¶1In today's episode, I want to share with you part of the conversation I had with Protestant apologist Kelly Powers, which got pretty heated. But first, a little backstory. A few weeks ago, I debated Ryan from negod.net on whether Christians who trust in Christ can still lose their salvation. And I asked Ryan if Christians who commit grave sins would still be saved. So, I asked him in particular about a not uncommon grave sin among people who claim to trust in Christ, namely anal intercourse among married couples.
¶2Instead of just biting the bullet, Ryan went further and said he could not condemn this act because the Bible doesn't prohibit it. So, I wanted Ryan on the record refusing to condemn sodomy. After the debate, however, several Protestants demanded that I apologized for what they considered to be inappropriate language that children might have heard, which I thought was hilarious because I'm sure little children are eager to watch highle theology debates. In fact, these critics reminded me of pro-choicers who complain about holding signs depicting aborted fetuses outside of abortion facilities. It's morally hypocritical to be more upset over children seeing dead children than the children being killed in the first place.
¶3Likewise, I see no need to apologize to people who believe it is immoral to simply ask about the morality of an act, but not immoral to actually engage in that act itself. One of those critics who demanded I apologize was Kelly Powers. So, I went on his show to tell him why I wasn't going to do that. For example, if I had asked Ryan if saved Christians who engaged in same-sex anal intercourse would still be saved, Ryan would have just said yes, even if they commit that grave sin, and my critics would not have raised the same level of protest. But it's obvious the reason they got so vocal and so upset, was because they were embarrassed.
¶4They were embarrassed that following soloscriptor prevents them from condemning what they know deep down is very disordered and wrong. So after letting Kelly ask me questions for a bit, I decided to ask him some questions of my own to give more examples of how soloscriptor fails in this way. And we had an interesting discussion as a result and I'll share that portion of our conversation with you today. Now, I'll be releasing, however, a more detailed episode on this subject in a few weeks where I'll engage other objections like the so law versus solo scriptor objection. But for now, I thought you'd find our discussion interesting.
¶5So, here it is. But deep down, people know that this that this is wrong. And I think that, you know, you might try to say, well, I have to accept it's right because of Solura. And I'm going to show the problem with that methodology. So, I'm going to ask you some questions and this will show the further moral impoverishment of solos scriptor.
¶6So, so here's a few things. Just tell me if these things are wrong. Okay. Um, marrying your first cousin without the permission of the church. Without the permission of the church.
¶7>> Yeah. >> Um, I'd say say marrying your cousin from God's point of view would not be biblically number one. >> Where does the Bible say you can't marry your cousin? Well, we look at scripture. Um, you know, there is Well, that's that's a good question.
¶8So, you got me on that one. There you go. Uh, is there a scripture that says you can't marry your cousin? Well, there is no scripture that directly says you can't marry your, you know, your sister, your you know, to say you can marry your brother. Um, so to be clear, Trent, I mean, >> well, well, and the Bible talks about cousins being married, like Jacob and Leia, for example, right?
¶9>> Look, look, the conversation today, I don't want to be rude. The conversation has to do with about conduct and words of speech. That's what I made. That's You think that's funny? Why is that funny?
¶10>> No, it's funny because uh the reason I said that and the reason I wanted to come on was I'm not going to apologize because what I said revealed a fatal flaw in solos scriptor in that people who believe in solos scriptor can't condemn what is clearly evil because they're straight jacketed by only what's explicitly in scripture. Right. >> And there's many more examples of that. And you're terrified to answer those questions. It's going to make soul script.
¶11>> Can I can I flip the script? So you you would believe I would assume marrying a cousin would be wrong, right? I assume >> marrying your first cousin, >> it is not. >> Yeah. The position I hold is that it is not ideal just like it's not ideal to marry uh someone of a different religion.
¶12So in order to do that you would need the permission of the church in a particular instance and the Catholic Church was actually instrumental in drawing up laws related to marriage about how far away in family relations you can be married and the church has been important in that and making cousin marriage something that's very very rare for example. So >> why would the church though I want to try to understand if you're you're using this to attack solos couture and I get your point. I actually do get your point what you're trying to say there. So if the church would say this is not good, what's the reasoning for it? I'm trying to understand your where would you go with that?
¶13>> Because it's important for family relations to not be like if you look in the Arab world for example in Muslim societies that have rampant cousin marriage. Uh it creates disordered family unions. That's why the church actually used to be harsher on this saying you couldn't even marry your like second cousin during the middle ages because it wanted to prevent these disordered familial clusters and other examples like that. Eventually the line of permissibility of marriage was taken back I think to the fourth degree which would be like your your first cousin or your great aunt I think or something like that. And so there's a recognition that uh it's still keeping that marriage is creating these family clusters that are too intimate.
¶14Uh so it's not it's not as gravely sinful as say you know marrying like a sibling or a stepchild or something like that but it's right on the line. So the church requires dispensation just like marrying someone of a different religion in the Catholic faith. It's not ideal. It's not sinful but it is there's some badness related to it. So you would need the church's permission yolked.
¶15It does talk about that too. Right. >> Okay. Right. But so you think that a a Christian can never marry a non-Christian.
¶16I would definitely think the scripture there should be that's what he's talking about being married to a believer. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, that's what I would think. All right.
