The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.

With the rising influence of Christian organizations in America that exist to cater to “sexual minorities” in the church, there has been much confusion among reformed evangelicals regarding temptation and desire, specifically as it relates to same-sex attraction. Confessional Presbyterian denominations are not exempt. The Presbyterian Church in America, at present, is on a collision course with Revoice theology and is inundated with debates surrounding homosexual identity and whether men who profess to be “same-sex attracted” can be admitted to ordained office.
Pastor Tom Buck, one of the framers of the Social Justice and Gospel Statement, has said that Living Out, founded by Sam Allberry, is “more dangerous than Revoice.” Even so, the OPC Committee on Christian Education has recommended Sam Allberry’s book Is God Anti-Gay? as a “[S]ound, uncompromising and winsome guide to give someone who struggles with the issue of homosexuality theoretically, or someone who struggles with same-sex attraction personally…” No doubt there is wide disagreement on the topic of sexual ethics within reformed evangelicalism.
The PCA’s Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality, authored by Kevin DeYoung, Bryan Chapell, et al. is still perhaps the most rigorous, clarifying, and helpful resource dealing with these issues from a biblical, Reformed theological, and confessional standpoint. However, the average layperson (and most elders) won’t be sitting down to read sixty pages written by a Presbyterian committee.
Advertisement
Therefore, as one who has served in the Australian PCA, American PCA, OPC, and now the ARPC, I have put together answers to six of the most frequent questions I tend to get from laity in Presbyterian circles who, as it pertains to same-sex attraction, genuinely have queries about the meaning of temptation, desire, sin, etc., and are also interested in learning a tad bit from the Reformed faith on these issues. Of course, there are numerous other interrelated points and clarifications that could also be addressed here, but the intention and aim of this piece is conciseness. To that end, I hope it is useful.
How can temptation be sinful when Jesus himself was tempted?
It depends on what is meant by “temptation.” Reformed theology has always maintained that temptation has a legitimate internal/external distinction. Internal temptation, which is the desire to sin, arises from the corruption of nature and is, therefore, inherently sinful (James 1:14). On the other hand, external temptation, so long as it remains external, is not inherently sinful (James 1:2).
In Hebrews 4:15, when it says Jesus was “tempted as we are, yet without sin,” it is highlighting the reality that he was never tempted internally with first motions drawn from a sin nature, despite the realities of his full humanity (e.g.s., hungering, thirsting, etc.). In other words, Jesus’ temptations were entirely external as he was not born in original sin. We, on the other hand, are born in sin (Psalm 51:5). Therefore, if we claim that our internal temptations to sin are not sinful, we can deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8).
Does Reformed theology draw an internal/external distinction as it relates to sin?
It does. Westminster Confession 6.5, for instance, states the following: “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”
N.B., that the corruption of nature is itself sin and all the motions of this corruption are sin. As Christians, we are called not only to mortify the motions of our corruption but also the nature of our corruption. On the one side, the corruption of nature includes all internal inclinations to sin (James 1:14), whether through thought, impulse, temptation, attraction, affection, or desire. On the other side, the external motions of that corruption include all sin deeds committed outwardly (James 1:15), arising from inward sinfulness.
In addition, Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Ethics, provides this helpful comment on Institutes 3.3.10:
Advertisement
Calvin articulates the Reformed position well: ‘But between Augustine and us we can see that there is this difference of opinion: while he concedes that believers, as long as they dwell in mortal bodies, are so bound by inordinate desires (concupiscentiis) that they are unable not to desire inordinately, yet he dare not call this disease ‘sin.’ Content to designate it with the term ‘weakness,’ he teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when a man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label ‘sin’ that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort.’
Briefly, what does the PCA Report on Human Sexuality say about desire and temptation?
The Report, which aptly comports with the Confession’s teaching on this matter, states the following:
We affirm that impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin. We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful. (p. 8)
The Report’s statement on temptation is helpful also. It describes internal temptations as “morally illicit desires” and external temptations as “morally neutral trials” (p. 9). The entire Report, which I highly commend, can be read here.
Isn’t “heterosexual desire” and “homosexual desire” essentially the same thing?
The short answer is no. Heterosexual desire can be and must be rightly directed, otherwise it is sin. Homosexual desire, on the other hand, cannot ever be rightly directed and is, therefore, always sinful. Thus, it’s not a 1:1 ratio. The former is a sin against God’s moral order (Matt. 5:28), while the latter is a sin against both God’s moral and natural orders (Jude 1:7). Other sexual desires that go against God’s natural order would include pedophilic desire, bestial desire, and incestuous desire (Exo. 22:19; Lev. 18:6; Deut. 27:21).
But isn’t all sin equal in God’s sight?
All sin, no doubt, is deserving of eternal punishment for the mere fact that sin is itself a transgression of God’s law. However, not all sin is “equal.” In fact, Larger Catechism 150 states the following:

Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous, but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Furthermore, according to Larger Catechism 151, one aggravation that makes a sin more heinous than others is if it’s “against the light of nature.” The prooftext offered is Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Should we tell Christians who experience homosexual temptation that they won’t be rid of it in this life?
Despite our many advances in sanctification, there will always be an enormous abyss between our holiness now and our holiness in glory. However, death is not the alpha point of transformative holiness in Christ. Transformation begins at regeneration (Titus 3:5) and progressively continues through the sanctifying power of the Spirit in time and space (Gal. 5:16; Phil. 1:6) — even to the degree that particular internal temptations can be overcome in this life.
Jesus is in the business of redeeming the whole person from the debilitation of sin. As our Sanctifier, he progressively conforms us to his image not just by reorienting our external acts but also our internal thoughts, impulses, predispositions, temptations, attractions, affections, desires, longings, hopes, and faith.
The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.
Andrew George is a Minister in the Associate Presbyterian Church (ARP). This article is used with permission.

