Defending Traditional Marriage with Preston Sprinkle
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- In this interview I talk with Dr. Preston Sprinkle about common critiques of the traditional Christian view of marriage, and how Christians can respond to them.
See Preston's book: www.amazon.com/Does-Bible-Sup...
See Preston's website: www.prestonsprinkle.com/
Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - Introduction
01:40 - Combining Truth and Love
05:01 - Giving a Compelling Defense
07:35 - Is the Traditional View on the Wrong Side of History?
10:44 - The Two Shall Become One Flesh
17:54 - What About Intersex Persons?
25:17 - Consensual Vs. Exploitative Same-Sex Relationships
31:28 - Is Sexual Orientation Unknown in the Bible?
34:19 - But Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality
37:48 - Is This an "Agree to Disagree" Issue?
44:24 - The Problem of Christian Hypocrisy
47:59 - The Redemptive Trajectory Hermeneutic
52:40 - Authority of Scripture and Tradition
56:24 - Does the Traditional View Harm People?
I'm a queer atheist and this was refreshing to hear. I don't think I've ever heard a Christian speak so compassionately about lqbtq people in the church. I watched this to learn more about my family's beliefs to better understand them and this definitely helped, thank you!
as a non queer non atheist, I also really feel the love and grace coming from these guys and I’m really glad you feel positively about this video !
It’s never entered the popular lexicon, but I always thought ‘gaytheist’ could be a bit of a time saver and had a nice ring to it (YMMV), although I realize queer carries certain freight.
You’re not an atheist . You need to recognize that you do have a god and it’s Sexuality.
Hi Megan, how have the last 9 months been thinking about this? How has stuff been with your family?
This is fascinating. I really appreciate the in depth thought Preston's given to intersex conditions. That greatly enriches evangelical discourse, and helps us not be three steps behind culture on this stuff!
So grateful for this collaboration. Two rational and non-anxious thinkers talking about complex issues. Thank you both for your faithfulness!
I appreciate this discussion and the fact that Dr. Sprinkle wants to frame it in terms of affirming the Biblical definition of marriage. I think he made some great points, particularly on the subject of cross-bearing. However, I do have concerns.
1) I am concerned that he seems to recognize LGBT or gay as a category of person, an identity. Sin should never form our identity. If you are a Christian, your identity is in Christ, not past sins or present temptations.
2) I am concerned that much of his language presents this issue as an us/them dichotomy, especially when he is talking about hypocrisy in the church. E.g. "WE" (the church) need to recognize that we are judging while in sin ourselves, so that "THEY" (LGBT people) do not feel rejected. This kind of language subtly suggests that there are two groups of people who are at odds with each other. LGBT is at its core an ideology, a way of seeing the world. The conflict is not between two groups of people, but between two opposing views of reality--ultimately, between truth and lies.
3) There is a failure to recognize that this issue is different than most other sin issues because the enemy is making a concerted effort to convince people within the church to call evil good, and good evil.
I am grateful that you are willing to tackle this topic, and I would suggest this issue would be worth revisiting with someone like Becket Cook or Rosaria Butterfield, who have genuine life experience in the area.
I have recently come across Sprinkle and I share your concerns. I trust Becket Cook and Rosaria Butterfield on this issue a lot more than him and I have heard them make comments expressing concern towards Sprinkle as well.
Ya, I believe Sprinkle is compromised on this topic. Rosaria Butterfield openly called him to repentance recently in an article she wrote.
LGBTQ is not an ideology. And yes, a person's sexuality is very much a part of his identity. Just take a look at the problems with celibacy in the catholic church.
It's also quite doubtful the new testament calls homosexuality (the concept itself didn't even exist back then as something like "sexual orientation" was also unheard of) a sin.
As gentile Christians we are only called to follow the noahide laws as was decided by the apostles. The noahide laws forbid "porneia" which Jesus himself uses in the sense of infidelity. So the noahide laws often just list infidelity as being forbidden and that makes sense since even people having same sex relationships on the side where normally often still married.
And it's really a long shot to try and see Paul as an advocate for "traditional marriage". He sees marriage as a concession to the weakness of the flesh, since it's better to be married than be "consumed by lust" - strange how that suddenly shouldn't apply to same sex oriented, consenting adults.
So the whole "traditional family values" are not really solidly based in new testament scriptures in the first place. The default position would be celibacy for all, if you can handle it. At least if you take Paul seriously. Jesus says something similar when talking about "eunuchs" for the "kingdom of God" which I'd take as celibates not actual "eunuchs" or maybe people being born without any sexual urges but that's rather rare.
I'm not saying the whole Bible "affirms" homosexuality, as it certainly speaks out against anything shady in sexual matters but mostly that's infidelity because people should be as faithful to each other as towards God.
Mostly moral sexual behavior is seen from the perspective of the time however (just look at Paul's statement about men that shouldn't have long hair - which is especially ironic when looking at how often Jesus is depicted with long hair, which he probably didn't wear). So to simply say, this is "law" once and for all can at least be seen as being on shaky grounds. No matter what certain churches teach, as long as we stand on the ground of "sola scriptura".
Also the often quoted difference between "moral and ceremonial law" is artificial and also not based in the Bible.
Honestly I haven't really made up my mind. Certainly "Christian same sex marriage" cannot be forced upon any church if they don't want to marry same sex couples. The problem is more that churches try, against the clear commandment of scripture (which clearly states we shouldn't "judge those on the outside"), to enforce their moral ideas on the whole of society. And they try that basically everywhere, not only in the US.
@@MrSeedi76 Genesis 2:23-25 (ESV): Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Ephesians 5:28-32 (ESV): 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
That sounds pretty "traditional" to me. Flee from the world's lies.
@@MrSeedi76 Paul definitely calls it sin in Romans.
This was such an encouraging & insightful conversation
Very glad for this. Bless you both!
Gavin, might you be willing to follow up with an irenic discussion of Sprinkle's and Butterfield's differences?
THAT would be one worth seeing!
That’s exactly the question I was going to ask! When I was listening to Rosaria I agreed with her but having listened to Preston I also agree with him. Some of the more contentious issues weren’t covered in this interview. Any thoughts on David Bennett’s book, A War of Loves?