¶17Well, we can we can get into that. My point is in giving this example and I have other examples I'd love because actually here's the thing. I've actually I've sent this survey by the way to about eight or nine other Protestants who were critical of me and only uh two of them were willing to answer it and I'm grateful that they were they were willing to do that. So, I'm giving examples. Yeah, send it to me.
¶18I'll I'll check it out. Sure. But >> well, I I think it'd be I'd really interested to get your take on some of these right here. >> Well, like I said though, Trent, like the reason why, unless there's a different motive here, the reason >> is the show Soul Script Turo leads to a moral poverty, >> right? So that's that's so originally this conversation was to be about with what you said inappropriate, not appropriate.
¶19um and you wanted to justify and respond to your critics, right? That's that's originally what I thought it was. So So in regards to going down this long line of how you want to try to make solo scriptor um inappropriate for your reasoning, I don't feel that it's not that I'm I'm not in any way trying to dodge it. It's I don't feel that's what the conversation is supposed to be about today. Well, it's what I would like to talk about because the reason I asked that of Ryan and continue the line of question was it just reveals that whole paradigm leads to the excuse of great like for example if I had said to Ryan in the debate uh hey uh can a Christian be saved if he dismembers and decapitates babies >> as his job and Ryan said I'm not sure if you guys and if you guys had said why would you say something so gross pick another example instead of saying hey Ryan what's wrong with you why can't You say that's wrong, >> right?
¶20>> Well, that would that's the response I would hope for. But that his answer to the question to me reveals this fatal problem with solos scriptor, >> right? >> And I think that there and so that's why I am not apologetic because in talking about it, I've revealed that like this heresy >> will lead people into grave sins. I want to save people. >> Yeah.
¶21So, so is it a heresy? >> Absolutely. No. Oh, you think that's but also the issue of sodomy, right? Originally what you brought up.
¶22>> Yeah. I said that I said that anal anal intercourse is gravely disordered regardless of who you have it with. >> So So would that be based upon extra revelation, extra teaching outside of scripture that you come to that conclusion? >> Yeah. Because I can look at the human body just like I can know that two men engaging in a sexual act is disordered by reason alone.
¶23I can know that. And Romans Romans 1 even says you can know by reason alone that that act is disordered >> that engaging in anal intercourse between two men. >> Well, it's the same act but with two women. >> And it's very clear that's also disordered because that is not what the sexual act is for. So then if you can use that reasoning to deduct that being wrong by just looking at something from observation then why can I not say marrying your cousin is wrong?
¶24>> Why can you not say that it's wrong? >> Yeah. You asked me is that wrong >> and I said then you got excited saying oh it's not scripture but >> but it the if we can know certain things by observations you just said then why am I wrong in what I just said a second ago >> what about about your cousin marriage well I think many people recognize there's something that's bad about that or there's something that it just shouldn't be treated as normal as anything else even though the Bible treats it that way >> so we do what's right in our own eyes correct Are you referencing the book of Judges? >> Sure. Like in other words, like >> the last line of Judges.
¶25>> Yeah. 21:25 or Proverbs 14:12. If there's a way that seems right man there in the ways of death. I mean, the bottom line is a lot of us, this is all of us, myself included and you, a lot of times what we do is we read things or we see things and we base things on our own judgment. And that can be good, that can be bad, that can be right, that could be wrong.
¶26So I would like to kind of go back to the point here is I saw a video with you Trent where you were actually coming against Jay Dyer, Andrew Wilson, Sam Shimone for their type of language right now. >> It wasn't a language. >> No, >> it was it was their abuse. It was their the reason and and I've heard this criticism from other people. >> No, no, I know.
¶27Let me I I understand. I just want to clarify what it was a very good video. I actually watched it this morning again to be very clear. And so I liked what you shared because you were addressing the issue of how that they are abusing it. They're vulgar.
¶28They're vile. They're justifying what they're doing. I know that you're not trying to do that. I just like to ask you a question like for Christian conduct and speech. >> Yeah.
¶29>> Where do we draw the line? How do we know like the Bible? You know, you know that that you the scriptures that you put in the video I could easily quote right now. So I don't need to preach to the choir. um where do we draw the line when we're using our language to convey a point?
¶30>> I think at the very least my criticism and this is a point that Dyer himself has still failed to understand. It's not about using profanity. I have used profanity. Profanity or um graphic descriptions those in of themselves are not wrong. My problem with Wilson, Dyer, and Shimoon is that they are abusive.
¶31They call people names. they insult them. When I critiqued Jay online, his response to me was f you. That's different than just saying f whatever, using a profanity. It's a it's a malicious, aggressive uh curse upon another person.
¶32Say f you, buddy. Uh that they use abu, you know, Sam has said metaphorically, I believe, but still that people's mothers are things like that. They're abusive insults, but just using uh graphic descriptions that in many cases is perfectly fine. Uh the Bible itself does this. For example, let me ask is is this wrong that the prophet Ezekiel said in Ezekiel 23:20 comparing Israel's idolatry to adultery, saying this.
¶33He said she lusted after her lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. Now, do do you think that because of that we shouldn't let kids read the Bible because they might read that? >> No. And I'm familiar with a lot of those those scriptures as well. And there's a lot of imagery that's being portrayed and obviously it was bringing judgment upon that situation, that scenario.
