Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Jon examines what the Bible teaches about same-sex attraction.
To support the Podcast go to www.worldviewc...
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...
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
When people say this is a complicated topic that is not accurate. It is only complicated because American Evangelical "leaders" have made it complicated. The compromise in America is enormous. Thank you Jon!
Unfortunately this phenomenon of complicating morality for the sake of compromise is not specific to "American Evangelical leaders"! Corrupt desires followed by consequent actions were present in antiquity as well! Unlike those "leaders", when Ap. Paul faced such a case in 1Corinthians 5 - he did not condoned or tried to justify it. In the modern history though, this started in W Europe with the liberal theology, but spread like cancer all over the places. May God protect us and give us power to crucify flesh along with its evil desires!
It always comes down to "Yea, hath God said?"
@@orbyfan Anything else outside of God's revelation, becomes our own invention of god, which is infatuation, idolatry and rebellion against God.
You can be LGBT and Christian 👨❤️👨
@dansaber4427 if what you mean by lgbtq is someone who is repentant of their sin and doesn't engage in it any more and tried to live a life according to the scripture then yes. But If what you mean by lgbtq is someone that is unrepentant of their disordered desires and does not seek to avoid partaking in unnatural acts then NO absolutely not.
I think that guy at the end is Gavin Peacock. He was very clear and right to the point. Great ending clip.
Q. 61. What is forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment forbiddeth the omission or careless performance of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.
Shorter Catechism
There is a war going on and Colossians 3:5 comes to mind. I love the opening word of
King James Bible which says, "Mortify!" and then uses words like inordinate affection, evil concupiscence. We need to put such desires to death. NASB says, "Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry."
I don’t have any problem with what is being said, but… what should be done? I have a close friend who was abused as an adolescent, and then he discovered that he had SSA when he was 13. He did not want it, and has fought it admirably for his entire life. What was the preceding “idolatry” that he committed? He and I both agree that SSA is based in sin, and lust and action are sinful… but what sin did he as a 13 year old commit?
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:26-27 ESV
To give up on someone means to give up... God is not with you if you have same sex attractions.
@Elena Baumann You’re right that people in this sinful lifestyle are far from God. I just want to emphasize another truth: that doesn’t mean God can’t save you. As we see in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, some of the Christians Paul was writing to used to be homosexual. No one is too far gone, no sin is beyond His forgiveness.
Well said Jon. Also, Piper's word salad was tragic. At least he admitted it was unnatural.
Piper is arguing an Arminian argument. The Wesleyans in particular argue that sins are committed in thought, word, and deed or in things left undone. Rather for the Wesleyans sin is only the violation of a "known" moral law. In other words, sins committed in ignorance are not actually sins. I confronted a pastor at my local church about this compromise. I did my M. Div. at a Wesleyan seminary so I knew the argument well. I demolished it completely when I told him that sin is any violation of the moral law of God in thought, word or deed. The Wesleyans lower the bar of God's ultimate holiness and excuse their sins as merely mistakes for which God will not hold them accountable. This is how they get the Wesleyan holiness and state of perfection accomplished.
@@cranmer1959 One thing I would like to see clarified is if your definition of sin requires volition. For example, a man is held at gunpoint and hands the money over to the robber. Or more pointedly - a man needs to use money to live, but has to pay taxes to an evil government in order to use money. Would the right choice for the woman be to refuse and get shot? Or for the man, to starve?
Since it appears "Arminian" is a dirty word, then I would like to know if, under a Calvinist point-of-view, or at least under your point-of-view, if man is held accountable for that which he did not choose (leaving aside any arguments that Calvinism negates free will - let's agree for the sake of the discussion that it leaves free will intact)? Does God ever punish us for guilt that has been incurred with no volitional role on the part of the individual?
I left a comment arguing that, if you affirm that someone can be held guilty without any act of will, that anyone who doesn't already agree with you on that point will balk at your arguments and walk away with an extremely negative opinion of both you and your beliefs. Note that this isn't an argument against the truth of the position; only an argument that having the right opinion is useless in an apologetic context if it drives away the other party.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 The right position is to give the correct information even if the other party walks away. Pragmatism is not how the Gospel works.
Secondly, even Arminians believe in original sin. So that would mean that Adam caused the fall of the human race by committing the first sin. John Wesley affirmed that all humans are born with a "bent toward sinning." So by definition that would mean that original sin does not meet your criteria of a volitional sin, except that Adam willfully sinned the first sin. Unless you are an outright Pelagian, this one is unavoidable even if you believe that Adam had "libertarian" free will.
Calvinists affirm that Adam's will was "free" from the enslavement to sin prior to the fall. What most traditional Calvinists disagree with is that Adam had libertarian free will prior to the fall. The Westminster Confession says that Adam had free will but not libertarian free will. In other words, Adam fell because of God's decree to "permit" the fall but it was not a "bare" permission. It was part of God's overall purpose. Adam's will was not free from God's predetermined purpose. The fall of Adam was not due to libertarian free will but due to God's decree for the fall to occur.
We do not compromise biblical truth for the sake of pragmatic evangelism. The power of the Gospel itself changes sinful elect persons to their conversion, not persuasive arguments or clever sophistry as Tim Keller affirms.
Romans 1:16 (NKJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Piper is not the best representative of Calvinism. He's inconsistent on many points, including his appeal to irrationalism. John Gill, John Calvin and even Martin Luther's Bondage of the will are more accurate. Also Jerome Zanchius.
@@cranmer1959 Not all non-Calvinists believe in original guilt. For example, Eastern Christianity has never believed in original guilt (the concept was popularized by Augustine).
I'm convinced that the idea is an accretion, since it's obviously contradictory to the Bible to punish the son for the sins of the father- how much more for the sin of a distant ancestor? The soul who sins is the one who shall die. I don't believe the early church believed in original guilt.
The power of the Gospel is what changes people's hearts, so it's important to present it in a way that people will actually listen and hear it. If you start preaching with the right words, but all they hear is "judgement, angry God, works-based-salvation", then you haven't communicated the gospel. It's the evangelist's responsibility to ensure that the audience understands instead of misunderstands - they need to hear "conviction of sin, repentence, loving God, grace and not works".
As for the argument against "Pragmatism" -- I agree that you shouldn't water your position down. But if you're wrong about your belief here, and you fail in your evangelism, and harden people against the gospel, you'll have to face God for that. Same goes for me... but I think that appealing to "the elect will respond no matter how bad of a job I do" is lazy.
Oh, by the way, "persuasive arguments" were how Paul spread the gospel in the book of Acts. There are too many examples of this to list. He wasn't afraid to appeal to scripture around Jews, or to quote Greek poets around Greeks, or even to use one of their idols to make a point (the shrine to the unknown God).
Having a desire to murder your neighbor (ie hatred) is not a sin but only actually murdering him. Having a desire for your secretary (ie lust) is not a sin only sleeping with her is. Seems like we are reversing the teachings of our Lord and reverting back to the law of Moses.
Are murderous inclinations morally neutral?
If you don’t act on it, should you be punished for thought crimes?
@@stevenbatke2475 If you should not be criminally prosecuted, does that mean you haven't sinned?
@@stevenbatke2475 Jesus said sinful thoughts make us guilty. We need an atoning blood sacrifice for every unclean thought, and if we’ve never had one, we need an atoning blood sacrifice for every good deed we could have done but didn’t do. Jesus paid it all!
@@stevenbatke2475 Yes. By the Judge who knows the inner thoughts of our hearts.
I think the position of this video is very black and white. And life is far from being either. Even people with ideas nested on the extremes of the spectrum, when faced with temptations, whatever they are may change to a more moderate position. Being rightful to the extreme has a sense of exceeded pride and righteousness that is not a characteristic to the imperfect human state. This video points too many fingers and judges on a saint/devil spectrum. Life is complicated and judging should not be that easy. This presents no way of redemption, where is the piety in that?
