Randy Green's Blog - Posts Tagged "isaiah-8"
I Forgive You – Part 1
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 2
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
We paused our last study by noting how the argument from silence is pulled out of mothballs and freshened up, to be used to misinterpret Matthew 18. Peter asked Jesus about the obligation of a person who was wronged, not about the obligation of the wrongdoer.
The argument from silence seizes upon this silence about the wrongdoer’s obligation to repent, claiming it isn’t necessary since in Matthew 18 Jesus didn’t say it was. Neither did Jesus demand that the priest come along, but what does that have to do with anything?
In Luke 17 the same subject is taught, but this time the requirement on the part of both parties is addressed. The wrongdoer recognizes his wrong and apologizes to the person he wronged, asking him for forgiveness. In this case it is obligatory on the part of the Christian who has been wronged to forgive him, and that from the heart, in spirit and in truth.
Implied in this teaching is that the person wronged needs to want forgiveness. You see, in Luke 17 there is no argument from silence. The subject of the wrongdoer’s responsibility is literally brought up by Jesus. When a person does a wrong and asks for forgiveness, the child of God must forgive the one who wronged him.
The implications are, for one thing, that we cannot hold grudges and conduct feuds. We cannot harbor ill will at others because our feelings are hurt.
But there is a more solemn implication to be garnered from Luke 17. If someone wrongs us and does not want forgiveness, we can’t forgive him. This doesn’t mean we can hold a grudge in such a case, or harbor ill will and pray for his damnation! It means we cannot pretend to him that all is well with the world.
Suppose I go up to someone who sinned against me and say, “Ken or Barbie, you did such and so to me and it is sin. But not to worry. I forgive you.” What just occurred?
I’ll tell you what just occurred. Someone sinned, but they had no remorse for their sin and didn’t see any need for forgiveness. My words helped harden them in their sin by allowing them to experience forgiveness without repentance, should their conscience ever experience any uneasiness over their sin.
This implicates me in their sin! I caused my brother to stumble. He has no need to repent of his sin. He’s forgiven already. Wow! This makes me more powerful than God Himself!
How so? Consider how a sinner is saved. Is it because Jesus died on the cross for his sins? Answer: no, it is not. Huh? You say you thought the answer was yes? Well, sorry. You’re mistaken. Yes, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future. But no, everyone past, present, and future, is not saved because of it.
Oh, then what else is needed in order to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. Okay, so what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Answer: to recognize His death on the cross as being for my specific sins. Jesus died my death in my stead, so that I can live His life with Him.
But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me? We will answer the question in our next study. For now ruminate a while on what Jesus taught us in this study. I’ll see you tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We paused our last study by noting how the argument from silence is pulled out of mothballs and freshened up, to be used to misinterpret Matthew 18. Peter asked Jesus about the obligation of a person who was wronged, not about the obligation of the wrongdoer.
The argument from silence seizes upon this silence about the wrongdoer’s obligation to repent, claiming it isn’t necessary since in Matthew 18 Jesus didn’t say it was. Neither did Jesus demand that the priest come along, but what does that have to do with anything?
In Luke 17 the same subject is taught, but this time the requirement on the part of both parties is addressed. The wrongdoer recognizes his wrong and apologizes to the person he wronged, asking him for forgiveness. In this case it is obligatory on the part of the Christian who has been wronged to forgive him, and that from the heart, in spirit and in truth.
Implied in this teaching is that the person wronged needs to want forgiveness. You see, in Luke 17 there is no argument from silence. The subject of the wrongdoer’s responsibility is literally brought up by Jesus. When a person does a wrong and asks for forgiveness, the child of God must forgive the one who wronged him.
The implications are, for one thing, that we cannot hold grudges and conduct feuds. We cannot harbor ill will at others because our feelings are hurt.
But there is a more solemn implication to be garnered from Luke 17. If someone wrongs us and does not want forgiveness, we can’t forgive him. This doesn’t mean we can hold a grudge in such a case, or harbor ill will and pray for his damnation! It means we cannot pretend to him that all is well with the world.
Suppose I go up to someone who sinned against me and say, “Ken or Barbie, you did such and so to me and it is sin. But not to worry. I forgive you.” What just occurred?
I’ll tell you what just occurred. Someone sinned, but they had no remorse for their sin and didn’t see any need for forgiveness. My words helped harden them in their sin by allowing them to experience forgiveness without repentance, should their conscience ever experience any uneasiness over their sin.
