Lot - Glenn Conjurske

Lot

by Glenn Conjurske

Lot is the favorite character of all who are antinomian in doctrine. Whenever their unholy gospel is challenged, whenever they feel any need to scrape up some scriptural support for it, they fly directly to Lot, paint him as black as they can, and then insist that this monster of iniquity was a saint of God, on his way to heaven. He is their grand proof that men may be saved without repenting of sin, without submitting to the Lordship of Christ—-that men may walk in all manner of sin, and yet be saved—-their grand proof, in short, that “Ye shall not surely die,” though ye live in all manner of wickedness from the cradle to the grave, so long as ye have but a grain of faith, or a grain of presumption.

Their proof, of course, is worth nothing unless it is a fact that Lot was actually unrighteous. They must bend all their energies, therefore, and employ all their perverse ingenuity, in order to prove that Lot was practically wicked, and some of the shifts I have seen employed to that end are so shallow and ludicrous as to be really contemptible. John R. Rice, regardless of the good that was in him, was certainly one of the warmest advocates of the most pernicious sort of antinomian gospel, teaching explicitly that we cannot tell a Christian by the way he lives. He, with all who preach this unholy gospel, uses the occasional falls and failures of the saints to prove that habitual sinners may be saved. He is particularly hard on preachers who preach the true gospel, affirming that they “pervert the plan of salvation,” which according to Rice is by grace alone by faith alone, and may be without Scriptural repentance, righteousness, holiness, or morality. In a sermon entitled “Judge Not!” he labels as “self-righteous critics” all who contend that those who live in sin are not saved, and gathers up all the sins of the saints to prove it. Lot is of course his prime example.

Under the heading “Bible Examples Prove That Many Are Saved Who Do Not Act Like It,” he rehearses all the sins and imagined sins of Lot. All who use the example of Lot to bolster up their antinomian gospel are accustomed to paint him much blacker than he was, and Rice is no exception. To be sure, the example of Lot is a sorry one, but we have no warrant from this to make him a habitual or impenitent sinner. There is a very great difference between walking on a low plane of faith, and living impenitent in sin, and it would seem that lest there should be any mistake here, Peter informs us, in one of those rare instances in which the New Testament adds to the Old Testament record, that the Lord delivered “righteous Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked. For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds.” (II Peter. 2:7-8). This is as prolix as it is explicit, and certainly teaches us that Lot was practically righteous “from day to day.” He was weak, but not wicked. He neither engaged in any unrighteous conduct, nor approved it, but “vexed his righteous soul” with it from day to day. And in all this I would guess that Lot was far above a great host of modern Fundamentalists, who by means of their radio and television sets both watch and listen to, and apparently enjoy, the very things which vexed Lot from day to day—-for we can hardly suppose they watch and listen to all this profanity and sensuality and violence and worldliness for the purpose of vexing themselves.

Rice quotes Peter’s description of Lot also, but only to prove that Lot was all right in his heart, though all wrong in his life, and that therefore we “dare not judge!” the state of a man’s heart from the life which he lives. This is perhaps the most pernicious part of the business, for by this means Rice teaches that a good tree can bring forth evil fruit, directly against the clear and solemn teaching of Christ. “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt. 7:16-20). And once more, “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.” (Matt. 12:33). Rice makes the tree good and the fruit corrupt, and denies that the tree may be known by its fruit. He applies the evil fruit only to false doctrine, and vehemently denies that it has anything to do with the life that we live, but we suppose this hardly requires any refutation. I dare say the interpretation was never heard of in the world before, and would not have been heard of now if it was not necessitated by his antinomian doctrine.

Rice’s first proof that Lot was practically unrighteous was that he “had fellowship with the wicked Sodomites calling them brethren.” This is grasping at straws. By the same token he could have proved Peter wicked, when, full of the Holy Ghost, he addressed as “brethren” the wicked Jews who had crucified the Lord, when preaching to them on the day of Pentecost. Stephen did the same, to the wicked Jews who were shortly to stone himself, in Acts 7:2. Paul did the same in Acts 13:38, 22:1, 23:1, and elsewhere. To condemn this as practical unrighteousness in Lot is foolish.

