Homosexuals and Hypocrites

Jeremiah, a man who claims to be a homosexual Christian, left a comment on my blog making his case for why homosexuality is not a sin. I’ve recently learned quite a bit from reading Same Sex Controversy by James White and Jeffrey D. Niell. Without a doubt, the Bible calls homosexuality a bona fide sin.

Jeremiah had two main points:

  • The Bible is vague in regard to homosexuality. Jeremiah reviewed six passages that discuss homosexuality in the NIV. I like the NIV, but it was translated by humans, leaving room for error. There are some odd word choices in a couple verses. For example, most translations use the word “homosexual” in 1 Timothy 1:8­–10, but the NIV uses the word “perverts.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, the same Greek word as in 1 Timothy 1:8–10 is used, but the NIV translates it as “homosexual offender.”Using the NIV, Jeremiah ignored 1 Timothy 1:8–10 (since it doesn’t contain the word “homosexual”), and made the argument that 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 is referring to the older men who pay young, pagan, male prostitutes for sex. His point was that the Bible isn’t clear enough on this point to call a loving monogamous homosexual relationship sin.

    However, a look at the original biblical lanaguage gives us a different interpretation. The Greek word “arsenokoites” is the word in question in both 1 Timothy 1:8–10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. Paul is the first person to use this word in writing. It is possible that Paul coined this term. We can know exactly what it means and where it came from by examining the text. Paul used the Greek Old Testament (aka the LXX or Septuagint), as he was the apostle to the gentiles, and Greek was the language of the day.

    In the LXX, Leviticus 20:13 reads: hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.

    In English, Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    There is no ambiguity in Leviticus 20:13. It calls homosexuality a sin regardless of whether it is in a monogamous, loving relationship or not.

    The word “arsenokoites” is simply a contraction of “arsenos” and “koiten.” “Arsenos” means man, and “koiten” means intercourse or to lie with sexually. When Paul uses the word “arsenokoites,” he is referring to men who lie together sexually, or homosexuals. He is referencing the passages in Leviticus that clearly condemn homosexuality.

    That is especially clear in 1 Timothy 1:8–10 as it is a discussion of the proper use of the law. What law could Paul be referring to other than the Old Testament law? The proper use of the law was to convict homosexuals of their sin in the hope that they would be humbled and prepared to hear the gospel.

    Jeremiah’s principal tactic is to obscure the plain teaching of these verses just enough to cause us to doubt our interpretation, and therefore, render us unable to boldly call homosexuality a sin. But these verses simply aren’t vague. They are crystal clear in calling homosexuality a sin.

  • Christians are willing to ignore many verses rather than change their lifestyles. We shouldn’t be so eager to enforce the letter of the law against homosexuals, Jeremiah says, when we’re willing to compromise for our pet sins. He used divorce as an example. Jesus was very much against divorce, yet Jeremiah knows of Christians who are willing to overlook that sin.I think we can all take Jeremiah’s observation as an encouragement to examine ourselves and make sure that our words and deeds line up with even the most difficult teachings of Jesus.

    However, I think he completely misses the point. All our sins are ultimately between each of us individually and God, who is perfectly just. The homosexual cannot point to the hypocrisy of others as justification for his own sin. Neither can the thief, the liar, the heterosexual adulterer, the murderer or anyone else. True Christians are marked by humble repentance. Only a proud unbeliever could go on living in unrepentant rebellion after being confronted with sin.

    It is clear that Jeremiah is unwilling to repent of his homosexuality. He doesn’t like it when people claim to be Christians but make excuses for being disobedient to the Bible, but that is exactly what he’s doing with his sexual sin. To me, it seems as though he’s offering to wink and nod at the sin of others if they’re willing to wink and nod at his.

    I would remind him that Jesus said that if our eye causes us to sin, we should pluck it out. If our hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off. It is better to go to heaven maimed than to go to hell intact. I would advise Jeremiah to pay whatever price is necessary to leave his homosexuality behind. There is forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

You can check out Jeremiah’s comment on my blog.  (He copied and pasted it from his blog, which I wouldn’t recommend as there are some inappropriate pictures.)

