# Odd Gospel Coalition Article on Heterosexuality and Homosexuality



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 3, 2015)

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/godliness-is-not-heterosexuality


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 3, 2015)

So many things wrong with this article, but this seems to be the direction that many evangelicals are heading in. The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality, however since the Bible condemns it, people who experience such attraction must remain celibate. While it is certainly good to encourage anyone who is not lawfully married (in God's eyes, not the state's) to practice abstinence, it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 3, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> So many things wrong with this article, but this seems to be the direction that many evangelicals are heading in. The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality, however since the Bible condemns it, people who experience such attraction must remain celibate. While it is certainly good to encourage anyone who is not lawfully married (in God's eyes, not the state's) to practice abstinence, it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.



I don't necessarily agree.

This was a short article, that makes sense. Sin is passed on. We all have various struggles. Some of us struggle with suicidal sin, some with pride, some with homosexual thoughts or feelings. 

He did not say homosexuality is okay, the article explains that we can't just ensure that they won't struggle with any homosexual tendencies. We are going to struggle with sin as sinners and he's making the point that homosexuality is no different than other sins. You need support groups for homosexual lust just as much as regular lust. Sin is engrained in us out of the womb. We are born dead and that brings about sin issues, those issues come about over time and are different for everyone. This article does not condone homosexuality, but is just explaining these facts


----------



## Elizabeth (Dec 3, 2015)

Odd indeed. This statement, esp: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that same-sex attraction and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix." 

Hmm..let's try that with a little twist: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that adultery (or fornication/thievery/pride) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."

They DON'T mix. They are diametrically opposed. Godliness would not mix itself with sin. Full stop.

The wicked human heart, however, would like to think that they can mix. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding the author?


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 3, 2015)

Elizabeth said:


> Odd indeed. This statement, esp: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that same-sex attraction and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."
> 
> Hmm..let's try that with a little twist: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that adultery (or fornication/thievery/pride) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."
> 
> ...



I think you are, if he were to rephrase it I'm pretty sure he would say something like, "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that simply being tempted to sin (pride/fornication/thievery) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix." 

That's his point, that the presence of temptation doesn't necessarily mean the absence of godliness.


----------



## Thinkingaloud (Dec 3, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality... it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.



But since every aspect of man is corrupted by sin wouldn't that include our biology? I have no doubt that some people have a natural (in it's fallen sense) inclination to homosexuality even if this reason is sometimes overemphasised to the detriment of others. As long as we believe in a real Fall then I don't see the danger.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 3, 2015)

Some people are born with more of a prone-ness to addiction to drugs and alcohol or to depression. Identical twin studies don't seem to bear this out for homosexuality. But, if we grant the point - that some men are born with an effeminate disposition - than homosexual action is still no less sin, since our natures are fallen to begin with.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 3, 2015)

Yeah I have been noticing this trend in evangelicalism "Homosexuality is an orientation, there is no cure, just be celibate." It is unfortunate. I thought about this the other day. If a man oogles at a woman it is sin. Why is it not sin for a man to oogle a man? That's the vibe I get from those who think what I say above. They say temption is not a sin. They are correct but it I tend to read it as, at least according the context, that it is somehow ok to be attracted to men but not act on it i.e. sodomy.
Maybe I am wrong but, I that is how I have seen this latest trend.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 3, 2015)

Heinrich Heppe:


> Meanwhile concupiscence must not be confused with the natural impulses, so far as God has created them and has willed their satisfaction: Bucan (XVI, 31): "Concupiscence is not, however, natural appetition for food, drink, procreation, and delight in the senses; in itself this is not sin, provided it is ordered and seeks after what is lawful. Nor movements of the heart so far as they are affections. Nor just _αταξια_ of the appetitions. It is the propension of all the forces to do what is prohibited by the law of God, such as confusion or doubt in the mind about God and His providence; in the will and heart, contumacy against God."


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 3, 2015)

From the articles I've read, it seems like The Gospel Coalition is for the most part a competition to see who can most cleverly make criticizing reformed theology look like reformed theology.

Also, can we please declare a moratorium on "panels"?


----------



## MW (Dec 3, 2015)

Ephesians 5:22-33. "Godliness *Is* Heterosexuality."

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as *Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.*
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as *Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.*
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


----------



## rickclayfan (Dec 4, 2015)

Sin does not merely consist in the external act, but also in the vile disposition. Both are to be mortified. Shaw seems to convey that homosexual attraction (the disposition) is incurable; therefore, godliness consists in mere restraining of external actions. Is the grace of God not powerful to gradually purge even the disposition? Godliness consists in cleansing (through God's grace) both the nature and the deeds. Our sinful passions and their streams must be purified and mortified even if no great change is evident for some time and even if it crosses our wills and comfort.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 4, 2015)

This is no different than the Bible. People reading the authors intent into his article. Where questions arise about what he intends, instead of asking questions assumptions are made. 

The point is obvious to me. With the godly you will still find homosexual thoughts. Period. Many great godly people will struggle in this way. 

If this was about general lust I'm sure the general tone here would be different.

I see a trend as well. That Christians are starting to realize that you can struggle with homosexual lust as a Christian just as much as you can regular lust. Sure you shouldn't and we are called to be separate. But the whole point is Christians for a long time have put anyone actively struggling with anything homosexual in a class of non Christians, while those struggling with heterosexual lust are just put in a struggling Christian category. That's the point of this article and much of a trend going on. Realizing there is a balance. 

