Israel Folau, what did he really post?

Trying to find the original post that has started all of this fuss with Israel Folau has been difficult. I wanted to see FOR MYSELF what he actually posted that has now been deemed to be a “High level breach” by Rugby Australia.

Well, here it is:


“

Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.
_______________

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

_______________

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

_______________

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV
_______________”



Note that I am no Techno-head, so putting the actual post itself into this was beyond my skill level.

What I have done is find the image that he posted and pasted it into this, and then I have copied the text that he wrote, and the verse quotes that he included. To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what he posted, correct image and word for word.



I think it would be worthwhile examining exactly what Mr Folau DID say, rather than everyone getting up in arms about what he didn’t actually say.

So, I am sorry Mr Folau, but I am going to examine your post, and more particularly your words in greater detail than anyone really deserves, but I think it is necessary to find out the truth.

• ·       First of all the image posted.

Keep in mind that I don’t think Mr Folau made this image. I assume (and I am sorry but it is an assumption) that Mr Folau saw this image on line and reposted it, but he obviously agreed with the basics of it.

The Image states that for a variety of people listed – 8 different groups are listed overall – that Hell awaits them. The image then calls for those people included in the list to repent, and notes that only Jesus saves.

A few things to note about this image itself.

It does not single out any particular group listed over any other group.

The image is not specifically attacking homosexuals, as is the focus of the claims against My Folau. In fact, if one were to take a step back you would find that not many people are left out of that list. I don’t think I have ever met a person who has not lied at some time, and most of us have stolen something somewhere along the way – not a car, but maybe a pen or something like that.

Where is there any indication in the image itself that Mr Folau is attacking any particular group? There is no such indication. In fact the image has a list that actually includes every person ever – including Mr Folau himself (Which I am sure he would openly acknowledge).

Now then, is the image attacking anyone?

No, it is not. There is no attack. There is a statement of what Mr Folau and many others believe is a fact: that any sinner is bound for Hell.

This is not an attack. It is a statement. If I was to state “You are going to die”, it doesn’t mean that I want it to be so, or that I intend to cause it to be so. It doesn’t necessitate any feeling toward you of any sort – either hatred or love. It is information that I believe to be true.

And it is in fact true – every person will die one day. You might be offended at my pointing that out, but it will not stop you from dying. And it makes no difference whether I like you, hate you, or am ambivalent to you, the fact is that one day you will die. There is no attack, just a statement of information.

If however, I knew you were going to die of some particular disease, and I recognised it, and knew the cure, then told you about that cure, that is not attacking, nor is it hateful. In fact it is loving.

This image does nothing more than that.

The originator of the image believes that all the people listed are destined for Hell, but he (or she) does not want the people listed to end up in Hell, and so they state the cure, salvation through Jesus.

There is nothing hateful nor accusatory in the image.

• ·         What about the statement that Mr Folau makes after the image?

“Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

So, Mr Folau doesn’t single out any particular group in this statement either. He says “Those that are living in sin”. There is only one conclusion to take from the reaction to this part of the statement – those who are offended know that they are living in sin. If they didn’t know that, they would have simply considered that Mr Folau was referring to others. Their outrage actually shows that they consider themselves among “those that are living in sin”. Mr Folau didn’t designate them as such. He simply gave a warning that “those who are living in sin will end up in hell unless you repent. Again, Mr Folau is not attacking anyone. He is simply stating what he believes is the destiny of those “who are living in sin”.

And again, his purpose is to show that they have a way to avoid Hell.

It is not an accusation, but a warning. He is not accusing people of living in sin, but pointing out that those WHO ARE living in sin have a destiny that ends in Hell. Those who are fussing about this are the ones who are designating themselves as “living in sin”.

The simple conclusion to come to about this statement is that if you are not living in sin then Mr Folau doesn’t believe that you will end up in Hell. (Note that the Bible has a lot to say about this beyond this simplistic conclusion)

Far from accusing, Mr Folau points out what he believes of “Those that are living in sin”. He doesn’t designate any groups at all in his own words.

He also points out the solution for “Those that are living in sin”.

His statement only and clearly applies to “those who are living in sin”.

Apparently, the drunkards, the adulterers, the liars etc don’t consider themselves to be living in sin, because they haven’t kicked up a fuss. It is only the Homosexuals that have designated themselves to be included in the statement “those that are living in sin”, not Mr  Folau.

And even so, all Mr Folau has done is show that there is a solution to the sin and Hell problem that he points out: Salvation through Jesus Christ.

·         After this, Mr Folau quoted three Bible passages. Mr Folau cannot be held responsible for the words of the Bible, for he didn’t write it. He did of course choose which passages to quote, but as far as I can tell, it is still legal to quote the Bible in Australia. (It apparently is not allowed if you are employed by the ARU. That would seem to be discriminatory against religious persons, but the ARU is supposed to be non-discriminatory…)

o   Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

In examining this passage, we note a few things: this passage does not even mention homosexuality specifically. It would of course be encompassed under adultery, fornication, and possibly uncleanness, but it is not specifically noted. In fact what we have here is a wide ranging list of people who the Bible says will not inherit the kingdom of God. But Homosexuals are not even specified here.