But there is a more serious charge. Lot “had fellowship with the wicked Sodomites.” Rice offers no proof of this. Certainly calling them brethren was no sin. He certainly did not have fellowship with their evil, since he vexed his righteous soul with it from day to day. But we may as well make the most that may be made of this charge. “Lot sat in the gate of Sodom.” (Gen. 19:1). The gate of the city was the place of authority, the place of judgement. Lot had evidently run for office. He was engaged in politics. He was set to “clean up Sodom,” to “save Sodom,” for he now had an interest and a stake in Sodom. No doubt in all his political activity he was in fellowship with the people of Sodom, but in this he was not one whit different from the great majority of modern Fundamentalists, including Rice himself and all his disciples among the Independent Baptists. Curtis Hutson, John R. Rice’s successor, avowed that he would share the platform with unbelievers at a political meeting, though not at an ecclesiastical meeting. We suppose Lot would have done just the same, but this is no proof of his unrighteousness. It may prove his weakness of principle, and his lack of spiritual discernment, but not his unrighteousness. He did wrong precisely because he supposed it to be right, and in this he differed nothing from Curtis Hutson and John R. Rice himself.

Rice speaks further, in the same paragraph, of Lot’s “life of covetousness, worldliness, and drink”—-all this, of course, directly in the teeth of the Bible. For first, Paul tells us in language which cannot be mistaken, “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Eph. 5:5). If Lot was a covetous man, he was lost. As for Lot’s alleged worldliness, James tells us, “Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4), and John, “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (I John 2:15). We realize that a great discount must sometimes be taken for ignorance, but we believe that nevertheless these two texts contain some of the most solemn statements in the Bible. God will judge how far a man may be ignorantly conformed to the world, and yet be a righteous man. These world-borderers may stand upon very slippery ground, yet ignorance is not the same thing as deliberate unrighteousness.

But where is the proof that Lot was either covetous or worldly? He chose the well watered plain of Jordan, and that is really all we know about it. If Lot had been a member of one of John R. Rice’s Baptist churches, this would have been called good business sense. We do not justify Lot in this matter. We think his choice but manifested the coldness of his faith and the weakness of his principles—-but this is another matter from unrighteousness. Unrighteousness defiles the conscience, and we suppose there must be some sense of sin in a thing in order to make it unrighteous. And we very strongly suspect that if the truth could be known, it would be found that a myriad of those Independent Baptists who were lately under the care of John R. Rice were a great deal more covetous and worldly than Lot was or could have been. Lot had no radio nor television nor computer games—-no worldly magazines or newspapers—-no public education—-no major league ball games. But these things are not regarded as worldliness at all by most of the modern church, though they are in fact the essence and epitome of it, while a man may have flocks and herds, and a house in the city, and not be covetous or worldly at all. At any rate, to accuse Lot of these things we must set aside plain New Testament scriptures. Either Lot was not a righteous man, or the covetous may be. Both propositions are directly against the plain statements of the New Testament.

We will not say that Lot never did a covetous thing, but a “life of covetousness” is another matter. Rice never understood this, and always used the occasional blots on a holy life to prove that those who were habitually unholy, unrighteous, or immoral could be saved. This is directly against the Bible.

As for Lot’s “life of drink,” this is misunderstanding all around. If Rice had said “life of drunkenness,” we would deny it, though he was drunk twice, not by his own choice, but by the machinations of his daughters. But since Rice says, “life of drink,” we may grant that, while we yet deny that this was sin. We have no doubt that Lot used wine as a beverage, as we have no doubt that Abraham did also. The fermentation is God’s natural way of preserving the juice, and there is no doubt that all the saints were accustomed to drink it, except Nazarites, and even they certainly drank it when not under a vow. Those vows were generally temporary, and were not, by the way, a mere abstinence from wine, but from all “the fruit of the vine,” including grapes and raisins. If the wine was wrong, were the grapes and raisins also? If the wine was wrong, why did the Lord command only temporary abstinence from it. This is all the shallowest sort of thinking, and involves us in absurdities.

