To watch the video, click on the link below:
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Sermon Video: Don't call yourself a Christian if... 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
Bringing the discussion regarding sexual immorality to a close, the Apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth that his previous instructions to avoid sexually immoral people was not meant as a restriction on those outside the church, but only on those inside who claim to be a Christian but who continue to live in immorality. Paul also broadens the application of this principle beyond sexual immorality to include any other type of immorality to which a professing "Christian" might be enslaved. In the end, the people of God must be holy, a righteous people (by the grace of God), who cannot tolerate ongoing immorality in their midst. In closing out the topic, Paul reminds the church that it is not their job to judge those outside the church (for God will do that), but those inside.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
A brutally poor use of the Bible
I recently read a blog post made by an ordained minister (to keep your mind on topic, I'm not going to mention the name/gender/denomination of the minister) which cited the Biblical reference of Galatians 5:22-23 in a way that was one of the most ridiculously eisegetical misuses of Scripture I have ever read. The Word of God cannot mean whatever we want it to mean, it cannot be divorced from its original settings, the intent of the author (in this case Paul and God), nor the understanding of the Church as a whole concerning the text throughout history. If all of these safeguards are ignored, if proper exegesis is not done, you get the type of nonsense I read online. Let me share the text of Galatians 5:22-23 and then explain what this minister said about it.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
I'm also not going to share what particular issue this verse was cited in connection with, because it would also change most people's focus from the text itself to that hot-button issue. In a nutshell, the minister cited this verse and then declared that something that the Bible in a variety of places calls a sin can no longer be considered a sin because some of those who commit this sin also (in the minister's opinion) display the fruit of the Spirit. In other words, if the virtues listed by Paul are present in a person's life, whatever behavior that person is also doing, no matter what the Bible says specifically about such behavior, can no longer be judged as sinful and must therefore not only be accepted as legitimate but championed as good, beautiful, and pure.
Do you think that Paul wrote those words in order to destroy the Law of Moses? Did Paul intend to eliminate the very idea that there are behavior which God has forbidden to not only humanity in general but his people in particular? How could anyone possibly read these verses, in their context, and come up with such a conclusion? To abuse Galatians 5:22-23 in this way is a crime against the Word of God, it is having a particular conclusion in mind and searching for a passage of Scripture to back up what you already want to believe.
The very words written by Paul both before and after vs. 22-23 utterly refute the contention that 5:22-23 negate the idea of behavior being sinful, In verse 19-21 Paul wrote, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Following vs. 22-23, Paul continued, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (vs. 24) The essence of the fruit of the Spirit is not only the presence of virtue, but the absence of vice. We cannot possibly be living according to the Spirit of God, walking in his will, if we at the same time are indulging in sinful behavior. And yes, the behavior that this minister was declaring to be good and pure, instead of immoral, is part of the list in vs. 19-21. Nowhere in the Bible is this idea taught, nowhere does God give man the authority to define right and wrong.
If a thief displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that he continues to steal? If a liar displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that she continues to bear false witness? If adulterers display the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that they are dishonoring their marriage? The presence of virtue does not negate the presence of vice. The implications of such an awful interpretation of Scripture are laughably absurd, yet this is the type of thing that people are willing to do to Scripture, bending and twisting, pulling and shoving, to try to make it fit what they want to believe.
Every lay person in the Church should know better, an ordained minister should be ashamed of such behavior. The Bible is not a tool to suit or fancy, it is the Word of God, it deserves far more respect than that.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
I'm also not going to share what particular issue this verse was cited in connection with, because it would also change most people's focus from the text itself to that hot-button issue. In a nutshell, the minister cited this verse and then declared that something that the Bible in a variety of places calls a sin can no longer be considered a sin because some of those who commit this sin also (in the minister's opinion) display the fruit of the Spirit. In other words, if the virtues listed by Paul are present in a person's life, whatever behavior that person is also doing, no matter what the Bible says specifically about such behavior, can no longer be judged as sinful and must therefore not only be accepted as legitimate but championed as good, beautiful, and pure.
Do you think that Paul wrote those words in order to destroy the Law of Moses? Did Paul intend to eliminate the very idea that there are behavior which God has forbidden to not only humanity in general but his people in particular? How could anyone possibly read these verses, in their context, and come up with such a conclusion? To abuse Galatians 5:22-23 in this way is a crime against the Word of God, it is having a particular conclusion in mind and searching for a passage of Scripture to back up what you already want to believe.
The very words written by Paul both before and after vs. 22-23 utterly refute the contention that 5:22-23 negate the idea of behavior being sinful, In verse 19-21 Paul wrote, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Following vs. 22-23, Paul continued, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (vs. 24) The essence of the fruit of the Spirit is not only the presence of virtue, but the absence of vice. We cannot possibly be living according to the Spirit of God, walking in his will, if we at the same time are indulging in sinful behavior. And yes, the behavior that this minister was declaring to be good and pure, instead of immoral, is part of the list in vs. 19-21. Nowhere in the Bible is this idea taught, nowhere does God give man the authority to define right and wrong.
If a thief displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that he continues to steal? If a liar displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that she continues to bear false witness? If adulterers display the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that they are dishonoring their marriage? The presence of virtue does not negate the presence of vice. The implications of such an awful interpretation of Scripture are laughably absurd, yet this is the type of thing that people are willing to do to Scripture, bending and twisting, pulling and shoving, to try to make it fit what they want to believe.
