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

Welcome to the dividing line on Thursday afternoon. I always have to think about that. But it's good to be with you. 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 in ice disappeared there there I am. I mean, it's fine. I don't actually like looking at that, but it helps to know. Especially knew this one, which I hate. Nice shot of the microphone there though.

This is this is the microphone scenery right there. Oh, 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. No. It is completely worthless because I'm not close enough to it for it to have any relevance whatsoever.

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 I don't do. Well, you can bring it closer.

I mean, no, no, don't pop it. Okay, I cannot bring it closer. There's a man behind the glass in the other room that you'll yell at me if I bring it closer. And you know that anyway, what are we talking about?

Oh, yes three topics to get to today and they are. Oh, I was telling you that until the until the moisture rise second week of July I might I like that much better. Until it's all that. I don't care 110 114 as long as it gets down into the 70s at night, you're good, but.

That's that's good. Thank you rich. Appreciate that. Yeah, that's that's it's not really lava lamping a lot yet, but it will soon. It's it's just about ready to start doing the lava lamp thing. You got to give it a good two and a half hours and I didn't give enough time today.

Which is nice the nice thing about the other light. It doesn't take any more about time. Anyway, three topics to get to today. So we better get to them and they could not be honestly more different. There's absolutely as far as I can tell no connection between Between our topics day and the first is a Article that was posted just.

Well, I don't know why this came up in my RSS feed or was it on Twitter? 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. But when I went back to it, you know what I'd like to at least briefly address this.

It's by Daniel Wallace and when Dan Wallace Speaks people listen, and I know I certainly do and even when you disagree with Dan you've got to know why you disagree with with Dan and It's his it's his article on The what is the specific title here the problem with Protestant ecclesiology.

It's dated March 18th of 2012, so it's a little old but it came up. Just just popped up in the in my in my stuff and Let me just read some of this with you. But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the Western Church by necessarily I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome.

Yaroslav 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 is devastating. 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 anymore.

But anyway, this same mindset began to in fact interesting terminology all Protestant churches. So they continued to splinter off from each other. I would Disagree a little bit there. Certainly a lot of people who split claim that their issue is the gospel and sometimes it is certainly, for example today not having fellowship with The United Church of Christ.

It's a gospel issue. United Church Christ doesn't have the gospel as false gospel. What's gonna happen in the Southern Baptist Convention in regards to homosexuality same thing issue of the gospel. So today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations at least didn't say 33 ,000 one doesn't see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism not even close.

Well, that's true and Why is that? I Will tell you 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 it strikes me because obviously in our mindset, it's it's a matter of Conversion to Christ and then once you are you are under the Lordship of Christ then you obey what he says about his church and and the importance of the church comes from First and foremost Christ and it's just amazing listening to EWTN and how often the church supplants Christ.

Well, of course Mary ends up supplanting Christ all the time on EWTN, but anyway To me the unity the the lack of level of fracturing now, there's major fractures in Eastern Orthodoxy, I mean just get a Russian Orthodox and a Greek Orthodox together and and then run.

But and certainly within Roman Catholicism, but the reality is That because you have huge massive Organizational structures this limits the fracturing simply because the big central agency owns everything and You've got all that tradition connected with it and Yet I would argue that within Roman Catholicism.

You have just as much fracturing functionally as You do amongst Protestants. And what do I mean by that? Go find yourself a truly believing Roman Catholic that represents the perspectives of the papacy in the 1950s.

There's still plenty of them around and then go listen to a Roman Catholic at Boston College and That's the same difference between a fundamentalist and a and the United Church Christ. Just as wide of a variety.

Rome just really isn't big into actually kicking people out all that often. Certainly they do. But it's pretty rare in comparison to number of heretics. They have running around in their in their hierarchy.

So there's reason that anyway. 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 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.

Well My ecclesiology would preclude the vast majority of that. That doesn't mean I don't have ecclesiology. It means I have a very clear ecclesiology and I defended that ecclesiology in written form in the Brodman-Holman book on five views of church governance and So I would agree that that most Protestants have not given much thought to ecclesiology.

