If you’d rather watch the video of this article, you can here:

If you’d rather listen to the podcast episode, you can here:

Preston Sprinkle is the President of the Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender. He’s written several books and has preached across the country. He is one of the most well-known persons arguing that same-sex attraction is not sin, but if you act on it, you sin. He and Gregory Coles recently released a pastoral paper on Sprinkle’s ministry website titled “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?” Today, I’m going to interact with their claims. The entire article is full of heresy, lies, and a theology from below, a theology built on personal experience rather than built on Scripture.

Method and Empty Rhetoric

Throughout Sprinkle’s writings, he takes his personal experience and the experience of others as the unchanging foundation, and then reads Scripture based on these experiences. He tells God, based on the personal experience of others, who man is and then forces God’s word to fit their personal experience. Here are several examples:

1) Sprinkle writes, “Experiencing opposite-sex attraction, to females and not males, refers to my capacity to experience a sexual desire toward females.”[1]

Sprinkle calls his flesh “my capacity to experience a sexual desire,” rather than “sin,” like Paul does in Romans 7: “But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness” (Rom 7:8). The apostle Paul says that it was sin in him that produced covetousness, not a “neutral or good capacity” that did, which is what Sprinkle claims.

2) Sprinkle then argues, “Attraction is a general pattern that predicts the likely direction of a person’s sexual temptation. When our general pattern of attraction makes itself known in a specific moment of temptation, we choose whether to resist that temptation to the glory of God or to succumb to it through lust (a behavior of the mind) or sexual immorality (a behavior of the external body). But when we experience sexual temptation and resist it, we don’t cease being a sexually attracted person.”[2]

Sprinkle calls his sinful flesh a “general pattern of attraction,” rather than “sin” as Paul and the rest of the Scripture writers do. If it leads to sin, it’s because it is sin, according to Paul in Romans 7. Referring to the law and sin, Paul wrote, “¹³ Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure” (Rom 7:13). Paul says that the purpose of the law was to show him that the evil in his heart, what he found tempting, was sin. Man looks upon actions, but God looks upon the heart.

3) Next, Sprinkle argues, “Sexual attraction, therefore, is not the same as lust. A person’s sexual attraction (to the same, opposite, or both sexes) shapes the kind of sexual temptation they face and the kind of lust they might fall into if they succumb to temptation. But attraction, temptation, and lust are three different things.”[3]

Sprinkle creates a new category that is not in the Bible or Church History, a pre-sin “attraction” or “capacity to be tempted to sin” that becomes sin if you act on it but is not sin if you resist it. The Bible instead argues that an internal desire for sin is sin, even if you resist it.

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve, male and female, in His image for the purpose of reflecting Him (Gen 1:26-28). He made Adam first and then said it was not good for him to be alone; so He made Eve from Adam’s rib (Gen 1:18-22). Adam then was missing a piece of his own body, and Eve had been separated from her body. God brought Eve to Adam, and Adam recognized her as, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, and he called her “woman” because she was taken out of man (Gen 2:23).

And God ordained marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Males and females were designed by God for one another, their sexuality included in their design as male or female.

But the design of God was twisted when sin entered the Garden through the serpent’s deception. God forbade the tree in the midst of the Garden but the serpent told Eve that she would not surely die if she ate from it. Then Eve submitted to the serpent and started seeing the tree the way he told her to rather than how God did, and she “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6).

The word translated “desired,” in Eve’s thoughts, “desired to make one wise,” is translated “covet” in the Tenth Commandment (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21). Eve coveted or desired the forbidden tree before she ate it. She created attraction for the tree in her heart by twisting the definition of “good,” for she now calls the forbidden tree “good” in Genesis 3:6, the same word God used for His creation, an attraction that wasn’t there before the serpent deceived her. She began sinning in her heart before she tasted the forbidden tree with her mouth.[4]

This means that the beginning of forbidden attraction, desire, inclination, impulse, or whatever you want to call it, is sin. It breaks the Tenth Commandment because it is not obedient to God. It is contrary to Him, and all that is in us that is contrary to God is sin. Just as Eve did not have a pre-lust desire for the forbidden tree, we too do not have a pre-lust desire for what God forbids. Rather, the moment we have an impulse, inclination, capacity, or whatever you want to call it, for what God forbids, we begin to covet, we begin to sin.

Additionally, in the Hebrew, the word “avon” refers to iniquity, a twisted character against God. David wrote, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. ² Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity (avon), and in whose spirit there is no deceit” Psalm 32:1-2. When the apostle Paul quoted these verses in Romans 4:7-8, he wrote, “⁷ “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; ⁸ blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin (hamartia).” The apostle Paul, when quoting “iniquity” used the term “sin.” A twisted character against God is sin according to Paul. Again, if it leads to sin if you mindfully act on it, it’s because it was the beginning of sin already. The flesh can only produce according to its nature. It is sin and can only produce sin, not a pre-sin “attraction” or “capacity to be tempted,” as Sprinkle claims.

After all, if you follow Sprinkle’s logic that homosexuality in your heart is not sin until you act on it, then you would be acting on something that is not sin. If homosexuality at the root is not sin, then it cannot be sin to act on it either. You would be acting on “not sin.”

Butchering Scripture

Because Sprinkle interprets Scripture through his own personal experience and the experiences of others, he butchers it. Every text he uses to prove his point is butchered:

1) Matthew 6:12-13 – “¹² and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. ¹³ And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

Sprinkle argues that Jesus separates temptation from debts, but, Jesus says we’re to pray that God will not lead us into temptation but will deliver us from the evil. Jesus, here, clearly speaks of an evil form of temptation. We should pray that we aren’t even tempted, and that instead, the Lord will deliver us. So, not only do we confess our debts or sins, we pray that we wouldn’t even be tempted by evil! That’s what we’re to pray. The “capacity to be tempted” that Sprinkle says is not sin, Jesus says we should pray that we wouldn’t even be tempted by evil but rather would be delivered from evil temptations!

2) James 1:13-15 – “¹³ Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. ¹⁴ But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ¹⁵ Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

Sprinkle argues that the Greek word epithumia, translated “evil desire” in the NIV and CSB, and “lust” in the KJV, is a neutral evil desire. But James 1:13 begins by saying God can’t be tempted with evil and cannot tempt anyone with evil. Epithumia is either a good desire or a bad desire, depending on the context. Since God can’t do it according to James, it’s obviously evil desire. In Matthew 5, Jesus says it’s lust in your heart (Matt 5:27-30). It doesn’t come from God; therefore, it must be evil. And the fact that James says it leads to mindful sin and death proves it must be evil as well. Epithumia in James 1:14 is not good or neutral but lust or evil desire. Sprinkle must argue that James is saying lust is not sin. And, of course, it’s very clear James is saying evil desire in your heart, lust, is sin.

Sprinkle is arguing that it’s sin for the Devil to tempt us, sin for someone else to tempt us, and sin for us to tempt someone else, but it’s not sin for us to tempt ourselves? Why? If God can’t tempt, then tempting someone is sin. And if we tempt ourselves, it’s also sin; that’s why James says God can’t do it, and when we do it, it’s our “epithumia” that’s doing it, our lusts.

3) Hebrews 4:14-16 –

“¹⁴ Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Sprinkle claims that when the author of Hebrews wrote that Jesus “in every respect has been tempted as we are,” he meant that Jesus was internally tempted, not just externally tempted. In other words, Sprinkle argues that in order for Jesus to be truly human, He had to have an internal desire for sin. But that’s not what the Bible says. Sprinkle thinks that because he has an internal desire for sin, Jesus must have too.[5]

Interestingly, Sprinkle claims that those who believe Jesus was only externally tempted, not internally tempted, deny Jesus’ true humanity, because they limit His temptation; yet, Sprinkle limits Jesus’ temptation too. He writes,

Of course, kata panta doesn’t mean Jesus experienced every single imaginable temptation. As Denny Burk rightly points out, “[F]or Jesus to be tempted in every way as we are does not mean that he himself faced each and every individual trial that each and every human has ever faced. Such an interpretation would of course be absurd.” Rather, kata panta means that the temptations Jesus faced are categorically alike with the temptations we face. Jesus never sinned in response to temptation, but he experienced the same kind of temptation as every other human being. At no point can we accurately say, “Jesus’ temptation belongs in a different category than my temptation.”[6]

Notice that Sprinkle limits Jesus’ temptation to being “categorically alike with the temptations we face.” You won’t find that in the text. He’s limiting Jesus’ temptations because he knows that his interpretation is absurd. He says Jesus must be tempted in every way as sinners in order to be truly human, and that the Greek phrase must mean “in every way,” but he realizes that’s absurd, so he limits Jesus’ temptation to being “categorically alike” in every way to us. Well, what categories are these? The text doesn’t list them, because they’re not there.

The point the author of Hebrews is making is that Jesus was truly tempted as truly Human. Jesus was fully tempted, wholly tempted, meaning really tempted as truly Human. But that does not mean what Sprinkle wants it to mean, that Jesus desired evil in His heart but resisted it. That’s not in the Bible. The opposite is. Jesus, preaching in the Sermon on the Mount said, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God” (Matt 5:8). If Jesus desired sin in His heart, He was not pure. Also, Jesus said we must love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-39). If Jesus had an internal desire to sin, then part of Him did not love God or His neighbor.

Why? Because where would a desire for sin come from in Jesus? Jesus is perfect, not conceived in sin like us, but conceived of the Holy Spirit fertilizing Mary’s egg. He is truly sinless from conception because of the Spirit’s work. So, in order for Jesus to have an internal desire for sin, He would have to will it. Consider what Augustine wrote,

Christ, then, refrained from sin in such a way that he also refrained from all desire for sin, not so that he resisted that desire which existed, but so that it never existed at all, not because he could not have had it if he had willed to, but he would not have rightly willed to have what the sinful flesh, which he did not have, would not have forced him to have even against his will.[7]

Augustine wrote that Christ could have had an internal desire for sin, because of His humanity, but He would have to will it or choose it. Jesus did not have a sinful nature like we sinners do. Therefore, in order to have an internal temptation, an internal desire for sin, He would have to mindfully will it. And even Preston Sprinkle calls this sin.

The same is true with Adam and Eve. They too were capable of being tempted because they were truly human, but the Bible explicitly says that the Serpent tempted them, not that they tempted themselves. Why? Because there was nothing within them that could tempt them; they were created “very good,” and only internally desired the forbidden tree when they mindfully submitted to the external temptation of the Serpent (Genesis 3:1-6). The same is true for Jesus. He could be tempted externally, but not internally, unless He willed the internal desire for evil, submitting to the Serpent and twisting God’s design, himself and God’s good means to God’s good object.

Returning to Hebrews 4:15, The author of Hebrews did not say that Jesus was tempted by sin or by every conceivable temptation. And he certainly did not say that Jesus ever doubted or lacked faith.[8]

To understand this phrase “in every respect,” we must understand the context of Hebrews 4:15, which is connected to Hebrews 2:14-18.[9] The author of Hebrews writes,

¹⁴ Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, ¹⁵ and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. ¹⁶ For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. ¹⁷ Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. ¹⁸ For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

The author of Hebrews says that since God’s children, human beings, are flesh and blood, Jesus took on Himself the same things so that He might free them from the evil one who has the power of death. The devil has the power of death because he controls sinners through their sin, and the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), but God the Son took on a human nature to free God’s children from our slavery to sin, and thus, from the fear of death from the evil one (1 Cor 15:56-57).[10]

Jesus had to be made like His brothers, like God’s children, in every respect concerning suffering and temptation, so that He might mature into a merciful, full of pity, and faithful, holy in trial and temptation, High Priest, to make propitiation for the sins of God’s people. Since Jesus suffered when tempted, yet without sin, He can help God’s children when we are tempted.[11]

Now, consider Hebrews 4:14–16,

¹⁴ Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The author begins by pointing to Christ passing through the heavens, referring to Christ’s ascension into heaven (Acts 1:6–11). God the Son Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity united to a human nature, passed through the heavens by ascending to God’s throne room in Heaven. He atoned for the sins of all believers there and sat down at His Father’s right hand (Heb 9:11–28, 10:11–14).[12] Therefore, since Christ is in Heaven, our humanity is already in Heaven because we are united to Him by His Holy Spirit (Eph 2:4-6). As a result, since our High Priest, Jesus Christ, is in Heaven, we can draw near to the throne of grace, finding mercy and grace to help in our time of need.

Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses because He is truly human and was truly tempted. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), but God the Son Incarnate can be and was. This is the weakness to which the author of Hebrews refers, that God cannot be tempted but the God Man can be, and was, and yet, was without sin even in His humanity.[13]

Therefore, Jesus is like all the high priests that have come before Him in that He is truly Human. And He is also not like all the high priests who have come before Him in that He is without sin, and He is God (Heb 1:1-4). Jesus faithfully endured temptation, the weakness of humanity, for us so that He could deliver us from our sin and provide us an example.

Also, Jesus is a better covenant Head of a better covenant than the old covenant heads and the old covenants (Heb 1-4:13; 8:1-13). The author of Hebrews wrote to persuade Jewish Christians to not return to the old covenant along with its high priests, priesthood, and sacrifices because Christ is the best High Priest, is of a better Priesthood, and is the ultimate sacrifice, who sympathizes with our humanity or weakness (Heb 4:14-10:18).

The purpose of Jesus being tempted as truly human or wholly tempted is so that He can be our sympathetic High Priest, so that, as the very next verse says, “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb 4:16). But Sprinkle says Jesus was tempted so that we can go to the mirror when we desire evil but resist, and declare, “I’m like Jesus.” So, instead of going to Jesus when we’re tempting ourselves to sin, Sprinkle says we are like Jesus, in those moments. That’s not what the author of Hebrews said or taught. The whole point of Jesus being our High Priest, according to Hebrews, is to send us to Jesus not to the Old Testament patriarchs, and definitely not to the mirror.

For Sprinkle, and for those who follow his teachings, when he has an internal desire for sin, he goes to the mirror instead of to Jesus, to ask, “Did I choose this?” Which isn’t the biblical question to ask. The question we must ask is, “Does this love God and my neighbor?” If it doesn’t, it’s sin. But instead of Sprinkle examining his heart based on God’s perfect law, he examines his heart based on his own memory. Because God’s law is not the standard for righteous or obedience for Sprinkle. Man’s will is. According to Sprinkle, you can desire the most evil things in your heart, as long as you don’t act on them. You can hate God, blaspheme Christ, desire children, desire murder, etc. as long as you don’t act on them. And, he thinks he’s like Jesus when he desires evil but doesn’t act on it!

Furthermore, if Jesus had to desire evil or be internally tempted to be truly human, then so did Adam and Eve, and they weren’t truly human until Genesis 3:6, when Eve started to desire the forbidden tree. Also, if to be truly human, you must have an internal desire for evil, we will not be truly human in heaven or in the new heavens and new earth, since there will be no temptation there. And for that matter, Jesus was not truly human until He was tempted, and He’s not truly human today because He is not being tempted at the Father’s right hand. When Sprinkle’s logic is applied consistently, it’s shown to be absurd.

4) Matthew 5:27-30 –

²⁷ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ²⁹ If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. ³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Sprinkle argues that Jesus only condemned intentional lust, mindful lust, not sexual attraction in this passage. He makes much of the Greek phrase “pros to” to argue that Christ only condemned intentional lust in your heart, not unintentional lust.[14] Again, Sprinkle creates a category that is not in the Bible, “unintentional lust,” and forces it on the text. I don’t know how anyone with a straight face can argue that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wasn’t condemning the root of sin in our hearts, only acting on the root. Again, in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:8, Jesus said, ““Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

First, Jesus says that lustful intent is internal adultery. From root to fruit, sin is the same from beginning to end, whether in our hearts or outward. Yet, Sprinkle says that “to feel a spike of excitement over the head-spinning beautify of another person isn’t necessarily lust”[15] (Upside-Down Kingdom Bible). He believes this is a holy desire, that he’s merely describing noticing God-designed beauty. But then he says that noticing beauty “could lead to lust,” which is a sin? That’s not what the Bible teaches about how sin begins in one’s heart. Sin does not begin as holiness or righteousness in one’s heart. Rather, James says that sin begins as lust (James 1:14), and Paul says it begins in our flesh, and the flesh is sin (Rom 7:7-9; 11, 13-14, 17, 20, 23). Sin begins as sin, not as righteousness, not as God’s design, and not as “noticing beauty.”

The same truth applies to the desires of righteousness. They always come from the Spirit and always lead to holiness. They do not come from lust. And no one sins because they were acting on holy, godly desires. No. What happens is, in the midst of holy desires, the flesh produces new desires that are contrary to God (James 1:2–15), and instead of continuing to walk in the Spirit, we choose to walk in the flesh (Gal 5:16–25). But Sprinkle thinks that the desires of the Spirit can become sin and fleshly desires can become holy. Yet, Scripture teaches that there are desires of the flesh and desires of the Spirit and these two are opposed to one another (Rom 7; Gal 5:16–25).

