Why I Accept Aspects of Free Grace Theology

Well, there—I said it! And it’s true: I accept some aspects of Free Grace theology. Now before you Google “Free Grace theology” and assume that I affirm everything you read about it, please take the time to read this post and allow me to explain my views.

 Now, why am I writing this post as if it’s some big revelation? Well, because in the circles that I minister in, it potentially is a big revelation. Free Grace theology was a point of some debate at my alma mater, Calvary University, and it has been the subject of heated debate at times within my pastoral fellowship, IFCA International. That means that I have dear friends who will disagree with me on this subject—and who may not yet know the positions that I take.

 To give you some sense of the greater landscape here, the aspects of Free Grace theology that I affirm put me at odds on some issues with a wide swath of very popular Bible teachers—people whom I generally respect greatly, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, and basically everyone associated with The Gospel Coalition and the Together for the Gospel Conference. If you’re familiar with some theology and the evangelical landscape, you’ll notice the main thing that the aforementioned teachers universally embrace—Calvinism, either a moderate or strong form of it. As I’ll note later, the root of my disagreement with these men grows from one of the underpinnings of strong Calvinism—namely, a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.

 Let me sum up the essence of what I want to say before I touch on some details: I hold to a moderately Calvinistic view of justification (becoming born again), but I hold to a Free Grace view of sanctification (growing as a Christian)—particularly on the question of how to find assurance of salvation. Lest anyone think I’m theologically bipolar, the rest of this post will explain what I deny and what I affirm with respect to Free Grace theology and how I think this marriage between moderate Calvinism and Free Grace theology is logically necessary for anyone who does not wish to embrace a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.

 One more summary statement before I turn to details. This statement will be helpful for anyone who is familiar with the teachers who are on the moderate Calvinist—Free Grace spectrum: I find myself having substantial disagreements with Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, but I find myself in substantial agreement with Charles Ryrie (So Great Salvation), Paul Benware (The Believer’s Payday), Norman Geisler (Chosen But Free; Systematic Theology) and Joseph Dillow (The Reign of the Servant Kings). I’m certain those men would have some disagreements with each other, but collectively their works have shaped my thinking considerably.

 And now, on to the details.

 What I Deny with Respect to Free Grace Theology

 I deny that repentance can be separated from saving faith.

The relationship between repentance and saving faith is a hot-button issue in Free Grace circles, with some Free Grace teachers viewing repentance as something of a Trojan horse that has been used to smuggle works into the Gospel. For my part, I believe repentance IS necessary for a person to be born again. I define repentance as a change of mind about one’s sinfulness and the person and work of Christ. It is simply the recognition and acknowledgement of one’s terrible predicament due to sin, which then serves as a preparation leading to faith in Christ. And yes, I’m comfortable saying that this change of mind will affect how one behaves and lives—though a little later I will criticize the idea that measuring spiritual fruit is a biblically commanded, sure-fire means of proving whether or not a person has truly repented.

 To clarify what some Free Grace teachers have said with respect to repentance, consider this statement from the Grace Evangelical Society (taken from their website at https://faithalone.org/beliefs/): “No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life.” This statement includes baptism, which I’ll just exclude for the sake of this discussion because I think it’s a different issue.

 Excluding baptism, I’m not sure why any of the attitudes mentioned in that statement have to be construed as a work that would earn us merit in the sight of God. I think those attitudes simply arise naturally as one realizes his sinfulness and his danger of going to Hell and then realizes the true nature of the One who died for His sins and offers him forgiveness. I’m not even sure why someone would trust in Christ if he acknowledged his sins but felt no sorrow over them! Even submitting to the lordship of Christ should flow naturally from the recognition that I have been rebelling against my Creator but He now shows me incomprehensible grace and mercy for the sake of Christ.

 As I said before, I think a problem does arise when it is assumed—on the basis of a determinist view of God’s sovereignty—that repentance will unfailingly lead to a consistently observable degree of spiritual maturity in the life of a believer. But more on that later…

 I deny that The Gospel of John is the only book that should be used to establish the Gospel message.

Some Free Grace proponents have argued this point based on the explicitly evangelistic purpose of The Gospel of John. Because of this purpose, they have said, The Gospel of John surely contains all the essential elements of the message that one must know in order to be saved. Furthermore, it is argued, since the word “repentance” is not used in The Gospel of John, then repentance must not be necessary for a person to be saved.

 I won’t belabor this point so that I can get on to some other issues, but I will say that surely the concept of repentance is found in John’s Gospel even if he doesn’t use that specific word. And why can’t we look to Peter’s evangelistic message in Acts 2 to help us define the Gospel? Why must we exclude Paul’s evangelistic message at the Areopagus in Acts 17? If such passages are equally inspired, it seems arbitrary to say that they should be excluded from our efforts to define the content of the Gospel.

 I deny the “Cross-less Gospel.”

The so-called “Cross-less Gospel” arose from a thought experiment offered by Zane Hodges in an issue of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. In it, he envisioned a man on an island who knew nothing about Christianity. This man noticed a piece of paper wash ashore on which he could read these words from John 6:43-47—“Jesus answered and said to them…Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Hodges argued that this man could become born again despite knowing nothing more about the “Jesus” who was mentioned on the paper—even knowing nothing about Christ’s death on the cross. Hence the name, “the cross-less Gospel.”

 On the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I have to disagree with Hodges’ conclusion. In light of Paul’s summary of the Gospel message, the man-on-the-island’s knowledge was simply inadequate. He knew nothing about his sinfulness, nothing about Jesus’ status as the Christ and what that means, nothing about the resurrection of Christ. I think Hodges makes a valid point that it can be hard to avoid arbitrariness in announcing what a person must know in order to be saved, but from 1 Cor 15:1-4, I think a knowledge about sin, Christ’s death, and the resurrection can hardly be called arbitrary.

