This debate will be held Wednesday, February 8 at First Lutheran in Houston, Texas. James White will argue for the traditional view of biblical marriage, while progressive Christian Keith Giles will offer an alternative view.
Mr. Giles is an example of what to expect from the ear ticklers and LGBTQ+ fan club .. May God have mercy on him and let him live long enough till he is saved from his unbelief.
"What my dad actually said is not the ultimate authority, what I want my dad to have said is the ultimate authority." Signed, Every liberal and every gay marriage advocate who ever lived.
@@darriuscole8544 why do you care about gay marriage. It’s a social issue not a religious one. You biblicists think you have the right to legislate morality or at the very least condemn people who are different from you. Hardly Christ like behavior - I do believe Jesus told people not to judge. That is his prerogative and he chooses not to exercise it. Get over yourselves.
Wrong. The Bible is not “God’s instructions” Just because your pastor or Bible study teacher told you that doesn’t make it true. Grow up and start thinking for yourself.
I found it odd Mr. Giles couldn’t name even one of his sources to back up his statements to Dr White. All he could say is “ I’ll email them to you”? The debate was over at that point imo. Great job by Dr White!
I'm so thankful for Dr. White. He's always clear & concise using scripture to interpret scripture. Mr. Giles, I pray that God would grant him repentance and that he would come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Because Mr. Giles disagrees with the views of James White . you ASSume that he does not have a saving knowledge of Christ? Could you possibly be any more arrogant?
The statement using "scripture to interpret scripture" is incoherent and begs the question. Who's interpreting the scripture being used "o interpreter scripture"??? and on and on. Obviously, everybody has certain presuppositions the bring into hermeneutics. The correct question one tough to be asking is "Are your presuppositions logically valid and consistent with what we see in the text?". I say this as someone who agrees that James white did a better job in this debate.
@@leonardu6094 "The statement using "scripture to interpret scripture" is incoherent and begs the question" If your wife told you something that was unclear, and you remember and use something else she told you that is related to clear up your lack of clarity, you've used your wife's words to interpret your wife's words. Is that incoherent and begging the question?
@@LifterwiII It's not an assumption. Giles is arguing on behalf of grievous sin, and that, with an incoherent and subversive tact. James is Biblical, holding fast to the Truth.
@@BugattianVeyronian A Gospel that affirms two things: it believes the promise that God wishes for all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2), and that God (being Love which never fails) is powerful enough to make that happen.
@@matthewselge2997 Yes, many of them have. I don't believe Scripture is "God's Word", that would be Jesus, the Logos of God. But yes, many people of all faiths of dedicated their lives to understanding Scripture.
The fact that this has to be debated today, inside of a church house no less, shows the very depravity of man and the suppression of the truth. Essentially Romans 1 in your face.
When you actually know .. KNOW what Romans 1, 2 and 3 are about (together they make a complete context) you may offer an opinion. Other than that you are merely spewing fundamentalist ignorance.
@@LifterwiII oh so enlighten us then, what does Roman’s 1 mean when it says 26 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. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
@@FormerFetus1995 Standard sodomy-approving response as to what Romans 1 means: "They're not talking about 'loving' monogamous relationships!!!" Dr. White does a good job grounding the biblical case for marriage in creation, not any emotional connection or sentimentality or cultural depravity.
Just in the opening statements of this man, the incoherence of his position is astounding. He says that you can’t understand the tenakh apart from the view of Jesus, yet all of his appeals to authority came from unbelieving Jews and secular scientists… that’s just one example. This is what happens when you abandon the authority of scripture.
@@Rev41Tours that’s not true at all. And as Dr. white said, to call exegesis and hermeneutics “flat” is just plain ignorant, and that ignorance is on display from the progressive gentleman.
Is Giles really that blind or is he just lying about what he knows the text is saying? I found myself face-palming so many times. Sin is so blinding. The Lord was so kind in opening my eyes and delivering me from the bondage of sin that once blinded me. Praying God would have the same mercy on Giles.
