Acts 15 offers a perfect example of AUTHORITY in context when determining a scripture passage. The Jerusalem Council established the procedure many meetings have since followed, especially when sensitive issues are involved. This writer remembers the time he as a member of a board attended such a meeting.
First, an open meeting of all concerned parties occurred—lay, eldership and apostles. The only opinion recorded was that of the circumcision group, because their assumption, loudly vocalized, summarized the occasion of the Council. We can be sure, however, that Paul and Barnabas also took the floor in defense of Gentile freedom from Jewish rules. Second, given the prejudice of Jewish conservatives, we can’t be too surprised that “much discussion” occurred in the executive session. It included strong opinions reflecting opposing views. We would expect apostles in attendance to side with Paul and Barnabas while some elders sided with the Judaizing faction. Three, and here the issue of Authority became critical, Simon Peter, the apostolic origin of Gentile evangelism, minus any reference to circumcision—see Acts 10:44-48—addressed the executive session. His stirring summation couldn’t be misunderstood: “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Note the pronouns we and they—all equally saved by grace through faith in Christ. Four, Peter’s declaration, backed by apostolic integrity, and by an eye-witness account of Cornelius’ baptism based on faith in Christ, silenced arguments and established the NORM of Gentile evangelism. They then presented that decision to the whole church in open meeting. Five, only then did Barnabas and Paul take the floor with spellbinding stories of God’s indisputable evidence of success in Gentile evangelism, including “miraculous signs and wonders”, minus any reference to circumcision. Six, the excitement hardly diminished when elder James rose to make the definitive statement. (The apostles likely wanted the “chairman” of the elders to articulate the unanimity between Spirit-baptized apostles and Spirit-filled lay leaders.) Seven, not only did James align the elders with the apostles, but he distanced all of them from the heretics 15:24. That’s the application of the entire context. Scripture determined the apostolic/elder decision. The principle outlined in 15:22-29 remains relevant to our day in resolving spiritual issues. When: questions rise about the acceptability of beliefs and behaviors; or disputes come and disagreements threaten to divide God’s people, side with, support fully, follow carefully, adhere completely—ONLY with apostolic teaching. A truth Paul demanded in forceful language Galatians 1:6-9. And if we say we can’t agree on God’s Word, we’ll never agree on human opinions. End Part VI
0 Comments
While most people believe in God, many instinctively want to be their own deity, particularly when relating to life beyond death. They expect God to validate whatever decision they make.
WILL NEVER HAPPEN! In the same third storey mistake, a minister said Christians have misquoted the Bible when condemning homosexuality. Look at that criticism through the principle of CONTEXT and you’ll see third storey faith at work. Genesis 18:20-19:1-29 Textual integrity demands admission that God destroyed the cities because they surrendered to homosexuality. 19:4-5 defined their passion. Lot’s effort to pacify their lust led only to their heated rejection of him. Some 600 years later Moses received God’s continued denunciation Leviticus 18:22. Over 300 years after that the tribe of Benjamin had so thoroughly been corrupted by the practice that God ordered war waged against them by the eleven tribes Judges 19:11-20:45. Mark 7:20-23. Among the wickedness Jesus proscribed he included sexual immorality. Third storey at work, advocates of sodomy incorrectly claim that not particularizing homosexuality means Jesus didn’t condemn it. Are we to think that, while Jesus inspired Abraham and Moses to denounce the practice, he didn’t KNOW it was a sin—especially when the term he used includes ALL sexual immorality? Indeed, he didn’t denounce pederasty, bestiality or incest, but does anyone want to exclude them from God’s judgment? Romans 1:18-32. No question but that the apostle’s indictment damns homosexuality and lesbianism. And...to the criticism that Paul was only an apostle, Paul was instead SPECIFICALLY an APOSTLE, entrusted with Christ’s message to the Gentiles. Any effort to diminish his role in distinguishing righteousness from wickedness is third storey nonsense. I Corinthians 6:9-10. Paul told the Corinthians that “neither adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God.” Then, adding a number of other sins, including greed, drunkenness, slander and swindlers, he said, “and that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” verse 11. Note carefully and pay attention to context. THAT--all those sins, including homosexuality (all the rest can’t be sins and homosexuality an acceptable sexual lifestyle), had been their condition, but by repentance and baptism they had been forgiven. Which, in the context, means that homosexuality, like all other sins, is forgivable if repented. And, in conversion, the attraction of homosexuality is broken. You can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear. False prophets existed in Israel side-by-side with Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah and Jeremiah. And they all had followings. Not because they were honest with people and true to God, but because they said what people wanted to hear. The every heresy Paul forecast would mark the Last Days II Timothy 3:1-9. Beware of any preacher who tells you what you want rather than what you need to hear. End Part V The question this Part endeavors to answer is: how has it happened that some preachers, the very people who should believe and defend God’s teaching about homosexuality, have instead become its advocates?
