Objections to Sexual Identity, Part 4

Introduction to the Series and Current Focus

0:05 This adult Sunday school class was held on September 11, 1988, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. The concern of the class in recent months has really been two. We have two concurrent studies going. Pastor Bob has intermittently been leading us in a series of studies that I would call gleanings from the early chapters of Genesis.

0:34 And in many ways, they have dovetailed with so many lines of emphasis that we have been led to consider, as well as we have been led into other areas of understanding that have been profitable to us all. And I'm leading a series of studies on crucial issues facing the people of God. And the first of those crucial issues is that of male and female identity, roles, and functions. And having established from the beginning that we are all human beings, and the Word of God, those areas of essential equality between men and women, and various aspects of created distinctiveness, and the glorious truth of redemptive equality, Galatians 3.28, we have then turned to see from the Scriptures that the Bible does indeed set forth a timeless and continuously binding structure of male headship and faithfulness. And the key text is 1 Corinthians 11 and verse 3, in which we are told that the head of Christ is God, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man. And then we have traced out the implications of that divinely established hierarchy

The Necessity of Refuting Objections and Disposing of the Pragmatic Argument

1:57 in the realm of the home, the church, and in the general appearance, demeanor, and betterment, and bearing of men and women. Now this teaching that has apparently been very clear to you because you have been the body of exegetes in working through the major passages, the major work of opening them up, you have done with your Bibles in your laps, as I have sought to simply guide you with certain probing questions, and together we have seen the clear teaching of Scripture. However, though the teaching is clear, it is not unopposed and universally accepted. And we find that there is opposition to this teaching both from without the pale of the Christian church in the various segments of what we would call this world system, which is under the control of the devil, and various objections that arise from within the pale of the professing Christian church. And according to Titus 1.9 in Acts 20.28 and following, no elder has completed his task when he has merely set forth the positive, wholesome, biblical teaching.

3:12 He must also refute the gainsayers. Or in the language of Acts 20, he must protect the sheep from the wolves without and the perverse men rising up from within. Well, we spent several weeks looking at and seeking to refute from the Scripture four major areas coming from, without, four major objections, I'm sorry, that come from without the church. And those four major objections were the evolutionary argument, the inferiority argument, the religious suppression argument, and the individual freedom and liberty argument.

3:54 Now, while I was fishing for that fourth one last week, one of the men mentioned a fifth, the pragmatic argument. People say such an arrangement simply, it will not work in the complexity of our modern sociological structure, at least in the Western world. It will not work in seeking to maintain the standard of living with which we have become accustomed. And I will not spend a lengthy time answering that argument or drawing out the answer from you.

4:26 I will simply respond by saying, the God who gives his rules for his people always gives. Gives them grace to do what he requires. Philippians 4.13, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

4:44 Philippians 2.12 and 13, we are to obey, working out our salvation in fear and trembling in the confidence that it is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. And then that marvelous benediction, Hebrews 13.20 and 21, in which we read that this great God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ is able to work in us that which is well pleasing in his sight.

Defining 'Evangelical' and Introducing Internal Objections

5:18 And I think the pragmatic argument can be quickly disposed of by the children of God by that simple assertion that what God calls his people to do, he gives them grace to do for his glory and for their good. Well, now we're going to move today and God willing complete next week the whole matter of the major objections rising from within the pale of the professing Christian church. And I'm thinking particularly of what we would call the evangelical church. In other words, where you have blatant liberalism in major denominations such as the Catholic Church, the Anglican and the Methodist denomination accepting the ordination not only of women but of women who are self-confessed lesbians, etc. That's not even worth calling within the pale of the church. Those are just religious societies that have become synagogues of Satan. But I'm thinking particularly of those that would take to themselves the name evangelical.

6:31 And because many of you are new to the Christian faith and to the general coinage of Christian terminology, let me just state briefly what the term evangelical generally refers to. The term evangelical has come to be a word which takes in the broadest scope of all those individuals and groups of individuals, churches individually, or in their collective identity as denominations, the broadest scope of those who would confess belief in a supernatural Bible, a supernatural Savior, and a supernatural salvation. Basically and fundamentally, in the most general terms, an evangelical is one who confesses that the Bible is the Word of God. It is a supernatural book. And man's condition is such that he needs nothing less than a supernatural book.

