Jeff Durbin & James White vs. Brandan Robertson | Pastor Reacts

The Bible is not the Word of God, so I don't reject the Word of God. You reject it as an ultimate reference point.

Okay, you think that's it. Yeah, you have different views. Did you hear that? So, I hope you're attuning your ear because the important threads in this conversation are actually spilling out the sides, right?

They're not coming directly and meeting the other interlocutor directly. They're sort of on both edges of this particular discussion.

These are not blows being landed by Durbin. Not exactly. Robertson is weaving and he's bending and dodging these challenges.

He's Neo in the Matrix at this point. This is a test of authority, ladies and gentlemen.

If the Bible is not the authority, by what authority do you make your own claims? Start from the beginning and explain yourself, and don't forget to provide a good warrant.

This is what I was hoping for. I was hoping to hear some attempts at exegesis from Robertson.

You say that the totality of Scripture is not authoritative. That places you now in a position of authority over the text.

So, let's see if you have the juice to be an authority. Welcome back to a brand new

Pastor Reacts video. My name is Nate. Thank you so much for joining me. If this is your first time here at the channel, man,

I'm super glad that you're with me. I hope that this video blesses you tremendously. I couldn't figure out whether or not to make this a debate teacher react video or a pastor reacts video.

I think there's a benefit in approaching this kind of discussion from both angles. But whatever I do for you on this channel,

I'm always trying to think of value, right? What kind of value can I bring to you? Can I bring to the table and add to the discussion?

So, in that spirit, I'm going to react to this discussion as a pastor, because I think that there were some moments here where I would just like to weigh in as a pastor.

I'm sure there's going to be both, actually. Both debate teacher sort of aspect to this and then also pastor reacts.

Both kinds of moments. So, I think this is going to be interesting. I hope that you're watching this video so that you can be thinking through how you as a

Christian can respond to a similar situation. It looks like Brandon Robertson is coming out with a book on this very topic in 2024.

So, let's think this through as Christians and get a perspective on how to respond to these kinds of things, both biblically as well as effectively.

So, this was a discussion between Jeff Durbin and James White on the Apologetius Studios channel with Brandon Robertson, who is a progressive.

He calls himself a progressive Christian. He teaches the Bible from his particular perspective, and that's going to immediately jump out at you.

Let's jump right into the discussion here, starting at minute five. Yeah, well, I know that was in a context of a broader conversation.

I'm not exactly sure what particular video you're responding to, but I do think the question of what standard do we define morality by is an important one, and I do think we all probably start at different places.

You two presumably believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God, and that is your objective moral standard.

I would say that perhaps there is an objective moral standard, but I don't know. I don't believe that we can know it objectively, and I don't think that the

Bible is the inerrant word of God, and therefore, I also don't think all of the morality that we find in the pages of the

Bible is worthy of being followed, and so we have two different starting places for where we base our morality.

Yeah, it's a good place to start. I'm glad you brought it up like that. So that video in particular was responding to your video that was calling porn art and saying that it's actually a beautiful and good thing, and so that's what that was about.

You were essentially saying it's not immoral. It's not wrong, and so since you believe, because you don't believe the

Bible is the objective standard or ultimate standard, since you believe that that is not the ultimate standard, and that there's not really any, you can't know any objective ultimate standard, then how do you know anything at all?

I mean, you're making claims about what is moral and true and good, and yet you admit that your system, because you reject

God's word and his revelation as a starting point, is that you can't really know that there's this objective morality.

So how do you complain about anything, Brandon? So I totally understand where this question is coming from and what it is seeking to accomplish.

I think that there's a better way to attack the epistemology of someone like Brandon Robertson, because that's what this question is designed to do, right?

It's designed to attack the epistemological foundation that Robertson utilizes to make knowledge claims, okay?

Great, right? It's a good question to ask. If you have no objective standard to knowledge, then how can you tell others anything about the

Bible objectively? But see how I'm already saying what Durbin said slightly differently?

Right? It's not that Robertson can't know anything. It's that he can't know anything objectively. So we have to be very careful as interlocutors to be precise with our language.

A lot of what Durbin is saying stands on top of certain definitions of terms that both he and Robertson probably don't agree upon, right?

Robertson just got done saying that we're coming from two different starting points, okay? Agreed, right?

But that's probably where we need to start is identifying the starting points, right? One of the fundamental rules of debate is defining terms right at the outset.

Durbin does not do that exactly, okay? And because Durbin doesn't do that exactly, Robertson is going to suggest, well, yes,

I do know things actually. And that's going to allow Robertson to deny Durbin's challenge.

I would say that I would be in alignment with a majority of other people who have—we have a reason.

We have science. We have revelation. I do believe in revelation. I just don't believe that all of the

Bible is God's revelation. There are multiple ways that we come to develop a sense of morality. I resonate with the language from the

Hebrew Bible, which talks about the law of God written on our hearts. I believe that in some sense, all human beings have been programmed with some level of moral code.

And yes, there is obviously diversity, and we disagree as humans on various—what things are moral and what might not be moral.

But there are a lot of areas where broad swaths of humanity throughout all time do agree on common moral principles.

And I'm also of the mindset that humanity, led by the Spirit of God, is constantly progressing in our morality, which

I know you all would probably very much disagree with. But I believe every generation, we're getting towards more of what

Jesus talked about as the kingdom of God, where we have a society of justice, equity, peace. And so I see every generation—

Yeah, but you don't know—you're admitting, though, Brandon, I'm sorry. I want to make sure that we're at least dealing with it at one point at a time here.

It sounds like what Robertson is kind of explaining is something called the postmodern knowledge principle.

He said he considers himself a progressive Christian. He said that before. Progressivism trades on postmodernism.

And so here we are, right? Postmodern knowledge is not your grandfather's justified true belief.

The postmodern knowledge principle says that we should be radically skeptical of objective knowledge, and instead we should commit ourselves to what's called cultural constructivism.