Most evangelicals accept the default ecclesiology of Their particular, you know, whatever church they became associated with well, that's just how you do things, you know. There's nothing more to it than that but That does not mean there's not a Protestant ecclesiology nor the Protestants haven't thought about ecclesiology and that there is not a I think rather clear biblical Ecclesiology and you can see some of that in debate in my debate with Mitch Paco who I was listening to last evening on EW 10 for a few minutes and oh the stuff he was talking about it just about Mary and Her first Eucharist was when she became pregnant and all it was just really Anyway.

So he talks about you know, he spent a lot of time with Greek Orthodox folks and Talks about the liturgy a little bit. The liturgy is precise that would bother so many Protestants since their churches often try very hard to mute the voices from the past.

It's just me and my Bible is a motto of millions of evangelicals. Well, okay this wasn't specifically written for reformed folks and I don't think I don't know that Dan spends a lot of time with specifically reformed folks.

You know, he's a Dallas and there you know, there's some there but not not ecclesiologically reformed and of course even amongst there be many people say that I'm not and again see my debate with 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. Oh Wow, okay, that's totally freaked me out the perspectives. Yeah, it's right there on the on the thing did you also since you just interrupted me and completely blew blew my My train of thought there.

Did you did you want to mention the We're trying to trying to get rid of all of our debating Calvinism books.

And so we're not trying to get rid of all of them, but we you know I'm doing kind of checking and realizing I've got an overstock of them. And so if you've been wanting to get the debating Calvinism book.

It is now available on clearance while supplies last to a certain amount where I want it to be. For 575 plus shipping, which is 75 off the retail. There you go. There you go. Well of course, you know you were talking about your Basically saying you were basically debating debating 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. It is available as well.

For those who have not seen a Perspectives on church government, I guess is the title. That is the title. Yes. Thank you very much. There you go if you want to. See a debate between I think two reformed men on Ecclesiology, we've actually not done that debate.

We've done the infant baptism debate. But the whole idea of a presbytery of a of a structure above the local churches and things like that. You know. The only two people that were really going after each other in that particular book.

And that used up all the space that we had to make our presentations in response to each other. Or myself and and and Robert Raymond probably because we were the closest to each other. But you've got that that presbytery issue.

Anyway, so this it's just me and my Bible. I mean, I mean I I have spoken against that kind of Of Ecclesiology or lack of ecclesiology many many times and I am a churchman and so He goes on to say they often intentionally forget the past two millennia and the possibility the Spirit of God was working in the church During that time.

Well, obviously I believe the Spirit of God was working in the church during that time. But I also believe that a large portion of what calls itself the church isn't. So You have to 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 slush. Kierkegaard or. Yeah, well. Okay, that's that's true for some. That's that's really not true.

I think for most reformed 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.

Hope that's not what's going out, but but we will we will see anyway. He says in Protestantism one really doesn't know what he or she will experience from church to church. That's not true amongst Reformed Baptist or Orthodox Presbyterians.

One thing is one thing is is is is for sure. When I go to Reformed Baptist Church, I pretty much know what I'm gonna get. Anywhere in the world anywhere in the world? He says even church the same denomination are widely divergent not not all not all.

But it goes on from there then he talks about a situation where a Pastor he knew went into grave error and That it took quite some time to deal with it. And he says the congregation wasn't sure which way was up doubts about the cornerstone of Orthodoxy the deity of Christ arose.

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. Now. That is the exact argument of the concept of a presbytery or Episcopalianism or any type of hierarchical situation and I recognize the way the argument I just pointed out in the book that It works both ways works both ways.

Because as Rome shows us a hierarchy can also be an extremely effective way of maintaining error or as liberal Presbyterian churches in our own experience in just over the past hundred and fifty years Has likewise demonstrated that that hierarchical system can be extremely effective for the promulgation of heresy.

That's how liberalism has spread so quickly Amongst Presbyterian churches and required therefore the splitting splitting splitting. You know once you've got PC USA You know, what if you're a faithful Bible by believing Christian and you can't stick around there very long and so people split off and yet PCA and OPC and all the PCs that have You know made their existence over the over the course of the past hundred and fifty years or so and you got people leaving Princeton and founding Westminster and and all the rest that kind of stuff and and it's necessary because That hierarchical system was the mechanism whereby this false teaching could be promulgated and so It goes both ways.

And so this is I think one of the dangers of pragmatic ecclesiology. You can you can bemoan This particular individual situation where this man lost faith in the deity of Christ began teaching people about that.

We can bemoan what happened at Newhart over in California 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.

