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

Opening Remarks and the Debate-Reaction Format

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,.

Matthew 7, Fruit, and the Testing of False Teaching

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. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what a question, right? And isn't that the six million dollar question, you know? Where in 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 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 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 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' teaching in Matthew 7 is 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 the 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—. 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. 23. 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 chapter 7. Matthew chapter 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 chapter 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, and 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 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, describe 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, use 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, 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 I 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 would say the interpretation.

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 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 exegesis 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 chapter 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.

You get 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, etc.

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, etc. 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 also... So, right now, let me put on my debate teacher hat for a second. McDowell is killing it, you know? 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 just, 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.

I... You're right.

Exactly. And so, that's why I would be interested in understanding more about... 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? Yeah, that's fine. Isn't that how it works, technically? 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 questions, 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're 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?

Root and root.

Oh, okay.

So, I lost...

Sorry.

Do you see the point?

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, 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 they're bringing their chops.

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

Okay.

We have to establish that that's not what's in view.

Okay.

But to get there, you've kind of agreed with me that Matthew actually is teaching that disobedience is bad fruit.

Right?

Oh, 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 fruit—.

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 immorality 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 sometimes—. Where does the text say that?

Well, 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, I don't—.

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.

No, 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 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, it says lawlessness is exactly what he says.

But 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, you know, 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 morality.

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.

Okay.

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 Loder.

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 of 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, 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. 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.

Right.

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.

Right. 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 the books that he's written. And he came to 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.