Debate With LGBT Theologian Brandan Robertson

I would say if the authorities didn't want us involved in the Public Square they ought not to have crucified Jesus in the Public Square use humanistic principles I would say what's the problem with Stardust bumping into Stardust in the in the cosmic picture no there's no problem it won't matter [Music] ding reproductive Freedom you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year [Music] I'm sorry my friends but I am tired of seeing Jesus presented as a weak beggar he is a powerful Savior and the gospel is not a suggestion it is a command [Music] whatever mola don't you supervise with that I sympathize with every single human heart wishing to know the one true and living God but I believe there's only one way that that can happen through Jesus Christ and the gospel is about repenting of sin not celebrating it right now Europe [Music] Abyss you should not give any of your children to offer them to Molech and so profane the name of your God I am the Lord you shall not lie with a male as with a woman it is an Abomination and you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it it is perversion do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things for by all these the Nations I am driving out before you have become unclean and the land became unclean so that I punished its iniquity and the land vomited out its inhabitants but you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these Abominations either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you what's up everybody welcome back to another episode of apology a radio you can get more at apologiesstudios.com a-p-o-l-o-g-i-a studios.com here in the studio today very excited about this discussion we're going to be able to have today great level of respect for Brandon Robertson for uh connecting with us and providing the opportunity to have a discussion I'm Pastor Jeff Durbin with apologia church and that's Pastor James White director of alphan Omega Ministries Dr James White Beard's looking good today brother it looks great but also with apologia yeah well didn't I say that as a pastor apology yeah yes yeah Pastor from apology yeah Pastor apology yeah uh and so we are uh joined today in the show we're gonna get right into it today to have a discussion uh with Brandon Robertson many of you guys have uh are familiar with Brandon Robertson a very uh substantial um um a tick tock account and social media platform uh engaging in the area I would say of maybe Brandon can help me with us the the um I mean would it be proper to say gay theology um Theology and homosexuality um and promoting uh the idea that homosexuality is something good and holy before God I do spend a good amount of time talking about that but more broadly I would say progressive Christianity but yes also LGBT theology okay LGBT Theology and so I just want to say publicly uh because I mean it I'm going to speak straight not crooked great level of respect for Brandon Robertson when I saw that he had communicated with us and said he'd be willing to have a discussion I uh I was very grateful for that so I am honored to have you on the show today uh and so let's go ahead and just jump right into it Brandon so we can have that discussion people who know you and know us have probably seen the things that you have said and know what we've said over over the last month or so I think we've done a couple things engaging with some of your Tick Tock videos uh and so the video that you responded to was this one by what standard is anybody immoral in your perspective because you're you're trying to create a category of this is good lovely and beautiful and you know what these people who are doing this over here they're not actually over here in the category of immorals we've got good righteous immoral evil Brandon admits that he's he's not saying he's a nihilist unless you see saying there's actually something that's good yeah there's something that's immoral he's saying these people that do these acts over here they're not immoral okay the challenge is and it always is going to be branded by what standard are you measuring whether it's immoral is it because Brandon is it because in his little mind he believes that it's not immoral or is it the culture that we're currently in that says it's not immoral or is there actually an objective standard of something that is right or wrong or immoral or moral is there a standard out there somewhere where can I find the standard Brandon is it somewhere I can investigate or is is it a book that I can open is there a standard for what is right and wrong because you're clearly applying it you're saying that what they're doing isn't Wrong by what standard who says Brandon so there you go all right and so you responded to that on Instagram we can have a discussion about it and so I think it'd be good to start there what do you think yeah well I know that was in a context of a broader conversation I'm not exactly sure what particular video you're responding to but I do think the question of what standard do we Define morality uh by is an important one and I do think we but all probably start at different places um you two uh presumably believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that is your objective moral standard I would say that perhaps there is an objective moral standard but I don't know I don't believe that we can know it objectively and um I don't think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore I also don't think all of the morality that we find in the pages of the Bible is worthy of being followed um and so we have two different starting places for where we made our rally yeah it's a good place to start I'm glad you brought up just like that so that video in particular was responding to your video that was calling porn art and saying that it's actually a beautiful and good thing and so that's what that was about you were essentially saying it's not immoral it's not wrong and so since you believe because you don't believe the Bible is the objective standard or ultimate standard um since you believe that that is not the ultimate standard and that there's not really any you can't know any objective ultimate standard and then how do you know anything at all I mean you're making claims about what is moral and true and good and yet you admit that your system because you reject God's word and his Revelation is a starting point is that there you can't really know that there's a subjective morality so how do you complain about anything Brandon I would say that I would be in alignment with a majority of other people who uh have we have a reason we have science we have Revelation I do believe in Revelation I just don't believe that all of the Bible is God's revelation there are multiple ways that we come to develop a sense of morality I resonate with the language from the Hebrew Bible which talks about the law of God written on our hearts I believe that it's some sense all the human beings have been programmed with some level of moral code and yes there is obviously diversity and we disagree as humans on various um what things are moral and what might not be moral but there are a lot of areas where broad swaths of humanity throughout all time do agree on common moral principles and I'm also of the mindset that Humanity led by the spirit of God is constantly progressing in our morality which I know you all would probably very much disagree with but I believe every generation we're getting towards more of what Jesus talked about as the kingdom of God where we have a society of Justice Equity peace and so I see but yeah but you don't know you're admitting though Brandon I'm sorry to make sure just I don't want to I want to make sure that we're at least dealing with at one point at a time here so um but you've admitted that the word of God that talks about the kingdom of God and God's justice uh you admitted that you don't believe that it's inerrant or infallible or that it's the standard the ultimate standard at all so my question is why appeal to it at all why talk about things like the kingdom of God and the law of God written in our hearts when you've already acknowledged at the front that you don't respect it believe it stand on it respect it as an ultimate Authority you think that it's either corrupted at points or just the words of Mere Men and not an ultimate standard so I would just make a point here when you say you know scripture says the law is written in our heart well the specific word there is the Torah is written within us in Jeremiah 31 31 God's law the law will be written within us when Jeremiah wrote that they had a law in mind and instruction in mind and that was the law of God from the Old Testament and so that's what's written within us and so there's a there's an objective standard of what that law was so yeah it's now internalized it's no longer on stone tablets outside of us exerting pressure from the outside it's internalized with God's people in a New Covenant that's specifically a New Covenant Promise by the way um but that law is objective we know what it is God spoke it so here's a couple things I think this is where we fundamentally disagree is I think your version of uh Christianity tries to oversimplify things that aren't actually simple at all and I don't think uh it's as simple as you either believe all of the Bible or you believe none of the Bible I hear that a lot from more conservative Christians that's virtually not how anybody has engaged with scripture throughout the history of Judaism and Christianity it's not how we engage as human beings as a reasonable thoughtful people it's not all in or all out I believe that the Bible is a human product inspired by God and yes there are parts of the Bible where I believe God's revelation comes true or comes through clearly and there are parts of the Bible that are clearly immoral and wrong and should be reported to who you don't believe there's an objective standard though you said that you can't know it so why are you chastising a scripture about morality it's it's it being unethical at points when you've already admitted at the start of the show you don't believe you can know an objective standard like what is ultimately objective and ethics you're trying to be too black and white here and it's not that no I'm responding to what you said no because