Second, Sprinkle teaches that Jesus used “with the purpose to lust” to condemn lustful intent and not to condemn unintentional lust. This is a logical fallacy, an argument from silence. Because if “with the purpose to lust” is removed from the verse, the Greek words that are left, blepōn gynaika, mean to “look at a woman.” There is nothing of sexual desire in the meaning of these Greek words.[16] Therefore, “unintentional sexual desire” is not mentioned in this passage. It is a category that Sprinkle created not Jesus. Yet, he claims that Christ only condemned intentional lust not unintentional. He cannot make this argument from these verses that Jesus did not condemn unintentional lust, for unintentional lust is not mentioned.

Third, although the Greek phrase pros to always means “with intent,” it does not mean the “unintentional” is not also condemned. Jesus does not always use the Greek phrase pros to, with intent, when defining sin. For example, in Mark 13:22, Jesus uses the same phrase as in Matthew 5:28, pros to, saying, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.” The ESV translates pros to as “to,” before “lead astray.” Following Sprinkle’s logic, in Mark 13:22, Jesus only condemned false christs and false prophets performing signs and wonders if they intend to lead people astray, but Jesus did not condemn false christs and false prophets unintentionally leading people astray. This interpretation, of course, is absurd. Just as there is no “unintentional” category for leading people away from Christ, provided by Jesus in Mark 13, there is no “unintentional” category for lust either given by Jesus in Matthew 5.

Furthermore, in Mark 13:6, a mere sixteen verses earlier, Jesus said a similar statement without the purpose phrase, “Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.” The purpose phrase evidently was not necessary to say that leading people away from Christ is sin, whether intentional or not, even though Christ adds the phrase sixteen verses later in Mark 13:22. Therefore, just as Jesus adding “intentional” to “leading astray” does not indicate “unintentional leading astray” is good, neutral, or not sin, Jesus adding “intentional” to “lust” does not indicate “unintentional lust” is good, neutral, or not sin either, contrary to Sprinkle.

Fourth, Jesus included the purpose phrase of “with the purpose to” lust to properly teach the law and to show how He fulfilled the law. Jesus had no lustful inclinations, thoughts, or actions. He looked at all women as His sisters, neither as objects of lust, nor as potential spouses. He did not teach that the law required something less than His own holiness, as if unintentional lust is not sin. He preached a few verses earlier in the same sermon, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt 5:8). In the Sermon on the Mount, He preached full obedience to the law in both heart and action. Christ distinguished looking at a sister from looking at a woman with lust in your heart in Matthew 5:27–30. He told his hearers they can look upon a woman, that is, see a woman with their eyes, but they may not look at her with lust in their hearts.

Fifth, Jesus emphasized His point, that inward lust is adultery, by arguing in Matthew 5:29-30, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” To make Himself even more clear, Christ hyperbolically referred to eliminating the source of lustful intent. He did not refer to cutting off one’s head, where planning to commit adultery takes place, or one’s genitals, but one’s right eye and right hand. This is a move from the action to the cause of the action. He spoke of cutting out one’s right eye, the best eye, the source of the lustful intent, the tempter, of an evil lustful gaze. Then, he referenced the right hand, the best hand.[17]

Understanding these verses concerning rebuking the inward sinful inclination or temptation is even clearer in a similar passage in Matthew 18:7-9:

Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Jesus tied the command against temptation directly to tempting oneself by moving from condemning the tempter to telling the sinner to cut off his hand or foot, and to tear out his eye, if they tempted him. Jesus’ disciples should reject the world’s temptations. And the world should take heed, fearing God’s wrath before they seek to tempt Jesus’ disciples. However, it is not merely the world that Christians should fear but their own sinful temptations that stem from their flesh (hand, foot, and eye).

Christ’s hyperbolic response to inward temptation is drastic, but no more radical than his warning to the man that tempts His disciples: “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6). Whether temptation comes from your own hand or eye or from without, Christ’s followers must reject it in a radical way for the sake of rejecting hell as well.

Christ is serious about temptations, whether they come from the world or the flesh of believers. Christ demanded an exaggerated drastic response—drown the tempter or cut off the flesh that tempts. His point is not literal since no disciple cut out his eye or cut off his hand in response to Christ’s sermon. Rather, He rebuked his hearers’ passive justification of the source of temptation to evil. By only declaring the outward act as adulterous, the Pharisees were passively declaring that lustful intent in one’s heart fulfills the requirement of God in his law.

In a similar manner, by Sprinkle claiming that only chosen lustful thoughts are adulterous, he is passively declaring that his right hand, right foot, or right eye can tempt him to sin and he can have “unchosen” lustful thoughts or be enamored by a woman’s breasts to whom he’s not married,[18] and still fulfill the law, exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, and imitate Christ, since Christ is the goal of the law.

That’s a terrible mishandling of Scripture that sends the deceived running to the mirror to say, “I’m like Jesus,” when the truth is, “I’m like the Pharisees.”

Run to Jesus, not the mirror, and not to Sprinkle.

5) It’s easy to prove that Sprinkle creates a category he calls, “sexual attraction,” then forces it on Scripture. He writes, “the condemnation of same-sex attraction in Scripture is neither “repeated” nor “consistent.” In fact, it’s totally nonexistent. To claim otherwise is to add to the text of Scripture.”[19]

Jesus in Matthew 5:27-30 condemns lust in one’s heart. But Sprinkle says sexual attraction isn’t lust, so Jesus wasn’t talking about it. Paul condemns homosexual desires and passions in Romans 1:24-27, but Sprinkle says same-sex sexual attraction isn’t lust, so Paul wasn’t condemning homosexual attraction only homosexual lust. Can you see what Sprinkle is doing? He’s adding a category to the Bible that isn’t there and is therefore, claiming the Bible doesn’t call it sin. We could literally do this with every command in Scripture. So, God only condemned stealing, not attraction to stealing, in the 10 Commandments. Or, God only condemned murder, not attraction to murder, etc. Sprinkle is trying to get out of his sin by redefining it, by calling it “not sin.” It becomes sin if you act on it, but it is not sin until you do! It doesn’t make biblical sense or even logical sense, because if it’s not-sin in your heart, and you act on it, you’d be acting on “not sin.”

Furthermore, Christian, why would you go to the mirror if you have an evil impulse in your heart, to discern if you chose it or not, instead of going to Jesus, who actually takes your sin away? Why would you go to the mirror to say, “I’m not sinning,” as if that will take care of the evil in you? Why not run to Jesus who sits at the Father’s right hand and intercedes for you, and confess the evil or sin in your heart?

Sprinkle is preaching a false gospel. He wants to save you from your sin by telling you you’re not sinning, like a High Priest, even though you have evil in your heart. And he says you cannot be changed. He teaches that you are ontologically whatever the sin in your heart is; that’s the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The apostle Paul says to mortify your sin in Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5. And Sprinkle doesn’t believe you can, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Whatever particular sinful desires you have, you are those desires and they cannot be changed, according to Sprinkle. You won’t find this teaching in the Bible. You find the opposite.

6) Sprinkle claims that those who say same-sex attraction is sin are preaching another gospel. He compares it to when Paul rebuked Peter for only being around the Gentiles when the Jews weren’t around in Galatians 2.[20]

But, the difference is that Sprinkle has created a category he calls “sexual attraction” that is pre-lust, and then he claims the Bible doesn’t condemn it. Again, we could do this with every other sin by claiming that there is a pre-sin desire that the Bible doesn’t condemn. Yes, God condemns murder, but not the attraction to murder, or the “capacity to be tempted to murder.” He’s playing rhetorical games to try to save you from your sin.

The Bible, however, teaches the opposite:

In Genesis 3:6, the word translated “desired,” in Eve’s thoughts, “desired to make one wise,” is translated “covet” in the Tenth Commandment (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21). Eve coveted or desired the forbidden tree before she ate it. She created attraction for the tree in her heart by twisting the definition of “good,” an attraction that wasn’t there before the serpent deceived her. She began sinning in her heart before she tasted the forbidden tree with her mouth.[21]

This means that the beginning of forbidden attraction, desire, inclination, impulse, or whatever you want to call it, is sin. It breaks the Tenth Commandment because it is not obedient to God. It is contrary to Him, and all that is in us that is contrary to God is sin.

Because of her forbidden desire, she ate and gave to her husband, and he ate. But Adam didn’t just walk up after Eve ate, he was standing there the entire time the serpent was deceiving her. The word “you” is plural in Genesis 3:1-5.[22] So, Adam too desired the forbidden tree in his heart and ate.

Due to their sin, their twisting of God’s good design, their creation of the lust of the flesh, all humanity was plunged into sin. Now, all are conceived in sin (Ps 51:5), and Adam’s sinful flesh is in all mankind (1 Cor 15:22). All that is contrary to God in us comes from Adam’s sinful flesh, which is now our sinful flesh.

Nevertheless, God’s good design for males, females, marriage, and sexuality remain the same. One’s sexuality, male or female, also defines one’s sexual attraction, according to Genesis 2:18-24. The two, one’s sex and one’s sexual attraction, cannot be separated according to God.

Sprinkle claims I preach another gospel because I call sin what the Bible calls sin, when in reality, he’s the one trying to take people’s sins away by telling them, like a prophet, priest, and king, “You’re not sinning!” Sprinkle is not a prophet, priest, or king. He has no authority to declare that disobedience to God in your heart is not sin. He has no authority to create categories that do not exist in Scripture, and to declare that they’re not sin. He says they become sin if you act on them, but what are they before the act? They’re evil. He’s literally saying evil in your heart is not sin, even though the Bible says we must love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-39). Same-sex attraction hates God and your neighbor, that’s why you can’t act on it. Of course it’s sin. Otherwise, Sprinkle must argue that it’s good and holy and fulfills the law. It can’t be both evil and neutral. It can’t be both disobedience and neutral. It can’t be that it comes from the flesh and yet, is not sin.

To follow Sprinkle’s logic, he either has to argue that the flesh is not sin, which is directly contradictory to what Paul says repeatedly in Romans 7. Paul says that the flesh is sin and only produces sin. Or, Sprinkle must argue that the flesh is sin, but that it produces same-sex attraction that is not sin but then becomes sin again when you act on it. So, it’s sin, not-sin, then becomes sin again.

But if the flesh is sin, then produces “not sin,” then what is the “lust of the flesh”? Paul and John say the lust of the flesh is sin. But Sprinkle says same-sex attraction of the flesh is not sin because it’s “attraction” of the flesh not lust? Again, he’s created a category that is not in Scripture and he adds “but not sexual attraction” to every condemnation of lust in Scripture.

7) Sprinkle then argues,

“Scripture clearly and consistently teaches that temptation is not a morally culpable sin from which Christians are called to repent. Whether our general pattern of sexual temptation is toward the same sex or the opposite sex, we’re not sinning when we experience temptation and respond to that temptation in a way that honors God.”[23]

What Sprinkle claims about same-sex attraction is merely rhetorical games. After all, he’s saying that a Christian man looking at another man the way Eve looked at Adam is not sin, although it is the twisting of God’s design in one’s heart. It’s upside-down. How can using God’s creation contrary to His design, yourself and someone else in your heart, not be sin? How can a man looking at another man the way Eve looked at Adam, not be sin? It didn’t come from God. God didn’t design it. The Fall created it by twisting God’s good design. And only sinners can do it! It has to be sin!

Also, it doesn’t fulfill the law; it’s not obedience to God in your heart. It’s disobedience. It’s not neutral just because you claim “I didn’t choose it,” Or, “I resisted it.” Resisted what, exactly? Evil desires in your own heart! Your heart wants something forbidden! Of course it’s sin, and no amount of deceiving rhetoric can change this fact.

8) Sprinkle claims that some Christians have argued that there are two forms of temptation, internal and external, and he claims this distinction comes from John Owen, from the 1600s.[24]

Sprinkle is ignorant of church history on the doctrines of sin and temptation. Literally, all Christians believed there were two forms of temptation throughout Church History. Consider Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Philip Melancthon, and Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox:

A) Augustine, a champion of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, in his final work against the Pelagian Julian, asks him, “Who, I repeat, apart from you tries to persuade us that the desire which is admittedly a desire for sins is not a sin & is not something evil, though one does an evil action if one consents to its persuasion?”[25]

B) Thomas Aquinas, a champion of Roman Catholics, wrote of Jesus’s wilderness temptation in The Summa Theologica, commenting on Hebrews 4:15,

As the Apostle says (Heb 4:15), Christ wished to be tempted in all things, without sin. Now temptation which comes from an enemy can be without sin: because it comes about by merely outward suggestion. But temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be without sin, because such a temptation is caused by pleasure and concupiscence; and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix.), it is not without sin that ‘the flesh desireth against the spirit.’ And hence Christ wished to be tempted by an enemy, but not by the flesh.[26]

C) Philip Melanchthon, Martin Luther’s successor, said that all Christians before him believed fleshly desire is sin, & only the philosophers argued otherwise:

“But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, & not a sin [a burden & imposed penalty, & is not such a sin as is subject to death & condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin. It has been said above that Augustine defines Original Sin as concupiscence. If there be anything disadvantageous in this opinion, let them quarrel with Augustine. Besides Paul says (Rom 7:7, 23): “ I had not known lust” (concupiscence), “except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Likewise: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, & bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members!” These testimonies can be overthrown by no sophistry. For they clearly call concupiscence sin, which, nevertheless, is not imputed to those who are in Christ, although by nature it is a matter worthy of death, where it is not forgiven. Thus, beyond all controversy, the Fathers believe. For Augustine, in a long discussion, refutes the opinion of those, who thought that concupiscence in man, is not a fault, but an adiaphoron, as color or ill-health is said to be an adiaphoron of the body [as to have a black or a white body is neither good nor evil]. But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil inclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture, but the entire Church also [and all the Fathers] will contradict them. For even though perfect consent were not attained [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and desire be there], who ever dared to say that these were adiaphora, viz. to doubt concerning God’s wrath, concerning God’s grace, concerning God’s Word, to be angry at the judgments of God, to be provoked because God does not at once remove one from afflictions, to murmur because the wicked experience a better fortune than the good, to be urged on by wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, etc.? And yet godly men acknowledge these in themselves, as appears in the Psalms and the prophets. But, in the schools, they transferred hither from philosophy, notions entirely different, that, because of emotions, we are neither good nor evil, we are neither praised nor blamed. Likewise, that nothing is sin, unless it be voluntary [inner desires and thoughts are not sins, if I do not altogether consent thereto]. These notions were expressed among philosophers, with respect to civil righteousness, & not with respect to God’s judgment.”[27]

D) For the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Canons of Carthage (Africa, 419) are part of their canonical law. The meeting wasn’t an ecumenical council, but their canons were ratified at the ecumenical council of Trullo in 692 and added to their body of canonical law with the other ecumenical councils:

i. Canon 110. (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

ii. Canon 114. (Greek cxv.)

“That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves.

It also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, If we shall say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity, where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only of humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, If we shall say we have no sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in us; but when he says, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.”

iii. Canon 115. (Greek cxvi.)

“That in the Lord’s Prayer the Saints say for themselves: Forgive us our trespasses

It has seemed good that whoever should say that when in the Lord’s prayer, the saints say, forgive us our trespasses, they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore no one of the saints can say, Forgive me my trespasses, but Forgive us our trespasses; so that the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself; let him be anathema. For holy and just was the Apostle James, when he said, For in many things we offend all. For why was it added all, unless that this sentence might agree also with the psalm, where we read, Enter not into judgment with your servant, O Lord, for in your sight shall no man living be justified; and in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: There is no man that sins not; and in the book of the holy Job: He seals in the hand of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity; wherefore even the holy and just Daniel when in prayer said several times: We have sinned, we have done iniquity, and other things which there truly and humbly he confessed; nor let it be thought (as some have thought) that this was said not of his own but rather of the people’s sins, for he said further on: When I shall pray and confess my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God; he did not wish to say our sins, but he said the sins of his people and his own sins, since he as a prophet foresaw that those who were to come would thus misunderstand his words.

Canon 116. (Greek cxvii.)

That the Saints say with accuracy, Forgive us our trespasses

Likewise also it seemed good, that whoever wished that these words of the Lord’s prayer, when we say, Forgive us our trespasses are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth let them be anathema. For who would make a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would say with his lips that he wished his sins forgiven him, but in his heart that he had no sins to be forgiven.”[28]

Therefore, Sprinkle’s teachings on the doctrine of sin are heresy because they go against what Christians have always believed according to the History of Christianity. The Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, according to their doctrinal statements from Church History, all condemn Preston Sprinkle as a heretic for teaching a heretical doctrine of sin and temptation.

9) Sprinkle then tries to use John Own to argue that concupiscence, or indwelling sin is not morally culpable. Sprinkle writes,

“After all, Owen argues, actual sins require the consent of the will. If the will isn’t involved, no moral action takes place, which means there can be no actual sin: ‘Moral actions are unto us or in us so far good or evil as they partake of the consent of the will. He spake truth of old who said… “Every sin is so voluntary, that if it be not voluntary it is not sin.” It is most true of actual sins. The formality of their iniquity ariseth from the acts of the will in them and concerning them.’

