The Bible AFFIRMS LGBT? Sean McDowell vs. Matthew Vines | Pastor Reacts

It is a brand new week, and that means it's time for a brand new video here at Wise Disciple.

I'm Nate Sala, and I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be. Did you know that Jesus calls all of his disciples to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves in Matthew chapter 10, 16?

What does that mean in today's kind of culture? Thanks for asking. That's a great question. That's what this channel is all about, ladies and gentlemen.

I've got a lot of series in the can on the YouTube channel trying to help you along these lines.

One of them is Debate Teacher Reacts, where I look at theology and apologetics debates and react to them as a former debate teacher, and that's what

I think I'm doing tonight. I just got back from Dallas. Actually, there were a series of events that I was a part of that I put on as part of Summit Ministries, which

I also work for, and I'm actually, directly after this tomorrow, heading to Atlanta for an event at Mount Bethel Church, so if any of you happen to be within a stone's throw of Mount Bethel, I'll be teaching

Thursday morning at the church there for state evangelism, so I look forward to seeing you all down there. Well, I think the video tonight is a—is it a—I think it's a

Pastor Reacts. Maybe it'll be both, a debate teacher and a pastor, and so I'll be bringing both backgrounds into this discussion.

Today's video is a discussion between Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines. They're going to wrestle with what exactly the

Bible teaches about homosexuality. Now, this is absolutely live, so if I stutter, if I make mistakes, if I go slow, we're going to capture it all, so this is actually live.

I thank you all for joining me. Now, McDowell is going to argue for the traditional

Christian position on sex in marriage, and Vines is going to argue that the

Bible is inclusive when it comes to same -sex relationships, so let's go ahead and tee up, and let's see what happens.

Should be interesting. Here we go. So, your first argument, which

I talked about, is citing Matthew 7, that because of experience, we need to go back and reconsider

Scripture. Where does Jesus teach that we are to evaluate biblical teaching based on experience?

Bam! Okay? Right out of the gate. Sean McDowell. Bam! Home run. That is—ladies and gentlemen, that is—what a question, right?

And isn't that the six million dollar question, you know? Where in the Bible do you get this idea that experience is your

Bible teacher? Shouldn't the Bible be your Bible teacher? Love it. That's a question that we all need to ask progressive

Christians and those who are taken with the teachings of Matthew Vines. Let's see what he says. Oh, by the way,

Matthew 7—so, McDowell referenced this right at the outset of the comments here.

It's because Vines brings this up in his opening statement, so again, as I've always encouraged with stuff like this, you've got to watch the whole debate.

If you can, I'm going to give a link to that in the notes after this live stream. Vines talks about how

Jesus said that you will know false prophets by their fruit, but then he tried to suggest that this doesn't apply to same -sex couples because many of same -sex couples display the fruits of the

Spirit in Galatians 5. So, if they're displaying the fruits of the

Spirit in Galatians 5, well, then they're not false prophets as Jesus explained in Matthew 7. So, actually, now that we're spending all this time on Matthew 7, let's just go ahead and take a real quick look at Matthew chapter 7.

Let's see. So, for those of you, sometimes you ask me, Nate, what program are you running? I'm running Logos, which

I actually really, really enjoy. Yeah, Matthew chapter 7, let's start at verse 15 here.

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

What a picture. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?

So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.

Okay, I can stop there. So just for reference, this is what McDowell is talking about with vines.

Well, Jesus is teaching in Matthew 7, and specifically, he's talking about false prophets or false teachers.

I just think that that principle has a natural applicability beyond that, because I've never seen a

Christian teaching that destroyed people's lives that was a good Christian teaching. Okay, so slow down. Right.

This is not what Jesus taught. Jesus teaches a principle. You're saying, Jesus teaches a different principle.

Jesus teaches good fruit is obedience, and bad fruit is lack of obedience.

That's what he said. If you're going beyond it, you're reading in a principle into Jesus that's not there in the text.

Am I right? No, I just think we have to— So McDowell is getting at the context within which this teaching of Jesus sits.

Look at the verse again one more time. This is really important. Okay, we won't spend too much time on this. But again, look at this.

Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits, right?

Well, wait a second. Jesus knew his Bible, okay? He knew the Old Testament, was extremely familiar with it, and like a good rabbi, basically everything

Jesus said either was a quotation from the Old Testament or a reference to it.

And so as you read this passage—well, let me back up. As I read this passage, I think of Jeremiah 23.

I think Jeremiah 23 is one of the backdrops for Jesus' words about false prophets.

Look at Jeremiah 23 with me real quick. Jeremiah—let me see.

Jeremiah talks about—I was just talking about this, too.

That's why it's fresh. Yeah, so Jeremiah 23, look at this, verse 26. Let me back up.

Jeremiah 23. Am I a god at hand, declares the Lord, and not a god far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places that I cannot see him, declares the

Lord? Look at verse 26. How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart, who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal?

Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully.

Now, here's what I was thinking. What has straw in common with wheat, declares the Lord? That sounds like, what does grapes have in common with thorn bushes, right?

So that takes us back to Matthew 7. Matthew 7, Jesus said, very specifically, are grapes gathered from thorn bushes or figs from thistles, right?

So I think Jeremiah 23 is in the background of what Jesus is saying in Matthew 7.

But notice, how do we identify false prophets? We identify them by their what?

It's their false teaching, right? But how do I know that? Well, because the

Lord is concerned, so again, in Jeremiah 23, that false prophets are not speaking my word faithfully, right?

But by the way, we don't need Jeremiah 23 to understand this. Jesus goes on to say that one day, this is the scariest verse ever, you know?

One day, people will not know, like, they will proclaim his name, but he will not know them.

Look at this. This is literally attached. The next few verses, verse 21. Not everyone who says to me,

Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day, many will say to me,

Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? So there it is again, prophecy. And cast out demons in your name and do many mighty works in your name, and then

I will declare to them, I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

So we see people prophesying in Jesus' name, but they are actually workers of lawlessness.

So then what is the fruit of a prophet, right? Primarily, it's the consequences of what they teach, right?

If they prophesy or teach, and the consequence of that is that the church divides or many fall away, you know, they become lawless.

Because of the teaching, they're a false prophet. By the way, that's exactly what happened in Acts.

But anyway, let's get back to the video. I'm going on and on. I have a different interpretation of it.

Okay, so why is my interpretation wrong, then? Why is the interpretation saying you can evaluate teachings of Jesus based on somebody's experience?

Why does the text say that I'm wrong in my interpretation? Because we both said we've got to look at the words of Jesus, and I don't see him saying that.

