June Goes Before the Fall

It's that time of year again where everything is going to be the color of the rainbow and not because of the Noahic Covenant That's what we're going to talk about today on conversations with a Calvinist which begins right now And welcome back to conversations with the Calvinist My name is Keith Foskey and I am a Calvinist I am welcome.

I am welcoming today to the studio my good friend and friend of the show Richard Roden Hi Richard.

How are you today? Doing good doing good Got a day off.

You got me a day off work with this.

So that is awesome Just think about how important this podcast has become we have actually gotten people to take time off of work To come and sit and share with you the rich truths of God's holy inspired and inerrant Word And while we're doing that there are many who are not getting their little debbies.

That's right.

That's right Richard is the muffin man.

My kids call him He brings the the the little debbies and the muffins to us and we appreciate him But he's also a deacon at his church.

He has been my friend almost our whole lives and we have We have a joyful friendship and the Lord and we love to talk about the word So today that's just what we're gonna do.

We're gonna talk about the scriptures and we're going to do basically just do like a Bible study and That's not what I always do on the show as it's as the title of the show Conversations with the Calvinist scripture culture and media from a reformed perspective But today we're going to specifically address a passage of scripture because it is that time of year again as I mentioned on the introduction to the program it is what some people call Pride Month and The irony of that is that the Bible literally says pride goeth before the fall So it's interesting that this is the name of the month But for those of you who are somehow blissfully unaware, this is the month where the the sin of homosexuality Takes a first place in the Eyes of the world as far as businesses.

We're gonna see them placarded with rainbows and as I said before not because of Noah and the ark it's going to be because That particular symbol that particular sign which is intended to represent God's Covenant with Noah is has been absconded with and is now being used as the sign for homosexuality and We're going to see that all over.

There's there's there's almost no chance.

We're not going to see the the White House Being lit up with a rainbow which has been done for several years We're going to see probably Google by the time this hits YouTube.

This is probably gonna hit this weekend So right now it's it's not June yet.

Tomorrow is June 1st And so we're recording this a little early But by the time this hits Google's symbol will have changed to some form of a rainbow We'll see that on Facebook there will be changes there's going to be all kinds of businesses that are Giving like I think Burger King has like wrappers that are going to be Rainbow colored and things like that.

So we're gonna see this all around and often one of the objections that is given from the Regarding how the church deals with this subject is and I've heard this many times is Often people will say something to the effect.

You know what? There's all kinds of sinners in the church the church deals with, you know people who have had divorces which are you know Sometimes sinful we the church deals with people who all kinds of stuff Why does the church focus on this particular sin and make this sin an issue? Why do a podcast about this and not about other things? Have you heard that argument before? Mm-hmm.

Yes What do you usually say to somebody who says something like that? well, um The one thing I did tell and this might maybe I'm the only One it feels this way But when it comes to homosexuality and gay marriage Trying to word this well The gospel or marriage is a picture of the gospel Marriage is between biblically between one man and one woman for all time in Scripture in Ephesians 5 Christ is a picture of the husband or husband's a picture of Christ and The wife is a picture of the church It's Christ's relationship with the church and how he cares for his church and he has saved his church So when you distort marriage By making it an unnatural act between two women or two men You're perverting the gospel and that puts it on a higher level for me than other sins Um Because I believe it is a perversion of the gospel when that is played out because If you look at gay marriage and you try to apply gay marriage to what Paul says in Ephesians 5 Well, you're you can't because it is between a husband and a wife man and a woman Christ in the church now, does that mean that other sins are Less than I mean, it's it's just as simple for a heterosexual man to be in a Sexual relationship with a woman Outside of marriage.

I mean, let's make that clear but in my estimation this gets a lot more play for me at least because it is it's such it's so closely related to the Gospel in in its implications.

Okay, sir.

That's me.

Well, I would add to that.

I certainly think that's true and Certainly the marriage is a picture of the gospel.

I would add this thought and that is that When we think about other sins, I Don't know too many people who are arguing that adultery is not a sin.

That's there's also that yes Yeah, not too many people are starting adultery pride month where we celebrate We celebrate adulterous and adulterers.

There still seems to be some Smidgen of morality in our world which seems to indicate that there is some right and wrong when it comes to cheating You know what? Nobody wants to be called a cheater.

Nobody wants to be called a liar You know, so so but that is fading.

Oh, I Marie and that is fading.

Yeah, but Let's look at it from another perspective.

Not too many people are Endorsing murder now we could say of course people endorse homosexual or people endorse abortion which is murder But that's a the point is not too many people are out there saying we should start a murderers club or whatever Or pride month for murderers, and that's always been my contention is is is is when we talk about homosexuality Certainly you're right.

It is a picture of the gospel, but it also It's the only sin that I'm aware of and and perhaps there are others, but it's the only outright sin that the Bible Describes that it that there there seems to be a hardcore concerted effort to try to say this isn't sin This is not sinful and That is a change From the what the argument used to be the argument.

I believe has evolved okay, because there are two types of ways that people argue for homosexuality and You can jump in on this if you if you want to but there's two types of ways that I've seen people and argue for Homosexuality one is to say that the Bible The Bible isn't authoritative and therefore we don't have to we don't have to we don't have to abide by it So what Paul says doesn't matter Paul's not Jesus and Jesus never say anything about they would say right He's never say anything about homosexuality.

So Paul's not Jesus what he says about homosexuality Moses isn't Jesus So, you know, the Bible itself is written by men This is their argument so we can take out the parts that we just don't agree with It has been stated and I don't know that this is true, but Ian McClellan Who played? Magneto.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He is a homosexual man, right? and I read an article one time that said that when he goes into hotel rooms that he tears Leviticus 18 out of the Bibles because of his because it so offends him that because as a man who identifies as a gay man that that Leviticus 18, which is clearly a Condemnation of homosexuality called an abomination He says he tears that out of the Bibles and and throws it away because of its offense to him.