I would love to hear interaction on the philosophical aspects of modern discourse about LGBTQ+ issues. We often frame it in discussion on whether or not it's sin or not sin to act on same sex attractions. But the conversation is much bigger than that I think. The very fact that people discuss these issues as intrinsic and essential to their identities is a great example. If someone does not celebrate their sexuality, than they claim they are not free to be their "true self ". I think that's why there is the appearance of a casual approach to other sins in the church but a vehement approach to LGBTQ issues. Other sins are not framed as essential to our identities. Denying my desire to sin in any other way does not inhibit my ability to see myself as a whole person. But the modern person does. And I think that's why a lot of the church is especially concerned about this. There are cultural commitments to self expression that will lead to a propensity to steer away from Christianity since it is a faith that calls us to die to ourselves. And I sense we should be discussing this aspect more.
According to Rosaria Butterfield, it is a sin to have any identity outside of identifying as a Christian.
@robertstephenson6806 - Jesus did condemn same-sex sexual relationships. Even the desire itself. Jn. 3:19-20.
@robertstephenson6806 - Twist not Scripture lest you be like Satan who quoted Scripture verbatim to Jesus for his own purposes too. God doesn't contradict Himself. And Jn. 3:19-20 says NOTHING about Jesus not condemning same-sex relationships.
Furthermore, those sins are NOT why few are chosen. You got that wrong too.
@robertstephenson6806 My point is pretty clear. You twisted Scripture just like Satan. I can also tell you that my point was not to expose you as a heretic but I always appreciate it when the wolves in sheep clothing publicly throw their disguise aside for all to see.
//In John 17, Jesus said the Father is the only true God. Isaiah 43:10-11 Yahweh tells you He alone is God and salvation come from Him. John 20:11-18//
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Joh 1:1-3 ESV)
"I and the Father are one.” (Joh. 10:30 ESV)
"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (Joh 14:9 ESV)
//The doctrine of the Trinity was developed at Nicea in 325 and fully defined at Constantinople in 381//
Uh, no. The doctrine of the Trinity was developed by Moses when He wrote Genesis. LOL
"Then God said, “Let US make man in OUR image, after our likeness." (Gen. 1:26)
//which is also when the fallacy that Jesus has 2 natures was also developed.//
Uh, no. The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union was developed by the Holy Spirit when He moved Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke to pen that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. Moreover, if you actually understood what the phrase Lamb of God means you would know that Jesus must've had two natures.
What are you, a JW or something? Hope you get saved while you have time. Meanwhile, thanks for showing everyone that you are to be marked and avoided and I won't be holding my breath.
It's a sin. It's not complicated. Anything outside of 1 man and woman, is sinful.
Also we need to stand up for our biblical values. This is a huge issue in the Protestant churches.
Once an error creep into the church, its floodgates would be thrown wide open, there is no turning back.
Really good. You should have a talk with preston on non violence. Would be very interesting.
I second the motion for a talk on non violence.
I third this motion. Consider the ante nicene consensus of non violence.
Yes. I've been reading as much as I can on this, and it's one of the only unanimous positions held for the first 300 years of the church. Even Luther held to it until he pretty much decided not to.
@@sorenrousseau. Yep, I’m a confessional Lutheran and you are correct. Early Luther was non violent until things went crazy post Diet of Worms and he wanted to keep the Lutheran princes happy. He cautioned against violence but began to make allowances for the state. He later regretted some of this toward the end of his life. You are also correct on the first 3-400 years of the church prior to Constantine was non violent. Every ante nicene writing on violence I can find seems to say as much. It’s interesting many traditions love to tout a “consensus” of the fathers on many things but non violence is never mentioned by anyone. There is more consensus on non violence early on than when to be baptized.
@willmo81 oh wow, interesting about the diet of worms. I didn't know that.
Jesus stated that marriage is between one man and one woman.
_"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"_ (Matthew 19:5, NIV)
@robertstephenson6806 I agree the church needs to do more on the issue of divorce but I would never say it has ignored it.
@robertstephenson6806
I think in Protestant and Catholic Churches, technically the marriage is only valid until death do them apart (which means, in theory, you can re-marry when the spouse dies).
I think in Orthodox Churches, the marriage is valid until forever (which means you *cannot* re-marry).
@robertstephenson6806
I would also like to see more churches speak out against polygamy (marriage with multiple people at the same time) and polyamory (sex with multiple people at the same time).
Jesus was answering the topic of divorce when he made that statement referencing Genesis. You already said that you wish for more churches to speak against polygamy, so I said why you extend the meaning of the verse
I do believe love is truth. Same sex relationships are sinful and I think the problem is the church needs to stand up to all sin. When you tell someone their relationship is sinful, of course they get upset and feel betrayed. The heart is desperately wicked!
You're missing the point, tho. We should stand up for truth, but there is a difference between standing up for truth and instilling needly shame and despair in those we should be trying to reach. If a gay person's mental health is horrible because they've had it hammered into their skills that they are an abomination, it's despicable of us to gaslight them into thinking that their poor mental health is their fault. Grace without Hell is worthless... But at the same time, sin and hell without Grace is hopeless.
@@MostlyReformed I understand but I also don’t believe in placating a problem. I’ve dealt with many types of people and if they aren’t willing to listen then it’s pointless. You can be as nice and controlled in your speech as possible and they still won’t listen!
@@MontoyaBrandy no one is saying you have to placate. That's the problem with this black and white thinking. You can reach out and empathize without compromising. People don't get that. And yeah, you're definitely gonna have people who won't listen no matter how nice you are, but we shouldn't expect all of them to be like that. We are called to be evangelists, shepherding people into the kingdom. We are not crusaders converting by the sword of gaslighting and dehumanization.
@@MostlyReformed I don’t do that. I don’t push people. They can do as they wish. If they won’t listen I don’t push. It’s like I said it’s the children being led into this lifestyle. If they would just lay off of the children I could care less what they do. It’s trying to make the church and the rest of the world compromise the biblical truth to spare their feelings I don’t care for!
@@MontoyaBrandy I think you may be conflating lgbtq people that are struggling and/or minding their own business that have no desire to push anything on kids (which is the majority) with the grooming agenda by extreme lgbtq and backed by media, organizations and our government. We have to nuance this and not lump them all in one category. There’s even a gays against groomers organization against pushing this stuff on minors. Nuance is key in this discussion. Each situation is case by case and we need to take a posture of humble listening. All this can be done without compromising any truth.
