Our society’s understanding of what it means to be a person is changing at the fundamental level. In recent decades, the question of what makes a person a person has been raised. Who decides what constitutes personhood? And on what basis?

Take, for example, the invention and budding development of what is called “strong A.I.”—defined as artificial intelligence equal to and surpassing that of humans, which is able to think on its own, solve problems, learn, and make plans based on calculated projections into the future. It is in development now but is projected by futurists to replace more than half of the world’s labor force by 2060. Astonishing prototypes already exist. IBM’s website says, “Strong AI aims to create intelligent machines that are indistinguishable from the human mind. But just like a child, the AI machine would have to learn through input and experiences, constantly progressing and advancing its abilities over time.”[1] Should such robots have rights? What about if they serve to replace humans in the police force? Should criminals be charged with resisting an officer when they resist a super-intelligent robot that’s “smarter” than a human officer? The novel invention of such autonomous robotic entities is just one thing that is sparking the question of what constitutes personhood and the concept of “self.”

But there is another issue that has long been raising the question. It began on the fringes of society and it has now gone mainstream: LGBTQ+ ideology. Self is conceived of in terms of a sexualized psychology. One’s true self can be conceived of as a man trapped in a woman’s body, or a woman trapped in a man’s body, or an omnisexual and inclusive self confined within an exclusive single-binary gender ontology. Previous generations would have thought that those making such claims were psychological unstable, but this generation increasingly views such claims as psychologically sane, even healthy. In fact, it is claimed that anyone—including Christians—who reject such claims are the ones who are psychologically unstable.

The cultural shifts we are witnessing today relative to the redefinition of personhood are a novel development. While homosexuality was rampant even in ancient civilizations, it was thought of more as an act than as an existential identity marker. Carl Trueman, himself a church historian with expertise in ancient classics and the Reformation era, observes, “While sex may be presented today as little more than a recreational activity, sexuality is presented as that which lies at the very heart of what it means to be an authentic person. That is a profound claim that is arguably unprecedented in history.”[2] When a historian of this stature makes a claim that what we are witnessing is “unprecedented in history” (at least arguably) we had better take notice! Unprecedented challenges are taking the church by surprise, and they call for meaningful apologetic response.

Trueman makes the argument that this shift has happened along several lines. First, the understanding of self (i.e., one’s understanding of their personal identity) is no longer defined in terms of inviolable natural laws and ontological categories embedded in a created order designed and determined by an infinitely wise and skillful Creator. Instead, self has become primarily internalized and psychologized. It is viewed as subjective rather than objective, defined by thoughts and feelings rather than gender birth and bodily organs. Second, self thus understood (as primarily subjectivized and psychologized) has become sexualized. Sexuality has so integrated with selfhood that sexual desires became definitive for personal identity. Third, it is believed that true fulfillment and human flourishing can only be realized by releasing the inner self from the oppressive strictures of traditional moral values. Liberating the inner self by “coming out of the closet” is seen as a commendable act of “honesty,” of “being true to yourself.” It is to experience true freedom, true fulfillment, and it represents the only path to unrestricted self-realization and fulfillment. On the other hand, opposing such “expressive individualism” is seen as a heinous act of oppression and discrimination.[3]

Finally, the politization of sexual identity with its reconstruction of what constitutes selfhood is seen as necessary to enable human flourishing in society. Thus, according to LGBTQ activists, any dissident voice must be silenced, because to disagree with perverse sexual acts is is viewed as hate and bigotry against any persons engaging in those acts. To disagree is to oppress and to hold society back from advancing into the next stage of human evolution, allegedly.[4]

Thus, as Christians who stand on the authority of Scripture, the media is depicting us as enemies of society. And as legislation is passed that institutionalizes LGBTQ ideology, Christians are increasingly reckoned enemies of the state. Birth pangs of persecution in the West have already been coming in waves, but a cataclysmic tsunami is approaching. Not only do we need to brace ourselves for persecution, but we also need to speak boldly and faithfully in spite of it. The church is called to be a prophetic voice to culture; to confront fallen, human, ungodly culture with the transcendent truth of God’s Word.