So to him The Bible just isn't authoritative If the Bible were authoritative we wouldn't be tearing pages out We wouldn't be saying this applies and this doesn't so there's that side of the argument Then there's the other side and the other side is I think more insidious and it's more common today And that is the side that says that homosexuality is not sinful and we have misinterpreted Paul We have misinterpreted the Old Covenant texts We've missed the boat and that's that's the the other side.

I don't know what your thoughts are about that Well, I'm I see what I see exactly what you're saying and I didn't know he and McKellen tour Pages out the Bible who doesn't surprise me because he's not a Christian man.

Anyway, sure But yes, you're absolutely correct that there are there are Christians who are now advocating that Homosexuality is not sinful.

Yes.

I've seen that Or well, we can say Christians with quotation marks because there are some that are practicing the lifestyle there's one thing for some prominent Christians to come out and Advocate for it, but they don't necessarily practice it It's others when you've got practicing homosexuals who claim to be Christians Who are saying it's okay.

Sure Which I've seen multiple times.

I think Doesn't Pete Buttigieg claim to be a Christian sure him and his husband.

Yes him and his husband Which is they claim to be Christian not really a thing, right? Okay And again, that's first John 3 9 those born of God did not continue a habitual practice of sin Well, if you're in a homosexual relationship, you know habitual practice of sin scriptures very clear about that So yes, the second will be much more insidious.

It's one thing for unbelievers to Reject the authority of the Bible.

It's another thing for but there but I would say there are people who think that they're Christian So there so there are people in the first camp who would say I'm a Christian I just don't think Paul was writing on behalf of God or I don't think Moses represents the heart of God And so there are people when I say they're Christian they claim to be Christians I'm not saying they truly are right, but they claim to be Christians and they're saying you know What I am a Christian because I follow Jesus So I'm just concerned about the red letters and I've heard people identify themselves as red letter Christians But the red letters were written by man.

So how are they authoritative for them? Yeah, that's a good that's the problem Yeah, if you're gonna make the claim that since the Bible was written by men It doesn't have any authority for you.

Then what part of it has authority for you? What part of it's written by God the only red letters? Well, the red letters were penned by Paul or I mean not Paul, but All the gospel writers John all them they wrote in red their names are on the book.

They're on the book It wasn't like Jesus wrote them down and you know put them in red for you Yeah, as far as we know, the only thing Jesus ever wrote was in the dirt with his finger I've always I did hear a great Just to get off track real quick, you know that story the woman brought to him an adultery and I and I understand There's a textual variant there that a lot of people would say.

Oh, did you know? Yes, I do know but taking it Let's just say it that the textual variant notwithstanding They bring Jesus an adulteress throw it throw at his feet and he starts writing with his finger and doesn't say what he wrote But I had a wonderful I don't remember who it was was a preacher years ago said I know what he was writing He was writing the names of their girlfriends It's like every time a guy saw oh he knows about Jenny You who without sin throw the first stone Brittany, yeah Yes so So anyway getting back to that.

There are those people who would say I'm a red-letter believer I only believe what Jesus said and Jesus never talked about homosexuality.

I would disagree with that I would say that Jesus never addresses homosexuality in the same way that Paul does Right, but I do believe Jesus Addresses What we might call the natural order of sexual Conduct and the natural order of sexual conduct we find in Matthew 19 where Jesus was asked specifically About the subject of divorce.

Mm-hmm And he is he is, you know, do you think you can divorce for any cause and he says have you not read? That from the beginning they were made male and female and for this reason the man shall leave his father and mother and Shall cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

Therefore what God has brought together.

Let not man separate That's that's Jesus's words right quoting from the Old Covenant Quoting the order in which God created and he's quoting the order of creation as God created a man God created a woman these two were created for union and marriage where sexual intimacy is meant to exist And that union once unified is to be maintained in perpetuity It's meant to be maintained forever.

So so for somebody to say Jesus never addresses the issue of sexuality He clearly does there.

Mm-hmm.

He clearly makes a marriage the the picture of a man and a woman coming together in union and That this was the way God designed it, right, but Another thing when somebody says well Jesus never talked about that you could say well Jesus never talked about bestiality either, right? And so if we're going to limit ourselves to only the things that Jesus specifically Affirmed or condemned then we can't we can't say that bestiality is wrong Even though the Bible does say that Leviticus in in the very same chapter I believe where it refers to homosexuality It also refers to having a sexual relationship with an animal, right, which is You know weird, but right, but it's there.

Yes, which means It's been around for a while Leviticus Clearly yes, pretty clear.

There's nothing new under the Sun.

That's right people.

There's nothing doing crazy stuff forever.

So in affirming the Old Covenant model of Man and woman by Jesus affirming and going back Not to Moses in the law, but rather to Moses's writing of the first book Which is Genesis right to creation Using creation as the model man was created woman was created one man one woman and as I've heard it said before no spares There wasn't like Adam Eve and you know, Brenda Brenda and you know, Martha and these different You know just in case Eve didn't work out or because or in case Adam wanted to have a night out or something It was Adam and Eve and that was it and that was it And so there is a model the model is one man one woman and we know that that model is Perverted a lot in the Old Covenant where we see men taking multiple wives, which was a cultural perversion of God's plan The first people to take multiple wives in Scripture and I taught about this when I was going through Genesis We're actually the unbelieving line.