Thus, although Owen never addresses what we now call same-sex attraction, his discussion here seems to align with our view that a pattern of sexual attraction is not (and, by definition, can’t be) a morally culpable sin from which Christians are called to repent. Without an act of the will, there is no moral action, which makes repentance the wrong response. Keith Johnson describes Owen’s approach this way: ‘For Owen, indwelling sin and actual sins involve differing gospel applications. Actual sins require confession, repentance, and forgiveness while indwelling sin must be resisted and battled through the power of the Holy Spirit.’”[29] (19).

This is startling because anyone who has read much of John Owen, knows that Sprinkle has slandered/libeled him. I can produce over 100 quotations from John Owen that contradict what Sprinkle has written here, but I’ll list just a few:

A) “There are four ways in which this opposition of sin toward God is seen. First, it is seen by sin’s general inclination to lust (Galatians 5:17). Second, it is seen by its warfare (Romans 7:23; James 4:1; 1 Peter 2:11). Third, it is seen by the way it captures the soul (Romans 7:23). Fourth, it is seen by the way it grows and grows, ultimately generating madness (Ecclesiastes 9:3).”[30]

B) “1. Sin opposes God by lust.

Hence all the actions of sin are called “the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). “Make not provision for the flesh,” the apostle warns, “to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Romans 13:14). The mind as well as the flesh lusts. Sin opposes God by this lust in two ways.

First, the heart has a hidden propensity to do evil. The heart habitually wants to do evil in us…it is like poison in the bloodstream that has no antidote to allay its virulence. Here a distinction should be made, however, between the habitual frame of the heart we all have, and the inclinations of the heart which may be changed by the grace of God.”[31]

Notice that Owen says all actions of sin are called the lust of the flesh. Our flesh serves the law of sin, but its inclinations can be changed by God. Owen taught that we must put to death all indwelling sin, all inclinations or lusts of the flesh. Sprinkle, however, believes same-sex attraction is not a lust of the flesh, but a pre-lust of the flesh. But Owen believes the only thing before lust is sin! He says it probably 1,000 times in his book The Mortification of Sin.

C) “On the other hand, we may be doing something good, and sin suddenly enters our consciousness to entice us unexpectedly. How much communion with God is spoiled in this way. How often meditations are interrupted, defiling the mind and conscience. I know of no greater burden in the life of a believer than these involuntary invasions of sin within the soul.

These invasions of sin appear to be involuntary because they lack the consent of the will. Yet it is the corruption of the will that is the source of those incursions of evil within our consciousness. For this reason the apostle cries out, “who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24).[32]

Notice that Sprinkle says your will is not involved in same-sex attraction, but Owen says the lust of the flesh or evil inclinations come from “the corruption of the will.” Sprinkle does not understand biblical anthropology or the will. When Church History speaks of involuntary, they don’t mean “without the will,” they mean, “without the mind” or without deliberate choice. But it’s still your will that wants evil. And same-sex attraction is a corruption of the will, a lust of the flesh, that only wants evil.

D) “React strongly against the first stirrings of your evil disposition.

Do not allow it to get the least start in your life. Do not say, ‘I will let it go so far, but no further.’ If you allow it to have one step, it will take another, for it is impossible to fix limits on sin. It is like water in a channel; if it breaks out, it will follow its own course. This is how James describes the process of lust by stages in James 1:14-15.

Rise up with all your strength against the first suggestion of sin, and be not less indignant about it than if it had already accomplished its aims. Consider what an evil thought it is that involved you in filth and foolishness. Ask envy what it would have; murder and destruction are its aims. Set yourself against it with no less vigor than if it had already involved you in its final desires. Without this course, you will never prevail, for if sin gets grounded within the affections, it becomes much more difficult for the understanding to cope with it.”[33]

Owen repeatedly throughout his writings calls lust sin, and its root, sin. And he says we must respond to the first suggestion of sin in our hearts the same way we would if we acted on it. There is no moral difference between the mindful choice of sin and the impulse to sin. They are the same in nature. The difference is only in heinousness. It is worse to mindfully commit sin than it is to have the impulse that began the sin, but both are of the same nature. They both come from the flesh, which is sin, and end in death; and therefore, are morally culpable.

E) In 1658, John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, William Bridge, Joseph Caryl, and William Greenhill were present to craft the Savoy Declaration.[34] They declared, concerning original sin,

v. 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.

vi. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the Law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal.[35]

Like the Westminster Confession said, Owen declared that corruption of nature and all its motions are truly and properly sin. And that original sin and actual sin are transgressions against the righteous law of God; and are therefore, morally culpable.

10) Next, Sprinkle argues,

“According to Paul, it’s the Spirit (and not the Law) who gives us the ability to resist the sin-directed desires of the flesh. The Spirit does not, however, erase our capacity to experience these desires and be tempted to sin. In other words, the Spirit doesn’t nullify the presence of the flesh—our fallen nature. Instead, the Spirit gives us the power to resist any desire for sin, including sexual sin, that wells up inside of us.

Paul’s command is not “repent from having a sinful nature,” but “don’t gratify the desires of the sinful nature.” Such gratification would take the form of lust or immoral sexual behavior. Paul makes this point clear when he says that people who walk by the Spirit and not the flesh won’t “do [poiete] whatever you want” (v. 17). That is, we know we’re obeying Paul’s words when we aren’t doing whatever we want—what Paul describes as the “works of the flesh” (v. 19)—but doing what God wants.

Most Christians are attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes. When we apply Paul’s words about “the flesh” to our sexual attractions, we see that are called to not give in to desires for sin (in mind or body) that arise from our various sexual attractions. However, Paul isn’t calling on believers to erase our sexual attractions altogether. He’s not commanding us all to be asexual.”[36]

Sprinkle is clear that he doesn’t expect Christians to repent of being a sinner in nature. He’s also clear that he doesn’t believe, like John Owen and about every Christian in Church History, that Jesus can change your sinful desires. Sprinkle doesn’t believe your sinful desires can ever be changed by God. And he also doesn’t believe evil sexual desire in your heart can ever be changed. Sprinkle grounds sexual desire in original sin, in the flesh. In other words, for Sprinkle, sexual desire is the flesh and cannot be changed, instead of it being the lust of the flesh, a motion of the flesh as Paul says in Romans 7, and as Christians have always believed.

In Church History and Scripture, the flesh serves the law of sin. It is generally and broadly sin, according to Paul in Romans 7. But when it moves, like with lawless sexual desire, it moves a particular direction, coveting evil, a particular sin that God can change in this life. The bottom line is that Sprinkle doesn’t believe God can change any sin at the root. Regardless what sins you desire in your heart, according to Sprinkle, those can never be changed by God. And Sprinkle doesn’t believe you and I have a responsibility to repent of them.

But the Bible says we do. We must repent of them. And it’s precisely this repentance that the Spirit uses to sanctify us, to kill the particular sinful lusts in our hearts. In other words, you indeed can repent of particular motions of sin, kill them, and never have them any more in this life. The flesh is sin, so you’re a sinner in this life, and the flesh will move. But your responsibility as a Christian is to repent of every sin, every coveting desire, that you’re aware of, starve it, and walk in the Spirit.

Yet, because Sprinkle never calls homosexual desire sin, those who believe him will never be freed from the desire, because part of being free means agreeing with God that it is sin. It’s coveting, according to the 10^th commandment: You shall not covet, you shall not desire anything that belongs to your neighbor (Deut 5:21). Sprinkle says that this refers only to mindful sin, but the Hebrew word for covet is the same Hebrew word for Eve’s first desire for the forbidden tree in Genesis 3:6. Sprinkle has created a new category and put it between lust and the flesh, calling it “not sin.” Why? Because he says personal experience tells him he didn’t choose it.

His entire theology is built on the personal testimony of sinners.

11) Sprinkle then quotes John Piper to argue that sin often begins as an innocent desire.[37]

John Piper is wrong. His interpretation of James 1 is terrible, a theology from below. The apostle Paul explicitly says that the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another, and that the flesh serves the law of sin but the Spirit doesn’t. When we desire something good, the flesh may produce an evil desire, but the good desire came from the Spirit not the flesh. Innocent desires do not come from the flesh according to Paul in Romans 7 and Galatians 5, and according to James 1:13-15. But Sprinkle believes good desires become sin. And he also believes that the flesh can produce good desires.

Listen to Paul in Galatians 5:16-25,

“¹⁶ But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. ¹⁷ For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. ¹⁸ But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. ¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, ²¹ envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. ²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. ²⁴ And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. ²⁵ If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.”

Paul says the works of the flesh are evident and none of them are innocent! And he also says the fruit of the Spirit is nothing but good. And these two don’t become one another. Remember what James said, that sin begins as lust in our hearts or inner temptation? And it conceives mindful sin and ends in death. How can an innocent desire lead to sin and death? That’s not what the Bible teaches anywhere. Paul says it’s the desires of the flesh, not the Spirit, that we cannot gratify.

But Sprinkle teaches that the Spirit and God’s design both can produce good desires that become evil. He writes, “…A desire that points toward a good object still has the potential to lure us into sin, and a desire that points toward something God says “no” to isn’t necessarily a sin in itself.”[38]

That’s the opposite of what James and Paul taught, and what Jesus taught. It’s also the opposite of what the rest of Scripture teaches. Sin doesn’t begin as good or neutral in our hearts. And Holiness doesn’t begin as evil or neutral. Rather, the flesh is evil and the Spirit is holy, and these two are opposed to one another. For Sprinkle, every sinful action could have started as a holy desire. And every holy action could have started as an evil desire.

He gets his anthropology from the mirror and through taking polls from homosexuals, rather than the Bible.

12) Next, Sprinkle tries to use Jesus to justify homosexual desires. He writes,

“To see how desires contrary to God’s desires for us can still be stewarded in holy ways, consider the example set by Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane:

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” (Matt. 26:39)

The natural, human desire of Jesus in this moment is to have the cup of suffering taken from him. He wishes for this even though he recognizes that the Father’s will for him is to drink this cup down to its dregs. In fact, the very core of Jesus’ prayer recognizes that what he desires and what the Father desires are at odds: “not as I will, but as you will.” If Jesus’ will had been instinctively identical to the Father’s will, he wouldn’t need to differentiate between what he wills and what the Father wills.

Is Jesus desiring a good thing or an evil thing in this moment? He wishes to avoid suffering, which is an instinctive human desire. And yet, because this suffering is the will of God for him, turning away from it would be wrong. Jesus recognizes that his own instinctive human desire must be disciplined to match the desire of his Father. By choosing the path of obedience, Jesus acts without sin. The mere fact that his instinctive desire differs from his Father’s desire for him is not itself a sin.

This logic applies not just to Jesus but to the whole human race. Think of a recovering alcoholic who feels tempted to drink to the point of drunkenness—but, because their desire to obey God outweighs their desire to get drunk, they choose sobriety. This person follows in Jesus’ footsteps by saying to God, “Not as I will, but as you will.” Scripture never condemns a person like this for committing a morally culpable sin. Neither should we.

Similarly, if a person experiences an instinctive sexual desire, and they choose God’s will over their own will by not acting on that desire, they are also not sinning. This difference between their own will and the Father’s will is a temptation to sin, not a morally culpable sin in itself.”[39]

First, contrary to Sprinkle, Jesus did not desire to disobey His Father. Luke summarized Jesus’s prayers in Gethsemane in Luke 22:42: “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” Jesus prayed for God’s will to be done first. Then, He asked if God would permit His cup of wrath to pass from Him. Doing God’s will is what Christ was born for, what He lived for, and what He continues to live for even to this day (John 6:38).

Second, Jesus should not desire the upcoming unjust treatment He will face at the hands of lawless men. After His prayers in Gethsemane, He endured the betrayal of Judas, His arrest, beating, scourging, mocking, and beard-plucking that resulted in His humiliation, suffering, pain, and death. Remember how Peter described at Pentecost Jesus’s death as both God’s will and man’s sinful will: “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). Christ’s death was both God’s definite plan and the work of lawless men. Jesus’s agony in Gethsemane indicates His understanding of these two realities at work in His coming death—God’s holy will and man’s sinful will.

After all, when Jesus finished praying in Gethsemane, He said to the disciples, “See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand” (Matt 26:45–46). The angel God sent in Luke 22:43 evidently strengthened Christ, God the Son Incarnate, to endure the evil will of man, but Christ’s obedience to God’s will through His human nature, desires, and actions was never in question. What happened to Jesus was both just and unjust. God’s providence in Jesus’s suffering was just since Jesus was a willing participant, but man’s role in Jesus’s suffering was unjust. Jesus desired God’s will but did not desire man’s evil.

Third, should Jesus have desired to become sin (2 Cor 5:21)? Should He have desired to be forsaken by His Father, to drink the cup of His Father’s wrath (Matt 27:45–46)?[40] The words Jesus used were precise. He requested that the “cup of wrath” be removed from Him (Luke 22:42). The cup of wrath refers to God’s wrath while also referring to the suffering Jesus was about to experience.[41] Since Jesus is holy Man, He should not desire to become sin, to be forsaken by His Father, or to drink His Father’s wrath.[42]

Imagine Adam in the garden of Eden before he sinned when he was still holy, desiring God to forsake him, desiring to become sin, and desiring God to pour out His wrath on him. Would not these be sinful desires for Adam? If so, then surely, they would be for Christ who is God the Son Incarnate! Yet, Christ should desire to do His Father’s will, which is exactly what He prayed, beginning His prayer with, “Father, if you are willing” (Luke 22:42).

Fourth, God the Father approved of Jesus’s prayer since the text says that an angel came from heaven to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43). From Luke emphasizing where the angel came from, one must assume God the Father sent the angel to strengthen His Son, not because His Son was trying to get out of doing His will, but on the contrary, because the Son’s obedience to His Father peculiarly required Him to want to do His Father’s will while not wanting to endure the evils that came along with it.

Additionally, Sprinkle claims that when Christ desired to not go to the cross, He desired something that was morally bad for Him. But what command does Sprinkle think that Christ desired to disobey? There is nothing in Christ’s prayer that indicates that He desired to not be obedient to the law or the additional commands revealed in Scripture in the eternal covenant of redemption (John 6:38–39; Eph 1:3–5; 2 Tim 1:9–10; 1 Pet 1:20). After all, Christ starts His prayer with, according to Luke, “If you are willing” (Luke 22:42).

Plus, we have already seen that Jesus desiring God’s wrath to pass from Him is not disobedient. Since He was not a sinner, never desired to sin, and never actually sinned, Christ did not deserve God’s wrath. However, those who have desires of the flesh, like all sinners, deserve God’s wrath. It would be unjust for God to permit His wrath to pass from sinners without payment for their sin because they are in rebellion against Him. God’s wrath is upon sinners because they deserve it. But God’s wrath was on Christ at the cross because of His definite plan, His covenant of redemption, and Christ’s voluntary obedience.

In other words, a person who has fleshly desires is in violation of God’s commands in Scripture (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21; Rom 6:12–13; 7:7–25), and is deserving of God’s wrath, but Christ is not in violation of any command by desiring God’s cup of wrath to pass from Him. Therefore, Sprinkle cannot use Jesus asking for God’s wrath to pass from Him to justify a man’s sinful desire that brings God’s wrath upon Him.

To compare Jesus’s prayer request to not have to drink God’s cup of wrath to an inner desire for evil within us is blasphemy. Neither Scripture nor logic follows. As a matter of fact, because Christ is God the Son Incarnate, perfectly holy, and perfectly one with His Father, it is a holy desire for Him to not want to drink the cup of His Father’s wrath even as He wants to do His Father’s will. Yet, it is a purely wicked and evil desire for us to want anything that is contrary to God’s design or law (Rom 1:26–27).

Therefore, Sprinkle comparing Jesus in Gethsemane to a Christian desiring drunkenness but resisting it, is a false equivalency fallacy. Desiring drunkenness is always sin. Jesus, who is holy Man, should not want to drink His Father’s wrath. That is the perfect righteous response for Jesus. He could not have had a more holy desire, because He is holy and so are His desires. He shouldn’t want to drink His Father’s wrath even as He wants to do His Father’s will. Both are holy desires for Jesus. Sprinkle seems to think that Jesus should have went hopping and a skipping to the cross, wanting to be treated like a sinner, wanting His Father’s wrath. But that’s not what the text says. It says the opposite.

You butcher Scripture if you look at Jesus in Gethsemane and think you’re like Jesus when you desire evil but resist it. Jesus never desired evil, and He never desired to disobey His Father. Trust in God and His word, not disobedience, is also why Christ cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” (Matt 27:46)? God only forsakes the wicked (Ezek 39:23-24; Micah 3:4), not the righteous; and Christ is perfectly righteous. Therefore, He rightfully cried out to fulfill Psalm 22:1, questioning God forsaking Him. Christ was not doubting our disobeying but rather trusting in God’s word. After all, a few moments later, Christ cried out, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46). He never doubted God for even a moment. We too can question God, so long as it’s according to His revealed will, His word, but we cannot doubt God or His word or desire evil by tempting ourselves to sin, for that is always sin.

