Reviewing a Patheos Article from the UK

Greetings, welcome to the Dividing Line. I have no video here today whatsoever. Oh, there we go.

If you're happy that I'm not wearing just a plain old t -shirt, you can thank a brother from New Hampshire.

I came into the office today and there were four brand new shirts waiting for me and they're really nice.

They're from the UK, I think, and so I couldn't keep wearing just a plain old

Mount Lemon t -shirt. And so here we go. We look a little more respectable.

It's because someone was kind enough to drop some real nice. The rest of them are long -sleeve shirts.

I think at least two of them are long -sleeve shirts. Anyways, looking forward to getting those and using those in the future.

Thank you very much. On the program today, lots of things to get to. I was just noticing an article in Modern Reformation magazine authored by Adrian Warnock on the subject of Continuationism in the church.

That made me all the more interested in the article that I was directed to that was published in Patheos about, what, about two weeks ago?

Somewhere around in there. Why Christians should support International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

Also by Adrian Warnock. We had a rather surface -level exchange on Twitter yesterday that troubled me and I think once we work through the article, you'll see why it should trouble us because I think it represents a fundamental degradation of commitment to scriptural authority in the

United Kingdom and in Europe as a whole, which is not anything new, but it is definitely something that we should be aware of.

Looking at the article, today is commemorated around the world as the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

I somehow missed the note on that. In this article, I want to persuade you that Christians should support such a day and speak out against violence, against gay people, against discrimination, and against rejection.

We should instead offer an olive branch of love to these human beings as made in the image of God and people for whom

Jesus died. Let me just start off. Obviously, the terms homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia are terms that have been coined by the homosexualist movement and used as a bat to abuse anyone who would dare to say that homosexuality is an aberrant sexual orientation and behavior.

Anyone who dares to stand for biblical morality will be called a homophobe or a biphobe or a transphobe or whatever, despite the fact these words have almost no meaning.

I mean, I suppose there might be a tiny, small percentage of people somewhere that have an irrational fear of whatever.

Homophobia would be an irrational fear of other males, which would be ridiculous, or of transgendered people.

But the movement itself fails, and purposefully fails, and some of the people specifically mentioned here, like Matthew Vines, market the rejection of any meaningful use of those terms whatsoever.

They absolutely support the utilization of those terms in the most irrational fashion, so as to use them to shut down critical discussion and critical thought and dialogue on the subject of homosexuality.

So, immediately, that's never mentioned. Dr. Warnock, he's a medical doctor, as I understand,

Dr. Warnock does not even note the fact that, well, of course, we have to get over the fact that around the world, 99 % of the utilization of these terms is inappropriate and used as an anti -Christian mechanism, but we should still celebrate the day.

Speak out against violence against gay people. Well, I don't know of anyone, well, okay, I'll take that back.

Okay, again, you've got the small, radical, wild people in the mountains of Arkansas or someplace that might, well, you've got

Steven Anderson, you've got nutcases like Steven Anderson. Okay, but we recognize the nutcases on both sides.

Take them out and no one is talking about going out and beating up gay people.

And then it says against discrimination. In what way? Discrimination means to make choices. A church should discriminate against all forms of unrepentant of sinful behavior.

We cannot exist without discrimination. Discrimination is a good thing. When I turn a corner,

I discriminate and drive in the right lane, I discriminate against the left lane. Now, of course, he's

British, so that might have something to do with all this, but the point is, discrimination is a word that has been completely removed from its meanings and turned into this pliable thing that you can use simply to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

And so when it says against discrimination, what do you mean by that? In employment?

Well, how about in the church? How about what's being forced upon, the fact that Christian groups being forced off of university campuses on the basis of discrimination, that Christian groups can be forced to employ homosexuals or to put homosexuals in position of leadership, even though it's directly against their fundamental beliefs.

How about that? Should we be forced to have atheists as president of the local

Christian college? Is that quote -unquote discrimination? So what do we mean by discrimination?

And against rejection, what do you mean by rejection? Rejection of what? Rejection of homosexuality as something that God designs for people?

We're not supposed to reject that? Rejection in what way? I need to know what we're talking about.

Are you talking about rejection as in not being willing to speak the truth and love to people?

You see, this kind of, of surface level, shallow terminology is being used as, as a cover for the, the attack upon the

Christian faith. It's an attack upon the Christian church demanding that we change our theology.

