Skin Cancer

With the popularity of the movie Fireproof and its associated books, and the conversation in Christian circles regarding pornography, I am posting an excerpt from my book Spit and Polish for Husbands modified slightly for this post. This post is rated PG-13, so please keep that in mind.
------
There is an adulterous woman who lurks in the shadows, quiet and unseen, without consistent shape or physical substance, yet is more alluring than the street harlot and just as destructive as the motel tryst. She seeks your company, often posing as a damsel in distress. Her poses beg for your attention; they seek to be rescued from loneliness. Although she wears no clothes, she bears a sword, ready to cut your heart in two, setting body in conflict with spirit. From the slick pages of a magazine or the colorful images of a computer screen, she awaits your peering eyes, ready to strike with her naked dagger. She is the harlot of pornography.

Why do the hearts of so many married men become divided? Although they have wives whom God designed to meet their physical needs, why are they tempted to seek the pleasures of another? For many men, physical adultery is a well-recognized taboo. Physically violating the wedding vows, even in our permissive society, is still considered by most Christians to be a sign of unfaithfulness to God, an act that proves an unsaved spiritual state. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9.) A divided heart that leads to spiritual adultery, however, has not gained such public condemnation.

Millions of men dive into the cesspool of pornography, purposefully filling their eyes with forbidden fruit. Although they may never touch another woman’s body, their minds entertain the thoughts, their lusts traveling from woman to woman, gaining mental and even physical pleasure from the images these willing females produce.

What is the allure of these undressed and apparently sexually insatiable woman? With pursed, come-hither lips, she curls her inviting finger, exposing and caressing her smooth, airbrushed flesh. She is the image of desire, a lonely woman begging for a man’s fulfilling touch, and not just any man. She wants you. She’s begging for you to take her and have your way with her. She’s there for your pleasure. “Come and take me,” she calls. “I need you!”

And it’s all a lie.

The woman is a whore. She poses for money, nothing more, nothing less. She doesn’t care about any man who mentally rapes her with his eyes and mind. In fact, if you venture into her lair, she will likely disdain or even hate you, perhaps laughing at your weakness as she overpowers you so easily with a mere flash of flesh. How many men have allowed her to poison their minds, committing spiritual adultery with this harlot of hate who reveals her body while stealing a man’s soul?

For the lips of an adulteress drip honey,
And smoother than oil is her speech;
But in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
Sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death,
Her steps lay hold of Sheol.
She does not ponder the path of life;
Her ways are unstable, she does not know it (Proverbs 5:3-6).

Pornography is a simple formula, although the user allows himself to be unaware of its devices. It invites wandering eyes to drink from its lovely pool, promising a quenched thirst. Alas! The thirst is far from quenched! The harlot’s drink is a pill of salt; it makes a man beg for deeper draughts, more skin, younger girls, views of lesbian encounters, until images alone are unable to satisfy. Each sip whets the addiction as a man is entrapped by the harlot’s poison, and his mind is imprisoned in pornography’s deadly snare. Solomon wrote, “For on account of a harlot one is reduced to a loaf of bread, and an adulteress hunts for the precious life” (Proverbs 6:26).

Jesus said, “Everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Can a man claim that he looks at images of nude women without lusting, that his reasons for seeking the harlot’s exposed skin are holy? Hardly! This lust is adultery, pure and simple, and a man who pursues this course has broken his vows. And with whom has he mated? He has pursued a mere phantom. He has thrown away his virtue for colored dots on a printed page. He has cast away his wife in pursuit of pixels on a computer screen.

The Internet has certainly helped pornography purveyors capture a whole host of men. An innocent engine search may yield a dozen lurid descriptions, inviting a simple click to reach images of women who beg for your attention. No magazines to hide. No trips to the video store. No evidence of evil. One mouse click and a dozen smiling beauties await your caressing eyes. Simple curiosity leads many into the snare, trapping the minds of those who don’t dash for the exit in disgust. First a sip, then a draught, and the harlot has captured another lover.
But where is thy wife, O man? For whom hast thou cast her aside?

