Cautious Freedom

I’m still not confident of how theologically true his statement was. All I know is that I believed him at the time and it wreaked havoc on me as a fairly new believer. He was a godly man that from all appearances had a godly marriage. I was a college student that had only been a believer for a couple of years and only hoped that someday I could be married to a godly woman.

“It’s not wrong to appreciate beauty. Don’t beat yourself up for ‘just noticing’. It’s that second look that is lust.”

I think I agree with him. And had he said that to me today, I doubt it would have damaged my soul as it did back then. But back then I wasn’t ready for such a “freedom”. I had only been saved a little while and that old habit of objectifying women had not yet been conquered; you could say that I was still haunted by the question.

So I took his advice. And as a hormonally charged sophomore in college I stopped fighting “the look”. I told myself that as long as I didn’t look for too long then it wasn’t a sin. I thought that I could still play the game of measuring women by physical appearance. As you can imagine this re-opened the gates to sin that I thought was conquered.

My brother’s freedom to not beat himself up for ‘just noticing’ had done serious damage to my heart. I was weak. I wasn’t ready for such a freedom. As theologically true as his counsel might have been—it was terrible. My experience was similar to what John Newton explained when he said:

And I have known and conversed with some who I fear have made shipwreck of their profession, who have dated their first decline from imitating others, whom they thought wiser and better than themselves, in such kind of compliances. (Newton On Christian Liberty)

That was me. Thankfully that was me. The Lord rescued me anew from that rebellious way of viewing the world. But it was a painful time that I still deeply regret.

The Freedom Not to Exercise

I’ll cut straight to the point: I’m afraid that my generation is going to kill ourselves and the generations to come because of our supposed freedom. I believe there are many things that we have the right to do because of the work of Christ. But there are many things that we should not exercise our right to do because of the work of Christ in also uniting us to weaker brothers and sisters.

I agree with my freedom-flaunting brothers (was that too harsh?) that we must be careful of legalism. Yes, there are unbiblical fetters that people attempt to put on one another. But I also believe, with Newton, that “when the mind is more enlightened, and we feel a liberty from many fetters we had imposed upon ourselves, we are in danger of verging too far towards the other extreme”.

May the Lord keep us from extremes. May He also cause us to be free to lovingly not exercise our freedoms for the sake of our brothers and sisters. It is my prayer that our generation, the ones before us, and the ones to come will have the wisdom to know when to exercise freedom and when to abstain.

May we be cautious with our freedoms.

One Way The Prosperity Gospel is Dangerous

Today in our series on Tough Questions we asked “Is the prosperity gospel dangerous?”

Here is one way that it is dangerous: it messes up our view of pain and suffering.

--

If you are not familiar with the prosperity “gospel” turn on your television and watch TBN for about 15 minutes.  There you will be exposed to the damnable teaching that what the gospel is really about is securing our health, wealth, and happiness and our best life now.  Consider these words of Kenneth Copeland concerning Paul’s thorn in the flesh:

Paul's thorn in the flesh is a tradition that Satan has used to deceive and rob many people. Using it as an excuse, tradition says that God gets glory from sickness because the world sees how marvelously the Christian bears pain and agony. Tradition never adds up to the right answer - anyone knows that the world has all the pain and agony it can stand. The world wants a way out of sickness, not another way into it.

The typical mantra of these shiny watch-wearing, jet-flying, shysters is that God is in the business of blessing people.  If you want to see someone who is living in the favor of God you will not find it in a poor widow, a sickly orphan, or in a downcast soul.  You will find it in a first-class flyin’ preacher that spends his time helpin’ poor folk get their blessings by sowing their seed into his tailor-made suit pocket. 

Because of this belief Paul’s teaching on the thorn in the flesh is completely reversed.  Rather than Paul saying that he is glorying in an unremoved thorn and that the Lord’s grace is sufficient in the midst of hardship these prosperity teachers do a ton of gymnastics to get around what the text clearly says. 

Paul’s thorn

According to Copeland the thorn is an “evil angel”.  This isn’t any of God’s doing it’s all of the devil.  Pain, suffering, sickness, all of those things must not have anything to do with the work of God.  And according to Copeland “this evil angel was assigned to Paul for one reason—to stop the Word from being preached”.  Forget that Paul said it was “given me in the flesh” for the purpose of “keeping me from being too elated”. 

You see within the framework of the prosperity gospel God is not glorified in  our weakness.  God is glorified in our strength.  Or to put that another way the way that God receives glory is when my past is conquered and I live in victory.  If I am not living my best life now then I’m not giving God the glory that He deserves. 

