All Categories

What Is the Unpardonable Sin? Can the Unpardonable Sin Be Committed Today?

11/20/2020

TBC Glassboro Sermons and More · What Is the Unpardonable Sin? Can the Unpardonable Sin Be Committed, Today?

In this episode we are going to answer the question, “What is the unpardonable sin and can it be committed today?” In order to begin answering the question, it is necessary to define the unpardonable sin within the Scriptural context it occurs. In the Scriptural context, Jesus cast out a demon from a blind and dumb man. The Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out the demon through the power of Beelzebub, another name for Satan, the ruler of the demons.

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.” - Matthew 12:24

Beelzebul or Beelzebub is a deliberate distortion of the name Baal-Zebul. Baal-Zebul was the god of the Philistines (cf. 2 Kings 1:2). Baal-Zebul is the lord of the flies. Historians believe that this deity communicated through the buzzing of a fly and protected its worshippers from plagues associated with flies. The Israelites deliberately distorted the name to Beelzebub, which means the lord of the dung. They also applied the name Beelzebul to Satan. It was a common practice amongst the nations of their era to associate the gods of enemy nations with the devil.

In reality, Jesus healed the man and performed all His miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit, not Satan.

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness […] And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. - Luke 4:1, 14

To accuse Jesus of doing miracles through the power of Satan was to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy (blasphēmía) is speaking evil reports for the purpose of wounding someone’s reputation. Thus, when the religious leaders accused Jesus of healing in the power of Satan, they injured the reputation of the Holy Spirit by accusing Him of being Satan. It is this blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is unpardonable or unforgivable.

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. - Matthew 12:31-32
Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” - Mark 3:28-30

The term forgiven (aphíēmi) means to remit or remove sins so that the one forgiven is no longer guilty of them or under their power. If one sins against the Holy Spirit by blaspheming Him, he will remain guilty of sin and under its power forever. The phrases not forgiven him in this age or in the age to come (Mathew 12:32) and never has forgiveness (Mark 3:29) indicates that the person has completely forfeited the possibility of being forgiven now or in the future.

Two things should be stated regarding what the unpardonable or unforgivable sin is not. First, this sin is not merely any sin or blasphemy. It is a particular sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that any sin or blasphemy can be forgiven.

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, - Matthew 12:31
Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; - Mark 3:28

Only the sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

Second, the unpardonable sin is not against Jesus. Jesus said that even a word against the Son of Man can be forgiven.

Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; - Matthew 12:32a

Notice that a denial or rejection of Jesus is not the unpardonable sin. Paul was a blasphemer of Jesus and yet was saved and became a minister of the Gospel.

even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; - 1 Timothy 1:13

That said, if someone dies in their unbelief, they will experience the Second Death, eternal separation from God.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. - John 3:36
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. - 1 John 5:12
…their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. - Revelation 21:8b

A Christian cannot commit the unpardonable sin. First, a believer is redeemed and forgiven.

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace. - Ephesians 1:7

Jesus Christ bought sinners out of the marketplace of sin and paid the ransom price, His blood, which releases the repentant sinner from the bondage of sin. Second, a believer is clear of all sin.

but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. - 1 John 1:7

Jesus Christ’s blood was not only the ransom price, but it is the detergent, which cleanses the repentant sinner from their sin. The tense of the verb cleanses indicates an ongoing process.

Third, a believer has eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16

Eternal life is never-ending life. The present tense of the verb ‘have,’ indicates that the believer presently possesses this never-ending life with no end in view. The subjunctive mood of the verb have means that the possession of such life is intentional. God has intentionally given never-ending life to believers from the moment they believe with no end in view. Thus, a believer cannot commit the unpardonable sin, because they cannot forfeit this never-ending life that God has given.

Furthermore, it is impossible for anyone in this present age to commit the unpardonable sin. First, the only time it occurs was during the earthly ministry of Jesus. Second, those who personally committed it witnessed Jesus’ power and then attributed it to Satan. Since Jesus physically ascended into Heaven and is not visibly performing miracles on earth, this sin cannot be committed today.

Many confuse the unpardonable sin with the sin unto death.

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. - 1 John 5:16

The context is needed to determine if the 'unpardonable sin' and the 'sin unto death' are the same or different. Following his statements regarding answered prayers, John admonishes his reader to pray for the restoration of a believer who is sinning. Up to this point, John has mentioned much about sin. No believer is without sin and should be quick to repent (1 John 1:8-9).

