Responding to Claims about Being a “Heretical Liar”
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Jared is a pastor in Tennessee. On November 13th, Jared posted this comment on X:
According to Dr. Rosaria Butterfield, What Christian ministries are heretical liars? "Revoice, Preston Sprinkle's Exiles in Babylon Conference sponsored by his heretical Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, and CRU"
@PrestonSprinkle
@crutweets
That's what she said at
@LibertyU convocation this past Friday.
What heresies/lies have they spread? 1) "Same-sex attraction is a sinless temptation, and only a sin if you act on it?" 2) "People who experience same-sex attraction are actually gay-Christians called to life-long celibacy?" 3) "People who experience same-sex attraction, rarely, if ever, change, and therefore, should never pursue, heterosexual marriage." 4) "Sex and gender are different, and God doesn't care if men live as men or if women live as women, because all you need to do is grow in the fruit of the Spirit, as if the fruit of the Holy Spirit can grow from sin."
There are several things represented in this post that I have never said nor believe, and therefore I asked Jared to come on my podcast to talk about these errors that are said about me.
Jared’s original post where he agrees that I’m a “heretical liar”: / 1724124156470444527
Jared’s post where he lies about my ministry, The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, “advocate[ing] for…non-sexual romance, cuddling & kissing, and snuggling in bed:” / 1724042446223368248
And here is the paper written by Dr. Greg Coles and published by The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender regarding celibate relationships (regarding the cuddling and kissing comment above), which Jared and I discuss toward the end of the podcast: www.centerforf...
Jared’s post where he publicly says Rachel Gilson is “legitimizing gay marriage,” which is factually wrong: / 1724088931816276476
Here are a few books I’ve written on the topic of sexuality and gender, which clearly argue against the very viewpoints that Jared says I believe:
People to Be Loved: www.amazon.com...
Embodied: www.amazon.com...
Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage? www.amazon.com...
Here is a two-part series I did on Theology in the Raw on why I believe in the historically Christian view of marriage: Part 1: • The Historically Chris... Part 2: • The Historically Chris...
If you've enjoyed this content, please subscribe to my channel!
Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: / theologyintheraw
Or you can support me directly through Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1
Visit my personal website: www.prestonspr...
For questions about faith, sexuality & gender: www.centerforf...
My Facebook public page: www.facebook.c...
My Facebook private page: / preston.sprinkle.7
Twitter: @PrestonSprinkle
Instagram: preston.sprinkle
„ I don’t believe in guilt by association“ .. proceeds to make most of his accusations based on association 😂
Exactly! Jared was a bit of a hypocrite here.
Oh wow! This was exhausting. If ever a discussion needed a moderator this one was it.
It was exhausting. It felt like they spoke past each other the entire time and that frankly Preston wasn’t interested in truly figuring out the wording and the reason J was of the opinion he was. He parsed words repeatedly, he circumvented questions that would have gotten to the heart of the difference
Honestly this "debate" DESPERATELY needed a moderator. I'm a long time listener of the podcast and I understand why, Preston, you don't like these kind of interactions. I appreciate that both of you really tried to remain civil but there was A LOT of talking over each other, a lot of accusations thrown, grandstanding, misunderstanding, and refusal to answer simple questions. It is wholly understandable but unfortunate to watch you and Jared exhaust each other's grace.
Preston, Jared asked A LOT of genuine, good, insight-seeking questions that you did not answer and never came back to. In the same way, Jared refused to answer some of your questions but since you invited him on to clarify your views, it was much more important that you answered his questions than he answering yours. "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." I'll be praying for you both.
Agreed.
Well said. I love Preston's work, and I love how he approaches really tough conversations, including this one in so many ways. But I also thought that he got so caught up in something in his own head and his own point that he wasn't able to hear what Jared was saying. Jared did ask some great questions, ones that got me to thinking deeply about some things. But I don't think he was looking for true understanding of Preston's actual beliefs. @@dianelamberson3393
With the right structure, ground rules and a moderator this could have been a productive conversation. It's a reminder we all need help and support when having a potentially contentious conversation.
I agree. It seemed Jared asked questions & Preston’s response was: “We’ll circle back around.” But he never did circle back around & answer his questions. An unbiased moderator (if there even is such a thing) would have been helpful.
Totally agree, Preston asked Jared on the show to repent of calling him a liar. When Jared pointed out things Preston said that were inconsistent then Preston expected Jared to take his word for it. Why would someone take someone else at their word if they thought they were a liar? Preston’s views were very inconsistent and anytime this was brought up he changed the subject.
So many thoughts. Here's a few:
1. I wish Preston had brought up intersex individuals. Per Jared's worldview, God created them to live in sin since some of them don't have a clear biological sex. Jared's worldview leaves no room for these individuals made in the image of God.
2. I'm glad Preston was so particular about emphasizing definitions, but he was talking to someone who refused to acknowledge how others may define words differently from him. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who will use words like "gender" and "masculinity" while trying to force everyone else to redefine these terms with his non-dictionary definitions.
3. Jared does not believe in speaking the truth in love, or he believes it's loving to speak what he perceives as the truth as directly as possible.
4. This conversation would've benefited from an objectively neutral moderator.
5. Preston was right to publicly denounce slanderous accusations against himself and his ministry, especially when the slander has been viewed over half a million times. The allegations were specific, factually false, and intended to ruin his reputation to those unfamiliar with Preston's ministry--the very definition of slander.
6. Jared's view of masculinity seems totally centered around sexuality, and that saddens me. I don't think any of us would dare accuse Jesus of not being masculine, but he never once pursued a sexual relationship with a female.
This should be titled, “We can come back to that…”
Circle back… circle back…
Reminded me of the presidential press Secretary
Yeah, that was disappointing. :/
This was just painful to listen to. It is evident that Preston was frustrated and that, coupled with Jared’s arrogance and lack of interest in having a real conversation, did not put him in the best position to talk here. Normally, Preston talks with people who are trustworthy conversation partners. Jared was not invested in conversation, but instead categories of what he deems faithful and unfaithful; heretical. Jared even admitted that his litmus test for Preston and his ministry, was what Rosaria Butterfield said. This kind of tribalism makes me sad.
By the way, we use pronouns everyday. They are a part of language. When Jared says he would not use pronouns is exactly the kind of reaction that isn’t healthy or helpful.
This was so hard to listen to. It hurts to be wrongfully accused. I'm sorry Preston for the way you have been characterized and misrepresented, not just by Jared, who irresponsibly just tweeted what someone else said, (and who just happened to endorse his new book) but also by Rosaria Butterfield. I listened to the address she gave at the Liberty University Convocation. I have heard other unkind, wrong things she has recently shared publicly about you and the Center. It is one thing to have a difference of opinion, it is another to misrepresent what someone says or believes because you believe differently. This is not how we as Christians should treat each other. If they really wanted to right a wrong teaching or concern over doctrine, then speak directly to that person, like scripture instructs us to. Don't do it in a public place with tens of thousands of people. She could have made her point without attacking people or organizations. It is exactly these attitudes of arrogance and self-righteousness that have caused so many within the LGBTQ community and their families to be hurt by and leave the church. There is no love in this posture, only judgment and hatred.
Lately I have had the picture of the last super in my mind, and I keep thinking of Jesus washing Judas' feet. Jesus knew what Judas had planned and Jesus still showed him love and relationship, and I think, the opportunity to do something different. This is the posture of the Center for Faith and I have personally seen this posture change lives and rebuild relationships, all for the sake of showing the love Jesus has for each of us that all may know Christ.
I have been falsely accused by some in the church I previously attended, and discovered they would rather talk about me behind my back than directly to me. My advice, which I know is easier said than done, just let it go and use your energy to continue the good work you do.
Thank you, Preston and the Center for Faith. You have been a lifeline to many hurting people in need of support.
i am glad, that the center has helped you.. my guess... is it was not altruistic on their part.. and that those it helped, is much like those that cherry pick bible verses to do harm... this podcast Prestons presentation leads me to believe, he does not care about how he is interpreted.. he choses not to engage people who wishes to engage in debate (even if they want help) because he is just not interested.. he intentionally, by his own words ignores those that would like to be on his podcast, because he thinks thats just weird,,, he only allows those that agree with him to have a voice...this whole video, was predicated on his desire to force jarod to repent... and to call him out as a liar.. vs.. trying to understand why...or in what way he came to his conclusion... Did Jesus not say... who do you say i am? or am i confusing this with a movie quote? I do have a movie quote... "pride it is my favorite sin"... Devils advocate... because lets be honest.. thats this whole episode.. Preston did not want people to "think" he believes something.... in Romans... 14 22 You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right.
What did I learn today? Often people who seem unreasonable, actually are unreasonable.
I totally get it though, when someone says something so preposterous you want to talk to them about it. I’ve personally found though that most people in these camps aren’t actually interested in having a conversation.
The beginning comments about him wanting to be on your podcast and reaching out asking to be was telling, sadly I think he got what he wanted. I think Preston learned his lesson that his rule not to dive into this is a good rule 🤣
That made me laugh...:)
I agree, just started listening I am so sad , what a waste of time for Preston. No need to justify himself
It would have been a better conversation if Dr. Sprinkle had invited Dr. Butterfield who said those statements regarding him and his ministry.