And unfortunately it seems that Dr. Warnock is celebrating that later on the article, he's celebrating that the church is changing.

But in what way? That's what's frightening here. And then of course we should instead offer an olive branch of love, these human beings as made in the image of God.

Well, of course they made in the image of God. Everyone's made in the image of God. That does not change the reality that according to Romans chapter one, they are suppressing the truth of God and perverting that image.

And that image of God is never, ever, ever honored or expressed in a homosexual relationship.

It is damaging to the image of God. And there's nothing in this article that would say to the homosexual, you are specifically perverting, damaging, destroying, and denigrating the image of God in the seeking the relationships that you seek.

There's nothing there. Makes me wonder if Dr. Warnock even believes that that works that way.

I have no earthly idea. And people for whom

Jesus died. Well, we can get into discussion of the atonement at another point. I was speaking to a friend recently who told me that when he comes out as a

Christian, he finds it harder than when he comes out as gay. His experience is that people are not happier to accept him as gay than as Christian.

And of course, from my perspective, we're talking about two contradictory things here. I don't believe any

Christian should ever, ever define himself by sexual desire.

And if a person has same -sex attraction, and I believe this is a small minority of homosexuals that actually truly have only experienced that, no

Christian should ever identify himself as gay. Because that fundamentally communicates

God made me this way, and it's a good thing. This is the way he's made me. This is the way that I am to function.

This is no one who takes the Bible seriously can possibly come to that conclusion without, in essence, overthrowing all scriptural sufficiency and all scriptural authority.

Anyway, his experience is that people are not happy to accept him as gay than as Christian, but what baffles others most is when my friend comes out as both gay and Christian at the same time.

We've got to the point in the culture wars where to many, it now seems impossible that someone might both have a homosexual orientation and be convinced by the claims of Christ.

I would agree with that. In the sense of embracing a homosexual orientation as a

God -given gift, as something that is natural, as something that is appropriate, something that's proper, I'm not talking about those who recognize that this is a disorder.

That it is inappropriate. It is not honoring to God. It is not something that is reflective of his creative purpose, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Unfortunately, you have to get toward the end of the article before you really start seeing what's being said, which is a bit of a shame.

I am convinced that this is less about the beliefs many Christians share and more about the perception the church has given.

Now, it does seem to me that especially in the

UK, there has been a tremendous collapse on the part of the large portion of what self -evangelicalism in regards to perception of society and determining theology and practice by perception of society rather than by biblical norms.

Part of that comes from the degradation of the view of the Bible that is so common in most

UK education, unfortunately. But be that as it may, we'll see this will come out a little bit more. Within the lifespan of many serving pastors today, society as a whole has changed in a remarkable way on how it treats gay people.

Yes, there has been a massive moral and ethical revolution, but I don't see how anybody can call it anything less than an utter complete collapse, an utter rejection of the

Christian tradition, especially in the UK, that had stood for so many centuries.

I mean, the entire view of marriage, sexuality, gender, the

Bible has been rejected as a source or a guide for any of those things. It is now absolute moral chaos.

It's not just changed. It has reversed course toward utter anarchy.

How the church responds to these changes has become a crucial issue that affects her witness more than any other today. Well, how the church responds to these changes.

So the church needs to be defined by the culture it lives in or by its faithfulness to what

God has called her to be. That's one of the questions I would ask. Then you have a story about Alan Turing and it's amazing the relevance of movies.

I remember I mentioned just last week that a movie had been used and in a fallacious and false way in testimony in regards to the

New Jersey law outlawing, taking away the freedom of people to be able to seek help if they do not want to experience homosexual attraction.

You're not allowed to do that anymore. And that the homosexualists had lied, that a person had testified before the senate committee and had pretended to have experienced all these horrible things, shock treatment and all the rest of this stuff.

And it was all from a movie, a 1999 movie. Well, now you've got the imitation game and Alan Turing and how brilliant Alan Turing was and that Alan Turing took his life because it was illegal to be involved in the lifestyle of homosexuality in England.

And he goes on to say, in some states in the USA, laws against homosexual sex remain on the statute books, although in practice they are not enforced.

I'm sure we make this mistake when talking about things in the UK, but all those laws were struck down by the

Supreme Court. Quite some time ago. So it doesn't matter whether on statute books or not. They were struck down when the

Texas law was struck down quite some time ago. So that's irrelevant.

It is hard for modern Western people to imagine a world where someone could be arrested and sent to prison for practicing gay sex.

