On principle, let me say this before I say the other thing, below: we're fans of Todd Friel. He's pretty much in our neighborhood, our orbit on a lot of things. When he's good, he's clever and clear and winsome.
And then there are videos like this one:
Which, let's face it ... I mean: I like Potato Soup, and I like Ice Cream, but I would be very hesitant to try Potato Soup Ice Cream because maybe not everything that is good is good when you mix it together like that. And to be fair to Todd, my twitter feed has noted that this 2 minutes is actually out of context of a larger segment on the show, and maybe that causes it to lack nuance.
Imagine with me my son and I driving along someplace, and we're discussing our mutual inclination to sin. That is: he lives with me. He sees me every day and he knows that his Dad, while awesome, is still a sinner. And because I live with him, I know that he is also a sinner. He's just like his Dad after all. So my son tells me, "Dad, I know it's a sin, but sometimes I'm just so angry I could pop, and sometimes I do. What am I going to do?"
Now imagine that what I say to him about his anger is this:
You have to try to not be angry, but if you do get angry, you can go to the cross and seek forgiveness. Think about this, son: of course I don’t want you to run out into the snow and get frostbite, but if you do, I want you to go ahead and dial 9-1-1 for help. Because that’s the Gospel – angry people get forgiveness from Jesus. Jesus makes angry people happy in God’s eyes.That's simply not it -- that's simply not how Paul talks about the problem of sin, the solution in the Gospel, and the battle for sanctification. Now, if I had less time this week, I would simply point you to this post from me from a while ago (2012) and be done with it. But I want to approach this topic in the context Todd has laid out here (such as it is) as there are important differences from that previous situation which I think you personally will benefit from.
But those of us who have more than God's law -- that is, those of us who have the fulfillment of the Law in the Gospel, fulfilled for us because we were yet sinners -- have the means to do something other than what seems right in our own eyes.
First, we have the ability to see that Christ died to highlight the great value of the things which God has set forth as holy through the great price which Holiness demands. This should give us a measuring stick which upsets the apple cart of what seems good in our own eyes at least long enough to reset our thinking caps. Second, we have the ability to see that we are changed by the death of Christ from those who were no people at all to being God's holy people. born again with a new ability to want what God wants. That's New Covenant language, I'll grant you, but what it means is that we are no longer dragged around by the cares of this world, but willing to do what God wants us to do. It's funny that here when it matters most Todd misses this when in other places he has been so adamant that an unwillingness to do what God wants is a sign that one might actually not be saved at all. Third, the reason handing a child a condom and saying, "well, best of luck; don't use that unless you have to," seems to look a lot like Todd's version of how to handle this is because it really is a lot the same. That is, it is offering the wrong solution to the problem by looking only at the consequences and not at the causes.
The right solution here (and there are more, which I suggest are best discussed between a child and a parent rather than on a blog) is not to find the way to resolve the worst possible moral failure before it happens. It is to use the solution God gave us in order to see the problem for what it is and see his solution for what it is really doing for us in order to defeat the problem, not to merely hope that we don't have to trust Jesus to forgive us for that.