¶34So, of course, there's going to be caution when reading scripture. there's going to be guidelines with reading scripture and of course reading things in context. So my point though to just again to be very clear again is there's a place and a time like you know I've I've counseledled men I'm sure you've counseledled men when it comes to issues of you know being a man or being a husband and talking about certain things in the bedroom or things like that right so I understand that I get that I'm actually more on your side in that scenario my issue though here is is that I didn't think just to be very blunt I don't think that that was a good example to try to use in your debate with Ryan um on a Christian losing salvation. There are so many other illustrations or points that if you were trying to press what you wanted to press, that's that's my personal opinion. >> If I had if I had said a Christian who has if I had said a Christian who has sex with other men, a male Christian who has sex with other men, will he go to heaven?
¶35>> Would you have complained? >> Yeah, sure. Then that and biblically that would make sense. But but it's the same act. I said the same thing.
¶36>> Well, but according to you, it is. See, not biblically. Number one. That's number one. The Bible doesn't teach what you claim.
¶37That's number one. Number two, it's the issue of what is that a a way a a good way of questioning during that debate. Um, you could you could refrain and reward things. The way I guess it's just me. It's kind of like Jame.
¶38It's kind of like Romans 14, Trent. I felt and I wasn't the only one. So I know that there was many others who felt that type of questioning was not the best way to go about it. Right now you're here justifying it. Right?
¶39You're you're doubling down, tripling down, saying you didn't do anything wrong. So you're here to respond to people like the critics. >> Yes. >> I shared originally like I shared with my with my post. I didn't disrespect you.
¶40I shared I thought that was inaccurate. So, I'm trying to ask you now is you feel if if if you're in a scenario and you're out in public or you're online and you know that younger ones could potentially be listening, you feel that you can use that type of language and it's okay. >> What language do you mean? Can you tell me the specific words? Well, like what you talked about before sodomy between a husband and wife and performing those type of acts, right?
¶41>> So, you're saying and I would say that I used very clinical language. I didn't use I did not use crude language. I didn't use slang. I used very clinical language >> to describe a common evil. >> I just said intercourse.
¶42And I specified the orifice to show that, oh, you know, this is a very common thing that even married couples might do. >> So, you're and I and I thought Ryan would just say, you bite the bullet and be like, yeah, they'll still go to heaven. Like, okay, good. Another another point for me to show how ludicrous this is. And he did himself no favors by saying, "Well, I can't say that that's wrong." And you're doing the same thing.
¶43And you guys are just embarrassed that you have to admit to everybody that that a lot of people are like, "You're okay with like there's nothing you think there's nothing wrong with this kind of disgusting act." and just embarrassed. >> So you in the future when you have debates with people, you if I understand this correctly, you will be using this type of language again talking about these kind of issues. >> I tell you what, I I could try another example. I maybe I could have asked Ryan this and you could ask me this. So let's say a Christian trusts in Christ and he marries his 10-year-old cousin who has gone through precocious puberty and is capable of becoming pregnant.
¶44um >> 10-year-old cousin. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And who's gone through precocious puberty and can become pregnant? Um would that would you know would that person still go to heaven?
¶45Is that sinful? >> Well, number one, we like we talked about before, God has given us a conscience. Romans chapter 2, I believe that we know that God's law written in our heart. So morally that would be inappropriate. Wait, where does the Bible say that?
¶46>> God's law, right? God's law is written in our heart. That's what we talked about before. We both >> Oh, so it's so it's just what you what you think in your heart. Each person thinks unto himself, right?
¶47>> So, like you say, you can look at a situation and make a judgment, right? So, again, you laugh. I don't know why you're laughing. Um >> because you're contradicting yourself. >> I'm not contradicting myself.
¶48That's not a contradiction. This So, you're you're using these illustrations to try to poke at Soloskura. I find it I find it funny though, Trent, because this is this is actually I I I don't want to I'm not I'm I'm not going to be rude. I'm going to hold back. Um but this is not looking good.
¶49Okay. >> For you. >> What? Why do you say that? >> Well, look, can can you prove to me that it is wrong to marry your 10-year-old cousin who is capable of becoming pregnant?
¶50>> Can you prove to me it's okay? >> No. I I asked you like, do do you think that that's Do you think that's wrong? You said it's wrong according to God's law, and I'm saying show me from the Bible where that's wrong. >> Just like you asked me.
¶51>> A 10-year-old is a child, right? A 10-year-old is a child, right? >> You define the word child, >> but we have to define what child is now. You don't know what a child is. >> A child, well, we would define a child as someone under the age of 18 probably in our modern parlance.
¶52Correct. >> That'd be a young adult, teenager. A child is like young, right? A child is a child. >> Do you think Do you think a 16-year-old is a child?
¶53>> No, that's a young that's a young adult. That's a teenager. >> Okay. Is a 15-year-old a child? >> Oh, we're going to play that game now.
¶54how how far we're going to go down, right? >> Yeah. Because if a 15-year-old is not a child, then it shouldn't be sinful for a 30-year-old man to have sex with a 15-year-old, right? Because they're not >> Yeah. We go to by late Yeah.
¶55You go by state by state. What what age a man can have a relationship with a a young girl? I got it. Here's here's what here's my problem. What you're saying, Trent.
