Latest / Reformed Thinking / God’s Design, Sin’s Deception, and Gospel Hope: A Biblical Response to Homosexual Acts

Transcript

God’s Design, Sin’s Deception, and Gospel Hope: A Biblical Response to Homosexual Acts · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome back to Reform Thinking. We are cracking over the subject
• 0:04
  today that, let's be honest, makes most people want to run
• 0:06
  for the hills or at least change the channel.
• 0:08
  Yeah, good to be back. But if you are here, you know we
• 0:11
  don't do fluff. And you are right.
• 0:13
  We are looking at a stack of sources today that tackled the
• 0:16
  single most volatile issue in the modern church, sexuality.
• 0:21
  We are breaking down a Reformed biblical theology of sex,
• 0:24
  marriage and identity. And before we get into any of
• 0:28
  the notes, yeah, we have to kind of look around the room.
• 0:30
  Culturally, the ground is just completely shifted.
• 0:33
  It used to be that, you know, sex was something you did.
• 0:36
  Right, an action. Now the culture says it's who
• 0:39
  you are. It's not just an appetite, it's
• 0:41
  the absolute core of your identity.
• 0:43
  That is the shift. That's the whole thing right
• 0:45
  there. The message out there is that
• 0:47
  your sexual desire is the truest, most authentic thing
• 0:50
  about you. So if you deny that desire, you
• 0:53
  weren't just exercising self-control, you are like
• 0:56
  denying your own existence. And that pressure is massive.
• 1:00
  Yeah, it is. It pushes the church to
• 1:02
  compromise, to soften the edges of the text, or maybe more
• 1:06
  often, just to stay quiet so we don't get cancelled.
• 1:08
  But silence isn't really an option, is it?
• 1:11
  So just to Orient everyone listening, we are approaching
• 1:14
  this from a very specific spot on the map.
• 1:16
  We are both Protestant Christians.
• 1:18
  We hold to Reform theology and the Westminster Confession,
• 1:21
  right? So we aren't looking at this
• 1:24
  through the lens of what's pulling well on Twitter or what
• 1:28
  the latest sociological study says.
• 1:29
  And that's key. The whole premise of this deep
• 1:31
  dive isn't what is popular, or even what makes sense to a
• 1:35
  modern Westerner. The question is, what does the
• 1:37
  text say? And you know, underneath that is
• 1:41
  the real question, who has the authority to define us?
• 1:44
  Is it the self or is it the creator?
• 1:46
  That's the question. So our mission today is to walk
• 1:48
  a line that feels very thin these days.
• 1:51
  Clarity and compassion. Clarity because we believe God
• 1:55
  has spoken, but also compassion because this is an abstract
• 1:57
  philosophy. We were talking about real
• 1:59
  people, real pain, and, you know, friends and family we
• 2:02
  love. Compassion is key, but we have
• 2:05
  to define it correctly. I think true compassion isn't
• 2:07
  just nodding along with whatever someone feels is right for them.
• 2:11
  If a bridge is out, compassion is putting up a barrier, a
• 2:14
  warning sign, not waving someone through because they really,
• 2:18
  really want to drive that way. That's a great analogy.
• 2:20
  So we are analyzing source material that serves as a
• 2:24
  biblical response to homosexual acts, viewing them through that
• 2:28
  classic lens of creation, the fall, and redemption.
• 2:31
  OK, so this isn't just a quick chat.
• 2:33
  We're doing a deep dive into the specific arguments.
• 2:36
  We're going to look at how we read the Bible, those specific
• 2:39
  verses people always fight about, the shellfish objection,
• 2:42
  which we will definitely get to, and then finally, the gospel
• 2:45
  hope. It is a lot, but it is
• 2:47
  necessary. All right, let's start at the
• 2:49
  very beginning. Part 1 is the Hermeneutical
• 2:51
  Foundation. Now that's a $10 word.
• 2:54
  Hermeneutus just means how we read.
• 2:56
  Why does this matter so much at the start?
