JD Greear, Homosexuality, Michael Licona, Certainty and Assurance

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. Second day in a row. Did manage to sleep fairly well last night. That's always a dangerous night. Everybody's different. But as far as jet lag is concerned, it's the second night, not the first night at home, the second night at home that if you wake up in the middle of the night, getting back to sleep is going to be really tough.

That happened when I was in, down in South Africa. So I was a little worried last night, especially only an hour and a half or so after we hit the hay quite early. Some big thunderstorms decided to come through the valley.

Had lots and lots of lightning and thunder. I did wake up very briefly. Didn't even hear the rain. I guess there was a lot of it. And thankfully, went back to sleep. It was good. Of course, woke up this morning.

The dew point was 71 degrees, which for a phoenix is very, very humid. Very, very humid indeed. And I want to greet all of our young viewers. We have a lot of young viewers. A lot of you are homeschool kids, like my grandkids are.

And I don't know if you just convinced your parents that you'll listen, learn something. You got to be careful. Something I say might stick with you. You might actually learn something watching this program.

But I got a card, actually got some gifts, some beard oil from Peter Boland and his daughter. Now I'm trying to, the artwork, the byline down at the bottom is right down at the bottom of the page. I can't actually read it real well.

It looks like Leah Joy Boland, age 12. But see here's, anybody recognize what that's from? That's from the picture from Wittenberg, where I'm preaching from Luther's pulpit. So thank you very much for that.

And I'll put that right over there. We can see it later on. So we, as I travel around, I meet a lot of young people who watch The Dividing Line. And normally, not always, but very often homeschooled and they watch the program.

And so we appreciate your watching and hope that we are helping to prepare you for whatever it is the Lord has in mind for you. Let's start off with the big story of the day. Well, I'm not sure if we could call it a big story, because it's the same old, same old.

I remember very clearly when I was in Munster at the beginning of the year, going out for a run. I must have really been desperate to get exercise in because I was running in the snow and the ice in Munster.

It started snowing. And so there was snow and there was ice. I still ran, survived it, one good slip, and that would have been the end of that. But anyway, and as I was running, I was listening to J .D. Greer, the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaking on the subject of homosexuality.

Well, it wasn't specifically about that, but it was addressed. And so I responded when I got back, lengthy mega edition of The Bible, and I played his comments and interacted with them at that time and attempted to provide a response to his assertion that the Bible whispers about sexual sin, but shouts about other kinds of sin, as if there was a gradation.

And also his claim that homosexuality is no different than all the other sins that are listed in Romans chapter one. The problem with that, as I pointed out, is that that is a fundamental misreading in Romans chapter one, that homosexuality is not listed in the vice list.

It is an example used by the apostle to discuss the disorder that results from idolatry, and that this idolatry touches upon the deepest elements of human existence, specifically God having made us male and female, and hence the centrality of that reality to the continuation of the species itself and to the self-definition of each individual person.

Homosexuality has been described as a disordered desire because of the fact that not only is it against God's revealed will, so there are, let's take, very frequently used, gluttony. There is nothing sinful about eating.

In fact, eating is necessary. Gluttony is an abuse of an ordered desire. It is necessary to eat. When someone stops eating, they die. That's called bulimia or all the other terms that are used for the various eating disorders, and we can all think of famous people like Karen Carpenter who died of such disorders.

You have to eat, but you have to be disciplined in your eating. So, the desire to eat is an ordered desire. The desire to eat too much is not a disordered desire because you're still desiring something that is appropriate, but it is undisciplined.

And adultery is also not a disordered desire. It is natural for a man to desire a woman. That's the way God made us. That's how our bodies function. That's natural. That is the way we're made. But there are laws that God has provided to provide the boundaries in which that activity is to be channeled.

Such things as bestiality and homosexuality are disordered desires. They are tevil, the Hebrew term for confusion. They involve a confusion of categories that countermand and contradict God's creative will.