42 thoughts on “Homosexuals and Hypocrites

  1. Beyond the clear teaching against homosex, I believe it’s also important to point out the CLEAR teaching from Scripture that defends Truth from the other side of the coin:

    – Marriage is a covenant created by God and is between one man and one woman (both of them otherwise unmarried) and all sex outside of marriage is sin. I think even the NIV supports this argument :-)

  2. Wade says:

    I have a friend that tried to use the argument that the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality with me before as well. I gave him several OT verses (I think they were from Leviticus) and then I also gave him the NT verses you referred to, etc. He tried to tell me that the OT verses didn’t count and the the NT verses didn’t apply because they “aren’t in red”.

    I explained the OT verses were Mosaic law handed down to the Israelites from God and that God doesn’t change and unless God revoked the law (inwhich He didn’t), it still applies today. He still acted as if Moses lacked credibility to which I replied that Jesus references Moses several times throughout the NT and that in of itself validates Moses.

    The “not in red” remark was so far off of the mark of ineligibility, I had not a clue as how to start on dismantling it.
    __________________________________________________________

    Sorry…I should’ve performed a better job at proofreading before I posted, I meant intelligibility and in ineligibility….sorry.

  3. DavidW says:

    Wade:
    Just because something isn’t “in red” (e.g.: the words of Jesus), does not mean they are any less authoritative, in light of 2 Tim: 3:16. Peter also refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet.3:16), thus rendering Paul’s writings the very words of God and of equal authority to those of Jesus Himself.

  4. So often – professing Christians will shrink at delcaring that homosexuality is a sin.

    They will shrink at declaring what He has spoken in His Word – surely this come comes close to being “ashamed of Him” does it not?

    Those who do that have allowed the culture in all it’s vileness to dictate the way in which they view God…….

    What ever happened to “do not love the world” in 1 John 2:15?

  5. Wade says:

    Matthew,

    I think you raise valid points. I agree that sometimes Christians shrink from declaring the truth per being “ashamed of Him”. Maybe that’s similar to when Paul said that he wasn’t ashamed of the gospel in Romans 1:16.

    I also like the 1 John 2:15 that you referenced. With that in mind, it may be that Christians also shrink from declaring the truth because they love the world more than Him. This may be the case with less mature Christians because their faith may require additional growth before they have more of a heart for Him than they do for worldly things. I do think that a common problem that less mature Christians experience is not declaring the truth due to a lack of confidence in themselves per not being well versed in scripture. There are a lot of people out in the world that would love nothing more than to proverbially knock a Christian down and to make him/her look like a fool in front of a group of people and let’s face it, its in our human nature to avoid such embarrassment. From different sources, I have seen where biblical illiteracy is a huge problem in this country. It’s down right embarrassing how little “professing” Christians know about the bible. Some of this may be due to false converts parading around saying that they are Christians but then again some of it may coming from the flock as well. Perhaps that is for another discussion.

    Grace & Peace,

  6. I agree %100 with everything you have said…

    BUT

    what is missing… glaringly so… is any discourse about men who are attracted to other men and who choose to remain celibate; women who are attracted to women who remain abstinent.

    There are many positions out there about this, but I have to say that this issue is near and dear to my heart. My dearest friends are gay and we have had discussions about their conviction that sex between men is a sin and so have chosen to live according to the standard of Scripture and have avoided that.

    Some of you may believe that the desire of a man for another man is sinful. I will challenge that merely with the fact that these men would not choose to live this way for many reasons. There is no glamor or attractiong to long for another man; and surely they would extract that if they could.

    Sorry, I think I am getting ahead of the dialogue. Thank you for your attention and I await your kind responses.

  7. Aaron,

    May I gently suggest you interpose your correct understanding that the homosexual act is sinful with the revelation from the Lord Jesus that mere thoughts of anger and adultery are sin as well. Is it reasonable that entertaining thoughts of heterosex is sinful and thoughts of homosex not?

    For the cause of Christ,

  8. Manfred:

    Can you be attracted to another person without lusting after that person?

    Does a heterosexual man sin because he lives in a state of being attracted to women?

    I agree that lust, in any context, is sinful as Jesus laid out in the Sermon on the Mount. We are not talking about the same issue here.

  9. Aaron,

    It’s a slippery slope to idolatry, without any sexual content. It’s a fine line between attraction and covetousness. The only right (in the sight of God) way to avoid sin is to not play games on thin ice. Sin is a rattlesnake – cannot be domesticated nor kept as a pet. When we play games with “near sin” (if I can coin a term) is that it hardens our heart and deceives us about the danger that is too close and with which we are too comfortable.