Fundamental ontological categories of self and personhood have been deconstructed and reconstructed on the basis of rebellious human autonomy. It is urgent that the church take the sledgehammer of truth to the foundations of these lies. We must insist on laying a foundation that is biblical and theological, and we must again raise up the edifice of a worldview based on truth. And truth is not subjective. Truth must correspond to the reality and nature of things as created and designed by God; truth must derive from a sound understanding of natural and special revelation; and truth must cohere in and point to Jesus Christ.

We need to be equipped to provide answers these challenges. So, I want to address the ‘identity crisis’ that is happening. I want to help us to think through these issues biblically and theologically and not emotionally and psychologically. Let’s look at what Scripture says about human identity and contrast that with what the ideology of sexualized selfhood says about it.

Biblical and Theological Foundations for Identity

There are three major biblical reference points which define human identity. Selfhood must be understood in relationship to these three reference points. Any alteration of them or aberration from them is a deviation from reality as defined by God Almighty. What are they? First, human identity is defined in relationship to God. Second, it is defined in relationship to Adam. Third, it is defined in relationship to Christ. God, Adam, and Christ are the three conceptual touchstones of truth—revealed by and sufficiently summarized in Scripture—by which we must try all assertions about human identity. All three of these are missing in the modern worldview, which makes it all the more imperative to understand them aright.

Identity in Relationship to God

God as Creator

The modern conception of self is based on Darwinistic naturalism. Following Charles Darwin (1809–1882), this philosophical theory teaches that the world evolved spontaneously through natural processes.[5] There is no Creator or divine mind behind those natural processes. Everything came together to cohere and form the world as we know it without any fundamental intentionality or meaning behind it. This sets the stage for redefining personhood in terms of subjective opinion, because in naturalism, personhood and meaning is not embedded in the reality of things by an absolute external authority that cannot be overridden.

This stands in stark contrast to the biblical worldview. Genesis 1:1 lays the foundation for reality when it declares, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”[6] And everything God created, He did so out of nothing (ex nihilo) by His Word and His Wisdom.

Creation by His Word establishes God’s absolute lordship and authority over everything He made. Creation by His Wisdom infuses fundamental meaning into all things that exist. God’s “pre-interpretation” of reality, therefore, is authoritative and transcendent above all human opinion; at the same time, God’s “pre-interpretation” corresponds precisely to the very nature of created things since He made those things to serve the purposes He intended, and He did so in His infinite wisdom (thus He is competent to secure the goal intended) and might (thus He is able to secure the goal intended).

John Frame is helpful on this point:

“God’s word also interprets his creation. After he creates the light, we read that “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (Gen. 1:5)…. Calling or naming in the ancient Near East was not merely labeling. These names were not arbitrary designators, or chosen merely for aesthetic reasons as we often choose names for our children. These names said something about the thing that was named. In giving names to his creatures, and later in asking Adam to name the animals (2:19–20), God established a linguistic system in which the true nature of everything could be expressed. As he has by his plan preinterpreted all things, so in creation he applies that interpretation to the world and makes that interpretation authoritative for all creatures. That interpretation includes evaluation.”[7]

So categories, labels, titles, and names should correspond to reality. When they attempt to redefine reality, they go astray into foolishness and error. A man has no more right to declare himself a woman at his core than he does to call light darkness or darkness light. “We must resist the attempt to make our feelings into our identity, and instead learn our identity from our Creator.”[8]

God as Lawgiver

LGBTQ ideology defines what is good or virtuous on the basis of feelings and desires and personal gratification. Since same-sex attraction ‘feels’ right, it is taken to be right. Psychologically, this has its roots in Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). He taught that the sexual impulse lies at the core of what it means to be a human being. Goodness was divorced from its moorings in God’s holy nature and redefined in terms of what brings personal satisfaction and fulfillment. Absolute moral law from the Creator was supplanted by autonomous human impulse.

Carl Jung (1875–1961), another father of modern psychology, followed suit. He also developed a psychological philosophy that made morals subordinate to the supreme desires of sexual impulse. Peter Jones says, “[Jung] provided both a spiritual and therapeutic mechanism for the individual’s subconscious to be liberated from the ethical demands of holy living and the pain of guilt. With external moral and spiritual demands relativized and thus eliminated, the sense and even the very notion of sin could be dismissed as an irrational emotional disorder.”[9] Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality has a psychological disorder?!

