Ecclesiology, Response to Matthew Vines, And Almost a Third Topic...But Not Quite

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:08

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a

00:40

Thursday afternoon, always have to think about that. But it's good to be with you.

00:46

It's summertime here in Phoenix. We're in, it's been about 110 the past few days, but until, until the monsoon moisture arrives and ice disappeared, there, there

01:03

I am. Um, I mean, it's fine. I don't actually like looking at that, but it helps to know, especially when you have this one, which

01:11

I hate. Oh, please. Ugh. I mean, eh. Nice shot of the microphone there, though.

01:18

This is, this is the microphone scene right there. Oh, ow. It's got that techie effect. It does sort of have a techie effect, and this is the, and this is the completely worthless windscreen.

01:28

No, it is not completely worthless. It is completely worthless because I'm not close enough to it for it to have any relevance whatsoever.

01:34

If I was, if I was doing it the way you're supposed to do it, then it would have relevance. But sitting back here, I'd have to do that to make it relevant, which

01:43

I don't do. Well, you can bring it closer. I mean, no, no, don't peep off it. I cannot bring it closer.

01:48

There's a man behind the glass in the other room that yell at me if I bring it closer. And you know that. Anyway, what are we talking about?

01:55

Oh yes. Three topics to get to today. And they are, oh, I was telling you that until the, until the moisture arrives, second week of July, um,

02:03

I like that much better, um, until, until that, I don't care, 110, 114.

02:10

As long as it gets down into the seventies at night, you're, you're good, but that's, that's good.

02:16

Thank you, Rich. Um, appreciate that. Yeah, that's, that's, it's not really lava lamping a lot yet, but it will soon.

02:23

It's, it's just about ready to start doing the lava lamp thing. Uh, you gotta give it a good two and a half hours and I didn't give it enough time today, which is nice.

02:30

The nice thing about the other light, it doesn't take any more of my time anyway, three topics to get to today. So we better get to them and they could not be honestly, uh, more different.

02:43

Um, there's absolutely, as far as I can tell, no connection between, um, between our topics today and, uh, the first is a article that was posted just, well,

03:00

I don't know why this came up in my RSS feed or was it on Twitter?

03:07

I don't know why it just popped up because it's from two years ago, but I seem to recall having looked at it at that time.

03:18

But when I went back to it, you know what, I'd like to at least briefly address this.

03:24

Uh, it's by Daniel Wallace and, uh, when Dan Wallace, uh, speaks, people listen and I know

03:30

I certainly do. And even when you disagree with Dan, you've got to know why you disagree with, with Dan.

03:38

And um, it's his, uh, it's his article on the, well, what is the specific title here?

03:47

The problem with Protestant ecclesiology. It's dated March 18th of 2012.

03:54

So it's a little old, but it came up, um, just, just popped up in the, um, in my, in my stuff.

04:05

And uh, let me just read some of this with you, but with the birth of Protestantism, there necessarily came a rift within the

04:12

Western church by necessarily mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome. Um, you're a soft

04:17

Pelican had it right when he said the reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow through was devastating.

04:25

Of course, I would say that Protestants felt the issue was actually the nature of the gospel and that without the gospel, you didn't have the church any longer.

04:35

But anyway, this same mindset began to, in fact, interesting terminology, all Protestant churches.

04:41

So they continued to splinter off from each other. Um, I, I would disagree a little bit there.

04:49

Uh, certainly a lot of people who split claim that their issue is the gospel and sometimes it is a, certainly for example, today, uh, not having fellowship with, um, the

05:02

United Church of Christ, the gospel issue, United Church of Christ doesn't have the gospel as false gospel. Um, what's going to happen in the

05:09

Southern Baptist convention in regards to homosexuality? Same thing, uh, issue of the gospel says today there are hundreds and hundreds of process denominations.

05:18

At least it didn't say 33 ,000. One doesn't see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism.

05:23

Not even close. So that's true. And why is that? Um, I, I will tell you,

05:30

I will give you an observation that has been mine. I, I do, as I have opportunity to have to drive in the afternoons here in Phoenix, I do listen frequently to EWTN radio and I am always struck when listening to conversion stories and things like that of how people talk about being converted to the church.

05:59

It, it strikes me because obviously in our mindset, it's, it's a matter of conversion to Christ.

06:06

Um, and then once you are, you're under the Lordship of Christ, then you obey what he says about his church and the importance of the church comes from first and foremost

06:16

Christ. And it's just amazing listening to EWTN and how often the church supplants

06:22

Christ. Well, and of course, Mary ends up supplanting Christ all the time on EWTN.

06:28

But, um, anyway, uh, to me, the unity, the, the, the lack of level of fracturing, now there's major fractures in Eastern Orthodoxy.

06:41

I mean, just get a Russian Orthodox and a Greek Orthodox together and, and, uh, then run. Uh, but, um, and certainly within Roman Catholicism, but the reality is, uh, that because you have huge, massive, um, organizational structures, this limits the fracturing simply because the big central agency owns everything and, uh, you've got all that tradition connected with it.

07:12

And yet I would argue that within Roman Catholicism, you have just as much fracturing functionally as you do amongst

07:20

Protestants. And what do I mean by that? Um, go find yourself a truly believing

07:27

Roman Catholic that represents the perspectives of the papacy in the 1950s. There's still plenty of them around.

07:33

Um, and then go listen to a Roman Catholic at, uh, Boston College. And, um, that's the same difference between a fundamentalist and a, uh, and the

07:44

United Church of Christ. Just as wide of a variety, uh, Rome just really isn't big into actually kicking people out all that often.

07:53

Uh, certainly they do, uh, but it's pretty rare in comparison to the number of heretics they have running around in their, uh, in their hierarchy.

08:01

Uh, so there's a reason for that. Anyway, um, he goes on to talk about some other things and then, and he says several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no

08:13

Protestant ecclesiology in many denominations and especially in non -denominational churches. There is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis to gain support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal ethical fidelity.

08:30

Well, um, my ecclesiology would preclude the vast majority of that.

08:35

That doesn't mean I don't have ecclesiology. It means I have a very clear ecclesiology, um, and I defended that ecclesiology in written form in the

08:43

Brodman -Holman book on, uh, uh, five views of church governance. And, um, so I would agree that, that most

08:54

Protestants have not given much thought to ecclesiology. Most evangelicals, uh, except the default ecclesiology of their particular, you know, whatever church they became associated with, well, that's just how you do things.