Cultural constructivism says that knowledge is created, it's mediated by people in culture.

Did you catch that? Knowledge is not discovered. It's constructed. See, what would be great is if we start with definition of terms, because if we don't, then the

Christians are going to be talking around Robertson and vice versa. But you've admitted that the word of God that talks about the kingdom of God and God's justice, you admitted that you don't believe that it's inerrant or infallible or that it's the ultimate standard at all.

So my question is, why appeal to it at all? Why talk about things like the kingdom of God and the law of God in our hearts when you've already acknowledged at the front that you don't respect it, believe it, stand on it, respect it as an ultimate authority.

You think that it's either corrupted at points or just the words of mere men and not an ultimate standard.

So I would just make a point here. When you say, you know, scripture says the law is written in our heart, well... So again,

Robertson did not say that he didn't respect the word of God. So when Durbin does this kind of thing, you know, he sets

Robertson up to deny, deny, deny. No, you're wrong, Jeff. I do respect the word of God, right?

Now, don't hear what I'm not saying. Durbin is right to call out

Robertson as a deceiver and a false teacher, and that's what he's going to do later in the video, right? That's what

Robertson is, okay? Make no mistake about this. But what I'm trying to shine a spotlight on right now is how you, the

Christian, can truly clash with folks like Robertson. It requires slowing down a bit and being more precise and defining our terms in order to draw out true clash.

The specific word there is the Torah is written within us. In Jeremiah 31, God's law, the law, would be written within us.

When Jeremiah wrote that, they had a law in mind and an instruction in mind, and that was the law of God from the

Old Testament. And so that's what's written within us. And so there's an objective standard of what that law was.

So yeah, it's now internalized. It's no longer on stone tablets outside of us, exerting pressure from the outside.

It's internalized with God's people in the new covenant. That's specifically a new covenant promise, by the way. But that law is objective.

We know what it is. God spoke it. So here's a couple things. I think this is where we fundamentally disagree is,

I think your version of Christianity tries to oversimplify things that aren't actually simple at all.

And I don't think it's as simple as you either believe all of the Bible or you believe none of the Bible.

I hear that a lot from more conservative people. So just real quick, real quick. I'm not going to be able to respond to this whole video, okay?

Just looking at the time here, we got like an hour and 22 minutes or something for the whole thing. That's like an hour and a half, right?

If I stop and provide commentary every few minutes, this is going to be like a three, four -hour video. So I'm going to try to go as far as I can and provide you value when

I can in the time that I have, right? So first, that's a disclaimer. I love

Jeff Durbin. I think he's brilliant. I love James White. I think he's also brilliant.

They're both 100 % right about Robertson. So again, just to clarify, when

I step in and I add things to this discussion, all I'm trying to do is I'm trying to raise the level of discourse, okay?

That's all. And also, I don't know everything, okay? So disclaimer to that as well. –

That's virtually not how anybody has engaged with Scripture throughout the history of Judaism and Christianity.

It's not how we engage as human beings, as reasonable, thoughtful people. It's not all in or all out.

I believe that the Bible is a human product inspired by God. And yes, there are parts of the

Bible where I believe God's revelation comes true or comes through clearly. And there are parts of the

Bible that are clearly immoral and wrong and should be— – According to who? You don't believe there's an objective standard, though.

You said that you can't know it. So why are you chastising Scripture about morality being— –

If I had to guess, and I don't know the answer to this, but the answer to the question, which parts of God's revelation comes through is, for Robertson, only those parts that our culture acknowledges as truthful for them.

And so if we can find those pockets of folks who all acknowledge certain truths of the

Bible that are in line with the age of this world, then we have a church that Robertson can pastor, right?

That's probably how his church goes, right? He might not say it that way, but that's probably the answer to Durbin's question.

– It's it being unethical at points when you've already admitted at the start of the show you don't believe you can know an objective standard like what is ultimately objective in ethics.

– You're trying to be too black and white here, and it's not that way. – No, I'm responding to what you said. – No, because what

I did say is that we can know morality. – No, you said that you can't know what that objective standard is, something that's outside of yourself, outside of your own preferences, or your current position in time or culture.

That's something that's objective that exists outside of yourself. You said that you can't know it. – I think you're forcing me into a category of your own creation.

– I'm sorry. – Ooh! Ooh, I think you're forcing me into a category of your own creation.

See, what Durbin has not done yet is define his own definition of truth and justify the necessity of having an objective standard of morality and knowledge in the first place.

He's arguing as if they both assume agreement for these things, and then he's trying to pin Robertson on the figurative mat, intellectually speaking, and Robertson isn't even on Durbin's mat at all.

He's off on his own definitional mat when it comes to truth. I think you're forcing me into a category of your own creation.

That's right. You need to start by defining key terms. Brandon, how do you define knowledge?

Brandon, how do you determine which passages of Scripture are actual revelations of God and which are not?

These kinds of questions will help to draw this out. – I'm showing you the inconsistency,

Brandon. – It's not inconsistent, I'm sorry. – I don't know what the objective standard of morality is, but now

I'm going to tell you that the Bible is unethical. But Brandon Robertson's first point is that he doesn't know.

– You're already trying to win an argument by putting me in a category that I'm rejecting as the category. – Okay, well, what's the category you're rejecting?

So let's get that on the table so I can make sure I represent you properly. – Okay, there's the question we needed to start with.

Okay, that's the question that we needed to start off with, right? Let's get to the definition of terms.

– What I clearly said is that there might be objective truth. I don't believe that we can know it objectively.

– You said you don't know it. – That we might not be able to know it objectively. – So do you know it? –

There are moments where it is clear that humans are united on things like, for instance, most basic command.

– Did you hear that, ladies and gentlemen? Did you hear it? So he's answering the question related to knowledge, and he appeals to people who are united, people who agree.

Remember, I just talked about the postmodern knowledge principle and cultural constructivism. It sounds like Robertson holds to those views.