¶56You're using illustrations to try to justify your means of attacking Solar Scura, which I understand that point. But again, this is still escaping the fact of how we conduct ourselves with conduct. That's why I'm talking to you today, right? >> But it's hard like I'm saying, "Okay, I want to come up. Okay, fine.
¶57I'm going to come up with different questions to ask in the future to show. >> So in other words, you you think you could have rewarded your questions maybe differently with what you asked Ryan in how you approached it or are you content with how you did it and justified and feel that you could ask the same exact question in the future to someone in a debate? Oh, that's what I want to know from you. >> Yeah, I'm perfectly fine. I use clinical language to describe a very common evil and the embarrassment is because I think many Protestants recognize this is wrong and they would use a similar appeal to you like it's just against God's law.
¶58In fact, some people Let me No, let me finish. Let me finish. No, let me finish. Let me finish. And some people replied to my email survey of this who are Protestant who said anal intercourse between a husband and wife is wrong because it goes against God's design.
¶59But they couldn't site a scripture verse for that. So they disagreed with you. They do think it's sinful. Uh but they could they couldn't provide a a verse for it. >> I said that earlier on Trent.
¶60I said this this this will have a divide on both sides. That's that's why I said from the start people are going to have a certain view on this particular topic already. Here's where the here's where the funny thing, if you want to start laughing for a second, is there's no justification to claim that a husband and wife, what they do behind closed doors consensually where if they want to do other things, they want to rub each other on their elbow, if they want to rub their boobs on whatever her boobs or whatever, like between a husband and wife, what they're doing at home, if it's not abuse and it's consensual, Okay, >> there's nothing the scripture says that's wrong. Now, I again be very clear. I've never done this.
¶61I don't have a plan of doing it. And I'm not saying I'm actually even saying that this is something I would recommend. I'm just trying to say to you, you are saying this is sodomy. And that's why you try to press Ryan on. I'm pressing you on this.
¶62Now, why do you assert so definitively that a husband and wife who has this type of physical relationship that this is sodomy when the Bible talks about that being men with men? I don't care what you call it that you shouldn't be men shouldn't be climaxing in people's anuses whoever owns them >> according to Trenhorn >> according to natural law according yeah according to the teaching of Christ one holy catholic apostolic church and just from what reason alone as Paul says in Romans 1 should just be obvious even to people who weren't given the written >> sure and Romans 1 is very clear women with women men with men it doesn't say anything about what you claim >> right but it says there are things that we can know even by reason alone and we can know by reason alone even beyond homosexuality or idolatry things that are just wrong. Even someone who's not Christian can recognize the natural law. So yogis you're saying if it's a husband and wife they're in their bedroom I should butt out if the Bible doesn't say anything. So from your perspective then a husband uh engaging in anal intercourse with his 14-year-old wife.
¶63Uh there's nothing in the Bible to say that's wrong. Correct. >> You just keep on pushing. And I'm just I'm just sitting here in amazement to be quite frank with you. So >> I just asked a question.
¶64Can you help me? Can you help me understand your position? >> It's between a husband and wife and they are >> the wife's and the wife's 14 years old. >> I I don't know. Is that going to be some kind of physical condition?
¶65Is that what you're going to bring up here? >> I I'm just curious like what it matters if she's 14 or 18. What's the difference? Well, because you have no grounds to say marrying a 14-year-old or a 10-year-old is wrong because the Bible never says what the minimum age for marriage is. >> Sure.
¶66Sure. There's >> So, it could be 10 years old, right? >> One sec. One second. So, here's the thing, Trent.
¶67Even though I have much disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church official teachings on many, many things, okay? And you like to point out solostorious heresy. There's a zillion heresies in the Roman Catholic Church. Okay? However, that being said, there are traditions which I respect, right?
¶68And the tradition is not a bad thing. Traditions can be good things. So, when we're talking about this here, I want to again point out about Romans 14. When Paul is confronting these people who are saying, well, you shouldn't eat meat. Some people are saying only vegetables.
¶69Some people are saying you worship on one day. Some people you worship every day. Like, Paul is addressing the are stumbling blocks, right? He then says, "Well, whatever is not of faith is sin." Now, that is either true or it's not. Now, if it's between a husband and wife and if they're per, you know, doing something things together, whatever it may be in this case what we're talking about, and it's not for them abusive or ruining their lives or some type of whatever that's going against their consensual type of, you know, between a husband and wife.
¶70Why is that a sin is what I want to know. >> I keep answering the question and you just don't want to accept it. It violates God's design for our sexual powers. What he >> Where does it say that at? Where where does it say that at?
¶71>> Where does it say it? It says it in natural reason >> and in the teaching of the church. >> How do you know it violates God's Where does it teach that at? >> See, if your if your heart is disheartened, I'm not going to be able to get through to you on that. So, I've said it to me.
¶72just doing the same thing you just did to me a little while ago. If you're going to make an assertion, where's it at? >> Okay. I I It's not explicitly in scripture, but that is precisely my point is that nearly everyone recognizes there are many things that are gravely evil that are not explicit in scripture. And yet we condemn them, which shows not everything that is wrong is explicitly in scripture.
