Evangelical Compromise on Same-Sex Attraction with Jared Moore
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Dr. Jared Moore talks about how same-sex attraction and homosexual orientation have been soft-peddled to evangelicals whether knowingly or not.
Sources:
Patrick Schreiner, "A Primer on Whether Same-Sex Attraction is Sinful," web.archive.or....
Kevin DeYoung, "Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful," www.crossway.o....
Doug Wilson, “Letters in Every Direction,” dougwils.com/b....
Doug Wilson, Sexual Design Q & A, • Sexual by Design Q&A |... , 101:05 - 102:14.
John Piper, "Let Marriage Be Held in Honor," www.desiringgo....
Nick Roen, "Is it Sin to Experience Same-Sex Attraction," www.desiringgo....
Credo Alliance, the Crossville Statement vs. the Nashville Statement, www.credoallia....
To Support the Podcast:
www.worldviewc...
Become a Patron
/ worldviewconversation
Follow Jon on Twitter: / jonharris1989
Follow Jon on Facebook:
/ worldviewconversation
Follow Jon on Gab:
gab.com/jonhar...
![Mariah Carey - We Belong Together [American Music Awards 50th Anniversary Special]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UnO2m2BEXDU/mqdefault.jpg)
@46:00 "Everybody's so bent on talking about grace and love that we do not have a thorough, clear definition of what sin even is..." Amen!
That sounds great, but evangelicals who say that won't care to acknowledge how the Bible defines sin as violating God's commandments in 1 Jhn 3:4.
This was awesome. Dr. Moore is very easy to listen to. Thank you for providing your audience with this great content.
It's refreshing to see that Biblical courage is still alive in the professing Church.
These worldly issues being welcomed into so many "churches" seems like a natural occurrence when
professing christians don't humble themselves by living according to all Scripture.
Thank you for this. This was extremely helpful and true. I was shocked to hear what was said concerning John Piper and Doug Wilson. There are not 3 kinds of people man, women, and homosexuals. There are only men and women. Homosexuality is a sin not a different kind of person.
Hey Chris are you a student at GBTS by chance?
May want to check out Doug Wilson’s response:
m.ruclips.net/video/o6_imqG_NZU/видео.html
You can be LGBT and Christian 👬
@@dansaber4427 No, you cannot. You may struggle with that desire. But someone excusing, condoning, and/or participating in it is not a Christian.
@@dansaber4427 I’m sorry Dan this is untrue. Someone has lied to you and you are deceived by believing that.
Thank you Jon for such an excellent episode! So encouraging to us who love Biblical truth! Praying that you'll continue to be salt and light in this world!
wow, not even finished yet and the time is flying. very impressed with jared here. extreeeeemely helpful on this subject
Thank you brothers, your ministries are much appreciated!
Great podcast Jon , respect to Jared for standing for the truth .
Proverbs 14:12-16 KJV
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are the ways of death.
You can be LGBT and Christian 👨❤️👨
@@dansaber4427 I refer you to the verse in my previous comment . You are deceived my friend . I pray you will come to a genuine repentance and know true saving faith .🙏
@@David-828 I'm not deceived. You know good and evil as God. What are the consequences of that? Life-or-death?
In the past, the church removed those teaching heresy. But over time the church remained silent, and in many cases members left those churches. We as Christians failed to act against these false teachings.Eric Metaxis makes this point in his book, "Letter to the American Church."
We traded away our integrity, for unity, tolerance and image.
Without the Spirit of God, there is no spiritual life, that's the fundamental issue with most churches. They are filled with more goats than sheep, and many of them are nothing more than goat entertainment venues.
Excellent episode on a very important and relevant topic. Thanks for hosting, Jon!
Wow! What an insightful conversation! Praise God for you both for staying true to Scriptures in analyzing this issue 💥
Fantastic interview - I really appreciate the clarity!
Since the Podcast hasn’t aired yet and there are already a few comments on Doug Wilson I’m guessing I know where the focus is going.
I should probably let everyone know I have reached out to Pastor Wilson and look forward to hopefully letting you all know what he says.
I wasn’t as surprised over Piper and DeYoung but the Wilson comments surprised me a bit because they seemed inconsistent with what Wilson is known for.
I checked out Jared’s sources and they’re accurate though so I don’t see any reason to pull the interview.
The question was "does the Bible condemn homosexual orientation as sin?" He answered that the word "orientation" is a new word that's not in the bible and is ambiguous. He clarifies later by using the word "lust". How is that a heresy?
Even modern society lack understanding of this weird quaky phrase "homosexual orientation". It's a made-up phrase by some left activists. What does it mean to you to be this critical? Do you condemn "heterosexual orientation" as lust too?
@@thomasc9036 I’m not sure what quote you’re referring to.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Kevin De Young's reply to the question "does the Bible condemn homosexual orientation as sin?" The term "sexual orientation" is relatively a new phrase without a clear meaning. Kevin switched to the language of the Bible to answer the question. Seems like he is being faithful and wise in how to answer the confusing language of the woke and left to me.
@@thomasc9036 Gotcha. DeYoung makes some unhelpful separations by suggesting that homosexual desire becomes sin when it rises to a level of “lust.” The Bible doesn’t only condemn the consciously chosen acts. It condemns the desires that led to those acts. DeYoung said a lot of true things as did Piper and Wilson. Jared is pointing out the unhelpful or untrue things. I’m not sure if Jared would say DeYoung is spouting heresy form that one clip. He may in the second DeYoung quote though.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast ESV translates Matt 5:28 as "lustful intent". Other translations use "lust" or "lustfully". The language is very specific here and De Young reverted to the language of the bible. How are you identifying "desires that led to those acts" different than "lust"? Desire is a broader term for lust.
Matthew 5:28
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Looking on a woman with lust is adultery in your heart, looking on another dude is like, totally ok if you like, y’know, don’t act on it n’stuff.
That's NOT what Kevin said. His exact words are "sexual desire for somebody of the same gender that arises to the level of lust is sin, just like lust for somebody of the opposite sex would be sin".
He literally said the new word "orientation" is ambiguous. This "orientation" is a made-up phrase by the left and it is an ambiguous word that the bible does not address because it's a BS phrase. The question itself was a BS question.
So you're attracted to women right? And that's fine. It's only when you look lustfully (i.e. with intent) that you sin.
So a guy attracted to guys is not sinning simply for attraction. It's all in how he responds to that attraction.
Temptation to sin is not sin.
@@tayh.6235 Um, yes he is sinning. The homosexual attraction is itself sinful. Wanting something I should not want is sin. If somebody tempts me to steal and I don't want to steal, I haven't sinned. But if I am tempted to steal and want to do it, I have sinned in my heart. That's the whole problem with the Fall and the Curse. Humanity now wants things which God does not want us to want. Our desires are sinful in themselves. That's Calvin's whole point with the doctrine of Original Sin.
@@earlofbroadst well I'm not Calvinist so I wouldn't see things from the same point of view. I believe that Scripture is clear that temptation is not sin. And it's not a temptation if it doesn't appeal to us in some way. So simply recognizing that you feel the draw to sin is not sin. It's only how you respond. Choosing to mentally dwell on something is a response so it doesn't have to be a physical action, but it does have to be a choice.
