How Do We “Take Every Thought Captive”? LIVE Q&A for March 13, 2025

What Does It Mean to “Take Every Thought Captive”?

From Kate:

I’ve heard this verse in 2 Corinthians 10:5 a lot, but what does it actually mean for our daily lives? How can we actively take our thoughts captive when we’re bombarded by sinful temptations or distractions?

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

1. [3] For though we walk in the flesh: Paul will admit that he walks according to the flesh in the sense that we all do. He is a flesh and blood human being, and he struggles with the same things the Corinthian Christians struggled with. However, Paul wants to make it clear that he does not [3] war according to the flesh.
2. [4] For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal: When Paul fought, his weapons were not material but spiritual, suited for spiritual war.
3. The [4] carnal weapons Paul refused were not material weapons such as swords and spears. The carnal weapons he renounced were the manipulative and deceitful ways his opponents used. Paul would not defend his apostolic credentials with carnalweapons others used.
4. In Ephesians 6, Paul lists the spiritual weapons he used: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the gospel, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. To rely on these weapons took faith in God instead of carnal methods. But truly, these weapons are [4] mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.

iii. The Corinthian Christians tended to rely on and admire carnal weapons for the Christian battle:

• Instead of the belt of truth, they fought with manipulation.
• Instead of the breastplate of righteousness, they fought with the image of success.
• Instead of the shoes of the gospel, they fought with smooth words.
• Instead of the shield of faith, they fought with the perception of power.
• Instead of the helmet of salvation, they fought with lording over authority.
• Instead of the sword of the Spirit, they fought with human schemes and programs.

1. Jesus relied on spiritual weapons when He fought for our salvation. Philippians 2:6-8 describes this: who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

This kind of victory through humble obedience offended the Corinthian Christians because it seemed so “weak.” The carnal, human way is to overpower, dominate, manipulate, and out-maneuver. The spiritual, Jesus-way is to humble yourself, die to yourself, and let God show His resurrection power through you.

1. Our spiritual weapons are scorned by the world but feared by demonic powers. When we fight with true spiritual weapons, then no principality or power can stand against us.
2. [4] Pulling down strongholds: Strongholds in this context are wrong thoughts and perceptions, contradicting the true knowledge of God and the nature of God. These strongholds are expressed in [5] arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.
3. This reliance on carnal methods and the habit of carnal thinking is a true stronghold. It stubbornly sets down deep roots in the heart and mind, and it colors all of our actions and thinking. It is hard to let go of the thinking that values the things and ways of this world, but God’s power really can break down these strongholds.
4. In Paul’s native land of Cilicia, some fifty years before he was born, Roman armies destroyed many rocky fortresses to defeat the pirates who had taken refuge in those strongholds. Perhaps Paul saw the ruins and thought of the battle needed to conquer those fortresses.

iii. Redpath writes of a practical way to battle with spiritual weapons and break down a stronghold: “When the thought comes and the person is reported to have said what he has said, and the unkindness has been passed over to us, and the criticism has been made, whereas carnality would say, ‘Counterattack!’ spirituality recognizes that nothing that any person could ever say about any one is really one hundredth part as bad as the truth if he only knew it. Therefore, we have no reason to counterattack, but one good reason to submit and to forget.”

1. Praise God, strongholds can be pulled down! Clarke recounts with wonder one stronghold pulled down in history: “In like manner the doctrines of the reformation, mighty through God, pulled down – demolished and brought into captivity, the whole papal system; and instead of obedience to the pope, the pretended vicar of God upon the earth, obedience to Christ, as the sole almighty Head of the Church, was established, particularly in Great Britain, where it continues to prevail. Hallelujah! The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth!” (Adam Clarke)
2. [5] Arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God: Carnal and worldly ways of thinking and doing are arguments against the mind and methods of God. They want to debate God, saying they have a better way. They exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. They think of themselves as smarter, more sophisticated, more effective, more powerful than God’s ways. Carnal, worldly minds think they know more than God does!
3. We must remind ourselves that Paul spoke to carnal, worldly thinking among Christians. He wasn’t talking about the world here but the Corinthian Christians. They were the ones with the [4] strongholds in their minds and hearts. They made the argumentsagainst God’s mind and methods. They held on to [5] every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. We miss it entirely if we think the love of manipulation, the image of success, smooth words, the perception of power, lording over authority, and human schemes and programs are just problems among unbelievers. Paul dealt with this heart and mind in the church.
4. [5] Bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ: To battle against this carnal way of thinking and doing, our thoughts must be brought captive and made obedient to Jesus.
5. When we start to think in this carnal way, we must stop our thoughts, take dominion over them in Jesus, and not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. (Romans 12:2)
6. Paul’s first application is towards the carnal, worldly thinking of the Corinthian Christians that made them despise Paul and his “weakness,” doubting his apostolic credentials. But Paul’s principle has a much broader application. We are not helpless victims or recipients of our thoughts. We can choose to stop our thoughts and bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. Thoughts of lust, thoughts of anger, thoughts of fear, thoughts of greed, bitter thoughts, evil thoughts – they are part of every thought that may be and must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