We see the unbelieving sons of Cain were the first ones to practice Polly What's polygamy polygamy? I was thinking polyamory, but I knew that polygamy multiple marriages so there is a model that model has been perverted by men and so the perversion would then become the the opposition to the rule the rule is the man and the woman and Jesus follows that right, but if a person says I'm a Christian But I don't believe what Paul says.

I'm a Christian.

I don't believe what Moses said.

I'm a Christian I don't believe what Obadiah says or any of the you know, Micah or any of the rest.

I only believe what Jesus says I mean That to me would say you just don't believe the Bible is authoritative Because even when Jesus says something you don't like you're just gonna say well, I don't believe that either.

Well that's because they're They're nitpicking for their justification He didn't say homosexuality.

Yeah, therefore Jesus didn't talk about it therefore We're good.

They're not gonna do the deductive reasoning of like what you just did He talked about male and female.

He used creation order And you bring that all the way down to us now his normal conclusion Marriage between a man and a woman.

Yep.

They don't want to do that.

They're just looking for a word.

Yeah That's that's it.

And so That's how they justify Making that leap.

Well since Jesus didn't talk about and that's why they want to do that because Paul was clear with it We're gonna talk about a little bit, you know, he's very clear in two places But this is it's very clear.

But since Jesus didn't say the word well, then that means Jesus didn't have a problem with it Yeah, and they would go and I've heard people Go as far as say that Jesus would preside over a gay marriage today if he were alive today I've heard that and I'm thinking No, he wouldn't not but again But you're absolutely right.

They don't this isn't authoritative in any way shape or form Except for the pieces they want to be authoritative.

Yeah, and even those pieces they're taking they're not even taking in context Yeah, it's up It ultimately leaves me as the authority over the Bible right rather than the Bible being the authority over me I get to say what parts of the Bible are right and wrong based upon my Warped sense of right and wrong based upon my sinful nature I don't like it when Jesus says that he's the only way so I'm gonna make there be many ways This is not me talking.

I'm speaking as that's Oprah talking.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't like that So I can say Jesus was a great teacher except for the things that he taught Right It's a justification to indulge in the sinful lifestyle that they want to indulge in regardless of what that is Yeah, and and so so I do think that's an insidious Problem those who would say I'm a Christian, but I'm a basically an unbiblical one, right? but the other side are those who would say no, I believe the Bible and I believe you Have misinterpreted it.

Hmm.

That's the that's the Fingerpoint is the finger point of pointing at the the traditional Understanding is wrong the two 2,500 years of church history, you know that you know believed all the same things for all this time But suddenly now it's wrong.

I got you.

Yeah.

No, it's And that is it and so what we're gonna look at today as I said We're gonna do a Bible study that was all introduction If you've ever heard one of my sermons, you know My introductions tend to be there were some other people that said that we got it wrong that Charles Taze Russell Joseph Smith You know, they reinterpreted the scriptures too.

But anyway, sure Yeah You know, yeah, we've got the new y'all missed the point.

Anyway, go ahead Well, you mentioned you mentioned two passages and we're gonna look at them both today.

We're gonna look at Romans chapter 1 and Again, somebody might say pastor Keith.

I've heard you talk about this before Yes, but on What's gonna be different? I hope today is I really want to show you the the Interpretive method that is being used by the other side Who's making this argument and show you why I don't think it holds water and Also just because I do have people that still come to me today and they say pastor What does the Bible say about homosexuality and and I say, okay Here are some passages and it's so I do know that even even Now there are people who just haven't read these things And so if you're a person, you know, maybe you've read through the scriptures But you just maybe you didn't catch this or maybe it didn't it didn't register what was being talked about That's what this is for.

Did you sort of point this out? How do we understand it? How do we come to this conclusion? How we come to conclusions is so very important how we arrive at You know, like I would affirm I would stake my faith and my life on justification by faith alone But I didn't come to that conclusion because I was told to by Martin Luther John Calvin or RC Sproul I came to that conclusion because I believe that is clearly what the Bible teaches in so many passages very Specifically Galatians, which was the very argument of Galatians is you're not saved by keeping the law But you're saved by faith in Christ alone.

So The same thing here.

How do we come to these conclusions? Well Romans chapter 1 is Is obviously The introduction to the entire letter and this is this is Paul's magnum opus.

This is Paul's I would say that Among his letters probably the the the even though Galatians is my favorite.

This is probably the the most most thorough and and most powerful in the sense of it provides for us a as close as we get to a systematic approach to theology because he begins by outlining the issue of his purpose which is to proclaim the gospel the gospel is the power of God into salvation for all who believe to the Jew first and also to the Greek and then he goes into sin as as a As a universal problem the end of chapter 1 through chapter 2 where he talks about those who have the law who don't keep the law They they show themselves as sinners as well and he gets a chapter 3 where he addresses the subject of sin as universal Therefore everyone is understand.

There's none good.

No, not one.

There's none who understands none who seeks after God So we get a chapter 3 at the end of chapter 3 he begins to move into the doctrine of justification How is a sinful man made right with the Holy God and he spends chapter 3 in chapter 4 and even into chapter 5 dealing With the subject of justification when he gets in chapter 5 he starts dealing with the relationship between Adam and Christ We are dead in Adam.

We are alive in Christ and he talks about that federal headship relationship that we have with both in chapter 6 He talks about sanctification Shall we continue in sin so that grace can abound certainly not goes 6 7 and 8 8 is where we get that final Passage nothing can separate us from the love of God wonderful text there then in chapters 9 10 11 he talks about the relationship between Israel and the church and how there's always been a remnant of Israel and now the church has been brought in has been Grafted into that remnant because we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ So we are made as it were part of that believing covenant and then in chapter 12 to chapter 16.