This implicates me in their sin! I caused my brother to stumble. He has no need to repent of his sin. He’s forgiven already. Wow! This makes me more powerful than God Himself!
How so? Consider how a sinner is saved. Is it because Jesus died on the cross for his sins? Answer: no, it is not. Huh? You say you thought the answer was yes? Well, sorry. You’re mistaken. Yes, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future. But no, everyone past, present, and future, is not saved because of it.
Oh, then what else is needed in order to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. Okay, so what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Answer: to recognize His death on the cross as being for my specific sins. Jesus died my death in my stead, so that I can live His life with Him.
But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me? We will answer the question in our next study. For now ruminate a while on what Jesus taught us in this study. I’ll see you tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 3
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
We concluded yesterday’s study with the questionk, “But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me?” Answer: because I am a sinner, and the wages of sin is death. Do you see it? I came to Jesus as the Savior, confessed my sins to Him, and asked His forgiveness based on His finished work for me on the cross.
Don’t miss the part about recognizing my sins and the part about asking His forgiveness, dear friends. Until I am sorry for my sins and want to be forgiven, God Himself doesn’t—even more, He cannot—forgive me. Otherwise He would be complicit in my sins. He would receive me into heaven in my sins, making heaven to be unclean. By living in an unclean heaven God would be unclean.
What blasphemy this entire line of reasoning is! God cannot tolerate sin, period. He will not allow it in His presence, period. Sin must be removed and its penalty paid, before a sinner can relate to God. If God cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, how dare any of His people believe themselves to have the power to do so.
No, dear friends, we mustn’t brew and stew over sins committed against us. Nor must we hold a grudge and feud with the sinner. We must always have the heart to forgive any sin done against us, and even long to do so while we pray for the sinner to repent. Even more, we must rebuke the sinner, thus bringing his sin to his attention so he knows he needs to repent.
Notwithstanding all this, we haven’t the power to forgive sins when the sinner isn’t repentant. God doesn’t do so and neither can we. If we are brash enough to think we can, our words make us complicit in the sin and we sinned against the sinner by confirming him in his sin.
Modern affluent middle-class morality teaches us to forgive everyone regardless. It gives sinful man the impression that he is a good person because, look! he forgives everyone! The focus here is on the forgiver, when it should be on the one to be forgiven.
Middle-class affluent morality is not Bible, dear friends. It is egocentric all the way down to its roots. The world is steeped in it, but that’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected, in fact what is to be decried, is middle-class affluence permeating the Church. Such a scenario exposes Christians as being conformed to the world.
The Word of God warns of this and exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This comes from daily feeding on the Bible, from feeding on solid meat in the Bible rather than just sipping on baby milk.
If Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, then their leaders who are supposed to teach them the Word of God must first be transformed in the same manner. We need a return to the Bible on the part of the pastors and teachers in the churches. There is far too much involvement in church activities on their part, such that they aren’t able to devote considerable time daily in feeding on the Bible alone with Jesus.
If they don’t receive a fresh word from Jesus regularly, what are they feeding their flock? Answer: the stale words of men! They rush to a commentary and plagiarize a sermon. It sounds good to the unsuspecting flock and gets them by, so why not? And it does take scant time to do it that way, certainly much less time than waiting on the Lord Jesus daily.
Nay nay, dear friends! Rather, let us heed the words of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We concluded yesterday’s study with the questionk, “But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me?” Answer: because I am a sinner, and the wages of sin is death. Do you see it? I came to Jesus as the Savior, confessed my sins to Him, and asked His forgiveness based on His finished work for me on the cross.
Don’t miss the part about recognizing my sins and the part about asking His forgiveness, dear friends. Until I am sorry for my sins and want to be forgiven, God Himself doesn’t—even more, He cannot—forgive me. Otherwise He would be complicit in my sins. He would receive me into heaven in my sins, making heaven to be unclean. By living in an unclean heaven God would be unclean.
What blasphemy this entire line of reasoning is! God cannot tolerate sin, period. He will not allow it in His presence, period. Sin must be removed and its penalty paid, before a sinner can relate to God. If God cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, how dare any of His people believe themselves to have the power to do so.
No, dear friends, we mustn’t brew and stew over sins committed against us. Nor must we hold a grudge and feud with the sinner. We must always have the heart to forgive any sin done against us, and even long to do so while we pray for the sinner to repent. Even more, we must rebuke the sinner, thus bringing his sin to his attention so he knows he needs to repent.
