Okay. Well, let's take a moment. 1 John 1 says, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from each unrighteousness. And so the believer in Christ can use this passage as a model for how to come back into close contact with Christ through confession of known sin and the prophecy of our soul. And so let's take a moment now, and you can do that in the prophecy of your soul if necessary. And then we'll open with a word of prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank You that You are for us, and if You are for us, who is there really who can be against us? We thank You for the truth that You have given once for all to the saints. We pray, Lord, that we might be prepared to defend it. We pray also, Lord, that we might follow the Scriptures as far as their admonition to seek unity in the bond of peace, according to the Apostle Paul in the book of Ephesians, chapter 4. Knowing also, Lord, that there sometimes comes a time when we have to break fellowship because of doctrinal differences, but help us to try to have the grace and humility to work through the text and discuss these things with other believers and try to bring those who have erred from and wandered from the truth back to the truth of your word. As James says, we save their soul from death. That separation that results from us walking away from you is so important to recover. So we pray, Lord, that you'll give us wisdom and insight tonight as we look once more at this issue of what you say about homosexuality And how we may be able to speak to those within the church of Jesus Christ who have begun to affirm these types of relationships as something that you endorse. And we pray, Lord, that you might give us eyes to see and ears to hear what you say. And we ask this in Jesus' precious name. Amen. Okay, I'm gonna... Oh, I've gotta turn this on. I don't have a lot of slides, but we are going to look at a new passage in the New Testament tonight. Give me just a moment, I apologize. This is a product of me being a little late. Last week what we did is we analyzed, as a part of our series on the Bible and homosexuality, how the Old Testament law relates to the New Testament Christian and this very difficult and large topic. And what we The reason we did this is because as you study the Old Testament passages that relate to homosexuality, those Christians who are now affirming same-sex relationships claim that the Old Testament law and its ethic were transformed radically by the gospel of Jesus Christ so that it has no application to the New Testament Christian. And we therefore needed to look into this issue, and we will now look at it from their own mouth to see how they make this argument. I'm gonna quote a New Testament scholar, Dr. James Brownson, who I've quoted several times throughout this series, and is now an affirming of same-sex relationships. He says it this way, the overall agenda established by the book of Leviticus concerning purity was radically transformed by the gospel of Christ. It is simply inadequate from a Christian perspective to attempt to build an ethic based on the prohibitions of Leviticus alone. Of course, as I mentioned last week, we're not building an ethic solely on the basis of Leviticus alone, but there's also many New Testament passages. But what he's trying to do here is say that the condemnation in Leviticus 18 and 20 of a male having relations with another male as a female does not apply to us because the gospel of Jesus Christ radically transformed Old Testament ethics and brought it to a higher level. Now, Dr. Branson, by the way, has come full circle. on this issue. He is part of the Reformed Church in America, and he's been a professor for their seminaries for over three decades. In 2005, he came out with an article saying this, God's intention for human sexuality is that it find full expression only in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. I do not believe gay marriage to be sanctioned by scripture. But the following year after this article was printed, something happened. His son, who was a senior in high school, came out as being gay. He then spent several years reevaluating scripture and concluded that he had been wrong. His book, which was published in 2013, called The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality, Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, is the most important book now for affirming Christians. That is, it's the standard among academics for this issue. and for the stance of affirming same-sex relationships. Now, if I've seen this once, I've seen it literally a hundred times, a seminary professor will hold a view, and then some experience will happen, and then he will re-evaluate the scriptures, and interpret them and change the view that he once held. I saw this with Dr. Merrill Unger, whom I, of course, very much appreciate in so many of the things that he teaches, but I saw him do this in his book on demonism. Unger held, first of all, that a genuine Christian could not be indwelt by demon and then his son went crazy and he concluded that this behavior could only be attributed to demons and so he concluded that yes a Christian can be demon and dwelt. I saw this with Jack Deere another seminary professor who held for years and years to the cessation of the sign gifts and then went to Germany and had some dark experiences, and then came back and wrote a book affirming the non-cessation of spiritual gifts, of the signed gifts. So it's always they had an experience and then they went back and reinterpreted the scripture to support their experience. Now I've stated this openly multiple times and I'll state it again right now. Frankly, you don't let experience be your guide in interpreting scripture. Scripture is there to help you interpret your experience. So it's exactly the other way around. And anyway, because Dr. Brownson's son came out as being gay, he spent a number of years, as I mentioned, reinterpreting the scripture. And his book is the most important academic book dealing with this issue. And he's saying that Leviticus doesn't apply because the gospel of Jesus Christ radically transformed ethics. What he's not saying overtly, although he is implying, is that the God of the Old Testament had different ethics than the God of the New Testament. That is, that the God of the Old Testament is really a different God than the God of the New