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:8-9

No believer lives a life of ongoing sin.

No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. - 1 John 3:9

According to 1 John 5:16, if a believer sees another believer struggling with a sin, he should immediately pray for the sinning believer. The tense of the verb he shall ask expresses an immediate, spontaneous reaction. Praying does not negate that the sinning believer may need to be confronted, admonished, reproved, or even rebuked.

However, before any confrontation, prayer must be offered. Only after such prayer, should one confront the sinning believer! The only limitation, placed on praying, is if it is a ‘sin unto death.’ The wording does not imply that this is a strict limitation on praying, but that such a prayer would not be efficacious.

What then is the sin that leads to death? Before answering the immediate question, it is necessary to establish what type of death is in view. In the context, the term life refers to eternal life.

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1 John 5:13

Thus, it follows that the term death refers to spiritual death (i.e., eternal separation from God in Hell).

There are several opinions regarding which sin leads to death. One opinion is that it refers to those sins worthy of death in the Theocratic Kingdom. It is true that within the setting of a Theocratic Kingdom, many sins lead to death (i.e., in context, the natural end of life). However, this would not fit the context of 1 John 5:16, because John and the original readers were not living under the Theocratic Kingdom.

Another opinion is that sin unto death refers to the Roman Catholic position of venial and mortal sins. Venial sins are violations of God’s Law, which do not cause one to lose their salvation. Mortal sins are violations of God’s Law, which do result in the loss of salvation (i.e., spiritual death). It is true that Scripture does teach that sins differ in magnitude of punishment that will be meted out in Hell.

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. […] Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you. - Matthew 11:22, 24
And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. - Luke 12:47-48

Scripture, however, is clear that all sins are a transgression against God and results in spiritual death.

The person who sins will die… - Ezekiel 18:20
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

Another theory is that the sin is apostasy or false teaching. Apostasy is a willing renunciation of one’s faith or rejection of Jesus as revealed in Scripture. Scripture is clear that an apostate or false teacher is already unsaved and marked for Hell.

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. - Hebrews 6:4-6

The fact that John had previously referenced false teachers or antichrists certainly make it possible that John had apostasy in view.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. - 1 John 2:18

However, John makes it clear that these were never part of those to whom he is writing.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. - 1 John 2:19

In other words, these false teachers are not part of the real Christian community. The context of 1 John 5:16 indicates that those who sin a sin unto death are in the believers’ midst.

Still, others have argued that John is speaking of the unpardonable sin (cf. Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:22-30). The unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. However, as previously states, it can only be committed if Jesus is physically present and performing miracles. Since John’s epistle was written sixty years after the ascension of Jesus, it would be impossible for the unpardonable sin to be committed in those days, much less presently.

In identifying the sin unto death, one should note two things from the context. First, a believer sees his brother. The term brother implies that the one who is sinning is a believer. No true believer persists in sin or sins habitually.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; - 1 John 2:1
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. - 1 John 3:9

Believers can sin, but true believers will not be known for habitually sinning.

Secondly, in the phrases sin a sin and for them that sin the term sin (hamartánō) is a present tense which indicates an ongoing state. In other words, John is showing that the sin is habitual or constant. If habitual sin is in view, then is the brother a true believer or merely a professing believer (i.e., professes eternal life, but does not possess eternal life)? John has previously dealt with those professing believers who in reality are not believers (cf. 1 John 2:9).

Also, John uses the present tense of the verb to describe the activities of these professing believers who are not true. He says they: walk in darkness and lie;

If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; - 1 John 1:6

do not keep His commandments;

The one who says, I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; - 1 John 2:4

hate fellow believers;

The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. […] But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. - 1 John 2:9, 11

love the world;

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. - 1 John 2:15

deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. - 1 John 2:22-23

The issue at stake then in 1 John 5:16 is in determining who is a true believer and who is merely a professing believer. If a believer sees another believer sinning, he should pray for them and if necessary follow the Scriptural commands for such situations. If they are true believers, the Holy Spirt will act upon them and bring them to repentance. If a professing believer continues in sin and there is no change, then at some point it must be determined that this one is truly an unbeliever. Thus, it is possible for one to profess to be a believer, yet continue in sin, and in turn, be marked by God as committing a sin unto spiritual death.