He didn't come out and say those words. He didn't articulate it that way, but it certainly sounds like he tracks along those lines, right?

Before you can try to slam your opponent, because it seems like Durbin's ready to go. He woke up that morning ready to go, right?

Before you do that, you need to identify these things, or else you won't be able to properly pin your interlocutor.

I should be using a different analogy here. I'll think about that. – Most human cultures throughout history have come to a conclusion that murder is wrong.

– How about Stalin? – I said most human cultures throughout history, and most human cultures rejected communism.

Most human cultures look at Hitler today and say, Stalin, Hitler, genocide, wrong. –

But by what standard do they believe that, though? – That's not by the Bible. – Well, hold on, Brennan. – That's not by the Bible. – Well, actually, it was the

Christian worldview and Christian truth and God's wisdom that— – That's the Christian worldview? – No. Christian worldview and Christian truth in the

West brought about a foundation in culture of, say, love your neighbor as you love yourself rather than eat your neighbor.

It's Christian truth that ultimately did away, say, with— well, let's just talk about the evils in the last 200 years, whether it's slavery, the slave trade.

It was the Christian worldview that did away with the slave trade. I don't think you can dispute that. I would hope you wouldn't try.

– There are other cultures that abolish slavery as well. – Yeah, but Christianity abolished it on the basis of the revelation of God that everybody is a creature of the

Creator. He's the objective standard. – But the revelation of God doesn't call for the abolition of slavery.

It was people taking principles from the Scriptures, not the written words of Scripture. If they took the written words of Scripture— – Well, you're wrong about that,

Brennan. I'm sorry. What does the Bible say— – Did you hear that? The argument is that it wasn't the written words of Scripture.

That provided a basis for abolition. It was the principles taken from the Scripture. What is a principle of Scripture that does not come from the words of Scripture?

Really. How do you create a principle without the words themselves? That just, that hits the ear funny.

– What does the Bible say about kidnapping and enslaving people? – There are various teachings of the

Bible— – No, what is it? Well, you quoted from Leviticus in one of your videos. – The Bible is not univocal. The Bible is not univocal.

The Bible has many contradictory— – What does the Scripture say about kidnapping and enslaving somebody, Brennan? –

I can tell you that all the way up through the New Testament there is an endorsement of slavery— – Brennan, you don't know. Scripture teaches very explicitly.

– No, I know. – Okay, well, Brennan, well, let me ask you. Let me ask you again. I'll ask you for the third time. What does Scripture say about kidnapping and enslaving a person?

Since you know. – It depends on which Scripture are you talking about. – Well, Scripture teaches that if you kidnap and enslave somebody, it's worthy of capital punishment.

It's one of the things the Christian abolitionists pointed to was the word of God is the revelation that gives us a basis to fight against slavery.

This man is made in the image of God. We're all in one blood, and God specifically says that if you kidnap and enslave somebody, it deserves a death penalty.

It's one of the things the Christian abolitionists were saying to the culture at large. But all that to say, the main point here is that you reject the word of God as foundational as a reference point.

And so the question is— – No, the Bible's not the word of God, so I don't reject the word of God. – You reject it as an ultimate reference point.

Okay, you think that's— – Yeah, you have different views. – Did you hear that? So I hope you're attuning your ear, because the important threads in this conversation are actually spilling out the sides, right?

They're not coming directly and meeting the other interlocutor directly. They're sort of on both edges of this particular discussion, you know?

So you really have to know what you're looking for, right? Did you hear that? Durbin says, you reject the word of God.

No, I don't reject the word of God, right? So even there, Durbin assumes that they agree on what the phrase word of God means.

Robertson says he doesn't define word of God the way that Durbin does. And so these are not blows being landed by Durbin.

Not exactly, right? Robertson is weaving, and he's bending and dodging these challenges.

He's Neo in the Matrix at this point. Is he a deceiver and a false teacher?

Absolutely. But we need to ensure that our jabs, as Christian interlocutors, must connect.

That's what, you understand what I'm saying? That's all I'm trying to say at this point. ...on ethics than scripture gives, and so you reject it.

Well, you said it already. I accept many parts of the Bible. Yeah, some. So what's, just so we all understand here, what's the determining factor for Brandon Robertson?

So you say you believe the word of God. You use words like kingdom of God, law of God in your heart. But wherever you dislike a teaching in scripture, you say,

I don't agree with that. Is the reference point, Brandon? Thank God that I do that. Thank God that I do that, and thank

God many and most Christians do that. I think a lot of the positions, politically and socially, that you advocate for are reprehensible.

I think there are many... But you don't know, you don't know there's an objective standard of morality, Brandon, so that's a meaningless argument. Oh, see again.

You've already given it up. Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye.

Robertson hasn't made an argument there. He simply stated his opinion, right? This is straight up emotivism at this point.

I don't like your views on politics. It's not an argument. He's just talking about what he does not like.

That's it. If I could say something here. When I first heard you many years ago,

Brandon, you still profess some sort of level of fealty to Jesus Christ as Lord.

Yes. Still do. Okay. Can you find anywhere where Jesus Christ took your view of Scripture?

Yes. Great question. Great question. Are you in line with the teachings of Jesus, right?

Everyone, both Christian and non -Christian, tend to think that Jesus was a great person, okay? So let's shift now from the totality of Scripture to just Jesus Christ, and let's see where Robertson is in line with Jesus Christ.

Now, again, that sort of presupposes that Robertson identifies Jesus as an authority. I do remember

Robertson making a video a while back on TikTok or something like that where he claimed that Jesus was racist.

You know what I'm saying? You remember this? Jesus was a racist because of his comments to the Canaanite woman. So there's that.

But this is a good question. Let's see where this goes. I think time and time again, Jesus, the way he dealt with Scripture, would have gotten kicked out of first semester of Bible college hermeneutics class.

How so? Jesus says, takes the Hebrew Bible time and time again, and says, you have heard it said, but I say unto you.