Matthew 7, Matthew 3, John 10, where does the text say that?

So it describes to me again, refresh me on your argument here, about, so you're saying fruit, in your understanding of the text, is only about obedience and has nothing to do with what

Galatians 5 calls the fruit of the Spirit? We can go to Galatians 5, but it's not just me.

I have a ton of commentaries I pulled off. I couldn't find one that disagreed with me, not that I read all of them.

So it's not my interpretation. The standard interpretation, when you look in the context, is

Jesus saying, you can judge a prophet by its fruit. Good fruit is when the prophet's message causes somebody to turn to repent.

Bad fruit is lawlessness. The verses after that say that. In fact, John the Baptist gives the exact same phrase in Matthew 3, verses 7 through 10, when he's saying, he's speaking about repentance, and then he says, a good fruit leads to repentance.

That's the clear context. So why am I wrong? Yeah, McDowell is right here.

John the Baptist famously excoriates the Pharisees and tells them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

You know, you snakes. It's very lively, John the Baptist. So it's primarily about a prophet's teaching.

Does Galatians 5 and the fruits of the Spirit have something to do with judging a false prophet's fruit?

Maybe, but the bigger, more primary way that we identify fruit, the way that Jesus is speaking about it in Matthew 7, is determining whether a false prophet's teaching aligns with God's word and causes folks to adhere to God's commands.

Because if not, they're a wolf in sheep's clothing. And you can track this line of thought all throughout the

New Testament. It's brought up in Acts. Paul talks about this later in the epistles. So does the Apostle Peter. On my exegesis of Matthew chapter 7, that's what

I want to know, sticking strictly to the exegesis. Well, I just suppose it's a question of, does this principle have a broader applicability?

And to me, that's a—I believe that it does. If you don't, that's fine.

And I think there are other, you know, this is—to me, what I tried to do in the opening chapters of my book was offer what

I saw as three different warrants. So hold on. So McDowell says, hey, Jesus is talking about fruit, right?

He's talking about—fruit is about a false prophet's teaching primarily. Then Vine says, well, it's about broader applicability.

Okay. What does that mean? Does broader applicability mean that we ignore the fact that fruit entails obeying

God's commands? What happens when one of those commands is that sex is only for marriage and marriage is only for one man and one woman for life?

For a reconsideration of this topic. So I do think that the harmful, destructive impact of the church's rejection of same -sex relationships is something that should matter to us.

Of course. I agree 100%. It's something that should matter to us in asking whether we've read the text correctly. But it's not my only warrant for a reconsideration.

And so if you disagree with my interpretation of Matthew 7, I mean, that's okay. That's fair. It's fair for you to disagree about that.

But I also talk about, you know, this is why I kind of put forward, I think there are multiple warrants.

And another one— Okay. So slow down. Let me stick to this before we go on. Because it's not just about interpretation.

You have to point me back to the text and say why your interpretation better explains what

Jesus is saying in Matthew 7. I don't disagree in principle. If we look at the lives of LGBT people, and it can be proven that it's actually the biblical teaching itself that causes that suffering, which is something

I wouldn't go after the Well, I would say the interpretation. Right. Okay. Now, I would agree in the interpretation. Then we should look at it.

That's fine. But that's not a teaching that Scripture says. Jesus never said that anywhere in the

Gospels. What he said is good for his repentance, bad for his disobedience.

So it's not about somebody's experience. It's about the objective teaching, whether we obey it or not.

So it's not an emotional or experience. It's a moral principle. So you're welcome to bring in that principle.

But don't use Matthew 7 if Matthew 7 isn't supporting the thing that you're claiming that it does.

That's my only pushback. If we're going to care about the words of Jesus, we've got to go right back to the context and see what he said.

So it seems to me you have two options. Either stop using the first example in the book about Matthew and say, this is a principle that Jesus didn't say, but I think it's a good idea.

Or show me why my ex of Jesus is wrong. Well, I guess I don't understand why you don't consider the fruit of the

Spirit to be good fruit. Well, let's go to Galatians 5. Sure. So here's what's really interesting about Galatians 5.

So maybe McDowell is going to bring this up, but one of the things Paul does directly before he talks about the fruit of the

Spirit in Galatians 5 is he talks about the desires of the flesh, right? And it's very

Pauline in style to sort of contrast two different kinds of things. Actually, let's go there.

We're talking about it. Might as well just go there. And now we are doing exactly what

YouTube and the founders of YouTube want. We are reading the Bible on YouTube.

Amen? All right. Galatians 5, and it's probably verse 16.

Actually, let me skip down, yeah, 19. Now, the works of the flesh are evident. Sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, yet a list of all these things.

But notice the first one right there, sexual immorality. I warned you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God, okay?

So sexual immorality is key. What is sexual immorality? Great question. Paul has clearly defined that in other places in the

New Testament. 1 Corinthians 6, right? Romans chapter 1. It includes same -sex sexual activity.

Where is this? Genesis, Exodus, Galatians. Galatians 5, verse 16, okay?

So by the way, we've moved out of Matthew. We've moved out of the Gospels.

We're now into Paul. So not that it's not relevant, but in terms of exegesis, you start with the book itself, then you move to others like it, and then outside.

So we've gone far on the rung of exegesis, so to speak. If you read 5 .16, it says, but I say walk by the

Spirit, you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 5 .16. So he's contrasting being filled with the Spirit with the desires of the flesh.

Skip down to verse 19, it says, now the works of the flesh are evident. Sexual immorality, which is porneia, which would have been understood as a variety of sexual sins, including divorce, it would have been fornication, and it would have included homosexual behavior, impurity, sensuality, et cetera.

That's the verse right before. Through 21, envy, drunkenness, orgies. This is verse 22, contrasting this, but the fruit of the

Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, et cetera. And then 24 comes back to it. It says, and those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

So what is Paul saying? He's saying you have a choice to live in the Spirit, or you have a choice to live in the flesh.

If you are living in the flesh, which involves sexual immorality, then you are not filled with the

Spirit. So sure, somebody who's not a Christian or what else can have, or a same -sex relationship can have some of that kindness.

I would never say that. I'm not saying that somebody in a same -sex relationship doesn't have kindness or goodness within them.

Please don't hear me say that for a second. But Paul is saying if you're involved in sexual immorality, then by definition, you are not living filled by the

Spirit. So even when we go outside of Matthew and we go to Galatians, it says the same thing, that fruit of the

Spirit is not somebody's experience. It's tied to obedience.

