Homosexuality and Transgender 1

Good afternoon. In addressing this issue of homosexuality, there are a number of things for us to look at, and what I want us to do in this session is I want us to examine the arguments that people make in support of this practice, and in particular the arguments people make in support of Christians lowering their defenses and being open to same sex marriage. There are a number of arguments being used out there. I'll refer to the most popular ones, and then there's one in particular that we'll spend our time with here in this session. Argument number one is the argument that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. This is a very popular approach. People will look at this and I'll say, well, you're a Christian, which means you're a follower of Christ, right, Well, yeah, I'm a follower of Christ. Well, as a follower of Christ, it seems very strange to me that you're making a big deal out of something that Jesus never mentioned one time in the gospels, not one time. And for most Christians, they hear that and we're just sort of taken aback, and you know, our response is usually something along the lines of were so, well, was was was bad? We don't. We don't what, and we just don't know what to say. Right, Well, here's what you say. Number one, Jesus did address homosexuality. He addressed it in Matthew chapter five and in Matthew chapter nineteen. Because in Matthew chapter five, in Matthew chapter nineteen he addressed the issue of marriage. He rooted his understanding of marriage and the teaching in Genesis chapter two, the teaching in Genesis chapter two that gave us marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, illustration, and sanctification. He also made it very clear that what man has joined together, what God has joined together, man cannot separate. In other words, God is the author of marriage, not man. Therefore, God is the one who defines marriage, not man. Therefore man does not have the right to introduce the concept of same sex marriage. Number one because by definition, it's not marriage, it's another thing. And number two because by definition it goes against what was created in Genesis chapter two. So Jesus did address homosexuality. But there's a bigger issue here. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. You see, we believe the one God who has existed eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate Jesus from the Father and the Spirit on the issue of homosexuality. Jesus was there in Sodomon Moura, he was raining down fire in Brimstone. Jesus is the author of Leviticus, so you can see that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality. Unless you're going to argue that Jesus has a different opinion on the issue than the Father and the Spirit. This is hugely problematic because that would mean a breach in the Trinity, and the whole universe would cave in on itself. Thirdly, the Bible is one story, not many. You can no longer You can no more separate Jesus from Paul Peter then you can separate Jesus from the Father or the Spirit. The Bible is one story, not many. What do the apostles teach? The apostles are whose apostles? They are Christ's apostles. So the teaching that they give us is the authoritative teaching of the Church from the Lord Jesus Christ himself. So again, for these three reasons, we don't have to panic when someone says, well, well, Jesus never address the issue of homosexuality. Because here's another thing. Jesus never addressed the issue of pedophilia either. So now we can point out to the person. First of all, you're wrong, because he did address it in Matthew five and Matthew nineteen. Second of all, Jesus is a member of the Godhead. You can't separate the Father from the son of the Spirit. Thirdly, the Bible's one story, not many. You can't separate them teaching of Jesus from the teaching of his apostles. And finally, if you take that line of argumentation, you would have to eventually be okay with pedophilia because Jesus never said anything about that, So can we dispense with that one okay. Second argument that people use is the argument that basically says, and this is probably the most popular argument today because of a book by a guy by the name of Matthew Vines called God and the Gay Christian. And this is a book that's popular among young Christians. Because Matthew Vines identifies himself as reformed evangelical and an arrentist. He holds a high view of scripture very careful exegesus and homosexual supports monogamous same sex relationships. And his argument basically is that the writers of the Bible were addressing something other than what we know as same sex orientation. They were addressing a practice called pederasty, which was a cultural practice whereby men, particularly who were heterosexual. They weren't homosexual, they didn't have a homosexual sexual orientation. They were heterosexual men, they had wives, but there were practices within the culture where they used boys for sex. And what Paul was basically saying was, how dare you heterosexual men engage in this practice that should only be engaged in by people who have an actual orientation toward homosexuality. Well, there are a number of problems with the line of argumentation. Number