Dial In with Jonny Ardavanis - "Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality" & 6 Other Common Rebuttals — A Pastor's Response

Episode Date: June 23, 2026

In this episode, we walk through the most common rebuttals to the biblical view of homosexuality — not to win arguments, but to equip believers with Scripture and point people toward the truth in love.This episode is sponsored by The Master's University. To learn more about how you can invest in a college education devoted to Christ & Scripture, visit https://www.masters.eduWe cover:• Did Paul only condemn exploitative relationships — not committed gay couples?• Was "homosexual" added to the Bible in 1946?• Doesn't Jesus never mention homosexuality?• Isn't God just a God of love — who accepts everyone as they are?• What about the shellfish and mixed-fabric objections?• Is same-sex attraction itself sinful, even if never acted on?• What do you say to someone genuinely struggling with SSA?This is part two of a two-part series. Part one lays the full biblical foundation from Genesis to 1 Corinthians.📖 Key passages: Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Matthew 19:4–6, Leviticus 18:22, Hebrews 4:15, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Isaiah 56:3–5🔔 Subscribe and drop your questions in the comments — we read them all.

This episode of Dialen is brought to you by Crossway, publisher of the pleasures of God, meditations on God's delight in being God. And this beloved classic pastor and best-selling author, John Piper, searches scripture to uncover the pleasures that delight the heart of God. Each chapter focuses on a specific joy, the glory of his son, the beauty of creation, the richness of his grace, the prayers of his people, and more. Pick up a copy of the pleasures of God wherever books are sold, or visit crossway.org forward slash pleasures of God to get 30% off with a free Crossway Plus account.

Is same-sex attraction a sin? Well, it is sinful and it is a disordered, fallen desire. I think there's a misconception that as long as you don't act on the temptation, then the desire is not sin. And the Bible clearly describes sins of desires wanting something that you should not want as a sin. Well, I actually can't think of a specific example in the Gospels where Jesus addresses homosexuality. How would you respond to that person? But he did address homosexuality because he addressed the Pornayaco's found in Leviticus. Okay, but practically, Johnny, if two consenting adults love each other, like, what's actually the harm in that? Who is that hurting?

And why is this like such a big deal? Hank, how we doing? Doing great, Johnny. How are you? Good. Great. Wonderful. Diving into part two. Diving into part two. In our previous episode, we looked at just comprehensive overview of what the Bible says about homosexuality. And we understand that there are some consistent retorts and rebuttals that people have.

I would say especially in like the revisionist camp of or maybe just people that are genuinely confused about what the Bible says. They've watched the TikTok video or an Instagram video about kind of refuting something that you've grown up hearing. And I don't know what to do now. I heard that this is put in the same category as eating shrimp. You know, so why are we making such a big deal about it today? So we want to go through at least maybe a handful of those rebuttals to what the Bible says about homosexuality and our obvious stance would be that it's a sin clearly condemned and yet a sin that God forgives through His grace. But I want to walk through those rebuttals today so that if you're listening or watching, you're equipped with the scripture, not just to win an argument, but so that you might help someone who's confused. And Lord willing, you know, help lead someone to repentance through the power and spirit of God.

And where we started last week, that's probably also worth referencing is, again, this is not like a political slam session where we're trying to, you know, get excited collapse from one side of the audience and kind of slam the other side. But also with that, compassion and clarity are not antonyms. And the reality is we can speak really clearly on these matters still with a degree of care and candor that's appropriate for the reality of so many individuals who are facing these questions. So maybe, Johnny, if we kick things off here and you can take us a different direction if you want to. But how would you respond to? I've heard the argument made, you know, Paul in the New Testament is writing to very specific cultural conditions where there's slavery or there's a huge imbalance of power. And really, he's actually forbidding those types of relationships as opposed to this kind of love and mutual consent between two committed individuals. Yeah, I think that's kind of like a consistent rebuttal is that Paul's not talking about monogamous relationship.

relationships. He's talking about the pedophilic raping of a young slave boy by a Roman centurion or something like that. But that's just not true. And the ancient world knew homosexuality, much like the modern world does. There was gay lovers in the ancient world. Socrates, many say was a homosexual. Alexander the Great had male and female lovers. It was well known that Alexander the Great's army, they fought so fiercely, not just for their country, not just for Alexander, but because they had homosexual relationships. with those in the trenches with them. This is well documented throughout history. Nero had castrated a young boy named Sporus and married him. According to Sittonius, who was the first century Roman historian, or Roman historian, the majority, he says, of Roman Caesars had homosexual lovers. Julius Caesar's lover was King Nicomides, which is why they called Julius Caesar Queen. So it was well documented in the ancient world.