I'm one of those intersex people who get really frustrated when I'm used in an argument especially since I disagree with the argument.
Have listened to quite a bit of Theology in the Raw, was really looking forward to this and was not disappointed. Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for the interview - I follow both of you. I would love to see the next conversation be about hell and conditional immortality vs eternal conscience torment, especially in relation to theological triage - since so many statements of faith (including the EFCA’s) explicitly include ETC
I really enjoyed this conversation! I would like to see a video addressing slavery , i think it can be a stumbling block for some.
Thanks Ryan. I do address that in the book!
“Understand before you refute” 🔥
Gavin, do you think that if the church is to divide over this issue that the branch that seeks to maintain the orthodox view of marriage will need to tighten up in other areas such as divorce and contraception? I’m an evangelical ( Baptist in Northern Ireland) but have found Catholic theology in this area quite compelling. Abigail Favale has written quite a lot about this and has had fascinating conversations with Sean McDowell and Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas. Would love to hear your take on this.
Next time you should discuss Preston’s views as an annihilationist
Good day, Dr. Ortlund.
I'm a fairly recent convert to Orthodoxy, and I just want to thank you for your videos, which challenge my base in Orthodoxy.
I came into the church after growing up non denominational protestant, church hopping, and then fell out of Christianity.
Came into the church with nothing but my faith, so I don't exactly have arguments. I just like to listen.
What is your opinion on the lack of monasticism in modern protestant circles, as a proper way of life, and the way I see it, parallel to marriage?
3:42 "wherever we land theologically, there's a relational problem here that needs to be addressed"
Hi Gavin- I read your book on Humility, outstanding insights and advice! I'm wondering if you would consider making a video sharing books/ documentaries on studying the Universe. I've found so many to be very anti God in nature and I would prefer to read something more neutral if possible. Thank you :)
In an affirming Christian but I appreciate the conversation.
The only serious disagreement I have that concerns me is the agree to disagree stance.
- Jesse
Good video Dr Ortlund. Could you do a video exploring the historical treatment of Christians towards the Jews and why many Church fathers spoke of the Jews in somewhat anti-Semitic terms? The little I have read has made somewhat disappointed and saddened by how our brothers and sisters in the past for basically the last 1900 years mistreated the Jews. A video addressing this would be helpful.
I have two responses.
(1) Throughout history, sinful Christians have also hurt *each other* .
Catholic Christians hurt Orthodox Christians.
Lutheran Christians hurt Catholic Christians.
Anglican Christians hurt Catholic Christians.
Lutheran Christians hurt other Protestant Christians.
Human beings are sinful.
(2) The Talmud (jewish text), actively mocks and ridicules and commits sacrilege against Jesus and Virgin Mary. No jew has ever distanced themselves from this to the present day. The Talmud is Christiano-phobic.
I will avoid mentioning the gruesome details mentioned in the Talmud about Jesus and Virgin Mary.
@lusekelokamfwa8361.
That’s a great question to explore! From what little I understand, the two groups often worshiped together up until 135 CE, when a Jewish insurrection made them outcasts in the Empire. I do believe there was a good deal of antisemitism in pre-Christian Europe while nascent Christianity was inherently anti-Judaistic. For example, they purposefully left the Temple Mount fallow and covered with weeds and brambles to show that Rabbinic Judaism had rejected the blessings of Christ. It can be difficult to delineate between ethnic hatred (antisemitism) and theological disagreement (anti-Judaism). Jerome and Chrysostom are usually pointed to as participating in the former, while Augustine is more in the latter camp.
Early history is a mixed bag, however. There was at least one other Jewish “pope” after Peter, a native of Jerusalem if I remember correctly. And Richard John Neuhaus theorized (from census data, I believe) that up to a million Jews converted to Christianity in its early years.
@@hanssvineklev648
Here is one more interesting fact that rarely gets talked about. During the 1st century, followers of Jesus were persecuted by anti-Jesus jews (rabbinic jews). Paul persecuted followers of Jesus, prior to his conversion. James was martyred for religious reasons. Stephen was martyred for religious reasons. And the list goes on.
Anti-Jesus jews (rabbinic jews) did engange in persecution of followers of Jesus. This is excluding the blatant sacrilege against Jesus and Virgin Mary in the Talmud.
I have not see any jew distance themselves from this to the present day.
From a pragmatic perspective, if the anti-Jesus rabbis would have avoided enganging in theological revisionism and accepted the prophecies that clearly pointed towards Jesus (see Isaiah 53), ALL jews would have accepted Jesus as the messiah and noone would have gotten hurt for that reason. Given people would probably have gotten hurt for *other* theological reasons, such as in the case of the anabaptists vs lutherans.
Rosaria Butterfield: have you responded to her critiques?
I think that I would have given a different answer regarding homosexuality and Jesus. I think that when He said the verses about marrige (woman + man = one flesh) he was setting the standard. If He went mentioning ALL the ways we can fail that standard, we would need larger NT :).
I guess a good metaphor for what I think Christ could have been thinking is when you go buy something from a shop, you say want you want, not all the things that you don't want.
In 2015 critics said legalizing gay marriage would establish a legal slippery-slope for any kind of deviancy, and In less than 8 years that prophecy has come to pass. In short order, we went from legal gay marriage to legal trans rights for men to enter women's (and girls) locker rooms, bathrooms, and compete against females in sports (which is no competition). The next frontier will be "normalizing" sexual relations with children. In fact, that infamy is already underway with gender affirming care being deemed a legal right of minors, irrespective of their parents' wishes.
Actually it was abrtn (what can be more heinous than killing our young inside the womb) that opened the doors of Pandora's Box. When it was legalized, it paved the way for other nasty things to be legal. Sodmy, euthanasia, etc.....we can foresee other things coming in the future...pedophilia, polygamy, polyandry, etc...this will totally ruin the family and society.
When society looses its sacred sense, it will lose all its sense..
The critics were correct.
great conversation! would love to hear these two brilliant and humble guys talk about hell (traditionalist and conditionalist views)
Ooooh...another controversial topic! I'd be down...
Yes! You can continue to be a wolf!
Very interesting interview! With the DSD person that he talks about as being a male that developed as a female he claims that “she” was clearly female. Does this mean that his view of their gender as unambiguous would be what they appear to be rather than what they ontologically are? This was a bit confusing.