one, Matthew Vines ignores ancient literature that would have made it clear that Paul would have known about the same line of argumentation that Matthew finds is using this idea of sexual orientation is not a new idea. The second problem with that is this Matthew Vinds offers absolutely zero evidence that there is such thing as a homosexual orientation. To say something that may be surprising to you, I don't automatically agree with people when they say that they're homosexual, because there is no evidence that there is such a thing. There's evidence that there are people who engage in the practice of what the Bible calls sodomy, but there is no evidence that there are people who have a permanent orientation go to homosexuality. In fact, there's two thousand year old evidence, and you'll hear about it tomorrow, that there are people who practice homosexuality, who call themselves homosexuals, who, according to the First Prisians, Chapter six, were not that anymore, which means that being homosexual is not the same thing as being black, or being white, or being whatever. It's not the same thing. It's not an immutable characteristic, and nobody has proven otherwise. There is zero biological evidence that there is an immutable characteristic. If there was biological evidence, then you could prove that somebody was homosexual after they died. All you have to do is do an autopsy. You just do a post mortem. Go into the brain and find that area in the brain that homosexuals at. Wait, but nothing in the brain, Okay, Well, go into the genes and find that gene Oh wait, nothing in the genes. Well, I heard about a pheromone study. You're going to the pharomone Oh really, that was not huh. There's absolutly nothing, nothing that proves that there is such a thing as a person who is a homosexual. There are people who practice homosexuality, but there is nothing in the world, nothing that demonstrates that there is a class or category of people who are immutably and unchangeably homosexuals, just like I'm immutably and unchangeably a black person. It doesn't exist, although the majority of you out there believe that it does, because you've been told over and over and over and over again. You hear so many stories. I've known all my life. I knew it when I was a boy. I knew it when I was a little girl. No, you didn't. You weren't even You didn't even have sexual thoughts of those kind when you were a little boy or a little girl. You didn't even develop sexually back then. How could you possibly have known about your sexual orientation. That's a ridiculous lie. And we let people get away with it all the time, all the time. We shouldn't. We shouldn't. The other problem with this line of argumentation, of course, is that Paul in Romans chapter one also addresses women who engage in unnatural practices with other women. So if all Paul was dealing with the practice of pederasty in the pagan Greco Roman world where men use boys for sex, then please somebody tell me why he also addressed women who engaged in that practice with other women when that wasn't the same as pederasty in the Greco Roman world. See Matthew Vonnes is just hoping that we just sort of look over that, you know, he brings up some ancient you know, Greek literature, and you know, they use this and they use that, and we're supposed to go, wow, I didn't know that. Maybe that was what Paul was to know, Frednt, It's not the only literature in existence. Paul wouldn't have been ignorant of what Matthew Vines is talking about, And that doesn't address the issue of the women. Here's the other problem. If we make the argument that this practice is acceptable because of an orientation, then what do we do with the pedophile who says, this is my orientation. I've known it forever. I as an adult man, am oriented toward young boys, or oriented toward young girls. It's just my orientation. And since it's my orientation and we're accepting orientations, then you have to accept that one. Or what if I'm just oriented toward violence, violence toward women. I beat my wife, You get upset with me, and I say, whoa, wha, whoa, whoa, whoa. This is my orientation. I've known since I was a little boy that I was oriented towards violence, and particularly against females. So how can you judge me for this violence against my wife when obviously it's my orientation, Hm, promiscuity, run around with all different kinds of women. Hey, it's my orientation. I've known it for a long time. So now, all of a sudden, if we accept Matthew Vine's argument, there are a whole lot of other things where we have to say, Okay, it's a sin unless, of course, you feel deeply, because remember there's no biological evidence whatsoever. Right, it's a sin unless you feel deeply that you're oriented in this way. And of course, if you feel deeply that you're in this way, then all bets are off. You don't have to pay attention to what the Bible says in regards to sexual sin. Do you see how complicated this becomes. By the way, even if we do ever have biological evidence, that doesn't change things. Why well, if we find a gay gene and we say, well, well here, okay, now this person has it, it's genetically we know that this person is predisposed to homosexuality. Okay, so it's not a sin