But the reality is 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 and The autonomy of the local churches ends up being a a It's sort of like tank traps.

I was listening to a history book this morning on a on a ride and it was on the the miracle of Dunkirk Walter Lourdes the miracle of Dunkirk and it was it was about the the evacuation of the British expeditionary force from Dunkirk at the beginning of World War two and There were certain types of land That were particularly difficult for the German panzer units to to cross just because of the marsh you know marshy type ground and and canals and things like that are our natural tank traps and the Blitzkrieg didn't work as well in those and that's in essence what the autonomy of local churches does that it functions in that way to Keep that from happening.

I've commented a number of times that You know even amongst Reformed Baptists when there are in there's infighting and stuff like that, you know, we're here in Phoenix and As my fellow elder explained it to me many many years ago when we first joined this church as you know I know all about that stuff's going on out there.

But you know most that stuff just sort of blows over us it it blows from the east to the west and goes to the west the east and just. We're the flyover country and it just doesn't really Doesn't really land here and hasn't been been an issue.

So it goes both ways. It goes both ways. And that's why I don't believe in a pragmatic ecclesiology and then he Very interestingly says third a book by David Dungan called Constantine's Bible makes an astounding point about the shape of the cannon the ancient church.

Duncan discusses the passage in Eusebius's ecclesiastical history 6 .12 when this church father famously spoke of four categories of literary candidates for the Canon homo leguminon Antilogomena apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.

Duncan 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, 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 books credentials. Not just any bishops of bishops the major sees the ancient church. Duncan went on to say that Eusebius must have looked up the records in the church annals and Could speak thus only the basis such records if Duncan 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 a Protestants embrace the irony is that today Evangelicals especially argue with the authenticity of disputed letters of Paul that they are arguing is one hand tied behind their back.

And it has been long noted that the weakest link in an evangelical bibliology is canonicity here I just had to go no Wrong on too many levels to even get into today. Once again, I would point us to Michael Kruger's work on the subject, but I don't think you Eusebius had access to some secret stash of documents.

There are obviously many times when early church fathers made references to preceding bishops that what they were simply inaccurate and what they Ascribed. I think this is a is a has a terrible Perspective in regards to what makes something canon.

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 idea that our and the funny thing is I just don't think that maybe Dan has spent enough time with a lot of Roman Catholic scholars, but the Roman Catholic Church doesn't know who wrote most of these books the the The the papal biblical Commission doesn't know who wrote Matthew for example, and so.

Again, just having that hierarchy doesn't guarantee anything at all as Rome's experience Demonstrates that that exact situation. So there's a lot to be said there on on the issue of the canon that is I think important to me.

He says I'm not sure if there is a solution or even if I'm not sure of the solution or even if there is one. But we can take steps toward a solution even we'll never get there in this world. 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 well I'm not really sure what that means.

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

I don't believe that for a second. That is purely pragmatics, that's not that's not bibliology. Second we we can be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical Accountability fellowship beyond our local church and ministry with others whose essentials are not necessarily particular.

Whose essentials but not necessarily particulars don't line up with ours. Well. Again, if it's not a gospel issue. And I I think we've demonstrated that we do do that a third. We can begin to listen again to the voices the Spirit speaking through church fathers and embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries.

Well Makes me wonder just a little bit. What what what do you mean by that? But which which what liturgy? What is it communicating and and things like that, so I wanted to just talk about that a little bit get you thinking about that and In the process rich reminded you of the book that is available in the in the web store on that subject.

Let me mention by the way Rich and I are just looking at scheduling and Possibility of three overseas trips between now and the end of January and So once again, I I just bring to you the the need to raise funds to be able to make that happen.

I've already mentioned to you South Africa coming up the first of those three and then Ukraine and in the process wanting to join to those London and Joining Justin Briarley doing the unbelievable programs on a wide variety of subjects we're talking about some possible topics along those lines, I Would love to see if some of my Scottish brethren would step up and arrange something up there.

I haven't been up in Scotland for a long long time would love to Arrange a debate In Glasgow or Edinburgh someplace someplace like that. I think that would be that'd be wonderful and But again international travel this is a small ministry and Especially when you start doing multiple stops and things like that I only have so many miles in my in my frequent flyer account to be able to do the things we need to do and There's always other transportation issues and things like that.