Notwithstanding all this, we haven’t the power to forgive sins when the sinner isn’t repentant. God doesn’t do so and neither can we. If we are brash enough to think we can, our words make us complicit in the sin and we sinned against the sinner by confirming him in his sin.
Modern affluent middle-class morality teaches us to forgive everyone regardless. It gives sinful man the impression that he is a good person because, look! he forgives everyone! The focus here is on the forgiver, when it should be on the one to be forgiven.
Middle-class affluent morality is not Bible, dear friends. It is egocentric all the way down to its roots. The world is steeped in it, but that’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected, in fact what is to be decried, is middle-class affluence permeating the Church. Such a scenario exposes Christians as being conformed to the world.
The Word of God warns of this and exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This comes from daily feeding on the Bible, from feeding on solid meat in the Bible rather than just sipping on baby milk.
If Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, then their leaders who are supposed to teach them the Word of God must first be transformed in the same manner. We need a return to the Bible on the part of the pastors and teachers in the churches. There is far too much involvement in church activities on their part, such that they aren’t able to devote considerable time daily in feeding on the Bible alone with Jesus.
If they don’t receive a fresh word from Jesus regularly, what are they feeding their flock? Answer: the stale words of men! They rush to a commentary and plagiarize a sermon. It sounds good to the unsuspecting flock and gets them by, so why not? And it does take scant time to do it that way, certainly much less time than waiting on the Lord Jesus daily.
Nay nay, dear friends! Rather, let us heed the words of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 1
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 2
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
We paused our last study by noting how the argument from silence is pulled out of mothballs and freshened up, to be used to misinterpret Matthew 18. Peter asked Jesus about the obligation of a person who was wronged, not about the obligation of the wrongdoer.
The argument from silence seizes upon this silence about the wrongdoer’s obligation to repent, claiming it isn’t necessary since in Matthew 18 Jesus didn’t say it was. Neither did Jesus demand that the priest come along, but what does that have to do with anything?
In Luke 17 the same subject is taught, but this time the requirement on the part of both parties is addressed. The wrongdoer recognizes his wrong and apologizes to the person he wronged, asking him for forgiveness. In this case it is obligatory on the part of the Christian who has been wronged to forgive him, and that from the heart, in spirit and in truth.
Implied in this teaching is that the person wronged needs to want forgiveness. You see, in Luke 17 there is no argument from silence. The subject of the wrongdoer’s responsibility is literally brought up by Jesus. When a person does a wrong and asks for forgiveness, the child of God must forgive the one who wronged him.
The implications are, for one thing, that we cannot hold grudges and conduct feuds. We cannot harbor ill will at others because our feelings are hurt.
But there is a more solemn implication to be garnered from Luke 17. If someone wrongs us and does not want forgiveness, we can’t forgive him. This doesn’t mean we can hold a grudge in such a case, or harbor ill will and pray for his damnation! It means we cannot pretend to him that all is well with the world.
Suppose I go up to someone who sinned against me and say, “Ken or Barbie, you did such and so to me and it is sin. But not to worry. I forgive you.” What just occurred?
I’ll tell you what just occurred. Someone sinned, but they had no remorse for their sin and didn’t see any need for forgiveness. My words helped harden them in their sin by allowing them to experience forgiveness without repentance, should their conscience ever experience any uneasiness over their sin.
This implicates me in their sin! I caused my brother to stumble. He has no need to repent of his sin. He’s forgiven already. Wow! This makes me more powerful than God Himself!
How so? Consider how a sinner is saved. Is it because Jesus died on the cross for his sins? Answer: no, it is not. Huh? You say you thought the answer was yes? Well, sorry. You’re mistaken. Yes, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future. But no, everyone past, present, and future, is not saved because of it.
Oh, then what else is needed in order to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. Okay, so what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Answer: to recognize His death on the cross as being for my specific sins. Jesus died my death in my stead, so that I can live His life with Him.
But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me? We will answer the question in our next study. For now ruminate a while on what Jesus taught us in this study. I’ll see you tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We paused our last study by noting how the argument from silence is pulled out of mothballs and freshened up, to be used to misinterpret Matthew 18. Peter asked Jesus about the obligation of a person who was wronged, not about the obligation of the wrongdoer.
The argument from silence seizes upon this silence about the wrongdoer’s obligation to repent, claiming it isn’t necessary since in Matthew 18 Jesus didn’t say it was. Neither did Jesus demand that the priest come along, but what does that have to do with anything?