Nay more, if it was wrong to drink wine, why did the Lord command the children of Israel to turn their offerings into money, and take it in their hand to the place of his tabernacle, and “bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household”? (Deut. 14:26).

Well, but I know that it is useless to speak on this subject, for modern Fundamentalism regards the use of wine as one of the cardinal sins. This they do regardless of everything the Bible says on the subject, and this they certainly will do regardless of all that I can say. Perhaps they are the less to be blamed for it, for early prejudices are hard to shake off. Nevertheless, the scriptures on this theme are so plain as to leave them but little excuse, and the reasonable—-not to say honest—-interpretation of those scriptures can lead to but one result, and that the direct opposite of what is commonly held by Fundmentalists today.

Well, but Lot also committed incest with his own daughters. It is hard to tell what this can have to do with the subject. In this he did what he never would or could have done had his mind not been first stupefied by wine. This was his daughters’ act, not his own, for he certainly cannot be supposed to have known what he was about when he did it. This is plain on the face of the text, and his daughters certainly knew that their father would commit no such lewdness while he was in his senses. They were careful, therefore, to make him drunk, and evidently to make him so drunk that even his returning senses on the following day brought no recollection of what he had done—-for who can suppose he would have repeated the same offense the following night, if he had been conscious of having done it? This were to make him wicked indeed.

For getting drunk he doubtless had some responsibility, for we do not suppose his daughters poured the wine down his throat with a funnel. But sift this to the bottom also. We may certainly suppose that Lot at this time was extremely discouraged and downcast, having just lost all that he had in the world, including his wife, and apparently some of his children. We know that discouragement weakens all the faculties, and particularly the power of the will. The Bible itself prescribes wine in such a case. “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” (Prov. 31:6-7). This was no doubt his daughters’ plea. “It is hard to see you so downcast, father. Will you not take a little wine, and cheer your heart?” All this Lot may have done without sin, and without suspecting anything. There came a point, no doubt, at which he had drunk enough, and ought to have ceased, but we may suppose that it was just at this point that his mental faculties began to be blurred, so that he was not conscious that he was getting drunk, and this, coupled with the repeated and gentle coaxing of his daughters, led him to such a state of intoxication that he knew not what he did, and we are certain that he would not have done it otherwise.

We do suppose that Lot had some responsibility for this drunkenness, though not the same as if he had not been coaxed to it. And we are certain that it is a different matter to get drunk on one occasion, under such discouragements and such coaxing, than it is to live a life of drunkenness.

Well, but Lot offered his virgin daughters to the perverted men who beset his house around. This was certainly the worst act of his life—-far worse than his lying with those daughters himself, for the former he did deliberately and consciously, the latter only when stupefied by wine. We can say but little to excuse this act, though it is true that he was in a great strait, and acted under great pressure, evidently choosing this evil in order to prevent a greater. Still, it was an act of unbelief and of cowardice—-as unbelief is often cowardly, where faith is very bold—-and such an act as it is hard to imagine a father being guilty of at all. Why did he not rather sacrifice himself, and spare his daughters? This act can hardly be too strongly reprobated.

Still, it will hardly serve the purpose of those who wish to prove from Lot that the unrighteous may inherit the kingdom of God. A single unrighteous act, committed by a righteous man under great duress, when threatened with violence, and to prevent what he evidently regarded as a greater evil, cannot be brought to prove that those who are habitually unrighteous can inherit the kingdom of God. Paul affirms directly the contrary. “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU WITH EMPTY WORDS.” (Eph. 5:5-6). And once more, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECEIVED: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Some will doubtless suppose that I quote these scriptures too often, but I think that to quote them at all will be much too often for some folks. They love to talk about salvation by faith, but they do not believe Paul.

Lot was a righteous man. So says Peter. And “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” So says John. Lot then was practically and habitually righteous. To use his occasional falls, bad as they were, to prove that the habitually unrighteous may inherit the kingdom of God is simply to wrest the Scriptures, and to deceive the souls of men. This is a very sorry business, and so much the more when his falls are painted as blacker than they are.

Glenn Conjurske