 What I Affirm with Respect to Free Grace Theology

 I affirm that genuine believers can become fruitless and lead lives that produce little that is of eternal value.

This claim is perhaps the hallmark of Free Grace theology, and I affirm it on the basis of passages such as John 15:1-8, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, and 2 Peter 1:5-11. Notice that I said “become fruitless” because I believe that all Christians manifest some spiritual fruit upon being born again. If we look at the fruits listed in Galatians 5:22-23, I would say that every believer manifests at least joy and peace upon conversion. Indeed, it seems typical for new converts to manifest spiritual fruit for a time, but as the Lord warned in John 15:1-8, if we do not remain closely connected to Him (abide), then we can become fruitless, for apart from Him we can do nothing of any spiritual value.

 Let me briefly comment on 2 Peter 1:5-11 since it includes a verse that Calvinists often use to encourage people to search for assurance of salvation by examining their lives for spiritual fruit. This text states:

 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (ESV).

 To cut to the chase for the sake of this post, notice that in v. 9, Peter affirms that a person who “was cleansed from his former sins” can, in fact, lack the qualities that he outlined in vv. 5-7—the very qualities that will keep a person from being ineffective or unfruitful according to v. 8. Peter is clearly talking about a saved person in v. 9, so I can only conclude that a saved person might very well lack the qualities of vv. 5-7 and thus become unfruitful for Christ according to v. 8.

 It is very significant that the context includes v. 10, a verse that strong Calvinists interpret as a command for believers to seek assurance of salvation. Strong Calvinists argue furthermore that such a search is to be made by examining one’s life for consistent patterns of and appropriate levels of spiritual fruit. But is this likely to be how Peter would encourage a person to seek assurance of salvation, given what he just wrote in vv. 5-9? He just affirmed that a person who was cleansed from his former sins might lack the qualities that allow him to produce spiritual fruit! If we take that affirmation seriously, it seems that such an examination of one’s life could yield a “false negative”—that is, that a saved person could conclude he is unsaved because he does not see (or at least thinks he does not see) the requisite amount of spiritual fruit in his life (whatever the “requisite” amount is said to be). This observation leads me to my next point regarding the assurance of salvation.

 I affirm that complete assurance of salvation is possible and is to be found through trust in God’s promises in Scripture.

When it comes to assurance of salvation, what Calvinism gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. This reality has often been the punch line of jokes among theology nerds—that Calvinists are sure they can’t lose their salvation but can’t be sure they ever had it in the first place! But this humor brings an unsettling thought to the surface—why does Calvinism find assurance of salvation to be such a difficult hurdle to clear? Does this struggle point to a flaw within the system? I believe it does, and as I’ll explain in a moment, the fault lies in the deterministic engine that drives the Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.

 If becoming born again truly is a free gift, and there is nothing more that I must do to receive it than to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus, then I should be able to know with complete assurance that I am saved. True, a deeper understanding of the Gospel will be extremely beneficial whenever doubts arise, but this deeper understanding can be achieved by looking again at precisely what Jesus has accomplished for me and at what God has promised to me on the basis of Christ’s work. Examining my life for spiritual fruit is necessary for other reasons, but not for establishing the assurance of my salvation. I contend that assurance and spiritual fruit could only be so inextricably joined together if determinism is true, so let me now turn to that subject.

 Why I Affirm What I Do

I reject the determinism that underlies strong Calvinism.

Determinism is the view that God establishes all things in such a way that they could not be different than what they are. Applied to human choices, it means that for any given choice you made yesterday, for example, you could not have chosen to do differently than what you actually did. To be sure, determinists affirm that humans make choices for which they are responsible, but they argue that this is simply a point at which our understanding of God’s ways fades into mystery. That’s fair enough, because even if one takes a different view of God’s sovereignty, we all have to acknowledge a point at which our understanding can go no further.

 My concern is that determinism just seems thoroughly unscriptural. For example, 1 Corinthians 10:13 states that God “will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” According to this verse, anytime a believer gives in to temptation, he could have chosen differently than he actually did. Moreover, determinism would mean that commands in the Bible do not present actual alternative courses of action that a person could take. In a moment of decision, a person’s choice would have already been made for him, and it could not be otherwise. Moreover, I don’t know how determinists hope to offer a plausible explanation of Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37--"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” What sense can we make out of this if we have to say that God had determined that they would be unwilling and they could not have possibly been otherwise!?

 Now, what does this have to do with Calvinism and assurance of salvation? The Calvinist’s logic, based as it is on determinism, goes as follows: if God will unfailingly bring the elect to be born again, then He will also unfailingly bring them to spiritual maturity. The implication is clear—if you do not grow to spiritual maturity (given enough time, and as evidenced by sufficient spiritual fruit) then you are not saved.

 But if determinism is false, there does not seem to be a certain degree of spiritual maturity that every believer will unfailingly achieve. That point seems abundantly clear from 1 Corinthians 3:15—there will be believers whose life work will be spiritually worthless, and “he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” If your theological system can’t account for the reality of such believers, then I think there’s just something out of whack with your theological system. For this reason, I think Free Grace theology is superior to Calvinism on these questions of sanctification and assurance of salvation.

What does the Bible say about private property?

As a pastor in the United States, I never thought I’d find myself in the position of defending the moral goodness of private property. Yet here I am, and that’s exactly what I want to do in this post. I will defend the notion that private ownership of property is not only morally permissible—as in one legitimate option among other legitimate options—but is actually morally good and should thus be the model for ownership in any society.