Testament. He, this is not possible because ethics come from God's character and God's character is immutable, meaning he never changes. So what I tried to show last week was that when we look at the Old Testament law and its relationship to the New Testament Christian, what we find is that all scripture is profitable and that has to be respected. The law of course remains an important part of scripture, but now it must be read through its fulfillment in Christ Who? Having fulfilled it gave us the Spirit of God to indwell us so that as we walk by the Spirit the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, that is, through the fruit of the Spirit and so forth, against which there is no law. So law should be studied, of course, the law, the Old Testament law for its profitability And we can discover the underlying principle for why God gave the various laws. And through this, of course, we can detect His holiness. And in light of that, we can reflect upon our own sin patterns that need to be addressed, and so forth. But tonight, having looked at how the Old Testament law relates to the New Testament Christian, and I use that as a bridge, Having looked at all the Old Testament scriptures and that bridge, now we want to look at the New Testament and what it says about homosexuality, if anything. So if you'll turn to Romans chapter 1. Romans chapter 1 is considered to be the most important passage in the discussion. Even the same-sex relationship advocate Matthew Vine says, quote, there's no question that Romans 1, 26 to 27 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate. Now, while I agree that this passage is very significant, I would say that its contribution is only within the greater significance of the overarching theme of Scripture. The issue of God and his view of homosexuality is not based on a single passage or verse somewhere. But on many passages interpreted within this framework of the overarching theme of scripture, that there is one man and one woman in a committed lifetime relationship, which is a covenant. Never once is any homosexual relationship viewed positively in scripture, whether it is consensual, as in Leviticus 18 and 20, or forced, As in Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah, Judges 19, 22 at Gibeah. It doesn't matter. Either way, the scriptures are 100% every time opposed to it. So in order to get around this 100% negative stance, what a same-sex relationship advocate must do is disconnect every passage away from this issue, and they must change the overarching theme of the whole Bible. Now, we're not surprised then that in Romans 1, the argument from that side is that when Romans 1 is rightly interpreted, it doesn't relate at all to modern, committed, loving, same-sex relationships. They have two basic arguments. They are this. First of all, the sin of Romans 1 is excessive lust. Excessive lust, not just moderation. Matthew Vine says, Paul was not condemning the expression of a same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation. Now, we want to look at this statement because there's more here than meets the eye. It's a loaded statement. There are terms here, same-sex orientation and the expression opposite-sex orientation. Those are loaded terms, and what they mean is that one's sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. That is, it's not the result of a choice, but it is a consequence of genetics. It's a consequence of hormones and of environmental issues, influences. The person, in other words, is a victim of his genetics, his hormones, and his environment. And he had no choice in this orientation. So, if one is oriented in a same-sex or an opposite-sex way, His argument is that the sin is excessiveness in that orientation. God must therefore have made all these people, whether they're same or opposite sex orientation, the way they are. And since he made them that way, it cannot be sinful. All that is sinful is just an excessive expression of that orientation. As long as you keep it in moderation, it's not sinful. Okay, in their view. Now, the New Testament scholar, Dr. James Brownson, he makes the same exact argument. He says, it is not sinful when these contemporary relationships are not lustful or dishonoring to one's partner, are marked positively by moderated and disciplined desire, and when intimacy in these relationships contributes to the establishment of lifelong bonds of kinship, care, and mutual concern. So that's the first argument, and essentially it is that the sin of Romans 1 is excessive lust, and it does not relate then to modern same-sex relationships that are committed and are controlled and disciplined, so forth. The second argument, What happened. Lord. Here we go again. Something's got to happen. I am I actually am. It's not OK. It came back. Okay. Okay, that's essentially the first argument. You can see where they're going. The second argument, again, is an attempt to disconnect Romans 1 from having any relevance to what we are observing today is loving, committed, disciplined, same-sex relationships. And that is that Paul is breaking from a, or speaking from a first century culture which was patriarchal, that was the norm then. And that's changed and the culture is different today. So the culture has changed. That's the simple way to express this. And so Romans 1 and what Paul is saying are irrelevant to our culture. Matthew Vines on Romans 1, 26 to 27, if you'll, these are the verses that are at the center of the, the discussion, Romans 1, 26 and 27. Vine says, the terms natural and unnatural were boundary markers between what did and did not conform to customary gender roles in a patriarchal context. And since that culture was patriarchal and men were to be in the dominant role and women were to be in a passive role, then Paul is saying that if you go the opposite of that, then you are going contrary to your culture. Since we no longer live in that culture, we no longer should reject loving, committed, disciplined same-sex relationships because they're consistent with what people believe in our culture. Brownson says the same thing. It's the same story. Such same-sex intimate relationships, speaking of those today, same-sex intimate relationships were never considered by the biblical writers. In other words, What we're seeing today just is simply not addressed by the Bible. It just doesn't touch it. In his