I do agree that we should mortify the flesh and never settle into our temptations as identity and you make some great points. But your extreme approach doesn't leave any room for sanctification or every temptation. Consistently lived out, you would have to say having a sin nature at all was sin itself and who could live under the weight of that? You're telling people that I know of that have denied their homosexual desires for 30+ years that they are living in sin just the same as fully embracing their desires. You're view to me seems like "yes we are called to mortify the flesh, but if you even have that flesh still calling to you, you are living in sin."
That ending dialogue really helped me connect the dots in a lot of ways, thank you!
Every evangelical leader and Gospel Coalition contributor should have to watch this video. Thanks Jon
TGC 😆👍
Any biblical position on this has to account for the fact that temptation precedes sin (James 1:14-15) and is not itself sin. Put differently, you don't repent of temptation, you resist temptation. And if you successfully resist temptation, you have nothing to repent for. What is temptation in this context?
That's an excellent Arminian dodge. But how do you distinguish between a sinful thought and a mere temptation? Jesus was tempted yet never had a sinful thought. Can you say the same?
2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (NKJV)
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
Mark 7:21-23 (NKJV)
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
@@cranmer1959 "Arminian"? That's a curious accusation, one that hasn't been made of me in quite some time. Nothing I wrote could reasonably be understood to claim that I'm sinless (which I unequivocally deny). But I do claim that there have been times when I successfully resisted temptation, and thus did not sin at that time with respect to that temptation. When believers are told to resist temptation, I believe that's something they are able, by God's grace, to do.
And surely there is a category of sinful thought. If I lust after a woman (other than my wife), that's a sinful thought--it's a sin, and I must repent. But what if I am tempted to lust after her, but resist that temptation? That is, I think, akin to (albeit not the same as) the question of this video.
@Dan Brown No. There is room for male and female attraction provided both are single. There is never a place for perversion whatsoever. Homosexual attraction is an abomination and your attempt to minimize an obvious sinful thought is inexcusable.
2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (KJV 1900): (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
@@danbrown586 I agree with you Dan, but the problem is how does one even know that is judged as sin in thought? How far down the hole can a person go? What if he is trying to examine his emotions to understand underlying causes? This whole conversation is an exercise in futility and FIGHTS OVER WORDS which the Bible CONDEMNS! These are just fruitless fights over words! Only God can fully judge our thoughts. Are we supposed to get DEPRESSED over every thought and repent? Sin is falling short of God's mark. Our very existence is sin because we are imperfect. Talking about how to be 0.00000000000001% better than our existence is a waste of time.
It is suffice to say we should not DWELL ON bad things because it can lead to sin. God's counting our thoughts he is EXAMINING OUR HEARTS! There is a difference.
@@kstevenson3504 How does one know what is judged as a sinful thought? Surely the answer is that God's Word tells us. Trying to understand what it tells us in this regard is the farthest thing from an exercise in futility.
We sin constantly, in thought, word, and deed. But as believers, we have the capacity to *not* sin, and it's a capacity we should be constantly seeking to increase--that's called sanctification. Thus, seeking to understand what is and is not sin not only isn't an "exercise in futility;" it's essential for every Christian.
Weel done Jon. It saddens me so many prominent Bible teachers are conforming to the thinking of the world rather than the clear teaching of Scripture. You are doing a good work, brother. Keep it up.
Your 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, your "homosexuality hating, one and only” God was ever mentioned.
Your version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only” God is an invention only 3000 years old.
One day your religion will disappear like all other religions, homosexuals then will still go on existing: )
Have a great day: )
It seems as if they are siding with the love love love statements rather than The Truth, Truth And nothing but The Truth so help them God.
Nnaaa all the heterosexuals that don't understand this simply sit in the comments section pontificating about how this is sin and then don't look at the sin in their own lives. Check yourself
Paul was a homosexual this was the thorn in his flesh that he carried around He never married even though Jewish law said all Pharasies were commanded to be married under the law. He even tried to get other men not to get married. Jesus was never married even though at 33 years old he was of marageable age. You are the Sinners for judging other men because of your ignorance of scripture 👎👎👎👎👎
Paul was a homosexual this was the thorn in his flesh that he carried around He never married even though Jewish law said all Pharasies were commanded to be married under the law. He even tried to get other men not to get married. Jesus was never married even though at 33 years old he was of marageable age. You are the Sinners for judging other men because of your ignorance of scripture 👎👎👎👎👎
Are sinful desires at all different from sinful actions? Obviously the answer is yes. That doesn't mean the desire itself is not sinful but no rational person can deny there's a difference between having a sinful desire and acting on it.
I'm still muddled about heterosexual desire. If hetero desire is only not sinful in marriage, how do two people ever desire one another enough to get married without sinning their way into it? In a pre-arranged marriage culture I could see how it could work, in this day and age, I'm stumped.
The patient clarity and generally peaceful tone of this offering is critical. The use of reason and earnest patience unpacking this makes it receivable. Thank you.
So people naturally attracted to the same sex sin naturally, unintentionally? And they should... pursue marriage with someone of the opposite sex? Are you aware of what this means? Of the extreme suffering it can cause? Lives and families shattered because of repressed homosexuality to marry and have children?
I am very happy to be Catholic. We believe that there can be no deadly sin without DELIBERATE CONSENT. Which is the only position that can come from a loving God. God would condemn people for what they are? What they didn't choose?
You are irresponsible. With your teaching, you will surely lead people away from Christ, and you will be accountable at the day of Judgment.
That's why we need salvation through Christ alone even are imaginations are sin Jesus said we need to repent continually especially these days temptation is everywhere
I want to apologize to Jon for the uncharitable way I have expressed my views on here. While I adamantly disagree with Jon's views on equating temptation with sin, and feel that teachings like this and the Revoice movement are dangerous to people with same sex attraction, there is never a time to be unkind. I have been unkind on here, and for that I am truly sorry.
2 Timothy 2:14 says: "Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to fight about words. This is useless and leads to the ruin of those who listen."
The conversation is useless. Its sufficient to say don't dwell on bad thoughts. We are born in sin. We can't make ourselves more only by unnecessarily crying on what thoughts occur in our brains. WE don't always knot the nature of these thoughts as we ourselves are SHOCKED we have certain thought from time to time.
See my other post on here about why calling all same-sex desires sinful is problematic and can be harmful. All same-sex attractions are NOT related to sex. The reason we in the Christian community use the word Same-Sex Attraction is to DIVORCE the attraction FROM SEX. All our attractions don't mean we want to have sex with a person. Just like you notice a woman and don't think wow what would it be like to sleep with her.
If you are goig to talk about this, make proper distinctions.
Also when the Bible writers SAID SUCH AND SUCH, were they really being that ANAL about their words or were they just trying to get a message across. We make general statements all the time and we hope most people GET WHAT WE MEAN by it. The Bible writers didn't live in a scientific age where EVERY DETAIL OF EVERY WORD will be scruntinized. We need to be care than to make more of something that what is intended.
Nailed it in a simplistic, yet scriptural teaching. Thank you.
Dude, I was hoping for so much more from this video. Temptation towards something is not sin, if it did then everyone is forever sinning with no reprieve because temptation befalls all of us. Having a passion towards something does indicate something deeper, having a deep longing for something, I agree, is a sign that something has been given room inside someone's heart. As the Bible says, merely thinking upon having sex with someone is sin of the heart. I can go no further in saying temptation or random thoughts are sin. Being tempted is not sin. If I entertain it, then yes, that's not helpful and acting out is sin in as much as giving thoughts a place to land. We can't stop a bird from flying around our head but we can stop it from building a nest. Plz don't burden people with more than they can handle. Sin is simply, choosing to do something different than what God commands. So if God says to pray and I say, well let me do the dishes first, I have sinned. Because I'm putting my ways above Him and that can go for anything. Thoughts are not sin, when thoughts are entertained, yes. Passion or desire towards something reveals a deeper root cause and if not surrendered can lead to acting out. Yes, unchecked or managed thoughts give birth to sinful behavior. Let's be clear, thoughts and behavior are two very different things. If one maintains this argument then it must be true to desire and have passion to have sex with a spouse and give no care for them is sin. To shut her down, use her, demean, diminish, or otherwise, merely the temptation to do it, is sin and therefore he must be burdened second by second to repent or he face the burning lake. Plz be careful in burdening people beyond what they can handle. Let's focus on grace more than sin.
Everyone is always sinning and there is no reprieve until death. That's why we look to the cross
You should do more videos like this. 👍
Homosexual orientation comes form nature and is therefore not sinful.
ikr, promiscuity is still wrong but it's impossible to change from gay to straight
Short answer:
We never got any morals from any god.
So no divine law, no sin.
Pastor Douglas Wilson has responded to you in his most recent Blog and Mablog post. As usual, he's abundantly clear on this topic. I hope it reassures you that he is not a heretic. And he only takes about 22 minutes. Which I appreciate. And he explains that he cannot immediately respond to requests because his email is always overflowing, and he answers as quickly as possible.
Thank you Nancy. We’ve been going back and forth over email. I’ll read it soon.
I struggled to understand what he was saying he contradicted the response at the Q and A then went on to justify why he said that. Perhaps I just misunderstood altogether I might need to go back and rewatch
@@jenniferherb5212 I saw a few pretty confusing things including what you refer to. Wilson is coming on this podcast to discuss the matter with Jared and hopefully clarify. Stay tuned!
I'm almost a year behind in watching so many videos. He thinks Doug is a heretic??? Why?
@@knothead35 Doug Wilson has problems in the area of the Federal Vision heresy. But on this topic he is mostly on target.
All unnatural desires are sinful.
Prove it's unnatural.
@@dairyqueue It leads to sickness and death.
@@dairyqueue God defined these unnatural desires as follows:
Rom.1:26b-27a " Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,"
Jude 1:7 " just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
The proof is in the pudding! Moreover God calls these unnatural desires to be morally evil. But Christ died to redeem and free us from their slavery that ultimately end up in death!
God also stated how should we deal with these:
Col.3:5-6 "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience."
Please note it doesn't say: give course to these, but crucify, mortify them!
@@Justas399 you can't just say it leads to sickness and death without citations. I said prove, not say.
@@megmorrill9600 no, Paul and Jude defined unnatural desires as followed.
This is excellent.
As always, thankful for you, Jon.
“26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
God’s word blatantly says that the passion itself is dishonorable
Very good vid, I liked the analysis of the Greek words in the NT. After watching twice, I am wondering about the phrase "any erotic attraction outside the covenant of marriage is sinful" because that makes things simple and clear for me as a married man, but I'm not sure exactly what to tell unmarried men out there. Is the common advice of "make sure you're attracted to him/her before you marry" or "make sure there's chemistry, wink wink nudge nudge" completely misguided? Is it sinful for a young Christian man to feel sexual attraction to a godly woman he intends to marry, because that's ordered at a proper goal, or should he desire to not feel any sexual attraction until after they are married? Because the latter seems completely unrealistic, to be honest, but I wouldn't underestimate how much we minimize and rationalize our own sin.
I'm addressing this on tomorrow's podcast.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast That was quick, nothing gets past you Jon haha
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast you can be LGBT and Christian 👨❤️👨
@dansaber4427 no, no you can't. Atleast not in the way you mean it.
This is a very tough topic when you're not there, happily married, and don't even know what it's like. I've been saved 35 years. I lived the gay lifestyle for a vast majority of that. I still struggle today and I rely on Jesus blood, not on how much fruit I produce.
Struggle with what ? Fighting the urge ? Fighting the temptation to act on the urge ? ..
@Dub_97 yes. Every day of my life
@@kentfink9509 have you tried seeking help ?
Do you still have the arousals around men?
@Dub_97 I'm 42. I've been to every self help, psychologist, Celebrate Recovery, and men's purity group. Sometimes God doesn't take our thorns away.
@@Dub_97 don't delete your statements.
Solid! Love how you seek biblical consistency on these issues
dang, this was really good. having to watch it over and over though. there is a dark hole on my theology here..
I may watch through it a few times, too. I wish he had answered a lot of contextual questions, because I can't say if I'm convinced by his argument or not. If he had defined a few terms and explained his Biblical basis for the idea, instead of focusing so narrowly on a few Greek words, maybe I would have understood him better. As it is, I'm not sure I follow the logic, that the meaning of these three Greek words somehow leads to his conclusion.
Amen. Great explanation. A good followup to this would be an explanation on true repentance. Thankfully, there is hope for all sinners through Jesus Christ. Repent and believe the Gospel.
Yes.
How many times do people need to be told yes it is, God says it is, so that's that, same goes for stealing.
I personally find this subject to be quite clear scripturally. Much of the confusion comes from those, like those who've appeared in this video(who are all charlatans in the church making a mess of things), who distort God's word almost intentionally in what appears to be some type of agreement to those who hate Christ.
The biggest problem I had even before I came to Christ was that Christians were not consistent in their beliefs and didn't appear to be any different than the people outside of the church. I came to Christ and this problem is even worse these days. Clear, immutable doctrine has now become questioned and obfuscated. It's astonishing to watch. What a terrible thing is occurring in the Western church.
I've got my own issues to sort out, but I make sure to hold them up to God's word and the Spirit. I didn't come to Christ to lie about my condition to God and stay that way. Otherwise, I can simply just go back into this fallen world and live recklessly. Yet here are "church leaders" opening the door to sin. I'm a young man still and this angers me, because people like those leaders are a detriment to young men, which is why they balk at the church and Christ. There will be a reckoning for these crooks who have done this.
Anyways, keep up the good work brother.
amen. I am new to Christ and I agree with what you said about hypocrisy and double standards as being a problem. Most churches in my State marry homosexuals and some affirm trans gender pro nouns. I live in a liberal part of the county but I think this will be true everywhere eventually.
@paulgleason7191 I'm mixed in the sense I grew up in the church(and have seen a lot of craziness that did not square with what I know now), as well as in a liberal city. I'd seen all the lunacy by the time I was 18 years old outside and inside of the church. I still remember when Rick Warren came out realizing he was a charlatan, and I was like 19 with his terrible book in my hand that I only got through a chapter of and had to dispatch of. Not to mention the host of awful pastors from the place I grew up in and those on TV. I say all the time that it's a miracle I became a Christian and took Christ seriously because of my background.
This is why I go so hard against this immoral, unbiblical stuff pushed by these garbage leaders that causes a mess. It makes it hard for young men, and frankly, anyone, looking for a change through Christ. The last place I wanted to see affirmation of this sort when I was an unbeliever was from the church and Christians. I felt as if they were offering nothing different, and in this case outright capitulation, and wondered why I needed the church or Christ. I grew up in the hood and felt like they were gang members promising me riches if I sold their drugs and joined their gang. To this day, this behavior from these so-called pastors is a gross offense to me and is deleterious to the body of Christ and impediment to unbelievers who need Christ.
@@paulgleason7191 Apostasy of the churches is predicted in the Bible.
Mark 7:21-23 (NKJV)
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
1 Timothy 4:1-2 (NKJV)
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
Romans 1 is mega simple folks. Why is this even a question?
Because hearts are hard and minds are dim...
Right!?
It's not even just Romans 1, the entire Bible has this theme and lesson from Genesis to Revelation.
Like you, it amazes me how such a simple, immutable truth and lesson needs this explanation. I see people in this comment section, who are likely convicted, obstinate and don't read nor believe God's word, acting as though Jon is making up stuff as they point out their subjective feelings and experiences, while regurgitating degenerate slogans and jargon that does not square with what is true.
Frankly, it's a question because the church in the West is failing, and none of these so-called leaders want to tell the truth as is their duty. So instead, they obfuscate basic, core tenets of scripture and make way for sin.
@@mikezeke7041 Indeed. I meant it semi tongue in cheek, but sinners sin ofc.
Hi I don't mean to come across this as disrespectful or hateful. But I am a Christian who experiences same sex attractions. But I made the descision not to follow after my fleshly and sinful desires. What would you say to someone who has prayed with sincere faith and pleading with God for deliverance from ssa and hasn't been delivered from them? But although the person hasn't been delivered from them,he has put his faith in Jesus Christ, turned from sinful ways,follows and loves the Lord, but isn't delivered from sinful desires? For years I would cry almost every night asking God to take away my same sex attractions,I thought that God hated me and that's why He wouldn't deliver me,I thought I was possessed by a demon of homosexuality,I thought that I was un saveable. I still desire to be delivered and I know that God can,but what if He doesn't? Does that mean He will send me to hell for my same sex attractions? Attractions that I never chose to have?
If you’re in Christ He has taken the penalty for this sin and still experiencing that impulse at times doesn’t mean you haven’t been delivered. It means you are being delivered in a sanctification process. Fighting it is the right thing to do just like fighting any ungodly impulse is. Christians war with their fleshly lust and live in the freedom that one day they will be completely delivered.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast
Amen!
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast That's not the approach you presented in the video. You said you need to ask God to take away all desire completely and until it's gone completely you are living in a constant state of sin because of your inclinations.
@@jeremymace8671 in TOTAL agreement He does say that.
I’m struggling with SSA as well and currently celibate, repented and following Christ. We are in a body of sin so we will always experience these fallen desires. Remember that we shall receive new bodies in eternity. Holiness not heterosexuality is our calling. Keep fighting the good fight of faith.
There are some men who I think are really good looking. I sometimes get jealous, which is also a sin. However, I don't have any sexual desire for same gender.
Homosexual sex is most definitely a sin, in fact an abomination. As far as same sex attraction? Not really. One can struggle with same sex attraction, but they cannot sin. Jesus Christ was tempted, but he didn't sin.
You have strange ideas babe
@@heinmolenaar6750 Read the Bible.
Excellent podcast Jon! God clearly defined these "unnatural desires" amongst other places in Rom.1:26b-27a; Jude1:7.Moreover in Col.3:5 they are said to be morally evil ! At the same time this text also teaches us to "crucify/mortify" them, not to justify, beautify or give course to them. God's standard of righteousness is so high, that we can't even closely imagine it! But thanks be to God, Jesus Christ our Savior met exactly that standard of perfection! Our Lord died for all of our sins to deliver/set us free from their grip and power!
Meg: How can desires be unnatural?
While I agree that there are desires that are not good for us to pursue, I find no evidence that desires are unnatural.
Nothing in the universe can exceed its characteristic design.
Something simply cannot be what it is not designed to be.
A car cannot fly, a fish cannot walk. ..and a human cannot have desires outside or beyond his/her design.
God made clear to humans the order He intends humans to obey, and that is marriage between a man and a woman, irrespective of any and all human desires.
@@sheilasmith7779In the perfect universe God designed and created that was part of the natural order. However, once the fall happened, everything changed. In our current fallen world, unfortunately people driven by a wicked heart will push the boundaries that God set for what's natural vs what's not. That's why you will have legislative prohibitions along these lines. For instance, the Bible prohibits desire and acts of pedophilia, homosexuality, zoophilia, etc. and classify them as unnatural.
I hope Rom.1:26b-27a helps by drawing the clear distinction between "natural vs unnatural" -"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men". Please also note the connection and progression from such unnatural lusts into unnatural behavior!
That is not to say in any way, shape or form that God standard has changed! It stays the same regardless of human choices, moreover people will be judged based on His standard, not whatever perverted way one choses!
@@megmorrill9600 No Megan. There is zero scriptural evidence that human nature changed after Adam and Eve disobeyed.
Cain and Abel had the same choice before them. God did not intervene in either man's choice.
Abel chose to please God, and Cain did not. Both men were born AFTER the " fall," and both were born outside of Eden.
So, no there was no change in human nature, but rather a change in the environment humans occupied.
We must look to scripture for the truth, and not a belief we have been taught.
Human nature ss a constance from the beginnong to today: The same Adam and Eve that obeyed God for a time, are the same Adam and Eve that disobeyed God.
Same root cause, is desire, but 2 different objects of desire to choose.
@@sheilasmith7779 Ironically Sheila, I gave exact Scripture reference for the idea of "unnatural lusts/desires"(I did not invent such terms, nonetheless they are exact quotes from the Bible.) Did you miss it? I urge you to read those references. Meanwhile you have yet to answer with one Scripture to support your idea.
Let me ask you if nothing has changed then why do you think Ap. Paul in Col.3:5 urges us to :" Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, EVIL DESIRES (greek: epithumia: desire, passionate longing, lust) and greed, which is idolatry."(that's another Scripture)?
Sure even the environment was affected, but before that, there were other things affected such as: spiritual death=instant spiritual separation between man and God due to sin, guilt and shame, painful birth, suffering, hardships, enmity between the woman's seed and the serpent, the first animal sacrifice=blood to cover their sin and eventually physical death . The list goes on and on: human mind has become darkened, our emotions were corrupted and we became prone to wrong choices. In other words when Adam and Eve chose to obey Satan they sold the entire human race's soul to the Devil"-as they were representative of entire humanity at that point.
Moreover then why did Christ had to die if man can easily rectify a wrong choice with a right one, which you seem to imply?
@@megmorrill9600 You stated, "However after the fall, everything changed."
I provided 2 scripture stories supporting that nothing changed in the nature of humans ( Cain and Abel)
You did not rebut this. So let's walk through this one claim at a time.
Answer the proof argument I made before adding more.
2 Timothy 3:1-5
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without NATURAL AFFECTIONS, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Great vid. Who was the man at the end that Costi Hinn was talking too? And what book was he referring to?
Gavin Peacock
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast thank you!
Well presented video! I find the following scripture is very appropriate for this subject: James 4:12...John 8:7...Matthew 7:1-2...Romans 3:23. God bless.
But Jesus says if you look at a woman to lust after her, you have already committed adultery. So wouldn’t this fall under the same idea?
Did you watch the video?
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast yes I watched, I just am frustrated with all the word gymnastics by well known leaders to make sin comfortable to the congregation. I agree with Gavin we have to attack sin at it's root. Saying that as long as you don't act on the sin somehow makes the sin of desire okay, but if you say any different you are not loving others like Christ. UGH!
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast I know why you ask, yes I understand there is a difference in the Bible between SSA and heterosexual attraction, I just get tired f the double standard by Christian leaders. The bigger issue is the idolatry that they are showing. Putting others above God by condoning their sin regardless of that the sin is.
@@MaryCullison Lusting after a woman that isn’t your wife is worthy of hell according to Jesus.
I have heard that too much soy in the modern diet is increasing the estrogen in men.....
As a Christian SSA woman, I will say this: I have never lust for anybody. Please do not put everyone on the same boat, the fact that I do not like men, does not mean that I want,dream or desire to have sex with women. I feel the need for emotional intimacy which men are not good at because they are thinking about sex when a female is trying to connect mentally and emotionally. God Bless.
So if you never lust after anybody, your referring you woman as well. So how can you say you have SSA? Maybe your longing for affection and attention emotional connection, but not sexual… so why put yourself in that category for someone dealing with SSA.
See woman tend to lean on other woman for emotional dependency, which often very much so becomes eroticized.. healthy relationships non sexual is 🔑
You are meant for a man and there is a man meant for you. Your. Sexual identity is YOUR BODY woman/woman parts that’s it. That’s your sexual identity.
All desires that came with a baby can only be remove by the person who planted it. - sons of Adam are born in a sinful nature.
It only take one unclean thought in your lifetime to die in sin.
True, but that isn't the point of the above video.
Piper promotes Allberry and platforms with him ... false position on lust ... false position on the Gospel ... continuationist ... apostate associations ... John Piper is apostate and headed for hell Galatians 1:6-9
Are we instructed to capture our thoughts, are we not warned not to give our selfs over to our desires for in end the end they will destroy you, temptation is a part of this evil world, temptation will be a part of our lives for we are sinners what ever kind be it sexual or some other temptation, sex between a man and a woman in the biblical way is Godly between same sex is of Satan
The Reformation vs. Roman Catholic view on concupiscence (sinful desire) according to John Calvin.
Reformation View:
“Let no man, when he is tempted [James 1:13]
Here, no doubt, he speaks of another kind of temptation. It is abundantly evident that the external temptations, hitherto mentioned, are sent to us by God. In this way God tempted Abraham, (Genesis 22:1,) and daily tempts us, that is, he tries us as to what are we by laying before us an occasion by which our hearts are made known. But to draw out what is hid in our hearts is a far different thing from inwardly alluring our hearts by wicked lusts.
He then treats here of inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate desires which entice to sin. He justly denies that God is the author of these, because they flow from the corruption of our nature.”
Roman Catholic View:
“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; for James does not shew when sin begins to be born, so as to be sin, and so accounted by God, but when it breaks forth. For he proceeds gradually and shews that the consummation of sin is eternal death, and that sin arises from depraved desires, and that these depraved desires or affections have their root in lust. It hence follows that men gather fruit in eternal perdition, and fruit which they have procured for themselves.”
The Side B/Revoice Advocates today promote what approximates the Roman Catholic view on homosexual desire according to John Calvin’a view.
His full commentary is very interesting on this point. Source: biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/james/1.htm
I may write more extensively on this issue. I’m very surprised to see how pervasive the Roman Catholic view on this has made inroads into modern Protestantism.
The Reformation View is just confusing to me: "He then treats here of inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate desires which entice to sin." From the quote it would be understood that one who experiences internal temptation experiences the inordinate desire which entices him to sin. So then, to conclude that the mere experience of internal temptation is sin implies that the man is already committing that which he is being enticed to commit (sin).
As I mentioned in one of my comments, the language in James 1:13-15 (especially in v. 14-15) is curious in the Reformed framework: "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." Desire has to conceive (something additional must happen to it) before it can give birth to sin. Does it make sense to say that desire giving birth to sin implies that desire = sin? Wouldn't we then have to say that a woman giving birth to her child implies that the woman = her child (I would hope not, considering I am very against abortion)?
Come out
@@dansaber4427 Foolishness
@@covertneglect3503 God uses foolishness to confound the wise
@@covertneglect3503 More Calvin- Then when lust hath conceived. He first calls that lust which is not any kind of evil affection or desire, but that which is the fountain of all evil affections; by which, as he shews, are conceived vicious broods, which at length break forth into sins. It seems, however, improper, and not according to the usage of Scripture, to restrict the word sin to outward works, as though indeed lust itself were not a sin, and as though corrupt desires, remaining closed up within and suppressed, were not so many sins. But as the use of a word is various, there is nothing unreasonable if it be taken here, as in many other places, for actual sin.
This phenomena is engendered by supernatural agency. To listen to this influence is sinful. The Church has failed to teach the cultivating Christian character. Adam and Eve erred and sinned when they listened to the serpent. Purity of heart is indispensable to demonstrating authentic identity in Christ. Cults can and do make use of occultly targetting people with homosexualising influences. We do well to pay keen attention and real heed as to how the Bible insists we, via grace, think aright, patterning our thought-life on what is revealed in the Word. This issue always involves a wilful, domineering spirit. Their religion is that of will worship, or witchcraft. They want existential annihilation of humans. Why? "Know ye not that ye shall be judges of angels?" Manhood/womanhood, as evinced in pre-Fall humanity, and in Christ Himself during His incarnation, and in Paul in his teaching ministry, is indispensable to the triumph of the Church. Folks must be personally responsible for their thinking. Either we think aright, as shown in scripture, and by grace, or we secretly listen to lies, then act in accord with, in Arminian-type will exaltation make lies our preferences, thus betraying Christ. Entertaining same-sex attraction is subversive as that satanic influence is subjectivised, but instead, let us think and practice what God tells us to in His Word. It subverts others as personal preference trumps the clear Word of God. Purity of heart is primal. It's the essence of true manhood/true womanhood. Nothing and no one is authentic absent purity of heart. Same-sex attraction is abnormity Godwardly and manwardly. It's bondage and must be repented of and sincerely renounced. Christ is it's remedy. He is sovereign over attraction, and is willing to truly sanctify interpersonal attraction making it righteous, as God's will is chosen. We must prayerfully oppose this evil, trusting our dear Saviour to destroy it, freeing it's captive, freeing yet another slave of sense and personal preference, to thus now walk in conformity to the character of Jesus Christ. Our preferences ought ever to please Jesus, first and foremost, not sex demons nor erring people. God is good. He frees the captive not through legalism or dishonesty, but through grace and love applied to specifically to pleasing God instead of self.
1 Peter 4:17-18 (NKJV): For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now
“If the righteous one is scarcely saved,
Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”
Sodomy for anyone is pure sin.
The goal is holiness not heterosexuality. We are in a fallen human nature
It seems to me that God is glorified when we mortify our sinful nature and sinful desires. I think God is pleased when the drunkard refuses drink for Christ, even if he desires it, or the angry man controls his temper when he wants to explode. In the same way, if someone struggles with sinful sexual desires, God is glorified when that person refuses to indulge for the sake of Christ and turns away from evil.
Amen
Thank you for the thorough scriptural explanation/analysis of this sinful behavior.
Your 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, your "homosexuality hating, one and only” God was ever mentioned.
Your version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only” God is an invention only 3000 years old.
One day your religion will disappear like all other religions, homosexuals then will still go on existing: )
Have a great day: )
wow. It's been so long since I've listened to any "winsome" type pastors that when I hear it now it just sounds so gay and effeminate. I'm actually quite shocked by my visceral reaction to it
Most excellent. A+
Great video!
This is the same old Wesleyan argument that sin is only what someone does in violation of a "known" moral law. But sin is anything that violates God's moral law in thought, word, or deed. This includes sins committed or omitted by deliberate thought, word or deed AND in ignorance. It does not matter if the person is aware or unaware that they have sinned. The sin is a sin because of the violation of the moral law of God.
Thinking a sinful thought such as same sex attraction is definitely a sin. So is the insanity of denying one's biological sex. Idolatry is everywhere.
The Thought Police is out there in force. It that really the god you want to serve?
@@WinrichNaujoks The thought police are the godless Communists.
God is His own Law Enforcer and Judge.
Psalm 139:21-22 (KJV 1900): Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee?
And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred:
I count them mine enemies.
This is good I think Matthew 5:21-32 is an excellent passage about this
Great video, Jon!! Who was the person at the end?
I think that guy at the end is Gavin Peacock. He was very clear and right to the point. Great ending clip.
Nope. Its all good.
imho the key quote is "Accomplishing good ends through evil means is sin, but evil ends through evil means... is worse." That is a very clear distinction between the sinless temptation that Jesus experienced, and the sinful temptation of something like SSA.
Is that right ? How is it then that Joseph's brothers who sold him into slavery meant if for evil but God meant it for good ? The wording doesn't sound right.
So using that logic did God sin then by using an evil means to accomplish what was good for what would become a nation ? Of course not.
Who is that “Gavin” guy on the podcast clip at the end?
Gavin Peacock
@@aquietsimplelife5829 I haven’t watched all three. I recommend the clip I included in this video.
Yes
It is a sin if you don't
I usually agree with you, but you missed it on this one. It makes you feel better that my sin is worse than yours. But in the end, if you don't repent, you will end in the same hell that I would if I didn't repent. You lusting after a woman that is not your wife may be natural, but it's a sin. Unless you disagree with Jesus Himself. And in the end, it will get you to the same hell. Comfort yourself by saying that at least you and the other men who lust like you are "natural".
I repented when I was 20. Married at 24. Now have eleven children and 22 grandchildren. If I listened to you, I would say I am still living in sin because I am still tempted at times by men. But praise the Lord, Paul wrote in I Corinthians 6, such were some of you, but now you are washed, you are clean. In his list of sins, Paul wrote homosexuality. But he didn't single that one out of the others listed. They included adulterers and sexually immoral people. Not just homosexuals. You may believe that because I still experience attraction to men at times that I am lost. But you are denying the power of Jesus Christ. And you are justifying yourself for having your own lustful thoughts toward women, because it is "natural".
I will never give up. People like you offer no hope for a man who denies his own temptations and chooses to serve God. I know that God can totally deliver me from these temptations, but like the three Hebrew children, even if he doesn't, I will not bow down to the god of homosexuality. That drives people like you crazy.
I hope someday you can stop judging and start loving and offering real hope to those of us who have turned our backs on homosexuality by the blood of Christ. And I hope you someday will stop offering an out to all the men who continue to lust after women by telling them that at least they are "natural".
Hey JB,
First of all, I care about you as one who I assume to be a fellow Christian, let alone a human made in the wondrous image of our awesome God. God's love for you and Mr is matchless, in spite of the wicked and broken things we've done and will do, and Jesus paid the price for our sins so we are now free! Praise God with the knowledge that you are free to do the works of God which have been laid down before you (Eph 2:10).
That said, I think you said some things which are uncharitable and misconstrue what Jon Harris is trying to say. Note that you attributed intentions to Jon Harris- he wants to feel better about his own heterosexual sin by putting down those homosexuals. I think if you were to talk to him privately, and you've even talked to him in the comments, he would profess love and care for you the same way he loves every Christian. He does not look down on you because of your specific battle. I certainly don't. Even if he did, that's his personal sin issue. Can you cite a place in the video where he stated his intentions to feel better about himself because of the sin that others struggle with? If you can find it, please respond with that and I'll be happy to be corrected.
The other assertion you made was that he asserted that those who still have homosexual desire are not saved. He stated nothing of the sort. The Lord knows I still struggle with lust, and I've been a Christian for a long time. The sin in my life is not necessarily indicative that I am not saved; it just means that God is not done sanctifying me. Likewise, if you still struggle with homosexual desires (emphasis on struggle; i.e. recognize it's a bad thing and seek to put it to death through the power of Christ) the response should not be to quibble with people who say that that's wrong, but to continue to ask Jesus to continue sanctifying you in His truth. The more I am sanctified, the more I recognize the areas where I fall short. The same should be true for every Christian. I hope this exhortation was helpful, and I pray that God will continue to work in your heart.
@@micahdriesner6011 this is false teaching. It has the potential to lead those who experience SSA to give up in the same way the Revoice movement has the potential to cause them to embrace a sinful, false identity. He did say that we are living in sin if even the desire is in us. He specifically uses the word desire. If we are living in sin, we will not inherit the kingdom. Listen to the video again, and also the one with Jared Moore. And he does say that heterosexual lust is not as bad, comparing it to Proverbs 6:30 which says that excuses can be made for a person who steals for food. We don't think as much about that person, because he is doing it for a legitimate need: nutrition. He compares that to heterosexual lust. The Bible makes no such comparison.
@@micahdriesner6011 He and Moore also show an utter lack of compassion for those of us that have experienced SSA. "I don't care if you chose it or not..." I did not CHOOSE to be sexually violated repeatedly for over ten years, starting at age 4. I did not CHOOSE to have a violent alcoholic father. While Jon says this MIGHT have had impact in my development of SSA, he definitely links my experience with SSA to the worshipping of the created over the creator, in Romans 1. He explicitly says SSA is connected to that, while heterosexual lust is not. That is simply not scriptural. Read verse 29. It includes fornication, which is ANY sexual immorality, including "natural" ones.
All unrighteousness is sin. Not just homosexual.
@@micahdriesner6011 further, in the video with Moore, Jon and Moore talk about men who experience SSA who notice whether or not other men are attractive. Jon brings up weightlifters who do not experience SSA and how they will notice and admire other weightlifters. But they conclude that men who experience SSA who notice a man is goodlooking or in good shape is sinning. I'm a weightlifter. Just because I've experienced SSA, I'm not supposed to notice if another guy is in shape or is goodlooking? It's a double standard that is impossible for those of us who experience SSA to live up to. It's also not founded in Scripture.
It's those kinds of false teachings that are going to be a stumbling block to men who are trying to escape the clutches of homosexual sin. I pity any man with SSA who goes to Jon for help.
Did you watch the video?
So...Christians who suffer from same-sex attraction and are actively resisting submitting to it, are in sin...is this correct? And if yes, will God punish them for having an attraction they have no control over?
"Apostle to the homosexual and the transsexual": ruclips.net/video/oMCcMX-rApM/видео.html
No. The attraction is not a sin. It's acting on the attraction that is the sin.
I think this misses the mark. Firstly, it’s a bit arrogant to have a fringe interpretation of a hamartiological nuance and repeatedly say “according to Scripture” as if it’s so clear. This topic is obviously not so clear, hence there being so much disagreement on it.
Secondly, a distinction had to made between “sin” & “a sin.” Douglas Wilson makes this clear in his recent response. One doesn’t go around repenting all day long of something that is sin in the totally depraved sense of “sin nature.” One confesses and repents specific individual sins. I know multiple same sex attracted Christians. They are incredibly faithful and have a much harder life than you or I. Would you tell them to repent of their nature every 5 seconds, all day long every day until they die or become attracted to the opposite sex? Makes absolutely no sense. Christ’s justification covers our sin nature.
I’m with Pastor Wilson on this one.
Is the "sin" vs. "a sin" a distinction a simple truth we find in scripture or is it an innovative approach to the topic that makes a space for something scripture does not describe: a homosexual desire as a constant state of being running in the background (i.e. orientation type concept)? What we find in scripture is that it can be a pattern of regular temporary desires that people designed to be heterosexual engage in and must confess. I don't know of anyone, myself included, who argues one must apologize all day for who they are, but that's because I don't buy into the orientation-type concept.
I have never desired the same sex as me sexually, but if I started to do so, I would know it was a result of some thing very wrong which came before.
Jack: This means we must be aware of the, "what if," thoughts that creep in our mind. We must control how far we allow our imagination to go.
I know a guy who is god fearing, he can't stand tim keller and his wokeness, pretty much would agree with Jon Harris on everything but said, if you allow me to be a little graphic: "Man, i know homossexualism is a sin, i wanna please the Lord, I wanna get a married to a godly woman, i feel no desire for men, but for some reason the libido goes only for men, altough i have no desire for this! For some reason i have the physical sexual reactions with underdressed men but not women and i hate it! I wanna please God and I WANT A WOMAN! A WIFE WHO'S GOD FEARING! Why do i have that type of feelings/attractions whatever you wanna call it? I have NO DESIRE on engagin in it bc God's will to me matters more than my twisted libido's... that doesn't even match what i really want, wich is a woman, a godly woman (said it crying his heart out, because he wants to do God's desire and he has a heart for preaching the true gospel to others. And hates seeing compromisers like TK because the true gospel means a lot to him)". I'd ask if you would say if this person is saved tough he has "homossexual atractions". I do have my theories on why he has that.
@@sheilasmith7779 explain a bit more to me, I like your comment .. but what you mean..
@@vitormenezesdemattos967
Just cus your body has a response to the same gender doesn’t mean you’re “gay” or “homosexual” especially if those aren’t your desires. I can tell you truly want a wife and a family that’s your heart talking.. stop chasing the body’s response and thinking that this is somehow your identity.. having a feeling doesn’t mean attractions.. it’s the “sensual response one feels, then it’s the urge to act on the sensual feels, witch then becomes a desire once acted on”
Just cus you feel something doesn’t mean anything.. at all. We’re sexual beings are bodies can have a response to any nudity doesn’t mean shit.
@vitormenezesdemattos967 You say you want a Godly woman, but do you desire a woman? Are you comfortable approaching an attractive woman you don't know and speaking to her?
You want human connection, but may not know how to get it.
Find a counselor and explore your desires, fears and the relationship you had with mother and father. Or any molestation that happened in your past.
The problem you are having is emotional intimacy.
Stop "trying," to get something, or overcome something, or berate yourself. It's unproductive.
You have the answer and solution within....you just have not found it yet. You need to discover what is getting in your way.
I am Christian and I will tell you most Christian counselors are not qualified to help you. They do not understand human beings.
As to secular counselors to avoid: The ones that say," it's okay, you're okay, be yourself."
You're unhappy and confused and not okay.....you just need to find out why.
The most honest, complex true story of a man's confusion....and his insight is on Netflix. Little Reindeer.
Humans are emotionally complex, and relationships and events can help or hurt us.....but positive change is ALWAYS possible.
🙏
This is propaganda.
We all agree that same-sex attraction is of sin, and in that sense sinful. Some disagree if it’s “a sin” (that is, “a sinful act”)
OP, is it a sinful act to experience same-sex sexual attraction?
Um… that was the point of the whole video. So yes.
@@kaylar3197 So is it a sinful act to experience a sin nature?
Excellent, Jon. Thank you.
God has nothing to do with the insanity of religions
this. Even Jesus had nothing to do with organized religion that come out so firmly against gays. Jesus freed us from pre-historic mentalities to like that
It's disappointing to me that in such a carefully researched and methodically organized presentation, you've neglected to do the one thing that you need to do to clarify the issue (and, for the most part, render the entire discussion moot).
What do you mean by "sin"? Do you mean that it incurs moral guilt, or that it is something which is, in itself, other than what God wills for us - or, to put it more clearly, which incurs moral guilt? You didn't clarify your opinion on this.
From a strictly practical/apologetic perspective: the clip in the conclusion is especially hurt by this. He says that the desires are sinful even if they are not by choice. If God is condemning people for moral guilt they have incurred through no choice of their own, how can you possibly say that God is just? (I say this is a practical qualm, because I don't really care what kind of defense you can muster against this charge-- only those who already accept some form of Christianity are at all convinced by those arguments, and they're hardly settled even in Western Christianity).
If you say "Yes, God holds people guilty through no choice of their own will, but because of the desires that they didn't choose", then I think you've only managed to drive away anyone who disagrees with you and convince them that Christians are, in fact, judgemental and hypocritical -- since after all your God-given original desires aren't sinful, are they? So, perhaps you say that they are -- then let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You've dug a pit for yourself and walked right into it.
If you say "No, there has to be an act of the will to incur moral guilt, but the inclination of the will towards evil is in itself an evil (though not guilt-incurring)." then the discussion is moot, because everyone agrees.
It's not productive to make a scriptural argument for your position without digging into the implications, answering objections, and considering the other possibilities behind your interpretations. You won't ever reach the people you disagree with if you condemn what they feel that they _are_ even if you disagree with them on their self-identification. For me to even form an opinion on your reasoning and conclusions, I would need to know what, in your view, are the reverberations into other sexual desires? If your opinion rests on a case that God can fairly judge us for something we did not choose, then I would like to hear how your argument changes if that premise is taken away from you (since it's completely useless in an apologetic context, and highly dubious even within in-house debates). If your argument rests on affirming that it's fair for God to hold people responsible for things that they didn't choose, then you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with that premise.
Piper is arguing an Arminian argument. The Wesleyans in particular argue that sins are not committed in thought, word, and deed or in things left undone. Rather for the Wesleyans sin is only the violation of a "known" moral law. In other words, sins committed in ignorance are not actually sins. I confronted a PCA pastor at my local church about this compromise. I did my M. Div. at a Wesleyan seminary so I know the argument well. I demolished it completely when I told him that sin is any violation of the moral law of God in thought, word or deed. The Wesleyans lower the bar of God's ultimate holiness and excuse their sins as merely mistakes for which God will not hold them accountable. This is how they get the Wesleyan holiness and state of perfection accomplished. The PCA pastor was following Tim Keller's advice to use Arminian arguments when it helped you persuade someone. He told me that he was a Keller admirer.
If temptation is not a sin, how would same-sex (temptation) attraction be a sin?
Is there a difference between
"attraction," and "lust?"
Is lust a high degree of and an extreme attraction?
I don't know.
Please explain HOW a human eliminates any desires?
When God created humans, he created desire in humans BUT did not put limits on desires. We must choose which desires we follow, or act upon.
Temptation that arises from sinful desires (James 1) are sinful. Temptations that arise from non-sinful desires are not (Jesus' temptations). Erotic attraction and lust/desire are one and the same. Epithumia can be translated desire or lust. Same concept. Pathos may better capture the concept of attraction (regular/pathological), but still condemned. How does a human eliminate desires? By denying themselves, same thing we do with every sinful tendency. God did create good desires, but he did not create bad ones.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast
Where do " sinful," desires originate?
Are we not also capable of appropriate, acceptable desires?
Where do those desires originate?
When does a desire or attraction become sinful?
We do not have an answer to the above questions that settles the cause of desire.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast But the use of the word " deny," means by your use of deny, that we deny ACTING on the desire.
Yes, we can control action.
How does a human deny the presence of a desire, or a thought of a desire?
I think there’s some confusion over how to distinguish between same sex admiration and same sex attraction. The admiring of others of your sex, isn’t the same as the desiring of them.
Your ending clip is excellent and shoots the sin in the head. Thanks.
Admiring, here, I mean as enjoying the virtues peculiar to your sex, or individuals who represent those virtues or reflect a kind of perfection of bodily form. Admiring a form of virtue, in body and soul, isn’t the same as desiring that body or soul in a sexually pleasurable way. I think our inability to distinguish when we’re doing one or the other, and being encouraged to reduce both experiences to the same and use those to identify an immovable orientation (which itself may be a conflicted conscience), leads to a whirlwind of darkness and desires we don’t know how to deny.
Your 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, your "homosexuality hating, one and only” God was ever mentioned.
Your version of a "homosexuality hating, one and only” God is an invention only 3000 years old.
One day your religion will disappear like all other religions, homosexuals then will still go on existing: )
Have a great day: )
@@georgeluke6382 so what you think SSA is then? Just feeling sexual arousal towards the same sex ? Or something deeper ?
I like your comment btw on the difference between admiration and attraction.
The comment made in the video is that Romans 7 is about a person who has sinned and is in need of repentance. I don't think that's accurate. Keep in mind there is a distinction in the Bible between willful sin, unintentional sin, and the influence of sin. Notice that in Romans 7, Paul said his will was to do good and yet his flesh willed something evil. That is by definition not willful sin. It might not even be classified as unintentional sin. I believe Paul is describing here a scenario where his flesh wanted to move in a different direction than he did. He literally says, "it is not I who do it" when referring to the sin. How can there be any need for repentance in this scenario, if Paul's will was blameless in the matter? Obviously the flesh itself can be blamed and is worthy of judgment. But you as a person only become blameworthy and in need of repentance if you come into agreement with what your flesh desires and follow it out. Read the passage and see how Paul is separating himself from his own flesh.
Through Christ, Paul is able to serve God in spirit and he is able to successfully follow the spirit instead of the flesh, even though the flesh continues to by nature want to move contrary to the Spirit. But there is a separation between him and his own flesh.
It's important to note that sinful desire is still a sinful thing. But in saying it's sinful are you as a person to be blamed? If you contributed to your own lust and are drawn away by it, then yes. But if you disagree with it and remain internally pure from it, then no, even though it might be able to fit into the category of attraction.
So I would want to carefully define when a person becomes blameworthy so they know what fault they are to confess and repent of.
WLC
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.
Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
A. Sins receive their aggravations,
1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
2. From the parties offended; if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
4. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.
Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?
A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.
Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.
Hold up. So when Jesus said that when we hate our brother, that's the same thing as murder and when he said that lusting after a woman is the same thing as adultery, where does the "being attracted to the same sex" isnt a sin but acting on it is? Where's this idea coming from? It's not consistent with Jesus's other sayings
Correct when you point out that Jesus had no sinful nature and therefore could not be enticed or tempted by anything within his human nature.
My thought is that agreement with God on the nature and presence of sin is central. Rather than avoiding the depths of our fallenness, we should in a sense seek it out, once we realize that poverty of spirit (Matthew 5:3) is the doorway to redemption and healing. The repentance that follows is ultimately given by God (Acts 5:31, 2 Timothy 2:25), and this becomes the foundation for our realization of, and gratitude for, His power and grace in our lives.
This was cool! I would like to know if you have a video on the sin nature and the regeneration process? How should christians who may have shame be given hope in any battle with sin.
Thank you Jon!
IIRC Pope Francis has said the sin is in the action, the indulgence, not the thoughts.
The mood music is irritating. How does mood music add to the argument?
So John Piper thinks homosexual feelings can be made holy?
Probably why Bethlehem has a SSA Elder.
He doesn't think one is culpable for them is what he's saying.
I find this so difficult. Please take the log out
Thank you Jon I'll be showing this to my teenage children so if their christian friends are influenced by this they can help them see the truth and not fall for these bad teachings themselves. Please keep fighting for the truth. It's been difficult watching solid Christians compromise one after the other. I'm going to pray for you Jon that you will continue to stand strong.
I feel sorry for your teenage children who are being exposed to this false doctrine. Satan is hitting them from every angle, from the permissiveness of the Revoice movement to the other extreme taken here with Jon Harris. Jesus saves. You can be tempted and still not sin. Jesus Himself was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin. I pity any of your children who experience same sex attraction.
@@41093AnthonyB I heard Dougs response and it seemed confusing and contradictory
@@jenniferherb5212 I don't know anything about Doug or his response. My concern is that those who experience SSA may be tempted just like people can be tempted who do not experience SSA. This does not mean they are living in sin, any more than if you are tempted to do something and do not do it.
We who have experienced SSA are not a special group by ourselves. We must deny the flesh, take up the cross of Jesus, and follow Him. We have to deny the flesh, just like others do. To say that since we are tempted that we are living in sin is a double standard, setting us up for failure, and not scriptural. All sin is sin, regardless of what the sin is. The remedy for all sin is accepting the blood of Jesus, repenting and forsaking our sin. That is true of us with SSA and true of you. Experiencing temptation does not negate the change that God has done in my life or in your life.
@@41093AnthonyBwhat about James 1:13-15. Do you think a sinful desire is not sin?
@@nykka3 I need time to really think and pray about that passage. I have read James 1 for 40 years and never come to that conclusion, but I can see where you are coming from. The following is what I believe, but I am open to instruction.
When I have a question about Scripture, I compare it to other Scripture. Look at Romans 6. Verse 2 says how shall we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? verse 12 says "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body. Verse 14 says sin shall NOT have dominion over us because we are under grace.
That directly contradicts Jared Moore's claim that we are constantly living in sin and all should be excommunicated.
Romans 8 also contradicts what Jarod is saying. Verse 1 says there is therefore now NO condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Vs. 10 says if Christ is in us, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. And finally, verse 13 says we are to mortify the DEEDS of the body.
Jesus was tempted IN ALL POINTS such as WE are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). It doesn't say just in certain points. I says ALL points. Man can explain this verse away all they want to. It doesn't make it not true. The whole reason the Hebrew writer wrote it was to say Jesus was a high priest who CAN be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, because He felt them too. That is what makes Him such an effective intercessor. To explain that away is to detract from the amazing sacrifice Jesus made for us. It leads to the belief that Jesus CANNOT understand my situation. He CANNOT be touched with how I'm feeling. But that is precisely the opposite of what this passage is saying. I'm just simple enough to believe that IN ALL POINTS means just that.
What a life of condemnation would we have if every time we were even slightly tempted, we would believe we were sinning. We would have to live our entire lives praying and asking for forgiveness. "Oh no, I think I might have thought that I could have thought a bad thought, I better repent and ask God to forgive." We would never have the sweet rest in Christ, knowing that He was enough. His sacrifice removed our sin completely. It would be a life of defeat that contradicts Romans 6, which says that a believer CAN overcome sin.
So back to James 1. Verse 12 says we are BLESSED when we endure temptation. It doesn't say we have SINNED when we are tempted. We say no to the flesh and yes to God. Then we are blessed.
But I still don't have a coherent explanation of verse 14. I do need to pray about that one. But in light of the other passages in the Bible, I don't believe the temptation itself is sin. As Martin Luther (I'm a Mennonite, Martin Luther persecuted us, so I realize that his word is not Scripture) once said, "You can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you can stop him from building a nest there."
Who is the guy at the end?
And the answer is: Yes. If looking upon a woman amorously who is a not your wife is a sin, then looking upon another man lustfully is certainly a sin, too; and yes, Our Lord may it clear by His Word, even just looking is a sin. Now the question then is: Why? That's the real question though; not if it's a sin, but why.
Does that mean a non- practicing homosexual loses salvation or blessings because of this?
@@roberthyman6012 Not necessarily, but as Our Lord told Satan in Matthew 4 and Luke 4: "You don't put your Lord God to the test". The Lord wants not only for us to act accordingly, He wants our inner hearts and feelings, too. Refraining from acting out sinfully is a good start, and celibacy is biblical; and Our Lord is (as it says in 2 Peter) 'patient and long-suffering', but He is also a jealous God, and wants us, all of us, to surrender all to Him. Don't commit to being homosexual or 'gay' at all; The Lord knows we all still have leftover sinful feelings. In His grace, He will wait on you, but He wants us all to identify only with Him.
Thanks John for this Biblical insight, it's very helpful in getting to the heart of the matter.
Christians are way too obsessed with marriage being the end goal for someone. Paul was pro singleness. The goal of someone with SSA isn’t a heterosexual marriage, but an identity in Jesus Christ. The church needs to stop making an idol out of marriage.
So when God gave the command to be "fruitful & multiply", he was just mistaken? I mean, he obviously wasn't just talking in the context of populating the earth & he definitely wasn't meaning outside of the God given parameters for marriage...I understand your position on singleness, but that's just so we can be freed up for service. Marriage on God's terms is right & should be sought after.
The gift of singleness is not something one chooses. It's something God gives. If you have sexual urges I believe it's a sign you do not have that gift. Paul said to get married if you burn.
@Shop Rat #2067 Lol. no.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast not every lust or sexual desire always means you should get married