This conversational yet confrontational format is an endangered species these days. Big Eva types ghost their critics or throw grenades from behind their high fortress walls. It's obvious you each are interested in resolving this issue. Much respect to the three of you. And thanks Jon for coordinating it.
I have never heard this topic explored at such depth before. This is a gem. Thanks to both men for participating faithfully in this discussion, it is good!
This is the type of discussions that you can really learn from and more is needed in today's NO DEPTH OF CONVERSATION world. Great job Jon, Jared and Doug!!!
It doesn’t have to be complicated. ‘’But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire WHEN it has conceived (passed through the will) gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” James 14-15 “BLESSED is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that love him.” James 3:12 So that man is blessed when he says NO to the evil stirrings in his heart and does not entertain that sin or commit it. The temptation itself is not sin.
@@edodt4220 Thank you so much for your comment! Job is a perfect example. We have a sin nature but we fight it’s motions. Gal 5:16-17. A Christian could get so discouraged if he thinks that even having a temptation is sin that he ceases trying to overcome.
Yes. Thanks for this. Because of Jesus' perfect righteousness our sins are not counted against us and when we resist the devil we get to rejoice that we got to participate in making him flee and demonstrating the power of Christ to crush him beneath our feet.
And, in parallel ... "Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" requires the action of "lustful intent" to link looking to sin. We look at what attracts our attention and that comes from our inner desires.
No, you've missed the point of James 1. Some temptations are external, but many (even most, according to all Reformed comment I have checked) are begotten by our own (internal) concupiscence, and are therefore sinful. The idea that they have to receive the consent of the will in order to become sin comes from Pelagius.
Thanks for facilitating this. I hear Doug and I’m like yes you are right. Then I hear Jared cross examine and I’m like you bring good points. Great stuff to study more.
Jon, thank you so much for this conversation and to Pastor Moore ans Pastor Wilson for agreeing to the discussion. It was edifying to see these two brothers converse in love and respect despite their disagreement. I can see that each is interested in truth and not just promoting their point of view. Thank you again!
This conversation greatly helped me, and I appreciate that the three of you gave your time and attention. I am old now, but I grew up in a church where if you asked the pastor a question..say, for instance..on evolution vs. Creation, (as happened with me), the response was curt and dismissive..the very opposite of iron harpening iron. discipleship. I still get disgusted when I think about that. It is up to me, of course, to confess my bitterness as sin unto my Savior.
I feel your pain sister. Every pastor I've talked to has been exactly that way. When I was younger I would get hurt by their responses, and then get angry. Of course I would confess the anger and forsake it, but the pain was still there. If I think about it now, the memory of the anger is still there, but only the hurt remains. I haven't met a single pastor yet, that makes me feel a Christlike vibe. Met many lay people that do, but no pastor's. I always excused many by thinking they're just busy and distracted. But I still feel that sting when it happens. I suppose I can only try to be as Christlike as I can be, and pray for these pastors as he would. I too am old, that's just means we're closer to being with nothing but perfect people. Ourselves being perfect as Jesus. The best thing is finally being with him, and to never be parted from him. God bless !
brightest ~ l said the same thing. lf you watch John MacArthur's ''The problem of Evil'' sermon at Ligonier Ministries ...it will help even more! Especially since John call the topic ''An easy one!'' xD
I think his view leads to a life of defeat. Romans 6 says we are not to continue in sin. "How can we who are dead to sin, live any more therein?" Through Christ, we are set free. If we are covered by the blood, we do not all deserve to be excommunicated.
For theologians (as we all are), it is useful and accurate to make a categorical distinction between temptation and concupiscence, where temptation is the external proposition to sin, and concupiscence is the internal response from our corrupt human nature that finds the sin alluring. It may be impossible to parse them in any particular instance of temptation or sin, but as categories temptation and concupiscence should be kept completely distinct from each other.
If I understand what Jared Moore was saying, my every thought is sinful and I must confess that sin. If this is true, what did Jesus free me from. What is covered by the blood? This sounds like a works system more horrid than the pharisees prescribed. Thank you Jon for bringing these to pastors together for a conversation.
He redeemed you from the death penalty for the sin you’ve committed. If you continue to sin after knowing your sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 responses like the above make me wonder... why did we even bother with the Reformation to begin with? Isn't the idea that we have to confess every sin, and that some sins are more serious than others, basically just Catholic confession/mortal sin all over again?
@Joseph Brandenburg No. You're obviously ignorant of what the Bible says. Secondly there is a distinction between the Reformed view of sin and the papist view. For one thing, Protestants do not lose their justification, confess to priests or do penance to restore their justification. The Reformed view is that after conversion there is a remaining corruption that needs to be fought and struggled against: Hebrews 12:4-6 (NKJV): You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” Secondly, apostasy is a real possibility for those who may be foreordained to reprobation: 1 John 2:19 (NKJV): They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. And there are sins that lead to death: 1 John 5:16-18 (KJV 1900): If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. Those who belong to God cannot fall away. They overcome habitual sins rather than giving in to sins that lead to death.
@Joseph Brandenburg The Westminster Larger Catechism does not minimize sin. Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God? A. No man is able either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed. Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God? A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
WOW! Wonderful that you three got together to DO this! l commend all of you, and you Jon for being in the forefront of this battle! Amen, and May God Bless you and keep you all! :D
I am a big fan of Pastor Wilson. I am glad to hear that he would not state things the same way now . I think that his wording was not good or careful in 2012. I don’t think he was saying “gay is OK“. I think what he is saying is that the church is a hospital for sinners. And those who have the sin of homosexuality are welcome to enter his church with a spirit of repentance and submission to Christ. I think he was wrong to identify a Christian as gay because the Scriptures say our is in Christ. Whatever we did in the past is our past now we are a new creation in Christ.
@@wessbess I believe Jared Moore's insteuction on this topic leads to greater victory in Christ. I also believe that much of Doug Wilson's teaching is beneficial, just not so much this one. It is much better to confess and slay sinful thoughts as sin. More and faster healing awaits those who do so. Loved this conversation, though.
@@ericagoggans7189 what do you think of when he said around minute 43 that we sin all the time? Where's the victory in that? And further states that we all should be thrown out of the church if we knew our hearts. But by his own admission we're all doing it all the time! Contradictory to me
@@Richardcontramundum I think it means we are more consistantly aware of our need for Jesus. Every time I confess a sinful thought and make it obedient to Christ it 1. Shows me how sinful I am and 2. Shows me how perfect, forgiving and great God is. It results in repentance and praise. It is an existence full of joy that I can't eloquently articulate, but it keeps me humble and wanting to walk worthy of the calling....if that makes sense?
Thanks for facilitating this Jon. Wilson has solid conservative credentials on a lot of cultural issues, so his statements came as a shock. It is always good to examine the scriptures for truth and avoid making an idol out of a pastor or theologian, because they are all susceptible to error. Enjoy the work of Wilson and the folks over at Canon Press, but always examine everything in light of scripture.
A couple things: 1. Whomever you agree with here, I feel after watching this a conviction that I'm not being as intentional and serious about confessing sin as I should. I'm entirely too lackadaisical. 2. I do think that Moore's position, at least as I understand it, would almost be an over correction to my current lackadaisicalness. I would almost feel that I'd need to be in constant confession of sin. That feels like bondage to me. And it also seems to equate temptation to sin WITH sin itself. So even to experience temptation would require confession of sin. But don't we believe that Jesus Himself experienced temptation to sin? If Jared is right (at least as I'm hearing him), Jesus Himself would be guilty of sin, just for having that temptation. I know Jared wouldn't intend that, but that's the way I think his perspective points. 3. Haven't we all had something pop in our minds unbidden (sometimes very detestable and gross things) that we don't even find attractive to us, and immediately repulse us? Would we need to confess such thoughts EVEN THOUGH we are repulsed by them, and are not tempted to give in to do them?
@@Alan112573 I had the same impression of Jarrod Moore, that there is no victory, that we are sinning constantly. Paul wrote in Romans 6, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Then he answers his own question: "2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, LIVE ANY LONGER THEREIN?" To tell a young man that if he is tempted, he has fallen into sin could have devastating results. After living in this "defeat" long enough, he may be tempted to just give up. But that is what progressive sanctification is all about. We become more and more Christ like as we walk in obedience to Him.
I just appreciate this discussion and having worked it over to some degree I’ve come to rely on Romans 8 :22 especially.but also several verses before and behind Thankyou and I pray the Lords blessing on all of us to grow in this rich subject
You can skip to 43:00 for when the conversation is actually a conversation. They essentially talked past each other…well, Wilson most of the actual talking since economy of words isn’t really his thing…up until that point. It finally became a discussion at that point. Wilson explained how he believes Jesus temptation was real but Moore’s position on in what sense was Jesus’ temptation real if temptation itself is a sin. Good back and forth eventually. It just took way too long to get there. I love Wilson and find him helpful on a plethora of topics. Pastor Moore seems genuine and made good points. Both positions seem to have some weakness. Wilson’s would seem to be over-nuancing and Moore’s would be over-simplifying. I mean, Moore basically said he himself, and everyone else, should be excommunicated. 👀
Jon, you are doing God's work here, anyone saying this is divisive is not watching or listening to what is being said. I'm a big fan of Pastor Wilson but sometimes people say things that need to be clarified and it is excellent that you could get both men on your channel and work through the issues. If you are not watching Conversations That Matter then what are you watching.
Editing my comment. Not fully on board with Wilson here. Enjoyed the discussion. Sin of the heart is being ignored I think. I'm not a theologian and grateful for it
This was a helpful discussion. The reality is much worse than we think. We are all theologians; we just haven’t spent much time thinking about it. Most, if not all, of us have believed that it is more important for us to live life than to make careful distinctions of true theology. The terrifying reality is that my thoughts, my words, and my actions all communicate that God is less holy, less pure, less, just, less loving, less merciful, less gracious, +++++ than He has revealed himself to be. Woe is me! I am undone! At every turn, I see that I fall short of the glory of God. Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! Isaiah 6, Matthew 11, and Romans 7.
Jon, this was indeed most helpful. It is an issue most thorny that demands a full orbed reading, analysis, and comprehension from Scripture on this matter. I think there are parallels between this subject...concupiscence...and the superficial dichotomy between Paul and James with regard to faith and works, that becomes clear and fully compatible with careful, prayerful study and comprehension. I think, too, that Pastors Moore and Wilson will likely find themselves in full agreement following further careful, prayerful study of the entirety of God's most Holy Word.
Resisting temptation without the Holy Spirit is not ultimately successful because it is often based on pride (I.e. I can do this on my own strength). It is better to resist using God’s strength & grace that results from growing in intimacy with Him and resting in Him
Luther said you cannot prevent birds flying over your head but you can prevent them from making a nest there . .. I am a sinner still . And this is what drives me to Christ .. Romans 7 end with thanksgiving for the gospel .. all our thoughts should end there .. amen
Thank you to all who made this happen. Goodness somewhat exhausting. Maybe I need to confess my temptation to be exhausted…Nevertheless a great example of iron sharpens iron. I really wonder from a Biblical counseling/ shepherding perspective how this looks. Especially Jared- how is this applied besides encouraging someone to continue the fight?
Jon, good stuff. I think both men are sitting on the same horse, but it is precarious. If you dig your heel in on one side you're likely to fall into perfectionism. If you dig your heel in on the other side, you're likely to nuance yourself into confusion or accommodation. Here's how the pastoral situation - the real life situation - and the theology of the thing - merge in my own head. When I see something on the internet that arouses my lust, and that in turn arouses a loud, "no no no!", from within me, and I close the page and get back to work, I find myself sighing with relief and thanking God for deliverance. I also lament, to varying degrees, that I was aroused in the first place. I wish that I was not tempted, and long for the day. But when I see something on the internet that arouses my lust and I respond by interacting with what I see with an internal, "more, please", either in my imagination or by searching for similar content, then what I feel is shame - and a sin that needs to be confessed. I wish that I had not fallen, and long for the day. Jared's position seems to emphasise the significance of the arousal, Doug's position seems to emphasise the validity and significance of the, "no no no!" I like Jared's description of the problem. It's clear and straightforward. I also like that Doug clearly sees that between temptation and sin there is the all-important battle. Jared's description of the problem could (if not carefully worded) flatten the existence of the battle between the two natures within me and lean in the direction of despair. Doug's description of the problem could (if not carefully worded) also flatten the battle within me and lean in the direction of accommodation.
The sinful nature and remaining corruption does indeed occasionally cause Christians to sin. However, if a person is still enslaved by sinful thoughts that break forth into habitual sinful lusts in the mind and which then lead to sinful behavior, then that person must question whether or not he or she is actually converted. We are no longer enslaved by sinful thoughts after regeneration, repentance, and conversion. And no, this is not Wesleyan perfectionism. The genuine Christian will struggle against sinful thoughts, not acquiesce to some phony sexual orientation excuse which was invented by wicked men pretending to have "knowledge" or science in the realm of psychology. Biblical psychology makes no room for such compromises. Psalm 119:11 (NKJV) 11 Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You.
Jesus had an advantage that we do not have when He was tempted. Jesus had no original sin and no sinful nature, not to mention that Jesus was God incarnate. The Arminians use this to suggest that Jesus could not have actually sinned if any of this is true and therefore the temptation was not real. The Arminians then suggest that Jesus could have sinned and overcame sin by sheer will power, and so can you. Obviously this is false. We are not Jesus. We have a sinful nature and we are born with original sin. We overcome sin by God's grace with which we are in cooperation because of God's gift of initial regeneration. Our regeneration and our perseverance in faith are monergistic, while our progress in sanctification is synergistic as a result of the other two monergistic graces. We must attain assurance of salvation by our struggle against sin. We show our love for God by obeying the commandments. John 14:15.
Hey Jon, Thank you for these meaningful conversations. I just discovered your channel about a month ago. To be honest, it would have been earlier, but embarrassedly (& to my shame), when I saw your videos on RUclips, I thought you had a striking resemblance to the dude on the Deconstructionists Podcast. So, I avoided your channel as I thought you were him. What a relief it was when I actually decided to click on one of your videos. Now, I'm finding myself having to do catch up on your videos; as the material has been amazing & very beneficial to me. Keep up the good work! Blessings in the Lord!
I’m still a little confused by Dr. Moore’s position. Is there room for a Christian to be tempted and not sin? Can a Christian who was once homosexual, but now rejects that, be tempted by that sin, without actually committing the sin themselves?