¶73And so this version of soil scriptor should be rejected. And so I I want clarity from you because you didn't give me clarity in my previous question. You're saying I you're saying I should butt out if it's a husband and wife and whatever. So if it's a husband and I gave the example of his his 14year-old wife or let's say his 10-year-old wife 10-year-old wife a 10y old like that that that doesn't even sound reasonable within >> where does the Bible say that's wrong. It >> doesn't say that but like like like we've both agreed it's common sense, right?
¶74Like you don't marry a >> where does it say that? Where does where does it say that? >> How many times got to say it? It doesn't say that. But we know that to be true from what God's revealed on our hearts.
¶75>> See, and why can't I say the same thing about anal intercourse between a husband and wife? >> Because that's free you. But what about someone else who says it's okay? >> What about someone else who thinks it's okay to marry a 10-year-old? >> Okay, agreed.
¶76So, how do we how >> So, so do you think they should just be like, "Yeah, that's good for you. That's what you think." >> And then how do we come to a conclusion? Is it the Roman Catholic Church? >> Yeah, the living the living teaching authority of Christ Church. The living teaching authority of Christ Church.
¶77>> So, prove to me the Roman Catholic Church is the authority. >> I have done that in my books. that has been done by many other apologists. I don't need to go prove it now. Why don't you prove it now >> because I don't have to I don't I've already done that.
¶78You can go check out my book. You can read that book and many other things there. Yeah, I'll send it to you for free. Case for Catholicism. Remember remember I proposed to you in our email which I hope you're still willing to do.
¶79>> I proposed two topics talking about the papacy or the immaculate conception. Let's have a debate on the papacy. If you if what you're saying today is so right and so true, then you should have no problem debating the papacy. And if what you're saying is true about the Bible, do you think the Bible c the Bible is sufficient? >> Can can you answer that though?
¶80Do you would you agree to do the debate on that? >> It depends. Not every not every truth claim is conducive to a debate if the opponents are too far apart from one another. There can be too many subjects to cover within the limited format of a debate. However, you think, do you believe that the Bible do you believe that I I haven't decided yet.
¶81I need to look at the resolution. But do you believe that the Bible is sufficient to guide us in the moral life >> for doctrine and practice life? Yes, that's what solostor essentially teaches. Sure. >> Okay.
¶82So then if >> you want to have a debate on solosqura and so would that make you feel more comfortable? >> Can we can debate whatever you want or we can just talk. You could just answer my questions. I don't think it's that hard. If >> what have I not answered, what have I not answered?
¶83>> Okay. So all right. Okay. So, so you're saying that marrying a 10-year-old, precocious puberty, that is sinful, but it's not in the Bible. So, that's just your position.
¶84>> Same thing with you. You asserted that it is. >> Yeah. But, but but I don't believe in soul scriptura. That's not a problem for me.
¶85It's a problem for you. Um Oh, here's another one. Uh this cuz I asked I asked um you had him on the show Taco Talks. Uh yeah. Do you think a married man masturbating while thinking about his wife on a business trip is that sinful?
¶86>> [laughter] >> What's really funny is I I knew you were going to bring this up. So, >> so what's your answer? >> So, between a husband and wife, so say someone is in I don't know, let's say let's say they're living in Mexico and somebody's in Canada. Is that what we're saying? And they're they're a long distance away from each other.
¶87>> Yeah. He's on a business trip. He's been gone for like a week. >> Business trip. And it's between a husband and wife and and you're saying that they're thinking about each other, >> but they can't be with each other physically.
¶88They're not thinking of another woman. They're not doing pornography. They're not committing physical adultery. >> Right. >> But because they can't be with each other and they want to do this kind of physical act, you're asking me if that's okay.
¶89>> Yeah. Is that sinful? >> I don't see any reason why that would be considered sin. >> Okay. >> So, as the kids would say, you have no problem with gooning under some circumstances.
¶90>> Sure. I don't know what gooning means, but >> it's a slang term for masturbation. >> Let me ask you a question. Why is that a sin? Why?
¶91Why is that a sin? If it's between a husband and wife and it's consensual, and they're not fornicating with another woman or man, they're not committing adultery, they're not doing pornography, why is that a sin? >> Well, well, that's funny what you mentioned about pornography. Where where does the Bible say that uh creating pornography is wrong? >> We know there's a Greek word that tends to lean towards pornography.
¶92>> No, there's the word there's the word porna. >> Yeah. But but uh yeah from well from there. Yeah. Well there's an example the husband and wife they they put a video of themselves having sex on the internet for other people to see.
¶93>> Now we're talking about a video. >> Yeah. They they post that online. Where does the Bible say that's wrong? >> Wait a minute.
¶94You just said between them being long distance you you said that's you said that isn't wrong and fine. That's you and talk. Please don't do that. Don't do that. Stay what we're saying.
¶95You're talking about someone being over here and someone way over there long distance. >> Mhm. >> And it's a husband and wife and they're somehow going to have some type of physical whatever with each other long distance but it's with each other somehow. They're not fornicating, >> not sleeping around. I'm asking the question.
¶96If you're asserting that sin, why is that a sin? >> Because that's not what our sexual powers are for. God gave us the sexual act to be a full and faithful gift between one another. Uh not to simply use as an our genitals are not made simply to be um personal orgasm machines. >> Okay.