God made us in a certain way. He tells us how we're to function. And so, to desire not more or an excessive amount of what God has ordained, but to desire something that fundamentally violates the created order itself is a disordered desire.

And so, to attempt to say that homosexuality is absolutely no different than theft or anger or gluttony is to completely miss not only how it functions in Romans 1, because again, read Romans 1 verse 26 -27, are not in the vice list.

They are an example. For even their women gave up the natural use of the man, men burning with desire for one another. These are examples of the result of idolatry and being turned over to one's lusts and how what should be the natural functioning of mankind can become disordered as the creation pushes away the knowledge of God and pushes away the light that comes from God's own creation.

So, it's a disordered desire. And so, we responded to that and pointed this out. Now, J .D. Greer is perfectly, you know, doesn't have to listen to this program, doesn't have to be concerned about what we have to say, but I wasn't the only one that pointed these things out to him.

So, he posts a article, I believe, yesterday on jdgreer .com, Three Ways We Go Wrong When Discussing Homosexuality. And the first point is generally correct in the sense that he says we're wrong if we believe God doesn't care about our sexuality.

Well, that's true. But in the midst of this, he does say, if someone says, but I was born this way, I don't dispute that, but possessing a desire innately doesn't make it right. Well, I agree with the overarching point, and that is God gets to determine what is and what is not appropriate behavior, even if we have an innate desire.

But the vast majority of homosexuals in worldwide interviews do not say they were born that way. That's the narrative that is being used now. But you actually go into gay bars, and you actually go into places where homosexuals gather, and they can point you right to the time in their experience when they were abused, or this happened, or that happened, where they know that that is where things changed for them.

There are those who give that testimony that the earliest desires they had that they are aware of were for the same sex. But I think that's a fairly small percentage, to be pretty honest with you. I know that's the big narrative.

I know that's what's being pushed. But of course, what's also being pushed is that, well, we just need to recognize that people who want to have monogamous, lifelong, loving relationships. Every bit of information that I've ever seen on the sexual proclivities and activities of the homosexual community says that is not the case.

That the average homosexual male has, I don't even know what the number of times is, more sexual partners in their life than an average heterosexual male. And it's by many, many, many factors of tens.

So there's a narrative that is pushed out there. That narrative is rarely accurate. Anyway, that was a minor point. I would dispute it. But the second point that he has, we're wrong if we think same-sex behavior is a fundamentally different type of sin.

That is where J .D. Greer, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, is simply wrong. He's wrong on every level, and this is the narrative that is coming into the churches. It does not derive itself from meaningful exegesis.

There have been numerous articles that Robert Gagnon and others have written. You don't have to read in-depth scholarly articles to recognize that there is a major categorical difference. Now, you can, I mean, I understand why this works for some people.

Well, all sin separates you from God. Well, okay, that doesn't mean all sins are the same. Just because God's standard is sinless perfection does not mean that all sins, therefore, become identical to one another.

It's very plain in Scripture that there is a judgment based upon knowledge, more tolerable, for example, for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Chorazin and Bethsaida because of the amount of light and knowledge that they possessed.

At the same time, Jesus is teaching that if you lust after a woman, you've committed adultery with her already in your heart, does not mean, well, since I lusted after her, might as well go do it. It does not mean that the actual act is identical to the thought that was in the context of people allowing their thought lives to run rampant and run amok, thinking that as long as you didn't do the deed, you could think about it all you wanted to.

That's all Jesus was saying. He wasn't saying, well, since you've thought about it, you might as well go ahead and do it. There are consequences to doing that. So, there's a lot of confusion, categorical confusion in the way that people think and since many Baptists, Southern Baptists as well, have heard the statement, well, all sin separates you from God, therefore, they're liable to then make the mistake of meaning that means all sin is identical to all other sin, and that clearly is not the case.

There are, obviously, murder. You can be angry with someone in your heart, but it is far worse to murder them. Both are sin. You cannot use the fact that you didn't do the one to excuse the thought sin, but it is, of course, absurd to think that once you get angry with someone, you might as well just go ahead and kill them because in God's sight, it's all the same.