• 2:58
  Because I hear people say all the time, well that's just your
• 3:00
  interpretation. Or the Bible is an ancient book
• 3:02
  written by guys who didn't know about DNA or orientation.
• 3:06
  Right. And that's where the Reformed
• 3:08
  method starts, with sola scriptura.
• 3:10
  The Bible is the final Court of Appeals.
• 3:12
  It's the ultimate authority. We don't ask what the culture
• 3:16
  thinks is plausible. We ask what God has revealed.
• 3:19
  And a key role here is what theologians call the analogy of
• 3:23
  faith. OK, break that down for us.
• 3:25
  What does that look like in practice?
• 3:27
  It just means scripture interprets scripture.
• 3:29
  It's the idea that the Bible isn't a random collection of
• 3:32
  disjointed fortune cookies. It is a unified Canon, one story
• 3:36
  from Genesis to Revelation. So you can't pit the loving
• 3:40
  Jesus against the mean Paul. Or the Old Testament against
• 3:43
  them. Exactly.
• 3:44
  The clear passages help us understand the tricky ones.
• 3:47
  And the other side of this is that we have to resist what you
• 3:50
  might call novel revelations. The church can't just bend to
• 3:54
  the spirit of the age. If the Bible is God's breathed
• 3:56
  out word, it stands over us. We don't stand over it.
• 3:59
  So we aren't looking for loopholes to make things
• 4:02
  comfortable for our time. That's not the goal, no.
• 4:04
  Now, the notes make a huge point here, that the prohibitions
• 4:08
  against homosexuality don't just pop up out of nowhere in the law
• 4:11
  books like Leviticus. They start way, way back in
• 4:15
  Genesis. This is the creation ordinance,
• 4:17
  and it's so important. Think of it as the why before
• 4:19
  the what. If you skip Genesis 1 and 2, the
• 4:22
  rules that come later on look completely arbitrary, just
• 4:24
  random. But the design, the blueprint,
• 4:27
  is established in Eden. So Genesis 1.27.
• 4:31
  Right there, male and female, he created them.
• 4:34
  This binary is not an accident. It's not a social construct or
• 4:37
  some quirky result of evolution. It is presented as part of the
• 4:42
  imago dei, the image of God. The difference is part of the
• 4:45
  glory. And then in Genesis 2.24 we get
• 4:47
  the definition of marriage. A man leaves his father and
• 4:50
  mother and holds fast to his wife and they become one flesh.
• 4:53
  I'm going to circle that phrase 1 flesh in a ROM com.
• 4:56
  That just sounds like we really really love each other.
• 4:58
  But historically, theologically, it means something much more
• 5:01
  specific, doesn't it? It is much more specific.
• 5:03
  It's not just about emotional closeness.
• 5:06
  One flesh requires complementarity.
• 5:09
  Think of it like a lock and a key, or maybe a violin in a bow.
• 5:12
  It implies 2 distinct different halves, man and woman, forming a
• 5:16
  new unified whole. So it's a union that's about
• 5:20
  more than just the two people. Yes, it grounds sex in a kind.
• 5:23
  It's not just a physical act for pleasure.
• 5:25
  It's a covenant ceiling act that is organically, by its very
• 5:29
  nature, oriented toward life, toward fruitfulness.
• 5:32
  The theological term is teleology.
• 5:35
  It has a purpose. Sex has a specific function
• 5:37
  built into it, mutual help, intimacy, and the legitimate
• 5:41
  increase of mankind. So the argument from the sources
• 5:44
  is that homosexuality contradicts the structural
• 5:47
  design of humanity, like trying to put diesel in a gasoline
• 5:50
  engine. That is the analogy.
• 5:51
  It's an attempt to join what God has not designed to fit either
• 5:55
  structurally or covenant Lee. So from this perspective, it's
• 5:58
  not just breaking a rule on a list, it's acting against the
• 6:01
  very grain of the universe God created.