We get a application of the letter Beginning with the call to renewing our minds, right? So that's an overview of the whole book Going back then to chapter 1 we have his greeting Which is takes us from chapter verse 1 to verse 7 then his desire to go and see the Romans That's verses 8 to 15 and then he begins to talk about the righteous living by faith This was the passage that changed the life of Martin Luther when he said I'm not ashamed of the gospel For it is the power of God and the salvation Everyone who believes to the Jew first and also to the Greek for the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith as it Is written the just shall live by faith and I just love that passage because he's saying faith from first to last We're saved by faith from first to last Then he begins his his section on how God's wrath Is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth And he talks about the fact that all men know that God exists and can see God By virtue of everything that's created, right? I don't know if you do this Richard I know when I'm when I'm sharing the gospel with somebody and they say that they're an atheist Often I make an appeal to the world around them You don't don't we see in the world around us the evidence of a creator if you see a painting You know, there was a painter if you see a building, you know, there was a builder Yeah, welcome.

I walk I walk through the if we were on a hike and we were in the middle of woods and we come up on a cabin It's been abandoned for 20 years and I said, how did that cabin get there? They said well somebody built it I said what did you see him build it? Well, no How you know to build it because the cabins there? That's right tree Psalm 19 the heavens declare the glory of God from the shows of handiwork.

So yes, I've done the same thing It's creation itself screams the existence of God.

There's no way around it.

That's right And it tells us here too that not only do men know that God exists, but that they are without excuse, right? They're on a polygamous.

They are without a defense.

No man's gonna be able to look at God and say I just didn't know you were There I didn't I didn't have evidence that you were there Then It moves into the subject of idolatry it's beginning at first 21 it says for although they knew God They did not honor him as God or give thanks to him But they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened claiming to be wise They became fools and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God For images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things so that's the sin the great sin of man is the sin of idolatry and I would say that makes perfect sense especially when we look at the Ten Commandments the first two commandments deal specifically with Having no other gods before the Lord and not making something and calling it God, which is the second commandment, which is idolatry making a graven image therefore this is the This is the context we're gonna talk about in a moment What one of the men who argue that Paul doesn't address homosexuality he uses that context in his argument He says Paul's not really talking about homosexuality.

He's talking about idolatry hmm, so Idolatry is the context when we get to verse 23 Then we get to verse 24 and we have the word therefore the word therefore of course Indicates that we are now going to take what we just learned and we're going to apply it to how this works out so this therefore that and It says therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts To impurity to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and they worshiped and served the creature Rather than the Creator who is blessed forever Amen so Paul has just brought to a crescendo his thoughts and his thoughts are that because of Idolatry because men know God is there and they won't worship him.

They are Worshipping other things God gives them up in their in their hearts and and and I've often referred to that as the wrath of Abandonment.

Mm-hmm.

I believe God has different ways that he expresses his wrath.

Certainly.

There's eternal wrath, which is in hell I think there's consequential wrath which happens when like if I If I do something wrong and I receive punishment, that's a that's a certain built-in wrath, right? If I if I drink every day for all my life and I get drunk every day I end up getting a disease as a result or drive my car into a brick wall.

There's consequences right that are built in Reaping what you sow that would would you or if it's God giving them over as like him lifting his hand of restraint? Yeah, I would say When it says God gave them and that and that's what we're gonna verse 24 says God gave them up That is God Allowing well, I don't like the word allow their punishment is they get to do what they want to do.

That's right That's right.

Basically the thing that was restraining their heart has been removed, right? And now they can just free to you want indulge in those passions go for it I always think of like this the Holy Spirit of God like a like like a foot on a brake pedal and I know that may be a weird analogy, but like if you sit with your car and drive and You're already on a hill pointing down You've got to keep your foot firmly on that brake pedal, right? And if you begin to lift your foot off that brake pedal You're gonna begin to slowly go forward.

Mm-hmm Because the engine itself wants to go forward and because you're already on an incline going down but if you jerk your foot off that brake, you're just gonna Shoot down and and and and worse if you take your foot off the brake and hit the gas now You're really going and and and as the Holy Spirit is is Letting off that brake the the heart is pushing the gas To to to go.

So yes the giving up in the lust of their heart to impurity to the dishonoring their bodies among themselves Is is the result of that idolatry and we see it I do believe that this has a sexual connotation because it says the lusts of their heart to impurity now We're not yet talking about homosexuality.

I believe that this is referring to the expression of sexual sin that happens almost everywhere we see a society that is given over to To to lust the first thing that happens is we see rampant sexual indiscretion So what happened in the United States? About 50 years ago.

They had what was called a sexual revolution where we're still feeling the effects today.

Yeah, what we're gonna see though that that sexual revolution Gives way to a homosexual revolution, right? It was actually MacArthur who pointed that out I thought it was a very good very good point.

He made he said that that what we see in Romans 1 is we see idolatry Which gives way to sexual revolution which gives way to homosexual revolution And then all kinds of other sins are then seen as being Okay, because we have opened the floodgate and that's what we see in Romans.

We see sexual revolution homosexual revolution and then it goes to that list of sins where they're doing everything from hating God to Hating their neighbor and all those things and we can see a corollary to our country today sexual evolution in the 60s homosexual revolution Still going on Today and now we're starting to see Maps minor attracted persons.

Yeah, that's starting to be try to be normalized Yes, so it's only going further and further down the rabbit hole Absolutely of just absolute depravity where we get to the point where at the end of Romans 1 it says I'm excuse me.

It's right here.

It says Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die They not only do them but they give approval to those who practice it So now we're back to the Isaiah issue of calling good evil and evil good which where we're quickly getting to We're there.

