I owe Preston a sincere apology for a condemning comment I made in the pre-stream post before this discussion. I jumped to conclusions and I was being a pharisee. I am sorry.
@user-ih8nz3ll3h Original comment not there for very long. There were 2 responses to me there why I immediately edited the post and apologized there too at the time.
1:34 - What do you hope to accomplish in this book/interview? 3:35 - What is the historic Christian view of marriage and why does scripture support that view? --- 6:30 - " 'One flesh' does not imply sex difference." 16:45 - "Paul was not talking about consensual same-sex relationships." 25:48 - "Romans 1 is condemning excessive lust, not same-sex relationships." 34:58 - "The biblical writers didn't know about sexual orientation." 43:49 - "The word 'homosexual' was added to the Bible in 1946." 50:41 - "Jesus's Sabbath hermeneutics informs how we should interpret same-sex prohibitions." 59:38 - "God's acceptance of Gentiles mirrors how we should accept LGB people today." 1:06:26 - "The trajectory of women and slavery justifies same-sex prohibitions." 1:12:02 - "The traditional view of marriage is harmful towards same-sex attracted people." 1:26:04 - "It's an 'agree-to-disagree' issue."
On the “one flesh” issue, an important point that I didn’t hear mentioned is that the capacity for reproduction resides only in heterosexual union. For this reason, some Catholic thinkers speak of “the human reproductive organism” as a composite being with a power/capacity that neither of its “constituents” have in themselves. To me, this idea of a new organic unity grounded in heterosexual union is the most compelling way of understanding “one flesh.”
The problem for me in this is how does this become relatable to someone who is only attracted to the same sex? That’s more of a Birds Eye view. But just telling a person with SSA that they can’t get married because they can’t reproduce is not fundamentally going to change anything for them. And to me this is where the conversation needs work with people who are homosexual or their allies who defend them or their right to marry…is what’s next for them then?
Appreciate Preston relooking at “one flesh” vs “flesh”. Word studies done poorly can lead people into looking at all the possibilities a greek or hebrew word can mean and grasp at something without letting the context of the passage determine it.
Preston. From one Bible scholar named Sprinkle to another, greetings. Occasionally I've been asked if we are related. I suspect so since Sprinkle is such a rare last name, but the link must be a number of generations back. My area is OT. I have also written briefly on this topic of homosexuality and the Pentateuch for IVP's Dictionary of the Pentateuch s.v., "Sexuality, sexual ethics." Now I can put a face to the name I've run across over the years. Thanks for the interesting discussion. -- Joe Sprinkle
One thing that bothers me- whenever they talk about SSA folks, they always make it sound sexual. As if all SSA folks wanna do is have sex with one another. SSA people are human. Most, and many, want the same thing straight people do. Commitment, companionship, someone to hold hands with after a dinner out: someone who loves you for rich or poor, sick or well, someone more than a friend, but not necessarily someone to simply have sex with. There is SOOO much more to loving someone than just wanting to sleep with them. When couples get to a certain age in life, sex can almost be impossible, but what’s left are all the beautiful things I listed above. It’s almost as if these guys are using this verbiage to persuade others of their point. Sure, you’re friends with Christopher yuan and others that may have a similar story. But there are SOOO many others who share a different story and experience to this topic. I respect both men immensely, but wish they wouldn’t try so hard to be salesman.
Well they were discussing what marriage is. Sex is innate in the question. They weren’t trying to argue against homosexuality in general. If they were, I suspect they would have more to say about the non-sexual parts of the relationships. You’re reading things into what they were not even trying to have a conversation about here.
QUESTION: Why do we identify those that experience same sex attraction by their sin struggle? Aren’t we actually affirming them as that when we call them “gay.” We don’t do that with other sin struggles. For instance, I struggle with gluttony. You can take one look at me and know that is my (one of my) sin struggle. I have struggled my entire life but I can’t imagine anyone referring to me as a glutton.
But some do, I know so-called Christians that would look at you but they may not say it but they're thinking it, there is a glutton, but apart from this, the issue is that you think you are, I would say to you this, hand it over to God meaning, if you want to heal my gluttony then you're going to have to do it, because I cannot do it, which means you are set free from your gluttony, so I say to you to do nothing about it, then you will see gods work in you, and the desires of your heart will change, God will change them, because now you have not put the power upon yourself as though you should be doing something about it, I said to the Lord if you want me to stop doing this then it is you who will have to stop me because I cannot stop myself, I am in your hands and your hands alone, and he has changed my life and my heart and cleansed me from many sins, for I have seen his power work in me, and he will do the same to you, so I said again, pray to the Lord and say, my gluttony is in your hands Lord and your hands alone, I will do nothing, praise be to God, amen,
I think you're right about this one. The specificity of our language needs to be up to par with other issues we want to apply the same reason on. If you don't acknowledge that someone is born again and made new in the process of salvation, then you're not approaching it properly. Think of another sin, alcoholism. To be clear this is a very different sin, as a little alcohol isn't umbilical, just being a drunkard. But when someone comes from alcoholism, they are no longer referred to that way, and they aren't identified to their sin. And many alcoholics might say that their old desires are gone, while some might still be tempted. And again, in both cases they aren't identified by their sin. I don't think these guys are wrong in recognizing this kind of desire as a typical scenario, but treating it too seriously, as if it's something you're born with, or giving someone's sin too much credit, is the bigger issue.
Yeah good u noticed that. I don't meet someone, shake their hand, and say "hi I'm Bob, a straight guy!!". I think part of why this was done was to trap people in this sin. So instead of saying I'm a man and I struggle with THIS certain sexual sin? It's become oh well, this is just who I am, how I was born, and it identifies me, so therefore, if u point out THIS sin, u are actually attacking my identity. Making it "this is how God made me" instead of this is simply the specific sin I struggle with and by God's grace can overcome it. It's like by making the sin your identity? You're building a wall of protection around the sin to justify it's action. Average person doesn't want to attack the sinner, but now u can't speak of that sin without being accused of being intolerant of the individual.
Good point. My guess would be that most talks like this are in response to those who identify as homosexual and have a higher commitment to that then the Bible
I'm trying to think of a sin that we tend to discuss so delicately, so gingerly. But God refers to it as an abomination. There's only one sin I know of
@Kreemerz. I would like you to consider, as I have chosen to do, how much same-sex attracted people go through. Because of my son dealing with Gender Dysphoria, I have been in touch with the Center and am reading a book describing believers being belittled and forced into reversal therapy. It is sad how some in the Body of Christ have dealt with their brothers and sisters I do not condone same-sex relationships but it is a delicate issue. ❤️ That's all I am saying
"delicate" what does that mean? it's still a sin. it's still wicked behavior. it's still separates us from God. It's still not condoned. ever. irrespective how strong our heart pulls us into it.@@margaretgrosskreuz8687
as long as you are not promoting any kind of sin. that's the crux of it. I'm not addressing phycological disorders or mental disorders, for those issues are different@@margaretgrosskreuz8687
@margaretgrosskreuz8687 I agree with you. So many straight Christians don't understand that for a LGBT person choosing to follow God literally means a lifetime of singleness and celibacy. God can turn people from sinful behavior but cannot make them attracted to something they're not.
@@GG-vq6royes exactly. Well put...I am aware of my unfair, unloving attitudes for many years, as I was in a legalistic church, not gracious as Jesus has called us to. Very sad. In calling out sin, they are ignoring the one NT command Love bc HE first loved us ☝🏼❤️
Q: Megan DeFranza has some theological push back in the book “Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church”. she brings up a good point in one of her debates, that maybe Genesis is just the beginning of the story, and we were never intended to go back to Eden on this side of Heaven. If Eden was the ideal, then everybody would get married. However, from reading Matthew 19, we know that’s not the case. Maybe Genesis is just the beginning, but doesn’t have to be the end of the story. Also, Jesus’s mention of Eunuchs in Matthew 19 also brings up some good debates. In addition, imagine if these two men never had their wives, never had their children, never had the idea of grand children, and had to live a life without a spouse or children… imagine the heartache that would bring? When men say, I couldn’t imagine my life without my spouse, this is what gay people have to do on a daily basis. I realize this isn’t a theological push back, but I do know that Jesus knows the pain of all gay and lesbian believers who want so badly to marry, but are trying to hold on to scripture. Lastly, In reading the texts, one could easily see that the kind of same sex sex that Paul was seeing was full of idolatry and power. As many books that make reference to Paul seeing same-sex mutual unions, there are many more to affirm that what Paul was seeing may have been mutual between two men of the same status and age, but they were doing it in the form of idolatry. Hence the bible reference “Penalty for their error”. Both men willingly engaged in same sex sex and it was very common for them to do this in the form of idol worship. One could debate this either way.
Yes that's my biggest struggle. The prior verses talk about idolatry and all the sex that would talk place as a form of worship to the idols. ABSOLUTELY!! Sex acts committed by People who actually may have been married or considered heterosexual in our culture.
This was really good. I think what is most important is that we need to change the conversation. While Biblically it is talking about an immoral action and passion, our current society is very much focused on identity. We need to discuss how important it is that our identity is tied to Christ and not to our sexual desires. It would be horrible to always be associated with just my sexual desires. I love my husband and our alone time but I can't imagine that being all that I am. Yet, our society has decided to break people into these categories in which that is the most important factor. It is so odd to me. The pride, the celebration, and the demands...I just can't get my mind around it, still. We need to remind people that our hope is in Christ, our identity becomes Christ, and that sex is only a small portion of our lives. I am not sure why it is so important to us, the way that it is. I guess it has to do with the spiritual bond that comes from the action and the passion. Which leads to even more reason to not let it be an identity.
It is important because the Bible makes it important. God destroyed a whole city because of it. God stated that they are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Their lustful desires make it all about sex. That is all they know. 😢 Not knowing GOD' brings you to wanting everything that's related to the flesh. Soo sad and perverted.
You made a great point that really made me think deeper on this. For Christians, our identity is in Christ alone. But as you brought up, for those who are lost, being thrashed around in the sea of godlessness, despair, fear, uncertainty and with no sure foundation to cling to, they will search to find something, anything to cling to and find their identity in. And right now, it seems that for some reason , sexual identity is that thing. It is heartbreaking to realize and watch happen
This was a fascinating conversation! I’ve done a little research on my own of this issue and kind of gave up because it seemed too complicated. This made it a lot more clear. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful insights on this.
QUESTION: when talking about the Sabbath hermeneutic, my first thought was that Jesus wasn’t actually telling Jews they could break the Sabbath. My understanding is that he was correcting the misunderstanding and misuse of God’s Sabbath command and the intentions behind it. And I suppose one could say the same thing about the sexuality commands, but that just brings us back to the other affirming arguments What are your thoughts on this?
I didn’t read the guests last book but know that 3 well known Christian’s, who used to identify as homosexual, disagreed with many points in that book. Is he changing his position on all or any of these?
My understanding is that Preston's last book was not quite affirming of the gay-lifestyle, but was calling on Christians to be more understanding of them as a struggling group. I'm not sure what has changed (I haven't listened to this fully yet), but my understanding was that Preston's call for understanding has been misinterpreted as affirming. Might be wrong.
My question would be: if you found out what you believe on this issue is not true, would you like to know? And once you find out that your view is wrong, how will you approach all the people who have sought you out to affirm/excuse their sin?
*QUESTION* Why do Christians _never_ address the physical damage of sodomy? Or the severe reduction in lifespan for homosexuals? I once heard a doctor say that he warned his patients about the harm and listed very gruesome things. He said his oath to "do not harm" would not allow him to lie. But Christians ignore this very critical part of the conversation time and again in the name of being cordial or perhaps not being crude. So there's only partial truth. And a big part of the issue is left out. Going on a special diet so that you can participate in atrocious, abominable, destructive acts is very serious in my opinion. I watched my cousin die in his 20s participating in this lifestyle. And I wish Christians would stop sugar coating truth.
@@diggingdeeperbiblically1405 Was that the debate video? I saw that one. Apologia is amazing. They are definitely one of the few that are more focused on God's opinion than man's criticism. ❤ It's like them, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, John MacArthur and maybe a couple others. But it's a rarity to hear that said. I truly appreciate those who unapologetically speak the truth.
But you have to remember that not all gay people are having anal sex, and that lesbians generally dont. And of course, ironically, it seems more and more straight couples are having anal sex probably due to the more widespread use of porn, including amongst Christians. I agree that men's bodies were not designed for each other, but many gay people live to old age just as their straight counterparts.
Sex outiside of the context of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. But that said, everyone is fallen, and need grace. We should love everyone, regardless of their flaws, without saying that the flaws are a good thing.
