Texting Treatise: Different Responses to Temptation

Texting Treatise: Different Responses to Temptation

The first section contains the types of responses or non-responses to sin, where a person rejects the idea that they should be repentant about it.

Blindness

Lack of Awareness: unaware of what you are doing

Qualified Unawareness: aware of what you are doing, but think it is good. Unaware that it is sin

Incorrigibility

Apathy: aware it’s wrong but don’t care to change it

Minimization: aware it’s wrong but deny the severity of it

Defiance: aware of the wrongness and severity and willingly indulge it anyway without contrition

In this next section are different types of responses to sin that contain a measure of contrition (feeling sorry) or repentance (genuinely desiring to flee from or overcome the temptation). For the sake of making it seem more interesting, psychologically, I’ve arranged them in a potential ‘maturity scale’ that the hypothetical average sinner might progress through while dealing with recognized temptations to sin in their life.

Contrition

                Sub-set: Vain Heroics

Halfhearted Abstinence: an attempt to break from it, but not strong enough in conviction to persist. Likely followed by binging on the particular temptation (shopping, drinking, sexual activity, surfing channels/websites, abandoning healthy eating or exercise, etc) upon crashing

All or Nothing: can lead to longer sustained abstinence, but more often leads to more time in between attempts, because of the fear of failure. Successive failure leads to disillusionment with pure abstinence and leads to a variety of different attempts to deal with the issue:

                Sub-set: Allowances

Hesitation: failing with abstinence doesn’t immediately lead to abandoning that method, but can cause a person to rationalize not trying right now, while they’re waiting for the perfect moment to start. They tolerate giving in to the temptation because they tell themselves that they’re planning to try to abstain from it soon

Banking: sinning more in the short term to satisfy an imagined quota that your flesh desires, so that you can hope to have better success in your abstinence effort. This leads to an expectation of high indulgence, which produces a cycle of periodic abstinence followed by binging, which is worse than the initial ‘halfhearted abstinence’ program.

Putting it Out of Mind: not thinking about it, in the hopes that it was one’s focus on trying to deal with the temptation so strongly that led to the catastrophic failures in the past. When this inevitably fails, it is modified to

Tolerance: not keeping track, and letting yourself get away with indulgence in the hope that by not “banking” it, you’ll end up indulging in it less, and that by not trying to abstain all-or-nothing-wise, you won’t have a “crash.”

                Sub-set: Searching for Loopholes

Rhythm/Scheduling: when tolerance doesn’t end up diminishing your gratification of your sinful desires, and you catch yourself, you may try to “out-think” yourself, by intentionally planning to give in to the temptation at certain points, but insert periods of focused abstinence in between. It’s basically a modified “banking/all-or-nothing” approach with shorter periods of abstinence that make success more likely. When the periods are extended in the effort of “weaning” yourself off of a dependence on the indulgence, you reach the level of

Gradual Improvement: this can be reached with or without the “scheduling” stage; it’s basically an attempt to “play a long game” and start comfortably with a high tolerance for your indulgence, gradually decreasing how much of an allowance you’ll give yourself. This is basically a more intentional version of

Fatalism: aiming for less than perfection because you can’t get it. Whereas the “gradual improvement,” “scheduling” and “banking” approaches tolerate sin for the sake of trying to build some sort of spiritual immunity to it (doesn’t work, by the way), fatalism is the final resting place of many people (note that this scale does not have to be limited to Christians). They decide that they’ll accept a certain amount of giving in to temptation over a certain length of time, indefinitely, because they’ve decided that they’ll never have victory over it. Such thinking can lead a person from being contrite  to becoming incorrigible. However, some people may make a few further desperate steps to dealing with the issue of their temptation

What Was Jesus' Sacrifice? Using Infinity to Contemplate the Gospel

Originally posted in response to a post on an ex-mormon website. The blogger has fallen for the common error of rejecting Christianity after leaving a cultic false religion for very valid reasons. Just because someone lied to you doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. But on to the subject. The claim is that Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything when He died if He could take it back by coming back to life just a few days later. How do we address this challenge? My answer is below.

*     *     *     *

The mistake here is in thinking that physical death is the focus. That's not what the Bible teaches (Reformed, here, not a Mormon). 

Instead it teaches that death is not the cessation of 'life,' but the unnatural separation of a living being from the source of its life. Man-God, Man's body-Man's soul, God-God.

It was not in dying that Jesus did His miraculous deed. That was just the necessary finishing touch, a bit of a technical requirement.

But what He really sacrificed was His relationship to the Father. For 3 hours, He was spiritually separated from the Father and they were not in communion, as they have/are/will be in all other possible places in time and space from eternity past to eternity future.