...He is that blind. 1 Cor 2:14 "But the natural man (unsaved) can not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, 👉 Neither can he know them, 👉 for they are Spiritually discerned ( understood.)" He simply is not saved and in unrighteousness he actually speaks and fights against God and His Word while pretending to be Holy. Notice he admits Jesus is God in the flesh, but he says to follow Jesus and not the authority of the Bible. 🤔 Jesus is God in the Flesh, who was there when His Word was established in Heaven. 📖 Psalm 119:89 "Forever, O LORD, thy Word is settled in Heaven." 📖 You must be led by The Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Triune God...and at Regeneration God does change a heart and gives New Godly desires. This is just another ungodly man promoting sin...🔥
@Michelle Cherie KJV a non-believer can read the text and know what it says. Bart Ehrman can do it, Jordan Peterson can do it, and many many others. Knowing what the text says and believing it is two different things. Giles may be so blind as to not understand the text, or he knows what it's saying and being dishonest. Idk 🤷♂️ Either way, clearly, he is not a believer.
@@michellecheriekjv4115 Mighty ASININE of you Michelle to ASSume that Keith Giles is unsaved based on his view of this one topic. You people are so arrogant and pompous ... that it's no small wonder that you have increasingly lost credibility among true Christians. What a pompous ass.
Opening statement of Dr. White, actually the very beginning of it, says it all - it's unbelievable that we have to discuss such subjects in a walls of the church today!!! Last days...
This was painful to watch, Keith has completely abandoned the Bible, not even just the OT like some others, the whole Bible. I've seen some of Keith's stuff before & never in a million years would I have guessed that he'd be foolish enough to debate Dr White. I listened to both sides of the debate, but it actually hurt to hear Keith completely bastardise God's Holy scriptures in that way.
I wonder how you can even believe that LYING and BEARING FALSE WITNESS against a Minister of the gospel. It wasn't Keith who bastardized God's Holy Scriptures (one wonders what God's unholy scriptures are, but I will leave that to your own ignorance) ..... The one thing in your statement that I agree with is that it's foolish for anyone .. ANYONE to debate james white ... that's like arguing with a mad dog who has distemper.
@@LifterwiII Please point to where I am lying? Mr. Giles is the one lying, about God's love, His righteous wrath, His word & His intentions for the salvation of believers, through repentance & faith in Christ. Condoning sin & not reading the scriptures honestly is to try to push God's people closer to hell, I can't get behind that, sorry mate.
@@c.chinaski3156 I think our problem is that you are clearly a fundamentalist and I am a Christian ... very different paradogms sp it's pretty certain that we are of two different faiths and will not agree. You ARE lying and bearing false witness against Mr. Giles, which given your embrace of fundamentalism I understand. I have been around you people for my entire life, and what i see coming from you is no different from what I havre always seen from fundamentalists, or actually from the Pharisees in scripture for that matter. YOU know nothing at all about Mr. Giles other than what you saw and heard of his views regarding this one topic .. yet just as Satan, the accuser of the brethren, you have the audacity to determine that he has abandoned the "whole bible". You people are too much ... and by the way, I am not your "mate".
@@LifterwiII You keep throwing it around like it's an insult 😂 but if by fundamentalist you mean, believes the Bible is true & lives accordingly, then I'm fine with the label 👍🏻 cheers mate
@@c.chinaski3156 When I say Fundamentalist I DO mean it as an insult. It's a bastardized oerversion of the Christian faith .... I only fault you if you know better, yet continue to embrace that false "gospel". Read all about the Pharisees (the ones who had Jesus executed for not obeying THEIR laws), and you will see my view of fundamentalists. I'm not so sure that I understood the difference either until I knew that something about fundamentalisn was off .... and I started looking more closely at early Christianity ,,,, and I realized two things" While classical TRUE Christianity is based on RESPONSE and LOVE ..... Fundamentaliism is based on REACTION and FEAR. A good present example of your faith is the fact that 85% of you people supporr and embrace the former occupent of The People's House ... that among many other things.
Conservative churches by and large have a monopoly on "clear" understanding of the Bible. They also value that clear understanding so highly they will split with other clear-minded folks who are similarly confident in their clear view but nonetheless who's clear vision differs from their own.
@@greenftechn There are secondary issues non essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. There's nothing wrong with having multiple denominations. However Progressive Christianity is a form of heresy. Can you explain to me why denominations who have compromised on the LGB issue are dying?