 Support for private ownership of property is waning somewhat in the United States as socialist and communist ideas gain greater traction—though ironically, no one seems to be volunteering to have their own property redistributed! With this shift in views about private property, Christians are left wondering what—if anything—the Bible has to say about this matter. Let’s find out!

 

Does the Bible support private ownership of property?

The answer to this question is “yes,” and this can be demonstrated through several lines of evidence:

 

Private ownership of property is based on the responsibility of stewardship

One detail that should be clarified early in this discussion is the reality of “ownership.” Technically speaking, God retains ownership of all things in His role as Creator:

 

            Deuteronomy 10:14—“Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of     heavens, the earth with all that is in it.”

 

            Psalm 24:1-2—“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who            dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.”

 

            Psalm 89:11—“The heavens are yours; the earth is also yours; the world and all that is   in it, you have founded them.”

 Thus, to speak of humans “owning” property is a bit of a misnomer. What we actually possess is a stewardship from God—a responsibility to have oversight of a role or a good to cause it to flourish. This notion of stewardship is rooted in the creation account when God gave mankind the responsibility to oversee the Earth and cultivate its productive potential (Gen 1:26-28; 2:5). As time went by, God gave various stewardships to various people—and not equally to all people, but usually in differing proportions to individuals. To Job and Abraham he gave great wealth; to Moses he gave the leadership of Israel; to the sons of Aaron he gave the priestly office; to the tribes of Israel he gave the land of Canaan as property; to David he gave kingship; to the Apostles he gave leadership over the church. In each of these cases, notice that a stewardship was given to some people that was not given equally to others. It was entrusted to someone as their responsibility.

 Inherent in the notion of a stewardship is the authority to oversee and execute one’s stewardship; in other words, personal control over whatever has been entrusted. It is not for others to possess and control my stewardship—it is for me, and as we’ll see below, I am held responsible for whatever is entrusted to me. This accountability assumes that my stewardship belongs to me and that I have personal—or we might say “private”—control over it.

 It can be seen in this discussion that exercising authority over a stewardship is part of what it means to live as a being created in the image of God. Animals do not have this same kind of existence or activity—to use one’s intellect and will to cause one’s stewardship to flourish is a profoundly human activity, and it is honoring to God to use our capacities in this way. Conversely, it is profoundly de-humanizing to deny a man the private oversight of his possessions or the appropriate fruits of his labor. The history of Communism has repeatedly borne out the cheapening of humanity when we deny a man the right to have a personal, private stewardship from God. This link is not at all surprising given that Communism is an atheistic philosophy.

 

Private ownership of property is assumed in commands against theft, coveting, and envy

Commands against theft, coveting, and envy assume that other people will possess goods and property that do not belong to me. They rightfully belong to someone else, and I have no claim upon them. How would such commands apply in a society in which everything is communally owned? If there is no boundary between what is mine and what is yours, how could I possibly steal something? If it is said that each person has an appropriate share of something that is communally owned, we’ve really gone right back to a situation of private property, just under a different name. It seems we cannot escape the reality that there has to be boundaries between what is mine and what is yours and that these boundaries ought to be respected.

 

Private ownership of property is assumed for recompense and reward

Private ownership of property is a necessary assumption behind statements like 2 Timothy 2:6: “It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.” Why should he have the first share of the crops? They belong to him—he labored to produce them from his field. He caused his stewardship to flourish, and he should be the first to enjoy the goods produced.

 Private ownership is also assumed in passages that speak of rewards for one’s stewardship. Jesus’ Parable of the Stewards comes instantly to mind. Each steward in the parable was given a certain amount of money to oversee, and each steward was given a corresponding reward for how he had caused that wealth to grow (or failed to do so). The notion of reward implies that the property given to the steward was under his control. He had authority and oversight of it such that he deserved credit or blame for what happened to it.

 If the Lord plans to reward us for how we have stewarded our various roles and possessions, then the control of them must belong to us and no one else. They must be our property in this sense—not the property of others.

 

Private ownership of property was explicitly established in Israelite society through the Law of Moses

Old Testament Israel gives us an interesting instance of God establishing a society for a nation by divine command. In this society, private property was the cornerstone of the economic system. Each tribe of Israel was given a certain portion of the land of Canaan, and each family in a tribe was given an allotment of that tribal portion. Interestingly, the farmland that a family received could not be permanently sold. If it was sold, by law it had to be given back to that family at the end of every seven-year cycle. The initial sale price was to be adjusted based on how many years were left in the cycle. Thus, a family’s land was supposed to be their permanent possession.

 

Are inequalities of wealth or income inherently wrong?

Income inequality is a hot topic in our culture today. It is often assumed that inequality in income or wealth between two people is inherently wrong, and those making this assumption further assume that the government should enact programs to bring about equal income and wealth for all people.

 It is important to recognize a clearly unbiblical assumption that lies behind such thoughts—namely, that an increase in income or wealth is an unalloyed blessing; that such an increase brings only good into a person’s life and no evil. That notion is easily believed in our culture that is flooded with the love of money, but it is simply unbiblical. The Apostle Paul warned, “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1 Tim 6:9-10).” When the children of Israel were on the cusp of taking the Promised Land, Moses warned them, “Take care lest you forget the Lord your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you this day, lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Deut 8:11-14).”

 The temptations associated with wealth led King Agur to offer this prayer: “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God (Prov 30:8-9).” Agur’s prayer expresses what our personal attitude toward wealth should be, but it also illustrates what we should pursue in society—adequacy of wealth for all people, not necessarily equality of wealth for all people.