• 6:03
  OK, now here is where a lot of people push back and it's a big
• 6:07
  one. They say, well, Jesus never
• 6:09
  mentioned homosexuality. He talked about money, he talked
• 6:12
  about divorce, he talked about pride, but he never once said
• 6:15
  the word gay or homosexual. That is a very, very common
• 6:19
  objection, and it sounds really convincing on the surface, but
• 6:22
  it rests on a complete misunderstanding of how Jesus
• 6:26
  taught. You have to look at Matthew 19
• 6:28
  when the Pharisees came to test him about marriage and divorce.
• 6:31
  He didn't quote a poll. He didn't talk about cultural
• 6:34
  norms. He appealed directly to Genesis.
• 6:37
  He said. Have you not read that he who
• 6:39
  created them from the beginning made them male and female?
• 6:42
  And for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
• 6:45
  be united to his wife. He went right back to the
• 6:48
  blueprints. He went to the factory settings.
• 6:50
  He treated the creation design as the normative standard for
• 6:53
  all time. So to receive Christ is to
• 6:56
  receive his definition of marriage.
• 6:59
  He didn't need to list every single possible sexual
• 7:01
  deviation, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, because by a
• 7:05
  following the one true standard of one man and one woman for
• 7:08
  life, he implicitly ruled out everything else.
• 7:11
  So he validated the positive, which automatically excludes the
• 7:16
  negative. Exactly, he didn't have to give
• 7:18
  a comprehensive list of don'ts because he gave the one
• 7:21
  comprehensive due. OK, that makes sense.
• 7:23
  Let's move to Part 2, the Old Testament.
• 7:25
  We have to talk about Leviticus. This is usually where the
• 7:28
  conversation gets well, it gets heated.
• 7:30
  Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13. The big ones.
• 7:34
  These are the texts that explicitly prohibit a man lying
• 7:38
  with a male as with a woman. And the sources bring up some
• 7:40
  specific Hebrew terms here that are really important.
• 7:43
  One of them is Tueva, which is usually translated as
• 7:46
  abomination, right? And this word is a major
• 7:49
  battleground. Critics will often say, look,
• 7:51
  toeva just means a ritual impurity.
• 7:54
  It's in the same category as eating the wrong food or
• 7:57
  touching a dead body. It's only about, say, Pagan
• 8:00
  temple prostitution or idolatry, not a loving, committed
• 8:03
  relationship. So that's the argument that this
• 8:05
  is about ritual, not morality. Yes, that it's part of the
• 8:09
  ceremonial law, but the sources refute that pretty strongly.
• 8:13
  If you look at the rest of the Old Testament, in Proverbs 6 God
• 8:15
  lists 7 things he hates. Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
• 8:20
  hands that shed innocent blood. He calls those things Tueva.
• 8:24
  And those aren't rituals. Not at all.
• 8:26
  Those are deep moral evils. Lying and murder are always
• 8:30
  wrong for all people at all times.
• 8:33
  So when Leviticus uses that same word for homosexual acts, it's
• 8:36
  placing them squarely in the category of moral holiness.
• 8:40
  It was about separating Israel from the practices of Canaan and
• 8:43
  Egypt, sure, but because those practices were morally repugnant
• 8:47
  to God. OK, and there's another word,
• 8:48
  Mishkov, right? Mishkov literally mean lying
• 8:52
  with. It refers to the biological act
• 8:54
  itself. The text describes a man
• 8:56
  mimicking the sexual union of male and female with another
• 8:58
  male. The prohibition is against.
• 9:00
  The ACT generally doesn't have any qualifiers.
• 9:02
  It doesn't say don't do this if it's exploitative or don't do
• 9:05
  this if it's in a Pagan temple. It just bans the ACT itself.
• 9:08
  OK, pause there because this is the gotcha moment everyone waits
• 9:11
  for. I can hear the listener right
• 9:13
  now saying OK, you guys are quoting Leviticus to ban gay
• 9:16
  marriage, but are you wearing a polyester cotton blend shirt
• 9:19
  right now? Did you eat bacon for breakfast?
• 9:22
  Did you plant two kinds of seed in your garden?