Drink water from your own cistern,
And fresh water from your own well.
Should your springs be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be yours alone,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
As a loving hind and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.
For why should you, my son, be exhilarated with an adulteress,
And embrace the bosom of a foreigner? (Proverbs 5:15-20).

Why do so many men seek strange flesh? The mystery of the unknown? The excitement of the forbidden? The desire to conquer? Any of these excuses is surely inadequate. There is simply no good reason, as Proverbs 6:32-33 reveals:

The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense;
He who would destroy himself does it.
Wounds and disgrace he will find,
And his reproach will not be blotted out.

Let’s get real, guys. What’s this pornography stuff all about, anyway? Freak shows aside, more than 99 percent of the women in these pictures look pretty much alike, with body parts in the same places. Breasts are in front, buttocks are in back, there are two arms and two legs, and an epidermis holding it all together. There aren’t many surprise arrangements. There goes the mystery excuse. And we won’t conquer these women; they’re untouchable. In fact, if we lust after them, they’ve conquered us. We’ve fallen into their trap.

That leaves us with the excitement-of-the-forbidden excuse, the hormonal rush that accompanies the peek through the keyhole, the stolen view of what lies beneath the clothing, the places no one is allowed to see. “Come take a look, Mister, and I’ll show you something you’ll like … just for you.”

Get over it. These women aren’t giving you a private peak; they’re strutting their stuff for anyone with eyes. Forbidden? Yes. For your eyes only? Forget about it. These harlots put their bodies on show, inviting deeper draughts for paying customers. All they really want is your money. You can waste your endorphins on a lie, see hate masquerading as love, and the hormonal rush prompts the desire for more as each drink creates new thirst.

If you’re addicted to pornography, you need to meditate on reality—the truth of the hateful harlot. She’s a stalker, a seductress, a destroyer. She will poison your soul. She has nothing to offer that you haven’t seen before; even her body is just a fleeting image. She’s certainly not a damsel in distress, and it’s not your duty to rescue her, even in your mind.

Tell me, would you look at pornographic images with your wife? Would you sit down and say, “Honey, come take a look at this gal! Isn’t she hot?” May it never be! Such an act would be shameful. Yet this is a good test and a faithful standard to use in avoiding what is shameful. If you’re ever contemplating an act, ask yourself if you would do it in your wife’s presence. If the answer is no, don’t do it.

Say this along with me: “I will never do anything in private for which I would be ashamed in public.” Repeat this promise, and embed it in your mind.

Remember, too, that you’re never really in private. God always looks over your shoulder. Would you say to Him, “Get a load of this one, Lord! She’s a looker!” God forbid! Yet millions of men act as though God can’t see them. But He not only sees everything in your view, He reads everything in your mind. He is watching. Do we believe it? Do we care? Will we invite Him to inspect everything we view? Would we mind showing to Jesus Christ everything we bring up on our computer screens, every image our eyes rest upon in magazines, every television channel that makes us pause as we look for a decent program?

Isn’t this the test of faith? Isn’t how we act in private a true reflection of what we believe about God, that He is really who He says He is, the ever-present, omniscient Lord?

How do I know about pornography and its power? I once dove into that cesspool. Years before I became a Christian, I sought the excitement of the forbidden, the hormonal rush that made my heart beat faster and my teenaged hands shake with anticipation. Thanks be to God, my swim in the sewer was brief. Although I did not yet know Him, I believe God helped me discern the folly of allowing these images to control my mind.

Until I became a Christian, some of those images haunted my mind, stamped into my memory like a searing brand. Such is the power of a pornographic image. The chemical high makes it adhere to the mind. The memories fly like bats unbidden and lurk during both waking and sleeping moments.

Yet there is a cure. As we set our minds on the things above, where Christ is, memories of evil begin to vanish. As Paul taught:

If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:1-3).

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you (Philippians 4:8-9).