    Flee sin – don’t see how close you can come.

  10. Jay Miklovic says:

    gonna have to agree with Aaron here. I am attracted to women because I am a heterosexual. Attraction and lustful thinking are two entirely different things. While I am constantly guarding myself (as most men of God do) against lust, it does not change my opposite sex attraction.

    Applied to the homosexual is no different. Attraction and desire differ from sinful thought.

    I do not think the interposing of the homosexual act being a sin to the passages in Matt 5 concerning Adultery and Anger makes your point.

    I imagine Aaron would agree that homosex thoughts would also indeed be sinful… but I cannot speak for him as I do not know him. (other than his twitter).

  11. Manfred… I hope that God will heal you of your attraction to women who are not your wife. I pray that you will never glance at another woman to even notice that she is beautiful. It is a slippery slope, my friend.

    Certainly that is ridiculous. But that is what you are pushing on men who have no choice but to be attracted to other men. Your paradigm does not fit.

    This is not about keeping sin as a pet. It is about saying no to sexual relationships with other men and avoiding lust for other men. That is how Christ defines sin. Show me where Scripture supports your position that it is sinful for a man to find another man attractive. That is a far cry from lust.

  12. Aaron,

    Saints of the living God will be cured of all sin, but not until glorification.

    There’s not a proof text that declares personal attraction (without being defined) is sin. But the Bible teaches we are not to covet, not to lust, etc. – those are sin.

    If, by attraction, you mean the friendship one man has for another – such as Jesus had for Peter or John – then no, such is not sin.

    If, by attraction, you mean the veil of euphemism for the first step that, unchecked, would lead to covetousness, lust, or fornication – then yes, such is sin.

    Same principle applies to hetero attraction, car attraction, etc. People who play games to cover what lies beneath the surface are on dangerous ground. Sin must be called sin – including any sinful attractions I might (and sometimes do) have for a woman other than my wife.

  13. Aaron, the Lord said this in Matthew 5:27,28 ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh {to turn the thoughts or direct the mind to a thing, to consider, contemplate, to look at, to weigh carefully, examine} on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart {.the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours}.’
    As you can clearly see from this passage, even our thoughts are sinful. So, to think lustful thoughts toward another, whether it be male or female, is sin. It MUST be confessed and repented of, as all sin must.

    As for being attracted to anyone, what exactly is the attraction if it isn’t lustful in content? What attracts men to women other than their wives, or same-sex attractions? This seems to be a way of possibly trying to justify sinful thoughts, unless of course you mean the one you’re attracted to is based on their personality, nice way of dressing, intelligent conversation…..yeah right!!
    That’s why we should not set anything wicked before our eyes, we should not look one second longer at someone for fear of it leading to an ‘attraction’.

    Lyn

  14. Dave says:

    Manfred: You made an interesting statement: “If, by attraction, you mean the veil of euphemism for the first step that, unchecked, would lead to covetousness, lust, or fornication – then yes, such is sin.”

    Unchecked temptation leads to sin. But to be tempted is not, in itself a sin. Christ himself was tempted and was without sin, Hebrews 4:15. So to call that temptation sin in your quote is indefensible, biblically speaking.

    I believe that homosexuality in thought and deed is sin…but Scripture does not teach that temptation is a sin and so the orientation itself is not sinful. You are free do disagree, but remember that the substance of my argument is that temptation does not equal sin.

    I realize that there are many who have used similar terminology to justify things which scripture forbids. Don’t let my blog title fool you…I titled it as such to get attention from Christians and non-Christians alike and am currently working my way through a Thomas Watson book on Repentance.

    Given the information disclosed about Jeremiah here, I’d say he needs repentance to be granted to him. And I pray the Lord would do so and continue to bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance in my own life.

    Lyn, you’ve never been attracted to someone apart from lustful intent? That’s really sad. It sounds like a very isolated existence you insist on every else to lead…but I think you’ll find (biblically) that even without someone in front of you, your heart is still black with sin, Jer. 17:9-10, and that God searches the heart and gives every man according to his deeds.

    The good news, Lyn, is that if your faith is in Christ, then His righteousness clothes you and the Father giving you according to your deeds will actually be Him giving you according to Christ’s perfect obedience in your place. That is the substance of the Gospel…and I haven’t seen much of the good news in most of the responses here. Is not Christ’s blood sufficient to save the homosexual?