I do see in our culture many are becoming accepting of homosexuality. That is completely wrong. Church's are starting to allow homosexuals to pastor (who have no intent of repenting). This is also wrong.

But I believe a far worse trend has happened for a long time. And it has truly been the mistreatment of unbelieving homosexuals, and the mistreatment of those who struggle with homosexuality. I don't know a single guy that would EVER feel comfortable sharing struggles with homosexuality. Because of the great mistrratment of this sin over our years. 

We act like it's a switch and that once they give up "being gay" they don't struggle with homosexuality anymore.

There are several trends that have happened and will happen with homosexuality. But it seems very clear to me that the author was INTENDING to not defend homosexuality, but he intended to explain that we condemn any homosexual sttuggles to a far greater degree than hetero sexual struggles. To the point that authentic Christians are probably afraid, many even on this board now, I'm sure many are afraid to speak about these struggles due to the horrific attitude shown by the church towards homosexuals. Clearly we need to condemn sin, and help with struggling, but many will struggle with homosexuality their whole life (in a way. I use the word struggle because they aren't willingly submitting to it and are fighting it, similar to regular lust) and that's something many in the church do not understand.


----------



## Captain Picard (Dec 4, 2015)

James White remains controversial lately, but he gives a pretty full response to some problems with the article on today'd episode of his webcast. And in my opinion, there ARE problems.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 4, 2015)

The folks at TGC continue to gush:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...-sex-attraction-and-the-church#When:06:02:00Z

Meanwhile, a response to Shaw:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/12/four-propositions-on-homosexua.php


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 4, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> Sin does not merely consist in the external act, but also in the vile disposition. Both are to be mortified. Shaw seems to convey that homosexual attraction (the disposition) is incurable; therefore, godliness consists in mere restraining of external actions. Is the grace of God not powerful to gradually purge even the disposition? Godliness consists in cleansing (through God's grace) both the nature and the deeds. Our sinful passions and their streams must be purified and mortified even if no great change is evident for some time and even if it crosses our wills and comfort.



Basically wha I was getting at but, you said it better.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 4, 2015)

Whatever you think of James White on textual issues, skip to 40 minutes in. He is spot on.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2015/12/03/total-insanity-start-important-issues-secularism-homosexuality-regeneration/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 4, 2015)

The article cited in the OP is an extract from a book. Having just read the extract, the author appears to be attacking something of a straw-man. I have never heard anyone argue that godliness was _merely_ heterosexuality. Does anyone seriously think that adulterous heterosexuality is godliness? Of course not.

By using the term "same-sex attraction" the author has created a lot of unnecessary confusion. It is not a sin for someone to be tempted by homosexuality. It is, however, a sin for someone to indulge in homosexual thoughts, just as it is also a sin to indulge in thoughts concerning heterosexual activity with someone other than one's spouse (assuming, of course, that the person is married; if the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful). The long and the short of it is that same-sex attraction is sinful, and the best way to stop that sin breaking out into external actions is to mortify such thoughts.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 4, 2015)

arap said:


> Whatever you think of James White on textual issues, skip to 40 minutes in. He is spot on.
> http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2015/12/03/total-insanity-start-important-issues-secularism-homosexuality-regeneration/



Excellent points by Dr. White. He did an excellent job of communicating what is wrong with this article and with this way of thinking.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 4, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The article cited in the OP is an extract from a book. Having just read the extract, the author appears to be attacking something of a straw-man. I have never heard anyone argue that godliness was _merely_ heterosexuality. Does anyone serious think that adulterous heterosexuality is godliness? Of course not.
> 
> By using the term "same-sex attraction" the author has created a lot of unnecessary confusion. It is not a sin for someone to be tempted by homosexuality. It is, however, a sin for someone to indulge in homosexual thoughts, just as it is also a sin to indulge in thoughts concerning heterosexual activity with someone other than one's spouse (assuming, of course, that the person is married; if the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful). The long and the short of it is that same-sex attraction is sinful, and the best way to stop that sin breaking out into external actions is to mortify such thoughts.



I have repeatedly heard people argue that same sex attraction is not sin. I do not understand how we can hold such a position. How can a desire that is so clearly unnatural and disordered be considered anything but sinful.


----------



## Parakaleo (Dec 4, 2015)

Zach Rohman said:


> But I believe a far worse trend has happened for a long time. And it has truly been the mistreatment of unbelieving homosexuals, and the mistreatment of those who struggle with homosexuality.



Brother, are you being fair? Are you using just weights and balances? Is it fair to say, on the whole, that those in the church mistreat believing or unbelieving homosexuals? What do you mean by "mistreat"? I, for example, do not think preaching the plain sense of Romans 1 is mistreatment. I do not think calling homosexuals to repentance is mistreatment; it is quite the opposite.

When someone is assailed by heterosexual lust, you show them compassion and help them in their fight against transgressing the 7th Commandment in word, thought, or deed. When someone is assailed by homosexual lust, you show them compassion and help them in their fight against transgressing the 7th _and the_ 3rd Commandment, because within this lust is an assault against God's created order. If unchecked, this lust will attempt to un-say what God has said concerning sexuality, as we see in the article from TGC.

_But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world._ 
1 Corinthians 11:31-32


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2015)

James 1:12-15 (ESV)
12*Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13*Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14*But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15*Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

I think the notion of biological or therapeutic man has so captivated our thinking that we use terms that the Scriptures do not use.

What if I said that some of the most holy men I know are attracted to p0rn?