Scripture teaches that morality is based on absolute values. It is defined by the moral law, summarized in God’s Ten Commandments. Moral absolutes are immutable.

The only lawful expressions of sexuality are those realized within the boundaries of the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14). This negative prohibition also implies a positive precept: sexual relations are to take place within marriage as instituted and intended by God, and in that context, they are virtuous and good. As Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

Christians are often accused of being arbitrary by insisting that Leviticus 18:22 condemns homosexuality when it says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Prominent professing Christian homosexuals argue that this verse cannot be used to say homosexuality is wrong because it is a part of Mosaic code that has passed away with the new covenant. They claim this is no more applicable today than the ceremonial prohibitions of kosher laws. But we are we really being arbitrary by insisting on the ongoing moral authority of Leviticus 18:22?

Not if we hold to a confessional and Reformed theology of the law. While theological antinomianism abounds today which jettisons the moral law, Scripture teaches that the moral law is unchanging and absolute. The distinction between the three parts of the law is important in this regard. Since the law can be divided into moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects, we have every right to insist that the moral laws, like the one enshrined in the seventh commandment and particularly applied in Leviticus 18:22, still apply. That is not arbitrary—it is sound biblical theology, confessed throughout the centuries by historic Reformed and catholic orthodoxy, summarized in the great symbols like the Westminster and Second London Baptist confessions of faith.[10] Those who deny the contemporary applicability of Leviticus 18:22 are being selective and arbitrary when they reject it, because there is no exegetical or theological basis for their rejection. One cannot help but to conclude they are disregarding it simply because they do not like what it says.

Identity in Relationship to Adam

Man as Image Bearer

The new conception of self redefines personhood on the basis of what is called, “sexual orientation.” The American Psychological Association (APA) defines sexual orientation like this:

“Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.”[11]

But sexual orientation is, as Rosaria Butterfield puts it, “an artificial category built on a faulty premise.”[12] Notice that the definition appeals to the person’s subjective “sense of identity” and not to any ontological or biological realities to support the idea of sexual orientation. There is no such thing as “the gay gene.”[13] In fact, the APA admits there is no demonstrable scientific basis for their concept of sexual orientation:

“Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”[14]

Merely asserting that sexual orientation is a valid category does not make it one. Not even the state has authority to redefine reality.

Our biblical response to these claims must be rooted in God’s creation of man imago Dei, in His own image. At least three foundational truths need to be emphasized:

First, personhood is defined in terms of possessing the divine image. Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in his own image.” It is inherent to the nature of a human being, not a psychologically concocted category arbitrarily applied. The investiture with the divine image is what distinguishes man as a spiritual and rational creature with distinctive dignity that transcends the animal world and sets him apart as unique (Gen. 1:26, 28). The dignity of a human being is because of his or her image bearing. That is why when the Lord institutes capital punishment for murder in Genesis 9:6, He appeals to the image of God in which man was made as the basis for attributing to human life such high honor and dignity above the animals, who could be lawfully slain and eaten (Gen. 9:3). Divine image bearing means that every human being should be treated with honor and respect (James 3:9; 1 Pet. 2:17). We are so much more than brute beasts! We were made to commune with the living God, to shine with glory like the sun in His kingdom, to inherit the earth, to rule over the creatures, and to judge angels!

Second, as image bearers, God made man male and female as two distinct yet complementary genders. To quote Genesis 1:27 at greater length: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Albert Mohler said, “The binary system of gender is grounded in a biological reality and is not socially constructed.”[15] Each gender is unique and possesses unique attributes that invest it with distinctive excellencies not shared by the opposite gender. Thus, Paul can appeal to the peculiar honor of each sex when he speaks of “the glory of man” and the “glory” of woman (1 Cor. 11:7, 15). While each is equal in dignity as equal in their possession of the divine image, God has given each sex distinctive roles that correspond to their inherent and unique strengths and reflect His glorious wisdom (1 Cor. 11:11–12).