09:10

You know, there's, there's nothing more to it than that. Um, but that does not mean there's not a

09:16

Protestant ecclesiology, uh, nor that Protestants haven't thought about ecclesiology and that there is not a,

09:22

I think rather clear biblical ecclesiology. And you can see some of that in debate, in my debate with Mitch Paco, who

09:30

I was listening to last evening on EW10 for a few minutes and, uh, the stuff he was talking about, just about Mary and her first Eucharist was when she became pregnant and all, it was just really, oh, it was bad.

09:49

Anyway, uh, so he talks about, uh, you know, he spent a lot of time with Greek, uh, Orthodox folks and, uh, talks about the liturgy a little bit.

09:58

Uh, the liturgy is precise, it would bother so many Protestants since their churches often try very hard to mute the voices from the past.

10:04

It's just me and my Bible is a motto of millions of evangelicals. Well, okay. Um, this wasn't specifically written for reformed folks.

10:13

And, um, I don't think, I don't know that Dan spends a lot of time with specifically reformed folks.

10:19

Um, you know, he's a Dallas and there, you know, there are some there, but not, not ecclesiologically reformed.

10:27

And of course, even amongst, there'd be many people say that I'm not. And again, see my debate with, uh,

10:34

Robert Raymond, basically. I mean, that's what that book ended up being. When you, when you look at the actual, is that what's going out right now?

10:43

Oh, wow. Okay. That's a totally freaked me out. The perspectives. Yeah, it's right there on the, on the thing.

10:50

Did you also, since you just interrupted me and completely blew, blew my, my, um, my train of thought there.

10:55

Did you, did you want to mention, uh, the, um, uh, we're, we're trying to, trying to get rid of all of our debating

11:01

Calvinism books. And so we're not trying to get rid of all of them, but we, you know, I'm kind of checking and realizing I've got an overstock of them.

11:07

And so, uh, if you've been wanting to get the debating Calvinism book, uh, it is now available on clearance while supplies last to a certain amount where I want it to be, uh, for five 75 plus shipping, which is 75 % off the retail.

11:23

There you go. There you go. Well, of course, you know, you were talking about your, your basically saying you were basically debating, debating

11:33

Robert Raymond in the book. Yeah. That's why I kind of threw it out there that the book is available also in the bookstore.

11:39

It is available in the bookstore as well. Yeah. Uh, for those who have not seen a prospect perpet perspectives on church government,

11:46

I guess is the title. That is the title. Yes. Thank you very much. Uh, there you go.

11:52

Uh, if you want to see a debate between, I think two reformed men on ecclesiology, we've actually not done that debate.

12:01

Uh, we've done the infant baptism debate, but, um, the whole idea of a presbytery of a, of a structure above the local churches and things like that.

12:10

Um, you know, the only two people that were really going after each other in that particular book, uh, and that used up all the space that we had to make our presentations in response to each other, uh, or, or myself and, and, and Robert Raymond, uh, probably cause we were the closest to each other.

12:27

Uh, but you've got that, um, that presbytery issue anyway. So this it's just me and my

12:32

Bible. I mean, I mean, I, I have spoken against that kind of, of, uh, ecclesiology or lack of ecclesiology many, many times.

12:44

And I am a churchman. And so, um, he goes on to say they often intentionally forget the past two millennia and the possibility of the spirit of God was working in the church during that time.

12:54

Well, obviously I believe the spirit of God was working in the church during that time. Uh, but I also believe that a large portion of what calls itself the church isn't.

13:03

Um, so you have to, uh, you have to keep that in mind. It says church history for all too many evangelicals are not starting to lose their pound of that impressive parchment on the

13:12

Schlosskirche door. Um, yeah, well, okay.

13:17

That's, that's true for some, uh, that's, that's really not true. Uh, I think for most reform folks, okay, now you're completely freaking me out because there's a big black screen with a white thing on it and I have no idea what that is, but it's, it's totally messed up on this end.

13:31

Uh, hope that's not what's going out, but, uh, but we will, we will see anyway. Um, he says in Protestantism, one really doesn't know what he or she will experience from church to church.

13:41

That's not true amongst reformed Baptist or Orthodox Presbyterians. Uh, one thing is, one thing is, is, is, is for sure.

13:50

Um, when I go to reform Baptist church, I, I'm, I pretty much know what I'm going to get, uh, anywhere in the world, anywhere in the world.

13:58

Uh, he says even church is the same denomination or widely divergent. Not, not all, not all. Um, but it goes on from there.

14:06

Uh, then he talks about a situation where a pastor he knew, uh, went into grave error and that it took quite some time to deal with it.

14:18

And he says, uh, the congregation wasn't sure which way was up. Doubts about the cornerstone of Orthodoxy, the deity of Christ arose.

14:25

This cancer could have been cut out more swiftly and cleanly if the church was subordinate to a hierarchy that maintained true doctrine in its churches.

14:34

Now that is the exact argument, um, of, uh, the concept of a

14:40

Presbytery or Episcopalianism or any type of hierarchical situation.

14:45

And I, I recognize the way the argument, I just pointed out in the book, uh, that, um, it works both ways, works both ways.

14:56

Uh, because as Rome shows us, um, a hierarchy can also be an extremely effective way of maintaining error or as liberal

15:08

Presbyterian, uh, churches in our own experience in just over the past 150 years, um, has likewise demonstrated that that hierarchical system can be extremely effective for the promulgation of heresy.

15:26

Uh, that's how liberalism has spread so quickly amongst, uh, Presbyterian churches and required, therefore the splitting, splitting, splitting.

15:36

Um, you know, once you've got PC USA, uh, you know, what if you're a faithful Bible by believing

15:44

Christian and you can't stick around there very long. And so people split off and yet PCA and OPC and all the

15:50

PCs that have, you know, made their existence, uh, over the, over the course of the past 150 years or so.

15:59

And you've got people leaving Princeton and founding Westminster and, and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

16:04

And, and it's necessary because that hierarchical system was the mechanism whereby this false teaching could be promulgated.

16:13

And so it goes both ways. And so this is, I think, one of the dangers of pragmatic ecclesiology.

16:20

Uh, you can, you can bemoan, uh, this particular individual situation where this man lost faith in the deity of Christ began teaching people about that.

16:31

We can bemoan what happened, uh, at, uh, Newhart, uh, over in California.

16:37

And then what's going to happen, you know, once the convention speaks on that situation and undoubtedly the horrible spin that's going to be put on it in the media.

16:45

Um, but the reality is, uh, if those individuals then have greater authority over numerous churches, then they're much more effective in being able to communicate that, that error to a larger number of people.

16:58

And the autonomy of the local churches ends up being a, a, uh, it's sort of like tank traps.

17:05

Uh, I was listening to a history book this morning on a, on a ride. And, uh, it was on the, uh, the miracle of Dunkirk, Walter Lord's, the miracle of Dunkirk.