Written by Melanie A. Howard |
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
The Bible highlights a wide variety of (often disruptive and disobedient) activities that it describes without censure. The implication for student life staff and college administrators, then, might be to help channel students’ energies for dissent in positive directions that align with the biblical witness rather than to be quick to quash dissenting activity, even if it interrupts the status quo.

Late in the spring 2024 semester, several college campuses were rocked by student (and faculty) protests over the conflict in Gaza. More recently, the Chronicle of Higher Education broke a story about an instructor whose contract was not renewed after he had publicly opposed an increase in parking fees. On the surface, these events could appear to have little in common. However, despite what might appear to be radically different issues, both scenarios raise the same fundamental question: What is the place of critique or dissent on college campuses?
While this question has implications for all institutions of higher education, I would like to put a finer point on it: What is the place of criticism or dissent on Christian college campuses, and what resources from the biblical text might lend themselves to answering this question?
Rather than try to address larger questions about the freedom of speech or academic freedom on campus, I would instead like to inquire how the Bible itself might serve as a conversation partner in considering such questions. In doing so, I suggest that the Bible’s provision of multiple examples of dissenters can offer a valuable resource for Christian college communities as they consider the place of protest on their campuses. By implicitly condoning dissent, highlighting a diversity of methods for dissent, and offering parameters for appropriate dissent, the Bible offers a rich resource for Christian colleges discerning how to encourage and/or limit expressions of dissent on their campuses.
The Bible as a Resource for Considering Dissent on College Campuses
In the Bible, Christian campuses can find a resource to support conversations about dissent on campus. Based on the rich collection of examples of dissent found in it, Christian universities that look to that text as their ethical foundation have an additional source, beyond those drawn upon by secular institutions, for informing moral reflection about the ethics of protest and dissent.
There is a wide diversity of dissenting activities illustrated throughout the pages of the Bible. Although each of the following biblical examples deserves more consideration, a brief overview demonstrates the array of biblical examples of critique, civil disobedience, and/or protest:

Micaiah (1 Kings 22:1–40): The account of the prophet Micaiah provides an example of a figure who refuses to go along with the status quo, even when he has been instructed to do so (1 Kings 22:13). Instead, Micaiah vows to speak only the word that the Lord gives him (1 Kings 22:14), even though this word contradicts what his superior wants to hear. Ultimately, Micaiah points out that the positive (albeit false) prophecies from the other prophets were the result of spirits of deception that the Lord permitted to deceive King Jehoshaphat. Micaiah alone was faithful to the word of the Lord in declaring the truth about the forthcoming disaster.
Esther (Esther 4–8): The well-known story of Esther recounts Queen Esther’s daring quest to save the Jewish people from certain destruction. At a risk to her own life, Esther beseeches the king to spare the Jewish people. Although her action was risky and ran contrary to the plans that the leading rulers had made, Esther took it upon herself to resist and speak out against what she saw as a destructive course of action.
Shiphrah & Puah (Exodus 1:15–22): The Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah receive an order from Pharaoh to kill any newborn boys whom they help to deliver (Exodus 1:16). However, they disobey this order and allow the babies to live. The text specifies that this action of protest against a direct order was due to their fear of God (Exodus 1:17).
The Magi (Matthew 2:1–12): The unnamed foreigners who are the first in the Gospel of Matthew to meet the young Jesus receive a direct order from Herod to alert him to the whereabouts of Jesus (Matthew 2:8).

Read More
Related Posts:

After [teachers] Baraki and Caldeira angered parents by using an “anti-bullying” presentation to teach kids what it means to be gay or lesbian, they explained to conference attendees that “Next year, we’re going to do just a little mind-trick on our sixth graders.”

Members of California’s biggest teachers union plotted how to push LGBT politics on children and undermine concerns about their tactics from parents, principals, and communities, reveals leaked audio from an October conference of the California Teachers Association (CTA).
“Speakers went so far as to tout their surveillance of students’ Google searches, internet activity, and hallway conversations in order to target sixth graders for personal invitations to LGBTQ clubs, while actively concealing these clubs’ membership rolls from participants’ parents,” Abigail Shrier reported on Thursday.

Three people from the “2021 LGBTQ+ Issues Conference” in Palm Springs, Calif., titled “Beyond the Binary: Identity & Imagining Possibilities,” sent recordings to Shrier revealing the radical content of some of the workshops.

Multiple seminars at the conference encouraged hosting LGBT clubs for middle schoolers. An audio clip reveals teacher Lori Caldeira explaining why such clubs keep no rosters, noting, “Sometimes we don’t really want to keep records because if parents get upset that their kids are coming? We’re like, ‘Yeah, I don’t know. Maybe they came?’ You know, we would never want a kid to get in trouble for attending if their parents are upset.”
Caldeira has noted in a separate podcast appearance that, in the club she runs that includes other people’s prepubescent minors, “What happens in this room, stays in this room.”
At the CTA conference, Caldeira and another teacher, Kelly Baraki, led an additional seminar about “How we run a ‘GSA’ [Gay-Straight Alliance club] in Conservative Communities,” and discussed their strategies for how to “get the bodies in the door” and ensure kids keep coming back when “we saw our membership numbers start to decline.”
Read More