anymore. Ooh ooh. So if I'm genetically predisposed to alcoholism, by the way, there's more evidence for that. I'm genetically predisposed to alcoholism, I get a pass, y'all because I have a genetic predisposition. Therefore it's not sin. I'm genetically predisposed to be violent, particularly against women. I get a pass. Do you follow? Okay, so this is the problem with the Matthew Vines line of argumentation. But know this, this is absolutely it's just run them up among young Christians in the Western world. Just it's it's everywhere. Okay. It's a very appealing and compelling approach. And he really does present himself as someone who takes the scriptures seriously. He's presenting this evidence, you know, and he goes on to say, there's six passages of Scripture, there's the first red flag. You want to deal with homosexuality. Homosexuality in the Bible, there's only six passages in the scripture that deal with homosexuality in the Bible. Ask a lie from the pit of Hell. Every passage in the scripture that deals with marriage, sexuality, every passage. There are thousands of passages that you have to deal with in order to formulate your understanding of human sexuality. The minute you go, yeah, there's only six verses that we have to look at, and then you have another slide of hand where you go, yeah, there's this thing called sexual orientation. We know this now. Paul didn't know that. He offers no evidence whatsoever as to why we know this now. And when I'm reading the book, I'm going to do it. Are you speaking French? Talking about we? Because I don't know this? Right? You say you know this, I don't know this. I'm looking for the page where you prove this. He never does it. He just assumes that everybody knows that there's actually sexual orientation in this direction, never proves it, and no one ever has. Third line of argumentation is this arguments I call it the Beatles' theology, right, all you need is love. Love is the overarching ethic of the New Testament. Love is the overarching of the New Testament. So if two people are in a loving relationship, they are expressing the height of the New Testament ethic. Well, I don't agree with the Beatles' theology. I come more from the Tina Turner line of theology. What's love got to do with it? Right? Jesus makes it very clear when he is addressed by the Pharisees, you know, teach you what's the greatest commandment in the law. They're wondering, is he going to say the first or the fifth or the tenth? There were different schools of thought, and their question was absolutely about the decalogue, right, which commandment you know? Is it the first? Nor the God before me? Is it the fifth? Because it's a bridge between the first table of the law and the second table of the law. The law deals with our vertical obligations toward God's second table of the law, our whole horizontal obligations toward men. Which one is he gonna think? Jesus says, well, the first and the greatest commandment is love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind. By the way, that's a summary of commandments one through four. And then he goes and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. That's a summary of commandments five through ten. So here's how it goes. Jesus, what's the greatest of the ten commandments? His response, I'm gonna have to say one through four, followed closely by five through ten. By the way, if you doubt that these are summaries of the law, oh, I have to just go to Romans chapter thirteen. And Paul in Romans chapter thirteen, Oh, no, man, anything except what love love? And people run there and they go see, it's love, not law. And then he goes to the second table of the law and he talks about murder and adultery and coveting and so on and so forth. So clearly he's talking about the commandments. And he uses the word commandment, right, and he says, this is a summary. What's a summary. Love your neighbor as yourself is a summary of commandments five through ten. There is no war between love and law. You tell me how you're going to love someone while committing adultry against him? How are you gonna love someone while murdering them? How are you gonna love someone while how you gonna love? No, there's no war between love and law. Paul makes it very clear in Romans chapter thirteen. Love fulfills the law because it does no wrong to a neighbor. Right. What do we find in First Corinthians chapter thirteen the love chapter? Right, it's the love chapter. We always want to read it at our weddings because it's the love chapter. And even at some of these homosexual unions they read First Gridias chapter thirteen because it's the love chapter. And after all, when we get married, that's what it's all about. It's all about love. And we stand there, we want to write our own vowels as though we can actually be, you know, unique, And we stand there and say, my love for you is the greatest love and the history of love, and the love that I have for the love for you is more loving than any love than anyone who has ever loved before. And I'm gonna love you like no love has ever loved before. And this is my loving promise to you as my lover, that I'm going to love you. Six months later, I just feel like I made a mistake, Pastor. I just feel like