view, there's a gap between what the biblical text does address and what the modern church is having to address. He then strongly encourages churches to realize how important it is that we recognize this gap between the New Testament times and where we are today, and to use discernment in this discussion, even though we really can't use the Bible as a basis for discerning, since it says nothing about it. The ultimate controls, then, for how we are to discern become one's experience. Of course, then, since same-sex Christians who would say they're same-sex oriented say that they can't change that orientation, then God must have made them that way, and we have to interpret the Bible in a way where God approves. Okay, that's the way it seems to be working. So summing up the two arguments that they make, the sin of Romans 1, first of all, is excessive lust and not conforming to customary gender roles that were part of that culture which is long past. So Romans 1 just simply doesn't relate to what we're seeing today. What is Paul teaching in Romans 1? Well, the main verses under consideration are verses 24 through 27, but you'll see how important it is to study the entire context. In Romans 1, 18 through 320, Paul is teaching that the whole world is under condemnation, the just condemnation of God. In chapter 1, verse 18 through 32, Pagan Gentiles are condemned because they know about God clearly through creation, but they suppress this truth about God in unrighteousness. In Romans 2, 1 through 13, moral Gentiles are condemned because they know God through their conscience, and yet they violate their conscience. In Romans 2, 14 through 3, 8, Paul shows that Jews are condemned because they know God through the law, and yet they violated the law. And in Romans 3, 9 through 20, he concludes the section by showing that all men, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin and therefore justly condemned by God. So the verses of particular interest are found in Romans 1, 18 through 32, where Paul is teaching that pagan Gentiles are condemned because they know God through creation and yet they suppress this truth in unrighteousness. And so now we'll look at these verses and then come to a conclusion about what has happened in our times. In Romans 1 18 Paul says, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven The word wrath means strong indignation directed at wrongdoing with a focus on retribution against that wrongdoing. The wrath is coming from God or is of God, meaning its source in Him. The verb revealed is in the present tense and it means that this wrath is presently being revealed in the world now. So this revelation of His strong indication we then read is coming from heaven. So we are to know that what follows in this passage is a revelation on earth of God's strong displeasure in heaven over what is happening on earth. What God is strongly displeased with in verse 18 is all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Ungodliness, asabeo, refers to pagan religion Unrighteousness refers to pagan behavior that accompanies pagan religion. These men, he says, suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Now this participle, suppress, kateko, means to hold down so as not to have something on the forefront of one's mind. And what they are holding down is truth. They know truth, but they are holding it down so that they do not think about the truth. Now, it's this holding down of truth that is the wickedness. It is the holding down of truth which is evoking God's strong indignation or wrath in this passage. It's not something unethical that they have done that is here evoking God's wrath. But it is something epistemological that they have done. It is their way of thinking. Something in their mind they have done is what has made him infuriated. And that thing is suppressing the truth that they know. In Romans 1.19, then, Paul depicts what truth in particular they are suppressing. It is specific knowledge that they have about God that they are holding down. He says, because that which is known about God is evident within them. This means that they do not have to go anywhere to find this knowledge about God. It is knowledge that is known immediately by them, That means it is inescapable knowledge. Why? Paul says, for God made it evident to them. God put this knowledge in all men so that all men know Him from the least to the greatest. And yet verse 18 told us that what they do with this knowledge is they suppress it. They hold it down, and this is the terribly wicked thing that is resulting in God pouring out wrath so that they get involved in pagan religion and pagan behavior, okay? So it starts intellectual and it moves ethical. That's the flow of the whole story of Romans 1, 18 through 32. In Romans 1, 20 then, Paul explains that all men in the history of the world have known about him immediately through creation, and this is why they have no excuse for not worshiping him. He says, for since the creation of the world, that's a time marker, it's the beginning of time, so that no one is excluded, right? What has been known? His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen. So even though invisible, all men clearly see what is invisible, that is His attributes. His eternal power and divine nature. So they see clearly the one true God. And they don't just see merely a general idea of a supreme being. But they see the one true God. And how do they clearly see what is invisible? Because it's understood through what has been made, through the creation, through general revelation. So in other words, when we just look out on the world, the universe composed of man and nature, it is inevitable that they see him as its architect. He is the craftsman and through his craftsmanship the craftsman is observed. Even the fallen creation of course. So the result or purpose of this knowledge is then stated at the end of the verse so that they are without excuse. So everything in all of creation gives us immediate knowledge of the one true God It doesn't have to be mediated by human reasoning. It doesn't have to be interpreted evidence or something like that. It is immediate knowledge. He makes it known to us, as he said in verse 19, so that, verse 20, there is no excuse. And the word without excuse is a legal word, unapologetos. It means no defense in a court of law. When they stand before Him, no