So if you can assist us, that would be a greatly helpful. There is a travel link in the store I'm not sure is a omen org. I forget what the exact link is.

I should have that store dot a omen org slash travel Dot HTML. There you go. And we are going to. I'm chatting with Micah right now. Hasim king of graphics. I'm sorry. Yes chatting with him right now about putting the Updating the old banner ad that we had for South Africa last year.

And he's asking me, you know.

What other travel what other destination? Yeah, Ukraine be part of this and Ukraine and and I've gotten an invitation to Norway for the week prior to the g3 conference and so we'll see if We'll see if that can work out.

Though again the whole idea of going to Norway in January seems really weird counterintuitive. I believe seems very counterintuitive to me the only thing That I could see Advantageous about going to Norway in January is I'm pretty certain.

I wouldn't have to worry about mosquitoes. What do you think? Does that think that's a good guess? No, this would have to be industrial-strength mosquitoes. No, they'd have to have de-icers on their wings.

So well, what do you call it? The kind of a parkas? Yes. Yes. Yes mosquitoes and Perkins that would yeah. They'd probably be very deadly I'd be a bad thing. Okay. All right, there's topic number one topic number two.

I was sent a link via Twitter to a video that hit just recently and It's making the rounds and it's titled seven Bible quotes supporting gay relationships and And posted on a lesbian site and it is a Lesbian by the name of Ariella Scarcella, at least that's how I think you would spell or pronounce the name Ariella Scarcella and Matthew Vines and The reason I 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 but so I took out the that stuff and the stuff at the end and the whole reason for responding to it is that this is pretty much a nice brief Summary of Matthew Vines apologetic and I I know that Matthew follows me on Twitter Twitter tells me this But I can't get Matthew to respond to me via that means and so I'm gonna have to find some other way of contacting Matthew in a little more formal fashion because when I responded to his video and We talked about debating he said after the book comes out well the books out 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 and So I have actually offered if he would like to Set something up with his Reformation thing as part of their training.

I Will I will come and debate in front of the people that he's that he's training 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, 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. We've debated how many people I've debated John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn and and member of the Metropolitan Church and and Matthew's debate Matthew Michael has debated all sorts of folks on on homosexuality more than I have Probably together.

We've done more debates almost anybody else from our perspective anyways on this subject 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.

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. This is what people are going on it 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 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 all right, so let's take a look at it and I'll be stopping and starting and let's let's.

Let's take this apart. Hi, so here are seven bible-based reasons believe it or not for same-sex relationships.

Reason number one. Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount.

The 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. The church now.

Let's stop right there.

The the argument here Let's let's respond to Ariella's Misinterpretation of Matthew chapter 7 if you actually had read Matthew chapter 7 it says Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing that inwardly are ravenous wolves.

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

Every tree it does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire. So then you will know them by their Fruits and the very next phrase is the very next sentence is not I think probably one of Ariella's Favorite verse is 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. That's a little bit different than the Fluffy New Age interpretation that was just given about, you know, bringing light and happiness of the world there was a context to Jesus's words and the context had to do with false prophets who inwardly are ravenous wolves and hence the fruit that his Hearers would have understood would have to do with the fruit of righteousness.

Which would have been defined by the very law that Matthew is going to just simply glibly Pass over here in a couple seconds as having no relevance whatsoever this this kind of Horrific mishandling and misrepresentation of Jesus's words in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew Matthew's version whatever version you might be referring to Luke's briefer version, whatever very very common and Frequently not caught by Christians because a lot of Christians are not familiar with the context of the Sermon on the Mount nor the centrality and the honor given to God's Word in the Sermon on the Mount and If you think that what Jesus was doing was basically saying you don't have to worry about a law anymore in the Sermon on the Mount then you've really got no basis For responding to this, but once you allow the text speak for itself very very different.

Secondly Matthew's argument is that well This has hurt LGBT people and therefore this is bad fruit. What do you mean? It's hurt them? Well, it doesn't allow them to to affirm their sexuality. Interestingly enough Matthew has to introduce here.

Just just even pretend that this has anything to do with the Bible. Matthew has to introduce a Distinction that as we've explained fundamentally destroys the authority of Scripture and that is his constant distinction as well.

We're only talking about committed monogamous Homosexual relationships, but they knew nothing about it all. Well it is. It's been demonstrated that That is not the case that that was not unknown in the ancient world.