17:16

And, uh, it was, it was about the, uh, the evacuation of the British expeditionary force from Dunkirk, uh, at the beginning of world war

17:24

II. And, uh, there were certain types of land, uh, that were, were particularly difficult for the

17:33

German Panzer units to, to cross just because of the marsh, you know, marshy type ground and, and canals and things like that are, are natural tank traps.

17:44

Uh, and the blitzkrieg didn't work as well in those. And, um, that's in essence what the autonomy of local churches does is it functions in that way to, to keep that from happening.

17:57

I've, I've, I've commented a number of times, uh, that, um, you know, even amongst reformed when there are in there's infighting and stuff like that.

18:09

Uh, you know, we're here in Phoenix and, uh, as my fellow elder explained to me many, many years ago, when we first joined this church is, you know,

18:19

I know all about that stuff's going on out there, but you know, most of that stuff just sort of blows over us. It, it, it blows from the

18:24

East, the West and goes to the West, the East and just, we're the flyover country. And it, it just doesn't really, um, doesn't really land here and hasn't been, been an issue.

18:33

So it goes both ways. It goes both ways. Uh, and that's why I don't believe in a pragmatic, uh, ecclesiology.

18:41

Um, and then he very interestingly, uh, says third, a book by David Dungan called

18:47

Constantine's Bible makes an astounding point about the shape of the cannon in the ancient church.

18:54

Um, Dungan discusses the passage in Eusebius's ecclesiastical history, 6 .12, when this church father famously spoke of four categories of literary candidates for the cannon, uh, homo -leguminon, antiligamina, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha.

19:08

Dungan mentions that for Eusebius to speak of any books as homo -leguminon, those 20 books that had universal consent in his day as canonical, he was speaking of an unbroken chain of bishops from the first century to the fourth who affirmed the authorship and authenticity of such books.

19:23

What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of the book's credentials, not just any bishops, but bishops of the major seas of the ancient church.

19:35

Dungan went on to say that Eusebius must have looked up the records in the church annals and could speak thus only on the basis of such records.

19:42

If Dungan is right, then the issue of authorship of certain books, most notably the Seven Disputed Letters of Paul, is settled, and it's settled by appeal to an ecclesiological structure that is other than what

19:51

Protestants embrace. The irony is that today evangelicals especially argue for the authenticity of the Disputed Letters of Paul, yet they are arguing with one hand tied behind their back, and it has been long noted that the weakest link in evangelical bibliology is canonicity.

20:04

Here I just had to go, no, wrong on too many levels to even get into today.

20:12

Once again, I would point us to Michael Kruger's work on the subject, but I don't think

20:19

Eusebius had access to some secret stash of documents. There are obviously many times when early church fathers made references to preceding bishops where they were simply inaccurate in what they ascribed.

20:34

I think this has a terrible perspective in regards to what makes something canon.

20:42

This is backwards from the way that you're supposed to approach it. Canon is a theological issue. It has to do with inspiration, and the funny thing is,

20:53

I just don't think maybe Dan has spent enough time with a lot of Roman Catholic scholars, but the

21:00

Roman Catholic Church doesn't know who wrote most of these books. The Papal Biblical Commission doesn't know who wrote

21:10

Matthew, for example. Again, just having that hierarchy doesn't guarantee anything at all, as Rome's experience demonstrates that exact situation.

21:27

There's a lot to be said there on the issue of the canon that is, I think, important to me.

21:34

He says, I'm not sure of the solution, or even if there is one, but we can take steps toward a solution even if we'll never get there in this world.

21:45

First of all, we Protestants can be more sensitive about the deficiencies in our own ecclesiology rather than think we've got a corner on truth.

21:51

Well, I'm not really sure what that means. If it's true that the vast majority of Protestants never even thought about ecclesiology,

22:01

I'm not sure what this means. I'm not sure how that functions in that way. We need to humbly recognize that the two other branches of Christendom have done a better job in this area.

22:10

I don't believe that for a second. That is purely pragmatic.

22:16

That's not Bibliology. Second, we can be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability, fellowship beyond our local church, and ministry with others whose essentials but not necessarily particulars don't line up with ours.

22:35

Well, again, if it's not a gospel issue, and I think we've demonstrated that we do do that.

22:43

A third, we can begin to listen again to the voices of the Spirit speaking through church fathers and embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries.

22:54

Well, it makes me wonder just a little bit. What do you mean by that? What liturgy? What is it communicating?

23:01

And things like that. So I wanted to just talk about that a little bit, get you thinking about that.

23:07

In the process, Rich reminded you of the book that is available in the web store on that subject.

23:13

Let me mention, by the way, Rich and I are just looking at scheduling and the possibility of three overseas trips between now and the end of January.

23:29

So once again, I just bring to you the need to raise funds to be able to make that happen.

23:36

I've already mentioned to you South Africa coming up, the first of those three, and then

23:45

Ukraine, and in the process, wanting to join to those,

23:55

London and joining Justin Brierley doing the Unbelievable programs on a wide variety of subjects.

24:03

We're talking about some possible topics along those lines. I would love to see if some of my

24:10

Scottish brethren would step up and arrange something up there. I haven't been up in Scotland for a long, long time.

24:15

Would love to arrange a debate in Glasgow or Edinburgh, someplace like that.

24:24

I think that would be wonderful. But again, international travel, this is a small ministry, and especially when you start doing multiple stops and things like that,

24:36

I only have so many miles in my frequent flyer account to be able to do the things we need to do.

24:43

And there's always other transportation issues and things like that. So if you can assist us, that would be greatly helpful.

24:50

There is a travel link in the store. I'm not sure, is aomin .org,

24:57

I forget what the exact link is. I should have that. store .aomin .org .travel

25:04

.html There you go. And we are going to, I'm chatting with Micah right now,

25:11

Hasim, king of graphics, I'm sorry. Yes. Chatting with him right now about updating the old banner ad that we had for South Africa up last year.

25:20

And he's asking me what other travel, what other destination. Yeah, Ukraine. Be part of this.

25:26

Ukraine and I've got an invitation to Norway. For the week prior to the

25:33

G3 conference. And so we'll see if we'll see if that can work out.

25:39

Though, again, the whole idea of going to Norway in January seems really weird. Counterintuitive, I believe.

25:45

Seems very counterintuitive to me. The only thing that I could see advantageous about going to Norway in January is

25:55

I'm pretty certain I wouldn't have to worry about mosquitoes. What do you think? Does that think that's a good guess?

26:02

Those would have to be industrial strength mosquitoes. No, they'd have to have de -icers on their wings.

26:10

So we'll. What do you call it? The kind of parkas. Yes, yes, yes. Mosquitoes and parkas.