Just if we stick to the text. Certainly love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self -control are all things that we do experience, right?

You wouldn't know joy if you didn't experience joy. So I don't think we can completely extract this from people's personal experiences, but So right now, let me put on my debate teacher hat for a second.

McDowell is killing it, you know? The more—now, from what I understand, this is not a debate.

This is supposed to be more of a discussion. But the more that I hear this exchange—so

I'm glad this is a Pastor Reacts, right? But in terms of asking great leading questions and controlling the discussion, and even framing,

McDowell is just doing a great job. He wouldn't let Vines move on. He's like, slow down, slow down, right? He doesn't want to gloss over the exegesis, you know?

This is how you do it. This is really great. Your point about sexual immorality is true, but it also kind of just gets back to our fundamental disagreement, because I don't think that all same -sex relationships constitute sexual immorality.

You're right. That's the question. So that's why I would be interested in understanding more about—like, do you—would you agree with me that the

Bible does not talk about same -sex marriage, specifically? Okay. So can

I come back to that? Okay. Before we leave the text, I'm not dismissing the question. That is a textual question.

I think I have the first 20, and then you have the last 20, right? Isn't that how it works, technically? You can do it that way. Is that how it's supposed to be? Wait, who has what 20?

Well, we didn't divide it that way. Oh, I thought we did. I'm sorry. At that time, no. All right, never mind. Okay, on this text, let me just push back, then we'll come to your question.

Okay. I was like, you don't want to answer my question, Sean. No, I—not too quickly, okay?

Okay. Yes, people experience love, joy, peace, and patience. I grant that.

I would grant that people who are non -Christians can experience some of those things. Just because somebody has some of those characteristics doesn't mean that person is filled with the

Spirit. Yes. So if we flip back and look at this, what Paul distinctly says, if you're engaged in sexual immorality, then that means you are not filled with the

Spirit. Yes. So that seems to undermine this idea of judging a tree by its fruit with somebody's experience.

If they're in disobedience, that's a bad root, which results in bad fruit.

I'm not going to rap, which means the tree itself— Is that a song? Sorry. Root and root. Oh, okay. I lost.

Sorry. Do you see the point? Wow. Yes. I just think you're kind of presupposing something that is a matter of disagreement, which is,

I don't think that being in a same -sex relationship in and of itself represents disobedience. You do, and so that's why you interpret it that way, but I don't.

And so I think you're asking me to kind of follow a logic at a point where I can no longer follow it.

And so that's why I think we actually—eventually we have to come back to talk more just specifically about same -sex relationships and the biblical text.

Okay. So we can go— So Vines is wrong about his view of same -sex relationships and what the

Bible teaches, but in terms of being a debate opponent on stage, he's managing himself and the conversation well.

If his interpretation of scripture was true—it's not—this is how you would frame the disagreement.

This is how you would manage the pushback from McDowell, what Vines is doing right now. I'm pointing this out to show that both opponents have skills.

I don't know if they're evenly matched, but both—they're both—they're bringing their chops.

And we can talk about that. We can bring it in. But the question you would at least have to concede, that the

Bible doesn't teach. You evaluate something by its experience in somebody's life. It's repentance or non -repentance, because it seems like we've taken a road, and what we disagree over is whether or not sexual immorality includes monogamous same -sex relationships.

We have to establish that that's not what's in view. But to get there, you've kind of agreed with me that Matthew actually is teaching that disobedience is bad fruit.

Right? You just don't think— Disobedience certainly is bad fruit. We just have a different opinion about what constitutes disobedience with this topic.

Okay, then. Then you need to get rid of this example in your book, because you just conceded my point. You conceded the point that—

I'm not tracking with you. Okay, look. If the point in your book that you use, example number one, is that bad fruit is leading distinctly to unrepentance, okay?

It's not somebody's experience read back into the text. Bad fruit is what leads to unrepentance and disobedience.

Correct. Are you with me? Are you with me? That bad fruit is what leads to disobedience, because you just said sexual morality is not disobedience.

I mean, I certainly agree with you about disobedience being bad fruit.

I just think you have an overly narrow frame for saying that's all that bad fruit can mean.

And I think— Where does the text say that? I would go back again to Galatians.

I think that's the clearest explication of the totality of what good fruit is for Christians, and how we can know what good fruit is.

Okay, so let's move on to your next question. Okay, yeah. I just think we—yeah. Yeah. The reason why this is happening is because Jesus does not explicitly say what bad fruit is.

He keeps to the metaphor, but he doesn't explicitly say, this is the referent to the metaphor.

But, if you are a good Bible reader, you realize he does explain it. It's in the immediate context.

It's in the Old Testament backdrop to his words. The fruit is the teaching that does not align with God's word.

We can—I think we're beating this one to death a little bit. I would be interested in reading more about what you're coming from.

I'm not sure I completely understand your critique. Let me sum up, and then you come back to exactly what sexual morality is, okay?

So your teaching is, what you've said distinctly, is that we judge a tree by its fruit.

The experience in somebody's life of living out teaching. Correct. Is that right?

That's one way. I would say that's important, but I would qualify that and say it's not just how someone feels, because our feelings are too subjective, but it's specifically what the

Bible itself calls the fruit of the Spirit. Okay, Jesus isn't speaking about the fruit of the

Spirit in his passage. That's not what he's talking about. He's saying bearing good fruit of repentance. Well, he doesn't say of repentance specifically.

You're reading that in, and he doesn't say it anywhere. So you're reading it in as well, if he doesn't specifically say of repentance. I'm not reading it in. I'm saying he's speaking about repentance.

Clearly, lawlessness and obedience is what Jesus is saying. None of those are words that he's using in this text, though.

Look at the verse right after it. 23, he says lawlessness is exactly what he says. That's not the text

I'm talking about. It's in the context. You can't just isolate a text out of its broader context.

You have to look at exactly what Jesus is teaching. Amen. I honestly do think that you are ironically reading a little bit into this text to say because in other texts of Jesus or John the

Baptist, he's talking about lawlessness or disobedience. Therefore, that is all that good fruit can be. I don't see that specifically in verses 15 to 20.

So if I'm guilty of reading other verses into it, I'm reading Matthew 7, the verses below, Matthew 3, and the

Gospels. You're going to Galatians and bringing something in that is bookended by contrasting the flesh with the spirit and distinctly says do not engage in sexual immorality.

So I'm not the one who's bringing it in. I'm reading it in its context. That's exactly what Jesus is saying. Now, you push back a question a minute ago.

Let's talk about that. You're going to push back and say... Go ahead. Do you acknowledge...

