Sexual Ethics - Fornication, Adultery, Polyamory

Course Logistics and Final Exam Preparation

Again, and if anybody shows up, they show up. We got only a few here tonight. I hope we have some more joining us online. And I think that we do. But if not, that's okay, too. This past week, you should have taken your quiz.

And if you had difficulty, I was talking to one of our in class students. If if you had difficulty, and you have a question, you can always email me. And we can discuss if there's a discrepancy on the exam, and I will go in and fix it.

So that was our last quiz. Before the final, we have this week, next week, and then the last class. And at the last class, there will be a final given out. I'm not sure how many questions are going to be on it yet.

I'm still working on it. Last class, it was 50 questions probably will be commensurate to that, but may not be exact. This class, I'm finding that this class is harder to write questions for. Because I want to ask things like, you know, explain to me how you would answer this question.

The problem is it's hard to do on a digital test, you know, usually it's either multiple question, multiple choice or true false. So it may end up being that on the last on the final, there may be a couple of essay questions that I have to grade manually.

I'm working on that still. That's one thing I haven't done yet. But there is a way for the test for you to make like one question an essay question. And then you don't get your final grade until I go in and read it and give a grade to that essay question.

So that may end up being how it is. Just keep your eye out for that one. Another thing that should be happening right now is you should be thinking about class eight, because class eight is a is a student choice class, meaning you get to present ethical dilemmas, and we talk about them in class.

So I've already had two students because I mentioned it last week. I've had two students send in their thing they want to talk about. I'm asking everyone to have those to me by week seven, which means next week, that way I have a week to compile everything and to create at least get get us started with some answers.

And it's all about conversation. I hope we have a few more people in class eight, because I'm going to, we're going to go through if you remember the very first class, I gave you a a handout for making ethical decisions and had like gather the facts do this do this, like the seven steps.

I want to go through that for the various things. So like one of the one of the dilemmas that was asked was the dilemma of not a dilemma but the question of should military service be mandatory? That was a that was one of the things that we could discuss as an ethical question, right?

Because some countries do it, some countries don't our country, sort of half does it with the with the selective service. But right now, it's an all volunteer service should men be forced to go should women be forced to go?

Those are some of the questions we're going to address in that final class. And so I want each of you to pick one or two, you can hand in more than one. Just know that, you know, the more we have, the less we'll get to do for each one.

But I do want to go over as many as we can. And they're not necessarily theological questions. They're ethical questions, even though there may have some theology behind them. Just keep that in mind. You know, it's it's dealing with specific ethical dilemmas.

Life Ethics, Death Ethics, and War Ethics

So we have looked at so far, three different categories of ethics. We have looked at number one, we looked at life ethics, which was week three, we looked at abortion, reproduction and genetics. And week four, we looked at death ethics with and that was Brother Bert who taught suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment.

Last week, we looked at war ethics, which dealt with pacifism, just war theory and personal protection and defense. Tonight, we are going to look at sexual ethics. We're going to look at these categories, marriage and divorce, fornication, adultery, and polyamory.

And we are going to look at alternative lifestyle issues. Now, I do not prefer the term alternative lifestyle, because I think that sort of sanctifies sinful lifestyles. But I use that term only because that is commensurate with how it is talked about in the public square as alternative lifestyle.

So that that is why I use that term, I may eventually scrap that and try to find a better term. But if anyone wants to take issue with me, I'm not endorsing the term alternative lifestyle, I'm simply using it because it is commensurate with the with the language of the day.

So that being said, let's begin with a word of prayer. Father, I thank you for the few that are here tonight. And I'm thankful that they have a desire to study your word and study the truth of what your word says to us about how we ought to behave.

And Lord, we know we live in a world that is plagued by sin and under the curse of sin. And so we have to struggle with sinful behaviors, not only in others, but also in ourselves. So I pray, Oh, God, that we would be gracious and how we seek to answer ethical dilemmas, knowing Lord that we to struggle with our own battles.

But yet at the same time, Lord, let us hold firm to the truth of the word. Even where there are difficulties, let us not shy away from saying what is true, holding true to what is or holding fast to what is true and and fleeing from what is evil.

We pray this in Jesus name and for his sake. Amen. All right. Brother, if you want to if you would close that that door, we are going to begin tonight with a subject that certainly causes no, no debate.