13) Then, Sprinkle writes,

“All of us have plenty of sin to repent from in our lives—including sins of the mind and heart, like lust and greed and coveting. We gain nothing by also trying to repent from our patterns of sexual attraction and sexual temptation.”[43]

Sprinkle explicitly says that you don’t have to repent of the habits of your heart. How exactly are you ever going to be sanctified if you always have the same sinful desires? And why would you even want to be rid of them? They’re not sin, according to him. So, why would you ever want to be free from them? The bottom line is that Sprinkle must argue that the command of God to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind doesn’t include the evil desires of your heart. Sprinkle says you don’t have to repent for not loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Evil desires are fine for Christians, as long as you don’t act on them. You won’t find this in the Bible anywhere.

14) Next, Sprinkle argues,

“Both Moore and Butterfield appear to reject singleness as a worthy calling for people who experience same-sex temptation, while affirming that a small minority of people—apparently only opposite-sex attracted or asexual people—have the gift of singleness. This delineation goes against both Jesus (Matt. 19:10-12) and Paul (1 Cor. 7:1-40), who never make such distinctions between different kinds of attractions as they celebrate the value of singleness.”[44]

Again, Sprinkle has created differing categories for sexuality: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual. And then says that Jesus and Paul “never made distinctions between different kinds of attractions as they celebrate the value of singleness.” Sprinkle has created sexualities beyond male and female. It’s blatantly unbiblical.

And the fact remains that “I’m gay” is not a biblical reason for singleness. The Bible says there are two sexes/sexualities: male and female. Sprinkle says there are more because he separates sexuality from God’s design, from what the Bible says. And then he makes an argument from silence to say that a man who was designed to marry a woman, but his flesh has told him “he’s gay,” shouldn’t marry a woman and should instead pursue singleness. That’s not what the Bible says.

15) Then, Sprinkle writes,

“Some of those who teach that experiencing sexual temptation is a morally culpable sin seem to wind up condemning single Christians for denying their sexual attractions (and thus facing the temptation of unmet sexual appetite). Their belief in the sinfulness of sexual temptation leads them to believe that any single Christian with any amount of sexual attraction would be holier if they got married and completely satisfied their sexual appetites. Scripture, on the other hand, enthusiastically celebrates single Christians!”[45]

Notice that Sprinkle says a Christian who has gay desires, if he repents and marries a woman, he will have “unmet sexual appetite.” Sprinkle doesn’t believe God’s design can satisfy a Christian, that a man doing what God designed him to do with a woman in marriage, will not satisfy him. Again, Sprinkle teaches that homosexuality is who a person is, contrary to Scripture, where Paul says men exchanged the natural use of the woman (Rom 1:24-27); so-called “gay men” are no different than any other man except in their sin; their sexuality is no different than any other man.

Instead of homosexual desires being a lust of the flesh that Jesus can change, Sprinkle teaches that it’s who a person is, without any Bible to back him up. What he’s done is polled “homosexuals” and then tried to fit Scripture with their testimonies. The tail is wagging the dog in his theology. And it’s no wonder, if a Christian believes he is not sinning and cannot be changed, it’s no wonder that he persists in his evil desires. The very word of God that the Holy Spirit will use to sanctify him, if he’ll believe it, Sprinkle says don’t believe it; rather, he teaches you should believe your feelings. “You are gay,” and will have unmet sexual appetite if you do what God designed you to do, which is marry a woman.

But if you follow Sprinkle’s logic, that you’re a Christian but you’re “gay,” won’t you still have unmet sexual appetites if you’re single? Of course you will; that’s why Sam Allberry just resigned for having a homosexual relationship. Paul says if you burn with passion, you’re supposed to get married (1 Cor 7:8-9). But Sprinkle says to stay single because if you marry, you’ll have unmet sexual appetite? What he’s encouraging is a bunch of men and women who profess Christ, and who constantly talk about their sexual appetites for homosexuality by calling themselves “gay Christians,” to pursue singleness because they’ll always be gay. They literally tell themselves they’re “gay” every day and tell everyone else that they’re “gay.” No wonder they believe they are! They’ve believed Sprinkle and denied God’s word! If you will repent of who you feel you are and believe who God says you are, you will be free from your homosexual desires!

16) Next, Sprinkle argues, “Requiring that faithful Christians must experience a change in the direction of their attractions adds unbiblical requirements to the gospel.”[46]

Sprinkle is explicit here. You don’t have to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. And requiring Christians to pursue God and His design is unbiblical according to him. Literally, every Christian is required to be like Jesus, who never desired sin. We’re all supposed to repent of every lust of the flesh and to live the fruit of the Spirit. We’re not merely to have evil hearts and be outwardly righteous. That’s the Pharisees!

This teaching of Sprinkle is directly what Jesus preached against in His Sermon on the Mount. Only the pure in heart shall see God (Matt 5:8). That’s what we’re aimed it. We’re not sin-managers, we’re sin-killers. Sprinkle, however, wants to help you manage your sin, not kill it. And he acts like he’s preaching the true gospel. Telling Christians with evil in their hearts that it’s ok, that they can be faithful and can’t change, can’t repent, is the opposite of Scripture. The bottom line is that Sprinkle does not believe you can kill your sin in the power of the Holy Spirit. And all those who agree with him are shocked that they’re “still gay.” If I told myself that my desire for murder wasn’t sin, do you think I’d ever stop desiring murder? Or, if I told myself that I’m worthless over and over again, do you think I would ever believe God’s word that I’m God’s valuable image-bearer and that He’s conforming me to the image of Christ? Sprinkle’s false teaching renders Christians helpless sin-managers rather than sin-killers.

If you believe him, you will stay ensnared in your win.

17) Then, Sprinkle writes,

“We admire DeYoung’s evenhandedness in recognizing that sinfulness is a struggle for all people, not just some. But we think that, when DeYoung argues that all Christians’ lives are marked by nonstop morally culpable sinfulness, he misses the mark of Paul’s words in Galatians 5, as we saw on pages 18-21. Paul draws a stark contrast between the acts of the flesh—morally culpable, willful behaviors of both mind and body—and the fruit of the Spirit. While Paul clearly expects our flesh and its allures to remain constant on this side of eternity, he sees this perpetual fallenness as something very different from the sinful acts of our flesh. The notion that Christians are continuously mired in an involuntary state of morally culpable sin seems totally foreign to Paul’s optimistic vision of life by the Spirit.

The Bible’s vision of freedom in Christ offers no guarantee that our temptations will disappear. It also doesn’t guarantee that the patterns of attraction our temptations exist within will disappear. But Scripture does teach that, when we are set free by Christ, we are no longer trapped in a state of perpetual morally culpable sinfulness.”[47]

Again, Sprinkle says that you won’t change. Why won’t you change, because he says “homosexual attractions” are original sin. But if this were true, everyone would be “gay,” because everyone has original sin. He unbiblically argues that gay desires are the flesh instead of the lust of the flesh, and thus, because of this error, he teaches that since Christians always have the flesh in this life, they’re always “gay.” But where does the Bible teach this? In Romans 7:24-27, Paul says men exchanged the natural use of women and the women exchanged the natural use of men. These men and women were no different in nature than anyone else, except for their sin. But Sprinkle teaches that homosexuals are different than other men and women, ontologically, in their very natures. So, Jesus can walk out of the tomb, but He can’t change your sinful attractions? And the Holy Spirit raises the spiritual dead, but He can’t sanctify sinful desires out of you? Thus, whatever sin pattern you have in your heart, you will always have in this life, according to Sprinkle. And he calls this “hope.”

What’s also heinously wrong here is that Sprinkle says only actions you mindfully choose are sin. Therefore, he must teach that unbelievers and Christians are sinless when they sleep. And he must also teach that it’s possible for Christians to be sinless in this life. Not because they love God with all their hearts, souls, and minds, but because evil in their hearts is not sin. So, if you want to be truly holy Christian, you need to sleep all the time. Salvation and sanctification by sleep alone.

Conclusion

By Preston Sprinkle arguing that “being gay” is not sin, and by him separating sexuality from one’s sex, he’s telling men and women that they do not have to live according to God creating them male or female, in their hearts. About the most effeminate thing a man can do is to “be attracted to another man.” For a man to be attracted to another man, he must look at men the way that Eve looked at Adam. And Eve is a woman. Therefore, in teaching that men and women do not have to live according to their God-designed sexuality, as male or female in their hearts, and that they can desire the same-sex in their hearts and it’s not sin, Sprinkle teaches that the fall and the flesh produce neutrality that can either become good or sin. Homosexuality is rooted in sin, only produces sin, and always ends in death, according to Scripture. It wouldn’t exist without sin and will not exist in the sinless new heaves and new earth.

Sprinkle is an undertaker while claiming to be a doctor. Do not follow this minister of death. Follow Christ instead.

[1] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, https://centerforfaith.com/pastoral-paper-19-is-same-sex-attraction-a-sin/, Accessed May 6, 2026, 4-5.

[2] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 4-5.

[3] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 5.

[4] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 136. Also see Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary 1, ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts (Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1987), 75-76.

[5] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 9-11.

[6] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 10.

[7] Augustine, “Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian,” in Answer to the Pelagians, 3, part 1 – Books, vol. 25 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21^st Century, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 436-37.

[8] Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews, New International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 79.

[9] William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary 47A, eds. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 114. Also, F. F. Bruce, Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews, of The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 84-85. As well, Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation, eds. T. Desmond Alexander, Andreas J. Kostenberger, and Thomas R. Schreiner (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2015), 153.

[10] William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary 47A, eds. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 61.

[11] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary 33A, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 53–54.

[12] Hagner, Hebrews, 78-79.

[13] Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 114-115.

[14] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 12.

[15] Preston Sprinkle, The Upside-Down Kingdom Study Bible, 1236, 1238.

[16] Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 157.

[17] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 120-21.

[18] Preston Sprinkle, ed., Upside-Down Kingdom Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2024), 841.

[19] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 14.

[20] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 14-17.

[21] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 136. Also see Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary 1, ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts (Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1987), 75-76.

[22] Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary 1A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 238.

[23] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 17.

[24] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 17.

[25] Augustine, “Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian,” 427.

[26] Thomas Aquinas, The “Summa Theologica” (R. & T. Washbourne, LTD, 1914), 203-204.

[27] Philip Melanchthon, “The Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” in The Book of Concord: or, The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Henry Eyster Jacobs (Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, 1916), 81-82.

[28] Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) at New Advent, Accessed May 6, 2026, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm.

[29] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 19.

[30] John Owen, Sin and Temptation: The Challenge to Personal Godliness, Abridged and edited by James M. Houston (Portland: OR, Multnomah Press, 1983), 24-25.

[31] Owen, Sin and Temptation, 24-25.

[32] Owen, Sin and Temptation, 24-25.

[33] Owen, Sin and Temptation, 180.

[34] James T. Dennison, Jr., ed., introduction to “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in 1600-1693, vol. 4 of Reformed Confessions of the 16^th and 17^th Centuries in English Translation (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 457-58.

[35] “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in 1600-1693, vol. 4 of Reformed Confessions of the 16^th and 17^th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 465.

[36] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 21.

[37] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 21-22.

[38] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 22.

[39] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 23.

[40] Stephen Wellum, God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 460.

[41] Robert H. Stein, vol. 24 in The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 558.

[42] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 215-217. Also, see Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1966), 574-575.

[43] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 24.

[44] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 25.

[45] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 25.

[46] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 26.

[47] Sprinkle and Coles, “Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin?”, 27.

I’ve served in pastoral ministry for 25 years in the Southern Baptist Convention. There are many godly pastors, professors, and missionaries, but I’ve also seen many men that I thought were godly, live secret, evil lives behind the scenes. Several mentors that I’ve had have since fallen morally and are no longer in ministry. One of those men was David Sills.

I attended Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Louisville, KY from 2008 – 2019. In the winter of 2009, I went on a mission trip to Ecuador, led by Dr. David Sills. He was the Faye Stone Professor of Christian Missions and Cultural Anthropology at SBTS and the founder and President of the mission organization Reaching and Teaching. He had pastored churches in both the United States and Ecuador and served as a missionary with the International Mission Board. He also authored several books.

The Lord had given him about everything a Christian man could want: a loving wife, children and grandchildren, and successful ministry, but it wasn’t enough. He wanted more.

In 2004, he began committing adultery with a female student at SBTS. And it lasted for 12 years, long after she graduated and moved out of state. When I went on a mission trip with him to Ecuador, in the Winter of 2009, he was a serial adulterer, and nobody knew it. I thought he was a godly man, a man I wanted to follow. But godly men don’t commit adultery, and especially not for 12 years. (And now, Sills is suing the SBC, alleging defamation, because leaders called him an abuser.)

What follows is a letter I wrote to all those who supported my mission trip, which included journal entries I penned while on the trip. I include this letter to show you what your sin does to others. Not only did Sills’ sin drag Christ’s name through the mud, and hurt his family and ministries, it also hurt so many who looked up to him. In my mind, he was exactly the type of missionary God called me to be. But he was pretending and deceiving us.

You’ll see from the letter that I learned how to be a godly missionary from David Sills, but, because of his heinous sin, I’ve since learned the kind of Christian I don’t want to be. I want to be the same Christian man in public that I am in private.

When hypocrites are pastors, professors, and missionaries, remember that Christ was not and is not a hypocrite. He is why you’re a Christian; He is the One you’re aimed at and following; and He’s worth the labor regardless of who falls around you. Sills, at some point, took his eyes off Christ. If you take your eyes off Christ, you’re capable of heinous, habitual sin. Learn from his failure. Pursue Christ in private and public, and you won’t fall.

You don’t need more, you need Christ. And you have Him! Be thankful for Him and all He has given you. Pursue Him with all your life! He is enough!

2009 Letter:

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Today, I traveled to Ecuador. The trip was somewhat uneventful. My plane however was delayed from Nashville, TN to Houston, TX. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem, but my layover in Houston was a little over an hour to begin with. So, when I got off the plane in Houston, I received a phone call from Dr. Sills’ secretary. She said, “The team is already on the plane, you’ve been booked for the next flight to Ecuador, but it’s not until tomorrow night. You will have to stay in Houston tonight.” She then told me that I needed to try to catch the plane anyways, but that I needed to at least get there to encourage the airline to put me in a hotel that night. So, I went as fast as I could. When I arrived at the gate, someone was buying my ticket. I was 10 minutes late. I think the only reason I made it was by the grace of God. The airline wanted to make the money for my ticket; so, they held the plane ten minutes. They booked me back on the flight, and I was able to fly to Ecuador with the rest of the team. Having never flown to a nation that speaks a different language than me, I was very relieved that I did not have to fly by myself.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

We flew into Quito last night. It’s the capital city, and is virtually in the middle of Ecuador, but just to the north a bit. The city is populated by roughly 2 million people. This morning we went to a local church that Dr. Sills pastored back when he was a missionary in Ecuador.

During Sunday morning worship, there was no interpreter, so I was a bit lost; however, I wrote down what I did observe: 1) they prayed much, 2) we sang Psalms set to music, 3) the sermon was somewhat interactive; the pastor asked questions of the congregation while expecting a response, 4) some children were dedicated, and there was a sermonette preached to the families of the children; the children then went throughout the whole congregation shaking everyone’s hands; and the children were then presented with gifts; 5) the pastor was very enthusiastic about the Scriptures, and 6) the church read much Scripture together.

We went to a local mall for lunch after morning worship. I expected to take a step back in time, but instead I walked into a very modern Americanized mall. We went to the food court in this three story mall to find KFC, McDonalds, Wendys, etc. Everyone dressed liked us, shopped like us, and ate like us. The only differences were their skin color and the languages they spoke. There were also some Ecuadorian restaurants and shops.

Once we left the mall, we drove for hours and hours, over 4 hours I think to Camp Chacauco. The ride was rough and honestly unnerving. Camp Chacauco is located about 45 minutes southeast of Ambato, near the town of Patate. Former International Mission Board missionaries Steve and Carol Thompson started this camp in order to train Ecuadorian pastors, hold church camps, retreats, youth and children events, pastors cabins, etc. (They resigned from the IMB 10 years ago when the IMB was withdrawing its resources from Ecuador because they viewed it as “reached”. After over 100 years of protestant missions, one can see the IMB’s reasoning, but Steve and Carol believed God still wanted them in Ecuador. Without support, they resigned, and trusted the Lord. He provided.) This camp is truly an awesome ministry in the middle of Ecuador. A pastor can come and live at the camp, go to seminary, eat, etc. for a very, very small amount of money. We slept in camp-style cabins.

Monday, December 14, 2009

We woke up this morning, and the cabins we stayed in had two showers and toilets each, with 8-10 people staying in each cabin. The facilities were much nicer than I expected. We had hot showers most of the trip, with good water pressure. Every now and then, due to rolling blackouts in Ecuador, we would lose pressure and hot water.

The camp is beautiful. We’re right next to a river. The Andes Mountains surround us on all sides. We’re even five miles from the crest of an active volcano. It erupts about every one hundred years. It started acting up again about three years ago. It had a minor eruption about a year ago.