Do you agree with me or do you acknowledge that the specific topic of same -sex marriage is not something that is ever addressed in the

Bible? No. I don't acknowledge that.

Where is same -sex marriage... Where is there a single text that is specifically talking explicitly about same -sex marriage?

Okay, so if the standard is explicitly mentioning same -sex marriage, then

I would agree with you. But even the Trinity isn't explicitly mentioned. It's based on the teachings of Scripture.

That's a doctrine we adopt because it best explains what we know about the character of God. So of course he didn't mention same -sex marriage.

There was no debate about this 500 years before the time of Jesus or 500 years after. The unanimous view was that any kind of same -sex relationships were wrong.

So of course it wasn't explicitly addressed, but the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 19,

Genesis 1, sufficiently address it. Right. So what I argue, and I talked about this a little bit up there, is that I think that the understanding today of same -sex orientation as an exclusive, permanent sexual orientation is a new understanding akin to the way that the telescope changed our understanding of the solar system.

I think it's a significantly new understanding because it affects how we understand the impact of a rejection of all same -sex relationships.

Do you acknowledge or agree that the understanding of gay orientation is not something that was understood or talked about in the

Church until the mid -20th century? William Loader? I would absolutely acknowledge that the idea of sexual orientation is not taught in the

Bible. You want to know why? Because sexual orientation was an invention by Sigmund Freud and his colleagues only a couple hundred years ago.

Before that, nobody talked about sexual behavior this way. It was always understood that sexual activity and sexual desires belong in the category of what human beings do.

It does not belong in the category of who human beings are. So, of course, the

Bible doesn't talk this way. Nobody did up until in the grand scheme of humanity five minutes ago, relatively.

A gay -affirming New Testament scholar would disagree with you who's written a thousand pages on this in multiple books.

In his book, The New Testament on Sexuality, he says there was a basic sense of sexual orientation in that culture.

Bernadette Bruton. That's actually not quite what he says. I have the quote actually right here if you want me to pull it out.

He says there's a basic sense of sexual orientation. Now, he says it's not perfectly analogous. He says it's not the same.

But he says it's sufficient to be the same. But here's my question. I don't see why it matters.

Now, don't hear me saying if I don't see why it matters that I don't care about gay or lesbian people. If anybody hears me saying that, they're completely mishearing my point.

That's not fair. My whole point is Genesis 1 through Leviticus, through Romans 1, through 1

Corinthians 6, Matthew 19, a consistent pushback to this creation narrative that God has made male and female and has designed them to be in a monogamous, one -flesh union for life.

And the Bible never affirms a relationship outside of that. So you even said in your book, you said it right here, that if it's rooted in creation, then the idea of orientation or new scientific advances wouldn't change this if it's rooted in creation.

Now, you disagree and say it's not rooted in creation. That's where I say that it is. So sexual orientation doesn't change the biblical teaching about God's design for men and women in the relationships of marriage.

Well, here's why I think it matters. Because I think in your reading of Matthew 19, you kind of see an implicit rejection of same -sex marriage, right?

So notice what Vines is doing. I'm catching on here. So by the way, not familiar very much with Vines.

I know of his reputation. I know of his, the book or books that he's written.

And he came to the fore, this debate or discussion, whatever you want to call it, is five years old.

So he came to the fore a while ago. But I'm not, you know,

I've never seen him speak before this. I'm not too, too familiar with him.

So it's dawning on me what he's doing. What he's doing is, in terms of having a discussion, is he's not engaging the text.

Have you noticed that? He's not engaging the Bible. He's critiquing McDowell's engagement of the text, which is, it's clever, but I would argue not sufficient if you are an opponent on the stage in real time having a discussion like this.

You need to engage the text, right? McDowell is bringing up verses. He's providing his own exegesis for the text.

He's challenging Vines to say, hey, you know, what's wrong with my exegetical interpretation?

Vines is just critiquing McDowell, but he's not bringing arguments. He's not bringing his own exegesis to the table for a discussion, and you absolutely need that.

So. I see an affirmation that God has designed marriage between one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life, and Jesus went out of his way to say that it's male and female.

He quotes Genesis 127. He didn't have to, that marriage is a gendered institution.

He points back to creation. Right, so you see that as an implicit rejection of same -sex marriage.

It's an implicit rejection of any kind of sexual relationship outside of that one flesh union.

Right. So the reason I think it's important to acknowledge or understand that what we're talking about does differ significantly from what the church had been talking about prior to very recent generations is because I think ultimately it's anachronistic to say, what does the

Bible say about same -sex marriage? Well, we'll go back to Matthew 19, and because Jesus says God created them male and female, therefore he's kind of implicitly saying no to gay marriage.

I think that's asking, I think that's trying to import a context that is alien to that text.

And yes, I would agree with you. It is true. Marriage in the Bible is only ever talked about as heterosexual.

In the New Testament, it becomes exclusively monogamous. The question that I raise is, we're talking about something that the

Bible did not explicitly discuss, and so I think we have to look to the deeper principles of Scripture's teachings on marriage and sexuality to ask whether there can be space, faithful space, for committed, monogamous, covenantal same -sex relationships that is consistent with the core principles of Scripture's teachings on marriage and sexuality or not.

So, I agree with Vines here. Let's focus on the fundamental principles taught in Scripture of sexuality and marriage, and let's extrapolate from those principles to our current 21st century situation where same -sex attracted people are getting married in monogamous relationships, okay?

But even if you do that, and I get that emotions are all wrapped up in this, and this is a very difficult thing for a lot of folks to hear.

LGBT, you know, pro -LGBT folks. Andy Stanley, apparently.

But even when you do what Vines proposes, you cannot justify same -sex marriages, guys.

Why is that? Because marriage is designed to accomplish a couple of important functions, and we see this in both the

Old and New Testaments, right? To multiply. In other words, to produce the next generation.

That's Genesis 1 .28. Let's take a look at Genesis 1 .28

here. It's also supposed to reflect

Christ's relationship to the Church. That's in a lot of places in the New Testament, you know?

Ephesians 5. Let's go there. Ephesians 5. Let's become very familiar with these passages, ladies and gentlemen, because this is important in this kind of discussion.

Ephesians 5, verse 31. Look. What is

Paul doing here? He's quoting Genesis. Now, watch this.

This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church.

So, Paul quotes Genesis 2 and then says, oh, man, this mystery is about Christ and the

Church. That's what marriage reflects. The same thing is taught in 2

Corinthians 11. You can also look at the picture of the Lamb's bride at the end of Revelation.

Same -sex couples shrink down God's greater design, God's greater purpose.

They reduce down the bigger picture of marriage, which is a joining together of both representatives of humanity to affect the entire human race.

And I think the reason why many are taken with same -sex marriage is because they're just not thinking bigger picture.

Obviously, one couple on a micro scale has children in their own single family, but when all people follow that design set by God, given as a commandment in the beginning by God, then humanity itself is affected on the macro scale.

That was the design for human beings given by God explicitly in Genesis 1. Now, I know this makes a lot of folks upset to hear this, but before we have feelings about whether or not something is true, we all need to first understand what is true.

You can reject the Bible, but you can't say that it affirms same -sex coupling. So, Vines has a lot of work ahead of him if he's going to claim otherwise.

The alternative, if there is not, as I mentioned, is that we would need to modify the historic

Christian doctrine on celibacy, which has understood celibacy as a spiritual vocation and a gift and not to be mandated on a whole class of people simply on account of who they are.

If there can be no faithful space for same -sex marriage within the church, then we have to revisit the doctrine of celibacy and we would have to modify that historic

Christian teaching because either way, we are dealing with new information about same -sex orientation, and we have to respond to that.

Are we? I see kind of a fork in the road, and we can respond to it in one of two ways. Either through modifying the

Christian teaching on celibacy, and I can talk about why I don't think that that is the right way to go, or by modifying the historic

Christian doctrine on marriage so that it could be inclusive of two men or two women, which

I recognize is a significant shift, and so I understand how that can produce some anxiety for people.

But I think that's why it matters that what we're talking about is not something that was specifically addressed in Scripture, because yes, we need all of our beliefs to be grounded in Scripture, but if we have a topic that was not specifically addressed in Scripture, then we also have to be attentive and be conscientious in looking to what are the core principles here.

Okay, again, Vine says this concept is not taught in Scripture, but there are principles in the

Scripture that shape our understanding with regard to sex and marriage. And those principles are that both representatives of humanity come back together in this wonderful inverse relationship to the way that they were originally created.

You know? Woman comes out of man's side. So, I mean, we haven't even talked about this aspect of it, but the woman comes out of man's side, and yet man and woman come back together.

And in that coupling, obey God's command to multiply. So there is this interesting relationship that marriage has to the creation account itself, and it comes down to this one phrase, one flesh.

Man and woman, before woman was created, was one flesh. And then in marriage, they come back together to be one flesh.

And out of that, new creation emerges. The next generation. This is a unique activity that only men and women can do together, and this activity speaks theology.

It speaks of creation. It takes us back to the Garden. It speaks about Christ and the Church. It accomplishes a number of things for God and His purposes.

All right? By the way, if you're watching right now, this is completely live, okay?

Would you do me a quick favor and like and subscribe to the channel and share this video? I don't do this a whole lot very well, but I need to get better at it.

It really does help me get the word out about what I'm up to here at Wise Disciple. I really appreciate all of you who have already done that.

Let's get back to the video. Would this path or this path be most consonant with those core principles?

Let me ask you this. Your whole argument is that the biblical writers were not aware of sexual orientation and the kind of same -sex relationships that we have today.

20 minutes. Okay. I'd say that's a part of the argument. That we just talked about. Okay. Fair enough. If God wanted to communicate transcendent cross -cultural guidelines and norms for sexual relationships, given that they weren't aware of it, how could

God have done this? It seems like you're saying, tales I win, heads you lose.

The biblical writers were not aware of it. They couldn't have addressed it. Since they didn't address it, therefore we have to consider that it's okay.

That's not what I'm saying. How could, if God wanted to communicate, and by the way, your argument kind of assumes that the scriptures are not inspired and God couldn't foresee this.

No, no. I disagree with that. Because if he's God, of course he could foresee it. So distinctly my question is, how could

God have done a better job of communicating his design for marriage and sexuality?

Assuming they didn't have this information to talk about. I think the information was there, but I'll just grant you that. How could

God have done a better job communicating that cross -culturally? Well, I think that's a bit of a tendentious framing of the question.

But, so there are a couple points that I want to respond to. That's a big SAT word, by the way. Oh. I'd like a definition there, too, actually.

Tendentious, man. It's lemony. So... Now, I got a little lost after the second point, but...

Do you want me to rephrase it? No, because you made two points that you were responding to. Oh, okay, here's the point.

First thing. No, my argument is not because the biblical authors don't discuss it, therefore it's fine. That's not a particularly good argument.

Because there are plenty of things that, you know... Sure. Internet pornography, right?

That's obviously not discussed in the Bible, because the internet didn't exist. But, that's why there are so many topics that aren't discussed in the

Bible, and we look to the biblical teachings that are as relevant as possible. We look to core principles that we can find from scripture.

And because Jesus says that we should not lust, you know, that tells us a lot about that topic of internet pornography.

But, so it's not just that the Bible doesn't talk about same -sex marriage. It's that I think that the core principles of the biblical teaching on marriage, as we find in Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19.

Yes, of course the framing is heterosexual. Because same -sex marriage was not even on the radar screen of possibilities here.

The conversation around gay people, gay Christians. So what McDowell is not doing at the moment, which

I wish he would, is asking Vines a very important question. Okay, you say that the principles for same -sex marriage are in the scripture.

Okay, let's walk through those biblical passages together. So you can exegete those texts for us and identify those principles.

Now, where should we turn to first? Right? Then, you force your opponent to either come up with some biblical passages or not.

Notice, again, Vines, he just wants to stay in the abstract. He just wants to talk big picture about, and conceptually, about the

Bible and concepts in the Bible. But he doesn't want to go to any passage of the scripture, at least that's what it seems to me, and really spend time dealing with what it actually says.

Dealing with it in its context and trying to exegete what it actually means. He simply alludes to these principles.

But he's not actually identifying any of the passages where these principles actually derive.

And that's just not good enough in a discussion like this. It's not even within the bloodstream of the conversation.

But the core principle that he's getting at, he's talking about how marriage is fundamentally about covenantal faithfulness.

Okay, Jesus does not say that in Matthew 19. He does not say it's about fundamental covenant.

That's a part of it. He says it's about male and female. That's exactly what

Jesus says. You can't skip over that and say it's about covenant. Now, I'm with you 100 % that it's about covenant.

So it's more than a gendered institution. But it's no less. Jesus points back to creation.

And you said in your book, if the text is teaching that God created us to operate in a certain way, male and female, then it is cross -cultural.

And that's exactly what the scriptures did. So as far as scripturally, it's irrelevant, the topic of sexual orientation, which is highly debated on all sides of this issue.

That topic can be debated, and we obviously won't go there right now. That'll take us aside. But my question is, how could

Jesus have done this better? I'm not sure you've answered that.

If he wanted to communicate cross -culturally, what's better than pointing back to the beginning?

This is how I made it to operate. It's still in junction today. Therefore, it transcends cultural changes.

So how could Jesus do it better? Good question. It's a good question. A better one.

Where can we go anywhere in the Bible that supports what you're saying? You know what

I mean? If James White were up there right now, he's the first one that comes to mind, because he does this all the time.

That's exactly what he would be doing. And the reason why he continues to do this in debates—

James White now is on his 9 millionth debate, but he continues to do the same thing.

Why? Because it's effective. Because that really does work. Even more than lusting would with Internet pornography.

Do you think the church has ever misinterpreted a teaching of Jesus? Of course. So in theory, then, you could say the same thing and say, well, if the church broadly misinterpreted a teaching, then you could say, well,

Jesus could have said it better. But I would never say that, because that's just not— it does not feel—

I would more put the onus on the church for, well, we got it wrong. We are human. We have human failings.

The mere fact that the church has made mistakes in the past doesn't mean we're missing it on this issue. Right, but we were trying to suggest that if— basically, because the church has long held this based on how they interpreted

Scripture, in theory, Scripture could have been written in a different way in order to be more affirming of same -sex marriage, and therefore my position rests on a lack of inspiration of the

Bible. No, I'm not making a tradition argument. I'm not making a tradition argument. I'm saying let's look at Matthew 19.

Right, but can you explain again why you think that my argument rests on a lack of inspiration of the Bible? No, that point was simply— you were saying they weren't aware of sexual orientation at that time.

I'm saying if God wants to communicate something cross -culturally, he knew that this was coming in the future and could know that and address it and isn't bound by some scientific finding of the day.

That is true, but if that's how God wanted to work, then the church would never have gotten anything significant wrong because, in theory—take an issue like slavery.

It is understandable. It is awful, but it is understandable how pro -slavery

Christians interpreted the Bible to support their position in defense of slavery. In theory, you could say, well, you know,

Jesus never outright condemns slavery. He talks about slaves in some parables, but he never outright condemns it.

Now, I think everyone in this room would agree about what Jesus' position on slavery would be. This is not a contentious issue today, fortunately, but if you go back 200 years—

Or tendentious. Oh, that's right. If you go back 150 years, though, it's an incredibly controversial issue, and you could make the very same argument.

A pro -slavery Christian could say, well, if Jesus was really against slavery, why didn't he condemn it? He had the chance. So I can't—it's not up to me.

I don't know exactly how God always intends to operate. That's beyond my pay grade.

But— It's ironic that Vines brings up slavery when the principles of antislavery are in the

Bible. It's the same thing, man. It's—it's—it's—oh. The principles of—

Like, how did the abolitionists actually argue anyway? Where did they go for their justification to oppose slavery in the first place?

It was the Bible. I mean, hello? The principles of antislavery were in the Scripture. It's the same thing as this discussion right now.

But I do know that this has happened before, and that the Church has gotten things wrong.

Broadly, the Church has gotten teachings of Jesus wrong. And I think— Yeah, but how would we know that we were wrong in the past about a teaching of Jesus?

How could someone show us that we were wrong? By going to the Scripture and making an argument, right?

And, by the way, Vines, not doing that. So far in this discussion, he's pointing out that the

Church has been wrong before, but not proving it in this particular instance. We have to be open to that possibility without saying, therefore—

Okay, now I'm open to it. Without saying, therefore, the Bible is not inspired. So that's not my argument.

That's not my argument. If you read the 2003 book, Princeton University Press, by Rodney Stark, the definitive work on slavery, he says it didn't start in the 19th century, anti -slavery movement.

Back in the early Church, people were resisting and making arguments against slavery. It goes back to Aquinas and earlier in the

Middle Ages. Although Aquinas was actually pro -slavery, but just with certain conditions. No, Rodney Stark, I think, is right about this, about Aquinas critiquing it.

His whole point is— He critiqued forms of slavery, but he did not condemn slavery categorically. In fact, there was no Catholic pope— He made critiques distinctly of slavery.

But of forms of it. The point is, what Stark argues, is that there's been a consistent voice, theologically based, condemning slavery.

It's just that people didn't listen to him. That's totally different. I agree that some people were wrong and manipulated the

Scriptures to justify how they wanted to enslave people. But not even intentionally manipulated. I think some people sincerely believed it.

Whether they believed it or not, they were mistaken. We can talk about when people were right or wrong about slavery and other issues.

Fine, I can see people can be wrong about that. But here we're talking about Matthew 19. Jesus points back to the creation.

He affirms God made them male and female. He affirms the Genesis account.

That one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life is normative.

So the possibility that we've been wrong on other issues has nothing to do with us being wrong on this one.

You've got to show me distinctly in the text why I'm wrong and why I think

Jesus' view is wrong. That's the question. Where in Matthew 19 am I missing it? Okay, I think the difference is

I read his statement at the beginning of Matthew about God made them male and female as part of the framing and how he is framing his response.

It's a non -answer. He's not answering the question. By the way,

I would love to see Vines ask McDowell more questions. I think McDowell is largely controlling this period of questioning.

Just from a debate perspective, I think Vines should be asking more questions. But still, I mean, McDowell, he's asked

Vines repeatedly over and over and over again. Let's go to the text. Let's go to the text. And Vines won't do it.

...responsive question. At the end, Jesus, and there are varying interpretations on this, but I think in general many people interpret it to say that Jesus makes at least one exception for divorce in the case of infidelity.

But he does not make an exception in the case of infertility, which is actually really interesting and countercultural in his context in which many people would have seen if a woman, and of course they always would have blamed the woman even if that wasn't fair, that if the woman was unable to get pregnant, then of course the man should be able to discard her and try again because it's all about having heirs, that sort of thing, and that's not

Jesus' view of marriage. So that's why I was saying I think Jesus elevates the covenantal commitment foundation of marriage above, for instance, the ability to procreate.

So that was my initial point. Okay, so he never discounts the creation ordinance from Genesis 1.

I agree with you that in the Old Testament, the building of God's people was through procreation.

You write this in your book. Gets to the New Testament, now the family of God is understood differently.

But Jesus still keeps marriage as an institution, even in the church age, which is why

I quoted Luke 20, 33 -34, when he says when we die, we will no longer need marriage because we'll live forever.