He did. Her pastor (and husband) responded to him by saying there was nothing for them to have discussion on. That's my summary of his response at least
This was painful to watch, in part because in my opinion Jared was reckless with his speech and unwilling to own it. But Preston, I will say (hopefully not recklessly) that I personally think that platforming a speaker in a conference in which you have a leadership role is unavoidably a promotion of that person. Not an endorsement, but a promotion. The more the conference is categorized as authentically Christian, the more problematic that promotion is.
I listen to you pretty consistently, and have for a long time because of your careful takes. However, I do think that to some degree you give too much ground in an effort to be charitable. I think it is a legitimate criticism to suggest that you are probably not as charitable on other categories of sin. I hope that the result of that for you is that it allows you to reach people that you could not otherwise reach, and the fruit has been godly, not just productive. But what it means for me is that even when I know people could benefit from your ministry, I am afraid to share your channel with them because I'm not 100% convinced that they will always get the most biblically contoured take.
I have to own the fact that I come from a background in which I did not care one bit what the Bible said about anything. When people said to me, "The Bible says..." I would say "Really? What does the Easter bunny have to say about how I should be living my life?" Jesus has changed me. So I am leery of anyone who seems to be reaching and reaching to try to create more latitude than the Bible allows. I've already done whatever I wanted and it sucked.
I actually think what you say is a much more potentially valid criticism, or at least conversation, that Preston could take something from. The guy on the show though was just not honest.
@@michaelnewzealand1888 Having now listened to what Rosaria Butterfield said at Liberty U, it's obvious that Jared was just parroting her talking points (literally... he says the exact same things she says) while having no idea why she was saying them or what she meant. It would be much more productive for Preston and Butterfield to connect, privately or otherwise.
@@EmWarEl I think a good leader is a server... they listen... I think unfortunately as a whole Preston came across as dismissive - at best- I think he expected to much from his guest - I think Preston would have better represented himself by simply speaking clearly on how he does feel - and recognize it's possible it has not been clear - not call the other a liar - demand not only repentance but public... charity was not his heart in this
Dear Preston, engaging in this conversation shows that you are grounded in who you are in Christ and you are secure in the ministry God has called you to. I also believe you were trying to live out Matthew 18:15 and Romans 12:18. Thank you for being vulnerable. I am a mediator and Christian Conciliator, I help people have potentially contentious conversation in a productive way. If this is the kind of conversation you would like to engage in in the future, both privately and publicly, there are resources to help have these hard conversations in a way that feels more productive and uplifting to both sides, even if the outcome is the same. I am sorry that this conversation seemed to take a toll on you. I am so grateful for you and your ministry and how God has used you to bless many. Even in hard conversations like this one I believe God has something beautiful to give you.
You must be joking! Live out Matt. 18:15? It has been shown that Preston is lying at this point. His ministry does everything Jared has accused it of doing. That has been documented over and over now.
Welcome to the show for the “first and last time” 😂😂
Thanks for all you do Preston
This caught my off guard 😂 Preston being a savage!
This comment had my jaw drop. I haven't started the episode yet, but I have my popcorn ready
Perhaps Preston should not have broken his own rule.
He doesn’t invite people on to his show who disagree with him because he doesn’t handle himself well in a debate.
He gets too flustered and becomes condescending and lacks grace and kindness with Jared.
Rather than pursuing an attitude of humility and reconciliation, Preston just gets ugly.
Sad and disappointing.
As someone who deeply respects Rosaria Butterfield, I was taken back when I heard her mention your name in the “heretical” camp. I was grieved in my spirit because I know how much your ministry has impacted me personally and the broader body of Christ. Thank you for embodying the grace and truth message Preston and team!
I don't think this was a guy that should have been engaged with. I'm sorry that he said these lies but I think this was casting pearls. I appreciate you giving him a chance but he pretty quickly showed he wasn't interested in explaining. Calling someone a lying heretic is a BIG DEAL. Ironically, during the time of church history he referenced, it would be a capital crime. He seems to be pretty casual about throwing that accusation around. Since he made the accusation, the burden of proof was on him but it's clear he hasn't even read your stuff.
There are much more honest and Christ like scholars on the subject that would be closer aligned to him. Owen Strachan comes to mind, though I disagree with him.
Just listened to the whole thing....
I appreciated the irenic tone of both guys. Also, I support Preston in confronting someone who called him a heretic. I actually agree that the term is thrown around much too loosely these days. And Jared was clearly not prepared for this conversation, especially considering he has a PhD in systematic theology.
I will say, though, that instead of addressing many of Jared's claims, he argued semantics. "How would you define? What do you mean? What's a synonym for ______?"
Those things are definitely important, but as a debate tactic it does get a bit old instead of just getting to the core of the argument. I thought it would have been a much more fruitful discussion if he had offered definitions instead of saying, "What do you mean by that?" and then replying with "Well, let's just come back to that later/move on."
Anyway, kudos to Preston for exposing Jared's lack of preparation and kudos to Jared for taking up Preston's invitation. But there really wasn't much substance in this insofar as advancing the debate. Just my two cents.
In his defense, Preston clarified that he wasn’t interested in having a debate, but challenging the accusations made against him
Fair enough. It just got tiresome hearing Preston shut down debate several times it seemed to start progressing. But I do see the point that he wanted to address Jared's specific claims in this video.@@christopherdewaard6932
Part 2 : the biggest challange and most cringe and ucomfortible part of this conversation, is a concept I have also had with Preston.. as a Patreon who asked this question... that Preston this time is struggled with.. but not as a written response but actual conversation.....
What Preston could not understand, or just refuses to accept... is platforming... Although i can not speak to the "truth" of the accusations his guest was referring to, at the core, he was saying, you have either on Preston's website, or in his events that by giving voice to others gives their voice a platform, and how in that space reflects on Preston in very negative ways, and is interpreted as endorsement...
Preston has a conversation with (A Transman’s Unexpected Thoughts on Trans* Related Issues: Scott Newgent) - In which Scott lies about so much, and intentionally misleads that is so disrespectful, hateful, and sinful.... Feel free to look up... my comments are on that video... When i asked via Pay Preston money platform, he responded with.. he is not a believe in "platforming" he looks at his guest as if he was walking down the road and met a stranger and had a conversation.... he may or may not agree.. just a convo.... My point was like it or not... allowing that person to spout terrible lies is to give power to that voice.... With this guest today... his claim was the same.. to a degree.... he is saying that in his opinion their are people acting in, lifted up by, closely associated with (what ever vernacular that Preston wants to get caught up in semantics) comes across as an extension of Preston... to say Preston is in lockstep with these other people and or organizations... Again for today guest, today they were both not only throwing out the word LIAR, so easily... but even asking the other to repent...
I do not understand how Preston does not understand how the message is getting lost... and to be honest... instead of addressing the concern, its flipped to calling the other person a liar... now Preston did keep trying to word things differently to "try" to understand... but he was trying to understand the semantics... not the actual concern.... The concern, was to platform and and power to people who (like today's guest) he believes is dangerous..... without calling it out... or making clear where the guest views do not reflet Prestons...
Good point. An extension of their very different ecclesiologies.
why preston keeps saying "can I come back to that" is because he doesn't want to admit what he actually believes or pretends to believe, or what he endorses
I'm fascinated by his iron clad belief in "church history" dictating his morals. I've never heard that phrase in Christian spaces, and I feel like church history in itself is so fraught with violence and judgement that It may not be a great reference for living a godly life? Preston, I think you do such a wonderful job at listening to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and following those.
Not to mention, Jared acts like church history says you have to pursue marriage if biologically capable, or you are a heretic rejecting your biblical gender expression. He completely ignores the rich church history of monastic celibate living.
As I have grown into my 50s now, I have such little faith in the institutions I was brought up in like corporate religion, the myth of the US, etc. The only true place I find truth is not through corporate religion, government institutions, and political parties, but it is the Bible. I see how the other three institutions seem intent on corrupting the only truth.
I think he means that there needs to be a valid justification as to why this change has take place. And Jared need to demonstrate that this was an actual change.
even though the conversation might not have been conclusive and there was friction here and there, what shines most clearly is the beauty of two men of God discussing such a charged subject with self-control and utmost regard for God’s word. I see two men who put a higher value on staying true to God’s word than their reputation. over and again they say I don’t mind recanting if I lied. and this is beautiful. when Preston got carried away in the heat of the moment (which is understandable really) and said something he shouldn’t have, he immediately apologizes. this is what surrender looks like and above the subject of discourse, this is the real inspiration here. May God bless and keep you both. 🙌🏽
Big yikes. It's sad to see another brother in Christ (Jared) tear down someone based off twisting words and or assuming more or less than what was factually said. When you asked him his pronouns, I about fell out of my seat haha. So glad I found you from listening to the Perrys! Thankful for your ministry, Preston!
on the pronoun conversation i was confused every time.. wondering if he was saying a person was born one sex but was using an opposite... or the use all together.. and when he laughed, i wished the example.. instead of "there are many reasons..." he would had used a very easy one... A man named Tracy... or for those fans out there.. a man named Sue... because maybe in person a "sex" can be implied... in just written word, to establish a sex (gender).. helps show a perspective.. or possible perspective...