Copeland even has the gall to say that Paul erred in pleading with God to take away the thorn.  As he says, “If you want results, do not ask God to deal with the devil for you…He instructs you to drive out the demons or evil spirits.”  Had Paul not pleaded with the Lord to remove it then he would have gotten the results that he desired. 

While you have a thorn in your flesh you aren’t able to glorify God as you ought because you are living in the devils defeat and not the Lord’s victory.  Therefore, you believe on what you want.  You unleash your faith on removing this thorn and you believe God for it.  You let go of it and you start believing God for victory. 

But what happens when “victory” doesn’t come?…

The Effect on Pain

The problem with this false teaching is that it tries to wipe away ever tear from our eye before we are living in the Redeemed Eden.  That sounds nice and some of these false teachers may very well have good intentions and believe every word of the garbage spewing out of their mouth.  Problem is, they sound more like Job’s miserable counselors than the counsel of the Lord.

What they are subtly communicating—and sadly I think many within the church have bought into this—is that God cannot use me until I have this thorn conquered.  I am a little less than acceptable until I get a grip on this depression.  Certainly people will rally around me and help me remove this thorn—that’s what Job’s friends did.  But what if this thorn is never going to be removed?  Am I supposed to hide this part of me?  Should I shoe my thorn?  Dare I walk with a limp? 

You see I’m becoming increasingly convinced that faith doesn’t look like a man living in success and victory in the Christian life, where everyday is better than the next.  I’m convinced that a better picture of faith is when a man is almost totally overcome by doubt, fear, anxiety but he still keeps a white-knuckled grip on the promise of future redemption.  I’m convinced that a better disciple is one who fixates his eyes on “things that are above” instead of trying to live his best life now. 

Of course we all want mountain moving faith but the faith as tiny as a mustard seed is just as miraculous.  So, why don’t we rejoice in feeble faith? Why don’t we celebrate those souls that are shamed and yet trusting, like Jesus does?  Can we celebrate a wound that isn’t yet healed?  Why do we have to wait for victory?  Why can we not dance with a limp? 

Maybe because we’ve bought into the lie that people with thorns are a little less than what it means to be a disciple.  And maybe we’ve made thorn removal the goal instead of dancing in grace. 

-

Originally posted here.

Did Moses Change God’s Mind?

One of the first articles I ever wrote was an attempt to answer this question: "In Exodus 32, did Moses change God's mind"? This morning we took on a similar question in our Tough Questions series. My answer today is about the same as it was in 2007:

Malachi 3:6 states, "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob are no consumed." (ESV). Numbers 23:19 "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he shouild change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" These verses make clear that God does not change His mind. Psalm 33:11, 102:25-27; and Hebrews 6:17-18 speak of God’s unchangeable purposes.

So what do we make of Exodus 32 (or even Isaiah 38:1-6 or Jonah 3:4, 10)?

While God was giving Moses the 10 Commandments the people of Israel began getting a little restless, so they did what we all do--make our own gods. In verse 10, God meets the Israelites with anger. He is ready to consume every one of them save for Moses. Then Moses prays, focusing on the honor of God’s name, appeals to God’s faithfulness, and pleads with God to continue considering Israel as His people. In verse 14 we read, “And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people”.

When we read this we understand the word “relented” (KJV’s ‘repented’, NASB’s ‘changed his mind’, or NLT ‘withdrew his threat’) literally. Yet it is actually what we theologians call an anthropopathism. Which is a big word that simply means “giving God human emotions. From our perspective it appears that God ‘relents’ or ‘changes his mind’, but from God’s perspective He is appropriately dealing with changes in human behavior.

If men turn away from sin and repent God will forgive. There is little difference between God’s ‘changing’ in Exodus 32 and His ‘changing’ when a sinner turns and repents. Scripture states that one apart from Christ is “God’s enemy” and has “the wrath of God upon him”. Yet, as soon as a person “repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ” he is saved from the wrath to come. God’s view of a person is no longer that of enemy but of a friend. It is similar in this situation: Moses repents (as the representative head of the people), God responds to Moses’ repentance and forgives or ‘relents’.

So does God change His mind? Absolutely not. God is forever unchanging in His character and in His purposes. Yet as Wayne Grudem comments, "God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations".
That does not make God unchanging it merely makes Him living.

The real question is this, "Did Moses change God's mind (so as to catch God by surprise) or was Moses' intercessory prayer all a part of God's will and purpose to show His grace?"

Scripture clearly shows that God’s character does not change. He has the same settled disposition towards sin. When Moses prayed He did not change God’s mind. To hold to a doctrine which says, "Moses changed God's mind" is contrary to what God says in Scripture. He is unswerving in His character and purposes. Moses did not change the course of history, nor catch God off-guard by praying for the Israelites, just as the death of Christ was ordained from the foundation of world, so Moses' prayer was forever in God's plan.