We're in a place where the virtues of manhood and womanhood are said No, those are not good.

But rather we are we are proclaiming the virtues of transsexual identity The things that were good 20 years ago 50 years ago are now being called bad and the things that were evil are now being When we have a whole month to celebrate right, right So this is a in a sense a roadmap for what we see around us, but we're not the only we're not the only nation We're not the only place in the world that's ever dealt with this.

This is what happens when Idolatry gives way to sexual sin and so I do think idolatry is here because what's how all Idolatry is is leaving the one true God and making a god of your own, right? It's just like yourself Yeah, right Just like you know Anytime we meet a person who says well my god is this or you know My witch warlock this and I know that sounds weird, but people say that yes, we'll say, you know Well my coven, you know, they don't they don't condemn me.

Well, that's it.

Of course They they get to make up the rules as they go right there's there's no objective truth or anything it's That's right.

Whatever desires of your heart which as we know from Jeremiah are very wicked Yeah, and we can see them all around us But anyway, so this first giving up is in verse 24 and it is the result of God Of them turning to idolatry and it says they worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever Amen, sounds like Paul's at the end of a chapter here sounds like okay.

He's blessed forever.

Amen He gives us a benediction statement here at the end of verse 25, but he's not done Verse 26 and 27 are really the passages we want to look at today.

I can't just look at just two passage I have to show that a lot.

No, you gotta you gotta get the lead on how this fits together because the arguments against it to me are so So they're so insidious and they're so subversive Mm-hmm, and they're and they're they sound like we really know what we're talking about and the other people just they've never considered this Well, that's the different.

That's the danger of how can I word this? smart people Justifying their positions they can take and twist stuff and make it sound orthodox.

That's right As Martin Luther said they take this scripture and treat it as as a wax nose that can be formed in any shape they want Then that's much better than what I just said Anyway for this reason So this is uh similar Because he says in verse 24 therefore god gave them up and then he says in verse 26 for this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions Now he's already used the phrase Uh dishonoring of their bodies So we and he talked about the lust of their hearts to impurity dishonoring their bodies Now he's saying he's calling it dishonorable passions And he says for their women exchange natural relations for those that are contrary to nature Now notice he doesn't say Lesbianism that was not a word that he would have used And he doesn't use the word sex However, he does use some words that indicate a meaning that we can ascertain based upon his words He says for their women exchanged the natural relations for those that are contrary to nature And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women natural relations with women would be sexual relations And were consumed with passion for one another Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error Okay Okay That's what it says it goes on to say and since they did not see fit to acknowledge god God gave them over to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done and they were filled with all manner of Unrighteousness evil covetousness malice it goes on and lists more sins, but it specifically addresses in verses 24 and 25 a sexual indiscretion and then it moves on to a Homosexual indiscretion moving from one to the other and therefore we have to address the the question one He doesn't use the word homosexual here, so they would argue You know That it's possible that he's not talking about that.

In fact, i've heard some people say what he's talking about here is pedophilia, which is man with a child or woman with a child, uh, or uh, uh abuse uh abusive sexual relationships Um, I don't see that in the text.

It doesn't say it doesn't say men with children.

Um, it it the the the key here Is the word unnatural? Right and years ago.

I remember having an online discourse with a man He was a I think he was a professor at some school here in town And it just so happened to be a mutual friend of someone else's on facebook And I said that homosexuality was unnatural And he lost his mind on me got very upset with me because he was arguing Uh that there is no such thing as natural He was saying he was saying paul is using a term that we can no longer accept He was saying that natural is not a uh scientific word, uh his argument was um There there is no standards in nature that we can appeal to And I know I see your face I love it those of you who aren't listening Richard just went say what because we we don't we do know those are standards Yeah, that's god created a standard order for i'm sorry.

God created a standard order for nature in the beginning so And that nature but it doesn't it doesn't apply now Yeah, how I have heard this argument I want to see how you'd handle this because I I would I I know how I respond But I want to hear your response and I know you don't know this.

So so No Here we go, well, I didn't I didn't warn you.

Okay, that's fine.

Um A movie came out years ago It was a comedy called I now pronounce you chuck and larry I remember the movie.

I didn't see it.

It was um, it's uh, adam sandler and or kevin james or somebody Kevin, james and adam sandler the plot of the film was um, There was a man who needed to be married for some reason It was either he was going to be deported or something something like he had need to be married so He his best friend says well, let's get married Let's the two of us get married and instead of a woman be two men And so the movie itself In various parts And again, I I don't remember where this came out.

I don't know how I saw it I just remember I remember having seen it in various parts.

It was endorsing homosexuality in a very subversive way and I remember distinctly one portion at the very end where they actually have to go to court to defend their relationship because You know, it's it's a it's a legal drama if you run and uh The daughter of one of the guys gets on the stand and begins to argue That there's homosexuality seen in the animal kingdom And therefore it is natural because we see certain forms of animals that produce uh asexually that don't have uh natural sexual relationships or that or that have um animals will change gender or or there there can be like a chemical change that allows them to produce and and and her and this was like a like a 12 year old child, but she was I remember the judge going.

I never knew that like like like like he his heart Was being changed and the whole movie By the time the end of it comes along you see there's there's a there is a an agenda here It's not just you know to to create a comedy, but it's to create a to create a a position to say If you disagree with this, then you just don't understand Nature, you know nature is showing us that homosexuality is right So what are your you have you ever heard somebody say that that it's natural? Yes.

