A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing

104 replies [Last post]
Kevin T. Bauder
Offline
User
Joined: Sat, Jun 6 2009
Posts: 210

NickOfTime

This week the media have been carrying the report of an anti-gay pastor who has been “outed” as a closet homosexual. A conservative Lutheran, the minister had been vocal in his opposition to the ELCA’s decision to ordain openly homosexual ministers. He is now being held up to public shame as a person who experiences same-sex attractions.

According to the publishers of a homosexually-oriented magazine, this pastor has been attending a twelve-step program for men who are trying to live celibate lives while experiencing homosexual attractions. The publishers commissioned a reporter to lie his way into the group. The magazine then published several admissions that the pastor is supposed to have made while under what he imagined to be the confidentiality of the program.

The pastor is now being denounced as a hypocrite both by those who are pro-homosexuality and those who are anti-Christianity. His ministry is in jeopardy. Most people seem to think that he is getting exactly what he deserves.

As of this writing, no one has alleged that the pastor ever actually had a sexual relationship with another man. No one has documented an inconsistency between the man’s profession and his conduct. So far, the case is very different from that of Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals who stepped down from his post after being accused of a relationship with a homosexual prostitute.

The purpose of this essay is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the pastor in question. Indeed, the essay will name neither the accused pastor nor the publication that has accused him. The episode does, however, contain certain lessons that Christians need to learn.

Those lessons begin with an acknowledgment that the problem of homosexuality cannot simply be ignored. A generation ago, this conduct was considered such a shameful perversion that it was barely mentioned in public. On the rare occasions that churches actually had to confront homosexuals, such persons were rapidly and summarily excluded. The notion of a ministry to and for homosexuals was unthinkable.

The situation is now exactly the opposite. Within the “official” culture of our civilization, homosexuality is no longer viewed as a perversion, a disease, or even an abnormality. It is simply thought of as another way of doing sex, and sexual liberty has become the most inalienable right. Any opposition to homosexuality is viewed as almost intolerable bigotry.

This change in perspective is going to affect churches for the foreseeable future. More of the people in our civilization will have at least experimented with homosexuality. More of the people in our churches will struggle with homosexuality. We are long overdue for a conversation about how we intend to minister to them.

As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality. Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.

The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.

It is possible for a person with opposite-sex attractions to live a life of chastity in mind and in body. By the same token, it is possible for a person with same-sex attractions to live a life of chastity. It is as wrong to call such a person a homosexual as it is to call a faithfully married man an adulterer.

Homosexuality is not simply a matter of desires but of obsessions and actions. Nor is homosexuality a matter of identity. Virtually everybody experiences sexual desires of some sort. Those desires, however, do not define us. Our identity consists in our relationship to God. If we are God’s children and we are in Christ, then our conduct (including the conduct in which we engage in our own inner world) needs to be brought into line with our identity.

Homosexuality is not who a person is, but what a person does. Someone who chooses not to engage in the conduct is not a homosexual. Someone who chooses to stop engaging in the conduct is no longer a homosexual. It was possible for Paul, discussing homosexuality among other sins, to say, “such were some of you” (1 Cor 6:11) Whatever their desires, these people were now washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit.

A word needs to be said about hypocrisy. One does not become a hypocrite by denouncing what one desires. We all have the experience of desiring what we know is wrong. Labeling a thing wrong when we desire it is not hypocritical. Indeed, it is an act of courage.

We do not even become hypocrites when we indulge in vices that we know and profess to be wrong. Unless someone claims to have achieved sinless perfection, we must all admit that we sometimes actually do what we know to be wrong. This admission is not a confession of hypocrisy, however, but of akrasia [editor’s note: “lack of self control,” 1 Cor. 7:5]. When we sin we are weak, but we are not necessarily hypocrites.

Hypocrisy occurs when we knowingly label good to be evil or evil to be good. To be a hypocrite is to pretend to believe one thing when we actually believe another. Hypocrisy means attempting to excuse our conduct on the basis of a principle that we ourselves do not really hold.

So what about the pastor with whom this discussion began? Should such a person be barred from ministry? Should he be expelled from the church?

My response is that same-sex attractions by themselves are no disqualification from church membership. They are no disqualification from church office. They should be no disqualification from the friendship of God’s people. In fact, same-sex attractions by themselves should not even hinder Christians from entering the marriage covenant and bearing children.

Attractions are things to be managed. They can be rejected, or they can be dwelt upon and acted upon. They can be learned and unlearned. Those who reject them and seek to unlearn them are not to be judged as if they had acted upon them.

Helping Christians learn how to respond to wrong and even perverse inclinations is an important part of discipleship. Given the increasingly positive treatment of homosexuality in our civilization, this is an aspect of discipleship that churches no longer can afford to ignore. We cannot insulate our youth entirely from the influences of our culture. More of our young people are going to find that they experience same-sex attractions.

Also, more of the people we reach will have been touched by homosexual desires and practices. When they become Christians, they will have to deal with the attitudes and activities of their past. So will we. This, too, is an aspect of ministry that churches no longer can afford to ignore.

Easter Hymn
Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)

Death and darkness, get you packing:
Nothing now to man is lacking.
All your triumphs now are ended,
And what Adam marred is mended.
Graves are beds now for the weary;
Death a nap, to wake more merry;
Youth now, full of pious duty,
Seeks in thee for perfect beauty;
The weak and aged, tired with length
Of days, from thee look for new strength;
And infants with thy pangs contest,
As pleasant as if with the breast.

Then unto him who thus hath thrown
Even to contempt thy kingdom down,
And by his blood did us advance
Unto his own inheritance—
To him be glory, power, praise,
From this unto the last of days!


This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Alen Basic
Alen Basic's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 9 2009
Posts: 9
Amen. Thanks for the post.

Amen. Thanks for the post. This topic is too often shied away from and as a result ignorance becomes a festering ground for all sorts of unbiblical thought on the issue. Not to mention how the confusion between attraction and the actual committing of same-sex acts causes problems in trying to seek pastoral counsel.

I've heard enough sermons demonizing homosexuals and classing them as unsavable reprobates that if I had such attractions there would be no way I would ever tell anyone. Luckily I am in a different environment now where such issues can be discussed. Praise God for this issue being highlighted/

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Archives

Some might find a couple of articles in the SI archive helpful on this topic. They make a case from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by a particular sin (in this case, same sex attraction) does not indicate a believer has something especially wrong with him/her (compared to the capacity to be tempted by other sins like, say, stealing, gluttony, deceit, etc.)

There's been a tendency in fundamentalism and in parts of the biblical counseling movement to depict the attraction itself as a symptom of something deeply amiss and that believers who experience it should aim to eliminate the temptation entirely from their experience (vs. eliminating yielding to the temptation--which is how we handle everything else)
Part 1 http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/11/thinking-biblically-about-homosexualit...
Part 2 http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/25/thinking-biblically-about-homosexualit...

I've more recently come to the conclusion that "capacity for particular temptations" is a complex thing. In some cases, it really does reflect a problem of the affections. In others, it may be a genetic thing. And for some, both. So in some cases, we may be able to reduce or wipe out our attraction to particular sins, but the focus of Scripture is on resisting (and prudently avoiding opportunities).

edited to fix link for part 2 -Jay C.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Being fair to Bauder............................
Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality. Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.
The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.[emphasis added]

To be perfectly fair to Dr. Bauder, we must recognize the constraints of time and space imposed by the very nature of a short article on a very broad and complex topic. Within these limitations, he simply cannot cover all of his bases. Thus, it is fitting to leave the door open for Dr. Bauder to comment and clarify anything that we may wrongly criticize or misconstrue.

The are numerous points, however, that need closer scrutiny, analysis, questioning, and perhaps even refutation. Dr. Bauder did error theologically, IMHO, by comparing same-sex and opposite-sex attractions. The two are not parallel. God obviously created within man the legitimate, natural sexual desire for the opposite sex to be fulfilled within the marriage covenant. Opposite-sex desire and fulfillment only becomes sin when outside the marriage bonds. Opposite-sex desires become sin only when man utilizes them for something other than what God intended. On the other hand, we cannot accuse God of creating same-sex desires because there is no legitimate objective and fulfillment. Same-sex desires are perverted desires without legitimacy other than one's own mind and flesh. Whereas we would not speak of a man's sexual desire for his wife as lust because it is a God-given desire, it is always lust for a man to sexually desire another man because there is no God-given desire and legitimate fulfillment.

Furthermore, Dr. Bauder fails to address a very important and obvious teaching of Jesus if he is going to compare opposite-sex and same-sex attractions meanwhile differentiating between desire and act. If same-sex and opposite-sex desires are parallel as Bauder fallaciously believes, then it follows that Jesus's teaching on opposite-sex desires (i.e. lust - επιθυμησαι) correlates with same-sex lust. Jesus clearly states: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28)." According to Jesus, lust is sin. How can we call same-sex lust anything other than sin too?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Link broken........................

Aaron, the link to Part 2 of your referenced SI articles is broken. Would you please repost? Thanks.

Jay
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2304
Link is fixed

Fixed Aaron's part 2 link - go to http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/25/thinking-biblically-about-homosexualit...

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Lust vs. attraction
RPittman wrote:

Furthermore, Dr. Bauder fails to address a very important and obvious teaching of Jesus if he is going to compare opposite-sex and same-sex attractions meanwhile differentiating between desire and act. If same-sex and opposite-sex desires are parallel as Bauder fallaciously believes, then it follows that Jesus's teaching on opposite-sex desires (i.e. lust - επιθυμησαι) correlates with same-sex lust. Jesus clearly states: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28)." According to Jesus, lust is sin. How can we call same-sex lust anything other than sin too?

Since his view appears to be very similar to mine, I'll answer this... w/the caveat that Kevin's view might be quite different.
Lust and attraction are not the same thing. Sins are always choices. They are not necessarily conscious choices, but are always things we can see later that we, in fact, chose. An attraction to something forbidden by God is not the same thing as a choice to covet it or mentally indulge. This is what Jesus was talking about--looking and choosing to indulge mentally.

About the difference between same-sex vs. opposite-sex attraction. It is true that they are not precisely parallel. But the question for believers is what Scripture leads us to believe about the ways they are different. Haven't reread it, but if memory serves, dealt with that a good bit in part 2.
The discussion in the forum archive might also be helpful. Can't seem to find the discussions on the 2007 version (the series posted in 2005 and again, revised in 2007). But here are links to the '05 discussions
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1192&highlight=thinking+bibli...
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1235&highlight=thinking+bibli...

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
2007 archived discussion

FWIW, here are the archived discussion threads for the 2007 posts
Part 1 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6022
Part 2 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6128

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Aaron Blumer wrote: RPittman
Aaron Blumer wrote:
RPittman wrote:

Furthermore, Dr. Bauder fails to address a very important and obvious teaching of Jesus if he is going to compare opposite-sex and same-sex attractions meanwhile differentiating between desire and act. If same-sex and opposite-sex desires are parallel as Bauder fallaciously believes, then it follows that Jesus's teaching on opposite-sex desires (i.e. lust - επιθυμησαι) correlates with same-sex lust. Jesus clearly states: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28)." According to Jesus, lust is sin. How can we call same-sex lust anything other than sin too?

Since his view appears to be very similar to mine, I'll answer this... w/the caveat that Kevin's view might be quite different.
Lust and attraction are not the same thing. Sins are always choices. They are not necessarily conscious choices, but are always things we can see later that we, in fact, chose. An attraction to something forbidden by God is not the same thing as a choice to covet it or mentally indulge. This is what Jesus was talking about--looking and choosing to indulge mentally.

Okay, how do you know? Do you have a Scriptural basis for this differentiation? How do you know this was what Jesus was talking about?

Quote:

About the difference between same-sex vs. opposite-sex attraction. It is true that they are not precisely parallel. But the question for believers is what Scripture leads us to believe about the ways they are different. Haven't reread it, but if memory serves, dealt with that a good bit in part 2.

I haven't read Part 2 yet, but I will. However, do you deny that homosexual lust is always sin because there is no legitimate fulfillment?

Quote:

The discussion in the forum archive might also be helpful. Can't seem to find the discussions on the 2007 version (the series posted in 2005 and again, revised in 2007). But here are links to the '05 discussions
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1192&highlight=thinking+bibli...
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1235&highlight=thinking+biblically+homosexuality

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Some responses
Quote:

Okay, how do you know? Do you have a Scriptural basis for this differentiation? How do you know this was what Jesus was talking about?

It mostly comes down to definitions... and some inescapable inferences. If sin is something we choose, a desire is not a sin. The word "lust" has a couple of different underlying terms, but I'm not sure (can't remember) that any of them always occur in a negative sense (pleonexia might be an exception). So "lust" just means "desire" most of the time and the context supplies what it means.
But in the case of Jesus' statement, if you accept that sin is something chosen (though not necessarily consciously or intentionally, per the Wesleyan view--not saying that), Jesus must be referring to a choice. What else could "lust" mean there?

But I can do better than that. In James 1, James does a little post-mortem on temptation->sin sequence. I don't have the actual wording in front of me but as I recall the sequence is drawn away by lusts-->enticed-->sin-->death. Everything upstream of "sin" in that scenario is not sin but some kind of antecedent.
Of course, a desire can have a "sinful quality" in the sense that it's object is something forbidden to us by God but a desire is not an act until it crosses over into indulgence of some kind... an intentionally fed desire. But even then, it's not the desire that is the sin but the intentional stimulating of it.

Quote:

I haven't read Part 2 yet, but I will. However, do you deny that homosexual lust is always sin because there is no legitimate fulfillment?

I deny that any desire is a sinful act. It is not an act at all.

James Bliss
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Oct 21 2009
Posts: 42
Kevin T. Bauder wrote: A
Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

A generation ago, this conduct was considered such a shameful perversion that it was barely mentioned in public.

The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.

First, I would like to address the use of the term 'perverse' or 'perversion' which a few posters used. This word is used by Jesus a few times and appears to represent sinners, unbelievers, or both. Which would indicate that we are all perverse or perverted in the manner in which it is used by Jesus.

Secondly, let me state that I do not believe that homosexuality is not a sin. I definitely believe it is a sin, just as many other items are listed as sins. I am just amazed at the focus which is placed on homosexuality to the extent that it drives homosexuals from Christ or even the potential to believe in Christ because they are essentially (if not directly) being told that they are going to hell. Well, without Christ, we are all unsaved and have that same potential (probable?) fate. But, I do have what I consider a significant question which I have never heard anyone address, nor preach about, nor indicate that the sin should be terminated. This sin appears to be completely accepted within many churches, both fundamental and not. This is the sin of adultery.

Now, let me define what this adultery is which appears to be so freely accepted and unaddressed to a great extent (if at all), and definitely not addressed to the extent which homosexuality is.

This adultery is the remarriage of divorced individuals. This has been happening much more aggressively in modern times and not more than 1 or 2 generations ago it was considered a shameful perversion. Jesus expressly defines this as adultery in Mat 5:31-32, Mat 19:8-9, Mar 10:2-12 and Luk 16:18. In most cases this is a blatant and ongoing sin which can be ended, at least to the extent of one of the two parties, by terminating the adulterous relationship which they are living in. But, I have never seen nor heard of any spiritual counseling in this regard. I do understand that there is the single caveat Jesus provides of the 'case of fornication'. Well, a large portion of marriages which end in divorce are not being terminated due to the fornication (although it may have occurred at some time during the marriage), but the divorce is due to some other cause (often 'irreconcilable differences').

The percentage of remarried divorcees who continue to live in sin are the same if not higher than the number of homosexuals. The number of marriages which end in divorce is in the range of 40 - 50%. The number of those which have remarried after divorce are between 40 - 50 %. This would place the number of adulterers who continue to commit adultery at roughly 16 - 25%. The total percentage of of homosexuals in the population appears to be 5 - 10%. Roughly balancing out these numbers to a percentage of population as a whole, they appear to be approximately equal (although I am sure that someone can construe this differently).

From looking at these number it appears similar numbers of the population are living in a perverse adulterous relationship as those living in a perverse homosexual relationship.

Perhaps we need to review how we approach this matter. Perhaps we need to bring these individuals into a belief in Christ and let Christ handle the judgment. Or, perhaps we should alienate all of the adulterers which may exist in the current population and our congregations and place the same stumbling block in their path as has been placed in the path of homosexuals in coming to know Christ.

Then we get into the VERY difficult to quantify number of people who are committing adultery while married by lusting after another person. This verse was cited by someone above. Even more difficult would be to quantify this number to those doing committing this perversion on a regular (ongoing) basis, although they remain married.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Off topic... partly
Quote:

This sin appears to be completely accepted within many churches, both fundamental and not. This is the sin of adultery.
Now, let me define what this adultery is which appears to be so freely accepted and unaddressed to a great extent (if at all), and definitely not addressed to the extent which homosexuality is.
This adultery is the remarriage of divorced individuals.

James, I'd suggest another thread for that conversation. The divorce debate is a complex one and deserves thoughtful consideration of all the facets.

As for preaching against adultery... I have not personally observed that it gets less pulpit attention than homosexuality. It certainly has not in my own ministry. But I'm sure some overemphasize it.
As for barriers to homosexuals coming to Christ, I think we definitely send that signal if we communicate that those involved in it are beyond saving or that those who continue to be tempted by it are "sick, twisted freaks" (to barrow somebody else's phrase) even when they do not indulge in it (either mentally or physically).

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Article missing................

Does anyone know where the NANC article "Effective Counsel For Christians Tempted By Homosexuality" by John Street is posted on the Internet. The links to it are broken. Did NANC remove it? Does anyone know? Suggestions?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Thinking things through...................
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Quote:

I haven't read Part 2 yet, but I will. However, do you deny that homosexual lust is always sin because there is no legitimate fulfillment?

I deny that any desire is a sinful act. It is not an act at all.