Why? I mean, let's just fast forward in the future 15 years.

Will we be reading Adrian Warnock or someone else writing, it is hard for modern

Western people to imagine a world where someone could be arrested and sent to prison for practicing intergenerational sex?

How about it is hard for modern Western people to imagine a world where someone could be arrested and sent to prison for practicing incest?

For practicing bestiality. What's the difference other than where we are in time?

Where we are in this complete collapse of cultural and ethical morality?

What does it matter where you are in the free fall? It doesn't make any difference, does it?

I can't see how it does. There was a day when you would be arrested for adultery.

There was a day when that was illegal. I suppose this has a whole lot to do with the relationship between God's law and national law.

But are you suggesting that the law, and notice it says

Western Christians, Western people, I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that it has always been improper for any nation to enforce sexual purity laws?

Was it wrong for Israel to do that? If so, why? Just a question that seems to be underlying all of this.

Harder still to appreciate, harder still to appreciated that, I think it's,

I think there that shouldn't be, I think harder still to appreciate that was only in 1861 that in the

UK the law was changed that the penalty for what was then commonly called buggery or sodomy was no longer death by hanging.

Okay, yep, that's the way it was. I'm not sure when those things changed in the

United States, but the question is, are you saying a nation does not have that right?

Based upon what? I mean, obviously if the vast majority of the people in a nation do not view themselves, do not believe that there is a

God, and do not believe themselves to be just basically animals, then law is going to be just dependent upon whatever man decides and thinks and feels.

Do you think that the Christians who passed those laws in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries were evil people?

Just questions, because, I mean, there are people today that would like to see pretty much everything decriminalized, every form of drug use, sexual behavior, you know,

I mean, I just don't, I don't know where the, you know, when the anarchy just gets to such a level that common sense prevails again, but there's lots of people that want to change all sorts of laws and decriminalize all sorts of behavior.

What's the standard? How do you even know what the standard is supposed to be? I'm not sure.

I mean, I'm not an expert on Adrian Warnock theology, so I don't know. I mean, almost all that I know about Adrian Warnock I learned after the strange fire conference and listened to the back and forth.

I mean, that really wasn't relevant to this very much, and yet globally there are many nations where homosexual activity remains illegal.

Some where gay people may still be executed by the state as a penalty for their crime. Well, why did you put crime in parentheses, in apostrophes?

Again, we recognize all Islamic countries, at least Islamic countries that are even pretending to practice any form of Sharia.

This is the case there. There are few other countries that criminalize that activity, but do you not think that they have the right to do that?

Again, take out homo, and notice where gay people, I question where you, it seems there's been a complete collapse already on how the

Bible defines people as image bearers of God, not defined by their sexual behaviors, and how the quote -unquote homosexual community, a phrase

I utterly reject. You can't have a human community based upon aberrant sexual desire and behavior.

That is demeaning to God, His creation, and to man himself.

It may be very common in our society, but again, what's common in our society today is moral and ethical insanity.

Our society calls what is black, white, and white, black, good, evil, and evil, good. So maybe part of my assumption here, and where I'm getting in trouble here, is that I'm assuming a commitment to biblical authority that may not be there, because it just seems like what we've got here is, well,

I'm trying to hold on to biblical authority, but the society is demanding that I accept these things, and maybe that's where part of my problem is.

I don't know. Okay, I know of no

Christian in the West who would advocate homosexual sex becoming illegal once more in our countries, still less that the punishment should be death.

Well, that depends on whether your society desires

God's blessing or doesn't. Are you saying that a country could not be so focused upon seeking to walk before God properly that that country would do what our country did and what

England did and said it should be illegal to engage in incest, to engage in polygamy, to engage in homosexuality, to engage in bestiality?

These things are detrimental to individuals, family, society as a whole, and therefore should be illegal.

Are you saying that that's not a possibility or that it's just, or what you're saying is there are so few

Christians left in England or in Western society as a whole that it is impossible for those standards to exist because these are fundamentally unregenerate, rebellious,

God -hating cultures that are begging for God's judgment to come upon them and that our role is to prophetically announce the coming of the wrath of God and call people to flee, and the only place to flee is to Jesus Christ?

And maybe that's what you're saying. I don't know. Sure, I would imagine, I didn't look, but I would imagine Patheos has a real limit on article sizes and stuff and could be things like that.