    He saved me…and is sanctifying me, and my abstention from sex and sexual relationships is the good work God prepared for me to do, Ephesians 2:10. If it would please him to give me a heart to marry and have children, raising them in the fear of the Lord, then He will do so and I would receive that gift with thanksgiving.

  15. Jay, thank you for helping make my point. I completely agree that homosexual thoughts which are lustful are just as sinful as those of a heterosexual. Attraction in this sense is just something that makes us take notice. It does not have to include thoughts that are sexual in nature, just as feeling dislike for someone is not the same as hatred, which is sinful acording to Christ in Matthew 5.

    Lyn, if I had to live the way you suggest then I would have to either pluck out both of my eyes or walk around with a blindfold on except when I am alone with my wife. I think you may want to explore the distinct difference between lust and attraction.

  16. Wade,

    Thank you for your reply. You raise some very good points. I found it insightful – grace and peace to you too brother.

    Aaron and Dave,

    I have thought your stance through and would agree with you in part but we must be very careful. To be honest one cannot “admire” a beautiful women wothout lusting after her.

  17. Just curios: Does anyone else see the problem with same sex “attraction?”

    To equate that with man’s desire for a woman (and vise versa) is a little bit of a stretch, isn’t it? God gave men and women the desire for one another (otherwise ‘be fruitful and multiply’ would not be that easy).

    So why is it permissible to be “attracted” to someone of the same sex as long as you don’t act on that attraction in thought or deed. Isn’t the very “attraction” itself a sin that needs to be repented of?

    The only other option is to claim same sex “attraction” is from God. And if one claims that it’s natural for one person to be attracted to the same sex as much as it’s natural for a heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex, then it’s not only a mockery of God’s creation and design, but it’s also the first step to legitimizing the behavior?

    It doesn’t seem like this has been addressed yet, so I thought I’d put it on the table.

    – The Pilgrim

  18. I am still waiting for someone to define ‘attraction’, as of yet no one has stepped up to the plate and given a clear definition of this. Tell me Aaron, just what is the difference between attraction and lust? If you say a woman has a nice body, is that an attraction or a lust? If you say attraction,then explain how it’s okay to be looking at her long enough in the first place to notice her body.

    Pilgrim, excellent point.

    lyn

  19. Pilgrim,

    I began to address your concern in my first comment, but perhaps we need to speak further. Would you suggest then that a gay man “choses” to be attracted to men? Why would he ever want to do that when it means opening himself to ridicule and mockery?

    Is Down Syndrome from God? How about sexual abuse? I do not wish to open debate here about whether there is a genetic component to being a homosexual, but there is a consistant description from those who struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA) who do not see it as a choice, any more that a victim of sexual abuse chose to be a victim or a child born with a genetic disorder chose that for herself.

    Matthew,

    How would you see admiring the beauty of a woman different from admiring the beauty of a mountain, a sunset, a field of wildflowers? Can one not acknowledge beauty without wanting to posess it?

  20. DavidW says:

    I believe The Pilgrim has hit on the heart of the issue. It’s all about the concept of the marital union, who God has said the union must be with (one man and one woman), what the union represents (Christ and His church), and what God has specifically forbidden in His word (homosexuality and bestiality).

    The concept of love must also be understood according to God’s given revelation. Agape (the unconditional, self-less love that Jesus displayed) love, is different from philo (brotherly, family) love, which is different from eros (sexual) love.

    “Vile affection” on the other hand is the problem which leads to homosexuality and every sexual perversion. It is a perverse, corrupt “affection” that is outside of God’s plan and order, which man is all too happy to indulge (see Rom. 1)

    There is nothing wrong with a close brotherly love between either sex. As long as it does not transgress outside of the boundaries we have been given in God’s word.

    It is critical we understand what God has determined, and revealed in His word. Otherwise we are adrift in the sea of human and worldly “values” and opinions.

  21. Lyn,

    I acutually posed that question to you for your thoughts of what may make a distinction. Perhaps an illustration can be helpful: why is Michaelangelo’s David not pornographic?

