SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Workers Of Iniquity

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I believe this is an important part of using the law in bringing an awareness of sin, righteousness, and judgment. As Allistar Begg has put it, you have to lay down the black velvet of the law before you bring out the diamond of grace through Jesus Christ. Too many people are walking around showing off diamonds without ever laying down the velvet.


Hi Ron
I think we have touched on this before and I find myself thinking the same thoughts. I know that all the greats have said 'don't preach grace until you have preached law' but is there really a biblical basis for this methodology?

I have frequently scoured the Acts to see what gospel they preached and it seems so different from what we usually hear. A liberal English theologian (C.H.Dodd) differentiated between what he called [i]kerugma[/i] and [i]didache[/i]. Kerugma is the herald’s proclamation and didache is the deposit of truth trusted to the church. I don’t recommend Dodd but this is an important distinction. The kerugma was the content of the herald’s message, while the didache was the content of the deposit trusted to the Church.

In the New Testament we seem to see several different styles of ‘meeting’.

1. The public proclamation in the market place as in Acts 17 [b] Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and [u]said[/u], Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. [/b](Act 17:22 KJV) The word ‘said’ means ‘to reveal one’s thoughts’. You might almost translate it ‘expressed himself’.

2. The formal meeting for ‘seekers’ in a public hall. Acts 19:9 The verb used of Paul’s actions here is [i]dialegomai[/i], the word that we get ‘dialogue’ from. It means to reason, to talk-through literally. This is a reasoned statement of truth and is frequently used of Paul’s work. ( Acts 17:2; 17:17; 18:4; 18:19; 19:8; 19:9; 20:7; 20:9; 24:12; 24:25;)
That all-nighter ‘sermon’ in Troas was a ‘dialogue’. .
‘dialegomai’ is also used to describe Paul’s work in the synagogue.

3. Then there is the kind of meeting described in 1 Corinthians, which is not our topic I think.

So I think Paul’s ‘gospel preaching’ is to be found in two places. There is the ‘reasoning’ place, synagogue or public hall, where Paul is at work to convince by reasoned application. (obviously dependent upon the Spirit). Then there is the New Testament equivalent of ‘street preaching’ although the scene at Athens was in a setting where it was customary for people to listen to ‘orators’. There fellowship was ‘house to house’ but their evangelism was not. I’m not trying to say our patterns must be absolutely the same as theirs; I’m just trying to work out what was happening.

I think much of our church preaching is probably most similar to Paul in the synagogue. The audience was attentive if not always sympathetic. In this context we almost call Paul’s style ‘expositional’ but with definite ‘heraldic’ elements. [b]And straightway he [u]preached[/u] Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? [/b] (Act 9:20-21 KJV) ‘preached’ here us kErussO- proclaimed) He was plainly taking familiar OT scriptures and expounding them to demonstrate the authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ.[b] But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. [/b](Act 9:22 KJV)

As far as I am aware there is no indication that Paul ever spoke to his Jewish synagogue listeners about their personal sin. He was ‘preaching Christ’. I get the same impression from his ‘heraldic preaching’ in Athens. He preaches the certainly of judgment and hence accountability but again no reference to personal sin and certainly no reference, to these Gentiles, of a broken law. If Paul’s ‘kerugma’ (the content of the herald’s proclamation) in Athens is any kind of indication they were ordered to ‘repent now’ of their idolatry and warned of inevitable day of judgment but again not a word about personal sins.

I can understand the logic of the ‘great preachers’ who say ‘no grace before law’ but I struggle to find a scriptural justification for it. Can anyone help me?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/17 14:22Profile
couch
Member



Joined: 2003/10/29
Posts: 62
College Station, TX

 Hate the Sin or the Sinner?

Here is my question.

I have heard many say, "God does not hate the sinner, he hates the sin!" But is that true?

Psalm 5:5 does not say "You hate all the iniquities of the evildoers." It plainly says "You hate all workers of iniquity."

The focus of the hating is obviously on the worker of iniquity, the person.

I know this shouldn't change OUR attitude of love towards those whom have gone astray as we once had, but surely we do not want to give anyone a false impression of what it is that God hates and loves.

Has anyone had to correct this misunderstanding either in the "church" or with the lost? How was it approached?


_________________
Ryan Couch

 2004/11/17 14:28Profile
Rahman
Member



Joined: 2004/3/24
Posts: 1374


 Re: Hate the Sin or the Sinner?



Brother Ron you wrote;
"I can understand the logic of the ‘great preachers’ who say ‘no grace before law’ but I struggle to find a scriptural justification for it. Can anyone help me"?


i ask this in all sincerity, "Then how about a dispensational justification for it via" ...