How can you say that sin must always be an "act?" How do you know? What is your Biblical basis? To covet (i.e. desire) something belonging to one's neighbor is forbidden as sin (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21). Of course, you may hypothesize a mental act, I suppose. But, God does judge thought. Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness (Romans 4:3). On the other hand, pride, covetousness, lust, etc. are mental conditions and God calls them sin. Furthermore, I don't think that you can rationalize away Christ's clear teaching in Matthew 5:28 (compare with Proverbs 6:25) as sexual fantasy. It just isn't there.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Whose definitions?
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Quote:

Okay, how do you know? Do you have a Scriptural basis for this differentiation? How do you know this was what Jesus was talking about?

It mostly comes down to definitions... and some inescapable inferences. If sin is something we choose, a desire is not a sin. The word "lust" has a couple of different underlying terms, but I'm not sure (can't remember) that any of them always occur in a negative sense (pleonexia might be an exception). So "lust" just means "desire" most of the time and the context supplies what it means.

You are perfectly correct in that the context determines the semantics. But you haven't established a persuasive argument for the context differentiating between attraction and lust. Your contention falls short of a Biblical basis. Furthermore, the appeal to "some inescapable inferences" is weak. These so-called "inescapable inferences" are not inescapable because I don't see them.

Quote:

But in the case of Jesus' statement, if you accept that sin is something chosen (though not necessarily consciously or intentionally, per the Wesleyan view--not saying that), Jesus must be referring to a choice. What else could "lust" mean there?

Well, I certainly don't think it was sexual fantasy necessarily because there is nothing in the text to indicate this. Lust simply means desire or sexual attraction toward the woman. That's the desire (lust) of the flesh.

Quote:

But I can do better than that. In James 1, James does a little post-mortem on temptation->sin sequence. I don't have the actual wording in front of me but as I recall the sequence is drawn away by lusts-->enticed-->sin-->death. Everything upstream of "sin" in that scenario is not sin but some kind of antecedent.

Is this the intentional teaching of this passage. I don't think so. The sequencing does not necessarily imply that sin is only in the third step. Rather, sin is referent to the performing of the intent or desire. From Christ's teaching on lust, it is sin when lust is conceived because it is rebellion against God in intent and desire.

Quote:

Of course, a desire can have a "sinful quality" in the sense that it's object is something forbidden to us by God but a desire is not an act until it crosses over into indulgence of some kind... an intentionally fed desire. But even then, it's not the desire that is the sin but the intentional stimulating of it.

Aaron, you keep talking about an act. Scripture clearly teaches that sin originates in the heart and the act of sin is simply the outworking of what's within. So, how can you keep insisting that sin can only be in action. Am I misreading you?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Problems exist.........................

There are problems in human sexuality. For example, there is the question, as discussed in a previous SI thread, of hermaphrodites or intersexual individuals. Although it is questionable that a human can be a true hermaphrodite, having fully functional organs of both male and female, it is apparent that pseudohemaphrodites do exist where it is virtually impossible to determine the sex of the individual. The debate rages whether genitalia, chromosomes, or gonads are to be the determining criteria. The Scriptures do not address these issues. However, the existence of difficult problems does not preclude us from establishing sound Biblical doctrine on homosexuality, which the Scriptures do address.

James Bliss
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Oct 21 2009
Posts: 42
Partially, yes, but...

The on going sin of adultery as a result of divorce and remarriage is the specific topic which I was addressing, not just divorce, nor just adultery.

My point is the compulsive conversation of the topic of homosexuality as a sin when an almost identical topic which I brought up is brushed off and virtually not discussed. I am definitely not trying to be insulting here Aaron, but you even quickly brushed off the topic by breaking it into the much less controversial 'divorce' topic or 'adultery' topic, and not keeping the two together with the seriousness with which it matches that of the homosexuality topic. Aaron, please do not take this as an insult for I definitely appreciate a vast majority of you comments. It is just that this white washing of a 'more acceptable' event in society aggravates me when it is given such little 'press time' (minimal at best) in relation to the homosexual sin. Many homosexuals point this out with zeal to show a 'hypocrisy' in the Christian church, as well as many other actions by Christians which should be denounced by Christians (protesting at a person's funeral?).

Even on this site the topic of homosexuality as a sin gets much more 'press' time than the similar sin (in both ongoing nature and number of participants) appears to be accepted. Ultimately, I personally fall back on the idea that the most important aspect of being a Christian is believing in Christ first, with the balance to follow. Just that topic, along with the of the entrance of the Holy Spirit can end up with volumes written on it (oh, there have been volumes written on it Wink).

Alen Basic
Alen Basic's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 9 2009
Posts: 9
RPittman][quote=Kevin T.
RPittman][quote=Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

Furthermore, Dr. Bauder fails to address a very important and obvious teaching of Jesus if he is going to compare opposite-sex and same-sex attractions meanwhile differentiating between desire and act. If same-sex and opposite-sex desires are parallel as Bauder fallaciously believes, then it follows that Jesus's teaching on opposite-sex desires (i.e. lust - επιθυμησαι) correlates with same-sex lust. Jesus clearly states: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28)." According to Jesus, lust is sin. How can we call same-sex lust anything other than sin too?

I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding you, so please excuse me if I got you completely wrong. Anyways,

There is a differentiation between lust and attraction, at least as far as I am aware. I would think it's erroneous to assume the two to be the same thing as what I seem to gather in your post. It's recorded even noted within scripture of certain women who are remarked to be beautiful in appearance. Is it to sin to notice beauty? Or perhaps to push this limit further; is it sin to find someone of the opposite sex attractive? As far as I am aware, sin occurs at the point of lust, which isn't the same as finding a person attractive. Lust is as far as I am aware a meditation or a pursuing of the thought.

A person with homosexual desires has exactly that, homosexual desires. They find people of the same sex attractive, that is a given but it's what they do with that attraction that counts. They can meditate on it and lust, or they can physical pursue it. Either way the end result is sin. How they got those desires is up for debate. There are theories why it happens but nevertheless we are talking about the here and now. They have desires now, and now their responsibility is to abstain from sexual immorality, both physical and mental. That is what they control and that is what they are responsible for. Their desires are not controllable but with time as they follow Christ their desires change. Some become fully heterosexual, others somewhere inbetween but regardless God is glorified in their lives so long as they live as He has commanded all of us.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Interesting to note

that women are used to market products to women as much as to men. But the attraction (at first) is not the same as lust... it's probably more akin to covetousness, but it is certainly how a significant number of girls begin to confuse their desire to be like those beautiful women with a desire to be with them in the physical sense. It's hard to draw a line and say "Here's where the thought becomes sin." But IMO it's in the neighborhood of where the thought is allowed to remain instead of being dealt with Scripturally.

Quote:

Pro 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

There are also those verses that indicate that certain affections are natural, while others are perversions, and homosexuality is definitely under that heading, so the inclination in that area is IMO evidence of some unnatural goings on in the mind. (Romans 1:26-27, 31; 2Timothy 3:3)
However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally 'rewire' their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It's a possibility I think we'd be unwise to ignore.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
What sin is
Quote:

How can you say that sin must always be an "act?" How do you know? What is your Biblical basis? To covet (i.e. desire) something belonging to one's neighbor is forbidden as sin (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21). Of course, you may hypothesize a mental act, I suppose. But, God does judge thought. Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness (Romans 4:3). On the other hand, pride, covetousness, lust, etc. are mental conditions and God calls them sin. Furthermore, I don't think that you can rationalize away Christ's clear teaching in Matthew 5:28 (compare with Proverbs 6:25) as sexual fantasy. It just isn't there.

Haven't got time at the moment, but you can peruse definitions of sin in just about any systematic theology.
It really is a necessary inference. If we are commanded not to sin, it must be something one can choose not to do.

As for coveting, this too, is a choice. Isn't it pretty obvious that you do not control what merely crosses your mind? You can control what you decide to do mentally with a desire that you experience. When your stomach empties, you experience hunger--the desire for food. You do not choose to be hungry. You can choose to dwell on your hunger, think about sizzling steaks or fudge sundays. Then you are crossing a line into mental indulgence. But desire itself just happens a good bit of the time.

(I will say, though, that there are things we can do indirectly to influence many of our desires and make them stronger or weaker, and more or less frequent. I think it's likely that Jesus' statement about looking to lust is, more precisely, a decision to look for the purpose of experiencing desire. In that case, it is the act of inviting a desire that is the sin. This sort of thing is included in what I'm calling mental indulgence.)

Quote:

On the other hand, pride, covetousness, lust, etc. are mental conditions and God calls them sin.

Covetousness - when you experience a desire for something you should not have and you do not reject the desire, but rather nurture it
Pride - when you choose to believe things about yourself that are not true (you can be proud without knowing it, of course. We usually are. But it is still within our capacity to believe the truth and not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think.)
Lust - literally, lust is desire. I have not seen your answer to my reference to James. James clearly distinguishes lust from sin. But, in a manner of speaking, any desire can become a sin when we start indulging it mentally.

One succinct definition of in in the NT is "sin is transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) A transgression is something one does--not necessarily outwardly and visibly, of course, but a choice nonetheless.

It's not a matter of rationalizing anything away. It's ultimately not possible to define sin in terms of things that happen to us randomly. That view quickly becomes incoherent. How would we obey a command to never want something? You can only obey in reference something chooseable.

Now I don't want to say the affections don't matter. We are to believe, do and desire according to God's will. But affections are things we do not control directly. So they can be sinful as a quality, but they are not sins. There is much I do not yet understand about them, but the affections are not the same thing as physical/emotional appetites. We're going to have the latter as long as we have unredeemed bodies. Thirst, hunger, sexual drive, fatigue (as in the desire for sleep), and others are built-in realities we will experience no matter how spiritually mature we might be. Isn't pretty obvious that we cannot call these sins?

No, a sin is what happens when we transgress by acting or thinking contrary to God's will or failing to think or act according to God's will. Scripture never says that something that occurs in us emotionally or physiologically is a sin.

My interest in the definition of sin is piqued now so I'll do a little research and post some results. Iron sharpening iron.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
What does the Bible say?
Alen Basic][quote=RPittman wrote:
Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

Furthermore, Dr. Bauder fails to address a very important and obvious teaching of Jesus if he is going to compare opposite-sex and same-sex attractions meanwhile differentiating between desire and act. If same-sex and opposite-sex desires are parallel as Bauder fallaciously believes, then it follows that Jesus's teaching on opposite-sex desires (i.e. lust - επιθυμησαι) correlates with same-sex lust. Jesus clearly states: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28)." According to Jesus, lust is sin. How can we call same-sex lust anything other than sin too?

I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding you, so please excuse me if I got you completely wrong. Anyways,

There is a differentiation between lust and attraction, at least as far as I am aware. I would think it's erroneous to assume the two to be the same thing as what I seem to gather in your post. It's recorded even noted within scripture of certain women who are remarked to be beautiful in appearance. Is it to sin to notice beauty? Or perhaps to push this limit further; is it sin to find someone of the opposite sex attractive? As far as I am aware, sin occurs at the point of lust, which isn't the same as finding a person attractive. Lust is as far as I am aware a meditation or a pursuing of the thought.

A person with homosexual desires has exactly that, homosexual desires. They find people of the same sex attractive, that is a given but it's what they do with that attraction that counts. They can meditate on it and lust, or they can physical pursue it. Either way the end result is sin. How they got those desires is up for debate. There are theories why it happens but nevertheless we are talking about the here and now. They have desires now, and now their responsibility is to abstain from sexual immorality, both physical and mental. That is what they control and that is what they are responsible for. Their desires are not controllable but with time as they follow Christ their desires change. Some become fully heterosexual, others somewhere inbetween but regardless God is glorified in their lives so long as they live as He has commanded all of us.

Alen, I hear what you're saying but it is your own rationalization. How do you know? What does the Bible say? Do you have a Scriptural basis for making this distinction between lust and attraction? You are proposing scenarios that could go on ad infinitum and prove nothing. We do not establish Biblical truth by "what if's." BTW, you need to define your terms a little more precisely because you are confusing attraction, attractive, and the recognition of beauty. It seems that the Bible stresses an inner beauty of spirit rather than the outer adornment and physical beauty. Further, read Proverbs to see the fatherly advice for a young man who may be attracted by sexual charms. Cannot desires be sin? Would the desire to kill someone be sinful? If so, homosexual desires are inherently sinful because there is no possibility of a legitimate fulfillment as with sexual desires being fulfilled within marriage (Hebrews 13:4).

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Some theologies on sin...

Moody Handbook of Theology, p.310

Quote:

Sin is a transgression of the law of God. The Greek word parabasis means “overstepping, transgression.” God gave the Mosaic law to heighten man’s understanding of His standard and the seriousness of transgressing that standard (Rom. 4:15). Thereafter, when God said, “You shall not bear false witness,” a lie was seen to be what it is: an overstepping or transgression of the law of God (cf. Rom. 2:23; 5:14; Gal. 3:19).

Sin is a failure to conform to the standard of God. The Greek word hamartia means “miss the mark,” “every departure from the way of righteousness.” Hence, it means that all people have missed the mark of God’s standard and continue to fall short of that standard (Rom. 3:23). This involves both sins of commission as well as omission. Failure to do what is right is also sin (Rom. 14:23).

Sin is a principle within man. Sin is not only an act but also a principle that dwells in man. Paul refers to the struggle with the sin principle within (Rom. 7:14, 17–25); all people have this sin nature (Gal. 3:22). Hebrews 3:13 refers to it “as the power that deceives men and leads them to destruction.” Jesus also refers to sin as a “condition or characteristic quality” (John 9:41; 15:24; 19:11).

Sin is rebellion against God. Another Greek word for sin is anomia, which means “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) and can be described as a “frame of mind.” It denotes lawless deeds (Titus 2:14) and is a sign of the last days, meaning “without law or restraint” (Matt. 24:12).
Sin is wrongful acts toward God and man. Romans 1:18 refers to “ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” Ungodliness refers to man’s failure to obey God and keep the commandments related to Him (Exod. 20:1–11); unrighteousness is seen in man’s failure to live righteously toward his fellow man (Exod. 20:12–17).

A H Strong is not very helpful

Quote:

We hold the essential principle of sin to be selfishness. By selfishness we mean not simply the exaggerated self-love which constitutes the antithesis of benevolence, but that choice of self as the supreme end which constitutes the antithesis of supreme love to God. That selfishness is the essence of sin may be shown as follows:
A. Love to God is the essence of all virtue. The opposite to this, the choice of self as the supreme end, must therefore be the essence of sin.
Strong, A. H. (2004). Systematic theology (567). Bellingham, Wa.: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The opposite of love of God is not love of self, but rather hatred or disdain for God. "Love your neighbor as yourself" punctures Strong's view.
But even Strong put's in terms of choice... "the choice of self."

J. I. Packer emphasizes sinfulness as a moral feature of man and sinful acts as expressions of that moral feature

Quote:

This moral deformity is dynamic: sin stands revealed as an energy of irrational, negative, and rebellious reaction to God’s call and command, a spirit of fighting God in order to play God. The root of sin is pride and enmity against God, the spirit seen in Adam’s first transgression; and sinful acts always have behind them thoughts, motives, and desires that one way or another express the willful opposition of the fallen heart to God’s claims on our lives.
Sin may be comprehensively defined as lack of conformity to the law of God in act, habit, attitude, outlook, disposition, motivation, and mode of existence. Scriptures that illustrate different aspects of sin include Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 12:30-37; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 1:18–3:20; 7:7-25; 8:5-8; 14:23 (Luther said that Paul wrote Romans to “magnify sin”); Galatians 5:16-21; Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19; Hebrews 3:12; James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17. Flesh in Paul usually means a human being driven by sinful desire; the NIV renders these instances of the word as “sinful nature.” The particular faults and vices (i.e., forms and expression of sin) that Scripture detects and denounces are too numerous to list here.
Packer, J. I. (1995). Concise theology : A guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

So Packer certainly allows for desires that are sinful in quality--as I already have--but in his perspective desires are not sinful acts.

It's a bit hard to find a succinct definition of sin in C T Shedd's Dogmatc Theology. If somebody knows where one is in there, I'd love to see it.

But really, I think this effort is looking increasingly like a waste of time. I think pretty much everybody is agreed that "sin" can describe a disposition, attitude or desire. But when it does so, it is not a verb. It is not something we do. This is just a feature of language.

But Bauder's point--and mine as well--is that "attraction" is something that just happens, has a huge physical chemistry component, and is not sin. It's what we do in response to it or in anticipation of it (which is "response" ahead of time) that can be a sin. I don't know that KB necessarily means to distinguish "attraction" from "lust," but for those getting hung up on the term "lust," a distinction might be helpful. What simply happens to us uninvited, unencouraged and un-nurtured is not sin, that much is sure. If it helps to put that in separate category from "desire," it seems possible to do that. I don't personally see the need.

I'm mostly thinking out loud here. It may be that the best way to approach the question is to go back to our innate condition and then distinguish between what comes from our sinful moral character vs. what comes from our sin-cursed bodies. We have responsibility for the former, and varying degrees of influence as we obey. But the latter... we're just stuck with it until the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8.23).

So the question with regard to same-sex attraction is, does this attraction necessarily come from the sinful character of our being or may it simply come from our bodies? The view that a person who struggles w/SSA is necessarily a spiritual shipwreck requires that we say SSA comes exclusively from our sinful moral character. But this cannot be demonstrated from Scripture.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Okay, I understand.......................
Aaron wrote:

Haven't got time at the moment, but you can peruse definitions of sin in just about any systematic theology.

Aaron, don't you think that I've read the systematic theologies? However, I do understand and accept that you may not have time to deal with the subject in detail at the moment. I think that this is rather ironic, though, because we appear to have a reversal of roles here. In the thread Preservation: How and What? Part 4 (Post # 28), you wrote, "Roland, I respectfully suggest this is a dodge. I can explain my paradigm without recourse to 'go read a bunch of authors.'" BTW, it was not a dodge but I suggested reading for you because it appeared that you were not familiar with the Post-Modern authors and their ideas. My arguments were predicated upon an understanding of their thought.