iii. Someone might object: “I don’t want my thoughts to be captive to anyone. I don’t want my thoughts to be captive to Jesus. I want my thoughts to be free.” This is wrong on at least two points.

First, you belong to someone, and ultimately, we either serve Jesus or Satan.

Second, if you are a Christian, you are a purchased possession of Jesus Christ. You belong to Him. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 puts it this way: Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

What is a reprobate mind (Romans 1)?

A reprobate mind is a mind that is lost, darkened, and given over to ungodliness. The reprobate mind, as discussed in Romans 1, doesn’t have anything to do with the believer. Now, it’s possible for a believer to follow some of the same paths as a reprobate mind. But when Paul speaks in Romans 1 about the reprobate mind, he’s not at all speaking of the believer. He’s speaking about man apart from Christ.

While it’s true that a believer has the choice to think along reprobate lines, they also have the power in Jesus Christ to live according to a better principle. What Paul told the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 10, about taking every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ, he would not say to a non-believer, because the non-believer doesn’t have Christ within him. He doesn’t have a new nature. He’s not born again by God’s Spirit. Neither Paul nor the Bible ever expect those who do not yet believe to live as if they were believers, but they do call believers to live according to the calling and the principle with which God has made us. He has made us new men and new women in Jesus Christ.

The reprobate mind is opposed to God, lost, and set aside to sin, immorality, and darkness. Those things should not mark any believer.

Are mega churches unbiblical?

I was told this week that mega churches were unbiblical. Is this true?

I don’t think so. I don’t think that mega churches are unbiblical on principle. In the Gospels and the book of Acts, we often see large numbers of Christians gathered together for worship and the Word. Now, they didn’t do this consistently over long periods of time because there weren’t adequate places to hold such gatherings. The early church, the New Testament Church, organized itself mainly as house churches. If there were 1000 believers in a city, there might be 50 house churches of 20 people each. They organized in house churches because they had no other option.

As soon as Christians were permitted to build their own places for worship and gathering together, they did it. Some of those places were smaller, and some of those places were larger. There’s nothing inherently unbiblical about large numbers of believers gathering together for worship, for the word, and for taking the Lord’s table together.

Now, are there some messed up big churches out there? Absolutely, there are. One of the biggest churches that I have any kind of familiarity with is at Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale, with Pastor Doug Souder and the team. I can tell you that their church has a keen interest in discipleship. They really care, and they really work to do the very best they can to bring discipleship to the many thousands of people who attend that church. Are there people who fall through the gaps? Yes, but that’s true of a church of any size.

Over the years of my pastoral ministry, I’ve pastored small churches of 20 or fewer people, medium-sized churches of up to a couple hundred people, and larger churches with 1500 or more people. Those are the three churches that I pastored. Some of those were in transition, growing from one stage to another. I don’t think that any size is holier or better than another. I think each size of a church, whether it’s small, medium, or large, has its benefits and liabilities. I think that pastors need to recognize and make the most of the benefits their church has and try to mitigate or lessen the liabilities as much as they can.

So, no, there’s not anything fundamentally unbiblical about large churches. Somebody may talk about how large churches do ministry, and that’s fair game. If they’re doing it purely on an attractional model, where they’re more interested in entertaining the goats, so to speak, than feeding the sheep, there’s something very wrong there. But it’s certainly not that way in every big church. Calvary Chapel Philadelphia with Pastor Joe Focht is another big church I’m familiar with, and many thousands of people go there. They don’t regard their services as some kind of entertainment for the goats. No, they’re there to feed the sheep, and they do a great job of it.