And he changes the Scripture. So, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's, everybody in the audience knows that's not true.

He did not change any Scripture. He said, you have heard it said, and what he's quoting is the traditions of the

Jews. No, he quotes actual passages from the Hebrew Bible. And he does not change the text.

He takes it deeper. This is where, do you still believe in the deity of Christ? Yes, of course.

Why? Because I have an experience of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ saved my soul as a 12 year old boy.

And I continue to follow Jesus and encounter Jesus. I believe that Jesus is God. So the

Scriptures as a whole are what testify to the idea that Jesus is

God, but you believe Jesus is God because of an experience? I would say both Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience all.

I would say all of those things come together to lead me to the conclusion that Jesus is the incarnation of God. Okay, so when

Jesus quotes the Scriptures to the Sadducees, for example, and bases his argument upon the tense of a verb and specifically identifies those words as having been spoken by God.

And yet you say, no, Scripture is not the word of God. And yet Jesus says it's spoken by God. Well, okay.

I said some Scripture is not given by inspiration of God. I also reject the idea.

I think Jesus is the word of God, not the Bible. And so I reject the way that you're using the phrase word of God. But that's okay.

Ah, there we see a different definition of terms, guys.

Um, boy, this is frustrating because I really want

White and Durbin to do well here. I'm on their side here. They are absolutely correct about Robertson.

And yet there are some slip -ups here. And that's what happens when, you know, this kind of stuff, you're in the moment of it.

You're in the heat of battle, so to speak, right? And this is taking place in real time. I've said this before in other videos.

You know, the heart's pumping. Everything is going, you know. You know, all that stuff happens, right?

And so—and by the way, we should congratulate these brothers. If you haven't done this already, reach out to Durbin and White and thank them for having the boldness to engage a false teacher and rebuke him, okay?

I praise God for these brothers. I just wish they could have approached this conversation a little bit differently.

So when you specifically say,

I'm going to follow Jesus, and yet Jesus holds men accountable for what is found in the written scriptures that were written 1 ,400 years before they came along.

Some of them. Okay, so where do you get the standard then? Did Jesus give you a standard somewhere as to how to figure out what from the scriptures you're going to believe and not believe?

That's a great question, okay? There we go, right? What is your criteria to determine what is revelation of God and what is not?

And does Jesus share your criteria, right? This is a test of authority, ladies and gentlemen.

If the Bible is not the authority, by what authority do you make your own claims? Start from the beginning and explain yourself, and don't forget to provide a good warrant in your explanation, right?

That's a great question. Life and teachings of Jesus, first and foremost, are my foundation for my faith, spirituality, ethics.

That's where I would point to, first and foremost, as somebody who identifies as a follower of Jesus. Now, Jesus, if you actually examine honestly and critically the way that Jesus uses scripture throughout the four

Gospels, again, he would have been critiqued by fundamentalists. I don't understand how you all wouldn't critique

Jesus. For instance, when he quotes, he stands up in the synagogue, unravels the scroll of Isaiah, and pronounces,

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me. He's anointed me to preach good news to the poor. This is what I was hoping for, okay?

I was hoping to hear some attempts at exegesis from Robertson. That is always time well spent with folks like this, okay?

You say that the totality of scripture is not authoritative. That places you now in a position of authority over the text to say what is acceptable and what is not.

It places you as the representative of some community that is the authority over what's in the text, right?

So let's see if you have the juice to be an authority, right? Can you rightly handle the word of truth?

2 Timothy 2 .15. So let's go to Isaiah, right? These are, I take it, the verses and passages that Robertson accepts.

So in that category of passages that he accepts, does he exegete the text accurately?

That's a test of credibility, okay? Let's find out. Quotes the whole scripture, and then he stops right before it says, "...and

the great and dreadful day of the Lord, talking about the judgment of God." Multiple times throughout the scripture, Jesus would take what

I would argue would be a more progressive approach. He quotes scriptures that negate things that are talking about the judgment.

Here's an obvious problem. So this is where things fall apart, and White's probably going to point this out, right?

You have to ask basic questions of the text, right? Here's the first question. Why is Jesus reading from Isaiah 61?

Okay? You have to ask that question. Which, by the way, it's not only Isaiah 61 that Jesus reads from, it's also

Isaiah 58 .6. There's a line that Jesus says—okay, look at this. So Luke 4—this is what

Robertson is talking about, he's alluding to, or he's bringing up the moment that Jesus pulls out the scroll of the prophet

Isaiah, and he reads from it, okay, to announce his ministry. Luke 4, here's verse 18. Let's read this together.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me—this is what Jesus reads in the synagogue—because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. Now listen to this.

To set free those who are oppressed. Okay? That's from Isaiah 58 .6.

Everything else appears to be from Isaiah 61, but that little line comes out of Isaiah 58 .6.

What's going on in Isaiah 58 .6? That's a messianic text in Isaiah 58. Why is

Jesus reading from the scroll in Isaiah, in Isaiah 61, in Isaiah 58 .6?

That's what you have to ask. And the answer is because he's identifying himself as the Messiah that the

Jews were waiting for. Robertson seems to suggest that Jesus stops short of talking about the day of vengeance.

So it ends with Luke 4 .18, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. If you go to Isaiah 61, you'll see to proclaim the favorable year of Yahweh and the day of vengeance of our

God. Robertson wants to suggest—or he seems to suggest—that Jesus stops short of that as if to suggest, well, you know, he's not coming for vengeance.

Except, wait a minute. Jesus does allude to coming judgment in just a few verses later.

Here's 4 .18, but if you go down a couple more verses—verse 25, right?

Jesus says, I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land.

Does this sound like the year of God's favor? And yet Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow, and there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed but only

Naaman the Syrian. Just a few verses later, Jesus alludes to the sky being shut up, a great famine, there were lepers all over the place, no one was cleansed, and then that's when the

Jews—if you read the rest of the chapter there—in the synagogue, they get upset and they try to stone Jesus.