In the present case, I trust that I am more charitable toward you in that I understand you to have more important things to do than debate me but please don't patronize me by pointing me to the standard pabulum that I already know. All that I ask is the common decency to accept what I say as truthful and mutually recognize that all of us are limited by time constraints outside of SI.

Aaron, feel free to take up this topic and explain your views when you have time. Until such time, we'll consider it on hold without any imputation against your arguments.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Thank you.......................

Aaron, I think that we're making progress here. I am taking it that we are in agreement that sin does not necessitate an outward act to be sin. This includes lust or desire as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:28.

Aaron wrote:

So the question with regard to same-sex attraction is, does this attraction necessarily come from the sinful character of our being or may it simply come from our bodies?

Is there any reason not to believe that it does NOT come the same source as every other lust (desire/attraction) (see James 1:14-15)?

One of my problems in this whole discussion is the word attraction. We do not find it in Scripture. It is part of what the Bible calls lust or desire. With our semantic manipulations, we are able to rationalize away and make Scripture compatible with certain modern attitudes toward homosexuality--namely that homosexual feelings are not the fault of the individual. It is something that they cannot help. Well, we don't know this either from Scripture or other sources. It appears that we are trending to blame it on the body. Blame it on the genes. Blame it on chemistry. IMHO, this is a dangerous path to a lack of moral responsibility and moral accountability.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
What more can be said?
Aaron wrote:

But Bauder's point--and mine as well--is that "attraction" is something that just happens, has a huge physical chemistry component, and is not sin.

What is the Biblical basis for this? BTW, sexual lust has the same "huge physical chemistry component." ( I assume that "physical chemistry" means body chemistry, not the branch of chemistry known as physical chemistry.) The indulgence in heterosexual thoughts and sexual activity produces neural pathways that lead to sexual addiction. Furthermore, there is a definite connection between sexual thought upon body chemistry as evidenced by the premature breast development in young girls who are exposed to sexually explicit circumstances. May I say as kindly as one may in confrontation and refutation, the idea "that 'attraction' is something that just happens" is without Biblical warrant and hopelessly naive and overly simplistic in accounting for all the factors in homosexual desire. Attraction is desire and desire for that which is forbidden (homosexuality activity) is sin. Because we don't definitely know the source of homosexual attraction (i.e. desire), it appears to us that it just happens but that is simply our ignorance. It is something that resides in our corrupt, depraved human nature that is restrained by a sense of morality, social taboos, moral teaching, etc. until aroused by some stimulus. After all, this is how sin is conceived (James 1:14-15)--the appeal to something within us. It may have been childhood sexual exploration, or a domineering mother, or a weak father image, or a thousand other factors in combination but it is originates in our sinful selves that makes us morally responsible and accountable before God. What more can be said?

AndrewSuttles
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 26 2009
Posts: 67
Men Sin Because They are Sinners

Roland -

Good for you, brother! Thank you for taking a stand for truth.

The 'desire' to rebel against the will of God is sin. It reveals the heart of man which is wholly inclined to evil. Men hate God and their natural desires and inclinations are against Him and His will.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
False scenario..............................
Aaron wrote:

What simply happens to us uninvited, unencouraged and un-nurtured is not sin, that much is sure.

How do we know that homosexual attraction is "uninvited, unencouraged and un-nurtured?" Are you depending on empirical evidence? What empirical evidence do we have other than the personal word of people with this attraction? Would they be prone to lie or be truthful in face of moral responsibility? Do we know exhaustively the background of people with homosexual attractions to rule out their involvement in allowing thoughts and desires? How do you know that homosexual attractions are spontaneous? Aaron, I think you and Dr. Bauder are positing a scenario that is not sustainable.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Progress.. apparently not
RPittman wrote:

Aaron, I think that we're making progress here. I am taking it that we are in agreement that sin does not necessitate an outward act to be sin. This includes lust or desire as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:28.

Not quite what I'm saying. What I'll concede is that a desire can be sinful--have a sinful quality--because of where it comes from or because its goal is something God has forbidden (and maybe in a couple of other ways). But feeling a desire is not a sinful act unless you have decided to feel it (I'm not sure that's even possible, so it would be more precise to say "decided to create the conditions that would cause it").
Jesus is forbidding mental indulgence either after desire has occurred or in advance in order to make it occur. It is the mental indulgence that is the sinful act. The desire itself may be sinful, as a quality because it may come from the sinful nature, but it may also come simply from our physical nature. In the latter case, it is only "sinful in quality" because the object is forbidden, not because it originates from inner corruption.

Aaron wrote:

So the question with regard to same-sex attraction is, does this attraction necessarily come from the sinful character of our being or may it simply come from our bodies?

Is there any reason not to believe that it does NOT come the same source as every other lust (desire/attraction) (see James 1:14-15)?
OK, I think I've already been over this, but "lust" is just desire. Are you suggesting that all desires come from our sinful nature?

Let's use an illustration.
Little boy loves apples. But he's already had too many for one day, so his mom says, "Son, no more apples today." He goes out in the yard where there's an apple tree. There are several ways he can sin at this point:

  1. He can go to the apple tree and look at apples with the intention of salivating over them
  2. He can take an apple and caress it lovingly (this is a sin given the situation... he is making provision for the flesh to fulfill it's desires)
  3. He can angrily resent his mother's prohibition
  4. He can defiantly fantasize about eating another apple
  5. He can grab an apple and eat it
(There are no doubt even more ways he can sin in the situation.)

But suppose he avoids the apple tree and a neighbor kid comes over, pulls an apple from his pocket and says, "Hey, want an apple?" The boy's mouth waters. He desires. He has not at that point sinned. At no time is the desire to eat an apple itself a sin. The desire is sinful in the sense that carrying it out would be wrong. It is desire directed toward a forbidden end. It is probably not sinful in the sense that it arises from his rebellious sinful nature! But either way, he did not commit a sin by salivating or even by wanting the apple.

RP wrote:

One of my problems in this whole discussion is the word attraction. We do not find it in Scripture. It is part of what the Bible calls lust or desire.

Well, I don't really need the term. I was trying to make it easier for you to recognize the role of things our bodies do without our permission. Call it whatever you like. Since it's a reality that we experience desire for things against our will at times, it is probably helpful to coin a term for that. The word "modernism" is not in the Bible either but we all recognize that it is useful in applying Scripture to something we know exists.

RP wrote:

With our semantic manipulations, we are able to rationalize away and make Scripture compatible with certain modern attitudes toward homosexuality--namely that homosexual feelings are not the fault of the individual. It is something that they cannot help. Well, we don't know this either from Scripture or other sources. It appears that we are trending to blame it on the body. Blame it on the genes. Blame it on chemistry. IMHO, this is a dangerous path to a lack of moral responsibility and moral accountability.

Well, we have your opinion. But we are not morally responsible/accountable for what is not sin and to decide what is sin, we have to go to Scripture and find out what God's opinion is. It is not automatically the opposite of every component of "modern attitudes." (Modern attitudes also include the idea that we shouldn't engage in dog fighting, for example... so is the "right" view that dog fighting is virtuous?).

James 1:14-15
It helps that you mentioned that. Here's the text:
Jas 1:14–15 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
The sequence here is: drawn away by desires --> enticed --> birth of sin --> mature sin/death
Now why doesn't James say drawn away by sin --> death? Because the desire and enticement are not sinful acts. They may or may not arise from our sinful disposition. In the context they are desires for forbidden objects. But the sin happens after the desire and is, therefore, not the desire. An event cannot occur after itself.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Temptations

One could say that since man is inherently sinful, all our actions are sinful in nature, just as all acts committed by a dog are canine in nature. But that's taking the topic and jumping off a cliff with it, IMO.

It seems to me that we are dealing with the nature of temptation, and in doing so we should address situations such as the temptation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Obviously thoughts passed through His head "I'm hungry", "I'm tired", "Ouch". But He did not follow those thoughts into discontent, covetousness, gluttony, or slothfulness.

However and IMO, there is a significant difference between being tempted by something that is a natural desire- food, comfort, resources, love, etc... and something that is an unnatural desire, such as homosexuality. I'm not going to say that I know where the line is, but I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know it when we cross it. For instance, I remember seeing pictures of Madonna and Britney Spears smooching all over the place at one time, so it follows that the thought of two women kissing goes through one's head at the sight- but to allow that thought to develop into contemplation... that's where you're nurturing a sinful seed. I think the progression that Aaron is pointing out is valid, but I have a problem applying it to something like same-sex attraction because it is a perversion of a natural desire. Hoping that makes sense.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Progress........yes.........by your own admission...............
Aaron Blumer wrote:
RPittman wrote:

Aaron, I think that we're making progress here. I am taking it that we are in agreement that sin does not necessitate an outward act to be sin. This includes lust or desire as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:28.

Not quite what I'm saying. What I'll concede is that a desire can be sinful--have a sinful quality--because of where it comes from or because its goal is something God has forbidden (and maybe in a couple of other ways).

Okay, if you concede that "a desire can be sinful--have a sinful quality--because of where it comes from or because its goal is something God has forbidden," then you have precisely made my point because very homosexual desire (attraction) is something that God has forbidden. In other words, a homosexual desire (i.e. attraction, if you please) is sin because it is rebellion against God by desiring what He has absolutely forbidden. As I have repeated pointed out, and you failed to contest, is that a homosexual desire can have no legitimate object whereas other desires such as heterosexual, appetite, etc. can.

Quote:

But feeling a desire is not a sinful act unless you have decided to feel it (I'm not sure that's even possible, so it would be more precise to say "decided to create the conditions that would cause it").

Aaron, you have failed to establish how this desire came about. I have suggested several possibilities, which you cannot or have not denied. Also, we are back to the matter of an "act." Sin can be mental thought against God. And this is precisely what homosexual attractions are because they mitigate against God's created order of sexuality between male and female.

Quote:

Jesus is forbidding mental indulgence either after desire has occurred or in advance in order to make it occur. It is the mental indulgence that is the sinful act. The desire itself may be sinful, as a quality because it may come from the sinful nature, but it may also come simply from our physical nature. In the latter case, it is only "sinful in quality" because the object is forbidden, not because it originates from inner corruption.

Nope, you can't have this one. Christ's plan statement is "[t]hat whosoever looketh on a woman to lust (επιθυμησαι) after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28)." You will notice that the sin (i.e. adultery) specifically takes place in the heart, not necessarily in the physical consummate of the desire. Furthermore, you have not established that lust is anything other than desire. Your unsubstantiated statement is not enough. It's one man's opinion. There is nothing in the Biblical text that says otherwise. Anything else is one's own rationalization to make the clear statement and meaning of Scripture to fit the prevailing view.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Ignoring my points.................
Aaron wrote:

James 1:14-15
It helps that you mentioned that. Here's the text:
Jas 1:14–15 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
The sequence here is: drawn away by desires --> enticed --> birth of sin --> mature sin/death
Now why doesn't James say drawn away by sin --> death? Because the desire and enticement are not sinful acts. They may or may not arise from our sinful disposition. In the context they are desires for forbidden objects. But the sin happens after the desire and is, therefore, not the desire. An event cannot occur after itself.[emphasis added]

Why do you ignore my points? Is it easier to ignore them than to refute them? I have already addressed your sequencing argument. This sequencing does not hold water.

Compare and apply to Jesus' statement regarding the man lusting for a woman (Matthew 5:28). Christ clearly states that he was guilty of adultery before engaging in physical sexual relations--he sinned when he desired her and lusted but the physical commission, which was also sin, came later. Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment....(Matthew 5:21-22)" The context of this chapter is a condemnation of the Pharisees, who displayed an outward show (i.e. act) of righteousness but concealed sin in the heart. The Apostle John wrote, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15)." Does hate precede the killing? Yes and it is sin. In face of Scripture, how can you deny that desire for a sinful thing (i.e. homosexual attraction) is NOT sinful?

Thus, I deny your sequencing argument as your own eisegesis. Although a sequence is there, it is not the intentional teaching of the text that the process is a benign, although dangerous one, until it reaches the sin act or physical commission. On the contrary, it is sin when the sinful desire (surely you will not argue that it is a good, godly desire even at this point) is conceived--the remainder is gestation and growth until the deed is done and ends in judgment. In other words, the whole sequence is sin from the conception of sin (lust) into the full-blown act of sin. In James 1, sin is the deed accomplished of what was conceived by the lust. When the lust is conceived, the guilt of sin is present.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
What the Bible teaches.....................
Aaron wrote:
RP wrote:

RP wrote:
With our semantic manipulations, we are able to rationalize away and make Scripture compatible with certain modern attitudes toward homosexuality--namely that homosexual feelings are not the fault of the individual. It is something that they cannot help. Well, we don't know this either from Scripture or other sources. It appears that we are trending to blame it on the body. Blame it on the genes. Blame it on chemistry. IMHO, this is a dangerous path to a lack of moral responsibility and moral accountability.

Well, we have your opinion. But we are not morally responsible/accountable for what is not sin and to decide what is sin, we have to go to Scripture and find out what God's opinion is. It is not automatically the opposite of every component of "modern attitudes." (Modern attitudes also include the idea that we shouldn't engage in dog fighting, for example... so is the "right" view that dog fighting is virtuous?).

  1. Please note that I have frequently supported my assertions with Scripture whereas your arguments tend to run more to reasoning, what if's, and fictional scenarios.
  2. Are you implying that my objections are simply in opposition to "modern attitudes?" If so, then back it up with evidence. My opposition is that I understand the Bible to clearly teach something different from "modern attitudes."
  3. I think that I gave Scriptural referents, which you have not refuted, for my opinion. Have you done as much for your opinion? I am trying to determine God's opinion from Scripture, not the politically correct attitudes of our society.
  4. What does dog fighting have to do with anything? Down here in SC, it's cockfighting. Smile
RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Homosexual lust...........................
Aaron wrote:
RP wrote: wrote:

One of my problems in this whole discussion is the word attraction. We do not find it in Scripture. It is part of what the Bible calls lust or desire.

]
Well, I don't really need the term. I was trying to make it easier for you to recognize the role of things our bodies do without our permission. Call it whatever you like. Since it's a reality that we experience desire for things against our will at times, it is probably helpful to coin a term for that. The word "modernism" is not in the Bible either but we all recognize that it is useful in applying Scripture to something we know exists.

Okay, so we've agreed to call it lust or desire? So, are you saying that homosexual lust or desire is okay because our bodies made us do it?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Wanting homosexual encounter....................
Aaron wrote:

Let's use an illustration.
Little boy loves apples. But he's already had too many for one day, so his mom says, "Son, no more apples today." He goes out in the yard where there's an apple tree. There are several ways he can sin at this point:
He can go to the apple tree and look at apples with the intention of salivating over them
He can take an apple and caress it lovingly (this is a sin given the situation... he is making provision for the flesh to fulfill it's desires)
He can angrily resent his mother's prohibition
He can defiantly fantasize about eating another apple
He can grab an apple and eat it
(There are no doubt even more ways he can sin in the situation.)
But suppose he avoids the apple tree and a neighbor kid comes over, pulls an apple from his pocket and says, "Hey, want an apple?" The boy's mouth waters. He desires. He has not at that point sinned. At no time is the desire to eat an apple itself a sin. The desire is sinful in the sense that carrying it out would be wrong. It is desire directed toward a forbidden end. It is probably not sinful in the sense that it arises from his rebellious sinful nature! But either way, he did not commit a sin by salivating or even by wanting the apple.

So, are you saying that a guy who just wants to have sex with another guy has not sinned?

First, here are two questions.

  1. Is homosexual desire a legitimate desire?
  2. Can homosexual desire ever have a legitimate outlet or objective?

Let's think this through:

  1. The desire to eat one's own apple is not wrong because it is a legitimate desire toward a legitimate objective.
  2. The desire to eat someone else's (i.e. covet) apple is wrong because although eating is a legitimate desire it is directed toward an illegitimate objective.
  3. The desire for homosexual relations is wrong because it is an illegitimate desire toward an illegitimate objective.
RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Obvious exceptions..................
Susan wrote:

However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally 'rewire' their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It's a possibility I think we'd be unwise to ignore.

There are obvious exceptions. Two severely retarded boys, who have no concept of wrongdoing, in a group home having homosexual relations is far different from the normal person. Paul said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Even though hormonal and environmental factors may intensify a temptation, the root cause, responsibility, and accountability before God stems from our inner moral being. Believing that God is just, we must leave it to Him to judge justly and righteously.

Dick Dayton
Dick Dayton's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Mar 24 2010
Posts: 129
Transforming Grace

Aaron, This post has certainly generated a lot of discussion. Shows that it is a topic we cannot avoid. In Kevin's article, he mentioned the I Corinthians 6 passage. In the list of habitual sins that characterize the unregenerate lifestyle, God includes "idolators," which would include covetous and stubborn people, "thieves," which would include not giving a full day's work, "revilers" - have you ever lost your temper ? The point is the phrase "such were some of you" should convict us all. This is not an exhaustive, but a representative list. The part of this passage that thrills me is "You were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
The Lord drew me to Himself when I was 23, and the externals of my life displayed my inner depravity. I am deeply grateful for the transforming power of the gospel of Christ. Someone once shared with me an illustration : "It is not sin when temptation knocks at the door. It is sin when you invite it in and entertain it." As long as we are on this side of the grave, we will experience temptations and allurements to evil. James reminded us to submit to God, then resist evil.
As we discuss the details, and try to flesh out every possible circumstance of sin and temptation, let us be careful that we do not superimpose upon Scripture details that God has not chosen to address.
The longer I live, the more I am drawn to a phrase credited to John Newton. "I know that I am a great sinner, and that I have a great Savior"

__________________

Dick Dayton

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Impeccability of Christ................
Susan wrote:

It seems to me that we are dealing with the nature of temptation, and in doing so we should address situations such as the temptation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Obviously thoughts passed through His head "I'm hungry", "I'm tired", "Ouch". But He did not follow those thoughts into discontent, covetousness, gluttony, or slothfulness.