I think he's making a distinction between defining male and female in terms of chromosomes and defining male and female in terms of the body those chromosomes lead to. It's similar to how Trent Horn talks about defining male as "ordered towards impregnation" and something similar which I can't quite remember for defining female. This kind of definition (based on overall biology, rather than just chromosomes) would seem to be the most coherent way to maintain the male/female binary when talking about intersex. In this case the person being talked about has male chromosomes, but a clearly female body.
I think I said "genetically male," as in, the person had a Y chromosome, yet (in the case of AIS, for instance) developed female primary and secondary sex characteristics. So, does the Y chromosome determine sex? Or does primary/secondary sex characteristics (uterus, ovaries, vagina, breasts, female-level testosterone and estrogen, etc.) determine sex? At the very least--it's complex!
@elijahmarie77444 Do you know how small the numbers of intersex people are? BTW people with XXY have Klinefelter syndrome, which only affects males. Therefore, they are not truly intersex because they are male!
@@PrestonSprinkleRaw I'm not a doctor, but I understand some things about this that might be enlightening. The primary purpose of the Y chromosome is to mutate the female parts into male parts early in the pregnancy. The inner labia fuse to become shaft, and the clit becomes the tip, and the outer labia fuse to become the scrotum, and the ovaries descend and become balls. This is why men have nipples--everyone starts out anatomically female very early in the pregnancy, and then the males mutate.
I heard of an experiment once where a rabbit fetus was castrated, and the genetically male rabbit grew into a fertile female. I understand that the second "X" in the "XX" chromosome is basically redundant. The only purpose I'm aware of that it serves is that since it's redundant, it makes it somewhat less likely that women will display genetic defects (among many examples, men are more likely to be color blind).
I don't know for sure that this is what happened in the case of this person in the video, but it sounds to me that what happened is just that the Y chromosome for some reason was not expressed.
The only sexual relationship that God blesses and approves of is that between a biological man and a biological woman who are in a faithful, monogamous marriage with each other. He condemns all others.
When you quote Jesus in Mathew 19, you have to explain that he is being questioned by the Pharisees, and to answer them he quotes from their authority, the passage from Genesis. He isn't stating that this is his definitive stance on the matter. He is answering a question in a way the questioner will understand. So you are using this passage out of context.
Before 2:24 God briught man and wiman together. How dare we to ignore...we cant love anyone more than God...but we speak truth in love for our enemy is not fleshand blood...
Marriage is a matter of inclusion. In Gen. 5:2 Male and female He created them. Which one shall you exclude in your marriage? Should we not err on the side of INclusion in every marriage so the whole of humanity is represented, both male and female? One flesh must be all flesh represented like all heaven and all earth come together in the end.
Marriage is the union of one person with another - nothign more.
Actually marriage can only be a union of one man and one woman.
@@User_Happy35 Why should it be . . . Oh wait, your prejudice and nothing more. There is no reason to define marriage by gender. None at all
This reading of Gen 2 is not justified by the text or explained by Sprinkle. There is both similarity and difference between the man and the woman in Gen 2, but the text specifically highlights biological similarity ("bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh"), not biological difference. What makes the woman different is her individuality. She (unlike the animals who were found to be unsuitable matches) is biologically *like* the man. She is different in that she is not the man, but another person. Sprinkle simply asserts "equality of difference" but doesn't actually work from the details of the text, which oppose his reading.
I'm not sure I'm following what you mean here exactly. Could you clarify a bit what you mean by the biological similarity and individuality vs the animals? I'm not quite sure I follow what you're arguing for here.
@@tategarrett3042 Sure, in the Gen 2 narrative, what is the problem that induces God to create a woman out the man's rib? It is that a suitable companion is not available. Adam names every animal, but "there was not found a helper fit for him." Then God creates Eve and Adam says, "At last, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." This highlights that she is like him, that's what solves the problem. The text itself never highlights that she is physically *unlike* him. Yet Sprinkle's emphasis is precisely the opposite.
Yeah, that's the false dichotomy I did address. Gen 2:23 talks about both similarity and sex difference, which forms the foundation for the "one flesh" union of 2:24. Jesus made this very clear in Matt. 19:3-5, when he said "God created them MALE and FEMALE"...and these "two will become one flesh." The difference here is not "individuality" (whatever that means) but the male/female sex difference that Jesus explicitly cited from Gen 1:27.
@@PrestonSprinkleRaw Thanks for clarifying that!
@@sirnickdon Oh I see what you're trying to say. I think Mr. Sprinkle's description in the video and in his comment here do present a clear problem for this view though.
I'm curious as to the percentage of LGB people (purposefully leaving out the rest for this question) that were abused as children or early adolescents by adults or that had absent fathers or unhealthy parent/child relationships? This is largely unspoken issue because the LGB community wants to cling to the idea of being genetically predisposed to this sexual preference. If porn can rewire a young developing mind when it comes to sex wouldn't it stand to reason that an early sexual encounter would change the brain of a young person as well?
You are bold to ask a question like this!
It is believed by many that this is what happens. There is a genetic predisposition, we see a very high percentage of gay men with certain markers, yet there are also straight men with those markers. The thinking is that early childhood experiences such as overly close mother/son relationship, overly strict father, sexual abuse etc are what determines whether men with those markers will develop same sex attraction or not.
Vanderbilt surveyed data from 60,000 adults across 8 states taken from a CDC survey on Adverse Childhood Experiences, (ACEs) in 2019.
3000 of the adults were LGBT and they scored higher on all eight types of ACE''s with the most noticeable difference between them and heterosexuals displayed in rates of _childhood sexual abuse,_ emotional abuse and household mental illness.
Before God sent his angels to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah he send dozens of evangelist and ministers to negotiate and plead for repentance?!
Why doesnt the bible condemn same sex behavior between women?
It does in Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The better question is whether the bible supports marriage as a spiritual state at all, or a concession for society? If the bible teaches marriage as a religious institution, then why is it not a sacrament?
The Old Testament seems to view marriage as something civil, and not religious. The New Testament is very clear that marriage is a lesser state of being, and is really a concession for people who cannot control their urges. Jesus, who is the prime example for Christian, was not married at all. Paul was not married, and although Peter was married, there was no focus on him, nor any other apostle, as a husband.
At the end of the day, there is a case for discussing sexual morality in the bible, but marriage, itself, is a separate conversation. In my opinion, marriage - according to the bible - is really a civil matter and not a religious one. What happens in marriage (viz. sex) is a private matter and not a public one. The Church should teach sexual morality like it teaches every other type of morality, and leave it at that. Unless someone is publicly performing immoral acts, then assume the best for the person and return to your own relationship with Christ.
Way too much energy is given to this topic, and the only good that comes from it is division, exclusion, distrust, and hatred among people. It certainly does nothing to cause anyone to look at Christians today and declare, "How lovely are your tents O' [Christians] Jacob; Your Dwelling places [The Church] O' Israel!" (Numbers 24:5)
Gavin, do you feel there's any argument for banning gay marriage in a legal aspect - and more broadly, legislating/disapproving the actions of non-Christians in general? From scripture, or even philosophically? My answer is a strong no (1 Cor 5:12-13a) but I'd love your take.
I don't think Christianity would be so hated if Christians had not pushed (and continue to push) to ban and discriminate against LGBT+ people (never mind commit violence in the name of Christ). I understand that's a holdover from centuries of historical Christendom, but that doesn't make it better.
Is it discriminatory to not want it forced down our throats? Look around, it’s celebrated. Pride, which is a sin. It’s in our children’s schools, it’s all over tv! It’s in our children’s clothing stores and libraries! Who’s forcing beliefs here?
Hey, I'm not Gavin but I have a few thoughts I hope you don't mind me sharing.
Do we agree that homosexual relationships are sinful? If so then it follows necessarily that it would be wrong for the state, being a God ordained institution, to legislate or legalize sin especially as it relates to a religious institution like marriage (Romans 13:1-6).
Moreover, the verse reference you gave seems to imply that wrongdoings like swindling or drunkenness, etc. are permitted by the state, when in fact they are greatly discouraged (for eg. drunkenness) or even illegal (for eg. swindling).
The institution of marriage is historically and ontologically a religious one. The legal side of it is only meant to reinforce the religious intentions of marriage, not to offer an alternative to it. And so if our Holy Scriptures say marriage is between one man and one woman, the law should reflect that, not reject it.
I'd like to see your response to this.
Louise Perry has a secular, political left background.
Perry argues that only opposite-sex monogamous relationships should be encouraged in society in her book *The Case Against the Sexual Revolution* . Perry now likes the Christian sexual ethic, though she is not a confessional Christian at the time of this writing.
@@Djessie11 Yeah, I would disagree with this on a few grounds. Romans 13:1-6 doesn't claim that the state acts or should act without sin, just that it is an authority permitted by God. Those verses are best read "Christians are not to be anarchists". Look more into the Roman Empire in the first four centuries AD, and it was riddled, absolutely riddled with brutal sin. Yet Christianity flourished under its persecution. We don't need the alignment of the state to thrive, and I personally believe Christianity is more pure and for Christ the less entangled with the government it is - I think this is the main area we disagree. I'm also not arguing that the state should just permit everything - of course the state is going to largely align with Christianity on things like theft and drunkenness! That's not only common sense, we also live in a culture formed by centuries of Christian rule, so naturally there's still today going to be similarities. Second, historically, non-Christian marriages have always been a thing. I affirm that marriage ks instituted by God, but the fact is that universally, cultures adopted monogamy without literal Hebrew / Christian influence. More of a product of general revelation.
Anyway, we don't need the state to enforce the commandments of God, when we can freely follow them on our own. Forcing non-Christians to obey our commandments sends them the wrong message - that the most important thing is to avoid sin. No, it's to be saved by God's grace! It the state's laws are to be Christian, then worry about laws regarding marriage and morality later. Fight for a law that says "love the Lord God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself". The rest can follow.
@@calebhonegger3787
The state already enforces commandments of God! Murder is illegal, theft is illegal, polygamy is illegal and the list goes on.
Should prostituition be illegal?
Should abortion be illegal (except in the fallopian tube incident)?
Ideally, yes. There are religious reasons and there are non-religious reasons to ban abortion and prostituition, just like how there were religious and non-religious reasons to ban bondage and kidnapping during William Wilberforce´s time.
Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world that is not always possible, but the aim should be to make those things illegal.
"traditional" marriage according to whose tradition? the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures did not restrict marriage to "one man and one woman", but accepted polygamy of one man and many women, and also remarriage. isn't the Christian view itself a novel view that goes against a surface reading of the Old Testament?
They mean marriage according to the New Testament.
Jesus stated that marriage is between one man and one woman.
_"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"_ (Matthew 19:5, NIV)
@@hhstark8663 I know what they mean. I simply reject the assertion that it should be described as "traditional". Christ is revolutionary, not traditional.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275He's been here 2000 years, when does that become tradition 😂
@@jaihummel5057 when he stops being a stumbling block to the Jews, foolishness to the Gentiles. so, never.
When did polygamy ever end well in the OT?
In the beggining God it was not so. Then we believe liar Satan and left God and spiralled to thiscrazy things....
Adam was created in the image of God. We are created in the sinful image of Adam. Genesis 5. I always wonder why so many evangelicals reject this and claim we are made in God's image.
We were created in the image of God even after. Look at Genesis 9:6. This is after the Fall, yet God still proclaims that man is made in the image of God.
The sin of Adam has permeated throughout all creation (that’s why the creation groans as in labor for Christ’s return), but that doesn’t mean that the image of God is completely obliterated (meaning nonexistent) in us. It means that it is quite distorted and the only way it can be restored is through salvation in Christ Jesus.
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.”
Genesis 5:1-2
The image is marred but in His image we remain and into it we are being renewed.
I expected better arguments honestly. All of this was weak and not compelling. The usual care and depth that I expect from Gavin in though and feedback was not here. I feel like this will be a topic he readdressed and looks at differently as time goes on. He may not change his position, but hopefully we get more of his usual depth in the future on this.
You are preaching an INDEFENSIBLE argument. The Hebrew & Aramaic Bible has been MISTRANSLATED into English to forbid homosexuality & to not show the LGBTI+ Marriages.