Why did they get mad? Because not only did he identify himself as the Jewish Messiah, he said judgment was coming for them!

Not to mention later in the same Gospel of Luke, in chapter 17, and also in chapter 21,

Jesus is very clear about the coming judgment that he is going to bring. But what he says in chapter 17 is, first, he must suffer and be rejected by this generation.

Look at verse 24, for just like the lightning when it flashes out of one part of the sky shines to the other part of the sky, so will the

Son of Man be in his day. This is the day of the judgment that is coming. But first, verse 25, he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

How do you respond to Jesus there, Brandon? Is that not part of God's revelation to you?

The coming judgment that Jesus said is going to happen? And if you do not accept these other passages where Jesus talks about judgment, how can you demonstrate that your hermeneutic is not simply wish fulfillment?

That it's actually a serious scrutiny of the things that Jesus said and not a smiley face, frowny face hermeneutic?

A really plain, obvious problem. First of all, he holds the scriptures and views them as the very words of God because he says, today these things are fulfilled in your ears, and then he stops where he stops because that is yet a future fulfillment.

There is a partial fulfillment in him. You're making it impossible for there to be such thing as prophecy.

Do you believe Jesus was prophesied in the scriptures? What I think, the way that I think you're interpreting that scripture is, again, not how

Jesus would have interpreted it or any Jewish reader of the Jewish scriptures would have interpreted it. I think this is one of the biggest problems with fundamentalist

Christianity, is that it reads back into the Hebrew Bible prophecies that weren't meant to be prophecies.

Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus. What? Really? Isaiah 53 is not, it's not about Jesus, but he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our peace fell upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, but Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth, like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and as for his generation who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, that for the transgression of my people striking was due to him.

So his grave was assigned with wicked men, yet he was with a rich man in his death. He was with a rich man in his death because he had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth.

Look at the bottom here. Because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors.

Hmm. Wasn't about Jesus, huh? Who was it about then? I'm sorry,

Brandon, except on the road to Emmaus, Jesus, the resurrected Lord, chastises these disciples on the road to Emmaus.

He calls them foolish, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken, and then what does it say takes place,

Brandon? Is that the Lord of glory, the one you say you follow, took them through the Old Testament and all the places that it spoke about him.

Who is this and all the prophets? You're denying that that took place. Jesus did that.

Is he, though—is he denying that Jesus did that? Watch.

Robertson, after the ad—love the ads—Robertson is going to probably say, well,

Jesus only taught on the scriptures that I accept, right? He didn't teach on all the scriptures in the

Old Testament, he just taught on the scriptures that I accept. Okay, couple things here. First and foremost, we don't know what scriptures

Jesus quoted in that passage, so it's a bit of a strange argument to try to use an ambiguous passage that says

Jesus looked at all of the law and the prophets and talked about where they spoke of him. But second of all, when we go—when we're taking the

Hebrew Bible and we try to read back in Christian understandings, one, it's an ahistorical, unscholarly approach to understanding what the

Hebrew Bible is. It's offensive and borders on anti -Semitic because you're— Irony!

What—what does Robertson think he's doing with this postmodern hermeneutic? Does Robertson think Moses was a postmodernist?

Were the prophets postmodernists? Did they intend for their writings to be reinterpreted in order for truth to be culturally constructed the way that Robertson probably thinks it should?

No. That is a claim that requires justification. Moses and the prophets and the biblical authors and Jesus were realists.

They spoke and taught as realists who recognized that there is a real correspondence between truth and reality—the world out there.

There is no indication that Moses or Jesus or any of the biblical authors held to a view that truth is a social construct.

Their attitudes were that truth is absolute and therefore does not change over time.

That is the best explanation for the things that we see in the Bible. The postmodern theory of truth cannot be found in the

Scripture. Would you call the writer of Hebrews anti -Semitic? I think the writer of Hebrews is terribly problematic in many ways, yeah.

Okay, so he did what you're saying you shouldn't do, and that's that he took the Scriptures from the Old Testament and showed the fulfillment of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel according to Matthew is chocked full in both direct quotation and allusion to Old Testament passages of the fulfillment that Jesus Christ brought in his life and death and resurrection.

Now he said to them, These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the

Psalms must be fulfilled. Do you think that's just Luke throwing that in there and the Jews didn't say that?

Yes, most likely. Okay, on what basis? There you go. On what basis, Brandon? Because you think so? No, because you would know this.

My mentor, my dear mentor, John Dominic Crossan in the Jesus Seminar has done extensive research into the historiography of the sayings of Jesus and the broad consensus outside of conservative

Christian scholarship is that a majority of the teachings in, for instance,

John are not historical teachings of Jesus Christ. Do you have a manuscript that demonstrates that? Where's your manuscript evidence?

We have the Gospel of Mark. If you look at the Jesus Seminar in the Westar Institute, anybody who's interested can do a simple

Google search. We all know the Q hypothesis that there is an external source that's positive that was of the sayings of Jesus that were used by Gospel writers to compile the

Gospel accounts. Okay, okay, okay. The Jesus Seminar, right?

Robert Funk is the founder of the Jesus Seminar back in the 1970s. He said this about the

Gospels. The Gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the

Church's faith in him and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the

Gospel story for first -century listeners. The so -called scholars of the

Jesus Seminar do not believe in the deity of Christ, do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, don't believe in the miracles of Jesus, don't believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death.

This is what Robertson holds to. The teachings of the Jesus Seminar. How are we supposed to take this organization seriously?

I mean, this isn't even about varying interpretations of the Scripture at this point. This isn't even Christianity at this point.

It's heresy. That's who Robertson's on the side of? By the way, I thought Robertson said that he views

Jesus as being God, the deity of Christ. How does Robertson square his view of Jesus being God when the majority of scholars in the

Jesus Seminar don't? Did you ever listen to the debate that... I did. Dom and I did? Okay, all right.