I've uh Especially when it comes to you you see Homosexual actions in in nature, you know And my mind goes to you know, I used to have dogs Okay, two male dogs and every now and then One of them would jump up on the other one and start going to town But that doesn't mean that they were gay dogs because if a female and he'd come out in there They'd forget about each other real quick It's just that it was an urge to hit him and he went with it and they're dogs Okay, first of all, they're dogs they don't know what they're doing they're dogs they're responding to Impulses and they don't have morals.

They don't have morals.

They have instincts.

They have instincts, correct? the other thing when you talk about um Animals are changing gender Okay, and that's been like a transgender argument.

See it changes gender genders, you know, it's a construct whatever Uh, I saw a documentary on I forget this kind of fish it was Uh, but basically it could it would go into like hibernation For so many months and come out the opposite gender And it would do this And this is why it would do it because In in whatever in the area was at it was living in The population had gotten too gender heavy to one side So it would go Swap gender and come out So that it could then start producing babies again So if it was female if there's too many females that would become male then come back out and start producing More males, I guess but the point is It had to do it in order to maintain the species because there was too many females not enough males to propagate species Yeah, if it hadn't done that Then the species quits existing because there's no more Actual natural Uh Procreation going on.

Yeah, it was out of necessity Transgenderism isn't necessity.

Well, I was gonna say I was gonna say and we could say because that is a natural thing that happens right that there is a Meaning within the bounds of nature that this is something that god has created within their dna to do Absolutely, but there is nothing that we see in the human kind where a Even a man who dresses like a woman and has the surgeries They're not having babies No, they can't they they have yet to be able to produce within them.

The um The womb right the things necessary to take a baby to term.

I mean, you know arnold schwarzenegger notwithstanding Yeah, and I don't think that would work that was in the movie But you know danny devito implanted him into a cavity inside his abdomen and I don't even think of an implant.

No, it wouldn't work.

It wouldn't work but that idea of here you have This thing that's happening in nature and they say well see right there it happened in nature and my response is a little simpler Uh, my response is yeah tigers eat their young not everything that happens in nature is uh is intended I mean you understand right if you're going to tell me well it happens in the animal kingdom Therefore it should be right for us.

Uh, I watched a monkey rape another monkey one time And you might not call it rape, but it looked pretty bad to me It was at the zoo the monkey didn't ask he didn't take her to dinner first.

He just he did not get consent He went and did what he wanted to do And then left right if that happened in the world all of us would say that's wrong So to say that natural here in romans getting back to the text means Well things that we see within the kingdom the animal kingdom.

That's natural.

No Natural means what something is designed for And we know that when we look at the human body There are certain designs that are natural and the the the male reproductive organ Is naturally designed to function along with the female reproductive organ and could we not interrupt you but could we go this far? Of course we could go further to the microphone concerning natural and unnatural.

All right Scripture is very clear That creation groans under the burden of sin If the creation wasn't under the burden of sin would the monkey be raping the other monkey? You see what i'm saying you see elements of The perversion of nature because of the sin that it's been marred with that's a good point.

Yeah.

Well here we are.

Yeah, okay Anyway, yeah, that's a real good point because you know, the bible talks about the lion laying down with the lamb, right? You know, that's that is actual nature Right, that's created.

That's pre-fall nature right that that the lion would not Be a murderer a killer of the lamb for sustenance, correct.

All right, so um Getting back to this text the idea of natural and unnatural.

I want to interact with something that we have here I'm not going to put it on the screen for you because i'm just going to read this this is from Matthew vines now.

Matthew vines is um Matthew vines wrote a book called god and the gay christian He does many debates on this particular subject where he addresses homosexuality and says that a That that what we have according to his argument Is what we have in the bible is a condemnation against unnatural sexual relations but a homosexual according to vines a Homosexuals desires are natural for them Therefore paul is not addressing them Because paul is only addressing those who would he said this he's in fact i'm gonna read it.

He said, um If a man who has homosexual desires marries a woman he would be doing wrong because he would be going against his natural desire Let me read it to you Hmm Okay, so this is a portion of his debate.

I have the whole main the whole transcript here You can find it on his website if you're interested in reading the whole thing he um He he does away with the old testament basically just by saying, uh, you know, uh, The verses in leviticus don't apply to christians.

He says that right there So so we don't even have to concede, you know, don't have to worry about that your friend with andy stanley Anyway um And then he he talks about romans one the the interpretation we are giving now the traditional interpretation.

He says is wrong Uh, because we've missed a huge point And this is what he says he says um I'm going to read a lengthy portion.

I'm going to start here with this phrase.

He says the women He says exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones and the men abandoned relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men Both the men and women started with heterosexuality They were naturally disposed to it just as they were naturally disposed to The knowledge of god, but they rejected their original natural inclinations for those that were unnatural for them same-sex behavior Paul's argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange The reason he says that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew god But then turned away from him exchanging him for idols Paul's reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate the larger sin of idolatry But in order for this analogy to have any force in order for it to make sense within its argument The people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them and that is exactly how he describes it But that is not what we are talking about Gay people have a natural permanent orientation Toward those of the same sex.

It's not something that they choose and it's not something that they can change They aren't abandoning or rejecting homosexuality.

They never there I'm, sorry heterosexuality That's never an option for them to begin with and if applied to gay people paul's argument here should actually work in the other direction If the point of the passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual Then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex So too those who have a natural orientation towards the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex for them That would be exchanging the natural for the unnatural and just the same way we have natural Nature, we have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation had a hard time even reading that and not because I can't read I read rather well, but Just getting the words out of my mouth.

Yeah, that was difficult.

Um So paul is talking about he's only talking about since heterosexuals went to the opposite which is homosexuality in that passage That's what makes it unnatural and you flip it but nowhere in that passage one does he talk about homosexuals? Going to heterosexuality As so you're supposed to make that leap first of all.