Therefore, this unchanging God is mighty to save! If we had a changing God then our hope would be lost. If He can change in His affections for me (meaning: constantly in response to me--so as to say "I changed God's mind") then He can do so positively or negatively. What confidence do we have then in our salvation as well as in the God of our salvation?

Take heart, as God said in Malachi 3:6, his unchanging character and purpose is so that we are not consumed. If he could change then we would be consumed. Be comforted in the fact that God's purpose is set and He is able to save us to the uttermost. The blood of Christ is still sufficient and ALWAYS will be.

Why I’m Against Home-Owners Having Guns and Alarm Systems

I got a call from ADT the other day. They wanted me to buy an alarm system to protect my family from would-be intruders. I declined.

You see I’m totally against alarm systems. This includes the alarm system used by most of my friends back in Missouri, also known as the Smith & Wesson alarm system. (For those uninformed, that means that you protect your home with firearms).

I’m against both. Let me explain…

I think we really need to consider those that are forced to steal. For someone to break into my home and kidnap my children—they have to have had some bad stuff happen to them. Maybe they have made bad decisions in the past and it is now forcing them to do things that they don’t want—like kidnap kids or steal my television. It could even be possible that someone is forcing them to engage in this horrible act.

Now what happens if I have an alarm system or I use a gun to protect my family and property? When the alarm goes off this guy is going to get spooked. He might botch this and wind up hurting himself in the process. I don’t want to be responsible for that. Nor do I want to further perpetuate the effects of his bad decisions by having him be punished with jail time.

I want to take this a step further. I also think it is wrong for us to punish people who steal and kidnap children. Think of all the would-be-perpetrators that have died in prison. Or worse yet think of those that have died at the hands of someone they were trying to steal from. It’s not fair for them to lose their lives over a television set. Whether they lose their life in prison or at the hands of a gun-owner protecting his property. Think of what it must feel like to have to give up your freedoms because of one bad choice you made in the heat of the moment. It just doesn’t seem right.

Therefore, I believe that we should outlaw alarm systems and guns for home-owners. Furthermore, we should no longer make it illegal for people to kidnap our children or steal our stuff. It’s much safer that way.*

Why My Argument Doesn’t Work

The argument that I’ve just made is pretty ludicrous isn’t it? It’s silly because during the entire argument I’m not thinking about the safety of my children. I’m putting an emphasis upon the “suffering” of an adult that happens to get injured while attempting to harm my family. That’s foolishness. Certainly, we should protect our little ones over the guy that is trying to kidnap them.

So why do we still make the argument that abortion should be legal because women will die in bathtubs trying to perform their own abortions?

Not only is that statically dishonest it doesn’t make sense. Take this quote:

"One woman," Reagan writes, "described taking ergotrate, then castor oil, then squatting in scalding hot water, then drinking Everclear alcohol. When these methods failed, she hammered at her stomach with a meat pulverizer before going to an illegal abortionist."

We are supposed to respond to this by feeling sympathy for the woman. Which, might I add, is a correct response. But it’s not a sufficient response. We should also be upset that she has decided—yes, even in the case of rape—to resort to terminating the life of her child. Victim, yes. But she is also making herself a perpetrator. In the case of rape she has, sadly, chosen to perpetuate the violence done to her.

If we shift our eyes from the poor woman in the bathtub (and again it really ought to make us weep) to the unborn child in her stomach, then it doesn’t make sense to put the rights of the perpetrator (the pregnant mother) over that of the victim (her child).

Wait, you say…

Some that make the coat-hanger argument are saying, “Listen, I don’t want to see children aborted. But I also don’t want to see women die. If she is going to abort her child in a backstreet somewhere, I’d rather her do it in the hospital where it is safe. Why lose two lives instead of one?”

Even the most liberal statistics have the deaths for mothers at 5-10,000 deaths per year. That is horrendous. Each of these should cause us to weep. Consider this, though: Since 1973 there have been over 56 million legal abortions. If 10,000 mothers had died from 1973 to 2013 in back-street abortion attempts that would have been 400,000 would-be mothers.

So that means we have performed 56 million “safe” abortions to protect 400,000 mothers. That’s not 2-1. That is 140-1. For every mother that we have “saved” we have sacrificed 140 children. So my response to the “why lose two lives instead of one” is to say, “why lose 140 lives instead of one?”

If it’s a child in the mothers womb (and it is) then the coat-hanger argument simply doesn’t work…

--

*This entire section is not true. If you try to harm my wife or children I’m going Liam Neeson on you. I do have two cats that you are more than welcome to take, however.