What do I mean by that? Do I mean that, in their hearts, they desire to look at p0rn constantly but they are holy enough to overcome it?

Rosaria Butterfield has given some very excellent lectures. You can find a recent series of lectures she gave at First Pres in Columbia on their Sermon Audio site: http://bit.ly/1N1sjGo

I'm not going to speak for her but I do want to synthesize some points she and many others have made.

In Ancient Greece there were those who practiced homosexuality but they did not consider it to be identity. They were considered acts.

Today we have a situation in which we speak of "gender identity" or "homosexuality" as that which a person _is_. We are not what we desire and we are not what we practice. We are men and women, created in the image of God, who have desires and commit acts. This foundational Biblical anthropology must be at the fore of any discussion.

What is a "same sex attracted Christian"? For that matter what is a "heterosexual Christian"? We are not what we are attracted to or what we desire.

Let me say that it grieves me that the author seems to downplay a parent's desire that their children would not struggle with a sexual sin. It is a legitimate question for a parent to ask: "How might I help my child grow in such a way that he might avoid being (as James writes) _lured and enticed by his own desire_? Do we have nothing to say other than "...well if if turns out the desires he is enticed by are homosexual desires then that is OK because he can still lead a Godly life...."

The excerpt seems to resign itself to the idea that a desire is _inherent_ to the individual. It seems to suggest that parents must resign themselves that certain desires are unavoidable for certain people and its best to just figure out how to be Godly in spite of those desires that will be permanently attached to that individual.

One of the most helpful things that I heard Rosaria say in one of those lectures that resonates with themes from Owen's works on Sin and Temptation is the notion that we are called to a life of dying to our sin and turning to Christ.

What many Christians are looking for is therapeutic healing. Don't get me wrong, if God can heal us from something then that's fantastic. Nevertheless, we often approach sin and temptation with the idea that sin will only go away when God heals us so that we no longer experience temptation.

That's not the way the Scriptures teach us.

We are to put to death un-Godly desires. We are to starve them out and kill them. Yes, I acknowledge that there are people that will have desires for homosexuality but, as Owen wrote: "Be killing sin or it will be killing you."

Frank admission here but I used to struggle much, much more with what seemed like uncontrollable lust. It was Owen's work that helped me see that battle. I cannot take desire into my identity and then ask God to sanctify that desire-ridden identity. I need to see sin for what it is: that which competes for my affection and tempts me to sin and I must put it to death in my thoughts and in my members and cry out to Christ: "I am united to you Christ! You died to sin and put its power to death! I am not a slave to sin but have been united to Your indestructible life. Help me in this time of need to put this desire to death!"

I do not let my guard down for a moment. I do not take that sin into my identity that I might learn to cope with it.

I KILL IT! By the power of Christ I hate it and kill it. I kill it because IT IS NOT ME. I am Christ's and this desire does not belong.

I will never be "healed" of the necessity to put sin to death. That does not mean that I am resigned to being a {insert desire here} Christian. It simply means that whatever desires come, I know that I am Christ's and so I die every day to sin and turn to Christ in faith.

"Same sex attraction" is a desire. We need to stop treating it as an identity or we will not be able to place it within the context of that which must be daily put to death along with other aspects of indwelling sin.


----------



## Miss Marple (Dec 4, 2015)

In response to your position that those with homosexual struggles are treated as though they have a worse sin than those with heterosexual struggles -

does not not fit Scripture?

By this I mean, a man and woman fornicating, under OT law, could repent by marrying. A man having sex with a man was to be put to death. So, we see degrees of sin.

So I wonder if it is actually appropriate that homosexual urges/behaviors are treated as worse than heterosexual urges/behaviors?


----------



## Miss Marple (Dec 4, 2015)

"f the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful)."

I wonder how this can be true. Does a man never consider a woman in a sexual manner before he proposes marriage? It is a huge part of marriage.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 4, 2015)

Many evangelicals like to say that "Homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins." Or they will say gay lust or gay acts are bad, but so is hetero lust or hetero fornication.

However, Romans 1 seems to say that this state is not merely sin, but also a judgment upon sin - i.e., qualitatively worse. "Therefore God gave them up..."

Sodom and Gomorrah remain as examples of great sin.

And in the OT, there seems to be a gradation of sins, such that homosexuality is listed in the first tier:



> Leviticus 20 lists homosexual practice among a first tier of sexual offenses (adultery, the worst forms of incest, and bestiality; 20:10-16) that are worse than a second tier of sexual offenses (20:17-21). In Leviticus 18, although in the concluding summary (Lev 18.26-27, 29-30) all the sexual offenses in Lev 18 are collectively labeled “abominations,” “abhorrent” or “detestable acts” (to’evoth), only man-male intercourse in 18:22 (and 20:13) is specifically tagged with the singular to’evah. Outside the Holiness Code in Lev 17-24 the term is normally used for various severe moral offenses (not merely acts of ritual uncleanness), including occasionally homosexual practice (Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 14:24; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; probably also Ezek 33:26).



I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a land, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.


Here is a good link:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/is_homosexual_practice_no_worse.htm


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 4, 2015)

"I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a land, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other."-Perg

Well said. Romans 1 places the acceptance of homosexuality at the end of the judgment process, in its final throes, and not at the beginning.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 4, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Many evangelicals like to say that "Homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins." Or they will say gay lust or gay acts are bad, but so is hetero lust or hetero fornication.
> 
> However, Romans 1 seems to say that this state is not merely sin, but also a judgment upon sin - i.e., qualitatively worse. "Therefore God gave them up..."
> 
> ...