Great video, my relationship of 5 years ended a month ago. The love of my life decided to leave me, Really love her so much, i can’t stop thinking about her. I’ve tried my very best to get her back in my life but to no avail, I’m frustrated because i literally can't envision my life with anyone else. I’ve done my best to get rid of the thoughts of her but I can’t, I don’t know why I’m saying this here, I really miss her and just can’t stop thinking about her!
your feelings are understandable, It's always difficult to let go of someone you love, i was in a similar situation when my wife of 12 years left me, i couldn't just let her go. I did all I could to get her back, I had to seek the help of a spiritual adviser who helped me bring her back.
@@Brandon.Germany From a diploma-mill. Mr White has confessed on not having gotten a legitimate academic doctorate. Check out his own blog-post "Of Doctorates and Eternity".
One more thought: Mr. Giles used a "Flat Bible" label to criticize Scripture's condemnation of sodomy... but his hermeneutic is obviously the "Origami" position, where Scripture can be folded and arranged to condone/support even the grossest of evils.
It can't be missed that when Keith was given an opportunity to define what marriage is, he just stated his opinion and didn't go to Scripture at all. This lets anyone know he doesn't really care what the Bible teaches about marriage. He's already placed his own desires above God's.
When asked to give a definition of marriage during cross examination, he gave his own opinion, and did not draw it from Scripture. White relied on Scripture, which is very plain in its teaching of what marriage is.
@@holinessofthebride1935 Each person's interpretation of "scripture" is up for debate. I couldn't care less what the common belief in scripture says about anything.
@@sjwhitley8199 So you admit that Keith is just stating his opinion. Great. White was NOT just stating his opinion, but was actually drawing it from Scripture. Not everyone's "interpretation" is equally valid, and Keith makes it clear the Bible is not his source of authority anyway. The Bible is God's Word, and is perfect. You disobey God to your own destruction. All men are responsible before Him, and all men must repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Pretending sin isn't sin makes you no less guilty.
Great debate. I think both men presented their sides clearly and respectfully. It’s more enjoyable to me when anger and frustration is absent from debates. Glory to God and may He edify and encourage all who hear the contents of this debate. Blessings.
Apparently you don't know what passive aggressive behavior looks like. James was about to explode with rage .... and carefully watch how "attentive" he was when Mr. Giles was speaking .. and also watch how often he looked around the room for tribal affirmation for his views? James is a typically fundamentalis pompous ass .... and it's an art form with these people to know how to pull their stunts in a passive aggressive manner ... hoping that no one notices.
Giles is terribly selective with his "Christ-focused" hermeneutic. In Matthew 11, right before Jesus says "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." He says "But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” You don't get to pick the parts of Jesus you like and reject whatever makes you uncomfortable. Good job Dr. White!
Unique and brave strategy for Mr. Giles. I know the bible says this, but what it really means is this! Jesus may say that, but what he really meant was this!
I lived as an unbeliever many years, and I lived shamelessly in my sins. I accepted all the things the world does. Yet I never thought to call myself a "progressive Christian" because that would have been absurd. The Christian faith and the Bible was against those things, and I knew it. Just be honest with yourself and identify as a Humanist if you want to endorse sin. You are no more a Christian than an Atheist is. (Though strictly speaking you wouldn't be a very good Humanist either, since all sin is harmful to humanity.)
I've been saved since I was a child, but I did always find it odd why these progressive/gay/woke "christians" even want to claim to be Christian. They obviously aren't, they don't believe the bible is the true inerrant word of God, many of them don't believe Jesus was God, etc. So why even bother with trying to take the label of Christian? I'm not a muslim, I don't believe the Quran. So it'd be odd to claim I'm a muslim that believes Jesus was God and died and rose again and go around arguing with muslims that I really am a muslim
@@MansterBear Yeah it makes no sense. I think to a degree they enjoy damaging the Church with their lie, and it requires claiming to be a Christian or a minister to do so. Also, it could be a reaction by people in the Church to hang on to the emotional benefits and the peace it brings, while avoiding the harder parts of the faith. People in large numbers started losing trust in the Bible in the 19th century, and many just stayed in the churches they belonged to, weakened doctrine, and gradually conformed them to their preferences. It is dishonest, and the right thing to do is just to leave if you no longer believe. You can still find meaning in Jesus, as in other great figures, but you don't have to live a lie. They just lost their faith. As you say, it is as ridiculous as a Muslim claiming to be a Christian because he believes in Jesus too, just in a radically different way. Hindus as well can recognize Him as one of many incarnations of their deity, without ever having to claim to be Christian.
Giles' argument "It's better to be a eunuch than to be married" falls flat for two reasons even within his worldview. (1) From his perspective, it is comparing two incompatible things: gender (eunuch) and relationship (marriage). (2) If we try to force the comparison, it either (a) compares celibacy to marriage, and the issue of a third gender is dropped entirely, or (b) pits various genders against each other and says that one (eunuch) is superior to the others (male/female). Frankly, we all know that this is where the movement is going, but I don't know if Giles is man enough (pun intended) to say it out loud.
Thank you both and thank you First Lutheran Houston for hosting. Dr. White went point-by-point through Matthew Vines' book a few years ago. The review was long but very helpful. Glad he's still on point at this debate.
Giles: For ME, MY definition of marriage will be.... 😓😞 We always think that everything's about us, what we feel, how we feel, what we think is moral...God's world, God's rules.
Dr. James White did an excellent job as usual. The other guy was just completely unbiblical, twisting the Scripture to fit his fleshly desires, suppressing truth in unrighteousness Romans 1:18. Keith also spoke of the most ridiculous stuff and will lead many straight to Hell. Instead of Biblical warning and giving the Gospel message and telling men to Turn to Jesus and believe and to call out to God ..he gives them "comforting lies" and no matter how kind and loving he "seems" he will be held accountable by God himself. 🔥
You know what i love about your proudly displaying KJV after your name? King James was a homosexual, himself ....and you people make fools of yourself by pretending that the Bible approved by him is the one you endorse. You people are freaking NUTS.
Funny that Dr White states the the Jewish leaders were trying to to draw Jesus into a rabbinic debate , and after that the other guy tries to do just that 😂
Notice how when James White asked Keith Giles for his definition of marriage it was his own perspective instead of one from the Word of God. Also, a eunuch is the state of a man without his genitals, not a third gender but pertinent to the marriage discussion because childbearing is of primary purpose of marriage.
Actually, that isn't necessarily what a eunuch is. It was once a catch-all term in the ancient world for various types of people. Also, there is no definition of marriage in the "Word of God". Not one.
@@jasonspencer8558 Here is the definition: (Genesis 2:18) Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 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. (Genesis 2:24-25) This created order is what Jesus quotes in Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Keith's arguments are just more attempts to pull God's institution of marriage apart.
@@soapboxtheology That isn't a definition of marriage. You were taught that it is, but it isn't. It's contrasting our relationship with our parents with our relationship with our life helper. It isn't trying to make a definition for something: at that time, marriage would not have looked at all the way you think of marriage now. You can't just cut verses out of context and say they define something for which you already have a solid opinion. As far Jesus' mention of it, he is quoting what it is they have read---he isn't making a comment upon it.
@@jasonspencer8558 What "huge chunks" are you referring to? He addressed every verse his opponent quoted with clarity. It was Mr. Giles who ignores Scripture. Did you catch the "Jesus planted the seed" comment? LOL.
@@TheCookFamilyHomestead I wasn't referring to Giles' questions. I was referring to large chunks of the Bible that show marriage in a completely different light. The same people who wrote Genesis also wrote about David and Solomon and so on, and yet they were called good and godly, despite their clear contradiction of the supposed "definition" of marriage in Genesis. It's food for thought. Finally, yes, Jesus did plant a seed===he shared a new idea and literally says they aren't ready for it. He says that elsewhere, too, saying there are many things he wants to tell the disciples, but they aren't ready.