______________

o  
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

Again, there is no mention of any specific group in this list apart from “every one of you”. It speaks only of remission of sins through Jesus Christ. This verse doesn’t even talk about the consequences if someone doesn’t repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ.

_______________

o  
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV

And again, there is no mention of any consequences for anyone, just that God calls all men everywhere to repent.

So then, having looked at the post that has caused all the fuss and trouble, I am astounded at the way that this has been handled by the LBGT etc and also by the Media.

To the LBGT etc (I am sorry but I can’t keep up with the current letters included in this group as it seems to change every couple of weeks), I have to ask why you are so offended at this post? Where did Mr Folau specify your group in particular?

In his own words he doesn’t even mention “Homosexuals” or any other designation of your group. The name is one of 8 in the original image list, and it is not even the first on the list.

Nowhere else in the entire post of Mr Folau is the LBGT etc group even referred to.


Secondly, Mr Folau nowhere states that he is sending them to Hell, nor does he state that he wants them to go to Hell, nor does he state that he is rejoicing at the thought of them going to Hell. In fact, it is implicit in his statements that Mr Folau doesn’t want them to go to Hell, because he includes statements and Bible references that show how they can avoid that destiny.


There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from the resultant media coverage: The LBGT etc have launched a totally unjustified attack, misrepresenting what Mr Folau posted for the purpose of destroying this man and attacking the current religious freedoms in Australia, and secondly, the Australian Media are either allowing themselves to be deceived by the LBGT etc or are inherently involved the attack against Mr Folau and against Australian religious freedom. If they were not involved (deliberately or naively) they would show the post in its entirety and show clearly that the Homosexual groups are not in fact targeted.


As to Rugby Australia and their panel that have now found Mr Folau guilty of a High level breach, we must ask “Where in the post that Mr Folau made is there any breach of any code of conduct? How is it in any way hateful to warn someone of what you believe to be impending danger? Indeed, Mr Folau has not even designated any particular group as sinners, but included all men – ALL MEN as sinners.



The only conclusion we can come to with regard to Rugby Australia is that they are allowing themselves to be influenced by their major sponsor, who apparently doesn’t think Australia should have free speech. At least not free speech that disagrees with the thoughts of their current boss.

I for one am disgusted at the treatment of Mr Folau by the Australian press, by Rugby Australia, and by many commentators who apparently feel that looking at the actual statements of Mr Folau are not necessary. The ARU have sold Mr Folau out for sponsorship money.


I am not in the least surprised by the LGBT etc groups who are attacking Mr Folau without mercy, not for what he has said, but for the fact that he is a Christian who is willing to quote the Bible.

Mr Folau has said nothing offensive to homosexuals in particular – in fact, nothing AT ALL to homosexuals in particular. Mr Folau addressed “Those who are living in sin” without further definition. Who is it that has designated homosexuals as sinners? Not Mr Folau. It is actually those who are accusing him who have designated themselves as sinners.



The actual roots of this whole affair are based in those who wish to silence the Bible and remove any reference to God and the Word of God from our society.

Alan Jones has said that the Australian people won’t stand for it. I hope he is right, but I fear he is wrong.

My fear is that not enough regular Australians care enough to stand with Mr Folau in his battle for the right to express his own opinion.

Today it is the right of one man to express an opinion that is being restricted. Tomorrow it may be the right of others to express their opinion that is taken away. When and where will it stop?


They call men like Mr Folau intolerant, but he is not the one who stopping others from having an opinion.

I will fight for the right of every man to be free to express his opinion, whether I agree with him or not. The way our nation is going, I am falling into a minority.

My opinion will soon be illegal if things continue the way they appear to be going.

Only opinions that “fit with the acceptable” will be allowed to be expressed. Who then decides what is acceptable? And what stops your opinion – whatever that may be – from becoming unacceptable?


No one should be able to call others to physical violence. No one should be able to promote attacks on other people. No one should be able to take away another person’s rights without just cause and due process.

But every man should be able to express an opinion.

I will fight for your right to oppose me and present an opposing opinion.

Because stopping talk doesn’t solve problems. Just because I can silence you, doesn’t mean the problem is solved. Just because you can silence me, doesn’t mean that your problems are now solved.

In context of Mr Folau’s post, you can stop it from being posted around, you can take away his career, you can silence him by deleting or covering his opinion wherever you can, but it will not change for one moment that fact that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that the Wages of sin is death, and that Hell is final destiny of everyone who has not trusted in Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Whether it is stated, read, proclaimed, or even tweeted OR NOT – it is still true.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but the question has to be asked: If you don't believe what Mr Folau has posted is true, why does it concern you? He hasn't named any particular person or even a particular group. He has not called for any group of people to be persecuted or banned. He has not in any way promoted violence against any particular group (or even general violence for that matter).
He has spoken of a destiny that he believes is as stated in the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible is true, why do you care what this man says about what you believe is fanciful?