one will be able to make the argument, your existence was just not clear. That is not a possible argument. Because, verse 19, God made it evident to them. And it is immediate and accessible, and all men have had it from the beginning of creation until this moment. In Romans 121, then, Paul explains further why there's no excuse. Because even though they knew God, okay, it shows that they came to know Him definitely. They knew God, but they did not honor Him as God or give thanks when they came to know Him definitely. which is our responsibility, and it remains the responsibility of all human beings. When we come to know God, that is to recognize Him clearly through creation, then we are to honor Him and give thanks. But they didn't do that. Instead, what they did was they suppressed the truth about Him by not giving the honor due to Him because of His immense power and His divinity, which is manifested through all of creation. Nor did they give thanks to Him due to His daily sustenance of them." And this is the exact thing the Apostle Paul does in Acts 14 at Lystra. This is the exact same thing the Apostle Paul does in Acts 17 at Athens, is it not? He takes men back to creation and to His sustaining of them and their refusal to worship and give thanks to Him. As a consequence, two things took place in this verse, 21. First, they became futile in their speculations. The verb became futile is passive. It means they were rendered futile in their speculations. Now, speculations de logismus is the word for the thinking patterns or processes in one's mind, or what we would say, that which gives a rise to your worldview, your way of thinking. Because they knew God, but they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him for upholding them at every moment, they were rendered futile in their thinking patterns or worldview. The second thing that happened in verse 21 is their foolish heart was darkened. The heart, cardia, usually does not refer to the organ that pumps blood, but usually to the entire life of man, and especially his thinking. The heart is considered foolish because the heart, the mind, the thinking center knew God, but it did not honor God and give thanks to Him. That is, it's foolish to not do so. Darkened, the foolish heart is darkened. Darkened is also in the passive, just like speculation, or just like became futile. And what it means is that the clarity of understanding and thinking correctly in the inner life was lost. Clarity of thought and right understanding and thinking was lost as a consequence. So, because of the The passives, they're both passive voices. You know, they became futile or were rendered futile and their heart was darkened passive. These are both passive. They didn't darken their minds. In other words, they didn't render themselves futile in their thinking. But something outside of them did. They were passive in this. They were active in their not giving thanks and not worshipping and honoring Him. But they were passive in the consequences. And we learn later what Kanselman concluded on this passage, and that is that these are a punishment for the perversion of the knowledge of God. This is, in other words, a form of the present wrath of God as verse 18 began. So because they rejected Him in their thinking, they knew Him clearly. But because they rejected Him, in their thinking, he rendered their thinking patterns and consequent worldview as futile and without understanding, we would say. Now that explains 99% of the world already and what we're facing. In Romans 1.22, he goes on, there's further, professing to be wise, they became fools. To profess means to claim something, to assert something, to be true of oneself. So even though they were futile or their minds were rendered futile and without understanding, they professed that their thinking patterns and their worldview were wise. But, Paul says, they became fools. Or better, they had become fools or had been made fools. In Romans 1.23, then, we see the chief manifestation of foolishness. They exchanged. They made an exchange, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. So they made two essential exchanges. One is the word glory. The glory is exchanged for an image. The second is the exchange of the incorruptible God for corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. In short, we could summarize this by saying they exchanged the creature for the creator. So that what took preeminence in their thinking was that the creature, rather than the creator, his mind, the creature's mind, is the integration point for supplying meaning and knowledge. The mind of man becomes God. It couldn't have been stated more clearly than the introductory philosophy book by Reuben Abel titled, Man is the Measure. That is to say, once again, that when man rejects God as the integration point for knowledge and meaning, then the only thing left by which the measure can be made is man's mind, which has become the replacement for God. But this is a futile thinking pattern that leads to all sorts of fallacious worldviews that come out of a mind that lacks understanding. because it perverted the knowledge of God. Now all of this up to this point is really in the mind. It's about thinking, it's about knowledge, it's about intellect, it's about how you think or your epistemology, how you know what you know. But in Romans 1.24, he now moves away from that to the ethical or behavioral consequences of not honoring, giving thanks to God, whom all men know because God made it evident to them immediately. in themselves and in creation, so that no man's without excuse. So we note in verse 24, the expression is consequential. You see, therefore, or as a result we might say, consequently, God gave them over. And then note the same consequential expression in verse 26. For this reason, God gave them over. And again, the same expression in verse 28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over. Three times it is emphasized in this passage that God gave them over as a consequence of their suppressing the knowledge of Him, which is, again, the most terribly wicked thing that we can do. So, what this means then, that God is giving them over to these behaviors is that the wrath is not poured out because of the behaviors we're about to study, but the wrath is the behaviors that we are about to study. That is, do you want to see the wrath of