Do Believers Who Had an Immoral Past Know God More? - Ask Pastor Tim

"Thank you for your ministry.

I've been watching the YouTube Q&A videos

and I would like to direct a question.

I am a 25 year old virgin

and a born again Christian.

I was raised in a strict, sheltered,

and naive household which made me

despise premarital sex
even before I was saved.

I haven't had a sexually sinful past.

I'm in no way, shape, or form trying to

brag about my works,

and I acknowledge that my
sheer existence was sinful.

I might not have had
a bad past like others,

but I acknowledge that
I deserve to go to hell

and that I'm only saved
by the grace of God.

From experience, I have observed..."

Now listen to this:

"From experience, I have observed

that the most mature Christians

are the ones that have had

a very immoral past.

This is backed up by
the verse in Luke 7:47."

Somebody look that up.

Luke 7:47.

Whoever gets that, go ahead and read it.

"Therefore, I tell you, her sins,

which are many are forgiven,

for she loved much.

But he who is forgiven
little loves little."

Okay, let's think about that.

Now he's making this observation:

"I've observed that the
most mature Christians

are the ones that have
had a very immoral past."

And he says not only from his experience -

he says my experience
is backed up by Scripture.

And he refers to that text right there.

Then he goes on to say,

"The more you have sinned,

the more you're forgiven.

The more you're forgiven,

the more you love God,

and therefore, the more mature you become.

I've been dealing with a cloud
over my head regarding this.

I know that sin is wrong no matter what,

but sometimes I feel like
being sexually active

before I was saved

would have put me in a
better spiritual position now."

Now, listen, thankfully

I was looking for Bethan Lloyd-Jones

and I picked up this
book and I opened it up

and bang there it was.

Don't you love when that happens?

She says, "In those
early years at Aberavon,

I rejoiced to see men and women converted.

Drunkards, evil livers, all manner

of types and backgrounds

and all different ages..."

Now this is Martyn Lloyd-Jones' wife.

"I rejoiced to see them.

I envied them

and sometimes wished

when I saw their radiant faces

and changed lives

that I had been a drunkard or worse,

so that I could be converted.

I never imagined that I
needed to be converted

having always been a Christian,

or that I could get any
more than I had already.

Those first two years, God graciously used

Martyn's morning sermons to open my eyes

and to show me my self and my needs.

I came to know my sins forgiven

and the peace of God in my own heart."

That has always struck me

about Bethan Lloyd-Jones,

that she desired that.

There's more accounts.

(Incomplete thought)

Did you read both volumes?

Is that mentioned in there?

James: I remember hearing about it

and that's the only thing I've read,

so it must be there.

Tim: I think it's mentioned there too.

That's two whole volumes.

(Incomplete thought)

This was actually written by her.

And so I thought I might
find it here more quickly.

It's a lot smaller as well.

So what do you all think?

I mean, he's going to that text

about this woman who's
been saved from much.

What do you do? What do you tell him?

Is that flawed thinking?

I mean, listen, just for starters,

(incomplete thought)

I personally have recognized

that men like Martyn Lloyd-Jones,

John MacArthur, John Piper...

James: Steve Lawson?

Tim: I don't know Steve Lawson's past,

(incomplete thought).

Oh, the other one, Charles Spurgeon -

you know, most of those guys

came from families of
multiple generations of pastors.

Certainly, MacArthur did.

MacArthur's dad was a pastor.

Piper's father was an evangelist.

Spurgeon's father and
grandfather were both pastors.

And they grew up in
relatively moral settings.

And they weren't one
of these "pastor's kids"

who ran off into all
manner of wild living.

I mean, I think you can come up

with your examples where, yeah,

there were preachers who
have been greatly used

and you can hear about Paul Washer's past.

But is that the rule?
Is that our experience?

And does that text -

what do you do with that text?

You see how he's using it.

Do you think his reasoning is flawed?

And if so, how?

(from the room)

What about the text where Jesus says

He did not come for
those who are righteous,

but those who are sick?

Tim: I think that's a good text.

Let me ask you this.

I think that's a tremendous text

and very applicable to this,

but let me ask you this.