26:16

That would, yeah, that would probably be very deadly. I'd be a bad thing. Okay. All right. There's topic number one.

26:22

Topic number two. I was sent a link via Twitter to a video that hit just recently.

26:34

And it's making the rounds and it's titled Seven Bible Quotes Supporting Gay Relationships and posted on a lesbian site.

26:47

And it is a lesbian by the name of Ariella Scarcella.

26:55

At least that's how I think you would spell or pronounce the name. Ariella Scarcella and Matthew Vines.

27:03

And the reason I had to download it and then put it in iMovie and clean it up, unfortunately, because Ariella likes to use vulgar language and vile language and things like that, which we would not want to necessarily expose you to and to the young people in the audience to as well.

27:26

But so I took out that stuff and the stuff at the end.

27:31

And the whole reason for responding to it is that this is pretty much a nice brief summary of Matthew Vines apologetic.

27:46

And I, I know that Matthew follows me on Twitter. Twitter tells me this, but I can't get

27:53

Matthew to respond to me via that means. And so I'm going to have to find some other way of contacting

27:59

Matthew in a little more formal fashion. Because when

28:05

I responded to his video and we talked about debating, he said after the book comes out, well, the book's out.

28:15

And he's telling people that his reformation project is meant to help train people to engage in debating and convincing people that Christianity and homosexuality are, are compatible.

28:38

And so I have actually offered if he would like to set something up with his reformation thing as part of their training,

28:49

I will, I will come and debate in front of the people that he's, that he's training.

28:54

I mean, I would think, I would think if this position is so strong and, and so defensible that that would be the best way to do it.

29:04

You know, bring in, bring me, bring in me and Michael Brown. Who else, who else could you bring in? Between the two of us, we've written three books on the subject.

29:12

We've debated how many people. I've debated John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn and, and a member of the

29:19

Metropolitan Church and, and Matthew's or Matthew, Michael has debated all sorts of folks on, on homosexuality more than I have.

29:30

Probably together we've done more debates than almost anybody else from our perspective anyways on this subject.

29:36

And so why not, why not do that? I think that would be, that would be great, but I'm just not getting any, any response.

29:43

So here is, here is the, the video and it's only four minutes long once you cut out the nasty stuff and the weird stuff at the end, but this is, this is, this is what's being put out there.

29:59

This is what people are going, oh, that sounds great. Yeah. And when you have a society that wants a reason to disbelieve, this is the kind of thing that communicates to them.

30:12

And so this is the kind of presentation you need to be ready to give an answer to. You need to be ready to respond to.

30:19

All right. So, uh, let's take a look at it and, uh, I'll be stopping and starting and, uh, let's, let's, let's take this apart.

30:28

Hi. So here are seven Bible -based reasons, believe it or not, for same -sex relationships.

30:35

Reason number one, condemning same -sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people. Jesus taught in the

30:41

Sermon on the Mount that good trees should bear good fruit. Meaning if you are a good person and you treat others with love and respect, it'll bring more love and respect to everybody else and to yourself in the world.

30:52

The church. Now, uh, let's, let's stop right there. Um, the, the argument here, let's, let's respond to, uh,

31:03

Ariella's misinterpretation of Matthew chapter seven. If you actually had read

31:09

Matthew chapter seven, it says, beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing that inwardly are ravenous wolves.

31:16

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?

31:22

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

31:32

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then you will know them by their fruits.

31:39

And the very next phrase is, the very next sentence is not, I think, probably one of Ariella's, um, favorite verses.

31:46

Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven will enter.

31:53

That's a little bit different, uh, than the, uh, fluffy new age interpretation that was just given about, uh, you know, bringing light and happiness into the world.

32:03

Um, there was a context to Jesus's words and the context, uh, had to do with false prophets who inwardly are ravenous wolves.

32:14

And hence the fruit that his hearers would have understood would have to do with the fruit of righteousness, which would have been defined, uh, by the very law that Matthew is going to just simply glibly, uh, pass over here in a couple seconds as having no relevance whatsoever.

32:32

This, this kind of, of horrific mishandling and misrepresentation of Jesus's words in the

32:42

Sermon on the Mount, Matthew, Matthew's version, whatever version you might be referring to, um,

32:49

Luke's briefer version, whatever, um, very, very common and frequently not caught by Christians because a lot of Christians are not familiar with the context of the centrality and the honor given to God's word in the

33:05

Sermon on the Mount. And if you think that what Jesus was doing was basically saying, you don't have to worry about the law anymore in the

33:11

Sermon on the Mount, then you really got no basis, uh, for responding to this.

33:16

But once you allow the text speak for itself, uh, very, very different. Secondly, Matthew's argument is that, well, um, this has hurt

33:26

LGBT people and therefore this is bad fruit. What do you mean it's hurt them?

33:33

Well, it doesn't allow them to, uh, to affirm their sexuality.

33:40

Interestingly enough, uh, Matthew has to introduce here, just, just even pretend that this has anything to do with the

33:47

Bible. Matthew has to introduce a distinction that as we've explained, fundamentally destroys the authority of scripture.

33:55

And that is his constant distinction is, well, we're only talking about committed monogamous homosexual relationships, which they knew nothing about at all.

34:07

Well, it is, it's been demonstrated that that is not the case, uh, that, that was not unknown in the ancient world.

34:18

Um, but be that as it may, the assertion is that if it's true and they had no idea what that was about, then could we ask the question, um, what about the vast majority of the male homosexual population that is not involved in committed monogamous homosexual relationships?

34:40

Which would be about, uh, 98%. Okay. So you're talking about maybe 2%.

34:49

And so, um, let's, let's ask the question, isn't

34:56

Matthew Vines hurting the 98 % when he limits

35:03

God's blessing to the 2 % that want monogamous committed lifelong relationships?

35:12

See Matthew, one of the reasons that I think you're, you're hesitating a little bit to actually bring this, uh, position that you've enunciated into, into public debate.

35:23

You know, that the people that are interviewing right now are not really going to ask tough questions. Um, but the people that you're avoiding are the people who have read all the sources you used, who have known

35:37

Boswell and Skanzonian, Mollenkot and Countryman and Helminiac and especially your favorite source now,

35:45

Brownson. Read these books, know how to respond to these books, have examined these books, look at these book citations, look at their scholarly material, uh, and can, uh, interact with them on the level of the original languages, which you, you know,

36:02

Matthew cannot do. You're going on secondary sources and you know that taking your arguments into a debate against people who can go to the primary sources is probably pretty dangerous.

36:16

Which is why I've said we, Michael and I would love, uh, if you would, uh, get Dr. Brownson to join you because that, that would, that would even be better.