But it all depends on whether you believe that the laws of a land should have a meaningful basis that reflects what

God has revealed is appropriate for mankind. And so would you say

I know of no Christian in the West would advocate intergenerational sex should be illegal?

Should be illegal? So would you advocate that incest should be, that should be okay?

Bestiality? Pedophilia? On what basis?

What's the difference? Because I almost never get meaningful discussions on this because when you raise this with a homosexual advocate, they just, their emotions just explode.

How dare you compare these things? And I just go, calm down. Turn the emotions off.

Try to turn the brain back on. Let's be human beings instead of just animals that are just controlled by their emotions.

And let's ask the question, what's the difference? There are people today, scholars with degrees, writing papers saying that intergenerational sex, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, they're all just sexual orientations, just like homosexuality.

And the people promoting those things are using the exact same tactics and the exact same arguments. And I just want to go, why is that wrong?

And all the time while I go, well, it hurts people and I get these utterly arbitrary, muttered things just said quick enough to move on to the, try to move on to the next topic rather than a reasoned, thoughtful explanation, which would expose the fact that a fundamental assumption has been made.

And that is that there is something from a biblical perspective that is wholesome, good, appropriate, proper, positive in homosexual desire and action.

And every time I've asked someone, you want to try to make a biblical case for that? They can't.

Everyone has to admit there is not a single positive word about homosexual behavior in scripture.

And the best thing they can say is, yeah, well, the scripture writers didn't know about what we know about today. Well, so much for the inspiration of scripture and sufficiency.

Just go ahead and check it out the window because you don't believe in it. You're telling me

Jesus didn't know about this stuff? You're telling me Holy Spirit didn't know about these things? He who searches the deep things of God is going, wow,

I didn't know. Look at that. Now that all the psychologists have come along, wow, we didn't know.

There's not anything positive there. So you have to fundamentally be elevating this behavior and this desire, accepting the idea that this is an orientation and not a choice.

And like I said, even if someone properly experiences only, properly in the sense of in their experience, only experiences same -sex attraction, and I believe that number to be small, maybe at max 20 % of the homosexual movement, at max.

I mean, I'm being extremely generous there. So you're talking about 0 .03

% of the population upon which we are, for their sake, changing everything, destroying marriage, destroying families, putting children in situations where they do not either have a father or a mother and just engaging in the most intense moral insanity that's ever been seen on the planet, for the sake of 0 .03

% of the population. But even for them, just because you have the desire is not a moral factor in the behavior.

We may well have desires for all sorts of things. There are people who are just constitutionally given to anger, but the

Bible says we're creating God's image. We're not animals. We don't have to do what we feel.

We can transcend that because we have been made in the image of God. So you look at all this, it's like there seems to be a complete collapse on the idea that, well, yeah, you know, yeah, it's not a choice and, you know, we can talk about gay

Christians and so on and so forth. Christians would do well to add their voices to campaigns to repeal of such anti -homosexual legislation.

We must speak out for true tolerance everywhere. So is it your perspective that we should also be seeking true tolerance for pedophilia, bestiality, incest, for all of these?

Or must that wait until the society changes and then we promote the tolerance of that?

That's what I'd like to know. We must speak out for true tolerance everywhere. Well, true tolerance for, should we be speaking out for true tolerance for continuing to liberalize divorce laws so that it becomes, you know, everywhere, every nation.

That's true tolerance. Just a question we have to ask.

God loves everybody and teaches us to do the same. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I mean, are you saying God's love is equal for every single individual? You know, like Moses, Pharaoh, equal?

Always makes me wonder because theology matters. And when

I hear someone say, you know, doing the peanut butter love thing, God just loves everybody equal.

I'd go to the Bible and I'd go, well, he has a specific people that he has.

Even till today, in more liberal and theoretically accepting societies like America and the

UK, gay people are stigmatized, verbally abused, and even sometimes physically attacked because of their sex orientation.

It seems that Dr. Warnock has completely purchased lock, stock, and barrel the entirety of the pro -gay rhetorical stuff.

You know, Matthew Shepard, now the story comes out, gosh, it looks like the guys that killed him, he'd had sex with them and means they are, well,

I guess they might've been gay. But we can't talk about that.

No, no, no, not allowed to talk about that. Not allowed to talk about that. And we're not allowed to talk about homosexual violence against heterosexuals.

And so instead it's all just the one thing, the one perspective. Christians should stand up for them and argue strongly for fair treatment for all.

