John 2:1-14
Advocate: “One who pleads another’s cause.” Christ Is our Advocate.
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3 this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.
8 On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.
9 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.
11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.
14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
If you were to appoint an attorney to represent you in court, he would surely expect you to tell him the details of your case, and to relate them accurately. How could he represent you properly if you are not open and honest with him? John sees God as your Judge and Christ as your Advocate. And he is instructing you to be honest with your Advocate.
1. In the first place, you are not to sin.
2. But if you sin, you have an Advocate with the Father.
3. Your Advocate is interested in your case, and is well qualified to represent you. He is the propitiation for your sins (He died in your place in order to remove your sins and restore you to favor with God.)
4. You know Him because you keep His commandments.
5. Your advocate is just and is representing you well, but how honest have you been with Him? His light is shining on you; are you careful to walk in His light? Here is a test for you. (a) If you say you are living in the light and yet hate a brother, you have been in darkness until now. (b) The darkness has blinded you until you can’t see where you are going. (c) But if you love your brother, you abide in the light of your Advocate— a comfortable places to be as you stand before the Judge.
6. John tells why he is writing this letter. He reassures the “little children” (those who are new and inexperienced in the faith) that their sins are forgiven. He reminds the “fathers” that they have known their Advocate from the beginning. He encourages the “young men” to remain strong and continue overcoming the evil one.
7. If you keep Jesus’ commandments and walking in His light you are in good standing with God, but if you are only pretending to walk in the light and are not being honest with your Advocate, you are a liar who is still walking in the darkness. Don’t wait until you are called to judgment to obey your Savior; it will be too late then. Be honest with Him now, since He is your present Advocate before the Judge.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
First John
I John
1. The Life and the Light
1:1-4 The Life: 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—
2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
“The beginning,” is a good place to start a Bible study. Some translations say “That which was from the beginning.” Others say, “What was from the beginning.” In either case, John soon gives us his subject – a divine person, who is and who gives “eternal life.” How could he have been so certain about the one he is describing? He tells us: he heard Him speak, saw Him, looked at Him (more than just seeing) and touched Him. He was convinced that the One he had been with in ministry for three and a half years was “eternal life – and that He was the Son of God. John wanted everyone to know this Life so they could also have fellowship with the Father and His Son. This is not just another Bible study to gain knowledge about eternal life; it is a venture in fellowship with Eternal Life, who will transform our nature. Most of us have been studying the Bible for years, and we are quite familiar with John’s words; can’t we go a little deeper this time and establish a familiarity with the Object of his affection?
John wrote to fulfill his joy, but is he interested in fulfilling our joy? Yes he is. He wrote to us saying, “These (truths) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). As we set out on our journey through John's First Letter, we go in faith and fellowship.
5-10 The Light:
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
John received a message from God for us: “God is Light.” Then he becomes very personal. We lie if we profess to be walking in God’s light while actually walking in darkness. It is our life, not our claim that matters with God. The only true fellowship we may have with God or one another is in the light of Christ, Who is God’s Light to us. It is in this enlightened, holy fellowship that we are cleansed from all sin. If we fully understand this, will we not stay close and help one another? We can rationalize all our lives, saying that we have no sin or have not sinned, but that doesn’t clear us with God; we only deceive ourselves and continue walking in darkness. We can’t just think these thoughts; we must live this life if we want to share in this holy fellowship with God and His Son. Let us become more like our Savior as we walk with Him in the light of God's Word. This is the purpose of this study.