@@tayh.6235 the distinction that you are attempting to make is problematic. The entire concept of homosexuality is sinful. Therefore the temptation to engage in that behavior is the root of the sin. This is not the same for heterosexuality. Noticing and appreciating the beauty of a woman is what draws believers to biblical marriage. To then try to equate that with the desire for other broken sinful lifestyles is dangerous. As pointed out in the video, it perpetuates the rejection of God and is not reflective of His plan for you in anyway.
Wilson's weakness on the answer seems to be rooted in his acceptance of orientation, which should be rejected as a concept. Him acquiescing on that terminology is why the answer fell flat.
I had attractions to certain things straight from the point I became sexually aware, many unhealthy and disordered. I then watched porn for years and fulfilled those desires. I am now with God's graces fighting those desires as much as possible and have thrown off porn and masturbation. However, the fact that my first desires were from their very nature already quite fetishised was just a part of me. A bad part of me, that I need to reject and fight against, but still there. So I dont see why sexual orientation is neccassarily any different. Some people have natural desires for the same sex. But what God wants for them is not this, because to fulfill those desires is sin.
Thank you for doing this interview. Really great stuff. I was surprised he named Doug Wilson but then after hearing what he said (which I may have heard in the past and it didn't register with me) I think he's right to point that out and it shows he truly fears God by not pulling punches because of some mans status. Doug is a great father in the faith, but he is not infallible. I pray he will see this and make the necessary correction for the glory of Christ!
Sorry, Doug is not a great father in the faith. How he talks, carries himself, his lack of humility, and what he does on his podcasts are not even close to a follower of Christ, much less the office of a bishop.
@@KPrime31 I disagree.
This is exactly what I would have commented. This was surprising and disappointing from Doug. I appreciate a lot of what he does but he’s wrong on this. Hopefully he sees that and changes his mind on this important matter.
Wilson’s FV teachings are dangerous for the Church and his excusing and even platforming of heretics is enough to mark and avoid him.
@KPrime31 Be careful of playing God; only God knows the heart.
Really enjoyed meeting Dr. Moore. He should have a podcast also. Important stuff to wrestle through.
Thanks for this Jon and Jared. Found out my church made a move towards the SBC by joining Pillar Network. Pulling some material together to present to our Pastor to argue we should get out of there. Didn't pick up on the issue with the Nashville Statement but now that I see it it's glaring. Adding that to the list.
Out of curiosity do you have any theological concerns with Pillar apart from their association with NAMB. I understand that they aren't officially SBC, just have SBC people organizing it.
They are SBC. That is clear from their page. I have several concerns, but my biggest is the proliferation of unbiblical "diversity" language. It's not especially common amongst the member churches, but very common among the churches of the directors and board members, as well as in the material those guys put out. Things like churches which describe being "multi-ethnic" as one of their foundational purposes, and covenants requiring members to "pursue ethnic diversity."
Your both courageous men. Please continue to stand strong on these issues I fear you are going to receive backlash for this. I hope when my boys are older they learn to stand like you do.
Homosexuality is the protected sin in churches. Mention it and get told, don't be judgemental, we're all sinners. Yes, we are, but normally we don't coddle our sin to where it becomes unmentionable because it might offend.
Doug proudly said, he has homosexuals in his church in good standing, now if he had said I have adulterers in my church in good standing what would the reaction have been.
We tiptoe around homosexuality, and wrap them in a comfort blanket in case anyone hurts them.
The only explanation I can offer, is that churches are falling all over themselves to prove how loving, tolerant and open they are.
Doug has a ton of unrepentant adulterers in his congregation.
I’m copying this down, such a good way to put it!
that and women sins like rebellion against the patriarchy and refusal to submit.
Exactly! Substitute any other sin and say the same thing, would they wink at it? Well, maybe. Gluttony and couples living together without being married are two that I can think of that the church tends wink at.
Homosexuality may be the most protected sin in churches, but I would argue gossip is THE most ignored sin in the church. I agree with you, just a thought.
A search for a good morning devotional book was mentioned. My wife and I have been re-reading through one called "Day by Day with the best of Spurgeon" compiled by Delores E Coupland. A sample on Kindle is available. It is dated 2010. It is timeless and it lives up to the subtitle "On the love and loveliness of Jesus". We tried another Spurgeon devotion which had a arminian slant, grew weary and went back again to this one because the content chosen is so well centered and because it spans 366 days. I found a soft cover copy for free in a Sally Ann thrift store and bought the Kindle version because I liked it and used exerpts for short devotions for years at a service held in a seniors home. As an example, I read the March 14 devotion this morning on faith and was blessed.
"Not even a hairbreadth of faith’s foundation is found outside of Jesus Christ."
This was a Helpful talk. Doug Wilson interviewed Sam Alberry and make a helpful distinction between sinful and non-sinful temptations. He claims that not all temptation is sin because Jesus was tempted. But Jesus was tempted with good things in wrong ways. Ruling the world was his destiny but not through Satans means. Doug makes an analogy that money can tempt us to love it to much and be tempted to greed. We must resist the temptation but we still have to use money every day. We must remove money from the high place it holds in our life and put God there. Doug is explicit about same sex attraction that there is no place for it in a Christians life. Money must be put on “a lower shelf” in his analogy, but we still have to use money everyday. Same sex attraction must be put in the “trash been” not on a lower shelf. I maybe tempted to idolize my wife and children in my life, I must remove them from the “top shelf” and put God there, but I still have to love my wife and children, so they must still be on a high shelf in the priorities of my life in obedience to God. There is no similar analogy for temptation to same sex attraction. I found that clarifying and helpful.
Thanks for that.
Um.. you can be LGBT and Christian 👨❤️👨
I so appreciate your courage to deal with this sacred cow it’s so clear that the sophists want compromise but Christian’s are called to seek and speak the truth” the heart of man is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked who can know it” Blessings to you men thankyou
i appreciate what you both are doing
Great conversation! It comes down to it being a heart issue.
I expected more from Doug Wilson. Wow!
Me too😮
Let's pray he addresses it, and handles it in a Godly and right manner.
ruclips.net/video/o6_imqG_NZU/видео.html
Y’all need to go watch or read the most recent thing Wilson put out.
@@Maduecejet26 Yes watched it as soon as it came out, Good response in my books.
Do evangellyfish ever do anything other than compromise when they're not completely surrendering?
Maybe they are mistakenly reading Judas as a good Biblical character?
Thoughts on Jon's point about Revoice asking if desire for/interest in a spouse before marriage is sin/lust. 1. Interest in opposite sex for marriage and procreation is not sin (desire given by God) 2. Interest of a pre-married person about having sex once married to someone of the opposite sex is not sin (desire given by God) 3. Interest in sex with opposite sex outside of marriage is sin (desire given by the devil) 4. Interest in the same sex is ALWAYS SIN (desire given by the devil).
You have no idea how any of this works do you?
How does God judge us? Through the motive or via the act?
Answer, through the motive. James 1:13-15 (ESV): Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
According to James, we form & follow our own desires. God does not “give” people desires on which they act, eg God does not form the desires of our hearts then give them to us as objects that we then can call our own. The Enemy doesn’t do that either. We form our own desires and we act accordingly.
What makes looking at another person a sexually immoral act? According to Matthew 5:28, lustful intent.