 It should bother Christians that some people do not have sufficient income or wealth to meet their own essential needs. Scripture commands us to extend personal generosity to those who, through no fault of their own, lack necessities such as food and clothing (James 2:15-16; 1 John 3:16-17). We therefore must give of our own resources to resolve inadequacies in essential needs that others are facing through no fault of their own.

 But once such inadequacies are resolved, the Bible gives no indication that any remaining differences in income or wealth between two people are inherently wrong. Indeed, several observations argue that they are not. First, God at times promised material prosperity to some people, but not all people. One such example would be God’s promise to Solomon in 1 Kings 3. After God invited Solomon to ask him for anything he wanted and Solomon asked for wisdom, God promised that he would also grant riches to Solomon since he had chosen well in asking for wisdom. That God would deliberately make Solomon wealthier than other people around him shows that such an inequality must not be inherently wrong—otherwise God would have been committing a moral evil by enriching Solomon.

 Second, certain Bible characters are praised for their godliness despite the fact they had more wealth than other people. People like Abraham, Job, Cornelius, Philemon, and others are all portrayed as godly people even though they possessed more wealth than others had. They are never said to be in the wrong because they hadn’t given away all of their excess to achieve precise equality of income or wealth with those around them.

 Third, some inequalities may stem from a moral failing on the part of the person who has less. This cause certainly isn’t at work in all inequalities, but surely it is in some. Are we supposed to simply gloss over the fact that some people may have less because of their own laziness or foolishness in stewarding their resources? In cases resulting from genuine moral failing, the Bible is quite clear: “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10).” It is de-humanizing to treat a person as if he is not a morally responsible being; a person’s own choices must be considered as a factor in his circumstances. It surely is not inherently wrong if they face an inequality due to their own decisions.

 Certainly, many people in the United States have a significant excess of wealth—resources beyond what they need for their essentials. It is not inherently wrong that they have more than others, but they should carefully consider these words from the Apostle Paul: “As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life (1 Tim 6:17-19).”

What does the Bible say about war?

War is a terrible facet of life in this fallen world. It should be particularly odious to Christians since we serve the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). We look forward very much to the time of Christ’s kingdom on this earth, when swords will be made into plowing implements because nations will no longer war against each other (Isaiah 2:1-4). Until that time, we will have to live with the possibility of war—and the possibility that we might be called upon to take up arms. And so we must ask: can fighting in a war ever be morally permissible? Could war even be morally right in some situations?

For the sake of clarity and brevity, I’m going to assume that most people reading this post already believe that war can be morally permissible in some situations (which is the view I hold). With that assumption, I will only briefly address the biblical indications that war can be permissible. I will devote more space to examining the texts often cited by pacifists to argue that war is never permissible.

Biblical Indications that War Can Be Permissible

1. Abraham was blessed by a priest of God for going to war to save non-combatants unjustly captured by an aggressor (Genesis 14).

It is stated in this account that God delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hands, thus showing approval of Abraham’s actions.

2. God commanded the Israelites to attack the Canaanites.

At times, God miraculously aided the Israelites in these battles to ensure their success (Joshua 10:11-14).

3. God moved the biblical authors to portray Him with military imagery.

God is comfortable being called a warrior (Exodus 15:3, Psalm 24:8). He is frequently called “Lord of Hosts,” which portrays Him as a general over a vast army. Also, the return of Christ is described as a glorious military victory (Revelation 19:11-21). By contrast, God is never portrayed as an adulterer, a liar, a thief or any other person who is clearly immoral. It is unthinkable that God would allow Himself to be portrayed as a warrior if warfare can never be morally right.

4. God has given governments the right to use force against those who do evil (Romans 13:1-5).

This right would surely include the right to punish evil between its citizens (criminal justice) and against its citizens (defensive warfare).

5. Some soldiers are praised in the New Testament with no suggestion that their occupation was inherently wrong.

When a certain centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, Jesus praised the man for his faith without giving any rebuke of the man’s occupation (Luke 7:1-10). The centurion Cornelius was called “a devout man who feared God” and he became born-again without Peter or anyone else rebuking him for his occupation (Acts 10).

“But doesn’t this verse say…?”

When we think of the possibility of going to war, there are likely a number of Bible verses that come to mind that can’t seem to be reconciled with engaging in combat. How should we understand these verses? Here’s a sampling of them with explanation for each:

“Thou shalt not kill.”—Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

The old King James Version of the Bible translated the Hebrew word ratsakh as “kill” in its translation of the 6^th Commandment. It should more accurately be translated “murder,” as the New King James Version and all other modern English translations render it. The prohibition here was not against every instance of taking a life, but only those that would constitute murder. The very same legal code (the Law of Moses) called for the death penalty for certain crimes. Also, as noted above, God commanded the Israelites to go to war against the Canaanites. If killing in war is an instance of ratsakh, then God would have issued contradictory commands. Thus, the 6^th Commandment does not rule out killing in war.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”—Matthew 5:38-41

Several comments are in order for this important passage. First, the standard “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was given to judges by the Law of Moses as a guideline for penalties in court cases. It was never meant as a standard for personal relationships, which is the Lord’s focus in this passage. If a person seeks to inflict such “justice” himself, he is in the wrong. But according to the Law of Moses, it was acceptable for a legal authority to use such force in the administration of justice. This observation aligns with Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-5 about the right of government to use force. Thus, personal retaliation is wrong, but justice meted out by a governing authority is not.

