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

The Bible, Authority, and the Challenge to Progressive Christianity

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... 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. So I couldn't figure out whether or not to make this a debate teacher reacts 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? And 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.

Amen?

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. 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 from.

Yeah, that's a good place to start. I'm glad you brought up things 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?

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...

But you don't know. You're admitting that, 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 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 standard, 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 written 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 in 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 a new covenant, and 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 rejected.

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 being unethical at points, when you've already admitted it 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 showing—.

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? Okay?

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

Here we go.

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.

You're not—.

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.

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 probably—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. Now—.

But what standard do they believe in, though?

That's not by the Bible.

Well, hold on, Brandon.

That's not by the Bible.

Well, actually, it was the Christian worldview and Christian truth and God's wisdom that.

Has—.

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 abolished 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 a great example of that—the revelation of God doesn't offer 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, Brandon. 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 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, so—.

The Bible is not univocal. The Bible is not univocal. The Bible has many contradictory points of view.

What does the Scripture say about kidnapping and enslaving somebody, Brandon?

I can tell you that all the way up through the New Testament, there is an endorsement of slavery.

Brandon, you don't know. Scripture teaches very explicitly.

No, I know.

Okay, well, Brandon, 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?

Which Scripture are you talking about?

Well, Scripture teaches that if you kidnap and enslave somebody—.

Scripture doesn't teach anything.

It's worthy of capital punishment. It's one of the things the Christian abolitionist 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 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—. 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.

You understand what I'm saying? That's all I'm trying to say at this point.

...ethics than Scripture gives, and so you reject it. Well, you said that already.

I accept many parts of the Bible.

Yeah, some. 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.

What's 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.

But you don't know there's an objective standard of morality, Brandon, so that's a meaningless argument against me. You've already given it up.

If I—.

Ay-yi-yi-yi-yi.

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.

Jesus, Scripture, and the Meaning of the Old Testament

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.

Ah!

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. 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, 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, 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.

Okay, there we see a different definition of terms, guys. 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, 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 anointing 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. Or at least, 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, Look at verse 24. This is the day of the judgment that is coming. 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?