Wonderful guy. He really is. And yet the foundation of his perspective is really one that starts with a rejection of the entire history of Christian interpretation of Scripture.

So for example, when we look at the key passages that sort of frame the discussion that I thought we were going to be having in regards to what the

Scripture says on sexual morality and ethics, I would assume then, if you're that radical in your perspective, you're making that sound like it's a mainstream thing, but obviously the

Jesus Seminar is extremely, extremely radical. Oh, it is. It's very true. It's very true.

Okay, name me— That's not true. They're not extremely radical. They deny almost all of the fundamental core tenets of the

Christian doctrine and faith. They're not radical. How could you say that, Dr.

White? Before the 1700s, it held their views. Most of the manuscripts that we do modern scholarship, biblical scholarship on today, didn't exist before the 1700s.

Brandon, it had nothing to do with the manuscripts that have been found. Okay, what one manuscript is important here?

What I'm saying here. No, I'm sorry. You can push me on this. John Dominic Crossan and I would probably have very few disagreements as to the relevance of specific manuscripts.

That has nothing to do with it. The point is it's a worldview that has come in that rejects the idea that God can speak consistently.

And it did— That's right. It's a worldview that rejects miracles. The reason why the

Jesus Seminar— So, I'm stretching here because the last time I ever thought about the Jesus Seminar, or gave thought to it, was maybe 12 years ago, right?

But the reason why the Jesus Seminar rejects the history of Christian scholarship, leading up to their own sort of radical take on the

Bible, is because they begin with a presupposition that miracles do not happen. Some of these scholars don't even believe in God in the first place.

Some of the scholars that are considered as part of the scholarship there at the Jesus Seminar are atheists. What I find fascinating is for someone like Robertson who says, oh, you know,

Jesus is God, and then utilizes quote -unquote scholarship that is based on and trades on a fundamental denial of these things.

It's almost like he's Jim Carrey beating himself up in the bathroom in Liar Liar. You know, a part of him wants to affirm certain things that the other part of him completely disagrees with.

It's amazing. It's not historically Jewish or Christian. You've got to admit that.

I will give you this. I do think you're exactly right, to a degree, that up until the Enlightenment, up until the scientific period where we had these new methods of understanding and coming to understandings of the truth, the way people did study of anything was, in a way, what we would consider today archaic and wrong, and led to many wrong conclusions.

And I do think that is the result of so much of what you all preach, is an inability to historically and critically examine the scriptures and let the truth be the truth, wherever it leads you to do it.

You have a presupposed— Ah! What is the truth, though? See, this is where Robertson betrays himself.

If he holds to a more postmodern understanding of truth, then there can be no one truth.

Because truth is a construct, and multiple societies can have their own truth, which is why we see that silly phrase being thrown around lately,

I'm speaking my truth, right? If truth is a construct, and different peoples over time construct it differently, then there is no one truth.

So, what is Robertson talking about when he gets on Weitz and Durbin's case for not letting the truth be the truth?

Sounds like you're saying there's only one truth, Brandon. So which is it? How is that consistent in your own worldview?

...set of beliefs that you need to be true when you engage with your community. And Brandon, let's be honest, and so do you, and so do you.

That question here is, whose presuppositions and pre -commitments are actually in accordance with the truth?

And so when you talk about things like science, and you talk about things like logic and all the rest,

Brandon, I would challenge you, you've given all that up, because you have a worldview that ultimately—and

I'll give this to you—you, I believe, look at the likes and preferences you accept, and whatever disagrees,

I think, whatever disagrees with your lusts and all your pursuits, that's what you reject.

And hold on, Brandon, I'll let you talk right after this. And I think because you've given up the scriptures as an ultimate foundation and reference point, you don't even have a basis to appeal to science, because you don't have a worldview that provides a foundation for the scientific method.

You don't have a worldview that comports with laws of logic as necessary or universal, and you certainly don't have a worldview that comports with the claim that something is right or wrong ethically.

You've already given that up. No, I haven't. So he's not wrong. Okay, Durbin's not wrong.

I just, I wish he would explain how that works better, right?

I think he's automatically assuming that his own audience understands this well enough, and they probably do.

You know, Apologia Studios, I'm sure everybody in the audience is smarter than the average bear, okay? So maybe

Durbin doesn't think that he needs to explain himself, but I think he should. Even Richard Rorty, right?

Famous postmodernist philosopher, said that there is no sense in which a scientific description accurately represents reality.

Why? Because when you disconnect yourself from objective reality, all you are left with are your constructs.

And you have no real way of knowing whether your constructs correspond to reality. You have to give all that up entirely.

That's what Durbin is getting at. I just wish he would take an extra 60 seconds, you know what

I mean? Just explain it so that the rest of our Christian community can truly grasp this. We need to know these things, because there are other

Brandon Robertsons out there, you know? The opportunity to engage these kinds of folks are all around us, and we need to be ready.

So there's one more thing I think I have time to look at, and the focus in the discussion is on Leviticus.

So let's go there. You say you believe in him. Let's go to what he said. All the law and the prophets would include Leviticus 18, which says in one verse, well,

I'll let you respond, Brandon. In one verse, it says you should not lie with a man as you do a woman.

And the next verse says you should not have sex with an animal. So you like that you should not have sex with an animal, but because of your loss and your desires, you want to reject the other one.

No, because I've actually spent the last decade and $100 ,000 going into student debt to study this particular topic on sexuality in the

Bible. Oh, that's a claim to authority, ladies and gentlemen.

I have spent $100 ,000. I'm an expert in this area. That's what he's essentially saying. He's saying, I'm an authority on this.

So let's test his ability to exegete the Scripture. That is the true test. In this kind of conversation,

I think that is one of the primary ways that we can test the credibility of that claim.

So let's do it. Because 18 is not talking about loving consensual same -sex relationships in the way that we're talking about in the modern world.

Okay, so let me— Which, by the way, it's possible that someone with a different sort of novel interpretation from you, you know, that you've never heard before, it's possible that they're right.