  22. Aaron, you are the one claiming attraction is okay, so, you are the one who needs to define.
    As for homosexuals ‘choosing’ their attraction…yes, they choose this sin. I should know, I once lived that lie. Homosexuality is NOT genetic, it is a sin of lust that the partaker chooses to act upon. The bible teaches this as well…

    This passage comes from our Lord, found in Matthew 15:19,”For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”{verse 20}”these are the things which defile a man”. When you break this passage down, it becomes clear just what our Lord was saying. “Out of the heart”- meaning ‘the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours;of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence’. So, sin originates in our thought life. I want to emphasize “fornications” our Lord Himself spoke as a defilement in this passage, it comes from the Greek word ‘porneia’ and is defined as this ‘adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc’. When taken all the way back to the root word ‘piprasko’, the meaning becomes even clearer, ’sold under sin, entirely under the control of the love of sinning’. This perverse act defiles {meaning ‘to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane’} all who practice it, or even THINK about it.
    So, out of our own minds originates this perverse act, NOT some genetic defect. It does make it easier for sinners to blame their sins on God, i.e., ‘genetic defect’, however, James 1:13, 14 clears that up as well.

    Lastly, as for nude portraits, paintings, pictures, etc.-they are all pornographic. They should not be looked upon because of the lust factor. Viewing such may very well cause the viewer to begin to lust in their thoughts. Anything we look at longer than we should is a danger. Let’s not forget the ‘lust of the eyes’.

    lyn

  23. Lyn,

    I just read your testimony! What an amazing work that the Spirit has done in your life to free you of the sin of homosexuality. I praise him with you for Christ’s redemption and that sanctifying work. It must have been so difficult to give up all you had not only with a long-term partner but a precious child.

    I pray that your testimony will be a source of inspiration to others who struggle with this sin.

  24. I don’t agree that all homosexual “orientation” is chosen. I have a good friend who used to be homosexual and I have learned a lot from him, but also from a lot of study on the issue. I think it is indeed possible, yet not proven, that orientation towards same-sex attraction could be the result of a genetic defect, as is Down’s syndrome and other genetic defects that alter proper thinking.

    HOWEVER, having a genetic defect leading to homosexual attraction does not excuse lusting or the actual behavior. Self control is what prevails.

  25. Aaron,
    What I gave up was fails in comparison to what I’ve gained. I am free of the bondage of sin, all by the grace and power of Almighty God through Christ. As for those who struggle with this sin, there is freedom from this, and all sin through Jesus Christ, and only through Him.
    I was dead in sin, unable to see my true state. I would still be in bondage to my sins if it weren’t for the grace of God made available through His own Son. He is the one who caused me to turn from my sins, forsaking them and following Him. He gets all the glory for enabling me to give up my former sinful ways, for He alone is worthy.

    Glenn, as for what you believe, I mean no disrespect, but the heart is deceitful. We cannot base anything on what we believe, we must always go to the only source of truth we have…God’s own word. Homosexuality is birthed out of lust, the lust within our own hearts. It is a form of immoral sexual behavior that begins within our own thought life. We see, we desire, we conquer. This is the pattern of sin. To say it is ‘genetic’ is to excuse sin as ‘God’s fault’. That is NOT what the bible teaches. Sin is a direct result of sinful hearts, as well as a sin nature. All sexual immorality, whether it be hetero or homo, is sin.

    From my testimony for what Christ has done in me…
    ~ The more I read God’s word, the more I come to understand just how wicked and vile the human heart truly is, which is where lust lies. In Matthew 15:19, Christ teaches this, “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
    fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; these are the things which defile a man”. The word fornication is from the Greek word ‘porniea’ from which we get our word ‘porn’. It means ‘to act as a harlot, or indulge in unlawful lust, things that are forbidden’. You can take it all the way back to the root word ‘pe-prasko’- which metaphorically means ‘sold under sin, entirely under control of the love of sinning’. Homosexuals are acting out and living out what lies within their own hearts! This is true with all sexual immorality; it is birthed out of the lust of the sinful human heart.

    ~Another key verse is found in James 1:13 and 14. James says,” Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed {or allured, deceived} by his own lust {or forbidden desires}.” God’s word makes it clear that all sin is chosen and acted upon by the sinner, as he/she gives in to the forbidden lust within their own hearts; not one person will escape accountability apart from repentance and believing in the Gospel. The body of Christ must understand this in order to prevent from compromising the truth when proclaiming the Gospel to homosexuals.

  26. Matthew, I think that Dave has already addressed what Pilgrim has opened up. Attraction is the temptation, and lust is the sin.

    My question to you about the mountain is an acknowledgement that there is a concept of appreciation of beauty that is separate from lust and therefore sin.