That's obviously ridiculous. And so, the argumentation that is presented by J .D. Greer just simply misses fundamental categories. So, for example, it says, in Romans 1, Paul lists same-sex behavior as one corruption among many.

No, he does not. That's just wrong. I don't know what Bible he's reading. I don't know why he's missing the point. He didn't in the sermon, though he made wrong application. It's not just one sin amongst many.

It's not in the vice list. He's missed the function that it has. We may not think of deceit, boasting greed, or a rebellious attitude toward parents as equally depraved as same-sex behavior, but if you look at Paul's list, they are.

No, they are not. They're not disordered in the way that homosexuality is disordered. That's not how Paul presents it. This is just a complete misrepresentation. I would really think it would be wise if those around Pastor Greer maybe could try to bring some correction here, try to say, you've missed this given your position.

This is not something you should be doing. You should rethink this. You need to retract this. You need to maybe direct people to Dr. Gagnon's work and some other people who have written on this subject to give a balanced, more biblical perspective, but that's what's going on here.

In another one of his letters, Paul even talks about the pride that comes from religion and an obsession to be better than others as an example of this kind of idolatry where we prioritize our desires over the Creator's designs, Galatians 4 through 9.

Is that equally depraved in our book? It should be. Again, this is major categorical errors on Pastor Greer's part. There is everything to be warned about. There is everything sinful about the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees, about their desire for power, the idolatry that was theirs in their own religious worship that doesn't change the fact that in Romans chapter 1, homosexuality is used to be an illustration of the twisting of the creator-creation relationship so that it reaches even to the depths of the human experience and perverts self-identity.

It perverts the natural function of male and female, which continues the species. And so, this is an illustration of how deep this goes. Now, how deep a sin goes is one thing, but if it twists you to the point where you desire that which will destroy you, that's something else.

Now, both bring God's judgment, and there is tremendous judgment pronounced upon the scribes and the Pharisees because of the light they have and the self-centeredness that is theirs rather than the God-centeredness that should be theirs.

But that doesn't change the reality of the character of homosexuality. There is clearly an attempt here, and I don't know why J .D. Greer is doing this, but these are the first few steps toward what you eventually see.

I mean, I hope we don't see J .D. Greer going there, but we're already seeing Southern Baptists going there. In fact, I just realized I saved the video somewhere of the Southern Baptist pastor less than two weeks ago preaching a sermon and leading his church to become an inclusive, accepting church.

And it was nothing but the standard apologetic that we've gone over when Matthew Vines presented it, when Dr. Gushy presented it. We've gone over this for hours, and in fact, Graham Codrington faulted me for how many hours we've spent addressing this subject.

Well, when you keep coming up with bad arguments, it takes time to unpack bad arguments, and you can't ignore the reality that this is one of the primary things the Left is using to try to shut down our freedom in Western cultures.

There's no question about it. I mean, it already is in certain cultures. They hate crime, to say the things that I'm saying right now, and it will be everywhere before long. So, it just seems like Pastor Greer is moving down a path that I'm not sure there's many places to stop on this particular downward trend, but we can certainly hope for the best.

In fact, we're trying to pin down the most egregious sins in Scripture. There are quite a few other candidates that merit consideration. It's not a matter of looking for egregious. It's looking for the nature of the sin as specifically demonstrating disorder.

This will be important because I also want to touch on the conversation that erupted while I was gone about the issue of the temptation of Jesus. And Jonathan Merritt and Nate Collins and the people, I'm not sure why these men have the ears of conservatives.

They shouldn't. They do not have the credentials in their beliefs to have the ears of conservative people. But they get noticed and they're saying these things, and we'll take a look at how important this disordered aspect is in looking at Jesus as the Incarnate One and the issue of Hebrews chapter 4 and being tempted in all ways yet without sin.