¶97So that's that's where you're coming from, right? But that's nothing you can find from that that would say that is a direct violation of a couple in the Bible. Correct. >> Yeah. And honestly, there's a lot of Protestants who agree with you.
¶98They they see nothing wrong with masturbation. >> There's a lot of Catholics who also agree with me as well. So what's your point? >> Yeah, but but they they would be contradicting what the church actually teaches in catechism. So we we have a standard you don't.
¶99>> Okay. >> Your standard is just whatever people kind of interpret from the Bible. So what I'm basically saying, Trent, and I get what you're saying. I do get I actually do get trying to do. I get it.
¶100And and you got some points. I don't I'm not disagreeing. I'm not disagreeing. The bottom line for what I'm trying to talk about Dave, when I talk to people, I try to be very aware of what I share. the audience that I'm around like today like this is obviously it's very adult I it's very clear everyone's here so I'm talking like this but when I'm around certain people other people younger people online whatever it may be I'm trying to be also aware of how I conduct myself that's where I'm that's my personal conviction if your conviction is you feel it's okay that you can talk the way you've done and you feel that you can talk that way like that way in the future that's your conviction that's on you >> how could I ask Ryan How could I have?
¶101So, I wanted to know, my question was, there was a certain act that's common, anal intercourse between spouses, and I wanted to know from Ryan's perspective, could you engage in that habitually and still go to heaven? I really did want to know. How could >> Why don't you ask me that question? Why don't you ask me that question? >> Well, I think I already did.
¶102And you said that that people can, that it's not sinful. >> No. No. So you asked Ryan about the issue of habitual sin and the Bible warns about habitual sin in Galatians chapter 5. Those who practice this are in danger of not inheriting eternal life.
¶103That's what Paul contrasts of the flesh versus walk in the spirit. So talking about habitual sin, there is a warning there. So I would not say if someone's living in a lifestyle of sin, continually doing this and then even claiming it is okay that they're automatically going to be saved. I would actually be considering that person may not be saved. >> No.
¶104No. The question was how could I the act was habitual anal intercourse. >> You see how I answered your question. See I answered it directly. >> No, you didn't answer it at all.
¶105You've contradicted yourself cuz you believe >> try again. >> Okay. So you the act of anal intercourse between a husband and wife. You believe that is not sinful. Correct.
¶106>> According to the Bible, there's no that's not sodomy and there's no justification to say that is sin. >> So then habitually engaging in that act would not be sinful. Then >> if that is not a sin then sure. >> Now if it is a sin which you haven't been able to prove then I would grant that. >> Okay.
¶107So that's why how could I so you didn't like the language I use. How could I have asked Ryan about this habitual act of anal intercourse between husbands and wives? Will those people still go to heaven? How could I have asked Ryan that in a way that you would not have been offended? You could have said something to the effect of, I don't know, maybe uh the act of someone who claims to be a Christian who is living in a gay lifestyle in acts of homosexuality and they claim to believe in Jesus, would that person go to heaven?
¶108>> That's one way you could have framed it. >> But that but that's not what I asked cuz I wasn't asking. >> I'm saying you could have framed it. >> But that but that the reason but if I had framed it that way, that's not the act I was asking about. I wasn't asking about >> because you assert because you assert sodomy is between a husband and wife which is wrong.
¶109>> Well, I was asking about that because most people who claim to be Christian and hold to Ryan's view are not engage engaging in homosexual acts. That would be irrelevant to my question. I'm asking about people who may listen to Ryan and engage in >> assume people listen to Ryan that they engage in acts of anal sex. >> Well, you said it's not sinful, right? >> No, but I'm saying you're assuming that.
¶110How do you how do you assume that's not the homosexual thing? Why do you make that assumption? >> Why do I assume the people listening to Ryan are probably not homosexuals? >> Yeah, you assume >> because Ryan is Ryan is a conservative evangelical who denounces homosexuality. So, I'm pretty sure he probably doesn't have that many people of that persuasion following him, but he probably has many married husbands and wives who may engage in acts of anal intercourse.
¶111>> How do you know that? Why do you assume that? That's a that's a that's a very bad assertion to assume that. Why is that a bad assertion? You said the act isn't sinful.
¶112>> No, but you're assuming you're assuming that. You're assuming that. That's a judgmental thing. >> Should I assume that Ryan has many followers who engage in married acts of vaginal intercourse? >> How do you How would you even assume?
¶113I would never even assume something like that. Why would you assume? >> I can't assume people are married. >> What? >> Most people who listen Yeah.
¶114What is going on, Trent? Most Yeah. What is happening? Most people who watch Ryan, if you look at Tik Tok, YouTube, Instagram, who are they? They're younger people.
¶115They're the younger generation. Do you even watch him on Tik Tok? Most people are young over there. Why would you assume they're all mostly married people? >> Well, I don't know if And we were we weren't on Tik Tok.
¶116We were on a YouTube channel. >> I'm just saying his audience is a younger crowd. Well, well, we were on a YouTube channel and my the YouTube audience tends to be older, but I'm sure I didn't say most. I said many. Many would refer to a substantial number of people.
