day no. 14,898: how do I know?

The following quote comes from THIS article.

"No one goes to hell for being a homosexual. How do I know? Because no one goes to heaven for being a heterosexual." - J.D. Greear

At first glace, this may appear to be rock solid, well-would-you-look-at-that, straight up the middle, logic. But run that play, only this time, let's change the jerseys.

"No one goes to hell for being a homophobic, racist, misogynist. How do I know? Because no one goes to heaven for being an affirming, color-blind, feminist." 

Or more generically...

"No one goes to hell for doing something. How do I know? Because no one goes to heaven for doing something else."

Or even more absurd...

"No one go to hell. How do I know? Because no one is going to heaven."

If homosexuality is not a sin because heterosexuality is not a virtue, then homophobia is not a sin because open-mindedness is not a virtue. But homophobia is most certainly counted as a sin in the sense that to be accused of being homophobic is accompanied by an admonition to repent. The priests of the Spirit of the Age stand at the ready to excommunicate all sinners of this brand.

The absurdity of this line of thought is obvious when applied to any other sin. The adjectives I chose to use earlier, "homophobic, racist and misogynistic" were not happenstance. There are few topics that tie evangellyfish into knots more than sexual orientation, racial reconciliation and gender segregation. And yes, I know the word, "segregation" has now been relegated to the naughty word list, but it's the right word. Men and women are the not the same thing and if you think that's a bad thing, then you've got one foot in the woke hole and one foot on a banana and things don't typically get less slippery once you begin to slide.

The effeminatti have somehow wormed their way so deeply into the logic of otherwise Bible-believing people, that homosexuality is now thought of as, "just another sin." In the James 2:10 sense tof that sentiment, of course, that is true. But all of us in this argument have Bibles and already understood that. The recent hooplahs have not been about stressing that point. It has been about stressing an entirely new and foreign point, tacked onto the previous like a pork-barrel politic, that homosexual desire is not, in itself, a sin.

Greear's logic here would be, "Homosexual desire is not a sin. How do I know? Heterosexual desire is not a virtue." 

But that is where he is wrong. Heterosexual desire can be virtuous, whereas homosexual desire cannot. There is a context in which heterosexual desire can be expressed in clean conscience before God and man. There is no context in which homosexual desire can be. That is because the desire itself requires repentance, not acceptance. And this cannot be assuaged by stating, "Hey, it's not like I'm going to act upon the desire!" 

Again, run that play with different jerseys.

"I am a racist, but it's not like I'm going to act upon it."
"I am a sexist, but it's not like I'm going to act upon it."
"I am a homophobe, but it's not like I'm going to act upon it."

In each and every one of these scenarios, we recognize the error in the orientation. It is not OK to remain a racist even if you don't act upon it. It is not OK to be a sexist, even if you don't do anything about it. These are not orientations or states of being that we tolerate others holding on to or identifying with without exception. We drive deep to the root on these and see the problem for what it is -- a heart level sin which needs to be confessed as sin and repented of as sin.

So apply that logic now to homosexuality. It is not OK to provide safe harbor to homosexual desires... even if you do not act upon them. The disposition needs to be confessed as sin, not coddled as OK.

And when we begin doing this, we will see real solid sin confessed and real solid forgiveness experienced.