Even if you have imbibed the poison of pornography for years, God can give you peace. Give your life to Christ, and He will shatter the unfruitful images as your mind learns to dwell on what is pure and honorable. Leave your adulterous ways behind, and God will help you walk in holiness, giving you the ability never to stray again in your mind.

Your wife is your one and only damsel. Never seek another. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times, and be exhilarated always with her love.

Excuses, excuses - Romans Chapter 7

When people defend the concept of sin in a Christian, the reasons they give for continued sin after salvation are often lame excuses. Strangely enough, words defending sin come from the lips of those who claim to love God. They say they try to obey, yet they continue to rebel against Him in some manner. This, of course, is unreasonable.

Does a reasonable person rebel against a beloved master? Does a servant of the Almighty lack the power to obey? Of course not. So the words a sinner uses to excuse his rebellious behavior are really a weak cover up. They either misrepresent God and His word or shift blame in a disingenuous manner.

One of the most common excuses for sin comes from Romans chapter seven. Many interpret Paul’s story of struggle with sin as one that occurred while he was a Christian, and, or so the excuse claims, if Paul struggled with sin, somehow that means that all Christians struggle, thereby creating an excuse that legitimizes sinful behavior in the individual.

There are many problems with both the interpretation of the passage and the application. It seems strange to me that anyone would point to another person’s sin and use it as an excuse for his own. For example, if a pastor of a church molests a child, would a layman in the church dare do the same and then claim the pastor’s example as an excuse? Would he dare say, “The pastor molested a child. So it stands to reason that I would, too”?

I assume everyone would agree that such an appeal is absurd. It would be a moral outrage. Yet, this is what people are doing when they compare themselves to Paul and his struggle. “Paul struggled with sin, so it stands to reason that I would, too.” This is exactly the same. There is no difference. It doesn’t matter if the sin is molestation, lying, lust, theft, or an unkind word. In every case, the idea of pointing out another person’s sin in order to exonerate oneself is a moral outrage.

But it’s even worse than that. In Paul’s case, he wasn’t even describing his life as a regenerate man. He was describing his life under the law, before Jesus stopped him in his murderous march toward Damascus, so an appeal to this passage as an excuse for sin is even more unreasonable.
So that readers won’t have to look up the passage, I will be quoting sections here.

Romans 7:1-13
1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here is an overview of the chapter and its context: The first verse is meant to be a further explanation of truths declared in the previous chapter. Paul starts an illustration section in verse 1 of chapter 7 when he says, “Or do you not know brethren.” He then provides an illustration of bondage to law in verses 2 and 3. Following that, he brings the examples down to earth by relating the doctrine to the readers in verses 4 through 6. Paul goes on to paint a picture of bondage under the law from verses 7 through 25 and then describes what freedom from the law means in chapter 8, verses 1 through 11.

Now for the details. The first six verses of chapter 7 explain how a person escapes from the bondage of law; he must die to it. An example is given in verses 2-3, and Paul shows how the concept works for Christians in verses 4-6. Note the past tense in verse 5, "For while we were in the flesh.” This will become important later.

Paul has taken great pains to this point to make these statements clear:

1. Christians have died with Christ. (6:3)

2. By doing this they have died to the Law. (7:6)

3. By this they have also been freed from sin. (6:18, 22)

4. They have also become slaves of God and of obedience to God. (6:10-11, 13, 16, 22)

Verse 7 of chapter 7 starts an interesting view into Paul's life. He apparently is not satisfied with a pure, step by step theological analysis, but also wants to put meat on the discussion by placing his past life in the open as an example.

There are two deaths to describe in his illustration. First is the spiritual death to God that comes from sinning, illustrating Romans 6:23, "for the wages of sin is death." The second is the death to the law and the coincident rebirth to God, thereby demonstrating Romans 7:6, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound.” Both kinds of death are included to make the example complete.

Verses 7-13 of chapter 7 clearly speak about a past experience. The past tenses throughout show this, and the wording reveals that the first death, the death to God, occurred before Paul became a Christian. Verse 9 indicates that this death occurred when “the commandment came,” which is probably a reference to Paul's understanding of God's expectations of him, whether through the Old Testament written law or through revelations of conscience.