Second, notice that Jesus specifically mentioned the right cheek in this statement. Why specify the right cheek versus the left? Because it indicates what type of blow Jesus was talking about. Right-handedness has always been more common than left-handedness; thus, it’s safe to assume that Jesus was describing a right-handed person striking you on the right cheek. That blow would be a back-handed slap—an insult rather than a more forceful attack. Thus, what Jesus had in mind in this verse is responding to a personal insult. He wasn’t addressing the subject of personal self-defense, let alone the legitimacy of engaging in warfare.

Third, when Jesus says, “Do not resist the one who is evil,” we have to define resistance from the context. We shouldn’t consider resistance in the abstract and consider what it might mean—the context tells us what Jesus had in mind. From the context, we could define “do not resist” in the following ways: 1) refuse to take justice into your own hands (an eye for an eye…); 2) endure insults patiently without responding in kind (if anyone slaps…); 3) don’t insist on your rights in every situation (if anyone would sue…); and 4) be kind even to those who use you (…go with him two miles).

This passage should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of all uses of force. We must not even be too quick to take it out of the context of personal relationships. This passage really says nothing about a government and its responsibilities. To use it to say that a government has no right to wage war is simply a misapplication of the passage. It is far better to draw conclusions about a government and warfare from a passage that explicitly addresses that subject, such as Romans 13:1-5.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”—Matthew 5:43-45

This misunderstanding of the command to love one’s neighbor was circulating among the Jewish people at that time, so Jesus addressed it here. It is fair to ask how one could possibly love an enemy (as in an enemy combatant) and yet use lethal force against him. A few observations need to be made.

First, this passage follows directly on the heels of the previous passage that we considered. Thus, it is still dealing with the question of personal relationships. The word “enemy” should not be interpreted as an enemy combatant but as an enemy in one’s personal life.

Second, notice that the purpose behind loving our enemies is that we would imitate the behavior of God—we’re supposed to show the family resemblance, you might say. Along these lines, we should remember that God, in His capacity as judge of all the Earth, certainly did use lethal force against His enemies at times. Examples from the Old Testament could be multiplied; I will simply remind you of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Thus, even this passage does not rule out the use of lethal force by someone who is appropriately appointed to execute justice. God has that prerogative, and He has also entrusted it to human governments. A soldier acting on behalf of the government would thus carry that prerogative as well.

“The second [greatest commandment] is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”—Mark 12:31

I certainly want other people to treat me with kindness and respect, so shouldn’t I treat others the same way? On that basis, how could I justify using force against another person?

This objection, like the others above, fails to take important contexts into account. Jesus was not discussing the rights and responsibilities of a government in this passage—he was talking about personal relationships. Certainly in my personal life—as a private citizen—I am to be kind, gentle, not combative or violent. But God has given governments the right to use force, and governments are made up of people. Thus, people serving as agents of the government have a right to use force.

Should I engage in any and every war that my government launches?

The history of warfare shows that not every war is alike. Wars are fought for a variety of reasons; the combatants involved may have stronger or weaker justification for their fighting. In some wars, two nations are clearly co-belligerents; in others, one nation is clearly the aggressor. Should I as a Christian feel a duty to take up arms in any and every war that my government launches?

Norman Geisler helpfully distinguishes between two responses that we might have to this question.¹ The first is activism. This response says that I have a duty to fight for my country any time it calls upon me because of the benefits that I enjoy as a citizen. I do not need to ask whether the war is just or unjust. The second response is selectivism. This response says that I must weigh the causes and goals of the war before I answer the call to arms. It may be immoral for me to fight if the cause or goal is immoral.

Given Scripture’s teaching that we must obey the moral laws of God over the civil laws of man, selectivism seems to be the proper response. In our fallen world, the government may abuse its right to use force, and if it does, we should conscientiously object to fighting in that instance. From this perspective, for example, German citizens should have refused to fight for the Nazi Party’s goals during World War II. Some of them did, and they were right to do so. It is a blessing as Americans that our laws protect conscientious objectors and that even our military recognizes a soldier’s right to refuse orders that are immoral.

Conclusion

In the end, we can say confidently from biblical principles that fighting in war can be morally permissible. It may even be the morally right thing to do if one is battling a great evil, such as in World War II. But Christians have a responsibility to weigh the causes and goals of a war before taking up arms. If my government goes to war with an immoral aim, I must object to fighting in that instance.

Notes

Norman Geisler, “War,” in Christian Ethics, second ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010): 220-243.

What does the Bible say about gambling?

Gambling has long been a taboo practice among Christians. I say “taboo” because gambling has more likely been discouraged through tradition and peer pressure than any attempt at clear, biblical teaching. While tradition and peer pressure (or let’s call it “accountability”) can serve a community well if they are oriented toward good ends, we should stop at least once a generation and ask, “Are we right about this?”

So let’s apply this question to the issue of gambling. I’m dealing with this question in part because I suspect that gambling has become more common among Christians in recent years. This is especially true if one considers gambling to include pay-to-play games like NCAA Tournament bracket pools and fantasy football (more on this later). If more Christians are in fact gambling these days, then it’s a good time to revisit this issue.

The Biblical Data

To the possible consternation of some, there is no verse of Scripture that states, “Thou shalt not gamble.” Ah, how short this post could have been! You could have been on to other things by now, but instead we’ll have to dig a bit deeper into the Word to get some answers. As it turns out, there is a strong biblical case against gambling.

The Bible condemns some common motives for gambling, like greed or the love of money.