2Tim.3
[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
[6] For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
[7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

i don't know about England (although i know she ain't what she used to be with Jesus either), but over here in the U.S. ignorance, apathy and anestesization to sin is so amazingly apparent that i think it must be called out, for folk over here, even in some churches, seem so amazingly numb to it ... As i've stated i go to a rather large, affluent church that looks pretty good from the outside, but is found wanting on the inside, and not many have the boldness to speak up about it, and most find themselves in the minority that do ...

Why is it anathema to speak up about sin, conviction, repentance and hell anymore? ... What is the history of what the Holy Ghost was preaching during the great Revivals of old? ... If ALL scripture is inspired of God, inclusive of that that tells us ALL we're hell bound without Christ, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, then why should we shun those that point out our sin(s)? ... Feels like a trick of the enemy to me.

 2004/11/17 14:48Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Quote:
I can understand the logic of the ‘great preachers’ who say ‘no grace before law’ but I struggle to find a scriptural justification for it. Can anyone help me?



When Stephen was preaching he was directing their attention to their personal sin of always resisting the Holy Ghost and their continuance in a policy of killing the prophets who fortold the coming of the Messiah and then killing the messiah Himself. (Acts 7:51-53) That was their great sin and none could be greater. The blood of righteous Abel down through Christ and on to James who was beaten to death with a fuller's club, was heaped on their heads. This was not just preaching about the commandment of murder, but it carried with it the implication of breaking other commandments such as blasphemy of God's name.

Paul also confronted idolatry, the 1st and second commandment; Being therefore the offspring of God, we ought not to think that which is divine to be like gold or silver or stone, the graven form of man's art and imagination. (Acts 17:29 Darby). He went on to tell them; And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30 KJV)

Many circumstances that we can see a bit what was happening in practice. Certainly Romans opens up with a strong rebuke against the transgressors of the unwritten laws of conscience and creation. This applied directly to the Gentiles. Everyone knows they are guilty of transgressing their conscience and trying to ignore God (they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, etc.). This approach is the method for those not knowing the law. It can be proven to the people that they loved darkness rather than light, etc.

God Bless,

-Robert



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/17 14:55Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re: Hate the Sin or the Sinner?

Quote:
Has anyone had to correct this misunderstanding either in the "church" or with the lost? How was it approached?



Hi Couch,

Hopefully we can shed some light on the subject and deal with it from here. It has not been discussed in my circles.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/17 14:59Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2741
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
I can understand the logic of the ‘great preachers’ who say ‘no grace before law’ but I struggle to find a scriptural justification for it. Can anyone help me?



I think the following may be helpful;

[i]But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners...[/i](1 Timothy 1:8-9)

As you know this verse tells us that the lawful use of the law for a Christian is not as a means of righteousness but as a means of awakening the sense of sin in the ungodly.

[i]Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[/i](Galatians 3:24)

The moral law shows us what we ought to do, and so we learn our inability to do it. The judicial law shows us what we deserve, thus the law leads us to Christ were we find righteousness and peace.

The Bible shows us the pattern, the effect of preaching is to show people their sins and prepare them for receiving the pardon found in Jesus, as you said the steps of law then grace seem logical, must we have an specific example of preaching from Acts to follow this logic?

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/11/17 15:39Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Robert, thanks for your reply.

Quote:
When Stephen was preaching he was directing their attention to their personal sin of always resisting the Holy Ghost and their continuance in a policy of killing the prophets who fortold the coming of the Messiah and then killing the messiah Himself. (Acts 7:51-53) That was their great sin and none could be greater. The blood of righteous Abel down through Christ and on to James who was beaten to death with a fuller's club, was heaped on their heads. This was not just preaching about the commandment of murder, but it carried with it the implication of breaking other commandments such as blasphemy of God's name.[/b]
Was not this the nation’s sin rather than personal sin? After all this was his address to the Sanhedrin [b] They did stir up also the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and having come upon him , they caught him, and brought him to the sanhedrim; [/b](Act 6:12 YLT) I think this was the nation’s last chance. How different the two responses…
[b] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [/b] (Act 2:37 KJV)
[b] When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. [/b] (Act 7:54 KJV)

Quote:
Paul also confronted idolatry, the 1st and second commandment; Being therefore the offspring of God, we ought not to think that which is divine to be like gold or silver or stone, the graven form of man's art and imagination. (Acts 17:29 Darby). He went on to tell them; And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30 KJV)


I’m not sure that he did confront idolatry. I think he confronted the idolaters telling them that the previous ignorance would no longer be ‘overlooked’ by God. Surely ‘repent’ in this context means ‘change your behaviour’?

Quote:
Many circumstances that we can see a bit what was happening in practice. Certainly Romans opens up with a strong rebuke against the transgressors of the unwritten laws of conscience and creation. This applied directly to the Gentiles. Everyone knows they are guilty of transgressing their conscience and trying to ignore God (they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, etc.). This approach is the method for those not knowing the law. It can be proven to the people that they loved darkness rather than light, etc.