@@jasonspencer8558 James White addressed every one of the points you just made. Even referenced David and Solomon and the destruction it caused. Jesus most certainly did not plant a seed. And as Dr. White said.....all the writers of the New Testament must of missed that "seed" and Mr. Giles agreed. All that was said over and over by Mr. Giles is that Jesus mentioned a Eunuch. That has nothing to do with marriage. A Eunuch is a man who is castrated. I have met a Eunuch....he was blown up in a bomb Iraq. Lost both legs up to his torso. Guess what, he's still a man. It's a ridiculous argument and one that doesn't address marriage in the least bit. Eunuchs don't turn into a magical creature because they are castrated. They are still men. And Dr. White clearly addressed this as well by talking about the reason Jesus addressed this. He went back to the law...just as Jesus did. We can disagree, but we have to be consistent. Mr. Giles didn't cite one passage refuting marriage being between a man and woman. Not one. Dr. White has been consistent for 40 years. He has books, articles and webcast to show this consistency. Mr. Giles, on the other hand, has been very inconsistent. Even by his own admission.
@@TheCookFamilyHomestead It's a logical leap to say that the destruction that happened in David's time was due to his many wives----that is a complete assumption on White's part. It could have been his thirst for blood or just things that happened just as easily. And were you paying attention at all? Jesus acknowledged eunuchs made by men, by themselves, and by God. Eunuch was a catch-all term for people that were different. This isn't something new. Historians have known this for many years. Lastly, Giles wasn't trying to cite a passage to refute marriage between men and women----that's the exact opposite of what he was trying to show you. If you can't understand it, you can't understand it.
It’s a legit question, the Bible has ample examples of laws and commandments regulating polygamy and concubinage. Christians should stop being ashamed or embarrassed of these parts of Gods word.
@@Collidedatoms Dr White said those Old Testament commands were a “step down” from what God actually wanted (21:40) which is the EXACT same answer Dr Giles also says when he’s addressing the Leviticus commands against homosexuality (2:03:00 - 2:05:00).. they both are saying that God caved on His own standards of holiness, but only in regards to those commands that they individually decide to cherry pick so to advocate for their own position. It’s as if White is saying “the OT laws against gay marriage still apply, but the laws protecting polygamy don’t apply anymore” and Giles is saying “well if you get to cherry pick like that, then I’ll just cherry pick too and say anti homosexuality laws don’t apply anymore either.” My view is that the perfect God NEVER caves to the wickedness of man, in any context.. we shouldn’t cherry pick what laws we want to abide by and what laws we don’t want to abide by.. which necessarily means homosexuality is always a sin, and polygamy/concubinage was never a sin. There is a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.. the spirit just has wider applications. Gods word truly is immutable and never contradicts itself.
In Keith Giles closing statement regarding Acts 10, this was obviously talking about Gentiles being brought into the church and had nothing to do with homosexuals, lesbians etc, his ignorance or willful ignorance is truly staggering!
@@Diligent-dp7gi From the view of bastardized perversion of fundamentalism, yes he did an excellent job of showing what you people are. By the way why the screaming? Do you think that makes your myopic statement more valid?
@@Brandon.Germany Oh darlin' ... you really have no idea how your ragged little defensive statement comes across. I feel like an idiot even responding to you. Maybe when you are out of middle school you will have more understanding of what is going on in this big wonderful world.
Clarity vs. ambiguity. Simplicity vs. complexity. For those who want to walk away from God's words, complexity is the ticket. "Did God say?" Well, yes, but there could be... in fact, there must be more than one meaning to what He said. It's not that simple. God knows how complicated things really are... So, we can't go wrong by acknowledging that. Besides, the world would never think that we are wise if we find simple clarity in God's words.
Another brilliant performance by Dr. White. He argued from the God-breathed scriptures that God made male and female and how this is a gospel issue as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6 that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. News flash, arsenokoitai, arsenos (arsenos--male) ou koimethese koiten (koiten--to lie with sexually, have intercourse) gynaikos (Lev. 18:22) literally means men having sex with men. On the other hand, Keith Giles spent nearly his whole time in the cross-exam questioning the authority of the Bible and trying, unsuccessfully, to find contradictions. That tells you all you need to know about Giles. As he said himself, "The Bible is not the Christian's final authority." We see this when he made such statements as Gay marriage evolved outside the Bible. He constantly set up false dilemmas like the map is not the treasure. It is not either or but both. The so-called six genders were never proven outside a vague reference to some material he pulled off the internet. Giles had more than enough time and opportunity to provide names and evidence of those promoting the six genders but he could not even come up with one. Dr. White tried to keep Giles focused on what Jesus actually said in Matthew 19 and Christ's citation of the creation account of God making a binary male and female but Giles refused to acknowledge Jesus' answer instead diverting to divorce and eunuchs. In the end, the debate centered around whether we can answer the question of "What is Biblical Marriage" by the Bible or not. Dr. White demonstrated that we can, Steve Giles statement that asking "is it biblical leads us down the wrong path" said it all.
The whole immature "stick with the words of Jesus" attempt at biblical interpretation falls to pieces when you realize the words of Jesus tell us that He would send the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit would not say a word apart from Jesus.
Lots of self-proclaimed “Christians” in this thread who say we can’t trust the Bible. Then how do you know who Christ is? He’s nobody worth following unless you rely on the Bible. So your entire position is a nonsensical contradiction. Why bother “following Christ” if we don’t know who He is? You have exchanged what you call a “fundie” fantasy for your own fantasy. It’s foolish and you should repent if you want to receive God’s mercy and love.
Good job turning off the sound, Eddie. 👍👏🏻😅 But seriously, wow that was like Romans 1 truth suppression on steroids with a strenuous effort to play Scripture Twister. Very sad to witness. Props to Dr. White for so patiently and graciously refuting this pure insanity.
There is no debate on what marriage is as far as God and His Holy word are concerned. He sets and defines the terms of what He says Biblical marriage is. He says that true, Biblical marriage is now and has always been only between a biological male and a biological female. Any so called "marriage" outside of that is not Biblical marriage and God rejects and condemns it. To accept, participate in, or support what God condemns is rebellion and rejection of the word of God.
I just love having to interact with my phone every 5-7 minutes to skip an ad, otherwise I will be punished with even more ads that if I don't skip them would take up more time than the actual video content itself.
James White gave a balanced and consistent defense for the biblical teaching and creation of marriage instituted by God. I think it could have gotten a bit deeper into the covenant aspect of it, but that's my personal longing of interest and intrigue on the matter, it was good to stay on task with a specific focus like he is very good at doing. Plus the ops wasn't a huge challenge if any at all to begin with so keeping it basic was very necessary. I thought Keith had absolutely nothing to stand on biblically, pure fluff and puff, lacked any substance whatsoever. A bit of a cake walk for JW really and I am mostly sad to see how many people actually cling to such badly distorted views that this man, Keith is spouting, it just seems so blatantly bad and obviously false 🤷🏻♀️Just look at the second question, and James White's face when Keith utterly destroyed "the good news" and exposed his false gospel. The man has a false Jesus and a false gospel 😩
Only thing I wish Dr White pressed him harder on was the fact that he came in without any info on the "6 gender" thing, but still wanted to lean on that as an established fact. He knew in advance that those and the idea of "eunuchs being considered a gender" were going to be a huge part of his argument, so he should have known he needed to come in with at least an overview of the info. Because without that he had no argument.
I do hope that Dr. White will be able to debate those who made the movie "1946." However, seeing that Dr. White has been offering to debate those folks for a while now, I doubt they will be brave enough to do it for they know they would not be able to defend their position consistently.
God bless Dr James White and may He keep using him to stand boldly and firmly in the truth. it’s astonishing how the serpent twists the scripture just as he did with Adam and Eve. Nothing new. Lord have mercy on Mr Giles.
Feel sorry for folks whose History goes no further back than Billy Graham…White is correct, the liberals had their time but God blesses those who love His Word.
Dr White nailed it, this Giles conformed to the world for the dollar, and the love of money is the root of all evil. His sugar coated message tickles spiritually weak people’s ears. Looking forward to seeing Dr White in heaven, and I pray Giles repents and gets saved quickly.
If he TAUGHT the TRUTH more true believers might be drawn, but he's unbiblical here, and I'm sure that's the main reason, gentleness alone isn't all, are you Biblical? Here, he certainly is not!
Giles was being ridiculous when he cited scriptures about people of all races being accepted, then he tried to equate that to sinful behaviors. Race isn't a behavior.
Dr James God bless you, as for the other person he present himself as the person without Spirit , he hates the old testament he wish it is burned. I think he is not in any way or shape match for Dr James White...
No one is lying about Keith. He hates the truth of Scripture, Old Testament and New, and clearly does not trust it as his authority. He needs to stop pretending to be Christian.
What he says about eunuchs is disgusting. He mentions that they were not considered men like that's such a great thing. The reality is that they were seen as *less than* men because their genitals were disfigured, either deformed or due to physical injury. This is worldly and materialistic, progressives love to call things "dehumanizing" but this is an actual example of dehumanization and he celebrates it. I reject this wholeheartedly as a Christian, God made them men and they are not any less of a man because they are deformed, were injured, or were mutilated.
Yes. I would be on par with saying we are not really human if we were missing an arm or a leg, or were mentally disabled. But we are. We are simply an injured human.
Interesting debate. In his opening statement, Mr. Giles explained his hermeneutic as being Christ words in the gospels are the most authoritative. Dr. White’s primary text to support his position is Matt 19. Suffice to say this debate did not go well for Mr. Giles.
To everyone in the live chat who were praising Keith for his humility and grace and blah blah blah can eat crow bc as soon as it came time to the q&a portion what do we see? The first question asked to him, then James White responds and all the while he (Keith) immaturely mocked James White while he gave an honest and sincere answer, making himself look completely foolish. He is an embarrassment to the body bc He is not of us!
Major long known definition of a eunuch by dictionary: "A castrated MAN, traditionally employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.". "A castrated MAN!". It's not difficult. Ethiopian eunuch was very likely this very type of a harem attendant Giles definition of a eunuch I have never heard before
Mr. Giles tells us that we must know Jesus before coming to the Scriptures to understand them correctly... then cites Jewish scholars/rabbis (who obviously don't know Jesus) to deny 2 Peter 1:21 and insert human fallibility into the authorship of the Scripture. Hilarious. timestamp 39.00 And later again cites the Mishnah to invent 6 genders (44.00)... internal inconsistency, even before any cross-ex, displays a failed argument.
I’ll debate Keith against nothing but his own words! He’s back and forth, falling all over his own points! Stop and think about what you’re saying! To support the world view, his view, would end Christianity in a single generation.
I know we all deserve lightening bolt judgement for our sins. But to intentionally teach directly opposite to a vast amount of Scripture (Leviticus, Genesis, Romans, etc.) that will be seriously dealt with on Judgement Day. I don't want that kind of serious judgement for anyone, but God has the right to do that.
using extra biblical sources to make his argument. the Talmud, Mishnah, etc are commentaries and oral traditions. they are not the Tanakh. the eunuch is a man who has no sexual organ (ie balls) not some other gender. Giles whole argument is based on his own personal view.
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." (Matthew 19:12, ESV) I see some fundamental problems with Keith’s interpretation of this verses: 1. If eunuchs are “the third gender” or orientation then it is clear that contrary to what LGBT preachers preach today - this gender and orientation CAN be changed. Jesus says that one can be made or make himself an eunuch. Which simply excludes the possibility of understanding “eunuch” as a orientation or third gender. 2. The fact that the apostles cannot grasp a certain concept is no argument at all. They didn’t grasp the concept of the Messiah being killed and yet it was the reality they were confronted with and pretty much forced to accept. 3. As the apostles were marvelling about the difficulty of marriage when a man cannot simply send his wife away for any reason, Jesus gives them the option - eunuchs - not as a “third” gender but as castrated men - it is simple as that. Don’t you wanna get married? Cut your testies off so that you don’t sin burning with passion (it’s better to get into Heaven without your balls then to Hell with them)…
Dr White stood on his interpretation of scripture. Scripture does not even call itself God’s Word. Jesus is the Word of God not the bible. It’s not Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the bible. Literalism is the most destructive way of interpreting scripture.
@@nickymartini1940 how do you know anything about God if it isn’t because of what’s written in Scripture? You don’t make sense. Keith try’s to justify sin by dancing around scripture. The Bible is clear on what is marriage and how God views homosexuality
@@FormerFetus1995 You should investigate Paul's use of the Diatribe literary device. He sets up a scenario then rebutts it. Hence Romans 2:1 "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are..." (switching to a different "voice"), and many other examples. Reading it literally, word for word, misses the entire context of what this letter may actually be trying to communicate.