In Luke 17 the same subject is taught, but this time the requirement on the part of both parties is addressed. The wrongdoer recognizes his wrong and apologizes to the person he wronged, asking him for forgiveness. In this case it is obligatory on the part of the Christian who has been wronged to forgive him, and that from the heart, in spirit and in truth.
Implied in this teaching is that the person wronged needs to want forgiveness. You see, in Luke 17 there is no argument from silence. The subject of the wrongdoer’s responsibility is literally brought up by Jesus. When a person does a wrong and asks for forgiveness, the child of God must forgive the one who wronged him.
The implications are, for one thing, that we cannot hold grudges and conduct feuds. We cannot harbor ill will at others because our feelings are hurt.
But there is a more solemn implication to be garnered from Luke 17. If someone wrongs us and does not want forgiveness, we can’t forgive him. This doesn’t mean we can hold a grudge in such a case, or harbor ill will and pray for his damnation! It means we cannot pretend to him that all is well with the world.
Suppose I go up to someone who sinned against me and say, “Ken or Barbie, you did such and so to me and it is sin. But not to worry. I forgive you.” What just occurred?
I’ll tell you what just occurred. Someone sinned, but they had no remorse for their sin and didn’t see any need for forgiveness. My words helped harden them in their sin by allowing them to experience forgiveness without repentance, should their conscience ever experience any uneasiness over their sin.
This implicates me in their sin! I caused my brother to stumble. He has no need to repent of his sin. He’s forgiven already. Wow! This makes me more powerful than God Himself!
How so? Consider how a sinner is saved. Is it because Jesus died on the cross for his sins? Answer: no, it is not. Huh? You say you thought the answer was yes? Well, sorry. You’re mistaken. Yes, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future. But no, everyone past, present, and future, is not saved because of it.
Oh, then what else is needed in order to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. Okay, so what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Answer: to recognize His death on the cross as being for my specific sins. Jesus died my death in my stead, so that I can live His life with Him.
But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me? We will answer the question in our next study. For now ruminate a while on what Jesus taught us in this study. I’ll see you tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 3
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
We concluded yesterday’s study with the question, “But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me?” Answer: because I am a sinner, and the wages of sin is death. Do you see it? I came to Jesus as the Savior, confessed my sins to Him, and asked His forgiveness based on His finished work for me on the cross.
Don’t miss the part about recognizing my sins and the part about asking His forgiveness, dear friends. Until I am sorry for my sins and want to be forgiven, God Himself doesn’t—even more, He cannot—forgive me. Otherwise He would be complicit in my sins. He would receive me into heaven in my sins, making heaven to be unclean. By living in an unclean heaven God would be unclean.
What blasphemy this entire line of reasoning is! God cannot tolerate sin, period. He will not allow it in His presence, period. Sin must be removed and its penalty paid, before a sinner can relate to God. If God cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, how dare any of His people believe themselves to have the power to do so.
No, dear friends, we mustn’t brew and stew over sins committed against us. Nor must we hold a grudge and feud with the sinner. We must always have the heart to forgive any sin done against us, and even long to do so while we pray for the sinner to repent. Even more, we must rebuke the sinner, thus bringing his sin to his attention so he knows he needs to repent.
Notwithstanding all this, we haven’t the power to forgive sins when the sinner isn’t repentant. God doesn’t do so and neither can we. If we are brash enough to think we can, our words make us complicit in the sin and we sinned against the sinner by confirming him in his sin.
Modern affluent middle-class morality teaches us to forgive everyone regardless. It gives sinful man the impression that he is a good person because, look! he forgives everyone! The focus here is on the forgiver, when it should be on the one to be forgiven.
Middle-class affluent morality is not Bible, dear friends. It is egocentric all the way down to its roots. The world is steeped in it, but that’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected, in fact what is to be decried, is middle-class affluence permeating the Church. Such a scenario exposes Christians as being conformed to the world.
The Word of God warns of this and exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This comes from daily feeding on the Bible, from feeding on solid meat in the Bible rather than just sipping on baby milk.
If Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, then their leaders who are supposed to teach them the Word of God must first be transformed in the same manner. We need a return to the Bible on the part of the pastors and teachers in the churches. There is far too much involvement in church activities on their part, such that they aren’t able to devote considerable time daily to feeding on the Bible alone with Jesus.