¶117There's probably a fair number. I don't think everybody who listens to Ryan is unmarried. Even if they were unmarried, it's not scandalous to talk to an unmarried person about the ethics of vaginal intercourse in marriage. >> Right. Bottom line, >> and and then to say that it's immoral to engage in anal intercourse in marriage.
¶118Don't you think teenagers should be told that certain kinds of intercourse are immoral? >> Yeah, that should be done by their parents, right? >> I I can't just tell them that. Can I tell teenagers can I tell them intercourse outside of marriage is evil? If you have the proper uh way to do it some, you know, like in regards to having that right or the authority or the openness with someone.
¶119Sure. Absolutely. If you have that consent, absolutely. You know, we speak into people's lives all the time. My point though here is you're making a lot and you make a lot of assumptions here and it's it's just that's what's baffling to me.
¶120Now, Grant, you're you're going to stay where you're at. I get it and and and I do at least in that regard respect you for that. Um, but I just I I find this the most puzzling about this whole conversation is you're still so firm on what you shared that was okay, not a problem. And you're still so firm that sodomy by definition you believe is between can be a husband and wife committing this act when there's no historical record before uh the time of Christ with the Jewish people not in the Old Testament during the time of the apostles or even the early church fathers early on of this being an actual sin between a husband and wife. But you want to assert that it is.
¶121That's what baffles me. Well, I'm just I'm just giving the example. I was just asking a question. Uh and I would say by the way, uh I would go back. I'm just trying to go through some notes here.
¶122Uh but I but the thing is yes, we can find this even within the church fathers when you look at Chrysum when you look at Clement of Alexandria and Chrysum also does I think Chrysism would be a firm mention of this long before the 13th. >> They talk about men with men. They don't talk about anal sex with the husband and wife. >> They talk about contraception. And so contraception at that time would not be a hormonal pill.
¶123It would be doing engaging in the sexual act knowing that conception will be impossible because of how you've engaged in it. And so for these people, there'd be a very limited number of ways to do that. And anal and oral intercourse would be one of those ways. And they condemned that. >> They condemned it because it was it was uh it was contraceptive and an attack on the lifegiving process itself.
¶124So it's long before the 13th century. >> Okay. How about this? I think we both have said our peace, Trent. I don't think we need to keep going back and forth on what we have both shared.
¶125I want to end on a good note of respect in that regard. Um, you shared your piece. You've come to respond to me and other people as well and let the audience make their decisions. Um, I appreciate you coming. It's about an hour like we talked about, so I don't want to force anything upon that.
¶126Uh, >> so it seems like because I asked you what could I have asked Ryan, there was a certain act, the act of anal intercourse between husband and wife. >> How could I have? Because it seems to me, and you may correct me if I'm wrong, >> there's no way I could have, that's a forbidden question. I'm just not allowed to ask him about that act because the substitute question you gave me was a totally different act about homosexuality. That wasn't my question.
¶127So it seems to me from my perspective is that there are just certain things a person should not ask about whether it's moral or immoral and I think the reason for that is is because those questions reveal the fault and perils of soul scriptura. >> If you would have just simply worded this way if you would have said something to the effect of like you between do you believe that this act between a husband and wife is a sin? Start off with that. >> What act? >> Well, the act of what you've been talking about.
¶128>> No. No. Because if I had said, Ryan, this act between a husband and wife, is that a sin? He'd be like, "What act are you talking about?" >> Do I have to spell out the word that we've been talking about every single time? Do you have to hear me say anal sex like a thousand times?
¶129Does that get you excited or something? Like, we know what we're talking about. Okay. So, is that sin between a husband and wife? Right.
¶130Here's the thing. If I had just said, >> that's the question you ask him. Is is oral sex a sin between a husband and wife? That's how you could ask it. And then if you can define >> Okay, so if I said anal sex instead of anal intercourse, >> if you can define that as a sin, >> then you say, is the act of continually doing that going to keep somebody from being saved?
¶131But you have to first prove your assertion. No, I just I just asked him the question and then he was fair to say it's it's not sinful and people can judge and then people are free to judge from that. So you're saying if I had said anal sex instead of anal intercourse, you wouldn't have cared. >> No, no. The fact that you asserted not only the language that you use, I just thought was still inappropriate.
¶132number one. But if you're going to say how would you word, I'd say, look, if we're talking about it is the act of a husband and wife having intimacy from behind, right? Maybe reward it. I don't know. I'm just how I'm trying to reward this.
¶133>> No, because you can you can have that's still too >> I need to say the word, right? You need to hear the word. That's really crazy. I can't believe it. So, >> no, because because you have to use euphemisms to hide your perverted uh soul scriptor morality.
¶134You have to use euphemisms. It's called It's called trying to be mature and respectful. That's what it's called. Okay. >> It's called using the Bible alone.
¶135It's called the Bible. It's called using the Bible alone to cover up the fact that you're unable to condemn things that most people deep in their hearts know it's wrong. And that's why they were That's why they were mad I asked about it in the first place. >> Then prove it's a sin. You can't prove it's a sin.
¶136>> I can't prove people. >> How? >> Your hearts are hard. Just just like the just like the people who find natural law appeals to human men to be wrong. >> Okay.
¶137Fair. >> Because if it's not in the Bible, you won't believe >> because you're firmly clear what we see sin is sin. So if you're going to assert that it's actually sin and the and it hasn't been condemned by Old Testament Jewish people, wasn't condemned by Jesus the apostles even early on by the early church fathers. I'll even grant that as actually an act of sin between husband and wife. And then I I I I don't know what to tell you.