The Eunuch reference in Matthew 19 has nothing to do with gender or an illusion to differing marriage. It is a direct discussion about the individuals contribution to the kingdom. Paul references the same thing in 1 Corinthians. Paul says that it is better to stay single. Why? Because single individuals can give more sacrificially if their time and talents without being distracted by the needs of their spouse. This was not a redefinition of marriage or an urging that we “rethink” the institution. But rather a focus on the purpose of the Christian life. We die to self and pick up our cross to the glory of God. For some of us that is in a marriage, for others it is staying single. NONE of this is elevating pleasure as a foundation for marriage or the Christian life in general. But to the progressive it appears that the scriptures that address the issue merely speak to the specific context of the specific verse and that the VERY THING we are asked to turn from SIN is ok because the question in Matt 19 is was not specific enough. Got it.
Non-Binary is a binary. God’s absolute truth is inescapable. Genesis 3:1 [1] Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
so many who wish to reinterpret the Word of God so that they can have a God that accepts them as they live in their own sin. in other words. a God of their own making.
The difference between the bastardized perversion of Christianity known as Fundamentalism or evangelicalism and true Christianity is vast and abyssmal. it's no small wonder that you didn't hear any validity from Mr. Giles .. your mind is seared in the bastardized premise of fundamentalism.
@@jasonspencer8558 The gospel tells us to turn away from sin, and Keith is telling people the exact opposite of that. What do you think the punishment would be?
@@BugattianVeyronian That isn't the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save us from death. The idea that we should turn from sin is a response to the Gospel, not the Gospel itself. And we turn from "sin" because those are ways of death---not damnation, but literal ruin in our lives here and now.
@Jason Spencer I just don't think you can call yourself born again and defy God's word as he does, you would be submissive to it, homosexuality is exceedingly wicked, this six gender abomination, he's just taking God's word and doing anything he wants with it. He's teaching things that are absolutely false, not even close to the truth, telling others such, I really don't believe Biblically you can call yourself born again. Homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight, but he won't say as such. Where's the HOLY SPIRIT, that's absolutely unholy, sinful, evil, calling God a liar, ect. It's not just a view on marriage, there is something wrong with the inner man to hold to things so contrary to the scriptures. What you THINK about something says much about the state of your soul, and yo actually teach it, you're kidding me. Anybody who reads the scriptures, that is truly born from above knows this to be the truth, it's not too difficult at all!
@@timdodenhoff7942 I think you should educate yourself on other perspectives instead of auto-damning everyone with which you disagree. There are countless interpretations of the Scriptures, many which predate your interpretations by hundreds of years or more. Learn about other ideas. You might be surprised how much sense some of them make.
Giles lost definitively. Haven’t heard a good biblical case for homosexual marriage…not even for homosexual relationships. The Bible either prohibits/condemns sex between homosexuals or it assumes a 1 man + 1 woman marriage. Giles had no legs to stand on here; even with his hyper reduction of the Bible to only Jesus’ words (as if it isn’t Jesus, in the being of Yahweh, speaking throughout the whole Bible). Not to mention his lack of preparation on the topic of transgenderism. He just threw claims out there. If you can’t back it up with sources, don’t bring it up. Cheap debate trick (“I’ll send it to you”).
I'm generally in favor of Dr. White's position, but the fact that he's never heard of chromosomal abnormalities that are different than XX and XY tells me he really does need to brush up on his understanding of intersex people (which is NOT any kind of endorsement of transgenderism, which is completely different). P.S. Having listened now to the rest of the debate, and yesterday's DL, now I see that Dr. White understands intersex conditions. He threw me off early on with his statement that sounded like "what other types are there than XX and XY, I'm not aware of them". That statement was confusing.
Allan. Dr White did not use the terminology always quit right on DL but X0, XXY, XYY, XXXY are not the alphabet soup or different so-called genders as have popped into existence in the 21st century.
Keith Giles: If arsen acoita (the Greek word translated as "homosexual", "effeminate", or "abusers of themselves with mankind") certainly means temple prostitutes, why isn't the word for "temple" or "prostitute" used in the compound word? I see no basis for the claim the it means temple prostitute.
