Dear Dr. Thomas, I REALLY like what Adam Kinzinger, an articulate, right-wing commentator, recently said. “There is an “epidemic of hate in this country.” To which I say, Amen! I refer you to a sermon on sexuality from a pastor I found online.
Sincerely,
Paul
Dear Paul, Adam’s statement regarding an “epidemic of hate” is ambiguous. But given that you referred me to a sermon about loving homosexuals, I assume that you are referring to an epidemic of hate against homosexuals.
Let us first examine the statement’s validity. Is there an epidemic of hate against homosexuals? I contend that the culture has embraced homosexuality as normal, good, and a behavior/orientation to be proud of.
But let us assume Christians, the followers of God’s way, hate homosexuality. Is that wrong? Are Christians wrong in hating what God defined as sin?
We see in the following scriptures that God hates evil.
Proverbs 8:13 “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.”
Amos 5:15 “Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate:”
Psalm 97:10 “ Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.”
Romans 12:9 “Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”
Psalm 139:21-22 “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”
As Christians, we should be compassionate toward those who suffer from falling prey to the enemy’s temptation. The Christian, the Bible believer, the adopted child of God, has renewed his mind and heart and hates what he once loved. Those who practice sin are submitting to the temptation of sin. The child of God who sees a man drowning feels compassion for him, offers a hand to those oppressed by sin, and hates sin and evil. God defines what is sinful/evil, and adopting His standard of good is central to our rebirth.
When a man makes Jesus Christ the Lord of his life, he commits to following God’s will and way. The mature man, the believer who has implanted the Word in his heart, knows God’s standard and resists the temptations of the evil one.
The Christian, the man of God, criticizes and opposes the actions and agendas of those who advocate sin. Sin must be opposed with as much force as is necessary to prevent the agents of Satan from taking ground on this earth. Opposing evil by identifying its acts, resisting its temptation, and warning those of its identity and damage is not an example of “hate.” We should speak the truth with love to those who advocate unGodliness. But sometimes, the language of love is strong words, restraint, or punishment to save a man’s soul tempted by the Siren song. Evil should be opposed with all the tools and methods necessary to stop its advance in enrolling men’s hearts, minds, and actions. All who support the agenda of evil should be opposed with the force necessary to stop the invasion of the enemy. After the victory against the enemy, terms of peace can be negotiated. Calling the defense of Godliness with force “hate” is a misuse of the concept of hate.
There are many examples of groups hating each other, but I don’t think there is an epidemic of Christians hating homosexuals. And being trivial, I don’t think the secular world hates homosexuals. I think the opposite is true. The secular public proudly wears rainbow and “Equal” bumper stickers. The straights and “Christians” who advocate/defend homosexuality believe their stand shows how loving, virtuous, and hate-free they are. Affirming and accepting homosexuals appears to be a praiseworthy/virtuous confession/declaration by the secular community and, sadly, a virtue some churches teach.
Some secular and religious people may hate homosexuals personally, as people, because they consider the acts disgusting or unnatural. But if the last 20 or more years of media-wide, pro-homosexual propaganda portraying homosexuals in the most virtuous light was not effective in enrolling acceptance of homosexuality, then it probably will never persuade this remnant. Society has tried to normalize homosexuality by the power of government indoctrination, which has required businesses and professions to attend sensitivity/ethics/inclusiveness/diversity training, which is aimed at creating a sense of deference to people’s sexual orientation and pronouns. I don’t know if most people have endorsed, believed, embraced, and celebrated the new politically correct/Woke thought.
I think the homosexual lobby cares mainly about the societal perspective of homosexuality. They want the stigma of sin detached and have been largely successful. A remnant still regards homosexuality as a sin, but those who object to its normalization don’t introduce laws to publicly/culturally/morally censure homosexual behavior. There is little opposition to sensitivity and diversity training or quotas. In effect, the rainbow mafia is now running city hall.