So, then he goes on to talk about materialism and pride, but again, down below he says, my point is not to say same-sex behavior is not sinful. My point is that we often present it differently than the Bible does as a sort of uber-sin in a categorically different realm.

It's not an uber-sin, but it is in a categorically different realm. It is in the same realm that it was originally introduced in in Leviticus 18 as one of those activities that the pagan peoples before Israel committed in the land, and the land spewed them out.

So, there's all the stuff. You want to go back, look at all the things they did, the incest and the bestiality and everything else. You want to go back there. It is in that category. That's where it's first introduced to us in scripture.

Well, okay, Genesis 18 and 19. But as far as in the law, that's what it is identified as. So, there seems to be either out of ignorance, a lack of care, or purposefully an attempt to whitewash the biblical distinction that is introduced in Paul's use in Romans 1 and in the Mosaic law as to the disordered nature, the denial of the male-female created order from God.

So, when we realize that, he says, we'll cease being a Pharisaic teacher of the law and we'll become a gospel witness. So, I guess if you recognize that Paul treats us differently than you're a Pharisaic teacher of the law, well, no, no.

Number three was, we're wrong if we assume it's hard for LG people to get to heaven. LGBT people to get to heaven. Then we have this argument. Let me say something very clearly. Homosexuality does not send you to hell.

I know that because being heterosexual doesn't send you to heaven. That's cute. It's preachy. But I dare anyone who has any training whatsoever in logical argumentation to chart that one out and make any sense out of it at all, because it makes no sense.

It is egregiously silly as far as a statement or argument goes. It is stunning that a president of Southern Baptist Convention make this kind of statement. It really is. I'm sorry. Seems like a nice guy, but talk about falling off the cliff.

What is that supposed to mean? Homosexuality does not send you to hell because being heterosexual doesn't send you to heaven. Murdering doesn't send you to hell because keeping people alive doesn't send you to heaven.

Theft doesn't send you to hell because having a savings account of your own doesn't send you to heaven. It's just ridiculous. I mean, it's laughable. If this wasn't such a serious issue, it would be just laughable that anyone could take this kind of assertion seriously.

Now, I suppose the only defense would be to say, well, what he's doing, yeah, it is a stupid statement, but it's meant to be taken as a stupid statement because it's meant to be mocking the idea that the underlying assumption that heterosexuality is what makes you right with God.

Who is saying that? What is being said is that heterosexuality is God's ordained and proper sexual behavior for men and women within the covenant of marriage, that marriage is only heterosexual, that there is never anything in scripture said positively about anything other than heterosexual unions.

Never. It's not there. And here's where the view of scripture ends up flying down the tubes because all you can say in light of that is that, well, those people back then didn't know what we know now.

So who wrote scripture again? So when Jesus walked this earth, he didn't know about people who are naturally, properly, God-made homosexuals? He wasn't God? He wasn't the creator? You see, that's the only direction you can go.

It's the only direction you can end up going, is you have to end up denying the authority and inspiration of scripture, the fact it's a supernatural revelation. It's the only place you can go. And that's why most people that follow this end up going there.

That's where they end up going. So the categorical errors in the J .D. Greer argument are fundamentally debilitating of its utilization in the future. Somebody near him needs to say, J .D., brother, that's a really, really bad argument.

You're really destroying your credibility when you make that type of argument. No one is arguing that heterosexuality is the way to go to heaven. What sends anyone to hell is the fact that they fell in Adam.

That's not a real big belief among Southern Baptists anymore either. Federal headship? Original sin? Not so much. Not so much. But they go to hell because they're sinners under the wrath of God. Yes, they've committed sin, but they commit sin because they're sinners.

They come in this world with that nature, and that nature can give expression to itself in many different ways. Some bring greater condemnation than others as far as the level of punishment or the severity of punishment.