QUESTION: Should the church focus less on whether gay people should get married or not and start focusing more on the importance and beauty of celibacy and singleness (Jesus and Paul as examples). To instead of focusing and spending time on the problem, to actually focus a lot more on the solution.
Knowing that sin is sin is the first step though. The pastor can suggest single people remain celibate as part of God’s command. That doesn’t address the issue of homosexuality in particular though. I do still think it’s important to talk about that topic in particular, especially considering how prevelant in the culture it is.
QUESTION: how would you respond to this? Sex and romantic relationships are like electricity and running water. They may not be necessary for individual human flourishing, but they undeniably benefit us and forcing certain groups of people to not have it would be equivalent to saying to villagers in africa " hey we all lived without these things for thousands of years so you don't need them and we are going to keep it for ourselves"?
That's a false narrative though Unless you are married, you shouldn't be having sex. Otherwise you are taking from what is Gods, the sacrament of marriage, to suit your own needs. The "eunuchs" who choose to go without for Gods sake are glorified.
Great conversation. The Bible is so obvious on this subject, yet our culture just wants to go by what "feels" right. Thank you both for always speaking with kindness in a non judgmental manner. You both speak truth without being mean.
QUESTION: Whats a biblical response when someone asks what a same-sex married couple (especially w/kids) should do, & how it’s any different than a 2nd marriage if the 1st divorce was unbiblical. They claim both are living in continual sin if you believe the Bible.
@@fernandovergara7791 Yes but my question involves more of what they should do from where they are. If a Christian living in a second marriage doesn’t believe they should divorce because the original divorce and remarriage wasn’t biblical, why should a homosexual in a same-sex marriage believe they should end their marriage, especially if children are involved?
Very illuminating and clarifying discussion thanks guys, I can attest to your arguments , my testimony is a bit extreme, i came to into Christ after getting married to a dude, Paul is completely correct in Corinthians 13 “love is patient, love is kind” Christ didn’t give up on us. Though my husband and I needed to go through this process to understand the Truth is True Love . Jesus has gone to hell for us! And everyone who supported our marriage . The power and love for Jesus is found in a new generation of compassionate believers that didn’t once condemn while we were slowly waking up!!
Real sins are behaviours that harm people. An adulterer (someone who cheats on their partner) hurts their partner. Robbery, rape, sexual abuse, murder aren't just sins but are recognised as crimes and involve a perpetrator and a victim(s). But homosexuality has no perpetrator or victim. In fact its just people living no differently to the way heterosexuals live. Falling in love, having sex, working, building lives together. What's shocking is its not just child or serial killers, in fact even mass murderers can enter the Christian heaven after repenting, whilst innocent homosexuals who've never killed anyone or committed any crime are kept out. This is some twisted and perverted rule made by this Christian God. I observed in the conversation Sean McDowell used 'consensual incest' as a reason for dismissing homosexual marriage as acceptable just because its also consensual. So I refer him to Genesis 26: Then God said, "Let us make a man - someone like ourselves to be master of all life upon Earth and in the skies and in the seas". 27. So God made man like his maker. Like God did God make man. Man and woman did he make them. 28. And God blessed them and told them "Multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; you are masters of the fish and birds and all the animals." So God makes two people a man and a woman (Adam & Eve) and tells them to multiply (have intercourse and give birth to children). Notice the problem here. Who when the children are older are they going to have intercourse with to continue this multiplication of the Earth? Are we to assume each other incestuously? It has to be that if the Bible is to be taken literally. But that then implies God approves of incest. So what's it to be? Genesis is the word of God? So God does approve of incest or Genesis is just an allegorical story? In which case don't take the Bible seriously; or perhaps Genesis and the Bible are a load of made up nonsense? In which case you'd be better advised to avoid.
Is hard to explain but I understand what you wanna say here. And I tottaly agree that Bible has some weird things in it especially in the Old Testament
I very much appreciate this research and discussion! Hard topic! God bless you both! I believe in man woman biblical marriage and see homosexuality as a result of living in a fallen world. Confident Gods grace and love heals ❤
COMMENT/QUESTION: Since the Supreme Court decision in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges) has legalized gay marriage, how should Christians politically engage on this topic?
Nothing to say really unless you think religious beliefs should be advocated as law. If you do, there really isn't a polite way to say it because you are using your personal faith to advocate against other people's personal freedoms. There is no polite way to advocate for that. If you want to be polite, just say, "I don't agree with it, but I don't think religious beliefs should determine governmental policy."
@@WaterCat5 I think that all laws legislate morality. The debate comes in when we ask “Whose morality should be legislated?” The atheist? The Christian? The secular humanist? The Muslim? I don’t think there is a way to NOT advocate a person’s beliefs as law, whether they are religious or not.
@@jonathanguerrero5617 I agree! Which is why we should base our beliefs off demonstrable facts wherever possible. In this case, because homosexual union has, at minimum, a net zero impact with no serious downsides, there is no reason to think it is wrong. The issue is that Christians think their religion is a fact. Your point is precisely why religion is toxic to a diverse democracy. It advocates the acceptance of potentially false information based solely on authority. It is a dictatorship.
How bout the fact that there is “nothing new under the sun”? That right there shows Paul was at least in a culture (because it’s not new) where consensual same sex relationships existed and was at least aware of the possibility of them if not them in actuality.
Thank God for the Corinthians! I grew up in the Silicone Valley near San Francisco. And now live in Santa Cruz. A lot of people compare the Corinthians to San Francisco. What an excellent timely thoughtful show. Brilliant men giving their knowledge and insights away! True big brother vibe coming through. Thank you so much guys, very helpful. I agree about Bible authority. I feel having the common ground as Bible authority is the challenge of our century. I'm going to watch this again. So much great stuff here, heavy. McDowell is a national treasure at this point. He brings class with the fire and is afraid of no topic.
QUESTION: is it harmful to mention predisposition to alcohol abuse as an example to illustrate how innate desires don't necessarily lead to human flourishing?
It feels risky being so detailed in small word shifts when we are reading a text that wasn’t written in our native tongue. Usually when we retell something it’s not exactly the same. Could this simply be the reason a verse is written differently? And are we over analysing?
No! God word can Not be hidden. People love to say the word has been changed or manipulated just so they can say they don't know & do what they want. The Bible is not wrong.
Good discussion. One of the things I'll say is that we can't allow "emotional guilt trip ploys" to deter us from the truth! What do I mean? Saying things like: "Your theology is "harmful" to gay people", or, I'm going to commit suicide if I can't do this, or have this relationship" is a way to "guilt" people into affirming their lifestyle/sin. Am I denying that some gay people have attempted, actually committed, or thought about suicide because of the struggle? Absolutely not! Those stories are sad and hurt my heart. But that can't be what determines truth! I think the gay community uses that to their advantage if you will, to make people affirm their sin. I struggle with SSA myself, and have most of my life. Although I've never thought about suicide or harming myself {by the Grace of GOD!} I don't deny the truth of that reality. But again, that's not how we determine if something is true or not. Scripture is the final authority on the issue. Anyway, just my thoughts. Again, good interview. And glad they affirm the truth of scripture. GOD bless.
Thank you guys for doing this discussion. My daughter has a Methodist friend that goes to an affirming church and was interested in these arguments. Really, the best argument I've seen is that no where in the Bible is same sex relationships/ marriage is it spoken about in a positive affirming manner. Therefore don't believe it be God's design. I however, at the same time don't believe we should ever treat friends or family that practice same sex badly. I also grieve the stories I hear of them being treated badly- bullying, harassment, kicking them out etc. However, how do you think the church should respond when gay/lesbians want to be in leadership and feel rejected and spiritual abuse when the church doesn't.
This is a slippery slope. Preston starts with a Biblical foundation, then he uses philosophy to move you away from the truth of the Bible. Born again means we’ve died to the old nature. We no longer identify as our sin. Gal 2:20
Could you please clarify “harm” more. Some LGB friends view any kind of orthodox stature regarding LGB relations and/or view that as being “harmful” and threatening in modern Western secular cultures.
If Eric loves Fred (ie an example of two random men) Best scenario : "Dear God, unless you, (God only could do this if he so wished!) turn one of us into an actual woman, (with God all things are possible, but not necessarily his will!) We will content ourselves to be affectionate but platonic friends. Your will be done, (not always easy, but best because you love us! )
I think abstinence should also be included in the discussion, relating to not sinning. If people burn in desires outside God’s design, they don’t have to have sex. Feeding fleshy desire makes the flesh want more, kinda like simple carbs can make you crave and overeat.
QUESTION In argument number 10 you discussed the idea that homosexual relationships at least put your soul in jeopardy. How do we as Christians balance that view with the idea that we are saved through grace alone and not by the things we do and don’t do?
I like your question! I don’t think they are correct in saying it puts your soul in Jeopardy. We are saved by grace. It is a gift of God, one sacrifice to make us righteous. Thanks!
But at the same time Paul puts unrepentant homosexuals in the category of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Just a confusing issue and I hope they see my question and add clarification.
I say it all goes back to a humans heart and intent. What were the intent of the men and women in Romans 1?? Was it a sexuality they tried to fight and control at least in a faithful committed relationship or was it a whatever goes were they only out to satisfy flesh and worship idols by having sex for fertility reasons?
Was the purpose of them going against nature a greedy choice of sexual pleasure alone? When he says exchange is it an exchange like was it mentioned out of greed? Were the sexual orgies performed by worshipping idols because they didn't have faith in God for the fertility issues? This is a very different context than 2 Christians who live a christlike life but happen to have different attractions.
I appreciate Preston’s ministry and I’m also confused that some very well known ministers have called him out because of his “exiles in Babylon” book/curriculum. I haven’t looked into this book to form my own opinion, but I wish that there can be a conversation between Preston and Christopher Yuan, Beckett Cook, Rosaria Butterfield and Alisa Childers to clear up everyone’s position/theology on this.
As a non-Christian, I find this conversation interesting. It seems like culturally same sex unions are becoming more acceptable. Making theology based objections to it both unconvincing and, for many, distasteful. This pushes younger generationsaway from traditional Christianity. It seems like this creates pressure for Christians to shift (and to reinterpret their texts). These shifts help them stay culturally relevant, but absolutely abandon some of the clear teaching of their scriptures. Not sure what I'm trying to say, I guess it just strikes me as a focal point for an interesting tension between being faithful to the writer's intent in the scriptures and being culturally relevant.
I find your comment interesting and thoughtful. I guess what it boils down to is- is it necessary for Christianity to be culturally relevant ? My answer is yes and no. Yes in the sense that the bible was written a long time ago and set in a culture very different to the one we live in today. In that sense certain things cannot be translated directly into our modern world- the stories need to be studied in context for their true meaning to be understood. Categorically no though when it comes to what it teaches about human sexuality, Jesus, what God sees as right and wrong and many other things - these are timeless truths and to change them to fit our culture is to change God's word to suit our own desires. Sexuality is the obsession of our current culture, but historically the bible has been used to justify things like the slave trade which clearly would not have been in line with its teachings. We can't just twist God's word to make it adhere to the desires of our modern culture.
Thank you Sean. This is one of my favorite videos of yours. I love Preston and the Center. I love the fair and well-thought out dialogue, such compassion and yet not deviating fromGod's plan for marriage. My son, as I'm coming to understand the term, is struggling with Gender Dysphoria. I am reading a book recommended to me entitled STILL TIME TO CARE. So informative. Breaks my heart what some believers have subjected their siblings to, in the name of Christianity. Jesus did not bully people. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us, to temper our speech with Grace. A big thank you to both of you Love to you and your families 💯📖❤️🎶
56:19 Hey Sean, I just wanted to push back on the idea that Jesus didn’t imply that we could make this same type of jump. He specifically uses an example of this when he says, “who of you, when your son or your ox falls into a pit, even on the sabbath wouldn’t save them?” Luke 14:5 And then in mark says, “the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” Mark 2. It seems that while Jesus does not negate the law, in fact in many places he seems to intensify it, he does expect that this line on the sabbath would have already been taking place and points towards it happening more often. He points to past precedent in a sense, rather than an in breaking of his coming be the central reason for the sabbath leniency.
Dr. Sprinkle, you mention shame negatively several times throughout this conversation and I'm wondering if shame avoidance is more of a secular expectation in life. I think it plays a large part of the "harm" aspect of culture you discussed. Can't we expect most unbelievers, when faced with the truth and as they are being drawn to Jesus, to feel shame at the God-given realization of their own sinfulness, no matter how it "presents?" But I know that believers should never "heap shame" on others, as we ourselves have been forgiven much! Just wondering how to navigate that line in an ultra-sensitive culture!