Always Happy to Reconcile with the Repentant

Work has presented a number of interesting opportunities to consider the relationship I have with other people, and to contemplate from this the relationship God has with us. People in a fast food establishment are typically not your smartest, most responsible, kindest, most mature, most easygoing or for that matter the most Christian people you're going to meet in life. And yet, because you can't run away, you can't scream in agony while on shift, you can't quit and you can't fire them, you're forced, as a co-worker, to just take it, whatever they dish out, whether good or bad.

And it is good and bad. Because no matter how well behaved they might be compared to others, they are still evil. And they are all made in the image of God, and able to do good, and are therefore likable, but even despite this, they may not know God and therefore they don't have His sustaining joy inside and sooner or later show you just how bafflingly unpleasant they can be. Because you don't have the opportunity to end it all, either by walking off, or by forcing them to behave, or by eliminating them from employment, your day-to-day life becomes a prolonged exercise in implementing forgiveness. You can't hold grudges, because you are forced to interact, and are therefore unable to cut them off completely and ignore them, much as you may like. And that also means that no matter how cruelly they may have treated you, no matter how disrespectfully, or ignorantly, or hatefully, in a few days' time they might laugh and be jocular in your presence, and you might tire of your hurt feelings and even chuckle, yourself. 

It's a strange thing. But it doesn't mean they were less wrong. It doesn't mean they are good people because you have to treat them as if they are. It doesn't mean anything like that. It's just easier to let things go than to hold on to them, because the sheer amount of insanity you experience at a workplace like that is too much to remember, frankly. It only hurts you to recall it all. Letting it go--forgiving it--is better for your heart.

Tim Challies Explains My Own Thoughts on Mark Driscoll To Me

I had the fortune of finding this in one of those "people who read this also read..." links in Facebook, and I'm pleased to say it's nearly identical to what I was thinking to myself, and am glad that someone with more wisdom and know-how could validate the reasonableness of my view.

When I exited Phase I of my Christian re-education (apologetics and logical proofs), and got into learning theology, the most practically helpful resources were short articles (a la GotQuestions) and short video clips (a la Mark Driscoll's, John Piper's, etc) on Youtube, which made it easier to learn individual concepts quickly and to pick up and leave off whenever it suited, considering that I was struggling to make personal gains in time management at college (both with respect to classes and when to eat/sleep) at the same time.

A big part of my education in Reformed Theology consisted of very theologically accurate snippets of sermons from Mars Hill Church in Seattle that existed on Youtube. I could find nothing in any of the videos I watched that turned out to be wrong from a theological point of view. Perhaps confrontational in the language chosen, but as a young single man with a baptism of public education, I strongly appreciated the rawness of the messages. They weren't "uncensored," what I could find--he made reference to swearing in the past, but from the lack thereof in recent video clips, it seemed that he had grown and matured past that. What I liked about them was that "he didn't mince words" -- he didn't walk back the severity of the message lest arrogant 20something boys miss its seriousness. Testimony from others in the comments confirmed that most young men and many women saw those videos as a "wake-up call" to immature men, and greatly appreciated it for that.

Then, the fact that I found comments from John Macarthur, Albert Mohler and Todd Friel, one by one, as I began to become acquainted with their ministries, which were unanimously critical of Mark, made me somewhat uncomfortable. They didn't call him a heretic, but they made seemingly vague references to immaturity and inappropriate behavior that I couldn't actually find the evidence of, at least in the short videos posted online (and I didn't want to put in the effort to watch every single archived sermon to investigate).

Having learned well enough, and especially when I moved back from college (greatly diminishing my activity on Youtube), I determined that I didn't need to draw from the theology of Mark Driscoll--which as far as I could tell, was never the issue in the public opinions of these other learned men in the Faith. So I devoted more time to listening to downloads of Wretched's free broadcasts, which coincided very well with the fact that I'd now moved on from learning the heavy reformed theological doctrines, and was able to take instruction in applying that theology, which Wretched focuses much air time on. Phase III.

I had the luxury to wait and see if anything would come out to make this subject clearer for me. And it appears now that it has. I know very few details, but Mark has acknowledged some recent wrongdoing and because of the attention, has taken a leave of absence. Pursuant to that, Tim Challies wrote a very helpful article.

Read "Character is King" on Tim Challies' website here.

I'll quote a few lines and make my way to the exit.

"As I read his book in 2005, and followed it with Confessions of a Reformission Rev in 2006, I felt both admiration for what Driscoll taught and concern for how he taught it. I loved most of his theology, but was concerned about his coarseness."

"Many of us felt the same way. We didn’t quite know what to think about the man, but we loved his theology. "

"We had concerns, but the Lord seemed to be using him. So we recommended his podcasts, or bought his books, even if we had to provide a small caveat each time."

" A young movement responds eagerly to things a mature movement does not. I doubt we will see another Mark Driscoll anytime soon—someone known equally for crudeness and for gospel preaching. "

He concludes that this should be an opportunity for reassessment of how "The New Calvinism," the movement he mentioned, should approach new teachers it discovers.

"Let’s allow this tragic situation to cause us to look with fresh eyes at the biblical qualifications for a man who would be a leader within the church. "

Those qualifications, mentioned in Titus 1:6, "a man above reproach," and 1 Timothy 3:7, "having a good reputation with those outside," would seem to my older, wiser, more Biblically centered self to disqualify Mark from pastorship. Not from being affirmed as a Brother or from being accepted after it has become clear he has repented and been healed from his past sinfulness. But because of this circumstance, the Bible is clear, and there are many possible reasons why that come to mind...he should not return to hold the office of pastor or elder in any church. But that is because of the sanctity of the position. It is not a condemnation of him, it is because what his further association therewith will do to harm "those outside," and put a stumbling block in the path of those who are weak believers or unbelievers.

Despite this, I have a settled conscience with regard to what I had watched and learned from him before, and the times when I've passed along a good video to others (two instances of this are on this blog). But the takeaway is that yes, the theology is solid. BUT, we do not need Mark Driscoll to learn it. So I have moved on, but have no regrets over my crash course in Calvinism that I got from his videos on Youtube. I may even post some of these videos on the blog, but I'll make sure to link back here.

It is, after all, God's Holy Spirit who illuminates the Biblical truth to us when we read it or hear it, whatever the context. As I explained in my short treatise on Sanctification, I believe that whether a source is good or not, if we learn something from it, it is always to God's credit, not the path or instrument through which He teaches us. Whether I learned theology from the embattled Mark Driscoll or the esteemed John MacArthur, it was really God who was my true tutor, and so we should be very resistant to make too much of the men who preach the truth. Should they falter, we know not to be surprised, because they are sinners as well. So let's be cautious of developing cults of personality in our Reformed Christian circles. Let our focus always be on God, and let us minimize our adulation of men as much as possible.

~ Rak Chazak

Refusal and Proof

Picture post of a letter explaining my discovery of the truth that people don't fail to believe in God because they aren't told the truth, or because they are incapable of understanding it. They are first and foremost unwilling to let themselves consider the truth, because they don't want to face the possibility of being challenged to change their minds.

Why?

Sin. Love of sin.

~ Rak Chazak

“Sleepy Hollow” on FOX: Spiritual Warfare? Review.

This needs little introduction. Below are three images, pictures I took from my handwritten Journal, this one “Journal Red,” (so named for the color of the binding). Setting the scene, this is from late December 2013, after having seen the episode of the Sleepy Hollow series where the typecast “creepy middle-aged man” from the Fringe television series [also not recommended television, let me add] makes a guest appearance as a “sin eater” whom Ichabod Crane seeks out for help.

Were you surprised? 

~ Rak Chazak

Feeling Bad in A Good Way

I recently fell into some sin that I'd avoided for a while; the details aren't important, so I won't go into them. But the point to stress here is the disappointment over falling down when you had seen positive indications that you'd finally moved past it, for many months. 

I have to confess, I love the feeling of ending a bout with sin and walking away from it. Getting away from whatever it was, and taking some alone time to pray to God and get back to living for Him instead of running away -- it's such a relief. I wrote about this in an earlier blog post.

Most people feel bad after doing something they know is wrong. But there's two different ways to feel bad about something. As a general rule, you can either pity yourself or you can be filled with sorrow over how what you did affected the person you did it against. There are such things as "victimless crimes," where something you do doesn't necessarily hurt another person. But there's no such thing as a "victimless sin," because all sin is ultimately against God. So the appropriate response to your feelings of guilt after doing something wrong is to be anguished over hurting your relationship with your Heavenly Father. The wrong way to react is to run away from God in shame, refusing to deal with Him. The wrong way to react is to make it all about you. 

Think about it: "I should be better than this." Really? You should be better than you are? You must think highly of yourself. Stop and realize--this sort of thought is actually PRIDE at its core. You suppose that you have it in yourself to be good. That is why you fail to reconcile with God; you run from Him because in your mind you truly think you can fix your mistakes without His help. It's monumentally arrogant! When you no longer say to yourself, "that's not who I really am--that's not me," and instead admit that you are as rotten as the things you do, then you're ready to accept the fact that only God can help you get out of the hole you've dug for yourself. That's why when you've done something wrong, the right thing to do is not to run away from God, but to run toward Him. He's not our enemy. We're our own worst enemy. He's our friend. 

So as soon as you've admitted to yourself that you have sinned, run to God. Find Him in prayer and have the assurance of your salvation restored to you; thank Him for His forgiveness and ask for His help to strengthen you to avoid sin in the future.

That's what I did. And I was really excited when I found this video of R W Glenn saying essentially the same thing that I'd come to recognize on my own:



His illustration with Peter and Judas explains the difference between 'feeling bad in a good way,' and 'feeling bad in a bad way,' as I referenced in the title.

It seems counter-intuitive at first, but I hope you learn to make the habit of running back to God when you stumble into sin, instead of hiding in shame like Adam and Eve did. Forgiveness is a great thing, and it's freely given. You can't earn it, and thanks to God, we don't need to. 

~ Rak Chazak

Struggling With Sin

Sometimes the thought occurs to me, 'what if I'm a fake?'

John 6:37 spells out a clear teaching of Christianity: those who belong to God will never fall away.
1 John 2:19 buttresses this point: those who fall away from the faith were never truly saved to begin with.
Matthew 7:21-23 says plainly that many who go to hell will actually be convinced that they are Christians, because they call Jesus "Lord."

For those who like powerful video/audio presentations, the one below might capture your interest. Be warned, it might be scary to some. If the above verses are enough to give you the idea that there are fake Christians, you can skip the video if you're pressed for time.

Here's the deal: if you're saved, you cannot become unsaved (Romans 8:38-39). And if you're saved, you'll pursue a godly life and subsequently sin less and less in your daily life. You never become perfect, so you will sin -- but you fall into it, you don't dive.

The question that goes through my mind is, how can you measure the distinction, practically? After sinning, I naturally feel bad. But feeling bad isn't necessarily repentance. Repentance would involve a complete about-face, not merely the admission of guilt, followed by continued indulgence.

When a long time has gone since the last time you sinned in a particular way, you feel good about it. Living righteously, I suppose, improves your confidence. David in Psalm 51:12 seems to indicate that what we lose when we sin is not our salvation, but our confidence in knowing that we have it. We lose our assurance. Not the seal itself, but our personal assurance that we have been sealed. 

The simple solution seems to be to make a habit of repenting as soon as possible after you sin, praying for strength to resist it in the future, and getting back in the mindset of trying to avoid it. You'll never succeed (1 John 1:8-10), but the mark of a Christian is a continual mortification of the flesh--it's not something you do once and never again. It's a persistent attitude of the heart that leads to increasing grief over sin and an increasing gratitude toward God for His forgiveness in spite of our continual sin.

I'm encouraged when I recently stood back and noticed that what makes me the most upset about when I commit a sin -- what grieves me the most -- is not its severity, nor even its perpetuity, but the fact that the very act of it, no matter how great or small the sin, is a proclamation of ingratitude toward God for His forgiveness. It is like when you are in a close relationship with someone -- a close family member or romantic partner -- and you do something to hurt them. You're not upset primarily because you realize that what you did was ontologically wrong -- you're upset because what you did hurt the one you love. Now, God cannot be hurt in the sense that He is weakened. But that doesn't mean He can't be disrespected. And the One least deserving in all of existence to be disrespected must surely be God.

Consequently, the thing I most look forward to upon death is the final freedom from sin. To no longer have it be part of my nature to reject God and the blessing that is God. Heaven will be great, I'm sure. And exploring the New Earth will be an enjoyment. But what will make it fantastic is that my relationship with my heavenly Father will no longer have the potential to be harmed by my selfishness.

Until that day, there is work to done here on earth. 

~ Rak Chazak

What a Week!

Wow, that was a lot of work. And I still have assignments to do over the weekend! Suffice it to say that between three classes, I had 4 exams, and two writing assignments for yet another.

As a side note, I have in mind to write a post talking about procrastination at some point in the future.

I just want to make this post right now so that no one gets the impression that the blog is stagnating, already. 

I'd also like to put out a "warning" of sorts: because I have anonymity with this blog (unlike Facebook), I see a niche and opportunity for me to talk about very sensitive subjects -- deeply personal sins, or if not outright sins, very intimate thoughts -- because I'm assuming others have had a similar experience, namely wanting to find something on line that talks about something that matters to you but it's either obscure or sensitive enough that it's unlikely to be easily found in articles anywhere. Topics like masturbation, for example. It's something that most of us are intimately familiar with, but it isn't talked about much. I've done a lot of thinking on that subject, and I think a future article, or series of articles, about that subject may do a lot to provide answers--or at least sympathy--for young people who are wondering about this issue.

This is the first of a few notices I'll give, before suddenly launching into a post on the topic. I wouldn't want someone to be surprised by TMI (too much information). But this is something you can look forward to reading about, if it's something that matters to you or someone you know. I won't be shy in tackling this topic.

Anyone want to stake claims on whether this North Korea situation will fizzle out or turn into the 5th war of this Presidency?

~ Rak Chazak