Yeah second What is his definition of nature? Where's matthew vines get his definition of what's natural again? If he gets his definition of what's natural from what god did in the beginning then there's no other interpretation for this other than Going outside of the male female sexual relationship Is unnatural that is the only conclusion you can come to? Unless you have a different definition what god meant by what's natural and what he created in the beginning That's right Because what he created in the beginning if you read genesis one all the way through the creation account What does he say before he rested at everything he made it was good.

Yeah If it was good, then that means it was right because god did it Yeah, and then in genesis two when he sets them up and presides over the first marriage It's between adam and eve as we talked about before bone of my bone flesh of my flesh.

It's a Hello, this is the natural order of things Yeah, period and anything you see whether it's in nature itself between animals or human beings committing What paul is talking about here? It is against the natural order of things.

Yeah, period If you want to argue that you see homosexual acts in nature Well, guess what you're seeing an aberration aberration of the natural order of things that god set forth Period i'm sorry.

No, no aggravated the stew out of me Oh, man, you're so funny anyway, all right, I I the the part that got me Was this part? he says He's he is he's doing something called begging the question now a lot of people a lot of people miss When people say you're begging the question what most people means is you're raising the question That's not what begging the question is begging.

The question is when you assume your conclusion In your argument, right? That that that's what begging the question is you're assuming the conclusion Uh rather than making an argument you're assuming your conclusion is correct as part of your argument So he says here, uh in a in a way that I think is begging the question he says Gay people have a natural permanent orientation towards those of the same sex It's not something that they choose and it's not something that they can change now I have seen some scientific data.

I know that there's not a lot that's actually available because a lot of what's done in this area is actually not This is an area people don't want to touch because it's such a hotbed.

It's such a hot button topic when it comes to um the issue of Politics and nobody wants to touch it.

But as far as we know, there's no gay gene No, there's nothing there There's nothing that that they can point to and say okay This person has this or this person has that and that and therefore this chromosome or that chromosome There is there is something we can look at for male and female the x and the x and the y The x and the x but but there's no gene that is homosexual.

So he is making a statement that gay people have a natural permanent orientation towards Those of the same sex and it's not something that they choose now I would then because i've heard this challenge I even from homosexuals people who identify as homosexuals.

I've heard them say um that I am free to choose and i've chosen this So so he's not speaking for everybody because there are some who would say I don't believe in such Genetic predestination because what he is what he's affirming here is genetic predestination, right? He is saying there's something about me That is predestined to be gay Now if somebody made I just want to make this point if somebody made this argument for say Murder I'm predestined to be a murderer We would not accept that as a reasonable excuse for murder if somebody says i'm predestined to be a thief Because I have a natural permanent orientation towards liking other people's stuff And wanting to take other people's stuff.

We would not accept that As one as natural we would say that's still unnatural Even if that's your even if that's your permanent orientation, even if that's the way that you think your mind is made You're a kleptomaniac.

Okay, you're still a thief, right? You're still wrong um, you are uh, uh, uh You're not going to You're not going to satisfy any court of law by blaming a Suppose a genetic predestination and if you were to say that to matthew vines Matthew vines would immediately especially when it comes to murder take you to the ten commandments of his authority to say that Uh what god said that thou shalt not murder As his authority because that's why god set that set it in motion That was god's decree what god's decree in creation was man and woman Yeah, so there is no permanent natural orientation toward those of the same sex Yeah, because if you're going to say that if he's going to say that then the way he's going to say is that god created them that way to Be that way and therefore It he created them to be against what he ordained at the creation account.

Yeah, and that makes no sense to me now We've never talked about this.

I don't know what your opinion is No, it's okay.

We are we are getting close to the hour mark.

So we'll we've got to begin to draw to a close but um when we um One of the things that i've seen a lot of churches say is They they actually affirm some of what he's saying here because i've heard a lot of churches say um That there is such a thing as same-sex attraction and that's usually the term it's ssa same-sex attraction um and therefore Uh, we have to make room for that.

We have to make room for same-sex attraction and say Um, you know, we can't affirm you being in a homosexual relationship, but we understand that you are not attracted to uh Women the way you are to men and therefore we have to give way to same-sex attraction okay in in what Okay, it depends on what capacity they're talking about affirming it.

Okay now if you're talking about in a church where you have someone who's a believer in christ They bear fruit And then they come to you and say listen I've always struggled with same-sex attraction but I do not act on it I do not i'm not in a relationship Anyway, i've chosen to stay single because i'm not attracted to women i'm attracted to men to say it's a man And i'm doing all I can to mortify this sin of the flesh And they just they're coming to you looking for counsel for help for prayer, whatever Someone to walk a lot.

That's what you're supposed to do.

Yeah, there's going to be I mean It's it would be the same thing if I came to my pastor and said listen I want to have an affair every minute of every day Okay.

Yeah And I struggle with it constantly.

I've never had a guy say that but i've i've had guys say similar things I've struggled with porn or something porn or you know I'm, so sexually oriented that all I think about all day long is having sex is one of me I'm gonna cheat on my wife.

I don't do something about it.

Yeah And coming to help coming for counsel and trying to mortify that deed that sin of the flesh That's part of the sanctification process.

Okay if you're talking about Affirming and dealing with same-sex attraction that way in your church with a press with a believer who shows that they are connected to the true vine and Everything about them says that they are believers and i've i've known a couple of Christian guys who've been that way But they don't act on it to my knowledge And they're just looking for someone to talk to yeah I can deal with that all day long.

Yeah But if you're just affirming it just to affirm it for the sake of trying to be popular in the culture Then you're missing the boat.

Yeah, that's that's where i'd stand on that one.