Well, if you actually believe that the law should be applied, that the law,

A, needs a proper moral foundation and B, needs to be applied all the way across the board.

That's a given. That's a given. But it also needs to be applied to the homosexual who does these things.

I am thoroughly 1000 % opposed to every hate crime law, period.

You know why? Because the law should be the law. And from a Christian worldview, these laws are insane because they require a judge to be able to see into your heart, which the

Bible tells us only God can do. And if you haven't already figured out that these hate crimes laws are now being used and will be used against us, then you haven't been paying attention.

We must speak out for the persecuted, the oppressed, for the minority. Imagine a day when the church is known for its love for gay people.

How would that, what would that look like, Dr. Warnock? How do Christians show love for someone?

Doesn't that require speaking the truth to them? What amazes me is there's nothing in this article anywhere about repentance on the part of homosexuals.

Nowhere. Only people have to repent here are Christians. And while Christians may have much to repent for, if you're not doing, if you're not calling homosexuals to repent, do you really love them at all?

That's my question. Do you really love them at all? We must speak out for the persecuted.

Well, that would primarily be Christians in Islamic lands today, actually, and in North Korea, places like that.

That's where the primary persecution is. How about, how about the people that are losing their jobs for continuing to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, the way

Jesus taught it? Do you include them in the persecuted? For the minority.

How about believing Christians who still stand firm on this? That's a minority. That's a minority.

And imagine a day when the church is known for its love for gay people. Dr. Warnock, you've bought the society here, lock, stock, and barrel.

Shutting your mouth about the need for repentance and the wrath of God that comes upon homosexuality is not showing love.

That's how the world defines love, not how the Bible defines love. Look to the cross for how the Bible defines love.

God's wrath coming upon his son in its fullness. Christian, when you think of gay people, what is your immediate thought?

Is it revulsion? Do you avoid them? Do you angrily denounce them? Notice it's all them, them, them, as if there's nothing that they can do about who they are.

Again, completely bought the world's paradigm here. There is no eta in 1

Corinthians 6 .11. I even asked about this on Twitter yesterday. I didn't really get much of a response there. I didn't get much of a response at all.

Eta being such were some of you, sorry. Then you are contributing the notion our society now has that Christians hate gay people.

Dr. Warnock, as long as our society is in rebellion against God, refuses to submit to God's law and to God's way, they will always redefine love into its opposite.

We as Christians should be proclaiming what true love actually is, which is speaking the truth, not compromising.

You do not compromise God's truth and by that show love to anyone.

It's not possible. It's not possible. It is no longer considered to be acceptable to be feel such, to feel such animosity towards people who are of a different race.

Why should it be acceptable to react in such a way toward those of a different orientation? There is the complete capitulation on Dr.

Warnock's part to the most vacuous, ridiculous element of the pro -homosexual movement.

That is the absurd parallel of civil rights regarding race to homosexuality.

If I were a, well, I almost am an ethnic minority, at least not here anymore.

I almost am an ethnic minority, but if I were, I would find, and I know many a black

Christian here in the United States that finds this thinking to be so rabidly offensive, and it is, it is, oh, it is.

Here you have sexual behavior specifically marked out in scripture as to eva in God's sight, being paralleled with the skull, the color of one's skin, the color of one's skin.

I know it's been accepted. That doesn't make it right. It's still stupidity exemplified.

It really is. I mean, just because even the majority on the

Supreme Court obviously have bought that argument, it's not because a single one of them could ever defend it in a meaningful fashion.

It's just, it's been repeated and we don't want to think too much, and so we accept it. There's, how can anyone who speaks the gospel buy into such, such thinking?

I don't, I don't get it. God created all the races.

I guess you have to believe that now God created every kind of person, which includes homosexuals and people who want to have sex with dogs and people who want to have sex with their grandmother and everything.

Oh, you can't parallel them. Yes, I can. Yes, I can. I have to, there has to be a moral and ethical foundation and just simply moving the line over here and saying, oh, we can't talk about that.

And then you move the line. Oh, we can't talk about that and move a little bit far. Oh, we can't. By the time it's over here, there's no time to talk about anything anymore.

There is no parallel. This statement is absolutely morally bankrupt.

It's bankrupt. There it is. The way the church has treated gay people historically has not been her finest hour.

Again, this is like straight out of the Matthew Vines playbook. I mean, this is complete capitulation.