What to Say to “All-Religions-Are-Basically-the-Same” Dude

“All religions are basically the same” –Captain Humble and Peaceful

When some peace-loving dude “humbly” tells a believer that all religions are basically the same, the believer typically responds with wet pants. That claim scares many of us. It scares us for a couple of reasons. One, we don’t know all religions. This dude seems to have studied even Zoroastrianism. Secondly, this guy seems pretty sure of himself and he also seems like he really loves peace. I don’t want to be seen as some sort of arrogant, war-mongering, and hate-filled meanie pants.

So what do I do?

If I say, “no they aren’t” then I’m opening myself up to not only sound like a narrow-minded bigot, but an uninformed one to boot. After all, the most I know about Zoroastrianism is that Antonio Banderas played him in a movie. So how do I respond? Do I just nod my head and pray for the guy?

One of your fears can be calmed. You don’t have to know all religions to respond to this guy. You just have to know the one absolutely unique gospel. And when I say that I don’t mean the watered down hippie-Jesus version. I meant he God-becoming-man, who carried human sin to a Cross, and screamed over it “It is finished”!

Ask this confident chap share the gospel with you. Or ask him what the message of Christ is. Then, when he fumbles it—and he will fumble it, because no one who really knows the gospel will say that it’s like every other religion—then, you have an opportunity to share the unique claims of Jesus with him.

At this point when (if) you are accused of arrogance, you might lovingly point out his hypocrisy. After all isn’t it a tad arrogant to say that you’ve studied all religions, and you’ve gotten to the core of them, and have seen that they are all the same. Especially, when all these religions themselves proclaim, “No, we aren’t the same and that’s why we are fighting”. It’s just not be honest and frankly its demeaning because it is essentially calling every one with any religious spine at all a complete moron.

Your goal in sharing the gospel with this guy is to get him to actually have to deal with the unique claims of Jesus. Don’t let him hide behind the idea that Buddha, Mohammed, Zorro, Tom Cruise, Oprah, and Jesus all have the same claim on his life. Jesus makes a unique claim. Help this person understand that he either has to be willing to call Jesus a wrong-headed false teacher or surrender his life to Him. He can’t have it both ways and still have any shred of honesty.

One Massive Reason I Believe in Eternal Security

I have to be honest. I think there are a few verses that proponents of eternal security use that cannot bear the weight of that doctrine. For example, Philippians 1:6.

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Though I believe this text helps us see a general principle—that God finishes what He starts—I’m not confident that in this particular text that work that He has started is salvation. I actually think it has more to do with their partnership in the gospel (v5), which is quite possible speaking of their monetary help in advancing the gospel. In fact I believe Philippians is a call to continue the work of advancing the gospel, not so much a call to not abandon the gospel.

Now I could be wrong. And if it is talking about eternal security that’s no skin off my back because I believe the doctrine taught elsewhere. But I always get a little worried when we line up a number of texts (often out of context) to prove a doctrine. Actually those that do not believe in eternal security can pull a good number of verses out of their hat as well. That is why I like to take whole textual units and flows of thought and develop doctrine from that.

The beautiful logic of John 6:38-40

One such place is the sixth chapter of John. This chapter begins with a miracle and the crowds wanting to make Jesus their king. It ends with everyone but the disciples betraying him (and even in their midst is the great betrayer Judas Iscariot). In the middle of this chapter is a discussion about manna, the bread of life, and the eternal provision of Jesus.

The crowds got their fill for the day. Jesus knows that their attempts to crown him is only because “you ate your fill of the loaves”. They are satisfied with temporary provision. Jesus then contrasts this with a desire for that which will eternal satisfy—Himself. In verse 35 Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst”. Note the context: eternal versus temporary.

The problem, outlined in verse 36, is that they aren’t coming to Jesus. Yet there is hope because “all that the Father gives” to Jesus will come to Jesus. And whenever anyone (highlight the anyone) comes to Jesus, this one will “never be cast out”. Jesus gives the reason why in verse 38-40. This is true because Jesus has come to do the will of the Father. What is the will of the Father?

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Does Jesus always do the will of the Father? Yes.

Did Jesus fully accomplish the will of the Father? Yes.

What is the will of the Father, in this text? That he would lose nothing that was given to him by the Father.

Who are those that are given to Jesus? Those who look upon the Son, those that have come to Jesus.

Therefore, if Jesus loses any of us He does not accomplish the will of the Father. If Jesus does not accomplish the will of the Father what does this mean for His perfect righteousness?

This means that you and I are as eternally secure in the arms of Jesus as He is faithful to the Father. This is what he is saying to the crowd. Bread disappears. Even the heavenly manna disappeared after one day. It is not so with those who come to the bread of life. We will never ultimately go hungry, because the Good Shepherd will never let us go. Whoever comes to Jesus will be satisfied. Eternally.