Yeah, so Well, here's here's where I I have a bit of an issue and and I think I agree with what you just said I think I think that was very um That was very godly thought that you know If a person comes to you and they're and they and they're dealing with ssa We want to call it that right and you and but but they're they're they're dealing with it by um seeking to Mortify the flesh.

I love that phrase that you use mortify the flesh because that's what we're all called to do Be killing the flesh or it'll be killing you, right? I I do think though that here's where I take an issue with the broader culture That I see in christenedom Is there has been an opening for ssa? Across the board many people, you know, we have to affirm that there are christians that are same-sex attracted They're not acting on it, but they're same-sex attracted where I think the issue lies Is not still saying that attraction is unnatural Right, but I think And the reason why I bring this up, that's the way that I see the shift is it's not just okay, we're going to say I understand you have this attraction and And we're going to love you and you know, we're going to love you through it We're going to deal with it.

Love you.

Love you Anyway, it doesn't matter, you know, if you have this attraction, we love you in christ and we're going to we're going to love you That's not the point the point is is a desire for that sin Natural and I would say I would say that still falls under the category of we need to deal we need to talk about that desire and say There is a sense in which if a man came to me And said and I know this is not the same but if a man came to me and says I have a desire for children I would not affirm that as a positive Right, I would say brother.

We need to deal with your heart Because your heart is caught up in something that is desperately wicked and if this is what's consuming you We need this isn't this is not only an unnatural desire.

This is a perversion Because if a young man came to me and said pastor keith I am thinking about sex I would say, uh, That's natural Now i'm not i'm not saying I would affirm pornography or anything like that I'm, just saying if a young man is thinking about a sex with a woman That's a natural desire among a young man but the unnatural desire so if a man's thinking about having sex with a man or if a woman's having sex with a woman or a or someone's having Wanting to have relations with a child or an animal These are outside of the borders of what is natural.

Okay, and that's where I I would say I agree with you everything that you said I think is right and how to deal with it The only thing I would add would would be to say do you understand this desire and if they're fighting it if they're mortifying it They probably already that's what I was going to say in that in my scenario They're coming to me because they know because they already know I don't need to do this This is a sinful.

This is sinful in every way shape or form Yeah, and what I see in the church though is I see people who are saying we can't tell them it's unnatural Because it's natural for them Well, that's hogwash That's absolutely the wrong way to go because then that only leads to all it does is reinforce that this is okay and this is right reinforces that's okay, and it's right and and then And it's a slippery slope because eventually if you're going to affirm that it's a natural thing Yeah, you know, it's just natural for you to have let have feelings toward a man as it is toward a woman Then you're eventually going to end up down the road of you're going to be performing gay marriages in church I mean, there's there's no way that's where the road leads.

Yep You you get you got to make a stand and I want people to understand I know I got Sounding like I was getting heated when I was talking about some of this stuff later in this episode But I want you to understand I don't When dealing with this thing we have to deal with them with compassion we have to deal with them in a christian manner and You know even sometimes with kid gloves because this is a sensitive issue, but at the same time you got to make a stand This is right or this is wrong.

Yep That's you know, and I keep I keep referencing natural or unnatural natural unnatural and I keep coming back to first john Because that's what we're studying in sunday school in our sunday school class But john makes it very clear black and white Much of the christian walk is black and white and this is black and white.

Yeah, there's no There's no gray area here I agree, it's natural unnatural and so You can you can deal with people with compassion and love and grace But still be firm in your stance Of what the bible says.

Yeah, you cannot compromise that.

That's right because our authority is the word of god period the end Yeah, so Well, we've we've come to what has to be part of our conclusion.

We're over an hour now So I I just want to end by reading first corinthians six Um, we're not going to have time to give the exposition that we I know we wanted to talk about There are two greek words here that are that are used to translate the word homosexuality.

One is malakoi, which means soft usually, uh is representing the more effeminate partner in the homosexual relationship or we might say the the the one well The submissive the submissive and then uh, the arson of coitus, which is the combination of arsenos, which is For man and coitus, which means sex and so the two words together are the active In fact, it says it in my esv at the bottom.

It says the two greek terms translated by this phrase Referred to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts So, um, i'm just going to read this and then i'm going to draw us to a close before I do that I say richard.

Thank you For being on the show today Do you have anything you want to add before? Well, i'm happy to contribute to if the wrong people see this on youtube you're out No, I know But but I hope I hope that we've been fair I mean we looked at the text we talked about our understanding of what nature and natural I even brought commentaries with me We didn't even get around to reading them.

I think we said most of what was in them.

Anyway, um, there was one Well, I won't even get it if you're interested in looking at james voice's commentary on this or john mccarthur's commentary That's what we looked at right before the show just to kind of see what they said and we even looked at calvin calvin Addresses unnatural acts.

He doesn't use the word homosexuality, but it makes sense that he wouldn't because it's you know He's writing 500 years ago Therefore the the language was not as defined in in regard to this and when he said unnatural acts He was referring to he was referring to Yeah, the departure.

Yeah, absolutely.

There wasn't no argument about it All right, so here's the passage of first corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 it says do you not know That the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of god Do not be deceived neither the sexual immoral Nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who practice homosexuality Nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of god And such were some of you But you were washed you were sanctified you were justified in the name of the lord jesus christ and by the spirit of our god So we end on that note from the word of god.

I want to thank you again for watching Today and listening to conversations with a calvinist Thank you richard for being here And if you have any questions or something you'd like for us to address on a future episode Please send me an email at calvinistpodcast at gmail.com again.

That's calvinistpodcast at gmail.com Thank you for listening to conversations with a calvinist.

My name is keith foskey and i've been your calvinist.