I believe in the impeccability of Christ--he not only did not sin but he could not sin. The Biblical concept of temptation turns on a very subtle twist of meaning. One side is simply trials or testing whereas the other meaning is an allurement or enticement to sin. Christ, I believe, was never enticed by sin (John 14:30), yet He suffered great agony in severe trials and testing. The enticement to sin is an appeal to our depraved nature, which Christ did not possess. James is very clear that the bent to sin is an appeal to something within us (James 1:13-15). The lust (i.e. inner desire) that is enticed is sinful. The irony is that the same desire (e.g. appetite, sexual desire, etc.) may be perfectly acceptable when channeled toward the proper outlet. Like temptation (trials/testings) can become temptation (allurement to sin) (Proverbs 30:7-9), legitimate desires can become sinful. As God can bring good out of bad (Genesis 50:19-21), good can also lead to bad (2 Chronicles 26:16). Such is the wretchedness of the human condition (Jeremiah 17:9).

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Ministry
RPittman wrote:
Susan wrote:

However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally 'rewire' their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It's a possibility I think we'd be unwise to ignore.

There are obvious exceptions. Two severely retarded boys, who have no concept of wrongdoing, in a group home having homosexual relations is far different from the normal person. Paul said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Even though hormonal and environmental factors may intensify a temptation, the root cause, responsibility, and accountability before God stems from our inner moral being. Believing that God is just, we must leave it to Him to judge justly and righteously.

I was thinking more about what we need to consider when we try to minister to people who are struggling in this area. The first thing that comes to mind is often that a person must be purposefully entertaining depraved thoughts, when there could be a physiological problem that needs to be addressed first. Obviously having a physical problem doesn't relieve someone of the responsibility for their actions.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Would not, could not in the rain, on a train...
RPittman wrote:
Susan wrote:

It seems to me that we are dealing with the nature of temptation, and in doing so we should address situations such as the temptation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Obviously thoughts passed through His head "I'm hungry", "I'm tired", "Ouch". But He did not follow those thoughts into discontent, covetousness, gluttony, or slothfulness.

I believe in the impeccability of Christ--he not only did not sin but he could not sin. The Biblical concept of temptation turns on a very subtle twist of meaning. One side is simply trials or testing whereas the other meaning is an allurement or enticement to sin. Christ, I believe, was never enticed by sin (John 14:30), yet He suffered great agony in severe trials and testing. The enticement to sin is an appeal to our depraved nature, which Christ did not possess. James is very clear that the bent to sin is an appeal to something within us (James 1:13-15). The lust (i.e. inner desire) that is enticed is sinful. The irony is that the same desire (e.g. appetite, sexual desire, etc.) may be perfectly acceptable when channeled toward the proper outlet. Like temptation (trials/testings) can become temptation (allurement to sin) (Proverbs 30:7-9), legitimate desires can become sinful. As God can bring good out of bad (Genesis 50:19-21), good can also lead to bad (2 Chronicles 26:16). Such is the wretchedness of the human condition (Jeremiah 17:9).

Whether Christ would not or could not sin, the fact remains that having a thought enter one's head is not the same as entertaining that thought. And whether the word 'temptation' means to 'test' or to 'entice'- we know both happened at various points in Christ's physical life. He was not untouched with the feelings of our infirmities- He somehow was able to experience human weakness without sin. He got hungry, He was in pain. He needed to sleep.

I think we can aspire to that in our own lives, and not beat ourselves up because a thought entered our heads or we are bound by the weaknesses and demands of a physical body, but rather learn how to deal with thoughts as they enter, take care of our bodies so that they do not become stumbling blocks, and endeavor to guard our hearts even as we must interact in and minister to this present evil world.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Clarity

Roland, I hardly know what to say to alot of your last several posts except that I think I've been sufficiently clear ...and summarize my view again.

The Bible does not teach that a desire that is sinful on account of its object is necessarily sinful in its origin or sinful in any other sense.
The question, again, in the case of what you called "homosexual feelings" (this is actually a useful term in some ways), is whether the presence of these constitutes committing a sin on the part of the one who feels them. More specifically does the Bible teach that a person has sinned by feeling these things or that he has a spiritual condition that is necessarily causing them.

As for your observation that homosexual desire has no non-sinful form of expression because it's object is always forbidden, this is true. It is also true that adulterous desire has no non-sinful expression because it's object is always forbidden. The forbiddenness is built into the term.
The difference in the case of homosexual desire is that it is not "natural," as Paul points out in Romans 1. However, the fact that it isn't natural, doesn't prove that it necessarily springs from a person's corrupt nature (and certainly does not prove that to feel the desire is to commit a sin.)
In the case of Romans 1, those guys were given over to homosexual desire as a form of judgment for their rejection of God. But Paul does not say this is the only way to experience "homosexual feelings."

Look, we both believe that homosexual desire is "sinful" in the sense of "wanting to do something that is wrong to do." What I--and KB, assuming I've understood him correctly--are saying is that feeling feelings is not committing sin. There is nothing to repent of in feeling a feeling.
I stand by my boy and apple illustration. We are not sinning when a physical or even emotional appetite is stimulated in some way by something around us through no fault of our own.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Rowland,I think you are

Roland,
I think you are misunderstanding Aaron. Let me try a diferent angle. Let's say I have been a habitual liar - I even lie about things that don't matter. I get saved and the Lord starts convicting me. So a few days later, I am late for work. My boss asks me why I am late for work. My first thought is to say, how I was stuck in traffic, but I don't say that. Instead I admist that I hit the snooze bar. Because of my past sin, my first thought was to sin, but IMO (based on James) I did not sin. Instead, because of God's grace, He gave me spiritual victory.

I think this is what Aaron and Bauder are talking about. Because of a homosexual's past, those thoughts will enter in his mind, but I believe that he has not sinned until he starts fantacizing. Notice, I am making a distinction (as is Aaron and Bauder) between a thought coming in your head and entertaining/fantacizing about that thought. I think that is the idea of James' teaching.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

DJ Lowrance
DJ Lowrance's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 7
Seriousness of Sin

I have one concern, that I believe to often has permeated our thinking as believers and that is the difference between temptation and actually "committing" the sin. Is it really the case that having a thought in our head is not sin if we do not act upon it? To answer this I believe it is necessary we define what sin actually is. I would turn to godly men and great theologians who have defined sin from their understanding of the Text of scripture. Strong: “Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God,
either in act, disposition, or state” (p. 549). Grudem similarly delineates this lack of conformity as being in act, attitude, or nature (p. 490). Thiessen/Doerksen: “Sin is both an act and a principle, both guilt and pollution” (p.185). If our very disposition or state can indeed be called sin, then even if our thoughts come and we by the grace of God do not act upon that thought, that thought must still be called sin. This may not match what most of us have been taught, or be what we want to hear, however according to multiple texts of the scriptures:

Psalm 32:1 “Blessed is he whose sin is covered!” Not just acts (or a single act) are/is being expiated.
Psalm 51:2, 5 “Cleanse me from my sin . . . in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Romans 7:17 “So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.”
1 John 3:4 “Sin is lawlessness,” lack of conformity to the law. This could be what one doesn’t do in some cases; lack of acts.
1 John 5:17 “All unrighteousness is sin”
Romans 14:23 “Whatever is not from faith is sin.”
James 4:17 “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
Matthew 15:19 “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries.”
Hebrews 3:12 “An evil, unbelieving heart.”
Isaiah 1:5 “Whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint.”
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else.”

The common objection is that Jesus was tempted, and those thoughts must have came into his mind, however because He was without sin, He did not act upon those thoughts. However the case is that those thoughts would not have came to Christ, "There is no unrighteousness in Him,” John 7:18

The point of my post is not to theologically nitpick or to be argumentative, but my desire is to challenge us to think biblically about our depravity and how desperately we need Christ and His perfect righteousness.

__________________

Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
DJ, I don't think anyone is

DJ,
I don't think anyone is arguing that acts are only sin....I know I am not. What I am distinguishing is a thought coming into my head from meditating and fanticizing about that thought. I believe Scripturally you can make a good case for that.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

DJ Lowrance
DJ Lowrance's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 7
Where does the thought come from?
rogercarlson wrote:

DJ,
I don't think anyone is arguing that acts are only sin....I know I am not. What I am distinguishing is a thought coming into my head from meditating and fanticizing about that thought. I believe Scripturally you can make a good case for that.

Roger, Thanks for the clarification, I didnt mean to imply that anyone was making that statement. What I was trying to and would like to push our thinking towards is what you have actually summarized. That the thought coming into our heads, in fact is sin. The question must be asked, where did the thought come from? My answer to that question is from our sinful depraved heart according to the verses i cited earlier, so therefore it is sin, before it is even to the point of meditation or fantasizing. Again as I've stated hopefully this is not divisive, but to push our thinking of the text.

__________________

Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
I agree that the thought

I agree that the thought comes from sin nature....But my angle is after someone is growing from repentance...We have all been there. When we are fist seeking to change. An image comes to our head that reminds us of a sin and then we have to choose between sin (whether lust or physical act) and pleasing God. God's grace is what grows us!

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Explanation please................
Aaron wrote:

Look, we both believe that homosexual desire is "sinful" in the sense of "wanting to do something that is wrong to do." What I--and KB, assuming I've understood him correctly--are saying is that feeling feelings is not committing sin. There is nothing to repent of in feeling a feeling.

What is the difference between "feeling a feeling" and "wanting to do something?" What is that feeling if it is not the desire for another man? Also, where does Scripture make this distinction?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Source of depraved thoughts..................
Susan R wrote:
RPittman wrote:
Susan wrote:

However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally 'rewire' their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It's a possibility I think we'd be unwise to ignore.

There are obvious exceptions. Two severely retarded boys, who have no concept of wrongdoing, in a group home having homosexual relations is far different from the normal person. Paul said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Even though hormonal and environmental factors may intensify a temptation, the root cause, responsibility, and accountability before God stems from our inner moral being. Believing that God is just, we must leave it to Him to judge justly and righteously.

I was thinking more about what we need to consider when we try to minister to people who are struggling in this area. The first thing that comes to mind is often that a person must be purposefully entertaining depraved thoughts, when there could be a physiological problem that needs to be addressed first. Obviously having a physical problem doesn't relieve someone of the responsibility for their actions.

No physical or physiological problem produces depraved thought; depraved thoughts originate in our depraved nature. Certain factors may extenuate and stimulate the depraved thoughts but the source is within ourselves.

Alen Basic
Alen Basic's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 9 2009
Posts: 9
RPittman wrote: Alen, I hear
RPittman wrote:

Alen, I hear what you're saying but it is your own rationalization. How do you know? What does the Bible say? Do you have a Scriptural basis for making this distinction between lust and attraction? You are proposing scenarios that could go on ad infinitum and prove nothing. We do not establish Biblical truth by "what if's." BTW, you need to define your terms a little more precisely because you are confusing attraction, attractive, and the recognition of beauty. It seems that the Bible stresses an inner beauty of spirit rather than the outer adornment and physical beauty. Further, read Proverbs to see the fatherly advice for a young man who may be attracted by sexual charms. Cannot desires be sin? Would the desire to kill someone be sinful? If so, homosexual desires are inherently sinful because there is no possibility of a legitimate fulfillment as with sexual desires being fulfilled within marriage (Hebrews 13:4).

Thanks for the follow up! Okay, I think I'm getting where you are coming from. Let me lay out what I gather you're saying and go from there.

Quickly, before I reply I guess I will clarify my point earlier: Noticing beauty isn't sinful. Being attracted to another person (at least we would agree in terms of normal heterosexual attraction?) isn't sinful either. Therefore homosexual exhibitions of the same (noticing beauty, being attracted etc) are not sinful either. In both cases the attraction doesn't necessarily need to be physical attraction but regardless the point is the same. Homosexual disposition isn't inherently sinful.

Anyways, you're saying that homosexual desires are inherently sinful because there is no legitimate fulfillment possible for those desires. Where as I assume you would say the opposite is to be said of heterosexuals in that their desires do indeed have legitimate fulfillment and therefore are not sinful.

I guess the main difference is you equate (if I understand you correctly) the illegitimate desire as an automatic expression of sin (as per your apple example) where as others distinguish between the initial thought and then the meditation upon it, with the later only being sinful. You claim the latter position as a rationalization not based upon scripture, while the former to be a true biblical teaching. Would I be right in my understanding thus far?

I guess the main factor here is our presupposition here of at what point does a thought or desire become sinful. In your case it seems the immediate expression, and others the meditation thereof. Anyways, I look forward to hearing more of what you have to say. If I'm understanding you correctly you seem to be making an interesting point. Anyways..

Now, I'm assuming you are not equating desires with lusting. I am assuming you mean two different things when you say a desire or lust. Which seems to be going against what you have been saying if I understood you thus far. Therefore if you acknowledge there is a difference between this legitimate desire and lust, I agree and would apply the same rules to the one with homosexual desire. The difference being I do not find that their disposition is inherently sinful as you would not class a desire inherently sinful. Anyways..(not sure if I am making sense here..Tongue)

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Where it comes from
rogercarlson wrote:

I think this is what Aaron and Bauder are talking about. Because of a homosexual's past, those thoughts will enter in his mind, but I believe that he has not sinned until

This is helpful, Roger, but I would not necessarily say that he has to have any past at all. I know of one case where the young man began to be tempted with homosexual desires around puberty. He had no past and had not done anything extraordinary to "bring this on." These temptations came uninvited and unwanted. Which leads to DJ Lowrance's question.

DJ Lowrance wrote:

Where does the thought come from?

I believe the thought to commit a sin can come from more than one place because there is more than one way an act acquires its status as a sinful act.
To return to my boy and apple illustration, eating an apple is normally not a sin, but the lad's mom has said "No more apples today." In this case, an appetite for one more apple does not necessarily arise from something sinful in the boy but from his physicality. In this sense, as Susan pointed out earlier, Jesus was tempted. I personally have no doubt that when Satan said "Turn these stones into bread," He felt physical longings for some bread (I admit the text does not say so). There would be nothing "sinful" in the sense of "originating from a corrupt nature" about physically hungering for what would be wrong to eat in that situation.

On the other hand, the little boy is also quite capable of hearing his mother's apple ban, and feeling the ol' stirring of sinful rebellion and wanting one more apple just because he doesn't want to be told what to do. In this case, the desire is "sinful" in an entirely different way. It comes from the corrupt part of his being. It is still not a sinful act. He is not comitting a sin, by feeling this desire, but it is sinful in its character--an expression of his inner corruption.

He could also, as Roger pointed out, feel a draw to one more apple because of his past physical habits and/or feel it because of the past habit of disobedience.

So all I'm really saying is that the Bible does not teach that capacity to be tempted by homosexual sin is spiritually and morally different in every case from the capacity to be tempted by anything else that is off limits. As I've said, it is different in it's naturalness.

Unnatural...
Let's take the boy and apple illustration one step further: suppose rather than apples, the boy has an odd craving for grass. It's not natural for humans to want to eat grass. The boys parents have sternly warned him that it's unhealthy and unsafe for him to eat grass. Let's say he prudently avoids being in the yard alone when he'll be tempted, but he can't help the fact that many places he is required to go in life, there's grass everywhere. He sees it, it appeals to him, but he chooses not to indulge either mentally (yes, I affirm once again that "acts of sin" can be internal as well as external) or physically.
He has not sinned by feeling the attraction to grass, even though it's quite unnatural. He simply has a defect he must live with.

The controversy in a nutshell
Among biblical counseling practitioners, it's common to hear/see the view that homosexual desire must always come from inner corruption and cannot be simply unnatural physicality. I have not found the biblical evidence for this to be very solid, so I do not hold to that view.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
A dog is a dog
RPittman wrote:
Susan R wrote:
RPittman wrote:
Susan wrote:

However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally 'rewire' their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It's a possibility I think we'd be unwise to ignore.

There are obvious exceptions. Two severely retarded boys, who have no concept of wrongdoing, in a group home having homosexual relations is far different from the normal person. Paul said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Even though hormonal and environmental factors may intensify a temptation, the root cause, responsibility, and accountability before God stems from our inner moral being. Believing that God is just, we must leave it to Him to judge justly and righteously.

I was thinking more about what we need to consider when we try to minister to people who are struggling in this area. The first thing that comes to mind is often that a person must be purposefully entertaining depraved thoughts, when there could be a physiological problem that needs to be addressed first. Obviously having a physical problem doesn't relieve someone of the responsibility for their actions.

No physical or physiological problem produces depraved thought; depraved thoughts originate in our depraved nature. Certain factors may extenuate and stimulate the depraved thoughts but the source is within ourselves.

I've already stated that I'm not talking about the fact that we have a sin nature and therefore we are sinners. A dog barks because he is a dog, we sin because we are sinners. I get that.

What I am talking about is that because of our bond to sinful flesh that we are commanded to grapple with and overcome, at what point of the struggle do thoughts and feelings become willful sin? For example, as a woman with four children who has experienced a few instances of severe hormonal imbalance, I know what it is to feel rage for no reason, and be overwhelmed with crippling sadness when I'm actually quite content, and to fall asleep while I am in the middle of a conversation. There are physiological factors to consider when ministering to people, and it is important that church leadership don't ignore the physical when dealing with the spiritual.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Our union with damaged bodies

Susan has aptly illustrated the complexity of the situation. We are spiritual-physical beings and sin messes us up in a wide variety of ways. At the very least, there is the effect of the curse on our bodies. We get tired, we get sick, we feel pain that is not useful (in contrast to pain that stops us from doing something damaging), we feel hunger even though we've already had more than enough calories for the day. We are born with genes that predispose us to one bad habit or another.