The comments have been Scriptural useful,and wonderous in Grace.This Conversation That Mat- ters was most edifying 🧭 🙏 ♨️ ✝️ 🕊 🛐 🔥 🤲 🧠 Thank You Very Much Jon Harris for this con- tent 🎙 🎚 🎧 🎛 🎤
Doug Wilson has always struggled with Romans 7, and he's always struggled with correctly understanding this admittedly tough passage in its application to the Christian life. Ever since I've known him, and I was a Greyfriar at Christ Church under his tutelage for about four years, he's had issues with applying Romans 7 to the Christian life. In the time I've known him, he has always held to the view that in some way, shape, or form, Romans 7 does not apply to the Christian life. His father, Jim Wilson, ingrained this approach to Romans 7 into Doug, and I think it has (sadly) become a staple view on Romans 7 around Moscow, ID and Christ Church (where I live now), and what's worse, it has become quite prevalent within the CREC as well. I don't think Doug is anywhere near as unbiblical on this issue as his father was, but he still has some serious hang-ups when it comes to properly applying Romans 7 to the Christian life. In fact, one of the first books Doug ever published, titled The Fruit of the Cross, was his (along with a couple other authors) attempt at trying to prove that Romans 7 was not about Paul's life as a post-regenerate Christian, but only about Paul's life as a pre-regenerate Pharisee, struggling with the demands of God's law upon himself and his conscience. I think Doug has moved away from this view over the years TO SOME EXTENT, especially after becoming a Calvinist in the early 90s (or maybe late 80s), but he still retains much of the unbiblical perfectionisms that his father passed down to him, and that Romans 7 (when understood rightly) would guard against in his own life, and in his ministry, etc. It gets much more difficult trying to deny the application of Romans 7 to the Christian life as one becomes more Calvinistic in their hamartiology and soteriology. And I think that his reading John Owen's stuff over the years, and specifically Owen's stuff on indwelling sin and the mortification of sin, etc., has also done some good in bringing Doug back to the view that Romans 7 is about the Christian life. But it became quite apparent in this dialogue between Wilson and Moore, that Doug still has some serious hang-ups and problems when it comes to applying Romans 7 to the Christian life. In other words, Doug still maintains to a greater extent than not, the view that Romans 7 is not about the NORMAL Christian life. And I think this also ties in with some of Doug's other doctrinal issues, such as his perfectionistic approach to the doctrine of regeneration, and some of his incorrect views on the nature and extent of sin and the flesh in the Christian life. He's not a Wesleyan perfectionist by any stretch of the imagination (I think his father had some of these problems though); Doug would be more in line with the specific kinds of Calvinistic Methodist perfectionisms that men like George Whitfield and Martin Lloyd-Jones held to. But it should also be noted that just as some American Church historians have pointed out, that American Christianity is basically "Methodism gone to seed," so too have MANY American Calvinistic pastors and teachers "gone to Methodist seed" over this very important issue concerning the Christian life.
I'm going to come in here before listening to give my thoughts on this subject, and then hopefully after listening I'll come back and see whose views I am closer to. So first of all, as Christians we all know those inward sins that we most struggle with, but which no one else can see. Ever since I was a teenager, there was a sin I struggled with and it was completely hidden. It never manifested itself outwardly at all, and I mean at all. I knew it was a sin, I confessed it to God many times and struggled against it, but it was not until many years later when I went through a time of despair and doubt about my salvation that God enabled me to overcome it to a large degree (though I do still struggle with it from time to time). Sinful thoughts and desires are, first and foremost, a battle. Our old sin nature struggling against our new nature. 'The spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit.' 'That which I would, I do not; and that which I would not, that do I.' Every day we have to put on the armor of God and go at it again, and again, and again. When we do that, whether we realize it or not, we are gaining a little more ground. Yes, it's entirely possible to fall into sin without ever physically committing sin. There is a deep sense of guilt which we have when we fall yet again. 'But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Let that be proclaimed in every heart that fights against sin. Our victory is through Christ. Our righteousness is not our own, but it comes from Christ. We fight against our sinful tendencies, and that battle is within because we fight it by prayer and Scripture and faith. When I was struggling with doubts about my salvation, a lightbulb moment for me was when I realized that my sin of unbelief was not the unforgivable sin (which it seemed to be at that time). It was sin, absolutely, but God would forgive me of it if I confessed it. And because Christ was condemned in our place, there is therefore now no condemnation to those of us who are in him. God pities us as a father pities his children, he strengthens us in our weakness, comforts us in our distress, forgives us time and time again, and never lets us go. He chastises us in love and works the most distressing things for our good. Is there a dichotomy between sinning and original sin? Only insofar as one is the product of the other. Isn't original sin the substance of our sin nature? And our sin nature produces sin like a cloth factory produces fabric. We repent of the sin produced by that sin nature, and we long for the day when our sin nature is finally uprooted and we are completely free.
Thank you for sharing. Oh I relate so much to what you said. I too struggle with assurance sometimes when I have my mental health episodes because I have obsessive intrusive thoughts and I would feel so so ashamed and downcast and condemned for the thoughts and feelings about the assurance. The devil would whisper that if I was really saved that I wouldn't have those kind of thoughts. But like you, I also had a moment of clarity that Christ died for all of my intrusive obsessive thoughts and every thought of unbelief and every moment of self reliance and there is no more condemnation. I still struggle with the thoughts (they come and go in waves when my mental health acts up, ive been tapering off of psych meds for many years and so my brainis affected by chemicals that have caused serious and severe mental problems) and I have to fight through them standing on God's word and He always refreshes my spirit in due time. Philippians 4 says to make supplication with Thanksgiving and the peace of God which surpasses understanding will guard our hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus.
We are so on the furthest fringes of conservative-sin-confessing-theology in this discussion. I don’t think they are even close to the homosexual-accepting, SSA-affirming churches in soft American evangelicalism. At many points it felt like hair-splitting. Both of them would affirm “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” and “let all who name the name of Christ depart from sin.”
I agree, but RUclips's "discernment ministers" keep trying to convince people that Wilson is no different than the stance Rob Bell admits to holding and Andy Stanley keeps trying to pretend he doesn't. So Doug has to explain this distinction between a perfect being and what it's like as an actual Christian actively trying to resist.
@@JasonJrake It's telling watching the anti-Wilsons getting so animated over the latest attempt to knock Doug out of the saddle.They're always all-in until it collapses. It's like the Democrats' We-got-him-this-time syndrome every time another false claim is made about Trump.
I could be wrong but from my perspective this argument is overcomplicated I don't follow the point being made by Jared and Jon. To me it's much simpler, resisting temptation =obedience giving in= sin
I'll try to keep this short which means it's not going to be comprehensive, but people like Jared Moore are interposing the catechisms and reformers into a debate in which they were not participating in and thus it is disingenuous to quote them as supporting their position. The reformers and catechisms were specifically addressing the question of original sin against what Rome was teaching. In short Rome taught that original sin was erased at baptism and what was left was an "inclination" to sin but it's movements were not actually sinful. Luther, Calvin, the reformers, etc. said this was wrong and that although we are endued with a new nature, the old nature remains and is still completely sinful. This had important ramifications in the whole debate regarding imputed righteousness (reformers) versus infused righteousness (Rome) and justification by faith alone (reformers) and justification by faith plus works (Rome). This is why you see this subject being addressed by the major catechisms and in the writings of Luther, Calvin, etc. They are not addressing when the motions of our sinful nature become acts of sin, but they are addressing the fact that we are still sinful after our regeneration as a matter of who we are and not just from what we do. While I can see some value in discussing this subject as a means to gain greater clarity in our pursuit of holiness, I've seen a tendency to try and use this as a new wedge issue and an attempt to paint those who disagree as somehow "siding with Rome" and "minimizing sin." Consider this one Scripture. James 1:14-15 ALT (14) But each one is tempted by his own lusts, being pulled away and enticed. (15) Then that lust having conceived gives birth to sin, then that sin having become full-grown brings forth death. We are tempted inwardly by our own lusts, our own sinful lusts that are the motions of our sinful nature. At this point these lusts would be considered "sinful", but once we are pulled away and enticed where we give some measure of our consent, then this gives birth to an act of sin.
This was super helpful Jon. I’m a big Wilson “fan” although I know he obviously has blind spots. This cleared up some confusion and I think he made more sense here. Still lots to think through but good job reaching out to him and letting him clarify.
The question I think is "What is SIN"? If I am corrected we as believers first need to recognize we are sinners ( original sin ). So when we became a believer Jesus saved us from original sin am I correct. So this discussion is what is sin and I feel that at times theologians, pastors and others try to classify sins. So what is sin to you may not be sin to me that's why we have the Holly Spirit to convict us of our sins. I felt I needed to say this first, before I thank you Jon and your guest for the Great discussion on this topic.
I'm reuploading to post tomorrow. I ordered some equipment that should make livestreaming better but it hasn't come in. In the future I won't have to reupload to sync my voice.
A couple things: 1. Whomever you agree with here, I feel after watching this a conviction that I'm not being as intentional and serious about confessing sin. I'm entirely too lackadaisical. 2. I do think that Moore's position, at least as I understand it, would almost be an over correction to my current lackadaisicalness. I would almost feel that I'd need to be in constant confession of sin. That feels like bondage to me. And it also seems to equate temptation to sin WITH sin itself. So even to experience temptation would require confession of sin. But don't we believe that Jesus Himself experienced temptation to sin? If Jared is right (at least as I'm hearing him), Jesus Himself would be guilty of sin, just for having that temptation. I know Jared wouldn't intend that, but that's the way I think his perspective points. 3. Haven't we all had something pop in our minds unbidden (sometimes very detestable and gross things) that we don't even find attractive to us, and immediately repulse us? Would we need to confess such thoughts EVEN THOUGH we are repulsed by them, and are not tempted to give in to do them?
I think the problem here are the words temptation and tested, those weren't fleshed out well in this episode, but someone in the comment section did and all became clear.
DW makes a helpful distinction, which does not lead to unnecessary self-condemnation. Rather than confessing a sin that doesn't exist (for the Bible makes it clear that there IS a distinction between temptation and sin, or else Jesus would not be sinless, as the Bible says), instead rejoice that you have a Lord that is changing and reordering your heart's affections.
I have great respect for Doug Wilson, but he is out of step with Reformed theology here. You cannot find this distinction between sin, sinful and sinning in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, Owen, Hodge, Machen, Bavinck, John Murray or R.C. Sproul--rather the idea is controverted. You can find the idea of degrees of sin, as is suggested by James' metaphor of a child’s development in the womb in 1:13-15. Unless halted by some medical tragedy or evil design (such as abortion), the process is unbroken: birth is inevitable. Indeed, it is a key argument against abortion that from conception to birth the foetus is a child, not a potential child, or a not-yet-viable child, or any of the other specious designations used by advocates of abortion. Granted, the child is larger and more ‘developed’ at the end of the process than at the beginning, but has the same status at any point we care to look. Likewise, from its conception “by his own desire” in the sinner’s heart until it bursts forth in an external action, what we observe is sin. True-the sin is greater when it is actualized, but it is not something else at any earlier point in its development, nor was it not a sin if the process is aborted. I agree with Jon that the crux of the problem is at minutes 30-31 where JM asks DW if he's saying that "original sin produces something that is not culpable unless your will agrees with it" and (apart from some unstated nuances), DW agrees. This idea that it requires our ‘choice’ (i.e., the will) to convert morally wrong thoughts/emotions into sin goes all the way back to Pelagius. I am sure that DW is no card-carrying Pelagian, but he is at least inconsistent at this point. Finally, what is so bad about confessing our sins? It reminds us of the cleansing blood of Jesus and our Father's faithful and just forgiveness of our sins! (1 John 1)
These arguments rely on the figurative language in James 1:15; but they don't even get the metaphor right! James 1:15 says that once *desire* has conceived, it _gives birth_ to *sin* . There's no ambiguity. Applying this to your logic, it would mean that the woman who conceives the child is the child itself! That doesn't make any sense. If, indeed, the process can be interrupted or aborted, then there was still sin (that was conceived) - but in no sense can the womb itself be the child it bears. Sin comes into being, according to James, at the moment of sin's conception.
With Jared on this one. Just because it's not a willful transgression doesn't mean its not sin, no matter how momentary. I think we all know that it makes sanctification more successful to recognize and reject these momentary inward responses as sin unto God, not necessary to have public confession but the whole old testament sacrificial system was oriented towards non-willful sin. But I also get Wilson's point that we're then left with the puzzle of Jesus' temptation, which was without sin.
I'm wracking my brain to think of an example of this from the Bible. Was Joseph tempted by Potiphar's wife? Was Esther tempted not to go before the king? Was Daniel and Co tempted to eat the rich food? Why is Joshua commanded to be strong and courageous if he was not tempted to be cowardly? These seem like examples of being tempted without confession on the other end. If Jared accurately represents the standard, are there any examples we can look to learn from?
Here's what I believe: Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are DEAD to sin, live any longer therein?" Romans 6:6-7 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS FREE FROM SIN." Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Romans 6:18 "Being then made FREE from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." Romans 6:22-23 "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
@@matthewdyer2926 You don't think it does? Maybe I am looking at this wrong then. But I see Romans 6 as a total contradiction of what Jared Moore is teaching. We who have been washed in the blood of Jesus are NOT walking in constant sin. We all should NOT be excommunicated. Jesus imputes to us His righteousness so that the old man of sin is dead. We are no longer bound, but made free from sin. I think that directly answers the question here. I am not constantly having to ask God for forgiveness. As you said in an earlier comment, that would necessitate a constant, "God forgive me." if we are still walking in sin because of the original sin. But that was nailed on the cross.
I almost get the sense Doug is approaching all of this from a pastoral counseling/church membership angle whereas Jared is coming from "pure" theology. To me the difficulty comes from exactly the discussion beginning at 42:12. What do you do with these people who hate their sin but would suppose, from Jared's points, "you will never be saved"; would suppose that their salvation is demonstrably bogus every time they are tempted? I think Jared wants to simultaneously distinguish outward actions and inward sinful temptation (having the hamartiological cake), while also treating them as the same (eating it too). I think Doug's distinction between "sinful" and "sinning" as phrased here does get hairy. I think it all just proves the difficulty of finding balance in our language when so much of it has been co-opted by the world. Really good discussion in any case. Clearly the issue isn't going away any time soon.
Very helpful discussion. Would've been happy to see Jared Moore seek forgiveness from Doug Wilson for calling him an evangelical elite who doesn't respond to things. Hope he has at least in private.