    What is interesting to me is that the original post talks exclusively about homosexual activity in regard to the Bible, but no one has brought a Scriptural basis for the claim that attraction (i.e. temptation to sin) is indeed sinful.

    Let me state this emphatically: if temptation is sinful, then give me a biblical passage to support that statement. I can think of one that would say definitively that it is not: Christ himself was tempted (Matthew 4). This passage, oddly enough, is the chapter immediately proceeding the one that has been used in this exchange to say that attraction (temptation) is sinful: Matthew 5.

    {Lyn, in reference to your testmony post, what does James 1:13-14 mean if Christ himself was tempted?}

  27. That post says that Christ was tempted because it was brought TO him… then if a heterosexual man was married to the last woman on earth, with no other women to behold, then he would avoid the “sin of temptation.” Is that what this means? He would have to avoid looking at a woman at all costs for fear that she would tempt him. Why don’t Christian women walk around veiled, then if they are the cause of sin in the lives of the men they encounter?

    If a homosexual man wants to avoid the “sin of temptation” then he need to never have contact with another man for the rest of his life?

    Honestly this position is completely foreign to me. I don’t mean to sound obtuse. Why would the author of that post hold James tighter than Hebrews? It seems clear to me that there is more to substantiate that Jesus was tempted because he was human but that God the Father cannot be tempted because he was not bound by human skin. Was Christ not fully human? Again I am asking because I really don’t understand this position even after reading that post.

  28. To understand that Christ was not tempted from within helps to bring clarity to the outward temptation He faced.
    As for homosexual temptations, isn’t that a peculiar statement? I go back to Pilgrim’s comment, the fact that someone is lusting, in their thoughts for either the same or opposite sex is indeed sin. You seem to want to broaden the scope of lust to include some form of ‘innocent attraction’, but, there is no such thing. When we try and justify sin, even when it is first birthed, we always step into confusion, misunderstanding, and misguided concepts of sin.
    Indeed, if a homosexual man wants to avoid the sin of temptation to lust, he must turn from the source of temptation, i.e., pondering too long and lusting over other men. If that means he cannot be alone with other men, then he must not be alone with other men. Do whatever it takes to avoid falling into sin, which is exactly what Christ meant when He said, ‘And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee…’

    Repentance is key in ALL SIN.

  29. The straw man of calling the sin of homosexual tendencies, urges, and attractions a “temptation,” and then comparing it to the temptation of Christ to support the straw man is very disingenuous. Furthermore, comparing homosexuality to Autism is downright offensive to those with Autism and their families.

    This whole discussion is just an attempt to redefine sin. If you can get people to call sin a “temptation” then you’ve won a major battle to persuade the less discerning to your cause.

    Bottom line: A homosexual is one who is attracted to or has inclinations toward those of the same sex. (If you wish to claim that a homosexual is not really a homosexual until he commits the actual act, then this would mean a heterosexual who is celibate his whole life was never really a heterosexual.)

    If you’re claiming that being a homosexual but not committing the act is not sin, then this is the same as claiming that a grown man who is “attracted” to little girls but who remains celibate (and doesn’t act on those feelings) is somehow not sinning by the very virtue that he has those inclinations toward someone he shouldn’t have (read: ungodly inclinations and attractions).

    To say he is not in sin because he has not actually performed pedophilia is ludicrous (from a Christian standpoint of course; not sure what the world’s standpoint would be on this).

    This also goes toward the celibate person who has inclinations toward bestiality.

    Whether it’s the celibate homosexual, celibate pedophile, or celibate animal pervert (or whatever they’re called), the fact remains that it is a sin in the heart that must be repented of and turned from; a sin that only Jesus Christ can remove and provide atonement for.

    What you are doing Aaron, (and others who are in agreement with you), is making excuses for this sin. Be very careful, for you will be responsible to God for any encouragement you provided for those to remain in their sin.

    What you need to be doing is preaching repentance even from the “attraction” of sin, and not holding dialogues about how close one can get to sin without really sinning. Nothing good ever comes from trying to find loopholes in God’s ordinances and this type of endeavor usually reveals the unregenerate condition of the heart.

    The fact that we have to play these word games is a sad testament to the true condition the church is in. When we will perform linguistic gymnastics to avoid calling sin, sin, we have drifted far off course.