From my perspective, the typical secular man who doesn’t celebrate or endorse homosexuality is numb/overloaded/turned off, and doesn’t care. Some are irritated and want the media/government to stop the indoctrination/propaganda. The bottom line is the pro-homosexual media-government promotion of homosexual rights, homosexual marriage, and homosexual pride… has served its purpose. The propaganda and social training have neutralized the anti-homosexual sentiment that would effectively oppose the homosexual agenda. The homosexual agenda does not need everyone to support homosexual rights and protected status enthusiastically; it just needs a cultural/voting majority. The campaign has served its purpose. They have neutralized the opposition. Sadly, the Church has contributed to normalizing homosexuality with its seeker-friendly attitude. The unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality as a sin has been discarded.
Regarding Christians hating homosexuals, I think this is imagery fabricated inside the pro-homosexual lobby’s minds. I think there is a grave concern among Bible-believing Christians that the endorsement of homosexuality will bring a plague of destruction to our nation and world. Those who don’t have that concern are either Biblically naïve or don’t believe the words of the Bible.
Did Adam’s statement about the epidemic of hate mean that he believes we should not hate evil? I don’t think so. I cannot believe anyone, especially a Lt. Col. USAF Reserve officer pilot, would be so naïve as to believe we should not hate evil. To not hate evil implies that we should love or be indifferent to it. But such an attitude is unfathomable – everyone hates evil when disaster visits them. No one loves the messenger or spirit that tempts us to evil unless one is morally reversed. Cinema, drama, and songs promote sympathy for the devil and in this impersonal/archetypal setting, we can fantasize about fulfilling our evil desires. There is an animal hunger satisfied in such virtual/imaginary flights of fancy. Still, no one welcomes the dark spirits when evil visits us personally.
Hating evil is Biblical. Loving evil is wrong. No morally sane person would disagree. We see in Proverbs 8:13, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.” An epidemic of hating evil is a very good social trend, but that is not our cultural trajectory.
But Adam Kintzinger was not talking about not hating evil. He was talking about not hating homosexuality. And I think he was disguising his advocacy of homosexuality behind the straw man of the culture hating homosexuals. There is no mass cultural hatred of homosexuals. This talk of the a epidemic of hate is to a manufactured enemy. The homosexual lobby is projecting itself as a brave, persecuted minority that needs sympathy and support to face its unjust trials. I think Christians have fallen for this façade of persecution.
Adam is being used as a tool of the homosexual lobby. He appears to stand bravely for the oppressed, posturing as a real, loving, Christ-like Christian in the face of injustice and narrow, hateful Christian bigots as he “opposes the epidemic of hate of homosexuals.”
I think the homosexual lobby is playing on public sympathy for the oppressed. They present as underdogs, and the liberal Christian audience flocks to their defense. The larger social issue of homosexual dominance of the culture, its laws, and its morality is unseen in the distraction of the pretense of hurtful, hateful, unkind oppression. The homosexual lobby uses well-intentioned people such as Adam Kinsinger to advance their purpose, gaining access to the sympathies of the masses and the liberal Christians who care about social injustice. The tragedy is that people in authority, power, wealth, fame, notoriety, and beauty are used to gain sympathy and a de facto endorsement of homosexuality. The cries of “hate is not a family value” are insincere ploys for those who plot to bring homosexuality to full mainstream acceptance and eventual dominance.
The homosexual movement uses homosexual sympathizers. Homosexual apologists have been seduced by the appearance of being virtuous, open-minded, and loving Christians or liberal thinkers. To endorse homosexuality, whether a person feels it, has been enrolled in it, whether oversexed or trans, like Sweet Loretta Modern, who gets it where she can, is irrelevant. God does not endorse homosexuality, as per His Word – ever. He forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery in a specific circumstance. That one dramatic scene was the only hint of tangential non-condemnation of sexual sin. Sexual sin, whether adultery, homosexuality, fornication, or bestiality, is still a sin.
The real question is, should we love practicing homosexuals? Should we see them as broken, hurting, confused sinners? Should we counsel and support them in breaking out of their addiction? Should we give them attention to help keep them sober and celibate – of course – everyone needs a team rooting for them. Just as God loves every sinner and calls him to repentance, so should we.
But we should also hate sin, just as God does. And one expression of our love of a soul is to warn the sinner of the consequence of their sin. In Proverbs, a verse says that a man who does not warn his brother of his sin does not love him. Ezekiel 3:21, “Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.”