36:23

That'd be great. Um, but as it may, your system is thoroughly incoherent because you assume certain things and then you don't, you don't bother to defend those things.

36:41

You need to answer the question as to why, for example, well,

36:46

I'd be very interested in your response, Matthew, to the article I posted yesterday, where I showed a picture of two homosexuals holding hands.

36:54

Uh, it was, uh, I think it was US News. Was it US News or USA Today? USA Today photographer had set them up in all these different places to make them look so happy and so natural and so wonderful and, um, et cetera, et cetera.

37:07

Um, and I asked the question, what if instead of just two homosexuals who want to get married in that picture, what if they were brothers?

37:21

What if they were brothers? Why would that be inappropriate? Why would that be inappropriate?

37:29

Uh, what if it was a father, son, grandfather, grandson relationship? Why would that be inappropriate?

37:37

Given your perspective, given, uh, the argument that the

37:43

New Testament writers would not have known about committed, uh, intergenerational love situations, why would that be wrong?

37:54

And if we just put another man in there, so you've got three men holding hands, why not three?

38:03

Consistently, not just the ooh factor or ick factor, or because see, as soon as you say, it's only two, you're demonstrating, you're still pulling, you're still recognizing the biblical binary of marriage that is seen in the relationship of Christ, the church.

38:21

You're just ignoring the heterosexual nature of it. You've gotten rid of part of that biblical binary, but for no reason other than you're a homosexual.

38:30

And that's what you're trying to do with the Bible. That's the only reason. And of course, that's not defensible in meaningful debate, not logically or rationally, not if you want to convince people that there's actual truth value to what you're saying.

38:44

So, um, you say this hurts people, and yet you're willing to hurt by your binary assertion those who engage in polyamorous situations, polygamous situations, incestuous situations, you're hurting them.

39:04

How are you not hurting them? If you're quoting the Bible that says and saying that's wrong, then how are you not hurting them?

39:12

But you see, the whole problem with this whole argument is that if the Bible says this type of relationship is wrong, and it does, that that somehow hurts someone.

39:26

I would assert to you that when the Bible says this is wrong and this is right, lining up what the

39:32

Bible says is the greatest thing for a person. That's how you experience life rather than death. And so the whole the whole basis of the argument is bogus.

39:44

It's like saying, well, the Bible has hurt so many thieves because it says thou shalt not steal.

39:51

There are kleptomaniacs out there. It's just the way they are. And they've been hurt by the church. Now, has the church always had the exact right biblical balance in dealing with thievery?

40:03

No. Does that mean that thievery, therefore, is okay? No. Has the church always had the right exact balance in dealing with homosexuality?

40:12

No. Does that mean homosexuality is okay? No. Obvious. So this is the fundamental argument.

40:19

This is this is the ground. It is not good for man to be alone. So if I'm homosexual,

40:24

I need to be able to marry. No. That is a shallow, shallow way of thought that cannot survive meaningful examination or cross -examination.

40:35

It is the kind of thinking that that can only survive in the context of a monologue or in the context where you have a very willing media as your collaborator.

40:52

But in the context of the debate, that's that's not going to work. Rejection of same -sex relationships has caused tremendous suffering to LGBT people.

41:01

That's not good for you. Tremendous suffering to LGBT people. So. Again, when you can take an argument and plug in validly and consistently other positions.

41:16

And the argument collapses, that is evidence of an incoherent argument.

41:22

And so there have been people who have committed suicide. Because they knew that.

41:33

The scriptures identified them as sinful for having committed murder, having committed fornication and adultery.

41:47

And they they were crushed by it and they committed suicide. Was that the Bible's fault? Is that the church's fault?

41:57

This type of argument is saying. God cannot have a holy law because anyone who breaks that law can then say you are causing me to suffer and therefore that's bad fruit.

42:07

Incoherent. Jesus would never have understood. And validated that kind of argumentation at all.

42:15

At all. And neither should any of us. And neither should you. You should eschew such reasoning because it is incoherent.

42:25

It's just not, you know, it's not good. Well, we're good food. They're not being nice to the good fruit.

42:32

And of course, she's talking about herself as a lesbian and he is a homosexual and therefore they are fruits.

42:38

If I use that terminology, then I would be called a hater. There you go.

42:44

Now on to number two. Sexual orientation is a pretty new concept. Christians in the past tended to see same sex behavior as a vice of excess, like gluttony or drunkenness.

42:52

Now, now she says right as if she has any clue. This is part of the

43:00

Brownson argument. If you're not familiar with it before now, now you're going to start hearing part of this.

43:07

The argument that the Brownson uses is that what you've got in Romans chapter one is an excessive desire, epithumia, an excessive type of behavior.

43:23

Um, so as to, I guess, in some way, deflect attention from the nature of the behavior.

43:31

And this is why, this is why, uh, when time will allow and everything else,

43:37

I, I really want to, um, dig deeply into Brownson with you on the program.

43:43

But, you know, I want to do the airman stuff. I'll do the Brownson stuff. Um, there's not enough time in the day.

43:50

Um, but this is where I, I really think that even what we did in the last program in looking at Romans chapter one in regards, uh, to Danny Cortez, um, who by the way is a graduate of Biola Talbot.

44:06

Um, but as it may, I didn't know that, but I was informed of that. Um, even the comments

44:13

I gave there demonstrate where Brownson has had to miss purposefully um, to establish his perspective, the flow of Romans one, because the, while there is certainly references to excessive behavior in Romans chapter one, that's not the point.

44:36

The point is the twistedness, the creator creation relationship. It's interesting that, uh, the book that I wrote in 2003 and four, the

44:48

God who justifies has an extended chapter on Romans chapter one and an exegesis of this text.

44:56

I did that because it was so foundational to the doctrine of sin and hence to the doctrine of justification to understand it's forensic, it's forensic nature.

45:08

Um, but it's interesting that, you know, you can't, you can't really try to say that, well, you're just trying to deal with, with Brownson or something.

45:16

Because my exegesis of Romans one was written, that's when did Brownson come out? 13, 2013, yeah, 2013.

45:22

So nine years earlier, and yet I was dealing with all those issues because it's just, it's just what's there in the text.

45:30

And so this whole idea that, well, again, here, here, here comes the, well, you know, the

45:36

Bible really can't address this subject because they didn't know what we know today.

45:42

Baloney, this is, this is such a modernistic and, and, and Gagnon has, has demonstrated from primary sources over and over again.

45:54

Um, the recognition just because they didn't use the same terminology does not mean that the people back then were stupid.

46:01

There were people who recognized that there were men who only had a desire for other men and even men who desired to have only lifelong relationships with other men.

46:15

They recognized that you couldn't live in that culture without knowing it. My wife and I, um, went over to Sacramento a couple of weeks ago and we parked in this particular parking place, uh, that she uses off, uh, off of the airport.

46:32

And so there's this shuttle that takes you back and forth rather than the regular bus thing. It was nice.

46:38

It was, I may use it in the future. It was, it was actually fairly economical. Anyway, coming back and, uh, these two guys get on the bus.

46:48

I think actually they're on the bus before us. Yeah, they're on the, they're on the shuttle bus before us. And, uh, they're sitting across from us and, and, um,

46:56

I'm just sort of watching them and they're, they're older than, than us. And, uh, when they got off,

47:02

I, I looked at Kelly and I said, um, were you thinking what I was thinking? I said, duh, uh, uh, the women are faster to pick the, uh, uh, pick types of things up than, uh, than we are at times.

47:18

Uh, but you know, here were two probably early sixties, mid sixties men, clearly a gay couple, homosexual couple.

47:29

Um, and you know, I didn't have to engage them in conversation to figure that out.

47:37

You don't think there were people like that in Paul's day? You don't think he, you think he just didn't notice things like that?

47:44

Seriously? This whole idea, this is, this really is what makes me go. You, you, you really want us to take seriously the idea that from your perspective, the biblical writers were significantly more naive than I am today.

48:03

I don't believe it. I don't, I don't believe it for a second. It is an artificial distinction that allows you to separate one form of a forbidden activity from other forms of a forbidden activity as if there's really a difference.

48:20

It's a, it's a irrelevant difference. It doesn't change the fact that it's the, it's the creation ordinance violation that is in view here.

48:29

That's, that's really, that's really the issue. Not as a sexual orientation that can be expressed in loving, committed ways, loving, committed ways.

48:38

That's not biblical, Matthew. A loving, committed way biblically is focused upon the glory of God, the fulfillment of the creation mandate, and therefore what's best for the other person.

48:57

No homosexual relationship can fulfill that. And I know you, I know you disagree. I'm simply saying from a biblical perspective, and I did catch, you said before your book came out, you did respond to me.

49:11

Well, there's a lot of stuff you didn't, but I think I found in your book where you, you did try anyways, because you did briefly mention what

49:22

I raised a number of times in my lengthy four hour response to you.

49:27

Well, it was five hours, but we played everything you said. And that is the concept of falling in love with the mirror.

49:36

You have to, and you're following Brownson to do this, but you have to attack complementarianism. You cannot allow for there to be something specifically complementary between man and woman, and every single person in a married relationship knows that complementarianism is true.

49:56

Every single one. That does not mean that it expresses itself in the exact same way in every relationship but every husband knows that his wife is not a guy and every wife knows that her husband is not a woman.

50:18

And we know that in such strong experiential ways that it can only be a lying spirit that is convincing our society otherwise, because we know in our heart of hearts that there is something completely different about that one to whom we give ourselves.

50:42

And hence, that relationship is a fulfilling relationship, a complementary relationship. Connecto, you know the term, you've heard it, but you're not fulfilling it and you can't with another man.

50:54

Can't happen, impossibility. You're in love with the mirror. And that's not loving, not from the

51:00

Bible's perspective. That's not love. So you've had to redefine love. Not derive your definition from scripture, you're taking it from out here and forcing it on scripture.

51:11

That's one of the many problems. So Christians don't have to reject their faith tradition to accept same -sex relationships.

51:17

They just have to. Yes, yes we do. That's a total redefinition. It's dishonoring to those who define those faith traditions in the first place.

51:29

It is, it is a, it's based upon a distinction without a difference.

51:35

Um, no. Otherwise, we're in a new environment, faced with a new issue. Reason. New environment and new issue.

51:43

I don't even know how you can begin to defend such an assertion.

51:51

Are you saying that there were, there was nobody like you in the days of Jesus, Matthew?

51:57

Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that Jesus was

52:03

God in human flesh? I really wonder if you, if you can still continue to believe those things. I really wonder how you can remain orthodox.

52:11

I really do. Are you saying, Matthew, that God in human flesh,

52:18

Jesus, the son of God, the creator, according to Colossians chapter one, walked this earth, knew that there were people like you walking past him, knew that in that society, in Jewish society, that it was absolutely forbidden to do that.

52:36

You can't show me, Matthew, anyone in the days of Jesus, anyone in his context that promote the things you promote, can you?

52:45

You didn't even try in your book because you know you can't. And so there is a consistent understanding that homosexuality, the act, the orientation, there was no, there was no advocacy for gay marriage in the days of Jesus.

53:03

And yet, if you believe that Jesus was God in human flesh, then you believe that he made you the way you are, right?

53:12

And that there were others like you in his day, and he never said a word, but he is now through you.

53:20

How can you believe that Jesus is this loving savior figure when what you believe is true?

53:28

And he knew that there were people like you walking right past him, and he never opened his mouth, never said a word.

53:40

When the Sadducees asked him about the woman and the seven brothers, and he gives his response and bases it upon the creation ordinance of male and female.

53:53

Here was the time, Matthew. Now's the time for him to enunciate everything about LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ.

54:08

And yet, what does he do? All he does is he affirms all of the bigotry and the tradition and the suppression.

54:22

He affirms that gender is given by God. So much for the

54:29

T, right? And the B. And he says, father and mother, not father and father and mother and mother.

54:39

And the only one flesh that is blessed is a male and a female.

54:48

I really would like to understand, Matthew, your motivations and how you would answer that question.

54:59

Why didn't Jesus break the molds? He clearly knew what they were.

55:05

He instead reinforced them. Could it be that because, you know, it's one thing for you to say, well,

55:15

Paul didn't know about these things. Jesus didn't know about these things. I'm sure you can find plenty of liberal theologians that would say, oh, yeah,

55:25

Jesus was just a man of his time, so on and so forth. So you're going to say the Incarnate Son of God didn't know it was in the hearts of men.

55:34

You're going to reject the fact that he was creator of all things. Questions that we would like to have answered.

55:42

Number three, celibacy is a gift, not a mandate. So I studied the Bible a bit in college, and I remember that it talks specifically about the idea of being celibate and how it's better than not being celibate.

55:53

But Paul also. Ariel is really confused. And, you know,

56:02

Matthew, if you call yourself a Christian, she says she'd be a little bit more like a Buddhist. Do you really think what you're presenting to her would lead her to bow the knee to Jesus Christ?

56:14

How would you explain the gospel to Ariella? I mean, I cut out a part there that demonstrates she needs to hear about it because she clearly doesn't know it.

56:25

How would you explain it to her? What would be your basis for maybe speaking to her about her sin?