He said with tongue in cheek, there's certainly no debate over the subject of marriage and divorce. Ha ha. Well, actually, my notes say different. This is what my notes say. There is likely not a more difficult subject to discuss among professing believers than the subject of marriage and divorce.

Often people have very strong opinions about the subject. Yet just as often, these positions are not subjected to scripture, but rather come from our own experiences. Well, people are often molded by their experiences and they tend to mold scripture to their experience rather than seeking to be conformed to the scripture.

We often base our opinions on the experiences we have and seek to interpret the scripture in light of our experience. That's called experiential isogenesis. And people do it all the time reading into the text something that goes along with their experience.

I want to begin by saying that there is a diversity of opinion on the subject of marriage and divorce. But just because there is a diversity of opinion does not mean that there is a diversity of right and wrong.

There is one right answer and many wrong answers. The problem is finding out what that is. God does not hold a diverse opinion. He knows what is correct. And in ethics, our goal is to try to determine God's view on a matter.

But sometimes it is difficult, especially when godly men stand at odds on different things. So this becomes rather difficult. Under the subject of marriage and divorce, we're going to talk about four categories.

And this is the four categories. We're going to talk about the category of permanency. And then we're going to talk about semi permanence. So it's permanence, semi permanence, semi permissive, and permissive.

Now, maybe I have jumped ahead a little bit, but these four things deal with the subject of divorce. So maybe before we even get to these, maybe it would be good for us to, at least from a biblical perspective, define what marriage is.

The Bible defines marriage for us. In the second chapter of the book of Genesis, it says for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, he shall cleave under his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

That is the biblical definition of marriage. And as I often point out, when I'm doing premarital counseling, that passage is not about Adam and Eve. Because the passage says for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, well, Adam didn't have a father and a mother.

So what that passage is, is that passage is a prescriptive passage based upon what happened with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were married, as it were, by God in the garden, establishing the first marriage, establishing that covenant relationship.

And then God says, because of this, based on this, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall hold fast to or cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. And they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Brother, you got your Bible open. Can you tell me the verse so that everyone else has? I'm doing this from memory. So what is it? It should be the end to what? 224. Okay, I believe. Yeah. So in chapter two, it gives us this.

And again, it's not about Adam and Eve. It's a prescription for marriage. And we know it becomes the prescription for marriage. Because later in the Bible, when Jesus is asked about marriage, he harkens back to this passage in Matthew 19.

When he's asked about marriage and divorce, he says, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother to shall be come one. And, and what God has brought together, let not man separate, right? That's Jesus is using Genesis two, as the foundation for marriage.

And so it's important to understand before we even get into the question of permanent, semi permanence, permissive, and all this deals with the subject of divorce. But before we even talk about divorce, we at least have to define marriage.

So marriage, a man, so we'll say one man who has taken for himself a wife. So let's say one woman. And these two, this man and this woman become one flesh. So it's not one plus one equals two. It's one plus one equals one.

And this is what makes in my estimation, what makes divorce such a huge problem. And that is because when you have one, and you divide it, you don't get back to two ones, you end up with a broken half, two broken halves, because it was one, and now it's broken by divorce.

So at the very least, we can see just by this little simple illustration, why the Bible says in no uncertain terms, that God hates divorce, that very simple term in Scripture. So anytime we talk about the subject of marriage and divorce, we should enter into the conversation understanding that we're we're treading on a subject that automatically is a subject that if we could speak of God in these terms, is a subject that breaks God's heart.

If we want to be, you know, maybe a little simplifying and anthropomorphizing God in the sense that it's sinful. Divorce is bad. It's never based on two people doing the right thing. It's either one or both doing something sinful.

It's never based on two people doing the right thing. And this is where the idea of no fault divorce does not exist in Scripture. This is a manmade concept that there could be a divorce where neither party has done anything wrong.

That is not biblical. But the question becomes and where we get to in this class is the question of is divorce ever permissible, scripturally, and this is the positions that are our subject for the conversation.

The first position of permanence says that divorce is never lawful. Divorce is never lawful. I want to quote to you. This is regarding the Roman Catholic Church, which holds to a permanence view. It says the Roman Catholic Church treats all consummated sacramental marriages as permanent during the life of the spouses and therefore does not allow marriage remarriage after divorce if the other spouse still lives and the marriage has not been annulled.