The real question is, how should we think about homosexuality? Does the Bible declare homosexuality a sin? Of course. Therefore, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a type of evil behavior. Is homosexuality the worst sin? Maybe, maybe not. I know it has terrible consequences when a society embraces homosexuality openly. We don’t change God’s mind about sin because we are proud of our sin, or because we feel drawn to it, feel it is natural, or were born with reversed desire.
You can download and read Scott Lively’s book, “The Pink Swastika.” In it, he documents the relationship of homosexuality to the Nazi Party. Homosexuality can lead to murder on a massive scale. Is homosexuality a greater sin than other sins? It certainly can produce greater social destruction than other sins. Is it a sin, and do all of us do other sins? Of course, we all sin, separating us from fellowship with God. All of us need to be forgiven and redeemed. Is homosexuality the same as every other sin – are all sins equal, and should we pay no more attention to homosexuality as a sin than any other sin? No – every sin has a different cost and social/relationship disruption. Murder has a greater social/relationship effect than shoplifting. Both are sins; in both, the people are hurt, but the magnitude of the effect is different. The question is, what is the social-relationship cost of homosexuality? If Scott Lively’s thesis is correct, and it was one of the roots of Nazism, this is a case study of the cost of homosexuality when embraced by society. Is homosexuality the worst sin? Maybe. God is the judge of such things. We can analyze the social-relationship effects/costs and attempt to evaluate the extent of its costs. I know homosexuality causes extreme perversions of affection, judgment, and behavior. It is a spirit that does not stay in the bedroom – obviously. The movement to normalize homosexuality is probably complex. Being psychoanalytic, the extreme proselytizing of the homosexual movement and the effort to societally normalize their behavior/lifestyle may be rooted in the desire of homosexuals to alleviate their guilt. Everyone knows at some place in their heart that homosexuality is wrong. At some point, every homosexual knows that his acts are an abomination in God’s eyes. But the guilt cannot be cleansed/stifled/escaped from by the laws of men, the affirmation and applause of men, or any human effort/act or affirmation. I think the extreme cultural efforts to indoctrinate and mandate the normalization of homosexuality in some way is a futile attempt by the homosexual chauvinists to ease their pain. The other force pushing homosexuality is spiritual. The forces opposing God are using this issue/behavior to gain power. I believe homosexual acts are sacraments, ritual acts which give spiritual energy to the Satanic realm and thus give power to demons to do Satanic miracles. The real battle is in the heavens. It’s not about what men do with their flesh parts – it’s about men’s hearts and their love of, and submission to, God’s Law and His will and way. When men oppose God with their acts, they actively aid His enemies, and all who support the acts, even by non-condemnation, aid the cause of God’s enemies.
In short, this Adam Kinzinger quote is an example of an imprecise, emotionally charged cultural meme that generates the same reflexive emotional reactions that it is criticizing. The current cultural meme says, “Hate hate,” which is self-contradictory. Using hate to overcome hate is ridiculous in its inefficacy in accomplishing the goal. In contrast, hating evil to banish evil behavior is a positive statement. Hating the tool which motivates overcoming evil is counterproductive. Holding hate in one’s heart for more than the time appropriate to hate evil will burn the man who has not learned to separate the sin from the sinner. We should hate sin, hate the spirits of evil that tempt us to sin, and hate the fruits of sin and evil. We should have compassion for the sinner. He will suffer. We should practice loving the sinner, separate the sin from the sinner and overtly identify the sin. Sin is action is the service of evil/acts outside of the will and way of God. It is the acts and spirits that motivate them, which we hate. If we collapse the two, combining the sin and sinner, eliminating the distinction between the sin and sinner, we develop a sympathy for the devil and an acceptance of sin, which can evolve into love and pride in sin. Of course, we should have compassion for the sinner. All of us are sinners, but feeling good, acceptant, or prideful about our sins is not helpful. When we support a sinner in feeling good about his sinful acts, we add burdens and obstacles to him and slow his progress toward freeing himself from the burden and spirit that possesses him.