We won't need to procreate. So the institution of marriage is gone. So you're totally right that he is elevating covenant, but he's not getting rid of the creation mandate, which includes procreation as a heart of marriage, which assumes there would be male and female.

So where in the text am I missing that? I think you're, I mean,

I largely agree with what you're saying in that yes, Jesus is hearkening back to Genesis 1 and 2.

Jesus is talking about marriage as in a heterosexual framework because certainly in his context, there is no other framework to even talk about it within.

But we're asking questions. How do you know that's what motivated Jesus? How do you know that's what motivated Jesus and why he talked about sex in that manner?

Because that's not what he says. He talks about it because that's how Genesis describes it. You're assuming that he's importing something from his culture when

Jesus is pointing back to Genesis. So how do you know that's what was motivating Jesus to just describe it because that was the only framework that they had?

How do you know that? It's a good question. Well, likewise, I would think that you're assuming that he is making some particular point about exactly how gender complementarity between male and female functions in a way that then has a direct word to speak against same -sex marriage.

And I think that there's a bit of a leap of logic in that. And that's why I think... Let's talk about that. Why am I wrong about the complementarity that Jesus is assuming?

Vines decided, at least in this discussion portion,

I'm just going to critique McDowell, guys. I'm not going to... I'm not really going to try to support myself all that much.

I'm specifically not really going to go to the text of Scripture and try to exegete it at all. I'm just going to critique

McDowell. And even when McDowell asks me a question, like, how do you know something? I'll just flip it around and critique him.

And that's how I'll get through this discussion segment. Based on Genesis.

Tell me why I'm wrong, scripturally speaking, that Jesus doesn't assume complementarity.

Yeah, I think I meant something a little bit different by that. What I mean is that people will often argue that men and women are complementary in a unique way that means that marriage can only be between men and women.

And so I like to unpack that statement to ask what people exactly are getting at when they're talking about the complementarity of male and female.

Yes, of course, male and female complement each other, but do they complement each other in a way that can be shown biblically to be universally and exclusively normative for marriage relationships?

Let's talk about it. We could talk about the role of procreation in marriage. Some people argue that because marriage must be procreative, must be biologically procreative, or at least have the possibility of that, and therefore same -sex marriage cannot fit within a

Christian vision of marriage. Whereas I would look at that and say even in the Old Testament when procreation was of paramount importance to how

God was building his kingdom people, you have marriages that are infertile, like between Hannah and Elkanah or between Abraham and Sarah that are not regarded as invalid on that basis.

And then when you look to the New Testament... Can we talk about that and then go to the New Testament? So it's not actually having the kids that makes the marriage valid.

It's the kind of union, the one flesh union that takes a man and a woman that by its nature is oriented towards procreation.

That's right. So they're infertile. But see, that's an assumption. It's not an assumption. It is an assumption. It's taught in the text.

Infertility is the lack of something that is supposed to be there. So a chair's not infertile because it's not the kind of thing that can reproduce.

A man and woman in a marriage are infertile because something's broken and not operating the way that it is supposed to.

But if a man and woman come together, as it says in Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2, have this permanent leave the father and mother, cling to the spouse, and then create their own household, which is oriented towards having kids, you see that pattern there.

Even if the kids don't result, it's the kind of union that makes it a one flesh union.

So it's not actually the kid that makes it a valid marriage. So I agree with you about Elkanah and the other example.

But that doesn't undermine the one flesh union as being necessary for marriage.

That's what Chances teaches in the first two chapters of the Bible. Yes, I think marriage. And what's missing from this conversation is how

God intervenes miraculously to provide the children they desire.

Sarah was the other example. You know, Abraham and Sarah are incredibly old.

They could not produce children, and yet they were given a promise by God that they would have offspring, and God gives them

Isaac, right? The child of promise. But what are we to conclude from this if we adopt

Vine's point of view? That Abraham and Sarah did not have a valid marriage because they couldn't produce children?

Or that they did have a valid marriage even though they couldn't have children because of the covenant?

That's not what the Genesis account is teaching at all. It's teaching a completely different lesson about God's promises tied through a promised child.

As a matter of fact, producing children is tied to God's redemptive plan for all of humanity.

You can take a look at Genesis 3, right? It is through Eve's offspring that the one will come to crush the head of the serpent.

So, producing the next generation plays a vital role in the coming of Christ. And again, now on the other side of the resurrection, marriage reflects

Christ's relationship to the Church. The bottom line is, infertility is not a feature of the design.

So just because some married couples can't produce children doesn't change God's design. He's just going to have to find another way to make his argument.

Marriage does involve a one -flesh union in a unique way as compared to other relationships. My question, once again, and this is why

I do think it's very important for biblical interpretation that we recognize that we're talking about something that is not specifically discussed in Scripture and that has not explicitly been discussed and debated in the

Church until recent decades because the question that we have to ask then is a one -flesh union always talked about in the

Bible in heterosexual terms. Yes, it is. Five minutes. The question is, is what is going on at the core of what makes a one -flesh union one -flesh union, is that something that could be lived out in a same -sex relationship?

And so if what is at the core of a same -sex... Okay, that's a great question. Now how do we answer it?

We need to go to the Scripture for this. And I still have not seen Vine use Scripture to specifically answer this question.

He's danced around the issue a number of times but not provided a Scriptural basis for the argument that he wants to make.

...of a one -flesh union is the capacity for biological procreation than it would not be. But what

I see, and you talked about this a little bit with a reference to Laban and the way in which flesh and bone are talked about as a kinship bond.

Obviously marriage is kinship plus. It's not just the same as being an uncle, but there's something there in terms of Adam and Eve through forming a one -flesh bond that are creating a new primary kinship bond that is also sexual, that involves the total giving of one's self, of one's life, of in the modern day, of one's finances, also of one's physical self, of one's body.

And so the one -flesh union is a sexual union. But I don't see where in Scripture a one -flesh union, yes, the question is not is it always talked about in heterosexual terms because it is.

But we are talking about something that the Bible does not talk about specifically. So then we have to ask, well, is there anything that is universally and exclusively normative in how the

Bible talks about one -flesh unions that makes it so that it could not apply to same -sex couples? And I think it's insufficient to just...

Yes. The answer is yes. Here. Take a look at this.

Genesis 2, verse 18. Not 18, excuse me. Let's take a look at the

Lord creating Eve. Watch this. Adam, verse 20.

Adam, for Adam, there was not found a helper fit for him. So the

Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man.

