FALSE PROPHETS AND WOLVES IN SHEEP CLOTHES
“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep clothing”
One of the things that I have learned from studying the Bible, is that God has not failed to provide all the information that we need to not only live a life of godliness that pleases Him, but also to know how the enemy operates to deceive believers, so that we can avoid his tricks and traps. Matthew 7:15-16A is one such passage of scripture that give us warning of the enemy’s cunning tactics.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits…”
This passage tells us that the enemy uses stealth tactics that can be quite disarming if we are not careful to pay close attention to his message rather than allowing his delivery to determine his harmlessness. We can easily be tricked into letting our guards down by soft-sweet talking false prophets who seek to twist the truth of God’s word.
The biblical “wolf” has been often misunderstood as being only a violent, loud mouth who shouts out false teaching or who verbally and or physically abuses others. But the biblical wolf is a reference also to the deceptive message they deliver and not just the manner in which they deliver it, and even more so, their ability to do so in a manner that causes the victim to let down their guards so that they can be consumed.
Matthew Vines, the slick talking snake in the grass- homosexual who is clearly on a mission to seduce the unsuspecting, bleeding heart Christian community into believing that “Gay is Okay”, appears to be one such wolf in sheep’s clothing.
He claims to be a Christian, but he is a homosexual and his message is that being "Gay" is okay with God. His teaching messages have gone viral for a good reason; they are presented in the sheep form that Jesus warned us about.
He is popular not because his teaching is biblically sound, but because he is a sweet talker. Yet his game is exposed whenever he is brought face to face with, or is forced to confront knowledgeable conservative Christian teachers.
Two such Christian teachers have been trying to get Mr. Vines to publicly defend his teaching; they are Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown. And as brown points out, getting Mr. Vines to the dialogue table is quite a difficult task.
In a an article titled “Why won't the gay theologians debate?”,
Dr. Brown sets up his question by first pointing out how he and Dr. White openly take on all challengers of their faith, by participating in open public debates or dialogues, and he explains that they do so because they have nothing to fear if they are honestly seeking to uphold the truth.
I concur, if indeed a Christian is being honest and has done his homework, he has nothing to fear from an open dialogue with others who hold an opposing viewpoint. In fact, having such a dialogue is the best way to test ones position.
But most homosexual’s who claim to be Christians, and many other homosexuals and pro-homosexual advocates are strangely reluctant to defend their views in public dialogue with the tried and proven conservative Christian thinkers such as Dr. White and Dr. Brown, prompting the question, why?
Dr. Michael Brown asks:
“ ...why are "gay Christian" activists and theologians so unwilling to debate the issues publicly? Why do they consistently refuse public dialogue, especially when those who want to dialogue with them are committed to doing so with civility and grace?”
“Bear in mind that they are writing books, preaching messages, using social media, and holding conferences, all with the goal of actively challenging the views of conservative followers of Jesus, seeking to overturn the Word and 2,000 years of consistent Church tradition. Yet at the same time, when openly invited to debate their controversial new viewpoints, they grow silent. Why?”
Notice that in addition to asking this important question,
Dr. Brown also makes another important observation, that being that these same people who claim to hold a more “enlightened” perspective than we conservative Christians do on the subject of homosexuality, or as some insist on describing themselves as, "Gays", while refusing to defend their positions in public dialogue with knowledgeable Christian conservatives, they are using every other means of mass communication to propagate their false doctrine to the masses. In doing so, they are indeed influencing the unsuspecting - the uninformed, the carnal and the already rebellious, with their false teaching, and it is for this reason that they must be publicly challenged.
Dr. Brown explains that Matthew Vines and his hero, New Testament scholar James Brownson, a heterosexual, (as far as we know), have both been invited to have formal moderated debates, but they have both declined or failed to reply.
Dr. James White, says Brown; even offered to pay his own way to one of their homosexual events to debate Matthew but his offer was still refused.
No surprise there, it is clearly not in the best interest of homosexuals or their supporters, to get involved with intelligent dialogues addressing homosexuality with top of the line conservative Christian thinkers, to do so would to quickly and clearly expose the weakness of their arguments, and damage or even break the stranglehold that they seem to have on uninformed and unsuspecting Christians and liberals.
But Dr. Brown's and Dr. White’s relentless pursuit to expose the truth about homosexuality in their brilliant talks and their use of social media, has apparently been sufficient enough to embarrass Matthew Vines to the point that he had to explain why he refused to engage in public dialogue with them.
Dr. Brown reports:
“Finally, after months of non-communication, Matthew recently interacted with Dr. White, explaining why he refused to debate him and why he had no intention of engaging me. He wrote:
"I am happy to do dialogues, debates, etc., with anyone when I feel that the event is likely to be constructive, respectful, and relationship-building. I did a 'debate' with Michael Brown this summer that was largely a waste of time, because Brown is not interested in listening to and learning from LGBT people, only pontificating about them."