Paul, being a zealous Pharisee, certainly knew God’s law long before his conversion, so this coming of the commandment must also have occurred before his conversion. It will be important to remember that this passage (7:7-13) is about a past experience as I examine the next passage.

Romans 7:14-25
14For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

In this section Paul switches from past to present tense in his illustration, without otherwise changing the time of the events. Verse 14 is certainly connected with the previous passage, because the word "for" is used as an explanatory introduction. There is also no change in the pronoun, "I." The person described in verses 7-13 is certainly a man under the law, so since the pronoun does not change, we should assume that this is the same man in verse 14, unless a change is given explicitly. But is this the same man under the same condition as in the preceding verses (7:7-13), enslaved to the law and to sin? Apparently so, because the verse says that he is both of flesh and sold under sin.

Remember that Paul has taken great pains to say that a Christian is freed from sin (6:18, 22), and now he says that he is sold into bondage to sin, or, more literally, sold under sin. It is also clear in verse 9 of chapter 8 that Christians are not in the flesh, “However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Galatians 5:24 says, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Christians are not "in the flesh" and have "crucified the flesh," but in Romans 7 Paul is saying that he is "of flesh.” This is certainly not a description of one who is a Christian. These two ideas, being of flesh and in slavery to sin, contradict the clear lessons that Paul has taught in this section of Scripture. Remember verse 5 of chapter 7 where Paul says "while we were in the flesh"? The illustration at hand describes this “in the flesh” time, but the obvious implication is that Christians are not in the flesh.

If Paul is not describing his present experience, then why does he use the present tense? With Greek, a tense does not necessarily indicate the time of an action; it is used to indicate the type of action that is being described. The time of an action may also be indicated (depending on the mood of the verb) but even then only the context will reveal it. When this passage is considered with its context, making the assumption that this is the present condition of Paul is at best, very confusing and at worst, impossible.

Using the present tense in an illustrative way (the "historical" present), even when reflecting on a past event or series of events, is not unusual. Paul uses much of chapter 7 to illustrate the truths explained in the previous chapters, especially the truths in chapter 6 in which the death of the old self is taught. To illustrate the death of this self Paul explains, starting in verse 1 of chapter 7, how bondage to the law requires death for release. His explanation includes an illustration in verses 2 and 3. Notice that the illustration is about a person's relationship to the Law and that it uses present tense verbs. It is followed in verse 4 by a "therefore" statement relating the readers to that illustration, that they have died to the Law in order to be joined to Christ. Paul follows with another teaching section from verse 7 to verse 13 explaining how people become bound by the Law and sin in the first place.

In order to better explain this teaching section, Paul again gives an illustration, and again it is about a person's relationship to the Law using the present tense. Paul's illustration technique is consistent, and he follows it up again with another "therefore" statement in chapter 8 verse 1 comparing the readers' position to that of the illustrated individual.

I’ll try to break this down in an orderly way:

We have two teaching sections that begin with “What shall we say then?”
Romans 6:1-23 is one of those teaching sections: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”
Christians are dead to sin, so they no longer sin, and the remainder of the chapter talks about that in detail. Then, Paul provides a present tense illustration in chapter 7:1-3 where he explains how death to the law brings about freedom from the law. Then, in chapter 7:4-6, Paul makes a comparison to his readers, “Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ.”

In a similar manner, Paul starts another teaching sections in 7:7-13, using identical beginning words, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.” The teaching section goes through verse 13. Then, as he did in verses 1-3, he gives a present tense illustration in verses 14-25, followed by a comparison to his readers that begins with a “therefore.”

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

It should be clear that Paul is being consistent in his explanatory and illustrative way of teaching. He uses the present tense in both illustrations in order to describe truth about the law and its bondage. He is not making statements about his current life.

The present tense argument is truly weak. It cannot overpower the obvious contradictions between the condition of the man in the chapter 7 segment and the explicit descriptions of a Christian in the rest of the book, especially when a clear reason is given for the use of the present tense to make an illustration.