¶138>> So your position would be that it is not sinful for a 30-year-old man to engage in anal intercourse with his 10year-old precocious >> Now you keep doing the stupid thing. Now you're being done with a 10-year-old. We're talking about because because it's not >> We're talking about husband and wife. Let's talk about a 30-year-old and a 30-year-old or a 30-year-old and a >> You want to change it because >> Yeah. Because soloscriptor can't help you here.
¶139Now you're really showing where where does the Bible say it's wrong? I believe so. >> Now I'm going to start calling you out. Okay, that's being really inappropriate talking about and a 30-year-old. Are you kidding me?
¶140>> I agree. >> Are you kidding me? >> Can I finish? >> Are you kidding me? >> See, you're doing the same thing that Dyer does when he gets flustered and talks over the >> No, I'm asking you like why what?
¶141Let's just talk maturely. Where is anal sex between a mature couple, husband and wife? If you're going to assert this, where is that a sin? Can you prove it? >> No, I've already answered that question.
¶142And so, but your position and the thing is instead of just saying, you could just say to me, you know what, Trent? Yeah. I do not think it is sinful for a adult man to be married to a 10-year-old and engage in anal intercourse. >> I don't believe it is. Yeah.
¶143Yeah. Yeah. >> So, >> I don't believe a 30-year-old should be married to a 10-year-old. Yeah. >> No.
¶144Oh, you believe it is sinful. >> I don't believe that would be appropriate. Yeah. I don't think that would be right. Absolutely.
¶145>> So, it's a sin. >> Yeah. Whatever is not of faith is a sin. I don't believe that. >> Where does Where does the B Where does the Bible say?
¶146>> It doesn't say. We've already went round and round on this, Trent. We've already went over this. >> So, some things are gravely sinful that aren't in the Bible. >> There's some things that our conscience will tell us, yes, that are not right.
¶147That God has given us a conscience, right? Obviously, a 10-year-old is a child. Number one, [clears throat] >> a 10-year-old can't produce proper babies. Number two, I said precocious puberty. >> So you're making you're making a false excuse to try to justify your means there.
¶148Point here is we know adults get married when they're adults, right? That's how it normally works. >> So you've been able not been able to prove your assertion permission of a judge in some states sodomy this sodomy. Number two, you can't prove this is a sin. And number three, you're still justifying your language.
¶149And then you smile about it, which is hilarious. >> Language. What What inappropriate language did I use? I asked about a particular act, a particular kind of marriage. And I just wanted you to tell me if it was sinful.
¶150You said it is sinful. I agree with you. >> But the problem is, >> what did I say was sinful? What did I say was sinful? >> Uh, being married to an adult being married to a 10-year-old.
¶151You said that was sinful. >> Okay. That that Yeah. To be clear, yeah, I don't think that would be right. Correct.
¶152>> That's my problem. I don't I don't see any chapter and verse. I don't believe that would be appropriate. How how it would be. Yes.
¶153>> And you believe, well, look, God told me in my conscience this is wrong, and that's why you believe it's wrong. >> Well, when I look at scripture, it talks about a husband and wife being one. They leave their father and mother. There's a certain kind of guidelines that give this indication that they're going to be a young adult, not a child. >> Okay.
¶154So, could it be a a 14-year-old uh wife >> like Mary when she was young? Is that what you're trying to say? >> Yeah, sure. Yeah. 13 14.
¶155>> Sure. >> How about 12? >> Again, come on, Trent. >> 12. Just 12-y old.
¶156>> We've already went through that. I don't I I don't know the actual age, but we're talking a young adult, not a child, right? >> You're saying where does the Bible say all this stuff? This is just your opinion, >> of course. Now, well, not not necessarily.
¶157According to, if I understand correctly, Jewish culture and law, uh, a young man is at the age of 13 or 14, right? When when does a when does a woman become a young woman? >> I don't know. It probably changes. >> I believe around the age of 14 as well.
¶158I believe around the age of 14 as well. This is going by memory. All right. Here's the point. Let's let's move past that and conclude.
¶159You have shared you've come here. You want to defend your yourself against critics. you wanted to assert what you believe you shared with Ryan was justified and that's fair and I respect that. I don't agree, but I respect that. Um, you have your reasons for what you believe.
¶160>> I don't agree with those and that's why you came up today and I want to end on a good note having a good respectful conversation with you. Um, I thank you for coming over here to to share your views. >> Sure. I will send you the full survey. You can you can fill it out at your leisure.
¶161Uh but I will continue to ask defenders of solos scriptorera about whether certain actions are moral or immoral and I think the answers that I get will be indicative about the fatal problems of solos scriptorra and I will not be uh I will not be pressured by people who use tone policing language to try to keep me from asking what are very valid questions. >> Well, you have that right. You have that right. >> All right. Thank you guys so much for watching and remember I'll be releasing a longer episode on the moral problems of Soloscura in a few weeks.
¶162So stay tuned for that. If you want to help us keep creating great episodes, then please visit us at trenhornpodcast.com and support us for as little as $5 a month where you get access to bonus content. Thank you guys so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.