There is a sermon series on God and Sexuality from the pastor at Eastside.com, which speaks about loving homosexuals. His teaching is very eloquent and Christian regarding how we are to love our fellow sinners. We know we are sinners, as Paul said in Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” And many have sinned sexually. The bar Jesus set for sexual purity was too high for man to reach in Matthew 5:28, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” But like the woman caught in the very act of adultery, we are to do as He commanded her in John 8:11, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Confession and repentance are the general prescriptions for sinners, but Jesus did not go through all the redemption steps in this parable/vignette/incident/miracle with the woman caught in the act. I don’t believe this parable/example/story is a general or complete prescription for redemption and healing our relationship with sin and sinners. If this was the general pattern, it would have been repeated numerous times and in numerous ways throughout the Bible – it is not. The Bible’s drumbeat is the direction/command/teaching to reject sin/evil and embrace holiness. There is more to being reunited with the fellowship of the saints, the church, the body of believers, and the redeemed than just being a sinner and expecting to be forgiven and embraced without being cleansed. Being given a new heart. Redemption takes effort, commitment, and action. If it were easy, it would be of little value. The woman caught in the act represented a very specific situation, not a generalization of how we deal with active and rebellious sinners practicing sin and promoting sin to others.
Would Jesus have said, “I won’t condemn you if you continue sinning?” Of course not. The woman caught in the act was given the same grace we all want when confronted with our sexual sin. But expecting grace when we willfully continue to sin beyond the time of confrontation and conviction of its error is presumptuous. Does God forgive the repeat offender who is addicted to their sin? If the sinner repents, of course. God is compassionate for our frail nature. We are made from dust, flawed and weak, and subject to the passions of animal desire. But the Bible does not tell us to endorse the sinner in his sin and elevate him to a place of full fellowship without repentance. We are told not to keep company with believers who engage in various sins; 1 Cor 5:11, “But I now have written unto you not to keep company with any man who is called a brother if he is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. With such a one, you are not even to eat.” A person who calls himself a Christian/believer/follower of Christ, who continues in his sin, knowing it is a sin, and believing in God’s way but chooses to continue in sin, is not to be a close associate. Should we continue to witness, encourage, and counsel? Of course. But we must also continue to be the light they can navigate toward and the lighthouse that warns them of the rocks, shoals, and reefs that will sink their souls. The support of the loving Christian should not be an enabler of sin.
We must continue in our confrontation of sin in its various forms. The crimes of theft, lies, and murder are obvious, the practicing homosexual, the sexual addict, and the substance abuser of their sin. We must know and speak when appropriate of God’s definitions of sin. If the Bible’s testimony is true, sin will separate the sinner from intimate fellowship with the Father. As His hands extended, as ministers to His sheep on this earth, we must continue ministering to the sick who need a physician. We should not exclude a man from fellowship because he is a sinner, but we should exclude him from leadership and depend upon him for intimate and trusted counsel. We cannot have the same intimacy and vulnerability with the sinner as with the believer who seeks to know Truth/God’s will and way with all sincerity, who constantly struggles to resist the temptations of sin, and accepts the reconciliation through Christ. Thus, we must love the sinner, have compassion for his soul, and be willing to confront him, warning him of the threat to his life and soul.
God loves every sinner, and we should also love those who sin. God does not embrace or love the sin, and neither should we. We should express our love by confronting, encouraging, and helping the sinner to resist and overcome his temptation to sin. Part of serving the sinner is overcoming our reluctance to stimulate guilt/conviction/regret in the sinner’s heart. We feel uncomfortable confronting sin because we all deserve the same – we are all sinners. Confronting a man in his sin should cause him the pain of divine conviction, the aversive stimuli that lead to repentance. We should feel the pain of guilt and turn from our sin. If the church is functioning as a support group to make sinners feel less guilty, the church is worse than useless. Such a church is a tool of Satan. The church should be a place where we mutually confess and confront each other on the sin against which we struggle. Do we give understanding? Yes, we do. Do we call it sin? Absolutely. Confrontation of sin should be the medicine we give each other to support each other in Godliness. Confrontation, diagnosing the disease, is a necessary step in saving a man’s soul. God does not embrace the sinner who continues to embrace sin. A contrite heart God does not reject. God rejects a Proud heart. The man who sins and sins with Pride is an enemy of God. Should we bring sinners into our midst and show them the love of Christ, encourage them to forsake sin, and assure them that God will forgive them? Of course. Should we endorse them continuing to act out their sin? Of course not. That is not the Bible’s message. In God’s revelation, the Bible, it is clear there is no inheritance in the kingdom of God for such. Ephesians 5:5 “For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” This verse says there is no inheritance for those who sin. It sounds like such a person is not laying up treasure in heaven. To endorse sinful behavior as public policy, as law, is to normalize sin overtly. Normalizing sin and passing laws speaking against sin is not helpful. We should show Christian compassion to those caught/possessed by habitual sin. We all need the same.