I married the wrong person, really, because I stood there when you was like, you know, love and the greatest love and the history of love, and y'all can't have problems like this, because if y'all have problems and your love is the greatest love and the history of all love, everybody else is in trouble. So y'all better work this out. But look with me, if you will, just for a moment at First Corinthians, chapter thirteen, I want you to see this, and then again, I promise we're going to get to the objection of the day. Okay, First Grintheen is thirteen. The Love chapter, beginning of verse four. Love is patient and kind. Love does not envy or boasted. This is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth Love. Biblical love must never encompass homosexuality, because homosexuality is by definition wrongdoing. Therefore, rejoicing in homosexuality is not love. Can't be. Can't be because it's wrongdoing, and biblical love does not rejoice in wrongdoing. We'll talk about that more tonight. Now, now let's get to the question that we're actually going to deal with. This is the question that people are asking King, and it's a very popular question. And the question is basically, why do you pick and choose? Why do you pick and choose? And this is one that gets us, this one that stumps us. It's very popular. You read this for you. This is from my most recent book, Expository Apologetics. In the second season of the TV show The West Wing, The West Wing is about the presidency in the United States the West Wing of the White House. President Bartlett's character, played by Martin Sheen, obliterates a famous radio talk show hosts who insist on calling homosexuality and abomination. The woman, based on a real radio personality, doctor Laurres Lessinger, stands there speechless while the President exposes her hypocrisy in what is viewed by many on the left as a classic example of homosexual defeat of the Klobber Passages. By the way, the Klobber passages are those passages, those six passages that people use so in the homosexual community, those are referred to as the Klabber passages. Those six verses that that Matthew Vines deals with in his book. Here's the scene again. They're they're, you know, in the Oval office, and there's this you know, gathering of people, and the president walks in. Uh. And this woman who is just a crude woman who's supposed to be you know, doctor law or whatever. And they make you see her as a crude woman because everybody else stands up when the president walks in. She doesn't, by the way, the President jumps on her for that. After he crushes her with this argument, he says, I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter in slavery. He identifies her as the woman who's the vido and calls homosexuality and abomination. I'm interested in selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus twenty one to seven. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleans the table when it's her turn. What would be a good price for her? My chief of staff, Leo Mungarrity, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus thirty five too clearly says that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, because we got a lot of sports fans in our town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean Leviticus eleven to seven. If they promise to wear gloves? Can the Washington Redskins play football? Can notre Dame hen West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made of two different threads? Think about these things, will you? This episode was a huge hit. Homosexual groups lauded it for its brilliance reliance on the why do you pick and choose? Attack gained much traction. Later in two thousand and eight, California was considering the controversial Proposition eight, which eventually passed banning same sex unions in California. By the way, that's been overturned now. Among the many efforts to rally people in favor of homosexual unions, several Hollywood stars, led by Jack Black, performed Proposition eight the musical. In this short piece, Black played the part of Jesus and again the hypocritical use of the levitical law was on full display. Examples like this are myriad. However, I share these two because of how strategic they are. The first was an episode in a long running hit television series and went for seven seasons. The second was in a campaign for what is arguably the most strategic legal battle in the history of the fight for same sex marriage. These are far from obscure cultural references, nor were they debates in academia or in the political arena. This is ground zero, the front line for the battle in the marketplace of ideas. This is the perceived seat of power in this war. As such, there are at least four advantages to addressing this particular objection. Number one, the fact that these arguments against biblical truth were so public demonstrates the amount of credence that they're given. This happened on television. By the way, these two examples are not the only two examples. This happens on television a great deal, and there is nothing more researched than television. This is why people pay so much money to put their ads on particular television shows. And trust me, if this thing didn't have traction, it