Are women permitted to teach in-person or online Bible studies?

I believe that Scripture clearly states that the roles of pastors and elders are for men, but what about Bible studies and Christian teachings led by women, as on TV or YouTube?

I’ll start with some definitions. People may disagree or define these terms differently, and that’s fine. There is an approach to the roles of men and women in the church called egalitarian. Egalitarianism basically says there is no distinction in roles, and that women can do anything that men can do. They would argue that God doesn’t stipulate any specific roles in the home or in the church which are just for men. They believe there is no such distinction. That’s the egalitarian approach.

Then there’s the complementarian approach. The complementarian approach would say that the Bible clearly instructs that the husband/father is the head of the home, and that he has a leadership responsibility in the home. It’s not that the wife has no leadership responsibility; she does. She is also the mother of the children, which denotes some leadership responsibility, right there. But she is under the authority and leadership of her husband. The Bible says that he’s the head. In the church, God has ordained the leadership of qualified men, but not just any man. God forbid that anybody goes around thinking that any man is above or has leadership over any woman in the church. That would be crazy. No, the complementarian approach designates church leadership to qualified men in the congregation. They believe that God has ordained these roles of leadership in the home and in the church.

There is a third category called patriarchal. There are many different definitions as to what that term patriarchalmeans, but I’ll tell you how I understand it in our modern world today. The patriarchal definition says that it’s not enough to recognize the leadership positions that God has appointed (of men in the home and in the church). They further believe that men, by God’s command, should lead in every area of communal life and friends. I’ve got to say, I don’t think the Bible teaches that. It certainly doesn’t teach it by any clear command.

Yes, there are passages in the Old Testament which talk about the disaster that comes when women are leading a nation. And that can be true, but in the biblical context, the women are leading because the men are all dead. That the men are all dead in battle is an expression of the judgment of God in that situation. No doubt it’s the judgment of God that women are leading because the men are all dead.

So, is there any kind of clear command that says a woman can’t be a politician or a teacher? And how does this extend to the church? The question concerns Bible studies and Christian teachings led by women, such as on TV or YouTube? \ I believe that in a congregation, there is an appropriate place for women to teach other women. The Bible is pretty clear about it in Titus, that it’s fine for women to teach other women, not in a sense of having authority over men.

What if that kind or that approach of teaching is put out on YouTube or on the television? Well, there’s no female YouTube teacher who has authority over me. But neither is there any male YouTube teacher who has authority over me. I just don’t see it the same way. I think that the commands God gives in the New Testament for headship in the home and in the church relevant to the church are relevant to congregational life. What happens outside of that, such as on YouTube or television, is outside of that command. If you don’t like it, or if you think that a woman’s wrong for teaching on YouTube, here’s my advice: Don’t listen to it. It’s that simple.

We need to be careful to neither approve nor condemn somebody just on a label. We should carefully consider what people actually teach and what they implement and go from there. I think it’s important for us to speak where the Bible speaks, but we don’t need to go beyond what the Bible says. This is a topic where I think we should not be going beyond what the Bible itself says. I think that some brothers and sisters in the patriarchal world are going beyond what the Bible says.

Now, what’s the harm in that? Friends, Jesus had pretty harsh words for those who take the traditions of men and transform them into commandments of God. I think people should be much more careful about that. I believe it’s a dangerous and grievous thing to take the commandments of men and to transform those things into commandments of God.

Why do you prefer the NKJV translation?

I think there are several good Bible translations out there, including the ESV, the CSV, the Legacy Standard Bible, the New American Standard is good, especially its older editions. But I value the consistency that I’ve had in using the New King James Version over many years. I like to treasure God’s word in my heart. I want the words of Scripture to be familiar and treasured by me. It’s been valuable to me to stick with the same translation for a long time over the years. Part of the reason why I prefer the New King James is just out of respect for that.

The other thing I appreciate about the NKJV Bible is its connection with the King James. If you’re a pastor or preacher, I think that you should read through the entire Bible in the King James Version at least once. There’s something so foundational in the contributions that the King James Bible has made to literature, to Bible resources, to commentaries. If you’re a serious Bible student, you should read through the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation in the King James version at least once, if not multiple times.