Jesus often said things

in very interesting ways.

He often said things in ways

we wouldn't say them.

Because if you're Jesus and you're sitting

and you have this woman

who is a great sinner -

she was the one that was
a woman of the city, right?

If you have a woman of the city

and she comes in and she obviously

loves the Lord Jesus

and she's doing what she does,

and there seems to be every indication

she's the real deal - she's genuine.

She's broken.

She's in glory now.

But you know what's interesting?

Who's He talking to?

He's talking to Pharisees.

And when He says

those who have been forgiven little,

they love little,

who do you think He's got in mind?

Is He talking about them?

Is He talking about somebody else?

(Incomplete thought)

Is this hypothetical?

Is it more a hyperbolic play on words?

He's making a point?

How do you read that?

Because if you really think about it,

is He actually saying to the Pharisee:

Well, you're in the Kingdom

just as much as she's in the Kingdom,

but because she's been forgiven much

and you've been forgiven little,

therefore she loves much,

and you're going to love little.

You know, I don't think that's
what's happening there.

Because the reality is you come back

to the text that R.L. just brought up.

The reality is we're all sick

and we're really sick.

And even if you were self-righteously sick

like Paul...

see, in the end, was Paul a drunk? No.

Was Paul sexually immoral? No.

You know what he says?

He says when it came to the law,

I was blameless.

And yet, he says I'm the chief of sinners.

You know what I'm afraid of in this?

That this guy doesn't have
a proper self-perspective.

I've heard Brother John Sytsma

who comes out of religious background.

But you know, he'll
be the first to tell you -

he senses the wickedness

of religious self-righteousness

because that's the
background he came from.

But you know, isn't it so often perceived

that if you were a drunk,

and if you were sexually immoral -

because even Bethan
fell into that thinking.

Lots of people fall into that thinking.

But you know what that is?

It's wrong thinking.

Now he's right in the
sense that he says this:

He said, "I might not have had

as bad a past as others,

but I acknowledge
I deserve to go to hell."

Well, see, he's right in the fact

that he deserves to go to hell.

He's wrong in the fact that
he hasn't been as bad

as other people.

Think about it.

He deserves to go to hell.

I mean, the reality is, he's done

such offensive things
and such wicked things

in the sight of God

that God would put him in hell forever.

We sometimes have these ideas...
(incomplete thought).

You know one of the problems?

I think this stems largely

from our man-centeredness.

We tend to think of sins on that level

as being the chief sins,

but really, idolatry,

those that most directly attack God,

we often think of the
ones on the human level.

But the truth is

when you think about the people

to whom it was said

it's going to be more tolerable

for Sodom in the day of judgment

than for those cities,

there's no real indication
that those cities

were like Sodom and Gomorrah

as far as sexuality

and sexual immorality.

You know what their crime was?

They had light and they rejected it.

You know, if we want to say anything

about from Scripture

who might be the most damnable,

it's the moral religionist

who's been exposed to truth

and yet continued on not loving God

the way they should.

So I think that's a wrong estimation.

Because think about the Apostle Paul.

What did he say about himself?

He said, "I'm the chief of sinners."

This is a statement
worthy of all acceptation

that Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners

of whom I am chief."

And what was he chiefly?

Not a fornicator, not an adulterer,

not a swearer.

He wasn't the drunk.

He wasn't in the gutter.

He wasn't in the brothels.

He wasn't in the bars
and in the taverns.

He wasn't.

He wasn't the guy walking
around with the filthy mouth.

He was the guy that when it
came religiously speaking,

he walked the line.

And he's the chief.

And see I think it's a
bad measuring stick.

It's blindness.

We categorize sins

and I think that it's a matter

of ignorance and blindness

of seeing certain types of sin

for how wicked and evil they really are.

Anybody got any comments on that?

James: I just thought I'd
read that one verse,

Luke 11:47, "And the servant

who knew his master's will,

but did not get ready or
act according to his will

will receive a severe beating."

Tim: Yeah, there's a matter of knowing,

knowledge, light.

When you have light,

it really compounds your guilt.

Anyway, he goes on to say more,

but I wanted to just touch that

because I thought that was
a really interesting perspective.