We know that Jesus experienced the kind of temptations that arise from being physical as well as the effects of the curse. He also grew weary and slept, thirsted, hungered, felt pain. Satan appealed to His physicality in the temptations, but also attempted to appeal to inner corrupt nature (bow and I'll give you the kingdoms of this world)... only there was no inner corrupt nature. But there was a real physical body and Jesus felt all the desires that go with it.

Do we know that everyone who feels tempted by homosexuality does so because the desire comes from his inner corrupt nature as opposed to simply from his physical body? I have not yet seen anyone prove this from Scripture.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Missing points..........................
Aaron wrote:

To return to my boy and apple illustration, eating an apple is normally not a sin, but the lad's mom has said "No more apples today." In this case, an appetite for one more apple does not necessarily arise from something sinful in the boy but from his physicality. In this sense, as Susan pointed out earlier, Jesus was tempted. I personally have no doubt that when Satan said "Turn these stones into bread," He felt physical longings for some bread (I admit the text does not say so). There would be nothing "sinful" in the sense of "originating from a corrupt nature" about physically hungering for what would be wrong to eat in that situation.

There are some obvious points missing from this analysis.

  1. The comparison of hunger and homosexuality is not valid.
    • Hunger is a natural appetite whereas homosexual desires are unnatural.
    • The desire produced by hunger can be legitimately satisfied without sin but homosexual desires cannot..
    • Hunger is psycho-physiological need to provide nourishment for the body whereas homosexual desires can only be from our depraved, sinful nature. No other factor, chemical or otherwise, produces the desires although there may be things that extenuate or intensify.
  2. The comparison of Christ's temptation (testing/trial) is not parallel to homosexual temptation. (allurement to sin)
    • Christ had no depraved sin nature as we do.
    • Christ was tempted (i.e. tested) through legitimate desires but he did NOT experience homosexual desires.
  3. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for any of this speculation.
  4. The reasoning is faulty because it is comparing things that are essentially different (i.e. natural desires with unnatural desires). One cannot make his or her case by comparing pineapples and bananas.

In sum, this argument is invalid and calls for rejection.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Faulty hermeneutic......................
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Susan has aptly illustrated the complexity of the situation. We are spiritual-physical beings and sin messes us up in a wide variety of ways. At the very least, there is the effect of the curse on our bodies. We get tired, we get sick, we feel pain that is not useful (in contrast to pain that stops us from doing something damaging), we feel hunger even though we've already had more than enough calories for the day. We are born with genes that predispose us to one bad habit or another.

We know that Jesus experienced the kind of temptations that arise from being physical as well as the effects of the curse. He also grew weary and slept, thirsted, hungered, felt pain. Satan appealed to His physicality in the temptations, but also attempted to appeal to inner corrupt nature (bow and I'll give you the kingdoms of this world)... only there was no inner corrupt nature. But there was a real physical body and Jesus felt all the desires that go with it.

Do we know that everyone who feels tempted by homosexuality does so because the desire comes from his inner corrupt nature as opposed to simply from his physical body? I have not yet seen anyone prove this from Scripture.

YES, we do have reason to believe this. In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus explains how man is defiled by sin that originates in the heart. He gives a representative list, undoubtedly not exhaustive, of the things that proceed from the heart including adultery, fornication, and lasciviousness. These sins are roughly in the same genera of sins (i.e. sexually related sins) as homosexuality and they have a direct connection to the corrupted body, yet Christ specifically and clearly states that they are sins originating in the depraved, wicked heart. It follows that homosexual desires are formed in the same place.

Aaron, I think you are employing a faulty hermeneutic. Your question implies that we cannot authoritatively know a thing Biblically unless it is explicitly and specifically stated. Well, I've pointed out repeatedly that many of our cherished doctrines, including inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, which I sincerely believe, do not meet your criteria. My challenge to you is to be consistent in application of your hermeneutics. If we allow the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility to be established by inference, then we must also allow other points, such as the origin of homosexual desires, to be established by valid inference.

Now my question to you, Aaron, do you have a single verse from the Bible that may indicate homosexual desires come from a corrupted physical body?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Physiological factors......................
Susan wrote:

What I am talking about is that because of our bond to sinful flesh that we are commanded to grapple with and overcome, at what point of the struggle do thoughts and feelings become willful sin? For example, as a woman with four children who has experienced a few instances of severe hormonal imbalance, I know what it is to feel rage for no reason, and be overwhelmed with crippling sadness when I'm actually quite content, and to fall asleep while I am in the middle of a conversation. There are physiological factors to consider when ministering to people, and it is important that church leadership don't ignore the physical when dealing with the spiritual.

This can be explain, I think, with the framework of Biblical teaching on origination of sin, responsibility, accountability, etc. Over the past two decades, we have encountered an overlook of new information about the brain and its basic functioning. The problem is that this data is being interpreted within a naturalistic, materialistic (i.e. physical), rationalistic context. Christians are uncritically accepting an essential secular view without reviewing the data and forging their own Biblical view.

The present trend is to a purely mechanistic, deterministic point-of-view, which rules out any concept of sin, responsibility, or accountability. I recognize that there are physiological and physical factors that interact with our sin natures but the sin is conceived in the heart. The other factors cannot excuse the guilt but we have a wonderful of dealing with that--don't we? FORGIVENESS! Thus, our approach is not to mitigate the guilt and responsibility for sin (we solve this through repentance and forgiveness) but our understanding of the other factors helps us in knowing how to deal with the sin through the sanctification process.

One of the interesting things is that as we understand more and more the chemical basis of thought and emotions, it is becoming apparent that we affect our own brain chemistry, which interacts with the body. I have mention premature breast development in young girls who are exposed to sexually explicit environments. Puberty is variable influenced by a number of environmental factors. Also, young children have been found to change their brain chemistry in the production of various compounds triggered by environmental factors (I am not necessarily speaking of chemicals in the environment but I have referring to social, verbal, etc. stimuli.). Many times, our unexplained emotions or feelings have their genesis in the cumulative effect of thoughts, actions, experiences, etc. that established biochemical patterns.

Hormonal imbalance, diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc. do play a tremendous role in our emotions, cognition, feelings, feelings of well-being, etc. However, the thought or desire did not originate with a chemical malfunction although may have been stimulated by it. The sinful thought or desire comes from our depraved nature. Stimuli must have something to stimulate, a hook to hang on. As Christians understanding these things, we are compelled to show kindness, mercy, feel compassion, to pity, etc. but we must never let these matters blind our eyes to guilt and responsibility because our greatest concern is to restore the person to a right relationship with God.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Answered

Roland, I think I've already answered all of these objections.
I've explained the role of natural vs. not natural. I've pointed out that what we're doing here is applying Scripture to things we know happen. We know that people experience desires from their corrupt nature but also experience desires that simply have to do with being physical and encountering a stimulus. If you want to try to prove that the latter never happens, best of luck with that.

I've also pointed out that in James 1:14-15 the commission of sin is distinct from the desire that the temptation appeals to. In the case of Jesus, He clearly was drawn away and enticed to sin by Satan. This is what Satan does. In the process of that happening, the Devil appealed to both natural appetites and corrupt spiritual appetites. Interestingly, he did not seem to know the latter did not exist in Christ. But we know the former did exist. The text says He was hungry.

RP wrote:

Now my question to you, Aaron, do you have a single verse from the Bible that may indicate homosexual desires come from a corrupted physical body?

No. Do you have a a single verse that says they always come from inner spiritual corruption? I have yet to see one.
What we do have is clear teaching (along with abundant personal experience) that temptation can appeal to merely physical desires, whether natural or otherwise.
We also have clear Scripture that temptation and sinning are distinct. So even when a temptation is appealing to a desire rooted in our corrupt sinful nature, feeling that desire is not a sinful act (inward or outward). Makes no difference if it's a desire to lie, a desire to steal, a desire to murder, a desire to commit adultery. The Bible does not teach that a person is sinning by experiencing temptation.

From a ministry standpoint, I think it's tragic (and cruel) to tell a person tempted by homosexuality that he is sinning every time he feels tempted or that he is spiritually sick and twisted as long as the temptation continues to occur. That teaching requires a biblical basis and I have yet to see such a basis.

RP wrote:

Mark 7.14-23

About that, in the context Jesus is correcting the Pharisees (et. al.) thinking that the way to be pure is to avoid outside things that are impure. Jesus asserts that the corruption is within. He is not teaching that a temptation cannot appeal to a mere physical appetite.

But again, let's not get distracted. Whether the desire temptation is appealing to is innately corrupt or not, feeling tempted is not sinning.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Online
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Okey-dokey
Quote:

Hormonal imbalance, diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc. do play a tremendous role in our emotions, cognition, feelings, feelings of well-being, etc. However, the thought or desire did not originate with a chemical malfunction although may have been stimulated by it. The sinful thought or desire comes from our depraved nature.

I've already acknowledged this point. But some sins are premeditated and others are not, IMO. If I am standing around folding laundry, and I suddenly feel enraged for no discernible reason, the fact that I can feel anger comes from my sin nature, but the anger in that moment itself is not because I am purposefully getting myself worked up. What I do is ask the Lord to take that feeling from me, and I focus my attention purposefully on something that will distract me until that feeling leaves. I don't feel the same guilt or need to repent, so to speak, over those feelings as I would if I lost my temper because the dog ate my shoes.

Quote:

As Christians understanding these things, we are compelled to show kindness, mercy, feel compassion, to pity, etc. but we must never let these matters blind our eyes to guilt and responsibility because our greatest concern is to restore the person to a right relationship with God.

Well, if I was arguing that we should ignore sin, guilt, and responsibility in order to acknowledge physical factors that may exacerbate weaknesses in our already fallen nature, I'd understand why you keep saddling up this particular point, but avoiding responsibility isn't the point of my posts, so you can take Ol' Paint back to the stable for a rest.

I'm funnin' with ya' just a bit here. But I think we sometimes have an illogical fear of certain sins, and if someone is struggling with a particular weakness or temptation, we want to hide the women and children and bolt the door, especially when it comes to sins of a sexual nature. If we realize that a struggle in this area is NOT always the result of looking at porn and purposefully encouraging a perverted fantasy life (although one could argue that merely going to Walmart can expose one to pornographic images), I think we can be more helpful to folks and a little less hysterical.

And just in case I haven't made it clear, I agree that there is a difference between struggling with a natural desire and an unnatural one. Homosexuality and related leanings are IMO clearly defined by Scripture as an unnatural affection, just as when a woman can cause harm to or abandon her child- it simply goes against our God-given nature for a woman not to want to protect and nurture her offspring.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

AndrewSuttles
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 26 2009
Posts: 67
Christ WAS NOT drawn away...

What Christ was tested by Satan was to disobey his Father. If He had the desire to turn against His Father, but resisted it, He would have sinned. He did not. As Rowland rightly understands, Christ was impeccable. As the second Adam, He did not (does not) have a fallen nature and so maintained/maintains full communion with the Father. Christ would rather die of hunger, than eat one morsel of bread without it being His Father's will.

From a ministry standpoint, I think it is tragic to not acknowledge that *everything* we desire, apart from the grace of God and the inner working of the Holy Spirit, is sin.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Red herrings all over the place......................
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Roland, I think I've already answered all of these objections.

No, Aaron, you haven't. You offered rationalizations and opinions but you have provided no Biblical basis. Also, I contested your assertions and you have not answered those objections as far as I know.

Quote:

I've explained the role of natural vs. not natural. I've pointed out that what we're doing here is applying Scripture to things we know happen. We know that people experience desires from their corrupt nature but also experience desires that simply have to do with being physical and encountering a stimulus. If you want to try to prove that the latter never happens, best of luck with that.

No, you do not know that people "also experience desires that simply have to do with being physical and encountering a stimulus." How do you know this? The Bible doesn't say this. Also, there is no conclusive evidence from human experience and knowledge. All that we know here is that we don't know--at best, we don't know the etiology of some experiences. If you are going to say that we know, then you are going to need evidence and proof that rules out other possible explanations.

Quote:

I've also pointed out that in James 1:14-15 the commission of sin is distinct from the desire that the temptation appeals to. In the case of Jesus, He clearly was drawn away and enticed to sin by Satan. This is what Satan does. In the process of that happening, the Devil appealed to both natural appetites and corrupt spiritual appetites. Interestingly, he did not seem to know the latter did not exist in Christ. But we know the former did exist. The text says He was hungry.

Well, that's your interpretation and I deny that it is the correct one. There is nothing in the text, other than a the appearance of a superficial step-wise process, supporting what you propose. The text does NOT say or necessarily indicate that it became sin at this point. On the other hand, my explanation that "sin" is simply referring to the act itself whereas the whole process is sinful. We have already established in several ways that thoughts and desires (lust) are sinful. The hatred one has in his heart to fill someone is sinful regardless whether he ever acts upon it or not. Then, there's Jesus' declaration in Matthew 5:28. My fits nicely with these other cases whereas your interpretation of James 1 is at odds and requires exceptions. BTW, James 1 does not say that Satan is the tempter, although he does tempt man, but it says "he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (James 1:14). Our desires (i.e. lust) provide the handle for temptation to drawn us. Our temptation may be triggered by Satan, or circumstances, or our own corrupt bodies but these are only stimuli that appeal to our lusts (i.e. desires)

One thing more, I cannot accept your statement: "In the case of Jesus, He clearly was drawn away and enticed to sin by Satan." This seems to say that sin appealed to Christ ("drawn away" and "enticed"). I would rather think that this is not what you intended to say. Do you wish to clarify or restate?

Quote:
RP wrote:

Now my question to you, Aaron, do you have a single verse from the Bible that may indicate homosexual desires come from a corrupted physical body?

No. Do you have a a single verse that says they always come from inner spiritual corruption? I have yet to see one.

Yes, I've already given you verses substantiating that sexual sins (adultery, fornication, lasciviousness) originate in the wicked heart of man.

Roland wrote:

YES, we do have reason to believe this. In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus explains how man is defiled by sin that originates in the heart. He gives a representative list, undoubtedly not exhaustive, of the things that proceed from the heart including adultery, fornication, and lasciviousness. These sins are roughly in the same genera of sins (i.e. sexually related sins) as homosexuality and they have a direct connection to the corrupted body, yet Christ specifically and clearly states that they are sins originating in the depraved, wicked heart. It follows that homosexual desires are formed in the same place.

Quote:

What we do have is clear teaching (along with abundant personal experience) that temptation can appeal to merely physical desires, whether natural or otherwise.

Correction, please. We do NOT have clear Scripture explicitly and intentionally stating this but we have your interpretation say this. Furthermore, your personal experience is based on point-of-view, presuppositions, interpretation, etc.

Quote:

We also have clear Scripture that temptation and sinning are distinct.

Again, there is no clear Scripture, just your interpretation.

Quote:

So even when a temptation is appealing to a desire rooted in our corrupt sinful nature, feeling that desire is not a sinful act (inward or outward). Makes no difference if it's a desire to lie, a desire to steal, a desire to murder, a desire to commit adultery. The Bible does not teach that a person is sinning by experiencing temptation.

So, what does Jesus' statement mean? He said, "[W]hosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:22)." (see Matthew 5:20-24) Furthermore, this correlates to the idea of being dead to sin when the external temptations no longer stimulate the dead lusts.

Quote:

From a ministry standpoint, I think it's tragic (and cruel) to tell a person tempted by homosexuality that he is sinning every time he feels tempted or that he is spiritually sick and twisted as long as the temptation continues to occur. That teaching requires a biblical basis and I have yet to see such a basis.

Then you cannot tell the man who is tempted toward another man's wife that he is sinful unless he actually commits the physical act of adultery. This flies directly in the face of Matthew 5:28. Concerning physical temptation, it is interesting to note Matthew 5:29.

Quote:
RP wrote:

Mark 7.14-23

About that, in the context Jesus is correcting the Pharisees (et. al.) thinking that the way to be pure is to avoid outside things that are impure. Jesus asserts that the corruption is within. He is not teaching that a temptation cannot appeal to a mere physical appetite.

True, but He definitely and clearly identified the source of sin as within man. Again, this correlates exactly with James 1:14-15. Now, what is a "mere physical appetite?" Even hunger, one of the most basic appetites, has its control in brain centers.

Quote:

But again, let's not get distracted. Whether the desire temptation is appealing to is innately corrupt or not, feeling tempted is not sinning.

Again, Aaron, what is feeling tempted? Is this different from being tempted. Temptation (i.e. allurement or enticement to sin) is like a stimulus-response package. Exposure to the stimulus is not wrong but the response (i.e. desire, lust) can be. People who are exposed to the same stimulus may or may not be tempted depending on their inner man.

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
AndrewSuttles wrote: What
AndrewSuttles wrote:

What Christ was tested by Satan was to disobey his Father. If He had the desire to turn against His Father, but resisted it, He would have sinned. He did not. As Rowland rightly understands, Christ was impeccable. As the second Adam, He did not (does not) have a fallen nature and so maintained/maintains full communion with the Father. Christ would rather die of hunger, than eat one morsel of bread without it being His Father's will.

From a ministry standpoint, I think it is tragic to not acknowledge that *everything* we desire, apart from the grace of God and the inner working of the Holy Spirit, is sin.

Of course, Andrew, but that does NOT mean that our desires are necessarily sinful.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
RPittman wrote: Aaron Blumer
RPittman wrote:
Aaron Blumer wrote:

From a ministry standpoint, I think it's tragic (and cruel) to tell a person tempted by homosexuality that he is sinning every time he feels tempted or that he is spiritually sick and twisted as long as the temptation continues to occur. That teaching requires a biblical basis and I have yet to see such a basis.

Then you cannot tell the man who is tempted toward another man's wife that he is sinful unless he actually commits the physical act of adultery. This flies directly in the face of Matthew 5:28. Concerning physical temptation, it is interesting to note Matthew 5:29.