I'm okay with making the distinction that Doug is making however I'm confessing BOTH as I agree with Jared and the apostle Paul that both are sin. I'm even okay with acknowledging that motion of original sin is lesser *in degree* than when it is acted upon.
@Traveler Incorrect. Did you watch the video? There is temptation from internal and temptation from external. The former is sin, the latter is not. Jesus's temptations were external.
I think Jared's position is more true to our psychological experience. The reality is that we feel the guilt merely by the temptation. We can't talk that away.
In the Sermón on the Mount Jesus says, “you have heard it said ‘thou shalt not COMMIT adultery’ but I say unto you, That whosoever LOOKETH ON A WOMAN TO LUST after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Emphasis mine) I didn’t go to seminary, but it seems that Jesus is saying it’s not just your actions, you sin in your desires. All of you men can examine the original words, but to a layman “look on her TO lust” sounds like it could be “pre” actually lusting and in fact, be the desire. I think Jesus was saying, we are Pharisees really, who hold back our confession, thinking we haven’t committed this terrible sin, but we are actually worse than we thought. That is why His grace is so incredible.
Jesus' formula is LOOK - LUST - SIN. The looking is not sin. It is a reflection of my God-created nature to be attracted to the sight of a woman. It is the formation of lustful intent that is the necessary condition to turn the look into sin.
I think you are conflating temptation with lust. The distinction Wilson is trying to make is that allowing oneself to lust is a sin to be confessed, but merely having the idea to lust occur to you is not a sin (though it comes from our sin nature for which we are guilty). The Bible speaks about temptation. Jesus was tempted as we are, yet without sin. It shouldn't be controversial to the layperson to acknowledge that temptation to sin is not sin in itself. It may be the result of sin, but if so, the underlying sin is what must be repented of rather than the temptation to sin.
@@colinplank If you are responding to me, I am very much NOT conflating temptation with lust. Temptation is what comes to our fallen flesh. We can expect to come to that part of our flesh that has not been mortified. Failing to mortify the flesh and a history of feeding it with sinful thoughts increases the odds one will not resist the temptation. Not resisting the temptation will be followed by the formation of lustful intent. That is when a sin has been committed. But if, when temptation comes to the flesh at its weak spot and it is resisted, a sin has not been committed.
@@JonJaeden you can’t rightly apply Look, Lust Sin to homosexual looking because it is NOT a reflection of your God-created nature to be attracted to someone of the same sex. The looking with interest is sin.
It may be helpful to keep the discussion centred around homosexuality specifically rather than sin generically. Or ask another way, is there a equivalence between hetero sexual sin and homo sexual sin. I would say it’s not equivalently evil. Or ask a different clarifying question: what is the goal for sanctification for someone with homosexual sexual sin vs someone with heterosexual sexual sin.
There was more agreement than disagreement here. Honestly, it seemed more like a disagreement of emphasis: Jared wants to take those motions of the heart more seriously, and Doug wants to focus more on actual actions in the heart. Both say that the motions are sin and come from a sin nature ("Sin versus sinning," as I think they both agreed to).
It is VERY concerning that a group of same-sex attracted Christians do what few others feel the need to do with the sins they struggle with most. People don’t identify as a gluttonous Christian or a gossiping Christian or an adulterous Christian. We don’t make our propensity for sin a part of our new identity in Christ. We are neither Jew nor Greek nor rich nor poor in the Body of Christ. The fact that someone struggles with the sin of desiring what is unnatural for us, should not be part of their identity as a new creation in Christ. And what ever happened to being set free from bondage to a particular sin? I know people who have been literally set free from meth addiction, repeated adultery, homosexuality, gluttony, and any number of sins that bind and defeat us. If God healed someone identifying as their sin, would they even know it?
I have struggled with same sex attractions all my life, after being molested for 10 years, starting when I was 4. Why would I want to identify myself with an act that was forced upon me initially and then in shame, I began pursuing as an adult? When I came to Christ, I became a new creation. I was lost, but now I'm found, blind but now I see. There is no way I want to be identified with that sin. However, I do believe that those of us who were caught in this sin are judged more harshly if we ever are tempted by it again. I know people who were delivered from drugs and alcohol too. But they don't go places where those things are readily available because they know that in the flesh, they could still be tempted. It doesn't mean that God has not delivered them. My own brother in law was promiscuous with women before Christ. He is now a minister, married, and has seven children. Nobody is surprised that he takes precautions because he is still tempted by other women. In fact, they admire him for knowing his weakness and fleeing it. But if I am tempted by another man, it means I am not surrendered and that I have not truly allowed God to change my heart. It's an unfair double standard. We are still flesh. And we are not ignorant of Satan's devices. He is going to tempt us with whatever he thinks will most likely trip us up.
@@41093AnthonyB I sincerely appreciate your honesty and humility. I do not want to hold my brothers and sisters who struggle with sin “a” to a different standard than sin “b”. I do see the Word speak about the significance of sexual sin because it is against our own body, but I am not God and I have no right to shame you if you have a repentant heart. I don’t know how you guard yourself if everyday interactions cause thoughts or feelings you should not have( and it sounds like you don’t want to think this way either). Just going about your life and being tempted, not seeking out some compromising visual images or gay bars or something, is very discouraging and I would think exhausting. I personally struggle with gluttony. It is hard to avoid the object of my desire, as well. I think this may be a sin I’m fighting on my deathbed. I think the point is we fight. And WE DO NOT FIGHT ALONE!!!The infinite, glorious God who spoke our reality into existence loves us enough to come down to be Emmanuel, then, it is even more unbelievable - He now lives inside us through Holy Spirit. We are more than conquerors! I’m so sorry this is your burden but it sounds like you are fighting. May God bless you and may we finish our race well.
@@41093AnthonyB who care what others think or judge you?! Are you in the fight? Does God know you are in the fight? Let them judge you, and let God judge them. Look not right nor left, look up! Press on, brother, press on!
As Wilson was using "orientation" in the past, it was descriptive and useful, but the word only communicates confusion now. It's like the rainbow ... they took it from us. In the last few days I've seen Wilson float alternate terms like "a Christian subject to homosexual temptation" and one I can't remember. We need something, because a lot of the confusion has been over terminology.
Jared and Doug's discussion was fantastic. I think I've found the key "difference" in their perspectives. (Both are correct BTW) Jared kept mentioning "original sin" which was the key. I believe Jared is describing confession of capital S "Sin" which we confess when placing saving faith in Christ for salvation and imputed righteousness. Doug was describing confession of "sins", post salvation, emphasizing the Bible does clearly teach we can be tempted and not sin. Both are right and good. Jared is guarding against false converts who, if unconverted, will not have the desire to overcome sin, and the "constant" same sex attraction may be evidence they have not died to self, and been born to new life in Christ. Side B Christianity basically teaches that one NEVER has to "test yourself" to see if you are in the faith which is denying Scripture and encouraging false faith. Doug on the other end is guarding against true converts to Christ being discouraged by their fleshly temptation automatically being condemned as "sin" when the Bible teaches that the temptation can be resisted, fled, escaped, without sin being committed which is good news for all believers. But this was where they "disagreed" on when "confession of sin" was required. To Jared's view, if a person is still lost in Sin, which is why they are continually tempted, they definitely do need to confess, repent and trust in Jesus. To Doug's view, true believers will still be tempted in many ways, and if our renewed Spirit is waging war against the flesh, we know we are being sanctified and victory over the temptation without sin is truly possible in Christ. In either case, they agree the Side B teaching that basically impure indwelling desires do not need to be mortified, sanctified, is really a false gospel, false teaching. God promises to sanctify and redeem all of us, including our desires, and our flesh.
I still don't know if Wilson and Moore actually disagree on the crux of the matter, because I don't think the crux of the matter was actually addressed: Is conceived sinful desire, not matter how fleeting or quickly opposed/mortified, actually sin and thus needing of appropriate and proportional and repentance for said desire? The answer is, of course, yes. There seemed to be some apprehension on Wilson's part to encourage repentance of the desire (no matter how fleeting) as to not encourage feelings of failure and shame, but since when is that appropriate when dealing with anything related to sin? The only way we defeat sin is to get at the root of it, which is the desire. We all concede that temptations come from within and without. When from within, the desire has already been conceived and it is sin. Also, Wilson seemed to encourage a type of fracturing of the self (what I am and what I do are different things). We are what we do. The parts of the sum are the whole just as much as the sum is. The modern notion of our 'best selves' allows many to say that they are not actually any 'version' of themselves other than the 'best version', thus not taking responsibility for themselves, no matter which 'version' they present.
"When from within, the desire has already been conceived and it is sin" -- in James 1:15, the wording is "when desire has conceived it gives birth to sin" -- desire is the subject, and sin is what it has conceived - your argument is flawed because you have misremembered the scripture.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 Exactly...from the moment the desire has been conceived, it gives birth to sin. The desire can't be conceived without it giving birth to sin. It is an impossibility. It's a 1 for 1 relationship; 1 stacked on top of the together. If you're saying the desire can be conceived without it birthing sin, you're wrong, because that's not what the text says; it's also impossible for that to be true. It is possible to be tempted from without and not desire. Someone could offer me drugs, for free, and I literally have no desire for them. It is not sin then. Now, if that was a sinful tendency of mine, and I mulled it over for a split second, that is sinful desire and it is sin. Besides that, I wasn't trying to quote James 1:15 by saying that. I also had Romans 7:8 in mind as well as Gen 3:6, 1 Tim 2:14, Rom 14:23 and Heb 4:15. Romans 7:8 says that it is sin which leads to all manners of concupiscence. While Jesus was tempted in all points, never once does the Bible say He desired anything sinful because as soon as desire is conceived, it (100% of the time) births sin because the conceived desire IS sin.
@@JR-rs5qs Let's start with James 1:15, because that is the figurative language upon which your entire argument hangs. If those other passages are relevant, then you will have to do more than quote them- explain why you think they support your opinion. You have misunderstood James 1:15. The desire is not conceived-- it is doing the conceiving. Take this sentence: "He has killed me, so I died". "He" is the subject (notice that it is not "him"). "Has killed" is a participle. "Me" is the direct object. This sentence can only ever mean that He is the one doing the killing, and I am the one doing the dying. The grammar of James 1:15 is the same. "Desire" is in nominative, "has conceived" is declined for the subject, "desire", and "sin" is in accusative. It's 100% clear. So you have to rephrase your argument, since desire is explicitly not the thing being conceived - it is the womb, in this analogy. Sin is the only thing being conceived. It is the zygote and the embryo, the fetus and the child. As for the other verses, I will address them here: Romans 7:8 and 14:23 should be taken together, as they are from the same epistle. In Romans 14:23, it is the eating that brings condemnation, not the doubt. So Romans 7:8 is probably not contradicting a point Paul makes later on -- thank you for finding the refutation for me. As for Genesis 3:6, besides the obvious error involved in using a narrative passage as a didactive, again, it undermines your point because Eve is condemned when she eats it. But if you try and use 1 Tim. 2:14 to say that being deceived was the sin, I would ask two questions: 1) why use the phrase "became a sinner" instead of explicitly saying "she sinned by being deceived"? And 2) what is the context of this passage? Is Paul seeking to teach us something about the difference between temptation and sin? Or, rather, is this discussion completely off-topic both for this passage and the entire epistle? It's as much as abuse of scripture to divorce a text from its context as it is to change the actual words. Even if this phrase did say what you need it to say, it would be easier to explain it as Paul's use of non-precise language regarding an ancillary topic. If i write a letter to you about how you ought to lead your congregation, it would be very strange for me to anticipate using my instructions for leading the different sexes in the church to be used as an argument that desire is itself a sin... especially if, in the very next sentence, I were to write something like "But women will be saved in childbearing". Finally, let me be perfectly redundant here: absolutely none of these give any credence to the figurative description of conception and birth, so they're irrelevant to the initial comment.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 The preceding verse (14) tells us the context: evil desire. Evil desire that willingly receives (that's a better word from what I'm trying to say) temptation conceives sin. Godly desire can't conceive sin because it doesn't willingly receive temptation and conceive sin. You'd have to change the nature of the desire, or somehow say evil desire isn't actually bad, in this context to make it mean what you want it to mean. And consider Col 3:5 where we're told to mortify evil desires (concupiscence). There may be a debate to be had on whether evil desire that is not met with temptation (and conceives sin), is sin in and of itself, but no one can ever claim from Scripture that evil desire is okay or a neutral thing. Given the clear commandment to mortify evil desires, the debate is moot and anyone who says not to worry about mortifying evil desire is out of bounds with Scripture. The passages from James are clear though: if one's evil desire receives temptation, it conceives sin. As for the other verses, you're searching my mind for what I meant about them and you don't really have that ability.
@@JR-rs5qs I was offering my objections ahead of time, not "searching your mind". You haven't told me how those verses relate to your opinion, so I explained why I don't think that they support it. That isn't uncharitable; it's discussion. It gives you the opportunity to rebut my rebuttal without the tedious process of repeated back-and-forth. As for the verse in James; I'm not convinced that James makes a distinction between good and bad desires, and while I think this would undermine his point, I still agree with what you've written here. A desire for a bad thing is a bad desire, and we should seek with all our mind to alter that desire to its proper end. However, I think that the desire has a proper end. Thus the desire itself is only sinful if it's twisted towards the wrong end: sexual desire is not a bad thing in itself. Adulterous desire is a twisted version of the good desire God gave us. But the very important point of all of this is that it is desire that conceives sin. Desire is not in itself something which can incur guilt without the acquiescence of the volition. Desires may be wrongly ordered, and sanctification involves both ordering them rightly and resisting them when they aren't. That's why I would not agree that James is talking about evil desires, as if they are a distinct category. Our desires produce sin in us if they are not oriented properly, but the desire in itself may be a good thing. It is good to want to eat. It is unhelpful to feel hungry during a fast, and it is evil to want to eat when your eating damages your health. But you would never say that wanting to eat is a bad thing on its own.
Some of Doug's critics are now referring to this conversation and claiming that there really isn't much difference between him and the revoice crowd. Hardly. I think this is only Doug's drawn out way of articulating Luther's saying," you can't stop the birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from building a nest in your hair", to paraphrase. Nothing I've ever heard Doug teach about Christian conduct would cause me to think he had an ounce of revoice in him. However, I'm not so sure that I'm completely on his side on this. For me, this is a tough one. Cudos to pastor Jared, definitely. Isn't it amazing, though, how lust occupies these discussions almost exclusively? Not that lust isn't one of the most damaging and common temptations, but boy there's a lot of stuff we don't talk about much, like resentment, gluttony, laziness, whatever. There's so many "acceptable sins".