And just in passing, you know,

I'm thankful Michael Brown isn't following this direction, but it does seem to me, does seem to me that a lot of people who fundamentally compromise on solo scriptura with new revelation don't seem to be finding a solid ground to stand on this issue.

And when you're just repeating Matthew Vines here, word for word, the way the church has treated gay people historically has not been her finest hour.

There is no doubt in my mind that Christians will one day look back on this previous approach. Previous approach of what?

Hasn't even been defined. Previous approach of defining homosexuality as sinful, self -destructive, as representative of the creator creation distinction being blurred and twisted by the effect of sin, which is

Paul's entire argument in Romans 1 of having actually believed 1 Corinthians 6 .11.

Such were some of you. But now there's no doubt in my mind that Christians one day look back on this previous approach with the same degree of shame and embarrassment currently felt over the church's history of slavery, racism, and apartheid.

Wow. Again, straight out of the pro -homosexual playbook. Total capitulation here.

Total capitulation. No discussion of the different kinds of slavery. I hate when this happens.

I hate when this happens. Totally giving into the idea that slavery in the

Bible and slavery in the South are the same thing. That shows such rabid ignorance of history, of what was going on with the

Hebrews in comparison it just. It just. Are you saying there was actually a biblical foundation for racism?

Where? Where? How? You telling me that the exegetical foundation that I can provide that demonstrates that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes that needs to be redeemed by the precious blood of Christ is the same as someone might have used for racism or apartheid?

If you think that, let's schedule a debate because that will be the easiest one

I've ever done. That would be the easiest debate I've ever done because that is just that's absurd on a level that's difficult for me to comprehend.

It's amazing. Absolutely amazing. In particular, there is no question that the pray the gay away movement offered a misguided and dangerous view that a homosexual orientation was always a choice.

It could be easily changed by counseling. Wow. The pray the gay away movement. I guess that what that means is now what we can do thanks to uh thanks to Alan Chambers is you can look at all of the people who have invested their lives in helping people to overcome their same -sex attraction are just part of the pray the gay away movement.

This simplistic this simplistic type little thing. This is straight out of the playbook folks.

Just get used to it. You're going to see authors well -known authors contributor to modern reformation repeating the pro -homosexual rhetoric straight out of the playbook not making the necessary differentiation ignoring the testimonies of those who have in fact found deliverance from same -sex attraction in the

Lordship of Christ. Oh can't no can't have them. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Can't have them. Uh the simple fact is that many gay

Christians were driven to despair by thinking they were the only ones who are unable to confirm should be conformed to the heterosexual expectations being placed on them.

Now notice again just the assumption gay

Christian incestuous Christian adulterous Christian thievery

Christian just you can put anything on Christian and it's okay as if I can define

Christianity. I reject it. We're driven to despair. Now here's here's this you see if you if you say something's wrong then you're driving people to despair.

So you know Christians who just have to engage in in multiple sexual encounters with people polyamorous

Christians driven to despair if you read Matthew chapter 19 to them.

So what do you do? Well if you love people you won't read Matthew chapter 19 to them.

Um that meant that monogamous expectation being placed on them drove them to despair.

It's the church's fault. The church's fault and there are

Christians that just simply weren't made by God to believe in property laws.

They just have a liberal view of the possession of things and so the thieving

Christian the thieving Christian is shown such hatred by the church because the church dares to say that theft is wrong and they're driven to despair.

It's the church's fault instead of the reality that it is the day by day grind of suppressing the natural revelation of God's truth upon the part of those who in their inner self have been twisted at that very point of self -identification as to gender and sexuality that destroys human beings.

That's the difference between a Christian answer and a non -Christian answer but today many

Christians are giving non -Christian answers as to why these things are. Um meanwhile even the leaders of the so -called ex -gay organizations hid the uncomfortable secret.

See Allen Chambers let's let's wave the Allen Chambers saying woohoo. I mean

I especially the end of this I don't know if Matthew Vines wrote it or Adrian Warnock wrote it.

The same it's the same rhetoric the same stuff. Um meanwhile even leaders so -called ex -gay organizations hid the uncomfortable secret that change from an exclusively homosexual orientation exclusively heterosexual orientation almost never occurs.

I'm glad I said almost never occurs most of them would say never occurs. It's a good thing as such an approach has now virtually disappeared.

Really? I suppose if you're just talking about the pray the gay away movement but I guess no discussion of the serious people who have experienced redemption in their lives.