But it comes down to following the rules of proper exegesis and making the case from the text itself.

James White should be very good at pressing Brandon Robertson on this, because we've seen him do this before with other people.

I'm not going to name names. You know who they are. So this is—it's interesting, because if you're a postmodern in your assessment of these things, right, exegesis really isn't that important.

It shouldn't be that important. I mean, think about that. Why even do the work of following the flow of the text in order to exegete it if the objective meaning of the text cannot be truly discovered, right?

Why even try to think the author's thoughts after him if the objective truth about what they're saying cannot be discovered?

So this is an interesting exercise right here, right, getting into what Leviticus 18 really means.

But like I said, if anyone is going to claim that some different interpretation, particularly one that challenges the established interpretation, the orthodox interpretation of Scripture, if that's actually true, then they need to make their exegetical case.

The law of Moses says that you can't have sex with a man, Brandon. No, it doesn't, actually. Leviticus 18 is not a condemnation of broad -loving, consensual same -sex relationships.

You're adding those words, but the text actually has rules there right before it. It has rules about it.

Yeah, I'm going to give you something to shoot at. It has rules there. So, real quick, take a look at the verse in question.

Leviticus 18, verse 22. This is what it says. And you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.

It is an abomination. Okay? Keep that in mind here as they discuss this.

It has laws against having sex with relatives. It has laws against having sex with other men. It has laws against having sex with animals.

It's much easier to consider me a deceiver. The way that you are weaving around— Well, I'm laying it down to everyone here, so go ahead and take a shot at it.

It's very simple. Leviticus 18, verses 1, 2, and 3 has God speaking and says,

These are laws for the people of Israel. Do not do like they do in the land of Egypt. Do not do like they do in the land of Canaan.

So what is happening, the list of commands that we have in Leviticus 18 are a list of practices that were apparently common in Canaan and Egypt.

Do a brief study, please, historically, about whether homosexuality and homosexual relationships and the way that I'm advocating for them were common in Egypt or in Canaan, and you'll find, no, they were not.

Okay, hold on a second. Okay, let's go slowly here, because this is important, right?

Were the practices of homosexuality common in Egypt and Canaan? Notice the way that Robertson says that.

Were they common? That's not the question that should be asked, okay? Particularly since, at another point in this discussion,

Robertson acknowledges that even today, homosexuality is not common, even today, among people.

Something like 5 % or less than 5%, he said, okay? So the question should not be whether it's common.

The question is, is it known to be a feature of the communities that God mentions that homosexuality is practiced?

Was it known by the Israelites that homosexuality was practiced in Canaan, for example?

And the answer is, yes! Genesis 19, verses 4 and 5. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.

And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.

Where was Sodom located, y 'all? Yep, you guessed it! In the land of Canaan.

The fact is, homosexuality is known to be practiced, even by historians today.

But notice how it's phrased there. Is it common? That's not the question that should be asked. Families in those cultures.

But we do have a preponderance of evidence of exploitative practices. You already know these arguments, that there were both relationships between those who were enslaved in ancient patriarchal cultures, where men were allowed to have sex with male slaves.

And it was a way of asserting their dominance. We also do know, few and far between in Egyptian and Canaanite culture.

We don't know that much about the ancient Canaanite culture. But there is some evidence that shows that there were temple prostitutions.

There were sexual sacrifices made to appease gods and goddesses. So it seems, based on the culture, the historical analysis of Leviticus 18, that whatever is being referred to in verse 22 is not a broad condemnation of gay male relationships, because there weren't those with any frequency in ancient

Canaanite or Egyptian culture. But instead, where we do see men having sex with other men are in exploitative and idolatrous circumstances.

And it seems to me that that would be something that God would condemn. But, well, this is wrongheaded for one clear and obvious reason, all right?

It violates the rules of proper biblical exegesis, okay? Notice the interpretive filter, so to speak, is not found in verse 22.

Let me go back to the verse here. So in verse 22, according to Robertson, we're not looking for context clues anywhere in verse 22.

For the specific kind of act that the author is describing there, right? You shall not lie with a male. We're not looking for any context clues there.

We're not looking for some kind of interpretive filter that helps us to understand the kind of lying with a male that the author is talking about.

That's not in verse 22. What Robertson wants us to do is jump all the way back up to verse 3 here in order to find the context clues, right?

And I'll give Robertson this. You know, it is good and right to pay attention to the historical context, because the historical context provides the backdrop of understanding for what the passage is specifically trying to communicate.

So, for example, I just did a video talking about how not to read the Bible, okay?

It just dropped last week. And I brought up Jeremiah 29, 11, which a lot of Christians try to apply to their lives whole cloth, right?

They just read that verse without understanding the historical backdrop for that verse, right?

Jeremiah 29, 11, for I know the plans that I have for you, declares Yahweh, plans for peace and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope.

The promise is there to give them a motive to endure great suffering and hardship so that they can come out the other side of Babylonian bondage and captivity.

And so, knowing that actually limits the understanding of Jeremiah 29, 11 to something much more specific than I think a lot of Christians realize.

So, what we're doing is we're looking for context clues to help us to understand what

Leviticus 18 .22 is saying when it's talking about lying with a male. But here's the thing.

Robertson completely ignores the syntax of the verse, okay? He ignores – syntax means the relationship of the words to each other.

He ignores that in order to find context clues elsewhere. But wait a sec. Your context clue, friend, is right in the verse.

It's right – when the author says, you shall not lie with a male, he goes on to explain in what way that he's talking about.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. Actually, or it says, as those who lie with a female.

There's your explanation as to the kind of male intercourse the Bible is talking about. Do temple prostitutes and the rituals that took place in these other nations include the act?

But the biblical author explains what he means in verse 22 if you let him do it.

See, this is how you know Robertson is not an authority on this subject. This is basic exegesis 101.