If they don’t receive a fresh word from Jesus regularly, what are they feeding their flock? Answer: the stale words of men! They rush to a commentary and plagiarize a sermon. It sounds good to the unsuspecting flock and gets them by, so why not? And it does take scant time to do it that way, certainly much less time than waiting on the Lord Jesus daily.
Nay nay, dear friends! Rather, let us heed the words of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We concluded yesterday’s study with the question, “But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me?” Answer: because I am a sinner, and the wages of sin is death. Do you see it? I came to Jesus as the Savior, confessed my sins to Him, and asked His forgiveness based on His finished work for me on the cross.
Don’t miss the part about recognizing my sins and the part about asking His forgiveness, dear friends. Until I am sorry for my sins and want to be forgiven, God Himself doesn’t—even more, He cannot—forgive me. Otherwise He would be complicit in my sins. He would receive me into heaven in my sins, making heaven to be unclean. By living in an unclean heaven God would be unclean.
What blasphemy this entire line of reasoning is! God cannot tolerate sin, period. He will not allow it in His presence, period. Sin must be removed and its penalty paid, before a sinner can relate to God. If God cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, how dare any of His people believe themselves to have the power to do so.
No, dear friends, we mustn’t brew and stew over sins committed against us. Nor must we hold a grudge and feud with the sinner. We must always have the heart to forgive any sin done against us, and even long to do so while we pray for the sinner to repent. Even more, we must rebuke the sinner, thus bringing his sin to his attention so he knows he needs to repent.
Notwithstanding all this, we haven’t the power to forgive sins when the sinner isn’t repentant. God doesn’t do so and neither can we. If we are brash enough to think we can, our words make us complicit in the sin and we sinned against the sinner by confirming him in his sin.
Modern affluent middle-class morality teaches us to forgive everyone regardless. It gives sinful man the impression that he is a good person because, look! he forgives everyone! The focus here is on the forgiver, when it should be on the one to be forgiven.
Middle-class affluent morality is not Bible, dear friends. It is egocentric all the way down to its roots. The world is steeped in it, but that’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected, in fact what is to be decried, is middle-class affluence permeating the Church. Such a scenario exposes Christians as being conformed to the world.
The Word of God warns of this and exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This comes from daily feeding on the Bible, from feeding on solid meat in the Bible rather than just sipping on baby milk.
If Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, then their leaders who are supposed to teach them the Word of God must first be transformed in the same manner. We need a return to the Bible on the part of the pastors and teachers in the churches. There is far too much involvement in church activities on their part, such that they aren’t able to devote considerable time daily to feeding on the Bible alone with Jesus.
If they don’t receive a fresh word from Jesus regularly, what are they feeding their flock? Answer: the stale words of men! They rush to a commentary and plagiarize a sermon. It sounds good to the unsuspecting flock and gets them by, so why not? And it does take scant time to do it that way, certainly much less time than waiting on the Lord Jesus daily.
Nay nay, dear friends! Rather, let us heed the words of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 1
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 2
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
We paused our last study by noting how the argument from silence is pulled out of mothballs and freshened up, to be used to misinterpret Matthew 18. Peter asked Jesus about the obligation of a person who was wronged, not about the obligation of the wrongdoer.
The argument from silence seizes upon this silence about the wrongdoer’s obligation to repent, claiming it isn’t necessary since in Matthew 18 Jesus didn’t say it was. Neither did Jesus demand that the priest come along, but what does that have to do with anything?
In Luke 17 the same subject is taught, but this time the requirement on the part of both parties is addressed. The wrongdoer recognizes his wrong and apologizes to the person he wronged, asking him for forgiveness. In this case it is obligatory on the part of the Christian who has been wronged to forgive him, and that from the heart, in spirit and in truth.
Implied in this teaching is that the person wronged needs to want forgiveness. You see, in Luke 17 there is no argument from silence. The subject of the wrongdoer’s responsibility is literally brought up by Jesus. When a person does a wrong and asks for forgiveness, the child of God must forgive the one who wronged him.
The implications are, for one thing, that we cannot hold grudges and conduct feuds. We cannot harbor ill will at others because our feelings are hurt.
But there is a more solemn implication to be garnered from Luke 17. If someone wrongs us and does not want forgiveness, we can’t forgive him. This doesn’t mean we can hold a grudge in such a case, or harbor ill will and pray for his damnation! It means we cannot pretend to him that all is well with the world.