This morning after breakfast we went to the market in a nearby city. The Quichua people bring fresh fruit, meat, vegetables, and hand-made products to sell throughout the week at this market. Unfortunately, these people are still discriminated against by other Ecuadorians. They are the lowest rung on the ladder by society’s standards. Though Ecuadorians do not value them as they should, God values them as much as any other human being on earth. This is why we came to give them the gospel.

We came to the open-air market this morning largely to examine the culture of the Quichua, hoping to better understand them as a people, in order to be able to share the gospel with them without unforeseen cultural barriers. Each community of Quichua people distinguishes itself from other communities by how they dress. Each color they wear stands for a virtue they possess or hope to possess. One man told us that his colors represented wisdom, courage, and purity. Each of these characteristics is possessed ultimately and perfectly in Christ. These qualities can then be avenues to share the gospel as we detail the perfect righteousness of Christ, His wisdom and purity; and His perfect courage displayed in His willingness to endure His father’s wrath for the sins of humanity. Though the Quichua may not realize it, they cannot possess these virtues perfectly. They must run to and depend on the righteousness of Christ by faith alone.

Before we came on this trip, each person was given a Bible story to memorize that he or she would share with the Quichua people in the evening. Probably around half of the Quichua can read, and half cannot. Even if they can read however, due to their learning being largely through oral means, giving them literature to read would do them little good. So, even if they can read it, they have great difficulty understanding it. Our goal therefore was to memorize Bible Stories so we could orally tell them to the people each evening. We picked ten stories to be exact, one building on the other, until the gospel was clearly shared on the final evening. After each story, we asked if there was anyone who thinks he or she can share this story. People would then stand up and try to share the story, being corrected by others in the congregation or the interpreter if they said something wrong. We then would encourage them to share these stories with their friends, families, and neighbors. As I type this, I rejoice over the fact that the gospel may be being shared by the Quichua at this moment, whether they realize it or not, as they sit to eat or stand to share stories with their friends. God will take this gospel seed and birth sinners into new life in Christ!

Tonight, we shared the story of 1) creation/fall, 2) Noah and the flood, and 3) Abraham and Isaac. The people heard the first two stories, but had never heard the third story of Abraham and Isaac. So, because the Abraham and Isaac story was the story I memorized, I was able to teach the Quichua something they had never heard before. They were very attentive; and they thanked us for sharing. They said that though they are taught the Bible, it is difficult for them to understand and remember. The stories help them to remember since they are an oral culture. We left encouraging them to share the stories with their friends. The stories build upon one another; so, the gospel is coming in a few days. At this point, we are encouraging them to trust God for their daily needs; as well as, for their salvation from their sins.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

This morning we went to the house of Nate Saint. He was one of the five missionaries that were killed by a Huaorani tribe in Ecuador in 1956. Jim Eliot was another one of the men killed, along with Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian. A movie was made about the men in 2006 titled The End of the Spear. The amazing reality is that the tribe that murdered these men was later reached by Nate Saint’s sister and Jim Eliot’s wife.

I must confess that it was sad and glorious to stand in the home of those who not only believed the gospel, but also gave their lives for it. They loved their God enough to see to it that a remote tribe in Ecuador glorified Him as well. Not only this, but they loved these head hunters enough to try and reach them with the saving gospel of Christ; and they were murdered for their efforts.

As I stood there contemplating their missional efforts, I couldn’t help but wonder what I’m doing for the cause of Christ in the states. How am I “bleeding” for the sake of the gospel? If I am not careful, I will bleed for the sake of arrogance, ego, pride, false conversions, the applause of men, the applause of the convention, etc. but not for the gospel. I have to ask myself if I had rather receive the loud praise of men, or the often silent praise of God… give me the praises of God alone.

Following our visit to Nate Saint’s house, we visited a local Catholic church. The church was very beautiful. It stood out from the rest of the buildings. The inside was extravagant as well. As we walked around, we noticed that there were murals on the walls that detailed various miracles Mary had performed in the community over the past several hundred years. Also, there were banners on the wall that explained why they exalted Mary to such a lofty position. They believe her to be the co-redeemer with Christ. In every mural and statue Jesus was depicted as either a baby or dead. His physical resurrection was not emphasized. So, with such an idolatrous view of Mary and a diminished view of Christ, it is no wonder that the locals do not heed the gospel. Many of them have never heard the true gospel found through God’s grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. This is one of the many reasons missionaries are needed in Latin America. Over 94% of Latin America considers themselves Roman Catholic.

Tonight, we shared the story of 1) the Passover and 2) the Ten Commandments. The people were very receptive and appreciative again. After the Ten Commandments were shared, the question was asked to them if we could keep God’s law perfectly. They replied, “yes”. We then explained that no one could keep God’s perfect standard. We left them wondering what they then must do; and we encouraged them to return the following evening hear the answer to the sin problem.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

This morning we stayed at the camp for free time. This gave me a chance to rest. Going back and forth to the Apatug and Angahuana communities in Alto has worn me out. The drive is about two hours one way. So, each night we’re on the road for around 4 hours. Plus, during the day, we’ve been driving to the market, the Nate Saint house, etc. During this entire trip, we probably averaged 5-6 hours per day of riding on the bus. We went all over Ecuador.

Tonight, we returned to the Quichua communities to share Bible stories. We shared the stories of 1) Mt. Carmel and 2) the birth of Christ. The people were very receptive again. It’s almost like watching the enthusiasm of children on Christmas morning as they open their gifts. The Quichua love to hear the truth of God’s Word. They are extremely encouraged; and thus, we are as well. As we pour into them, we see them receive the truth so well, and it encourages us to continue on with joy.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Today, we traveled to one of the hundreds of waterfalls found in Ecuador. For some reason, this specific waterfall shoots out of a mountain and falls beneath about a hundred feet with tremendous force. On the way down to the waterfall on the trail there was a sign in Spanish that read, “Prepare to be surprised, God exists!” As we stood there, about fifty feet from the waterfall, we could feel the rock in under our feet shake from the force of the waterfall. It was truly an amazing sight to see.

Tonight is the final evening we went to the Apatug and Angahuana communities to share the gospel. Tonight we shared 1) Jesus and the storm, demon, woman, and Jarius’ daughter, 2) the Pharisees, Trial, and Crucifixion, and 3) the resurrection, ascension, and great commission. The people were very receptive again. We encouraged them with the gospel, and encouraged them to respond.

In this specific culture though, they are not independent like Americans. These people largely will make decisions as a community. So, they will sit and discuss Christianity as presented by us, before they make decisions largely together. Once the gospel was presented, we encouraged the people to respond, not by walking an aisle or signing a card, but in repentance and faith in Christ. We could have easily had people raise their hands if they wanted Christ, but we wanted them to make genuine life-changing decisions. Our hope was that they would decide that night, and then the next day and the next, continually until eternity; trusting in Christ alone for salvation. We were unconcerned with reporting numbers when we returned, for the numbers would have been largely false and bloated. If the leader in the community had raised his hand, largely the entire congregation would have as well. Please pray for their genuine conversion and the gospel to spread forth throughout these two communities and abroad.

Tonight, we also supplied Christmas presents for over 150 children. At this time of year, children go door to door looking sad while saying, “Feliz Navidad.” We instead provided Christmas for these children, for what we provided was largely all they would receive for Christmas. The children were very excited; and there were over three hundred people in attendance this night.

They also honored us tonight with a feast. They cooked for us and put us in a room by ourselves, while they stood outside. While they only cooked chicken soup for themselves, they served us potatoes, corn, haba beans, cheese, and roasted guinea pigs. The food was good. My guinea pig though looked just like the roasted bottom of a guinea pig. It was still pretty good though. They cooked so much food for us, I was worried that we would offend them if we couldn’t eat it all. Dr. Sills told me that they would finish what was left over. There was enough left over to feed us for two or three more meals.

Friday, December 18, 2009

After breakfast today, we left Camp Chacauco and headed toward Quito. We had to be up at 4:00 a.m. the following day in order to get to the airport and catch the plane back to the states. On the way back, we went to the middle of the earth monument. The latitude and longitude is 0,0. It’s literally the middle of the earth. It was interesting; and we had time to buy souvenirs.

On the first night we arrived in Quito, some of our items were stolen while we were at the mall. Dr. Sills and some of the other students went to talk with the hotel owner. After a long conversation, the man would not admit to any wrongdoing, nor would he offer to look into the matter among his staff. So, Dr. Sills moved us to another hotel for our final night. Once we got checked in though, we noticed that one of the ladies looked familiar. It turns out that this man owned this hotel as well. We all locked our doors that night. Since we’ve returned home, the owner has since found the thief, and he is returning the items. He actually thanked Dr. Sills for his courage in confronting him to let him know about the thievery.

In conclusion, when you pray, please do not forget the Quichua people; as well as the other peoples of the earth that we may not even know about. The gospel is a message for all people groups. Let us either send others to reach them or go ourselves; and at least, let us pray for all ethnicities to come to know Him as we do. For His glory alone!

In Him,

Pastor Jared Moore

Act 1

Even the purest doctrine, and church and civil order, cannot save a heart that loves sin more than Jesus.

“Without faith it is impossible to please God.”

—Hebrews 11:6

The printing press was invented in 1440. Like most of the technological advances of human history, man’s progress can be used for good or evil. The Reformation spread due to the printing press, and the common man could finally own a Bible in his own language, but pornography was distributed far and wide as well.

In the 1550’s the Reformation made its way to England, and Thomas Cranmer was tasked with turning the Church of England decidedly Protestant. Many Roman Catholics were converted due to his leadership over the churches, and the influence of the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli. Cranmer recruited prominent Protestants John à Lasco, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli to teach at Lambeth, Oxford, and Cambridge.

At the Strangers’ Church in London, Lasco served as a pastor. It was full of Protestants that had fled persecution, as well as locals that had been recently converted.

One of the families under his care was the Taylors: a husband and wife, and their four children. Their families had been tailors by trade for hundreds of years. The two oldest children were girls, then they had a boy, and the fourth was a girl as well. The boy’s name was Thomas.

When Thomas was 10 years old, he had an older friend who fled from Italy with his family to London. He was Protestant too, but he had secret sins. He shared with Thomas a book he brought from Italy, that his parents didn’t know about. It was full of lewd engravings, printed in Venice and smuggled north, images that burned in a young man’s memory. Thomas was embarrassed and convicted at first but took the book home and hid it from his family. That evening, as his father prayed for purity for the family, Thomas was cut in his heart but justified his lust with the thought: “Looking at a book couldn’t possibly hurt anyone.”

In the evening, while feeding the animals, Thomas would go look at his book in private. He began to devour it, but he did not know it was slowly devouring him. Before long, he looked at it every evening and thought about it even when he was at work. He could not wait to return home.

Thomas had always had a close relationship with his sisters. He even had occasional tea parties with the youngest, Alice. But he started to notice them in ways no brother should, even Alice. He often thought about them inappropriately. Yet, like a good Protestant child, he memorized his pastor’s catechism, which read,

Q[uestion]. 84. Can man not keep himself from sin and avoid it?

R{esponse]. If we refer to external sinful acts, such as slander, killing, adultery, stealing, drunkenness, and other things of that kind, the ability has been given us in part through the innate natural powers (we attempt it with all diligence—since surely we also have been under obligation) to keep ourselves from such sins. If we wish to consider sin as it pertains to the inner perversity of our nature, then we can never be without sin. In fact, we are unable to do anything but sin as long as we live here. (Phil. 3; Rom. 7)

Q. 85. What! Can we not satisfy the law if we outwardly preserve ourselves from sin?

R. By no means! For God has not been satisfied with the external appearance of duty, but desires the heart, because it has been corrupted with unyielding evil, by which it happens that it cannot completely observe the law, which is spiritual. (Dt. 6, 10, 11, 26; Mt. 22; Jer. 17; Rom. 7; Gal. 5)[1]

But the words rang hollow to Thomas, because he did not believe them. He believed himself and his book instead.

The Protestant influence in England was short-lived, because Mary Tudor came to power, and she led ruthlessly, gaining the moniker “Bloody Mary” due to her bloodlust and execution of Protestants. She even executed Thomas Cranmer, which was illegal, because he recanted his Protestantism; but repented publicly as he was headed to be burned at the stake. He even burned the hand that signed his recantation, first. Many Protestants fled England because of her rule.

Act 2

In 1557, after years of worshipping in darkness and living in fear, the Taylors escaped from “Bloody Mary” to Geneva, Switzerland, which was ruled by John Calvin. Geneva accepted thousands of Protestant refugees under his rule. The Taylors set up a tailor shop and began their work immediately. But Thomas brought his book with him to Geneva.

While his father worked on making suits and clothes for the locals, Thomas would get the thread and materials from his mother, and her co-workers, at a shop up the road. Several Protestant refugees’ wives and their daughters worked together there. And Thomas especially loved spending time with the girls. He would linger around them for several minutes, even after he received what he came for, because he wanted much more.

Geneva, under Calvin, was a Christian paradise. Thomas learned the gospel there, memorized the catechisms, knew the doctrines, but he never trusted them. One of the first catechism answers he learned in Geneva was Calvin’s on the Tenth Commandment:

214. M[inister]. Seeing that the whole law is spiritual, as you have so often said before, and the other commandments are not only to order outward acts, but also the affections of the heart, what more is added here?

C[hild]. The Lord wished by the other commandments to rule our affections and will, but here He imposes a law also on our thoughts which though charged with covetousness and desire, yet stop short of an active intention.

215. M. Do you mean that the least temptation that enters into the thought of a believer is sin, even though he resists it and does not consent to it?

C. It is certain that all evil thoughts proceed from the infirmity of our flesh, even though we do not consent to them. But I say that this commandment speaks of concupiscence which tickles and pierces the heart of man, without bringing him to a deliberate purpose.

216. M. You say then that the evil affections which involve a definite act of will or resolution are already condemned, but now the Lord requires of us such integrity, that no wicked desire may enter our hearts, to solicit and incite them to evil.

C. That is right.”[2]

He was looking at the book he kept hiding, every day. Not only did he not repent of his lust, but he thought about it constantly and pursued it in his heart and mind every waking moment.

One day, Alice wasn’t feeling well, so he stayed home with her. He began looking at his book, but the thought crossed his mind, as if a word from a dark man, that his sister was in the next room. So, he went to her, laid hold of her, but she screamed, managed to get free, and ran. Thomas chased, but Alice escaped into the forest.

When his parents returned home, Alice came home and told them that he looked at her like he hated her; that he grabbed her hard and was going to hurt her, but she didn’t know all that he had planned. Thomas apologized to them and Alice, and his parents did not permit him to stay with her by himself anymore.

That evening, when Thomas was supposed to be tending to the animals, but was looking at his book, a man dressed in black appeared in the back of the sheep pin. Thomas was startled at first, but then the man spoke, “Thomas, the Bible says, ‘there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.’ If you’ll follow me, I’ll give you power and a disguise where you can do whatever you want to whomever you want, with no one knowing.” Thomas asked, “How can this be? What must I do?” The man replied, “You must commit your life to me, and I will make you rule over others.”

Thomas already thought of young girls as his prey. He only thought for a moment and said, “Yes. I submit.” And the man in black laid a cross down in front of Thomas and demanded, “Renounce your Christian faith by trampling this cross.” Thomas jumped up and down on the cross. Then, the man said, “Kiss my backside to show you will only serve me.” And the man turned into a black cat, turned around, and lifted his tail. Reluctantly, Thomas leaned down and kissed the cat’s backside. The fur was coarse and stank of sulfur. It then turned back into the man.

The man told Thomas that he would come to him the next evening at the same time, in the form of a black cat. He must follow him to find a wolf skin, that would change him into a werewolf when he wanted. Thomas could finally do what he longed to in his heart.

The next day, he went to work with his father, as normal. He was thinking about all he was going to do when he was a werewolf. As he picked up the materials and threads from his mother, he gazed at several of the women’s daughters, memorizing their faces, like a wolf looking at his prey.

That evening, when Thomas went to tend to the animals, sure enough, there came the cat. He took his lamp and followed him. They went through the woods and down to the creek. The cat stopped at a rock. Thomas lifted it up, and there was the wolf skin. It had a soft glow and pulsated slightly, as if it was alive. He took it home and hid it.

Act 3

The next day, Thomas told his father he wasn’t feeling well and needed to stay home. He never missed work, so his father permitted him to stay, but he was not sick. When his family left for work, Thomas waited a few hours and then retrieved the wolfskin.

He put it on and immediately transformed into a werewolf. He walked upright like a man, but when he ran, he would drop to all fours like a wolf. His head was that of a wolf, with sharp, jagged teeth; and his nails were sharp claws. And he was hungry. Even though it was daytime, he went hunting.