The Hebrew & Aramaic Bible uses the same words for heterosexual marriages & LGBTI marriages. It uses “MARRIED (i.e. took, joined together, yoked together)” & “MARRIAGE (Partnership)” It also uses the same terminology about married people: i.e. “husband, wife, partner, lover, intimate one, covenant, in-law, etc.” For example, the Hebrew word LA-QAKH “he took (married)” is often short for: *“he took a wife for himself”* (Gen. 4:19; 6:2; Jub. 10:25; etc.). *Heẓron MARRIED the daughter of Machir (1 Chron. **2:21**).* That’s a man & woman marriage. - That SAME VERB is also used for “eunuchs (gay men),” who were also taken as feminine ones (NA-SHIM) [see Matt. 24:38; Lk. 17:27 - Aram. Text & Greek rendering]. The Hebrew of *(2 Ki. **20:18**)* actually says: *“And he [the king] will take [-away] (YIQ-QAKH “marry”) some of your sons who will go out from you [i.e. between your loins], whom you shall cause to be born; and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Baḅel (Babylon).”* The Masoretic Hebrew Text shows the conjugated verb in question as (3MS) or consonantally YIQ-QAKH “he will take (marry).” That’s the most obvious reading and the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum would agree. That verb can take all of the meanings of: “take (take away, marry).” We know from (Dan. 1:4, 9; 14:2); that is exactly what the king of Baḅel did. We are told that he took some of their handsome sons to live with him and to be his lovers, counselors, etc. Royal “eunuchs” were often “lovers” that lived in the king’s home. - The Hebrew and Aramaic Bible also uses the other terminology for LGBTI people and their marriages at (see Deut. 13:6; Josh. 23:12; Ben Sira 13:14-15 [19-20]; 2 Cor. 6:14; Rom. 13:9; etc.). See URL: “homosexual eunuchs and the bible” for a more thorough analysis of those verses.
King David was in a homosexual marriage with Yonathan (Jonathan). That’s why Shaul told David that he would be his son-in-law by two of his children (1 Sam. 18:21). Other verses say that Yonathan was “the beloved” of David (1 Chron. 27:32), that their souls were joined together (1 Sam. 18:1) & that they made a covenant. King David also says that Yonathan’s love toward him “surpassed the love of women” and that both Shaul & Yonathan were “pleasant [or handsome]” (2 Sam. 1:23, 26).
The New Testament, which was originally written in Aramaic, also has a verse which includes the “MARRIAGE” of trans-men or trans-women. *"In this way also, you women, submit ye to your husbands, that those (AY-LEN) who aren't being persuaded in word, by your beautiful conducts, you may win them without labor (difficulty). - For in this way also, holy women from the beginning, those (AY-LEN) who were hoping in God, were adorning themselves and were obeying (submitting to) their husbands." (1 Pet. 3:1, 5).* The common (neuter) word AY-LEN "those" is used as the personal pronoun for both the "husbands" and the "wives." That means that some of the "husbands" were born as "women" and some of the "wives" were born as "men," but identified as the opposite gender. If the texts were just referring to "biological males," then the masculine plural personal pronoun HA-NON "those" would have been used. Additionally, if the texts were just referring to "biological females," then the feminine plural personal pronoun HA-NEN "those" would have been used. Those verses also show that trans-men were called "husbands" and that trans-women were called "wives."
The Bible often doesn't subcategorize. If someone was feminine & identified as a "woman," then she was a woman. The Hebrew word אִשָּה ISH-SHA "woman" refers to a "woman, trans-woman, intersex-sex woman, hermaphrodite, etc." The normal plural for "women" in the Bible is actually not אִשּוֹת ISH-SHOTH "women" but נָשִים NASHIM "women, trans-women, effeminate men, etc." It's a collective word. It's from the adjective/noun נָשִי NASHI "feminine (womanly)" or "feminine one" hence the plural נָשִים NASHIM means: “women, gay men, etc.” It has the masculine plural ending b/c it refers to both genders, male & female, who are feminine.
Yeshua said to beware of the leaven [false teaching] of the Pharisees (Matt. 16:6, 11). There are a lot of Pharisaic Christians repeating the LIES (mistranslations, errors) in the English Bible. Paulus said that a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). The English Bible has been CHANGED (mistranslated) to forbid homosexuality. Yeshua said people are born gay (Matt. 19:12). The original Aramaic text at 1st Corinthians 6:9 says that : *"DESTROYERS (corrupters, the [morally] corrupt[ed], depraved)"* and *"those who rape men (or a man)"* shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The passive meaning of M'ḤAB-LE "the morally corrupt" or "the debauched, depraved" would be the closest in meaning to how it was translated into Greek as MALAKOI "the morally weak, those lacking in self-control, unrestrained, voluptuous, etc." MḤABLE is never defined as meaning "homosexuals, effeminate ones" in any Aramaic Dictionary. Neither can it be shown to carry those meanings anywhere in the Bible. The Hebrew word QE-DE-SHIM means "male temple prostitutes" (BDB) not "sodomites" (Deut. 23:17-18). The (Leviticus 18:22) verse says: *"you shall not lie with a male on the bedding (bed) of a woman (wife), it is an abhorrence."* Maybe one of the men was married and was committing adultery (see Lev. 20:10-13). There it follows two verses against adultery. Also, the other participant would be guilty of sin too. Compare (Deut. 22:22). - (Jer. 7:9-10) lists "adultery" among the ABOMINATIONS (abhorrences). "A "sin" is "an OFFENSE (wrong, fault)" for the most part. It's not a "sin" for homosexuals to be in a monogamous relationship.
Sedom (Sodom) and Gamorah were destroyed because of their inhospitality and mistreatment of foreigners. The Aramaic Talmud and the Correct Record (AKA Book of Jasher) lets us know that it was illegal in Sedom for Lot to invite the foreigners into his home. That's why the men of Sedom surrounded Lot's house. His sons-n-law may have alerted the other citizens of Sedom; which resulted in the following verse. *‘Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?’*
According to The Upright (Correct) Record, which was read in the Temple and quoted (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18; 2 Tim. 3:8) as a reliable source, Sedom (Sodom) had unrighteous customs, laws & judges (Yasher 19:17, 40-41, etc.). Some of these unrighteous decrees (compare Isa. 10:1) directly targeted strangers. This could explain the motivation and consent of all the people of Sedom to harm or defraud the strangers. Sedom is also narrated to represent not only the city of Sedom, but also "the nation (kingdom) of Sedom," which included the cities of Sedom, Gamorah (Gomorrah) Ẓevoyim (Ẓeḅoyim) and Admah (Yasher 16:3-5; 19:1, 23). There are also other kingdoms where the kingdom's name was named after a notable city in the kingdom. Babylon (Baḅel), Elam and Urhay are a few other examples.
*"Just like Sedom and Gamorah (Amorah), and the cities which were round about them, which in THE LIKENESS OF THOSE (like manner) committed FORNICATION (ZA-NI or prostitution) and WENT AFTER (followed) other PEOPLE (BIS-RA: Lit. flesh) ..." (Jude 1:7 Aram. Crawford Text).* This verse is talking about how the people of Sedom and Gamorah and the neighboring cities committed fornication (pre-marital sex); which included incest and prostitution. Additionally, these people followed after "other FLESH (people)," which is referring to the foreigners/strangers (cf: Lev. 27:20). The Aramaic word BIS-RA “flesh (people)” is equivalent to the Hebrew word BA-SAR. They both really mean flesh or people (cf: Ps. 56:4, 11; 65:2). We also see this here: *"It shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour My spirit upon all FLESH (people); and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams;" (Acts 2:17 Lamsa).* Another example is when Paul said that Israel was the “sons of my FLESH (or people)” (Rom. 11:14). Dr. Lamsa, however, translated the words *“sons of”* as *“those who are”* in that verse. (See also Gen. 37:27).
The statement “went AFTER [behind] other people” is referring to how the citizens were GOING (following, pursuing) after and treating foreigners and foreign couples. Additionally, the words “went (ܐܸܙܲܠ) after” are also not much different than “went out (ܢܦܲܩ) after” - both of which can also imply: “pursued after.” Hence those words can imply that it was done to harm or do violence. Compare: (2 Ki. 7:15; Jer. 48:2) with (Josh. 2:7; Ex. 14:4, 9). The Bible gives examples which specifically infer that the men could be killed or were beaten (Acts 17:5-9). Perhaps they were also humiliated by being raped. Sometimes a husband was spared if he offered up his wife or concubine to be raped. Sometimes he was killed and his wife was given to another. So the words written by Yehudah (Jude) don't explicitly say the people of Sedom (Sodom) and Gamorah were raping men or committing homosexuality. Those last words could be referring to other things.
Romans 1:18-28 is about idolatry. It says in part: *‘And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the IMAGE (idol) of corruptible man, and in the likeness of birds and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things on the earth* and *And they changed the truth of God for lies, and they revered and served the created things more than their Creator to whom belongs praises and blessings for ever and ever. Amen.’*
Romans 1:21 tells us that these pagans’ hearts were darkened (i.e. they were in ignorance). Romans 1:24 tells us that these people dishonored their bodies in their worship of the idols (Similar Jer. 3:9). Additionally, Romans says that God gave these idolaters up to their UNCLEAN (or abominable, wrong) desires. This led to both the women and the men changing their NATURAL (or instinctual) use of each other. The root word CYAN means: "nature, disposition and instinct." The only specified similarity between these heterosexual or bisexual women and men is that they both abandoned the natural sexual use of the opposite gender. Thus the use of these words doesn’t necessarily mean that the women or men slept with the same gender. The reader could also conclude that the women may have remained celibate (1 Tim. 4:3) or maybe were practicing bestiality (see Rom. 1:24). Because of that, the male idolaters "had excessive DESIRE [lust]" (Rom. 1:27 Aramaic Text) or they "burned in their DESIRE [lust]" (GrkNT). The end result being that the men attacked other men either by killing them or perhaps raping them. When it says the men "committed shame," this can mean the men raped the husband's wife, concubine or daughter (s). There are Biblical stories about this treatment of foreigners. Otherwise, the "shame" committed by these men may have been male rape. The text doesn't say which meaning is correct. Both meanings could be correct. Also, the Aramaic text doesn't say "with one another" and "men with men" (KJV). It says: "one against another" and "the male (men) against the male (men)." Those words don't necessarily indicate anything sexual.
The words saying that *"the women changed the instinctual use [of their sex into] that which is against their instinct"* and *"the men have left the instinctual use of women" (Lamsa)* does not sound like gay people. It is natural for gay people to be with the same gender and is according to their instinct / disposition. Gay men or women have not left the opposite gender because they were never with them to begin with. What you are seeing in this modern age of some gay men leaving their wives (or lesbians leaving their husbands) is because they have been lied to by the religious leaders that God didn't make them homosexual and that they needed to get married to the opposite sex. This would not have been the issue when Paulus (Paul) wrote this letter to the Roman Christians.
It should be noted that the Aramaic text has the additional word “THEIR;” while the Greek text lacks it. The statement: *“their females changed the use of THEIR instinct (nature)”* indicates that the females were heterosexual or were involved in bestiality. We can deduct that the following men were heterosexual as well. - The Greek text only says: *“their females CHANGED (exchanged) the instinctual use …”*
It is true that God created humankind male and female, and that the Bible says that a man shall *leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one FLESH (body).* Compare (1 Cor. 6:16). However, Adam & Eve had the DNA or genetics to create all the diversity that we see. Hence God created every one different. God created white people, black people, lesbians, gay men, short and tall people, etc. If a person is born straight, then of course that person may choose to marry a wife and beget children, hence multiply. But what about the people that were born gay and lesbian? God’s plan for them is to remain single or marry someone of the same sex in a monogamous relationship - since God’s ways are equal.
An interesting discussion. Overall disappointing. A lot of demagoguery and tossing out words like "harm" and "love". Sometimes "love" is 'harmful". ESPECIALLY in a day and age where both the world and some Christians/churches are claiming that it's "unloving" and "harmful" to even mention that LGBTQ+ is SIN.
A LOT of missed opportunities for Gavin to push Preston on several things. I know the interview was about Preston's book but there could've been ways to address Preston's Biblical stance on LGBTQ+ stuff. Like, for example, is same-sex desire sinful? If I'm not mistaken Preston comes down on Side B which is Unbiblical. And I would've liked to have seen Gavin press Preston on his videos with Art Pereira and his "amazing perspective on life" and "the journey that God has brought him on".
In that video with Sprinkle talking to Pereira, Preston says it's Arts first time on the show but I swear I saw him interview Pereira and another guy several years ago where they talked about both being Christians and living a celibate "family relationship" together. I think it was right around the same time as the first Revoice Conference. And I think it was the first time I ever came across Sprinkle.