    With all due respect, I suggest those who wish to continue their redefining of sin and their “hath God said” propositions find another venue (such as Jay Bakker, Tony Campolo, Dan Kimball, etc.). There are plenty of them out there who will welcome your views, but DefCon is just not one of them.

    Respectfully,
    – The Pilgrim

  30. It is this kind of argument that feeds the Emerging Church folks. I have publicly confessed that I was once a part of that heresy. I take immense offense that you would suggest that I would be privy to that. If you read my blog you will hear me shouting out against such deceit.

    For the record I have dear friends and loved ones who have family who are also dear to me with Down Syndrome. I do not use that comparison lightly.

    I am tempted to eat too much. I am tempted to stay up too late. I am tempted to break the speed limit. I am tempted to lie. I am tempted to get my needs met in unhealthy ways. I am tempted to neglect the care of my body. I am tempted to do good for the wrong reasons. I am tempted to sleep too late. I am tempted to watch television too long.

    Oh, my soul is so black and evil without thinking that even the temptation to do these things is wrong. Thankfully we serve a gracious and merciful God who is just and deals with us justly. That is only good news because I am robed in Christ’s righteousness because he is the only one who has done this perfectly.

    Grace and Peace to you.

  31. Pilgrim, you have not yet demonstrated from scripture that temptation is sin, apart from engaging the thoughts or actions.

    I have laid out my case humbly as Scripture would dictate and I invite anyone at all to come read what I have to say at my own blog from time to time. I make no excuse for my own sin and am actually forthright about it. I look to Christ alone for my righteousness and desire for Scripture to speak to what requires repentance in my life. As Martin Luther is reported to have said in some sources, “I can’t help which birds fly over my head, but I can keep them from making a nest in my hair.”

    Michael, I would take issue with the idea that one finding another human attractive (same or opposite gender) finds its root in lust. Do you have Scripture to back that up? I’m not asking to tweak you or be contentious…I simply wonder on what you base that assertion. I do appreciate very much you reading my comment thoroughly and giving me the time of day, truly. I hope once I pull together some thoughts more broadly of where I’m coming from that you will come on over for some dialogue saturated in Scripture.

    Soli Deo Gloria.
    Matthew…not Michael. I must be really tired…sorry. :-)

  32. Dave Said:

    “you have not yet demonstrated from scripture that temptation is sin”

    That’s because I never said that “temptation is sin.”

    What I am objecting to is:
    – Taking a sin (in this case homosexuality).
    – Downplaying its seriousness.
    – Redefining it as “temptation.”
    – Then saying Jesus was tempted so temptation can’t be sin, thus homosexual “attractions” are not sin.

    Aaron:

    I do not concern myself in my discussions with whether or not it “feeds the Emerging Church.” And I suggest for your consideration that it’s not conversations like this that feeds the emerging heresy, but their rejection of the one true God, the love of sin, and their denial of the perspicuity of Scripture.

    As I eluded to in my last post, this “dialogue” is going nowhere fast. If you desire to haggle over whether or not a non-practicing homosexual is in sin in spite of the very virtue that he’s a homosexual (or that a non-practicing pedophile is in sin in spite of the very virtue that he’s a pedophile) then this is not the venue for you guys.

    You better believe that those who have desires, urges, attractions, inclinations, and thoughts of ungodly interest in young children (or those of the same sex) will not find themselves in the presence of God apart from the washing and regeneration of Christ’s shed blood. And you better believe that if this be the case, they will no longer be considered a homosexual (in their eyes or God’s eyes).

    The contributors of DefCon (and many of its readers) believe that repentance should be preached for the forgiveness of sins because the kingdom of God is near. We are not here (nor do we have the time) to play word games and split hairs over how close we can get to sin and still get into heaven by virtue of Orwellian doublespeak.

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim

  33. Pilgrim,

    Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps this will be helpful in providing clarification of my position:

    What I am objecting to is:
    – Taking a sin (in this case homosexuality).
    – Downplaying its seriousness.

    In NO WAY do I intend to downplay that homosexuality (as defined by the original post) is in every way sinful. There is nothing that can be called anything but. The fact that it is very clear that homosexual activity is sinful in Scripture stands right next to the very words of Christ who defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    – Redefining it as “temptation.”

    There is not a redefinition that was meant here. It is an acknowledgment that the work of the Spirit is not complete and that there is still vulnerability to sin. It does not appear that you, Pilgrim, have argued that temptation is a sin, but others on this thread have. As an alcoholic fights against her temptation to drink avoids going to bars, we pray with our Lord “lead us not into temptation.”