The psychological category of sexual orientation attempts to degrade mankind’s dignity by denying these truths. Butterfield explains,

“The concept of sexual orientation was first used by Freud, and its effect, if not intent, was to radically resituate sexuality from its biblical/creational context to something completely new: the foundational drive that determines and defines human identity. Nothing short of personhood was at stake. By defining humanity according to sexual desires and segregating it according to its gendered object, Freud was—intentionally or not—suppressing the biblical category of being made in God’s image, male and female, and replacing it with the psychoanalytic category of sexual identity. In both intent and language usage, Freud took aim at the Bible’s authority to diagnose gender and sexuality dysfunctions and prescribe solutions for them… The category of sexual orientation carries with it a cosmology of personhood that undervalues image bearers of a holy God.”[16]

Third, as image bearers, we are inherently moral creatures. Moral absolutes invested into human nature are as much a part of that nature as thoughts, feelings, acts, or sexual drive. In fact, man’s sense of morality registers within himself a knowledge of an ultimate norm to which all his thoughts, feelings, acts, and sexual drive must submit. Moral accountability and moral responsibility entail from man’s being created by the moral Lawgiver as a moral, image-bearing creature.

The apostle Paul gets at this when he says that the Gentiles who had no access to special revelation “show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Rom. 2:15). Human conscience is part of the divine image in man. It means man is inherently moral, not amoral like the beasts. John Calvin says, “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.”[17] Natural law inheres in the created order and is a necessary and intrinsic part of the relationship that exists between the Creator and His image-bearing creature. Morality, therefore, cannot be reconstructed by creatures. The State sanctioning homosexual marriage does no more to make it morally virtuous than its sanctioning of abortion could make that morally virtuous. Both derive from the State’s failure to recognize the implications of the divine image in man.

Man as Originally Innocent and Subsequently Fallen Creature

A common objection to the Christian sexual ethic is to purport that it is contrary to the natural impulses many people have from their childhood. The APA claims, “the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence.”[18] Many advocates who have “come out of the closet” testify that they began to experience same-sex attractions—sometimes exclusive same-sex attraction—from as early as they can remember.

Christians have sometimes done harm to the Christian testimony by denying these claims. I have seen Christians call people who make these claims liars and argue with them to the contrary. Although I cannot relate to such claims, I have no reason to doubt them. I have met sincere Christians who have confessed these very things to me, who would have no incentive for lying. Their ongoing struggles seemed to confirm just how rooted their same-sex attraction was in their “undeniable feelings.” The sheer number of people who testifies to this is too great to be a complete fabrication. Sometimes, well-meaning believers have responded by asserting that there cannot be any natural impulse behind same-sex attraction, and that all homosexuality is purely an act of the will. I have even seen a few well-taught Reformed theologians say as much, but I think such an assertion can be tragic in its consequences, because it misdiagnoses the moral disease and inevitably orients people’s thinking toward false hopes or superficial remedies that do not get at the root of sin.

In the face of such claims, we have to respond—again—by laying the proper foundations. We must explain the difference between human nature as created upright and human nature as corrupted by the fall of Adam. When God created man, man’s nature and inherent desires were not at enmity against natural law. When those who experience same-sex attraction appeal to the unshakeable desires they have had since a young age, they sometimes conclude that God made them that way. They attribute their desires to innocent human nature. The problem is, although man was made upright, nature became corrupt through the historic fall of Adam in Genesis 3. Adam’s sin and guilt is imputed to his posterity and human nature is no longer upright nor innocent.

The Augustinian doctrine of original sin teaches that man as fallen possesses inherent moral depravity. It confesses with David, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). Moral corruption has seeped into aspect of man’s being, including his mind, desires, and sexual impulses. Just because desires feel natural does not mean they are innocent; they can and often do reflect fallen human nature, which Paul refers to as “the flesh.” Romans 8:7–8 reads, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” In Romans 7, the apostle teaches that even in the regenerate, the very desire to sin may assert itself within them contrary to the sanctified will; yet he clarifies that despite the lack of the acquiescence of the will or the manifestation of the desire into an external act, such a desire is nonetheless sinful itself (Rom. 7:13–23). That is what the older Reformed theologians called concupiscence, which they argued is itself sinful (contrary to the semi-Pelagian claims of Roman Catholicism).

Only by understanding the biblical teaching of human nature as created innocent but subsequently fallen and corrupted can we have the categories we need to make sense of homosexual desires. These categories serve several important purposes.

First, they caution us from accepting unlawful sexual desires as natural and good. Many have been deceived because they mistake their sexual desires for God’s will, and they do this by confounding the categories of human nature in its states of innocence and fallenness. We must maintain those categories distinct with all clarity, and this calls for taking the time to inform others about the rudiments of theology in this regard. Teach them from Scriptures like Psalm 51, Romans 3 and 5, and from Augustine’s insights distilled so finely in his debates with the monk Pelagius. The old Augustinian theology provides necessary insight for understanding the impulse to sin in whatever form that impulse may come. We cannot prescribe the proper medicine if we misdiagnose the disease.

Second, these categories teach us to approach those struggling with same-sex attraction with humility, compassion, and patience. Because of the fall, humanity is broken. And everyone shares a common humanity and identity in Adam with everyone else. Although we ourselves may not experience sexual desires toward members of the same sex, we do battle ungodly desires for other things that correspond to other areas of ethics (e.g., self-aggrandizement, selfishness, covetousness, prayerlessness, indifference, lukewarmness). We can sympathize with others because we are just as broken, just as weak, and just as naturally sinful as they are, if not more.

Third, these categories teach us to approach the issue with the gospel and with grace. The gospel of Jesus Christ is God’s gracious and sufficient remedy for all our fallenness and brokenness. Counseling alone will not suffice. Good teaching in itself cannot transform human nature. Good intentions and willpower cannot purge the desires of the flesh. Sin is more powerful than our natural will. We need supernatural regeneration and Spirit-enabled sanctification so we can effectively resist sin, or else the effort will end in frustration and futility. 

Identity in Relationship to Christ

Christ as Redeemer

Christ has come from the posterity of Adam and He stands as the Head of a new humanity. He fully identified with fallen human nature without being contaminated by sin. He did so to redeem men and women and recreate them in God’s moral image. “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3–4). This is the gospel which restores human identity to the glory for which it was created and intended.

We have discussed mankind as created innocent and then fallen, but there are two more categories that are vital to integrate into our conceptual framework. The first is humanity regenerated in union with Christ, but not yet perfected in holiness. This is the state of all people who have been saved by the grace of Christ but have not yet graduated to eternal glory. They have power by the Holy Spirit to overcome sin and temptation. Paul tells believers who have been born again, “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13). They are no longer, as Augustine put it, in a state of not being able not to sin, but have passed into a state of being able not to sin—as least as a general rule pertaining to volitional acts.

This means that believers are no longer enslaved to the sin nature. The Lord Jesus taught this clearly when He said, “whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:34–36). Believers have passed from slavery to sonship, from bondage to the liberty of the children of God; they have been set free from sin’s reigning yoke that they may walk in God’s commandments as a way of life.

This is good news to anyone struggling with such incessant same-sex desires that they think they can never overcome them. Despair may whisper to their mind’s ear: “You are child of sin, hopelessly depraved. No matter how much you try, you will never be able to refrain from acting out on homosexual impulses.” Those lies tempt them to become convinced that their fundamental identity in solidarity with Adam can never shift to become a new identity—newly empowered—in union with Christ. We must preach that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, and that the power unleashed by the gospel saves from sin’s guilt and pollution. No sin is more powerful than the omnipotent grace of the gospel.

Christ as the Author and Finisher of Salvation

The second category in Christ pertains to the state of humanity in perfected glory. Understanding this category helps us to place our hope in future grace so that we are not overly discouraged by disappointments in the present. I have seen this happen and it can be detrimental to those who battle with same-sex attraction.

The reality is that many Christians who previously experienced strong same-sex desires before their conversion continue to struggle with same-sex desires after their conversion. The battle can be lifelong. Despite their diligence in seeking the Lord, their appetite for the Word of truth, their love of God’s people and the church, they still feel distressed by the uprisings of these desires. They have realized that the warfare is never going to cease in this life. They will be plagued and disturbed and disconcerted by these impulses and impure thoughts until the Lord calls them home to glory.