Read more

2. Whate’er my God Ordains is Right

3. Hark! The Herald, Angel Sing

4. O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

5. Jesus, I my Cross Have Taken

6. Abide With Me

7. Amazing Grace

8. Gladly Would I Leave Behind Me

9. A Mighty Fortress is Our God

10. Be Thou My Vision

11. The Church’s One Foundation

12. God Be Merciful to Me (Psalm 51)

13. Dear Refuge of My Weary Soul

14. Jesus, I Come

15. Man of Sorrows

16. Rock of Ages

17. Free From the Law, O Happy Condition

18. Grace Greater Than Our Sin

19. Sovereign Grace O’er Sin Abounding

20. He Leadeth Me

21. It is Well With my Soul

22. How Great Thou Art

23. There is a Fountain

24. All I Have is Christ

25. Jesus Paid it All

26. His Mercy is More

27. Come, Ye Sinners, Poor and Needy

28. I’d Rather Have Jesus

29. Guide me oh Thou Great Jehovah

30. Hast Thou Heard Him, Seen Him, Known Him?

31. Not What My Hands Have Done

32. On Jordan’s Stormy Banks I Stand

33. Psalm 73 (Surely God is Good)

34. The Love of Christ is Rich and Free

35. Thy Mercy My God

36. Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus

37. Thy Will be Done

38. Upon a Life I did not Live

39. Before the Throne of God Above

40. O Great God

41. Great is Thy Faithfulness

42. See the Destined day Arise

43. He Will Hold me Fast

44. Holy Spirit Living Breath of God

45. Come Behold the Wondrous Mystery

46. All Glory Be to Christ

47. This is My Father’s World

48. The Power of the Cross

49. Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus (The Glorious Christ)

50. In Christ Alone

51. Are You Washed in the Blood?

52. O Lord, My Rock and My Redeemer

53. Doxology

54. Fairest Lord Jesus

55. He Hideth My Soul

56. Prepare Him Room

57. He Who is Mighty

58. The Old Rugged Cross

59. I Need Thee Every Hour

60. Trust and Obey

61. O Holy Night

62. Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross

Here is a Playlist of these 62 Hymns on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOk-LGYpzz-qdmwkPS6eMe3gGJhUaBjge

Avarice…greed.

It’s a common sin among mankind and has been ever since Lucifer, Adam, and Eve wanted more than God gave them. Greed is birthed in a man’s heart when his flesh or the devil tells him, “You don’t have enough. You deserve more than the scraps God has provided.” Lustful greed then moves in the heart, and if the man does not rebuke himself and repent swiftly, he’s already fallen within, and now all he needs is an opportunity, because he’s begun to seek it. When a man wants to sin, his flesh, the devil, or the world always provides the occasion.

That opportunity came for a Catholic Priest in Nuremberg, Germany in 1530.

Read more

A ghost I see now and again,

She comes out at twilight,

When I’m down in the deep dark night.

The Siren calls, and I hear her say,

“You, but a child, I matured long ago,

And I’m here today to save your soul.

Open your box of memories,

Think of me and you’ll escape your miseries.

Blame me for your choices,

I’m the savior that silences all critical voices.

Forgetting me is the reason,

You can’t tolerate the season.

My smell, you remember often,

A benevolent aroma, your shame, to soften.

You painted over me.

And hidden I’ve been,

Unveil me, and you’ll see,

I alone can save you from sin.

I’ve remained here all along,

Hear my enchanting song.

Follow me and you’ll be alright,

I’ll save you from the deep dark night.

I’m the undercurrent in your life.

Guiding you through a maze of strife.

I made you who you are,

The reason you still live, your north star.

You are my time vault,

And in you I placed,

Unworthiness, shame, and fault,

So I could come today to heal and replace.

I’ll excuse your darkest sinful lots,

For you’re a product of me not your faults.

In your mirror, see my face,

A benevolent queen, full of grace.

No one you can trust, but me,

For I made you all that you are to be.

No one knows you like I do,

A loving mother I’ve been to guide you.

You are only worthy when you remember me,

Forget me not, lest my beauty you won’t see.

You cannot flourish without me,

For I help you righteously hate your enemy.

Talk of me often,

And I’ll give you a restful coffin.

I know you’re tired. Together we’ll sleep.

And your soul I’ll pleasantly keep.”

But on this weary road,

Another voice I hear,

It’s the carpenter’s Son,

“Come to Me, and your trauma will be undone.”

He calls me back to His cross,

Where He gave His life, the King suffered loss.

My best day, and His worst.

God the Son crucified, cursed.

Where was God? I thought. But then Gabriel speaks:

“See Him hanging there, submitting to a sinner’s lot.

Gnashing and weeping ensue,

The Son of God, traumatized for you.

Foretold by the prophets, and Christ Himself,

Sinners tortured the Son of Man,

Under God’s sovereign hand.

Then, out of the tomb, He came,

Ascended to His Father’s side to rule and reign.

The greatest good known to man,

Came out of the worst trauma ever experienced, that a man can.”

Could it be that the God of right,

Was sovereign over my trauma, even in the deep dark night?

If the God-Man’s trauma can bring immeasurable good,

Then the Lord can use mine, if Him, I only understood.

I need not know how God uses the Siren or the fallen,

I only need to cling to the One who knows, He alone is sovereign.

He is enough, regardless of what I don’t understand.

For He is my all, and I’m headed to the promised land.

My trauma renamed me long ago,

But a new name I have today, Christ has saved my soul:

Child of God, bride of Christ, brother, friend.

He’s called me His own though I’ve heinously sinned.

Therapists say, “The body keeps the score,”

Yet my trauma, she haunts me no Moore.

For Christ’s body keeps His and my scars,

His trauma and mine, dead in an empty tomb, no longer mars.

2. Preach topical exposition, sometimes, where you have a topic that a text explicitly deals with. Preach that topic by expositing that text.

3. Preach topically but systematically, sometimes, where you have a topic that many texts deal with. Preach each Scripture in context.

4. Preach the text, not so you’ll hear “Amen” from the crowd, but from the original human author and God.

5. As you prepare, tremble as a man who will give an account to God, because you will.

6. Prepare so that your hearers leave thinking on God, not you or an illustration you shared.

7. Use tone and voice inflection that fit the text not your hearers’ sensibilities.

8. Aim the content of your sermon at the most mature person in the room while using language that the most immature person in the room can understand.

9. Use illustrations to explain the text, not to entertain the goats.

10. Preach to be forgotten and for the Lord to be remembered.

11. Use facial expressions and movement that fit the text, not your hearers’ sensibilities.

12. If you’re uncertain about a text, preach the most probable interpretations (this should be rare).

13. Preach the text, not theories you’re wrestling with.

14. Warn your hearers of the heretical interpretations of the text from church history and today.

15. Apply the text to your hearers, but the Holy Spirit will do much more application than you if you preach the text.

16. Preach the law from the text. Do not soften it. Preach it as written. Cut the guilty with it.

17. Preach the gospel in line with the text. Do not add it. Those who are cut by the law will run to Jesus for healing, if they submit to the Holy Spirit.

18. Do not allegorize the text unless the text demands it or it can be built upon the text.

19. Use biblical retributive tone, not cultural retributive tone. Your tone should be stronger the more heinous the sin is according to the text, not the culture.

20. Do not let the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Herodians govern what you preach: beware the leaven of the Pharisees (legalism), the Sadducees (theological liberalism), the Herodians (political power). Preach so that the legalists, liberals, and political idolaters tremble. If they tremble today and repent, they won’t tremble for all eternity.

21. Use rhetoric that is easy to remember but say it in a way where you are easy to forget.

22. Preach so that hell is the most unthinkable terror known to man.

23. Preach so that heaven is the most unthinkable joy known to man.

24. Preach so that they know you believe the text. If you don’t believe it, resign.

25. Preach to win them to Jesus not yourself.

26. Magnify the beauty of God.

27. Magnify the beauty of God’s design/creation.

28. Expose the ugliness of sin.

29. Whatever the main points of the text are, make them the main points of your sermon.

30. Show them how your text fits with all the Scripture written before it.

31. Show them how your text fits with all the Scripture written after it.

32. Show them how your text fits in God’s plan of redemption.

33. Include the doctrine of the Trinity often: all things being from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. And how their worship and obedience must be by the Spirit through the Son to the Father.

34. Include the incarnation often: God the Son becoming flesh to redeem His church, those who repent and believe. Only the God-Man can reconcile us to God.

35. For illustrations, mostly use Scripture to illustrate Scripture.

36. For illustrations, use contemporary examples sparingly so that your hearers know how to live in this world for Jesus.

37. Use your introduction to draw your hearers to the text.

38. Preach your sermon as a fork in the road: your hearers can either follow Jesus or the devil.

39. Help your hearers see the beauty of God’s word, that He has spoken and is not silent.

40. Preach as long as the text demands, but don’t bite off more than you can preach.

41. Do not add to or take away from God’s word. Your job is to help your hearers see the beauty of God’s word. You are the garnish. Shine headlights from the beginning to end on the text.

42. Use your conclusion to reveal how God demands a response. “Now that you know God’s word, how will you respond to God? If you’re in sin, will you turn from it and live according to what God’s word says? If you’ve believed wrongly, will you submit to God’s word and believe rightly? If you’re an unbeliever, will you repent and believe in Jesus and be saved by His death in your place, and receive His righteousness credited to you through faith?”

That question is a sobering one for me. It’s one that all pastors and church leaders need to ask and answer with, “No.”

There’s a real temptation in ministry (at least for me), to spend my time ministering to those outside my home to the detriment of ministering to those inside my home. If we allow our congregations’ needs to dictate our schedules, neglecting our responsibilities at home can be sinfully justified.

Remember, in order to be qualified to pastor God’s people, a pastor “must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim 3:4-5, ESV).

Also remember that pastors who preach the gospel should not undermine the gospel by refusing to love their wives as Christ loves the church:

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Eph. 5:25-33).

The more we understand the gospel, the more we should be willing to die for the well-being of our bride. Marriage for every Christian man is a call to die for the salvation and sanctification of our wives.

These truths are important to mention because there is a real danger for pastors to think that they can separate the integrity of their ministry from the integrity of their home. Consider John Wesley, one of the greatest Christian preachers who ever lived, as an example. Nathan Busenitz, at the Cripplegate Blog, recently wrote an article titled “John Wesley’s Failed Marriage.” In this passage from Stephen Tomkins’ biography on Wesley, he quotes a couple biographies about Wesley, and some statements about Wesley’s marriage are startling:

• When Wesley left for a ministry tour in Ireland in 1758, Molly reported that her husband’s parting words to her were: “I hope I shall see your wicked face no more” (p. 155).

• “Reunited in England, they clashed violently—Wesley refusing to change his writing habits [of sending affectionate letters to other women] and Molly accusing him of adultery and calling down on him, in her own words, ‘all the curses from Genesis to Revelation’” (p. 155).

• “Almost the sole surviving record of this marriage from Molly’s side dates from December 1760, when she said Wesley left a meeting early with one Betty Disine and was seen still with her the following morning. She told him ‘in a loving manner to desist from running after strange women for your character is at stake’” (p. 159).

• “In 1771, Molly announced that she was leaving John again. On 23 January, the Journal reports, ‘For what I cause I know not to this day, [my wife] set out for Newcastel, purposing “never to return.” I did not leave her: I did not send her away: I will not call her back.” (p. 174).

You can find the full article here. It’s worthy of your time and attention.

How could the father of Methodism have such a glaring blind spot? I don’t know. But don’t assume that you and I are immune from such blind spots.

May we constantly examine the integrity of both our public and private ministries. May we constantly repent and believe in Christ’s finished work alone to save and sanctify us. May we never be satisfied with our own holiness as we depend solely on the holiness of Christ to justify us.

How will you respond? Will you remember the covenant you made before God and afresh and anew commit yourself to your bride, coming and dying for her physical and spiritual well-being?

You too may have a wife that has an occasional “wicked face” (to use Wesley’s words), but never pretend that her wicked face somehow changes your responsibility to God and her. Just as Christ died to cleanse His wicked bride, you do the same. Point her to Christ through your own self-sacrificial death. May Christ be the source of your love for your bride. Come and die, friend … come and die.

What are your thoughts?

1. Repentance - It will be a layman’s guide to repentance. I’ve already written three chapters that will be posted on Substack in December 2025.

2. Christian Lore - In Church History, there are several historical stories of ghosts, monsters, witches, etc. I will share 10 stories, with some license. I will also do a podcast; and I’m planning 4 more books in this series, since I already have 50 sources. I have the domain http://Christianlore.com as well. The goal will be to teach deep Christian truths through fictional stories that are interwoven with historical fact. And you’ll have access to 2-3 podcast episodes that only subscribers will be able to listen to.

If you’re able to do a higher tier, please consider it. It’s much easier to spend time writing when it helps take care of my family. I love Christ and His church, so I’ll keep writing. But your giving frees me to write more in a shorter period of time.

You can ask questions, make comments, and suggestions about this book. Every page will be published here as written in rough draft form, and then you’ll receive the completed/edited paperback copy as part of your subscription when they’re published.

Thank you folks! I look forward to enjoying Christ with you!

• The man who lusts is unthankful for the wife or singleness God has given him.

• The greedy man is unthankful for the possessions God has given him.

• The murderous man is unthankful for God’s sovereign providence.

• The disobedient child is unthankful for the parents God has given him.

• The liar is unthankful for God’s sovereign providence.

And so on...

This is why the Bible begins with, “In the beginning, God...” And the 10 Commandments begin with, “Worship God only...” And the Two Great Commandments begin with “Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.”

This is also why Israel’s worship was so meticulous. God was training the affections of His people towards Him, but only those who believed had their affections shaped toward Him.

When you’re thankful for God and His creation, you cease from sin, which won’t fully occur until we’re perfectly thankful for Him in eternity. This is why worshipping Him, by the Spirit through the Son to the Father, is so essential. You become like who or what you worship: either God for good or idols for worthlessness.

See Psalm 115:1-8 and Ephesians 5:1-6:

Psalm 115:1-8 -

Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! 2 Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” 3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. 5 They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. 6 They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. 7 They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. 8 Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.

Ephesians 5:1-6 -

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

When you see Him look at you, you have 2 choices:

1) Turn from Christ and turn to porn.

or

2) Turn from porn in repentance, weep bitterly, and turn to Christ in faith, and live His commands from your heart.

1) When Christ looked at the rich young ruler, he turned from Christ to his possessions.

The rich young ruler told Christ he kept the law from his youth. “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions (Mark 10:21-22).

2) When Christ looked at Peter, he wept bitterly, repented, and turned to Christ.

Peter told Jesus that he would never deny Him. And Jesus said, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said emphatically, “If I must die with you, I will not deny you” (Mark 14:29-31).

When Jesus was arrested and brought to the Chief Priest, Peter was outside the gate, but could still see Jesus. After he denied Christ twice, Luke writes, “And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:59-62).

After Jesus was resurrected, He came to Peter, and Peter showed his repentance and faith, and love for Christ, by agreeing to feed his lambs, and to tend and feed His sheep. Jesus told him he would lose his life for following Him (John 21:15-19).

Choose wisely Christian.

You’re living like the rich young ruler or like the apostle Peter. Which is it? Only the beauty of Christ can tear love for porn from your heart.

Can you see Christ looking at you?

Do you see His beauty? Do you love Him?

Lust is a hidden sin many Christian men and women privately tolerate, often excused by the world as a natural human trait. Yet, the Bible exposes it as a product of the fall, sinful from root to fruit. As Christians, empowered by the Holy Spirit, we can walk with Christ to the Father’s glory. Freedom from lust hinges on loving God more and despising our sin more deeply. This study guides Christians to see God’s beauty and the ugliness of sin, fostering a repentant, hopeful Christian life. Through Christ’s work, victory is within your reach! Dive into this study, trust God’s word, and break free from lust.

There are several items you need for this Bible study curriculum:

• The book 33 Days to Freedom From Lust: A Hope-Filled Devotional by Dr. Jared Moore

• The book 33 Days to Freedom From Lust Leader Guide: A 7-Week Study by Dr. Jared Moore

• The book The Lust of the Flesh: Thinking Biblically About “Sexual Orientation,” Attraction, and Temptation by Dr. Jared Moore

• Eight 33 Days to Freedom From Lust video lectures with Dr. Jared Moore

How to Purchase:

Total Curriculum (Paperback and PDF copies): $60 shipped

• Contains 1 copy each of the 3 books needed and the videos, but each student needs 1 copy of 33 Days to Freedom From Lust as well.

33 Days to Freedom From Lust (Table of Contents included below): $15 each shipped.

Videos (Video Titles included below): $20 emailed.

The Lust of the Flesh (Table of Contents included below): $20 each shipped.

33 Days to Freedom From Lust Leader Guide (Excerpt included below): $12 each shipped.

Pay through these options, include your address and email address:

• PayPal - jaredhmoore@hotmail.com

• Venmo - jaredhmoore

• CashApp - jaredhmoore

*For special bulk prices of any of my books, email jaredhmoore@hotmail.com.

**If you cannot afford this curriculum for your church or Bible study, email me at jaredhmoore@hotmail.com, and we will work it out.