what I did say is that we can know morality no you said you said that you can't know that there's what that objective standard is something that's outside of yourself outside of your own preferences or your current position in time or culture that's something that's objective that exists outside of yourself you said that you can't know it I think you're forcing me into a category of your own creation I'm showing I'm showing you the inconsistency Brandon it's not inconsistent I'm sorry I don't know what the objective standard of morality is but now I'm going to tell you that the Bible is unethical but Brandon Robertson's first point is that he doesn't know you're already trying to win an argument by putting me in a category that I'm rejecting okay well what's the category you're rejecting so let's get that on the table so let's make sure I represent you properly what I clearly said is that there might be objective truth I don't believe that we can know it objectively you said you don't know it that we might not be able to know what objectively so do you know it there are moments where it is clear that humans are united on things like for instance most basic command do not murder most human cultures throughout history have come to a conclusion that murder is wrong how about Stalin I said most human cultures throughout history and most human cultures rejected communism most human cultures look at Hitler today and say Stalin Hitler genocide wrong now but but what standard do they believe well hold on Brandon well actually it was it was the Christian worldview and Christian truth and God's wisdom that that has that no Christian worldview and Christian truth in the west brought about a foundation and culture of say love your neighbor as you love yourself rather than eat your neighbor um It's Christian truth that ultimately did away say with well let's just talk about any the evils in the last uh two to uh 200 years whether it's slavery the slave trade it was the Christian worldview that did away with the slave trade um I don't think you can dispute that I would hope you wouldn't try um there are other cultures that abolish slavery as well and yeah but Christian but Christianity abolished on the basis of the revelation of God that everybody is a create a creature of the Creator he's the objective the revelation of God doesn't uh offer them Coalition of slavery it was people taking principles from the scriptures not the written words of scripture if they took the written words of scripture well you're wrong about that Brandon I'm sorry uh what does the Bible say about what is what does the Bible say about kidnapping and enslaving people there are various teachings no what is it right well you you quoted from Leviticus in one of your videos so you and I vocal the Bible's not univocal the Bible has many contradictory what does the scripture say about kidnapping and enslaving somebody Brendan I can tell you that all the way up through the New Testament there is an endorsement of slavery and you don't know scripture scripture teaches very explicit okay well Brandon well let me ask you let me ask you again I'll ask you for the third time what does Scripture say about kidnapping and enslaving a person which scripture are you talking about well scripture teaches that if you kidnap and enslave somebody it's worthy it's worthy of the cap worthy of capital punishment it's one of the things the Christian abolition has pointed to was the word of God is the Revelation that gives us a basis to fight against slavery this man is made in the image of God we're all in one uh one blood and God specifically says that if you kidnap and enslave somebody it deserves a death penalty it's one of the things the Christian abolitionists were saying to the culture at large um and so but but all that to say uh the the main point here is that um you reject the the word of God as foundational as a reference point and so the question is not the word of God so I don't reject the word of God you reject it as an ultimate reference point okay you think that yeah you you have different views on ethics than scripture gives and so you reject it um well you said that already I accept many parts of the Bible yeah some so so who what's just just so we all understand here what's the determining factor for Brandon Robertson so you say you believe the word of God you use words like kingdom of God law of God in your hearts but wherever you dislike a teaching in scripture you say I don't agree with that is the reference point is the reference point brain that thank God that I do that and thank God many and most Christians do that I think a lot of the positions politically and socially that you advocate for are reprehensible I think there are but you don't know you don't know there's an objective standard of morality Brandon so that's a meaningless argument against us you've already given it up if I if if if if I could if I could uh say something here when I first heard Jew many years ago Brandon um you still profess some sort of level of fealty to Jesus Christ as Lord yes um they'll do okay um can you find anywhere where Jesus Christ took your view of scripture yeah I think time and time again Jesus the way he dealt with scripture would have gotten kicked out of first semester of Bible College hermeneutics class also Jesus says takes the Hebrew Bible time and time again and says you have heard it said but I say unto you and he changes the scripture that's everybody in the audience knows that's not true he he did not change any Scripture he said you have heard it said and what he's quoting is the traditions of the Jews no he quotes actual passages from the Hebrew Bible and he does not change the text he takes it takes it deeper this is this is where do you do you still believe in the deity of Christ yes of course why because I have an experience of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ saved my soul as a 12 year old boy and I continue to follow Jesus and encounter Jesus I believe that Jesus is God so the scriptures as a whole are what testify to the idea that Jesus is God but you believe Jesus Is God because of an experience I would say both scripture tradition reason and experience all I would say all of those things come together to lead me to the conclusion that Jesus is the Incarnation of God okay so when Jesus quotes the scriptures to the Sadducees for example and bases his argument upon the tenths of a verb and specifically identifies those words as having been spoken by God and yet you say no scripture is not the word of God and yet Jesus says it's spoken by God well okay I said some scripture is not uh is not given by your inspiration of God I also reject the idea I Think Jesus is the word of God not the Bible and so I reject the way that you're using the phrase word of God but okay so um when you when you specifically say I'm going to follow Jesus and yet Jesus holds men accountable for what is found in the written scriptures that were written 1400 years before they came along some of them okay so where do you get the standard then that did Jesus give you his standards somewhere as to how to figure out what from the prescriptions you're going to believe and not believe the life and teachings of Jesus first and foremost are my foundation for my faith spirituality ethics that's where I would point to first and foremost as somebody who follow who identifies as a follower of Jesus now Jesus if you actually examine honestly and critically the way that Jesus uses scripture throughout the four Gospels again he would have been critiqued by fundamentalists I don't understand how you all wouldn't critique Jesus for instance when he quotes um he stands up in the synagogue unravels The Scroll of Isaiah and pronounces the spirit of The Sovereign Lord is upon me he's anointed me to preach good news to the poor quotes the whole scripture and then he stops right before it says and the great and Dreadful day of the Lord talking about the Judgment of God multiple times throughout the scripture Jesus would take what I would argue would be a more Progressive approach he quotes scriptures that negate things of uh that are okay here's a here's an obvious problem Brandon a really plain obvious problem first of all he holds the scriptures and Views them as the very words of God because he says these today these things are fulfilled in your ears and and then he stops where he stops because that is yet a future fulfillment there is a partial fulfillment in him you're making it impossible for there to be such thing as prophecy do you believe Jesus was prophesied in the scriptures what I think the way that I think you're interpreting that scripture is again not how Jesus would have interpreted it or any Jewish reader of the Jewish scriptures would have interpreted it I think this is one of the biggest problems with fundamentalist Christianity is that it reads back into the Hebrew Bible prophecies that weren't meant to be prophecies Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus except except I'm sorry Brandon accepts on the road to Emmaus Jesus the resurrected Lord chastises the these disciples on the road to Emmaus he calls them foolish slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken and then what does it say takes place Brandon is that the Lord Of Glory the one you say you follow took them through the Old Testament and all the places that it spoke about him you're denying that that took place Jesus did that okay a couple things here first and foremost we don't know what scriptures Jesus quoted in that uh passage so it's a bit of a strange argument to try to use an ambiguous passage that says Jesus looked at all of the law in the prophets and talked about where they spoke of him but second of all when we go when we're taking the Hebrew Bible and we try to read back in Christian understandings one it's an awe historical unscholarly approach to understanding what the Hebrew Bible is it's offensive and borders on anti-semitic so when the right would you call the writer of Hebrews anti-semitic I think the writer of Hebrews is terribly problematic in many ways okay so he did what you're saying you you shouldn't do and that's that he took the the scriptures from the Old Testament and showed the Fulfillment of Jesus Christ and Gospel according to Matthew is chocked full in both direct quotation and allusion to Old Testament passages of the Fulfillment that Jesus Christ brought in his life and death and Resurrection now he said to them these are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you that all things which are written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled do you think that's just Luke of throwing that in there and the Jews didn't say that yes most likely okay on what basis there you go on what basis Brandon because you think so well you know because you know you would know this um my mentor my dear Mentor John Dominic Crossing in the Jesus seminar is done expensive uh extensive uh Research into the historosity of the sayings of Jesus and the broad consensus outside of Conservative Christian scholarship is that a majority of uh the teachings in for instance John are not historical teachings of Jesus Christ but do you have a manuscript that demonstrates that where's your manuscript evidence we have the gospel of Mark and if you look at the Jesus seminar in the west star Institute anybody who's interested can do a simple Google search we all know the Q hypothesis that there's an external Source that's positive that was of the sayings of Jesus that were used by gospel writers to compile the gospel accounts um so yeah did you ever listen to the debate that uh I did Dom and I did okay all right uh wonderful guy uh he really is um and yet the foundation of his perspective is really one that starts with a rejection of the entire history of Christian interpretation of scripture so for example when we look at uh when we look at the the key passages that sort of frame the discussion that we I thought we were going to be having in regards to what the scripture says on sexual morality and ethics um I would I would assume then if you're if you're that radical in your perspective you're making that sound like it's a mainstream thing but obviously a geoseminar is extremely extremely radical um oh it is it's very true it's very true okay name me name me um uh before the 1700s that held their views the reason most of the manuscripts that we do modern uh scholarship biblical biblical scholarship on today didn't exist before the 1700s it had nothing to Brandon it had nothing to do with the manuscripts that have been found Nate maybe okay what one manuscript is is important here what I'm saying here no you're not I'm sorry dominant John Dominic cross and I would probably have very few disagreements as to the relevance of specific manuscripts that's that has nothing to do with it the point is it's a world view that has come in that rejects the idea that God can speak consistently and it did it's not historically Jewish or Christian you've got we've got to admit that what I will I will give you this I do think you're exactly right to a degree that up until the enlightenment up until the scientific period where we have these new methods of understanding and coming to understandings of the truth the way people did study of anything was in a way what we would consider today archaic and wrong and led to many wrong conclusions and I do think that is the result of so much of what you all preach is an inability to historically and critically examine the scriptures and let the truth be the truth wherever it leads you to do it you have a presupposed set of beliefs that you need to be true when you engage with yourself oh and and Brandon let's be honest and so do you that question here is is whose presuppositions and pre-commitments are actually in accordance with the truth and so when you talk about things yeah and when you talk about things like science and you talk about things like logic and all the rest bran and I would challenge you you've you've given all that up because you have a world view that is ultimately you know I'll give this I'll give this to you you I believe look at the scriptures and whatever fits with your own personal likes and preferences you accept and whatever disagrees I think whatever disagrees with your lusts and all your Pursuits that's what you reject and hold on just Brandon I'll let you talk right after this and I think because you you've given up the scriptures as an ultimate foundation and reference points you don't even have a basis to appeal to science because you don't have a world view that provides a foundation for science the scientific method you don't have a worldview that comports with laws of logic as necessary Universal you certainly don't have a world view that comports with the claim that something is right or wrong ethically you've already given that up no I haven't and I want to pull back though before I respond to that specifically because the one thing that I've heard from both of you consistently you more recently Jeff and then Dr White throughout the years the videos you've made responding to me both of you have acted as if I began my spiritual journey with a desire to not have Fidelity to Christ or the gospel and yes I've never made that claim no I said the first things I said and I've said this a number of times when I first listened to you well the first comments I made was I heard fundamental weaknesses and I said this man will not remain Orthodox and I was right I mean you've got to admit that because it's not a prophetic ability doctor wait it's because he's not claiming that he's not claiming that I'm not saying it was sarcastic guys okay what I'm talking about is merely the fact that I was as a Moody Bible Institute student I was introduced to Scholars who were willing to historically examine the Christian faith yes I think it's pretty obvious when I was willing to ask questions and not just fall in line with fundamentalist rigidity and say this is what's true because this is what my church says is true or my tradition says it's true yes obviously anybody who goes down that path is going to end up questioning the fundamental uh beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity and thanks be to God that I did can I ask you a personal question though about that because I appreciate I appreciate you sharing that and I think that what's happened actually Brandon's you is you've become an apostate I don't think you've started that way I think you had a a initial profession of Faith you you had commitments and I think now you're in a past day because you deny God's word and and his word is the foundation of all of what is true and lovely and wise but you and this is a personal question you don't have to answer it but it's it's you're bringing it up so I'll ask it I've watched your videos you haven't committed to struggling with with homosexual desires and lusts before you fell into apostasy correct yes okay so there was something going on in your life on a personal level things that you were Desiring and wanted that were coinciding with your deconversion you're falling into apostasy or I mean I obviously reject that I have fallen into apostasy or D converted you deny scripture as the ultimate foundation of life you are and prostate you are an apostate you teach Brandon I'll say this with respect to you because you're in the image of God I want to respect the image of God and you and respect you and be friendly to you but you teach others to entertain their loss satisfy their loss things that God explicitly condemns in his word and so I love you in in Jesus name but you are an apostate you are a deceiver and you reject the word of God and let's be honest Brandon is the reference point you are the reference point Jeff I I appreciate you saying your perspective I obviously disagree it doesn't matter to me I'm not interested in playing the Orthodoxy game you know that we're just bringing we're talking about scripture but the way you interpret scripture is not the way the majority of Christians okay let me ask you this let's do it let's make sure that we're all clear with each other here so we don't get muddy uh can is it is it is it an ethical thing is it good to have sex with animals today no who says it people do it Brandon people do it people people are being arrested today I think Spain who said Spain just made it legal didn't it who says ridiculous who says why can't I have sex with animals in a New Covenant we need to get down to a definition of sin which I base off of Jesus's own teachings I believe sin is anything that harms me harms others or harms God's creation which verse is that I base that off of love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength love your neighbor as yourself thank you for that Brandon because Jesus said that those two Commandments are what all the law and the prophets are built upon including not having sex with animals and other men Brandon and I disagree I don't believe having sex with other men one is clearly condemned in the Bible we can get there and two I using the basic standard of does it harm me does it harm another or does it harm God's creation which is how I Define sin I would say no you can't make a case that homosexuality is harmful to anything Leviticus 18 that law that is about loving God and loving your neighbor Jesus defined that you say you believe in him let's go to what he said all the law in the prophets would include Leviticus 18 which says right in one verse well I'll let you I'll let you respond to Brandon in one verse in one verse it says you shall not lie with a man as you do a woman and the next verse says you should not have sex with an animal so you like the you should not have sex with an animal but because of your loss and your desires you want to reject the other one no because I've actually spent the last decade in a hundred thousand dollars going into student debt to study this particular topic on sexuality in the Bible I've come to the conclusion that Leviticus 18 is not talking about loving consensual same-sex relationships in the way that we're talking about it in the modern world okay so let me let me ask when you say loving same-sex uh relationships yeah um but you don't believe that the Bible is clear enough to actually Define what loving is first of all I you didn't use monogamous which is interesting um because most people use that that is terminology and yet that Leviticus 18 text is not just about Israel it's it's about other nations and they were they were cast out of the land I've always since I have one shot here maybe maybe you'll be the first person to do it if you believe Jesus was God then when he preached and taught there were homosexuals in front of him right there we're less than five percent of the population James well it depends on it depends on the generation it seems from what I'm saying recently um but uh but the point is there would have been not only homosexuals but um uh transgender folks um and all the different genders there would have been lots of these people he's talking to thousands and thousands of people well that's what they're okay if Jesus was God he knew they were there he knew they were there right yes I absolutely do believe he knows he's there and yet he never said a word to overturn the unanimous understanding because I don't think you could show me anyone before Jesus or for hundreds of years after Jesus in Judaism that understood uh anything about monogamous loving same-sex relationships they all went back to Leviticus 18 they all went back Leviticus 20. they all they all looked at these things in the same way so why didn't Jesus set them free because he knew they were there and you know how far of an argument that is James there are so many things Jesus doesn't address so many people Jesus doesn't address that doesn't mean that Jesus is making a statement about the rightness or wrongness because he doesn't address a group of people or a certain practice or whatever but that's not and all in in three years worth of preaching because we only have a small portion but in three years worth of preaching Jesus never says a positive word whatsoever in fact he says the law is good and the law is right and the person who teaches you to to to not observe the least of these things is least in the Kingdom of Heaven all these things three years he doesn't say a single word to allegedly promote your perspective that seems highly likely we're talking less than five percent of the population why there are so many things that Jesus doesn't speak about I just don't understand why you okay uh Brandon uh do you want as a follower of Jesus as you claim do you want to hold to Jesus view of the law yes but I think we disagree on what Jesus is here of the law okay well I'll give the quotation Matthew 5 17 because you were there the very text that it actually militates against your interpretation because at the beginning of that text that you you try to quote there about you've heard that it said Matthew 5 17 he says do not think that I have come to abolish the law of the prophets I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them the word there is in the Greek do not even begin to think do not even begin to think that I've come to abolish the law and he says like Pastor James said there that whoever teaches you to disobey even the least of these will be called leaves in the Kingdom of Heaven but whoever does them and teaches them which law was he referring to there Jesus is speaking of the law of Moses the law of the Hebrew Bible right the law of Moses says that you can't have sex with a man Brendan no it doesn't actually Leviticus 18 is not a condemnation of broad-loving consensual same-sex religion you're adding those words but the text actually has rules there right before it has rules about yeah I'm gonna give you something to shoot at has rules there I know laws against having sex with relatives it has laws against having sex with other men it has laws again deceiver the way that you are weaving around I'm just I'm laying it down several years so go ahead and take a shot on it it's very simple Leviticus 18 verses 1 2 and 3 talks about it has God speaking and says these are laws for the people of Israel do not do like they do in the land of Egypt do not do like they do in the land of Canaan so what is happening the list of commands that we have in Leviticus 18 are a list of practices that were apparently common in Canaan and Egypt to a brief study please historically about whether homosexuality and uh homosexual relationships and the way that I'm advocating for them would common in Egypt or in Canaan and you'll find no they were not so what is and then we look at the context of each of those verses and I think Leviticus 18 20 says as you already quoted at the very beginning of this show a man do not sacrifice your child to Molech for this is an Abomination the next verse down is do not lie with a man as with a woman for this is an Abomination then we go on to bestiality the context is these are practices that are taking place in Canaan and Egypt we have no evidence that there was widespread consensual homosexual couples relationships families in those cultures but we do have a preponderance of evidence of exploitative practices you already know these arguments that there were both relationships between those who were enslaved in ancient patriarchal cultures where men were allowed to have sex with male slaves and it was a way of asserting their dominance we also do know few and far between in Egyptian and Canaanite culture we don't know that much about the ancient Canaanite culture but there is some evidence that shows that there were Temple prostitutions there were sexual sacrifices made to appease gods and goddesses so it seems based on the culture the historical analysis of Leviticus 18 that whatever's being referred to in verse 22 is not a broad condemnation of gay male relationships because there weren't those uh with any frequency in ancient Canaanite or Egyptian culture but instead where we do see men having sex with other men are an exploitative and idolatrous circumstances and it seems to me that that would be something that God would condemn well so but you just admitted that we don't know very much obviously you're talking about many many thousands of years ago so there's a very limited amount of information isn't it more relevant that in the New Testament we have Apostles of Jesus Christ and you may not you may not even believe that these are words of scripture it's quite possible from what you've said but when Paul writes to Timothy and he lays out the goodness of the law and he starts working through the Ten Commandments when he gets the Commandment against adultery he specifically utilizes two terms pornois arsene coitus mm-hmm sexually immoral persons and arsenicoites so here is an apostle and he is now much closer to us in time than any research you might do in some type of I mean Egyptian Egyptian sexuality was pretty wild but um so here's Paul and he includes and he expands on that commandment it's actually moral persons and homosexuals so was Paul I'm sorry that's an inaccurate interpretation of Arsenal equation okay since it comes from the two terms that are used in Leviticus 18 and 20. right and Paul may be the first one to use it there's one other possible text that it's it's disputable but maybe he borrowed it from a Jewish Source or something like that but it's what men do with men in bed in fact to quote the Leviticus passage lies with a male as one lies with a female so this is sexual intercourse it has nothing to do with all the all the contexts around it it is the actual act so every place else we would interpret Paul it doesn't matter what other other text it would be we would look at deceptigen first for the meaning of where he's drawing his his uh Theology and his terminology so how do you get to something other than what men do with men in bed from Leviticus 18 to 20 as interpreted by the Apostle Paul me this is the easiest question um you just heard how I understand Leviticus 18. I don't think Leviticus 18 is referring to all sexual relationships between men of all statuses in all cultures in all contexts I believe it believe it's referring to practices in Canaan and Egypt and that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are primarily ritual and cultural not primarily ethical so we have a list of things that debatably there are things in Leviticus 18 that some people would consider immoral some might not consider ethically immoral Paul quotes back to Leviticus 18 despite the fact that there are over about 16 give or take words in point a Greek that refer to a variety of homosexual relationships homosexual sex because it was much more prevalent in the greco-roma world Paul uses none of the words that his hearers would have readily understood as homosexual relationships instead he Harkens back to Leviticus 18 to say I'm condemning a very specific unique practice that's taking place that points back to Leviticus 18 not common practice where there's a ton of other words that he could have used there are I don't understand how folks with your view get around the fact that Paul is trying to speak to the broadest audience possible and he never uses the words that the audience on this one on this issue would never doesn't use the words that his audience would have understood to be homosexual or gay sex or it's surprising it surprises you Brandon that he's using a Biblical word it surprises me that what he's condemning is not a broad cultural that he's quoting you you admit he's quoting he's quoting Leviticus it surprises you that an inspired Apostle sent from Yahweh would quote from God's word but I think but I think what's important here though is you're the one that said it is your interpretation of Leviticus 18 and 20. can you give me any contemporary Jewish interpretation of levitics 18 20 from 500 years for Jesus to 500 years after the degrees with yours I don't think you can show me any ancient levitical interpretation uh from the first century or right before or right after that condemns anything akin to Modern loving consensual same-sex okay so you're so you are you are creating a category no homosexuality no are we reading it into history when the text simply says you shall you shall wait a minute Romans chapter 1 describes homosexual sex as two men Desiring one another that you cannot Define a homosexual relationship outside that those parameters you're the one going oh it's about these exploitive things and mice my little category over here is the one thing it's not talking about when because it didn't exist in the ancient world the concept of sexuality did not exist it's a 19th century concept so how can you read back into an ancient first century attack something that did because mankind is still Mankind and still made an image of God and still sins in the same way unlike you we allow the word of God to define those categories and the word of God specifically says you shall not have sex with a man