It's a big deal in Paul's letter to Corinth as well.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)There are, in this text, two categories. One is "the unrighteous" and the other is ... not. There is the unrighteous and the washed, the sanctified, the justified. What is the difference between the two? On the surface it would seem that the unrighteous do the things listed and the righteous don't. But that would be a mistake. We know that "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8) We -- even the "righteous" -- those washed by Christ -- sin. So that's not the difference.
The difference between the two is identity. One group -- the unrighteous -- make a practice of those types of sins and, therefore, are called "the sexually immoral" and "idolaters" and "adulterers" and so on. Terms of identity, not just an act performed. But "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9) So the sin committed by the other group -- the righteous -- would be present but not persistent. The first group would identify with those sins and the second would despise those sins in themselves.
In a case like this, identity is crucial. If you celebrate sin and it identifies you, it is not a small problem; it will keep you from the kingdom of God. If you find yourself opposed to sin, even the sin you find yourself in at times, then you are not identified by sin, but by "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" who has washed and sanctified and justified you. Which are you? All of us start in the unrighteous category. Paul says "Such were some of you." Is it past tense for you? This identity issue is critical.
7 comments:
Both race and gender involve empirically testable biological traits, but in the case of gender folks have no problem ignoring the hard science of biology and placing their feelings above reality. It’s almost like they deny science.
Yes, but my concern/surprise is when people identify by their sin.
Oh, I share that concern. But I’d suggest that when people start down the “born this way” road they are trying to give their sin/identity legitimately by implying that it’s biology.
Precisely.
It's an interesting thing. If they're "born that way" to be, say, "gay" or "non-binary gender" or the like, then they identify with it and defend it as good. If someone is "born that way" to be, for instance, missing limb or have some sort of physical malady, it's very, very bad and they do all they can to fix it. Odd, isn't it? (Rhetorical question)
I've always seen the "born this way" argument as faulty no matter it's legitimacy. I don't believe people are born "gay" or predisposed to gay attraction. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it is. That still doesn't make it automatically good. As you pointed out, we try to fix deformities. My nephew was born with a wonky urethra, so they fixed it. But that's the physical. The moral goes even further. They have discovered that some murderers are born predisposed to wanting to do that. We don't commend them for their genetic deformity that leads to them performing immoral acts. If you allow one deformity to be "good" based on origin, you lose the ability to deny any other deformity it's "goodness". On top of that all, we're born dead in sin. Nobody can say that's a good thing. God doesn't accept us as we are simply because we were born that way. He demands obedience, despite our inability to obey. Born bad doesn't mean it's good, it means we must overcome it through the strength of Christ.
Not odd, just intellectually dishonest.
As a tie-in to the next post, the "born this way" argument is troublesome for those who reject the "sin nature" argument as an actual legitimate way of pushing the "born this way" meme. The problem is they don't want the sin to be regarded as sin, and thus, they must balance their moral deceit with the biological one. Talk about a web!
Post a Comment