Question: Preston mentioned he has spent much time investigating this issue with a possibility to become affirming if he felt that scripture taught it. That’s a stunning presupposition for a Christian. My question is, why is that really necessary when we know from the whole of the Bible that the perfect order that God created is male and female together, not any alternatives, and that changing that order results in devastating moral and civilizational consequences, even in the extinction of humanity, as the alternatives cannot produce life? Why spend so much time seeking an alternative answer when it is obvious to even the uneducated that this is true?
So I’ve got a question for which I have not been able to get a solid answer. How do you square the religious implications of gay marriage vs the civil rights implications of gay marriage? Let me try to unpack this. There are a lot of civil rights that are afforded to married couples that are not afforded to unmarried couples, regardless of gender in the marriage. In the US, probate, adoption, and filing jointly on taxes come to mind. As it stands, if you happen to be a gay couple that is unmarried and one of you happens to die, probate dictates that your belongings go to the nearest living relative. So if you’ve been in the same homosexual marriage for 20 years, your belongings would go to….your mother (??), not your partner of 20 years, sans marriage. If you’re utilizing a government entity to adopt a child, one of the metrics they look at for the stability of the household is longevity of marriage. Let’s say that marriage is a religious institution, and the religious ought calls to the legal is, doesn’t this make a giant call to separation of church and state. To use redutio ad absurdum, if I were not allowed to attend public university because I haven’t celebrated a bar mitzvah, how would you look at that scenario? So, to counter my own is-ought fallacy…let’s say marriage shouldn’t be legal only to justify the civil rights ramifications that would come along with it destroying the Christian worldview of the sanctity of marriage (though it could be argued that the sanctity of marriage went the way of the dodo when they had drive through marriages officiated by Elvis). What would you replace marriage with? Objectively, length of marriage is a decent indicator on the stability of the household prior to an adoption…with adoption needing a stable household. What would you replace marriage with to indicate that stability? What system would you put in place to file taxes jointly, and not constantly be gaming the government? What system would you put in place to have assurances that in the probate system, a conniving mother isn’t paid in lieu of a long term homosexual partner? And, keep in mind, in order to make sense, the system that is replacing marriage would have to be as easy as the umbrella that marriage affords homosexuals on a civil rights basis. I’m halfway through the video and loving it so far. As an atheist, it helps me understand my parents’ worldview just a bit more. And I know the premise of the video is a biblical based argument. But, how can you convince a large swath of people that see referring to the Bible in a *legal* context (and if you’re being intellectually and logically honest, this will apply to you as well) as anything but a call to authority?
I'm not hearing any commentaries on how this is our view as the church of God, but can't impose our view on the world at large, and how we will respect the laws of the country. How are we going to treat them if they wanted to become members of our church, etc.
QUESTION: My question is about the idea of homosexual 'orientation' vs. homosexual action. Obviously, being tempted toward sin is not itself a sin, but Jesus seems to indicate that dwelling or ruminating on temptation (in your mind) is a sin - see the sermon on the Mount. The message here seems to be that it is not simply about 'outward' behavior, but the condition or 'orientation' of the heart toward sin. Jesus equates lusting after a woman with the sin of adultery so there is some sort of nuance and demarcation here. How does your assertion that people can 'be homosexual' and not act on it align with this distinction? Also, it seems Church movements (like ReVoice, etc.) that are asserting one can be a Christian and live in 'celibate homosexual relationships' stretch this idea of temptation not being a sin. These assume the reality of 'homosexual identity,' which seems to cede the fundamental principle. How is this different than the old distinction between 'doing everything but intercourse' as heterosexual teens (so-called 'heavy petting') being somehow ok. This celibate homosexuality seems to make the same theological/biblical error as the EBI perspective. Finally, the idea of orientation seems to miss the point that we are 'fallen' and indeed all 'oriented' toward sin of one kind or another. There is a distinction between being tempted to sin and affirming a sinful 'identity' - it that makes sense. Thanks for any insights or thoughts on these ideas.
I can still find it as just “homosexual” on google but maybe I used different search words. Anyways, thank you for handling your arguments with openness, Grace, and no hint of disgust or hatred. Sharing your journey on how open minded and willing you were to change your mind but still finding that the arguments didn’t hold up to scrutiny was a really great way to present the information and I wish more popes could be like the both of you. So many people give up Christianity when they find out they’re lgbtq and a lot of the reason is the Christians, but only because not all Christians are like the two of you. Ofc, plenty are,too-and a lack of understanding that has lead to Christianphobia as a counter to homophobia. I know I did for a long time before coming back, except I didn’t go as far as having this full blown Christianphobia myself, although I was still uneasy around Christians for fear of how they would react to our differences. So thank you so much! 💜
QUESTION: Where/when does church discipline play a role, with eventual excommunication from a church if one does not repent? I can't make someone not sin, that's between the Holy Spirit and the individual. if we shouldn't excommunicate a same-sex couple from a church then why not er on the side of grace?
COMMENT/QUESTION: Clarification is needed regarding "sex and marriage is [or isn't] necessary for human flourishing." I think you're equating "flourishing" with fulfillment, meaning, and purpose in life on an individual level. On a broad level of mankind, I would argue sex and marriage is necessary for human flourishing. We're commanded to be fruitful and multiply. This is another reason why same-sex relationships are not good for society. However, though singles may not contribute to human flourishing and perpetuating the next generation, that doesn't mean their life can't be fulfilling, and like Paul, be focused on ministry without the distraction and responsibility of a family. That's really your point, I think, but I wouldn't call it human flourishing.
The "mother and father" the man leaves are of the same flesh as the man. He becomes "one flesh" with a woman who was not of that same flesh. A husband and wife form something unique, a new kinship.
I have always suspected the thorn in Paul's side might've been same-sex desire. It might help explain his call to celibacy & his begging to have the thorn removed.
Consent is not a pillar of biblical sexual morality, as to allow an opening for gay relationships. If consent determined moral value, it would allow adultery free and clear.
QUESTION: What would you say is the best book on the traditional/historically Christian view of marriage and the best book on the same-sex/affirming view of marriage? Scholarly or laymen level. Thanks!
The argument that "No one thought there was an inborn orientation in the ancient world", in addition to being provably false, also outsmarts itself. Were people with those desires THEMSELVES unaware of this? If the answer is No, then yes, there were those who believed it. If the answer is yes, then the desire itself isn't that compelling if it goes unrecognized until very recent times.
QUESTION about Sexual orientation and gender identity… Would an affirmation of everyone being born in sin (Psalms 51:5, Romans 5:12-14) help to dispel the notion that sexual orientation being “natural” meaning it is somehow therefore not sin?
How far should we be aloud to go in order to stop same sex marriages? With the separation of church and state, why should the state be the ones the dictate who can marry who according to religious beliefs? How much of someone’s free will should be taken away, and would God want that?
Just a note to add, is the whole separation of church and state was to ONLY separate the state from the church, not the other way around. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Our founding fathers involved God in the formulation of our constitution. All that to say, the church should never back down and violate their moral conscience. God bless.
You appear to think that being a Christian is mandatory. If homosexuals want to get married we as Christians should do nothing to stop them. You should be ashamed for even suggesting the idea that we should try to stop them. What we need to do is kick them out of the church to go get married by the state and wish them luck and encourage and support their decision. When someone is in the church, they are subject to our judgement and we must judge accordingly. Anyone outside of the church, we may not judge. It's very simple when you choose to be direct and to the point.
The separation of church and state is not in the US Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that to a Baptist preacher concerned with the government attempting to govern from the pulpit. Jefferson was assuring him this would not be the case using the phrase, "separation of church and state."
Just finished listening to his book Embodied on audiobook! Fabulous author and great at defending the faith in a way that's loving and dignifies LGBT+ people!
It is tiring being gay and celibate, soul destroying in many ways. Sometimes I think straight men like Sean (Im assuming) should think about how they would feel if they woke up tomorrow with no wife or kids, were told their attraction to women was 'unnatural' and their only option was to be celibate and likely lonely the rest of their lives. Regardless of one's views on gay sexuality, in many ways I dont blame people for wanting 'equality' and just to be able to live the sort of life that straight people typically lead.
You’re brave being honest here in this space where most people have a traditional outlook. My heart goes out to you and I feel your pain. I have a gay sister and brother and daughter and the harm that has been caused to them by well meaning biblical Christians is the real moral issue here. I think Jesus is far more concerned about the welfare of the minority and would be calling out the evangelical stance as mostly hypocrisy. Go and find an affirming congregation. Your psychological and spiritual welfare are of paramount importance. Look after yourself.
Hi! I am straight, and a never-been-kissed and never-did-it sort of celibate. I am in full time ministry as well. Yes, it can be very lonely, sometimes debilitatingly so. That was my experience for more than a decade as I saw everyone around me getting married. But one devastating event happened in my life and it was through that that my perspective changed. Yes, I still wonder what could've been had I gotten married but I see why it has to be this way more clearly now. Bring to God all your hurts and ask Him to give you the strength and grace to hang on to Him and His promises. He sees. He knows. He cares.
@@SallyS99 I’m sorry but your response has be called out here. Not only does it completely lack Christian love and compassion, or really and basic humanity, but it totally fails to address the reality of life. This is why most non Christians stay away from the church because these days evangelical equals stupid
if you who are watching this video and have had to come to the painful but correct decision to no longer recognise your same sex celibate marriage, after years of being conflicted by the issue, then you are not the only person to go through this trial. You know your identity is in Christ alone and all other identities are of no importance. You are an adopted child of your Heavenly Father because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, your Saviour and Lord, friend and brother.
Thank you both for taking the time to delve into this. I appreciate both of your work. Preston, I love to listen to Theology in the Raw. QUESTION - One thing that I've heard, but I haven't heard a thoughtful Christian response on is this: that the recent rise in homosexuality and in God honoring people who affirm same sex marriage is that we've entered a new dispensation where God is changing the focus of marriage. It's kinda a mixture of the "movement of history" argument and the "Paul didn't know about consensual partnerships" mixed with high-sounding theology. The argument goes that Israel had strict purity laws for food and clothing, but that all changed in the book of Acts so that gentiles would be welcomed. That change wasn't restoring anything Eden-ic, and was a huge stumbling point for Peter. Same sex marriage wasn't a thing in the ancient world, and the earth still needing to be replenished, so God reaffirmed the mosaic law and Genesis. We've reached a point in history where the earth has been replenished, so I've heard the argument that God's new dispensation towards marriage focuses some people and therefore marriages just on the aspects of love and also of orphan care. How would you respond to that?
I'd wonder where one could get that. If it contradicts Scripture in several ways, and you don't get it from Scripture, then we can discount it. Israel's ritual laws were not based in inherent nature, but rather were symbolic of how they were set apart for God. Jesus fulfilled the Law, not so that gentiles would be welcomed, but because the purpose of the Law was to show people their imperfection apart from Him and their need for Him. Romans, especially chapters 1 and 3, are sufficient to respond to this argument, but Romans chapters 9-11 are also very relevant. I suggest reading those.
You should look up Mike Wingers responses on homosexuality. Not sure which video it's in but somewhere in that playlist he talks about how they actually did have loving consensual same sex relationships and it was still called out. It was really interesting seeing how similar their culture was to our current
I also have heard that, same sex marriage is a "new dispensation." They say that the 1st century Jews simply, were not ready. The simple answer, is that it is a question of "authority." Who has more authority than Jesus or Paul? Remembering that Paul was the apostle sent to the gentiles. Paul was the man who was given the authority to tell the gentiles that they did not have to become Jews and along with the 1st council what they, the gentiles should observe. It included to abstain from sexual immorality. God does not change. What was sexually immoral in the Old Testament remains immoral in the New. Jesus, in the gospels re-affirms that God, from the beginning, made them male and female and they become one. The man cleaves to his "wife" and they become one flesh. That's the authority. Paul in Romans 1 establishes that God turns people over to homosexuality as a punishment for 1) not honoring God, 2) serving and worshiping the creature rather than the creator. I know Jesus' authority and I know Paul's authority, but who ever is saying, there is a "new" dispensation, has no Biblical authority. Hope that helps.