Now, that sounded kind of complicated because it did mention a divorce. So the way that the Roman Catholic Church operates is if you do get a divorce, you can't get remarried. So they would hold to you're still technically married, even if you've had a divorce, you're still unless the marriage has been annulled.

And that is a very interesting concept because annulment typically means that there has been no consummation. So vows have been made, but no intercourse has been engaged in and therefore the vows can be annulled because they have not been they've not been solidified through consummation.

However, we know that there have been annulments made where there was consummation. So that rule doesn't stand hard and fast. But in general, the teaching is that there is no marriage, or excuse me, there's no remarriage after divorce.

And some would say no divorce then is allowed. I'll read to you from the Catholic catechism. This is number 2384. It says divorce is a grave offense against the natural law it claims to break the contract to which the spouse is freely consented to live with each other till death.

Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign contracting a new union even if it is recognized by civil law adds to the gravity of the rupture. The remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery.

That's this is from the catechism of the Catholic Church, they would say that if you are remarried, you enter into an adulterous relationship and it's a permanent relationship of adultery goes on in number 2385 and says divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society.

This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse to children traumatized by the separation of their parents, and often torn between them and because of its contagious effect, which makes it truly a plague on society.

So that is the permanence view. Yes. Well, that's what we're going to talk a little bit more here on these. As I said, the way that I used to have this and you'll actually see this, I used to have it as three here permanent semi permanence and permissive.

Well, I've added one and I'm gonna explain why in a minute. I actually didn't take the old screen off. So you can see, even my understanding has somewhat expanded. Because the permanency view typically what I have found among permanency advocates, whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant, is that they don't don't typically allow for divorce.

But if they do, no remarriage. And that's where I would say semi permanence would be the next evolution would be okay, you can have the divorce separate, but you cannot remarry that would still be a semi permanence view because the marriage then has not truly been put away.

Because you're still in a situation where if you remarry or if you enter into another relationship, you're engaging in a position and engaging in adultery. Now, some would say it's not permanent adultery, like we just read for the Roman Catholic, some would say, for instance, if a person were to marry another person, they've been committed a single act of adultery, but because they've established a new marriage, it's not a perpetual act of adultery.

And I think that's maybe where the semi permanence would be. And here's where I give you an example of somebody I say would fall under that category, somebody like Voddie Bauckham, who is a permanency advocate.

But if you listen to him, he will say, if you're in a marriage now, and you were divorced before, and you're in a new marriage, I'm not telling you to get a divorce and go back to your wife, or your husband, because you've started a new marriage, and therefore you're started over.

Right? So that takes sort of a semi permanence view, because they're not telling you to abandon the new marriage and go back. But they are saying wherever you are is where you have to stay. Yeah, and there's no, there's no lawful divorce.

I think, I think that's the key to permanency, is that the idea is there is no lawful divorce, whether it is the permanence or semi permanent view. It's, there's no lawful, truly lawful division that allows for a person to remarry.

Now, the permissive views obviously sound awful. I hate that word permissive, because it sounds like that's the liberal view, because we think of like, progressive permissive sounds liberal. But the permissive views are what are described in the Westminster Confession.

The Westminster Confession allows for divorce and even remarriage in certain circumstances. And so the semi permissive view as I'm explaining it, is that there would be divorce and remarriage allowed for covenant breaking sins.

That's the way we would describe it. Divorce and remarriage is allowed for covenant breaking sins. Now what would be some examples of covenant breaking sins, adultery would be the first one, right? This would be based on Matthew 531 and 32, where Jesus said it was also said whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.

But I say to you, that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. So they say right there, there is an exception clause.

You'll hear this phrase a lot, the exception clause. And what is the exception clause? He says right there, that I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality.

Now you'll notice what it doesn't say, doesn't say adultery. That's an important thing that permanency advocates often point out, is that Jesus does not say except on the grounds of adultery. He says, he uses the Greek word porneia.

Porneia is obviously where the word that we use pornography comes from meaning a illicit image, graphos, something that is written or drawn. So pornography is something that is seen an image. Well, porneia means sexual immorality, and it has a wide variety of ways that it can be applied.

Sexual immorality can be applied to lust, it can be applied to adultery, it can be applied to fornication. In fact, the word fornication comes from porneia. It's a it's a word taken from that. So this idea of sexual immorality becomes the exception clause.