Where does the Bible teach that marriage is a cure for lust? Nowhere! I Corinthians 7 informs us that marriage is a species of harm reduction. It’s not a cure for lust.
You’re ok the road to the belief that the object of desire is what makes sexual desire a sin. If the person is your spouse, there is no lust, ergo no sin. If not, then it’s a sin.
That’s called Situational Ethics, not Bible based Christian Ethics.
In Situational Ethics, the morals police justifies their actions by evaluation of their & others activities &/or motives via examination of the context/circumstances in which the deed in question was performed. In biblical ethics, God looks at the heart, not the appearance (1 Sam. 16:7).
This sort of thinking results in a flow chart in which John Smith is accounted a sinner based not on his desires, but rather on the object of his desires. The Bible repudiates that sort of thinking. It results in John rationalising his thoughts, words, & deeds based on the objects of his desires, not the desires themselves.
People don’t sin because demons gave them a desire or set of them which they deployed against God, themselves, & other people. They sin because they, out of their own moral center and nobody else’s loved themselves more than God & their neighbor. That’s all there is to it.
Until the Lord restrains your ability to do that as a temporary act of grace on His part, or He permanently removes your ability to form & follow such desires altogether, that means that everything you do is touched by sin & a product of mixed motives.
You are also on the road to comparing your sins to those of other people. On the view you are articulating, the sins of homosexuals are greater than those of heterosexuals in general, and might even be altogether void of love, which means that they in no measure whatsoever reflect the Imago Dei and that’s all it takes to dehumanise a person in your own heart, which qualifies as a species of hate.
Unwanted same-sex attraction is definitely a disorder & part of the fallen nature of mankind. The roots of this unwanted same-sex attraction are varied. For many guys who experience unwanted same-sex attractions, the roots are tied in envy of other men particularly their physical attributes. Envy is also sin. I also disagree with the term homosexual as it implies an identity. As a follower of Christ, I am only defined by Jesus Christ, not by my sin or my temptation. I also don’t believe in the use of orientation as it also implies an identity of a person that is immutable and cannot be changed. I believe any man or woman who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction can be changed from the inside-out by the power of Jesus Christ.
I am so sad for this generation that cannot find truth in their church or leadership. It is the exception that stands strong on scripture and calls this sin. I have seen how our unwillingness to call sexual sin what it is and it is so disturbing! Thankful there are those willing to stand up and speak truth!
My goodness, I am just shocked to hear such rhetoric from Doug Wilson. My question simply goes back to what Jesus said regarding sins of the heart. The adulterous heart. The murderous heart. The envious heart. By logical inference, the sodomistic heart. How is there categorical change between the sodomistic heart and any other sinful heart. The answer is that there is NONE!
By contrast, I was completely unsurprised by such confused and confusing nonsense issuing forth from the hyper-emotionalized mentality of Piper. Piper simply twists Scripture into perverse pretzels. He is emblematic of the softening of sin through the use of such mind-clouding and misdirecting words such as "disorders," "brokenness," or any other such pandering words appealing to the world.
Thankful for this, Jon and Jared.
There is simply too much psychology and man-centered theology. This is biblical.
What’s wrong with psychology?
@@js1423 psychology is man's wisdom...not Gods
Voddie Baucham has gotten pretty thorough on this topic, including exposing a lot of the cultural manipulation. Check out After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (1990), and the Gay Manifesto from 1987.
jon, thank you for putting the time to add sources to the video
I agree; whoever handled the editing on this one did a great job!
Thank you Jared & Jon
I would like to know Dr. White's thoughts on this and Doug Wilson statement
Ditto 🤔
Yes!! He will be visiting my church in this summer, I am going to remember to ask him about this.
I remember watching that Doug Wilson video when it first came out and cringing at that part.
Good for you. I know I watched that whole Q&A before and I didn’t remember noticing his error. I’m a little ashamed of that.
Brother, that video was TEN YEARS ago. Jarrod Moore failed to mention that. Moore presents this video as if it were yesterday. I wonder what we could find on Jarrod Moore from ten years ago that would be worthy of cancelling HIM?
The video of Doug Wilson was before the days of Revoice. It was before the church at large had been awakened to the error of using the word homosexual or gay as an identifier. You and I knew better. But lots of sincere, Scriptural believers did not. Today, Doug Wilson would not use that terminology. But lets give him some grace. I would trust Doug Wilson before trusting Jarrod Moore anyday.
Man that Doug Wilson part hurt my heart. For real....
Me too let's pray he corrects this statement. I
Y’all need to go listen or read Wilson’s most recent blog post.
'LGBTQ activism under color of christianity.' I like how he said, "This agenda has no brakes."
I find it interesting that Piper is (was?) widely considered to be the 'poster boy' for charismatics who hadn't gone off the deep end theologically.
Thank you Jon and Dr. Moore. I too have been influenced to the good through John Piper early books. However, I must agree that the clip from John Piper equals "gobble-dee-goop". You can't say something is sin and turn around and say it isn't sin.
Regarding Wilson: He has definitely changed positions since that college clip. He's been giving orthodox answers for a while now on this topic. However, Jared is right that he should admit and own up to his errors. (Which is something he typically does)
My googling tells me that university discussion was in 2012
I hope so or I will be canceling my Canonplus subscription.
@@leadinged You can see his initial response to Revoice here (four years ago):
ruclips.net/video/TprtwWszsyw/видео.html
@Mattchew2232 Thanks. I listened to that, and he is clear on revoice. Could have got into more detail but appears that the time format didn't allow. I think the word 'orientation' needs defining. I watched most of the university q&a and Doug used that word a few times. The words "homosexuals in good standing" in his church is the scary issue. In fairness to Doug that university roast was not pleasant. I think impossible to answer questions from students with no brains. Most probably didn't understand any of his answers. Doug was under a lot of pressure. Credit for courage (which is seriously lacking in pastors these days).
@Mattchew2232 also I notice that Doug signed the Nashville Statement. So that's good.
_''The Flesh profits NOTHING!''_ ~ John 6:63 Jesus has been merciful to me, in that He shows me sin is EVERYWHERE in this creation, and we must mortify (starve) it daily. Thank You Jon! :)
I know this first hand - homosexual attraction as with any other kind of desire for what is sin (in the eyes of God, and not in the eyes of man) is sin. I just imagine -- if I were attracted to children (and I am not), would I not be crying out day and night to be free of it? If so, then why not do the same for homosexuality? We need to understand the seriousness of all sin, including things like the love of money, pride, lasciviousness, effeminacy etc. for Christ died so that we can be forgiven AND freed from both those things. He came to call sinners (people who sin) to repentance (to become people who do not sin), otherwise, why be discipled by the sinless Son of Man?
Are some of you guys really comparing Jesus being tempted with food, angels protecting Him, and being the king of kings to desiring to have sex with a man? Jesus desired the Devil’s objects because they were all objectively good things His Father was going to give Him during His ministry or after the cross. Jesus desired these things but not from the Devil. And a man desiring to have sex with a man is not desiring something objectively good! Furthermore, Jesus being tempted like us means He was tempted as truly Human. The author Hebrews is saying Jesus is our truly Human sinless High Priest. He is not saying that Jesus desired to have sex with men or animals, abuse people, etc. What you don’t understand is that Jesus was tempted like sinless Adam. The Devil had to use objectively good things to tempt Jesus because he could not tempt Jesus with evil. For, in order for Jesus to desire anything evil, He would have to create the desire in Himself because He has no original sin.