Suppose I go up to someone who sinned against me and say, “Ken or Barbie, you did such and so to me and it is sin. But not to worry. I forgive you.” What just occurred?
I’ll tell you what just occurred. Someone sinned, but they had no remorse for their sin and didn’t see any need for forgiveness. My words helped harden them in their sin by allowing them to experience forgiveness without repentance, should their conscience ever experience any uneasiness over their sin.
This implicates me in their sin! I caused my brother to stumble. He has no need to repent of his sin. He’s forgiven already. Wow! This makes me more powerful than God Himself!
How so? Consider how a sinner is saved. Is it because Jesus died on the cross for his sins? Answer: no, it is not. Huh? You say you thought the answer was yes? Well, sorry. You’re mistaken. Yes, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future. But no, everyone past, present, and future, is not saved because of it.
Oh, then what else is needed in order to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. Okay, so what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Answer: to recognize His death on the cross as being for my specific sins. Jesus died my death in my stead, so that I can live His life with Him.
But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me? We will answer the question in our next study. For now ruminate a while on what Jesus taught us in this study. I’ll see you tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We paused our last study by noting how the argument from silence is pulled out of mothballs and freshened up, to be used to misinterpret Matthew 18. Peter asked Jesus about the obligation of a person who was wronged, not about the obligation of the wrongdoer.
The argument from silence seizes upon this silence about the wrongdoer’s obligation to repent, claiming it isn’t necessary since in Matthew 18 Jesus didn’t say it was. Neither did Jesus demand that the priest come along, but what does that have to do with anything?
In Luke 17 the same subject is taught, but this time the requirement on the part of both parties is addressed. The wrongdoer recognizes his wrong and apologizes to the person he wronged, asking him for forgiveness. In this case it is obligatory on the part of the Christian who has been wronged to forgive him, and that from the heart, in spirit and in truth.
Implied in this teaching is that the person wronged needs to want forgiveness. You see, in Luke 17 there is no argument from silence. The subject of the wrongdoer’s responsibility is literally brought up by Jesus. When a person does a wrong and asks for forgiveness, the child of God must forgive the one who wronged him.
The implications are, for one thing, that we cannot hold grudges and conduct feuds. We cannot harbor ill will at others because our feelings are hurt.
But there is a more solemn implication to be garnered from Luke 17. If someone wrongs us and does not want forgiveness, we can’t forgive him. This doesn’t mean we can hold a grudge in such a case, or harbor ill will and pray for his damnation! It means we cannot pretend to him that all is well with the world.
Suppose I go up to someone who sinned against me and say, “Ken or Barbie, you did such and so to me and it is sin. But not to worry. I forgive you.” What just occurred?
I’ll tell you what just occurred. Someone sinned, but they had no remorse for their sin and didn’t see any need for forgiveness. My words helped harden them in their sin by allowing them to experience forgiveness without repentance, should their conscience ever experience any uneasiness over their sin.
This implicates me in their sin! I caused my brother to stumble. He has no need to repent of his sin. He’s forgiven already. Wow! This makes me more powerful than God Himself!
How so? Consider how a sinner is saved. Is it because Jesus died on the cross for his sins? Answer: no, it is not. Huh? You say you thought the answer was yes? Well, sorry. You’re mistaken. Yes, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future. But no, everyone past, present, and future, is not saved because of it.
Oh, then what else is needed in order to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. Okay, so what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Answer: to recognize His death on the cross as being for my specific sins. Jesus died my death in my stead, so that I can live His life with Him.
But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me? We will answer the question in our next study. For now ruminate a while on what Jesus taught us in this study. I’ll see you tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
I Forgive You – Part 3
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
We concluded yesterday’s study with the question, “But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me?” Answer: because I am a sinner, and the wages of sin is death. Do you see it? I came to Jesus as the Savior, confessed my sins to Him, and asked His forgiveness based on His finished work for me on the cross.
Don’t miss the part about recognizing my sins and the part about asking His forgiveness, dear friends. Until I am sorry for my sins and want to be forgiven, God Himself doesn’t—even more, He cannot—forgive me. Otherwise He would be complicit in my sins. He would receive me into heaven in my sins, making heaven to be unclean. By living in an unclean heaven God would be unclean.
What blasphemy this entire line of reasoning is! God cannot tolerate sin, period. He will not allow it in His presence, period. Sin must be removed and its penalty paid, before a sinner can relate to God. If God cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, how dare any of His people believe themselves to have the power to do so.