This is nothing new. Furthermore, if Paul wanted to condemn the pedophobic, raping of a young slave boy by a Roman centurion, there were perfectly good Greek words to be able to do so, but he uses the word found in the Septuagint. And Leviticus, basically, Paul invented the word because it's what they translated from Leviticus, arsenic coitai, which means men who bed with men. He's not talking about exploitation. He's not talking about domination here. And furthermore, in Romans 1, when it's talking about that sin of homosexuality, it's saying that they, in 127, they burned in their desire for one another. This is erotic love. This is not dominating. Subordinating. Yeah, exactly. This is just doing with a man doing with a man, which should only be done with a woman in

marriage. McCulloch, who is a gay professor at Oxford and a decorated historian, a gay man, says this. This is an issue of biblical authority. And despite well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as doing anything but disapproving of homosexuality, let alone having any conception of homosexual identity, meaning that's who I am. The only alternatives are either to cleave to the patterns of life and assumptions set out in the Bible, I mean, I understand what it says and believe it and obey it, or to say that the Bible is simply wrong. And I think it's worth mentioning this gay professor at Oxford who says, there's really no way

around this. The Bible clearly forbids this because you have all these people in the modern church saying, no, we've got this wrong. Or at least introducing a question of, well, it's actually not that straightforward and it's not super clear that we can know what the Bible says about this. No, Luke Timothy Johnson, who is another respected New Testament scholar who supports homosexual behavior, says this. I think it's important to state clearly, quote, that we do, that's the affirming camp,

we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of scripture and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. What's that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience. and the experience thousands of others have witness to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. So he says we reject the straightforward commands of Scripture,

and we're appealing to a higher authority. What's that authority? Our experience. And so these are two respected affirming scholars, Oxford, one of them, and they're saying, hey, there's no way around this. You see this in scripture. So I think that's helpful to know,

at least from even, you know, one of them being a homosexual himself. Absolutely. And it's just, I think there's a portion of people who probably hear this, that it's a good place to start because, foundationally, it takes a whole Bible to be a whole Christian. And there's, I would imagine a bunch of folks who are listening who may just be sincerely ignorant of the fact that we unpacked last week that the Bible actually does speak so clearly about this.

If we were to continue down the rabbit trail for a second, what would you say to folks, like I've heard the argument made, you know, homosexuality as a concept or in the English, didn't even appear in the Bibles we read today until the 1900s. Yeah, a lot of people say it's, you know, Project 1946. It wasn't in there till later translations. And to be honest, the word homosexual wasn't in our English Bibles until 1946. But it's not about the English word being used.

It's about what Greek and Hebrew words were intended to mean. So beforehand, it was often translated as Sodomite. But the Greek word is Arsena Koi, which means men who bed with men. Over time, that has referred to different things, just like the word gay meant something different. But now you have homosexual because it's clear, but men who bed with men is the translation of Arsena Kuitai, or Malakos, which is understood to be a passive partner in a homosexual relationship. And so those first two questions super helpful. Deal more with maybe a practical understanding or reading of the text. If we were to go up a level or maybe

speak to a different audience, I think to move up and provide a little greater theological clarity, how would you respond to someone who might say, like, okay, moving up a level, isn't the church supposed to be a place that just loves people? You know, God is love. He loves me exactly as I am. How do you respond to that rebuttal? I would say, first of all, God is, you know, profoundly and truly a God of love. And I think sometimes even, you know, in the rebuttals on this, it's why are you trying to maybe my God is a God of love why you're you're dividing you're full of hate yeah and it's like no well no Jesus was very he very clearly said that the road is narrow and the modern world wants to make the road as wide as possible Jesus says the road is narrow but he is a god full of love

full of compassion he comes to die for sinners and I don't want to even get lost in the conversation without mentioning again that the point in even doing this is not just the one in the arguments so that people would see that the diagnosis is that homosexuality is a sin and the good news is 1st Timothy 1 Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners and that's what I am so yes it is true that God is a God of love and so the question is my God you know then then why would he condemn this well God's love does not override his holiness nor his authority you know this isn't one attribute that swallows up the other attributes furthermore the the first call of the gospel is to repent and the Old Testament people are called the repentance when John the Baptist shows up on