Father God, we were as “Infants crying in the night, Infants crying for the light, And with no language but a cry.” In our darkest hour, when we acknowledged our sins, Your divine light shown on us and showed us that the way out of darkness was through your Son. As we make this fellowship journey with You and our Savior, please shine on us brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
1. The Life and the Light
1:1-4 The Life: 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—
2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
“The beginning,” is a good place to start a Bible study. Some translations say “That which was from the beginning.” Others say, “What was from the beginning.” In either case, John soon gives us his subject – a divine person, who is and who gives “eternal life.” How could he have been so certain about the one he is describing? He tells us: he heard Him speak, saw Him, looked at Him (more than just seeing) and touched Him. He was convinced that the One he had been with in ministry for three and a half years was “eternal life – and that He was the Son of God. John wanted everyone to know this Life so they could also have fellowship with the Father and His Son. This is not just another Bible study to gain knowledge about eternal life; it is a venture in fellowship with Eternal Life, who will transform our nature. Most of us have been studying the Bible for years, and we are quite familiar with John’s words; can’t we go a little deeper this time and establish a familiarity with the Object of his affection?
John wrote to fulfill his joy, but is he interested in fulfilling our joy? Yes he is. He wrote to us saying, “These (truths) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). As we set out on our journey through John's First Letter, we go in faith and fellowship.
5-10 The Light:
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
John received a message from God for us: “God is Light.” Then he becomes very personal. We lie if we profess to be walking in God’s light while actually walking in darkness. It is our life, not our claim that matters with God. The only true fellowship we may have with God or one another is in the light of Christ, Who is God’s Light to us. It is in this enlightened, holy fellowship that we are cleansed from all sin. If we fully understand this, will we not stay close and help one another? We can rationalize all our lives, saying that we have no sin or have not sinned, but that doesn’t clear us with God; we only deceive ourselves and continue walking in darkness. We can’t just think these thoughts; we must live this life if we want to share in this holy fellowship with God and His Son. Let us become more like our Savior as we walk with Him in the light of God's Word. This is the purpose of this study.
Father God, we were as “Infants crying in the night, Infants crying for the light, And with no language but a cry.” In our darkest hour, when we acknowledged our sins, Your divine light shown on us and showed us that the way out of darkness was through your Son. As we make this fellowship journey with You and our Savior, please shine on us brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Liberation Theology
6. “Contextual Theology”
In an article titled, “Contextuality and Missions, (The Seminary Today, Spring 1991), Professor Douglas E. Welch of Anderson School of Theology explained his version of contextual theology. He imposed Marx’s philosophy of history upon Paul’s Christian theology, in an attempt to determine what Paul’s writing means to us. He, being a progressive, wouldn’t have thought of interpreting Marx in the light of Pail’s theology. What Paul meant when he wrote his letters is irrelevant to progressives because they believe history is progressive, having no fixed meaning. This means that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible for himself, according to his own subjective understanding and in his own context. The personalized theology resulting from this process is called “contextual theology.”
“Paul’s theology, then,” writes Welch, “becomes our model par excellence of the genuinely contextual theology—or, perhaps more correctly, set of theologies. In each new contingent situation, we reflect afresh on the gospel, from the perspective afforded by the context itself. And thus we have contextual theology. It is this we mean when we talk about contextual theology…an indigenous or contextual theology therefore, is one that arises in a specific context…Translators may become contextual outsiders; interpreters are insiders. They are indispensable in the communication of the gospel and their interpretation is the only way a contextual theology can result. Perhaps it is on this that our missionary strategy should concentrate.
“To the struggle for justice we must be committed. And who knows? In so doing, we may even ourselves become a word of the Lord for others.” (This “struggle for justice” is a Marxist term for the conflict between a thesis and its antithesis). The “old” traditional meaning of a text is the thesis, which is challenged by a new progressive meaning as its antithesis, out of which struggle a new meaning, perhaps a composite meaning, will emerge as a new thesis. This process is cyclical, and will continue until universal communism or the kingdom of God or absolute truth or whatever a cult is expecting emerges. This is Karl Marx’s philosophy of history, the liberationist’s theology and Prof. Welch’s contextual theology that blows in the wind and conforms to every economic, political and social context it encounters. Every line of Welch’s quote above is contrary to all we have learned from the Bible by the long-established discipline of biblical hermeneutics (“interpretation, especially of the Bible”).
First, when we speak of “context” we mean the surrounding verses or chapters that give us a larger picture and a greater insight into the verses we are trying to understand. To Welch the context is the total circumstances and conditions in which the interpreter lives. One’s context might be poverty or a minority race or women or homosexual. Each person is free to interpret the Bible for himself, in his context. Whatever it says to him in that context is what it means, since it has no meaning apart from the individual interpreter’s subjective understanding of it. This approach is tantamount to saying that the Bible can be used—as it is being used—to justify any individual’s view of Scripture in whatever context he is.
Second, an interpretation that “arises in a specific context” is superior to one that’s brought in from without; no matter if the indigenous interpreter is illiterate and the visiting missionary is a brilliant biblical scholar. The same Scripture can be interpreted in as many different ways as there are interpreters and contexts—and they can all be right! Therefore, indigenous peoples can surpass the scholars because their interpretation of the Bible is their own.
Third, there is no established truth. That which is “truth” to one interpreter may not be “truth” to another; that which is called truth in one context may not be considered truth in another context; and that which is called truth at one time may not be called truth at another time. The Bible was believed to have been the truth by those who wrote it and at the time it was written but it is to be reinterpreted now in the light of changing contingencies.
Fourth, it seems very wrong to assume that Paul’s theology “becomes a model par excellence of the genuinely contextual theology,” because his theology was not flexible, adaptable and “contextual.” He knew what he was to preach and he preached it everywhere he went. He didn’t, like modern theologians, study the “context” first and then alter his message to suit it. People were to be convinced, convicted and converted; how could this happen if they are told only what they want to hear and not the truth about sin and their Savior who had died for them.
Modern theology is like a chameleon; it changes colors with changing contexts. Schleiermacher and Marx taught that history, like everything else in the universe, is progressing and that meanings change with time and place. Professor Welch and his comrades in the School of Theology have taught the very same thing for years.
Contextual Theology Illustrated
A missionary gets his Bible and heads for the mission field. He has a splendid biblical education and is well trained in hermeneutics. He also has a burden for lost souls. But he must not have a preconceived interpretation of Scripture since he cannot know what the text may mean to the people until he arrives and understands their social, political, economical and philosophical context. Assuming that he becomes familiar with all of these, his interpretation will still be his own; each indigenous person will have a better interpretation than his because he will also have his own. Hence, the “insider” is a better interpreter than the “outsider.” Upon learning this, the missionary understands that the Bible has a different meaning “in the place where we live” than it does in the place where we don’t live.
This flexible concept totally destroys the belief that the Bible is the established Word of God. Has the Church of God as a whole accept this modernism or is it just for professors, pastors and other leaders? Inasmuch as it is blatantly taught in the School of Theology and sent out to pastors and alumni but not to the congregations, one might suppose that it is meant for leaders only. But of course, it is assumed that these leaders will “enlighten” their congregations.
In an article titled, “Contextuality and Missions, (The Seminary Today, Spring 1991), Professor Douglas E. Welch of Anderson School of Theology explained his version of contextual theology. He imposed Marx’s philosophy of history upon Paul’s Christian theology, in an attempt to determine what Paul’s writing means to us. He, being a progressive, wouldn’t have thought of interpreting Marx in the light of Pail’s theology. What Paul meant when he wrote his letters is irrelevant to progressives because they believe history is progressive, having no fixed meaning. This means that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible for himself, according to his own subjective understanding and in his own context. The personalized theology resulting from this process is called “contextual theology.”
“Paul’s theology, then,” writes Welch, “becomes our model par excellence of the genuinely contextual theology—or, perhaps more correctly, set of theologies. In each new contingent situation, we reflect afresh on the gospel, from the perspective afforded by the context itself. And thus we have contextual theology. It is this we mean when we talk about contextual theology…an indigenous or contextual theology therefore, is one that arises in a specific context…Translators may become contextual outsiders; interpreters are insiders. They are indispensable in the communication of the gospel and their interpretation is the only way a contextual theology can result. Perhaps it is on this that our missionary strategy should concentrate.
“To the struggle for justice we must be committed. And who knows? In so doing, we may even ourselves become a word of the Lord for others.” (This “struggle for justice” is a Marxist term for the conflict between a thesis and its antithesis). The “old” traditional meaning of a text is the thesis, which is challenged by a new progressive meaning as its antithesis, out of which struggle a new meaning, perhaps a composite meaning, will emerge as a new thesis. This process is cyclical, and will continue until universal communism or the kingdom of God or absolute truth or whatever a cult is expecting emerges. This is Karl Marx’s philosophy of history, the liberationist’s theology and Prof. Welch’s contextual theology that blows in the wind and conforms to every economic, political and social context it encounters. Every line of Welch’s quote above is contrary to all we have learned from the Bible by the long-established discipline of biblical hermeneutics (“interpretation, especially of the Bible”).
First, when we speak of “context” we mean the surrounding verses or chapters that give us a larger picture and a greater insight into the verses we are trying to understand. To Welch the context is the total circumstances and conditions in which the interpreter lives. One’s context might be poverty or a minority race or women or homosexual. Each person is free to interpret the Bible for himself, in his context. Whatever it says to him in that context is what it means, since it has no meaning apart from the individual interpreter’s subjective understanding of it. This approach is tantamount to saying that the Bible can be used—as it is being used—to justify any individual’s view of Scripture in whatever context he is.
Second, an interpretation that “arises in a specific context” is superior to one that’s brought in from without; no matter if the indigenous interpreter is illiterate and the visiting missionary is a brilliant biblical scholar. The same Scripture can be interpreted in as many different ways as there are interpreters and contexts—and they can all be right! Therefore, indigenous peoples can surpass the scholars because their interpretation of the Bible is their own.
Third, there is no established truth. That which is “truth” to one interpreter may not be “truth” to another; that which is called truth in one context may not be considered truth in another context; and that which is called truth at one time may not be called truth at another time. The Bible was believed to have been the truth by those who wrote it and at the time it was written but it is to be reinterpreted now in the light of changing contingencies.
Fourth, it seems very wrong to assume that Paul’s theology “becomes a model par excellence of the genuinely contextual theology,” because his theology was not flexible, adaptable and “contextual.” He knew what he was to preach and he preached it everywhere he went. He didn’t, like modern theologians, study the “context” first and then alter his message to suit it. People were to be convinced, convicted and converted; how could this happen if they are told only what they want to hear and not the truth about sin and their Savior who had died for them.
Modern theology is like a chameleon; it changes colors with changing contexts. Schleiermacher and Marx taught that history, like everything else in the universe, is progressing and that meanings change with time and place. Professor Welch and his comrades in the School of Theology have taught the very same thing for years.
Contextual Theology Illustrated
A missionary gets his Bible and heads for the mission field. He has a splendid biblical education and is well trained in hermeneutics. He also has a burden for lost souls. But he must not have a preconceived interpretation of Scripture since he cannot know what the text may mean to the people until he arrives and understands their social, political, economical and philosophical context. Assuming that he becomes familiar with all of these, his interpretation will still be his own; each indigenous person will have a better interpretation than his because he will also have his own. Hence, the “insider” is a better interpreter than the “outsider.” Upon learning this, the missionary understands that the Bible has a different meaning “in the place where we live” than it does in the place where we don’t live.