Well...consider two reasons. One, revisionists exist in every discipline. Not content with reliable historical accounts, they demand a more positive twist on their past. Revisionists also plague Biblical truth, higher critics and the Jesus Seminar being the most infamous. The latter claims the Four Gospels are a faulty record of second and third century authors who made a triumphant Christ from a failed Jesus of Nazareth. This writer has specifically disproved their charge in his multi-volumned series of books called Their Own Best Defense. Two, the second reason for the defense of homosexuality in some churches is the personalization of faith—an unexpected result of the church-growth movement. The basic premise of the movement was the elimination of unnecessary obstacles to reaching people for Christ. Which sounded fine at the time, and still resonates with many. However, the outcome has been the elimination of Bible subjects considered too tough for the unsaved to accept: such as self-denial, Christ’s singularity and...the purity Jesus demands of his people. Another unexpected result was the re-definition of what constitutes Faith in God’s Word. Historically three levels of faith have existed. The first IS: God says it; that settles it. One slogan is half-way to that position. It says, God says it. I believe it. That settles it. However, the middle phrase isn’t necessary. If God says something, THAT settles it, whether or not we believe it. The second basis of faith IS: God has provided sufficient evidence in his Bible to convince fair-minded people that they can have absolute faith in it. Both of these positions are bedrock foundations of apologetics. But some leaders feel they’re too demanding. Which has led to the third stage, which IS: we’re free to filter anything the Bible says through our personal experience and belief-systems. In other words, it means only what we think or want it to mean. In Bible interpretation it’s called, “letting your theology determine your interpretation.” Which one writer said should decide one’s interpretation of Acts 2:38. That mistaken view has been furthered by lay-led Bible studies which ask each participant, “What does this verse/text mean to you?” Once we discard context in Bible teaching—which alone determines what it means to us—no limit exists to what any scripture DOES or DOESN’T mean to us. For we interpret Bible teaching by our personal philosophy, theology or opinion. Thus, because someone in our family embraces a homosexual lifestyle, we don’t want it criticized. Or because a friend’s offspring embraces it, we want no preaching against it. Point of fact, however. No application of scripture texts is possible until we determine its meaning in the historical context. New Testament writers could quote Old Testament scripture out of context because the Holy Spirit saw meaning in them obvious only with his guidance. But Bible students have no commensurate qualification for the same privilege. We can make applications agreeable with the original meaning, but none in contradiction of it. God won’t change a SINGLE FACT he’s recorded and revealed however much we overvalue our many personal opinions. More to come. End Part IV The homosexual lobby’s (HL) refusal to recognize Margaret Court’s tennis achievements is flagrant hypocrisy. Being married five times wouldn’t have eliminated her praise. Or being a lesbian among lesbians. But her strong Christian faith, adhering to Biblical teaching, minimizes her achievements in eyes of those who reject the powerful teaching of God’s word against homosexuality.
It’s a favorite tactic of the (HL). They want to believe they have established a “new normal” in sexual relationships because they demanded it, and culture agreed. As if two fallen, sinful groups can make ANY wrong into a right simply by WANTING it. As if any decision ratified in Heaven can ever be annulled by choices made on earth. Following that depraved perspective, those who practice bestiality, incest or pederasty, or even burning children to Molech—would be acceptable. All of which the same context in Leviticus 18 abhors and forbids. Besides, no new morality exists in honesty, keeping one’s word, fair business dealings, etc., etc., etc. How convenient of the homosexuals to want an exemption for them denied every other sinful behavior! The intolerance of the (HL) warns us: if we even begin to sympathize with them, or to compromise with them, they, like slave owners in the 1850’s, will keep increasing their demands until they ARE the “new normal”, and everyone opposing them is subject to prosecution for being intolerant. Let us draw the line where God drew it: at the beginning of creation he made MAN and WOMAN the historic normal in all sexual relationships. Therefore homosexuality never has been, isn’t now and never CAN be an alternative to heterosexual relationships. While margarine may be an alternative to butter; and Junior College an alternative to University education; and fish and poultry an alternative to beef and pork, homosexuality can never be anything but a perverted, never an alternative, lifestyle. Margaret Court represents the (HL) effort to intimidate Christians into silence about homosexuality. And, when they can’t be intimidated, to deny them honors their success in competition earned. Well...we won’t be silent and we won’t change the Bible because sinners want to make their own rules. And if that denies us acceptance in society, we refuse to become God’s enemies by championing causes he condemns. End Part III Note: Explanation of dis-connect between Part I with succeeding Parts. A writer always files for use information he sees as future articles, sermons or illustrations. Sometimes with unforeseen results. That happened with this blog. With an idea how each part would complement the preceding, I wrote Part I. Only to discover perspectives I hadn’t contemplated. Hopefully, now that the research is finished and outlined, the result will be spiritually profitable.
Australian Margaret Court exercised defining authority in professional tennis in the 1960’s-1970’s. Numerous titles—64 majors—in the two decades set her apart from her competitors. Being inducted into the International Hall of Fame in 1979 recognized her non-pariel tennis status. In a tribute to her persona, the “Show Court One” in Melbourne was re-named after her. No one can dispute her mastery of her chosen sport. However, an internet bio of Court had a bold headline that her anti-gay views had dimmed her legendary tennis skills. The word dimmed caught my eye and raised my interest. One night sports writers sat in the hotel lobby when a naked Babe Ruth came rushing through followed by an equally-naked young thing bent on harming him. One writer said to the other, “I didn’t see that.” The other replied, “Neither did I!” Obviously, Babe Ruth’s legendary baseball prowess hadn’t been dimmed by his womanizing, boozy lifestyle. Michael Jordan possessed a ruthless, success-obsessed competitive spirit that inspired him to lead the Chicago Bulls to six NBA titles. Did his personal, well-known obsession with success dim his excellent Air-Jordan basketball brilliance? How can their personal beliefs, traits and lifestyle fail to dim their career achievements while Margaret Court’s defense of Biblical values DIM hers? Are we to believe that her Biblical faith alone, which led her to oppose lesbianism and homosexuality, dims her career achievements? Records relate to one’s achievements in one’s personal career. And are separate from one’s personal beliefs. In the view of internet account, however, we’re to think the latter impacts the value of the former. A rational inconsistency this series will explore in detail. End Part II |
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|