the scene, he calls people to repentance. When Jesus shows up on the scene, he calls people to repentance. When Peter preaches, he calls them an attitude to repentance. When Paul preaches, he calls them to repentance. Jesus is a God of love. He sits down with the woman at the well who sold her body for a place to say, but he calls her to repentance. And the story in John 8, the woman caught in adultery. He says, woman, where are your accusers? Neither do I condemn you. But he doesn't stop there. He says, what go and sin no more he calls zechias down from the tree who is there is no such moral equivalent to zechis the worst guy you could possibly imagine and he calls him to repentance so jesus this is what jesus does he is a god of love but he calls people to repentance and furthermore

biblical love first corinthians 13 6 says rejoices in the truth and the truth is homosexuality is a sin and so the most loving thing you can do this is why i said at the beginning of our previous I have no personal animus towards the homosexual community. I know people that are homosexual. Truly in my heart, it's the most loving thing I can do is to tell people the truth as revealed in God's word. Psalm 97 verse 10 says let those who love the Lord hate evil, not hate people, but hate sin.

And in loving the sinner, you tell them of the sin. Romans 12, 9, abhor what is evil cling to what is good. So yes, God is a God of love. And because he loves people, he calls them to repentance. When he dined with sinners, this was not a means. of moral affirmation, it was a means of evangelistic engagement to have them turn from this world and turn to him. This episode is brought to you by one of our ministry partners, the Masters University. One of the things I love about TMU is their commitment to Christ and Scripture. And not only that,

they offer 150 different fields of study, all that are established upon a biblical worldview. This is so important, regardless of the field of study you may be going into. They offer engineering, elementary education, music, business. Some of you may know that I studied actually accounting and finance, and I'm so thankful for them at the day, but I was so grateful to learn finance, business, accounting from a biblical perspective. I would encourage you to check out the Masters University by visiting masters.edu. And when you do, you can even look at our own dial-in page.

If you go to masters.edu slash dial-in and see if this would be a good fit for you. and if you use our code dial in, that'll waive the application fee for you if you're a student or for the student in your life looking to pursue higher education. You lay out Jesus' example, and it's just I'm underscoring and I don't want to beat a dead horse. But I feel like you'll hear the phrase, you know, people won't remember what you say. It's how you made them feel. And I understand that, like, I wouldn't agree with that statement wholeheartedly because I think words matter and truth matters, obviously.

But I think there is the truth in that of that. if you're screaming this rebuke with doctrinal clarity and zero love, I mean, you're compared to a clanging gong. And so I appreciate at least in our friendship, just the tender care to speak these things with empathy and compassion in the spirit that Jesus did. Now, practically, though, for the rebuttal who might say, well, I actually can't think of a specific example in the Gospels where Jesus addresses homosexuality. How would you respond to that person? I'd say, well, first of all, that argument falls flat. You know, people say, you know, they'll comment on things and say, Jesus never addressed, never addressed, you know, homosexuality.

Well, that argument falls flat because he also didn't address specifically beastiality, nor pedophilia. So if you're going by that metric, then you'd be able to bring into the fray a whole host of sins. There needs to be a limiting principle. But he did address homosexuality because he addressed the porneicos found in Leviticus, We read those Pornaya codes in our previous episode. But in Leviticus, again, the underlying principle of all of the Pornaya codes is in Leviticus 192. You shall be holy for I, the Lord, your God am holy.

And so every rule, every command that God gives in regards to our sexuality is about holiness. It's about representing the God and whose image we're made. So in Matthew 199, Jesus says, and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for anybody know, well, and you may have in your mind adultery. but it says for... Unfaithfulness, yeah, it says except for immorality. That's the word pornea. And that refers to a whole host of sexual sins

going back to the pornea codes in Leviticus. So Jesus says, these are the valid reasons for divorce, and that's a whole host of sins. It's not just literally cheating on your wife because maybe you're a man who is married to a woman and you have a homosexual relationship with another man. So it's the Pornaya code.

Furthermore, yeah, he condemned this in a Pornaya in Marx. seven. So that would be, first of all, to say that argument falls flat because he didn't address bestiality, but he did address homosexuality by including in the Pornaya Code. And then furthermore, you can't pit the son against the father, meaning Jesus says, I and the father are one. So even sometimes there was a guy that commented and said, the one who's outlying, outlawing homosexuality is the Father in the Old Testament, and Jesus never does that in the New Testament. But Jesus says in the New Testament, John 1030, I and the Father are one, which means what?

that when God punished the sin of Sodom in Genesis 19, who was there? Jesus. Jesus was there. He wasn't going, God, don't do this. God, don't do this. Why are you always so hard on people? No, Jesus was there. And so we can't pit the father against the son, nor the son against the father.

And Jesus reaffirms the biblical ethic for sex and marriage in Matthew 19 very clearly. Well, and I want to keep building on this and maybe pulling on this thread. So you mentioned the codes laid out in Leviticus 19. Yeah. But didn't Jesus come to completely like abolish the entire law? I mean, I'm wearing a shirt that has multiple fabrics in it. Am I now in sin? Probably.

What is that? I shouldn't have introduced that angle. That's your sucker? I cut that. No, but more practically, what do we actually do? There's a bunch of admonitions and codes in there that we don't live by today. So why does that apply in other pieces not? Yeah, it's a great question.

And obviously we're kind of flying high. But Jesus did not come to abolish the law. he came to fulfill the law. He came and obeyed the law perfectly. And Jesus himself said in Matthew 5 that not one jot or tittle shall be removed from the law. He says in John 10 that the scripture will not be broken. So God is not changing his view on things that he calls abominations. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Now with that being said, it is true that in Mark 7 and in Acts 10, certain foods are declared clean. So the Bible makes that very clear. That's why we can eat bacon. Amen. In Romans 14, those holy days, those feasts and festivals that pointed to Christ, they've reached their fulfillment in him. They were shadows. And Romans 14 says that those holy days are now optional.

The book of Hebrews says that the sacrificial system is now irrelevant to its obstinate because Jesus was the final lamb of God. And you've heard me say this when I'm preaching when Jesus says it is finished. It's not because his life was finished. It's because the sacrificial system is over. But there is a hermeneutic for why we are allowed to eat shellfish and pull pork. And that is because we distinguish between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. And those moral laws are still in effect, meaning at no point is do not steal no longer relevant because Jesus came to fulfill the law. No, those are moral laws.

And we distinguish between the civil and ceremonial laws that were meant to distinguish Israel from the pagan nations. and the moral laws that are meant to honor God because we are adhering to his holiness. I would say moreover, Jesus, Peter, and Paul, the New Testament writers, they all refer to Leviticus in their calls for holiness in their writing. That's why Peter says in First Peter 1.

Like the holy one who calls you, be holy in all your behavior, be holy for I am holy. So they're going back. And Jesus himself quotes, Leviticus 19, more than any other verse in the entirety of the Old Testament. So he's not saying, hey, these are irrelevant, these are outdated, these are ancient, these are antiquated.

No, he came to fulfill the law, and he says the scripture will not be broken, and not one jot or tidal will be removed. It's a super helpful distinction. We're moving quickly here. It's almost we should consider doing a few episodes on just misunderstood elements of interpreting the Old Testament. For the sake of clarity and moving forward, we started with potentially matters of just unfamiliarity with scripture. moving to a little bit more of almost a systematic theology of how do these scriptures actually fit together. If we go up another level and just say like, okay, but practically, Johnny,

if two consenting adults love each other, like, what's actually the harm in that? Who is that hurting? And why is this, like, such a big deal? Well, I would say, first of all, it harms the individual. Romans 1 says they receive in their own persons that do penalty of their error, like meaning God's word promises that this detrimentally affects you. And it's just a good reminder that God's design is always for our best. So you have that.

We talked about that a little bit in our previous episode that this affects you. From a health perspective, youth surveys also find very high rates of suicidal ideation in trans teens. Often reported between 40 to 60 percent. It harms children. It harms families. And when families are harmed, then nations are harmed because you're living in opposition to God's design. More could be said there. But whenever you deviate from God's clear design, it's detrimental.

And there are drastic consequences. And we're a nation that is reaping the consequences of that which we have sown. There's a lot more to be said there to just keep us moving. I want to dive into maybe more practical of what do you say then to the person who says, like, I'm tracking with all of this. I believe, but I struggle with same-sex attraction. How would you start to counsel that person or respond to that person? Well, I think that's a good way to frame the question because I have had the conversation with people that have struggled with same-sex attraction. So it's not like a foreign conversation.

The way that I would maybe answer it quickly in a podcast is different than the way that I would engage with a person. It's a really important. Over, you know, a period of time and listen to their story, you know, like in... There's a degree of wisdom there that we're not... Yeah, and I would begin by listening. You're asking me a question, so I'm going to begin by responding. And that's a little bit different in saying, okay, like, talk to me about this. You know, like so I think there's a, first of all, there's a movement that, you know, people that identify as a gay Christian that they have same-sex attraction desires, but they don't act on those desires, but they still identify by this label of being a gay Christian.

And I would encourage those people, if I'm sitting across from some guy, I would say, well, first of all, I would not identify yourself that way. Because if you're a Christian, Second Corinthians, 517 says, if anyone is in Christ, he's a new creation, you're a child of God, you're a saint, you're a temple of the Holy Spirit. To say you're a gay Christian is, first of all, an anthropological category. Like, that's who I am. That's not who you are. Who you are is a child of God. And furthermore, you're identifying primarily by your sin. But that's a fallen desire, right?

So that'd be like me, you know, or someone else referring to themselves as a pornographic Christian or a murderous Christian or a hateful Christian. You don't identify by the sin that Jesus died for. Now, if you're just going to ask the question, if you say, well, if I'm same-sex attracted, is that in of itself a sin? You know, that's probably a big question. Yeah, it's in many ways the question behind the question. The question behind the question. And I would say, I think there's a misconception that as long as you don't act on the sin, on the temptation, then the desire is not sin itself.

So the eighth commandment is do not steal. That's a sin of action. The 10th commandment is do not covet. That's a sin of desire. That's wanting something that you should not want. And that is what Paul says, it was the 10th commandment that led him to his understanding that he needed the Savior, wanting something that he should not want, wanting what someone else has. That is a sin of desire. And the Bible clearly describes sins of desires, wanting something that you should not want as a sin.

So is same-sex attraction a sin? Well, it is sinful and it is a disordered fallen desire. There was no same-sex attraction before the fall. So this is contrary to God's design and contrary to God's will. So this is something that we should seek to mortify. Now, it's worth mentioning because some people are told same-sex attraction is a morally neutral category. You're good to identify with it. Just don't act on it.

But being drawn this way is morally neutral. No, it's not morally neutral. It's something that you should mortify. This is the result of the fault. If it's not, then what are you going to tell the person who's attracted to minors? just don't act on it. This is who you are. I'm a minor, you know, I'm a minor attracted person's Christian. No, no, no, you don't identify by your sin. This is disordered. So I think when churches say, hey, this is who you are, you're basically prisoning them in a prison of the flesh. You're crippling their joy. You're not leading them to

confess those things. And it actually ends up being really detrimental to the individual. So if you're, and obviously that's a longer conversation. Well, how do I fight those desires? And I think I've watched this and I saw something Rosario Butterfield said, but she said, you drive a fresh nail into it every single day, just like with any other sin and sinful desire. So I think that opens up a different can. Like, well, was Jesus,

and we can go back and forth on this for a minute, wasn't Jesus tempted in every way we are tempted yet without sin? And this is really the big reason why people say, no, the temptation itself is not wrong. It's when you act on that, right? Yeah, totally. So I want to just maybe just,

turn to Hebrews for a moment. Hebrews says, do you have Hebrews 4 already? Yeah, I've got to. Yeah, read that verse 15. Yeah. So jumping in, Hebrews 415 says, for we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weakness,

but one who's been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. And so if I'm just taking this passage, and I'd be teeing up saying, well, so that means Jesus was tempted in every single way that I will ever be tempted. No? Well, no, if you extrapolate that, when it says that he's tempted in every way,

Yeah, without sin. Jesus had different temptations than we have because big idea here is he had no internal sin nature. He was faced with temptation externally, meaning he was tempted by Satan. This is a well-documented doctrine of church history, you know, seven back the last 500 years. Jesus had no sin nature. So he wasn't suppressing temptation to lust after a woman his entire life and then died for the woman that he was tempted to lust after, but he just never really engaged in him around. So when it says that he is tempted in every way as to validate his deity and divinity. So let's just put it this way. Like if someone is tempted to look at pornography and they don't look at pornography, is that a desire that Jesus ever had? So he was tempted to look at, you know, pornography. I know there was no iPhones or digital mediums back then, but then he just didn't. I think that's sometimes how we think about sin. As long as you don't do the action, the desire itself is not wrong.

and we were talking about this before, is the desire to look at pornography and of itself fallen? Yeah, absolutely, because it stems from having a fallen disordered nature. We're fallen, and so we have fleshly desires. Jesus had no fleshly desires. He wasn't like, oh, man, that woman's beautiful. I'd love to be with her, but it just, no, no, no, no, no, no. He had no sin nature.