wouldn't be on these television shows. Second, the public and consistent nature of these attacks means they work. It means they work, and they do. I've actually seen it happen. I've watched Christians backed into corners on college campuses and other places with this same line of argumentation. Really, really do you eat trimp? Do you eat pork? Really? Do you do this? Do you do that? Why do you pick and choose? Thirdly, these attacks bring the fight to our front door by making a scriptural argument. This is hugely important, folks. People are actually entering into a Bible discussion with us voluntarily. Okay, most of the time you can't get people to talk about the Bible, right, But on this homosexuality issue, you know, you bring up Little Vidica is eighteen, and all of a sudden, their eyes get bright and they can't wait to just go at you on this, and they want to have a biblical discussion. That's what we want. We want a biblical discussion. This is an opportunity to have one. They start salivating because they think, oh, I got you now. I've seen this on the West Wing. I've seen this on this, I've seen this on that, I've tried it on my college campus. Christians don't know how to answer it. You in trouble. Fourth, If we can answer this objection, we'll be prepared to deal with one of the most common obstacles facing modern apologists. Like a challenger who takes the champ's best shot early in a heavyweight fight and keeps coming forward. Those who are able to withstand what the culture sees as a knockout blow to Bible thumping Christians and do so with poise and relative ease, will cause their assailants to pause and think twice before they throw another punch. So with that in mind, let's get into it. What I want to do is look at this passage in Leviticus eighteen and just share with you how you can use this as a gospel opportunity. Because here's the deal. We don't want to just win the argument about homosexuality. That that does not do do anyone any good. I win an argument with you about homosexuality and we never get to the gospel. What have I accomplished? Absolutely nothing. When you stand before God, the question won't be did you stop practicing homosexuality? Okay, what did you do with Jesus? All Right? So we want to engage the battle on this front because it gives us a gospel opportunity. Alex plain that. So Leviticus eighteen twenty two, you shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. It is an abomination. You don't have to even quote the verse. You just use the word abomination, right, And all of a sudden they realize, Oh, that's Leviticus. You're talking about abominations. There are other things that the Bible talks about being an abomination. And you know, you eat trimp, and you do this, and you do that, there are other abominations. Why why do you pick and choose? Ultimately, here is the argument. You are being a hypocrite. You're being a hypocrite when this happens. Here's step one, Step one. Knock them down off their moral high horse. That's step one, knock them down off their moral high horse. How do we do this by demonstrating that everyone picks and chooses, Everyone picks and chooses. Huh yeah, yeah, everyone picks and chooses. They just picked and chose. And so I bring up this issue of abomination. They go, yeah, you pick and choose. You know, there's other stuff in the law that you do da da da da. So immediately they feel like they now have the moral high ground, but they don't, and we need to let them know that they don't. First of all, I may say something like, you know, I find it very interesting that now what you're doing is you're accusing me of hypocrisy, and you're assuming that hypocrisy is a bad thing. I wonder what worldview views hypocrisy as a bad thing. It wouldn't be the Christian worldview, would it, because that would mean that you're using the Christian worldview that you say you don't believe in in order to demonstrate that I'm being immoral and that I should do better, which makes no sense if you don't believe in the Christian worldview. There's problem number one. There's problem number two. Problem number two. You also pick and choose, and you pick and choose from Leviticus. Oh no, I don't, Well, yes you do. For example, in Leviticus nineteen, verse eleven, you shall not steal, you shall not deal falsely. You shall not lie to one another. Verse thirteen. You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. Verse fifteen. You shall do no injustice. In court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great. But in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. It's interesting because all of those things you believe are wrong as well, don't you. You believe it's wrong to steal, you believe it's wrong to lie, You believe it's wrong to do injustice in court. That's Leviticus nineteen. So here's what I want you to understand. You're calling me a hypocrite because I choose Leviticus eighteen twenty two and some other things in Leviticus. I don't. But the fact of the matter is there are things in Leviticus that you hold too as well, and you don't hold to Leviticus eighteen twenty two. So let's just right now, erase the whole idea of your being on the moral high ground because you pick and choose just like I