A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing
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.
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/
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/
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-homosexuali…
Part 2 http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/25/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…
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.
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-homosexuali…
Part 2 http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/25/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Fixed Aaron’s part 2 link - go to http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/25/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[RPittman] 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+bibl…
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1235&highlight=thinking+bibl…
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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
Part 1 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6022
Part 2 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6128
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Kevin T. Bauder]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.
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.
This sin appears to be completely accepted within many churches, both fundamental and not. This is the sin of adultery.James, I’d suggest another thread for that conversation. The divorce debate is a complex one and deserves thoughtful consideration of all the facets.
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.
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).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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 ;-)).
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 ;-)).
[RPittman][Kevin T. Bauder] 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.
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.
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.
Pro 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.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)
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;
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.
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.)
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Moody Handbook of Theology, p.310
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
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.
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).A H Strong is not very helpful
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).
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: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.
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.
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
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.So Packer certainly allows for desires that are sinful in quality—as I already have—but in his perspective desires are not sinful acts.
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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] 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] 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:
- 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.[RP] 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] 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?).
[black] 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
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”
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]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] 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.
[RPittman]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.[Susan] 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).
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.
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
[rogercarlson] DJ,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.
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.
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.
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] 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..:P)
[rogercarlson] 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 untilThis 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] 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RPittman]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.[Susan R]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.[RPittman]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] 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.
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 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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
But again, let’s not get distracted. Whether the desire temptation is appealing to is innately corrupt or not, feeling tempted is not sinning.
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] 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] Mark 7.14-23About 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/groucho.gif 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.
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.
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.
[AndrewSuttles] 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.Of course, Andrew, but that does NOT mean that our desires are necessarily sinful.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[RPittman]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.[Aaron Blumer]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.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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.
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.
[AndrewSuttles] 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.No, to tempt means to entice to sin. That’s why God cannot tempt anyone.
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.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[AndrewSuttles] 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.Do you believe that when you desire to eat a sandwich this is the working of the Holy Spirit?
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RP] 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)
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.
A summary of my view…
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] 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] 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] 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] 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]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.[Aaron] 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.
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] 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] 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…
- 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.
- A sinful act may be outward or inward.
- 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.
- We are sinning if we invite, encourage, or otherwise indulge a desire to do something wrong.
- 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.)
- 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).
- Desires that arise from our sinful nature grow fewer, less intense and less heinous as we grow in Christlikeness.
- Our ability to resist desires increases as we grow in Christlikeness.
- 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.
- 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
Thanks for the post. I think it covers things really well. I’d only take slight exception to a little bit at the end…
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] 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] 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] 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RPittman]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] 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] 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.
[Aaron Blumer] Thanks for the post. I think it covers things really well. I’d only take slight exception to a little bit at the end…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.[RES] 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.
[Aaron Blumer]Yes.[RES] 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”?
[Aaron Blumer]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.[RES] 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.
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]Thanks for bringing up Romans 1:26-32 but I also believe you are misinterpreting the passage.
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.
.
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…
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.
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 [URL=http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/11/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…] 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:
- 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).
- Jesus says that the act He is describing is committing adultery inwardly.
- 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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! :D
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron] 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
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).Baker enc.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). Be patient. An Old Testament study. (117). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
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).Matthew Henry
Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (33). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
(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;Good ol’ Matt Henry.
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 5:27–32). Peabody: Hendrickson.
On the other hand, WGT Shedd emphasizes the corrupt origins of these desires…
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).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.
Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology (3rd ed.) (568). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
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?
Discussion