And those who would take a permissive view would say that a person who has been cheated on, or a person who has experienced sexual infidelity in marriage, is then free to divorce without consequence. And where this would become a real issue is in a church, like for instance, let us make a simple imaginative thought.

Let's say in a church, there is a man and a woman, and the man commits adultery on his wife, and the wife goes to the elders. And she says, my husband has committed adultery, I no longer want to be married to my husband.

And I want a divorce, he has committed a covenant breaking sin. At that point, wherever the elders land on this will, will be an important distinguisher of how they understand this is where I say, God knows what's right.

We're trying to figure out based on the word. But if a woman came to the elders, and the elders took a semi permissive or permissive position, they would probably say that she was in her rights to divorce her husband because he committed a covenant breaking sin.

But it doesn't mean she has to. It doesn't mean that she has to, because they as I have been in this situation, this question has been asked to me. And my first response is, is there no way in your heart that you can find forgiveness for this person?

If that's what they're seeking? If the husband has committed this grave sin, and now he's come repentant, and asked for forgiveness, are you in no way willing to forgive this person, and then we'd have to discuss that, and discuss whether or not she was within her rights to continue with a divorce.

But again, if you take a permanent view, she doesn't have the right to divorce, even if he's committed a covenant breaking sin. So that's, that's an important distinction. So the semi permanence, or excuse me, the semi permissive view would say that adultery would be one of the covenant breaking sins.

So I'm going to write this up here adultery, which would fall under the category of sexual immorality. What's another one? Anyone have the there's typically two that are used to describe. The second one is abandonment.

Abandonment, abandonment would be based upon First Corinthians chapter seven, where it says that if a if a unbelieving spouse separates, let it be so in such case, the brother or sister is not in bondage or is not enslaved.

Which means that, as some have understood it, that they are no longer under the covenant of marriage in that sense that because the unbelieving spouse has departed, that they no longer are responsible to maintain that relationship because they had been abandoned.

And so if a person this is the semi permanence view, if a person has been the victim of adultery, or if the person has been the victim of abandonment, that either one of those would be grounds for divorce.

According to that view, whether you agree or not, I'm just giving you the view. That's the semi permanent semi permissive view, because it permits only under certain circumstances. There is a third one that's often discussed.

And that is the the idea of abuse. And I bring that up only because it's a nice little alliterative thing. You have adultery, abandonment and abuse, three terrible things, but they do all start with the letter A.

But it's important to consider the fact that those three things often are, if you talk to a person who holds to a semi permissive view, those are the three things. And like I said that you would ask them, well, where does abuse come in?

And they would likely say there's no specific text for abuse. However, if a person is being physically violently abused, that it would be right of the elders to save that person from physical harm and therefore allow for that person to separate themselves from that.

And we would argue also this comes into play with Romans 13, which tells us that the government plays a part in punishing evildoers and therefore if a man or a woman are abusing their spouse, it wouldn't be incorrect for the church to involve the civil authorities, because the civil authorities have a place of providing protection and retribution for those who are behaving in such a way.

So another example, if I got a call at midnight from a church member, and we'll just say it's a guy, and his wife is violently attacking him, and maybe she has a weapon of some sort or is threatening him, it would be certainly within the bounds to call the police.

Because this is a situation where if nothing is done, it could lead to injury or death. And so certainly that would be a realistic consideration. Now where that would go as far as leading to divorce and things like that, that that would be that there would be a lot more to consider there.

But typically, if you talk to the semi permissive perspective, they will say those things that are permitted are abandonment, adultery and abuse. And that's all that's another key is that that's it. So if a person comes to the elders and says my wife no longer makes me happy, we would say that is not a covenant breaking sin.

That is not something that you have the right to seek a divorce over. Right? She makes me miserable. That is not something that is biblically giving you the right to divorce. So that's why I call it semi permissive because it's not fully permissive.

The fully permissive view number four, really is the view. That's the reason why I added semi permissive is because the truly permissive view allows it in any case. And there are some churches that simply allow for divorce with no restrictions.

And I would say that's the most unreasonable from a biblical perspective, that no divorce is ever challenged, or, or considered to be wrong. So just out of curiosity, because I'm interested, and there's only a few people in class tonight, and I hope this doesn't open up a big can of worms.

Do you have a personal thought on this issue, a personal conviction where you would say I, I feel like I line up with 123 or four, and if you don't want to say, don't feel bad, but just know the cameras not pointed at you.