If I'm not mistaken the 1st command to humans is found in Gen 1:28. Adam and Steve couldn't fulfill such a command. Plus our definition of marriage involves a 3rd person (not counting God) which is the State. Getting a non-God-loving State involved with matters of God only results in at best confusion or worse, the world we have now.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol , a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
Jesus also maps the Sabbath typology into his fulfillment of the law and prophets and Paul later affirms that Sabbath rest was a shadow of Christ. Since Christ uses Biblical marriage typology to speak of the church's relation to himself. Old testament as well between God and Israel. Wouldnt you have to break form with how writers refers this relationship between us and God or break form with what the Sabbath is in its essence for this objection about Sabbath practice to be be true of same sex?
Lucifer is the God of this world. If he wants to make one straight, bi, gay, or transm he can for it's his world. So, yes, we (angel yoked with a demon) are born this way. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
You say you affirm the historic Christian view, but you should scope that to this topic. There's loads of traditions you teach that contrast historical Christianity, unless you limit historical Christianity to the protestant reformation, and even then.
40:09 Or the apostle Paul, writing under the influence of divine inspiration, did a have better grasp on human sexuality and sexual orientation than we do today. And his pronouncements of them as being “given up” is his judgement on a creation that has not graduated in its understanding of sexuality-but rather degenerated in it.
Comment...You know I worked with a gay guy and for the first time I felt safe around a male. Why is it that this sin is like the most horrible sin meanwhile the church is stuffing their faces with food. Isn't gluttony a sin equal to homosexuality. Which sin sends you to hell? Isn't that all of them?
Sean you should create a Spotify you upload your content to. You have a lot of good stuff I would like to listen to but not exactly able to on here all the time
Concerning the definition of marriage, lately I've been pondering the concepts of legal marriage verses biblical marriage. I've wondered, when did marriage become the purview of the state? It's obviously possible to have a legal marriage that is not biblical. But is it possible to have a Biblical marriage that is not legal? My initial thought, is that in today's society we tend to conflate the two...but is that correct?
QUESTION With respect to “one flesh”, isn’t God’s commandment in Gen 1:28, to “be fruitful and multiply” one of the purposes fulfilled by the one flesh union of male and female, and should therefor be included in interpretation of 2:24? In a dame sex union, procreation is not biologically possible, so it doesn’t fulfill the full purpose of God creating a helper for Adam. Eve wasn’t just there to address Adam’s loneliness.
Question: My daughter who came out as gay a couple years ago and has since “married” her partner. We don’t allow them to sleep together in our home either before or since their union. That makes them upset with us because, “we don’t accept them the way God made them to be.” We want to stay true to God’s word over all, and we would like to keep some semblance of a relationship with them if possible. Is there a way to not compromise the Word but still keep a relationship with our daughter?
What do you think that you're accomplishing by not letting them sleep together in your home when they do it every night when they're not staying there? This is petty stuff.
Of course. Jesus didn’t shy away from relationship with anyone. He also spoke the truth in love. So you should keep doing what you’re doing. It sounds like you’re maintaining a relationship to keep her in your life but also being clear what your moral boundaries are. How she responds in between her and God, but to me it sounds like you’re doing what God expects. Just love her and be respectful but also truthful. At some point when her heart softens to God, she will appreciate you keeping the lines of communication open.
@@joebriggs5781Because it’s sexual immorality. Would you let your 16 year old and their significant other sleep together in your house? Even if they’re already doing it? Of course not. It’s one thing to know that someone is going out and doing something. That doesn’t mean it has to be tolerated behavior within one’s own house. We have a right to allow or disallow what we want to in our own home. Everyone does.
@@desertrose0601 Would I let my 16 year old and their significant other sleep together in my house? No, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. If they are an adult and married, like this person says her daughter is, then absolutely. You're trying to convolute this and say that an adult, consensual homosexual relationship is somehow the same thing as allowing a 16 year old to sleep together with their partner in their home.
Idk a lot of things and am not an expert, but I just can't personally reconcile God's commandments to love with the way we treat homosexuals. How can true love be a sin? Im not talking about sexual immorality, I mean pure and simple love that everyone desires. God makes intersex people with literally both ovaries and testicles, what are they to do? Are they to be denied a loving relationship and treated as an abomination?
Two thoughts about #9 Many or most Christians have had gut wrenching regret at how the “talk” went once it finally happened. As a sibling of a gay brother, I know first hand. Perhaps there was suspicions, hints, or full knowledge of the other person’s journey. Parents for example, know far more than they let be known, for a number of reasons. Siblings, also can figure things out. I put 2 and 2 together quickly many years ago about my sibling. While the premise that our theology itself causes harm is serious, and sad acknowledgment that harm has indeed come to a dear loved one, here are a few thoughts for those so accused. We don’t know how to respond, so our words are not rehearsed or planned. This is usually the mother, father, brother or sister, and friend. We stumble, and crudely blurt out what pops into our heads first. Unfortunately that is likely the wrong thing to say. While the person advancing a proposition, usually has a better handle on the issues, the person responding doesn’t. They have likely, and understandably, done a lot of research, talked to a lot of people, over a long period of time. Second, the biblical admonition to Christians in these situations is really and truly one of the hardest things of our faith. We are to love the “sinner”, but hate the sin. Not intending to be trite here, and brevity of the forum makes this a little harsh, but it is the truth. Most, if not all truly love the person in question--deeply. They long for a reconciling conversation, but how to be faithful to God and HIs Word on the one hand, and simultaneously communicate love, is difficult, requiring true Spirit guidance. Contrast this with what the world has to do, with no authoritative moorings, Love the sinner, and accept, and love, and proclaim the sin. Oh and also stop calling it sin. Okay that’s easy.
Yes. My brother cut me off when I told him I can’t change the scriptures because they hurt him, and that I let the Bible dictate what is or is not sin within my beliefs. 😢 It didn’t matter that I’d only ever treated him as a brother, welcomed him and his partner into our family, or believe most straight sex in our country is ALSO sin… If I believe sex outside of the Biblically outlined dictates is sinful, he doesn’t want anything to do with me. Lost a brother over this one. Drove the knife right back into his heart. 😞 There is no nice way to say it.
@@tomtuura6904 I think he was shocked because I'd never treated him differently but still held these Biblical beliefs about sexuality. From his worldview, a Christian has to treat gay people differently or meanly. From mine, we're all the same - sinners in need of Jesus.
The historic Christian view of marriage is that it was a contract enforced by the Roman state. There was no sacrament of marriage for the first three centuries. Marriage became controlled by religion when the Roman Empire became a Christian theocracy. We don’t live in a theocracy. Therefore marriage is the property of the secular state.
I think the challenge with Jesus saying for this reason..created male and female..become one flesh, is that the context of that statement is in direct response to a question about divorce, so he wasn't really responding at all or commenting at all on same-sex unions.
whats the traditional view of marriage if u go by geneiss and adam and eve one man and one woman then what about Jacob he had more then one wfe so thats not one man and one woman
QUESTION: Jesus is returning for his Bride, which consists of both men and women. Is Jesus breaking the created order by being wedded to men? ARGUMENT: I'm not suggesting that Jesus is going to have sexual relations with his Bride. I'm only demonstrating that marriage in its truest sense is about intimacy and relationship, and biological compatibility for sex may not be God's priority. Although God may have originally created marriage for man and woman, he might be more flexible than you are giving him credit for.
@@annairwin8147 I'm asking about the requirements for Gentile Christians, when the Apostles said Gentiles don't need to follow the law of Moses they said Gentiles should abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled meat and blood. Should we require Christians to accept these Apostolic instructions regarding food? I'm convinced we should abstain from sexual immorality and idolatry but not sure how the instructions regarding what to eat fit with other NT texts where you can eat anything. Acts 15:19-20 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
My understanding is that the 10 commandments were for the Israelites and believers have been grafted in but Jesus repeated all 10 except for the 7th day Sabbath. And made some harder to keep but we have the Holy Spirit
What about the scripture from Paul? 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? How do we explain away that? Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God do not be deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God and such were some of you but you were washed but you were sanctified but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God.
Adultery is tagged alongside same-sex behaviors in all of the vice lists of early Christianity. These days, we have made accommodations for people to remarry, and this sin is at least as serious, or to my mind, much more serious for the health of families. However, there are no Side A (allowed to remarry), Side B (remain celibate) or Side X (need to go back to first spouse) debates for heterosexuals on this issue. What we do should be as grace- based for everyone. As celibacy is not biblically mandated and if we expect all gay people to be celibate, what grace is there for them if they don't have this capacity/gift? We have heard many stories of our gay siblings experiencing how deeply this aloneness affects their mental health. Shouldn't there be grace for them as there is for those who are divorced and remarrying?
about 46 minutes in it depends what we actually mean by "homosexual" whether we are talking about an attraction, orientation or identity, whether we are talking about a transvestite male acting out a caricature of a woman or whether we are talking about someone actually having relations with another person of the same sex. A passage that I haven't heard brought up yet (maybe it was and I missed it) is in 1 Thessalonians 1 from verse 9 where Paul talks about the law not being made for the righteous but the unrighteous, wherein he speaks about homosexuals and sodomites as two categories rather than one. Now we know from the story of the angels visiting Lot in Sodom what a Sodomite is. Some interlinear bibles might even translate it literally as "male bedder" and so we know that this is the actual sex act. What I interpret "homosexual" as in this context, would be like a cross-dressing male acting out his mental projection of what it is to be a woman, and his interpretation of what it means to have a female personality (which is usually a caricature in my observation, similar to Dylan Bud-light...I know his real last name but forgot how to spell it 😝Deuteronomy 22 has a verse that says that a man should not dress like a woman and a woman must not dress like a man...and I've heard some toasty arguments about that like "women shouldn't wear pants" and I knew someone who went to a church who had that as one of their CORE DOCTRINES, yikes!!! But what I think it really means is that the differentiation between a man and a woman should be clear and distinct, so that we shouldn't have to wonder whether someone is male or female or ask "what is a woman". Genesis 1 says that in the image of God made He him, male and female made He them. I don't believe that this excludes women from the image of God, but rather than men and women reflect their gendered part in the image of God, and the one flesh union of marriage completes His image reflected in us
Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
This was a very valuable conversation, thank you for your humility and honesty as you sought to approach the scriptures fairly.
I’m
I owe Preston a sincere apology for a condemning comment I made in the pre-stream post before this discussion. I jumped to conclusions and I was being a pharisee. I am sorry.
Just go delete it
@user-ih8nz3ll3h Original comment not there for very long. There were 2 responses to me there why I immediately edited the post and apologized there too at the time.
That's good of you to apologize. Kudos to you for being humble
Amen.
Good job for recognizing your fault.
1:34 - What do you hope to accomplish in this book/interview?
3:35 - What is the historic Christian view of marriage and why does scripture support that view?
---
6:30 - " 'One flesh' does not imply sex difference."
16:45 - "Paul was not talking about consensual same-sex relationships."
25:48 - "Romans 1 is condemning excessive lust, not same-sex relationships."
34:58 - "The biblical writers didn't know about sexual orientation."
43:49 - "The word 'homosexual' was added to the Bible in 1946."
50:41 - "Jesus's Sabbath hermeneutics informs how we should interpret same-sex prohibitions."
59:38 - "God's acceptance of Gentiles mirrors how we should accept LGB people today."
1:06:26 - "The trajectory of women and slavery justifies same-sex prohibitions."
1:12:02 - "The traditional view of marriage is harmful towards same-sex attracted people."
1:26:04 - "It's an 'agree-to-disagree' issue."
@SeanMcDowell
Please pin this comment.
On the “one flesh” issue, an important point that I didn’t hear mentioned is that the capacity for reproduction resides only in heterosexual union. For this reason, some Catholic thinkers speak of “the human reproductive organism” as a composite being with a power/capacity that neither of its “constituents” have in themselves. To me, this idea of a new organic unity grounded in heterosexual union is the most compelling way of understanding “one flesh.”
The problem for me in this is how does this become relatable to someone who is only attracted to the same sex? That’s more of a Birds Eye view.
But just telling a person with SSA that they can’t get married because they can’t reproduce is not fundamentally going to change anything for them.
And to me this is where the conversation needs work with people who are homosexual or their allies who defend them or their right to marry…is what’s next for them then?
Appreciate Preston relooking at “one flesh” vs “flesh”. Word studies done poorly can lead people into looking at all the possibilities a greek or hebrew word can mean and grasp at something without letting the context of the passage determine it.
what they are doing is playing on words,
We so appreciate the way you engage and have conversations. You embody grace and truth in the way you engage all of your guests.