If someone is moved to gamble out of greed or a love for money, his actions would clearly violate Scriptural standards. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their greed (Luke 11:39-41), and greed is a motivating factor for false teachers, who twist the Gospel for their own gain (2 Peter 2:3, 14). Also, in a very memorable passage, Paul warned us against a longing for riches and a love of money:

            But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and             harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a    root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from          the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee      these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness (1     Timothy 6:9-11).

Is it possible that someone could gamble out of other motives—perhaps even motives that aren’t objectionable? That seems possible, so other considerations beyond motive will have to be considered in order to decide if gambling is morally permissible, and even if it is, if it is wise.

Gambling is a very foolish way to pursue prosperity.

The odds of winning at gambling vary from game to game, but generally speaking, they’re incredibly small. It is far more likely that you will lose money gambling, especially if you keep at it. In fact, even if you do win, you may come to regret it, as the experience of many lottery winners has shown.¹

The Book of Proverbs warns us about the desire to “get rich quick:”

            Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it       (Proverbs 13:11).

            Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense (Proverbs 12:11).

Love for one’s neighbor should prevent us from gambling.

This concern is especially true for public gambling institutions like casinos and state lotteries. Such opportunities are disproportionally used by those who can’t truly afford them. Gambling is a highly addictive activity for many people, and studies have also shown that when the casino comes to town, so do higher crime rates.² Love for our neighbors should move us not to support these establishments that have such detrimental effects on society.

The Casino vs. The Kitchen Table

But could there be a difference between gambling at a casino and going to poker night at your buddy’s man cave? Consider a situation in which you’re playing poker for money with just a few close friends. To the best of your knowledge, each person involved can afford the $50 entry fee for the game, and no one has a gambling problem that would be exacerbated by participating. Everyone is fully convinced that it’s okay to participate, so no one’s conscience will be violated by playing. Would this be wrong?

It is difficult to say that participating would be inherently wrong, but that’s not to say it would be wise. Why not play without introducing money into the game? You could still enjoy the fun of friendly competition without flirting with the potential temptations that could come from winning money. One should also consider the other activities that you could be doing with your friends. Other entertainment options could be more edifying toward the goal of becoming like Christ. In other words, while participating might not be morally bad, it might also not be morally best.

On Pools and Patrick Mahomes

What about activities like NCAA Tournament bracket pools or fantasy football? Should these be considered gambling? If one could draft Patrick Mahomes in his fantasy league, surely that wouldn’t be gambling since he’s such a safe bet to put up big numbers! (Pun fully intended.)

Deciding if these activities constitute gambling would depend on how one defines gambling, which we haven’t done yet in this post. For the sake of discussion, I’ll use the definition offered by theologian Norman Geisler: “gambling can be defined as the transfer of something of value from one person to another primarily on the basis of chance.”³ The element of chance is the determining factor according to this definition, and one would think it would be a constituent element of any definition of gambling.

Using chance as the deciding factor still leaves the waters a bit murky because so many activities involve chance—including highly legitimate activities like investing in a retirement fund or opening a business. But chance does at least give us a sliding scale with which to make some assessments.

According to such a scale, a bracket pool is more likely to be a form of gambling since the winner is decided in large part by chance (you know it’s true, bracketologists!). A fantasy football league would be less likely to be a form of gambling since the element of chance is more delicately balanced with the element of skill. This would seem to be especially true of a season-long league, since a player would have opportunities to change his strategy in light of chance occurrences that come up. Knowing what changes to make would be an example of skill.

All of this being said, however, a decision to participate in such games would have to pass through the same questions as the decision to attend poker night with your buddies. Is it wise to spend your money in this way? Does the introduction of money into the game needlessly expose you to temptations? Are you certain that no one in the game is flirting with personal harm—either financially or morally? To me, the same conclusion seems valid: it might not be morally bad, but it also might not be morally best.

References

1. “Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable,” Melissa Chan, https://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners, accessed July 8, 2020.

2. For the claims in this section, I am relying on the documentation in Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 1039-41.

3. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics, 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 374.

Summer Reading Recommendations for the Soul

Summer is here, which means you might find yourself with a little more time for—reading! What did you think I was going to say—watching sports!? Well, we can always hope. Until then, invest your time in some reading that will be good for your soul. Here are my recommendations in a few different categories.

For Children

The Chronicles of Narnia series by C. S. Lewis can almost go without mention here because it is so well-known. If your kids haven’t read through it, though, it’s well-worth it. Truth be told, however, with each passing year this series is becoming a better fit for the pre-teen and teen category. You’ll definitely need to read these books to your younger children, as they will find them too hard to read on their own.

If you’d like your child to practice their reading skills while developing some good devotional habits, consider Thoughts to Make Your Heart Sing by Sally Lloyd-Jones. These short devotionals are accessible for beginning readers from about 3^rd grade on up. They would also make for good family devotions at any time of the year.

My family has not made it very far through this last series, but I’m hearing enough good things about The Green Ember series by S. D. Smith to be able to recommend it to you.

For Pre-Teens/Teens

If your pre-teen or teen likes graphic novels, check out the graphic novels of the Bible produced by Kingstone Comics (www.kingstone.co). The authors have made every effort to stay close to the text of Scripture with their dialogue, which makes these graphic novels a fun and engaging way for pre-teens and teens to get more familiar with the Bible. One note of caution—the drawings of demons in these novels could be frightening for some kids and even teens. My six- and nine-year-old kids haven’t been bothered by them, but others might have different reactions.

Inspirational Non-Fiction

I’ll mention several recommendations in this category in rapid-fire fashion:

Unbroken, by Laura Hillenbrand. The story of Louis Zamperini, Olympic athlete turned Army Air Force airman during World War II. After spending much of the war in a Japanese POW camp, Zamperini found power in Christ to forgive his former captors.