This flexible concept totally destroys the belief that the Bible is the established Word of God. Has the Church of God as a whole accept this modernism or is it just for professors, pastors and other leaders? Inasmuch as it is blatantly taught in the School of Theology and sent out to pastors and alumni but not to the congregations, one might suppose that it is meant for leaders only. But of course, it is assumed that these leaders will “enlighten” their congregations.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Liberation Theology
5. A Grateful Prostitute Thanks Liberation Theology
A prostitute was called as a delegate to speak at the Pastoral Commission on Marginal Women, which convened in Brazil in July of 1984. Her speech was titled, “In Praise of Liberation Theology.” This is what she said (emphases added):
“We prostitutes were invited to participate in the fourth national meeting of the Pastoral Commission on Marginal Women, a meeting was called by the church and the prostitutes called in as delegates. It was during the first five meetings that I discovered that we are not alone in our efforts to organize. There I met bishops, priests, pastoral agents, who called prostitution a social sin. Nobody was indicted as a sinner. Prostitution is a social sin generated by economical, political and social structure. It’s the government; it’s the social structure that causes prostitutes. They’re not responsible for who they are, so the bishop told the prostitutes. (Prostitutes are not responsible for their actions, someone else must be blamed. This is a characteristic of LT.) We must organize. Then we must unite our efforts with those of other oppressed sectors of society in order to advance together toward our liberation. Not liberation from sin, but liberation from the stigma of being a prostitute. What concretely does this support from the church mean for us? For me and my companions, who have always been stigmatized and excluded by society, this acceptance by the church means simply, and I want to emphasize this in capital letters, REDISCOVERING OUR DIGNITY. We could go on and be prostitutes, now that the pastors have explained it to us, and still maintain our dignity. It is because of this rediscovery of our worth that I’m now able to stand before you and speak out without feeling like a public sinner. For us, the theology of liberation is not just a label used to describe a new trend of Catholic thought. It is much more. It is a life project grounded in faith. It offers proof that we prostitutes, by rediscovering the spiritual power contained in our religious belief, will also encounter a self actualization project that confirms our humanity and we discover that we are women, too. This is what my voice and that of the five million prostitutes in Brazil want to tell our gathering. With great assurance and great faith, I am able to say many thanks to Liberation Theology; Many thanks to those theologians who have helped to make this possible for us, the outcasts of society. We have access to the Gospel.” (Dr. Fred Schwarz, Christian Anti-Communism Newsletter, 1989)
God had not “liberated” these sinful women from their sins; carnal churchmen and a false theology had, in their minds, liberated them from the “stigma of being prostitutes.” If anyone thinks I am being unfair by mentioning priests and prostitutes together, let me assure you that I didn’t put them together; they put themselves together in the Latin American Marxist Revolution.
You can see clearly that truth and sin meant one thing to Paul in the first century and quite another to priests and prostitutes in the 20th century. And this progressive philosophy is the going theology in post-modern churches. If your church is above this, just remember, the churches that believe this today were above it yesterday!
God said through Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because they have rejected knowledge, I will reject you as my priests” (Hos. 4:6). The people would be rejected because they lost their knowledge of God and the priests would be rejected because they had failed to keep the people properly informed—they had misled them instead. This should serve as a stern warning to both people and priests today, who want to believe that their sins are someone else’s fault. Prostitutes who think someone else is responsible for their sin and priests who teach them to think this way, both fall squarely into the category of those whom God said He would reject. It’s a strange religion in which prostitutes, preachers and priests can unite. I know we live in a time of grace rather than law, but grace is no license for people to do as they see fit and blame others for causing them to do it. “Shall we go on sinning,” writes Paul, “so that grace might increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”(Rom. 6:1, 2)
If there is no established truth there can be no established authority or morality, a prostitute may practice her trade with impunity while her priest confirms her in it. And before you, my liberationist reader, pass judgment on a prostitute, you should reflect on the fact that you as a progressive hold the very same theology that she and her priest did. You have all denied God your Creator and Jesus Christ your Savior and Lord. Everyone who understands will know that you are in denial. When you say, “There are no absolutes,” you are saying, “There is no God”—God being the Supreme Absolute. The prostitute will go on living in public disgrace, the priest will go on living in defiance to Christ, and you will go on living in self-righteous pride, believing that your philosophical faith is superior to the biblical faith of true believers—and all of you will look to your reasoning rather than your Redeemer for justification.