Preston. From one Bible scholar named Sprinkle to another, greetings. Occasionally I've been asked if we are related. I suspect so since Sprinkle is such a rare last name, but the link must be a number of generations back. My area is OT. I have also written briefly on this topic of homosexuality and the Pentateuch for IVP's Dictionary of the Pentateuch s.v., "Sexuality, sexual ethics." Now I can put a face to the name I've run across over the years. Thanks for the interesting discussion. -- Joe Sprinkle
Thanks Joe. That’s cool!
One thing that bothers me- whenever they talk about SSA folks, they always make it sound sexual. As if all SSA folks wanna do is have sex with one another. SSA people are human. Most, and many, want the same thing straight people do. Commitment, companionship, someone to hold hands with after a dinner out: someone who loves you for rich or poor, sick or well, someone more than a friend, but not necessarily someone to simply have sex with. There is SOOO much more to loving someone than just wanting to sleep with them. When couples get to a certain age in life, sex can almost be impossible, but what’s left are all the beautiful things I listed above. It’s almost as if these guys are using this verbiage to persuade others of their point. Sure, you’re friends with Christopher yuan and others that may have a similar story. But there are SOOO many others who share a different story and experience to this topic. I respect both men immensely, but wish they wouldn’t try so hard to be salesman.
Exactly 🩵
They don't like to respond to this because the only way they can cope with shunning people that are gay is to pretend that all they care about is sex
Well they were discussing what marriage is. Sex is innate in the question. They weren’t trying to argue against homosexuality in general. If they were, I suspect they would have more to say about the non-sexual parts of the relationships. You’re reading things into what they were not even trying to have a conversation about here.
Good thoughts! I just wrote a comment today on this post & so it is way at the top of the comments. It is quite long but might encourage you,
QUESTION:
Why do we identify those that experience same sex attraction by their sin struggle? Aren’t we actually affirming them as that when we call them “gay.” We don’t do that with other sin struggles. For instance, I struggle with gluttony. You can take one look at me and know that is my (one of my) sin struggle. I have struggled my entire life but I can’t imagine anyone referring to me as a glutton.
But some do, I know so-called Christians that would look at you but they may not say it but they're thinking it, there is a glutton, but apart from this, the issue is that you think you are, I would say to you this, hand it over to God meaning, if you want to heal my gluttony then you're going to have to do it, because I cannot do it, which means you are set free from your gluttony, so I say to you to do nothing about it, then you will see gods work in you, and the desires of your heart will change, God will change them, because now you have not put the power upon yourself as though you should be doing something about it, I said to the Lord if you want me to stop doing this then it is you who will have to stop me because I cannot stop myself, I am in your hands and your hands alone, and he has changed my life and my heart and cleansed me from many sins, for I have seen his power work in me, and he will do the same to you, so I said again, pray to the Lord and say, my gluttony is in your hands Lord and your hands alone, I will do nothing, praise be to God, amen,
I think you're right about this one. The specificity of our language needs to be up to par with other issues we want to apply the same reason on.
If you don't acknowledge that someone is born again and made new in the process of salvation, then you're not approaching it properly. Think of another sin, alcoholism. To be clear this is a very different sin, as a little alcohol isn't umbilical, just being a drunkard. But when someone comes from alcoholism, they are no longer referred to that way, and they aren't identified to their sin. And many alcoholics might say that their old desires are gone, while some might still be tempted. And again, in both cases they aren't identified by their sin.
I don't think these guys are wrong in recognizing this kind of desire as a typical scenario, but treating it too seriously, as if it's something you're born with, or giving someone's sin too much credit, is the bigger issue.
Yeah good u noticed that. I don't meet someone, shake their hand, and say "hi I'm Bob, a straight guy!!". I think part of why this was done was to trap people in this sin. So instead of saying I'm a man and I struggle with THIS certain sexual sin? It's become oh well, this is just who I am, how I was born, and it identifies me, so therefore, if u point out THIS sin, u are actually attacking my identity. Making it "this is how God made me" instead of this is simply the specific sin I struggle with and by God's grace can overcome it. It's like by making the sin your identity? You're building a wall of protection around the sin to justify it's action. Average person doesn't want to attack the sinner, but now u can't speak of that sin without being accused of being intolerant of the individual.
....maybe because they identify with that label and apply it to themselves. Straight people don't run gay pride parades....
Good point. My guess would be that most talks like this are in response to those who identify as homosexual and have a higher commitment to that then the Bible
I'm trying to think of a sin that we tend to discuss so delicately, so gingerly. But God refers to it as an abomination. There's only one sin I know of
@Kreemerz. I would like you to consider, as I have chosen to do, how much same-sex attracted people go through.
Because of my son dealing with Gender Dysphoria, I have been in touch with the Center and am reading a book describing believers being belittled and forced into reversal therapy. It is sad how some in the Body of Christ have dealt with their brothers and sisters
I do not condone same-sex relationships but it is a delicate issue. ❤️ That's all I am saying
"delicate" what does that mean? it's still a sin. it's still wicked behavior. it's still separates us from God. It's still not condoned. ever. irrespective how strong our heart pulls us into it.@@margaretgrosskreuz8687
as long as you are not promoting any kind of sin. that's the crux of it. I'm not addressing phycological disorders or mental disorders, for those issues are different@@margaretgrosskreuz8687
@margaretgrosskreuz8687 I agree with you. So many straight Christians don't understand that for a LGBT person choosing to follow God literally means a lifetime of singleness and celibacy. God can turn people from sinful behavior but cannot make them attracted to something they're not.
@@GG-vq6royes exactly. Well put...I am aware of my unfair, unloving attitudes for many years, as I was in a legalistic church, not gracious as Jesus has called us to.
Very sad. In calling out sin, they are ignoring the one NT command
Love bc HE first loved us ☝🏼❤️
The problem is sin. What pleases our Creator is what is important
😂
Q: Megan DeFranza has some theological push back in the book “Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church”. she brings up a good point in one of her debates, that maybe Genesis is just the beginning of the story, and we were never intended to go back to Eden on this side of Heaven.
If Eden was the ideal, then everybody would get married. However, from reading Matthew 19, we know that’s not the case. Maybe Genesis is just the beginning, but doesn’t have to be the end of the story. Also, Jesus’s mention of Eunuchs in Matthew 19 also brings up some good debates.
In addition, imagine if these two men never had their wives, never had their children, never had the idea of grand children, and had to live a life without a spouse or children… imagine the heartache that would bring? When men say, I couldn’t imagine my life without my spouse, this is what gay people have to do on a daily basis. I realize this isn’t a theological push back, but I do know that Jesus knows the pain of all gay and lesbian believers who want so badly to marry, but are trying to hold on to scripture.
Lastly, In reading the texts, one could easily see that the kind of same sex sex that Paul was seeing was full of idolatry and power. As many books that make reference to Paul seeing same-sex mutual unions, there are many more to affirm that what Paul was seeing may have been mutual between two men of the same status and age, but they were doing it in the form of idolatry. Hence the bible reference “Penalty for their error”. Both men willingly engaged in same sex sex and it was very common for them to do this in the form of idol worship.
One could debate this either way.
Yes that's my biggest struggle. The prior verses talk about idolatry and all the sex that would talk place as a form of worship to the idols. ABSOLUTELY!! Sex acts committed by People who actually may have been married or considered heterosexual in our culture.
This was really good. I think what is most important is that we need to change the conversation. While Biblically it is talking about an immoral action and passion, our current society is very much focused on identity. We need to discuss how important it is that our identity is tied to Christ and not to our sexual desires. It would be horrible to always be associated with just my sexual desires. I love my husband and our alone time but I can't imagine that being all that I am. Yet, our society has decided to break people into these categories in which that is the most important factor. It is so odd to me. The pride, the celebration, and the demands...I just can't get my mind around it, still. We need to remind people that our hope is in Christ, our identity becomes Christ, and that sex is only a small portion of our lives. I am not sure why it is so important to us, the way that it is. I guess it has to do with the spiritual bond that comes from the action and the passion. Which leads to even more reason to not let it be an identity.
It is important because the Bible makes it important. God destroyed a whole city because of it. God stated that they are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Their lustful desires make it all about sex. That is all they know. 😢 Not knowing GOD' brings you to wanting everything that's related to the flesh. Soo sad and perverted.
That is such a good statement. Your sinful desires do not equal your identity.
Rosaria Butterfield has some good teaching on this.
You made a great point that really made me think deeper on this. For Christians, our identity is in Christ alone. But as you brought up, for those who are lost, being thrashed around in the sea of godlessness, despair, fear, uncertainty and with no sure foundation to cling to, they will search to find something, anything to cling to and find their identity in. And right now, it seems that for some reason , sexual identity is that thing. It is heartbreaking to realize and watch happen
This was a fascinating conversation! I’ve done a little research on my own of this issue and kind of gave up because it seemed too complicated. This made it a lot more clear. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful insights on this.
QUESTION: when talking about the Sabbath hermeneutic, my first thought was that Jesus wasn’t actually telling Jews they could break the Sabbath. My understanding is that he was correcting the misunderstanding and misuse of God’s Sabbath command and the intentions behind it. And I suppose one could say the same thing about the sexuality commands, but that just brings us back to the other affirming arguments What are your thoughts on this?
Romans 1
I love Preston's podcast. I appreciate the time he takes to study God's word to find the truth and present it in a compassionate grace filled manner.
I didn’t read the guests last book but know that 3 well known Christian’s, who used to identify as homosexual, disagreed with many points in that book. Is he changing his position on all or any of these?
I too saw that interview and wondered the same.
My understanding is that Preston's last book was not quite affirming of the gay-lifestyle, but was calling on Christians to be more understanding of them as a struggling group. I'm not sure what has changed (I haven't listened to this fully yet), but my understanding was that Preston's call for understanding has been misinterpreted as affirming. Might be wrong.
My question would be: if you found out what you believe on this issue is not true, would you like to know?
And once you find out that your view is wrong, how will you approach all the people who have sought you out to affirm/excuse their sin?
*QUESTION*
Why do Christians _never_ address the physical damage of sodomy? Or the severe reduction in lifespan for homosexuals? I once heard a doctor say that he warned his patients about the harm and listed very gruesome things. He said his oath to "do not harm" would not allow him to lie. But Christians ignore this very critical part of the conversation time and again in the name of being cordial or perhaps not being crude. So there's only partial truth. And a big part of the issue is left out. Going on a special diet so that you can participate in atrocious, abominable, destructive acts is very serious in my opinion. I watched my cousin die in his 20s participating in this lifestyle. And I wish Christians would stop sugar coating truth.
@@1fountcreations If you have some videos on this I'd love to see them. I've found very few and those were from years ago.
@@TheEMC99 apologia studios did a video with Brandon robertson about 3 or 4 more months ago and made those arguments.
@@diggingdeeperbiblically1405 Was that the debate video? I saw that one. Apologia is amazing. They are definitely one of the few that are more focused on God's opinion than man's criticism. ❤ It's like them, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, John MacArthur and maybe a couple others. But it's a rarity to hear that said. I truly appreciate those who unapologetically speak the truth.
Yep it was
But you have to remember that not all gay people are having anal sex, and that lesbians generally dont. And of course, ironically, it seems more and more straight couples are having anal sex probably due to the more widespread use of porn, including amongst Christians. I agree that men's bodies were not designed for each other, but many gay people live to old age just as their straight counterparts.
Hi,
Why is it that when it comes to politics, many of our fellow Christians go out of their way to excuse, minimize & embrace sexual sins? 💔
Sex outiside of the context of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. But that said, everyone is fallen, and need grace. We should love everyone, regardless of their flaws, without saying that the flaws are a good thing.
QUESTION: Should the church focus less on whether gay people should get married or not and start focusing more on the importance and beauty of celibacy and singleness (Jesus and Paul as examples). To instead of focusing and spending time on the problem, to actually focus a lot more on the solution.
That would be very appreciated
Knowing that sin is sin is the first step though. The pastor can suggest single people remain celibate as part of God’s command. That doesn’t address the issue of homosexuality in particular though. I do still think it’s important to talk about that topic in particular, especially considering how prevelant in the culture it is.
QUESTION: how would you respond to this? Sex and romantic relationships are like electricity and running water. They may not be necessary for individual human flourishing, but they undeniably benefit us and forcing certain groups of people to not have it would be equivalent to saying to villagers in africa " hey we all lived without these things for thousands of years so you don't need them and we are going to keep it for ourselves"?
That's a false narrative though
Unless you are married, you shouldn't be having sex. Otherwise you are taking from what is Gods, the sacrament of marriage, to suit your own needs.
The "eunuchs" who choose to go without for Gods sake are glorified.
We are not forcing anyone to live without sex and romance, but to develop the attraction God blesses.