Fire Road, by Kim Phuc Phan Thi. The story of the little girl in the famous photo from Vietnam, running down the road naked after being caught in a napalm attack. She later became a Christian and lived a remarkable life.

D. L. Moody: A Life, by Kevin Belmonte. The story of the great evangelist and the institutions he founded. I was particularly touched by stories of Moody’s humor.

Mission at Nuremberg, by Tim Townsend. The story of a Lutheran U. S. Army Chaplain and his efforts to minister to Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials.

For the Glory, by Duncan Hamilton. The story of Olympic legend Eric Liddell of “Chariots of Fire” fame. Liddell later became a missionary to China to ministered there during the Japanese occupation in World War II.

Inspirational Fiction

Safely Home, by Randy Alcorn. I’m a man, so I’m not supposed to cry, right? Well, this book brought tears to my eyes several times. A story about a nominal Christian from the United States on a business trip to China to visit a former classmate. This beautiful depiction of faith will touch your soul.

The Screwtape Letters, by C. S. Lewis. Ever wonder what’s going on in the mind of a demon—what it might be thinking as it tries to tempt you? C. S. Lewis humorously and insightfully pulls back that curtain through a series of fictional letters from an experienced demon to a rookie demon who’s trying to learn the ropes.

Any novels by Joel C. Rosenberg. Okay, I might be stretching the definition of “inspirational” here. These aren’t warm-and-fuzzy, feel-good novels—they’re stories of war and espionage told against the backdrop of a Christian worldview. “The Last Jihad” series in particular is set within the framework of biblical prophecy.

Christian Living

I’ll start with two books by Paul E. Miller—“A Praying Life” and “The J Curve.” These books are fantastic explanations of two subjects we often don’t understand as well as we’d like—prayer and suffering.

Heaven, by Randy Alcorn. It’s hard to long for a place you don’t know much about. Many Christians are in that place with regard to Heaven, but Alcorn’s book will help fill in the gaps in your understanding.

Decision Making and the Will of God, by Garry Friesen. A slightly older book, but timeless in its advice. Many people are virtually paralyzed in the face of decisions. That feeling can be amplified for Christians because of the notion of missing God’s will for your life. This book will help you have a more biblical understanding of that subject.

Heavy Lifting

For those brave souls looking for a challenge!

Salvation and Sovereignty, by Kenneth Keathley. When most Christians start thinking deeply about their faith, it doesn’t take them long to get around to questions about how God’s control over all things can fit together with our ability to make choices. This book offers a systematic analysis of such questions and—in my opinion—successfully blends ideas from both the Calvinist and Arminian positions.

Why Does God Allow Evil?, by Clay Jones. Who hasn’t asked this question? This book examines the subject from many different angles and offers some very compelling answers.

Is God more likely to grant a prayer request if lots of people ask for it?

After reading the title of this post, you might be wondering, “Why is Pastor Tim bothering to write about a question that should so obviously be answered ‘yes?’ Of course God is more likely to grant a prayer request if many people ask for it!” Well, I’m writing this post because—from a biblical perspective—the answer to this question is NOT obviously “yes.” In fact, the answer is a definite “maybe, maybe not.”

Let me be perfectly clear on this point before I say anything else: there is nothing we can do to FORCE God to grant our prayer requests—absolutely nothing. We cannot, through any means, bind, coerce, manipulate, or otherwise control God’s decision about our prayer requests. Now to be sure, the Bible does mention human attitudes and actions that will accompany effective prayer. A short list would include repentance (Isaiah 59:1-2), confidence in God’s generosity and goodness (James 1:5-17), obedience (John 15:7-10), persistence (Luke 18:1-8), and treating your wife properly (1 Peter 3:7; yes, it actually says that, guys—look it up!). But here’s the irony—a lack of such attitudes and actions in your life will definitely hinder your prayers, but the presence of such attitudes and actions will not definitely get your requests answered!

Now, does the number of people making a request belong in the category I just mentioned? Will a lack of larger numbers definitely hinder your prayer request? Certainly not! On the flip side, though, will the presence of larger numbers definitely assist in your request getting answered? The MOST we can say is, “maybe, maybe not.”

The one passage I’m aware of that joins together prayer and numbers is 2 Corinthians 1:11 (Note: the statement in Matthew 18:20 about “two or three gathered” is NOT a general teaching about prayer.) In 2 Corinthians 1:8-10, Paul has been speaking of his hope that God will deliver him and his co-workers from physical danger. He writes in v. 11, “You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.” Paul’s stated desire is that a larger number of people will become thankful to God since they have also made the same prayer request. The request answered would thus be their request as well, and they would be grateful to have it answered. I certainly have to think that, all other things being equal, more gratitude to God is better than less gratitude to God. This thought could therefore be a good motive for us to share prayer requests with others.

But does God take the potential numerical impact of a request into account when deciding on an answer? This passage simply does not say, nor does any other passage of Scripture that comes to my mind. We had better be very cautious, therefore, before we assume that a greater number of requesters brings with it a greater likelihood of receiving the request.

I wrote this post today to help you in two specific ways.

1. To help you think twice before sharing sensitive information as a prayer request.

If you’ve attended church very long, you’re likely familiar with what some have jokingly called the “organ recital”—times for sharing prayer requests that often become dominated by health concerns. When we or someone we love is facing trouble of any kind, we often want to call in the prayer cavalry right away. We want to get the word out so that other people can start praying for that person.