I've always appreciated when intelligent people gather for a measured, calm debate about topics, so that people can listen and decide for themselves. This is what presidential debates used to be like.
This was not that, because one side insisted on making talking points instead of engaging with the other side.
I really wish Jared had done research into what Preston said, instead of just taking Butterfield's word for it
It’s unfortunate that Jared would double-down on his fallacious assertions in the face of refutation and continue beating a straw man of his own making.
However, Preston’s employ of the fruit of the Spirit, clarity in communication, and commitment to keeping the conversation on track is instructive, even when correcting his own sinful comment In the discussion.
Well said.
Sinful comment?
Preston: Literally any question
Jared: Pronouns in their bio
🤣🤣🤣
The guy barely had anything else to talk about. He's in a circle that has so thoroughly demonized that, that it is an automatic dismissal for him. Preston can tell him all day that he isn't a proponent of that either, but if he doesn't join Jared in the demonization effort, Preston will always be a heretic to Jared no matter what.
To say "you believe this" and to have someone tell you "no, I do not believe that, nor have I ever said that. That's a lie." And to respond with "I'll read your writings and see if you have or not" is wild...
You can't just make a claim and then look for proof of it later. If you don't already have proof of it, then why did you make the claim in the first place?
If anyone wanted to know it’s Cru not CRU, like Verizon not VERIZON, being a word not acronym.
I'm grateful you attempted this Preston, as I think there needs to be much more of these kinds of exchanges/debates. There actually is very little of this happening, though social media allows for plenty of mischaracterizations. I do think it may have been more clarifying to engage Rosaria instead of Jared.
55:02 😮. I’m time-stamping this for myself because that is a powerful interpretation from Jared on God’s forming the woman from the man. And the man, who not finding a helper suitable for himself among the animals, rightfully recognizes, rejoices and receives the woman when she is brought to him. SSA, in and of itself, is a direct antithesis of that
Solid point.
Not really.
How about people read the new testament and the clear teachings of Jesus instead of trying to badly interpret what Genesis says or rather doesn't say? How about looking into "Acts" and discovering that the first person about whose baptism we hear was a eunuch. Or how about simply taking seriously what Jesus said about judging others? With whatever measure we judge others, we will be judged ourselves. So the more rigid we are, the more we think we are "holier than thou" the harsher our judgment will be. To quote evangelicals - the Bible is clear. Yes, it's clear on how God will judge you if you don't follow the teachings of Jesus.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists are masters in cherry picking the Bible, mainly the OT and apocalypse to bolster up the believes they already have.
They think we are under levitical law. How about reading Acts 15 to find out which laws we need to follow as Christians besides loving others. How about reading what Jesus had to say about the beam in our eye while we try to remove the splinter from the eye of another? How about reading what Paul said about us condemning ourselves when we condemn others because we do the same things?
Honestly, evangelicals or fundamentalists calling others heretical is a joke, unfortunately not a joke that one can laugh about because they are actively causing harm to others.
@@MrSeedi76Homosexuality is sin. It is not simply Levitical Law, it is New Testament too(Rom 1; 1 Cor 6:9-11). It is also a sexual sin which is grounds for excommunication according to 1 Cor 5. Even in Levitical Law, God specifies it is an abomination to Him whereas in ceremonial and purity laws God says "this is an abomination to you."
What Jared cannot understand, is gathering together a diverse group, even those who we might disagree with, and have a public conversation. He would rather attend a gathering where everyone agrees and amens one another. I am sure that the fact that Preston flies close to the line in an effort to hear other voices makes this camp very uncomfortable and challenges their doctrine of protectionism.
My hope and pray that Jared never has a loved one who suffers from same sex attraction! I am a Christian mother who cries out daily for my oldest child who is living transgender. Should my prodigal come back to faith, because God can heal ALL sin, and healing may mean still being same sex attracted but living in holy sexuality. My child may never have congruency in mind and body, but that does not mean returning to God’s will is impossible.
i am just currious.. do you think a trans person can not be of faith? because if you do.. i think the question really is.. why would they stop? is it, they can not believe in a god that would not approve? I am of faith... an in that faith it stays Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need....
This is why Preston is a heretic, right here; he validates these lies for you, AS a teacher.
I've had this in my family, twice. I told my kids the truth. If you want to love, 1 Corinthians 13 clearly explains that truth is integral to love.
If someone is lying to you in the misguided belief that sparing your feelings is love, they are not loving you. They are loving themselves. The hardest thing to do is tell someone the truth, KNOWING that it will cause them pain.
@@BrettHacker using that phrase "its the truth"is so dangerous... the truth can be in the moment.. it can be in a feeling... it can be based in a lie... the "truth" is in the heart.. and sometimes, our hearts are confused.. along with out minds... using harsh words.. like you did.. is also not scripture.. in Romans... 18 If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. 19 So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up... should i also chose that same H word for you because your not aiming for harmony?
@@Jasminestealth1 Absolutely a transgender can believe in God! An agnostic also can. In both cases there is a disconnect between belief and living for and within the truth of God. The Bible is clear about male and female and holy sexuality. The male female thing is so deep that every cell of the body is male or female. With ANY human, because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God is to
Belong
Believe
Become
Within Become we need to spend the rest of our lives living God’s plan for our lives as outlined in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Remember, there is no New Testament without the Old Testament as Jesus, who is a Jew, came to fulfill the Old Testament
@@BrettHacker If I stomp all over my transgender in truth, where is the love? The truth MUST be in love AND grace. Do I use “preferred” pronouns and name? Absolutely not! I use careful questioning of why and tell me more scenarios in order to get my adult child to work out the false beliefs to God’s truth in their own mind and heart.
I went on Preston Sprinkle's podcast, Theology in the Raw, on Tuesday, 11/21/23. He accused me of lying. He said I lied about what he teaches by quoting Rosaria Butterfield's speech at Liberty University below. But what's more probable? That Rosaria is a bully, seeking to misrepresent Sprinkle, or that Sprinkle and his ministries have been, at best, unclear in their writings and speeches, or at worst, heretical?
I told Preston I would read all that he wrote and what his ministries have argued, and if indeed, I have misrepresented him, I would publicly repent. Here are the quotes from Rosaria's speech at Liberty University's convocation (in bold), and the quotes I found from Preston or his ministry or speakers at his Exile in Babylon conference, that justify Rosaria's statements:
1) "Same-sex attraction is a sinless temptation, and only a sin if you act on it?" (Preston said this was accurate)
2) "People who experience same-sex attraction are actually gay-Christians called to life-long celibacy?"
My summary response:
By Preston arguing that a Christian who "experiences same-sex attraction" "is gay" ontologically, and that this person can never act on his ontology, he's arguing that they're called to life-long celibacy, that is, never acting on their "gayness." His heresy is in teaching that same-sex attraction is who a person is, and in arguing that same-sex attraction is not sin.
Quote from Preston:
"Some conservative Christians say that “being gay is a sin.” But when they say “gay,” they typically mean sexual lust, gay sex, and affirming same-sex marriage. Again, however, the term gay simply means “attracted to people of the same-sex” and doesn’t have to include details about a person’s sex life or views about marriage. This means that being gay is not in itself a sin, since same-sex attraction is not itself a sin. Many of my gay friends are committed to celibacy because they love the Bible-yet they’re still gay. Some of my gay friends are married to people of the opposite sex (often called a “mixed orientation marriage”) and believe in a traditional Christian sexual ethic, and they still identify as gay. Are they in sin for “being gay?” How are they sinning.” I can’t tell you how many people have been damaged by the statement “Being gay is a sin.” A kid comes out to her parents and says she’s gay, and her parents flip out and accuse her of living in sin-just because she said she’s gay. Sticks and stones will certainly break your bones, but words used wrongly will crush your soul. If same-sex attraction is not a sin, and gay means “to be attracted to the same sex,” then being gay itself is not a sin" (27-28).a
My response:
The damage done to a kid who "comes out" is not due to the parent calling same-sex attraction sin, it's the damage from people like Preston that tell the kid "being gay" is who she is. If the kid saw her same-sex attractions as particular instances of sinful desire rather than "who she is," she wouldn't be in despair. The parent could point her to Christ to be cleansed, completely. But, instead, Preston sends such a kid to the mirror to self-justify, saying, "I'm gay," "but I'm not sinning in my heart," and "My homosexuality can be sanctified" rather than teaching her that her homosexual desires can be forgiven and changed in Christ. After all, the Bible never says anyone is born "gay" or "trans," rather men and women exchanged the natural use of the man or woman in Romans 1:24-27. They were not ontologically different than any other men or women; they just chose to walk in sin.
Quote from Preston:
"And since same-sex attraction (i.e., being gay) itself is not a sin, I’m not anti-gay. I’m actually pro-gay. I’m pro-gay in the sense that I am for gay people and I want God’s best for them and believe they can fully follow and honor God while being gay. Because same-sex attraction (being gay) itself is not a sin” (29).a
My Response:
If Preston is "pro-gay," and believes that "'gay people' can fully follow God and honor God while being gay," then how does he not argue exactly what Rosaria said, "People who experience same-sex attraction are actually gay-Christians called to life-long celibacy?" And why would a Christian ever repent of same-sex attractions if they are "pro-gay?"