Okay, stop. The unique creation of woman shows us that what

God has intended was for men and women to be together in relationship. It starts with the word helper.

Actually, it's back up here in 18, so I guess I was right. Helper... You know, the

Lord God says it's not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him. There is no helper.

So God takes one of the man's ribs and creates a woman with it. Guys, the symbolic imagery is off the charts.

With that, it's meant to show that men and women were created to be together. They were made for each other.

The woman was made out of a man's own body. Even the nature of the, you know, the

Hebrew words, right, for man and woman, ish and isha, the relationship of men and women together is even seen in the language itself.

But then the question is, what is the telos? How are men and women to be in relationship with each other?

And the answer is marriage. Look at this, verse 23. Then the man said, This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.

She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Therefore, it's all connected.

Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh.

The therefore is the culmination of the entire story of the creation of woman.

The terminus of the idea of why a woman was created in the unique way that she was created is this.

Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and he will become one flesh with his wife. This is the definition of, as well as an explanation for, marriage.

For the human beings that God has created. Does that mean everybody gets married? No. Does that mean everyone has children?

No. But this right here is the design for humankind. And Vines is trying to tell us,

Well, the Bible doesn't give us any indication that men and women in marriage is normative. Of course it does!

And what it's going to take is more than denying what the Bible teaches. Vines is actually going to have to explain how

Genesis 2 at like probably 18 going all the way down to verse 25 is not normative for all mankind.

Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother. This is typical for all men.

As a matter of fact, I think McDowell should be asking this question. You know? How is this not? Can you prove that this is not normative for people?

Let's find out what happens. ...say, well, it never applies to same -sex couples because, of course, it doesn't.

We're talking about something the Bible wasn't talking about. So I would need to see something going beyond just saying, well, it always, you know, it never actually applies it to them.

What's the reason why we could not faithfully make that application? so two questions. You're right, where it says in 224, where it says, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh can refer to David and the people of Israel or others.

But then in the text, it says, this is in 223, this is the last bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.

Therefore, there's a transition and it moves specifically, a man leaves his father and mother, holds fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

There it is. So there's a difference between being of the same flesh and being one flesh.

Now, does this text explicitly describe the anatomical parts?

Of course not. But actually, no biblical text does. Here's why. Two minutes. It doesn't have to.

It doesn't have to. It's obvious, Matthew. It's obvious. If you read the text, it's clear that a man and a woman line them up together.

There's a certain fitting that takes place that doesn't with the same gender. It's not possible.

And especially, let me finish. And especially when it's in the context of a mother and a father populating and filling the earth, when the term is connecto, which is his opposite, the text is clear.

It's clear. Not to mention, Romans 1 says they exchanged function, which crasis in the

Greek refers specifically to function that somebody was designed for.

It's in the text. You have to read something else to see it. I think that that argument is,

I mean, you actually moved away from a biblical argument. And you moved to just saying, just line up a naked man and woman and see how the parts fit.

No, that's not fair. That's what you said. No, that's not fair. I just walked through one and two and explained the obvious intuitive nature of what the

Bible's teaching. I didn't import something onto it. But you said that it's obvious based on anatomy, right?

The anatomy is a part of what makes it obvious. Yes. I would agree with that.

And I think that that's not something, so you're saying, well, the Bible doesn't ever specifically say that, but it doesn't say it because it's obvious.

I think that that is something that— Ah, look at the reframing of McDowell's argument right there, right?

By Vines. By the way, this helps you as a debater to constantly lay a framework for the audience.

I've said this many times in previous videos. Whoever lays a better framework usually ends up winning the debate, even if they didn't bring substantive arguments to the stage.

But the problem is Vines just will not engage with the biblical text. Instead, he just wants to critique

McDowell and try to reframe McDowell. And that affords him the opportunity to further his claims.

But make no mistake, he's not dealing with the scripture in any substantive way, and he absolutely must when it comes to this kind of discussion.

Let's wrap up. It's much more likely to seem obvious to someone who is heterosexual. And so I think we just need to be careful about how we make assumptions about what's obvious that correspond much more to some people's experience than to others.

I think obviousness has to do with being human. And sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

It has nothing to do with the obviousness of male and female and the fittedness within this text to populate and fulfill the earth.

Time. It can only be done with the male and female. I do have a thought about that, but I know we need...

Unfortunately, it's time for parents. All right. Yeah. That's an interesting exercise here, right?

As a Christian who takes the Bible seriously and has studied it, specifically as a pastor and a

Bible teacher, I was hoping to see a lot more effort from Vines in engaging with what the Bible actually says.

There was a lot of critique of McDowell and furthering

Vines' own claims there, but I just didn't see any real engagement with the scripture. McDowell, on the other hand, pressed

Vines pretty hard on the Bible and what it teaches. He asked some really great questions. He wouldn't let

Vines go too far too fast, right? He was saying, slow down, slow down, right? He tried to take it one claim at a time.

He brought up Matthew 7, Matthew 19, Genesis 1 and 2, and really made effort to exegete the text to provide true clash.

The problem is, Vines would not clash with the Bible. He just tried to clash with McDowell.

Because of that, I think McDowell had the upper hand in this exchange basically the entire way through.

I do think Vines is a great communicator and at times, the way that he would frame the discussion was fairly solid, advantageous to his position, but as an interlocutor, you need substance as a foundation for your rhetoric, and I just didn't see any substance from Vines.

Well, now it's your turn. You tell me what you think. Who did a better job on that stage, Sean McDowell or Matthew Vines?

Let me know in the comments. And I see, with the live stream, y 'all are having a good time here.

Thank you very much for joining me. I appreciate y 'all watching this video live with me. Hey, if you made it all the way to the end of this video, please do me a favor and check out two things.

First, we have merch. I don't know, did you know that? I usually don't talk about this for some reason, but we have merch.

We've got t -shirts, we've got hoodies, we've got coffee mugs and more. All the designs for the store were made by yours truly, so I hope you like them and all the proceeds go to Wise Disciple, the 501c3, so we are a non -profit ministry.

So there is that. I should say I'm proud of, you know, some of the designs there and I think it'll get you having some wonderful conversations with people in your circles where you're at.

Also, come join the Patreon. We are an up -and -coming community and I've got some things in the works that are going to be huge, guys.

I can't talk about it right now. It's not quite happening yet, but when it does, man, it's going to be amazing, especially in terms of debate.

So check out the Patreon in the notes below. The link is there. Thank you so much for watching this video. I'm going to take a break off to Atlanta for First Aid Evangelism, but I will return soon with more videos.