Does this imply there are two types of temptation:
1. Temptation that is sinful - e.g. temptation to cheat in a game, temptation to commit adultery e.t.c.
2. Temptation that is not- sinful- e.g. by definition any temptation that Jesus faced
Is that correct?
A good point. The temptation is what the devil wanted Jesus to do to get the good things, which he resisted and countered with scripture,
The scriptures also say Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are ? Correct? Sin is in everything not submitted to the Lord including sports entertainment money love of it even putting your children on pedestal s everything even good works are filthy rags.
@@elibennett6168 So for Jesus, eating is good but temptation was about the means to get the food. Couldn't you make the same case for e.g. cheating in a game? I.e. winning is good but temptation would be with respect to the means(cheating). What about fornication? Being intimate is good but the problem would be the means i(not between married couple) etc., etc.?
@@bobodka Those seem consistent with the line of thinking we are exploring. It's okay to desire and ask for gifts from God, but not with unbelief or wrong intentions etc. We are to examine ourselves. We master the things that lead us into sin because sin crouches at the door. Of course thoughts or impulses can be flat out evil. The people in Noah's time had every inclination of their hearts set on evil all the time.
"That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23, LSB; cf., Matthew 15:15-20).
Jesus clearly teaches here that sinful actions come from sinful desires, which proceed from a sinful nature (i.e. the heart of man). Because one's nature is sinful, their desire is to do that which is sinful. Their desire dictates the will to do what is sinful, and from the will sinful actions manifest. That's what it means to be dead in our trespasses and sins. But the miracle of salvation is that God raises us from spiritual death to new life in Jesus Christ. He takes away our heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is sensitive to His will. Are we who are in Christ ontologically perfected at the point of regeneration? No. But we have been given a new nature that desires God's pleasure. Any desire that is opposed to that, (or, more to the point, any desire to commit a sin) is clearly the root of sin. Thus, it ought to go without saying that the Bible not only expressly condemns wicked desires as sin, but Jesus Himself clearly taught that sinful actions are merely the product of a sinful nature. In other words, we are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners. And what is same-sex attraction if not an internal desire for something that is contrary (dare I say repulsive) to God?
I hate that it has to be spelled out like that, but when such influential theologians as John Piper and Kevin DeYoung seem not to understand total depravity as applied to homosexuality - men who are clearly better qualified to handle Scripture and to discuss its historical, orthodox interpretation than most of us are (myself included) - then we cannot assume that laymen such as I will understand it either (particularly when this doctrine is being actively undermined by said highly respected theologians). Anyways, thank you both for being faithful to God's word; and thank you, Jon, for bringing us solid content. I appreciate you.
Great show as always Jon this is an important issue that really is defining Christians today. Ray Flava made the comment on his show that when Christians fight homosexuality within the church and stand firm they always win the the homosexuals always end up leaving.
I'm a Pastor Doug Wilson fan but there is nothing that was said by Jared that was wrong. With that said I will say that video example was many years ago in a secular institution and I assume Wilsons would probably like to reword much of what he said. As far as not rewording his statements on his blogs I think more people need to speak up and insist he changes it.
As far as DeYoung I'm not shocked, Deyoung is a part of Big Eva and if he starts to become more unwoke he loses his speaking gigs, he no longer gets invited to big Eva parties so basically DeYoung is a people pleaser and Piper is not shocking either. Piper needed to retire 10 years ago.
There is so much on the blog! 😂 but we can pray and hope that when asked he will clarify.
I agree with you about Wilson; it was a double disappointment to hear him affirming error and to hear that he failed to receive correction. Perhaps if enough of his followers are asking this question, he will give it some serious thought? I think perhaps he is so used to being attacked for his faithfulness that he has developed a reflex response to criticism. Very sad.
It is very upsetting to hear Mr. Piper conflating the futility of sinless Creation with sinful homosexual desires. He is totally ignoring what God says in Verse 19. The non-human physical Creation longs for the sons of God to be revealed because it is upon them (the Elect) that Christ’s righteousness has been/will be imputed. Creation innately knows that when the final Christian is called into repentance and faith that Christ will return and renew all nature. It is in this Hope that Creation will finally be free of the painful, purifying effects of our sin. How can Mr. Piper juxtaposition God-rebelling, perverse sinful desires to this promise?
The semantics that big Eva engages in on this topic do nothing but torture the souls of those who long to be free. Romans 1:26 calls the passion/desire itself dishonorable.
I never liked Piper. I always thought he was a too beta male and just kinda weird. Look dude, I just believe the Bible and I trust God at His Word. I remember having all these psychologists and doctors trying to excuse my drug abuse because of PTSD from being in Afghanistan. Never helped but only made it worse actually. Only once I realized I was a totally depraved wretched sinner in need of a Savior did I repent and place my faith in Christ. 8 years later and I now preach His Word and pastor His sheep. They can keep man’s fallen wisdom in psychology, I’ll stick with the heart piercing Word of God leading us to repentance and Gospel of Jesus.
If any desire acted upon leads to sin, than the desire itself is sin and sinful. Wow, on DWilson having a homosexual in good standing in the church, what the heck!?! As a born again believer how could anyone want to associate oneself with any abomination against your Lord and Saviour? I have deYoung's book, and l missed that compromise he has made in it, disheartening. Piper l have found wishy washy for some time now, sadly. Ty Jon again for bringing us the hard truths.
It’s not ironic that all these “pastors” revolve around TGC.
Doug most certainly does not 😂
Satan uses confusing lies to lead men and women away from God…and this topic is riddled with Satan’s lies. Satan works hard to keep those with any kind of distorted sinful desire confused and unrepentant by rationalizing that sinful thoughts and desires are not sin unless acted upon in a physical fashion. That is simply a false excuse and rationalization for sinners to feel free to commit sins we think about and desire.
We all must repent of sinful thoughts and desires because it is sin. This is so clear in scripture. Refer to the words of Jesus in His sermon on the mount.
Satan is calling sinful desires and thoughts “inclinations” and “orientations” to confuse us to accept it as something short of sin. Satan’s goal is for us to NOT repent for these sins we think about and desire, and instead continue to practice these sinful thoughts and desires (feed the sin). Satan’s desire and goal is to separate us from God. We must stay alert and not let that happen.
Think about it, if a man is “inclined” or “oriented” to desiring and thinking about murdering women, but resists committing the act of murder, his desires and thoughts are still sinful. If a man lusts after a woman who is not his wife in his thoughts and desires, but does not do the physical act, he is still sinning. If a woman covet’s another woman’s economic status, but does not attempt to steal her economic status, the covetous thoughts and desires are still sins. Likewise, if a man is sexually attracted to another man, this desire and his thoughts about such desires are sin.
Christians who believe that any sinful “inclination” and “orientation” that manifests itself in thoughts and desires without a further consummating action is not sin, are simply rationalizing their own sinful thoughts and desires. That kind of thinking is simply a way we can justify clinging to our sin. Furthermore, this erroneous thinking will lead to increased participation in sinful thoughts and desires instead of seeking to starve and mortify those sinful thoughts and desires. And harboring and feeding sinful desires and thoughts will lead to greater temptation and increased sinful thoughts and desires. Eventually adding to acting on those desires. We are commanded to “Make no provision for the flesh.”
Satan and sinners can repeatedly call this kind of sin “inclinations” and “orientations”, but using such terminology to confuse us will never change the truth that it is SIN against our Holy God.
This discussion is very convicting to me to think clearly about the nature of sin and to resist the temptation to reduce actual sin to something less than sin. Christians, if any of us have committed this sinful error, we must repent and be examples of humble and contrite believers in the person and work of Jesus. And those who are teaching and repeating these lies, must repent and admit their error openly. Clinging to pride in this instance without repentance will only serve to curse the unrepentant. You either believe scripture or you don’t believe it. If you teach and are unrepentant of doctrinal error, you will be an “anathema” (cursed by God). If you genuinely repent, God will be quick to forgive and you will be a Godly example of a repentant and obedient child of God to many.
If you choose to cling to your sin because of pride, fear of man and/or loss of status, you may be one of those seeds that Jesus talked about who grew into a plant for a time, but withered and died when the allure of the world overtook you. It is that important and we all must continually take a critical look at ourselves and our thinking.
God, give us all who proclaim to be true regenerate believers, the power to repent of this and any wrong thinking about You that leads us astray. Give us the desire to ask for forgiveness and to repent openly where we may have lead others astray. Help our unbelief and increase our trust in Your promise that this kind of love for You and other men and women covers a multitude of sins. In the name of Jesus, we come to You in prayer.
I don't understand why anyone who calls him/herself a new creation in Christ would want to continue to self identify as a homosexual. What other sin that a person practiced under their old nature would a person continue to identify as? Does the prostitute continue to say, "I'm a prostitute Christian?" Or does the thief say, "I'm a thieving Christian?" The drug addict? Not at all. 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." How is the "homosexual Christian" putting to death or mortifying his old sin nature by this?
Good point.
The Wild and Wonderful Moores of the SBC.
The term you're looking for is same sex romantic or same sex erotic attractions. Jared, I think you're missing the point on seeing the objective beauty part. It's root is that the person bound by sin is being told their recognizing a guy is handsome means they are gay, that is not true. Just like Jon said guys in the gym might admire another guy for their work, that's the frame by which we are trying to hang the 'attraction' that someone who struggles with ssa might otherwise be able to understand they aren't 'other' by admiring. They should be affirmed It's okay to say someone is handsome, objectively, without being afraid of thinking the observation is disordered. Everyone agrees if that attraction is romantic, or sexual, yeah, it's disordered and sinful. But if you look at it from a diagnosis level, many guys (myself included) felt 'other' and shamed for our bodies and the inspiration of a good looking guy at the gym, paired with the lie it would be unobtainable for me, lead to body shame, lead to body evny, lead to body lust of the other guy. Once God provided me a brother in the faith who took me to the gym, I saw my body change, I saw how he interacted with guys (the admiration), and was affirmed AS A MAN, my thinking changed about my body and the other's body. The shame of my body and envy thus lust over their body evaporated. I didn't believe I was 'other', I felt confident in my body.
Daren, your story of transformation so clearly demonstrates the amazing power of God's love and His design for us. Thank you so much for sharing your testimony on this podcast and for your devotion to various ministries involving this issue.
I think the Church often misses the mark on sexual brokenness, proposing a rinse repeat method of repentance rather than a deep healing of the root issues. I pray that many more men will pour into the lives of guys with gender insecurity.
Transformation is real. God bless you.
Well stated Darren! You explained the issue very well with a good example with guys at the gym.
@@MrSilence99 I too struggle with unwanted SSA & am finding freedom by focusing on my identity in Christ & realizing that I am a man among men & no different than OSA guys. I am happily married to my wife of 34 years, have 3 sons & have never considered myself gay or with a homosexual orientation. Those are false & worldly identity words that I reject as a follower of Christ.
These were my thoughts exactly, Daren. It's not wrong if we notice a man is nice looking, or well built. Most men notice that, but are too afraid to admit it for fear of being labeled "gay". On the other hand, women openly say other women are beautiful and even Jarod Moore doesn't label them as lesbians. Just because I recognize a guy is nice looking does not mean I'm lusting after him. And for the record, Jared Moore has NOTHING to worry about!
The Wilson quote was jarring, especially since I remember listening to that talk and that it didn't stand out to me at the time. I think I listened to this just as I was exiting college, maybe it was due to being in music college and surrounded by so many sodomites it just sounded normal at the time. I really appreciate emphasizing that there is no ontological nature to sodomy. I knew that, but I hadn't heard it phrased that way before.
Thank you. I personally know people in my church that agree that same sex attraction is not sin.
“and such WERE some of you” not are. If you are in Christ, you are a new creation you are not an adulterer you are not a homosexual. You are not a thief you are a believer in Christ. That is your only identity you were washed you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God read first Corinthians 6:9-11.
I am a fan of Doug Wilson, but he needs to repent of this language and this stance!
The exact words going through my head while thinking about DWilson's stance
Amen.
Jared will be attacked for comments about Doug Wilson. I am so glad he is bold for Christ.
I'm just a few minutes in. But there is no possible way Doug Wilson supports this sin.
No one is above correction/critique. Reprove. Rebuke. Exhort. Iron sharpens iron.
That Wilson clip is 2012. He’d likely answer that question differently now.
Not suprised at all by Piper, but DeYoung surprises me somewhat as does Wilson. I will stick with the clear teaching of Scirpture.
No one can follow JESUS without denying himself and taking up his cross. There is no reason to even entertain such topics for a follower of JESUS CHRIST.
INTERESTING WORDS, THERE IS JUST NO "HOMOSEXULAITY HATING GOD":
The bible is only 3000 years old, humans like us (homo sapiens) exist for 300,000 years.
In none of the millions of artefacts, cave paintings, scriptures or any other testimony in the 297,000 years before the bible, a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH” or "Adam and Eve" was ever mentioned.
Any archaeological testimony of that version of a god is out of the short "biblical time" when people already invented that story and believed in it.
This version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH" is an invention only 4000-3000 years old.
Christianity , as any other religion , is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with subjective morality and rules out of their historical context.
One day also this religion will disappear, like all other religions, homosexuals, heterosexuals and spiritual people then will still go on existing: )
Have a great day :)
I like Sinclair Ferguson’s response to the question “what advice would you have for the young, reformed and restless”. He said “I would encourage them to get some rest”.
Hey Jon. Thank you for the video. It might have been been a little helpful if you had set this up a little. You were talking about Revoice, something I had
never heard of. (I thought you and Jared were saying reboys). Keep up the good fight.
This video is so eye openning, I was one of those who belived the attraction is ok, but now I think is unbiblical.
But I have a question, let's say I have SSA what am I supposed to do in order to battle this and gain freedom?, I would like to take responsabilty but how?, Lets say I already confessed it but I still have it.
Every time you are conscious of SSA, call it evil, turn from it and rest in Christ. Enjoy Christ.
@@DrJaredMoore do you think that this way those desires will start to fade away to the point of no longer having them?
@@Python-vo6qh It apparently worked for the Corinthians, as Paul reminded them that some of them used to be homosexuals prior to their conversion. It ultimately depends on how bad a homosexual really wants to tear down that stronghold. As Paul said, a person won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh if they walk in the Spirit.