In a "Pastoral Paper" on Preston's ministry's website, Nate Collins and Gregory Coles, two "gay Christians," argue,
"...recognizing that same-sex orientation is not a sin will free sexual minorities within our congregations from the burden of unnecessary guilt and shame. Same-sex oriented Christians have often been told that they are in sin merely for being gay-even if they remain sexually pure. This false accusation weighs people down with an unbearably heavy load, demanding that they cannot truly experience the love of God unless they also experience a change in sexual orientation. By recognizing that no orientation is more or less inherently sinful than another, we become equipped to truly preach the gospel to sexual minorities-a gospel in which all are equally invited on the dangerous journey of self-denial and obedience to Christ."b
My response:
First, there is no such thing as a "sexual minority" because there is nothing ontologically different in a person God created male or female who is having same-sex attractions. They're still male or female, not some other thing.
Second, biblically, only God’s design is good (Gen 1, 2:18-25). Evil attractions or desires, what the apostle Paul calls the flesh (Rom 7:7-25, Gal 5:16-24), cannot be sanctified because they are morally culpable sin. We must turn from the flesh and walk in the Spirit, for the flesh is opposed to the Spirit. The flesh is not good or neutral. Moses tells us that God forgives iniquity (Ex 34:6-9), which is a twisted or bent character against God. Sprinkle and his ministries teach you do not need forgiveness for a bent sexuality against God. Jesus says we must love God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds, and our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-39). Gay attractions come from the flesh not the Spirit. They do not love God or our neighbor, nor can they. Rather, they are contrary to God’s design of us as male or female; they hate God and our neighbor (Gen 2:18-25). All sexuality was designed for marriage according to Genesis 2:18-25. And sexuality cannot be separated from God’s design of us as male or female, but that’s exactly what Sprinkle does when his ministry refers to “being gay. This is not a “sexual orientation,” not ontology; rather, "same-sex attraction" is pathological sin-pattern that, in the power of the Holy Spirit, can be repented from; and can be healed by God through repentance and faith in Christ. If you never talk to a “gay Christian” and only read the Bible, you’ll come away believing that God can save and transform anyone from any sin. But, if you practice anthropology, the study of human feelings, like Nate Collins, Gregory Coles, and Preston Sprinkle do, and you submit to personal experience as equally authoritative as the Bible, you come away teaching what these men have argued.
3) "People who experience same-sex attraction, rarely, if ever, change, and therefore, should never pursue, heterosexual marriage."
My Summary Response:
Preston says that people who have same-sex attraction rarely, if ever, change. And, because he believes they rarely change, he teaches something called "mixed-orientation marriages," rather than heterosexual marriage, for "same-sex attracted Christians." But he even views "mixed orientation marriages" as a rare option. In other words, in you are always "gay," and you marry an opposite-sex person, you're still not in a "heterosexual marriage" according to Sprinkle; therefore, he does not teach that a "gay Christian" must pursue or even can pursue heterosexual marriage, since he or she is "homosexual." At best, a "gay Christian" can pursue a "mixed-orientation marriage," according to Sprinkle.
Quote from Preston:
"A “mixed orientation marriage” is where one spouse is straight while the other opposite-sex spouse is attracted to the same sex. History has seen many such marriages end in much pain and confusion-especially if kids are involved. Given their destructive potential, mixed orientation marriages are rarely viewed as an option for people who are same-sex attracted (or gay).”c
Preston Sprinkle, not Rosaria, should publicly repent. For, Preston, his ministry, The Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, and his conference, Exiles in Babylon, are teaching heresy.
SOURCES:
a) Preston Sprinkle, "Grace//Truth 1.0: Five Conversations Every Thoughtful Christian Should Have About Faith, Sexuality, and Gender," centerforfaith.com/sites/default/files/grace_truth_1.0_conversation_1.pdf
b) Nate Collins & Gregory Coles, "IS SAME-SEX ATTRACTION (OR “BEING GAY”) A SIN?," centerforfaith.com/sites/default/files/cfsg_pastoral_papers_3.pdf
c) Preston Sprinkle, "What is a Mixed-Orientation Marriage?" theologyintheraw.com/what-is-a-mixed-orientation-marriage/
Oof. Unfortunately many Christian’s experience this kind of interaction when we try to have good faith conversations about our differences. It’s disheartening that it appeared the Jared wanted to be right more than he wanted to understand. Heresy hunters gonna hunt I guess.
I think that Jared is engaged in an exercise in futility in his discussion and debate with Preston Sprinkle. Preston's attitude towards Jared is condescending; he displays the typical arrogance of a "progressive " thinker who considers himself enlightened, while Jared is basically addressing his valid concerns in humility. I know what Preston is probably thinking about Jared as he rolls his eyes and tries to say that he doesn't think what he thinks and that he doesn't say what he says.
May God bless Jared and protect him as he goes to the front lines in a cultural, and even more importantly, a spiritual battle.
Preston is visibly frustrated and at times apparently quite uncomfortable with Jared’s line of questioning as Jared puts the screws to him.
I’ve never seen Preston squirm quite like this before. Jarad’s questions really touched a nerve.
I appreciate Jared’s love for orthodoxy and church history. Progressives seem all too quick to throw away 2000 years of our church history and the value found in it.
I was thinking that Preston's conferences engender endless discussions and speculations and debates and dialogue. But do they ever actually present the Gospel? Jesus engaged people on a personal level, meeting them where they were at.. So did Paul. But it was to eventually present to them the necessary means of necessary salvation. Preston and others in their camp seem to want to simply make alienated sinners comfortable in church environments. But to what end? To make them feel okay about who they are? Is that Biblical Christianity? I just don't see a clear presentation of the Gospel which is the only solution there is , the only hope we have.@@westyso.cal.8842
Amen
The fact that Jared made public allegations against Preston without being able to defend his allegations, is something in itself that should be repented of. Preston, thank you for exemplifying how to disagree charitably with an uncharitable person.
You know, I enjoyed how Preston responded to most all of Jared’s comments, but it was strange how indirect he was being with the Cru resource use question. Why was Preston so hesitant to just say that Cru paid to use his resources?
Preston was hung up on the verbiage... that he "oversaw"... as if he was apart of how they used his tool, to execute their program... it would be like.. a guy kills someone with a hammer... and says to the manufacture, "you were responsible for the use of your hammer to kill someone"... and then ask "did you not get paid for them to purchase your hammer"... then with out you their would not be a hammer death....
Yeah, that was strange. I picked up on that also.
Just answer the question, Preston.
This man Jared is such a Pharisee, he’s not an abstract thinker and is deeply threatened by conversation and nuance, thank God for difference, imagine of the whole of the Body of Christ was like this man.
Is it safe to say, you go to a church? Is it also safe to say your leader speaks with authority? There is a thing called humility... but at the same time stand firm... this whole episode was Preston standing firm on his beliefs! If your going to condemn me... atleast lets make sure i agree... so why do you cast stones at him.. for doing the same?? for the sake of argument, im team Preston.. but... my argument stands
Preston is misleading..Jared to me seems more biblical and clear
amen! preston keeps avoiding poignant questions to clarify what he endorses or believes
Brother, love you and the podcast. I'm a supporter and will remain so, but I could not listen past the first 10-15 minutes. I listen for the open and reasonable dialog. It's a breath of fresh air in a culture where humble, reasonable, nuanced discussion is almost nowhere to be found. Probably best to leave the online trolls to their own.
Hmm, this was a humble, reasonable, and nuanced discussion. I'm curious, since you didn't go past 15 minutes, if you could point to a segment within that timeframe that was characteristic of an "online troll" or was not open, reasonable, or humble.
"Jesus was tempted"... Their is a vast difference between HOW Jesus was tempted and HOW man is tempted. Jesus temptation was from WITHOUT, Man's temptation is from WITHIN out of his sinful wicked heart. Jesus had no such thing. man does, as Jesus said, out of the heart come evil thoughts.. It's called Concupiscence
Just beginning to listen to this but Preston, I appreciate how you graciously engage with communities no one will engage with.
Poor Preston took two hours to talk to/about a guy who is misrepresenting him based on another person's misrepresentation of him. In July of this year, Preston responded to Butterfield's critique of his book. If you watch the interview where she critiques him, it is rife with misreading and misrepresentation (capitalizing mostly on Preston's use of quotation marks). I have not heard this Butterfield Liberty U. address that Jared summarized ... but it would appear by the amount of times that Jared punted to Butterfield that he is relying on her misrepresentation of Preston. Then he went and tried to prooftext Butterfield's perspective from deep cuts in the Center's blog or the bios of Exiles speakers (and a 2014 ETS paper). If he spent that time reading Preston's book(s), this conversation would have been so different. That's the stunning thing about Jared having a PhD (and the point of Preston's remark about hermeneutics ... he was not referring to biblical hermeneutics per se but to Jared's misconstrual of words): you have to personally engage sources, not summaries of sources. SBTS PhD's aren't handed out, so this really shocked me.
Man, that was 🍿. I don’t understand why Jared didn’t bring specific receipts.
Another favorite moment for me has to be the Southern Baptist, who Im sure believes in a symbolic eucharist, "believers"-only baptism, and rejects a hierarchical ecclesiology, calling Preston an "innovator" vis a vis historical church doctrine. I think its Mrs Jared that needs to reread his Church fathers.