As a Christian lay person, I very much appreciate this respectful and amicable discussion, but, I must confess, my head is spinning! I suppose while I'm confessing my sin, I will also confess that my sinful nature is also a sin (to cover my bases) and trust that God will forgive my sins and cleanse me from ALL unrighteousness. 🤷♂
Thanks Jon for providing so much info, including this discussion on SSA and desires. I can see in my own church the problem of confession being mostly of being merely sinful, instead of confessing specific sins as defined by the Law. Here is my summary of the main point of the debate between Dr Jared Moore and Pastor Doug Wilson: "Is being tempted without indulging in temptation a sin?" Dr Jared Moore: It depends on what kind of temptation it is. If you're tempted with an inherently good thing, but it's offered through an evil means, and you reject the evil means, then you're being tempted like Jesus, and then you haven't sinned. But if you're tempting yourself from within, meaning the lust of the flesh has started in your heart, an evil desire, an evil inclination, an evil motion [which means a desire] of original sin, then you've already begun to sin in your heart. When you resist that internal temptation, it is a victory as far as action, but it is not a victory concerning your heart. The goal is to be sinless in heart, like Jesus is. Supporting scriptures: 1 Peter 2:11 (CSB) 11 Dear friends, I urge you as strangers and exiles to abstain from sinful desires that wage war against the soul. Mark 12:30 (CSB) 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. Colossians 3:5 (CSB) 5 Therefore, put to death what belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. James 1:13-15 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself doesn’t tempt anyone. 14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death. Pastor Doug Wilson: You do need to confess that you're sinful, you're corrupt and sinful. But that's an acknowledgment of what you are, not a confession of what you did. You didn't do anything wrong. You don't have to confess fleshly lusts that are not active. Dr Jared Moore: But they are active if they are pricking your heart. It's an inclination. It's a motion. My thing is if you can name it, it's active. Original sin is a state of corruption. It's not particular. You couldn't name the sin. Dr Jared Moore: Paul says in Romans 7 that he lusts with his flesh: Romans 7:7-8 (CSB) 7 What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! But I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet [Gk 1939 epithumia] if the law had not said, Do not covet. 8 And sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting [Gk epithumia (Strong's 1939), which means an inordinate desire, lust] of every kind. For apart from the law sin is dead. It is his flesh that is lusting. It's sinning, even when he's not consenting with his mind. I understand the distinctions Pastor Doug Wilson is making, but I don't think that that is the Reformed position: The Westminster Confession says VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof 5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17-18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions [movement of the mind, desires, or passions; mental act, or impulse to any action; internal activity]thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5-8, 25, Gal. 5:17) Calvin says on James Chapter 1, verse 15 is "And the Papists ignorantly lay hold on this passage, and seek to prove from it that vicious, yea, filthy, wicked, and the most abominable lusts are not sins, provided there is no assent;" Luther also shared a similar view, and so did John Owen.
I think the difficulty here is apportioning. And I think that this may be a trap. By reference, I am brought to rememberence of a Latin phrase Martin Luther employed when delving into how the soul transformed by God through His justification of us but at the same time in the same circumstances we remain sinners: "Simul justus et peccator." (i.e., being at the same time both justified or righteous in God's eyes and yet still a sinner while alive in this world) What I am suggesting is that the inward sinful nature, though covered by Christ's blood, is still my responsibility and thus must be confessed and forgiveness asked...and then fully comprehending that God has "already" forgiven me for Christ's sake and by no merrit of my own. Simply stated, and possibly a crude paraphrase of Paul, if I perceive it as sin, after careful consideration of God's Word on the matter, then it most certainly is sin and thus confessable and repentable and forgiveable. Give all this, I think that both Pastors Moore and Wilson are simultaneously correct and incorrect in their interpretation and both would profit will from a careful review oflash other's perspectives...not for change to the others view but to incorporate the differing views understanding that the full orbed answer may will be synergistic, contextual, and significantly more complex. God bless you all in Christ Jesus.
Jon, I probably "burned my bridges" with you as a result of my comments on your previous podcasts. I hope you saw my apology to you. Thank you for having both of these men on at the same time. I can appreciate that there are stands that all three of you (and me too) see as Scriptural. Homosexuality is a sin. We cannot take on the identity of a sin and add it to our identity as a Christian. We all agree that any acting that is of a homosexual leaning is sin. There is sanctification for everyone, regardless of sin pattern. Those of us who were caught in this particular sin can change through the power of the Holy Spirit, just like those caught in other sins can change. I still don't quite understand the comparison of non SSA lust to ice cream or the verse in Proverbs about if a man steals for food. Ice cream is neither here nor there morally. Food is a necessity to sustain life. But a man looking at a woman and wanting to use her body for his own selfish sexual gratification is neither morally neutral, nor is it a need to sustain life. It's wicked, so much so that that is the specific example Jesus used to say if we look to lust (for anything really), we have sinned already in our hearts. I personally would apply that to temptations toward the same sex also. But Jesus used the example of a man looking on a woman. If I understood Jarrod Moore correctly, he believes everyone is living in constant sin. Where is the victory then? I believe Doug Wilson would be very helpful to anyone who has turned his back on this sin. There truly is hope as we submit our whole selves to Christ. It's not a constant life of defeat. Finally, I don't know if you saw my previous comment about the lack of compassion. I did want to clarify that I was not meaning to say you aren't compassionate toward those of us who were sexually abused. I have no idea what your attitudes are on that subject. That was meant toward those of us who have struggled with SSA. And I should not have stated it like I did. I should have said that I did not feel compassion as I listened to the two podcasts, only judgment. But that was my feeling and may not have been your intention at all. I desperately would like to read Robert Gagnon's series on this subject on Facebook, and I understand he spoke to Rosaria about it also. But we are conservative Mennonites and we don't use Facebook. Hopefully one day he will publish that series of five articles elsewhere. Jon, I want to say again I'm sorry for the disrespectful way I disagreed with you on the previous podcasts.
Does Jared not lose the debate at 45:20 "I would encourage them to continue fighting" is that then a good thing to fight? Resisting sin is good? That means you are not sinning? Otherwise why would you counsel someone to continue in their sin of fighting an orientation that makes them a walking sin? Do you not see how this can fill someone with abject despair?
That's exactly right. It was at that moment Jared, knowingly or not, conceded that he in fact operates in the EXACT same categories Doug has. Jared's own position doesn't allow for what he would do pastorally.
I think pastor Doug Wilson answers were EXCELLENT (IMO). The other pastor seemed to be confused and "hunting" for something. Doug was very clear. As a seminary graduate myself I dont know if I've ever heard it explained better!!! Thank you.
It's funny that people with a prejudice for or against someone or something will hear and see what they want. The bill Nye vs Ken ham debate was perfect example. Atheists thought Nye crushed it. Christians thought Ham did.
@@YTTraveler777 I think you are right in a vast majority of cases. Having said that some people (I "hope" I am one) can listen to debates etc and disassociate thier own inclinations. I often listen to debates and will readily admit when the side I disagree with won debate. It's a good mental exercise for me. I have to examine why I believe or think what I believe and think.
I think this debate is getting to the heart of the question of the origin of evil that as far as I know, no one has ever been able to definitively answer.
Gregory ~ The closest l heard was MacArthur's sermon at Ligonier Ministries called ''The problem of Evil''. He said before it ''This is an easy one!'' xDD MacArthur!
We are tempted everyday. Am I suppose to repent every second of my existence for being born human? We have a sin nature that we have already been saved from and that nature will be tempted. It’s about resisting that temptation, but if you entertain it you are sinning.
That is why we are told to mortify our sin nature. It is its desires that determine the temptations that come against us and provide the occasion for sinning. So while the sinful nature is not sinning, refusing ot failing to mortify it should probably be classified as sinning.
I agree with Doug. When Joseph was tempted, he was likely enticed at first, which is why he ran. But if he had sinned in that way, he would not have said that he could not do that against God. He did something good, not something bad. The temptation is not a sin, only the sin is sin haha.
I don't think anyone would say that a man being enticed, having sexual desire, when he did not ask for it (as in he wasn't at a strip club or watching something that he knew would have sexual content...) but denying it, is the same as the man who is enticed and gives in to it.
So, it is sounding like it is what we do with that temptation in the first few moments of temptation that actually causes us to sin? Thank you for this episode. These are far more beneficial than a he said she said kind of videos.
Not according to Moore. He claims that temptation is sin. Which is wrong. James clearly makes the distinction. Which is sad that no scripture was read at all only merely mentioned. This was a massive flaw in this discussion
@@Richardcontramundum the reading of scripture would have benefited the lay man, but these men knew it by memory. I think we got an inside look at 2 pastors, one older, one younger sharpening each other, rather than teaching the layman
I am glad Wilson agreed to do this. Generally a fan but Moore is right here. I do think there is a slippery slope on sin issues coming out of the Wilson/post mil camp
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Lord's prayer makes the distinction between temptation and sin. I am with doug wilson. You can not indulge the temptation which leads to sin.
I am very interested in hearing this, not done it yet. I read through the comments so that I might see if the confusion over the issue of SSA as sin was clarified. I heard the first interview with Pastor Moore and I heard the shorter response by Pastor Wilson. Neither seemed clear enough to me, and I have very much enjoyed the blogs of Doug Wilson and much of his teaching. I have never heard Jared Moore before. All I can say is although I do understand Doug's verbiage (we are the same age) and appreciate his intellect impacted by the wide reading he has practiced all his life, the one blog in response (concupiscence) was confusing to me. I've look up 'desires' throughout the Scripture, especially the separation of desire from action to see if desires themselves for the believer was sin, and therefore to be confessed. The ones that seem to fall into this category I reproduce below, if any have interest. Make of them what you will. I'm going to listen to this later, being up against bedtime at the moment. Job 20:12-14 “Though evil is sweet in his mouth And he hides it under his tongue, Though he desires it and will not let it go, But holds it in his mouth, Yet his food in his stomach is changed To the venom of cobras within him.” Ecclesiastes 11:9 Rejoice, young man, during your childhood, and let your heart be pleasant during the days of young manhood. And follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes. Yet know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things. Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Ephesians 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. I Timothy 6:9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. II Timothy 2:3, 4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. James 3:4 Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. II Peter 2:18, 19 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
So listened, stopping at places to think things through. The closest Scripture I get to what Pastor Moore was saying is Galatians 5:24 above. The rest fit the argument from Pastor Wilson, as he repeatedly made it, as a matter of time, like conception, though much faster, from 1 second to 15 minutes. If at the time of the desire emerging from one's flesh, one's righteous soul repudiates it, it is acknowledged that the desire was of the flesh, that of us that remains unredeemed until the rapture/resurrection (just a shade of eschatology to spice this up). If one gives any nod to continuing the pleasure of temptation, the outcome is disobedience to righteousness, or transgression of the law, or some statement to indicate one has crossed over to entertaining one's sin to bring forth death. So we confess always we have remaining in us, that is, in our flesh, the sin principle within our identity as saints, but we also confess our sins when they have conceived, when we embrace the pleasure of continuing such desire. I guess my take on this is: temptation is in the air we breath...no, wait, better: temptation is in all the things of the world being like the sweetest poison on our lips; we are aware that if we lick them we die, but so often we just want the taste too badly and stumble. We confess our desire, as Doug pointed out, as sinful but not in itself sin, but the definition of temptation. But we confess our taste of it as an act of sin, and if we can spit it out fast enough to avoid the doing of it our sin has been limited to our heart's act of sin (as a man lusts in his heart). Getting clearer to me, if not so in this note.
@@craigchambers4183 nice. But Jared Moore hates your nuance. He wants things much simpler. He wants zero degrees, zero nuance. You are just a hopeless sinner and can't even confess properly. Jared and Jared alone has mastered true perfect confession for only Jared is honest enough among mere men.
This conversational yet confrontational format is an endangered species these days. Big Eva types ghost their critics or throw grenades from behind their high fortress walls. It's obvious you each are interested in resolving this issue. Much respect to the three of you. And thanks Jon for coordinating it.
It’s great. We need more of it!
This is a very edifying and deep conversation. I'm glad Pastor Moore and Wilson could have a face to face exchange like this.
I have never heard this topic explored at such depth before. This is a gem. Thanks to both men for participating faithfully in this discussion, it is good!
This is the type of discussions that you can really learn from and more is needed in today's NO DEPTH OF CONVERSATION world. Great job Jon, Jared and Doug!!!
How much do you trust the Spirit in this? When the Spirit convicts, reproves… follow.
It doesn’t have to be complicated. ‘’But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire WHEN it has conceived (passed through the will) gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” James 14-15 “BLESSED is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that love him.” James 3:12 So that man is blessed when he says NO to the evil stirrings in his heart and does not entertain that sin or commit it. The temptation itself is not sin.
Couldn’t agree more.
@@edodt4220 Thank you so much for your comment! Job is a perfect example. We have a sin nature but we fight it’s motions. Gal 5:16-17. A Christian could get so discouraged if he thinks that even having a temptation is sin that he ceases trying to overcome.
Yes. Thanks for this. Because of Jesus' perfect righteousness our sins are not counted against us and when we resist the devil we get to rejoice that we got to participate in making him flee and demonstrating the power of Christ to crush him beneath our feet.
And, in parallel ... "Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" requires the action of "lustful intent" to link looking to sin. We look at what attracts our attention and that comes from our inner desires.
No, you've missed the point of James 1. Some temptations are external, but many (even most, according to all Reformed comment I have checked) are begotten by our own (internal) concupiscence, and are therefore sinful. The idea that they have to receive the consent of the will in order to become sin comes from Pelagius.
Thanks to Jon and both pastors for clarifying what you believe about this
Thanks for facilitating this. I hear Doug and I’m like yes you are right. Then I hear Jared cross examine and I’m like you bring good points. Great stuff to study more.
I don't hear good points from Jared. I hear obtuse closed minded stubborn.
I'm so glad you got these two, together. It was definitely a needful thing, in my opinion.
Jon, thank you so much for this conversation and to Pastor Moore ans Pastor Wilson for agreeing to the discussion. It was edifying to see these two brothers converse in love and respect despite their disagreement. I can see that each is interested in truth and not just promoting their point of view. Thank you again!
This conversation greatly helped me, and I appreciate that the three of you gave your time and attention. I am old now, but I grew up in a church where if you asked the pastor a question..say, for instance..on evolution vs. Creation, (as happened with me), the response was curt and dismissive..the very opposite of iron harpening iron. discipleship. I still get disgusted when I think about that. It is up to me, of course, to confess my bitterness as sin unto my Savior.
