A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing

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.

[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.

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

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

[RPittman]

[Aaron Blumer]

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

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

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

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.

[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.

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

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

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

[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.

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

Do you believe that when you desire to eat a sandwich this is the working of the Holy Spirit?

I don’t think this view is tenable.

As for Christ’s nature, just to be clear, I also affirm His impeccability and maintain that it was impossible for Him to sin. Nothing I’ve said is incompatible with that.

He did, however, have physical appetites and Satan did appeal to them. There is no other way to make sense of Matthew 4 and Luke 4. Now some want to give “drawn away” in James 1 a technical sense that includes a sin principle within. If you take it that way, then yes, you have to say Jesus was not drawn away. But the fact remains that He hungered. The text says so. And the Devil clearly attempted to leverage His hunger.

[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.

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

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

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

[RPittman] 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]

[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.

Yes. I don’t think that’s in dispute. The source of sin is within man. This does not deny that sin often involves physical desires.

In the case of Jesus’ temptation again, for example, the sin of turning the stone to bread and eating it (whatever exactly that sin would have been) would have no appeal to anyone without an empty stomach in the scenario. In Jesus’ case that’s its only appeal. Why do you think both Matthew and Luke point out that He was hungry? (Matt 4.2, Luke 4.2)

[RPittman] 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…

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

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.

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

[RES] 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.

[RPittman]

[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?

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.

[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…

[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.

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

[Aaron Blumer]

[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”?

Yes.

[Aaron Blumer]

[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.

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.

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]

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

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

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.