So nobody's going to know who you are. If you're okay, go ahead. There are Yes, as I just said, Vodibachan would be somewhere between one and two. Well, that's different because even though we would say that Anglicans are not Catholic, Anglicans are also not not.

Well, they're, they're, they're, they're a they're a branch of Protestantism. But they're, they're the the issue that you're talking about was Henry VIII desire to to divorce is part of the reason why the Anglican Church, the question of authority, does should the king have the ability to make us make a determination on this?

And who's the true head of the church? Is it the Pope? Or is it the crown? Is the king? And, and that's what, you know, I recently did a interview with a group of Anglicans, I asked them about Henry VIII, and how they how they feel that question.

And it was interesting how they answered you, if you're interested, you can go back and listen to my, my podcast. But ultimately, the, that was about an annulment. Because the Pope would not grant an annulment.

Wasn't so much divorce, I'm going back to that idea, because the divorce has been, you know, not allowed, but annulments are allowed. So, but yeah, Henry, the, the, it's interesting when you look into the history of that.

So with that being said, anybody want to share? Mark? Okay, so you would hold to number three, like I said, very similar to the Westminster. What's interesting is the 1689, which I know your church holds to doesn't address that, but the Westminster does.

And I've often wondered why. But that's why I tend to find more 1689 guys tend to fall into the permanence view. Obviously, not yourself, but some do, like Voting Bockham and others, because the Westminster, they don't have that same.

If it were in the confession, they would have to, if they were full subscriptionists and subscribe to the confession, they would have to accept that position, because it'd be in the confession. What about you, brother?

Between two and three? Okay, that's fair. I think I think there is sort of a spectrum there. That's sort of where nobody wants to say divorce for any reason, right? What do you think, sister? So, so number three, but we wouldn't say divorce is allowed for any reason.

Okay. And then, and again, if someone were to ask what our church teaches, our elders are all the same. We all hold to the position that there are covenant breaking sins, that there are things that would allow for righteous divorce, at least in the sense of there being a victim and a perpetrator, the perpetrator sins and the victim is able then to divorce.

And that would put us in number three as well. So that's the place where we would be as a church. However, there are issues with remarriage. And that's the point that really becomes the issue because there are times where if a person divorces a person, we would say that there are certain things in Romans seven, or I'm sorry, first Corinthians seven, that would allow for remarriage, and there's certain things that wouldn't.

For instance, if these things are in play, then they would be allowed to remarry. But if they simply left their spouse for not making him happy, or whatever, you know, we would say they have that right to divide but not to remarry.

And that's a whole other category of conversation. Yes. I'm glad you asked. That's an important question, Corey, because some people believe that permanency extends even into death. But that's a very minority opinion.

What's that? Yes, that's what I'm saying. But some would say that that that covenant is lifelong on both sides. But I don't know too many people who hold that view. Obviously, I would say once a spouse dies, you're within your right to remarry.

However, I always add this thought to that. As as a man, I hope my wife outlives me, because I don't want to be married anyone else. I can say that I've told my wife, I want to be buried next to her. So I hope that one of us doesn't die young and to the point where the other one has to live a long time alone.

I would hate that she had to live alone. So that's a that's a that's a thought, you know, and that's maybe I shouldn't even have said that. But that's a personal comment. My wife, I've had that conversation.

You know, what happens if I pass away tomorrow? She's only 43. You know, that, so those questions come up, but it wouldn't be a sin on her part. If she were to remarry, however, I'd be in heaven unhappy.

I'm just just kidding. Just kidding. I'll be happy. Not well, that sounds weird, too. Now, let's just get off that. But the other the other conversation when it comes to the subject of marriage, and don't want to spend too much time on this, but but this does create a conversation.

And that's the question of polygamy. Because obviously, the Bible addresses the subject of polygamy in a very difficult way, because there are men in the Bible, who are righteous in the sense of being believers and righteous by faith, who engage in the subject of polygamy.

Think of tell me who if you might be who? Who is this? Yeah. Yeah, I would say probably not a righteous man. Abraham would be the first one I would think of because Abraham had his wife, Sarai, who later became Sarah, but he also had her handmaiden.

And after Sarai's death, we hear of Keturah. But we don't know if he was married to her prior to Sarah's death or not. We just know she was there because he had other children with Keturah. I think that's Genesis 34 or something mentions her name.