Focus on your true identity in Christ and ask the Lord to show you the roots of your unwanted sane sex attraction & temptation so that He can heal & restore.
Give it to Jesus in repentance.
He already bore it on cross for us and was raised up into a new way of life for us as well!
Repentance, as Dr. Adrian Rogers used to say, is a change of mind about sin, self and the Savior. As you turn towards Christ and see Him as what your heart really yearns for and needs, you will agree more and more with Him about the roots of SSA in your life. The Holy Spirit will expose them and show you that those desires have no right to define you. You’ll come into a greater power as you learn who you truly are in Christ! That you are more than the sum total of your attractions. Seek to be transformed by the renewing of your mind with the scriptures (Rom. 12:1-2).
Most of all, be patient with God’s pace of your development. Sanctification and repentance are an ongoing process. Know that God finishes everything He starts. He will complete the work He began in you (Phil. 1:6). Take it as a sign of comfort that you obviously just don’t have a desire for SSA-God has implanted a righteous desire of deliverance within you, as well! It’s the resistance to SSA you’re experiencing. It comes from God and not from you, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).
It’s sounds, quite simply put, like they’re trying to replace, or supplement, God’s wisdom in the Word with man’s “wisdom. Why would anyone want try to replace the knowledge of the Infinite with the minuscule “knowledge” of the finite? Oh, that’s right, we’re a rebellious lot that has sought to justify sin ever since Adam tried to pass the blame when he told God “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.".
Thanks, John, for this biblically faithful conversation with Dr. Jared Moore.
No one is truly homosexual. It’s just like adultery it is perversion.
You cannot accept someone who claims to be homosexual no more than you can accept someone into membership of the church who is an adulterer.
Now a person who comes to Jesus but struggles to overcome the sin of homosexuality, that person can be considered a Christian.
But a person who is homosexual and believes it is ok that person is not saved.
What's wrong with being an adulator?
@@tedkijeski339 haha nothing. Dang spell check. 😂😂
Thanks for including the audio clips of Piper and Wilson. It served to show how wrong Moore is in his criticisms.
Ok?
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Also, did you look read/listen to Wilson's response to your interview? I thought it was good.
@@jordanjohnson9415 Yes I have.
"For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." Romans 7:18
INTERESTING WORDS, THERE IS JUST NO "HOMOSEXULAITY HATING GOD":
The bible is only 3000 years old, humans like us (homo sapiens) exist for 300,000 years.
In none of the millions of artefacts, cave paintings, scriptures or any other testimony in the 297,000 years before the bible, a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH” or "Adam and Eve" was ever mentioned.
Any archaeological testimony of that version of a god is out of the short "biblical time" when people already invented that story and believed in it.
This version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only God YHWH" is an invention only 4000-3000 years old.
Christianity , as any other religion , is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with subjective morality and rules out of their historical context.
One day also this religion will disappear, like all other religions, homosexuals, heterosexuals and spiritual people then will still go on existing: )
Have a great day :)
I am surprised about Doug Wilson. He's been one of the pastors influential in bringing me out of the belief that concupiscence isn't sinful. Apparently even through his lack of clarity God still brought about a proper understanding of sin.
I believe Doug Erred and misrepresented his own position. I talked to someone and the believed he was trying to appease the young lady in some way, which of-course is wrong.
@Ryan Lee This surprised and grieved me as well. I’m curious if you could point to any specific teachings (whether books, videos, podcasts, or blogs) that were helpful to you on the subject of concupiscence? I want to know if he has been consistent on this, although I really don’t know which would be worse.
@@MH-uh3hw i believe he was trying to let her win the battle while winning the war, but he tripped and fell on his own sword and botched the whole thing
that situation wasn't exactly a low stress environment. we've all been there
that said, i'm interested in seeing the interaction between doug and moore on twitter...
@@kaylar3197 I wouldn't be able to point to anything in particular. To be honest, the change is a result of many influences, him just being one. Basically, I used to say that "being gay" isnt' a sin, because I put homosexual desire into temptation. Doug was someone that seemed to clearly designate effeminacy and any tendency toward homosexuality as sinful. At least that was what I got out of it.
FYI, Doug is going to be addressing this on his blog tomorrow (Wednesday, Jannuary 11).
Colossians 3: 5 (KJV) Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
I think you might be misrepresenting Tridentine RC teaching as being tolerant of sin. Quite the opposite. It teaches that mortal sin results in loss of justification, puts one out of the state of grace, whereas most Protestants teach that one remains justified even in committing mortal sin. Concupiscence remaining in the baptized is not in itself sin, but is a weakness that makes one vulnerable to temptation. The crucial thing is that, by the grace of God, one has the power to resist that temptation, and to mortify any wrong desire that may arise. God does give us by grace the power to will to say no to temptation, and to overcome it. It is giving in to wrong desires and temptations that is sin, not the being tempted. I am fairly sure that traditional RC teaching holds that it is wrong to nurture any wrong desire, or to view it positively, other than as an opportunity to show loyalty to God by mortifying it.
Is there a link to the dissertation?
Jon, can you please comment on Preston Sprinkle and the influence that he is having on the church regarding this issue.
My church continues to host his conferences and promote his speakers.
I know he is wrong and pushes dangerous teaching, and my church provides a platform for him.
Thanks.
If your church is hosting Preston Sprinkle, find a new church. Sprinkle's ministry, the Center for Faith, Gender, and Sexuality, advocates for covenant friendships, covenant households. They advocate for Christians who are "gay" to form households. They even permit cuddling and other signs of affection. It's basically marriage without the sex.
Thank you, Jared for your input. It has been frustrating for us to grapple with this. We are going to bring our concerns to the elders, and see how they respond and go from there.
Thanks.
It's very odd to me that Wilson makes no distinction or flattens both pedophilia and homosexuality to the sane level as adultery. He doesn't seem to recognize that there is an fundamental rebellion contrary to nature. Having a desire for a woman who is not your wife is not the same as having a desire for a man, child, or animal. If you think I'm exaggerating, look up what Doug said to his congregation about Steve Sitler and how they handled his discipline.
Wow...surprised at Wilson's answer and lack of proactivity when called on it. What a mess we're in.
A lot of people seem to be getting confused. You have to really listen to what they are saying here. It can be tricky but you have to ask God for wisdom and understanding. They aren’t saying that “temptation” in and of itself is a sin. They are stating that the sexual attraction between one man and another man is a sin. Sin can be more plainly defined as “error” or “missing the mark.” If a man is sexually attracted to another man, that is a sin. This should be obvious for the Christian since we know that God didn’t create men to be attracted to other men (this is “error” and “missing the mark” of Gods intentions between the sexes). Therefore, it is sin. A temptation to do something is not necessarily sin. In the book of Hebrews it states that Jesus was tempted in all things, yet without sin. In Jesus’ case, for all we know, he may have been ‘tempted’ with homosexuality in the sense where a man may have tried to give him the eye or flirt with him but Jesus was in no way “attracted” to him. Big difference. Hopes this clears things up.
Looks like Doug Wilson has addressed this. Perhaps interview him?
Already in the works.
44:40 for my brothers in CREC. And boys, what the fella says following DW is well lanced. Pair this to Romans in chapter 1. One in such a way would be given to a reprobate mind.
It's not unreasonable at all to say there are people who are church members in good standing with homosexual desires. Just like there can be church members in good standing who have any kind of sinful desire. I'm not sure Doug is communicating in these links that homosexual desire isn't sinful. He's communicating that church elders can judge a person's behavior a lot more easily than someone's thoughts. No church should excommunicate a person for having sinful thoughts, which is exactly what Doug was saying in the college Q&A. Of course homosexual desires are sinful. Not being completely clear about every topic we'd like is not the same as being wrong. I think Jared missed the mark on that one.
I badly want to accept this logic. I’ve tried every angle in my head. However, if someone said they had adulterers in good standing or racists in good standing (so long as they don’t commit the act of adultery or hurt people of different races) we’d all scratching our heads. I’ve gone after people like Sam Allberry pretty hard for saying much the same thing. The challenge for me is do I allow Moore to apply the same biblical standard to Wilson that I’ve applied to Allberry? It would be hypocritical for me not to.
People can have blind spots. Myself included. Peter even had one Paul corrected him for publicly. I think that’s the spirit Moore has here.
It is unreasonable and unacceptable to identify as your sin and be “in good standing”. We die to ourselves and our sinful desires, not claim it as an identifier. I would understand if Wilson said he had members who were *repentant *former homosexuals. It shouldn’t be that the standard is simply refraining from public sexual perversion on display.
The Bible says homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and it doesn't put any qualifiers on whether or not they are sexually active. The Bible is clear on it being an abomination, and no one who practices abominations as a way of life can ever be said to be in good standing with a God that demands His followers be holy as He is holy. That was not a suggestion or a recommendation.
Can anyone give the timestamp of the Wilson comments?
40:47 or so.
Yea if you say that isn’t a sin then lusting after someone else’s spouse wouldn’t be sin. We know that’s wrong but that’s the rabbit hole they are headed down.
It would be helpful if this gentleman could provide an example of what he thinks Doug Wilson should have said on his blog. Is his issue that Doug Wilson didn't say heart sins should be confessed?
Doug should have said, “Concupiscence, sinful desire, is morally culpable sin. Everything in you that is contrary to God is sin. We must turn from, resist, and reject everything in us that is contrary to God, and turn to Christ. We should always be satisfied in Christ while never being satisfied with our flesh. And where we fall short, Christ does not. Enjoy His righteousness imputed to you and your sin imputed to Him.”
Amen Jared.
@@DrJaredMoore Is desire sin, or is it temptation? Don't we have to submit the will in order for it to be sin? Desire could be defined as temptation, correct?
@@matt8637 desire is internal. Temptations are external. Too often the two are conflated when they are distinct.
@@anthonyfava9367 Maybe a helpful distinction to help us in our consideration of this topic.
With that said, the Bible says Jesus was "tempted in all ways". Did that include a desire from the 'sarx' (flesh) which He had to resist with will or volition? Did he have what Thomistic theologians called the "fomes of sin"? Before the crucifixion He did pray for the cup, if possible, to pass Him by. Yet he said, "not My will, but Your will be done", praying to God. What does He indicate by "not My will"? He did have a desire to not 'drink the cup', from what we read. Seems like a reasonable observation.
Is there no difference between attraction and reaction?
I feel like DeYoung has rode the fence line on SSA, just like Mohler has at times with Social Justice. This ambiguity really speaks volume to his weaknesses/unwillingness to just be clear and say any rebellion in thought, act, or otherwise ANYTHING to God or his will is sin.
All these men are wasting their breath and obfuscating scripture. Just be clear and say it's sin desire (attraction), thought, or action.
Amen.
On Wilson - Hm, the Q&A session seems like it was years ago. He looks much younger. My understanding of what he said there is that someone can have those desires but they are not giving in to them. They are constantly battling them. Maybe like someone has a particular weakness/temptation for alcohol, but is not giving in to that? That is how I took it. I'd say these days, the "orientation", wording would need to be changed because that has become an "identity." But that's for him to address. Unless I see more, there's no possible way that I believe he supports this sin.
The Q&A is indeed older, from 2012, over a decade at this point. Not that long in the grand scheme, but predates the discussions around "orientation" language we've been having the past couple of years.
But Wilson did say in interview he had a homosexual in good standing in his church, how can this be, "for such were some of you, but you were washed..." that is what it means to be in good standing, so the homo label needs to go. There may be sinful desires, but these are repented of and on goes the battle for all of us in one way or another.
2019, not 2012
@@anitasmith203 And the "in good standing" part tells me that the man joined the church and remains in good standing because he may feel tempted but resists and prayerfully works on being relieved of the temptation. Would you keep a man out of your church if he was counselled and confessed and committed to growing in faithfulness? Doug Wilson believes in forgiveness and allowing pilgrims to be edified by attending church and hearing God's Word regularly. Growing in faith and faithfulness. God bless him!
@@DrJaredMoore The RUclips video currently available is dated 2019 but the talk took place in 2012. Here's a trailer with some of the footage from it, note the upload date. ruclips.net/video/LhB44UUrNvg/видео.html
Appreciated your discussion!
Noticing someone is beautiful is not attraction. Attraction is a pull towards or a desire for. This is just splitting hairs
i'm wrestling hard with this stuff. someone please...
@17:29 how does this work with Jesus' temptations? Hebrews 4:15
wasn't he tempted in every way we are, yet without sin?
so how is temptation sin?
It is not a sin to be tempted, it is a sin to give yourself over to the temptations though. I was gay, have been born again almost 7 years and still battling same sex attraction. I know it's filthy... There simply is NO off switch.
You have to really listen to what they are saying here. It can be tricky but you have to ask God for wisdom and understanding. They aren’t saying that “temptation” in and of itself is a sin. They are stating that the sexual attraction between one man and another man is a sin. Sin can be more plainly defined as “error” or “missing the mark.” If a man is sexually attracted to another man, that is a sin. This should be obvious since God didn’t create men to be attracted to other men (this is “error” and “missing the mark” of Gods intentions between the sexes). Therefore, it is sin. A temptation to do something is not necessarily sin. In Jesus’ case, for all we know, he may have been ‘tempted’ with homosexuality in the sense where a man may have tried to give him the eye or flirt with him but Jesus was in no way “attracted” to him. Big difference. Hopes this clears things up for you.
@@anthonygiordano3991 thank you, Anthony
@@billybob-wx2re - You’re welcome bud.. anytime!
Everyone who watches this and is surprised about Jared talking about Wilson needs to go watch his most recent video or read it on his blog. Serious.
Thoughts of suicide come wafting through the room as I listen. One must admit: it’s always an option. The sin of suicide lasts all of an instant. The sin of homosexuality lasts an entire lifetime. As a born again Calvinist…Suicide makes much more sense.
Sorry, but I think Moore is being too harsh here. Yes, Westminster (chapter 6) does say that our broken and disordered nature-our original sin-is itself sin. It is not just an abstract notion. But when it deals with repentance and confession (chapter 15) it deals solely with actual sin. This is basically all that DeYoung and Wilson and Piper are doing: making a distinction between how we deal with original vs. actual sin.
I confess I'm more confused than before I started watching the video. I have a couple of observations which are NOT intended as "gotcha!," especially as I agree with most of what I've heard.