Excerpt - 33 Days to Freedom From Lust: A Hope-Filled Devotional

CONTENTS

Introduction 15

How to Use This Book 17

Day 1: God is Eternal / Lust is Temporary 19

Day 2: God is Holy / Lust is Sin 25

Day 3: God is All Powerful / Lust is Weak 31

Day 4: God is All Knowing / Lust Knows Only Death 37

Day 5: God is All Present / Lust is Only in Sinners 43

Day 6: God is All Wise / Lust is All Stupid 47

Day 7: God is Just / Lust is Injustice 53

Day 8: God is True / Lust is a Liar 59

Day 9: God is Beauty / Lust is Ugly 65

Day 10: God is Love / Lust is Hate 71

Day 11: God is Triune / Lust is Selfish 77

Day 12: God is Unchanging / Lust Cannot Satisfy 83

Day 13: Jesus is Truly God and Truly Man / Lust Images Satan 87

Day 14: Jesus is the Seed of the Woman, of Noah / Lust is the Seed of Satan 93

Day 15: Jesus is the Seed of the Woman, of Abraham / Lust is the Seed of Satan 99

Day 16: Jesus is the Seed of the Woman, of Israel, of David / Lust is the Seed of Satan 105

Day 17: Jesus is the True Prophet / Lust is a False Prophet 111

Day 18: Jesus is the True High Priest / Lust is a Worthless Priest 117

Day 19: Jesus is the True King / Lust is an Unrighteous King 125

Day 20: Jesus is Savior and Lord / Lust is Harm and Deception 129

Day 21: The Holy Spirit is God / Lust is Sinner-Made 133

Day 22: The Holy Spirit is Life / Lust is a Murderer 139

Day 23: Jesus Baptizes us with the Holy Spirit / Lust Immerses us in Death 145

Day 24: Think on God, Develop Patterns of Righteousness / Think on Lust, Develop Patterns of Evil 151

Day 25: God Says We’re Marvelously Made / Lust Destroys us From Within 157

Day 26: The Lord Forgives and Gives Eternal Life / Lust Brings Death and Hell 163

Day 27: God Created us for Marriage / Lust Says we Were Created for Sex 169

Day 28: God Created for His Own Glory / Lust Hides God’s Glory 175

Day 29: Christ’s Beauty Destroys Idols / Lust Creates Them 181

Day 30: Christ is our Identity / Lust is our Enemy 187

Day 31: Holiness is From Above / Lust is From Below 195

Day 32: God Empowers us to Live Fruitful Christian Lives / Lust Stunts our Growth in Christ 201

Day 33: God’s Image-Bearers can Only be Satisfied in Him / Lust can Never Satisfy 209

Next Steps 215

Freedom From Lust Shorter Catechism 217

Freedom From Lust Larger Catechism 223

Other Books by Dr. Jared Moore 246

Excerpt - Videos:

1. Video 1: Introduction

2. Video 2: Genesis 3:1-6 — Defining Sin

3. Video 3: Matthew 5:27-30 — Any Lust in the Heart is Sin

4. Video 4: Romans 1:24-27 — Homosexuality in One’s Heart is Sin

5. Video 5: James 1:13-15 — To Desire Sin is Inner Temptation and Sin

6. Video 6: When we are and are not Tempted Like Jesus

7. Video 7: The Christian Tradition’s Teachings on Lust

8. Video 8: Excuses Cannot Save us From Lust, but Jesus Can

If you would rather download the videos, you can download them here.

Excerpt - The Lust of the Flesh: Thinking Biblically About “Sexual Orientation,” Attraction, and Temptation

Foreword

1. THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT THE LUST OF THE FLESH

2. GENESIS 3:1–6 – ADAM AND EVE WILLED THE LUST OF THE FLESH

3. MATTHEW 5:24–27 – SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS RESERVED FOR MARRIAGE

4. ROMANS 1:24–27 – UPSIDE-DOWN WORSHIP LEADS TO UPSIDE-DOWN DESIRES

5. JAMES 1:13–15 – WE DESIRE WHAT WE ARE AND WE ARE WHAT WE DESIRE

6. SINCE JESUS WAS TEMPTED WITHOUT SIN, IS FLESHLY DESIRE STILL SIN?

7. AUGUSTINE AND THE REFORMERS VERSUS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

8. CODIFYING AND SPREADING THE REFORMATION TRADITION

9. THE LUST OF THE FLESH CANNOT BE SUBLIMATED TO HOLINESS

10. ONLY GOD-DESIGNED DESIRES CAN LEAD TO HOLINESS

Excerpts - 33 Days to Freedom From Lust Leader Guide: A 7-Week Study

Introduction 1

Session 1: Understanding Lust, Our Enemy 3

Session 2: The Lust of the Flesh was Man’s First Sin 9

Session 3: I am Responsible for Every Impulse of Lust in my Heart 15

Session 4: Homosexuality in One’s Heart is Sin 21

Session 5: All my Sin Begins as the Lust of my Flesh 27

Session 6: There are Two Forms of Temptation 33

Session 7: Augustine’s and the Reformer’s Teachings on Lust 39

Session 8: How to Fight and Repent of Indwelling Sin 45

Other Books by Dr. Jared Moore 51

“Each session follows the same structure:

Getting Started: Prayer, discussion, and fellowship.

Digging Deeper: Hearing, believing, receiving, and understanding God’s word.

Accepting the Challenge: Applying God’s word.

Each week, be sure to encourage your students to enjoy Christ above all things.

After all, the goal of this study is for your hearers to learn how to live in hope with Christ, not in cope with lust.”

My father died suddenly of a massive heart attack on May 23, 2014. We talked some a week earlier at my daughter’s birthday party. We had a good time. Although it’s been 11 years, I still mourn the loss, and often find myself longing for a few minutes of conversation with him. “If I could just talk with him, I would tell him how much I appreciated him.” I’ve told dad in the past of my appreciation for him, but I question if I told him enough, and if I told him enough recently.

Thus, what follows is what I would say to dad if I could have a brief conversation with him. This exercise is for me and those who have fathers who are still living. If your father is still living, you have an opportunity to tell him how much you appreciate him. Don’t wait! You can tell him “enough” and tell him “enough recently.” This article is not for my father, for he’s enjoying His Lord at King Jesus’ table today in Heaven. My earthly father has reached the goal, Heaven with Christ, and he now needs nothing, including the thoughts of his son.

Dad, if I could talk to you, I would say. . .

Thank you for reading the Bible in front of me when I was a young boy. Some of my earliest memories are of you reading the Bible in your spot on the couch. I read the Bible every day in part due to your example.

Thank you for dragging me to church. I hated going to that boring place, but you made me go. I was loved by Christians there, and taught the word of God there. I’m a Christian and a pastor today partly because of your demand for your family to worship the Lord every Sunday.

Thank you for teaching me that you need Jesus. Due to your sin, you were not good enough to earn God’s favor. You needed Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension. You needed Him to forgive you, to save you from the Hell you deserved. You needed His righteousness given to you through faith. If you needed Him, then I knew I needed Him as well.

Thank you for helping others in private. You’ve helped numerous people who were less fortunate than you over the years. You never trumpeted your good deeds, but I heard of many of them. Through your example, I learned that I too must help others.

Thank you for teaching me the importance of honesty and integrity concerning vocation. You worked hard, and you always gave your best. I remember one time when I went to work with you when I was a teenager. We were putting baffles in a new house so you could blow insulation in the attic. Due to us cutting the baffles, there was cardboard everywhere. Many who had already worked on the house had left their garbage behind, but you insisted that we clean up our mess. It took over an hour. I was angry because I was ready to leave. We cleaned up our mess together, and I learned a valuable lesson. What others do is not our standard. We must be obedient to the Lord regardless what others do. We work for God, not man.

Thank you for praying over my ministry when I preached at your church. I was in my early twenties, and your pastor had invited me to preach. When you prayed before the love offering, you wept as you prayed for God to bless my ministry. Your approval encouraged me to continue in gospel ministry.

If I could talk with you, I wouldn’t speak of your sins and shortcomings. Now that you’re gone, they seem strangely small and insignificant. . . for they lay in the grave where we placed your body. When that body rises, it will rise anew; it will rise glorified in the likeness of your Savior, Christ’s resurrection body. Because of God’s grace, you will return with Christ to rule and reign forevermore! I will see you again soon. Hallelujah!

Proverbs 19:17 – Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

Matthew 6:1-4 –

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Hebrews 13:16 – Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

2 Corinthians 9:6-14 –

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. As it is written, “He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.” He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!

1 John 3:17 – But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?

Oftentimes, however, Western Christians think they are too poor to give to the poor. In rare cases, this may be true, but in most cases, it is not. What I often find is that Christians tie their money up in their wants and then say, “We are too poor to give to the poor.” It’s similar to the Pharisees refusing to honor their parents by taking care of them in their old age because they had pledged their money to God (corban). They justified their sin by a “greater good” argument. Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) would have helped them! Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for exalting this man-made tradition above the command of God, saying,

“You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do” (Mark 7:9-13).

The “tradition” that Christians have handed down is not like the Pharisees who neglected their parents in the name of pledging their money to God. Western Christians, in most cases, are not neglecting the poor because they have pledged their money to the local church. Instead, the “tradition” Christians have handed down is that they have a “right” to spend their money how they want to spend it.

Although it is true that Christians are free in Christ to spend the money God has given them for his glory, the reality is that Christians are not free to neglect the poor. We cannot ignore the clear commands in Scripture or the example of Christ because we have tied up our money in our wants. In other words, you and I are not free to spend our money on our wants while saying, “We are too poor to give to the poor.”

If you are able to give to the poor, especially poor Christians (and most Western Christians are), and you refuse to because you have tied your money up in your wants, you are sinning against God. You are committing the sin of greed. Now, we cannot be legalistic and require a certain percentage for the poor, but we must give generously because of all that we have been given (2 Cor. 9:1-15). The gospel compels us to give monetarily out of what we’ve been given by God eternally. We really cannot out-give God.

To help Christians, especially Christians who think, “I’m too poor to give to the poor,” discern if they are sinning in refusing to give to the poor, consider this poem:

Those Poor Christians, What a Sight!

They cannot afford

To give to the poor

For their new vehicles shine so bright.

To the poor,

They cannot lend their hand

For they are too busy

Saving for Disney Land.

Those poor Christians, What a sight!

Past the poor, he and she drives,

To exercise their God-given right

On their iPhones, to their homes

To suffer their impoverished lives.

The poor, they cannot afford to feed

Their money is tied up

Paying for restaurants with family,

The Internet and Cable TV.

Those poor Christians, What a Sight!

In all of life, they lack greed

For only the rich deny the poor with all their might

And spend beyond their need.

After all,

Greed is only a rich man’s sin,

For only he is required to heed God’s call

To give generously with a grin.

(Prov. 14:21, 31 ;19:17; 28:27; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; Eph. 4:28; etc.)

Are you shackled by sexual lust? Victory is possible—Jesus Christ can set you free! Unleashing the blazing light and beauty of the triune God in all His glorious attributes, Dr. Jared Moore exposes the darkness and ugliness of lust. With a helpful (and delightfully creative) method, he points the struggling soul to Scripture, poetry, and song—for when our souls are filled with the Spirit, with the Word of God, and with exuberant praise, the lasting pleasures of godliness become sweet and the shallow allurements of lust quickly lose their luster. If you are struggling with lust, this month of devotions—soaked in prayer and applied diligently to the heart—will provide an armory of spiritual weapons for the battle.

—Dr. Joel R. Beeke, chancellor of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and pastor of Heritage Reformed Congregation, Grand Rapids, Michigan

A joyful journey from sin to obedience for men and women seeking to mortify the sin of lust. Indeed, most of the principles Dr. Moore teaches are helpful for mortifying any sin. I appreciate the thoughtful and organized way the book is structured, and its multi-sensory approach designed to help the reader internalize each precept. This book is a must have for biblical counseling and discipleship.

—Michelle Lesley, women’s discipleship blogger/speaker. Co-host of A Word Fitly Spoken Podcast.

And she wrote,

I responded with the following tweet, because I thought that what she argues here sounds similar to what A.J. Swoboda and Nijay Gupta argued at Christianity Today in their 2021 article, “Jesus Was the God-Man, Not the God-Superman.” They say that Jesus doubted God at various points of His ministry and life.

And we went back and forth a bit more,

Childers argues that faith, when it is not 100%, is not sin, because it’s doubt not unbelief. But listen to Paul, “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23), and listen to the author of Hebrews, “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6), and the entire chapter of Hebrews 11. The doubt that she describes does not come from faith but is in opposition to it. It is indeed sin to not believe God at His word 100%. This is why, to be saved, we must have humility like a child, believing whatever the prophets, apostles, and Jesus said (Matt 18:1-4; Luke 18:15-17).

Now, it is good to seek understanding, to say to God, “I believe, help me to understand,” and then to read His word carefully, to gain understanding. But that’s not doubt (even though Childers calls it doubt in her tweet); that’s growth and maturity. We shouldn’t need anyone to dig up the Middle East for us to believe God’s word. Rather, we should take God at His word, for He has spoken through the prophets, apostles (and their close associates), and Christ.

Then, Childers responded by linking to a 2018 article she wrote, “4 Lessons we can Learn From Doubters in the Bible,” to explain what she believes about doubt not being sin. She begins her article with this quote from Tim Keller,

A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.[i]

Keller is mistaken because doubts are not like antibodies that strengthen your relationship with God; rather, doubts are like cancer cells that harm your relationship with God, and will spread and kill your faith, if you don’t repent and believe.

Jesus had no doubts. Our loved ones in heaven have no doubts. And we will have no doubts in the New Heavens and New Earth. The only people who have doubts in eternity are those burning in hell. Doubt is not a prerequisite for growth or maturity in Christ, faith is.

Doubt cannot be sanctified.

For, to doubt God or His word, you must believe someone or something else more than Him, whether your own mind, someone else’s mind, a skeptic’s argument, etc. That’s why, the moment Eve began believing the serpent, she disbelieved what God had said, and the result in her heart was that she saw the tree the way the serpent told her to, not God: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:6). Doubt is literally what caused the fall of mankind into sin: belief in the serpent which was doubt or unbelief toward God.

In the rest of Childers’ article, she lists four doubters from Scripture as positive examples: Habakkuk, the father of the demon-possessed child, the apostle Thomas, and John the Baptist.

First, most of the time when the prophets question God, and every time Christ did, they question not because of doubts but because of God’s revealed will in His word. They appeal to who God is or what He has promised, as to why they’re questioning. They’re not correcting God or doubting Him. Rather, they’re like the martyrs the apostle John saw in Revelation 6:9-11,

⁹ When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. ¹⁰ They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” ¹¹ Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

The martyrs sound similar to what Habakkuk said in the beginning of his book, “O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you “Violence!” and you will not save” (Hab 1:2), a quote that Childers says is doubt. Longing for God’s justice is not doubt. And questioning God based on His revealed will is not doubt either. It’s faith seeking understanding, not doubt seeking understanding.

That’s also why Christ cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” (Matt 27:46)? God only forsakes the wicked (Ezek 39:23-24; Micah 3:4), not the righteous; and Christ is perfectly righteous. Therefore, He rightfully cried out to fulfill Psalm 22:1, questioning God forsaking Him. Christ was not doubting but rather trusting in God’s word. After all, a few moments later, Christ cried out, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46). He never doubted God for even a moment. We too can question God, so long as it’s according to His revealed will, His word, but we cannot doubt God or His word, for that is always sin.

Second, the times when the prophets or Scripture writers doubt, they are sharply rebuked explicitly, like Job was by God in Job 38-42. God’s rebuke can be summarized by Job 38:36: “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts, or given understanding to the mind?” This is a rhetorical question where the only answer is “God.” After all, who was Job, the creature, to correct the Creator? Job responded by repenting:

Then Job answered the Lord and said: ² I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ³ ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ⁴ ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ ⁵ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; ⁶ therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes (Job 42:1-6).

Job, the most righteous man on earth at the time, sinfully questioned and argued with God and sought to correct Him. God sharply rebuked him, and he responded by repenting. Hence, Job’s questioning of God was neither neutral nor good, but was sin that required his repentance.

Moreover, if those in Scripture who doubt are not explicitly rebuked, the history is told in such a way that the reader is supposed to see the doubter as being rebuked for his doubt, like with doubting Thomas. Childers writes about Thomas,

When the time came for his face to face meeting with Jesus, Jesus didn’t scold him for doubting, or shame him into some kind of blind faith. Instead, He offered evidence to back up what Thomas had been told. Only after offering His hands and side to Thomas as evidence of His resurrection did He say, “Stop doubting and believe!”

Thomas’ doubt was rational and cerebral. Jesus answered his intellectual doubt with evidence.

She is mistaken because Christ said to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). And Christ explicitly rebuked the eleven apostles in Mark 16:14, including Thomas, “Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.” The emphasis of the text is that we should not be like Thomas, but rather, we should believe the testimonies of Christ and the apostles, without having to see Jesus’s wounds face-to-face.

Third, Childers presents the father of the demon-possessed child in Mark 9:24 as a positive example, when he says, “I do believe; help my unbelief.” But the reason why he said this is because Jesus, when talking to him, said to the crowd, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you (Mark 9:19)?” Jesus explicitly rebuked him for his unbelief in the passage. Also, the Greek word used here translated “unbelief,” is apistia, and it’s rebuked in every other use or context around it in the New Testament: Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:6, 13:58, 16:14; Romans 3:3, 4:20, 11:20, 23; 1 Timothy 1:13; Hebrews 3:12, 19. Here are a few examples where it’s rebuked explicitly in same verse it’s used,

Mark 16:14 – ¹⁴ Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.”