Amazing the pretzel you need to twist into when you leave the basic biology shown in Scripture starting with Adam and Eve. Sad days we live in.
To answer Preston's question, I think this was not helpful re: edification of my soul. It was, however, helpful in exposing Jared for being tragically uninformed on what he is talking about. He is quite literally a liar for making these (false) claims without having brought proof or having actually read the materials he is criticizing (and, as a bonus, at 1:10:00 hiding behind "well I was just quoting Rosaria" at one point -- is that not the same logic he is using to criticize Preston as an individual based on "endorsing" the potentially erroneous statements of others?). He is clearly not operating in good faith.
As a Southern Baptist minister and SBTS student myself, I was embarrassed listening to Jared speak. To call Preston a heretic is untrue and lessens the actual meaning of the word. To do so while not even informed on what you are accusing him of is just embarrassing.
Jared never really explained why he was so concerned about Preston's 'heresy.' Preston was clear and he kept trying to articulate where he was coming from.
his biggest hang up was those born as one sex.. claiming a differnt sex in their pronouns and Preston allowing that to happen... the other.. is not acting on attration, does not matter.. a person is acting out of the will of their sex, if they are attracted to the same sex, and therfore a sin.....
I don't agree with Preston Sprinkle or Jared Moore either one. Preston keeps saying Jared is "lying". Jared may be misunderstanding Preston's position, but does that mean he is lying? Lying is the intention to deceive. Is that what Jared has done?
Preston got so caught up on gender, what it means to Jared. I don't know why Jared didn't just say gender is whether you are male or female.
Preston Sprinkle does not believe "orientation" can change. I've heard him actually laugh at the thought. He believes that a person who has repented of the sin of homosexuality can call himself a "gay Christian". How can someone who is truly repentant of a sin, have the desire to identify himself with that sin?
Jared Moore also buys into the concept of "orientation". Homosexuality is a sin. It's a sin, and like all sins, it must be confessed, repented of, and then the temptations resisted. The Bible does not talk anything about "orientation". So Preston, can sin be forgiven? Can a person who once was a sinner become a saint through the blood of Christ? It has nothing to do with the psychological term "orientation".
But I also disagree with Jared Moore. He says if a person even has the temptation, he has sinned. If he lusts, yes he has sinned. But it's no different than a man who has the desire to have sex with a woman other than his wife. If he is tempted, he resists, he has not sinned. Jared explains away the verse that says Jesus was tempted in all ways that we are, yet without sin. Satan will come at us with the temptation that he thinks may entrap us most.
I was involved with homosexual sin for years. But I repented and was forgiven. I'm married, have eleven children and 26 grandchildren. If I am tempted, does that mean nothing has changed with me?
If Jared, who is married and has children, is tempted by a woman and resists that, is he sinning?
No. So I disagree with both of these men. I agree with the Bible.
i really appreciate all that you said.. untill the end... "i agree with the bible"... those words are used to condmen.. they are used to agree with slavery and killing.. they are use with.. its not my truth ... its "the truth"... as someone who has parented 11 children, i know you know, each is different... some respond to disciplin, some respond to kindness... that is how i see bible translations.. God needs to speak to all of us.. I am not fluen in old Queens english.. and to read it would cause me not to read.. New living is simple.. and speaks to me.. and when i question something, i read multiple translations.. and pray... and im sure i still mess it up... please.. dont use such definitive phrases... I agree with the bible.... that scares people
@@Jasminestealth1 But I do agree with the Bible. And I'm not going to refrain from telling anyone that I agree with God's Word just because they may be offended. Do you not agree with it?
@@41093AnthonyB which part? How am I applying to my life?
@@Jasminestealth1 all parts. Do you believe the Word of God is true or do you believe parts of it are true, or do you not believe any of it is true? I believe all of it is true. If stating that is offensive to someone, well, we know the Word says that there are going to be people who are offended by it. I will not say I don't believe in God's Word because of that. God's Word is Truth. It gives Life. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. Praise Him, His truth sets us free if we are willing to fall on it and be broken. On others, the Word falls on them and grinds them to powder (Matthew 21:44). The key is to confess our sins, repent, and accept the sacrifice that was paid, then to trust in Christ. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" II Timothy 3:16.
In conclusion: I believe the Bible.
@@41093AnthonyB i think it is fantastic that you believe... i think there is a bit of ignorance to "its" the truth... the chatholic bible has i think five additional books... currently their are over 100 translations - and has been translated into over 1,000 languages.... if you ever have to say "what is meant by....." then you would be engaging in what would be called interrupted... if there was ONE true word of God there would not be More than 45,000 Christian denominations globally and more than 200 in the U.S., according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. Most of the denominations came to be after the Protestant Reformation in 1517.... this is not to say God is not in the word of all of these.. but i will say, to stand boldly and claim "the" "truth"... you really should start your Church, and if it is of God, maybe you can unit them all....
What i personally do when i read the bible, is to read as many translations on a topic... i pray, and ask for clarity... and i can stand bold on what i feel... that doesnt make me right!
Romans 14:21-22 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
what do you believe is the "truth" in that passage? that your words cause another to stumble, or is weak???
so the question back to you... do you beleive all the words are truth?
by the way, some would argue this passage deals with food... however.. the line say NOR ANYTHING... is that the part you would ignore?
There does not appear to be much grace in Jared's approach. It seems that working with and through someone's sin is in complete opposition to how Rosaria was treated and how she came to be a Christian. She came to know Jesus while shedding her sin...NOT shedding her sin first. Knowing Jesus and loving Him brings His purity into your life as a process of sanctification...ever increasing and deepening knowledge of Him and yourself. This patient and loving process Jesus takes us through and walks with us...something we are to do with one another. Jared doesn't seem to have time for this.
Well, I don't agree with much of what Jared said, but in order for him to be lying he must knowingly speak an untruth. I really think he believes what he says about what he thinks you believe. Honestly, you did an awful lot of splitting hairs on many issues. I was surprised at how much you pushed him to define what "other people" mean by gender when he clearly answered your question that he believes biological sex and gender are the same thing and regardless of how others define it, he believes it's wrong if others say that gender is not based on biology. I agree with him here . There is no foundation for the concept of gender outside of biological sex. So gender "roles" may differ among cultures etc, gender doesn't . Gender equals sex. Sure , men can exhibit feminine traits and women can experience masculine traits but that doesn't mean they can be a sex that differs from their biology, not does it mean they are same sex attracted. And what in the world was the point of asking him what gender he was?. He's a man and you knew that. Also, when he said that he thinks you believe that God doesn't care if men live like women, it seems he was referring to you using male pronouns if a transgender person wants you to etc. He sees that as affirming (because your going along with it) their claim to actually be a man when they are really a woman etc. I read the Greg Coles article and I see where Jared is coming from on that one. That article clearly tried to muddy the waters around sinfulness and presented these "celibate partnerships" as something we should sympathize with. At the end of the article he uses someone elses words but he says the Christian community should give these relationships a "vote of confidence". The article clearly focused on accepting primary identity as focused on the LGBTQ+ characteristics in a persons life and everything else flows from that and that in not Biblical.
You apologize at the end for wasting people's time. For me, it wasn't a waste at all. Do I think anything was resolved or was there any greater understanding as a result of this conversation? No. But, it was so helpful for me to watch how you managed a very difficult conversation with someone who wasn't as polite in debate as all your other guests. And I loved seeing you struggle in a couple of places take a pot shot or two, and how you pulled yourself back. What an amazing example of how to not allow a moment of upset spiral into a nasty interaction.
I do think that at times you were so stuck on how Jared approached answering your questions that you missed some opportunities.And sometimes what he said seemed very clear, but again, you were very focused on your question so weren't able to get his point. AND, you're a person, and it was a hard conversation, and you handled it incredibly well. I wish I was wired more like you. I take things way too personally when I shouldn't.
In the end, I am grateful you posted this. Jared got me to thinking about some important points. You modeled for me debate skills that I hope will help me in my life. Thank you, as always, for being so raw.
So if I understand Jared correctly on some of his statements, if you platform someone you disagree with in order to have a dialogue, you are endorsing (agreeing and validating) their opinions and positions. That's a really problematic statement considering that the nature of debate, or dialogue, requires platforming someone you disagree with.
If I can provide encouragement on the validity of this video, it would be that it has been a helpful exercise on how to behave in very difficult dialogue and an exercise in discernment. There's a lot to say about watching bad opinion, reading bad books, listening to bad music. Its helpful in teaching us how to be discerning and how to confront bad ideas. I certainly learned from this.
I agree. Regarding your first paragraph, It’s especially problematic where theology is concerned. Jared repeatedly appealed to “church history” to support his position, as if we are meant to simply inherit theology. But the Bible is meant to be wrestled with continually among all Christians, not just Christians we agree with.
I think I agree with you in principle, but my guess is people would be upset if Preston had a racist on or something like that. There is something to the idea that giving a platform to someone is at least akin to endorsement
@@chuckawade1 Yes, endorsement can be a sticky wicket. I’m not sure how well the analogy to platforming a racist works in this particular case. There is a difference between fostering good faith conversation on a nuanced topic and platforming bigotry. From what I can tell, Preston’s study and ministry is focused on what constitutes a Biblical sexual ethic. It seems perfectly logical for that scholarship to include people- especially Christians- who have actually experienced same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Preston has used open conversation to clarify his position. I suppose a case could be made for platforming an extreme point-of-view for the purpose of distinguishing yourself from it. Maybe that’s the purpose Jared served in this conversation.