It is not hateful to warn about that problem.

It is loving to warn someone of impending danger and then tell them of the way of avoiding that danger.


Mr Folau, I know it is easy for me to say this because it is not my wage, not my reputation, not my future that is on trial and at stake, but good on you for making your original post, and for standing your ground. On my examination (which counts for nothing) you have done nothing wrong, nothing hateful, nothing for which you need to apologise.
Rest in the Lord and trust in Him.

1Pe 4:
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Abortion in Australia

I rarely post anything about politics, preferring instead to leave the subject of politics up to the individuals.
It is not my right to tell people which way they should vote.
At the outside, I encourage people to vote according to Biblical values, but with many politicians in Australia it is almost impossible to find their views on ethical and Biblical matters.

However, in Australia recently the Labor Party has come out and said if they win the next election they will bring in fully publicly funded abortions.
In one news article about this political line there was a photo of a woman holding a placard that said "Legal abortions save lives".
LEGAL ABORTIONS DO NOT SAVE LIVES. Any abortion OF NECESSITY takes the life of the child - that is what an abortion is.
What the placard was suggesting is that illegal abortions are dangerous, and that is true, but many illegal things are dangerous, and those who do those illegal things take their chances.
EVERY ABORTION takes a life, but an illegal abortion only endangers the woman's life if she chooses to go down that path. No one is forcing her to get an illegal abortion - it is her choice.
Think about that placard in these terms: say that abortion for any reason is legal and as a result we have 100000 abortions each year. That is 100000 children whose lives are ended.
But if abortion is illegal, the number of abortions drops to 50000 (most likely it would be a far greater difference), and of those 50000 illegal abortions, half of them ended with the mother dying because of poor practices (the ratio would no doubt be far lower). This means that a total of 75000 lives are lost because of illegal abortion.
This is a net gain or 25000 - legal abortion DOES NOT save lives in any way shape or form. I don't know what the actual numbers are, and it doesn't really matter what the actual numbers are - the net difference is in favour of making abortion illegal.
In fact, the numbers that I have used here would most likely be extremely heavily swayed towards even greater lives saved by making abortion illegal.
If the total was 100000 abortions, and the practice was made illegal, the number would most likely be way less than half who would still seek abortion. A great number of women would not seek it as an illegal option.
And of those illegal abortions performed, the rate at which the mother would also be lost would be way less than 50% - how could even an illegal operator continue with anything approaching that kind of failure rate? In fact the number would most likely be a single figure percentage of failure, even as an illegal act.
So the claim that legal abortions save lives is absolutely false, and it is an emotive claim rather than a scientifically factual argument.

The murder of unborn children is a tragedy of mammoth proportions in today's world.

ANY POLITICAL PARTY that runs on a platform of financing abortions from the public purse is actually promoting government sanctioned and financed infanticide.
No one with any sort of conscience can vote for a party that not only condones, but in fact promotes the murder of unborn children.

And when people say that using terms such as  "murder of unborn children" is emotive, so also is the use of terms such as "termination of pregnancy", and referring to an unborn child as "a foetus"- they are designed to take the attention away from the truth that it is the killing of a person - it is ending the life of a person. The fact that person is at that point in its mothers womb in no way detracts from that fact - that unborn child is a person.

I still think one of the greatest comparisons ever pointed out is that if they found a single celled organism on Mars, they would proclaim that they had found life, but a small cluster of cells that has every single piece of DNA information required to continue dividing and form into a complete person by today's standards "is not life".

What a joke - double standard to the extreme.

Abortion is murder, and no government should sanction, let alone fund murder of the most innocent of people.

Australia will vote on whether or not to broaden the definition of marriage.

Australia will next month have a postal vote on whether or not we would like our government to change the definition of marriage.
Currently, in Australia, the definition of marriage is very specifically between a man and a woman.

There is a hugely vocal homosexual and alternative lifestyle grouping that has for a long time sought to  squash any sort of debate on the acceptability of their lifestyle choice in mainstream Australian culture.
I have been subjected to this myself on fora that has nothing to do with lifestyle choices.
In the general discussion section of one forum I was a member of, everyone could have an opinion but me.
And even when I did not express an opinion, I was attacked for my "bigoted views".
I will also say that often times those people misrepresented my views so that they could attack me, but in many cases I did not actually express a view at all, and still was attacked - because I am openly a Christian, and all views are acceptable in this matter EXCEPT those that come from the Bible.

I personally will be voting "No" to the postal plebiscite regarding the change in the definition of marriage. That will not surprise anyone who has read my position and statements of my faith elsewhere on this blog.

But I want to explain why, and here I can do so without being shouted down.

I have several reasons for my position.