I have seen sincere Christians become discouraged by this. They think, “What is the point of fighting if the battle never stops? It feels like a losing battle.” They can lose heart and want to give up. This ongoing battle can make them question their identity in Christ, even to seriously doubt it. But we must encourage them take heart. It is not a losing battle if they are fighting and resisting successfully often, on many occasions. That would be impossible without God’s help. We must caution them not to entertain false expectations based on an over-realized eschatology. Perfect peace, consummate holiness, and rest from temptation do not occur in this life. They should only be expected in the life to come. For now, the church is in tribulation.

The believer is a pilgrim trekking through the wilderness of this world, a wilderness fraught with dangers, toils, and snares. We are not called to fulfill all our desires; we are called to deny ourselves, to take up our cross daily, and to follow hard after Christ (Luke 9:23). Peter tells us, “abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11), because as long as we are in this flesh, those lusts will never stop warring against our renewed spiritual nature. We can bear the transitory pain of the present because of the promise of permanent peace in the future—in the very near future.

Christ is the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15). Any definition of personhood that seeks to aspire toward the ideal must look to Him as the archetype, for He alone represents ideal personhood. His person represents humanity perfected. Rather than aspiring to self-realize into expressing our own image, Scripture calls us to be transformed into Christ’s image. Consummate conformity to His image is the goal of salvation and sanctification. That is the end for which He redeems and renews fallen humanity. The power of the gospel in its transformative effects here and now, and the promise of the gospel in its eschatological expectation, provide the theological orientation that substantiates true hope for everyone who believes. As we deconstruct the false notions of personhood that is redefined in terms of sexual desires, let us point to a reconstituted and redeemed humanity in Christ.

In Christ, humanity is not defined by its sins or so-called “sexual orientation.” Those in Christ are no longer homosexuals, or idolaters, or blasphemers, or liars, or thieves, or adulterers, or murderers, or whatever sin-label one could apply. “Such were some of you,” Paul said to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:9–10). Such labels no longer constitute the believer’s core identity. That identity is defined by “Christ in [us], the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Those in Christ are called “Christians” (see Acts 11:26); their identity takes on Christlike characteristics and contours. It is in Him that human nature is exalted and dignified and made far more glorious than any modern expression of sexualized selfhood could ever lay a claim to.

And for the one who believes and perseveres in the faith until the end, Christ will give them “a white stone, and in the stone a new name written” (Rev. 2:17)—a new identity, fully cognizant of the old one, and with the memories of the old one intact, but fully redeemed and reoriented within a gracious context. And all the tears occasioned by the old one will be wiped away.




[1] IBM, https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/strong-ai (accessed May 6, 2021).

[2] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, 35.

[3] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, 45–46.

[4] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, 225–70.

[5] I call it a philosophical theory rather than a scientific theory because there is no scientific basis for it. Science by definition is driven by the empirical method and consists in observations made through repeatable and verifiable processes. Biological macro-evolution from one species to another, or from nonliving entities to living ones, has never been observed. Therefore, stating there is no scientific basis for evolution is not an opinion but a scientific fact. Furthermore, it is contrary to everything observable in science to posit that DNA as the basic building block of life could have spontaneously generated out of far-less complex entities like non-composite subatomic particles. To posit such is blatant speculation driven by preconceived beliefs, which makes the theory a philosophical rather than a scientific one.

[6] Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).

[7] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 188.

[8] Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, One Man and One Woman: Marriage and Same-sex Relations (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 25.

[9] Peter Jones, The Other Worldview: Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat (Bellingham, WA: Kirkdale Press, 2015), 39–40.

[10] For an unpacking of this at greater length, see Voddie Bauchum Jr., Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 105–23.

[11] American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation (accessed May 6, 2021).

[12] Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of An Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant Publications, 2015), 107.

[13] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 47–91.

[14] American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation (accessed May 6, 2021).

[15] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2015), 80.

[16] Butterfield, Openness Unhindered, 94–95.

[17] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1504.

[18] American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation (accessed May 6, 2021).