The fact that homosexuality is worse, although not in any way downplaying fornication, is because it is more clearly against nature and the revelation of the One Triune God in nature, in particular, in mankind. His making man male and female is an echo of both the unity and plurality in the Godhead which plurality homosexuality deliberately traduces.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW (Dec 4, 2015)

Zach Rohman said:


> We act like it's a switch and that once they give up "being gay" they don't struggle with homosexuality anymore.



It will create more of a struggle if the normality of heterosexuality is not accepted. Godliness is not merely concerned with departing from evil; it is also concerned with doing good. A professing Christian who was "once" an homosexual ("such WERE some of you") should now be seeking to walk in the straight and narrow, accept God's norms for his life, and discipline himself to walk accordingly, while regarding deviation as a cause for grief and sorrow. The article in question essentially undermines the normality of heterosexuality as a "good" which God calls us to pursue, and seeks to procure some degree of tolerance towards homosexuality by reducing the abnormality of it. That tolerance meanwhile will undoubtedly suppress the moral persuasion to fight against it and leave the individual without any reason to resist it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2015)

I think Peter Jones effectively argues that homosexuality is a natural progression of man's worship of himself. Once the "binary" of the Creator/creature distinction is denied and man brings his "god" down within the creation then reality becomes singular. In a set of lectures he points out that pagan religions have always had homosexual or androgynous priests. The acceptance of sameness in sexual relations ought to be seen as an outgrowth of a pagan cosmology.

One thing you hear quite frequently these days is that we need to eliminate "binary" thinking.

Rejecting God and man leads to a rejection of male and female, right and wrong.

We are told, are we not, that we need to stop thinking of "gender binaries".


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 4, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> One thing you hear quite frequently these days is that we need to eliminate "binary" thinking.



My response to that kind of talk (which is prevalent among social workers) is sometimes (when I'm on a roll), "try thinking in terms of polarity, then. There is no order in creation without some kind of polarity: proton/electron, cation/anion, stamen/pistil, north/south, nut/bolt, plug/receptacle, and so on. Your car wouldn't run without polar complementaries. Your electronic device absolutely needs plus/minus; on/off. Your plumbing has male and female fittings. You wouldn't even be able to digest food without the enzymes having a complementary form that mirrors the proteins. If you want to give up zeros and ones, have at it, but don't give up boy and girl, or the universe collapses!"

People usually walk away smiling defensively at the poor man. But at least they don't bring up that blasted "binary thinking" nonsense again.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 4, 2015)

Parakaleo said:


> Zach Rohman said:
> 
> 
> > But I believe a far worse trend has happened for a long time. And it has truly been the mistreatment of unbelieving homosexuals, and the mistreatment of those who struggle with homosexuality.
> ...



I fully agree. Many would claim such things but they hold a greater resentment towards homosexual sin than heterosexual sin. I think that's the point of the article. From my particular perspective I've noticed no one bearing with homosexuals. 

If someone claims a struggle with lust and asks for help they will probably get help. If a brother claims a struggle with homosexuality, he will most likely get bashed with Bible verses condemning him, with no help available.

I realize that most homosexuals don't want to change. And those people do need to hear that they need to repent and turn. Any unrepentant sinner needs to hear that. 

But I think that the author is addressing a different issue. If you want to address the laxness towards homosexuality, I agree that we should address that, but that was not the authors intent. He wanted to address the issue of people making homosexuality an identity, rather than a struggle. And I think we should lean towards they discussion personally. I agree with many of your thoughts.

I really like the balanced reply I just read from Rich which seemed to address both sides of the spectrum


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2015)

Zach,

If homosexuality is further along the sin-spectrum (more sinful than heterosexual sin), we should not be surprised that folks will be surprised by admissions of struggling with such a sin. To test my hypothesis, take any sin that is further down the sin-spectrum and ask prayer for it ("Pray for me, I am struggling with desires for bestiality....and I sometimes want to murder my roommate..."). People will be shocked. And not merely because they are bad people. This is a lot different than admitting to a sin that is consistent with nature ("Pray for me, I saw a glossy cover in the check-out aisle with all the magazines and it is lodged in my mind."). It seems reasonable to me that these different admissions would get different reactions based on their differing degrees of sin.


----------



## KMK (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a *land*, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.



What kind of evidence would it be if homosexuality is celebrated all over the *world*?


----------



## Herald (Dec 5, 2015)

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a *land*, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.
> ...



God's worldwide judgment (Romans 1).


----------



## KMK (Dec 5, 2015)

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



How many *worldwide* judgments should we expect?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2015)

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a *land*, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.
> ...



Well....it certainly isn't yet. In fact, many of the most backwards cultures of the world (i.e. Islamic) sin in the other direction by committing great cruelties to homosexuals. 

...Bracing myself now for theonomist tomatoes...


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Predominantly homosexual cultures don't exist over the long run (for obvious reasons). Even pederastic Greece put severe limits on which boys could "loved." I realize that Greece didn't have an anti-CIS category for homosexuality like we do today, but the point stands. Cultures that worship Death don't live very long.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Zach,
> 
> If homosexuality is further along the sin-spectrum (more sinful than heterosexual sin), we should not be surprised that folks will be surprised by admissions of struggling with such a sin. To test my hypothesis, take any sin that is further down the sin-spectrum and ask prayer for it ("Pray for me, I am struggling with desires for bestiality....and I sometimes want to murder my roommate..."). People will be shocked. And not merely because they are bad people. This is a lot different than admitting to a sin that is consistent with nature ("Pray for me, I saw a glossy cover in the check-out aisle with all the magazines and it is lodged in my mind."). It seems reasonable to me that these different admissions would get different reactions based on their differing degrees of sin.



Perhaps its because that homosexuality is a sin against nature, with built-in bad consequences. As bad as heterosexual sin is, it isn't really a violation of the laws of biology. There are bad consequences (unexpected pregnancy, STDs, HIV, emotional damage) but not as intense as the consequences for homosexual sin.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 5, 2015)

"Well....it certainly isn't yet. In fact, many of the most backwards cultures of the world (i.e. Islamic) sin in the other direction by committing great cruelties to homosexuals."

Ironically, though, homosexuality is common in Muslim cultures.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> "Well....it certainly isn't yet. In fact, many of the most backwards cultures of the world (i.e. Islamic) sin in the other direction by committing great cruelties to homosexuals."
> 
> Ironically, though, homosexuality is common in Muslim cultures.



It is not homosexuality if it is done with a young boy (serious...that seems to be their reasoning). In fact, Muslim Paradise has small boys in addition to the wide-eyed Houri to serve the faithful. Prepare to be shocked:

Quran 52:24: Round about the believers will serve, to them, young boys, who will be as pearls well-guarded.

alternatively translated as: And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them, as if they were preserved pearls.

Quran 56:17:They will be served by immortal eternal young boys ... as fair as virgin pearls

alternatively translated as: Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

These youth are given to the faithful, whether male or female, who attain Paradise. No mention as to the details of those services.


https://maldivianapostates.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/islam-and-pedophilia-80000-pearly-boys-in-heaven/

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/brinkley/article/Afghanistan-s-dirty-little-secret-3176762.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=1


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> > "Well....it certainly isn't yet. In fact, many of the most backwards cultures of the world (i.e. Islamic) sin in the other direction by committing great cruelties to homosexuals."
> ...



So you are agreeing with him now?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2015)

Agreeing with who? Muslims abhor homosexuality, even as some muslim regions tolerate pederasty quite widely.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 5, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> "f the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful)."
> 
> I wonder how this can be true. Does a man never consider a woman in a sexual manner before he proposes marriage? It is a huge part of marriage.



"Thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person" may or may not be sinful depending on the kind of thoughts they are. The kind of thoughts that imagining what that activity might be like in practice will be sinful.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > "f the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful)."
> ...



Is there a way to look forward to your wedding night then without sinning? If the beauty or attractiveness of your intended spouse does not elicit a longing for your wedding night, this might be a bad sign for marriage, but if it does...then how does one not sin in anticipation? It seems there can be a general longing for what will be rightfully yours without imagining things explicitly.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Agreeing with who? Muslims abhor homosexuality, even as some muslim regions tolerate pederasty quite widely.



I am confused. It seems like your drawing a border between the two terms that isn't there. I don't think you are deliberately just stating it in muslim terms. I admit I got lost following your condemnation of treating them (homosexuals) badly and bringing up pedastry.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 5, 2015)

arap said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Agreeing with who? Muslims abhor homosexuality, even as some muslim regions tolerate pederasty quite widely.
> ...



The reason they throw gays off of roofs even while Afghan men practice pederasty with boys seems to be that that these muslim cultures don't seem to equate pederasty with homosexuality. Seems they have some cognitive dissonance at work. Maybe even from the Koran itself with puts small boys in heaven alongside the houris.

Wherever Islam rises, pedophilia will rise (ironically, even as adult homosexuality is repressed):

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/1.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/making-world-safe-for-pederasty.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/01/islams-nancy-boys.html

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2010/07/frr-jun-2010-western-gay-rights-islamic-pederasty/


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Miss Marple said:
> ...



Quite so. That was the point I was trying to make in my first sentence.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 5, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



A false religion, even one seemingly rooted in a strict moral law, cannot withstand the weight of its own ungodliness and will inevitably engage in this type of moral equivocation.


----------



## Herald (Dec 5, 2015)

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Are you talking eschatologically?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 5, 2015)

I remember when Wesley Hill"s book "Washed and Waiting" was being talked about by bloggers and such, and though I didn't read the book, it just seemed to me that something was missing from the conversation. When "Is God Anti-Gay" by Sam Allberry(a same-sex attracted pastor) came out, I ordered it immediately. My youngest in public high school was beginning to be confronted with this culture, and I was hoping for help in speaking to her and other young people about the issue. That book grieved me. There was no hope given by Allberry that same-sex attraction is meant to be overcome by a Christian. There was no hope given, really, that it could be. And this man was a pastor! That seemed to me a recipe for disaster- the man has written a book telling the world that he struggles with being attracted to men, and intends to remain celibate until and unless his attraction to men is taken away. I sympathized with the fact that this is indeed something men and women are dealing with, but as has been stated so well on this thread, the attraction itself must be admitted to be sin before there can be any hope of freedom from it.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 5, 2015)

Does this debate boil down to whether concupiscence is itself sinful? It seems to me that there has to be something that occurs before sinful thought--an option to sin or do otherwise. Otherwise sin would be something that happens to us. For some people certain sins don't even enter the mind--there is no temptation. Others struggle with temptation to the same sin. But this temptation cannot be actual sin without an act of the will. I think people are interpreting "attraction" as "lust" rather than something like "temptation." But if Christ was tempted and did not sin then temptation can't be sin.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 6, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Zach,
> 
> If homosexuality is further along the sin-spectrum (more sinful than heterosexual sin), we should not be surprised that folks will be surprised by admissions of struggling with such a sin. To test my hypothesis, take any sin that is further down the sin-spectrum and ask prayer for it ("Pray for me, I am struggling with desires for bestiality....and I sometimes want to murder my roommate..."). People will be shocked. And not merely because they are bad people. This is a lot different than admitting to a sin that is consistent with nature ("Pray for me, I saw a glossy cover in the check-out aisle with all the magazines and it is lodged in my mind."). It seems reasonable to me that these different admissions would get different reactions based on their differing degrees of sin.



I agree with you completely. There are degrees of sin and clearly the Bible puts homosexuality in a terrible class.
“Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Timothy 1:8–11). 

So what class is it?? It's a terrible sin. 

But when we talk about people being unbelievers, condemned in sin, Paul puts it in the same class as fornicators, Idolators, etc. I just personally believe the reaction is far stronger to homosexuality versus other sins on Pauls list and I believe it has been a big problem in Christian cultures to:

1: Assume a Christian won't struggle with homosexual lust.

2: Treat unbelieving homosexuals radically different than unbelieving fornicators. We lovingly present the gospel to the fornicator while all together ignoring the homosexual, or many get more joy in affirming a homosexuals condemnation, rather than genuinely presenting a full gospel to see the homosexual saved. 

Just a couple issues from my perspective I see. I think sins we have no disposition to struggle with, we become so hardened towards to the point that we place ourselves above it in pride while we act like fornicators are several classes above even the lowly homosexuals.

I'm far from a homosexual apologist. They need to hear about their sin. They need to hear that it is really condemned in scripture, but I don't think we should view them as any more condemned persay than a fornicator and I think we should at least try to be humble about how we present the gospel to them. I think we should all have that attitude Paul had when he would say he was the chief of sinners, even in their homosexuality I think we should look at them with compassion and see our sins and view them as even more hell deserving. I don't see that attitude towards homosexuals. I normally see:

1: An arrogance towards homosexuality and a lack of humility and love shown towards homosexuals. This is mainly shown by Christians 

2: I also see people radically overembracing homosexuality to the point that they are accepting what God condemns.

Again I think the author of this article probably meant to attack the pride and lack of love shown towards them, but I don't think we should immediately think this means the author is affirming homosexuality


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 6, 2015)

Zach Rohman said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Zach,
> ...




Zach:

It seems one of your main points is: 


> We lovingly present the gospel to the fornicator while all together ignoring the homosexual, or many get more joy in affirming a homosexuals condemnation, rather than genuinely presenting a full gospel to see the homosexual saved.



And I think this is a good point that you make. As if we have written off the homosexual as if they've crossed some moral Rubicon that cannot be returned from. If homosexual sin is an extra-degraded degradation, I suppose, we might be tempted to lose hope...but yes, you are right, we should not refrain from hoping in the power of the Gospel to change them as well. 

This reminds me of an article I read last month detailing the extinction of many "ex-gay" ministries (ministries trying to "pray the gay" out of people is, I think, how the article put it). The article concluded that the evangelical world is largely giving up on the question of whether gays can truly change. And I remember being saddened by that.

I have heard, and been subject to, cases where people have "come out" and if you show anything except total and complete acceptance without any twinge of disappointment at all, towards these newly-announced gays, they will make it a chance to announce their great victimhood (and victim status does seem to be a life-goal that many highly aspire to in our dying Western culture). And this mentality probably makes Christians cautious about any interactions at all with actual gays up-close, their comments being reserved for discussion about gays rather than discussions with gays. 

I am not sure the attitude of Christians is so much pride towards gays, but bewilderment at what to do. And there is some appropriate anger when they parade in their leather outfits in public, exposing our children to new forms of visible depravity. Adulterers and shoplifters don't usually have pride parades and wear chaps with the rear-end missing, but there is something especially ostentatious about gay sin that makes it want to flaunt itself, and Christians are appropriately angry at this.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 6, 2015)

Thinkingaloud said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality... it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.
> ...



Every aspect of man is corrupted. However, Paul did not see homosexuality as being natural:
" For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women *exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural*, and in the same way also the *men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another*, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Rom. 1). 

Paul is clearly teaching that these things are not natural. Therefore, do not make this anymore complex then what scripture says. If one does so, they are outside of scriptural bounds.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 6, 2015)

SRoper said:


> Does this debate boil down to whether concupiscence is itself sinful? It seems to me that there has to be something that occurs before sinful thought--an option to sin or do otherwise. Otherwise sin would be something that happens to us. For some people certain sins don't even enter the mind--there is no temptation. Others struggle with temptation to the same sin. But this temptation cannot be actual sin without an act of the will. I think people are interpreting "attraction" as "lust" rather than something like "temptation." But if Christ was tempted and did not sin then temptation can't be sin.