All that is to say I've seen Sprinkle a few times since. Each and every time he's been alarming. He walks a fine line but if one follows closely enough I think they'll see him cross over to the dark side and I'm concerned he may well be an angel of light. Which concerns me about Gavin and his discernment. I get the theme of Gavin's channel and his desire to be irenic but when you play with wolves in sheep clothing it's like playing with fire. Sooner or later you're gonna get burnt.
I agree, I wish he was pushed on those issues. Also, Sprinkle's ministry, "the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender" has Nate Collins on their leadership team and Collins founded Revoice
@@bridgetgolubinski - Didn't know that but not surprised. I'm familiar with Nate Collins and listened/watched quite a bit of him back in the early Revoice days. Also Greg Johnson and Wesley Hill. If you haven't seen the CrossPolitic video where the boys had Greg Johnson it's worth the watch. VERY telling!
I predicted way back in the first days of Revoice where this would go. And it did. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before Sprinkles clearly crosses the line too. I saw his program with Beth Moore. Don't know if he's come out in favor of Women Pastors but I imagine he will before long. Then there was that program he did with the two homosexuals living a "celibate Christian life". And I think I recall him doing something on Hell that was problematic. The trend is pretty clear. When you start rejecting one orthodox teaching after another is probably only a matter of time.
Preston Sprinkle? No thx.
While Preston Sprinkle is not a heretic, I would personally recommend listening to Becket Cook or Christopher Yuan or Rosaria Butterfield about sexuality.
@@hhstark8663 putting the fall in quotations (as he did in his book) might border on heretical.
@@conservativemama3437
Let´s pray for repentance. If Rosaria can repent from "pronoun-hospitality", then hopefully Sprinkle can also repent from his comments about the Fall.
A public dialogue between Rosaria Butterfield and Preston Sprinkle would arguably be the greatest showdown in the Christian-community of this century!
@@hhstark8663 yep!
Actually he is a heretic
Where in the bible does it say that racism (a word invented in the 1920s by communist Leon Trotsky) is a sin? The bible is full of racial prejudice. Jesus Himself was “racist” (Matthew 15:21).
*Galatians 3:28* state that all human beings have equal value.
Matt 15:21 says nothing race-related whatsoever. There’s no indication that this conversation has anything to do with skin color.
Of course it doesn't matter what gender one marry, as faith ALONE is all that is needed to be saved! As the man made Protestant tradition goes anyway! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Is this a joke?
Dang, gotta respect the hustle to turn a point of agreement into disagreement lol
@@TheRoark😂
@@TheRoark LOL! So true, no matter how unbiblical! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@LeoRegum No, it's not! Does the man made Protestant tradition of faith alone save, or obedience? 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Fellow LGBT Christians, take heart. In just three short days, Christian CZcamsrs will no longer feel compelled to release videos every few days making sure that everyone knows that they in no way, shape, form, or fashion approve, condone, like, or having anything other than disgust and disdain for us terrible, horrible, no good, very bad folks. In the meantime, please remember that NOTHING can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, not even those who make social media content.
To you, and anyone associating themselves with the LGBTQ movement, I strongly encourage you to look at the concerns that thoughtful men like Gavin and others who still hold to orthodox Christianity. They have no desire to hurt, hate, or attack you. The concern they have is that the thing which can separate us from the love of Christ is our own willful rejection of God and rebellion against his love. Anytime we set something above God and try to conform God to it we are worshiping something other than God and practicing idolatry. This is why loving, Biblically rooted Christians are concerned with the LGBTQ movement. They see that it is telling people to center their identity around their sexuality instead of Christ, and to call good things which God condemns as sin.
We have no hatred or fear of those who are listening to this movement, but we must speak the truth to them clearly because what it is doing is leading people away from Christ by telling them to reject his teachings and the authority of his scriptures.
I have three responses to you, which are the following:
(1) There are many individuals with same-sex attraction who *endorses* that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. A few examples include Becket Cook, Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Buetterfield.
(2) Jesus stated that marriage is between one man and one woman.
_"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"_ (Matthew 19:5, NIV).
If you have any quarrels with this, take it up with Jesus.
(3) All human beings are welcome into a church. All behavior is NOT encouraged in a church. If a pastor actively advocates for prostitution, then that pastor will go to Hell.
@@tategarrett3042 The majority of traditionally marginalized people who are Christians, including LGBT people, are theologically orthodox. We simply disagree on the exegesis of certain Biblical passages. I know that LGBT people can be Christians because I know LGBT Christians. I see Jesus working in their lives, and I see them exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit.
As for there not being any "hatred or fear" of us, if that is true, you can thank LGBT people, who fought for decades to oppose harmful stereotypes about us. As an LGBT man of a certain age, I am old enough to remember horrible and overt hatred and fear of us being expressed from pulpits on a regular basis. When you actually talk to LGBT people, almost all of us have horror stories.
I pray every day for Christian unity. God bless you.
@@hhstark8663 I'm glad you mentioned Rosaria and Becket Cook. I recommend anyone who's curious about or struggling with LGBTQ issues to look at their channels as they have an abundance of wonderful and clear insight on this.
@@hhstark8663 Your response did not really address my original comment. And "prostitution" =/= "being LGBT." Please see my response above to another interlocutor for a more complete expression of my opinion. God bless you.
Brothers, I want to strongly suggest you stop using words and phrases that the enemy has carefully crafted over the past 60 years. To play this game of life by his rules is to concede ground of the kingdom before even engaging.
Does scripture have a category of LGBT or LGBTQ+? Does the Bible have a category of gay or transgender? No, it does not.
Though I completely agree that we need to come into dialogue with genuine love for the lost and confused wed to propositional truth, it seems that you are sacrificing truth in favor of being compassionate if you are agreeing to use categories that Christ himself, John the Baptist, all the disciples, and Old Testament prophets did not, and-I suggest-would not use.
Please discard using these terms. I ask for the sake of the many thousands of people you influence. Though you do so much good (I want to be emphatically clear, the Lord is using you in many admirable ways. Thank you for your service and courage), your influence has the potential, also, to deceive so many if error finds its way in your teachings.
What weak arguments. Until your read scripture through the lens of the oppressed, you will continue to have a patriarchal bias.