I feel your pain sister. Every pastor I've talked to has been exactly that way. When I was younger I would get hurt by their responses, and then get angry. Of course I would confess the anger and forsake it, but the pain was still there. If I think about it now, the memory of the anger is still there, but only the hurt remains. I haven't met a single pastor yet, that makes me feel a Christlike vibe. Met many lay people that do, but no pastor's. I always excused many by thinking they're just busy and distracted. But I still feel that sting when it happens. I suppose I can only try to be as Christlike as I can be, and pray for these pastors as he would. I too am old, that's just means we're closer to being with nothing but perfect people. Ourselves being perfect as Jesus. The best thing is finally being with him, and to never be parted from him. God bless !
Wow, can’t believe this conversation happened. Thank you brother, looking forward to this.
brightest ~ l said the same thing. lf you watch John MacArthur's ''The problem of Evil'' sermon at Ligonier Ministries ...it will help even more! Especially since John call the topic ''An easy one!'' xD
@@theresa42213 I have to check that one out!
@@41093AnthonyB ~ l hope you find it. l can give the link if you cant. lts a good one, as all of J Mac's stuff is.
I know Pastor Moore didn’t use as many words but I think his view is the right one and actually more helpful and clear to the struggling sinner.
I think his view leads to a life of defeat. Romans 6 says we are not to continue in sin. "How can we who are dead to sin, live any more therein?" Through Christ, we are set free. If we are covered by the blood, we do not all deserve to be excommunicated.
Well your probably wrong.
Thank you for this. This was a great follow up to the previous conversation with Pastor Moore alone.
For theologians (as we all are), it is useful and accurate to make a categorical distinction between temptation and concupiscence, where temptation is the external proposition to sin, and concupiscence is the internal response from our corrupt human nature that finds the sin alluring. It may be impossible to parse them in any particular instance of temptation or sin, but as categories temptation and concupiscence should be kept completely distinct from each other.
If I understand what Jared Moore was saying, my every thought is sinful and I must confess that sin. If this is true, what did Jesus free me from. What is covered by the blood? This sounds like a works system more horrid than the pharisees prescribed. Thank you Jon for bringing these to pastors together for a conversation.
He redeemed you from the death penalty for the sin you’ve committed. If you continue to sin after knowing your sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice.
Some sins are more serious than others. See the Westminster Larger Catechism questions 148-152.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 responses like the above make me wonder... why did we even bother with the Reformation to begin with? Isn't the idea that we have to confess every sin, and that some sins are more serious than others, basically just Catholic confession/mortal sin all over again?
@Joseph Brandenburg No. You're obviously ignorant of what the Bible says. Secondly there is a distinction between the Reformed view of sin and the papist view. For one thing, Protestants do not lose their justification, confess to priests or do penance to restore their justification.
The Reformed view is that after conversion there is a remaining corruption that needs to be fought and struggled against:
Hebrews 12:4-6 (NKJV): You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons:
“My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”
Secondly, apostasy is a real possibility for those who may be foreordained to reprobation:
1 John 2:19 (NKJV): They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
And there are sins that lead to death:
1 John 5:16-18 (KJV 1900): If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
Those who belong to God cannot fall away. They overcome habitual sins rather than giving in to sins that lead to death.
@Joseph Brandenburg The Westminster Larger Catechism does not minimize sin.
Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?
A. No man is able either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.
Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
This video makes me realize I’m not as smart as I thought I was and I need to be more conscious of needing to repent.
Lynne ~ Me too! :)
Thank you, Jon, so much for having these fine men on your program. This discussion was very helpful.
WOW! Wonderful that you three got together to DO this! l commend all of you, and you Jon for being in the forefront of this battle! Amen, and May God Bless you and keep you all! :D
Fascinating discussion. I am thankful that Wilson had the opportunity to respond.!
Way to go, Jon! I can't wait to finish listening after work tonight. Very valuable topic to discuss!
I am a big fan of Pastor Wilson. I am glad to hear that he would not state things the same way now . I think that his wording was not good or careful in 2012. I don’t think he was saying “gay is OK“. I think what he is saying is that the church is a hospital for sinners. And those who have the sin of homosexuality are welcome to enter his church with a spirit of repentance and submission to Christ. I think he was wrong to identify a Christian as gay because the Scriptures say our is in Christ. Whatever we did in the past is our past now we are a new creation in Christ.
@@wessbess I believe Jared Moore's insteuction on this topic leads to greater victory in Christ. I also believe that much of Doug Wilson's teaching is beneficial, just not so much this one. It is much better to confess and slay sinful thoughts as sin. More and faster healing awaits those who do so. Loved this conversation, though.
@@ericagoggans7189 what do you think of when he said around minute 43 that we sin all the time? Where's the victory in that?
And further states that we all should be thrown out of the church if we knew our hearts. But by his own admission we're all doing it all the time!
Contradictory to me
@@Richardcontramundum I think it means we are more consistantly aware of our need for Jesus. Every time I confess a sinful thought and make it obedient to Christ it 1. Shows me how sinful I am and 2. Shows me how perfect, forgiving and great God is. It results in repentance and praise. It is an existence full of joy that I can't eloquently articulate, but it keeps me humble and wanting to walk worthy of the calling....if that makes sense?
Thanks for facilitating this Jon. Wilson has solid conservative credentials on a lot of cultural issues, so his statements came as a shock. It is always good to examine the scriptures for truth and avoid making an idol out of a pastor or theologian, because they are all susceptible to error. Enjoy the work of Wilson and the folks over at Canon Press, but always examine everything in light of scripture.
Moore is presenting an unrealistic standard that is unbiblical.
A couple things:
1. Whomever you agree with here, I feel after watching this a conviction that I'm not being as intentional and serious about confessing sin as I should. I'm entirely too lackadaisical.
2. I do think that Moore's position, at least as I understand it, would almost be an over correction to my current lackadaisicalness. I would almost feel that I'd need to be in constant confession of sin. That feels like bondage to me. And it also seems to equate temptation to sin WITH sin itself. So even to experience temptation would require confession of sin. But don't we believe that Jesus Himself experienced temptation to sin? If Jared is right (at least as I'm hearing him), Jesus Himself would be guilty of sin, just for having that temptation. I know Jared wouldn't intend that, but that's the way I think his perspective points.
3. Haven't we all had something pop in our minds unbidden (sometimes very detestable and gross things) that we don't even find attractive to us, and immediately repulse us? Would we need to confess such thoughts EVEN THOUGH we are repulsed by them, and are not tempted to give in to do them?
@@Alan112573 I had the same impression of Jarrod Moore, that there is no victory, that we are sinning constantly. Paul wrote in Romans 6, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Then he answers his own question:
"2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, LIVE ANY LONGER THEREIN?"
To tell a young man that if he is tempted, he has fallen into sin could have devastating results. After living in this "defeat" long enough, he may be tempted to just give up. But that is what progressive sanctification is all about. We become more and more Christ like as we walk in obedience to Him.
I just appreciate this discussion and having worked it over to some degree I’ve come to rely on Romans 8 :22 especially.but also several verses before and behind Thankyou and I pray the Lords blessing on all of us to grow in this rich subject
You can skip to 43:00 for when the conversation is actually a conversation. They essentially talked past each other…well, Wilson most of the actual talking since economy of words isn’t really his thing…up until that point. It finally became a discussion at that point. Wilson explained how he believes Jesus temptation was real but Moore’s position on in what sense was Jesus’ temptation real if temptation itself is a sin. Good back and forth eventually. It just took way too long to get there. I love Wilson and find him helpful on a plethora of topics. Pastor Moore seems genuine and made good points. Both positions seem to have some weakness. Wilson’s would seem to be over-nuancing and Moore’s would be over-simplifying. I mean, Moore basically said he himself, and everyone else, should be excommunicated. 👀
Jon, you are doing God's work here, anyone saying this is divisive is not watching or listening to what is being said. I'm a big fan of Pastor Wilson but sometimes people say things that need to be clarified and it is excellent that you could get both men on your channel and work through the issues. If you are not watching Conversations That Matter then what are you watching.
Wow! I didn’t realize Jon had them both with him to engage in the conversation!
Editing my comment.
Not fully on board with Wilson here.
Enjoyed the discussion.
Sin of the heart is being ignored I think.
I'm not a theologian and grateful for it
This was a helpful discussion.
The reality is much worse than we think.
We are all theologians; we just haven’t spent much time thinking about it.
Most, if not all, of us have believed that it is more important for us to live life than to make careful distinctions of true theology.
The terrifying reality is that my thoughts, my words, and my actions all communicate that God is less holy, less pure, less, just, less loving, less merciful, less gracious, +++++ than He has revealed himself to be. Woe is me! I am undone! At every turn, I see that I fall short of the glory of God. Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Isaiah 6, Matthew 11, and Romans 7.
Yup been waiting for Jon’s response.
To all three of you: this was really good! This is the way we should discuss and debate our differences. Bravo!!!
Jon, this was indeed most helpful. It is an issue most thorny that demands a full orbed reading, analysis, and comprehension from Scripture on this matter. I think there are parallels between this subject...concupiscence...and the superficial dichotomy between Paul and James with regard to faith and works, that becomes clear and fully compatible with careful, prayerful study and comprehension. I think, too, that Pastors Moore and Wilson will likely find themselves in full agreement following further careful, prayerful study of the entirety of God's most Holy Word.
Thanks for hosting this discussion, Jon.
Resisting temptation without the Holy Spirit is not ultimately successful because it is often based on pride (I.e. I can do this on my own strength). It is better to resist using God’s strength & grace that results from growing in intimacy with Him and resting in Him
Luther said you cannot prevent birds flying over your head but you can prevent them from making a nest there . .. I am a sinner still . And this is what drives me to Christ .. Romans 7 end with thanksgiving for the gospel .. all our thoughts should end there .. amen
Wow, so glad this happened. Kudos to you John for bringing this about! Wilson is splitting hairs where there’s nothing to split, IMO.
Thanks for sharing, to all this was very helpful.
I love this conversation.
Thank you to all who made this happen. Goodness somewhat exhausting. Maybe I need to confess my temptation to be exhausted…Nevertheless a great example of iron sharpens iron. I really wonder from a Biblical counseling/ shepherding perspective how this looks. Especially Jared- how is this applied besides encouraging someone to continue the fight?
Jon, good stuff. I think both men are sitting on the same horse, but it is precarious. If you dig your heel in on one side you're likely to fall into perfectionism. If you dig your heel in on the other side, you're likely to nuance yourself into confusion or accommodation.
Here's how the pastoral situation - the real life situation - and the theology of the thing - merge in my own head.
When I see something on the internet that arouses my lust, and that in turn arouses a loud, "no no no!", from within me, and I close the page and get back to work, I find myself sighing with relief and thanking God for deliverance. I also lament, to varying degrees, that I was aroused in the first place. I wish that I was not tempted, and long for the day.
But when I see something on the internet that arouses my lust and I respond by interacting with what I see with an internal, "more, please", either in my imagination or by searching for similar content, then what I feel is shame - and a sin that needs to be confessed. I wish that I had not fallen, and long for the day.
Jared's position seems to emphasise the significance of the arousal, Doug's position seems to emphasise the validity and significance of the, "no no no!"
I like Jared's description of the problem. It's clear and straightforward. I also like that Doug clearly sees that between temptation and sin there is the all-important battle.
Jared's description of the problem could (if not carefully worded) flatten the existence of the battle between the two natures within me and lean in the direction of despair.
Doug's description of the problem could (if not carefully worded) also flatten the battle within me and lean in the direction of accommodation.
Agree with doug on this one and very grateful for him coming on the show to debate this
Doug: "I would draw a distinction between the sin nature and the sin-ning..."
Jared: "But, that's still sin."
Jon: "Jesus had the best car."
This is the best summary.
The sinful nature and remaining corruption does indeed occasionally cause Christians to sin. However, if a person is still enslaved by sinful thoughts that break forth into habitual sinful lusts in the mind and which then lead to sinful behavior, then that person must question whether or not he or she is actually converted. We are no longer enslaved by sinful thoughts after regeneration, repentance, and conversion. And no, this is not Wesleyan perfectionism. The genuine Christian will struggle against sinful thoughts, not acquiesce to some phony sexual orientation excuse which was invented by wicked men pretending to have "knowledge" or science in the realm of psychology. Biblical psychology makes no room for such compromises. Psalm 119:11 (NKJV)
11 Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You.
Jesus had an advantage that we do not have when He was tempted. Jesus had no original sin and no sinful nature, not to mention that Jesus was God incarnate. The Arminians use this to suggest that Jesus could not have actually sinned if any of this is true and therefore the temptation was not real. The Arminians then suggest that Jesus could have sinned and overcame sin by sheer will power, and so can you. Obviously this is false. We are not Jesus. We have a sinful nature and we are born with original sin. We overcome sin by God's grace with which we are in cooperation because of God's gift of initial regeneration. Our regeneration and our perseverance in faith are monergistic, while our progress in sanctification is synergistic as a result of the other two monergistic graces. We must attain assurance of salvation by our struggle against sin. We show our love for God by obeying the commandments. John 14:15.
This is great stuff! Might warrant a second approach at the topic.
Great conversation gentlemen! 👍
This is great. Thanks Jon. What a great sharpening!
Hey Jon,
Thank you for these meaningful conversations. I just discovered your channel about a month ago. To be honest, it would have been earlier, but embarrassedly (& to my shame), when I saw your videos on RUclips, I thought you had a striking resemblance to the dude on the Deconstructionists Podcast. So, I avoided your channel as I thought you were him. What a relief it was when I actually decided to click on one of your videos. Now, I'm finding myself having to do catch up on your videos; as the material has been amazing & very beneficial to me. Keep up the good work! Blessings in the Lord!
I’m still a little confused by Dr. Moore’s position. Is there room for a Christian to be tempted and not sin? Can a Christian who was once homosexual, but now rejects that, be tempted by that sin, without actually committing the sin themselves?
Looking forward to hearing this!
This conversation has been helpful. Iron sharpening iron.