@@Wren_Farthing definitely, we wouldn't have a lot of the church fathers and reformers writing if it wasn't for them debating each other, or debating heretics.
Your other comment on the focus of preston's ministry is spot on too. The whole point of his ministry is to reach out to people who live in that world, it's only natural he would associate and debate with them. Paul debated people using their own philosophies, poetry etc, that doesn't mean he endorsed them. He used them to argue his point and provide a point of reference for his audience. Jared on the other hand didn't seem to even entertain the idea of being in the same room as them, his entire definition of what is heresy is completely off the mark.
I love the way you show Jared grace Preston through the conversation by trying to understand where he is coming from even when he is calling you heretic.
Why not invite Rosario Butterfield to speak with you on your podcast?
He has. The way I understand it, Rosario's husband, who is also her pastor, advised against her accepting. From this video, I would say his advise to her was wise council.
Dumpster fire. The guy is way too caught up in his ideological framework to deal with nuance. The whole "SSA called to lifelong celibacy" discussion. He was so lost in his own category error that it wasn't worth the length of time it took. Preston answered, No, I don't believe that. He finds an article that addresses a different thing, and insists there's a conflict. Now maybe there is an article out there that suggests an SSA person should remain celibate. Well, obviously, because of the traditional Christian ethic for sexuality. But Jared seems to just want the article to say Repent, be heterosexual, and get married. And then boom, it happens in real time. There has to be some kind of pastoral nuance that can speak to SSA people who want to be faithful but haven't been zapped into heterosexuality the way this guy insists. But then to take an article addressing that situation, and accuse Preston of contradicting himself, makes it really difficult to take Jared seriously.
when is the last time you spent an hour discussing your challenges with your faith? Just curios... as most dont have time to "defend" their beliefs.. any more then preston in this episode.. he did not want to debate.. he just wanted him to represent his ideas correctly... you know the saying first, make sure your understood... then seek understanding.... oh wait.. its first seek understanding, then to be understood...
Gosh, this gender/sex thing is exhausting to listen to... I don't understand what it is that Preston is not getting.
How can you expect Jared to tell you a definition of gender that is different than his definition of sex if he believes they are the same thing? That is an impossible question.
What you are having trouble understanding is that when Jared says people are separating gender and sex, he's putting himself in THEIR worldview. Because they DO believe that gender and sex are different. But you just keep asking him to define gender, and he's going to keep giving the same answer, because he doesn't believe there is a distinction between the two.
I want to give Preston the benefit of the doubt that he just genuinely doesn't understand, but this is starting to feel either intentionally obtuse or just some kind of snarky attempt at a gotcha or a rhetorical trap or something. Because this should not be this hard to understand.
Wow, Preston is a mind-game player! Jared Moore is spot on biblically.
Not sure when the definition of gender changed to be "Cultural expression". This is from the original 1828 Webster's dictionary:
1. Properly, kind; sort.
2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female.
Language has changed in the almost 200 years since that was published. Insisting on 200 year old definitions is hilarious.
He idolises church history rather than Jesus and his word. Missing the wood for the trees, poor fella
Which matters more? A saved soul? Or a law-abiding soul?
A saved soul still lives in sinful flesh and might not be law-abiding. A law-abiding soul isn’t necessarily saved. If it comes to a choice between the two then being saved is by far the better place to be because it’s for eternity.
Jared appears to be of that school of thought that requires sinners to cease sinning to be saved. I wonder with all this school of thought when they stopped sinning and how they know they’ll never sin again? Because that’s the standard they seem to set. A standard none of us can meet. And if that standard can’t be met even by them, then where is the point of holding it?
Believe on Christ and his finished work on the cross. Then worry about the rest.
There are people in heaven now who were practicing homosexuals their entire lives but who genuinely believed and accepted Christ’s atonement on their behalf. And there are people even now in hell who were God-fearing pastors and did their utmost to obey the law but who never really believed in God’s grace - who never let go of their self-righteousness.
Preston, much honor to you as you gracefully confronted Jared.
"Two different brands of Christianity..." 1 Cor. 1:13 Those who hold to tradition rather than the leading of the Spirit are facing shipwreck. The Jews had the Scriptures & failed to know Who Christ is; many in this generation have the Bible, but either deny or don't know the leading of the Spirit through ceaseless prayer.
Jared can't even give some examples. He should do some research. He doesn't even quote the bible.
Preston has said that lust is a sin. He said that very clearly.
Preston is straddling the fence, playing word games, and avoiding the hard questions! He sounds more like a politician than a theologian! More and more people waking up and calling him out! I expect him to make a big theological shift soon to be totally “woke” and “progressive” because his “resources” will not be selling as well to more traditional institutions!
Agreed.
It is quite possible that we are seeing the hand of the Lord working in Preston’s life to bring him to a place of making a decision regarding which way he’s going to go.
God is patient with us and does all He can to bring us to repentance.
Untrue. Preston was very clear on exactly where he stands and what he believes. He was very technically precise in his exact wording and his insistence upon defining of terms. That’s the furthest thing from “playing word games.”
@@nealdavis7276
Not questioning Preston’s sincerity at all.
It is quite obvious how strongly Preston feels and what position he holds on these matters.
Unfortunately, Preston is sincerely in error.
What Jarad is attempting to do is shed some light on those errors and expose them.
Preston is squirming and uncomfortable with this line of questioning because in his heart he knows he’s wrong.
@@westyso.cal.8842 just to make sure that we are on the same page, what position do you think Preston holds in error?
@@nealdavis7276
Hi, I understand Jared’s concerns primarily regarding the issue of the Exiles conference.
I share the same concerns.
Basically, where I feel that Preston is in error is that he believes that it is of some benefit to give a platform to an array of speakers who promote concepts that are broadly considered to be heterodox.
I understand that might sound a bit too vague, but I hope it might prove helpful.
I like Preston a lot, and I find him challenging in good ways a lot. However, I felt ue was being a bit argumentative and at times acting a bit obtuse during this interview. This did not seem like a win in the content arena to me.
Yah I’m sad to have seen this one, although it was gracious of him to overly apologize for the one cheap shot about hermeneutics Prof: But even in the end he was “kindly unkind” when he said he found that guy uninteresting in that his reasoning skills weren’t really up-to-par with those he would normally invite onto the show. Trust me, I LOVE TITR but this didn’t do a thing to encourage or bring my heart peace. It was unnecessary and melted my brain several times. I felt the one guy was very simple and unwilling to really even agree to disagree, and I felt like Preston kept his cool so very well, but there was a somewhat constant undertone of friction coming from him, and I felt he was trying to corner this other dude. Didn’t care for this, but blessings to both participants.
@@jessiekidwell670 this could have been a great opportunity, to show, how we can disagree, and still be loving, and respectful...I think if Preston really wanted that to be his message, on his out take, instead of apologizing agin for the off cuff remark.. he could have addressed a better way he could have tried to do more... not the "perfect" way.. but just different.. instead.. he doubled down.. Look at his posts on X, i would not invite him to speak... i would not debate him... this was one of his less graceful appearances... the neat thing.. I know he wont read my comment... so no worries of feeling bad for my opinion... at same time... my engagement builds his $ which is what he likes
I like Moore, and agree with his theological views, but he clearly struggled to defend the claims he made against Sprinkle.
My frustration with Rosaria and Preston and those on both sides is that the problem or "heresy" has not gone through an appropriate level of clarification before being debated and prosecuted. Thus the conversations are not fruitful. The reformed objectors need to get he objections clearer. I'm really disappointed with the failure here. Second, I do not think Preston understands how nuance is lost in popularization within the Christian movement, or how it comes across to LGBTQ identifying people. I went have been to 4 days of seminars with Preston, and the longer he teaches the more tutored is the nuance of his locutions. As he learns more and wants to take more things into account, few words have stable, agreed upon, clear and definite meanings. Because of this, it is hard for everyone who doesn't have time to read everything and spend hours and hours on this content stream. The rest end up with summaries. Because Sprinkle seeks so much nuance and wants to be winsome, he says lots of things in ambiguous ways, and that ambiguity makes it farther than one might think. So the critics can't get their objections straight. LGBTQ people hear that indwelling sin that fosters temptation isn't "sin" to be mortified, because it is not "culpable sin" to be paid for. Church staffs listen to him and drift left or walk away confused. And by giving "options" on things like gay weddings and pronouns, he makes the implicit claim that a single approach isn't clear, and therefore, isn't obligatory. I really feel for him, as I do any scholar that cannot divide the numerator of his nuance by the denominator of his conclusions and simplify the equation of his knowledge. Jared is also right, that Preston's historical theology seems weak- you can't be an expert in everything. The pastoral problem is that nuance doesn't translate well- and he is between two groups- a sensitive LGBTQ movement discipled by their leadership to take offence, and a Church community seeking to respond to heterodoxy- by smell if necessary. I have a lot of sympathy for Preston, but I also think his style is reaping what it must ultimately sow. Detractors owe it to him and others to really clarify their objections as sharply as possible. Preston needs to be more definite in places where he is often torturously nuanced. HE wants so much to avoid stereotypical Christian gender harms, that he struggles to speak definitely because he is concerned how those words will be heard and understood. That is understandable, but his indefiniteness has significant costs as well. I was in a 5 hours seminar with him, and at the end there were more questions than answers- and the audience was asking very basic questions. I was left with questions that most objectors hold- I just would say them differently because I know more of his teachings. This is really a controversy about how to classify indwelling sin, how to think about it, and what to do about it. This is why it is mostly Reformed people that are objecting publicly.