They don't exist so it's good to uh but it leaves in its wake thousands of damaged hurting people many of whom never want to go near a church again.

It's all the church's fault has nothing to do nothing at all to do with a perversion of the sexual orientation internally due to sin.

No no no how dare anyone even think that. The church owes now here the church owes an apology to people like Vicki Beeching and Matthew Vines the overly harsh way they describe having been treated.

They describe having been treated uh

Dr. Warnock I responded to Matthew Vines after his video came out years ago five hour response played every word he said and responded just as I did with David Gushy recently and it was a thorough response.

I did not call for anyone to be violent toward Matthew Vines but I honestly identified the young man as a heretic seeking to fundamentally undercut the gospel of Jesus Christ and to damage the church of Jesus Christ.

Now I have to ask you Dr. Warnock is that what he is or is Matthew Vines your brother in Christ?

I'd like to know in fact if you happen to be listening you said you were going to catch the I don't know if listen a lot maybe you're just writing these things down for a future article or something but if you could

I'd like to know do you believe that Vicki Beeching and Matthew Vines are your brothers and sisters in Christ?

That would say a lot I'd like to know that would that would say everything I would say everything.

Many people having listened to my thorough refutation of Vine's original video that was very surface level was dependent primarily upon Boswell, Skaggs, Skenzonian, Mullencott, other people like that.

This was he did that before Brownson came out. Since Brownson's come out he's just grabbed hold of Brownson's stuff and repeats that now.

But many people said you all ought to debate and when he started the reformation project his whole point was to train people on how to how to respond to people like me how to debate us.

So it's like okay I'll come to your meeting let's debate I'll debate at your meeting.

Well he said well once my book comes out the book came out now

I won't debate at all. How do you respond to the fact that his argument fundamentally now is that he won't debate me because I will not grant as a given the very fundamental issue of the debate itself.

And so if we can't be friends and however he defines that then

I won't debate you. Do you really think

Matthew Vines deserves an apology when he is the one seeking to fundamentally mute any biblical presentation of of any meaningful foundation for sexual morality from the bible.

Oh he may say that marriage between only two people why. He may say only this far no farther why.

What's the basis what's the ground. This is a gospel issue and I don't know if you've noticed it

Dr. Warnock but you look at the gay Christian movement. I don't hear the gospel being preached.

Oh the name that the word might appear but wrath of God redemption substitution.

No there's no foundation for it there's no foundation for it. So do you think we should apologize to Arius for how how rough

Athanasius was against him. How about Pelagius I mean Augustine. So nasty right.

The idea that we should be apologizing to people who are fundamentally seeking to deny

Christian truth. Of course many Christians who love the bible dearly and who have chosen to follow its moral principles will find it difficult to personally affirm sex outside of marriage.

This is this is the voice of the UK folks. There are a lot of folks in the

United States going what. We'll find it difficult to personally affirm sex outside of marriage.

No Dr. Warnock anyone who takes the bible seriously will identify that as sin not personally affirm.

Maybe it's a British thing but have you noticed the effect it's had on the Church of England. You know sort of collapse dead gone type thing.

Yet nobody thinks Christians hate those who cohabit those who divorce and those who remarry.

This is because to the shame of every Christian the church has treated gay people differently to straight people. I think it should be them straight people but be that as it may.

Do you really think not now there's there's every bit of truth to the fact that a collapse in the view of the covenantal nature of marriage has been absolutely necessary for the rise of the homosexual movement.

But two wrongs don't make a right and do you not see that there is a fundamental difference between the disordered desire for sex with a male by a male and sex the desire for sex with a female by a male.

You don't see it there's a difference there. You I mean the bible recognizes the difference there.

Why wouldn't you or are you ashamed that the bible recognized that because well they just didn't know.

Please tell me please tell me that you don't buy the well the biblical writers didn't know about committed monogamous loving homosexual relationships.

Please please Adrian tell me you you recognize that for the abject foolishness that it is right.

Please we cannot simply say that gay people are being hypersensitive.

Okay most of the homosexual movement is hypersensitive and wants uber rights.

How's that? I said it. The church has a long history of rejecting and denouncing them in ways that Christians simply don't do to other people.

Again where do you draw the line? The church has a history of rejecting and denouncing pedophiles.

The church has a history of rejecting and denouncing adulterers. Is that wrong?