Concupiscence is simply a strong desire. Now we need to be careful in that there is such thing as having a strong desire that is not sinful which Jesus would have wanted (concupiscence) to eat while He was fasting in the desert before His public ministry. Now Our Lord did not have a strong desire (concupiscence)to be with any women which was not within His mission in the incarnation.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 6, 2015)

Earl, you didn't say it directly, but I probably wasn't right to bring in our Lord's temptation into this as it is a different category. Even Roman Catholics who strongly affirm that concupiscence isn't sin deny that Christ was subject to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 6, 2015)

This may be a side note but it occurs to me that we often focus upon the "perfection" with which Christians handle homosexual sin. I'd like to offer a few thoughts:

1. I really think that the poverty of much of American Evangelicalism is showing its true colors. Many Churches have long had a reputation for the idea that someone comes to a pastor with a difficult sin situation and, at best, he can tell them to "pray about it". I truly lament that many Christians have no category for indwelling sin. They only have categories for "victory" and the idea that, if Jesus (or the Spirit) take hold of your life, that you'll be healed of difficulty. I can't tell you how many years of frustration I experienced in the charismatic movement wondering why I could never quite "let go" enough to have the Spirit conquer my will so I wouldn't struggle with lust in my life. I didn't understand the Gospel at the time and so I went from Promise Keeper events to Family Life marriage conferences with the standard "promotionals" that it changed people's lives and I always wondered: "What's wrong with me." We have got to keep in mind that these distortions of Christianity are not merely powerless to deal with the real temptations that those who have homosexual desires experience but they leave the rest of their members in the same place with their sin and temptation. It breaks my heart.

2. Sometimes I think we ought to cut some Christians a little slack on some of the ways we lament the way they react to certain things. This may seem like a contradiction to my first point but I lay my first point at the feet of the under-Shepherds and the theologians and teachers that have trained them. They will give account for the general state of those who rely upon them to teach them what the Scriptures teach.

That said, I was thinking of your average Christian both now and throughout history that simply cannot always parse these things out. It doesn't do much good for us to lament that they have real concerns and just don't know how to express them in a sophisticated way. Even if they've heard the right things over and over some are going to have a very basic understanding.

And so how should they deal with the rampant homosexuality in this culture?

I was reflecting upon this today and realized that your average Christian has to deal with it precisely because that which should be discouraged/outlawed by the Magistrate is not. It's sort of the same reason we have to answer the question: "How do you witness to and evangelize a person who murders babies and lives next to you?" It's a question that most Christians haven't had to wrestle with in world history. I think we sometimes expect people to react in sophisticated ways when the cultural norms used to be properly revolted by such things. We may fault the whole thing but there was a default "stomach-turning" reaction to this and it actually tamped down the expression of certain desires.

They may be "unsophisticated" but shame and even threats of the loss of job or position in society would prevent the exercise of certain desires. It used to be difficult to access certain materials and you were afraid that others would see you walk into a store. It used to be enough that you could lose your way of living and it would prevent you from engaging in certain desires.

Sin is something that intensifies given the exercise of it and giving into temptation. The fact that every single speed bump and restraint of the Law and social disapproval has gone is a really scary thing.

And what are we worried about? That a bunch of Christians whose heads are spinning with the cultural speed don't know that they should stop being a speed bump by holding the behavior in revulsion.

Yes, we need to have resources but let's also be understanding and I guess another issue I'll take up with the article is sort of the standard "Tsk, tsk" that all Christians are just a bunch of people that don't know how to do anything other than worry that their child is going to "...go gay...." If you're the "sophisticated" Pastor that knows how to cut through all these issues then show some compassion to the average Christian.

Just to close, the shape of the society reminds me of an article I read recently by a woman who grew up in a time when she would have been called a "Tom Boy". That's what we called girls that liked to do what boys did when I was a kid. I even remember laughing at a girl when I was 6 because she was wearing a dress and hated that she had to wear one. I'm not saying that because I'm proud of myself.

That all said, it wasn't on *any* of our radar screens that this little girl had a gender identity disorder or was a lesbian.

This woman who wrote the article wondered what might happen to her if she grew up in today's society since she was a big woman who liked to do "manly things". What if, instead of not getting attention in high school by boys, she received affection and physical attention by another girl in her HS? What if she had been told/encouraged that she was a lesbian or a man?

I think we think we have all this stuff figured out but there is a whole "realm of sin" that this whole stuff is wrapped up in. I think the reasons why Christians are having to deal with this issue in increasing measure is, in part, because all the many different things that restrained evil are not in place. I would simply suggest that the issue of how to deal with all of this stuff is not so simple but, that being said, I still return to my first point that one needs to have faithful ministers and instructors who have a solid grasp on the nature of sin and the nature of man and I'm grateful that the Lord led me in His Providence to the teaching ministry of R.C. Sproul about 20 years ago and I am grateful that I learned over the years that Scripture has deep resources to these issues.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 6, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> This may be a side note but it occurs to me that we often focus upon the "perfection" with which Christians handle homosexual sin. I'd like to offer a few thoughts:
> 
> 1. I really think that the poverty of much of American Evangelicalism is showing its true colors. Many Churches have long had a reputation for the idea that someone comes to a pastor with a difficult sin situation and, at best, he can tell them to "pray about it". I truly lament that many Christians have no category for indwelling sin. They only have categories for "victory" and the idea that, if Jesus (or the Spirit) take hold of your life, that you'll be healed of difficulty. I can't tell you how many years of frustration I experienced in the charismatic movement wondering why I could never quite "let go" enough to have the Spirit conquer my will so I wouldn't struggle with lust in my life. I didn't understand the Gospel at the time and so I went from Promise Keeper events to Family Life marriage conferences with the standard "promotionals" that it changed people's lives and I always wondered: "What's wrong with me." We have got to keep in mind that these distortions of Christianity are not merely powerless to deal with the real temptations that those who have homosexual desires experience but they leave the rest of their members in the same place with their sin and temptation. It breaks my heart.
> 
> ...