God? Look out the window, friend, and you will see it now. If you want to see that there is still a future wrath, then all one has to do is then look at chapter 2 verse 5 to see that yes, indeed, all these behaviors are also storing up for a future wrath, which will be in the tribulation time. But the behaviors we will now look at are not something that God, let's say the behaviors we're gonna study now are already a form of God's wrath now. The fact that they exist is a consequence of him three times stated, giving them over to these things. So in Romans 1, 24 to 25, we see God's wrath revealed in giving them over to impurity in heterosexual relations. It says, therefore, God gave them over. This is the first time, so let's discuss this expression now, and we don't have to discuss it again in verse 26 or 28. The verb is the same each time. It is the verb gave over. It's active voice. It means this. God actively removed his restraint. God actively removed his restraint. So we might say he let them go, so to speak. He let them go to fulfill their lusts, to fulfill their self-determination, and to bring themselves to their self-destruction. An act of removal of restraint. It says God gave them over, note, in the lust of their heart, not to the lust of their heart, in the lust of their heart. This means that the lust or desires were already in their hearts. It was a part of their darkened worldview, which we learned about in verse 21. He was giving them over to these practices that were already a part of their thinking processes, and these practices are characterized here as impurity, a catharsia, something filthy, dirty, unclean, used especially in the New Testament for sexual sins, which are legion. Sex outside of marriage, in any form, is unclean because it is promiscuity. Promiscuity is the propagator of sexually transmitted diseases. But they wanted promiscuity, and God is here giving them over to have it. But with it, they have to reap the consequences of it. The result then stated is so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. Promiscuous sex dishonors the body, which is not for sexual promiscuity, but the body is for the Lord. 1 Corinthians 6, 13. The reason God gave them over to this is then restated in verse 25, just in case we forgot. The thought is similar to verse 23. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They knew the truth of God. They knew it clearly, but they did not want it in their knowledge, and so they exchanged the truth of God that they knew for a lie. And the Greek grammar actually says the lie. It uses the definite article before lie. The great lie. That is the idea that man is so wise that he can be the measure of all things. And this is exactly what's embodied in the next phrase. Worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Now, we learn from verse 23 and 25 that worship is a function of being a human made in God's image. That is, that all men worship. There are no people who are non-religious. There are no people who are neutral. All men worship, all men bow at an altar. And that altar is either the creator or the creature. But to exchange worship of the creator for the worship of the creature is, as we will see, not without consequences in the realm of sexual immorality and sexual immorality itself is not without consequences in the terms of well-being and health, good health and hygiene and so forth. There are consequences. So in Romans 1, so verse 24 and 25, the giving over into heterosexual relations, that type of immorality, God gave them over to that because that's what they wanted, but they didn't get the consequences too. In Romans 1, 26 and 27, God's wrath again revealed now in giving them over to degrading passions and homosexual relations. This is homosexual. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions. The reason being, of course, the previous verse, verse 25, which stands between these two sections. That is, they exchanged the worship and service due the Creator and worshipped and served the creature. Now the word passions here of course refers to an experience of very strong desire, strong desire for something. And the word degrading actually means something dishonorable, something that's shameful. And the Greek construction of this I'm going to take a second here. The construction actually, if you were just to translate it in the way that it's intended, according to the accusative, which is the direct object with the genitive modifying it, would mean this. Passions that are dishonorable in nature, or let's say that are of a dishonorable nature. So that's what he's talking about. He gave them over to certain passions that are of a dishonorable nature. The nature of what is dishonorable is then stated clearly. For their women exchange the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandon the natural function of the woman and burn in their desire toward one another." Now, this is where they make their arguments, right? The interpretation of the same-sex relationship advocates is that what is dishonorable here in a patriarchal culture was for a male to take the passive role, or for a female to take the active role. And so, what they would like to do in this verse is re-translate these two terms, natural and unnatural. And they'd like them to be translated culturally as normal and abnormal. culturally normal or abnormal, okay? That's what they wanna do to those words, natural and unnatural, change them to mean culturally normal and abnormal. So by application, what Paul would be saying in that view is that in sexual relationships, we should conform to the normal gender roles in our culture, whatever that may be. Of course, these may change over time, as they have in our culture, or are in the process of doing now. This is not convincing interpretation for several reasons. First, in chapter one, verse 20, Paul indicated that God's revelation of himself has been since the beginning of creation. It follows then that if God's revelation of Himself has been the same since the beginning, then God's wrath that is revealed when people reject Him is also the same since the beginning. Put another way, if there is no change in the revelation of God Himself, there is no change in the revelation of God's wrath. Culture may change, does change, but God never changes. That's the first reason this is not convincing. The second reason is that