You do not violate the syntax in order to cut and paste a statement that is 19 verses away in order to then claim that it should stand in the place of this phrase, as one lies with a female, as if that's the true syntax of the passage that provides its meaning.

That is a butchering of the text in order to further your own interpretation. So, but you just admitted that we don't know very much.

Obviously, you're talking about many, many thousands of years ago, so there's a very limited amount of information. Isn't it more relevant that in the

New Testament we have apostles of Jesus Christ, and you may not even believe that these are words of Scripture.

It's quite possible from what you've said. But when Paul writes to Timothy, and he lays out the goodness of the law, and he starts working through the

Ten Commandments, when he gets the commandment against adultery, he specifically utilizes two terms, pornoes arsenicoites, sexually immoral persons, and arsenicoites.

So here is an apostle, and he is now much closer to us in time than any research you might do in some type of,

I mean, Egyptian sexuality was pretty wild. So here's

Paul, and he includes and he expands on that commandment, sexually immoral persons and homosexuals.

This is where we have to be very careful about strategy. Okay? Instead of staying on Leviticus 18, which it appears

Robertson takes that to be an important verse to plant his interpretive flag, right, so to speak, now we're going out of Leviticus 18, we're going all the way to the

New Testament, and we're talking about another verse. Granted, it's connected, but we're still—we left Leviticus 18 when we have to remember that Robertson does not consider all of the

Bible to be a revelation from God. I'm not saying it's completely out of the realm of strategy to do something like this.

I think in order to do something like this, though, you're assuming that the next verse that you're going to go to, your interlocutor also holds as authoritative, and you can't do that.

You can't do that with somebody like Robertson. All I'm saying here right now is, when you encounter someone like Brandon Robertson in your own life—right,

Christian ?—and they're super dodgy about which scripture they accept as an authority, and then you find them seeking to plant their interpretive flag on a specific passage of scripture, stay there!

Stay there a while in order to cross -examine them properly, and press them hard in cross -examination on their ability to exegete the text, because I guarantee you, you'll find them falling flat on their face when you do that.

It's an inaccurate interpretation of arsenokoitai. Okay, since it comes from the two terms that are used in Leviticus 18 and 20, right, and Paul may be the first one to use it.

There's one other possible text that it's disputable, but maybe he borrowed it from a

Jewish source or something like that. But it's what men do with men in bed.

In fact, to quote the Leviticus passage, lies with a male as one lies with a female.

So this is sexual intercourse. It has nothing to do with all the context around it.

It is the actual act. So every place else where we would interpret

Paul, it doesn't matter what other text it would be, we would look at the Septuagint first for the meaning of where he's drawing his theology and his terminology.

So how do you get to something other than what men do with men in bed from Leviticus 18 and 20 as interpreted by the

Apostle Paul? To me, this is the easiest question. You just heard how

I understand Leviticus 18. I don't think Leviticus 18 is referring to all sexual relationships between men of all statuses in all cultures and all contexts.

I believe it— Right. But remember, in order to get there, or to Robertson's interpretation, you have to ignore the

Hebrew term zakar, which is a broad term for male in Leviticus 18 .22,

right? You shall not lie with a zakar, right? A male? That word encompasses all males without exception who lie with each other.

You also have to violate the syntax, the rules of syntax, in order to cut and paste verse 3 and stick it on top of the actual explanation of the type of intercourse being described in verse 22, and then you also have to completely ignore that sex in general is tied back to creation in the

Garden of Eden, which clearly shows us only two figures there, a man and a woman in a marital framework, right?

You gotta do all of that. That's a lot of eggs of gymnastics in order to arrive at Robertson's interpretation.

It's referring to practices in Canaan and Egypt, and that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are primarily ritual and cultural, not primarily ethical, so we have a list of things that—debatably, there are things in Leviticus 18 that some people would consider immoral, some might not consider ethically immoral.

Paul quotes back to Leviticus 18, despite the fact that there are over about 16, give or take, words in Koine Greek that refer to a variety of homosexual relationships, homosexual sex, because it was much more prevalent in the

Greco -Roman world. Paul uses none of the words that his hearers would have readily understood as homosexual relationships.

Instead, he hearkens back to Leviticus 18 to say, I'm condemning a very specific, unique practice that's taking place that points back to Leviticus 18.

Not a common practice, where there's a ton of other words that he could have used. There are—I don't understand how folks with your view get around the fact that Paul is trying to speak to the broadest audience possible, and he never uses the words that the audience on this one, on this issue, would never—doesn't use the words that his audience would have understood to be homosexual or gay sex or—

Actually, what's incredible to me is that Robertson, on the one hand, wants to claim that homosexuality is very uncommon.

Even today in regular society, it's uncommon. That's what Robertson said. It's surprising to me that if that's the case, that Paul would do anything other than refer back to what was commonly taught as a universal principle among God's people, and that's not temple prostitution.

It is the act that violates the created order and does what is unnatural in the sight of God and humanity.

To stand there and be so incredulous to this, it shows you the type of deception that is at work in the minds of folks like Robertson, who reject

God, they reject his purposes for their lives. One of the best moments in this discussion is actually not in the debate itself, but it's when

Durbin says this. It's not true. I worship God. I lead people to God. I study the word of God. I speak to people about—

Not the true God. You're a false teacher, Brandon. Wait, you just said— You need to grapple with that. You just said you studied— I absolutely commend

Durbin and White for having the boldness to speak out against a false teacher like Brandon Robertson.

I pray that all of us would have the boldness to do the same thing when our time comes and God places folks like Robertson in front of us.

Some of us have boldness but no love, so I pray for those of you that are bold but have no love, that you would first be filled up and out of the overflow of your love and intimate relationship with God, that you would be able to speak.

And let me just, again, remind you, my additional commentary to this video was purely given in the spirit of trying to elevate the level of discourse when it comes to conversations like this.

Remember, in many cases, it's not just you and your interlocutor having a discussion.

Not in today's kind of world, where everything is streamed and curated online. Many people are going to also witness your interactions.