But punishment is for everyone, anyone who dies outside of Jesus Christ. Everybody. That's just how it works. That's how it works. So this argument, it says, what sends you to hell is refusing to allow Jesus to be the Lord and center of your life regardless of how that manifests, whether it's in your refusal to let Jesus be Lord over your sexual life or in your refusal to obey him with your money or your right to control your career.

It's not where you express your rebellion that matters, but that it exists. Okay? There is no question that a sinner is in rebellion against the Lordship of Christ. And then he quotes from Rosaria Butterfield.

I really wonder what Rosaria thinks about his argument. And he makes reference to the reality that this sin and all sin does come down to whether you're going to allow God to be God, whether you're going to allow God to determine what you are to believe and how you live or anything else.

All of that is true, but none of that has anything to do with trying to normalize in the sense of these are all just the same types of sins, the concept of homosexuality. It is true that homosexuality arises out of an idolatrous attitude toward God.

God says, I made men, I made women, and I determined their relationship. And you are fundamentally saying, not for me, not for me, my desires are more important than what you've defined to be right and wrong.

That is an idolatrous statement. No question about it. But it doesn't change the fact that that particular set of decisions and activity and behavior is placed by scripture itself into a category that caused the nations before Israel to be spewed out of the land, spewed out of the land.

So anyway, I don't know who can get hold of Pastor Greer and try to help him with this. I'm going to assume that he would very much like to know what the truth is and present the truth. We're going to assume that.

So somebody, please, direct him to some meaningful materials on these subjects because what he's putting forward, and you would think with all of the leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention that he meets with on a regular basis, that there'd be plenty of people to correct him on Romans 1 and the place of homosexuality there and things like that.

But yeah, there you go. So as I was saying, I think today, well, no, yesterday, 17 hours, Jonathan Merritt, who again, on the subject of homosexuality, is quite compromised himself, so he likes to make a lot of comments about this type of stuff.

Jonathan Merritt tweeted, the Bible has a word for the way many conservative evangelicals treat marriage and family as the pinnacle of human existence and spiritual fidelity, idolatry. It is an anthropological and theological framework more consistent with the bachelor than the Bible.

Now, it just happened in my feed that the first response to him was from Brian Zond. Now, if that name doesn't ring a bell with you, we've played, for example, Michael Brown's debate with Brian Zond on substitutionary atonement that took place a couple years ago.

We have gone over some Twitter exchanges I've had with Brian Zond. He is an emergent church-style, red-letter, Christian-style individual with really bad theology, just really bad theology. So here's what Brian Zond said in response.

He said, Jesus directly challenged the primacy of family. Idolatry of family is Mormonism. Okay, well, Mormonism is actually idolatry of man and the exaltation of man to the status of godhood. And the family in Mormonism, it's not being practiced right now, but it's fundamentally polygamous.

So you have one man with many wives producing as many spirit children as possible. I doubt Brian Zond really knows much about Mormonism, but that was not even close. But what is this? I mean, the family is under such attack today, external to the church, but internal to the church as well.

The attitude of many people being expressed. Now, can family become an idol? Well, of course it can. Can marriage become an idol? Of course it can. Anything can become an idol. But the goodness of the family, the goodness of marriage and fidelity, the goodness of children, I blew everybody away in South Africa, when during the Q &A, someone asked me, what do you think about Christians who marry and choose not to have children?

My response was, I think it's foolish. Should have heard the gasps. But the idea, I just think a lot of people have the idea today that all that stuff about the quiver and the blessing of children, and that all that's just, that was back then.

That was back then. That's not now. And I know I absorbed in my youth, the idea you have one boy, one girl, you're done. You did your duty. And I've said, I wish that hadn't been the conclusion I came to.

But the pinnacle of human existence and spiritual fidelity, I'm not sure what he means by that, but what I've learned is Jonathan Merritt uses language to communicate things, and then he can back off of it very easily one way or another.

It's the standard methodology. And here you have someone who is fundamentally compromised in many ways in this area, saying that if the way many conservative evangelicals treat marriage and family as the pinnacle of human existence and spiritual fidelity, well, you know, a faithful man, a faithful husband loving his wife is used in scripture as the example of Jesus in the church.