First, those who choose these alternative lifestyles have full legal and political recognition under our civil unions legislation.
In every legal respect they already have the same rights as a married couple.
The only thing they lack is the right to call it a "Marriage".
And in fact, they can already use the name, just not in an official capacity. (Who is going to stop them calling it a marriage in everyday life?)

Some will then say "Well if there is no difference, then why bother to argue about semantics?"

But it is not semantics. And I will tell you why in a moment.

Before we get there though, I do want to point out that taking the marriage name IS semantics for those of alternative lifestyles. They think that by changing the name alone - for that is the only thing that will change - that their lifestyle choices will suddenly become legitimate in the eyes of the community.
They are wrong.
It is not the lack of the name marriage that is offputting for many mainstream Australians.
It is the lifestyle itself that the majority of Australians find unusual, even those who are accepting of it, but not part of it.
When a man talks of his husband, people's attitudes will not change regardless of them being allowed to say that they are legally married. And it won't change whether those people find it abhorrent, or just mildly unusual, or totally acceptable, or anywhere between. The change of name will not change anybody's attitude.
Do they really think that that who are vehemently opposed will all of a sudden become accepting because now the government has said they can call it marriage?
And will it change the attitudes of those who are wholly for alternative lifestyles? Will they wake up the next day and feel that their relatioships are stronger JUST because now they can call it a marriage?
The alternative lifestyle people will find that not one thing in reality has changed if they win this vote.
Not anything legally, and not any attitudes.
Neither their own attitudes, nor their opponents attitudes, nor the indifferent attitudes will have changed.

Now then, to the arguments that people put forth to oppose this vote:

There are those who have tried to argue about children being the product of marriage, but they are rightly pointed to heterosexual couples who either by choice or medical issues do not have children. Are these not legitimate marriages then?
This is a legitimate counter.
Children do not make a marriage.

When I got married to my wife, we were immediately married - we did not have to wait the five years that it took for us to finally have children - our marriage was a complete marriage immediately we said "I do".
And when our children leave home, as the oldest will shortly do, we will not cease to be married.


Another argument that is often put is that it is unnatural.
That was thought to be true in the past, but the alternative lifestyle mobs have produced "evidence" that it is entirely natural.
Whether their evidence is legitimate is still up for debate - for instance dogs "mating" with dogs is not legitimate evidence, because a dog with a mind to, will mate with anything that moves, and some things that don't. A dog "mating" with a person's leg does not denote a natural behaviour of dogs wanting to mate with men - it denotes a natural behaviour of dogs to satisfy themselves wherever they see the opportunity.

But regardless of the veracity of this evidence, just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it acceptable for people to do.
Many creatures eat their young, but I do not know of ANY MAN of any persuasion who would suggest that such a thing is acceptable simply because we see it in nature.
(And no, I am not saying that alternative lifestylers are to be compared to such animals. It is the argument from nature that I am discussing.)
And some female creatures, after mating eat the male, but I do not see anyone suggesting that because we see it in nature it should be acceptable for men.

The argument that it is natural is not the same as arguing that something is right or wrong.
In nature we see what we would consider "right" actions, and we see what we consider "wrong" actions. The "right" actions are not more right because we see them in nature, and the "wrong" actions are not more  wrong because we see them in nature.
The point is, nature is not our standard for right or wrong, for if it was our society would be very different to what it is today, and in fact our society would be full of argument about what is the right model from nature to follow.
Do we follow the lion's model, where the men do nothing but get first dibs on the meals, and lunge around, while the women do all the work of providing?
Or do we follow the be model, where there is one ruling woman, a number of male bees whose sole role is to mate with the queen and the whole place is run by the females who do all the work?

Neither of these models would be considered fair and equitable for human society.

So nature is not, and never has been our standard.
Therefore, whether or not we see these alternative lifestyles in nature is irrelevant - Nature is not the model upon which our society is built.


In fact, there is only one argument that holds any true weight in this matter:
Mark 10:6-9
(6)  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7)  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8)  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9)  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God designed marriage.

I have looked, and found no real theories on how marriage "developed" from a secular point of view.

It is simply accepted that marriage started in the lost history of time, and it is common among all cultures.

The details of it vary of course, but the basics that a man and a woman leave their families and join together to start a new family is the universal basic.

And the Bible tells us that this was God's design from the time of creation.

The fact that marriage is universal indicates a common link somewhere in the so called "lost history" of the past. It is not lost: the Bible explains it clearly.

But the important part of this, is that God designed and instituted marriage.

As the designer and maker of marriage, God therefore has the authority and right to define what he has designed.

And God said that it was between a man and a woman, a male and female, a man and his wife.

Why am I voting against the redefinition of marriage in Australia?

Because, whilst it will not gain the supporters of the change anything legally, politically, or attitudinally, it denies God's right to define His institution of Marriage.

Unfortunately, I think this is the real agenda - the removal of God from our society.

Men have removed God from our schools.

