, and you cannot find it according to the traditional interpretation.

There's another way to do it. And if you just open your heart up to God, then God will lead you to the right place. Alright, Dr.

White. The Lord Jesus Christ came to deliver sinners, and He gave His life so that we might have life in Him.

My opponent just said, if you've tried to reconcile yourself to God, well, that's not the Christian gospel. The Christian gospel is that God reconciles men to Himself through Jesus Christ.

We have seen very, very plainly in this discussion the difference between allowing the Bible to speak for itself in a position that does not accept

Biblical authority. The Scriptures teaching is very clear, and it is an act of love to tell someone who is engaging in a sin that is abominable in God's sight that it is a sin, but that there is hope in Jesus Christ.

But there is no hope for anyone who continues to believe that sin is not an abomination before God.

And so we must stand forth for the gospel. We must stand up and say, this is what the Scriptures teach.

It is very, very plain. And I thank you very much, Andy, for having the guts to put it on the air and to take the results that obviously will come from that, but I thank you very much for this opportunity.

Well, thank you, Dr. James White. Frequently heard as a guest on this broadcast and on The Bible Answer Man as opposing homosexuality on the subject, is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?

And for those debates that were mentioned by Pastor Schaefer, you may call 1 -866 -DEBATE1 1 -866 -DEBATE1 and you'll get all the information about those two debates next month.

Also defending homosexuality, Reverend Rick Schaefer, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Kansas City, Kansas, at the congregation which is the merger of United Church of Christ and Presbyterian Church USA denominations.

Gentlemen, thank both of you so much for being with us this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. And that's going to do it for that debate.

As many of you can tell, other than the interruptions in the middle, it was quite an interesting debate and certainly interesting points of view from Pastor Schaefer.

We're going to shift gears here on the subject line though. Just this last Thursday night,

Dr. White debated the Reverend Barry Lynn, who is representative of AU .org.

It's basically there for Americans United for the

Separation of Church and State is the organization he represents and our very own

Warren Smith, who is on his own microphone over there in the control room.

Yes, I am. Was at the debate. Yes, I was. I ran into Warren yesterday after he had about three hours sleep from coming back from New York all the way back over here to Arizona.

And it's my understanding that Mr. Lynn kind of thought that he was going to be taking on some local yokel from Arizona.

You know, maybe a couple of teeth missing and who knows this should be a real walk in the park and maybe you can give us an update on what your impressions of the debate were,

Warren. Well, it was indeed obvious that he thought he was taking on a good old

Baptist preacher from Arizona. And within about probably five minutes of cross -examination he realized that wasn't the case.

And on the car ride over I rode over with James and his family and we were discussing where is this going to go.

James had never debated Reverend Lynn. He was kind of an unknown quantity.

There was no information on the website concerning his views on homosexuality. Obviously we knew he was going to take a very liberal position on that.

But we discussed it as to what line of argumentation he might take.

And I mentioned he's going to have to attack the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture.

We just heard that with Pastor Rick Schaefer. He did the exact same thing.

And sure enough within five minutes of Lynn's opening statement he attacked the sufficiency of Scripture by mentioning the numerous, the plethora, that's not his word, but the large number of Bible translations that we have today.

And therefore these words can't be trusted. And as soon as he said that,

I wrote a little note. I was sitting next to Summer, James and Kelly's daughter, and I was kind of keeping an eye on the family.

We honestly didn't know what to expect whenever you get into a hostile environment like that.

And obviously this was an emotionally charged event. We were taking no chances. We had security there.

They had some people there just to keep an eye on everything. But I was assigned to sit with the family just to make sure things were safe.

So Summer was sitting next to me and I wrote on a little sticky note, Your dad is going to have fun with this.

And I handed it over to her and she wrote, I can only imagine and handed it back. And by the end of the night that was certainly confirmed.

To sum it up, and of course I know I'm being somewhat biased and came into this being biased, but out of all of the debates that I've seen, out of the debates

I've seen on video, heard on tape, and the ones I've been privileged to attend, Dr.

White, he beat Barry Lynn as thoroughly and as completely and as totally as anyone can beat another person in a debate.

So it was impressive to say the least. Wow. And now I understand from what you were telling me, there was actually a point in the cross -examination period where Dr.

White was quoting or he was examining, he was interrogating

Mr. Lynn over a scripture passage. Romans chapter 1. Tell us what happened there.

Well they were debating Romans chapter 1 and had been for quite some time obviously, that's where you go.