do. Well, well, no I don't, well, but yes you do. I just demonstrated that you do. Yeah, I just I don't believe those things because they're in Leviticus. I just believe those things because everybody knows that that you weren't here before the Bible. Your worldview was shaped by it. Whether you know it or not, the fact that you didn't know you pick and choose doesn't eliminate your hypocrisy. You pick and choose, you do so out of ignorance. We can both agree. But the fact of the matter is you did not invent those things. They are biblical and you hold to them because you grew up in a culture that holds to biblical truth. So let's just be honest here. You may not have known that you pick and choose, but you pick and choose. But here's the other thing. If you don't believe that the Bible is authoritative, you you have the opportunity, right here and right now to say that you no longer believe that lying is wrong, that robbing is wrong, and that doing injustice in court is wrong. Because you reject Leviticus and you want your morality to not be lined up with it ready to change. Then you've decided to pick and choose. You don't have the moral hype. That's step number one. Here's step number two. Step number two is there's a difference between your picking and choosing and my picking and choosing. You didn't even know that you were picking and choosing, which means that you also don't know why you're picking and choosing. I, on the other hand, do know why I pick and choose. You see, there's this thing called hermeneutics, and we use hermonutics to interpret the Bible, and we use hermeneutics to do things like picking and choosing. In the Old Testament law, I pick and choose because I understand that there are three different types of law. There's moral law, there's civil law, and there's ceremonial law. You see, I understand that the moral law, which is really based on the Decalogue, is that law that transcends time and culture, and that those are things that are true for all people in all places at all times. However, there is a civil law that God gave to Israel in the ancient Near East for them to function as a culture then and there. Those things cannot just be taken over from that culture to our own. Thirdly, there are ceremonial laws which taught Israel about its worship. Those things cannot just be brought over whole hog either. For example, the laws in Leviticas that relate to the Temple. We couldn't do those things if we wanted to. But here's where it gets very interesting. Because I'm a Christian, I understand that Christ fulfilled those things in the ceremonial Law, that he was our once for all sacrifice for sin, so that as a Christian, it would actually be an abomination for me to go and offer the sacrifice of a lamb or a bull or a goat when Christ died for sin, once for all, the just, for the unjust, in order that he might bring us back to God. So as a Christian, I am obligated to pick and choose because Christ fulfilled the law. Please notice I've now gotten to the Gospel in a Bible discussion that they initiated. You see this, It's a wonderful thing. What do we find it really hard to do? We find it really hard to get to the Gospel with people, right, they don't want to talk about that. We find it really hard to discuss the Bible with people they don't want to talk about that, but on this particular issue, because they have learned that this is a very successful approach to dealing with Christians on homosexuality. You can get lost people to not just agree to talk with you about the Bible, but to initiate and push the conversation. You bring up homosexuality and abomination, and you're like, oh, really, well, why you pick and choose because you've da da da da da. It's wonderful and it's interesting, you know, it's really because it's kind, and it's almost it's almost unfair. It's almost unfair. I use the box analogy earlier, you know about taking the champ's best shot. I'll use another analogy here. You know somebody who's somebody who's who's got a really quick left hook, and they know my left is faster than his right, and if he throws his right, he's in trouble. But how how can I make him throw his right? Here's how I can do it. I can take my hands from here to here. And he looks at me and he goes, ooh, that left hand is down low. I bet I can get him. But he doesn't know that. What I'm thinking is the minute you do it, your toast. And that's kind of what we're doing. We're sort of bringing the Leviticus abomination thing. And they think we're coming like an innocent lamb to the slaughter and they're going, oh, oh oh, oh, it's on. I got him because I'm gonna go right at him. You're picking and choosing, and you eat, and you do this, and you do that, and you do the other, and then all of a sudden they go, how come he's not cowering in fear? Why is he smiling? You just invited me to engage in a Bible conversation with you, which is what I wanted you to do from the beginning. So thank you. Step one, get off your moral high horse because you pick and choose too. Step two. You don't know why you pick and choose, but I do. There's actually a method to my madness. I understand the laws, and I understand the kinds of laws that we have. Is it always easy to figure out? No, it's not always