Men are trying to remove God from our courts.

Men are trying to remove God from our parliament.

Men are trying to remove God from our holidays and celebrations.

Men are trying to remove every trace of God from our society.

This is yet another step on this path.

In Australia they have the "Safe schools" program, which ironically masquerades under the banner of "Anti-bullying", but which as is becoming more obvious all the time, is really just a platform to promote alternative lifestyles.

The irony of this, is that if anyone speaks out against the alternative lifestyles agenda that is Safe Schools promotes, they are BULLIED into submission and silence.

The biggest bullies, the most intolerant group, the most violently opposing group in Australia today, are the alternative lifestyles groups.

For proof, just see the kind of reaction this post gets, if it actually gets noticed and not deleted by some sort of big brother.

I would urge anyone who reads this, to read it carefully and point out clearly where I have said anything hateful.

Fact is, that I do not hate anyone of alternative lifestyles. I do not approve of their lifestyle, but it is not my right to dictate to them how they should live. That is their choice.

I DO know what the Bible says about it, but it is still their choice, as it is every man's choice to either accept the Bible or reject it, and on that basis to accept or reject the gift of salvation that Jesus made available to all men, if they would believe on His name and confess (to God) their sins.

Romans 10:9-10
(9)  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10)  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Bible says that ....all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

All - not just murderers and thieves, but all men. And that even includes me, although I have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and so my sins have been paid for.

But back to the point - I am voting against this change because it will not do anything positive for anyone, and because God has already defined marriage in His Word.

God made it - God defined it.

I will vote "No" and I would urge every God fearing, Bible believing Christian to also vote for God's definition of marriage, which the current Australian definition agrees with.

Worship????

There is a lot of talk about right now regarding worship.
Styles of worship and importance of worship, and how we should go about worship, and how important worship is for a church and for Christians.

Well the other day in my daily reading I came across Mark chapter 5 and I noticed something in that passage that had escaped me previously.

Mark 5:1-13
(1)  And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
(2)  And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
(3)  Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
(4)  Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
(5)  And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
(6)  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
(7)  And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
(8)  For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
(9)  And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
(10)  And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
(11)  Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
(12)  And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
(13)  And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Jesus and the Disciples had just cross the sea overnight with the storm and Jesus calming that storm, and they came to Gadarea. When they got out of the ship and walked onto the land, a man came running up to them. This man was possessed with devils.

But the interesting thing I find about this passage is that it says in vs 6;

(6)  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

When he saw Jesus he ran and worshipped him. Now I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran and worshipped the Lord, as I read it the other day I noticed  something about this account.
The "he" spoken of in vs 6 is the same "he"spoken of in vs 7 through to vs 10.

You see, I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran to Jesus for help, but it was not the man that confronted Jesus and worshipped Him, it was the devil in him.

The devil is the one talking, the devil is the one begging (I adjure thee...), the devil is the one WORSHIPPING the Lord.
Let's look at this a moment: the devil calls Jesus "...the son of the most high God..." recognising exactly who the Lord is, and ascribing that honour to the Lord.
The devil recognises also the authority of Jesus, when he "Adjures" Him, or begs Him - this devil certainly knows that Jesus has the authority and the power.

The thing about all of this is that these devils - there were many for their name was legion (A Roman legion by the way was normally 5000 men plus support staff, and they affected 2000 pigs when cast into the herd), these devils are said in vs 6 to have worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ.

In that, they ascribed to Him the proper attributes, the proper authority, the proper power, and His proper position.
They cried out loud about who He is and what He can do.
No-one standing there that day could have missed that these devils recognised Jesus as the son of the most high God, or that He was stronger in power, and of greater authority than these devils - that at least 2000 of them too.

The Bible clearly says that they "worshipped" Him.

Now back to our present day emphasis on worship and the importance of it in our churches.
It occurred to me that not only Christians can worship - if these devils can worship the Lord, then there is no inherent need for the one worshipping the Lord to actually love the Lord.
These devils did not love the Lord, but they did worship Him.

James 2:19
(19)  Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

There is no requirement of saving faith for worship to happen.

In fact there will be a load of people who think they are doing various things for the Lord who will find out one day that their service was in vain:

Matthew 7:20-24
(20)  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
(21)  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22)  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23)  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(24)  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Many will say to Him "Have we not done all these great things in your name?", but Jesus will say "I never knew you".

I wonder how many people are caught up in this current flow of "worship focussed" ministry who actually have never trusted Jesus Christ as their Saviour?

They think they are serving and honouring the Lord because they "Worship" the Lord, but these devils also worshipped the Lord.

No, worship does not make a person saved.

Romans 10:9-13
(9)  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10)  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11)  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(12)  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
(13)  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That is what makes a person saved - believing in thine heart and confessing (to God) that Jesus raised from the dead.

Those people who think they are honouring God by what is often called "good worship" (a subjective view anyway), may very possibly be wrong. You don't have to love the Lord to worship Him.