That's why we always have to interpret Hebrews 4 with Hebrews 726, for it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners. Like he had no sin nature. Second Corinthians 521, he knew no sin. So it's called the impeccability of Jesus, meaning a lot of us, I think a lot of people view Jesus as someone who could have sinned but did not sin.

But if he could have sinned and did not sin, and then you present the possibility that the plan of God could have been corrupted and prevented because he was not, you know, he could have been a sinner and therefore not qualified to be our substitute. No, he did not sin to prove that he could not sin because he was God. So he had external temptation, but he didn't have internal temptation. Jesus never lived with suppressed homosexual attraction, nor did he live with suppressed pedophilia, you know, because if you say, well, he was tempted in every way we are without sin.

If you extrapolate that into infinity, he was never, he was never tempted to cheat on his wife because he didn't have any wife. If he was never tempted to abandon his kids, he didn't have any kids. So what's the point of the passage? It's to prove that he endured temptation to validate his sinlessness. He was tempted in his humanity, but not able to sin because of his divinity. And I know that's the hypostatic union. Jesus wasn't half God, half man. He was truly God and truly man.

But Jesus didn't live his life suppressing these temptations. And so because they stem from fallen nature, any desire in your heart, even if it's not acted on, I want to look at pornography, but I'm not looking at pornography. You don't just confess when you indulge in that. You confess the desire. The desire itself is not honoring to God. It's fallen. It's disordered. It's not how God designed me to be.

And so, you know, the example was given. Was Jesus lusting after the woman who poured the precious nard on Jesus' feet and was wiping his feet? and was wiping his feet with her hair and going, oh, man, don't look. No, he had no fallen nature. He was perfect, sinless, spotless, no flesh nature. There were a bunch of things there. Two things I think worth kind of re-highlighting.

One, that's in many ways, much more elevated view of our Savior that we can brush by and almost subconsciously adopt a false premise without being renewed by the totality of scripture, of balancing both Hebrews 4 and Hebrew 7. And the second piece where we started that, which I want to kind of pull on again just briefly, is as a helpful clarification and push. I think a lot of people would probably identify or kind of throw out the lifeline of like, oh, it's a gay Christian, meaning they're celibate. And it's actually meant to be an encouragement. And your point being there being actually, no, no, no.

It's a contradiction in terms. Don't identify something that's been made new and in Christ with something that is. Yeah, there's multiple layers here, yeah. 100%. So then to bring this home for a second and land the plane, what do you do practically again? And how do you counsel someone who says, I'm tracking with all of this,

and I find myself under the temptation internally of same-sex attraction? Yeah, well, I think in some ways you go, how do you navigate someone with any internal temptation? You confess it to the Lord. You confess it to someone in your life that you trust that's going to walk with you. And like Rosaria said, you drive a fresh nail to mortify the flesh every single day. And you surround yourself with godly influences so that you don't make, and the big idea here is don't be at home with this sin.

Don't say this is who you are because God's desire for everyone is that we be continually transformed into the image of Christ. And I think my fear with someone who identifies by their struggle is that their struggle becomes an old friend. and well Paul says act like men to the Corinthian church so he wants men to be masculine he wants women to be feminine so there is not just this neutral category no you you pursue Christ likeness and I think a lot of this is maybe just in pursuing holiness in general a lot of people seek for holiness in a compartmentalized fashion meaning I want victory over one thing in my life God doesn't just take very rarely I don't think God just removes all temptation from you. Sometimes, let's go back to the pornography analogy.