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? - Hebrews 10:26-29

How Do Christians Make Moral Choices?

11/13/2020

TBC Glassboro Sermons and More · How Do Christians Make Moral Choices?

We are regularly faced with hundreds of moral choices. Often, we do not even think about the choice we have made. Perhaps we made the choice because of tradition, culture, or even religious preferences. But, did you ever stop to wonder if the decision was actually moral from God’s point of view?

As well, there are a growing list of moral issues that we are facing today, that we have never face before. Issues involving sexuality, genetics, medicine, reproduction, life and death, to name a few. How do we as believers make decisions not based on our gut reactions or our perceived ideas of what we think is right or wrong based on tradition, culture, and religion? That is why we need to answer the question, “How do Christians make moral choices." Before we answer the question, we need to establish that there are several moral position to choose from: Moral Relativism, Cultural Relativism, Situation Ethics, Behaviorism, or Moral Absolutism.

Moral Relativism is morality not based on any absolute standards. It teaches that truth is based on variables such as situations or feelings. Those who adhere to Moral Relativism push the issue of tolerance. The moral relativist claims that by enforcing an absolute moral code on someone is intolerant and therefore wrong.

This position is untenable for three reasons. First, evil should never be tolerated. If there are no moral standards, the result will be anarchy. Second, their argument is self-defeating. The fact that the moral relativist does not tolerate the intolerance of the moral absolutist undermines their positions. Refusing to be tolerant to the intolerant sets them in a position of establishing an absolute. Three, the moral relativist cannot explain why someone should be tolerant.

Cultural Relativism is a morality based on whatever a particular cultural group approves as right or wrong. Thus, culture becomes the dominant determiner of moral or immoral. Such a position is fatally flawed. First, there are at any given time many competing cultural groups. Second, with so many competing cultural groups, each determining their morality, it is impossible to condemn one group over another. For example, according to Cultural Relativism, the extermination of the Jews under Hitler would be acceptable because the Nazis made decisions within the context of their cultural worldview.

Situation Ethics is a morality based on the context of a situation, instead of an absolute moral standard. Where Moral Relativism holds to no right or wrong, Situation Ethics uses the needs of the given situation to determine what is right or wrong. Adherents of this view claim that “all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love.” In other words, as long as love is the goal, the end justifies the means. For example, if an individual is married to an invalid than it would be loving for them to have an affair because their needs were unable to be met by their spouse.

Situational Ethics does not hold up in light of who God is. First, God is good and unchangeable.

For the Lord is good; His lovingkindness is everlasting And His faithfulness to all generations. - Psalm 100:5
For I, the Lord, do not change… - Malachi 3:6

Situation Ethics teaches that a set of circumstances determines morality. However, since God is good, He determines what is moral or immoral, not circumstances.

Second, God is love.

The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love (agápē). - 1 John 4:8

This love is known as agape (agápē) love. Agape love is defined as a self-sacrificing love, not a self-serving love. Situation Ethics teaches that one does the most loving thing for one’s self. Self-love is the antitheses of God.

Behaviorism is a morality that is the result of one’s genetic makeup, environmental circumstances, or conditioning. This ethical view believes that people are victims of forces outside of their control. Therefore, people are not responsible for their behaviors. Proponents of this view believe that human freedom and human dignity are outdated and should be discarded.

Scripture directly opposes the ethical position of Behaviorism. Romans 1-3 teaches that people are morally responsible for their behavior and actions. Adam and Eve were created morally good.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis 1:27

They sinned despite genetic perfection. Adam and Eve were placed in a flawlessly designed garden.

The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. - Genesis 2:8-9

They sinned regardless of environmental perfection. Adam and Eve were given specific rewards and punishments for obedience and disobedience.

God blessed them […] Then God said, Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; […] I have given every green plant for food; and it was so. - Genesis 1:28-30
The Lord God commanded the man, saying, From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. - Genesis 2:16-17

Nonetheless, they sinned regardless of the perfect instrumental conditioning.

Moral Absolutism is a morality that is based on universal precepts and principles found in God’s Word. These precepts and principles are absolute because God is the ultimate source of morality.

You are good (ṭôb) and do good; Teach me Your statutes. - Psalm 119:68
And He said to him, Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good (agathós)… - Matthew 19:17

The term good (H - ṭôb / G - agathós) refers to moral excellence. God is moral excellence. Therefore, morality reflects His character.