the terms natural and unnatural do not mean culturally normal and abnormal. The Greek word natural means in accordance with the basic order of nature. that is, in accordance with the order of things and their design. Men and women have particular and distinct design, not only physically, but also psychologically and emotionally. So natural does not mean normal. It means in accordance with the basic order of things in nature. It is not dependent upon culture. It is based on design. Second, function means usage here. The way something is to be used, not in a degrading sense, but just its proper use. And here relate, speaks of involvement with a person, relations with another person, function of a person, and especially of sexual intercourse. So in other words, it's saying that there's a proper usage of each sex, male and female, and this is, this is defined, at least in part, by anatomical gender. Not also including the emotional and other elements that are a part of sexual intercourse. But it does include anatomical gender, despite claims to the contrary by people. In verse 26, then, the natural function of the woman is according to her design for intimate involvement in sexual intercourse with a man. And the wrath of God is revealed when women exchange that function for sexual intercourse with another woman, contrary to her design. Then in verse 27, Paul says, Hamois, meaning likewise or in the exact same way, also the men abandon the natural function of the woman and burn in their desire toward one another. There's much more about the men in verse 27. The word abandon means to move away from something, You know, abandon it. Move away from something. Now what they moved away from was what is natural with a woman, which would be sexual intercourse. And what they moved to was a burning desire toward one another. A desire toward one another. Burning desire. The word burn means inflamed. to have a strong desire for something to be inflamed, for something to be kindled, such that it would become a fire and not able to put out. Now, when we studied the Old Testament on these issues, we studied Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah, and we saw that the men of that city, from every quarter, we might recall, from the whole city, were inflamed with lust for other men. Jude 7 goes even farther and says that it wasn't just Sodom and Gomorrah that followed this pattern, but the surrounding cities also. In fact, they refused virgin women and wanted to go after other men. In Judges 19, this same burning was manifested in Geba, which is a city in the tribe of Benjamin. where they prefer sexual intercourse with a man over a woman. Now, to be inflamed with lust for another man is also a common way in the literature that men who are homosexual express their preference for sex with other men. I don't know all the reasons why this is particularly inflaming, but I speculate, on the basis of neurobiology, that the feedback mechanism in the male human brain for sex, and when satisfied, it's like a feedback. It just keeps telling you more and more and more. And that's what's happening. And this is not something at all that is common, nor does Paul make it common among women who are homosexual. In fact, some homosexual women practice abstinence because in their relationships, the resounding note for why they became lesbian isn't sex, it's communication. I'm not saying it doesn't go on, I'm just saying this is the dominant theme, whereas for men it's not communication, it's sex and lots of it, and more than often with multiple partners throughout a lifetime, often hundreds in numbers as is attested. And this, I think, is due to a hormonal feedback mechanism that only inflames them and keeps them captive in this vicious cycle. Which is why I suggest probably that many people do claim, we've tried to change and we can't. Because sexual sins are by nature vicious cycles. They are very difficult to break. As Paul says in verse 27, men with men committing indecent acts. Indecent acts, the word indecent acts means a shameless deed, but it's actually a definite article. Prior to that it means the shameless deed. That is, this is something that ought not to be done because it deviates in appearance from the proper standard. That is, it doesn't look right. That's really what it's saying. This does not look right. What looks right is a male and a female together, not a male and a male. And yet they are shameless, a shameless deed, meaning they themselves are not ashamed of it, they actually flaunt it. Now this is exactly what is happening today. You wonder how you can get all this stuff out of the Bible. This stuff is right in the Bible. We can read it right out of the Bible. We don't even need the books to tell us what's going on, or the news, or whatever. This is exactly what is going on, what the text says is going on. They're flaunting this. In fact, in Vine's book, he has a section in the book God and the Gay Christian, where he encourages same-sex Christians to come out in order to be free, to have a more peaceful relationship with Christ, and to encourage other gay Christians to come out. So in other words, we're not ashamed of this, we're proud of this, we're going to come out now. Paul concludes verse 27, and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. The word due penalty means that The penalty of being inflamed with this desire for other men is a consequence of a negative choice. It's not an immutable characteristic governed by genetics, by hormones, and by environment. And of course, all the studies have been done. We'll look at this more when we look at the results of this course. twin studies have been done, identical twin studies, and over 90 some odd percent of the time, when one is gay, the other is not. They share the same environment where they grew up, the same genetics, same hormones, and yet they're not both gay. What are we supposed to do with this research? We can't say it's due to those things when clearly the evidence is contrary to that. Not only scripturally, but biologically. The words at the end of verse 27, the due penalty of their error, that word is planae, it's a reference to wandering. They made a choice, what this is saying, they made a choice to wander away from the God of the Bible, And consequently, God gave them over to being inflamed toward one another. This is a consequence of a choice. The