God take away this desire. No, no, no. God doesn't take away your desires. He renews your desires. He transforms our affections. He changes what we love as we renew our mind in the truth of Scripture. So I'm not trying to be simplistic, but I'm also not trying to be overly complicated that you confess this sin, you take it to the Lord, you take it to a godly people around

you, and you put a fresh nail in it every single day. And there will be, I think, besetting sins that we, struggle and Lord willing we find victory in until we meet him face to face. But I think you just say, Lord, help me, help me, help me. Knowing that if your understanding of same-sex attraction is neutral, then you're going to be idle in your engagement of it. But sin is not idle. It's aggressive.

So I know a lot of people that, I mean, a lot, half a dozen, 10, that said that this is a struggle for them. They were told it was a morally neutral category, and now they're on full-on homosexual relationships. Because it was presented as something no big deal, but sin is never passive. It's always active, and so that's why we're called to mortify the flesh

in whatever way that appears in our life. And it's just, I think, a practical place to land this. We mentioned even in so many of the comparisons, like someone who's plagued by lust, and the heterosexual camp, the principle I think that you're hitting on is much wider of like if I struggle with impatience, the answer is not, well, I guess I'm just an impatient person

for the rest of my life. Like, that is not a biblical response. And the broader point being, it just strikes me hearing you walk through it, how often this conversation is so dominated by self-reflection. Yeah. As opposed to the answer of like, lift your gaze. Where did this, who is actually providing you victory

over these things? it is not yourself most fundamentally. It is Christ. Yeah. And I think just saying, you know, if you ask me if I'm sitting across from someone, then maybe they're despairing, you know, like how can God use my life? How can God change my life? What can God do with my life?

I would want them to know that, hey, God can use your life. And sometimes I feel like some people say, hey, this is just a sin. Why don't you talk about gluttony? Well, not every sin is the same. This is what the Bible describes as an abomination. Now, with that, I don't want to react to everyone saying, hey, why do you know, all sin is the same and go, you know, this is the same. and go, you know, this is really serious.

Also not tell them, hey, no, no, you can be used by God. You're not your past. You're not your, you know, God forgave you. You know, if you're in Christ, you're a new creation. And that is so important. We shouldn't blow by that regardless of your past. Like, there is no past. There's no one listening that's, you know, beyond repair.

All of my righteousness before God is his righteousness and all of the righteousness of someone who came out of a homosexual polygamy, you know, like is the righteousness of God, meaning like, I bring nothing to the table salvifically and neither do they. And I love this passage in Isaiah 56. Verse three, God says, let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,

the Lord will surely separate me from his people. Nor let the eunuchs say, behold, I am a dry tree. I love, God says, don't let the eunuchs say, behold, I'm a dry tree, meaning what? There's no purpose for my life. I can't do anything. A eunuch is someone who has literally cut off his male organs. So don't let them say my past is checkered.

My body is disfigured. I've cut my organs. I'm a dry tree. there's nothing for me to offer God. God continues and says, for thus says the Lord, to the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast my covenant, to them I will give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than that of sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name, and here's the plan words, which will not be cut off. You're not damaged goods to God. God is so kind. He says, I'm not just going to let you into glory.

I'm going to give you a memorial. I'm going to give you a new name. What does a new name mean? God says, I'm going to rewrite your story. I'm not just going to cleanse you. I'm going to wash you. I'm going to rename you. I'm going to use your life. And Joel 2.25 says, the Lord will make up for the years that the locusts have eaten, meaning all the years of your life that maybe were spent in immorality.

God says, no, I'm going to use those. You come to me. Don't say you're a dry tree. You're useful to God. God is a loving God. And his arms are not folded in heaven, look, you know, in the sense of he does hate our sin. Psalm says he hates sinners, but when we come to him in repentance,

he sees us as if we live the perfect life of Jesus Christ. And so I want anybody despairing over what they've done or who they are right now to hear that. And Jesus says, I stand at the door and knock. He's an eager savior, and he's not looking at people up and down seeing who morally or externally looks the most qualified for entrance into his kingdom.

He comes for the sick. And that includes me, and it includes the homosexual sinner, And Jesus calls them to repentance because homosexuality is a sin. And Jesus came into the world of the same sinners. That's really good news. It is good news. It's encouraging.

And those are some helpful. Hopefully those are helpful tools as folks are listening to this for some common rebuttals. Again, the part two of the biblical grounding we laid previously, but maybe some more practical responses to the most common questions people might have on this. So thanks, Johnny. Yeah, thanks so much, Hank.