Also, recently I have been looking again at the Great Commission and strangely enough I don't find anywhere in the various statements of the Great Commission a call to worship the Lord in that work.

We are told to teach all nations, to baptise, and teach them what Jesus taught - but there is no mention of worshipping the Lord in those calls - it is SERVING HIM, in the way that He calls or commissions us to that He wants.

Should we forgive and restore, or just bash them to death?

It has on occasion been an issue that I have seen that someone wanders astray from the Lord, and then church discipline is invoked.

I, thankfully, have never had to deal with this matter directly in any church I have been in. The only people I have had to deal with have been those who are not members but trying to cause trouble or influence doctrine, and the Bible has a different way of dealing with them as it does with church members.

I have however been involved on occasion with the restoration of a wayward saint.

Let's look then at the relevant passages:

Matthew 18:15-17
(15)  Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
(16)  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
(17)  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

It is interesting that if there is an issue between two Christians, it should be resolved within the church. And also there is an order to this Bible directed way of dealing with a problem between Christians.

The first step is between the parties directly involved in the matter; but look at the end of the verse - the goal for this process is TO GAIN YOUR BROTHER, or to restore the fellowship between you.

The next step is to take two or three witnesses - this is still not public, but only dealt with by a close group of members of that church.

And note that there is no mention of what happens if he hears and the problem is resolved - it is implied in the passage that the result mentioned in vs 15 is also what is relevant here - to gain your brother.

Then, after these two procedures have been followed, the third step is to make it public WITHIN THE CHURCH - this is not a free for all public accusation and humiliation.

And the final result IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, is to consider him as a Heathen man.

The interesting thing about this is that we are not told to treat the person as persona non grata. We are to treat them as an unsaved man.

How do we treat an unsaved man?

Well, if we look at the way that some have been treated under what is sometimes claimed to be church discipline, then we would not talk to them, not acknowledge them in any way, not answer the phone if we know it is them, not walk down the same street at them, and not return a "hello" in the street if they say hello to us.

I just have to ask at this point..... Is that really how we treat unsaved men?

Of course it isn't. We are friendly and try to lead them to meet the Saviour.

This then is the real way that we should treat the person subject to these verses - in such a way that we might lead them to be restored to proper fellowship with the Lord and with us.

We DO NOT ACCEPT their sin. But then we don't accept the sin of an unsaved man either.

We do not join with their sin. But again, we do not with an unsaved man either.

The point of church discipline is not to punish but to restore. We want to bring this person back into proper fellowship with the Lord.

How does that happen if we won't even talk to them?

The kind of action that is often called "church discipline" only really serves to enhance bitterness in the person, and drive them further away from the Lord.

The first part of this process is designed to "Gain thy brother" not damage him or drive him away. The rest of it carries the same implied purpose.

There is another passage which is a bit wider in scope than just an issue between Christians: 

Galatians 6:1
(1)  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

This is talking about a Christian who falls into sin - I say fall, because that is the way we commonly refer to it, but in truth many times we don't fall, we jump into sin headfirst.

But if we see a brother who is in sin, we have a duty to try to help. 

I actually love this passage because it is very simple and very plain about the matter of a sinning brother.

First of all, it is up to "ye which are spiritual" to deal with the matter. If you are not spiritually mature and in good fellowship with the Lord, then you should not be applying for this job.

Secondly, the very next word tells the purpose of this "RESTORE".

The purpose is not to beat them into submission, nor is it to punish them for their wrongdoing. Sin always has a price and the Lord will make sure they pay their price - it is not our job to do that.

Our job in this is to RESTORE them - or to bring them back into fellowship with the Lord.

Thirdly, this is to be done in a spirit of meekness, not out of anger or pride or self righteousness, but in meekness.

And finally it is to be done "considering thine own self, lest thou also be tempted".

Really, this is meekness explained - it is keeping in mind that I also am less than perfect, and that I also could fall (or jump) into sin at any time.

So many times I have seen church discipline used as a weapon to beat up on someone. So many times I have seen someone "dealing with a sinning brother (or sister) with the intent to hurt or punish, not to restore. These people, by their very actions are showing that they are not spiritual, and their actions also display no meekness or humility that comes with understanding that I too am a sinner.

I have gotten into trouble at times for trying to restore a fallen christian. 

People who may or may not be involved have accused me of helping them to sin, or of encouraging them in their sin.

The reality of the matter is that I will not help any unrepentant sinning Christian. The first step in that case is to bring that person to repentance for their sin.

But when a person comes to our church in humility, and genuinely wants to get back on track for the Lord, I will do everything I can, and I will lead our church to everything we can, to help such a person get back into right fellowship with the Lord.

I am not told to deal with their sin - that is up to God. Once they come willing to "hear the matter", then my job, and the job of our church, and in fact the job of every Christian, is to restore them, not to beat them up.

I will never apologise for trying to restore a fallen Christian to right fellowship with God.