Rich,

I agree with your conclusion. What I find frustrating is when people make issues more complicated and complex then what they really are. People look at homosexuality as some sort of complex identity disorder, when there is a more simple answer: it's sin. Then you get into "well, what about same-sex attraction? is it sin? is same-sex attraction unnatural even though they have been like this their entire life?" etc, etc. The bible is clear in regards to what is natural and what is unnatural. Sexual relations are defined within scripture, yet no one wants that answer. No one wants the simple answer of what scripture says in a straight-forward manner. Yes we live in a day and age that "might" seem different, however I take the bible at it's word: "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecc. 1:9)


----------



## Captain Picard (Dec 7, 2015)

I think there is a great deal of concern on the part of people who read articles like the OP that the authors don't "just" want Christians who battle same-sex attraction and are celibate...and the reason is that if that were all the authors in question wanted they wouldn't write the articles.

In other words, if the message is "you can be a Christian and battle same-sex attraction all your life, even if you pray to be delivered", um yes, we are in perfect agreement. But the authors aren't writing "just" that. There's an awful lot of church-blaming and frankly, sinner-coddling mentality leaking between the lines, it seems to me.

And on a related note, every single person I've heard saying something like "well straight lust is wrong too" is not making the point that straight lust must be battled, mortified, and self must be died to, but instead is presupposing that because straight lust is "forgiven" (which appears in this context to mean "not that big a deal") then gay lust is "forgiven" in the same way. The "not that big a deal" is almost never stated. It is hoped that because the listener struggles with straight lust, they will assume it. To take an extreme example, I spoke with a young woman once who refused to acknowledge a distinction between for example, stealing basic small food items when starving, and sodomy. Or, perhaps, murder. The clear hope was that, because I believe in the perfection of God's standards, and that all sin deserves hell, that I would therefore accept the unstated premise, which is that there was no distinction among sins or types of sins in any sense. Or, in other words, no one who says that stealing food and sodomy are equal is saying that in order to advocate the death penalty for theft, but I think that's the point the Scriptures make in their "equality of sin" arguments.


----------



## Toasty (Dec 7, 2015)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/godliness-is-not-heterosexuality



Does the author believe that same-sex attraction is a problem with one's genes?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I wonder if there is a connection between pedophilia and their view of god. If god is a self-enclosed monadic entity who can only relate to "the other" by domination (subordinating the other), then where is love? When a man subordinates the other (a boy, as our US govt officially protected child rapists in Afghanistan) is he not following after Allah? Contrast this with the Puritan view of married sex: a mutual communication of bodies. This is impossible under Allah.


----------



## Miss Marple (Dec 7, 2015)

"straight lust is wrong too," no it isn't, at least not of a wife for a husband or vice versa. Unless that doesn't count as "lust."

That's the difference. There is a context where heterosexuality is not only NOT a sin, the lust or desire is NOT a sin, it's actually GODLY.

Whereas homosexual lusts/acts are always an abomination.

They are simply not equivalent.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 7, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > arap said:
> ...



I've never thought of how the sex act relates to the Trinity before....but, you have a point. The Trinity informs all social relationships. 

Also, if love must have an object other than self-love, than Allah cannot be loving from all eternity; but a Trinitarian Being can. That is why Islam seems to speak of sex in terms of possession and wives as goods to be consumed, whereas the Christian ideal is that the two become one flesh in identity rather than marriage being, literally, merely a "contract of coitus" (aqd- al-nikah).

http://www.islam-watch.org/MAsghar/meaning-of-Nikah.htm


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 7, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> "straight lust is wrong too," no it isn't, at least not of a wife for a husband or vice versa. Unless that doesn't count as "lust."
> 
> That's the difference. There is a context where heterosexuality is not only NOT a sin, the lust or desire is NOT a sin, it's actually GODLY.
> 
> ...



Wanting your spouse is not lust.


----------



## RAR (Dec 21, 2015)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I remember when Wesley Hill"s book "Washed and Waiting" was being talked about by bloggers and such, and though I didn't read the book, it just seemed to me that something was missing from the conversation. When "Is God Anti-Gay" by Sam Allberry(a same-sex attracted pastor) came out, I ordered it immediately. My youngest in public high school was beginning to be confronted with this culture, and I was hoping for help in speaking to her and other young people about the issue. That book grieved me. There was no hope given by Allberry that same-sex attraction is meant to be overcome by a Christian. There was no hope given, really, that it could be. And this man was a pastor! That seemed to me a recipe for disaster- the man has written a book telling the world that he struggles with being attracted to men, and intends to remain celibate until and unless his attraction to men is taken away. I sympathized with the fact that this is indeed something men and women are dealing with, but as has been stated so well on this thread, the attraction itself must be admitted to be sin before there can be any hope of freedom from it.



Hello Jeri,
One of the most troubling things about Allberry's view is the promotion it is getting by ministries/organizations that have very large audiences. 
The Southern Baptist Convention, through the influence of Al Mohler and Russell Moore, has been pushing this to the masses by having Allberry appear at their conferences these last few years.
The other troubling aspect is the lack of response from the evangelical leaders of today challenging this teaching. However, I think that is slowly starting to change.
I want to encourage you to listen to this sermon by my pastor preached almost 15 years ago on this subject. I think it is even more relevant today as it was then, and is a more biblical response to this crisis, than what is being presented by many today.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2805221942

Kind Regards,


----------