The comments have been Scriptural useful,and
wonderous in Grace.This Conversation That Mat-
ters was most edifying 🧭 🙏 ♨️ ✝️ 🕊 🛐 🔥 🤲 🧠 Thank You Very Much Jon Harris for this con-
tent 🎙 🎚 🎧 🎛 🎤
this was one of the best things i've ever seen on youtube
Doug Wilson has always struggled with Romans 7, and he's always struggled with correctly understanding this admittedly tough passage in its application to the Christian life. Ever since I've known him, and I was a Greyfriar at Christ Church under his tutelage for about four years, he's had issues with applying Romans 7 to the Christian life. In the time I've known him, he has always held to the view that in some way, shape, or form, Romans 7 does not apply to the Christian life. His father, Jim Wilson, ingrained this approach to Romans 7 into Doug, and I think it has (sadly) become a staple view on Romans 7 around Moscow, ID and Christ Church (where I live now), and what's worse, it has become quite prevalent within the CREC as well. I don't think Doug is anywhere near as unbiblical on this issue as his father was, but he still has some serious hang-ups when it comes to properly applying Romans 7 to the Christian life. In fact, one of the first books Doug ever published, titled The Fruit of the Cross, was his (along with a couple other authors) attempt at trying to prove that Romans 7 was not about Paul's life as a post-regenerate Christian, but only about Paul's life as a pre-regenerate Pharisee, struggling with the demands of God's law upon himself and his conscience. I think Doug has moved away from this view over the years TO SOME EXTENT, especially after becoming a Calvinist in the early 90s (or maybe late 80s), but he still retains much of the unbiblical perfectionisms that his father passed down to him, and that Romans 7 (when understood rightly) would guard against in his own life, and in his ministry, etc. It gets much more difficult trying to deny the application of Romans 7 to the Christian life as one becomes more Calvinistic in their hamartiology and soteriology. And I think that his reading John Owen's stuff over the years, and specifically Owen's stuff on indwelling sin and the mortification of sin, etc., has also done some good in bringing Doug back to the view that Romans 7 is about the Christian life. But it became quite apparent in this dialogue between Wilson and Moore, that Doug still has some serious hang-ups and problems when it comes to applying Romans 7 to the Christian life. In other words, Doug still maintains to a greater extent than not, the view that Romans 7 is not about the NORMAL Christian life. And I think this also ties in with some of Doug's other doctrinal issues, such as his perfectionistic approach to the doctrine of regeneration, and some of his incorrect views on the nature and extent of sin and the flesh in the Christian life. He's not a Wesleyan perfectionist by any stretch of the imagination (I think his father had some of these problems though); Doug would be more in line with the specific kinds of Calvinistic Methodist perfectionisms that men like George Whitfield and Martin Lloyd-Jones held to. But it should also be noted that just as some American Church historians have pointed out, that American Christianity is basically "Methodism gone to seed," so too have MANY American Calvinistic pastors and teachers "gone to Methodist seed" over this very important issue concerning the Christian life.
Very interesting! Thx for sharing!
Definitely a conversation that mattered ...
Fantastic conversation!
I'm going to come in here before listening to give my thoughts on this subject, and then hopefully after listening I'll come back and see whose views I am closer to.
So first of all, as Christians we all know those inward sins that we most struggle with, but which no one else can see. Ever since I was a teenager, there was a sin I struggled with and it was completely hidden. It never manifested itself outwardly at all, and I mean at all. I knew it was a sin, I confessed it to God many times and struggled against it, but it was not until many years later when I went through a time of despair and doubt about my salvation that God enabled me to overcome it to a large degree (though I do still struggle with it from time to time).
Sinful thoughts and desires are, first and foremost, a battle. Our old sin nature struggling against our new nature. 'The spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit.' 'That which I would, I do not; and that which I would not, that do I.'
Every day we have to put on the armor of God and go at it again, and again, and again. When we do that, whether we realize it or not, we are gaining a little more ground. Yes, it's entirely possible to fall into sin without ever physically committing sin. There is a deep sense of guilt which we have when we fall yet again.
'But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Let that be proclaimed in every heart that fights against sin. Our victory is through Christ. Our righteousness is not our own, but it comes from Christ. We fight against our sinful tendencies, and that battle is within because we fight it by prayer and Scripture and faith.
When I was struggling with doubts about my salvation, a lightbulb moment for me was when I realized that my sin of unbelief was not the unforgivable sin (which it seemed to be at that time). It was sin, absolutely, but God would forgive me of it if I confessed it. And because Christ was condemned in our place, there is therefore now no condemnation to those of us who are in him. God pities us as a father pities his children, he strengthens us in our weakness, comforts us in our distress, forgives us time and time again, and never lets us go. He chastises us in love and works the most distressing things for our good.
Is there a dichotomy between sinning and original sin? Only insofar as one is the product of the other. Isn't original sin the substance of our sin nature? And our sin nature produces sin like a cloth factory produces fabric. We repent of the sin produced by that sin nature, and we long for the day when our sin nature is finally uprooted and we are completely free.
Thank you for sharing. Oh I relate so much to what you said. I too struggle with assurance sometimes when I have my mental health episodes because I have obsessive intrusive thoughts and I would feel so so ashamed and downcast and condemned for the thoughts and feelings about the assurance. The devil would whisper that if I was really saved that I wouldn't have those kind of thoughts. But like you, I also had a moment of clarity that Christ died for all of my intrusive obsessive thoughts and every thought of unbelief and every moment of self reliance and there is no more condemnation. I still struggle with the thoughts (they come and go in waves when my mental health acts up, ive been tapering off of psych meds for many years and so my brainis affected by chemicals that have caused serious and severe mental problems) and I have to fight through them standing on God's word and He always refreshes my spirit in due time. Philippians 4 says to make supplication with Thanksgiving and the peace of God which surpasses understanding will guard our hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus.
This was very helpful. I find myself on Moore side here, but I praise God for both, I mean the three of these men.
just starting, but this is epic!
can't believe i didn't see it earlier
We are so on the furthest fringes of conservative-sin-confessing-theology in this discussion. I don’t think they are even close to the homosexual-accepting, SSA-affirming churches in soft American evangelicalism. At many points it felt like hair-splitting.
Both of them would affirm “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” and “let all who name the name of Christ depart from sin.”
I agree, but RUclips's "discernment ministers" keep trying to convince people that Wilson is no different than the stance Rob Bell admits to holding and Andy Stanley keeps trying to pretend he doesn't.
So Doug has to explain this distinction between a perfect being and what it's like as an actual Christian actively trying to resist.
Completely agree. Much of it was semantics. Jared should have never mentioned Wilson in that video.
@@JasonJrake It's telling watching the anti-Wilsons getting so animated over the latest attempt to knock Doug out of the saddle.They're always all-in until it collapses. It's like the Democrats' We-got-him-this-time syndrome every time another false claim is made about Trump.
I could be wrong but from my perspective this argument is overcomplicated I don't follow the point being made by Jared and Jon. To me it's much simpler, resisting temptation =obedience giving in= sin
And that right there is the problem. Jared's position does not allow for obedience.
I'll try to keep this short which means it's not going to be comprehensive, but people like Jared Moore are interposing the catechisms and reformers into a debate in which they were not participating in and thus it is disingenuous to quote them as supporting their position.
The reformers and catechisms were specifically addressing the question of original sin against what Rome was teaching. In short Rome taught that original sin was erased at baptism and what was left was an "inclination" to sin but it's movements were not actually sinful. Luther, Calvin, the reformers, etc. said this was wrong and that although we are endued with a new nature, the old nature remains and is still completely sinful. This had important ramifications in the whole debate regarding imputed righteousness (reformers) versus infused righteousness (Rome) and justification by faith alone (reformers) and justification by faith plus works (Rome). This is why you see this subject being addressed by the major catechisms and in the writings of Luther, Calvin, etc. They are not addressing when the motions of our sinful nature become acts of sin, but they are addressing the fact that we are still sinful after our regeneration as a matter of who we are and not just from what we do.
While I can see some value in discussing this subject as a means to gain greater clarity in our pursuit of holiness, I've seen a tendency to try and use this as a new wedge issue and an attempt to paint those who disagree as somehow "siding with Rome" and "minimizing sin."
Consider this one Scripture.
James 1:14-15 ALT
(14) But each one is tempted by his own lusts, being pulled away and enticed.
(15) Then that lust having conceived gives birth to sin, then that sin having become full-grown brings forth death.
We are tempted inwardly by our own lusts, our own sinful lusts that are the motions of our sinful nature. At this point these lusts would be considered "sinful", but once we are pulled away and enticed where we give some measure of our consent, then this gives birth to an act of sin.
This was super helpful Jon. I’m a big Wilson “fan” although I know he obviously has blind spots. This cleared up some confusion and I think he made more sense here. Still lots to think through but good job reaching out to him and letting him clarify.
The question I think is "What is SIN"? If I am corrected we as believers first need to recognize we are sinners ( original sin ). So when we became a believer Jesus saved us from original sin am I correct. So this discussion is what is sin and I feel that at times theologians, pastors and others try to classify sins. So what is sin to you may not be sin to me that's why we have the Holly Spirit to convict us of our sins. I felt I needed to say this first, before I thank you Jon and your guest for the Great discussion on this topic.
Jared's flaw is he assumes temptation itself is sin.
Jared also is flawed because he's a country bumpkin pastor who needs everything simple. He can't track nuance.
I'm responsible for what I'm and what I do. Confess sinfulness, confess sin. Know the difference !
Hello Jon, I seen you were live early but I was busy, now the live isn’t posted. I was just wandering if you were going to post it?
I'm reuploading to post tomorrow. I ordered some equipment that should make livestreaming better but it hasn't come in. In the future I won't have to reupload to sync my voice.
A couple things:
1. Whomever you agree with here, I feel after watching this a conviction that I'm not being as intentional and serious about confessing sin. I'm entirely too lackadaisical.
2. I do think that Moore's position, at least as I understand it, would almost be an over correction to my current lackadaisicalness. I would almost feel that I'd need to be in constant confession of sin. That feels like bondage to me. And it also seems to equate temptation to sin WITH sin itself. So even to experience temptation would require confession of sin. But don't we believe that Jesus Himself experienced temptation to sin? If Jared is right (at least as I'm hearing him), Jesus Himself would be guilty of sin, just for having that temptation. I know Jared wouldn't intend that, but that's the way I think his perspective points.
3. Haven't we all had something pop in our minds unbidden (sometimes very detestable and gross things) that we don't even find attractive to us, and immediately repulse us? Would we need to confess such thoughts EVEN THOUGH we are repulsed by them, and are not tempted to give in to do them?
I think the problem here are the words temptation and tested, those weren't fleshed out well in this episode, but someone in the comment section did and all became clear.
DW makes a helpful distinction, which does not lead to unnecessary self-condemnation. Rather than confessing a sin that doesn't exist (for the Bible makes it clear that there IS a distinction between temptation and sin, or else Jesus would not be sinless, as the Bible says), instead rejoice that you have a Lord that is changing and reordering your heart's affections.
Explain that to Jared Moore please. Never mind. He won't listen.
I have great respect for Doug Wilson, but he is out of step with Reformed theology here. You cannot find this distinction between sin, sinful and sinning in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, Owen, Hodge, Machen, Bavinck, John Murray or R.C. Sproul--rather the idea is controverted. You can find the idea of degrees of sin, as is suggested by James' metaphor of a child’s development in the womb in 1:13-15.
Unless halted by some medical tragedy or evil design (such as abortion), the process is unbroken: birth is inevitable. Indeed, it is a key argument against abortion that from conception to birth the foetus is a child, not a potential child, or a not-yet-viable child, or any of the other specious designations used by advocates of abortion. Granted, the child is larger and more ‘developed’ at the end of the process than at the beginning, but has the same status at any point we care to look. Likewise, from its conception “by his own desire” in the sinner’s heart until it bursts forth in an external action, what we observe is sin. True-the sin is greater when it is actualized, but it is not something else at any earlier point in its development, nor was it not a sin if the process is aborted.
I agree with Jon that the crux of the problem is at minutes 30-31 where JM asks DW if he's saying that "original sin produces something that is not culpable unless your will agrees with it" and (apart from some unstated nuances), DW agrees. This idea that it requires our ‘choice’ (i.e., the will) to convert morally wrong thoughts/emotions into sin goes all the way back to Pelagius. I am sure that DW is no card-carrying Pelagian, but he is at least inconsistent at this point.
Finally, what is so bad about confessing our sins? It reminds us of the cleansing blood of Jesus and our Father's faithful and just forgiveness of our sins! (1 John 1)
I never thought of that passage as an argument against abortion, but you're right.
These arguments rely on the figurative language in James 1:15; but they don't even get the metaphor right!
James 1:15 says that once *desire* has conceived, it _gives birth_ to *sin* . There's no ambiguity.
Applying this to your logic, it would mean that the woman who conceives the child is the child itself! That doesn't make any sense. If, indeed, the process can be interrupted or aborted, then there was still sin (that was conceived) - but in no sense can the womb itself be the child it bears. Sin comes into being, according to James, at the moment of sin's conception.
Per usual, Doug is right.
With Jared on this one. Just because it's not a willful transgression doesn't mean its not sin, no matter how momentary. I think we all know that it makes sanctification more successful to recognize and reject these momentary inward responses as sin unto God, not necessary to have public confession but the whole old testament sacrificial system was oriented towards non-willful sin. But I also get Wilson's point that we're then left with the puzzle of Jesus' temptation, which was without sin.
I'm wracking my brain to think of an example of this from the Bible. Was Joseph tempted by Potiphar's wife? Was Esther tempted not to go before the king? Was Daniel and Co tempted to eat the rich food? Why is Joshua commanded to be strong and courageous if he was not tempted to be cowardly? These seem like examples of being tempted without confession on the other end.
If Jared accurately represents the standard, are there any examples we can look to learn from?
Then, Judah, you need to be constantly repenting with no break for breath, because your flesh is constantly warring against the spirit.
Here's what I believe:
Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are DEAD to sin, live any longer therein?" Romans 6:6-7 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS FREE FROM SIN." Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Romans 6:18 "Being then made FREE from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." Romans 6:22-23 "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
@@41093AnthonyB I imagine we all believe that. It just doesn’t answer the question being debated.
@@matthewdyer2926 You don't think it does? Maybe I am looking at this wrong then. But I see Romans 6 as a total contradiction of what Jared Moore is teaching. We who have been washed in the blood of Jesus are NOT walking in constant sin. We all should NOT be excommunicated. Jesus imputes to us His righteousness so that the old man of sin is dead. We are no longer bound, but made free from sin. I think that directly answers the question here. I am not constantly having to ask God for forgiveness. As you said in an earlier comment, that would necessitate a constant, "God forgive me." if we are still walking in sin because of the original sin. But that was nailed on the cross.
I almost get the sense Doug is approaching all of this from a pastoral counseling/church membership angle whereas Jared is coming from "pure" theology. To me the difficulty comes from exactly the discussion beginning at 42:12. What do you do with these people who hate their sin but would suppose, from Jared's points, "you will never be saved"; would suppose that their salvation is demonstrably bogus every time they are tempted?