Romans 11:20, 23 – ²⁰ That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. ²³ And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

1 Timothy 1:13 – ¹³ though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

Hebrews 3:12 – ¹² Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Hebrews 3:19 – ¹⁹ So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief [emphasis mine].

Fourth, with John the Baptist, he indeed doubted while in prison, but Jesus responded to him, telling him of His miracles. The narrative is not crafted so that we will follow John the Baptist in his moments of unbelief, but so that we will follow Jesus because He is the Christ. Jesus, by telling John the Baptist’s disciples that He was working miracles and that, “blessed is the one who is not offended by me,” (Matt 11:2-6) showed that He is indeed the Christ, and John the Baptist and his disciples should not be offended by Him; but instead, should persevere in believing that He is the Christ.

That’s what we’re supposed to understand from John’s doubting. We’re not supposed to look at John the Baptist’s doubts as something we should imitate, any more than any other person’s sin in the New Testament. We should not have doubts about who Jesus is. After all, we have even more evidence than John the Baptist had, because we have Jesus’ entire ministry in the Gospels, and His progressive revelation through the apostles (and their close associates), in the rest of the New Testament.

Finally, in Childers’ last tweet to me, she said “the English word doubt is broader than the biblical words,” which is mistaken on her part. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines doubt as,

Noun,

1 a: a lack of confidence :

has doubts about his abilities

b: an inclination not to believe or accept

a claim met with doubt

2 a: uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making

b: a deliberate suspension of judgment

3: a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation, or suspense

The outcome is still in doubt.

Verb

1: to call into question the truth of : to be uncertain or in doubt about

He doubts everyone’s word.

2 a: to lack confidence in : distrust

… find myself doubting him even when I know that he is honest …—H. L. Mencken

b: to consider unlikely

I doubt if I can go.

3 archaic

a: fear

… I doubt I have been beguiled!—Sir Walter Scott

b: suspect[ii]

intransitive verb

: to be uncertain

All of these definitions of the English word “doubt” refer to unbelief in some form. If Childers disagrees, I must ask, “Which definition of the English word ‘doubt’ toward God or His word do you believe is neutral or good according to Scripture?”

The bottom line is that doubt cannot be sanctified. It is unbelief both biblically and according to our English language. The answer to doubt is to take God at His word. To say, “I believe, help me to understand,” not to say, “I believe, help my unbelief.” For, anything that does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom 14:23), and doubt does not come from faith; therefore, to doubt God, Christ, His Holy Spirit, or His word, is always sin.

We believe and seek understanding. We do not doubt and seek understanding.

[i] Keller, Timothy (2008-02-14). The Reason for God . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, location 192

[ii] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doubt.

This week was awful. We’ve seen that great evil is among us.

Thursday was September 11, the anniversary of when Muslims flew passenger planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in 2001. I’ll never forget that day. I remember I was home, and my mother called me from work to tell me that a plane had flown into one of the Twin Towers. I turned on the TV, thinking it was a horrible accident. But then, I watched as another plane flew into the other Twin Tower. The towers exploded and crashed to the ground.

Almost 3,000 Americans lost their lives that day.[1] And nearly 7,000 more have died from various cancers and lung illnesses due to their heroic response in helping the victims and with cleanup.[2]

Osama Bin Ladin orchestrated the terrorist event all because America to him was the great Satan due to the Christian influence here.[3] We are the infidels who deserve to die according to the Quran.[4]

When I was in the PhD program at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary six years ago, there was a pastor from Jordan in the program too. It was his homeland, born and raised. He told me that the King of Jordan was keeping ISIS out currently, but that there was about 20% of ISIS-friendly Muslims already in Jordan; and that the moderate Muslims, about 40%, would help ISIS if they breached the walls, fences, and patrols, and tried to take over Jordan.

You must understand Christian that the so-called liberal or moderate Muslims in America, if Muslim law (Sharia) is ever on the voting docket in America, or if ISIS-friendly Islam gains a foothold in America, the moderate Muslims that pastors like J.D. Greear defend,[5] will agree with them. Sharia will be the law of the land, and no moderate Muslim will stand in its way. Only Christians will.

September 10, 2025

On Wednesday, September 10, Charlie Kirk was speaking in Orem, Utah at Utah Valley University to over 3,000 College students. A 22 year-old College student that had been living with his tranny boyfriend,[6] used a High-Powered bolt-action rifle, a Mauser Model 98 Rifle, .30-06., a .30 aught six, a gun that is legal in all 50 states, and legal in the UK,[7] to shoot and kill Charlie Kirk from 150 yards away.

If Charlie Kirk can be assassinated in Orem, Utah, then Jared Moore can be assassinated in Crossville, TN. Charlie was 31 years of age, and a husband and a father of two young children. He traveled across college campuses debating and sharing the Gospel. He co-founded Turning Point when was 18 years old. As he matured, got married, and had children, he grew more and more biblical. If you go and look up videos from him from the past several years on College campuses, you’ll hear him share the Gospel of Jesus Christ over and over again. You’ll hear him defending the death and resurrection of Christ and encouraging people to repent and believe in Him. Millions of people heard the Gospel because of him. And there are numerous testimonies online of people who came to Christ due to his influence, and even more since his murder.

The reason why I say that this is such a great evil is because Charlie was just like many of us here. Most of the things that he said, I say every week from the pulpit. And I’m shocked by how many people hated him. There’s a website that was launched a few days ago that has over 30,000 public posts on Social Media from people who publicly celebrated his murder.[8] It’s shocking to think that there are that many people out there in America who hate the morals and ethics of Christianity, so much so, that if they could get away with it, they would murder us.

I don’t say these things to scare you. I’m just telling you the reality of the time we live in. But, church, listen, Christ lived in an even worse time; and most Christians in history lived in a worse time than we do now. Remember what Jesus preached in Matthew 16:24-26,

“²⁴ Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶ For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?”

Jesus told us that He would give us a cross. Rome crucified criminals on crosses. Jesus was the most loving Man who ever lived! And the Jews and Gentiles murdered Him for it. The apostles were some of the most loving men who ever lived, and most of them were murdered for it as well.

How Must Christians Respond?

So, what are we going to do about Charlie Kirk’s murder? How should we respond? What we must do is realize that we can bleed better than anyone else, so we can be bold for Christ. Because of the wonderful grace of God in Christ, we take our last breath here and our next breath will be with Jesus. We shouldn’t cower because of fearing man. Fearing God means that we don’t have to fear anyone else. We are free to lovingly share the Gospel and Christ’s morals across the world because Jesus is Lord. This world needs Jesus, and we must take Him to them.

An example from history of how Christians can bleed better than unbelievers is found in the story of the Salvation Army and the shipwreck of the RMS Empress of Ireland.

General William Booth founded what would later be known as “The Salvation Army” in 1865. Its purpose from beginning to end was the salvation of men’s souls. Over his lifetime, he established Army work in 58 countries, holding “salvation meetings” often. He published a book in 1890 titled, In Darkest England and the Way Out, where he made a case for helping the weak by abolishing vice and poverty through building houses, providing food and shelter, and in training people with the necessary skills needed to get jobs.

But make no mistake, Booth’s primary concern was still with the souls of men, women, and children. He wrote in the “Preface,”

“I have no intention to depart in the smallest degree from the main principles on which I have acted in the past. My only hope for the permanent deliverance of mankind from misery, either in this world or the next, is the regeneration or remaking of the individual by the power of the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ. But in providing for the relief of temporal misery I reckon that I am only making it easy where it is now difficult, and possible where it is now all but impossible, for men and women to find their way to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[9]

In 1914 many salvation army officers were on a large ship, The RMS Empress of Ireland, and it wrecked. It’s become known as the Titanic of Canada. On May 29, 1914, roughly 2 years after the Titanic crashed, the Empress crashed with another ship in icy cold waters. They too didn’t have enough life preservers for those on board: 1,012 people died as a result, 465 survived. There were 130 Salvation Army officers on that boat on their way to a conference: 109 of them drowned. Survivors have said that the reason why most of them drowned is because they were taking their life preservers and putting them on other people, as they said, “I can die better than you can.”[10]

Another example comes from John G. Paton, a Christian Missionary to the New Hebrides Islands in the 1800s.

When Paton determined that he was to go to the unreached tribes of the South Sea Islands in 1856, a fellow Christian objected, "You will be eaten by cannibals!" To this Paton responded:

“Your own prospect is soon to be laid in the grave, there to be eaten by worms; I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving and honoring the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by cannibals or by worms; and in the Great Day my resurrection body will arise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer.”[11]

One out of every one Christian will die. Christian, we can bleed better than any unbeliever because we are ready to be with Jesus. Our sins have been forgiven and we’ve received the righteousness of Christ by His Holy Spirit through faith, and now we are reconciled to God. We can live our lives boldly for Christ regardless of whether people hate us or love us. We can share the Gospel and the morality of Jesus boldly because we love Jesus and we love sinners, because He loves sinners! The cross of Jesus proves His love for sinners!

Christian, if you are silent about Jesus and His ethics, you may live longer, but you won’t live better. And then one day, you’ll die in your silence and you’ll be where all the martyrs are, but you’ll lose reward because you feared men more than God. Yet God is so gracious and loving that even the silent Christians spend eternity with Jesus.

So this morning, I want to challenge you to be like Jesus, to love God so boldly, to love God’s word so much that you’re willing to fear God above mankind, and you’ll take the Gospel into a hostile world, even if that means you must give your life for Jesus and His morals.

He’s worth it church! Jesus is of supreme worth! Hold tightly to Him who lives and hold loosely to this world that is perishing!

[1] “9/11 Investigation,” Accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/911-investigation.

[2] Michelle Whitmer, “Asbestos Exposure and 9/11,” April 8, 2025, https://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/.

[3] “In Their Own Words: What the Terrorists Believe, What They Hope to Accomplish, and How They Intend to Accomplish It,” Accessed September 15, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html.

[4] Quran 9:5 (Surah At-Tawbah) says, “But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Quran 9:29 (Surah At-Tawbah) says, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture,¹ until they pay the tax,² willingly submitting, fully humbled.”

[5] See Dr Jared Moore, “JD Greear Says Christians Should Learn From Muslims Because We Are Selfish People,” YouTube video, February 7, 2025,

. Also see Dr Jared Moore, “JD Greear Says Christians Should ‘Cherish’ And ‘Fight For’ Muslims, Their Rights,” YouTube video, February 7, 2025,

.

[6] Brooke Singman, “Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin lived with transgender partner who is now cooperating with FBI: officials,” September 13, 2025, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources.

[7] The 30 aught 6 is legal in the US in all 50 states: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/. It’s also legal in the UK: https://www.countydeerstalking.co.uk/rifle-calibres.

[8] See Charlie’s Murderers, Accessed September 14, 2025,

https://charliesmurderers.com/.

[9] General Wm Booth, In Darkest England and the Way Out (Chicago: Charles H Sergel & Co, 1890), 7.

[10] Evangeline Booth and Grace Livingston Hill, The War Romance of the Salvation Army (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1919), 23.

[11] John G. Patton, Missionary to the New Hebrides: An Autobiography, ed. James Paton (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891), 55-56.

God eternal, no start, no end,

No parts, no needs, we all on Him depend.

Past, now and forever, He simply is,

In Him, eternal bliss, my salvation begins.

But lust began in the serpent’s heart,

And bids me, from God to depart.

Promising me bliss with a deathly kiss,

Its pleasures…

Read more

God is eternal, has no beginning, no end, no parts, no needs, and He exists in and of Himself from eternity past, now, and forever; while lust began in the serpent’s heart, will end in the Lake of Fire, and only offers fleeting pleasure that quickly fades.

2. How does God’…

Read more

Scripture and Reflection

Ephesians 5:3-6 –

³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. ⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. ⁶ Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Impurity or covetousness refers to a state of any form of lust or sexual immorality. It shouldn’t even be named among Christians. This includes homosexuality or same-sex attraction, for these are the root of lust, produced by the flesh not the Spirit.

Paul says the remedy for lust is thanksgiving. Why? Because jealousy and discontentment are inherent in lust. To lust, you must not be thankful for God. You’re jealous of Him, thinking you know better and have better use for creation than He designed. You’re also discontent with what God has given you in this life. If you’re married, you’re not thankful for your spouse, so you lust. If you’re single, you’re not thankful for the singleness God has given you, so you lust.

The remedy is to be satisfied with God and His providence. If you’re thankful, you won’t lust. If you lack thankfulness, you must cultivate it through,

1) Worshipping God with other Christians in a local church.

2) Hearing, reading, believing, singing, and meditating on His word.

3) Praying to Him in faith.

His beauty is of infinite worth, and He created us; therefore, we should be satisfied with Him. Our gratitude for Him should never cease or decrease, and we should know that reflecting His image is the greatest good we could possibly pursue.

Colossians 3:1-10 –

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. ² Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. ³ For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. ⁴ When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

⁵ Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. ⁶ On account of these the wrath of God is coming. ⁷ In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. ⁸ But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. ⁹ Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices ¹⁰ and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Romans 8:12-13 – ¹² So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. ¹³ For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Romans 12:1-2 –

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ² Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Having been raised with Christ, we must long to be in Heaven with Him. We must set our minds on Him and the eternal life He has provided for us. We have died with Christ and have been raised to life in Him, that where He is, we may be also. When He returns, we will also be with Him in glory. This glorious truth should shape our affections in such a way that lust becomes unthinkable to us, something that is beneath us. It’s part of the old man, not the new one who has been born again in Christ.

Because we’re united to Christ in His death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation, we must put to death what is fleshly in us, what is earthly not heavenly: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, covetousness, which is idolatry. God’s wrath is coming upon people and the world because of these sins. We will escape because of our union with Christ, but we should live according to who we are in Him not who we were. We used to live for lust before we were united to Christ; now, we must live for Christ from our hearts, because He is our life, and we have left sin and death behind, have put on Christ, and are being conformed to His image.

We owe our lives to God not our lusts. Christ has freed us from the power of sin, and His Spirit empowers us to live for Him. We must sacrifice our fleshly desires, and instead, be transformed by the renewing of our minds through reading, receiving, and believing His word.

Application

When you lust, you show that your heart is not content with God or His good provisions. You’re jealous of Him, so you’re willing to twist His good creation, your own body and others, to fulfill your evil desires. But lust cannot satisfy you because you are God’s image-bearer and He is conforming you to the image of His Son Jesus Christ. Yet, lust wants to conform you to mirror an unbeliever who is dead in sin, who you used to be, but are no longer.

When you lust, you show that you’re focused on this temporary life not eternal life. You can’t aim at Jesus in Heaven at God’s right hand, and lust. God’s wrath will come upon the world for sins like impurity and covetousness, but as those born again in Christ, we’re too good for lust. You know and have experienced too much good, truth, and beauty in Christ, to lust, and you have even more waiting on you in eternity.

Today, will you be content with God’s design, His provisions for you, and how He’s governing all creation? Will you fix your eyes on Christ and Heaven in eternity, where you will be soon? Will you remind yourself that only God can satisfy you, and lust cannot? Will you pray often and hear, read, receive, and believe God’s word? By the Spirit, you can put lust to death today, but will you?

Marching Orders: Thinking God’s Thoughts After Him

Receive, believe, and live the truths you’ve read. Memorize and meditate on these truths today:

One Sentence to Shape Your Affections:

Since I am created in God’s image and I’m being conformed to Christ’s likeness, only God can satisfy me, not lust or any other sin.

One Poem to Shape Your Affections:

Lust whispers lies, a fleeting thrill to chase,

It sows discontentment with God’s good will and grace.

It twists His gifts, it clouds my heart and mind,

It short sights my eyes to lose vision of heaven’s kind.

Yet I, raised with Christ, am born anew,

Born again, I am God’s child, one of the few.

My heart, once dead, now seeks His holy face,

To live with Him in everlasting grace.

From fleshly desires I turn and depart,

Thanksgiving heals the jealous Christian heart.

In worship, prayer, and the word I find,

A transformed life, a pure and renewed mind.

Christ has won, and I’m in Him,

While God’s wrath comes for the world’s sin.

No debt to lust, but to Jesus alone I owe,

A life of love, a rushing river to overflow.

So, fix your eyes on Christ enthroned above,

His beauty, His truth, His everlasting love.

Content in Him, my lust will fade and dim,

As I live for Heaven, forever united to Him.

One Song to Shape Your Affections:

Add this song to your playlist, “Gladly Would I Leave Behind Me.”

On YouTube,

By Sovereign Grace Music (Written by Ann Griffiths, Doug Plank)

1. Gladly would I leave behind me
All the pleasure I have known
To pursue surpassing treasures
At the throne of God the Son
Worthy of unending worship
Love and loveliness is He
By His precious death were millions
From the jaws of death set free

[Due to copyright laws, I cannot include the rest of the lyrics here, but they are included in the above video.]

End with Prayer