And that's about as pinnacly as you're going to, that's about as pinnacle as you're going to get. It's pretty up there. Yeah, I think so. I think so. Let me just put it this way. What's more of a danger that we are going to follow the world's attitudes about marriage and family, or that we're going to overemphasize God's commandment as to how we're to live in that relationship?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? Just look at the liberal churches. Look at where they've gone. Look at what they're doing with egalitarianism, and look at what they're doing with the destruction of the families in their midst.

Which is more likely? Which is more likely? It's pretty obvious. So you've got Jonathan Merritt doing his thing. If you're not familiar with the name, let me just warn you ahead of time. If you want to see the people trying to move us away from biblical fidelity and away from conservative, meaningful theology, look to people like Brian Zahn and Jonathan Merritt.

They're all of a feather. Then you've got Nate Collins, of course, the head of Revoice, and that takes us back to the issue that I mentioned before. There was all this stuff. I guess he posted a, and I don't have that one tweet in front of me.

I think I have it in Dropbox in place, but I didn't grab it for this. But he posted The Temptations of Jesus, the Ed Shaw article from Gospel Coalition Australia. Now, I wasn't able to follow everything last week when Twitter erupted.

My daughter reposted the article, and I guess in the article, Ed Shaw, and now if you read Tom Buck's articles on our website a couple months ago about living out, many of the articles that were cited there were written by Ed Shaw.

They're the worst examples of clearly and obviously imbalanced suggestions and insights and so on and so forth in regards to same-sex attraction and living with that and all the rest of that stuff. And so when Summer retweeted this stuff, she used the term, the term that had been used by Ed Shaw was grapple.

She used the term struggle. If I recall, Nate Collins went after her about that, and you're misrepresenting him, and people were saying she'd get sued and everything else. And the funny thing is when the TGC people down in Australia published a, not a correction or withdrawal, but a clarifying statement, they used the term struggle too, which means Summer wasn't misrepresenting anything.

But the whole idea that came out of this was a discussion of this issue of Jesus struggling with his sexuality, grappling with his sexuality. Now, there's nothing new about this. This has been going on for decades in the mainline liberal dying denominations.

This is what liberalism does. And this is what leftism does. I'm tired of using the term liberal. So there's nothing new, but to be hearing it within the context of what is supposed to be a Bible-believing, sola scriptura embracing confessional Christianity is what we're having to deal with now.

And I think the reason that it garnered a lot of attention is because we generally haven't thought much about the impeccability of Christ, about the nature of Christ as that arises from a meaningful understanding of the hypostatic union.

The fact that Jesus is the God-man, that he has a full human nature, that it is not a Polynarianism where the rational element of humanity is removed. So you don't have a true human person. It's not Eutychianism where you have a mixture, where you have a demigod, no true human nature, no true divine nature, but a 50 -50 type mixture idea.

It's not Nestorianism. It is a meaningfully biblical protected understanding of Christology and who Christ was. Those are not generally terms and issues that a lot of Christians are overly familiar with or spend a lot of time thinking about.

When it comes to the temptations of Jesus, I remember very clearly in Bible college, in Dr. D .C. Martin's class, we had just had a discussion of the impeccability of Christ. Could Christ sin? And I'd walked over to the little teeny tiny bookstore at that time in comparison to GCU's bookstore now.

Anyway, I'd walked over there and while I was perusing the books, I had a thought that I have stuck with for almost 40 years now. And I've appreciated it and feel like it's appropriate. And if someone can provide a counter-argument that's better than all those that I've heard before, that'd be great.

But when it comes to the nature of Christ and the issue of his impeccability, which is more properly basic to the person of Christ? And which is more properly basic to his divine and human natures? Is it more foundational to the divine nature to not be able to sin than it is to the human nature to be able to sin?