The stakes are high in this debate. The direction that the culture is taking is the criminalization of the Bible as hate speech. You probably are unaware of that debate, but the homosexual lobby/activists write openly about their intent to put the homosexual agenda as the primary legal principle to eliminate freedom of religion. That is, they hope to drive Biblical principles underground so that speaking the principles of the Bible from the pulpit, that homosexuality is a sin, will be prohibited.
The homosexual lobby wishes to make the Bible politically and legally invalid as a moral precedent in society. They wish to make every expression of its moral standards condemning homosexuality illegal and prosecutable. They wish to shape the laws and the power of the state to eliminate negative messages about homosexuality by criminalizing all speech that condemns homosexuality. They wish to lock in their Satanic behavior as lawful, even laudable, and criminalize and prosecute all who oppose or try to rescue those caught in the snares of this Satanic ritual behavior. The homosexual lobbyists/activists believe they will eventually win. The replacement of the ideology of gay pride is an overt goal of the homosexual agenda.
My point is that, as a nation, we are making serious errors in endorsing homosexuality in our laws. Leviticus 18 covers the laws of Sexual Morality. This chapter covers the spectrum of sexual sins, including fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality… Verse 24 warns of the consequence of sexual sin when it says, “24 Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore, I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.” This is a warning that we disregard at our peril. Are the Levitical laws obsolete and wrong? Did God change His character? Either God’s Law is true, how God looks on sin, or the Bible is a lie.
To take one parable, the woman caught in the act, and where Jesus did not condemn her and told her to sin no more, to take one example of grace in a particular circumstance and generalize it as the totality of the Law of God/the whole of all precedent for all social policy for how the entire church, culture, and world, should relate to sin is not rational hermeneutics. Taking one specific scripture in a particular context and generalizing it to overturn all other verses strips the Bible of all authority and rationality. When interpreted in this manner, the Bible becomes a tool for those who wish to use it as proof text justification for whatever doctrine one chooses. If the Bible is a rational source of truth, then each verse must be taken as true, and it must be examined to understand the particular legal principles violated or illustrated in each Biblical circumstance if there is an apparent contradiction.
This “non-condemnation” of Jesus for adultery did not endorse a sinful lifestyle (e.g., practicing and enrolling/proselytizing homosexuality, adultery…). Rather, Jesus’ forgiveness/non-condemnation of the woman caught in the act was a recognition that we are all sinners and need grace. Perhaps this signaled a new dispensation, a dispensation of grace, where we could be cleansed, and our sentence could be commuted for violating our relationship with God for adultery. Now that Jesus has come, died, and given us a way of cleansing our hearts, maybe God no longer expects man to treat adultery as a capital crime that we punish. Perhaps this is the answer as to whether homosexuality and adultery/sexual sin should be treated as a sin (punished by God) or as a crime (to be punished by man).
Of course, none of us has the righteousness, comprehensive perspective, or authority to condemn a man to hell or administer other spiritual consequences for sin. That is God’s job. But, according to the Torah, the Mosaic law, we must punish a man for violating His law. But are we still under obligation to punish adultery with death? I think that was answered by the response of Jesus to the woman caught in the act. He gave her mercy, clemency, and forgiveness. Taking this as precedent, just because a man commits one of the capital crimes of the Mosaic Law does not mean we, the government/society, must take his life. Still, such sins are deserving of death in God’s eyes. Nothing has changed, we still need the blood of Jesus to cleanse us before entering into His presence, and we still need to confess, repent, and pay for the consequences of our acts on earth.