No, dear friends, we mustn’t brew and stew over sins committed against us. Nor must we hold a grudge and feud with the sinner. We must always have the heart to forgive any sin done against us, and even long to do so while we pray for the sinner to repent. Even more, we must rebuke the sinner, thus bringing his sin to his attention so he knows he needs to repent.
Notwithstanding all this, we haven’t the power to forgive sins when the sinner isn’t repentant. God doesn’t do so and neither can we. If we are brash enough to think we can, our words make us complicit in the sin and we sinned against the sinner by confirming him in his sin.
Modern affluent middle-class morality teaches us to forgive everyone regardless. It gives sinful man the impression that he is a good person because, look! he forgives everyone! The focus here is on the forgiver, when it should be on the one to be forgiven.
Middle-class affluent morality is not Bible, dear friends. It is egocentric all the way down to its roots. The world is steeped in it, but that’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected, in fact what is to be decried, is middle-class affluence permeating the Church. Such a scenario exposes Christians as being conformed to the world.
The Word of God warns of this and exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This comes from daily feeding on the Bible, from feeding on solid meat in the Bible rather than just sipping on baby milk.
If Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, then their leaders who are supposed to teach them the Word of God must first be transformed in the same manner. We need a return to the Bible on the part of the pastors and teachers in the churches. There is far too much involvement in church activities on their part, such that they aren’t able to devote considerable time daily to feeding on the Bible alone with Jesus.
If they don’t receive a fresh word from Jesus regularly, what are they feeding their flock? Answer: the stale words of men! They rush to a commentary and plagiarize a sermon. It sounds good to the unsuspecting flock and gets them by, so why not? And it does take scant time to do it that way, certainly much less time than waiting on the Lord Jesus daily.
Nay nay, dear friends! Rather, let us heed the words of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
We concluded yesterday’s study with the question, “But why did I deserve the death which Jesus died for me?” Answer: because I am a sinner, and the wages of sin is death. Do you see it? I came to Jesus as the Savior, confessed my sins to Him, and asked His forgiveness based on His finished work for me on the cross.
Don’t miss the part about recognizing my sins and the part about asking His forgiveness, dear friends. Until I am sorry for my sins and want to be forgiven, God Himself doesn’t—even more, He cannot—forgive me. Otherwise He would be complicit in my sins. He would receive me into heaven in my sins, making heaven to be unclean. By living in an unclean heaven God would be unclean.
What blasphemy this entire line of reasoning is! God cannot tolerate sin, period. He will not allow it in His presence, period. Sin must be removed and its penalty paid, before a sinner can relate to God. If God cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, how dare any of His people believe themselves to have the power to do so.
No, dear friends, we mustn’t brew and stew over sins committed against us. Nor must we hold a grudge and feud with the sinner. We must always have the heart to forgive any sin done against us, and even long to do so while we pray for the sinner to repent. Even more, we must rebuke the sinner, thus bringing his sin to his attention so he knows he needs to repent.
Notwithstanding all this, we haven’t the power to forgive sins when the sinner isn’t repentant. God doesn’t do so and neither can we. If we are brash enough to think we can, our words make us complicit in the sin and we sinned against the sinner by confirming him in his sin.
Modern affluent middle-class morality teaches us to forgive everyone regardless. It gives sinful man the impression that he is a good person because, look! he forgives everyone! The focus here is on the forgiver, when it should be on the one to be forgiven.
Middle-class affluent morality is not Bible, dear friends. It is egocentric all the way down to its roots. The world is steeped in it, but that’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected, in fact what is to be decried, is middle-class affluence permeating the Church. Such a scenario exposes Christians as being conformed to the world.
The Word of God warns of this and exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This comes from daily feeding on the Bible, from feeding on solid meat in the Bible rather than just sipping on baby milk.
If Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, then their leaders who are supposed to teach them the Word of God must first be transformed in the same manner. We need a return to the Bible on the part of the pastors and teachers in the churches. There is far too much involvement in church activities on their part, such that they aren’t able to devote considerable time daily to feeding on the Bible alone with Jesus.
If they don’t receive a fresh word from Jesus regularly, what are they feeding their flock? Answer: the stale words of men! They rush to a commentary and plagiarize a sermon. It sounds good to the unsuspecting flock and gets them by, so why not? And it does take scant time to do it that way, certainly much less time than waiting on the Lord Jesus daily.
Nay nay, dear friends! Rather, let us heed the words of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