56:35

Can you talk about the wrath of God anymore, Matthew? Can you explain the need for the cross?

56:43

Can you talk about propitiation? Can you do that anymore, Matthew? What is sin?

56:50

Is it just not being as good a lesbian as she could be? Is that all there is?

56:58

What about that sacrifice? What about all those passages in the

57:04

New Testament about the judgment of God and the wrath of God? Can you talk about them anymore, Matthew? If you can't, why are you trying to call this a

57:14

Christian movement? Why did you call it a Reformation project? What are you trying to reform?

57:23

Some of the questions, I think, cross many of our minds. That celibacy can't be forced upon people.

57:29

It can only be chosen by people who have that gift and that calling. Now, the argument here is that, well, the

57:38

Bible can't forbid homosexual sex because if you're a homosexual, then you can't have sex.

57:50

And if you've not been given the gift of celibacy, then

57:55

I should be able to have homosexual sex or the Bible contradicts itself. Matthew, how can you not see the fundamental incoherence of that argument?

58:11

I mean, the Bible specifically, clearly prohibits engaging in sexual behavior with non -humans.

58:27

I'm not talking about aliens either. So, is that somehow an argument that for someone who desires to have sex with a dog, well, if you've not been given the gift of celibacy, then you should be able to have sex with a dog because if that's what you want, and that's the way you're made, because that's really the fundamental assertion here, isn't it?

58:54

You're assuming the conclusion of your argument as the basis of your argument. Because the only way that your argument makes any sense is if, well,

59:01

God made me this way. It's a blessed thing. It's a gift from God. It's right. It's proper. And therefore, if I'm not given the gift of celibacy, then

59:10

I should be able to exercise this gift, this desire that's mine sexually, right? So, intergenerational, incestuous, bestiality, all of that stuff would fit the same argument.

59:31

Because if they're not given the gift of celibacy, then they should be able to express their

59:36

God -given desire, and you're saying that's a God -given desire, which is a circular argument. You're using the conclusion as a part of your premise, but you just cover that over with all the flowery language.

59:50

But some of us see that. It's sad that so many in our society don't see that, but the reality is that if you do not have the gift of celibacy, then you can express your

01:00:09

God -ordained sexual desire in marriage, to a woman, and becoming a father, and having a family.

01:00:20

Because you experience same -sex attraction, you say, well,

01:00:28

I can't do that. So I should be able to fulfill the lust that I have, because the desires

01:00:35

I have do not fit into your too narrow, a God -defined category.

01:00:42

So there's the argument. And have we all noticed so far that even though we're on number three, we really haven't seen much in the way of biblical argumentation.

01:00:50

CBT people, like a lot of straight people, don't have that gift and calling, and it's wrong to force them all to be celibate.

01:00:55

Number four. So there is this story in the Bible about two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah.

01:01:01

Most people thought that God had condemned them for being gay. A lot of people, they thought that a lot of people in those two specific cities were homosexual, and that's not really the case, is it?

01:01:09

No. There was an attempted gang rape of men by men in Sodom, but that's pretty different from a loving relationship.

01:01:19

Sodom was destroyed for its arrogance and apathy toward the poor, not for quote -unquote being gay.

01:01:25

Number - Okay. There you have the standard, I mean, you can go back a long ways now in the books as to how to get around Genesis 18 and 19.

01:01:42

And there is no question that Sodom and Gomorrah is condemned for more than homosexuality.

01:01:54

But here's the problem. Because Sodom and Gomorrah had other sins, you seem to think that homosexuality wasn't one of them.

01:02:07

That's the problem. Obviously, when you look at the story,

01:02:18

Lot knew, Lot understood that when the angels came, they could not stay in the city center.

01:02:28

Was that because no one else would have come along and offered them hospitality? No. In fact, it's very obvious that Lot wants to sneak the men into his home because they're men.

01:02:42

And Lot knew the nature of the men who lived around him.

01:02:50

It is a reductionistic reading. It's a reductionistic reading of Sodom and Gomorrah to go to both extremes.

01:03:00

Have there been people who simply assumed that everything about Sodom and Gomorrah, all it had to do was same -sex attraction?

01:03:10

And they're wrong about that, of course. The other extreme is to go, it had nothing to do with same -sex attraction.

01:03:15

It had nothing to do with homosexuality. It only had to do with a lack of hospitality.

01:03:23

Obviously, both are absurd. Both are reductionistic. The reality is,

01:03:30

Matthew, and you didn't deal with it in your book, the reality is that when you carefully read the text in Genesis, and I tried to do so in writing my chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah, and that was one of the chapters

01:03:47

I specifically wrote, when you listen to the conversation between Lot and the men of Sodom, they reacted just like modern -day homosexuals do.

01:04:03

You notice that? As soon as Lot identified their desire to know the men, and the emphasis in the text is upon men, the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, bring out the men that we may yada, that we may know them.

01:04:24

As soon as Lot identifies that as a moral evil, I don't know about you, but they sound just like most homosexuals do today.

01:04:34

How dare you judge us? You're a stranger amongst us.

01:04:40

We'll do worse to you than to them. Then, Matthew, have you ever thought about the fact that when

01:04:51

God strikes the men blind, have you ever thought about the fact that didn't stop them?

01:05:00

It didn't stop them. They kept trying to find the door even once they were struck blind.

01:05:11

Have you ever thought about that? What that tells us? There's a lot more there.

01:05:18

That, and I know this is a brief little video, but you see, if I hadn't read your book and the sources you quote in your book, then

01:05:30

I might be picking at nits, but I have read your book. And because I have,

01:05:37

I know that you really haven't dealt with the Sodom and Gomorrah issue. Five, Leviticus in the

01:05:42

Old Testament condemns male same -sex intercourse. But Leviticus has actually never applied to Christians as moral law.

01:05:49

Wow, really? Really, Matthew? You do not want to take that statement into a debate.

01:05:58

That is one of the most amazingly facile and easily refuted assertions

01:06:09

I've ever heard someone in your position. You, you, you really want to try to defend that statement.

01:06:23

You do realize that love the Lord, your God, and love your neighbors yourself is in the same section of Leviticus, right?

01:06:33

You realize that same section of Leviticus is about honoring parents, honoring the elderly, protecting the poor, same section of Leviticus.

01:06:44

You're seriously going to tell me that the New Testament authors never apply

01:06:50

Levitical moral law? Wow, I would love to have an opportunity to take that one into a debate.

01:06:58

That would be, that would be very, very helpful. I'd love to have time to explain to people what that really means.

01:07:09

And once again, what it really does, Matthew, you know, you can never defend it. You know that. Impossible.