Thieves. I mean shall we start in Romans 1 then go to Romans 3. How about first Corinthians 6?

There's lots of vice lists. The church has a long history of denouncing people who are disobedient to parents for crying out loud.

Religious people have always liked to identify a group. Now here check this out. Religious people have always liked to identify a group of outsiders and stigmatize them as sinners and dehumanize them angrily denouncing them.

Religious people. Oh you have to be careful about religious people. I thought Adrian Warnock was a religious people.

Jesus spoke out against such behaviors when he saw them in the Pharisees. Today many churchgoers have much in common with them.

I'm not sure why Pharisees is capitalized in one line and not in the next but in fact Jesus was known as a friend of sinners but a strong critic of Pharisees.

I explore this approach further in the first chapter of my book Hope Reborn How to Become a Christian and Live for Jesus.

Jesus was a friend of sinners but do you really seriously think that when he met with them he did not call them to repentance?

Where are you doing that sir? I don't see it in here. Don't see it in here.

The Pharisee card is easy to play. Very easy to play sir. Anybody can do that. In my view.

Last paragraph. Last paragraph. In my view. Listen closely now folks because if you thought that up till now

I might have been a little overzealous to say this is straight out of the gay

Christian playbook. In my view there is no question that Jesus today would be known as a friend of gay people.

Well you know what? I am sure that Jesus would talk to homosexuals and I know exactly what he'd say to them.

Repent and believe for the kingdom of God is at hand. But if you think that means that Jesus would have walked down the street in a gay pride parade to show his friendship you are nuts.

That's blasphemy. Absolute blasphemy. I am sure that he is pleased with the fact that the church is indeed changing.

In what way? Many churches today are a welcoming environment where anyone is welcome to visit and hear about the good news of the love of God.

How many times I pointed out when the apostle Paul wrote the book of Romans before he got to the good news before he got to the good stuff he spent two chapters on the bad news.

On the bad news. Even in many conservative churches increasingly more prominence is given to moderate compassionate voices such as those from the living out organization.

Ready folks? Rather than to religious zealots and bigots.

You tell me this isn't straight out of the pro gay Christian handbook. Gotta throw in the religious zealots and bigotry language.

Gotta throw it in there. Gotta gotta get the emotions going because the argument ain't gonna go anywhere.

So you gotta get the emotions going. And ever since the advent of HIV AIDS there have been many

Christian organizations have been at the forefront of the fight. The recent scene the recent scene where Rick Warren sat alongside

Elton John at a senate hearing arguing for more funding for the fight against this disease was a welcome example of the loving response of many

Christians to gay people. This is the mindset of the year of the

European and I've often had people ask me why is it that there just seems to be so much compromise over there and and there are so few standing firm.

Like well there's the mindset. There's the mindset. Dr. Warnock I'm not going to be celebrating the worldwide homophobia biphobia transphobia day.

And I've just explained why. But at the same time

I have been telling people for a very long time that a tsunami of compromise on fundamental basic biblical morality sufficiency is coming.

It's here and the names will shock us. I've been trying to prepare people to recognize that if you are not grounded and convinced in yourself that this is a gospel issue that the

Bible is sufficient to reveal to us what sin is.

You will be washed away by the flood because you will feel like you're the only one left. You won't be.

God will always have his 7 ,000 who have not bowed the knee to fail. But the tsunami is here.

The list of names increasing and many people will be shocked by it.

And here you have someone who has contributed to modern reformation and yet post an article that could have been written by Matthew Vines.

And if you don't understand what the real issues are if you haven't listened if you if you haven't taken the time to look at how

God's law was given to us and the meaning of Leviticus 18 and 20 and Romans 1 and first Corinthians if you if you don't understand the positive teaching of Matthew chapter 19 you are not going to stand firm in these days that are coming.

Not going to. And as we see the large number of people who we thought once were standing next to us standing on the other side once again why we really believe we believe will be tested.

Now I was honestly I thought I could get through that in 20 minutes and I've gone long.

I had other stuff queued up even relevant stuff. There will be another there will be another dividing line coming up and I'll get to that stuff then.

There's a bunch of things that are happening but I said I'd respond to it needed to because when you see what used to be out there on the fringes being presented in the mainstream as what is good for Christians got to warn people got to warn people you've got to recognize these things you've got to look past the verbiage and get to the substance and realize what's really being said what's really being said.

So there you go uh thanks for watching the program today as I said Lord Willen will be back on Thursday.