Roland, I can't believe how much you misunderstand clear statements from Aaron. Aaron is NOT saying that you don't sin unless you commit the physical act of adultery. Of course someone can sin by lusting after a woman in his mind. But how do you define "lusting after a woman?" You seem to define even the temptation to lust after a woman as sin. I don't see that in Scripture. It couldn't be more obvious to me that temptation is not the same thing as sin. Temptation is not the same as yielding to temptation, unless you're prepared to say that Jesus sinned because He was tempted.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

AndrewSuttles
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 26 2009
Posts: 67
Temptation is Testing; Not Desiring

I fear the way some here are using the term temptation is in the sense of desiring something. The word tempt means, in its normal usage, to test something. Christ desired bread and Satan tested Him to see whether he would defy his Father by turning a stone to bread. Christ's physical nature longed for the bread, but He had no desire to do anything that was not commanded by the Father. Jesus did NOT sin because He did not desire anything in His heart, not even for a second, but obedience to His Father.

The boy with the apples, desires to disobey his mother. He despises her command, but does not sin against her for fear of punishment; this is not so with Christ.

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
AndrewSuttles wrote: I fear
AndrewSuttles wrote:

I fear the way some here are using the term temptation is in the sense of desiring something. The word tempt means, in its normal usage, to test something. Christ desired bread and Satan tested Him to see whether he would defy his Father by turning a stone to bread. Christ's physical nature longed for the bread, but He had no desire to do anything that was not commanded by the Father. Jesus did NOT sin because He did not desire anything in His heart, not even for a second, but obedience to His Father.

The boy with the apples, desires to disobey his mother. He despises her command, but does not sin against her for fear of punishment; this is not so with Christ.

No, to tempt means to entice to sin. That's why God cannot tempt anyone.

Having a sin nature and committing acts of sin, although both bring guilt before God, are two different things. Right now as I type this I have a sin nature, but I am not (consciously at least) committing an act of sin. So it makes no sense to say that simply because desires come from a sinful nature that they are inherently sinful. First, we don't know which desires come from our sinful nature and which come from simply being human. Second, James couldn't be more clear that the desire to sin is not sin itself. Yes, the desire may come from a sinful heart, but it does not become sin until acted upon, whether in word, thought, or deed.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
AndrewSuttles wrote: What
AndrewSuttles wrote:

What Christ was tested by Satan was to disobey his Father. If He had the desire to turn against His Father, but resisted it, He would have sinned. He did not. As Rowland rightly understands, Christ was impeccable. As the second Adam, He did not (does not) have a fallen nature and so maintained/maintains full communion with the Father. Christ would rather die of hunger, than eat one morsel of bread without it being His Father's will.

From a ministry standpoint, I think it is tragic to not acknowledge that *everything* we desire, apart from the grace of God and the inner working of the Holy Spirit, is sin.

Do you believe that when you desire to eat a sandwich this is the working of the Holy Spirit?
I don't think this view is tenable.

As for Christ's nature, just to be clear, I also affirm His impeccability and maintain that it was impossible for Him to sin. Nothing I've said is incompatible with that.
He did, however, have physical appetites and Satan did appeal to them. There is no other way to make sense of Matthew 4 and Luke 4. Now some want to give "drawn away" in James 1 a technical sense that includes a sin principle within. If you take it that way, then yes, you have to say Jesus was not drawn away. But the fact remains that He hungered. The text says so. And the Devil clearly attempted to leverage His hunger.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Application
RP wrote:

No, you do not know that people "also experience desires that simply have to do with being physical and encountering a stimulus." How do you know this?

I know this because I--and everyone I know very well at all--have experienced it. Like I've experienced mowing my lawn. That's not in the Bible either, but I'm pretty sure it has happened a few times.
What Kevin's trying to do here--and I am also--is apply Scripture to experience. If you do not believe the experience in question exists, we probably just don't have anything to talk about on that subject.

For those of us who believe it exists, we need to try to understand how Scripture speaks to it.

You still can't show that Scripture teaches anywhere that feeling tempted is sinning. It just isn't there.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
A more systematic response... apologies for triple posting

OK, I've got some time now, so I'll try to respond more systematically.

By the way, for those getting annoyed or bored w/the exchange between Roland and I, I hope you can see we're not just squabbling here. The questions we're debating have important implications. How we answer them has alot of impact on how we deal w/brothers and sisters who are struggling with temptation of any kind and of the homosexual kind in particular.

I've been tempted (no pun intended) to walk away from the thread, but the subject matter is too important to me to do that yet. And there are still questions here and there I don't think I've answered.

RPittman wrote:

There is nothing in the text [James 1:14-15], other than a the appearance of a superficial step-wise process, supporting what you propose. The text does NOT say or necessarily indicate that it became sin at this point. ... the whole process is sinful.

We'll just have to disagree about that. I'm comfortable letting folks read it and see if they think the sequence there is "superficial."
But I do want to clarify that I have not denied that "the whole process is sinful." I believe it quite often is, but sometimes is not. In any case, the passage does not say the whole process is sinful. Sin appears after desire gives birth.

RPittman wrote:

I cannot accept your statement: "In the case of Jesus, He clearly was drawn away and enticed to sin by Satan." This seems to say that sin appealed to Christ ("drawn away" and "enticed"). I would rather think that this is not what you intended to say. Do you wish to clarify or restate?

This is an important question because it helps bring into focus what I am saying and what I am not saying. Being enticed does not require that sin be appealing as sin. In the case of Christ's temptation--the bread one in particular--you have a desire to eat. Jesus is not in any way attracted to sin, but He is attracted to eating. It's just very inconvenient for Him that at that moment eating would have been wrong.
But we're back to the scenario of desire coming from our physicality vs. from our corrupt nature. If you do not believe this ever happens, there is certainly nothing I can do to convince you.
For those who find that experience familiar, it isn't hard to understand how Jesus was drawn by the desire to eat yet not drawn by any desire to sin.

Personally, I experience this almost daily. I'm trying to lose a little weight. Food appeals to me physically far in excess of what I need to consume. I am not drawn to that thick juicy hamburger because I want to sin, but because it tastes phenomenal (especially at Culvers... you guys in states w/o Culvers do not know how much you are missing... Hardee's is pretty good, too but I digress. You now see why I have a problem in this area!).
Of course, I can't prove that my attraction to cheddar butter burgers is not rooted in my sinful nature, but nonetheless, I know it's really my stomach.

But the more important point is that desiring is not sinning, regardless. That distinction is just more clear when we're talking about a desire that is just chemistry. At least, I think it's more clear to most people!

RPittman wrote:

So, what does Jesus' statement mean? He said, "[W]hosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:22)." (see Matthew 5:20-24)

He means it is sin to be angry with your brother without cause.
Anger is another interesting case. We can feel a certain amount of anger uninvited, involuntarily. Again, this is common experience. If you believe you've never experienced that, I can't convince you (actually maybe I could... by kicking you in the shins). But this is why Paul says don't let the sun set on your wrath. The idea is that at some point (hard to precisely define), the anger that simply happens crosses over into anger that we are choosing. When we are choosing it, we are sinning (if it's "without cause.") We are indulging. It is an act of inward sin.

RPittman wrote:

Then you cannot tell the man who is tempted toward another man's wife that he is sinful unless he actually commits the physical act of adultery. This flies directly in the face of Matthew 5:28. Concerning physical temptation, it is interesting to note Matthew 5:29.

It does indeed fly directly in the face of Matt 5:28, which is why I don't take that view. I've said that mental indulgence is sin. Desiring is not sinning, choosing to invite that desire, keep it going or increase it--this is sinning. Jesus is talking about an act one commits inwardly.

RPittman wrote:
Aaron wrote:

About that, in the context Jesus is correcting the Pharisees (et. al.) thinking that the way to be pure is to avoid outside things that are impure. Jesus asserts that the corruption is within. He is not teaching that a temptation cannot appeal to a mere physical appetite.

True, but He definitely and clearly identified the source of sin as within man.

Yes. I don't think that's in dispute. The source of sin is within man. This does not deny that sin often involves physical desires.
In the case of Jesus' temptation again, for example, the sin of turning the stone to bread and eating it (whatever exactly that sin would have been) would have no appeal to anyone without an empty stomach in the scenario. In Jesus' case that's its only appeal. Why do you think both Matthew and Luke point out that He was hungry? (Matt 4.2, Luke 4.2)

RPittman wrote:

Again, Aaron, what is feeling tempted? Is this different from being tempted. Temptation (i.e. allurement or enticement to sin) is like a stimulus-response package. Exposure to the stimulus is not wrong but the response (i.e. desire, lust) can be.

This is very interesting wording... "can be." Should I infer that you believe sometimes it may not be?

What I've been saying from the beinning, (consistently, I hope), is that a desire can be sinful in character. But a desire is not a sinful act (inward). Desire is what makes you want to act (inwardly or outwardly), it is not an act. Of course, folks are free to use the word "desire" more broadly if they wish, and sometimes the Bible does (as in Matt 5), but sometimes it doesn't (as in James 1).
We need some term to describe the pull we feel toward an act (inward or outward) that precedes the act but is not an act. One reason we need it is because James reveals that this is important for understanding and ultimately resisting temptation. It's not just a random coincidence that he points out one leading to the other. I personally believe it's most clear and consistent to call this "desire" and distinguish it from "mental indulgence." But yes, there are places where desire (translated "lust" usually) refers to the act of mental indulgence.

RPittman wrote:

People who are exposed to the same stimulus may or may not be tempted depending on their inner man.

Agreed. But they may also be tempted or not tempted due to other factors also, such as the circumstances of the day (tired, hungry, etc.). Who hasn't been tempted to snap at an irritating person after not sleeping well and not tempted at all after a good night's rest?

A summary of my view...

  1. Some temptations are predicated on physical appetites alone. Others are predicated on our sinful nature alone (pride, malice, etc.), and many (probably most) are predicated on both.
  2. A sinful act may be outward or inward.
  3. A desire may come upon us unwanted, uninvited and unapproaved of--and we are not sinning when we feel these desires, regardless of their objects.
  4. We are sinning if we invite, encourage, or otherwise indulge a desire to do something wrong.
  5. Jesus was tempted by the physical desire to eat, but not by any desire to sin. (Though we are sinners, it doesn't follow that we may not also be tempted by a mere physical desire.)
  6. Homosexual desire is unnatural (Rom. 1.26). But the Bible does not teach that a person is sinning when he/she feels it (bearing in mind that I distinguish between feeling it and indulging it, the latter involving choice, the former not).
  7. Desires that arise from our sinful nature grow fewer, less intense and less heinous as we grow in Christlikeness.
  8. Our ability to resist desires increases as we grow in Christlikeness.
  9. Homosexual desire--like many others--may be merely physical for some people, physical and spiritual (ie., arising from sin nature) for others. So some see the desires themselves (i.e., feeling tempted) diminish as they grow in grace.
  10. Habit strengthens desire, so resistance to desires can result in less frequent and intense desires over time (I owe somebody else in the thread for this point. I had completely forgotten about that factor until someone posted about it here).

OK... I don't know if we have a post length limit but if there is one, I must be getting close.

REShanks
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 5 2009
Posts: 17
Some thoughts

1. Mt. 5:26. Jesus is addressing adultery in mind and body. Notice the wording: "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Jesus is not addressing temptation, but intentional mental adultery; that sin is a sin even if it is in the heart where no one can see it. I don't believe that this has much bearing upon the discussion. Dr. Bauder et al would affirm that committing any kind of immorality in the heart is sin. We need to look elsewhere for verses addressing temptation to adultery (or any other sexual sin).

2. Rom. 1:26-32. Notice that God is addressing vile or degrading passions and the exchange of the natural physical functions of the sexual relationships. These are individuals who have taken the action of exchanging a normal sexual relationship for an unnatural one and are now burning in their lusts and committing what is shameful. This again seems to be addressing the nature of their sin and is not speaking of a temptation to do so. A "debased mind" doing "those things which are not fitting" participates in immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, strife, etc. How did it begin? By worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. Sexual desires are natural; it, however, is sinful to fulfill them with close relatives, animals, children, the dead, someone you are not married to, and someone of your own gender. When one is tempted to think sexually about someone/thing that is forbidden, one must deal immediately with that temptation, but it seems to be a stretch to say that this temptation to sin is a sin in itself while other temptations to sin are not. This passage is addressing chosen actions and lifestyles not the temptation to sin or reject what God has declared to be right.

It seems like some are making a tempest in a teapot over being tempted. One can be tempted to think about a man or a woman in a way that he should not, but the Bible seems to clearly indicate through our Lord's example and through the various NT texts that one gets victory over sinning by choosing not to act (in thought or in deed) on the temptation. With every temptation is the way of escape; how can one say that some temptations are the sin?

It seems like some are in a tangle about the words "attraction" or "feeling". Who cares about that? God doesn't address it. He does address "temptation", and that is what we have to deal with regardless of whether there are "feelings" or "attractions" involved. In all temptation there are contributing physiological and mental factors which makes it very important that we set our affections on things above so that these factors are more influenced by Scripture than by the old man.

With regard to "lust", the issue seems to be similar. It is sin when a desire is expressed (mentally or physically) in a sinful way (i.e. the desire for physical intimacy/fulfillment being expressed with a member of the same gender). To separate temptation to sexual desire expressed toward a member of the same sex as different from the temptation for deviant sexual desires expressed as bestiality, incest, or child molestation seems a stretch.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Some thoughts

Thanks for the post. I think it covers things really well. I'd only take slight exception to a little bit at the end...

RES wrote:

It seems like some are in a tangle about the words "attraction" or "feeling". Who cares about that? God doesn't address it. He does address "temptation", and that is what we have to deal with regardless of whether there are "feelings" or "attractions" involved. In all temptation there are contributing physiological and mental factors which makes it very important that we set our affections on things above so that these factors are more influenced by Scripture than by the old man.

"Attraction" and "feeling" are important for two reasons. One, when our goal is application of Scripture to our experience, these terms are usually meaningful to people . Two, they are really synonyms for desire or whatever we want to call the pull toward a sinful choice before we actually make any choices.
In my back and forth w/Roland I changed terms several times (in reference to basically the same thing) in an effort to be more clear. So I was hoping to find one that would work better.

RES wrote:

With regard to "lust", the issue seems to be similar. It is sin when a desire is expressed (mentally or physically) in a sinful way (i.e. the desire for physical intimacy/fulfillment being expressed with a member of the same gender).

This seems to contradict what you say earlier in your post, so I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe "expressed" here means "responded to by making a sinful choice"?

RES wrote:

To separate temptation to sexual desire expressed toward a member of the same sex as different from the temptation for deviant sexual desires expressed as bestiality, incest, or child molestation seems a stretch.

I don't think anyone has done that in the thread, but I'm not sure not sure it should be a "given." In any case, my advice to any believer tempted in these areas would be to deal with it in the same way we deal with heterosexual desires/temptations involving someone you're not married to. I would advise them to seek to grow in Christ, avoid foolish exposure to tempting circumstances, but not try to untangle inner mysteries involving the causes of their desires/temptations and not to believe that it is their responsibility to make the temptations go away. Rather, the responsibility lies in obedience--inward and outward.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
That's your interpretation...............
REShanks wrote:

Mt. 5:26. Jesus is addressing adultery in mind and body. Notice the wording: "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Jesus is not addressing temptation, but intentional mental adultery; that sin is a sin even if it is in the heart where no one can see it. I don't believe that this has much bearing upon the discussion. Dr. Bauder et al would affirm that committing any kind of immorality in the heart is sin. We need to look elsewhere for verses addressing temptation to adultery (or any other sexual sin).

Temptation is the enticement or allurement to sin. To lust is to desire. Thus, the wording of Christ's statement that "whoever looks at a woman to lust (i.e. desire) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" indicates simply that the man desires her. To desire that which is forbidden is to be tempted. From the text, how do you know that it is "intentional mental adultery?" The literal reading of the text says that when the man has desire for her, he has already committed adultery in his heart. So, how can you NOT call this temptation?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Temptation is to desire (i.e. lust).............
Greg Long wrote:

Roland, I can't believe how much you misunderstand clear statements from Aaron. Aaron is NOT saying that you don't sin unless you commit the physical act of adultery. Of course someone can sin by lusting after a woman in his mind. But how do you define "lusting after a woman?" You seem to define even the temptation to lust after a woman as sin. I don't see that in Scripture. It couldn't be more obvious to me that temptation is not the same thing as sin. Temptation is not the same as yielding to temptation, unless you're prepared to say that Jesus sinned because He was tempted.

Greg, I appreciate your sincere attempt to correct what you perceive as my misunderstanding but I fear that you do not understand. BTW, I do define temptation as lust (i.e. desire) for a woman. Lust does not have to be a full-blown sexual fantasy but it is any sexual desire toward a woman who is not your wife. And that is simply what Jesus said in Matthew 5:28. Doubtless, most of us men have been guilty! That's what is hard about it and we would rather remove it to some pornographic fantasy with premeditation. Temptation is to desire something that is forbidden. If a man looks at a woman in a way that he desires her or feels any measure of arousal, then he is tempted and lusts. Thus, my argument has been from the beginning that when a man feels same-sex attraction (i.e. desire, lust) for another man, it is sin.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Again, how do you know?
Aaron wrote:

It does indeed fly directly in the face of Matt 5:28, which is why I don't take that view. I've said that mental indulgence is sin. Desiring is not sinning, choosing to invite that desire, keep it going or increase it--this is sinning. Jesus is talking about an act one commits inwardly.

Aaron, I think we can probably agree without arguing that lust ( επιθυμησαι) is simply desire. It incorporates the ideas of longing for, desiring, coveting, lusting, and connotatively to desire that which is forbidden. It can be established Biblically but I really don't have the time and patience to pedantically cover what both you and I know. Thus, from the Biblical text, I challenge you to support that Jesus is speaking of "mental indulgence." The plain literal reading is simply desire and I think that's what Jesus said and intended. Sure, it cuts against our preconceptions just as it did against the Pharisees'. Furthermore, I would like to see clear Biblical evidence undergirding the following statement: "Desiring is not sinning, choosing to invite that desire, keep it going or increase it--this is sinning." Where does the Bible tell us that desiring a wicked thing is not sinning?