I will always try my best to help them see their sin and to deal with their sin in a godly fashion.

There may be people who lie to me about their heart and intent, but so far I have been pretty good at picking that up. I will no doubt make mistakes in this matter, but I do so KNOWING that I am trying to honour the Lord in this matter.

And I don't care about those who pass judgement on me for it.

I know what the Bible says about it.

I know what I have to do in these matters.

And I will ALWAYS try to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.

Final note: I am talking about restoring a Christian to fellowship with the Lord, not about him "getting saved again". The Bible is plain that eternal life is... well.... eternal - and that means you can neither lose it, have it taken away, or even give it back. The RELATIONSHIP of a saved man can never change, but the FELLOWSHIP of a saved man with God changes all the time.

Losing sight of the best whilst looking at the good.

Let me set out before anything else that our church sings hymns accompanied by piano and violin, and I am in now way endorsing the movement to "modern music" in churches simply for the sake of being "relevant".
I do think that there can be songs written in recent times that are absolutely acceptable for Godly worship. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but the "Olden days writers" did not have a monopoly on true spirituality. And of course there is a lot of rubbish which is passed off as "Christian worship music".

With that laid out at the start, I want to address something that I have noticed in recent times: a heavy focus on Church music, making sure it is "right", and warning at every point of the way that "bad music choices lead to forsaking right Doctrine".
I agree with the general premise of that, but I wonder if some of the problem is that people are making up complex and technical standards for "right music" which quite frankly just baffle the average person, and at the same time NOT warning these people to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God".

There are two basic issues that I see with this approach:

• With the complexity of the musical standards, there is no genuine way for the "layman" to check if the standard is biblical, so the argument basically falls to "You may not understand it but I have done the study so you should just trust me". Forgive me for this, but that is exactly why the Catholics wanted to keep the Bible in Latin all those years ago - so that the poor old regular man would have to trust the "experts". 

I for one believe that God has made His Word understandable for the average man, and if something like this is so complex that only a musical expert can understand it, then I seriously doubt it is biblical. It drives many to just say, "if it is so hard to understand, then I just won't even bother to try, and I will just listen to whatever I want". The "technical boundaries" that some put up are incomprehensible to many, and so they just give up on the whole matter. It is basically saying to these people that they are not smart enough to understand God's Word, so they just give up trying.

What you end up with are people who simply listen to whatever they want OR whatever they are told, but they don't bother to study the Word of God about it.

This argument is in fact teaching people to either accept whatever they are told by the "experts" or to ignore whatever they are told by the "experts" but NOT TO STUDY THE WORD OF GOD for themselves.

In my mind I think we should set out what we perceive as Biblical standards for any issue, but we should teach people to study for themselves.

• The second issue is that some appear to spend so much time warning about the "slippery slope" effect etc, that they forget to teach strong doctrine, and they forget to warn others about having strong doctrine. It is sort like they are yelling so loud about "Right music" that nobody notices the wolves sneaking quietly in while everyone is distracted by the "Music issue".

I think it is entirely possible for a church to accept much of this music AND STILL retain a strong doctrinal position. I think it is incredibly difficult, and most probably very unlikely, but I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it states plainly that right music leads to right doctrine and wrong music leads to wrong doctrine. 

I DO think we see it happen often, but I wonder if it is partly because the warnings are about wrong music, and while everyone is concentrating on the music the false teachers sneak the bad doctrine in the side door.

Don't ignore the warnings, and the encouragement on doctrine. Doctrines are after all fairly well defined in the Bible.

I have been studying through the seven churches of Revelation lately, and I don't recall any warnings about music to any of these seven churches,but almost all of them are warned on doctrine in some way, or encouraged to stay strong on doctrine.

If music was itself inherently important in such matters, then I would expect it make the list of warnings to these seven churches.

There absolutely is instruction on music - I am not a denier. I just wonder if ALONG WITH the warnings about right music, we ought to also be making AT LEAST as much noise warning these people to jealously guard their doctrine while they consider their music.

I think  maybe some are putting too much emphasis on the wrong focus point.

Blackmailing Missionaries for the percieved faults of their sending church?

(I wrote this some months ago, and never posted it because I felt I maybe overstepped the mark a little, but I have recently heard of another missionary who has been affected by this phenomenon, and so I am posting it now.)

Missionaries: how dare you treat them like that!

An exclamation mark, not a question mark.

I don’t want you to answer – I want you to feel rebuked.

For many Pastors and churches out there you will not feel any sting in what I have to say, for you are not the cause of my anger. Unfortunately those who should feel the sting will most likely put my name in their box marked “Do not touch with a barge pole”.

Yes, I am angry, and unfortunately while I think my anger is justified, I don’t feel my anger is in line with the Paul’s words in:

Eph_4:26  Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

I am angry you see, and whilst it is justified in my mind, I am sure that my anger also has some sin in it. I will try to keep that sin away from this article, but what I have to say, I must say.