Its disappointing how little JM brought receipts, though he claimed to have done extensive research. If you are wanting to publically rebuke or call someone a heretic, presenting some sort of proof should be the bare minimum.
Wow, this was tough. Well, my mother tongue has no gendered pronouns, the only distinction to make is between persons and things (including animals) . Actually, it has no grammatical gender AT ALL. This entire void debate wouldn't function .... what a mercy!
That's a totally different subject. That's just semantics. The issue here isn't the words themselves, it's the ideology attached to the whole thing. I have no problem calling someone "they" if, for example, I don't know whether they are male or female. I would also have no problem using a gender neutral pronoun if I was speaking a language that only had that option.
The issue isn't the word choice, it's the fact that in the US, if you choose to put pronouns in your bio, you are publicly implicitly declaring that you agree that gender and sex are different, and you are essentially publicly endorsing transgender ideology and the idea that someone can change their gender or that gender is something you get to choose, not something inherent to your biology.
It seems like he got the idea about cellibacy and gays from the idea that "if you are same sex attracted you are to refrain from sex. Remaining cellibate if you are only desiring a same sex partner.
I think making this video was the right thing to do.
I fail to see how pronouns in a bio have anything to do with heresy. I, being a male and a Christian, can put He/Him in my bio all I want and I will not be guilty of heresy for that. Anything suggesting otherwise is some egregiously bad eisegesis.
How about a woman putting He/Him in her bio (or vice versa)? Is it heresy, sin, or acceptable depending on what they mean by it, or something else?
@@mandelbrotset4142 To go against the God designed plan would be sinful, but that was not the argument presented. Jared didn't preface that nuance, but rather just kept repeating "Pronouns in Bio" as a proof of heresy. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those who do put pronouns in their bios are indeed identifying with their biological gender. And thus they are absolutely not heretical in that aspect.
The "committed to lifelong friendship" thing is extremely concerning to me... does Preston actually argue for same-sex people entering into some kind of same-sex "comitted friendship"? That's super strange, and I completely disagree with that.
Why on earth are we making "covenant friendships" a thing for same-sex attracted people to have some kind of intimacy that simulates marriage? I thought in a recent video Preston said he was not okay with this, but in this video he doesn't seem to be refuting this at all.
For most of these issues, I was more on Preston's side of this discussion, but this is indeed very concerning. I don't understand why he's glossing over all of this and not addressing the actual issue.
I'm about halfway through this video and I'm wondering when, or if, Preston is ever going to "circle back" to all these points he keeps saying he'll "get to." Because some of these are important issues, and I'd like to know what he thinks about it.
And the "what are your pronouns" quip was such a dumb thing to say. Jared is absolutely right on that point. Even having pronouns at all in your bio IS an affirmation of trans ideology.
It's not an affirmation. It's an acknowledgement of different people's perspectives on it and being gracious. Just excuse YOU interpret it as an affirmation doesn't mean that's his perspective, and insisting on your interpretation and insisting it what he is saying is a type of false witness.
He did offer clarity on spiritual friendship, if it's a marriage type partnership without sex, he does NOT agree with it. If it is two friends who have a close friendship like that of David and Jonathan (which was neither sexual, romantic, or a marriage-type relationship), then yeah.
@@lylew7 I think my comment was pretty even-tempered and gracious. I didn't "insist" on anything anymore than you have "insisted" on your view being the correct one. All I did was say how I see it, and that it concerns me. And I also asked questions for clarification. That hardly seems like me "bearing false witness." That's incredibly incorrect and, in my opinion, a major over-reaction to my very, very light pushback...
As far as putting your pronouns in your bio, you say it's "gracious" and "acknowledging other people's perspective." I disagree on both points. Putting your pronouns in your bio is not simply acknowledging that some people believe in transgender ideology, it is participating in that ideology yourself.
In fact, Preston said essentially the same thing later on in this conversation, when he said that he, himself, would not use pronouns in his bio because he believes it is participating in that worldview. So he admits, himself, that he understands that.
I acknowledge that people have false beliefs about gender, and I am gracious to those people. Putting pronouns in your bio is not simply acknowledging an ideology, it is recognizing that ideology as somehow valid and worth participating in. Which, to me, is absolutely affirmation of the ideology.
In terms of the other issue about covenant friendships, I'm aware that Preston has said in other videos that he disagrees with these types of relationships if they mimic marriage. But he has also made some very concerning statements about this stuff both here and in a recent video on the subject. He seems far too eager to validate and debate whether or not these covenant friendships are okay or not, when it really is not a complex issue at all, in my opinion. It's very clear that these relationships are for the sole purpose of trying to have more same-sex intimacy than a normal friendship would have, to satisfy some of those homosexual desires. The groups of people who do these covenant friendships don't seem to ever talk about opposite-sex covenant friendships... because their purpose is clear. It's not about friendship. Friendship doesn't need to require a covenant, nor does it require any kind of exclusivity or commitment to one person above all others... even the term "covenant" alone is obviously attempting to mimic marriage.
You clearly disagree with me about these things, and that's fine. You're free to have your own opinion, as I have mine. But to speak to me as if I have been ungracious and claim that I'm "bearing false witness" with my comment is, quite frankly, utterly absurd.
@CassTeaElle dude. Recognize the use of a generic "you".
@@lylew7 lol girl, please. You were speaking directly to me, not about some hypothetical generic person. Be for real.
Would Jarred believe Preston for having a different view on gender & sexuality is separated from Jesus now and after life on earth?
Does this bring sadness to anyone else? The high leveled lack of oneness and love for fellow disciples is largely what puts bitter taste in the mouth of non-followers of Jesus.
Yeah that was painful for sure and I definitely felt Preston was more diplomatic and well spoken and intelligent sounding. However, Rosaria is an expert in this area and her accusations have strong grounds. I hope she accepts the invitation to dialogue with Preston. As Christians, we should know that you don’t have to say an explicit statement to clearly believe that statement, aka Jesus never said word for word that He was God but everything else he did and said pointed to that statement being true and that He knew He was God.
Point 1 is the key issue. "Same-sex attraction is a sinless temptation, and only a sin if you act on it". If you replace same-sex attraction with minor-sex attraction (aka pedophilia) or animal-sex attraction (beastiality), you see how this statement is clearly wrong. All 3 of these desires are sinful and out of the created order to the very core. Jesus has always been more concerned with desire than mere outward actions as was demonstrated with the Pharisees because the desire is the root. Jesus makes us a new creation and wants to sanctify us completely. This teaching just muddies the waters for people struggling with this sin and temptation. We all can admit we are fallen and still have sinful desires that wage war in our souls but we are not to tolerate them or whitewash them and say they are harmless. We are to hate sin and sinful desire to the very core and seek to crucify it daily, just as all of us are called to do every day against any evil desire we experience.
Remember, someone can be elegant, well-spoken and sincere, and still be wrong/deceived.
Also, quoting Hebrews 4:15, that Jesus was tempted as we are, to imply that Jesus felt desire or attraction to sinful things is false. The Greek word used there is peirazó and speaks in a broader sense that includes testing. Jesus had times where people, the devil and circumstances put him in a situation that could tempt Him to do something sinful, but there was no sin IN Jesus so He never gave in because He had no sinful pull, desire or attraction to do so. Jesus wasn't tempted in the sense that He had evil desires burning in Him that made Him feel enticed or drawn to do things outside of God's will. Jesus was holy through and through. Holiness is not just having right outward actions but having completely sanctified desires on the inside.
What am I missing? Aren’t conferences supposed to bring together opposing views for better understanding? Call me progressive; I can take it.
I suppose Preston could always put the disclaimer on the conference schedule of events…how does it go?…the opinions expressed within the content are solely the speaker’s and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the ministry…call me old-fashioned; I can take it.
He keeps deferring to Rosaria but isn't he guilty by association? Isn't that what he says about Preston? If Rosaria is lying and he endorses it then is he guilty by the logic he wants to use? I wish Preston would have Dr. Gagnon on his show to discuss the way he trashed Preston on FB at least he has some credibility
I found it interesting that he mentioned having same sex attraction was one of the most unmasculine things a guy could have. But he never really truly defines masculinity. To me, sexuality and masculinity are two different things. As a Christian, who experiences same sex attraction, I consider myself extremely masculine. And know of others that are the same. Honestly at the end of the day these discussions are pointless and until people are in the situation they don’t know how they are going to deal with it.
Preston said he doesn't believe what Jared said he does, yet Jared insists that he does. Ridiculous.
I'm around the 31:00 mark ... the two are going round and round and round.
A man that is 'attracted' to women and is married HAS to be celibate with respect to ALL women but one.
”Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.“
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Such WERE some of you. The Word doesn’t give people labels. If you behave in a sinful way, you ARE that sin, but once you accept Jesus as your King and repent from that behavior, that is what you WERE.
There is no such thing as a Christian alcoholic, adulterer, homosexual, or any other sin. Once you turn to Jesus you become a new creation who longer lives according to the pattern of the world.
Here's what it all comes down to:
There is no middle category on sin. Either you live in obedience or disobedience.
Homosexuality and the entire LGBTQ agenda is a sinful abomination before a holy God. A true Christian will have no disagreement with that statement.
"Feelings and Experiences" are irrelevant. If your "lived experience" doesn't align 100% with scripture, then you are in the wrong and must repent. No exceptions.
Temptation is not a sin UNLESS there is an internal desire to act on it regardless of whether or not one follows thru.
So in conclusion, there is no such thing as a Christian LGBTQ identity.
Talking to an ideologue is like screaming in the desert. I think this goes both ways unfortunately. Y’all are speaking two different languages
and this is why LGBT dont go to church.. its a guessing game .. roll of the dice... interesting poin... with both.. both agree that LGBT are not allowed to be LGBT..
ON BEING MISSION-MINDED:
Who among us, the so-called mission-minded, is willing to understand and embrace the truth regarding the differences between a person's biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual behavior? Are we willing?
Well, here's why we must be willing:
1. It is missionally required for sustainability in ministry.
2. It shows that we are missionally responsible and, therefore, suitable for ministry.
3. It ensures that we are missionally ready for success in ministry.
Moving forward, if pastors wish to reach the LGBTQ+ community, we must be willing to understand who people are.
Sam Shavers Jr., MDiv, (PhD/PhD. in progress)
Research-Practitioner-Presbyter
Uff, that was awkward.
Sometimes you have to punch down....Jared is not interested in a discussion based on anything other than political jargon.
or... he was trying to speak to how he understands Prestons platform..
Jared perfectly exemplifies how one shouldn't hold their beliefs... I wouldn't apologise for saying that he wouldn't be welcome to speak at your conference, the dude is super toxic and shouldn't be given a platform!
Part 3.... this last part, i want to addres, is kind of an interesting takeaway, that i feel i learned... Preston revealed today he will only invite people to speak at events that have to agree with what he calls Biblical view on traditional doctrin... Man and woman... No sex...without marriage.. and no marriage except man and woman...
Its not that part i learned... as i was very confident after following him.. but buying a space in his pay me page, and reading his books...
What i learned, was the echo chamber every channel falls into (all follow the algorithm...$) but how intentional Preston creates intentionally....
to ignore people who wish to speak with him
to only share responses to those that pay him
to only allow a position withing his organization to the affirmation of his echo system
I want to make it clear.... even with the tone of the words i have chosen.. I do not have a problem with any of that.... what sadly i learned, is THIS is the reason the LGBT community struggles with going to Church... not because those that lead hold a different idea of the word... But that the leaders do not allow conversations... that they gatekeep LGBT...
I am not a biblical scholar ... but pretty sure it is said in Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard this, he told them, 'Healthy people don't need a doctor - sick people do. I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners. ... if you gatekeep the door... what that says... you have to agree with me, not only before you can enter.. but.. i will not even allow you to know what i think...
Even though i appreciate Preston apologizing very quickly after attacking this guest and his teacher.. he also did it again at the end... I do however think... this is why he does not enjoy debates.. nor chooses to... what he chooses.. is keep the door shut... because if i open, then my "loving - compassion" with be revealed as just the facade of his money maker...
I am aware how possibly harsh those last words may come across.. and i do not mean them harshly... on example of why LGBT and others who struggle in life, can not be found in church... because they feel... they are not "really welcomed" ... its bait and switch...
That's to bad - someone left comment then deleted... so if that person happens to come back here's my answer to "what do I want the church to be more accommodating " that's a very broad question... but let me ask... do churches have handicap parking? How about restroom stalls? Do you believe God can heal? Do you believe it's God desire for someone to be in a wheelchair? Or is it making concessions for the world we live in? If a person is born male , and chooses to modify their bodies to be female, and choose to express that socially living as a woman... do you demand they use the mens bathroom? Do you allow them space with fellowship with women, to learn what being a woman is biblically? Or should they go with the men? If you know their status but others don't - do you share it? Can you baptize a person who you would call trans? Can that woman marry another woman in your church? How about a man? Can that person even though they look like a woman - dress in men's clothes and hold a position of leadership? How about youth pastor? Do you also investigate others "sins" ... and not allow them? If a person cheats on their spouse do you bar them from church? How about those that have drinking problems? My biggest concern is where do they exist in the human church?
Jesus also told the sick to repent of their sins and sin no more. God requires change. If you are living in sin you are to humble yourself before God and stop sinning. That would be any sexual sin, lying, cheating, cursing, witchcraft, and the like.
@@masteringfibromyalgia read Romans - sin is not determined by democracy - and if your up for a debate there plenty of scripture to support vs interpretive scripture against - lastly we will all die in sin and be cleanse in Christ - that's why he died
Wow! Jared, Church history is not the standard! Also, Jared, you seem to have an obsession with “other” people’s sexual orientation, which is very telling. I’m fallen, the people you judged in this video are fallen, and you are fallen. God is love!
He was not worth breaking your rule
Pronouns remind me of tattoos It was away for generation to rebel. But biological sex and gender are two separate things I can be born a biological woman and I've never felt like a woman that's both true for me You can claim it isn't for you that's fine but it doesn't mean it's not true for me...
Preston and Jerod disagree on finer details based on the meaning of words and misunderstanding of intent. Bottom line, if Jerod, in his published words about Preston, states he is a heretic, this is rubbing up against libel in a historically Christian context. Jerod should have addressed his concerns with Preston privately. Preston has made it clear what he believes. Jerod oddly makes these false accusations based on who Preston invites to his conference, when it is obvious that its purpose is to explore different views. Jerod, whether you are correct on these issues or not, you have offended Preston publicly, and you should ask forgiveness.
Talking points v. Discussions makes it hard to move forward. Jared had agenda points and doesn’t like expanding his own understanding.
All sin is contrary to God but if you are guilty by association with Adam you are in constant sin
The children are not okay remember what King Solomon May the real mother stand up and say the gay child and stop it from the predator s... 🙏😇
The internet is a glass house.
Chronically online People like Jared have too much time on their hands keyboard warrior, 'actshully.."and they just start throwing stones and then they wonder why everything around them is all cracked up. Some people just need to get out and touch grass.
I think the simple truth is that it is impossible for a born again Christian to be a heretic. Obtuse, stoneheaded, at times rude or misleading, wrong on many things - yes, but not a heretic.
I think that is a valid point, Michael. Thank you 🙂
Jared:
“I don’t believe in guilty by association”….
Also Jared:
You are guilty bc of the ppl you associate with… 😂😂😂
Oh the irony… and while I agree with jareds desire to make sure the lines are clear and that we as Christians keep within the boundaries of sound biblical holiness, I also think that MANY Christians have tied their understanding of the word to THE ACTUAL meaning of the word. Thus, if you don’t have the same theological framework, hermeneutic or language as I do, then you are a liar and are going to hell. Sad… and what makes it worse is they don’t even realize that they are are doing the SAME THING they are accusing others of… taking things out of context to fit their narrative.
The amount of assumptions, false correlations, strawmen, subjective reasoning, logic inconsistencies made and calm rage displayed by jarred were astoundingly sad. God help us!
Nothing that I have seen from you has been inconsistent, came off as heretical or dishonest! God bless you brother!
“He who is often reproved, and hardens his neck, will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.”-
Prov. 29:1
It is such a tragedy that Preston is apparently unable to see that Jared is bringing genuine concerns on a very important matter. I fear that Preston has a hard heart and his arrogance prevents him from even considering self-examination.
A pretty sobering reality awaits Preston if he doesn’t repent.
Judgement begins at the house of God Preston ...you are in such danger!
Another thing about pronouns. I don't think this guy knows that blind ppl use technology too. That's another reason some ppl use pronouns in their bios. And I'm pretty sure his license id has his pronouns
At the 30 minute mark of this video, there is a bit of contention between two different ideas.
Preston is trying to help Jared understand his viewpoint and sexual ethic.
Jared makes the claim that Preston believes that if someone is same sex, that they are called to a lifelong celibacy.
Preston believes people who have same-sex desires can choose opposite sex partners, and mentioned he has some friends in this camp.
Preston also believes that if you have homosexual desire, but no lust and no sexual action, then it is OK in his eyes to have a lifelong SAME SEX partner...... Which means that this person is called to a life of NO SEX..... (thats the confusion for Jared)
Either way... Preston is trying to use different language here to sorta lighten the blow of his Biblical Error...... His belief is simple.... if you are GAY, (attraction to same sex) then you are free to have a gay relationship.... Just no lust or sex.
Now, if this sounds silly to you.... it's because it is. According to the bible. It takes away from the Male and Female narrative of creation, and makes MAN the center of his/hers desires.
Thank you for sharing your insights.
It is quite clear what Preston is up to, and more people are catching on recently.
What I love about this channel is the fact that there are a lot of great interviews where people get to fully express and unpack interesting ideas.
This felt like I was watching CNN. I wish you both just had a conversation about what each of you actually believes rather than this.