God established a code of ethics for humanity to live by — “Be holy as I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16). God’s ethical code is found in the moral absolutes of His Law, specifically the Ten Commandments. Thus, God’s Law in an instruction manual on how to be holy or make moral life choices.

Making moral decision is sometimes difficult when confronted with an issue which is morally ambiguous. There are several steps one can take to make right moral choices. However, before examining those steps, the following question must be answered. What makes a person moral or immoral in doing an act? The question is not what is moral or immoral, but instead what makes a person moral.

Some may answer that the consequences make the person moral. Consequences do not make a person moral or immoral. How something turns out does not determine an individuals morality. Something could be moral, but the consequences turn out bad. Those who choose to identify morality by consequences are called consequentialist. If someone does something out of fear of punishment, then he or she did not do it because he or she is moral. If someone does something out of fear of what others think, then the person did not do it cause he or she is moral. They may have made a moral decision, but because they allowed the consequence to determine the course of action, they were not acting morally. A non-consequentialist does not allow the consequences of a given decision to determine his or her morality. Instead, a non-consequentialist consults a set of moral absolutes to determine his or her decision.

Doing a morally good act does not make one moral. The Pharisees are a perfect example of immoral people performing moral acts. Outwardly they conformed to the Law, but inwardly they were plotting to lie, cheat, steal, and even murder. The only way an individual can be considered as being moral is if he or she freely performed a morally good act with the right motivation.

The key to being a moral person is freedom of action. In other words, a person cannot be considered morally responsible, if they do not have freedom of action. God gave Adam and Eve the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to demonstrate that they had Freedom of Action. By placing the Tree before them, God gave them a choice. Regardless of the choice they made, the choice demonstrated that they were morally responsible creatures. Without the freedom of action, people would be neither moral or immoral. As an amoral creature, humanity could not be made in God’s image. Since humanity is made in God’s image, they have freedom of action and the ability to be moral or immoral.

Therefore, a person cannot be held morally accountable unless they act freely. This rule expresses itself in two ways. First, no one can be held morally accountable for doing what he or she could not fail to do. Second, no one can be held morally accountable for failing to do what he or she could not do.

The issue of morality comes down to three options: the Morally Obligatory, the Morally Permissible, and the Morally Supererogatory. Morally Obligatory acts are those actions delineated by rules which declare what one must do or not do. For example, the law says do not steal or murder. Therefore, I am morally obligated not to steal or murder. Morally Permissible acts are those actions which are neither encouraged or prohibited. In other words, there is no moral rule which outlaws the issue. Examples of morally permissible acts are watching a movie or going to the store. However, the particular movie you watch or store you go to may not be permissible and would fall under a moral obligation.

The Morally Supererogatory acts are those actions which go above and beyond the call of duty. These actions are only done for good or right causes. It is an act which one does that is not obligatory but permissible such as sacrificing one’s self for another. If someone is in a position to help someone in need and by doing so does not endanger his or her life or removes his or her rights, then he or she is obligated to help. If someone is in a position to help someone in need and in doing so endangers his or her life or removes his or her rights, then he or she is not obligated to help. For example, if you see a house on fire, you would be morally obligated to call 911. However, you are not obligated to go into the house. If you chose to enter the house to see if anyone is trapped, you would be doing something that is morally supererogatory because you are endangering your own life to save the life of another.

The following steps then outline the steps one would take in making moral decisions.

STEP 1: Identify and choose an ethical theory.

While there are many ethical theories to choose from (Moral Relativism, Cultural Relativism, Situation Ethics, Behaviorism), the Biblicist only has one option -- Moral Absolutism. The Moral Absolutist is a non-consequentialist. In other words, he or she is making their decision first on a moral standard.

STEP 2: Gather all the available information and options on the situation.

One must perform due diligence to collect all the facts available in a given situation. This may include statistics, historical data, facts, and figures. Having factual information available enables the individual to determine what the issue may or may not be. If the facts of the supposed issue are not known or understood, it will be very challenging to find and apply the right moral precept or principle.

STEP 3: Look for a moral precept or principle that covers (i.e., directly or indirectly) the situation.

What if the moral rule could be applied in more than one way? For example, a pregnant woman is diagnosed with uterine cancer. The moral rule says, do not murder (i.e., do not take an innocent life). If chemotherapy is not started immediately, the baby will live, but the mother will die. If chemotherapy is started immediately, the mother will live, but the baby will die. The moral duty is not to take either life — both lives are innocent. Would the mother be guilty of murder if she chooses to do chemotherapy knowing the child will die? No, she cannot be held morally accountable doing what she could not fail to do. The mother does not have freedom of action in this situation. Would the mother be guilty of murder if she sacrificed her life for the life of her child? No, she cannot be held morally accountable for failing to do what she could not do. If she sacrificed herself for her child, it would be an act of moral supererogation.

STEP 4: If two rules apply but conflict with one another, decide which rule has the greater priority.

For example, a bank teller is robbed at gunpoint. The teller must make a moral decision. However, in this situation, there is more than one moral rule that could apply. On moral rule says, do not steal. Another moral rule says, do not murder. If the teller gives the money to the thief, they are helping him steal. If the teller refuses to give the money, he risks being murdered or putting others at risk of being murdered. The teller has what is referred to as a moral dilemma. He has to choose which rule has the greater priority. In this case, do not murder has the higher priority. Would the teller be guilty of theft? No, because he cannot act freely. Remember, an individual cannot be held morally responsible for failing to do what he cannot do.

STEP 5: If after consulting all relevant precepts and principles and either the rules conflict or it is difficult to decide which one has priority, then the only option is to consult the consequences and decide what to do.

Consideration of the consequences is the last option. It should only be considered if Step 5 becomes a reality. Most decisions to be made will not come down to Step 5.

To honest, there is so much more to say. However, by following these five steps, we can alleviate much of the angst and difficulties we will face when confronted with issues of morality. Let’s be honest, at some point we are all going to be to be faced with a difficult moral choice. Its far better to be prepared before the issue arises, so that we know we have made the choice which honors God.

Is It Morally Right to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

10/17/2020

TBC Glassboro Sermons and More · Can A Christian Vote For The Lesser Of Two Evils?

In this episode we are going to answer the question, "Is it morally right to vote for the lesser of two evils?

Before answering this question, I want to be clear that as Christians we are called to be moral absolutists. A moral absolutists is someone who morality is based upon the universal precepts and principles of Scripture (i.e., divine truth).

The lesser of two evils principle states that when faced with selecting from two immoral positions, the least immoral should be chosen. The principle is derived from moral relativism. In the modern era, the lesser of two evils policy was part of United States’ Foreign Policy Strategy (i.e., the Kirkpatrick Doctrine) to justify supporting Communist Joseph Stalin during World War II. The belief was that Stalin was the lesser of two evils when compared to Hitler.

It was adopted by leftists who disapproved of the government’s support for the Vietnam War. Huffington Post writer, Stanford Jay Rosen stated, “Beginning with the 1968 presidential election, I often have heard from liberals that they could not vote for the lesser of two evils. Some said they would not vote; some said they would vote for a third party candidate.”

This principle has become part of the United States political vocabulary. Every election, voters who believe they are forced to vote for a candidate who is less evil than the other candidate. Further, the position is justified by believing that choosing the lesser evil is better than not voting at all or voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning, which will result in the greater of two evils winning.

The first problem with this principle is that it is focused on the consequence of the election. Moral absolutists are non-consequentialist. That is we need to make a decision based upon Scripture, not on the consequences. Thus, to subscribe to a principle that denies one’s entire moral position is fatal to one’s Biblical ethics.

The second problem with this principle is that is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A false dilemma presents two positions as the only possible options when there are more options. This dilemma is false because there are always more than two options. One, the Christian is not morally obligated to vote. Voting is a privilege afforded to citizens of the United States. However, there is no moral absolute commanding the Christian to vote. If an individual believes that both candidates are evil, then they may choose not to vote. Remember, it is ultimately God who appoints rulers and removes rulers (Daniel 2:21; 4:17).

It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding. - Daniel 2:21
the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, And bestows it on whom He wishes And sets over it the lowliest of men. - Daniel 4:17

Two, the Christian can choose to vote for a candidate that is in line with their moral absolutes. Unfortunately, many succumb to the logical fallacy that choosing another option than the two presented allows a greater evil to come to power. Even if the majority is choosing one evil or another, believers must not (Exodus 23:2).

You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; - Exodus 23:2

The third problem with this principle is that it is a moral fallacy. German-American political theorist Hannah Arendt stated, “If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. […] The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.”