easy. But I have a principle that I use. Here's another thing. I also have the example of the New Testament. Turn with me, if you will, to fe Timothy. First Timothy, Chapter one, and look beginning in verse nine. Now we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, understanding this that the law is not laid down for the just, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and the profane, for those who strike their fathers and mother are murderers. The sexually immoral meaning practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine in accordance with the Gospel of the glory of the Blessed God, with which I have been entrusted by the way. Of course, we don't have time to deal with all of this. But what Paul just did was actually list Commandmage one through nine in order in order, and he says that they're in accordance with sound doctrine right there. So now I have the apostle basically instructing me about the appropriateness of applying the moral law as a Christian. Something else very interesting happened. He also applied the Decalogue to homosexuality. So the ban on homosexuality is consistent with the morality and ethics of the Ten Commandments. Not according to me, but according to the Apostle Paul. This goes back to what we talked about earlier. Remember what Matthew Vines did. Matthew Vines said, if you want to deal with homosexuality, there's only six passages in the whole Bible that you have to deal with, just six. Well, The fact of the matter is, when you understand what Paul just did in this paragraph, what you realize is that, according to the Apostle Paul, the Decalogue itself prohibits homosexuality. Vines doesn't deal with this. Of course he wouldn't. So now what do we have. Now we have the New Testament actually doing the same thing and teaching me as a Christian how to do this same thing. Now, the last step is this, and this is a really important step. We end where we began. We began by what, huh, knocking them off their moral high horse. You know where we end by getting us off our own. See. What they think just happened is we just switched the moral argument. What they think just happened is that we just went So you thought you were the moral one. I'm actually the moral one. That's not where we end. That's not where we end. Here's where I end this argument. I end this argument by saying, you know why this is important to me. This is important to me because you're right about one thing. I am a hypocrite. I know that I am. I admit that I am. I'm a sinner in need of a savior, and left to my own devices, hypocrisy is the only thing that I would produce. So I don't know about you, but I am in desperate need of a moral standard that is outside of myself, because if I don't have a moral standard outside of myself, my tendency is to always consider the things that I approve of to be the moral ones and the things that I disapprove of to be the immoral ones, and I become a law unto myself. And the reason that I need to know what God says is righteous and what God says is unrighteous is because I am a hypocrite. I admit that. And it's because I admit that that I had been able to throw myself on God's mercy. It's because I admit that that I am able to trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, who kept the whole law where I could not, And that was very important because that means that he could impute to me his righteousness. He kept the whole lod he was righteous, and his righteousness has been imputed to me. But then beyond that, in his active obedience, there's his passive obedience. And in his passive obedience he received in himself the penalty that I owed because of my unrighteousness. So now there's a double imputation. So my hypocrisy is cast on Christ and his righteousness is cast on me. And I don't stand in front of you holier than thou. I stand in front of you, washed clean by the blood of the Lamb, who laid down his life for sinners like me, and I trust him as my righteousness and my only hope to stand before God justified. One day, and I did not engage in this conversation with you because I think I'm superior to you. I engaged in this conversation with you because I know that I'm not. And I'm just one beggar telling another beggar where I found bread. This is how we answered the question why do you pick and choose? Let's pray, Gracious God, our Father, we confess to you that we are sinners in desperate need of a savior, and that left to our own devices, we are self righteous, self justifying, and we always close the door to Heaven right behind us. We always define the acceptable level of righteousness as our level of righteousness. Grant by your grace that this might not be solved, and that as we address this, ever important issue homosexuality and same sex marriage. That we not allow it to be just another opportunity for us to look at the speck in our brother's eye and ignore the log in our own. Grant that we might be bold as lions and make as sheep, and that in doing so we might have many opportunities proclaim the marvelous mercies of Christ to those who so desperately need to know. May we never be more passionate about winning a moral argument than we are about winning a soul. Grant this we pray in Christ's name and for his sake,