Dr. Brown also fills in what Matthew failed to mention:
“Back in June, I was able to do a 45-minute radio debate with Matthew on national Christian radio (with webcast as well), but that was only because Matthew didn't realize he would be debating me when he accepted the invitation. (You can watch the debate here, in which not one single verse supporting homosexual practice was offered by Matthew”
I contacted the show's host julie Roys who graciously informed me that her producer Judy Kron set the discussion up between Dr. Brown and Mr. Vines. Both sides showed interest but Matthew had not committed when Dr. Brown announced it on his social media. Apparently, Matthew then felt pressured to proceed and did.
Dr. Brown also correctly interpreted Matthew’s comment:
"I am happy to do dialogues, debates, etc., with anyone when I feel that the event is likely to be constructive, respectful, and relationship-building."
to be a mandate and requirement to agree with him, and Brown correctly perceived such a requirement as foolish, which of course, it is.
But this to me is clear evidence of the manipulative nature of homosexual activists and why confronting them about their doctrine and tactics is so important.
I have seen many of Dr. James White’s debates with others; in fact, I have many of them in my library. I have met with Dr. White and interviewed him. And like Dr. Brown, I think it is clear from the debates Dr. White has on record that he has shown a willingness to understand and relate to his opponents with respect and compassion. This is confirmed by his debates with Muslims. Like Dr. Brown said:
“You don't get into a mosque to debate without being respectful and gracious, yet that's not good enough for Matthew or, apparently, Prof. Brownson as well.”
And during Dr. White's debate with homosexual Justin Lee,
Dr. White was pleasant to a fault. Clearly going way out of his way to avoid offending Justin.
But It is apparent that homosexuals and their supporters are not interested in being understood or building relationships with those who understand their agenda and tactics, and who recognizes their bad theology and social policies. Dr. Brown says that he has tried on many occasions to do so with no success.
“‘Ironically, on numerous occasions, I have told local "gay Christians" that I'd love to sit down with them and hear their stories, also telling them I'd be glad to have a meal together just to get to know them better. In the vast majority of cases (including all instances where I've offered to do this with a group of people), my invitation has been declined or ignored, yet I'm the one unwilling to build relationships.”
Dr. Brown concludes his article with the following questions:
"Why not put the issues on the table in full-length, moderated, civil debate? Why not model in public how to have serious differences without personal acrimony? What do these activists and theologians have to hide?
This is not a macho challenge to engage in verbal fisticuffs. It is an open invitation to examine critically important issues in a way that the entire Body can observe. Why not do it?"
Since Dr. Brown does not answer the question in the article, I will.
The reason most of them won't, is because they all know that the truth is not on their side. And if they want to maintain the control they have over the press, the media and school systems, and continue to deceive the public and even many Christians with their rhetoric, they cannot allow themselves to be cornered in public dialogue with top line conservative Christian thinkers who would categorically dismantle their arguments and expose their true agendas. Thus, any excuse to avoid such a confrontation will do.
So in spite of Dr. White’s wonderful record of courteous dialogue, Matthew, (as quoted by Dr. Brown), finds reasons to avoid him.
He said that Matthew replied:
"I see James White in the same vein as Michael Brown. He has shown no desire whatever to learn from or listen to LGBT people. He simply wants to preach condemnation to people he hasn't even bothered to get to know. There are far, far better interlocutors, and far more respectful conversations I am happy to have. That isn't one of them."
The fact of the matter is that if you watch the dialogue that Matthew Vines has with Dr. Michael Brown, you will see why he does not want to have public debates with them. Mathew cold not control the discussion and was forced to defend his view and he could not. Nor could he avoid being asked the questions that he did not want to answer. I will be publishing a review of that debate soon.
The truth is that Mr. Vines is crafty, and knows full well that he is not representing biblical truth, and thus he must avoid the likes of Dr. White who would, like Dr. Brown, expose the wolf in him.
His own words betray him, he said he wants to talk to someone who has a desire to “learn” from the LGBTs and who will give him “respectful” conversation. Translation-no critical examination and refutation, and no asking questions that he does not want to have to answer.
By just watching the debate Matthew had with Sean McDowell, reading the Twitter dialogue between Dr. White and Vines and listening to the dialogue between Dr. Brown and Mr. Vines on Moody Radio's Up for Debate" with host Julie Roys, you will see why Mr. Vines and others like him - avoid conservative Christian scholars who know their Bibles and the homosexual activist agenda.
He said of Dr. Brown:
“He simply wants to preach condemnation to people he hasn’t even bothered to get to know.”
I have read several of Dr. Brown’s books and watched many of his videos, and I have not found one statement of “condemnation” to homosexuals. Unless Matthew defines “condemnation” as any agreement with or reference to what the Bible says about homosexuality. In that case, Matthew is again dishonest; he is accusing Dr. Brown of “condemning” them when Dr. Brown is simply providing a sound interpretation of what the Bible actually says.