as you do a woman it doesn't give you any little outs unless of course you're like really committed or you're really gonna you know try to be monogamous even though that's extremely rare and all the rest of that kind of stuff first of all you don't know the gay community and second of all this goes back to what Jeff critiqued me for last week which is uh on the topic of hermeneutics you said that I was being deceptive because I said evangelicals don't do the historical culture so I'm sitting here reading from the Greek Septuagint okay and I'm looking at and I'm looking at the Hebrew and you're saying we're not looking at the Historical stuff you're bringing you're bringing in your selected external sources to overthrow search into the ancient Greco-Roman world and son I was studying this stuff when you were still in diapers don't give me your 10-year stuff okay listen Okay this is the arrogance that you're just known for no you were the one that brought it in there Brandon you brought in your game you brought in 10 years Brandon Brandon you said I had 10 years of experience I spent a hundred thousand dollars pastor Pastor James was simply responding to that you brought it up and you said I I you you're making an argument from Authority I've spent 10 years doing this and a hundred thousand dollars that's an argument that's an argument from Authority you've already rejected God's Authority we reject yours and so that's right that's that's right and the message you're preaching is harming thousands of people at bears a message that gives life and forgiveness of p and peace to those who are deceived and they are wrapped up in their own lusts like yourself such were some of you is what's said to Liars adulterers homosexuals from the New Testament basic interpretation okay and and while men who lie with men okay let's use the let's go to the group The Greek Septuagint from Leviticus 18. again men who lie with men making one such were some of you and cultural Concepts you can keep using you can keep trying to you can keep trying to speak with a silver tongue brand and it's not going to change the fact that the text says what it says let me just say something it doesn't say there is this is how you twist scholarship what you do is you create what you want to find and then you select your sources and this is when you come to a plain text that says okay what is mean what does it mean what do you what do you know about ancient does Miranda let's try to keep the conversation on one point he's asking the question tell me sir tell me I'm refusing the answer until you can answer my question what does mean do you even know names do you even know okay see okay so one side wants to dig into the text and get into the background of the language and the other side when it doesn't want to do it so Leviticus well what okay let's well let me just do what let's let's stick to okay I'm gonna make sure you I'll show you the respective responding to what you asked or what you claimed and so in Leviticus chapter 18 you made the claim that these are specific laws to Israel yeah you make the make the argument that it's you know one through three makes that very clear yeah he's speaking to Israel there and in Leviticus 18 he's speaking to Israel and your claim is that these are really for Israel and that ceremonial laws and things like that it's interesting because and you may have seen this when I you I don't know if you watch the show or not but one of the things I pointed out is the very text that you add a lot of things to and engage in a lot of ice ages from my perspective um the very tax that you appeal to to say that it's just for Israel says that God punishes the surrounding Nations for doing these very things so not so much just for Israel but also if you continue going and you know this Brandon you know this you're not ignorant of this the the chapter and verse subdivisions are a modern Innovation but if you continue reading Leviticus right after 18 as you get into 19 that's where it says you should not steal you should not deal false Nation not a pressure neighbor or Rob him and Leviticus 19 is the very passage that Jesus quotes from where he says you should love your neighbor as yourself so you're attempt to say well these are laws just really pertaining to Israel is immediately refuted by the evidence from the text itself you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself is that just for Israel you know that there are subdivisions within the political law this is how it was interpreted throughout I'm reading the text from 18 to 19. and the text has one flow and it has laws against having sex with family laws against having sex with men laws against having sex with animals laws against theft laws against oppressing your neighbor and there is actually a command to love your neighbor as you love yourself is love your neighbor as you love yourself a command for the surrounding Nations the command for yes that is a moral so that one you like that one no Jeff you're being again disingenuous I'm reading the tax Brandon you can say this in genuine it's all you want but I'm reading the text this is literally the Apostle Paul's a whole the Apostle Paul so much ink over this which laws are ritual ceremonial which laws are ethical this is not something I don't understand why you're trying to pay is you sure love your neighbor as you love yourself is it moral or ceremonial obviously a moral law okay so that's the same conversation that you say is just to the Jews no so so that's a contradiction Brandon you do see it correct no I don't actually see it but so it's for Israel but not just Israel no Leviticus 18 verses 1 through 3 God is clearly speaking to the nation of Israel he says do not be like the land of Canaan which I'm bringing about or because they practice these sins like having sex with men and having sex with animals and be like them don't be The Branding you're not helping yourself that doesn't change anything yes those surrounding Nations practice bestiality and homosexuality they not press they oppress their neighbors they stole they did all those things they all did those and God punished those people for those very things but that's because those laws are a reflection of God's Own nature and character those are his demands upon All Mankind and Brandon I mean this I mean honestly respectfully towards you I don't know your perspective on the Apostle Paul but he didn't hold to your position of on the law of God because in Romans chapter 3 after the indictments upon you and me and all of humanity that we've all said and fall short of the glory of God you know the text that you know there's none who does good there's none righteous he actually says about the law that the law was given to justify nobody and that it's so that the whole world the whole world would he be held accountable to God and have their mouth shut so Paul's perspective on the law was that the entire world was going to have their mouth shut by it it was it wasn't just for Jews a couple things first of all you twisted scripture Leviticus 18 clearly it begins uh 18 and 19 there there is a very clear break at the beginning of 19. God speaks again it says and then the Lord spoke to Moses saying so there's a break we have two different sections of text two different sections of law code and we know this to be true that there are some commands throughout the levitical 612 laws which we as Christians have historically interpreted this is your Orthodox perspective some of those are ritual commands some of those are ethical in moral commands the ritual commands Christians do not hold to the argument that I've made and that many other Progressive Scholars LGBT Scholars have made that you know is that when we look at many of the commands in The Book of Leviticus specifically these commands which are tied to the practices of Canaan and Egypt that these are related to idolators Pagan Nations idolatrous Pagan practices these are not General uh commands about morality for all times that's already been refuted because stealing and loving your neighbor is is clearly part of that moral command but I will say something to you you are right hold on now real fast Brandon I'm going to give you credit where credit is due you are right these specific sexually immoral practices are idolatrous and it's interesting because the Apostle Paul in Colossians chapter 3 actually refers to sexual immorality generally as idolatry so adultery between a man and a woman is idolatrous um fornication outside of marriage is idolatrous and so is the practice of men lying with other men idolatrous anytime we try to find satisfaction anytime we try to find satisfaction as creatures and image bearers outside of God's ways we are ultimately switching God for some other form of pleasure and delight and peace it's all idolatry so you're not helping yourself by saying these are idolatrous practices the question is Leviticus 18 and 19 because the word and is there Brandon it doesn't help it's the same discussion and the Lord spoke to Moses saying speak to the call the congregation the people of Israel so using using your arguments in 18 it starts with this is to Israel ready in 19 it says speak to the congregation the people of Israel and there it says you shall not steal you shall not swear falsely you shall not oppress your neighbor and you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself you aren't using the plain reading of the time I'm reading the text no you are because you're not noticing the difference in Leviticus 18 what are the two reference points we're talking about two Pagan Nations Egypt and Canaan the context is the practices of pagan Nations 19 does not begin with the context of pagan nature are those practices sinful are what practice is simple the practices that are that they're practicing the surrounding Pagan nations are those practices sinful no those are some of them might be considered sinful but the idea here is that some of them are ethical or some of them are cultural and ritual which I don't think lives up to the standard of sin okay you said earlier that you're the one dealing with the text everyone's spinning it I would like to if we can in the few minutes we have left yes I want to understand meta arsenas coitain gunaikos let there's there's just a small number of words here let's see if we can actually agree okay whoever koi may say lies with an arsenas and then coitain of course is coitus this is this is to get into bed so as to have koitis as with a gunaikos no I agree on this dance okay are you are you saying so are you saying that there's anything in this text that limits this prohibition so it does not include where where do you get loving monogamous um same-sex coitain where does where does that come from so this is again this is where I do accuse you all of not doing good hermeneutics you're taking one verse breaking down the words and saying look there's nothing here it just simply says man man don't lie together as you do with a woman if you take the verse out of that context and just read it as you did it I would say yes that sounds like a broad condemnation of all gay sex okay just I just want to make sure is there anything in the Hebrew because I was just looking at the Greek substance because more people do that no we Agree to Agree so you'd agree that the the the technical terms are used for male and female all that stuff is is right there in the text and we're on where are we actually agreeing on something this is not I don't know why this is surprising okay I just I just I don't know I just figured in this hour that would be something that would be somew of a historical uh event so we agree on that and your argument is that there's something else in the context and cultural context of Leviticus 18. places the behavior that's being described in verse 22 outside of the behavior that I'm talking about when I look at my congregation about that has LGBT people in them and perform their weddings and encourage them to be in love and committed relationships because the context of ancient Egypt and Canaan did not have loving consensual senses okay okay hold on a second so the law that was given by Moses can only be relevant in the ancient world where you know Canaanite and Egyptian religion and can have no application to today which would mean that Paul completely blew it when he interpreted these words in the New Testament you can have it application I think it should have application I think it's against um exploitative sexual relationships but there's nothing in you agreed we agreed on what the text was it is this is again specifically talking about a man getting in bed to have coitus with a man rather than in this in the the fashion of a woman and so and you agree asked by any good biblical scholar is where in the ancient world in Canaan and Egypt was that taking place so where the evidence we have the evidence we have of men lying with men as with women in ancient Canaan and Egypt generally it's either exploitative sexual practices or Pagan idolatry sexual so you're you're saying that you can actually you're act that there were no loving homosexual relationships in the ancient world in Canaan or what he said not the ancient world I said in Canaan and Egypt you know this I didn't say there were none well but but it's still prohibited whether there's only because you you earlier said well it's only five percent so why would Jesus have addressed this so you're using the minimalization which is much more common no see you're you're twisting my own argument to try to win your point the point is what was there asking you you're asking your position what no you're telling me my position and then having me respond to what you've articulated my position to be here's the thing we know that an ancient Canaan in ancient Egypt it was very prevalent for men to have sex with men men of higher status to have sex with men of lower status men who hadn't uh who had enslaved other cultures and people from other surrounding nations were able to have sex with their male slaves that was a very common practice so it makes logical sense and it's a perversion right yes that is perfect what made it what made was it only the exploitable helmet that made it made it perversion or is it the fact I didn't hear what you said please was it was it only the exploitative element that made it perversion or is the is it not clear that in verse 13 of laticus 20 the issue is the twisting of creation between the the the zakar and the Isha it's the it's the technical it's it's the it's the changing of the created order isn't that exactly Paul's Paul's application in Romans chapter one when he doesn't talk about exploitative relationships he says man lusting after men that's that's reciprocal you can't say that's one man lusting after someone who doesn't want to be lusted after this was a reciprocal relationship in Romans chapter one I don't I disagree and I okay why because Romans chapter one again the context of all of Romans 1 Paul is describing The Descent of humanity into godlessness and Paul begins with they exchange the truth of God for a lie worship created things instead of the creator of God he goes down and explains how idolatry leads to this perverted sexual practice in my understanding like men having sex with men and women having sex with women yes the the sex that's taking place there is in relation to the idolatry which Paul calls sexual immorality idolatry whether it's it's heterosexual or homosexual if it's sexually immoral it's idolatrous so you can why why do you not see then that the example that's being given by the Apostle here I know what you're trying to say I think what you're trying to say is this is only relevant to idolaters but the problem is the example of Romans 1 is this is a twisting of the creation Creator relationship even down to the point where when it says even their women exchanged the natural for that which is against nature are you one of the do you follow the uh well this is stoic stuff or things like that or because as you know there's probably what how many how many let's see if you and I can agree on something else today I would say I've seen at least 20. different ways of trying to explain that phrase from from the Apostle Paul to get around it having anything to do with the idea that homosexual sex is is paraphuses would you agree about at least at least 20. I'm sure there are many many ways and I have a new book coming out in 2024 where I do a deep in-depth study of all of these verses and so we could I would love to see your analysis of my approach to these scriptures but what I will say is I don't I do agree that it seems the most likely reading of Romans 1 is that the context of that sexual behavior is related to Greco-Roman idolatry now the other side that I'm also willing to concede is that I do believe Paul has a patriarchal world view Paul believes the created order is fundamentally patriarchal I reject that I believe that the reason Paul would believe that homosexual sex is sinful is because it's a man emasculating another man it's threatening the patriarchal ordering of society I think that's a worldview Paul inherits from his culture I don't believe that's the Divine ordering of the world I don't believe that that's the right ordering of the world but you don't really know though because from the start of this conversation you said you don't you don't really think you can know what that objective standard is you're making ethical claims against patriarchy and all the rest and I don't really know what you're what you mean by that I probably want to get to know you more and ask you uh what you mean so I wouldn't want to misrepresent you but we started this conversation with you admitting that because you've rejected scripture the reference point you don't really know that there's an objective standard so you're really just guessing no C Jeff you continue to misrepresent me from dealing with your epistemology I'm not misrepresenting you anybody listen there's a okay one last thing you anybody can Brandon anybody's going to be able to take their finger and scroll back to the beginning of the conversation no truth you I didn't say known hold on now I'm saying that you on ethics are saying that you're not sure you don't really know if there's a subjective sin or maybe that's possible to get to it and yet here we go and yet you still continue to make ethical claims Brandon as we can and you're the center and not no ethical truth you're the center oh no I know that you make ethical claims you're a misunderstanding the argument this isn't epistemological question it's an epistemological question I know you make ethical claims but I'm saying that you have no justification for your ethical claims because you've abandoned God that's not true I worship God I lead people to God I studied the word of God I speak to not the true God you're a false teacher Branch you just said you studied the word of God which I mean I guess you mean you study Jesus or something but I'm not sure how that works but I just the problem we we jumped over for a second but you started talking about patriarchy and stuff like that the problem was the verse that I'm quoting from is about women and the objection but the the objection is clearly from creation not just some type of but but creation patriarchy is the ordering of creation it's the result of the fact that God created this world to function in a particular fashion and if it doesn't function in that particular fashion it brings death and that's what that's what obviously not true loving consensual same-sex relationships do not bring death they don't bring life and in fact the average in fact the average lifespan of the act of homosexual is considerably shorter than the married heterosexual that that's a fact you know the energy effect that's not the fact you have your facts when it comes to homosexuals in our lives and relationships are shoddy at best and offensive um Brandon well let's just deal with let's deal with what Pastor James said to you he said that homosexual relationships don't bring life you disagreed with that I don't believe that the homosexual relationships bring life I don't believe that the goal of relationship is primarily no I didn't ask you that he said homosexual relationships do not bring life you agree with that right relationships do not need to procreate does the homosexual lifestyle create life I don't know what lifestyle means Jeff you're being does the homosexual sexuality procreate of course you cannot you cannot it does not bring life it does not bring life your worldview and not just procreation though does it bring life when you have a relationship with someone else that is not ate sir connecto