@@jamiemcvay130 which pretty much never happens so they effectively are forced to live without it.
@@thecommentors9973 Not really, I've seen and heard of a length of testimonies of it happening
Heterosexuals can't even live it out well
Great conversation. The Bible is so obvious on this subject, yet our culture just wants to go by what "feels" right.
Thank you both for always speaking with kindness in a non judgmental manner.
You both speak truth without being mean.
I think you will enjoy this one!
QUESTION: Whats a biblical response when someone asks what a same-sex married couple (especially w/kids) should do, & how it’s any different than a 2nd marriage if the 1st divorce was unbiblical. They claim both are living in continual sin if you believe the Bible.
The Biblical response is not to concern yourself with the private lives of others unless you are doing something which uplifts and helps them.
@@thegreatdeconstruction Don't think that's the biblical response lol
Two harms don't make a right. Another person's sin doesn't justify our own
Both are sin, and there is good news if they repent and turn back to Jesus
@@fernandovergara7791 Yes but my question involves more of what they should do from where they are. If a Christian living in a second marriage doesn’t believe they should divorce because the original divorce and remarriage wasn’t biblical, why should a homosexual in a same-sex marriage believe they should end their marriage, especially if children are involved?
Very illuminating and clarifying discussion thanks guys, I can attest to your arguments , my testimony is a bit extreme, i came to into Christ after getting married to a dude, Paul is completely correct in Corinthians 13 “love is patient, love is kind” Christ didn’t give up on us. Though my husband and I needed to go through this process to understand the Truth is True Love . Jesus has gone to hell for us! And everyone who supported our marriage . The power and love for Jesus is found in a new generation of compassionate believers that didn’t once condemn while we were slowly waking up!!
Real sins are behaviours that harm people. An adulterer (someone who cheats on their partner) hurts their partner. Robbery, rape, sexual abuse, murder aren't just sins but are recognised as crimes and involve a perpetrator and a victim(s). But homosexuality has no perpetrator or victim. In fact its just people living no differently to the way heterosexuals live.
Falling in love, having sex, working, building lives together.
What's shocking is its not just child or serial killers, in fact even mass murderers can enter the Christian heaven after repenting, whilst innocent homosexuals who've never killed anyone or committed any crime are kept out. This is some twisted and perverted rule made by this Christian God.
I observed in the conversation Sean McDowell used 'consensual incest' as a reason for dismissing homosexual marriage as acceptable just because its also consensual. So I refer him to Genesis 26:
Then God said, "Let us make a man - someone like ourselves to be master of all life upon Earth and in the skies and in the seas".
27. So God made man like his maker. Like God did God make man. Man and woman did he make them.
28. And God blessed them and told them "Multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; you are masters of the fish and birds and all the animals."
So God makes two people a man and a woman (Adam & Eve) and tells them to multiply (have intercourse and give birth to children).
Notice the problem here. Who when the children are older are they going to have intercourse with to continue this multiplication of the Earth? Are we to assume each other incestuously? It has to be that if the Bible is to be taken literally. But that then implies God approves of incest.
So what's it to be? Genesis is the word of God? So God does approve of incest or Genesis is just an allegorical story? In which case don't take the Bible seriously; or perhaps Genesis and the Bible are a load of made up nonsense? In which case you'd be better advised to avoid.
Is hard to explain but I understand what you wanna say here. And I tottaly agree that Bible has some weird things in it especially in the Old Testament
I very much appreciate this research and discussion! Hard topic! God bless you both! I believe in man woman biblical marriage and see homosexuality as a result of living in a fallen world. Confident Gods grace and love heals ❤
COMMENT/QUESTION: Since the Supreme Court decision in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges) has legalized gay marriage, how should Christians politically engage on this topic?
Nothing to say really unless you think religious beliefs should be advocated as law. If you do, there really isn't a polite way to say it because you are using your personal faith to advocate against other people's personal freedoms. There is no polite way to advocate for that.
If you want to be polite, just say, "I don't agree with it, but I don't think religious beliefs should determine governmental policy."
@@WaterCat5 I think that all laws legislate morality. The debate comes in when we ask “Whose morality should be legislated?” The atheist? The Christian? The secular humanist? The Muslim? I don’t think there is a way to NOT advocate a person’s beliefs as law, whether they are religious or not.
@@jonathanguerrero5617 I agree! Which is why we should base our beliefs off demonstrable facts wherever possible. In this case, because homosexual union has, at minimum, a net zero impact with no serious downsides, there is no reason to think it is wrong.
The issue is that Christians think their religion is a fact. Your point is precisely why religion is toxic to a diverse democracy. It advocates the acceptance of potentially false information based solely on authority. It is a dictatorship.
How bout the fact that there is “nothing new under the sun”? That right there shows Paul was at least in a culture (because it’s not new) where consensual same sex relationships existed and was at least aware of the possibility of them if not them in actuality.
Thank God for the Corinthians! I grew up in the Silicone Valley near San Francisco. And now live in Santa Cruz. A lot of people compare the Corinthians to San Francisco. What an excellent timely thoughtful show. Brilliant men giving their knowledge and insights away! True big brother vibe coming through. Thank you so much guys, very helpful. I agree about Bible authority. I feel having the common ground as Bible authority is the challenge of our century. I'm going to watch this again. So much great stuff here, heavy. McDowell is a national treasure at this point. He brings class with the fire and is afraid of no topic.
QUESTION: is it harmful to mention predisposition to alcohol abuse as an example to illustrate how innate desires don't necessarily lead to human flourishing?
No. Why would that be harmful? That sounds like a very appropriate comparison.
I suspect a guy who identifies as a gal might have his feelings hurt if his inclination were compared to alcoholism, no?
It feels risky being so detailed in small word shifts when we are reading a text that wasn’t written in our native tongue. Usually when we retell something it’s not exactly the same. Could this simply be the reason a verse is written differently? And are we over analysing?
No! God word can Not be hidden. People love to say the word has been changed or manipulated just so they can say they don't know & do what they want. The Bible is not wrong.
@@kmjacik8904 I didn’t say hidden. I said hung up on a single word
@@kmjacik8904 the interpretation of the Bible has been wrong many times
@@joebriggs5781 yes by those who think they know better then Jesus and the Church he built
Good discussion. One of the things I'll say is that we can't allow "emotional guilt trip ploys" to deter us from the truth! What do I mean? Saying things like: "Your theology is "harmful" to gay people", or, I'm going to commit suicide if I can't do this, or have this relationship" is a way to "guilt" people into affirming their lifestyle/sin. Am I denying that some gay people have attempted, actually committed, or thought about suicide because of the struggle? Absolutely not! Those stories are sad and hurt my heart. But that can't be what determines truth! I think the gay community uses that to their advantage if you will, to make people affirm their sin. I struggle with SSA myself, and have most of my life. Although I've never thought about suicide or harming myself {by the Grace of GOD!} I don't deny the truth of that reality. But again, that's not how we determine if something is true or not. Scripture is the final authority on the issue. Anyway, just my thoughts. Again, good interview. And glad they affirm the truth of scripture. GOD bless.
Sean, do you still endorse Preston’s book “Embodied” which endorsed the use of gender pronouns for “hospitality” purposes?
Thank you guys for doing this discussion. My daughter has a Methodist friend that goes to an affirming church and was interested in these arguments. Really, the best argument I've seen is that no where in the Bible is same sex relationships/ marriage is it spoken about in a positive affirming manner. Therefore don't believe it be God's design.
I however, at the same time don't believe we should ever treat friends or family that practice same sex badly. I also grieve the stories I hear of them being treated badly- bullying, harassment, kicking them out etc. However, how do you think the church should respond when gay/lesbians want to be in leadership and feel rejected and spiritual abuse when the church doesn't.
Thanks, Trudie. Always good seeing you here.
This is a slippery slope. Preston starts with a Biblical foundation, then he uses philosophy to move you away from the truth of the Bible. Born again means we’ve died to the old nature. We no longer identify as our sin. Gal 2:20
Could you please clarify “harm” more. Some LGB friends view any kind of orthodox stature regarding LGB relations and/or view that as being “harmful” and threatening in modern Western secular cultures.
If Eric loves Fred (ie an example of two random men)
Best scenario : "Dear God, unless you, (God only could do this if he so wished!) turn one of us into an actual woman, (with God all things are possible, but not necessarily his will!) We will content ourselves to be affectionate but platonic friends. Your will be done, (not always easy, but best because you love us! )
Question: Do you have any family members that you are close to that are gay? If so, please describe that relationship.
I think abstinence should also be included in the discussion, relating to not sinning. If people burn in desires outside God’s design, they don’t have to have sex. Feeding fleshy desire makes the flesh want more, kinda like simple carbs can make you crave and overeat.
😂😂😂😂
QUESTION
In argument number 10 you discussed the idea that homosexual relationships at least put your soul in jeopardy. How do we as Christians balance that view with the idea that we are saved through grace alone and not by the things we do and don’t do?
I like your question! I don’t think they are correct in saying it puts your soul in Jeopardy. We are saved by grace. It is a gift of God, one sacrifice to make us righteous. Thanks!
But at the same time Paul puts unrepentant homosexuals in the category of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Just a confusing issue and I hope they see my question and add clarification.
And adulterers - of which there are many in the church today.
I say it all goes back to a humans heart and intent. What were the intent of the men and women in Romans 1?? Was it a sexuality they tried to fight and control at least in a faithful committed relationship or was it a whatever goes were they only out to satisfy flesh and worship idols by having sex for fertility reasons?
Was the purpose of them going against nature a greedy choice of sexual pleasure alone? When he says exchange is it an exchange like was it mentioned out of greed? Were the sexual orgies performed by worshipping idols because they didn't have faith in God for the fertility issues? This is a very different context than 2 Christians who live a christlike life but happen to have different attractions.
I appreciate Preston’s ministry and I’m also confused that some very well known ministers have called him out because of his “exiles in Babylon” book/curriculum. I haven’t looked into this book to form my own opinion, but I wish that there can be a conversation between Preston and Christopher Yuan, Beckett Cook, Rosaria Butterfield and Alisa Childers to clear up everyone’s position/theology on this.
1:19:30 it also says something about the view of people who are celibate regardless of their orientation 😢
No discrimination in my country. Both couples, same or opposite, are treated equally with marriage available for both.
Is it just me or does Preston Sprinkle seem like a very appropriate name for someone addressing this topic?
As a non-Christian, I find this conversation interesting. It seems like culturally same sex unions are becoming more acceptable. Making theology based objections to it both unconvincing and, for many, distasteful. This pushes younger generationsaway from traditional Christianity. It seems like this creates pressure for Christians to shift (and to reinterpret their texts). These shifts help them stay culturally relevant, but absolutely abandon some of the clear teaching of their scriptures. Not sure what I'm trying to say, I guess it just strikes me as a focal point for an interesting tension between being faithful to the writer's intent in the scriptures and being culturally relevant.
I find your comment interesting and thoughtful. I guess what it boils down to is- is it necessary for Christianity to be culturally relevant ? My answer is yes and no. Yes in the sense that the bible was written a long time ago and set in a culture very different to the one we live in today. In that sense certain things cannot be translated directly into our modern world- the stories need to be studied in context for their true meaning to be understood.
Categorically no though when it comes to what it teaches about human sexuality, Jesus, what God sees as right and wrong and many other things - these are timeless truths and to change them to fit our culture is to change God's word to suit our own desires. Sexuality is the obsession of our current culture, but historically the bible has been used to justify things like the slave trade which clearly would not have been in line with its teachings. We can't just twist God's word to make it adhere to the desires of our modern culture.
Thank you Sean. This is one of my favorite videos of yours.
I love Preston and the Center. I love the fair and well-thought out dialogue, such compassion and yet not deviating fromGod's plan for marriage.
My son, as I'm coming to understand the term, is struggling with Gender Dysphoria. I am reading a book recommended to me entitled STILL TIME TO CARE. So informative. Breaks my heart what some believers have subjected their siblings to, in the name of Christianity.
Jesus did not bully people. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us, to temper our speech with Grace.
A big thank you to both of you
Love to you and your families 💯📖❤️🎶
Very thought-provoking and helpful, thanks. As much thought and study into the Sabbath so frequently mentioned would be welcome too.
Was hopeful for a more engaging talk., felt hard to follow and zoned out on such impactful topic . I’ll look out for Q&A 🎉
I was riveted personally. Made sense to me 🤷🏼♀️
56:19 Hey Sean, I just wanted to push back on the idea that Jesus didn’t imply that we could make this same type of jump. He specifically uses an example of this when he says, “who of you, when your son or your ox falls into a pit, even on the sabbath wouldn’t save them?” Luke 14:5 And then in mark says, “the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” Mark 2.
It seems that while Jesus does not negate the law, in fact in many places he seems to intensify it, he does expect that this line on the sabbath would have already been taking place and points towards it happening more often. He points to past precedent in a sense, rather than an in breaking of his coming be the central reason for the sabbath leniency.
Dr. Sprinkle, you mention shame negatively several times throughout this conversation and I'm wondering if shame avoidance is more of a secular expectation in life. I think it plays a large part of the "harm" aspect of culture you discussed. Can't we expect most unbelievers, when faced with the truth and as they are being drawn to Jesus, to feel shame at the God-given realization of their own sinfulness, no matter how it "presents?" But I know that believers should never "heap shame" on others, as we ourselves have been forgiven much! Just wondering how to navigate that line in an ultra-sensitive culture!
Really interesting vid, but every time I glanced at Preston, I thought Sean had got John Cena with him 😬🤣
Question: Preston mentioned he has spent much time investigating this issue with a possibility to become affirming if he felt that scripture taught it. That’s a stunning presupposition for a Christian. My question is, why is that really necessary when we know from the whole of the Bible that the perfect order that God created is male and female together, not any alternatives, and that changing that order results in devastating moral and civilizational consequences, even in the extinction of humanity, as the alternatives cannot produce life? Why spend so much time seeking an alternative answer when it is obvious to even the uneducated that this is true?
So I’ve got a question for which I have not been able to get a solid answer. How do you square the religious implications of gay marriage vs the civil rights implications of gay marriage? Let me try to unpack this. There are a lot of civil rights that are afforded to married couples that are not afforded to unmarried couples, regardless of gender in the marriage. In the US, probate, adoption, and filing jointly on taxes come to mind. As it stands, if you happen to be a gay couple that is unmarried and one of you happens to die, probate dictates that your belongings go to the nearest living relative. So if you’ve been in the same homosexual marriage for 20 years, your belongings would go to….your mother (??), not your partner of 20 years, sans marriage. If you’re utilizing a government entity to adopt a child, one of the metrics they look at for the stability of the household is longevity of marriage. Let’s say that marriage is a religious institution, and the religious ought calls to the legal is, doesn’t this make a giant call to separation of church and state. To use redutio ad absurdum, if I were not allowed to attend public university because I haven’t celebrated a bar mitzvah, how would you look at that scenario? So, to counter my own is-ought fallacy…let’s say marriage shouldn’t be legal only to justify the civil rights ramifications that would come along with it destroying the Christian worldview of the sanctity of marriage (though it could be argued that the sanctity of marriage went the way of the dodo when they had drive through marriages officiated by Elvis). What would you replace marriage with? Objectively, length of marriage is a decent indicator on the stability of the household prior to an adoption…with adoption needing a stable household. What would you replace marriage with to indicate that stability? What system would you put in place to file taxes jointly, and not constantly be gaming the government? What system would you put in place to have assurances that in the probate system, a conniving mother isn’t paid in lieu of a long term homosexual partner? And, keep in mind, in order to make sense, the system that is replacing marriage would have to be as easy as the umbrella that marriage affords homosexuals on a civil rights basis.
I’m halfway through the video and loving it so far. As an atheist, it helps me understand my parents’ worldview just a bit more. And I know the premise of the video is a biblical based argument. But, how can you convince a large swath of people that see referring to the Bible in a *legal* context (and if you’re being intellectually and logically honest, this will apply to you as well) as anything but a call to authority?
I'm not hearing any commentaries on how this is our view as the church of God, but can't impose our view on the world at large, and how we will respect the laws of the country. How are we going to treat them if they wanted to become members of our church, etc.
QUESTION: My question is about the idea of homosexual 'orientation' vs. homosexual action. Obviously, being tempted toward sin is not itself a sin, but Jesus seems to indicate that dwelling or ruminating on temptation (in your mind) is a sin - see the sermon on the Mount. The message here seems to be that it is not simply about 'outward' behavior, but the condition or 'orientation' of the heart toward sin. Jesus equates lusting after a woman with the sin of adultery so there is some sort of nuance and demarcation here. How does your assertion that people can 'be homosexual' and not act on it align with this distinction? Also, it seems Church movements (like ReVoice, etc.) that are asserting one can be a Christian and live in 'celibate homosexual relationships' stretch this idea of temptation not being a sin. These assume the reality of 'homosexual identity,' which seems to cede the fundamental principle. How is this different than the old distinction between 'doing everything but intercourse' as heterosexual teens (so-called 'heavy petting') being somehow ok. This celibate homosexuality seems to make the same theological/biblical error as the EBI perspective. Finally, the idea of orientation seems to miss the point that we are 'fallen' and indeed all 'oriented' toward sin of one kind or another. There is a distinction between being tempted to sin and affirming a sinful 'identity' - it that makes sense.
Thanks for any insights or thoughts on these ideas.
I can still find it as just “homosexual” on google but maybe I used different search words. Anyways, thank you for handling your arguments with openness, Grace, and no hint of disgust or hatred. Sharing your journey on how open minded and willing you were to change your mind but still finding that the arguments didn’t hold up to scrutiny was a really great way to present the information and I wish more popes could be like the both of you. So many people give up Christianity when they find out they’re lgbtq and a lot of the reason is the Christians, but only because not all Christians are like the two of you. Ofc, plenty are,too-and a lack of understanding that has lead to Christianphobia as a counter to homophobia. I know I did for a long time before coming back, except I didn’t go as far as having this full blown Christianphobia myself, although I was still uneasy around Christians for fear of how they would react to our differences. So thank you so much! 💜
QUESTION: Where/when does church discipline play a role, with eventual excommunication from a church if one does not repent? I can't make someone not sin, that's between the Holy Spirit and the individual. if we shouldn't excommunicate a same-sex couple from a church then why not er on the side of grace?
COMMENT/QUESTION:
Clarification is needed regarding "sex and marriage is [or isn't] necessary for human flourishing." I think you're equating "flourishing" with fulfillment, meaning, and purpose in life on an individual level. On a broad level of mankind, I would argue sex and marriage is necessary for human flourishing. We're commanded to be fruitful and multiply. This is another reason why same-sex relationships are not good for society.
However, though singles may not contribute to human flourishing and perpetuating the next generation, that doesn't mean their life can't be fulfilling, and like Paul, be focused on ministry without the distraction and responsibility of a family. That's really your point, I think, but I wouldn't call it human flourishing.
The "mother and father" the man leaves are of the same flesh as the man. He becomes "one flesh" with a woman who was not of that same flesh. A husband and wife form something unique, a new kinship.
I have always suspected the thorn in Paul's side might've been same-sex desire. It might help explain his call to celibacy & his begging to have the thorn removed.
Consent is not a pillar of biblical sexual morality, as to allow an opening for gay relationships. If consent determined moral value, it would allow adultery free and clear.
Spot on! Good definitions. You touched on the key issue of what is marriage.
This was so helpful. I appreciate the careful and articulate Biblical responses. Planning to get the book…!
QUESTION: What would you say is the best book on the traditional/historically Christian view of marriage and the best book on the same-sex/affirming view of marriage? Scholarly or laymen level. Thanks!
St John Chrysostom on Marriage is a classic on the traditional view of marriage, the text is available free online in translation from the Greek.
@@PhoebeK
Sorry, this answers only half of the questions.
The argument that "No one thought there was an inborn orientation in the ancient world", in addition to being provably false, also outsmarts itself. Were people with those desires THEMSELVES unaware of this? If the answer is No, then yes, there were those who believed it. If the answer is yes, then the desire itself isn't that compelling if it goes unrecognized until very recent times.
QUESTION about Sexual orientation and gender identity…
Would an affirmation of everyone being born in sin (Psalms 51:5, Romans 5:12-14) help to dispel the notion that sexual orientation being “natural” meaning it is somehow therefore not sin?
How far should we be aloud to go in order to stop same sex marriages? With the separation of church and state, why should the state be the ones the dictate who can marry who according to religious beliefs? How much of someone’s free will should be taken away, and would God want that?
Oh that’s a good question
Just a note to add, is the whole separation of church and state was to ONLY separate the state from the church, not the other way around. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Our founding fathers involved God in the formulation of our constitution. All that to say, the church should never back down and violate their moral conscience. God bless.
You appear to think that being a Christian is mandatory. If homosexuals want to get married we as Christians should do nothing to stop them. You should be ashamed for even suggesting the idea that we should try to stop them.
What we need to do is kick them out of the church to go get married by the state and wish them luck and encourage and support their decision. When someone is in the church, they are subject to our judgement and we must judge accordingly. Anyone outside of the church, we may not judge. It's very simple when you choose to be direct and to the point.
The separation of church and state is not in the US Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that to a Baptist preacher concerned with the government attempting to govern from the pulpit. Jefferson was assuring him this would not be the case using the phrase, "separation of church and state."
@@yesenia3816 Most American citizens do not know this truth. Even more sad is that most politicians do not.
Just finished listening to his book Embodied on audiobook! Fabulous author and great at defending the faith in a way that's loving and dignifies LGBT+ people!
It is tiring being gay and celibate, soul destroying in many ways. Sometimes I think straight men like Sean (Im assuming) should think about how they would feel if they woke up tomorrow with no wife or kids, were told their attraction to women was 'unnatural' and their only option was to be celibate and likely lonely the rest of their lives. Regardless of one's views on gay sexuality, in many ways I dont blame people for wanting 'equality' and just to be able to live the sort of life that straight people typically lead.
Sin is exhausting and soul destroying (from my experience). Pray for God to take the attraction away. Beckett Cook would be good person to listen to.
I'm straight & celibate with no children. When God showed me fornication outside of marriage is wrong, I stopped.
You’re brave being honest here in this space where most people have a traditional outlook. My heart goes out to you and I feel your pain. I have a gay sister and brother and daughter and the harm that has been caused to them by well meaning biblical Christians is the real moral issue here. I think Jesus is far more concerned about the welfare of the minority and would be calling out the evangelical stance as mostly hypocrisy. Go and find an affirming congregation. Your psychological and spiritual welfare are of paramount importance. Look after yourself.
Hi! I am straight, and a never-been-kissed and never-did-it sort of celibate. I am in full time ministry as well.
Yes, it can be very lonely, sometimes debilitatingly so. That was my experience for more than a decade as I saw everyone around me getting married. But one devastating event happened in my life and it was through that that my perspective changed.
Yes, I still wonder what could've been had I gotten married but I see why it has to be this way more clearly now.
Bring to God all your hurts and ask Him to give you the strength and grace to hang on to Him and His promises.
He sees. He knows. He cares.
@@SallyS99 I’m sorry but your response has be called out here. Not only does it completely lack Christian love and compassion, or really and basic humanity, but it totally fails to address the reality of life. This is why most non Christians stay away from the church because these days evangelical equals stupid
if you who are watching this video and have had to come to the painful but correct decision to no longer recognise your same sex celibate marriage, after years of being conflicted by the issue, then you are not the only person to go through this trial. You know your identity is in Christ alone and all other identities are of no importance. You are an adopted child of your Heavenly Father because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, your Saviour and Lord, friend and brother.
Do you have a suggestion on how to introduce this topic to children. how to prove it to them at their level of understanding. Thanks
Really, really helpful conversation, thank you 😊
Should someone leave a church that no longer adheres to the Biblical orthodox belief in marriage being the union between a man and a woman?
QUESTION: how confident are you both that you have this theologically correct on this topic?
Considering that the bible was written two millenia ago in large part well after Jesus was dead and gone then I'd say pretty theologically sound.
less than 100 years after his death (far too short for legends to develop) and while many of his closest followers were still alive. Your point is?
well everybody has their agenda.
Thank you both for taking the time to delve into this. I appreciate both of your work. Preston, I love to listen to Theology in the Raw.
QUESTION - One thing that I've heard, but I haven't heard a thoughtful Christian response on is this: that the recent rise in homosexuality and in God honoring people who affirm same sex marriage is that we've entered a new dispensation where God is changing the focus of marriage. It's kinda a mixture of the "movement of history" argument and the "Paul didn't know about consensual partnerships" mixed with high-sounding theology. The argument goes that Israel had strict purity laws for food and clothing, but that all changed in the book of Acts so that gentiles would be welcomed. That change wasn't restoring anything Eden-ic, and was a huge stumbling point for Peter. Same sex marriage wasn't a thing in the ancient world, and the earth still needing to be replenished, so God reaffirmed the mosaic law and Genesis. We've reached a point in history where the earth has been replenished, so I've heard the argument that God's new dispensation towards marriage focuses some people and therefore marriages just on the aspects of love and also of orphan care. How would you respond to that?
I'd wonder where one could get that. If it contradicts Scripture in several ways, and you don't get it from Scripture, then we can discount it. Israel's ritual laws were not based in inherent nature, but rather were symbolic of how they were set apart for God. Jesus fulfilled the Law, not so that gentiles would be welcomed, but because the purpose of the Law was to show people their imperfection apart from Him and their need for Him.
Romans, especially chapters 1 and 3, are sufficient to respond to this argument, but Romans chapters 9-11 are also very relevant. I suggest reading those.
You should look up Mike Wingers responses on homosexuality. Not sure which video it's in but somewhere in that playlist he talks about how they actually did have loving consensual same sex relationships and it was still called out. It was really interesting seeing how similar their culture was to our current
I also have heard that, same sex marriage is a "new dispensation." They say that the 1st century Jews simply, were not ready. The simple answer, is that it is a question of "authority." Who has more authority than Jesus or Paul? Remembering that Paul was the apostle sent to the gentiles. Paul was the man who was given the authority to tell the gentiles that they did not have to become Jews and along with the 1st council what they, the gentiles should observe. It included to abstain from sexual immorality. God does not change. What was sexually immoral in the Old Testament remains immoral in the New.
Jesus, in the gospels re-affirms that God, from the beginning, made them male and female and they become one. The man cleaves to his "wife" and they become one flesh. That's the authority. Paul in Romans 1 establishes that God turns people over to homosexuality as a punishment for 1) not honoring God, 2) serving and worshiping the creature rather than the creator. I know Jesus' authority and I know Paul's authority, but who ever is saying, there is a "new" dispensation, has no Biblical authority. Hope that helps.
If I'm not mistaken the 1st command to humans is found in Gen 1:28. Adam and Steve couldn't fulfill such a command. Plus our definition of marriage involves a 3rd person (not counting God) which is the State. Getting a non-God-loving State involved with matters of God only results in at best confusion or worse, the world we have now.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol , a trap for angels.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
Jesus also maps the Sabbath typology into his fulfillment of the law and prophets and Paul later affirms that Sabbath rest was a shadow of Christ. Since Christ uses Biblical marriage typology to speak of the church's relation to himself. Old testament as well between God and Israel. Wouldnt you have to break form with how writers refers this relationship between us and God or break form with what the Sabbath is in its essence for this objection about Sabbath practice to be be true of same sex?
What about Matthew 19:12. Like for any sexual sin.
It’s about celibacy
If someone feels they were “born this way”, of course we have compassion but we can cast those demons out..
Lucifer is the God of this world. If he wants to make one straight, bi, gay, or transm he can for it's his world. So, yes, we (angel yoked with a demon) are born this way.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
You say you affirm the historic Christian view, but you should scope that to this topic. There's loads of traditions you teach that contrast historical Christianity, unless you limit historical Christianity to the protestant reformation, and even then.
40:09 Or the apostle Paul, writing under the influence of divine inspiration, did a have better grasp on human sexuality and sexual orientation than we do today. And his pronouncements of them as being “given up” is his judgement on a creation that has not graduated in its understanding of sexuality-but rather degenerated in it.
Comment...You know I worked with a gay guy and for the first time I felt safe around a male. Why is it that this sin is like the most horrible sin meanwhile the church is stuffing their faces with food. Isn't gluttony a sin equal to homosexuality. Which sin sends you to hell? Isn't that all of them?
Sean you should create a Spotify you upload your content to. You have a lot of good stuff I would like to listen to but not exactly able to on here all the time
Thanks for the idea!
Concerning the definition of marriage, lately I've been pondering the concepts of legal marriage verses biblical marriage. I've wondered, when did marriage become the purview of the state? It's obviously possible to have a legal marriage that is not biblical. But is it possible to have a Biblical marriage that is not legal? My initial thought, is that in today's society we tend to conflate the two...but is that correct?
@@HaroldZwingley There was more to my question. Please share your thoughts.
Thank you so much!
QUESTION With respect to “one flesh”, isn’t God’s commandment in Gen 1:28, to “be fruitful and multiply” one of the purposes fulfilled by the one flesh union of male and female, and should therefor be included in interpretation of 2:24? In a dame sex union, procreation is not biologically possible, so it doesn’t fulfill the full purpose of God creating a helper for Adam. Eve wasn’t just there to address Adam’s loneliness.
Question: My daughter who came out as gay a couple years ago and has since “married” her partner. We don’t allow them to sleep together in our home either before or since their union. That makes them upset with us because, “we don’t accept them the way God made them to be.” We want to stay true to God’s word over all, and we would like to keep some semblance of a relationship with them if possible. Is there a way to not compromise the Word but still keep a relationship with our daughter?
What do you think that you're accomplishing by not letting them sleep together in your home when they do it every night when they're not staying there?
This is petty stuff.
Of course. Jesus didn’t shy away from relationship with anyone. He also spoke the truth in love. So you should keep doing what you’re doing. It sounds like you’re maintaining a relationship to keep her in your life but also being clear what your moral boundaries are. How she responds in between her and God, but to me it sounds like you’re doing what God expects. Just love her and be respectful but also truthful. At some point when her heart softens to God, she will appreciate you keeping the lines of communication open.
@@joebriggs5781Because it’s sexual immorality. Would you let your 16 year old and their significant other sleep together in your house? Even if they’re already doing it? Of course not. It’s one thing to know that someone is going out and doing something. That doesn’t mean it has to be tolerated behavior within one’s own house. We have a right to allow or disallow what we want to in our own home. Everyone does.
@@desertrose0601 Would I let my 16 year old and their significant other sleep together in my house? No, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a homosexual or heterosexual relationship.
If they are an adult and married, like this person says her daughter is, then absolutely. You're trying to convolute this and say that an adult, consensual homosexual relationship is somehow the same thing as allowing a 16 year old to sleep together with their partner in their home.
Idk a lot of things and am not an expert, but I just can't personally reconcile God's commandments to love with the way we treat homosexuals. How can true love be a sin? Im not talking about sexual immorality, I mean pure and simple love that everyone desires. God makes intersex people with literally both ovaries and testicles, what are they to do? Are they to be denied a loving relationship and treated as an abomination?
Two thoughts about #9
Many or most Christians have had gut wrenching regret at how the “talk” went once it finally happened. As a sibling of a gay brother, I know first hand. Perhaps there was suspicions, hints, or full knowledge of the other person’s journey. Parents for example, know far more than they let be known, for a number of reasons. Siblings, also can figure things out. I put 2 and 2 together quickly many years ago about my sibling. While the premise that our theology itself causes harm is serious, and sad acknowledgment that harm has indeed come to a dear loved one, here are a few thoughts for those so accused.
We don’t know how to respond, so our words are not rehearsed or planned. This is usually the mother, father, brother or sister, and friend. We stumble, and crudely blurt out what pops into our heads first. Unfortunately that is likely the wrong thing to say. While the person advancing a proposition, usually has a better handle on the issues, the person responding doesn’t. They have likely, and understandably, done a lot of research, talked to a lot of people, over a long period of time.
Second, the biblical admonition to Christians in these situations is really and truly one of the hardest things of our faith. We are to love the “sinner”, but hate the sin. Not intending to be trite here, and brevity of the forum makes this a little harsh, but it is the truth. Most, if not all truly love the person in question--deeply. They long for a reconciling conversation, but how to be faithful to God and HIs Word on the one hand, and simultaneously communicate love, is difficult, requiring true Spirit guidance. Contrast this with what the world has to do, with no authoritative moorings, Love the sinner, and accept, and love, and proclaim the sin. Oh and also stop calling it sin. Okay that’s easy.
Yes. My brother cut me off when I told him I can’t change the scriptures because they hurt him, and that I let the Bible dictate what is or is not sin within my beliefs. 😢 It didn’t matter that I’d only ever treated him as a brother, welcomed him and his partner into our family, or believe most straight sex in our country is ALSO sin… If I believe sex outside of the Biblically outlined dictates is sinful, he doesn’t want anything to do with me.
Lost a brother over this one. Drove the knife right back into his heart. 😞 There is no nice way to say it.
@@jennaphage Sounds sadly familiar. Do you think he was prepared, and anticipated your comments?
@@tomtuura6904 I think he was shocked because I'd never treated him differently but still held these Biblical beliefs about sexuality. From his worldview, a Christian has to treat gay people differently or meanly. From mine, we're all the same - sinners in need of Jesus.
I took notes. Thank you, Sean
You bet!
The historic Christian view of marriage is that it was a contract enforced by the Roman state. There was no sacrament of marriage for the first three centuries. Marriage became controlled by religion when the Roman Empire became a Christian theocracy. We don’t live in
a theocracy. Therefore marriage is the property of the secular state.
I think the challenge with Jesus saying for this reason..created male and female..become one flesh, is that the context of that statement is in direct response to a question about divorce, so he wasn't really responding at all or commenting at all on same-sex unions.
whats the traditional view of marriage if u go by geneiss and adam and eve one man and one woman then what about Jacob he had more then one wfe so thats not one man and one woman
QUESTION: Jesus is returning for his Bride, which consists of both men and women. Is Jesus breaking the created order by being wedded to men?
ARGUMENT: I'm not suggesting that Jesus is going to have sexual relations with his Bride. I'm only demonstrating that marriage in its truest sense is about intimacy and relationship, and biological compatibility for sex may not be God's priority. Although God may have originally created marriage for man and woman, he might be more flexible than you are giving him credit for.
QUESTION based on Acts 15 should Christians abstain from eating strangled animals or blood?
That was under the law of Moses
@@annairwin8147 I'm asking about the requirements for Gentile Christians, when the Apostles said Gentiles don't need to follow the law of Moses they said Gentiles should abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled meat and blood. Should we require Christians to accept these Apostolic instructions regarding food? I'm convinced we should abstain from sexual immorality and idolatry but not sure how the instructions regarding what to eat fit with other NT texts where you can eat anything.
Acts 15:19-20
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
My understanding is that the 10 commandments were for the Israelites and believers have been grafted in but Jesus repeated all 10 except for the 7th day Sabbath. And made some harder to keep but we have the Holy Spirit
What about the scripture from Paul? 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? How do we explain away that? Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God do not be deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God and such were some of you but you were washed but you were sanctified but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God.
Adultery is tagged alongside same-sex behaviors in all of the vice lists of early Christianity. These days, we have made accommodations for people to remarry, and this sin is at least as serious, or to my mind, much more serious for the health of families. However, there are no Side A (allowed to remarry), Side B (remain celibate) or Side X (need to go back to first spouse) debates for heterosexuals on this issue. What we do should be as grace- based for everyone. As celibacy is not biblically mandated and if we expect all gay people to be celibate, what grace is there for them if they don't have this capacity/gift? We have heard many stories of our gay siblings experiencing how deeply this aloneness affects their mental health. Shouldn't there be grace for them as there is for those who are divorced and remarrying?
about 46 minutes in it depends what we actually mean by "homosexual" whether we are talking about an attraction, orientation or identity, whether we are talking about a transvestite male acting out a caricature of a woman or whether we are talking about someone actually having relations with another person of the same sex.
A passage that I haven't heard brought up yet (maybe it was and I missed it) is in 1 Thessalonians 1 from verse 9 where Paul talks about the law not being made for the righteous but the unrighteous, wherein he speaks about homosexuals and sodomites as two categories rather than one. Now we know from the story of the angels visiting Lot in Sodom what a Sodomite is. Some interlinear bibles might even translate it literally as "male bedder" and so we know that this is the actual sex act. What I interpret "homosexual" as in this context, would be like a cross-dressing male acting out his mental projection of what it is to be a woman, and his interpretation of what it means to have a female personality (which is usually a caricature in my observation, similar to Dylan Bud-light...I know his real last name but forgot how to spell it 😝Deuteronomy 22 has a verse that says that a man should not dress like a woman and a woman must not dress like a man...and I've heard some toasty arguments about that like "women shouldn't wear pants" and I knew someone who went to a church who had that as one of their CORE DOCTRINES, yikes!!! But what I think it really means is that the differentiation between a man and a woman should be clear and distinct, so that we shouldn't have to wonder whether someone is male or female or ask "what is a woman". Genesis 1 says that in the image of God made He him, male and female made He them. I don't believe that this excludes women from the image of God, but rather than men and women reflect their gendered part in the image of God, and the one flesh union of marriage completes His image reflected in us
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.