Missionaries are the ones who are actively living out the great commission in their daily lives. Yes, Pastors should be too. In fact every Christian should. Most of us don’t, at least not as well as we should, and I am sure there are some missionaries that also do not work for the Lord as well as they should.

But most missionaries have put everything on the line and given up their comfy lives back at home to take the Gospel to lost souls who need to know that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them, so that they might have a way of salvation.

Many of them rely on the financial support that is promised from “home churches”, but they would rather not have to go begging for that support, and in fact, most of them would rather not have to even care about it. But it is necessary. To live in this life costs money.

I can honestly say that I do not remember having a missionary ask me anything about how much we could support them or how much we would give them as a gift if they came to speak for us. The ones I know would be embarrassed if they heard of a missionary doing so.

But we all know these things. What has any of this got to do with me being angry?

Because I have spoken to several missionaries of late who have been threatened by churches. Yes, threatened by churches and Pastors.

And it has been associated not with doctrinal matters to do with the missionary themselves, but with matters to do with their sending churches.

And to make it worse, these “Matters” are not doctrinal matters at all.

But the final straw is that in neither case of my personal experience, nor of those that I have been told about, has the matter had anything to do with the missionary themselves. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the “matters” have not been discussed with the sending church in any way, but simply accused and passed around.

Now don’t misunderstand me about this – I am not saying the “matters” are unimportant, or that they should not be discussed. But this is NOT doctrine we are talking about, and it is NOT THE MISSIONARY we are talking about.

Make no mistake, if there is a serious doctrinal issue with a sending church then no good missionary would continue involvement with that church, and would of course find another sending church.

But what we are talking about is not doctrinal – it is stylistic and it is preference. And I will also say that in certain cases it is not a style that I would care to follow. But it is NOT DOCTRINAL matters that are at issue. And we are independent – let these guys answer to God for their choices, and get on with your own choices.

I know now of several missionaries from different sending churches – good, strong, faithful, doctrinal, missionaries, who have been threatened with removed support unless they separate from their sending church.

Whoever you are – and I don’t know because the missionaries are far too gracious to tell tales about you – you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

How dare you attempt to blackmail a servant of the Lord into complying with your preferences?

Do you honestly think these men are your hirelings?

Joh 10:12  But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

Joh 10:13  The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

That is not an apt description of any missionary I know.

These men (and their wives and families) care about the flock that God has given them the oversight of.

But you think that because someone else has offended your preferences, that you have the right to control these servants of the Lord.

How dare you treat a man who is surrendered to the service of the living God, whose life goal is to see souls saved for the glory of the Lord, as though he were a hireling to be bought and sold, to be commanded and controlled?

You already know that they will not be so, for they have refused to heed your calls of extortion, and have sacrificed the monetary support of such as you, for the integrity of faithfulness and serving the Lord.

If you have a beef with a supporting church, then be man enough to contact the Pastor directly and talk it out with him.

How about this for some direction on the matter?

Gal 6:1  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Be spiritual and go to him – if you have a strong BIBLICAL argument then you may have a chance to bring that man back on the right track.

But how dare you try to punish a Pastor who disagrees with your preferences by attacking a missionary who most likely does not even follow the preference of his sending church – if indeed there is anything wrong with that church.

One final reminder – I am not talking about Doctrinal issues, but matters of preference, method, and style.

I am probably amongst the more conservative among us in fact – not right at the outside edge, but I certainly lean heavily that way. I have heard certain things about certain churches, but they are nowhere near me, and they do not directly affect me, and they are NOT DOCTRINAL issues, so I leave them to themselves. If they were to ask me, I would advise them to tread carefully on the path they seem to be going, for I see danger nearby. But they haven’t asked me (probably because I am pretty much a nobody), and in any case they will have to answer to the Lord for their choice, not me.

Heb_13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Leave the missionaries alone to serve the Lord. If a missionary falls into Doctrinal error, then revise his support by all means. None of us wants to be paying for a man to lead the lost into a ditch. But if you have an issue with his sending church, then take it up with that church: don’t you dare threaten the missionary.

It is probably a misapplication of the Scripture, but I can’t help thinking of:

2Ki 2:23  And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24  And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

These kids were torn to pieces because they made fun of the man of God: I wonder what sort of punishment awaits the man who blackmails and threatens a man of God?

And you will note that I have not mentioned any names at all. This is partly because the missionaries would not divulge those names (not that I asked), and I do not care to divulge the names of sending churches involved either. I can’t see that naming names like that is any way to restore such an one in a spirit of meekness.

But then again, I am well aware that this has not been very meek either. At least I have not set out to personally embarrass or attack anyone. If you feel attacked or embarrassed, maybe you should ask yourself why? I haven’t mentioned any names at all. 

And to end, I in no way endorse any church that might be straying from the "traditional ways" of Independent Baptist Churches - I am just angry at those who would punish an innocent missionary for the faults (real or perceived) of their sending church.