choice wasn't necessarily to do these behaviors at first. The choice at first was to reject the true God, the one true God of the Bible. Now with that, I suggest, and this is not being said without a very careful consideration and analysis and even fear at some point that this is exactly where it was going, but not knowing for sure. Nor is it said without grace and compassion, because as you know, I feel like we need to be able to discuss with these people in Christian circles and to try to bring them back to the truth if in fact they have erred. But it seems to me that for a Christian to affirm same-sex relationships is a consequence of rejecting the one true God of the Bible. That is to say, They may believe in God, a God, but that God is not the same God that is taught by the Bible. Because this affirmation or this behavior of homosexuality is a consequence of rejecting Him, according to this passage. What it is they are rejecting in particular, and this is throughout their writings, What they are rejecting is the biblical teaching about who God is. The Bible teaches that God is Trinity and there is subordination of role within the Trinity. That is to say, there is but one God, one in essence. and three in person and amongst the persons it is the son who is subordinate or submits to the father and it is the spirit who is subordinate or submits to both the father and the son and that implies nothing like inferiority of essence to either the son or the spirit that is what the Bible teaches that God is Trinity then and there is subordination within the Trinity is the foundation for marriage as one flesh. And what I'm showing now is that all these things are interrelated and locked together. Trinity and subordination with the Trinity is the foundation for marriage as one flesh and subordination within the one flesh. See, the two shall be one flesh, and yet the woman is to submit to her husband, who is to lovingly lead. Then we move from that to the fact that marriage is a one flesh relationship with subordination within the one flesh, and we point to the fact that there is one church, and there is subordination within the church. That is, There is the church, and Christ is the head of the church, and the church submits to his leadership. All these biblical paradigms, trinity, marriage, and church, are all destroyed by Christians who affirm homosexuality and practice homosexuality. They repeatedly reject the idea that within the Trinity, there is subordination of role. They repeatedly deny that within marriage, there is subordination of role. They repeatedly deny that within the church, there is subordination of role. This is why you're seeing denomination, after denomination, after denomination, and marriage, and presbytery, after presbytery, after presbytery, discussing these very issues. Can we affirm or not affirm same-sex relationships? Can we have a male pastor and a female pastor? All this confusion, okay, is a result of not thinking squarely and clearly about the Trinity and about the subordination of roles within the Trinity that do not result in inferiority of essence of either the Son or the Spirit. So to say what I'm saying then would say that for Christians who affirm homosexual relationships or practice them themselves, that they have left the biblical view of who God is in Trinity. And consequently, as Paul said in verse 21, their minds are darkened and they have endorsed another worldview. Their thinking patterns have gone astray and the worldview that they consistently borrow from in their writings is the worldview of feminism. The stated goal of feminism is this, to eliminate all gender-based roles in society up to and often including roles that are purely biological in nature. So, consequently, okay, Their stated goal is then to come to the text of scripture and look at the text through the lens of the feminist worldview and reinterpret all New Testament texts and all Old Testament texts in such a way as to eliminate all gender-based roles in the church and in marriage. When you read the literature and you read about marriage, as a kinship bond with no reference whatsoever to gender distinction. That language reveals alone a deep problem. I propose that when one rejects that within God, the Trinity, there's subordination of role, you inevitably end up rejecting that within marriage, there are gender differences that are necessary and there is subordination of role within the marriage. And it seems just strange to me that one can read a text like Jesus himself stated in the divorce context of Matthew 19 verses 4 through 6 and not conclude from this passage that marriage has always been and will always be only between one man and one woman in God's sight. Jesus said, have you not read this? He who created them from the beginning made them male and female. And for this reason, a man, gender specific, shall leave his father and mother, which are required to produce a man, and be joined to his wife, gender specific, which also requires a father and mother to produce. And the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Well, God does not join two members of the same sex into one flesh anywhere. Men may do that, but God does not do that. God may give them over to that, Romans 1, but the behavior alone, as we saw in Romans 1, is a revelation of the wrath of God, and it only stores up for a future wrath that's coming in the tribulation. And yet in Romans chapter one, that's not the end of the story for those who have rejected the one true God in Trinity. In Romans 1, 28, we see the third time God gave them over. This time wrath is revealed and giving them over to a depraved mind. So we must finish this passage. Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, And that word acknowledge means to, it's an important word, to truly know, to really know Him. They did not see fit to really know God anymore. They really did know Him. They really did, verse 21 says, they really knew Him. But they did not want that knowledge anymore, and so they made an exchange, verse 23, and so, here, God gave them over to a depraved mind to do those things which are not proper. He then lists 21 things that are not proper, which hardly anybody who's a same-sex relationship advocate would say are improper. These wouldn't be debated. It's just what's in verse 26 and 27. These are all visible revelations right now of the wrath of God in a society. Here they are, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossips, slanders, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. Now you tell me those 21 things are not abundant in our culture. And what are the results of? the results of rejecting the one true God that they knew in their mind. And consequently, they are a revelation of His wrath right now. God has given people over to these behaviors in our culture because they didn't want to know who they truly did once know, Him. And these are not the worst of it, because in verse 32 we read what happens at the absolute end of a society. When you reach verse 32, friend, I mean, it's over. I mean, that society has come to an end. He says, "...and although they know the ordinance of God..." See, again, they know these things. "...that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but they also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Now, what this is saying is that when a society says that what is right, or what is wrong, is right, that society has come to its end. See? God's saying chime in, listen right here. When a society says that what is wrong is right, that society has come to an end. The majority of the citizens in this country may not think that homosexuality is right, but the Supreme Court of the United States of America has said that homosexuality is right. And that is saying a lot. I think it's safe to say that our society has come to an end. Now, why do we remain then? He's not through. Because only of the mercy of God. Now, if I were to interpret this under the principle of Sodom and Gomorrah, that is, when righteous Abraham asks several questions about Will you destroy it if there's 50? How about 45, and 40, and 30, and 20, and on down to 10, right? And to 5. God would not destroy until every last believer was taken out of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, when the righteous of the world are removed by the rapture, then the future wrath of God will fall upon the earth in the tribulation. This is, in fact, an argument, and in my view, a strong one for the rapture. God will not unleash His Romans 2.5 type of wrath until the church is removed, the true church. Now, I think until that time, what are we to be like? We are to be lights in the darkness. and not be like Lot, who really struggled, even though he was a believer, he struggled to leave that city and all of its pleasures. Remember? Friends, we are in a fix in our country, and I don't see any way, I don't see America turning back. I see people struggling, wanting to hold on to morality in a vacuum, or perhaps returning to Christianity. That's where we can come in and talk with fellow believers who are starting to affirm these things and bring them back to a true view of the one true God, which is the only solution. So, we can, among our Christian brethren, proclaim to them, of course, and ask them questions about the one true God as Trinity is their subordination role within the Trinity. Jesus said, in John 10 30, this, I and the Father are one. That is a statement that he is, by essence, equivalent to the Father. That is, in Trinity, God is one in essence. Then Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11, 3, this, God is the head of Christ, the kephalé. That means that within the Trinity, as far as God the Son and God the Father are concerned, The father is the head of Christ and Christ is subordinate to the father in his role. We have to see role distinctions because it was not the father who was crucified on the cross for our sins, was it? No, it was the son. And it's not the son who applies his work to us when we believe, it's the spirit. There are distinctions of role within the Trinity. In the same verse then, 1 Corinthians 11.3, Paul then continued and applied this to marriage, saying this, And Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman. This means that just as there is oneness and subordination in God, so there is oneness in marriage and subordination within marriage. The subordination of role in God and in marriage is never and has never will be or never will be or imply inferiority of essence. It's a necessary feature of God. It's a necessary feature of marriage. That is why any deviation from who God is in Trinity with subordination will result ultimately in the downward cascade of what you read in Romans 1. which begins with the darkening of the mind because they reject the one true God. They acquire a false worldview. In this case, it's feminism. This is a seeking to destroy all gender distinctions. And this is an outworking in the end that God gives them over to homosexual affirmation and practice. As much as I would love to be able to say that it's biblical and I can embrace them and all their practices, I can't because it's not biblical. It's not genetic. It's not culture. It's not environment. It's not an immutable orientation, which we'll see even more clearly next week in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 11. But what it is, it is the revelation of the wrath of God. And it's a very telling thing in our society when the Supreme Court says that it is right. Let's close with a word of prayer. Heavenly Father, we do pray for our fellow believers in Christ who are claiming that this is something that's acceptable before you. We realize that they may be in a predicament. that they may be struggling, that it may be extreme struggle, and that this is in the spotlight in our country. And no one's comfortable with their sin pattern being in the spotlight. We pray, Lord, that you would give us wisdom to know how to speak. to them, to do as Jesus did with the woman who was caught in adultery. To show grace, which of you has not sinned, and at the same time truth, go and sin no more. And to show the necessary support to help them get through it. All of us need help to get through certain sin patterns. And we'd like to hide and maybe not deal with it. But ultimately, we know it's for your glory if we're able to come out of it and advance and move away from it further and further and closer to you in the process. So we pray, Lord, that you'd give us wisdom how to speak, a balance of grace and truth, and clarity on what is the truth. And that we would call believers who strayed from the truth back to your word and to encourage them in it. And we ask this in Christ's name. Amen.