A prostitute was called as a delegate to speak at the Pastoral Commission on Marginal Women, which convened in Brazil in July of 1984. Her speech was titled, “In Praise of Liberation Theology.” This is what she said (emphases added):
“We prostitutes were invited to participate in the fourth national meeting of the Pastoral Commission on Marginal Women, a meeting was called by the church and the prostitutes called in as delegates. It was during the first five meetings that I discovered that we are not alone in our efforts to organize. There I met bishops, priests, pastoral agents, who called prostitution a social sin. Nobody was indicted as a sinner. Prostitution is a social sin generated by economical, political and social structure. It’s the government; it’s the social structure that causes prostitutes. They’re not responsible for who they are, so the bishop told the prostitutes. (Prostitutes are not responsible for their actions, someone else must be blamed. This is a characteristic of LT.) We must organize. Then we must unite our efforts with those of other oppressed sectors of society in order to advance together toward our liberation. Not liberation from sin, but liberation from the stigma of being a prostitute. What concretely does this support from the church mean for us? For me and my companions, who have always been stigmatized and excluded by society, this acceptance by the church means simply, and I want to emphasize this in capital letters, REDISCOVERING OUR DIGNITY. We could go on and be prostitutes, now that the pastors have explained it to us, and still maintain our dignity. It is because of this rediscovery of our worth that I’m now able to stand before you and speak out without feeling like a public sinner. For us, the theology of liberation is not just a label used to describe a new trend of Catholic thought. It is much more. It is a life project grounded in faith. It offers proof that we prostitutes, by rediscovering the spiritual power contained in our religious belief, will also encounter a self actualization project that confirms our humanity and we discover that we are women, too. This is what my voice and that of the five million prostitutes in Brazil want to tell our gathering. With great assurance and great faith, I am able to say many thanks to Liberation Theology; Many thanks to those theologians who have helped to make this possible for us, the outcasts of society. We have access to the Gospel.” (Dr. Fred Schwarz, Christian Anti-Communism Newsletter, 1989)
God had not “liberated” these sinful women from their sins; carnal churchmen and a false theology had, in their minds, liberated them from the “stigma of being prostitutes.” If anyone thinks I am being unfair by mentioning priests and prostitutes together, let me assure you that I didn’t put them together; they put themselves together in the Latin American Marxist Revolution.
You can see clearly that truth and sin meant one thing to Paul in the first century and quite another to priests and prostitutes in the 20th century. And this progressive philosophy is the going theology in post-modern churches. If your church is above this, just remember, the churches that believe this today were above it yesterday!
God said through Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because they have rejected knowledge, I will reject you as my priests” (Hos. 4:6). The people would be rejected because they lost their knowledge of God and the priests would be rejected because they had failed to keep the people properly informed—they had misled them instead. This should serve as a stern warning to both people and priests today, who want to believe that their sins are someone else’s fault. Prostitutes who think someone else is responsible for their sin and priests who teach them to think this way, both fall squarely into the category of those whom God said He would reject. It’s a strange religion in which prostitutes, preachers and priests can unite. I know we live in a time of grace rather than law, but grace is no license for people to do as they see fit and blame others for causing them to do it. “Shall we go on sinning,” writes Paul, “so that grace might increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”(Rom. 6:1, 2)
If there is no established truth there can be no established authority or morality, a prostitute may practice her trade with impunity while her priest confirms her in it. And before you, my liberationist reader, pass judgment on a prostitute, you should reflect on the fact that you as a progressive hold the very same theology that she and her priest did. You have all denied God your Creator and Jesus Christ your Savior and Lord. Everyone who understands will know that you are in denial. When you say, “There are no absolutes,” you are saying, “There is no God”—God being the Supreme Absolute. The prostitute will go on living in public disgrace, the priest will go on living in defiance to Christ, and you will go on living in self-righteous pride, believing that your philosophical faith is superior to the biblical faith of true believers—and all of you will look to your reasoning rather than your Redeemer for justification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