this is again the Evangelical problem when you read into the images and the metaphors and the allegories of scripture and you try to make them these categories of objective truth I mean like Jesus did when he used the same text from Genesis to define marriage after being asked about heterosexual divorce he reaffirms heterosexual marriage Jesus was not making a comment about homosexuals or homosexuals but he was making a comment about God's created order and that was the point and I just made a comment about God's created order and used the term you know what it means it's our connect though the woman corresponds to but is different from the man that's the relationship that brings life a male male relationship does not is not capable of doing it I'm not even just talking and I'm not even just talking about procreation and what does life what do you mean by life well there you go if if as a if as a minister and you claim to be a minister of a gospel I'm not sure where you get the gospel but the Gospel of Jesus Christ which you can't Define on any objective if you can't tell anybody what life is outside of just procreation there's a real problem there no see now you're Miss James that's ridiculous I don't believe that a marriage relationship between a man as a woman is necessary for salvation I don't believe that that brings Eternal or Abundant Life I don't know what you're trying to get at here I'm saying that falling in love with a mirror image of yourself is not God's created order it does not bring life that's not the life that Jesus came when he promises his disciples that's that's the difference I I believe that I know many many gay Christian couples that have profound relationships with one another and profound relationships with Jesus Christ I'm sorry that your own theology excludes and marginalizes us so that you'll never get a chance to know us and I'm sorry that your theology will continue to perpetuate death instead of Life your theology produces death it doesn't bring life but that's okay because you don't really have an objective ethical standard anyway so your claim there is meaningless but you lost your punch you know Brandon Brandon because your worldview is so bankrupt it's so bankrupt you make these claims but you don't realize that you've already lost the punch and strength there's no oomph to it there's nothing because you've already given up morality an ultimate basis for Morality objective morality I do have a question we're out of time I'm sorry okay let me let me let me just ask one quick question you stand before People In a Pulpit right yes and you have an Open Bible in front of me yes how can you stand there and and even get close to saying thus saith the Lord or say anything that would have any binding Authority or have any binding Authority upon them at all because they can do what you do and simply go you know I just don't see it that way do you think I hope they do say they don't see it that way we're all on this journey of trying to understand truth and live in alignment with Jesus as best as we can but you give it a truth I don't believe the job what is the truth According To Jesus well we'll end with this because I know you over time we want to show your respect According To Jesus what is the truth there is that's such an ambiguous question well he does the actual verse that says it you're a reverend so John 17 17 Thy word is truth God's revelation is the truth not your mind Brandon not your lusts I will let you we'll let you go and call you to repentance because you do need to repent my friend you repent of your false gospel okay all right thanks Brandon thank you peace all right well do you want to take a quick bathroom break we'll come back and just do a oh no no no hey if the 60 year old guy I know I'm the one that got up halfway during the conversation to use bathrooms no because I got my two drinks here that's why okay so I'm just I'm just well first of all I'm anybody who watched that is is going wow you know Brandon was right at the beginning we start in completely different places okay there's there's absolutely no two ways about that um secondly I think hope hopefully everyone has seen that what he calls Progressive Christianity is just simply the old liberalism um you know he talked about his mentor John Dominic Crossing and you know memories uh Dom Dom's a great guy but but Dom's not a Christian he doesn't even know if God exists he's he's sort of an agnostic so um that type of theology is not only bankrupt but it is it is incapable of have it has no message because it's it's all completely subjective you know when I when I debate a Dom one of the stories I told I forget where I got it from I could look it up but in the search of the historical Jesus when you look down the well looking for the historical Jesus it's amazing that Jesus you find staring back at you looks just like you in other words you make Jesus in your own image and that's that's all he has right is a Jesus that looks like him and believes like him um though I did find it strange that that question that I asked well why should you address homosexuals there's we're a small percentage and I'm like you're a small percentage that was getting stoned at that time and I don't mean stoned as in I mean I mean stones and executed executed you mean you mean you don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus didn't try to bring freedom uh to your your community uh that that just absolutely amazes me right but but we we brought the word of God to bear we demonstrated that when we got into the text then it's like that's what you fundamentalists always do you just try to get into the words and stuff like that as if his overarching claim that well the stuff in Leviticus 18 is only about Egypt and Cain it cannot have any meaning outside of that that destroys the new testament's used to the law it's done it's it's over with but he doesn't care because he's not all that big into the New Testament and Paul anyway he's not interested in it he's not interested in him you just came up with your you craft things the way you want to craft things right and that's the easy way and toe descriptor um and then he still can't help he'll still he'll still talk about the word of God as the word of God right he can't help us he has too much Moody he hasn't shaken that loose yet no it takes time well and I think one of the things that I'll say two points here one do we deal with someone like Brandon Robertson with a heavier hand than we would sort of the average guy on the street and my answer to that is yes and the reason for that is because you see that modeled by the Lord Jesus and by the apostles when they're dealing with false teachers and people who would deceive others using God's name and God's word they deal with them in a pretty direct and sharp way I think if you were talking in if you're sitting in an airport they're trying to say that anymore um but if you're sitting in an airport and got into conversation with somebody right you wouldn't you wouldn't go after them no no I but someone like Brandon Robertson is in a different category altogether because yeah Brandon yeah because therefore you graciously hopefully open a door for them to hear but Brandon has put himself in this position yeah now I don't know that that was his goal you know 10 years ago right right I don't think it was a full 10 years ago when I first heard him speaking but there was something and I I I I I think I have to go back and listen to the dividing line and find out where it was there was something in one of his answers I think if you've heard me say I was on a bike ride I remember where I was I was I was out near Carefree Highway I was heading up toward Carefree Highway there was something in one of his answers that made me go he doesn't really believe that and he's not going to continue to try to be the Orthodox person he is today it's it's you just watch and he admitted I was right yeah he's he's had a fundamental conversion in that sense and so I don't know that he started off looking to do that I really don't but that's where he is now and so he has to be responsible and people need to hear you know when people hear about the Jesus seminar they're normally like boy those are really rat those are the guys that voted with the different colored marbles right as to what Jesus says yeah for him that's normative for him that's mainstream that gives you an idea of what you have to do to this book to make it consistent with what modern people wanted to do and and the important thing to point out to people as they think about dealing with someone like Brandon Robertson is it's the same common problem that you'll see with Mormonism with The Watchtower and with these religions that will Abe Christianity use our language and then deny it you know uh the definitions and all the rest it'll give you something totally different using the same word Brandon's there Brandon says things like gospel he's you need to repent because the gospel and Jesus Christ and all the rest so he's using all these biblical words but if you really you you saw the episode just go rewind and watch it again how many times he essentially denied that it has any real meaning or that it should be respected I think the writer of Hebrews was this right and you know all the rest and Paul well you know Paul this or not patriarchal and all the rest so it's like he can't decide which world he wants to live in he's got one foot in his old Christian tradition the stuff that really appeals to him but anywhere that militates against his own personal private perspectives or his loss that's where he'll deny it well scriptures don't need to be trusted there I'll find a way out of that one um and so you're really dealing with the same problem you do with the Cults and that is that ultimately with the Cults they have um a a commitment they say they claim to the scriptures and so they borrow the terminology but what you find is you walk a little further down the road is actually there's this other authority operating over here that is really the ultimate so with Mormonism though they use our language as you get down the line no it's actually the first first presidency it's actually the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young it's a priesthood it's over here it's it's these guys tell us what that word means Roman Catholicism same I got two then we got Divine you got tradition you've got scripture right here and so it's as you press that like you've said what ends up happening is that tradition eats up the Bible right it's the tradition that's ultimate that's the standard even though the language of Christian language is being used there's some other standard operating and with Brandon it's the same Christian language Christian veneer but as you press you'll find out get a few steps out and the authority is actually Brandon it's his preferences it's his likes and dislikes and that's where we're at yeah I just I just wonder how long because it takes a lot of energy uh to do what he does I just wonder how long before he just goes you know what let's not let's not even bother with this let's go for some other you know religion or just no religion at all whatever because I I just I don't understand the attraction of all of this you know maybe for now it helps the transition he's still young etc etc but he doesn't he doesn't really believe that this is a revelation from God it's just well you know I I I'll read some things and it'll resonate with me and well it's the bhagavad-gita you can do that with the Quran or something like that probably wouldn't do the Quran very well um I just don't know how long these folks can stay within even a pre a pretense you know because he calls himself Reverend and it's like but you can't stand before the people of God and say thus saith the Lord you you go to you go to Luke recording Jesus Moses Moses through the prophets the Psalms testify of me yeah I probably didn't say that probably didn't say that right yeah because why because of Jesus seminar so most people will never run into a Brandon but they will run into sadly what what most of our audience will run into are Christians that have been influenced by the brandons of the world and our people need to be able to recognize when you hear that kind of language being used you need to understand where it's coming from because most most conservative Christians if we have someone who's converted in our church and all they know is US preaching they've not heard this kind of stuff before and they automatically try to interpret it within the the context of what you and I try to model in preaching right and it doesn't work and it creates great confusion on their partner it amazes me in social media when people respond to these folks they're missing what they're saying because they're trying to hear them within the context that that makes no sense whatsoever and so I'm not saying that we need to learn really well what this perspective is so we can recognize it but there are certain fundamental foundational issues that came up over and over again his constant reaction against well fundamentalism uh inerrancy you know and and of course the constant and no one really believes that except a small little group hey on one level if you want to look at the broad Academy he's right now in the broad Academy I don't Jesus seminar is still way radical left so he's not right about that but if you actually approach this as a consistent divine revelation the way Jesus did um you either have to decide we don't know what how Jesus viewed scripture that's what he just did that's what he did with Luke yeah I don't think he said that so so we don't know what Jesus the funny thing is I'm teaching people to know Jesus but I have no idea what Jesus was all about that's the tragedy of that whole thing but either you believe this is God speaking or it becomes simply a mirror that you hold up to yourself there's there really isn't people try to live in the middle world but there is no middle world and you have to be able to hear that and don't let it throw you throw you off don't feel like you have to have an instant answer if you hear something coming from liberalism quote unquote progressivism which is actually regressivism if you hear that type of thing just be patient mark it down go well that's weird and then take the time to find out where that was coming from and what you eventually find out is it's coming from a foundation of unbelief of unbelief and so I think the most important thing just historically one one more thing Leviticus 18 and 20. he's saying if you do true scholarship then you'll dig into Egyptian and canine religion if you go to the uh prize sermons three four five and six or so of the series I did on the Holiness code at prbc many years ago that's what I did is I went into Canaanite religion I went into what would be in their in their context and some of the perversions horrific things that were going on but the problem with that whole argument and I did raise this point at the end is that what he is fundamentally saying is whatever was written back then cannot be so much the word of God that has abiding validity to our day as well right he missed that he he's rejected that he can he can understand your argument there but he also probably never got that from the evangelicalism in which he was raised let's just be honest that probably was never a part of it that was ever communicated to him and most the evangelicals I know they're scared of viewing it that way because then you become a Secret yep important questions and um what would you recommend I'm sure a lot of people will see this in terms of resources uh what would you recommend in terms of thinking through some of the things that he was saying good resources to have everyone get their their feet firmly planted on in these discussions if you if you want to especially dig into a lot of the historical stuff that was just just mentioned um I had the opportunity I'm not even I don't think I told you this I had the opportunity on this last trip I was on uh before I did the debate on marriage uh with um with uh Keith Giles I think is the name um to have dinner with [Music] um one of the best known uh writers on the subject of homosexuality uh his book homosexuality and now having said all of that it's jumped out of my name out of my head helped me out here yes down in Houston and I was about to say all that and then I started trying to remember Keith Charles's name and everything else sorry I'm with you Robert Gagnon Robert Gagnon yeah um we had dinner at a nice Mexican restaurant uh down there and uh of course you did chicken quesadilla quesadilla chicken quesadilla is it is look you need to know the ice and salsa of course I need to understand I have two things chicken quesadilla or chimichanga okay so yeah I have a broad yeah very broad taste but yes we did so Bob gagnon's work um he delves into a lot of this stuff on a very technical level a lot of the historical stuff the backgrounds and things like that the gender binary things like that so excellent material there doesn't mean I agree with everything that he says but especially his bibliographies and things like that will give you a lot of information very good reason then someone we've had on the program uh here before uh Michael Brown um uh he's written a number of books on this particular subject uh the most recent one I think was can you be gay and Christian uh but there was a a queer thing happened to America was I think 2011 now it's been yeah it's been a long time but that book is excellent very very good um and then of course the debate that Mike and I did with the two homosexual pastors uh even though a lot of people would say well they weren't up on all these arguments and stuff like that yeah but they are the product of the promulgation of these types of earnings um and the same-sex controversy is 20 years old now and needs a major update but the reality is it focused upon the scriptural texts and those things don't change that's right there have been almost no new arguments developed since then there have been a few uh that probably should be addressed but um Jeff Neal and I wrote that uh that work many many years ago so that's that's very helpful as well and of course I've debated this subject many many times um I was sort of ahead of the curve on it sadly but I think the two best debates have had uh they weren't with like John Shelby spawn or something like that I mean that was that was excellent but really long and just like it's tedious well he's tedious that's what I'm saying it's yeah it was he was rough to get him to actually answer anything I think the fastest moving and best debates have done were the ones in South Africa yes yeah um because he's he's globally known and he's a he's a full-time speaker that's what he does he travels the globe speaking so he's a he's a good speaker so I'd recommend folks listen to that that was a fruitful one yeah for people that like to actually say okay I'm following what's going on it stays constantly engaged and you're you're definitely dealing with each other whereas spung that was a tough one oh I could give you a lot we could sit here for quite some time but I have to take my wife to the airport okay so all right we'll do we'll we'll someday we'll do we'll do a dividing line apology a radio mashup where we do nothing but all the funny stories I've learned in over 180 debates okay um that would sort of be fun let's do it because some of them I was doing when you were quite young oh yeah I know I know that's Dr James white guys passer apology at church see I did say it okay and uh aom.org is where you guys go to get connected to Dr White also go to Alpha Omega Ministries on YouTube and across all the platforms and you guys can go to apologiesstudios.com to go sign up for all access to help provide um um the the support to do things just like this on a regular basis so thank you guys so much apologystudios.com catch you guys next time

Channel: Apologia Studios

Views: 520,480

Keywords: Jeff Durbin, Apologia Studios, Apologia Church, brandan Robertson, Brandan Robertson LGBT, LGBT tik tok, LGBT music, LGBT pride event, jeff durbin debate, James white debate, brandan Robertson debate, Brandan Robertson tik tok, Apologia Radio

Id: ti0FzdOHW_8

Length: 82min 54sec (4974 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 09 2023

Reddit Comments

[u/iaingivinmyname]

why is the guy on the lefts face white?

[u/flyingspac]

Once found a guy who thought the executions of Gnostics was justified, but was pro lgbt. I checked his bio and it was like “ I know it’s against lgbt, but I literally can’t be against it” I think he was probably deeply troubled