01:07:17

But what's even more, Matthew, is that what it would allow me to do is to demonstrate the connection between what

01:07:25

I was, the questions I was asking you earlier. You couldn't explain, you could not explain to Ariella the necessity of the death of Christ on the cross, given what you just said, because you can't define sin.

01:07:43

Not the way it's defined in Hebrews, not the way it's defined in Ephesians, not the way it's defined in Romans. You have to come up with some new modern way.

01:07:51

I guess it's a new situation, right? Jeremiah chapter 31,

01:07:59

Matthew, talks about the new covenant. And one of the things it says is in the fulfillment of the new covenant,

01:08:10

God says, I will write my law upon their hearts.

01:08:18

When Jeremiah said those words, what would his audience have understood the law to be?

01:08:26

How would they have understood those words? Some of the most basic, fundamental revelations of morality and ethics universally accepted by all of man are enunciated in the holiness code of Leviticus, and you just threw it under the bus.

01:08:48

Bestiality, incest, rape, fornication, taking care of the poor, the elderly, parents, it's all there.

01:08:57

You just threw it under the bus. For what, Matthew? For what?

01:09:09

Eating pork, eating shellfish, cutting the hair on the side of your head. Well, Christ fulfilled the law as Christians understand it, which is why

01:09:17

Christians don't have to follow all of those restrictions from the Old Testament anymore. When you talk about dietary law and it setting the people of Israel apart, and then fail to recognize that the moral creation ordinance grounded elements of that law are clearly picked up in the

01:09:50

New Testament and explained as the very foundation of why we needed a

01:09:56

Savior, why we needed the cross, why we need propitiation. Again, Matthew, you have no gospel.

01:10:05

Your sexual orientation has become the gospel. Have you thought about that,

01:10:14

Matthew? Have you given that consideration? I mean, to me, one of the fullest refutations of your

01:10:24

Reformation project, the fact that you cannot consistently define or defend the gospel of Jesus Christ any longer without falling into chasms of inconsistency that make the

01:10:35

Grand Canyon look like a small posthole, and it's coming out right here.

01:10:43

It's coming out right here. Same -sex behavior is stemming from out -of -control lust.

01:10:54

That's pretty different from gay people in committed intimate relationships. Okay, we've already pretty much refuted that one.

01:11:03

I mean, that is a laughably simplistic and misleading understanding of Romans 1.

01:11:12

He does speak of lust, but for you to insert into the biblical text the concept of a homosexual love is to speak completely from silence.

01:11:26

And Paul, like other ancient writers, I take you right back again. Okay, if you want to dismiss

01:11:31

Paul as having a meaningful understanding of what's going on around him, being ignorant, you know, dismiss the spiritual aspect, what about Jesus?

01:11:45

Was Jesus like other ancient writers, just didn't understand when he reiterated the propriety of the

01:11:54

Jewish law and said, anyone who breaks these things, at least in the kingdom of heaven? I haven't heard you deal with that, but we've addressed most of that.

01:12:23

Okay, and there's the end of that.

01:12:29

I'm not sure why it shows it only at 250, but that was all seven of them. Okay, are you saying that, for example, the

01:12:42

ESV, which recognizes the Septuagint background of Arsinokoites and Malakoi, and hence identifies them as the active and passive partners in homosexual relationships.

01:12:58

Are you saying that because the English language has developed over time, that that's not a proper translation in light of what, again, it's this, yeah, well, but we have these loving relationships now that, you mean it didn't have them back then?

01:13:15

This is absurd. If you say that God has made you the way you are, are you saying that God only started making homosexuals this way recently?

01:13:26

I don't get any of this. If there have been 3 % homosexual population throughout human history, then there's been the 2 % of the 3 % that have wanted to have these monogamous relationships all along, back then or today.

01:13:49

You have to fundamentally deny the sufficiency of scripture, introduce categories to it that are beyond its scope to make these arguments fit.

01:14:01

That's all there is to it. I don't know how you get around it. I don't know how you get around it. But there you go, folks.

01:14:08

There is Matthew Vines, and there is the presentation that was made.

01:14:16

All right. We've got just enough time. I told you that I would absolutely, positively, completely, and 100 % burn out the topic clutch on the program today.

01:14:34

We are going to do that right now. And I'm not sure if I'm going to have enough time to do this.

01:14:39

But totally, you know what? You know what?

01:14:45

There is no way. There's no way. And I, unfortunately, do this evening.

01:14:53

Let's just say that the wife has indicated that I need to be home on time this evening.

01:15:00

And I would like to ask my entire audience's prayer. From my back. Because it's time to move furniture.

01:15:10

And when mama says we're moving furniture, we're moving furniture. We're moving entire...

01:15:18

What are you doing this afternoon, Irish? I need some... I need help. Mama at my house says

01:15:26

I got to fire up the barbecue in 110 degree heat. Oh, yeah, I see. So see how it is?

01:15:31

Let's see it at the very least. I do not leave this place without the dollies. Oh, okay, yes.

01:15:37

At least that. I don't think...

01:15:42

At least in my case, I won't have to move the barbecue over here. And then move it back. And then move it over there.

01:15:48

Oh, no, this is worse. We've got a new couch coming in. And the old one's got to go someplace.

01:15:54

This is terrible. It's terrible. It's terrible. She's rented a pickup truck.

01:16:01

Yeah. Uh -huh.

01:16:06

Uh -huh. Sorry about that. Yeah, thanks. Appreciate your true sympathy.

01:16:14

Anyway, what this means is that I can't even push the clutch in far enough to do this. So we're going to just go ahead and...

01:16:20

We're going to wrap stuff up. Because... And what I'm going to do... What I'm going to... It is Thursday, isn't it? Got to remind...

01:16:27

Can you remember? Because my memory... I wanted to address...

01:16:33

This is how big this leap would have been. But after what I just did, I just... I can't do it myself. MDI, Muslim Debate Initiative, posted an article called,

01:16:43

Why Verses in the Quran Can't Get Lost or Go Missing. That was going to be topic number three. Can't do it.

01:16:50

I just... I just can't shift from trying to reason with Matthew Vines to reading about Abu Bakr and Umar.

01:16:59

It's just... Even I can't handle that. And I think it would result in people driving off the road, falling off treadmills, just all sorts of...

01:17:10

Cats dating dogs. It would just be... It would just completely overthrow the entire created order. So we're just going to wrap things up here.

01:17:16

And next time around, I will try to address this particular article and maybe make it a little bit more consistent topics.

01:17:27

Something like that's the only way to do it. But thanks for listening to the Vining Line today. I hope, again, these topics have been useful to you.

01:17:34

And obviously, if you don't take this stuff out there and use it in the world, we're wasting our time. So may your witness be blessed.