After telling about how he died to God spiritually, Paul uses the present tense to describe his ongoing sinful condition which occurred in the past, and then, in verses 24-25, he magnifies the awesomeness of the salvation that is in Christ. Finally, in Romans 8:1, Paul makes it clear that he is reverting back to the real present (not historical present) rather than the Greek "present" of the illustration when he writes; "There is therefore now no condemnation ... ". The "now" indicates that there is no condemnation for those who are free from the condition that he has just described. The "now" is in opposition to the time being illustrated immediately before the verse. If the chapter seven passage was really the present time and his present condition, then the “now” wouldn’t make any sense.

The present tense argument fails to prove that this is Paul’s condition as a believer. It is not possible for a person to be both enslaved to sin and not enslaved to sin at the same time. The person in the passage is enslaved to sin, and a Christian is not enslaved to sin. It is not possible for a person to be both in or of the flesh and not in or of the flesh. The person in the passage is of flesh, and a Christian is not in the flesh and has crucified the flesh.

Perhaps the most obvious contradiction between the person of this passage and the condition of a Christian occurs between 7:23 and 8:2. In 7:23, Paul is made “a prisoner of the law of sin,” and in 8:2, Paul says that those who are in Christ Jesus have been set "free from the law of sin and of death." Is a Christian a prisoner of the law of sin? The second verse says that he is not. Paul says that he is such a prisoner in chapter 7. A Christian cannot be both a prisoner of sin and not a prisoner at the same time, so Paul is not referring to a believer in the chapter 7 passage.

Again, the present tense argument is not strong enough to overpower the obvious contradictions between the condition of the man in chapter 7 and the explicit descriptions of a Christian in the rest of the section.

Therefore, this section of Romans chapter seven describes a man under the Law, before he becomes a Christian. Any professing Christian who uses this to excuse his own sin or somehow find a biblical description of sin in a Christian does so erroneously. The man with whom he is comparing himself is not a Christian. So those who see such parallels in their own lives are really finding evidence that they, themselves, are also unbelievers who need to cry out with Paul in his unregenerate state, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” and then find the power of God to be set free from sin.

This explanation of Romans 7 is sufficient to prove that Paul is not writing about a Christian’s struggle with sin. It is about the struggle an unregenerate man who is under the law. It’s true that many unregenerate men have no such struggle. They don’t agree with the law that it is good. Yet, some unregenerate men do agree with the law, and Paul was one of them. This kind of unregenerate man is the topic of the passage.

My main point is that every appeal to Scripture that tries to “explain” sin in an individual professing Christian is nothing but an excuse. A person who loves Jesus will never sin. Christians have the desire and the power to obey, and that combination can never fail to bring about the desired results—obedience to God every minute of every day.

More on the fallacy of the appeal to the "present tense" argument:

Those who insist that the use of the present tense must mean Paul is relating his present experience don't seem to realize that their assumption is self defeating.

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. (Romans 7:15)

If this is Paul's present experience, then he does not understand what he is doing at the present time. What is he doing? Writing this verse. He does not even understand what he is writing, so he would be doing something incoherent--writing something that doesn't make any sense. Also, writing this verse isn't what he would like to do. In fact, he hates writing it. This is an absurdity.

But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. (Romans 7:16-17)

If this is Paul's present experience, then his indwelling sin writing this Scripture passage.

So Paul not only doesn't understand what he is writing, his indwelling sin is actually writing it. If this is true, then how could we trust this passage? It is incoherent and is written by sin.

But those who claim this is Paul's present experience would also claim that they don't think the present tense refers to what Paul is doing at the exact moment of writing the passage. Paul is talking about recent events in his life.

If this is true, then Paul is talking about past events. Recent past is still past. Therefore, Paul is using historical present, not actual present.

Since an authoritative and coherent teaching must be historical present, then an appeal to the present tense to prove that this is Paul's present experience is destroyed.