    – Then saying Jesus was tempted so temptation can’t be sin, thus homosexual “attractions” are not sin.

    Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation. In your argument here you have claimed that Dave’s and my argument has redefined homosexuality and made it into a temptation. Temptation is vulnerability to favor sexual attention from the same gender. To act on that either in thought or in deed is completely and utterly sinful, as defined by Matthew 5 and other passages. I would also be willing to contend that seeking out temptation of any sort is sinful. Are we not commanded to flee from sin?

    I apologize for my tone in my last comment. I am very sensitive about the connection I have had with the theology of the Emerging Church crowd and have taken serious effort to clean house about those heresies.

    As far as “practicing” versus “non-practicing,” I stand with the Apostle Paul when in chapter 7 of Romans and acknowledge that what I want to do I don’t do and what I don’t want to do is what I do do. Sin is ugly in all its forms and I pray that none of us are lead into temptation, that we may avoid sin in thought and deed, and that we may all, through the power of the Holy Spirit, avoid being murders and adulterers.

    If you would like to continue to dialogue about this further, I would appreciate that. If not that is fine to, we can agree to disagree. Either way grace and peace to you.

  34. brother Michael says:

    Temptation – Me, I hate it as it is my flesh leading me away from Christ. How many times do I pray Lord, lead me not into temptation. And I find it all around me with the visual being the most difficult. The gym being especially dangerous and difficult as modesty for women is a by-word where they do everything in the power to get men to look at them. Here, my eyes and mind are constantly being tested, and sadly often failing whereby I repent as I know this is sin.

    Yet my attraction to women is natural and Biblical although it is deviant and sinful. Deviant and sinful because it is driven by lust that is fueled by the sin in my flesh. And, even though it is Scriptural and ordained by God for a man to lie with a woman (as his ONE wife), it is not Scriptural nor ordained by God for a man to lie with a woman who is not his wife, nor is it Scriptural for a man to lie with every woman who peaks his interest.

    Regarding homosexuality, the desire for a man to be with a man (or woman w/ woman) is deviant and sinful. Deviant and sinful because it is firstly not Scriptural (i.e. good) and violates the command of God for a man to leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife. This, being the only sexual relationship established in God’s word.

    And it is deviant because it is breaking the clear command of God whereby it is sin for man to lie with man, woman with woman, man/woman with beast.

    The only truth that will truly set homosexuals free is that their eyes need to be filled with light whereby when they seek darkness, as all of our eyes will, then they need to turn aside, repent and press forward. Preaching anything else is a lie and a damnable one at that.

  35. revivalandreformation says:

    Psychologically speaking, a homosexual man or teenager, if you will, comes from a household where the Father was usually invisible or not there altogether. Effeminite and homosexaul tendancies come from a household that doesn`t give the boy what he needs to grow into a masculine male. Why is it (I don`t mean offense here) that a good portion of homosexual men act feminine? It’s been proven that these feminine men come from homes where the male role model was either an unhealthy one or a nonexistent one. This leads to the question: Is homosexuality genetic or a choice? If it is genetic, then God has no choice but to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. Will God punish me for being color-blind or left handed? I didn’t choose to be either of these things, but I can choose to sin and walk in direct opposition to God’s natural way, the way He created and ordained. What would happen to the world if everyone became a homosexual? It was God’s purpose to make us man and woman to procreate. Homosexuals can’t. Where do they get their children from? Heterosexual parents. Is there a point here? The whole premise of a man being attracted to another man and the steps that lead up to the abominable act are all indicators of rebellion. Just as much as a woman who chases after other women is rebelling against what God made her to be. It’s the environment they grow up in and the enemy using this environment to twist and mess their thinking up. One fall leads to another and unfortunately these homosexual men and women are the victims of the enemy’s plans to convince the world to self-destruct.

  36. I just want to point out that even if homosexuality was genetic, God can still blame the person for their behavior. If it is genetic, it would be a genetic defect, which would be – as other genetic defects – a result of the fall. But having a genetic predisposition towards same-sex relations still doesn’t make the person have same-sex relations. Sexual relations are always a choice and one who has homosexual desires can remain celibate. I was born with the genetic predisposition of sexual desire towards women, but that didn’t mean I had to act on those desires outside of marriage. We ALWAYS choose our behavior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s