So that is obviously an example of a man who is lauded by Scripture as being a godly man. And yet he engaged in polygamy. Isaac had Rebecca that he married. I don't think. No, that was Jacob. Jacob, Leah and Rachel.

Yeah. And then he had then they both had two handmaidens. He had wives from a plethora of women. And yet the Bible doesn't condemn that act in regard to those men. And so this has led to many creative conversations, particularly if you were out in the state of Utah and among the Mormons, where there is at least the traditional view that there was an allowance among the Mormons for multiple wives.

Now, they don't allow it anymore, at least not openly, but many traditional Mormons still hold to polygamy and polygamy. Again, like the word monogamy means one to be married to one person. Polygamy means to have a multiple marriage.

I go back when people ask me my position, I say I say the Bible does not condemn under the Old Covenant. We don't see a condemnation of polygamy. However, we see an exaltation of monogamy. So that's where I make my distinction, I say we don't see an absolute condemnation of polygamy, but we see an exaltation of monogamy, particularly in Genesis two, where we get the definition of marriage.

It's a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, one wife and the two, not three or four or five or six, but the two shall become one. And what God has brought together, let not man separate.

So the biblical model is one man and one woman. And then when we get to the New Covenant, this is reaffirmed when Paul is giving the directives for the leaders of the church. What is one of the qualifications for being a elder and a deacon?

Maion Gunakos Andrei. That's the Greek and it means a one woman, man. Huh? Yeah, yeah, we didn't get to Solomon. You're right. He had 700 and 300 concubines, which is ridiculous. The idea that he would have such a group.

But like I said, I think that we can make certain easily definable assumptions regarding the lack of wisdom and that in those from biblical perspective, a wise man, but yet the the problem with that. But when we get to the New Covenant, it's obvious that there is to be one man and one woman when that's defined, particularly for church leadership, and that to be the example for all.

And so now, it is, to me, without doubt, if somebody were to come to me and say, Can I have a second wife? I would say I don't believe the Bible allows for that, particularly within the New Covenant. And even what was allowed under the Old Covenant was in a very particular cultural environment that we no longer live in.

And so I would say, it is something that should be should be at least understood to be out of order, because God's order is one man and one woman. So that being said, let's look now at the question of sexual ethics, sexual sin.

The Bible defines sexual sin in multiple ways. But the three things we're talking about are fornication, adultery, and polyamory. Fornication is defined as any sexual activity outside of marriage, typically translated as sexual immorality.

People ask, Well, when does that happen? Is and I don't want to be too graphic, but is there are two people having a passionate kiss going past the line or two people laying together, but having their clothes on or whatever?

Is that going over the line? These are questions. And typically my answer for my children is you if you have to ask the answer is no. But in general, sexual immorality can be more than just intercourse.

And that's the point I'm making is that fornication can include things like things that involve not just physical intercourse, but things like sodomy and things like that, which are certainly also sexual sin even, even would fall under the category of pornography.

One of the worst things that is is happening right now and people don't even realize how bad it is is how many people are having cyber sexual encounters, where they are using their bodies to produce images which are intended to create sexual fantasies or things on the other side of a digital wall.

So women will take pictures of themselves and sell them online or videos of themselves and sell them online. Men will look at those images and use them for sexual gratification. That's still a form of sexual sin.

It still would fall in my imagination or not my imagination, my estimation, it would fall into the category of fornication still, even though it's not the same as physical fornication, it's still sexual immorality.

Jesus said, if a man looks at a woman to lust after her, he's committed adultery with her in his heart. So it's not the same. If a man looks at pornography, it's not the same as cheating on his wife, I want to say I don't think it's the exact same, but it's still a category of sin.

It's still if a man came to me and said he was looking at sexual images, I would still say that sin I wouldn't say well, because you didn't do it physically doesn't make it sin. Jesus doesn't allow that when he says when he says that if we look with lust, we've committed sin in our heart, right?

So so that the fornication, the act, but there's also lust, which is fornication of the heart, or what I coined this, why didn't coin it, but I use this term years ago, probably it is my highest rated sermon ever.

If you go to sermon audio, you can look at the statistics and which one's been downloaded the most discernment I preach was downloaded the most is a sermon called mental pornography, where I explained how the Bible defines lust.