Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
There was a time in my life when I would have preached hard against Lot. Yet, as I preach through II Peter 2 in the morning I am reminded that God calls Lot just and a righteous man. I've always known this passage, but somehow I still would have managed to thump Lot for choosing to go where he went in the first place. But was that not a choice that Abraham gave to Lot? I guess what I'm asking is, do you think Lot's decision to go east to the plain of Jordan was simply a selfish decision? If he hadn't have chosen the plain of Jordan then Abraham said he would have went that way. I know that providentially God did not allow for this to happen, but when given the choice what would we have done?
Does Lot get a bad rap? What would be a modern day comparison of Lot? A Christian living in San Francisco or New York City?
The passage in II Peter when referring to Lot said that God is able to deliver the godly out of temptation. I can't help but think of two prayers when I read Lot's situation: 1. The Lord's Prayer - Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, and 2. The Great High Priestly prayer of John 17. Jesus did not pray that the Father would take us out of the world, but rather that He keep us from the evil of the world.
So as Lot lived among all that wickedness was he wrong for not leaving, or looking on it in hindsight can we not say that he got out exactly when God wanted him out? Are we not supposed to live as lights in a dark world? As Christians are we not the salt of the earth? Are we supposed to run and hide in isolationism? Are Christians not supposed to live in cities like San Francisco and New York and LA?
Calvin puts it this way:
Yes, Lot made his mistakes. But it seems to me that in the midst of the wickedness that he was in he was called just and a righeous man. And the testimony of Lot was that he looked to the Lord for deliverance. In other words he seemed to shine as a light among the darkness of the world. Is that not how we as believers are supposed to live in this world? We are to be in the world, but not of the world. But that doesn't call for isolationism. It calls for praying, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." It calls for looking to the grace of our Lord Jesus for deliverance in this world at all times.
So with all that said I've done a 180 degree turn on Lot. So am I off base with this? How do you look at Lot? Is it fair to say, "What kind of father could he have been for his daughters to do what they did?" Is it fair to say, "What kind of husband could he have been for his wife to do what she did?" Is it fair to say Lot was a worldly minded man just because he chose a well watered place to take his cattle? Is it fair to say Lot should have left the area he was in before God moved him out? If that's the case shouldn't all Christians leave big cities? Should we then go into isolationism? Certainly that is not the answer. Rather are we not to live as children of God's kingdom in a world that we call the kingdom of man, looking to God for deliverance from evil and shining as lights in this world?
Does Lot get a bad rap? What would be a modern day comparison of Lot? A Christian living in San Francisco or New York City?
The passage in II Peter when referring to Lot said that God is able to deliver the godly out of temptation. I can't help but think of two prayers when I read Lot's situation: 1. The Lord's Prayer - Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, and 2. The Great High Priestly prayer of John 17. Jesus did not pray that the Father would take us out of the world, but rather that He keep us from the evil of the world.
So as Lot lived among all that wickedness was he wrong for not leaving, or looking on it in hindsight can we not say that he got out exactly when God wanted him out? Are we not supposed to live as lights in a dark world? As Christians are we not the salt of the earth? Are we supposed to run and hide in isolationism? Are Christians not supposed to live in cities like San Francisco and New York and LA?
Calvin puts it this way:
This consolation is very necessary for us, for this thought is apt to creep in, "If the Lord would have his own to be safe, why does he not gather them all into some corner of the earth, that they may mutually stimulate one another to holiness? Why does he mingle them with the wicked by whom they have been defiled?" But when God claims to himself the office of helping, and protectin his own, that they may not fail in the contest, we gather courage to fight more strenuously.
Yes, Lot made his mistakes. But it seems to me that in the midst of the wickedness that he was in he was called just and a righeous man. And the testimony of Lot was that he looked to the Lord for deliverance. In other words he seemed to shine as a light among the darkness of the world. Is that not how we as believers are supposed to live in this world? We are to be in the world, but not of the world. But that doesn't call for isolationism. It calls for praying, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." It calls for looking to the grace of our Lord Jesus for deliverance in this world at all times.
So with all that said I've done a 180 degree turn on Lot. So am I off base with this? How do you look at Lot? Is it fair to say, "What kind of father could he have been for his daughters to do what they did?" Is it fair to say, "What kind of husband could he have been for his wife to do what she did?" Is it fair to say Lot was a worldly minded man just because he chose a well watered place to take his cattle? Is it fair to say Lot should have left the area he was in before God moved him out? If that's the case shouldn't all Christians leave big cities? Should we then go into isolationism? Certainly that is not the answer. Rather are we not to live as children of God's kingdom in a world that we call the kingdom of man, looking to God for deliverance from evil and shining as lights in this world?