Every lay person in the Church should know better, an ordained minister should be ashamed of such behavior. The Bible is not a tool to suit or fancy, it is the Word of God, it deserves far more respect than that.
Sermon Video: The Growth of Sin - 1 Corinthians 5:6-8
As part of his ongoing warning to the church at Corinth to expel one of their own who has been living in sexual immorality, Paul further states his case by warning the church that sin, like a cancer, will spread if not removed. To make his point, Paul uses the analogy of yeast within dough, making a connection to the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and thus a connection to Jesus as the Passover Lamb, and to the symbolic purity connected with the removal of yeast from Jewish homes for the Feast.
Ongoing sin within a church is a very dangerous thing. The presence of sin may be unrecognized, or the particular sin may be tolerated by the people, either way, it is a sign of trouble within the community. Sin will spread, it does not remain in its place, but will grow within the life of the one who is enslaved by it, and it will grow within a community of believers. Our response, then, to sin must be both serious and at times drastic. If one among us refuses to repent, and remains in rebellion against God, that individual must be removed from the church's fellowship until repentance has occurred.
Sexual immorality is a particularly dangerous sin for Christians. Men or women, young or old, we must not allow temptation/opportunities to sin in this area to remain in our lives, it is far wiser to act preemptively to remove an external temptation (such as pornography, or a person one is sexually stimulated by that is not one's spouse) and thus allow our hearts a chance to overcome temptation than it is to try to remain steadfast in the face of continuing temptation. Far too many Christians have allowed themselves to take small steps down the road of sexual immorality, only to continue on that path and eventually destroy their career/family/faith.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Ongoing sin within a church is a very dangerous thing. The presence of sin may be unrecognized, or the particular sin may be tolerated by the people, either way, it is a sign of trouble within the community. Sin will spread, it does not remain in its place, but will grow within the life of the one who is enslaved by it, and it will grow within a community of believers. Our response, then, to sin must be both serious and at times drastic. If one among us refuses to repent, and remains in rebellion against God, that individual must be removed from the church's fellowship until repentance has occurred.
Sexual immorality is a particularly dangerous sin for Christians. Men or women, young or old, we must not allow temptation/opportunities to sin in this area to remain in our lives, it is far wiser to act preemptively to remove an external temptation (such as pornography, or a person one is sexually stimulated by that is not one's spouse) and thus allow our hearts a chance to overcome temptation than it is to try to remain steadfast in the face of continuing temptation. Far too many Christians have allowed themselves to take small steps down the road of sexual immorality, only to continue on that path and eventually destroy their career/family/faith.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Friday, April 28, 2017
The Church:Cleaning our own house.
In the finale to a three-part message on 1 Corinthians 5 regarding sexually immorality within the Church that I will be preaching next week, Paul explains the necessity for the Church of expelling from their fellowship those who claim to be Christians, but who remain mired in immorality. While beginning preparation for next week's message I was reading the commentary of Adam Clarke (1832) on vs. 9-13. At the conclusion of the passage, Clarke wrote this:
If all the fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, extortioners, and covetous persons which bear the Christian name, were to be publicly excommunicated from the Christian Church, how many, and how awful would the examples be! If however the discipline of the visible Church be so lax that such characters are tolerated in it, they should consider that this is no passport to heaven. In the sight of God they are not members of his Church; their citizenship is not in heaven, and therefore they have no right to expect the heavenly inheritance. It is not under names, creeds, or professions, that men shall be saved at the last day; those alone who were holy, who were here conformed to the image of Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Those who expect it in any other way, or on any other account, will be sadly deceived.
How many, how awful, would such an expulsion be? That is indeed a sobering thought. How many people would be left in the Church if those still living in immorality but claiming His name (not those who do not yet believe, nor claim to) were told they must leave the fellowship of God's people until such time as they had repented of their sins?
The important question for the Church is this: How do we build a holy people, a people dedicated to living in Christ-like discipleship, if some in our midst are intent upon pulling us in the opposite direction through their continual choice of sin? This was a problem that plagued the history of Israel in the Old Testament, and one that is certainly not new for the Church either. Let us pray that those who claim the name of Christ, falsely, will see the folly of their ways, will be convicted by the Holy Spirit, and will repent, for the Church's task in the world is too vital to be diluted by in-name-only Christians.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Sermon Video: Sexual Immorality among God's people - 1 Corinthians 5:1-5
There are few issues more frequently discussed or arousing more passionate responses than those relating to sex and sexuality. Both the Old Covenant given under Moses, and the New Covenant initiated by Jesus, contain significant portions dedicated to defining the proper boundaries of sexual expression. In both cases, that definition relegates such expression to that within the marriage of one man and one woman.
In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul expresses his dismay that the people of that church have failed to live up to that standard in that they have not disciplined a member who has married his former step-mother. In addition to pronouncing judgment on that individual, Paul also commands the church to publicly expel the offending member in the hope that "tough love" will be the necessary prompt to cause repentance.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul expresses his dismay that the people of that church have failed to live up to that standard in that they have not disciplined a member who has married his former step-mother. In addition to pronouncing judgment on that individual, Paul also commands the church to publicly expel the offending member in the hope that "tough love" will be the necessary prompt to cause repentance.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)