• 9:26
  It feels like we are just cherry picking the rules we like and
• 9:29
  ignoring all the weird ones. It feels that way, absolutely,
• 9:32
  and if you don't have a framework for how the Bible is
• 9:35
  built, it looks like blatant hypocrisy.
• 9:38
  But the source material points to the Westminster Confession to
• 9:41
  give us a kind of decoder ring for this.
• 9:43
  You have to view the Old Testament law like a like a
• 9:46
  three layered cake. You can't just slice it all
• 9:48
  vertically, you have to distinguish the layers.
• 9:50
  OK, walk us through the layers. How do we know the difference
• 9:52
  difference between the bacon rule and the adultery rule?
• 9:55
  Well, the reformers distinguish between the moral, the civil,
• 9:59
  and the ceremonial law. Layer one is the ceremonial law.
• 10:03
  These were things like dietary restrictions, the sacrificial
• 10:06
  system, and temple rituals. They were object lessons.
• 10:10
  They pointed forward to Christ, and they separated Israel as a
• 10:13
  distinct nation. So the shrimp and the pigs and
• 10:15
  the mixed fabrics. Shrimp, the pigs, the fabric,
• 10:18
  all that stuff. These were teaching tools like
• 10:20
  shadows. But when Christ came, He
• 10:23
  fulfilled them. He is the substance.
• 10:26
  He was the ultimate sacrifice. In Mark 7, Jesus declares all
• 10:30
  foods clean. In Acts 10, Peter has that
• 10:32
  vision where God tells him what God has made clean.
• 10:35
  Do not call common. So those laws are explicitly
• 10:39
  repealed in the New Testament because their job is done.
• 10:42
  OK, so the ceremonial law is the shadow and Christ is the
• 10:45
  substance. We don't need the shadow anymore
• 10:48
  now that we have the real thing. What about the civil law?
• 10:50
  The. Civil law governed Israel as a
• 10:52
  theocratic political state. They had laws about putting
• 10:56
  fences on your roof and specific penalties for theft.
• 10:58
  We aren't ancient Israel. We don't live in a theocracy.
• 11:01
  So for example, we don't execute people for breaking the Sabbath.
• 11:05
  Those laws expired along with the nation state of Israel.
• 11:07
  That leaves the moral law. The moral law.
• 11:10
  This layer reflects God's own unchanging character.
• 11:13
  It's summarized nicely in the 10 Commandments.
• 11:15
  Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal.
• 11:19
  These things are wrong because God's nature is life, giving,
• 11:23
  faithful, and just. They are always wrong.
• 11:26
  But here is the $1,000,000 question.
• 11:29
  How do we know which bucket the sexual prohibitions fall into?
• 11:33
  Why aren't they just ceremonial cultural habits from that time?
• 11:37
  That is the crucial test, and the test is this.
• 11:40
  Does the New Testament repeal it or repeat it?
• 11:43
  The New Testament repeals the dietary laws explicitly.
• 11:45
  It's very clear. But it repeats and actually
• 11:48
  intensifies the sexual prohibitions.
• 11:51
  It carries them straight over into the church.
• 11:53
  Therefore, sexual ethics are part of the moral law.
• 11:56
  They aren't ceremonial shadows that disappear.
• 11:58
  They are consistent from creation through the law and
• 12:01
  into the teaching of the apostles.
• 12:02
  That is the key right there. It's not picking and choosing
• 12:04
  based on what we like. It's applying the logic of the
• 12:07
  New Testament itself to the Old Testament law.
• 12:09
  It's letting script scripture interprets scripture.
• 12:12
  OK, Speaking of the New Testament, let's go to Part 3,
• 12:14
  Romans One. This is usually considered the
• 12:17
  heavyweight text on the subject. It is.
• 12:19
  Romans 1.2627 is the clearest, most sustained treatment in the
• 12:24
  New Testament, and you have to see the context.
• 12:26
  Paul is making a universal argument about humanity's
• 12:29
  suppression of the truth. He describes this great
• 12:32
  exchange. People exchange the glory of the
• 12:34
  immortal God for idols, worshipping the creature rather
• 12:38
  than the Creator. And Paul draws it Direct Line
• 12:41
  from that spiritual idolatry to sexual confusion.
• 12:44
  He does. He says that because of this
• 12:45
  idolatry, God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
• 12:49
  And he gets very specific. He mentions women exchanging
• 12:52
  natural relations for those contrary to nature and men
• 12:55
  abandoning natural relations with women and being consumed
• 12:58
  with passion for one another. Now that phrase against nature
• 13:02
  or paraphism that triggers a lot of people today and you can
• 13:05
  understand why they say, well, it feels perfectly natural to
• 13:07
  me. My nature is to be attracted to
• 13:09
  the same sex. If if I'm Born This Way, isn't
• 13:11
  it against nature for me to force myself to be straight?
• 13:14
  And that is where we have to be really, really careful with our
• 13:17
  definitions. When Paul says nature, he isn't
• 13:20
  talking about your personal subjective instincts or what
• 13:24
  feels innate to you in a fallen world.
• 13:26
  He's talking about the functional design of the
• 13:28
  Creator. He's looking back at Genesis
• 13:30
  again. So nature as in the nature of a
• 13:33
  thing. The nature of a thing as it was
• 13:35
  designed it means against the plumbing, so to speak, but also
• 13:38
  against the teleological purpose of the body.
• 13:40
  It's acting contrary to the manufacturer's instructions.
• 13:43
  So it's an anatomical and structural distortion, not a
• 13:45
  commentary on how strong the feeling is.
• 13:48
  Exactly right. The source argument is that it's
• 13:50
  not just about exploitation or power dynamics, which were
• 13:53
  common in Rome. It's about the ACT itself being
• 13:56
  a fundamental misuse of the body.
• 13:58
  Just because the desire feels stronger, innate doesn't mean it
• 14:01
  aligns with the design of the machine.
• 14:03
  OK. Then we have First Corinthians
• 14:05
  6.910. This is that famous list of
• 14:08
  people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
• 14:10
  And there are two Greek words there that we really need to dig
• 14:13
  into, arsenicoitai and malakoi. And honestly, Arsenicoitai
• 14:17
  sounds like a detective story waiting to happen.
• 14:20
  It really is. It's fascinating.
• 14:22
  Scholars have puzzled over this word for a long time, because as
• 14:25
  far as we can tell, Paul might have actually coined it himself.
• 14:28
  It doesn't appear in any other Greek literature before this
• 14:31
  letter. So he just made it up.
• 14:32
  Well, he constructed it. He built it, and this is where
• 14:35
  it gets so interesting. He combined 2 words directly
• 14:37
  from the Septuagint. That's the Greek translation of
• 14:40
  the Old Testament that Paul and the other apostles would have
• 14:42
  read. He took arsenos, which means
• 14:45
  male, and quayton, which means bed, right out of Leviticus
• 14:49
  20.13. Wait, hold on a second.
• 14:52
  So he took the very verse from Leviticus.
• 14:54
  You shall not lie with a male arsenos as in a woman's bed.
• 14:58
  Coyton smashed the two keywords together and made a new noun out
• 15:02
  of. It precisely he created a
• 15:04
  hyperlink in his text by using that specific custom built
• 15:09
  compound word. He is explicitly footnoting the
• 15:12
  Law of Moses. This detail just completely
• 15:15
  destroys the common argument that Paul was only talking about
• 15:17
  Pederasti, the Roman practice of older men exploiting young boys.
• 15:21
  Because the Greeks already had a word for pederasti, right?
• 15:24
  They did. Pederasti's Paul knew that word.
• 15:27
  He didn't use it. He used a word that deliberately
• 15:30
  recalls the general blanket prohibition from the moral law
• 15:34
  of Moses. He's essentially saying,
• 15:36
  remember what God said in the law That still applies to us in
• 15:39
  the church in Corinth. That is a massive insight.
• 15:42
  It really connects the dots right across the Bible.
• 15:44
  So what about the other word, Malakoy?
• 15:47
  Malakoy literally means soft or effeminate, and in the context
• 15:52
  of ancient sexual practices it was a common term that referred
• 15:55
  to the passive partner in a male homosexual act, while arsena
• 15:59
  koitai refers to the active partner.
• 16:00
  So by using both, Paul covers the whole act.
• 16:03
  He covers the whole spectrum of the ACT.
• 16:05
  He closes any potential loopholes.
• 16:06
  It implies that both the instigator and the consenting
• 16:09
  participant are acting outside of God's design.
• 16:12
  There's no way to read it as only being about coercion or
• 16:14
  abuse. It's tough to hear, but the text
• 16:17
  is incredibly precise. Which brings us to Part 4.
• 16:20
  And this is where the rubber really meets the road for a lot
• 16:22
  of listeners. How do we think about sin,
• 16:25
  identity and temptation? Because the common narrative,
• 16:28
  the thing you hear everywhere, is I was Born This Way.
• 16:32
  And this is where a robust biblical doctrine of sin is just
• 16:35
  vital. We have to distinguish between
• 16:37
  temptation and transgression. Temptation itself is a
• 16:40
  battlefield. Jesus was tempted in every way,
• 16:43
  as we are, yet he was without sin.
• 16:45
  So the mere presence of a temptation, A stray thought, a
• 16:48
  flash of desire isn't the same thing as committing the sin.
• 16:52
  But Reformed theology goes a bit deeper than that, doesn't it?
• 16:55
  We believe in original sin. Yes, the Westminster Confession
• 16:58
  in chapter 6 teaches that we are born with disordered desires.
• 17:02
  The fall corrupted human nature at its root, so just because a
• 17:06
  desire feels natural to our fallen selves or innate, doesn't
• 17:10
  mean it's good. We are all born with sinful
• 17:12
  propensities toward pride, anger, greed, and, yes, sexual
• 17:16
  disorder in all its forms. So the argument I didn't choose
• 17:18
  these feelings is probably true for any given sin.
• 17:21
  It is likely very true for most people, but that doesn't
• 17:24
  validate the feelings or the actions that come from them.
• 17:27
  I didn't choose to have a sinful temper, but that doesn't make it
• 17:30
  righteous for me to scream at my kids.
• 17:32
  We don't judge righteousness by what feels innate to our fallen
• 17:36
  nature. We judge it by God's unchanging
• 17:38
  standard. In a strange way, the Born This
• 17:41
  Way argument actually confirms the doctrine of total depravity.
• 17:45
  It doesn't negate the call to Holiness.
• 17:48
  That leads right into the whole question of identity politics.
• 17:51
  Yeah, the sources we're looking at are very clear about
• 17:54
  rejecting the label gay Christian.
• 17:56
  And I know that sounds like semantics to some people, but
• 17:58
  words matter here, don't they? Words matter immensely, and this
• 18:01
  isn't just a preference, it's a deep theological stance.
• 18:04
  Our identity, biblically speaking, is federal.
• 18:07
  OK, federal identity. That sounds like government
• 18:09
  paperwork. Unpack that for us.
• 18:11
  Think of it like citizenship. In the Bible there are really
• 18:13
  only two nations or two teams you can be on.
• 18:16
  You are either in Adam, which means you are defined by sin,
• 18:19
  death, and the old world, or you are in Christ, defined by
• 18:23
  justification, new life, and the new creation.
• 18:27
  Those are the only two defining identities that matter in
• 18:30
  eternity. So using a besetting sin as an
• 18:32
  identity marker, like an adjective you put before the
• 18:35
  noun Christian, is problematic because it's like you're trying
• 18:38
  to mix passports. It fundamentally contradicts the
• 18:40
  new nature. A believer may struggle and
• 18:43
  struggle profoundly with same sex attraction, absolutely, but
• 18:46
  that struggle is a vestige of the old man, the flesh.
• 18:49
  It is not who they truly are in Christ, their true core identity
• 18:54
  as a child of God, a new creation.
• 18:56
  Calling yourself a gay Christian is like defining yourself by the
• 18:59
  very thing Christ died to free you from.
• 19:01
  It anchors your identity and your brokenness rather than in
• 19:03
  your redemption. That is a heavy distinction, but
• 19:06
  it clarifies why the language is so contested.
• 19:10
  But we have to pivot to the hope, or else this is just a
• 19:13
  crushing weight of law. Part 5 is the Gospel solution,
• 19:16
  and it pivots on one little phrase in First Corinthians and
• 19:20
  6.11. And such were some of you.
• 19:22
  That one word were he's doing a lot of heavy lifting in that
• 19:26
  sentence. It is the central pivot of the
• 19:28
  gospel. It's beautiful.
• 19:30
  Paul lists all those sins, thieves, drunkard, swindlers,
• 19:33
  and the sexually immoral. And then he says that is your
• 19:35
  past tense. And he lists three things that
• 19:38
  happened to make that true. You were washed, you were
• 19:41
  sanctified, and you were justified.
• 19:43
  Let's break those down. Washed.
• 19:44
  What does that mean? That is the cleansing from guilt
• 19:47
  and shame. It's the stain of sin being
• 19:49
  completely removed by the blood of Christ.
• 19:51
  That is the progressive, ongoing renewal of your heart and
• 19:54
  habits. It's about breaking the power of
• 19:56
  sin over your life. It's the process of becoming
• 19:58
  more and more like Jesus day by day.
• 20:00
  It's not instant. And justify.
• 20:02
  That is the legal verdict. That's what happens in a moment.
• 20:05
  You are declared righteous in God's courtroom, not based on
• 20:08
  your performance, but based entirely on Christ's perfect
• 20:11
  merit. Even while you still struggle,
• 20:14
  the judge slams the gavel and says, innocent, pardoned,
• 20:17
  righteous. So what does realistic hope look
• 20:21
  like for someone who is a Christian but deals with same
• 20:24
  sex attraction? Because I think some people hear
• 20:27
  such for some of you and they think it means poof.
• 20:29
  I prayed a prayer and now I'm heterosexual and I'm going to
• 20:31
  get married and have 2.5 kids and a dog.
• 20:33
  And that is a dangerous over promise.
• 20:35
  The church has really hurt people by promising that the
• 20:39
  sources are very careful here. Realistic hope is not
• 20:42
  necessarily orientation change. For some, God and his
• 20:45
  sovereignty might grant that. But for many, maybe most, the
• 20:49
  struggle with the temptation remains until glory.
• 20:52
  The hope is holiness. Holiness, not necessarily
• 20:55
  straightness. Exactly.
• 20:56
  It's what the old preacher Thomas Chalmers called the
• 20:58
  expulsive power of a new affection.
• 21:01
  Your love for Christ becomes so much greater that it pushes out
• 21:04
  the power of lesser sinful desires.
• 21:07
  So the goal isn't a change of orientation, the goal is
• 21:10
  chastity. Precisely.
• 21:12
  The goal is obedience to Jesus, and that means one of two paths
• 21:16
  for every Christian either faithful heterosexual marriage
• 21:19
  or God honoring celibacy. Sanctification is a war, not a
• 21:23
  magic ZAP. It involves mortification,
• 21:26
  actively killing sin, and vivification, actively living to
• 21:29
  Christ. It's a long obedience in the
• 21:31
  same direction. Which brings us to the Church's
• 21:34
  role in all this. Part 6 is pastoral application.
• 21:37
  How do we treat the weary St. The person who loves Jesus, who
• 21:41
  hates their attraction but still feels it every single day?
• 21:44
  We treat them with immense compassion and patience.
• 21:47
  The church is supposed to be a hospital for sinners, not a
• 21:50
  museum for perfect people. We need to come alongside them
• 21:53
  and assure them that if they are fighting the sin, they are not
• 21:55
  defined by it. The struggle itself is often
• 21:58
  powerful evidence of the Holy Spirit at work.
• 22:00
  If you were happy in your sin, you wouldn't be fighting it so
• 22:03
  hard. But the church has a really bad
• 22:04
  track record here historically. It does.
• 22:07
  We have to repent of homophobia in the true sense.
• 22:10
  Mockery, slurs, coldness, treating people like projects.
• 22:13
  We cannot treat this sin as somehow grosser or more serious
• 22:17
  than our own acceptable sins of pride or greed or gossip.
• 22:21
  And the sources talk about the need for the new family.
• 22:24
  If we were telling people they can't have same sex romantic
• 22:26
  relationships, we can't just leave them in isolation.
• 22:29
  This is absolutely crucial. If we tell someone no to a
• 22:33
  forbidden form of intimacy, we must be ready to say a loud yes
• 22:37
  to godly forms of intimacy. Jesus promised that those who
• 22:41
  leave things for his sake will receive a hundredfold brothers
• 22:44
  and sisters and mothers and children.
• 22:46
  The Church has to actually be that family.
• 22:48
  What does that look like practically?
• 22:50
  It means celibacy should not equal loneliness.
• 22:53
  If a single person in your church feels isolated, the
• 22:56
  families in that church are failing to be the family of God.
• 22:59
  We need to invite them into our homes, into the messiness of our
• 23:02
  lives. Share holidays, carry burdens
• 23:04
  together. It's about deep non sexual
• 23:06
  friendship and kinship. That is a challenge to every
• 23:09
  single listener. Invite people to dinner.
• 23:12
  Make them part of the family routine.
• 23:15
  Now, there's a serious note in here about the sacraments,
• 23:18
  specifically fencing the table at the Lord's Supper.
• 23:21
  This is standard Reformed practice, we warn the
• 23:24
  congregation before they take communion.
• 23:26
  But the distinction here is vital.
• 23:29
  We fence the table against the arrogant and the unrepentant,
• 23:33
  those who are living in sin and calling it good.
• 23:36
  We do not, and we must not fence it against the struggling St.
• 23:40
  So if you are struggling with a sin and you are repenting of it,
• 23:43
  even if you failed this week, you need the meal.
• 23:46
  You need the meal. It is food for the weak and
• 23:48
  weary, not a reward for the strong.
• 23:50
  But if you're affirming your sin, if you're wearing it like a
• 23:52
  badge of pride and have no intention of turning from it,
• 23:54
  the Bible says you eat and drink judgement on yourself.
• 23:57
  That is the line repentance versus rebellion.
• 23:59
  We're coming to the end here, and I want to address the
• 24:02
  biggest objection we hear in the culture, the one on every bumper
• 24:04
  sticker. Love is love.
• 24:06
  It's a powerful slogan that sounds good, but it's
• 24:09
  theologically hollow. Biblical love is not just
• 24:11
  affirmation of desire. Love seeks the true ultimate
• 24:15
  good of the other person under God.
• 24:17
  If I see you walking toward a Cliff edge, love isn't saying
• 24:20
  you do. You live your truth.
• 24:22
  Love is shouting stop, you're in danger.
• 24:25
  So warning someone about a collapsing bridge is love, not
• 24:28
  hate. Exactly.
• 24:29
  We cannot redefine love to mean supporting someone and something
• 24:33
  that God's Word says destroys them.
• 24:35
  True love tells the truth. That brings us to our summary.
• 24:38
  God's design is good. That's creation.
• 24:40
  Sin is real and is broken. Everything.
• 24:42
  That's the fall. But grace is greater than our
• 24:45
  sin. That's redemption.
• 24:46
  That is the whole story of the Bible in three acts.
• 24:48
  So here's a final, provocative thought to leave you with The
• 24:51
  Gospel actually shuts the door of the proud to the people who
• 24:54
  want to keep their sin and justify themselves.
• 24:56
  But it flings the door wide open to the humble, to the broken.
• 25:00
  The question isn't why is God so restrictive.
• 25:02
  The question really is why is God so merciful to invite any of
• 25:05
  us in? Amen to that.
• 25:07
  We are all just beggars showing other beggars where to find
• 25:09
  bread. Thanks for listening to this
• 25:11
  deep dive. It's heavy stuff, but we believe
• 25:14
  it's hopeful. We'll catch you next time on
• 25:16
  Reformed Thinking.