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? What about the vast majority of the male homosexual population that is not involved in committed monogamous homosexual relationships.

Which would be about 98 Okay, so you're talking about maybe 2 and so Let's let's ask the question isn't Matthew Vines hurting the 98 When he limits God's blessing to the 2 that want Monogamous committed lifelong relationships see Matthew one of the reasons that I think you're you're hesitating a little bit to actually bring this Position that you've enunciated into into Public debate you you know that the people that are interviewing right now are not really gonna ask tough questions.

But the people you're avoiding are the people who have read all the sources you used. Who have known Boswell and Skenzonian Mollenkot and countrymen and Helminiac and especially your favorite source now Brownson.

Read these books know how to respond to these books have examined these books look at these books citations. Look at their scholarly material. And can interact with them on the level of the original languages, which you you know Matthew cannot do.

You're going on secondary sources and You know the taking your arguments into a debate against people who can go to the primary sources is probably pretty dangerous. Which is why I've said we Michael and I would love if you would get dr. Brownson to join you because that that would that Wouldn't be better.

That'd be great. But it 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. You need to answer the question as to why for example.

Well, 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. It was a I think it was US News. Was it US News or USA Today USA Today Photographer it had set them up in all these different places to make them look so happy and so natural and so wonderful and Etc, etc.

And I asked the question. What if instead of just two homosexuals who want to get married nothing? What if they were brothers? What if they were brothers? Why would that be inappropriate? Why would that be inappropriate?

What if it was a father-son grandfather-grandson relationship. Why would that be inappropriate given your perspective given? The argument that the New Testament writers would not have known about committed Intergenerational love situations.

Why would that be wrong? And if we just put another man in there, so you've got three men holding hands. Why not three? 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 you're just ignoring the heterosexual nature of it. You've gotten rid of part of that biblical binary, but but for no reason other than you're a homosexual 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 rationally not not if you weren't wanting to convince people that there's actual truth value to what you're saying so.

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. 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?

But you see the whole problem of this whole argument is That if the Bible says this type of relationship is wrong, and it does. That that somehow hurt someone. I would assert to you that when the Bible says this is wrong and this is right.

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

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? No. Does that mean that thievery therefore is okay?

No as the church always had the right exact balance in dealing with homosexuality. No, does that mean homosexuality? No obvious. So this is this fundamental argument this is this is the ground. It is not good for man to be alone, so if I'm homosexual I need to be able to marry.

No, that is a shallow shallow way of thought. That cannot survive meaningful examination or cross-examination. 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 A Very willing media as your collaborator.

But in the context of the debate, that's that's not gonna work.

Rejection of same-sex relationships has caused tremendous suffering to LGBT people. That's not good for you. There's still like.

Tremendous suffering to LGBT people. So Again when you can take an argument and plug in validly and consistently other positions. And the argument collapses that is evidence of an incoherent argument and.

So there have been people who have committed suicide. Because they knew that The scriptures identified them as sinful for having committed murder having committed fornication and adultery and They they were crushed by it and they committed suicide.

Was that the Bible's fault? Is that the church's fault? 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 incoherent.

Jesus would never have understood and Validated that kind of argumentation at all at all and neither should any of us. And neither should you that you should eschew such reasoning because it is incoherent.

And of course she's talking about herself as a lesbian and he is a homosexual and therefore they are fruits. If I use that terminology, then I would be called a hater.

There you go 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.

Now now she says right as if she has any clue. This is part of the Brownson argument if you're not familiar with it before. Now now you're gonna start hearing part of this the argument that the Brownson uses is that what you've got in Romans chapter 1 is an excessive Desire epithumia an excessive type of behavior.

So as to I guess in some way deflect attention from the nature of the behavior and this is why this is why When time will allow and everything else I really want to Dig deeply into Brownson with you on the program, but you know, I want to do the airmen stuff.

I'll do the Brownson stuff. There's not enough time in the day. But this is where I I really think that even what we did in the last program in Looking at Romans chapter 1 in regards to Danny Cortez Who by the way is a graduate of Biola Talbot.

But as it may I didn't know that but I was informed of that. Even the comments I gave there demonstrate where Brownson has had to miss purposefully To establish his perspective the flow of Romans 1. Because the while there is certainly references to excessive Behavior in Romans chapter 1 that's not the point.