The governments have been tasked with prosecuting crimes to provide a consequence and deterrent to repeating the act and to deter others. But what should governments define as crimes?” Should sexual sins be considered to be crimes enforced by the government? The Pope says that homosexuality is a sin but not a crime. That may be true. Possibly it should be stigmatized and punished by the church.
Likewise, adultery is explicitly listed as a capital crime, the same as murder in Leviticus 18. Sexual morality is significant to God, and He treats such behavior with isolation. But Jesus gave the woman caught in the act grace. This scripture does not explicitly state her level of contrition, repentance, confession, and asking for forgiveness. I think there should be a distinction between the repentant sinner who violates God’s law and falls again and repents. The unrepentant rebel defies God’s laws, enrolls others in the commission of his sin, and promotes laws to legalize and protect his behavior. Ultimately God is the judge, but we have to live with the earthly consequences of our judgments.
Jesus’ forgiveness of the woman caught in the act gives us hope. Because of this story, we have an example of how we can come without shame before our Lord, before the King of the universe. While this story does not explain the steps to reinstatement of a full, inherited child of God, adopted, washed, and cleansed relationship, the rest of the Bible clarifies those steps. In other passages, we see those steps spelled out more explicitly, which include obedience to His law as more desirable than sacrifice, confession one to another, the belief that He died, and accepting the substitutionary offering of Jesus’ blood as the sacrifice that paid the price of our sins.
In the Bible, we see a testimony of the miracle of God’s ability to save us from the condemnation which is due us all for our sins. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, because of accepting it and appropriating that free gift, because of going and sinning no more, because of confessing and repenting, we will not be condemned. This is a hopeful, encouraging, and burden-relieving message! 1 John 3:9, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” We are to continue trying to perfect ourselves to avoid sin. Our performance does not save us; rather, our performance is evidence of the state of our hearts.
This passage should not be generalized to imply that sin should not be condemned. Sin is evil, and sin should be condemned – the entirety of the Bible condemns, judges, and prescribes harsh punishment for sin; the woman caught in the act was an example of grace, not a lesson declaring God’s acceptance of habitual/rebellious/addicted/comfortable sin. Of what value is the forgiveness of sin, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, if the consequences of sin are so easily brushed aside with doctrines that endorse “Pride”? Why did Jesus need to die on the cross if God’s punishment of sin (the inherent effect of sin) was not extreme? It is only because sin is so terrible, and the consequences of it are so great, that Jesus sacrificed Himself. His sacrifice was an act of love and an expression of an extreme hatred of sin. There was no other way to redeem man from the spiritual consequences of sin than to accept His atonement. He loved the sinner so much that He died so the sinner could be free. To the woman caught in the act, Jesus extended that same level of mercy as we will be given for our commission of sin if we are contrite, turn from our sin, and accept His free gift. But Jesus hated the sin that had seduced her. He knew it would kill her, and He had the power to forgive sin. I think He saw in her remorse the pain of having been caught in sin; the embarrassment and shame and humiliation touched her heart, and she was sorry. I think in this wordless exchange. He implicitly gave her the gift that she was asking for – to be forgiven.
In other passages, the Bible clarifies that the person who continues to sin will be condemned. If the Bible and God do not condemn habitual, rebellious sin, then the entire Bible is a sham, a lie, a false testimony. If we are to interpret the Bible as directing us to ignore sin, embrace the sinner as they continue to sin without warning them, and not encourage repentance, then the Bible cannot be trusted, and the sacrifice of Jesus was cheap, unnecessary, and meaningless.
The Bible strongly condemns sexual sin in all its forms. It is so strongly condemned that in the Mosaic law, the penalty for adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality is death. God’s heart did not change. The forgiveness that Jesus gave to the woman caught in the act reflected the reconciliation between the Father and man through Jesus as our mediator. This is the level of seriousness that God places on unGodly sexuality. This is the warning that Scott Lively is trumpeting. The current culture is seduced by memes such as “Love wins.” The embrace of homosexuality by the culture will destroy us. The forces of hell have been emboldened – they are now proud and loud, and they pursue those that stand up against sexual sin. The forces of these false gods will destroy our society, and given that the homosexual spirit has invaded nearly the whole world, we will almost certainly face a worldwide crisis. John 8:34, “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”
TLA.