I appreciate the connection that the New King James has with the King James. I think that the King James was a brilliant translation, and I appreciate that the New King James uses much of its same manuscript tradition but removes some of the archaic words. The other thing that I like about the New King James Version is that I find it just as easy to understand as any other version.

Now, if somebody is a brand-new Bible reader, I might recommend to them that they read something like the New Living Translation. I might say that especially if they’re a young person. I have found that most everybody finds the New King James very accessible. The New King James Version and the English Standard Version are so similar that I see zero need to use the ESV. Why would I use it? It’s so similar to the New King James, I’ll just go with the New King James.

I think there’s great benefit in not jumping around from translation to translation every six months, but rather giving yourself carefully to the Word, thoughtfully choosing a translation and then reading it again and again and again to where its words really sink down into your heart. That’s been my experience, although I will read the Bible in some other translations in my devotional reading at times, just to mix it up a bit. But there’s always an anchor I go back to, and that anchor is found in the New King James Version.

Are spiritual gifts like tongues only displayed in the Pentecostal church? How can I know if God has given me a spiritual gift?

The only place I see spiritual gifts such as tongues taught and displayed is at a Pentecostal church. Why is that? How can I know if God has given me a spiritual gift?

I would say that’s largely because there are many churches who do believe in the existence and the value of spiritual gifts, such as the gift of tongues, but they don’t believe that the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit should be made the center of congregational life.

I come from the church tradition of Calvary Chapel, and we believe in what’s called the perpetuity of the gifts. We believe that the gift of tongues is, in fact, for today, but we believe that the gift of tongues is primarily given for a believer’s interaction with God. I was just reading on social media the other day, where some guys are saying that the true gift of tongues is a real language, and it’s given to proclaim the gospel in other languages. I do agree that the gift of tongues is a real language; it’s not make-believe or gibberish. But Paul makes it crystal clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that he who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God. God is the audience for speaking in tongues. The believer is speaking mysteries that even he or she doesn’t understand before God. It’s a tool of communication that God gives some believers to bypass or their cognitive thought, to pray beyond their intellect and understanding. That’s why the gift of tongues is unique and is often much more focused on a personal and devotional usage.

We get this idea from Paul’s words about the gift of tongues. On the one hand, Paul greatly restricted the Corinthians when they wanted to use the gift of tongues in public meetings. Paul tried to put the brakes on that, to slow it down. But on the other hand, Paul also said things like, “I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than you all.” When did Paul speak in tongues? Seemingly not in congregational meetings, but in what would we call his private devotional times.

That’s why you’ll find Christians who definitely do believe in the gift of tongues, yet you don’t see much of an exercise of it in church meetings. It’s typically because, first, they don’t believe that tongues should be the focus of church meetings. And secondly, it’s because they feel that it’s more suited for devotional life.

How can we discern whether it’s time to leave a church because of hurt or offense?

What are some things that can help guide us in making a decision to leave a particular church, or not? — specifically when remaining there is a difficulty because of a certain hurting or offense.

I’m sure that this would be a different conversation if you and I were to speak about it in person, because I could ask a lot more questions to gain clarity on things. But without that kind of understanding, I’ll give you a couple of principles.

First of all, unless there is grievous sin going on at the church that you’re leaving – and by grievous sin, I mean criminal activity, grave spiritual abuse, outright heresy – then you should stay at that church until you have reason to believe you’ve found a better one to attend. Just don’t leave over minor things.

Secondly, I think it’s good for you to say goodbye at your church. I can say as a pastor how difficult it can feel to be “ghosted” by people who just don’t show up anymore and leave off all contact. Many times, in my years as a pastor, it has happened that dear, beloved people in the church have just stopped showing up, and it’s always very awkward. Of course, usually you reach out to them, but that can also be awkward, especially if they’ve already decided to leave the church. So, if nothing else, just say, “Pastor, we’ve decided to move on. There’s another church that we think better suits our family needs. We thank you for whatever good you’ve done in our lives. We’re grateful for that, and we pray that God blesses you.”

Now, maybe things are so sour with you and your church that you feel like you can’t do that. If that’s the case, it’s not good. We should be able to leave a church on good terms, being thankful for whatever good that God has done through them and without becoming a sour in our heart towards them.