Now, think about that for just a second. It's rather obvious when you think about it. It is far more definitional to the nature of God to not be able to sin than it is to the nature of man to be able to sin.

Because we believe that in the glorified state, we will not sin or be able to sin. We will be perfectly sanctified. Does that mean we will no longer be human? No, we will be perfected as creatures in our union with God.

So, it is not properly definitional of humanity to be able to sin in comparison to what we will be in our final sanctified state. But it is without question absolutely definitional of the nature of God to not be able to sin.

So, when it comes down to that particular issue, I think that's a sort of necessary place to stand. In light of that then, Jesus, when it is said in Hebrews 4, 15, we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are yet without sin, that is not to be understood as saying that Jesus endured every kind of temptation that any person could ever endure on earth.

No human being ever has. And his being able to be our high priest means he has to be able to sympathize with our weaknesses, not that he had to experience every single temptation that any of us have ever experienced.

He was tempted in all the categories as Adam would have been, but there are all sorts of categories that we are tempted in that he was not tempted in for one simple reason. So much of our temptation arises from our past experience of sin.

When we have sinned and gotten away with it and we enjoyed it, that is a temptation that Jesus would never have experienced. Because he did not sin. So, there are categories of temptation that exist in the fallen nature that would not exist in the unfallen nature of the hypostatic union that represents the one person of Jesus Christ.

So, a lot of people take this to mean, rather than Jesus experienced all the categories, that Jesus experienced every kind of sin. When it comes to disordered temptation, Jesus didn't experience it, because that only arises from a fallen nature.

That's being given over. He was not given over. So, when people try to insinuate that Jesus would have struggled with homosexuality or with homosexual temptation, they are completely missing. What's going on here is, most of the time when the Church has defined creedally certain things about God and Christ, the mysteries of the faith, what we do is we define the borders and say, this far and no farther.

Outside of this, it's wrong because we have these scriptural things. But sometimes what's inside those borders, we don't have a lot of revelation about, because God's unique. The Incarnation's unique.

So, we know it can't be these things because we do have the statement that Jesus was without sin. So, it can't be anything outside that particular part of the border. But when it comes to the positive definition, that can be a whole lot harder because of the uniqueness of what it is that we are talking about.

And so, it's important to recognize that so much of this speculation has an origin and a source to it. And the origin, the source, is not coming from exegesis. It is coming from a desire to bring a lifestyle and an acceptance of a supposed orientation into the Church in violation of 1 Corinthians 6 .11, such were some of you.

These people want the, they want to change the tense of the verb from were to are. Such are some of you. That's the assertion here. That's the fundamental goal. And the direction they're going to be able to, how far they're willing to go, we'll see over the next few years.

We'll see over the next few years. No question about it. Now, time's going by here. I'm, yeah, I'm looking at this. I'm trying to figure out. Nate Van Campen. Oh, I don't see a lot of stuff. Oh, okay.

So, Nate Van Campen. I'm not, I doubt Nate's listening, but, oh no, I followed you after hearing you on the Unbelievable JB show, thinking you may be a reasonable voice with different theological views than me.

Then you resort to personal attacks of two brothers with different viewpoints than you. I hoped you could help me avoid echo chamber. And it's referring to the Jonathan Merritt, Brian Zahn stuff. Why do you think that's personal attacks, Nate?

I just pointed out these men have fundamental theological problems. Nate, if what you're looking for is someone who doesn't believe in truth, then you followed the wrong person. You need to unfollow immediately lest you be offended.

And then we've got a, so which is the greater sin, willful suppression of truth or homosexuality? We'll leave that up to God. They're both sins. How's that? Don't know what in the world that one's about.

Okay. Last topic here. I was sent a notification from Michael Lycona's Facebook page, I think. Yeah. It says, this year at the National Christian Apologetics Conference in Charlotte, I'll be having a public dialogue with Christian philosopher, Dr. Richard Howe on the question, what does it mean to say the Bible is inerrant?