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Not understanding temptation........................
REShanks wrote:

It seems like some are making a tempest in a teapot over being tempted. One can be tempted to think about a man or a woman in a way that he should not, but the Bible seems to clearly indicate through our Lord's example and through the various NT texts that one gets victory over sinning by choosing not to act (in thought or in deed) on the temptation. With every temptation is the way of escape; how can one say that some temptations are the sin?

The problem here is the understanding of the word temptation. It is a two-sided coin with one meaning as testing or trial whereas the other usage is the enticement or allurement to sin. Scripture tells us that "God cannot be tempted (allured/enticed) with evil (James 1:13)" but Christ was "was in all points tempted (tested/tried) like as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15)." Many times testings and trials can turn into the other temptation by prompting us to sin. For example, extreme poverty and hardship can cause us to be angry and resent God (e.g. Job did not sin in face of adversity--Job 1:22--also see Hebrews 3:8, James 1:12, Revelation 3:10) . In the context of 1 Corinthians 10:13, it is obviously speaking of testings and trials, which God has promised to provide a way out (cf. Philippians 4:13). So, it is pretty well-established by the few referenced texts and many more, that temptation is trial or testing but James 1:13 clearly establishes the usage of tempted as meaning the enticement or allurement to sin as well. God tests and tries but he does not entice or allure one to sin. Thus, the confusion is when an understanding of the two senses of temptation is lacking.

REShanks
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 5 2009
Posts: 17
Context, Context, Context
RPittman wrote:
REShanks wrote:

Mt. 5:26. Jesus is addressing adultery in mind and body. Notice the wording: "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Jesus is not addressing temptation, but intentional mental adultery; that sin is a sin even if it is in the heart where no one can see it. I don't believe that this has much bearing upon the discussion. Dr. Bauder et al would affirm that committing any kind of immorality in the heart is sin. We need to look elsewhere for verses addressing temptation to adultery (or any other sexual sin).

Temptation is the enticement or allurement to sin. To lust is to desire. Thus, the wording of Christ's statement that "whoever looks at a woman to lust (i.e. desire) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" indicates simply that the man desires her. To desire that which is forbidden is to be tempted. From the text, how do you know that it is "intentional mental adultery?" The literal reading of the text says that when the man has desire for her, he has already committed adultery in his heart. So, how can you NOT call this temptation?

The text speaks about looking to lust; it speaks of intent. The whole context demands that we understand that one is choosing to commit adultery in his heart because he wouldn't do it outwardly (the Pharisees). Jesus point is that one can sin with his mind; just keeping external rules does not make one holy. The Lord is not making the point that an unbidden feeling or accidental look is equivalent to adultery. This is completely out of the context of the passage and is the kind of teaching that messes up so many fundamentalists.

REShanks
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 5 2009
Posts: 17
Lust is MORE than just desire
RPittman wrote:

Aaron, I think we can probably agree without arguing that lust ( επιθυμησαι) is simply desire.

No, I think the translators are correct--the meaning of the word in this context is "lust": a longing for and coveting something, particularly something which is forbidden. One needs to be careful about replacing the Bible text with one's own interpretation. Jesus is talking about looking at a women to lust (covet or long for in a forbidden way) for her; the word and the context imply mental adultery. When one is talking about a feeling that arises from an unbidden look or an unsought thought, one is NOT talking about the lust that Christ is here referring to.

REShanks
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 5 2009
Posts: 17
Aaron Blumer wrote: Thanks
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Thanks for the post. I think it covers things really well. I'd only take slight exception to a little bit at the end...

RES wrote:

It seems like some are in a tangle about the words "attraction" or "feeling". Who cares about that? God doesn't address it. He does address "temptation", and that is what we have to deal with regardless of whether there are "feelings" or "attractions" involved. In all temptation there are contributing physiological and mental factors which makes it very important that we set our affections on things above so that these factors are more influenced by Scripture than by the old man.

"Attraction" and "feeling" are important for two reasons. One, when our goal is application of Scripture to our experience, these terms are usually meaningful to people . Two, they are really synonyms for desire or whatever we want to call the pull toward a sinful choice before we actually make any choices.
In my back and forth w/Roland I changed terms several times (in reference to basically the same thing) in an effort to be more clear. So I was hoping to find one that would work better.

I have no problem with what you are saying. The point that I was trying to make was that the temptation to sin--whether it comes as a feeling, attraction, desire, thought--is not the sin. Some seem to be making more of the various ways we physiologically respond in temptations and trying to force Bible texts upon them, thereby making the temptation itself sin.

Aaron Blumer wrote:
RES wrote:

With regard to "lust", the issue seems to be similar. It is sin when a desire is expressed (mentally or physically) in a sinful way (i.e. the desire for physical intimacy/fulfillment being expressed with a member of the same gender).

This seems to contradict what you say earlier in your post, so I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe "expressed" here means "responded to by making a sinful choice"?

Yes.

Aaron Blumer wrote:
RES wrote:

To separate temptation to sexual desire expressed toward a member of the same sex as different from the temptation for deviant sexual desires expressed as bestiality, incest, or child molestation seems a stretch.

I don't think anyone has done that in the thread, but I'm not sure not sure it should be a "given." In any case, my advice to any believer tempted in these areas would be to deal with it in the same way we deal with heterosexual desires/temptations involving someone you're not married to. I would advise them to seek to grow in Christ, avoid foolish exposure to tempting circumstances, but not try to untangle inner mysteries involving the causes of their desires/temptations and not to believe that it is their responsibility to make the temptations go away. Rather, the responsibility lies in obedience--inward and outward.

It seems that early on some were expressing that to even be tempted with homosexuality is always a sin because it is unnatural. I was trying to communicate that human sexuality is natural but that any unlawful use of it (bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, etc.) is sinful. I think your conclusion is exactly right.

CLeavell
CLeavell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 10 2009
Posts: 26
Big Subject

This is such a big subject it is impossible to hammer out in a few posts. I did want to make a few points.

REShanks wrote:

2. Rom. 1:26-32. Notice that God is addressing vile or degrading passions and the exchange of the natural physical functions of the sexual relationships. These are individuals who have taken the action of exchanging a normal sexual relationship for an unnatural one and are now burning in their lusts and committing what is shameful. This again seems to be addressing the nature of their sin and is not speaking of a temptation to do so. A "debased mind" doing "those things which are not fitting" participates in immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, strife, etc. How did it begin? By worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. Sexual desires are natural; it, however, is sinful to fulfill them with close relatives, animals, children, the dead, someone you are not married to, and someone of your own gender. When one is tempted to think sexually about someone/thing that is forbidden, one must deal immediately with that temptation, but it seems to be a stretch to say that this temptation to sin is a sin in itself while other temptations to sin are not. This passage is addressing chosen actions and lifestyles not the temptation to sin or reject what God has declared to be right.

Thanks for bringing up Romans 1:26-32 but I also believe you are misinterpreting the passage.

Quote:

A "debased mind" doing "those things which are not fitting" participates in immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, strife, etc. How did it begin? By worshiping the creature rather than the Creator

.

This is not correct. It began by “God giving them over” in verse 24, 26.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions

The reason for God abandoning them is found in verse 21…

Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

God’s abandonment is the outworking of verse 18-20 “the wrath of God is being revealed”
This abandonment is explained very well in John Murray’s commentary on Romans…

Quote:

The giving over on God’s part cannot be reduced to the notion of non-interference with the natural consequences of sin. While barely permissive or privative action of God would of itself be judicial retribution – to leave men to themselves affords a tragic prospect - yet the terms here and in verse 26 and 28 cannot be satisfied by such a construction. There is a positive infliction of handing over to that which is wholly alien to and subversive of the revealed good pleasure of God. God’s displeasure is expressed in his abandonment of the persons concerned to more intensified and aggravated cultivation of the lust of their own hearts with the result that they reap for themselves a corresponding greater toll of retributive vengeance.

There is no Biblical support for viewing same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction on an equal plane. One is clearly described as degrading, dishonoring, vile and unnatural. It is on a lower plane of degeneracy and perversion.

One final point… Why is it that our attractions can be so profoundly influenced by our culture, community, family and ethnic backgrounds, but somehow not influenced by the Gospel? Why is it that the best Christians have to offer someone with same sex attraction is to only counsel them that they should not act on their attractions? This is a weak view of the Gospel. Christianity changes everything beginning with our attractions.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Equal planes and unequal planes
Quote:

There is no Biblical support for viewing same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction on an equal plane. One is clearly described as degrading, dishonoring, vile and unnatural. It is on a lower plane of degeneracy and perversion.

I don't think anyone is saying they are equal in every way. But in equal in some ways. I would encourage readers to check out Thinking Biblically About Homosexuality Part 1 regarding Romans 1.
A few things from it: one, the text does not teach that a person can only be tempted by/desire homosexuality be rejecting God and being judged by God in this way. Two, the "lower plane" includes a great many things besides homosexual indulgence if you read to the end of the segment. Three, I deal there with with what dishonoring and unnatural mean. Skinny version: they are meant to communicate humiliation in this context.
In summary, Rom.1--as you have pointed out--describes God's wrath being expressed in judgment on a group of people who rejected Him. It does not teach that a believer who feels tempted by homosexuality is in any kind of especially spiritually 'lower' condition (compared to lots of other temptations and sins in the Book).

Roland, about Matt. 5.28.. you keep asking for proof that Jesus was referring to an act of inner indulgence. The evidence is this:

  1. He is communicating that men ought not to do what He describes there. Ergo, it is something they are able to decide not to do, ergo it is an act. If you consult a dozen reputable commentaries you'll find this view in at least ten of them (probably all twelve).
  2. Jesus says that the act He is describing is committing adultery inwardly.
  3. The word for "lust" there is a very flexible NT word. In Luke 22.15 Jesus uses it to describe how strongly He has desired to eat the last Passover with His disciples. In Rom. 7:7 Paul uses it to render the OT 10th commandment "you shall not covet." (Acts 20:33 is a similar use) In 1 Cor.10.6, Paul uses it to say we should "lust after evil" things as the Israelites did. In Heb. 6.11, the writer uses it to express his desire that his readers will be diligent and hold to their faith. Several of these describe situations where this "desire" is something readers are expected to choose not to experience. Therefore, it is an act. It is desire indulged, but still desire, which is why the word is used. There is nothing in the term that precludes the meaning "committing an inward act of indulgence" in Matt. 5:28.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
The Gospel
Quote:

One final point… Why is it that our attractions can be so profoundly influenced by our culture, community, family and ethnic backgrounds, but somehow not influenced by the Gospel? Why is it that the best Christians have to offer someone with same sex attraction is to only counsel them that they should not act on their attractions? This is a weak view of the Gospel. Christianity changes everything beginning with our attractions.

I overlooked this one in my last post.

You'd know my answer to this already if you waded through my earlier posts, but I don't blame you for not wading through them! Laughing out loud

The Gospel promises to transform us into the likeness of Christ and certainly does. It does not promise that all temptations will cease in this lifetime and it--by inference from multiple passages--promises to not change our bodies until after the resurrection. There's a beautiful, beautiful summary of this in Rom. 8:12-25. Rom 8.23 says we wait for the redemption of our bodies.
What this means in experience is that desires that arise from our sinful nature will grow weaker, less numerous, etc. as we become more like Christ. But desires that arise from our bodies and collide with our circumstances will continue.

So my reasoning is this:

A. We do not know from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by homosexuality (ie homosexual desire) cannot come merely from physical causes in some cases (We do know that it did not in Rom.1!)

B. We know that the appetites of our bodies are not mitigated by sanctification (though our ability to resist them does grow)

C. Therefore, we cannot rule out on the basis of Scripture that some may experience homosexual desires regardless of their spiritual maturity/Christlikeness

D. In any case, we do not know from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by homosexuality indicates a person is less sanctified/changed by the gospel than another person who is only tempted by adultery or pride or greed or outbursts of anger or laziness, etc.

In summary, this is not a weak view of the gospel. It's a view that takes into account the fact that the gospel does not include physical transformation until after this life.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Have to argue with myself a little
Aaron wrote:

If you consult a dozen reputable commentaries you'll find this view in at least ten of them (probably all twelve).

So far, I'm finding that the commentaries are not alot of help. Quite a few just don't consider the question of any difference between the "desire" in Matt.5:28 and the underlying attraction that makes it possible. Several just use the word "lust" broadly, characterize it as sin and move on. Those who do bother to examine what Jesus is forbidding with any precision, do speak in terms that reflect intentionality in the lust.... something the man is deciding to do.

A few examples
Weirsbe

Quote:

It is one thing to see and admire an attractive person, but it is quite something else to look for the purpose of lusting in the heart. Jesus said, “Everyone who is looking at a woman in order to indulge his sexual passion for her, already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28, WUEST).
Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). Be patient. An Old Testament study. (117). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Baker enc.

Quote:

Jesus also sharpened the OT’s definition of adultery by applying it to a man’s thought life. Any man who fantasizes in lust (as distinct from just being tempted) has committed adultery in mind and intention, he taught, even though there is no physical contact (Mt 5:27, 28; cf. Jb 31:1, 9).
Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (33). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Matthew Henry

Quote:

(1.) All appetites to them, all lusting after the forbidden object; this is the beginning of the sin, lust conceiving (James 1:15); it is a bad step towards the sin; and where the lust is dwelt upon and approved, and the wanton desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of sin, as far as the heart can do it;
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 5:27–32). Peabody: Hendrickson.

Good ol' Matt Henry.

On the other hand, WGT Shedd emphasizes the corrupt origins of these desires...

Quote:

4. Evil desire is forbidden in the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17; cf. 1 John 2:16). The tenth commandment, which the Septuagint renders ouk epithymēseis, prohibits that internal lusting which is the chief characteristic of the corrupt nature. It is also forbidden by Christ in his exposition of the seventh commandment (Matt. 5:28): “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15).
Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology (3rd ed.) (568). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.

But note that even he does not deny that this "internal lusting" or "evil desire" is the kind that is chosen... that it is an inward act.

CLeavell
CLeavell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 10 2009
Posts: 26
Thanks for the responce

Aaron, Thanks so much for your thoughtful response.
A few more questions…
It seems you have bought fully into the concept that our attractions are primarily biological and would put homosexual attraction on the same plane as cancer or other physical deformities. I think there are many reasons to reject this thinking as an explanation for the vast majority of same sex attraction in the world around us and for Christians.

The pervasiveness of homosexuality in some cultures and the absence of it in others suggests the idea that our attractions are profoundly shaped and influenced by our culture. I spent some time in Zambia in the late 90’s. What American men find attractive in women is different than what African men find attractive in women. In America, thin is in and the anorexic look is seen as ideal. In Zambia, being extremely thin was associated with Aids, while a heavy set women was seen at healthy and wealthy and much more to be desired. I have studied Native American cultures in the Northwest. The Flathead Indians would tie a board around the head of their infants to flatten out their foreheads. The flatter the forehead the more attractive they were. In another tribe, the women would tie rope around their legs to make their legs swell. The more swollen their legs, the more attractive they were. In the US, every generation is attracted to a different type of music while being repulsed by another generation’s music. Even our tastes in food are profoundly affected by our culture varying widely in different ethnic groups. The list can go on and on…

The point I am making is that our attractions are profoundly and deeply affected by our culture.

I believe this is the point of Romans 1. Paul is not talking about a small subset of the world, he is talking about mankind. As man rebels against God’s natural order in the religious sphere by refusing to worship God as God and a refusal to be thankful, God actively gives them over to a complete and total rebellion of God’s natural order culminating in the most aggravated and depraved form of rebellion of the natural order, which is homosexuality. This is why homosexuality is mentioned first. This “giving over” manifest itself in our society’s values and attractions and is more cultural than individual. Christians are a part of our culture and therefore also profoundly influenced by our culture’s values and attractions. These attractions are real and deeply imbedded. Dealing properly with same-sex attraction for a Christian, should first begin with properly understanding what shapes his/her attractions. I believe our attractions are shaped more by culture than biology.

B L Wilkins
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Oct 8 2009
Posts: 4
Clarification from RPittman

After all that has been said, I still need to hear a clarification. Are you saying that any time one is tempted (is enticed to sin and it truly entices), however momentary that enticement, he/she has actually sinned and needs to immediately confess that, or are you making the point that the enticement would not be there if it were not for depravity or sin nature, and in that sense is an inherently sinful impulse, yet one is not personally held accountable until yielding to that momentary impulse?

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Not quite my point
CLeavell wrote:

It seems you have bought fully into the concept that our attractions are primarily biological and would put homosexual attraction on the same plane as cancer or other physical deformities.

That's actually not my view. We have to watch out for binary thinking in the whole matter. What I believe is that in some cases the attractions are mainly biological (much as other temptations to overeat, commit indultry in the mind, etc.) and in some cases they aren't. When a Christian begins to experience this sort of attraction for the first time as a youth (and after he has become a Christian), he doesn't fit the Romans 1 scenario very well.

I think, to avoid being really repetitive, I'll repost a chunk of a post from earlier in the thread.

Aaron B. wrote:

A summary of my view...

  1. Some temptations are predicated on physical appetites alone. Others are predicated on our sinful nature alone (pride, malice, etc.), and many (probably most) are predicated on both.
  2. A sinful act may be outward or inward.
  3. A desire may come upon us unwanted, uninvited and unapproaved of--and we are not sinning when we feel these desires, regardless of their objects.
  4. We are sinning if we invite, encourage, or otherwise indulge a desire to do something wrong.
  5. Jesus was tempted by the physical desire to eat, but not by any desire to sin. (Though we are sinners, it doesn't follow that we may not also be tempted by a mere physical desire.)
  6. Homosexual desire is unnatural (Rom. 1.26). But the Bible does not teach that a person is sinning when he/she feels it (bearing in mind that I distinguish between feeling it and indulging it, the latter involving choice, the former not).
  7. Desires that arise from our sinful nature grow fewer, less intense and less heinous as we grow in Christlikeness.
  8. Our ability to resist desires increases as we grow in Christlikeness.
  9. Homosexual desire--like many others--may be merely physical for some people, physical and spiritual (ie., arising from sin nature) for others. So some see the desires themselves (i.e., feeling tempted) diminish as they grow in grace.
  10. Habit strengthens desire, so resistance to desires can result in less frequent and intense desires over time (I owe somebody else in the thread for this point. I had completely forgotten about that factor until someone posted about it here).