Additionally, when he accuses us of “causing homosexuals to commit suicide” because of our rightly delivered message of what the Bible says, is that not “condemning us for causing death”?
I would like to examine Matthew’s comments a little closer, he said:
“I am happy to do dialogues, debates, etc., with anyone when I feel that the event is likely to be constructive, respectful, and relationship-building.”
Notice, getting at the truth is not included. What he wants is a constructive, respectful and relationship-building dialogue, which means, he wants to control the content and outcome, because a relationship can only be built with them if we agree with their false teaching. That is where he seems to be coming from.
He said of Dr. Brown: “He has shown no desire whatever to learn from or listen to LGBT people.” The fact that Dr. Brown has publicly and in his book stated that he has made efforts to listen to and understand LGBT people, does not seem to matter to Matthew. So this statement is a lie, but it seems that homosexual activists are permitted to lie.
I would also ask Matthew, when has he reached out to Dr. James White or Dr. Michael Brown to “get to know them”? Why are they required to bend over backward to appease homosexuals and get to know them, but Homosexuals are not requires to do the same for conservatives?
If you watch the reformed project videos, you see a lot of anti-Christian conservative rhetoric, but little let’s try to get to know them better instructions.
During their rare Twitter dialogue, when Dr. White asked Matthew if he had listened to the debate he had with his friend Justin Lee, Matthew said he only listened to “part of it”, and his biggest issue was that it wasn’t relational”. And he asked Dr. White if he had an ongoing relationship with Justin.
When Dr. White informed him that Justin did not seek to have and ongoing relationship with him, but if he did, he would be happy to do so, and then asked how does that change the fact that their discussion was constructive and respectful? Matthew did not reply to Dr. White’s points.
Dr. White then said to Matthew:
“One last thing, Matthew, as it seems our conversation has ended. In your comment on RHE’s blog, you say, “He simply wants to preach condemnation to people he hasn’t even bothered to get to know.” If you would listen to the Justin Lee dialogue, you would know that is not true. It is a false claim, and Matthew, I get the feeling you would identify as “bigoted” and “discriminatory” and possibly even “hateful” someone who would prejudge you the way you have prejudged me, don’t you think? It seems you have constructed a one-way street when it comes to your criteria for who you will debate on this matter. I have proven my ability to engage in respectful and meaningful debates—141 times so far around the globe, to be exact, on a very, very wide range of topics. As I mentioned above, this accusation against me is simply false, especially if you have listened to my exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and its promise of redemption and forgiveness to all who seek it in Christ Jesus alone. Let’s face it, Matthew—I HAVE heard your side, and I would like to suggest openly what pretty much everyone reading our exchange is thinking: your hesitation has nothing to do with your prejudgment of me as a person. It has everything to do with the fact that I have not only read you, I’ve read Boswell and Scanzoni and Mollenkott and Lee and Helminiak and Brownson and you—thoroughly and fairly. I know the “it just refers to excess desires” kind of argument evaporates under textually-based cross-examination. Your position doesn’t hold together, Matthew. So my question for you is, are you *really* confident that what you have written is true? Then let’s talk about a public vindication of it, in the best tradition of debate and dialogue. I stand ready.”
Again, he got no reply from Matthew on this.
But when Dr. White told Matthew about a friend of his who struggled with same sex attractions but who insisted that he not be defined as “gay” but rather as a servant of Jesus Christ, and Matthew asked Dr. White if he had any close relationships with people who identified as LGBT Christians? (Still missing Dr. White’s point), Dr. White gave this brilliant reply that silenced Matthew.
“I will assume that by “who identify as LGBT Christians” you mean “those folks who know your stand and your position that such a claim is inconsistent with a disciple of Jesus Christ and yet take that stand anyway.” If so, “close relationships” would be an inappropriate phrase: respectful, cordial, capable of serious dialogue, yes; close as in “I and this person stand on the same ground and hence are brothers/sisters in the faith,” again, that would require me to essentially abandon the plain meaning of καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε at 1 Cor 6:11. You see, Matthew, this is a gospel issue, first and foremost. It goes to whether the Word is capable of even giving us a basis for explaining the necessity of the cross and the resurrection. If we cannot determine what sin is, what God’s holiness demands of us, and what is broken in our relationship to God, then we have no basis for proclaiming the crucified Lord of Glory. This is not a side-issue, it is fundamental. And as such, it does, most definitely, define the parameters of Christian fellowship in the truth of the gospel. My “close relationships” are with those who, with me, bow the knee in repentance and faith and obedience to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I can’t get real close with those who are still standing on their own two feet in His presence.”
I submit to you that this is the real reason Matthew Vines does not want to meet Dr. James White in public debate.
Matthew Vines and his group are at their best when allowed to speak and write unopposed, but when sound biblical teachers are invited to the party, they avoid the event.
Well Mr. Vines, it’s a pleasure to see someone standing up to you and exposing your deception. May God grant you repentance that you may come to know him in a truly sound relationship that will bring salvation and deliverance from homosexual desires.