I think Jared wants to simultaneously distinguish outward actions and inward sinful temptation (having the hamartiological cake), while also treating them as the same (eating it too). I think Doug's distinction between "sinful" and "sinning" as phrased here does get hairy. I think it all just proves the difficulty of finding balance in our language when so much of it has been co-opted by the world.
Really good discussion in any case. Clearly the issue isn't going away any time soon.
Great conversation on all accounts.
Very helpful discussion. Would've been happy to see Jared Moore seek forgiveness from Doug Wilson for calling him an evangelical elite who doesn't respond to things. Hope he has at least in private.
I'm okay with making the distinction that Doug is making however I'm confessing BOTH as I agree with Jared and the apostle Paul that both are sin.
I'm even okay with acknowledging that motion of original sin is lesser *in degree* than when it is acted upon.
So Jesus sinned because he was tempted and temptation in itself is sin. Got it.
@Traveler Incorrect. Did you watch the video? There is temptation from internal and temptation from external. The former is sin, the latter is not.
Jesus's temptations were external.
I think Jared's position is more true to our psychological experience. The reality is that we feel the guilt merely by the temptation. We can't talk that away.
"Virtue dies the death of a thousand qualifications and vice lives on through a thousand excuses."
Now will Kevin DeYoung take the same challenge in discuss this topic on Jon's show with Jared
In the Sermón on the Mount Jesus says, “you have heard it said ‘thou shalt not COMMIT adultery’ but I say unto you, That whosoever LOOKETH ON A WOMAN TO LUST after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Emphasis mine) I didn’t go to seminary, but it seems that Jesus is saying it’s not just your actions, you sin in your desires. All of you men can examine the original words, but to a layman “look on her TO lust” sounds like it could be “pre” actually lusting and in fact, be the desire. I think Jesus was saying, we are Pharisees really, who hold back our confession, thinking we haven’t committed this terrible sin, but we are actually worse than we thought. That is why His grace is so incredible.
Jesus' formula is LOOK - LUST - SIN. The looking is not sin. It is a reflection of my God-created nature to be attracted to the sight of a woman. It is the formation of lustful intent that is the necessary condition to turn the look into sin.
I think you are conflating temptation with lust. The distinction Wilson is trying to make is that allowing oneself to lust is a sin to be confessed, but merely having the idea to lust occur to you is not a sin (though it comes from our sin nature for which we are guilty).
The Bible speaks about temptation. Jesus was tempted as we are, yet without sin. It shouldn't be controversial to the layperson to acknowledge that temptation to sin is not sin in itself. It may be the result of sin, but if so, the underlying sin is what must be repented of rather than the temptation to sin.
@@colinplank If you are responding to me, I am very much NOT conflating temptation with lust. Temptation is what comes to our fallen flesh. We can expect to come to that part of our flesh that has not been mortified. Failing to mortify the flesh and a history of feeding it with sinful thoughts increases the odds one will not resist the temptation. Not resisting the temptation will be followed by the formation of lustful intent. That is when a sin has been committed. But if, when temptation comes to the flesh at its weak spot and it is resisted, a sin has not been committed.
@@JonJaeden Nope. I was responding to OP. I didn't see your response when I started writing and I agree with the points you made.
@@JonJaeden you can’t rightly apply Look, Lust Sin to homosexual looking because it is NOT a reflection of your God-created nature to be attracted to someone of the same sex. The looking with interest is sin.
It may be helpful to keep the discussion centred around homosexuality specifically rather than sin generically. Or ask another way, is there a equivalence between hetero sexual sin and homo sexual sin. I would say it’s not equivalently evil. Or ask a different clarifying question: what is the goal for sanctification for someone with homosexual sexual sin vs someone with heterosexual sexual sin.
It would but Jared...That dude can't get past his assumption that temptation itself must be sin.
There was more agreement than disagreement here. Honestly, it seemed more like a disagreement of emphasis: Jared wants to take those motions of the heart more seriously, and Doug wants to focus more on actual actions in the heart. Both say that the motions are sin and come from a sin nature ("Sin versus sinning," as I think they both agreed to).
Jon's example of fighting lust got right to it. Both Jared and Doug encouraged that type of struggle.
It is VERY concerning that a group of same-sex attracted Christians do what few others feel the need to do with the sins they struggle with most. People don’t identify as a gluttonous Christian or a gossiping Christian or an adulterous Christian. We don’t make our propensity for sin a part of our new identity in Christ. We are neither Jew nor Greek nor rich nor poor in the Body of Christ. The fact that someone struggles with the sin of desiring what is unnatural for us, should not be part of their identity as a new creation in Christ.
And what ever happened to being set free from bondage to a particular sin? I know people who have been literally set free from meth addiction, repeated adultery, homosexuality, gluttony, and any number of sins that bind and defeat us. If God healed someone identifying as their sin, would they even know it?
I have struggled with same sex attractions all my life, after being molested for 10 years, starting when I was 4. Why would I want to identify myself with an act that was forced upon me initially and then in shame, I began pursuing as an adult? When I came to Christ, I became a new creation. I was lost, but now I'm found, blind but now I see. There is no way I want to be identified with that sin.
However, I do believe that those of us who were caught in this sin are judged more harshly if we ever are tempted by it again. I know people who were delivered from drugs and alcohol too. But they don't go places where those things are readily available because they know that in the flesh, they could still be tempted. It doesn't mean that God has not delivered them. My own brother in law was promiscuous with women before Christ. He is now a minister, married, and has seven children. Nobody is surprised that he takes precautions because he is still tempted by other women. In fact, they admire him for knowing his weakness and fleeing it.
But if I am tempted by another man, it means I am not surrendered and that I have not truly allowed God to change my heart. It's an unfair double standard. We are still flesh. And we are not ignorant of Satan's devices. He is going to tempt us with whatever he thinks will most likely trip us up.
@@41093AnthonyB I sincerely appreciate your honesty and humility. I do not want to hold my brothers and sisters who struggle with sin “a” to a different standard than sin “b”. I do see the Word speak about the significance of sexual sin because it is against our own body, but I am not God and I have no right to shame you if you have a repentant heart. I don’t know how you guard yourself if everyday interactions cause thoughts or feelings you should not have( and it sounds like you don’t want to think this way either). Just going about your life and being tempted, not seeking out some compromising visual images or gay bars or something, is very discouraging and I would think exhausting. I personally struggle with gluttony. It is hard to avoid the object of my desire, as well. I think this may be a sin I’m fighting on my deathbed.
I think the point is we fight. And WE DO NOT FIGHT ALONE!!!The infinite, glorious God who spoke our reality into existence loves us enough to come down to be Emmanuel, then, it is even more unbelievable - He now lives inside us through Holy Spirit. We are more than conquerors! I’m so sorry this is your burden but it sounds like you are fighting. May God bless you and may we finish our race well.
@@41093AnthonyB who care what others think or judge you?! Are you in the fight? Does God know you are in the fight? Let them judge you, and let God judge them. Look not right nor left, look up! Press on, brother, press on!
May God grant us all grace to participate with Jesus in crushing Satan under our feet when we are tempted.
The issue is people saying I'm a Christian yet openly identifying as homosexual. I would recommend not getting too far into the weeds.
Agree brother. This was semantics from Jared.
As Wilson was using "orientation" in the past, it was descriptive and useful, but the word only communicates confusion now. It's like the rainbow ... they took it from us.
In the last few days I've seen Wilson float alternate terms like "a Christian subject to homosexual temptation" and one I can't remember. We need something, because a lot of the confusion has been over terminology.
Tooo late
Jared and Doug's discussion was fantastic.
I think I've found the key "difference" in their perspectives. (Both are correct BTW)
Jared kept mentioning "original sin" which was the key.
I believe Jared is describing confession of capital S "Sin" which we confess when placing saving faith in Christ for salvation and imputed righteousness.
Doug was describing confession of "sins", post salvation, emphasizing the Bible does clearly teach we can be tempted and not sin.
Both are right and good.
Jared is guarding against false converts who, if unconverted, will not have the desire to overcome sin, and the "constant" same sex attraction may be evidence they have not died to self, and been born to new life in Christ. Side B Christianity basically teaches that one NEVER has to "test yourself" to see if you are in the faith which is denying Scripture and encouraging false faith.
Doug on the other end is guarding against true converts to Christ being discouraged by their fleshly temptation automatically being condemned as "sin" when the Bible teaches that the temptation can be resisted, fled, escaped, without sin being committed which is good news for all believers.
But this was where they "disagreed" on when "confession of sin" was required. To Jared's view, if a person is still lost in Sin, which is why they are continually tempted, they definitely do need to confess, repent and trust in Jesus. To Doug's view, true believers will still be tempted in many ways, and if our renewed Spirit is waging war against the flesh, we know we are being sanctified and victory over the temptation without sin is truly possible in Christ.
In either case, they agree the Side B teaching that basically impure indwelling desires do not need to be mortified, sanctified, is really a false gospel, false teaching. God promises to sanctify and redeem all of us, including our desires, and our flesh.
" both are correct btw"
Weak
I believe we should grieve with God over our fallen nature. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall find comfort."
I still don't know if Wilson and Moore actually disagree on the crux of the matter, because I don't think the crux of the matter was actually addressed: Is conceived sinful desire, not matter how fleeting or quickly opposed/mortified, actually sin and thus needing of appropriate and proportional and repentance for said desire? The answer is, of course, yes. There seemed to be some apprehension on Wilson's part to encourage repentance of the desire (no matter how fleeting) as to not encourage feelings of failure and shame, but since when is that appropriate when dealing with anything related to sin? The only way we defeat sin is to get at the root of it, which is the desire. We all concede that temptations come from within and without. When from within, the desire has already been conceived and it is sin. Also, Wilson seemed to encourage a type of fracturing of the self (what I am and what I do are different things). We are what we do. The parts of the sum are the whole just as much as the sum is. The modern notion of our 'best selves' allows many to say that they are not actually any 'version' of themselves other than the 'best version', thus not taking responsibility for themselves, no matter which 'version' they present.
"When from within, the desire has already been conceived and it is sin" -- in James 1:15, the wording is "when desire has conceived it gives birth to sin" -- desire is the subject, and sin is what it has conceived - your argument is flawed because you have misremembered the scripture.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 Exactly...from the moment the desire has been conceived, it gives birth to sin. The desire can't be conceived without it giving birth to sin. It is an impossibility. It's a 1 for 1 relationship; 1 stacked on top of the together. If you're saying the desire can be conceived without it birthing sin, you're wrong, because that's not what the text says; it's also impossible for that to be true. It is possible to be tempted from without and not desire. Someone could offer me drugs, for free, and I literally have no desire for them. It is not sin then. Now, if that was a sinful tendency of mine, and I mulled it over for a split second, that is sinful desire and it is sin. Besides that, I wasn't trying to quote James 1:15 by saying that. I also had Romans 7:8 in mind as well as Gen 3:6, 1 Tim 2:14, Rom 14:23 and Heb 4:15. Romans 7:8 says that it is sin which leads to all manners of concupiscence. While Jesus was tempted in all points, never once does the Bible say He desired anything sinful because as soon as desire is conceived, it (100% of the time) births sin because the conceived desire IS sin.
@@JR-rs5qs Let's start with James 1:15, because that is the figurative language upon which your entire argument hangs. If those other passages are relevant, then you will have to do more than quote them- explain why you think they support your opinion.
You have misunderstood James 1:15. The desire is not conceived-- it is doing the conceiving. Take this sentence: "He has killed me, so I died". "He" is the subject (notice that it is not "him"). "Has killed" is a participle. "Me" is the direct object. This sentence can only ever mean that He is the one doing the killing, and I am the one doing the dying.
The grammar of James 1:15 is the same. "Desire" is in nominative, "has conceived" is declined for the subject, "desire", and "sin" is in accusative. It's 100% clear.
So you have to rephrase your argument, since desire is explicitly not the thing being conceived - it is the womb, in this analogy. Sin is the only thing being conceived. It is the zygote and the embryo, the fetus and the child.
As for the other verses, I will address them here: Romans 7:8 and 14:23 should be taken together, as they are from the same epistle. In Romans 14:23, it is the eating that brings condemnation, not the doubt. So Romans 7:8 is probably not contradicting a point Paul makes later on -- thank you for finding the refutation for me. As for Genesis 3:6, besides the obvious error involved in using a narrative passage as a didactive, again, it undermines your point because Eve is condemned when she eats it. But if you try and use 1 Tim. 2:14 to say that being deceived was the sin, I would ask two questions: 1) why use the phrase "became a sinner" instead of explicitly saying "she sinned by being deceived"? And 2) what is the context of this passage? Is Paul seeking to teach us something about the difference between temptation and sin? Or, rather, is this discussion completely off-topic both for this passage and the entire epistle? It's as much as abuse of scripture to divorce a text from its context as it is to change the actual words. Even if this phrase did say what you need it to say, it would be easier to explain it as Paul's use of non-precise language regarding an ancillary topic. If i write a letter to you about how you ought to lead your congregation, it would be very strange for me to anticipate using my instructions for leading the different sexes in the church to be used as an argument that desire is itself a sin... especially if, in the very next sentence, I were to write something like "But women will be saved in childbearing".
Finally, let me be perfectly redundant here: absolutely none of these give any credence to the figurative description of conception and birth, so they're irrelevant to the initial comment.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 The preceding verse (14) tells us the context: evil desire. Evil desire that willingly receives (that's a better word from what I'm trying to say) temptation conceives sin. Godly desire can't conceive sin because it doesn't willingly receive temptation and conceive sin. You'd have to change the nature of the desire, or somehow say evil desire isn't actually bad, in this context to make it mean what you want it to mean. And consider Col 3:5 where we're told to mortify evil desires (concupiscence). There may be a debate to be had on whether evil desire that is not met with temptation (and conceives sin), is sin in and of itself, but no one can ever claim from Scripture that evil desire is okay or a neutral thing. Given the clear commandment to mortify evil desires, the debate is moot and anyone who says not to worry about mortifying evil desire is out of bounds with Scripture. The passages from James are clear though: if one's evil desire receives temptation, it conceives sin. As for the other verses, you're searching my mind for what I meant about them and you don't really have that ability.
@@JR-rs5qs I was offering my objections ahead of time, not "searching your mind". You haven't told me how those verses relate to your opinion, so I explained why I don't think that they support it. That isn't uncharitable; it's discussion. It gives you the opportunity to rebut my rebuttal without the tedious process of repeated back-and-forth.