Dr. Jared criticizes the application of the PCA study because of the emphasis on empathy, and rightly points out that empathy with sin is not Biblical. But, then his next statement conflates the sinner with the sin. I would think that not having empathy toward sin would be QUITE different from not having empathy toward a person. (I appreciate Jon's interjection clarifying "repentant" sinners, but it seems one must be careful of one's choice of words - particularly when critiquing others for their word choices.) I do not fully understand his point.
I got a little tripped up when y'all began discussing attraction and admitting that a member the same sex is attractive, etc. Although I did not have TOO much trouble following the discussion prior, that particular portion cause me to feel as if I had hit a rather large and extremely befuddling pothole, in that it left me wondering just when The Fall occurred. Was it when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, or was it when Eve looked on it and saw that it was good to eat? Did Eve fall before The Fall?
HELP! (Otherwise, Amen!)
Good questions: 1) The Bible does not separate sin from sinners. After all, sinners not sins spend eternity in hell. The Bible is not empathetic to sinners sinning. Loving, yes. Empathetic, no. 2) Eve and Adam willed disobedience in their hearts before they willed it with their outward actions, as Genesis 3:6 says. They fell in their hearts before the fell in their actions.
@@DrJaredMoore Thank you for your answers! I confess it may take a little time to "wrap my head around" the lack of separation, fully, but I'm glad to be pointed in the right direction, at least.
As to A&E, I think we've heard so often that they fell "when they ate the forbidden fruit" that we totally overlook what preceded the actual eating. That does lead to another question, though. which is, what was the origin of sin?
I'd been taught A&E were created "holy, harmless, and undefiled," but the contemplation of sin does not sound like it belongs under any of those descriptors.
On the Bethlehem Baptist elder statement, is the distinction between clarity and confusion perhaps a matter of the tiniest English article? What if he said, "Experiencing a same-sex attraction is not itself sin" versus "Experiencing same-sex attraction is not itself sin?"
Seems at least possible that the elder may have meant "experiencing *a* same-sex attraction" - right?
What I mean is this: if SSA is always sinful desire (and I believe it is), isn't it obvious that you will experience that sinful desire prior to deciding to mortify it?
Are you guys trying to say that experiencing that sinful desire is itself sin? Because if that's the case, then there's no point in mortifying our sin, is there? Whatever form our sinful desire takes, we will experience it prior to mortifying it.
I appreciate the efforts to clarify and purify. I just think it's obvious that it's not as straightforward as you, your guest, nor I would like it to be.
Anything in us that is contrary to God is sin. Anything in us that does not love God and our neighbor is sin. Are you saying that when our flesh produces a sinful desire, a motion of original sin, that it's loving God and our neighbor? If not, then it's sin. Paul calls it sin in Romans 7.
You can fight sin like that by putting yourself in places physically and mentally where it won't even happen. If you can only notice it after it's already happened, that just means you have to be smarter in fighting it than with other sins.
It's like a burglar. You only notice a burglary after it's happened, unlike robbery. Both burglars and robbers can be fought and stopped from returning to you, though.
Why this inability to call this WHISPER TO LOVE THE FORBIDDEN from ANY deceitful corner of our heart exactly what it is -SIN. Being attracted to what is an abomination to our Holy God is an abomination to our Holy God. How can a lover of Jesus use that abomination as part of his identity or cling to it as if it can do anything but drag one toward sure and certain death?
Nick Roen has since removed himself from identifying as side B. I’m sure he still has the struggles of same-sex attraction but he is not an advocate of Revoice. He is a solid brother.
Does Roen still teach that his same-sex attraction is not sin?
@@DrJaredMoore I’m not sure. I’d have to go dig up his statement on twitter….
Just an honest question, regarding what Pastor Wilson said. What if these 'homosexuals' in his church are struggling, fighting and asking for help from the local body to kill their homosexual desires, should we categorize them outside of good standing? Same as men who have lustful desires but are doing the same?
No. But that’s not what Wilson said in either quote.
I have heard about some men finding their boyfriends at some of those Christian support groups oriented on the same sin.
I do not see the purpose in nitpicking solid Pastors over minute details when there are so many dangerous and false teachers to warn weaker brothers about.
Where did Pastor Doug Wilson error in his statement? Are we to suggest that individuals who struggle with homosexual attraction after repenting and coming to Christ must continue confessing to Christ the sinful desire as though something to repent of? Are we to do the same (we who do not struggle with homosexual urges) when we desire to eat excessively, but refrain from doing so, are we to repent of this as well? Or when those who struggle with heterosexual urges that are sinful, are we to repent as though we have sinned each day simply because the innate desire lies within us, though we have not sinned, even when tempted with said sin?
How then can we understand Hebrews 4:15 where it is said that Jesus was tempted in everyway, yet was without sin?
Thus, I think it is perfectly reasonable to mark the desire itself as sinful, but not treat the one who works to put to death that sinful desire each day as though they are sinning simply because the evil desire indwells them. Where then can we understand Jesus when He says to come to Him for His yolk is light if we are then going to condemn the individual struggling to put to death their sin of homosexual desires merely for the sinful desire indwelling them? Should we not rather encourage them in the Lord for overcoming the sin rather than giving in to it?
Rather, I think both you, Jon, and you, Jarred should repent of this slandering against solid teachers and ask of their forgiveness for slandering their good names publicly (especially when operating on incomplete information). Jon, I own both of your books on social justice and Christianity and have enjoyed your covnversations with Joel Webbon in the past. And after seeing this kind of content from you, I am aghast that have allowed this video to go public at all. I hope that you at least would repent of this slandering much akin to the pharisees and remove this video (or at least include a disclaimer against Jarred's claims here). I like you, Jon, but this the sort of pharisaical legalism that demands perfection of our leaders in the Church and lacks patience and forgiveness. You know as well as anyone else that Doug Wilson (amongst others in this dreadful list) are good, solid teachers, and yet you allow for this Jarred guy his baseless claims against them, thereby causing true division within the body of Christ (and I don't use that term lightly).
There is a lot of good that can come from discernment ministries, but there is also much danger and pitfalls where you can be led into if not careful; I am afraid this is one of them. Discernment ministries are invaluable when so many false teachers and wolves have crept into the Church unnoticed. However, in order for a discernment ministry to accomplish its goal in weeding out the false and dangerous teachers, one must first have the gift and spirit of discernment, of which Jarred is clearly lacking.
Again, I would urge both of you, Jon and Jarred to repent of the baseless and slanderous claims made against these solid teachers in the Faith. Or do you not fear God?
Looks like Doug Wilson responded. I would be curious to hear whether or not this response settles the issue or raises more question:
ruclips.net/video/o6_imqG_NZU/видео.html
I listened. Need to read in depth more. Right now it’s raised a lot more questions for me. I can’t see the consistency but I want to give it another look and email him my questions.
This is a really good criticism of Douglas Wilson--a rarity in our times. I watched a debate over gay mirage between him and a gay mirage advocate. It ended up not going well for Douglas later in the debate. After watching this video I think his faltering in that debate is because of his compromise Mr. Moore points out here. Thanks very much for this.
Wow. I am surprised by D. Wilson. Especially with the cross politics comment about either baptists or evangelicals had some blame for transgenderism.