Those of us who are very familiar with how churches often operate can easily forget that not everyone wants to have personal, sensitive information shared quickly or broadly. Some people don’t mind this information being shared for the purpose of prayer, but some people aren’t comfortable with it. We should respect their decision without thinking their request is less likely to be answered if it’s not broadcast.  In this day when companies bend over backwards to protect our personal information, we should do the same for our friends. Make sure you have permission before you share information!

2. To help you not lose hope for your own requests.

We’ve all seen lots of prayer requests go viral on social media. People all over the world get to praying for someone they don’t even know. It can be encouraging to someone to know they have that much interest in their need.

But have you wondered if your own requests are at a disadvantage if they don’t garner that much attention? Perhaps you even put your request out there, but few people seem to pay attention. Does that influence God? Is He swayed by the number of likes, shares, and re-tweets?

I see no reason to think He is. Rather, we are assured that the God who knows the number of hairs on your head is concerned about you on a personal level. He knows what you need before you even ask (Matthew 6:8)! He is listening to you even if no one else is, so don’t lose hope for your requests if they don’t gain much notice from others. God’s children may always come with confidence to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16), even if no one re-tweets the fact that you were there.

Is "What Would Jesus Do?" The Best Question for Decision Making?

In 1896, Charles Sheldon, the minister of the Congregational Church in Topeka, Kansas, wrote a novel entitled, “In His Steps.” That novel popularized the use of the question “What would Jesus do?” as a tool for making moral decisions. This question stuck around among Christians after that time and then enjoyed a big resurgence in the 1990’s through church youth groups. It has remained very popular ever since.

As surprising as this may sound, though, I think the popularity of this question overshadows an even better question that we could ask when facing moral dilemmas. Now, don’t me wrong—“What would Jesus do?” is certainly a fine question. It’s a far better question than “What would feel the best?” or “What would offer the path of least resistance?” Nevertheless, I think the question suffers from some drawbacks—some that stem from our response to the question, and at least one that stems from the question itself. What are these drawbacks?

1. We often assume we already know Jesus well enough to answer the question

Many people would say they’ve got a good grasp of what Jesus was all about—at least in His personal interactions, anyway. “He was all about being nice and polite, right? Inviting children to sit on his lap and what not.” If we already know Jesus so well, there doesn’t seem to be any need to take another, closer look at His example before we decide what He would do. But this is precisely where we take a massive wrong turn.

In this day, when only 32% of regular churchgoers read the Bible everyday¹, we’d better pause and think before we claim to know Jesus well. Have you ever read one of the Gospels all the way through? How about all four of them? They don’t all contain the same stories, so it’s important to read them all. If you haven’t done so yet, are you sure you know Jesus well enough to state what He would do?

If we try to decide what Jesus would do without cracking open the Bible and thinking long and hard about the question, the decision we reach could be far off the mark.

2. We over-emphasize some of Jesus’ actions and teachings and neglect others

Let’s face it—Jesus was a complex individual. We would not have predicted that all of His sayings or all of His actions would have come from the same person. The same Jesus who said He was gentle and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29) also said that He came to cast fire on the earth and wished it was already kindled (Luke 12:49). The same Jesus who took children in His arms to bless them (Mark 10:13-16) also chased other people with a whip because they desecrated a holy place (John 2:13-17).

It takes great care and deliberate effort not to create a one-sided caricature of Jesus, but many times that’s exactly what we end up with in our minds. We tend to highlight the sayings and actions that we’re comfortable with and all but ignore the ones that make us squirm. But if we don’t consider the full range of Jesus’ words and deeds when we try to follow His example, how confident can we be in our declarations about what He would do?

3. The question runs the risk of downplaying the uniqueness of Christ

When we ask “What would Jesus do?” there seems to be an assumption that we can think along exactly the same lines as Jesus; that we can weigh exactly the same considerations that He would. But for all the ways in which Jesus was similar to us, He was still different from us in some highly important ways. On some occasions, He took the actions that He did because He knew the inner thoughts of others (think of the healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9) or because He knew the future (think of Christ’s delay in traveling to Bethany before raising Lazarus in John 11). And I hardly need to mention Christ’s ability to do miracles!

Those differences present some difficult hurdles to jump in our efforts to decide what Jesus would do in our present-day situations. I don’t know the inner thoughts of others; I don’t know the future. How do I know that Jesus wouldn’t have made a very different decision than me based on His knowledge of information that isn’t available to me?

A better question

“What would Jesus do?” can be a fine question IF the preceding drawbacks are kept in mind. Obviously, we want to imitate our Lord as much as we can! But I think there’s an even better question that deserves more of our attention. It is not “What would Jesus do?” but rather “What did Jesus command?” Or even better yet, “What did Jesus and His hand-picked representatives command?” We’ve got to bring the writings of the Apostles into our decisions; after all, they are the ones whom Jesus commissioned to make disciples and “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:20).” He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13), so we have it from Jesus that we better listen to what the Apostles had to say.

Commands offer us much greater clarity than an example ever could. The example from a person’s actions can be difficult to apply from one situation to another—even when we know that all of a person’s actions were morally perfect, as in the case of Jesus. But commands, by their very nature as directives, point us very clearly in the right direction. Yes, we will still have to sort through some questions about the precise steps that we should take, but commands make the general outline of the path very clear.

So as you make your decisions, I would encourage you to give your primary focus to the commands of Jesus rather than His actions. Actions can be helpful illustrations of a command, and thus we can and should learn from them, but commands offer greater clarity. So lock in on the commands of Christ and His Apostles!

References:

1. https://factsandtrends.net/2019/07/02/how-many-protestant-churchgoers-actually-read-the-bible-regularly/