As for the verse in James; I'm not convinced that James makes a distinction between good and bad desires, and while I think this would undermine his point, I still agree with what you've written here. A desire for a bad thing is a bad desire, and we should seek with all our mind to alter that desire to its proper end. However, I think that the desire has a proper end. Thus the desire itself is only sinful if it's twisted towards the wrong end: sexual desire is not a bad thing in itself. Adulterous desire is a twisted version of the good desire God gave us.
But the very important point of all of this is that it is desire that conceives sin. Desire is not in itself something which can incur guilt without the acquiescence of the volition. Desires may be wrongly ordered, and sanctification involves both ordering them rightly and resisting them when they aren't. That's why I would not agree that James is talking about evil desires, as if they are a distinct category. Our desires produce sin in us if they are not oriented properly, but the desire in itself may be a good thing. It is good to want to eat. It is unhelpful to feel hungry during a fast, and it is evil to want to eat when your eating damages your health. But you would never say that wanting to eat is a bad thing on its own.
Some of Doug's critics are now referring to this conversation and claiming that there really isn't much difference between him and the revoice crowd. Hardly. I think this is only Doug's drawn out way of articulating Luther's saying," you can't stop the birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from building a nest in your hair", to paraphrase. Nothing I've ever heard Doug teach about Christian conduct would cause me to think he had an ounce of revoice in him. However, I'm not so sure that I'm completely on his side on this. For me, this is a tough one. Cudos to pastor Jared, definitely.
Isn't it amazing, though, how lust occupies these discussions almost exclusively? Not that lust isn't one of the most damaging and common temptations, but boy there's a lot of stuff we don't talk about much, like resentment, gluttony, laziness, whatever. There's so many "acceptable sins".
If there is no repentance, the church needs to call out the sinner.
As a Christian lay person, I very much appreciate this respectful and amicable discussion, but, I must confess, my head is spinning! I suppose while I'm confessing my sin, I will also confess that my sinful nature is also a sin (to cover my bases) and trust that God will forgive my sins and cleanse me from ALL unrighteousness. 🤷♂
Thanks Jon for providing so much info, including this discussion on SSA and desires. I can see in my own church the problem of confession being mostly of being merely sinful, instead of confessing specific sins as defined by the Law.
Here is my summary of the main point of the debate between Dr Jared Moore and Pastor Doug Wilson:
"Is being tempted without indulging in temptation a sin?"
Dr Jared Moore:
It depends on what kind of temptation it is. If you're tempted with an inherently good thing, but it's offered through an evil means, and you reject the evil means, then you're being tempted like Jesus, and then you haven't sinned.
But if you're tempting yourself from within, meaning the lust of the flesh has started in your heart, an evil desire, an evil inclination, an evil motion [which means a desire] of original sin, then you've already begun to sin in your heart.
When you resist that internal temptation, it is a victory as far as action, but it is not a victory concerning your heart. The goal is to be sinless in heart, like Jesus is.
Supporting scriptures:
1 Peter 2:11 (CSB)
11 Dear friends, I urge you as strangers and exiles to abstain from sinful desires that wage war against the soul.
Mark 12:30 (CSB)
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
Colossians 3:5 (CSB)
5 Therefore, put to death what belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry.
James 1:13-15
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself doesn’t tempt anyone. 14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death.
Pastor Doug Wilson:
You do need to confess that you're sinful, you're corrupt and sinful. But that's an acknowledgment of what you are, not a confession of what you did. You didn't do anything wrong. You don't have to confess fleshly lusts that are not active.
Dr Jared Moore:
But they are active if they are pricking your heart. It's an inclination. It's a motion. My thing is if you can name it, it's active. Original sin is a state of corruption. It's not particular. You couldn't name the sin.
Dr Jared Moore:
Paul says in Romans 7 that he lusts with his flesh:
Romans 7:7-8 (CSB)
7 What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! But I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet [Gk 1939 epithumia] if the law had not said, Do not covet. 8 And sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting [Gk epithumia (Strong's 1939), which means an inordinate desire, lust] of every kind. For apart from the law sin is dead.
It is his flesh that is lusting. It's sinning, even when he's not consenting with his mind. I understand the distinctions Pastor Doug Wilson is making, but I don't think that that is the Reformed position:
The Westminster Confession says
VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof
5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17-18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions [movement of the mind, desires, or passions; mental act, or impulse to any action; internal activity]thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5-8, 25, Gal. 5:17)
Calvin says on James Chapter 1, verse 15 is "And the Papists ignorantly lay hold on this passage, and seek to prove from it that vicious, yea, filthy, wicked, and the most abominable lusts are not sins, provided there is no assent;"
Luther also shared a similar view, and so did John Owen.
I think the difficulty here is apportioning. And I think that this may be a trap. By reference, I am brought to rememberence of a Latin phrase Martin Luther employed when delving into how the soul transformed by God through His justification of us but at the same time in the same circumstances we remain sinners: "Simul justus et peccator." (i.e., being at the same time both justified or righteous in God's eyes and yet still a sinner while alive in this world)
What I am suggesting is that the inward sinful nature, though covered by Christ's blood, is still my responsibility and thus must be confessed and forgiveness asked...and then fully comprehending that God has "already" forgiven me for Christ's sake and by no merrit of my own. Simply stated, and possibly a crude paraphrase of Paul, if I perceive it as sin, after careful consideration of God's Word on the matter, then it most certainly is sin and thus confessable and repentable and forgiveable.
Give all this, I think that both Pastors Moore and Wilson are simultaneously correct and incorrect in their interpretation and both would profit will from a careful review oflash other's perspectives...not for change to the others view but to incorporate the differing views understanding that the full orbed answer may will be synergistic, contextual, and significantly more complex.
God bless you all in Christ Jesus.
Jon, I probably "burned my bridges" with you as a result of my comments on your previous podcasts. I hope you saw my apology to you.
Thank you for having both of these men on at the same time. I can appreciate that there are stands that all three of you (and me too) see as Scriptural. Homosexuality is a sin. We cannot take on the identity of a sin and add it to our identity as a Christian. We all agree that any acting that is of a homosexual leaning is sin. There is sanctification for everyone, regardless of sin pattern. Those of us who were caught in this particular sin can change through the power of the Holy Spirit, just like those caught in other sins can change.
I still don't quite understand the comparison of non SSA lust to ice cream or the verse in Proverbs about if a man steals for food. Ice cream is neither here nor there morally. Food is a necessity to sustain life. But a man looking at a woman and wanting to use her body for his own selfish sexual gratification is neither morally neutral, nor is it a need to sustain life. It's wicked, so much so that that is the specific example Jesus used to say if we look to lust (for anything really), we have sinned already in our hearts. I personally would apply that to temptations toward the same sex also. But Jesus used the example of a man looking on a woman.
If I understood Jarrod Moore correctly, he believes everyone is living in constant sin. Where is the victory then?
I believe Doug Wilson would be very helpful to anyone who has turned his back on this sin. There truly is hope as we submit our whole selves to Christ. It's not a constant life of defeat.
Finally, I don't know if you saw my previous comment about the lack of compassion. I did want to clarify that I was not meaning to say you aren't compassionate toward those of us who were sexually abused. I have no idea what your attitudes are on that subject. That was meant toward those of us who have struggled with SSA. And I should not have stated it like I did. I should have said that I did not feel compassion as I listened to the two podcasts, only judgment. But that was my feeling and may not have been your intention at all.
I desperately would like to read Robert Gagnon's series on this subject on Facebook, and I understand he spoke to Rosaria about it also. But we are conservative Mennonites and we don't use Facebook. Hopefully one day he will publish that series of five articles elsewhere.
Jon, I want to say again I'm sorry for the disrespectful way I disagreed with you on the previous podcasts.
All is forgiven brother. You'd have to try a lot harder to burn bridges with me :)
Does Jared not lose the debate at 45:20 "I would encourage them to continue fighting" is that then a good thing to fight? Resisting sin is good? That means you are not sinning? Otherwise why would you counsel someone to continue in their sin of fighting an orientation that makes them a walking sin? Do you not see how this can fill someone with abject despair?
That's exactly right. It was at that moment Jared, knowingly or not, conceded that he in fact operates in the EXACT same categories Doug has.
Jared's own position doesn't allow for what he would do pastorally.
I think pastor Doug Wilson answers were EXCELLENT (IMO). The other pastor seemed to be confused and "hunting" for something. Doug was very clear. As a seminary graduate myself I dont know if I've ever heard it explained better!!! Thank you.
Funny I thought Doug was dancing around the questions and the other guy was clear.
@@nathanphillipsgo Man that is 😁 funny. In a good way.
It's funny that people with a prejudice for or against someone or something will hear and see what they want.
The bill Nye vs Ken ham debate was perfect example. Atheists thought Nye crushed it. Christians thought Ham did.
@@YTTraveler777 I think you are right in a vast majority of cases. Having said that some people (I "hope" I am one) can listen to debates etc and disassociate thier own inclinations. I often listen to debates and will readily admit when the side I disagree with won debate. It's a good mental exercise for me. I have to examine why I believe or think what I believe and think.
Catechism should not be quoted in the same sentence as scripture as if the two are equal in authority
I think this debate is getting to the heart of the question of the origin of evil that as far as I know, no one has ever been able to definitively answer.
Gregory ~ The closest l heard was MacArthur's sermon at Ligonier Ministries called ''The problem of Evil''. He said before it ''This is an easy one!'' xDD MacArthur!
Lou Reed answered that question.
"I know where temptation lies. It's inside of your heart..."
@@YTTraveler777 ~ ...and we know that Lou was a ''shining example'' of a ''righteous dude''. xD
We are tempted everyday. Am I suppose to repent every second of my existence for being born human? We have a sin nature that we have already been saved from and that nature will be tempted. It’s about resisting that temptation, but if you entertain it you are sinning.
That is why we are told to mortify our sin nature. It is its desires that determine the temptations that come against us and provide the occasion for sinning. So while the sinful nature is not sinning, refusing ot failing to mortify it should probably be classified as sinning.
I agree with Doug. When Joseph was tempted, he was likely enticed at first, which is why he ran. But if he had sinned in that way, he would not have said that he could not do that against God. He did something good, not something bad.
The temptation is not a sin, only the sin is sin haha.
I don't think anyone would say that a man being enticed, having sexual desire, when he did not ask for it (as in he wasn't at a strip club or watching something that he knew would have sexual content...) but denying it, is the same as the man who is enticed and gives in to it.
@@francsiscog Jared though thinks the temptation itself is sin.
So, it is sounding like it is what we do with that temptation in the first few moments of temptation that actually causes us to sin?
Thank you for this episode. These are far more beneficial than a he said she said kind of videos.
Not according to Moore. He claims that temptation is sin. Which is wrong. James clearly makes the distinction. Which is sad that no scripture was read at all only merely mentioned. This was a massive flaw in this discussion
@@Richardcontramundum the reading of scripture would have benefited the lay man, but these men knew it by memory. I think we got an inside look at 2 pastors, one older, one younger sharpening each other, rather than teaching the layman
Great discussion. But I think Pastor Wilson understands the issue better
I am glad Wilson agreed to do this. Generally a fan but Moore is right here. I do think there is a slippery slope on sin issues coming out of the Wilson/post mil camp
Read the many comments here by others and myself that show otherwise.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
Lord's prayer makes the distinction between temptation and sin.
I am with doug wilson.
You can not indulge the temptation which leads to sin.
I am very interested in hearing this, not done it yet. I read through the comments so that I might see if the confusion over the issue of SSA as sin was clarified. I heard the first interview with Pastor Moore and I heard the shorter response by Pastor Wilson. Neither seemed clear enough to me, and I have very much enjoyed the blogs of Doug Wilson and much of his teaching. I have never heard Jared Moore before. All I can say is although I do understand Doug's verbiage (we are the same age) and appreciate his intellect impacted by the wide reading he has practiced all his life, the one blog in response (concupiscence) was confusing to me.
I've look up 'desires' throughout the Scripture, especially the separation of desire from action to see if desires themselves for the believer was sin, and therefore to be confessed. The ones that seem to fall into this category I reproduce below, if any have interest. Make of them what you will. I'm going to listen to this later, being up against bedtime at the moment.
Job 20:12-14
“Though evil is sweet in his mouth
And he hides it under his tongue,
Though he desires it and will not let it go,
But holds it in his mouth,
Yet his food in his stomach is changed
To the venom of cobras within him.”
Ecclesiastes 11:9
Rejoice, young man, during your childhood, and let your heart be pleasant during the days of young manhood. And follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes. Yet know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things.
Galatians 5:24
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Ephesians 2:3
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
I Timothy 6:9
But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.
II Timothy 2:3, 4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
James 3:4
Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires.
II Peter 2:18, 19
For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
Thank You Very Much for The Scriptures Shared 🧭 ♨️ 🕊 🔥 🧠
So listened, stopping at places to think things through. The closest Scripture I get to what Pastor Moore was saying is Galatians 5:24 above. The rest fit the argument from Pastor Wilson, as he repeatedly made it, as a matter of time, like conception, though much faster, from 1 second to 15 minutes. If at the time of the desire emerging from one's flesh, one's righteous soul repudiates it, it is acknowledged that the desire was of the flesh, that of us that remains unredeemed until the rapture/resurrection (just a shade of eschatology to spice this up). If one gives any nod to continuing the pleasure of temptation, the outcome is disobedience to righteousness, or transgression of the law, or some statement to indicate one has crossed over to entertaining one's sin to bring forth death. So we confess always we have remaining in us, that is, in our flesh, the sin principle within our identity as saints, but we also confess our sins when they have conceived, when we embrace the pleasure of continuing such desire. I guess my take on this is: temptation is in the air we breath...no, wait, better: temptation is in all the things of the world being like the sweetest poison on our lips; we are aware that if we lick them we die, but so often we just want the taste too badly and stumble. We confess our desire, as Doug pointed out, as sinful but not in itself sin, but the definition of temptation. But we confess our taste of it as an act of sin, and if we can spit it out fast enough to avoid the doing of it our sin has been limited to our heart's act of sin (as a man lusts in his heart). Getting clearer to me, if not so in this note.
@@craigchambers4183 nice. But Jared Moore hates your nuance. He wants things much simpler. He wants zero degrees, zero nuance. You are just a hopeless sinner and can't even confess properly. Jared and Jared alone has mastered true perfect confession for only Jared is honest enough among mere men.
Great discussion. I see but their points.🤷♂️