And Reverend Lynn said, well you know, we've been hammering this back and forth, back and forth, it would help me if I could look at the passage and just I guess in his mind refresh himself with it.

And all of a sudden, the man didn't have a Bible with him. He came to a debate concerning an issue.

Now again, what was the title of the debate? Homosexuality. Let me read it here to not misquote.

Is homosexuality consistent with authentic Christianity? Obviously Christianity would therefore lead one to believe that we're going to deal with the

Bible. But anyway, he needed a

Bible. He didn't have one with him. So James said, well here, take mine. And he opened it up and he says, wow, this is really small print.

I can't read this. And James laughingly said, well I call it the eye -strained version. And everyone, the audience was probably 90 % pro

James or would take his position. Conservative. Exactly.

Yes. And one thing that folks need to understand, when we say conservative versus liberal, we're talking theologically.

We're not here to get into the political realm and Mr. Lynn's political points of view. What we're here doing is we're doing apologetics for the

Christian faith. And it's a theological conservative position that is being expressed.

I'm sorry, go ahead. No, that's a good point to make. He so the crowd at this point is groaning and moaning and probably in all fairness sake was probably a little more vocal than they should have been.

But so James he hands the Bible over to Reverend Lynn and he starts flipping through it and says, you know, this is really small.

And so he sits there for I would guess about 60 seconds. Now this is during the cross -examination.

I think each side was given 12 minutes. And this was James's turn. This was Dr. White's turn. His turn to cross -examine and to question

Reverend Lynn. He sits there for approximately one minute and anyone who has seen any of our debates knows how precious every second is of cross -examination.

And so he sat there and said, you know, I just can't read this. And then, you know, it telescopes it in and out, close, far.

And all of a sudden Bibles came out of pews, came out of every nook and cranny.

The large print version started flying his way. That's right. The mega -sized lettering version started flying out of the pews and to no avail.

He set the Bible down and they continued on with other topics.

So it blew us away, to be honest with you. And this was towards the end of the debate.

This was I think their last cross -examination. This was the last segment. And one would certainly gather from this that this was he was on the ropes and trying to catch his breath.

And anything you can do to try and slow down the pace, because James was

James. He was just boom, boom, boom.

Just back and forth, back and forth. And every time Lynn would make a statement when he should be questioning

James, James would say, sir, is that a question, sir? Is that a question?

Okay, can I respond to it? And would force him to stay focused, to stay within the rules.

And I don't think one would certainly leave there thinking that this was something that Reverend Lynn was not prepared for.

Now with just a couple of minutes left in the program, Warren, I would like from what

I've heard regarding Reverend Lynn's final comments and his closing statement, my understanding is he kind of shifted gears and shifted his focus.

Tell us about that. Yes, well, like I said, the crowd was there was a lot of amens and as the night went on, we kind of picked up steam and that really bothered him.

Now that's not to say that the other side, the side that held to the liberal position, and there were quite a few there.

They had the rainbow pins on and whatnot. They were extremely vocal. They might have been in the minority, but they were far more vocal than the majority was.

So, but the majority did, you know, there were standing ovations and they would clap during James' presentations.

He had to stop us. This bothered Reverend Lynn. So during his closing presentation, he stood up and he says, you know, honestly,

I don't need my full, I think it was 10 minutes. He says, I don't need it. I'm only going to need a couple of minutes to say what

I have to say. Then he got up and he essentially set James aside and put his crosshairs on the audience and let loose.

And we were all looking around at each other when he scolded us for basically being closed -minded bigots.

We came in there with closed minds. We weren't willing to listen. We were, came in there purely to support the other side.

And the terminology, and I don't want to misquote him, so I won't say some of the things that I remember him saying, but because I want to be so precise in exactly what he said.

But some of the terminology he said, just our jaws were on the floor. And it was all directed at the audience, which just utterly amazed me.

I've never seen that before in a debate. He did not address his opponent at all. Or really the position that his opponent held.

It was the audience. And that it blew us all away. Why don't you turn up knob number six over there a little bit, because I need to get the outro going here.

There we go. And I want to thank you, Warren, for your participation today. Thank you.

Folks, I hope you'll join us next week on The Dividing Line. My understanding is Mr. Sean Hahn is preparing a great show for us next

Saturday afternoon. And as well, those of you who keep asking, when is the debate going to be available? We should be having it available probably the second week in June, as I'm in charge of mixing all this stuff together.

And so we should have it as soon as possible. Thanks again for listening to The Dividing Line.