But Romans is not part of the kerugma but of the didache. Romans was addressed to the saints in Rome, not the idolaters of Athens. Paul is not preaching the gospel in Romans, he is defending it.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/17 16:08Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Quote:
I’m not sure that he did confront idolatry. I think he confronted the idolaters telling them that the previous ignorance would no longer be ‘overlooked’ by God. Surely ‘repent’ in this context means ‘change your behaviour’?



Yes, he was confronting the idolaters for their idolatry.

Quote:
But Romans is not part of the kerugma but of the didache. Romans was addressed to the saints in Rome, not the idolaters of Athens. Paul is not preaching the gospel in Romans, he is defending it.



I don't disagree. Certainly we hear his answers, but don't know all the questions involved. However, surely if he was defending the Gospel we can glean a parakaleo from his didache to form a pattern of how the Gospel is kerugma. :-(

Go ahead, let me have it :-?


God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/11/17 16:19Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Ron

Quote:
But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners...(1 Timothy 1:8-9)

As you know this verse tells us that the lawful use of the law for a Christian is not as a means of righteousness but as a means of awakening the sense of sin in the ungodly.

This certainly seems to give a place to a lawful use of the law, but what is it? Paul is criticising ‘teachers of the law’ who don’t understand its purpose. [b] From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. [/b] (1Ti 1:6-7 KJV)


Quote:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.(Galatians 3:24)

The moral law shows us what we ought to do, and so we learn our inability to do it. The judicial law shows us what we deserve, thus the law leads us to Christ were we find righteousness and peace.

The ‘we’ here is in contrast to the ‘you’ of verse 26, contrasting the Jew with the Gentile. [b]But before faith came, [u]we[/u] were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become [u]our[/u] tutor to bring [u]us[/u] unto Christ, that [u]we[/u] might be justified by faith. But now faith that is come, [u]we[/u] are no longer under a tutor. For [u]ye[/u] are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. [/b] (Gal 3:23-26 ASV) The ‘law’ as paedagogos was the unique experience of those under the law. This was God’s methodology not the preacher’s. As that covenant is now ended and no-one is under that law how can we justify our use of it in this context.

Quote:
The Bible shows us the pattern, the effect of preaching is to show people their sins and prepare them for receiving the pardon found in Jesus, as you said the steps of law then grace seem logical, must we have an specific example of preaching from Acts to follow this logic?

This is certainly a legitimate position if we are happy that the effect of preaching was intended to show them their sins and then show them their Saviour. What I am asking is 'was this the purpose of the preaching in Acts?' I know it was the effect of the preaching but was it the purpose. The purpose of the preaching in Acts seems to have been to declare Christ and hence the kerugma. The kerugma has been identified as having the following elements, although not all are present in every example; this is an accumulation.

1. The Scriptures predicted the coming the Christ.
2. Christ has fulfilled those predictions, even to the death of the cross.
3. God has raised Him from the dead and exalted Him to His own right hand.
4. He will judge all men at the day of God’s appointment.
5. In between that coming day and the present day there is an amnesty.
6. Men must acknowledge Christ for who He is and submit to Him.

It is number 4. which is the point of our conversation. God will judge men according to what standard? It seems from Acts 17 that a man becomes culpable when he knows what he does. [b] "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is [u]now[/u] declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, [/b] (Act 17:30 NASB)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/17 16:34Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Yes, he was confronting the idolaters for their idolatry.

Paul instructs them as at that time that [b] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; [/b] (Act 17:24-25 KJV)

He then illustrates from their own poets that God is greater than any idol made with hands, and tells them how they should think [b] Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but [u]now[/u] commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. [/b] (Act 17:29-31 KJV)

I don’t think Paul publicly opposed idolatry. What? you cry… I am intrigued always by this statement from the Ephesian town clerk [b] And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. [/b](Act 19:35-37 KJV) In fact the original charge brought against Paul was not that he had condemned the idolaters but [b] … this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: [/b] (Act 19:26b KJV)

The consequence of Paul’s preaching had been that many were turning from idolatry but I do not read that he had condemned for idolatry. Now the revelation-didache of Romans 1 is that men turned to idolatry when they turned from God. [b] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [/b] (Rom 1:21-23 KJV) In that sense, idolatry is the consequence of sin rather than sin itself.

For the Jew, of course, idolatry was sin. Their history had been different. [b] The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. [/b] (Deu 29:29 KJV) You will understand, I hope, that I am not advocating idolatry, only that Paul did not ‘accuse’ the Gentiles of that sin as he would inevitably have done if he had been using the law to prepare them for grace.

Quote:
I don't disagree. Certainly we hear his answers, but don't know all the questions involved. However, surely if he was defending the Gospel we can glean a parakaleo from his didache to form a pattern of how the Gospel is kerugma.

Er, pardon? :-o


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/11/17 16:59Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy