Welcome to another “potpourri” edition of The Mailbag, where I give short(er) answers to several questions rather than a long answer to one question.
I like to take the opportunity in these potpourri editions to let new readers know about my comments/e-mail/messages policy. I’m not able to respond individually to most e-mails and messages, so here are some helpful hints for getting your questions answered more quickly. Remember, the search bar (at the very bottom of each page) can be a helpful tool!
Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
This reader’s question is in reference to my article In Defense of Offense: Why Christians Need to Stop Worrying About Offending People.
Would you say offending with the purpose to offend with the truth is the same as what you are saying? So should we ever purpose to offend when we speak the truth from the Bible?
Great question! (And let me take this opportunity to say to all of my readers and followers that if you’re ever unclear about something I’ve written or posted – especially if it seems unbiblical or out of character for me – please, please, please just ask me about it politely, like this reader did, and I will be happy to explain if I’m able. I would much rather you ask than attack me, jump to the wrong conclusion, or worse, assume I’ve apostatized. Genuine, polite questions are always welcome!)
Hon, when you say “purpose to offend,” I’m thinking of a person who gets out of bed in the morning with the primary goal of offending people, making them angry, or upsetting them, not with the primary goal of sharing the gospel or restoring someone from sin.
I’m not sure why a Christian would have the desire, goal, or motive of offending people, regardless of his reason for doing so. That goes against the grain of everything Scripture teaches us both about Christian character and the ineffectiveness of provoking people. The Bible says:
A brother offended is harder to win over than a strong city,
Proverbs 18:19, Romans 12:18
And contentions are like the bars of a citadel.
…if possible, so far as it depends on you, being at peace with all men…
Fathers are told not to provoke their children to anger. One of the qualifications for pastors and elders (which we’re to emulate) is that they not be pugnacious (i.e. “looking for a fight”), but peaceable and considerate. (If not, they’re disqualified from ministry.) We’re not to place a stumbling block or offense before anyone – saved or lost, in order to protect our ministry and so that people might be saved. You’ll recall that Paul devotes significant ink to the idea that if it would offend people for him to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he’ll never eat meat again. We’re told not to be quarrelsome, but kind, patient, and gentle in our teaching and correction so that people can be saved. Titus 3:2 reminds us “to slander no one, but to be peaceable, considerate, demonstrating all gentleness to all men”.
The Scriptures go on and on about this. We’re not only forbidden from trying to offend people, we’re instructed to bend over backwards trying not to offend people. The Bible is offensive enough all on its own. That’s more than enough offense for sinners to try to deal with without us making things harder and piling on personal offensiveness.
And that’s the whole point of my article. Not that we should intentionally be personally offensive in our demeanor, but that we shouldn’t refrain from kindly, yet firmly speaking the truth in love so that sinners might be saved, and saints might be sanctified, just because we’re afraid that biblical truth will offend them.
What do you think about churches using Right Now Media?
I drop in on the RNM website from time to time, and from what I can see, it’s almost all (if not all) false teachers.
Scripture is clear that churches shouldn’t support (financially or otherwise) false teachers, and certainly not those, like RNM, who profit from platforming them and spreading their false doctrine. In fact, if your pastor welcomes false teachers into the church – in person, through their books and materials, via video platforms like RNM, etc. – instead of rebuking them and their false doctrine, he is participating in their wickedness, he is disqualified from pastoral ministry, and he needs to be under church discipline.
Yeah, it’s that serious to God.
And from a stewardship point of view, even if there are a few doctrinally sound teachers sprinkled in at RNM, I don’t see how it could possibly be worth the monthly subscription price for whatever few good teachers they might* carry.
*Visiting the RNM site, I get the impression that they want your money before they give you access to the names of all the teachers they platform. I clicked on several pages, and the teachers they did disclose fell into two categories for me: people I know to be false teachers, and people I’ve never heard of. I didn’t see the name of anyone I know to be a doctrinally sound teacher.
Since it’s a subscription service, not a “pay for the specific video you’re using” kind of thing, there isn’t even the option for pastors to say something like, “We feel like this particular R.C. Sproul video is the best one available on the theology of shoelaces, but it’s only available from RNM. We are recommending ONLY this video at RNM. Avoid everything else.”. No, you’re either in (and paying for everything) or you’re out.
Because RNM is primarily a source of false doctrine and false teachers, and because your church’s offering money would be going to support that – in disobedience to the commands of Scripture – you should be very concerned if your church subscribes to RNM. I would recommend that you and/or your husband set up an appointment with the pastor to discuss it. There’s an underlying issue here in subscribing to RNM – either the pastor is not exercising proper oversight over whoever subscribed the church to RNM, or the pastor is not discerning or diligent enough to know that he’s unleashing false teachers on his sheep.
🚨FRIENDLY WARNING🙂: The following question is related to Calvinism/Reformed theology. Please be reminded that we do not do Calvinism vs. Arminianism arguments here, on any of my social media platforms, or via email. Argumentative comments and messages will be deleted. Please see my Statement of Faith tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page if you have any questions.
My wife and I just finished watching the taped version of your talk [from the Resolute Conference on Answers TV] and we both agreed that it was extremely helpful! Thank you for pouring your time and effort into what was a clearly well-researched message.
Thank you so much. Yes, some of the teaching sessions (including mine) from Answers in Genesis’ Answers for Women 2025 Conference, Resolute, have been posted to Answers TV. I’m sure the rest will be posted soon, so if you have a subscription, you can watch! If you don’t have a subscription, give it some consideration! It’s only $4.99 a month or $39.99 a year, plus they offer a seven day free trial to get you started! If you’d like to watch my session on the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), here’s the handout that goes along with it.
I do have one question, however. During your gospel presentation you specifically said that Christ died for “you” (i.e., the listener). But if you are saying that to an unregenerate person who has not been predestined to eternal life (according to the “U” in TULIP), how does that work with limited atonement (“The atonement for sin that Christ made on the cross applies only to those who are, or will, in the future be, saved”)?
Respectfully, how could you truthfully say that Christ died for “you,” if that person hasn’t been elected for life? Considering that you [are Reformed] your presentation of the gospel seems to be inconsistent with the doctrine of limited atonement.
I’d like to get your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy between the two. Thank you for your time and consideration!
You’re welcome. I’m glad to explain. I was speaking to about 3000 people that week (plus however many will watch the video, now), the vast majority of whom were already saved. So it is true for those people – Jesus did die for them.
When I gave the gospel presentation, I was addressing it to the elect in the audience – to those who would listen and believe the gospel, either right then, or later in life. (So it was true for them, too. Jesus died for them.) I was not speaking to those who would reject the gospel for the rest of their lives and spend an eternity in Hell – those who aren’t elect (if there were any like that in the audience), even though they could also hear me.
The thing is -and I know I’m not telling you anything new, here – you and I don’t know who’s elect and who’s not. That’s above our pay grade and none of our business. That’s God’s purview. The only way we can know for sure that someone is elect is after she gets genuinely saved and perseveres to the end. If she’s genuinely saved, that means she’s elect. But we can’t know before someone gets saved whether or not she’s elect, so, like the sower, we scatter the seed of the gospel with wild abandon, trusting God’s sovereignty as to what kind of soil it lands on and leaving everything after our gospel presentation up to Him.
I would also appeal to Scripture:
In Peter’s sermon in Acts 3, he’s preaching an evangelistic sermon and says -without knowing whether or not any of his audience is elect:
For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.
Was everyone he was preaching to elect? Probably not.
In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul hearkens back to the gospel he proclaimed to these brothers when they were lost and says he told them that “Christ died for our sins”. At the time he originally said that, he had no way of knowing whether or not everyone he was preaching to would believe.
But all of that being said, I did read back through all of the sermons in Acts and some other evangelistic encounters in Scripture (and also discussed this on Sunday with one of our {unofficial} lay elders at church), and the general approach seemed to be: You’re a sinner, here’s what Jesus did so salvation and the forgiveness of sin could take place, repent, believe it, and be saved. The personal appeal was placed on the “you must repent and believe” part, not on the “Jesus died” part.
So, sure, I’ll tweak things and try to pattern my gospel presentation more in the style of the Apostles, not because of Calvinism as a framework, but because, as Christians – all Christians – we do always want to be as closely aligned with Scripture as we can get. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I appreciate the sharpening.
But I’m not going to quibble with anyone who says, “Jesus died for you,” when she shares the gospel accurately with someone. If the person she’s talking to gets saved, it’s true. If the person she’s talking to doesn’t get saved, she’s technically made a good faith, optimistic mistake while earnestly appealing to him to repent and believe the gospel, but she hasn’t sinned, it doesn’t matter to that person, and she hasn’t sent that person to Hell by saying so. And … you know … she’s sharing the gospel.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