Ardent is correct — choosing the lesser of two evils is always a choice for evil. Is choosing evil an option for the moral absolutist? No, the moral absolutist is concerned only with choosing the moral positions. To choose an immoral position would be immoral. If an individual chose a moral position yet the immoral position won, the individual choosing morally is still moral regardless of the consequence.

Scripture presents a clear precept regarding evil — “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). A believer cannot obey this precept and choose the lesser evil. In fact, the one who fears the Lord should hate evil (Proverbs 8:13).

The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. - Proverbs 8:13

Furthermore, righteousness makes a nation great, but sin brings disgrace to a nation (Proverbs 14:34; 16:12).

Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a disgrace to any people. - Proverbs 14:34
It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, For a throne is established on righteousness. - Proverbs 16:12

Choosing evil is never going to produce righteousness (Romans 3:8; 6:1-2).

And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), Let us do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just. - Romans 3:8
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? - Romans 6:1-2

On Romans 3:8, Albert Barnes states, “Whatever is evil is not to be done under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause; or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not sanction or justify the deed.” Michael Marcavage of Repent America states, “Christians must turn from the endless cycle of voting for the lesser of evils and expecting an unrighteous act to produce a righteous result. From a communist to a cultist, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, and never should we do evil that good may come.”

So if choosing between the lesser of two evils is not a moral option, then for whom should the Christian vote? Considering that government officials are God’s ministers, the Scriptures actually present criteria for a morally pleasing candidate. Again, regardless of the circumstance, the believer must choose a candidate that aligns with God’s criteria.

Government is to uphold law. Is there any law greater than God’s Law? No, because God’s Law serves four purposes. One, it convicts sinners of their need of a Savior. Two, it restrains the progression of sin. Three, it provides the standard for obedience to God. Four, it provides the means for national blessing (Deuteronomy 26:16-19).

This day the Lord your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances. […] you should keep all His commandments; and that He will set you high above all nations which He has made, for praise, fame, and honor… - Deuteronomy 26:16-19

Before stating that this verse is only for Israel, Ecclesiastes 12:13 states that God’s Law is for all people.

The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. - Ecclesiastes 12:13

Furthermore, if a nation is going to enjoy God’s blessing, then it must obey God’s Law. How is a nation to obey God’s Law, if its citizens continue voting for individuals who spurn God’s Law? Leaders must not only obey God’s Law, they should meet the following ten criteria.

Leaders must worship God (Psalm 72:11; 138:4).

And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him. - Psalm 72:11
All the kings of the earth will give thanks to You, O Lord… - Psalm 138:4

Leaders must be righteous (Proverbs 20:28; 29:2).

Loyalty and truth preserve the king, And he upholds his throne by righteousness. - Proverbs 20:28
When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan. - Proverbs 29:2

Leaders must be just (Psalm 82:2-4; Proverbs 29:4).

How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. - Psalm 82:2-4
The king gives stability to the land by justice, But a man who takes bribes overthrows it.- Proverbs 29:4

Leaders must be wise (Proverbs 8:12).

I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, And I find knowledge and discretion. - Proverbs 8:12

Leaders must be honest (Proverbs 17:7).

Excellent speech is not fitting for a fool, Much less are lying lips to a prince. - Proverbs 17:7

Leaders must be moral (Proverbs 31:3-5).

Do not give your strength to women, Or your ways to that which destroys kings. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink, For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted. - Proverbs 31:3-5

Leaders must be humble (Proverbs 8:13).

The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. - Proverbs 8:13

Leaders must be teachable (Ecclesiastes 4:13).

A poor yet wise lad is better than an old and foolish king who no longer knows how to receive instruction. - Ecclesiastes 4:13

Leaders must provide security (Habakkuk 2:12; Psalm 94:20-21).

Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed And founds a town with violence! - Habakkuk 2:12
Can a throne of destruction be allied with You, One which devises mischief by decree? They band themselves together against the life of the righteous And condemn the innocent to death. - Psalm 94:20-21

Leaders must have courage (Joshua 1:6-7).

Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. - Joshua 1:6-7

What Is the Unpardonable Sin? Can the Unpardonable Sin Be Committed Today?

How Do Christians Make Moral Choices?

Is It Morally Right to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

ASK THE PASTOR

Archives

Categories