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Not necessarily so.....................
REShanks wrote:
RPittman wrote:
REShanks wrote:

Mt. 5:26. Jesus is addressing adultery in mind and body. Notice the wording: "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Jesus is not addressing temptation, but intentional mental adultery; that sin is a sin even if it is in the heart where no one can see it. I don't believe that this has much bearing upon the discussion. Dr. Bauder et al would affirm that committing any kind of immorality in the heart is sin. We need to look elsewhere for verses addressing temptation to adultery (or any other sexual sin).

Temptation is the enticement or allurement to sin. To lust is to desire. Thus, the wording of Christ's statement that "whoever looks at a woman to lust (i.e. desire) for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" indicates simply that the man desires her. To desire that which is forbidden is to be tempted. From the text, how do you know that it is "intentional mental adultery?" The literal reading of the text says that when the man has desire for her, he has already committed adultery in his heart. So, how can you NOT call this temptation?

The text speaks about looking to lust; it speaks of intent. The whole context demands that we understand that one is choosing to commit adultery in his heart because he wouldn't do it outwardly (the Pharisees). Jesus point is that one can sin with his mind; just keeping external rules does not make one holy. The Lord is not making the point that an unbidden feeling or accidental look is equivalent to adultery. This is completely out of the context of the passage and is the kind of teaching that messes up so many fundamentalists.

The sense of the translation here is "he who looks with lust" or "he who looks lustly." The KJV phrase "looketh on a woman to lust after her" simply differentiates between looking, as in seeing, and looking with lust (i.e. desire). Again, the phrase "looketh on a woman to lust after her" does not necessarily indicate a premeditated action. The sense and the context merely denote "looking with lust."

Would you please explain how the context supports your view?

Furthermore, your last sentence does nothing to advance the understanding of this disputed passage.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Nothing premeditated
Quote:

Again, the phrase "looketh on a woman to lust after her" does not necessarily indicate a premeditated action.

Nobody has said anything about the action being premeditated. There are two actions in the passage. The first is looking the second is lusting. The first is physical the second is mental. I believe what RES is saying is that the first is done with intention of doing the second: looking in order to lust. This is one of the two possibilities I mentioned up here.

The actual wording of the text is interesting and some of the commentaries offer surprising possibilities. I don't personally think it's that complicated.
ὁ βλέπων (looks) γυναῖκα (at a woman) πρὸς (in order to) τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι (to lust)

pros doesn't always have to mean "in order to" but it's not uncommon.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Too analytical.......................
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Quote:

Again, the phrase "looketh on a woman to lust after her" does not necessarily indicate a premeditated action.

Nobody has said anything about the action being premeditated. There are two actions in the passage. The first is looking the second is lusting. The first is physical the second is mental. I believe what RES is saying is that the first is done with intention of doing the second: looking in order to lust. This is one of the two possibilities I mentioned up here.

The actual wording of the text is interesting and some of the commentaries offer surprising possibilities. I don't personally think it's that complicated.
ὁ βλέπων (looks) γυναῖκα (at a woman) πρὸς (in order to) τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι (to lust)

pros doesn't always have to mean "in order to" but it's not uncommon.

Aaron, the construction and contextual meaning of this passage is fairly straightforward and simple. It is simply a matter of looking with lust (i.e. desire) as opposed to simply looking (i.e. sight). There are no significant language features to serve as hooks upon which we can base our interpretation. IMHO, we are being too analytical and create artifacts when we go beyond the plain sense in context.

By "premeditated action," I mean a deliberate, intentional choice to lust as opposed to looking and lust being conceived when the desirable object is perceived. I maintain my position that to lust (i.e. desire) for a woman, other than one's own wife, is sin. All the rationalizations in the world won't change that. I find it rather ironic that this is exact what the Pharisees did. They took the clear command from God and rationalized it to fit what they wanted. You quoted Matthew Henry earlier--read on--he described it well.

Matthew Henry wrote:

I. The command is here laid down (Mat_5:27), Thou shalt not commit adultery; which includes a prohibition of all other acts of uncleanness, and the desire of them: but the Pharisees, in their expositions of this command, made it to extend no further than the act of adultery, suggesting, that if the iniquity was only regarded in the heart, and went no further, God could not hear it, would not regard it (Psa_66:18), and therefore they thought it enough to be able to say that they were no adulterers, Luk_18:11. (Matthew Henry's Commentary on Matthew 5:27-32)

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Relating to people

What concerns me most in how we understand and talk about temptation is how it impacts struggling believers and our approach to discipleship.
The implications of blurring all temptation-related desire with commission of sin are nothing to sneeze at.

  • creates the expectation in believers that they are failing in some way if temptation A or B (and related desires) don't completely cease
  • encourages guilt feelings in believers who experience momentary attraction/desire to a sin simply because an opportunity they weren't expecting crossed their path
  • sometimes encourages believers to focus their efforts on mysterious inner workings (to make a desire go away) when they ought to focus on ordering their lives away from things that tempt them
  • encourages classification of some believers as second class (because they have temptations in some particular area) rather than "such were some of you."
  • may encourage some to think "Well, I've desired it. I might as well do it since they're all sin."

I might add that it also fails to make use of the wisdom offered us in James 1:14-15. In your view, there is no reason James would not simply have said "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted of God'... but each one is tempted when he sins by desiring and sins more by sinning." But that isn't what he wrote. The step by step analysis is there for a reason. He is explaining how temptations often work and this is information we are supposed to use.

CLeavell
CLeavell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 10 2009
Posts: 26
Again... Good challenging discussion...

Aaron, I agree with some of your points, but I think the real problem lies with reductionism in American Christianity. There is an over preoccupation (as demonstrated on this tread) with trying to fit everything into the categories of sin – not sin. The Bible is filled with other criteria for which to examine behavior, attractions, passions, or anything else in the world. Christians should be thinking in terms like edifying or not edifying, sacred or common, eternal or temporal, valuable or worthless, honoring or dishonoring, wise or foolish, natural or unnatural, amiable or distasteful, enduring or useless and the list could go on and on. Reducing every argument into a sin – not sin debate is a good explanation for shallowness of American Christianity. The Christian life is not only about not sinning, it is about loving God properly with all of our heart, soul and mind.

Quote:

What I believe is that in some cases the attractions are mainly biological (much as other temptations to overeat, commit indultry in the mind, etc.) and in some cases they aren't. When a Christian begins to experience this sort of attraction for the first time as a youth (and after he has become a Christian), he doesn't fit the Romans 1 scenario very well.

Do you have any biblical or extra-biblical proof of this statement? There are many biblical and extra-biblical reasons to reject this, especially when Romans 1 seems to give an alternate source for these attractions. The point you seem to be making in relation to Romans 1 is that it is not necessarily referring to all homosexual attraction especially in the case of a believer struggling with these attractions.

If you examine the details of Romans 1, I find that they are relevant in the lives of professing believers today. The terrible sin that demands God’s retribution is that of refusal to worship God and be thankful based on how He is revealed in the natural world. Is there anyone here that would seek to defend the state of worship in American Christianity? I sure hope not. When was the last time you heard anyone thank God for the rain that gave life-giving water to grain used to make bread and grass to feed the cattle, as he sits down for a hamburger at Applebee’s? Most would consider it pretentious and even odd. Most people don’t even think about it.

Also, if you connect covetousness with idolatry as Paul does in Colossians 3:5 then Romans 1 applies directly to American Christianity and is a great explanation for its current condition and struggles of individual members.

I think the main difference I have with your point is that I don’t see any real good backing for the concept that homosexual attraction is biological when there are so many other explanations that are both biblical and extra-biblical.

Again, thanks for the challenging discussion.

Kevin Miller
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 96
not sure I understand
CLeavell wrote:

Do you have any biblical or extra-biblical proof of this statement? There are many biblical and extra-biblical reasons to reject this, especially when Romans 1 seems to give an alternate source for these attractions. The point you seem to be making in relation to Romans 1 is that it is not necessarily referring to all homosexual attraction especially in the case of a believer struggling with these attractions.

If you examine the details of Romans 1, I find that they are relevant in the lives of professing believers today. The terrible sin that demands God’s retribution is that of refusal to worship God and be thankful based on how He is revealed in the natural world. Is there anyone here that would seek to defend the state of worship in American Christianity? I sure hope not.

I'm not sure i understand the point here about the state of worship in American Christianity. Are you saying that my son's same sex attractions are caused by the state of worship in American Christianity? Is he being punished with these attractions because of the way other people are worshipping?
My son was saved as a child and has tried to live for the Lord. When he first started feeling same sex attractions, they made him feel so dirty. He knew homosexuality was wrong, and there is no way he would choose it. He was sick with guilt, and he prayed and prayed that God would remove the attractions. God didn't do it. He even got himself a girlfriend, even though he didn't have any real attraction to her. He didn't feel any of the nervous excitement someone might have when they are first dating, or the sweaty palms, or the "flutters" in the stomach. Yet he would feel those things around guys, and he didn't want those feelings. He didn't choose them. Can someone just decide to get sweaty palms and "flutters' when they are with someone? Those are biological responses, and no matter how much my son prayed that they would be removed, God hasn't removed them. So what should I tell my son? Should I tell him that he is still rebellious against God, or he wouldn't be sinning by having these attractions?
What i have told him is that no matter what his biological attractions may be, he is still required by God to live Biblically, as are all people who are attracted to anyone. And i've told him i will never give up hope that someday God will remove those attractions from him.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Same concern--different perspective...................
Aaron Blumer wrote:

What concerns me most in how we understand and talk about temptation is how it impacts struggling believers and our approach to discipleship.
The implications of blurring all temptation-related desire with commission of sin are nothing to sneeze at.

  • creates the expectation in believers that they are failing in some way if temptation A or B (and related desires) don't completely cease
  • encourages guilt feelings in believers who experience momentary attraction/desire to a sin simply because an opportunity they weren't expecting crossed their path
  • sometimes encourages believers to focus their efforts on mysterious inner workings (to make a desire go away) when they ought to focus on ordering their lives away from things that tempt them
  • encourages classification of some believers as second class (because they have temptations in some particular area) rather than "such were some of you."
  • may encourage some to think "Well, I've desired it. I might as well do it since they're all sin."

I might add that it also fails to make use of the wisdom offered us in James 1:14-15. In your view, there is no reason James would not simply have said "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted of God'... but each one is tempted when he sins by desiring and sins more by sinning." But that isn't what he wrote. The step by step analysis is there for a reason. He is explaining how temptations often work and this is information we are supposed to use.

Homosexuality is a horrible sin, although any sin is horrible. However, it seems that the bonds of homosexuality are especially difficult to break. In fact, some say it is so difficult that the recidivism is almost 100%. Well, we still believe in the power of Christ to give victory over sin but some interpret Romans 1 to mean that God has abandoned the homosexual to a "reprobate mind." Of course, this is by no means clear from the Scripture. In my working homosexuals who professed Christ, I have found most maintained a homosexual identity. They took the view that they were homosexual but they just did not engage in homosexual activity anymore. Sadly, some fell back into homosexual activity and others toddled on the brink. IMHO, the major problem contributing to their recidivism is their continued identification as homosexual based on the premise that it was beyond their control. They asked, "Why did God create me like this?" Thus, they never achieve victory over sin because of this mindset and way of thinking.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Mere supposition..........................
Aaron wrote:

I might add that it also fails to make use of the wisdom offered us in James 1:14-15. In your view, there is no reason James would not simply have said "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted of God'... but each one is tempted when he sins by desiring and sins more by sinning." But that isn't what he wrote.

Aaron, you are a seminary trained man. You know this is not good exegesis or interpretation. You are speculating and speculations are infinite and mean nothing. You can say why didn't James say it this way or that way. The permutations are unlimited.

Quote:

The step by step analysis is there for a reason.

How do you know? You haven't told us. There is no mandatory stepwise sequencing except that is necessary to the explanation.

Quote:

He is explaining how temptations often work and this is information we are supposed to use.

Again, how do you know? The text doesn't say this. You are reading things into this passage that have no provable connection with the obvious intended meaning. James is not writing to obscure and have us dig out some esoteric information but he is writing to explain. By saying "[h]e is explaining how temptations often work" implies there may be other ways that temptations work. Do we have another Biblical explanation?

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Exegesis of James 1:14-15

Roland: about your most recent post on James 1:14-15. I don't think there's much there that I need to answer. "It must be there for a reason" is a conviction every skilled exegete takes to a text. It is a necessary inference from inspiration. God chose to give James these particular words and no others. So the exegete's job is to identify "What does it mean?" and a huge part of that is "Why did the writer write it?"

And the form of argument that says "Interpretation A of a passage cannot be correct because it fails to explain why the writer did not write A," is also a well established approach to interpreting texts.

CLeavell wrote:

...reductionism in American Christianity. There is an over preoccupation (as demonstrated on this tread) with trying to fit everything into the categories of sin – not sin. The Bible is filled with other criteria for which to examine behavior, attractions, passions, or anything else in the world. Christians should be thinking in terms like edifying or not edifying, sacred or common, eternal or temporal, valuable or worthless, honoring or dishonoring, wise or foolish, natural or unnatural, amiable or distasteful, enduring or useless and the list could go on and on. Reducing every argument into a sin – not sin debate is a good explanation for shallowness of American Christianity

A couple things about that.
One, I agree that using more descriptive words is important. However, the negative half of each of your pairs here is--when chosen instead of the better half--sin. Two, I'd suggest that on your shallowness point, the opposite is the case. That is, we do not talk about sin enough or characterize our choices in terms of "sin or not sin" enough. It's fairly comfortable to say "When I did B it was not edifying." It's much more disturbing--and still true--to say "When I did B I sinned." Why? Because "sin" is a God word. It has no meaning apart from Him. So, rightly understood, when we talk about sin vs. not, we are talking about choices that love or fail to love God. The other terms emphasize other qualities less directly related to God. I'm still for using them because they reveal the nature of the sins involved, which is important to correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness.

CLeavell wrote:
Aaron wrote:

What I believe is that in some cases the attractions are mainly biological (much as other temptations to overeat, commit indultry in the mind, etc.) and in some cases they aren't. When a Christian begins to experience this sort of attraction for the first time as a youth (and after he has become a Christian), he doesn't fit the Romans 1 scenario very well.

Do you have any biblical or extra-biblical proof of this statement? There are many biblical and extra-biblical reasons to reject this, especially when Romans 1 seems to give an alternate source for these attractions. The point you seem to be making in relation to Romans 1 is that it is not necessarily referring to all homosexual attraction especially in the case of a believer struggling with these attractions.

The closes thing to biblical proof is evidence that physical attractions can be distinct from our sin nature and yet still be a basis for temptation. This is my argument from the temptation of Jesus, who was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin (ie without a sin nature). So, my argument on that point is that as a bodily appetite, sexual desire can be merely physical (vs. spiritual and physical.. it is always at least physical).
I do not characterize this as "proof," but I offer it as evidence.

External: I have counseled believers who grew up in Christian homes with godly parents and upright lifestyles who began being tempted by homosexual desires as young teenagers. They did not invite these experiences, did not approve of them when they happened and, indeed, did not understand why they happened (since they were told the Romans 1 route is the only way to "get that way.")

CLeavell wrote:

If you examine the details of Romans 1, I find that they are relevant in the lives of professing believers today.

Relevant, certainly. Relevance takes many forms. We see sins in that section of Romans that have forms and parallels in believers' lives. However, the context is quite clear that he is referring to people who rejected God and chose idolatry (quite literally) instead. And what happened to them was the expression of God's wrath. It is not possible for a regenerate child of God (redundancy intentional there for emphasis) to reject God and we are completely released from His wrath (1 Thess 5:9). Would God chasten His adopted child by abandoning him to self-degrading desires? Perhaps (though I think not), but Romans 1 is not about that scenario.

  • "20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God..."

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Setting off a firestorm.............................
Aaron wrote:

Roland: about your most recent post on James 1:14-15. I don't think there's much there that I need to answer. "It must be there for a reason" is a conviction every skilled exegete takes to a text. It is a necessary inference from inspiration. God chose to give James these particular words and no others. So the exegete's job is to identify "What does it mean?" and a huge part of that is "Why did the writer write it?"
And the form of argument that says "Interpretation A of a passage cannot be correct because it fails to explain why the writer did not write A," is also a well established approach to interpreting texts.

Well, Aaron, this is exactly where we have clashed on other threads. Although I know that you're not going to like my terms but this is pure rationalism. It is rationalism applied to Scripture. The exegete is using his reason to reason "Why did the writer write it?" I respectably suggest that he cannot know, at least with certainty. It is pure speculation in the mind of the exegete subject to his human experience, knowledge, education, perfidies, and prejudices. Thus, inspiration is become of none effect because Scriptural interpretation is brought under the subordination of the exegete's reason. Inspiration is in subrogation to reason. We can only know what is stated but we cannot go behind the clear statement and ascertain why this or that was said or not said. We can only know what God has said but we cannot know why He said it or said it in a particular way unless He tells us. IMHO, this is a fallacious approach present in Modernism. Therefore, the fact that James under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit stated it this way but he could have stated it differently means absolutely nothing. As I have pointed out, he could have said precisely the same thing in many different ways but he had to say it one way so that regardless of how he phrased it, we could ask: "Why didn't he say thus and thus and not so and so?"