7:36 It is a spiritual Savior, a Savior who is as much God as though he were never man, as much man as though he were never God, and who in the mystery of that coming together of the two natures in the one person, we have our only hope of life and salvation. Acts 4.12, neither is there salvation in any other. And then evangelicals believe, although some rather inconsistently appoints, in a salvation, that is supernatural, that is, men must be born of the Holy Spirit.

8:13 There must be an intrusion of divine life into the soul. And though they may be a little woolly-headed, some, in thinking about how that comes to pass and why, an evangelical is one who ascribes the totality of his salvation to the mighty intervention of God and the basis of his acceptance with God wholly, in the work of that supernatural person who died and rose again from the dead. In terms of an article in Baker's Theological Dictionary, where evangelical is defined, and I was confident I put the article in my notes, which currently had got left on my desk, that article confirms this basic definition. So, we are concerned, then, to take up the kinds of objections you are most likely to encounter. Very few of you have any living contact or exposure to the teaching of the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Canada or some of the other liberal denominations. But you do have contact with relatives and friends, and alas, WFME, and other means that bring to your ears evangelicals teaching and preaching the Word of God.

Objection 1: Undermining the Permanent Authority of Biblical Teaching

9:38 And from those circles, there are presently, in our day, some very powerful, some very specious, but others, some very subtle, and in some cases, apparently convincing arguments against the teaching that we have seen together from the Word of God. And so what I wish to do is to take up those objections from within, those objections that come from perverse men within the pale of the evangelical church who would seek to lead us astray from the clear teaching of Scripture. And I have attempted to reduce all the various specifics of the objections really to three fundamental objections. And in the very nature of the case, I'll be doing a little more lecturing this morning than I normally do, less class involvement, but only because error is so repugnant to me I don't want to stretch this out any longer than we have to. And the first objection from within is this. You have evangelicals who admit that the teaching of the Bible clearly establishes male headship and female subordination as we have come to understand it, but they undermine the original and the permanent authority.

11:06 of that teaching. So there are those that admit that the teaching is there in the New Testament, but they undermine the original and the permanent authority of that teaching. Now let me try to illustrate it on the blackboard this way. And this piece of paper is just my diagrams drawn at my desk and I want to make sure I reproduce them.

11:32 Now here's the Word of God and here's the Word of God. Here are two Christians, a male and a female, and think of them as multiplied into a congregation in the first century. These are first century Christians. And these evangelicals would say that first century Christians receiving apostolic directives and apostolic epistles would indeed come to the understanding that this structure of male headship subordination, the headship of the male and female subordination was the teaching of the apostolic documents. So that when we pick up those same documents in the 20th century and open our Bibles on our laps as we have done here in Montville and we see from those documents a doctrine of female subordination, these people would say we are properly understanding the New Testament documents. However, while naming the name of evangelicals claiming to believe in a supernatural Bible, a supernatural Savior, and a supernatural salvation, their objection is that the original

13:01 directives given to these first century Christians really has no grounds to be authoritative over them, nor does it have any grounds to be authoritative over us. And perhaps the best-known spokesman of this particular position is a man by the name of Paul K. Seminary in Pasadena, California, and his book entitled Man as Male and Female the Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View was published in 1975. And that book has become, as it were, the veritable Bible of the so-called evangelical feminist movement. You find such women as Nancy Hardesty and Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mullincott, now just Virginia Ramey. She was Ramey Mullincott, but she's since been divorced, and I'll not go into the sordid reasons for that.

14:19 But the basic position of this man as clearly demonstrated from his own writings, and he's quoted in anyone who is taking up this subject, such as William Hurley and George Knight's book, to put it in the simplest terms possible, Jewett says, yes, the New Testament documents, particularly the teaching of Paul in Corinthians and in 1 Timothy chapter 2 and in 1 Corinthians 11, teaches a doctrine of male headship and female subordination. However, that aspect of Paul's teaching was not the result of the direct ministry of the Holy Spirit so guiding the thinking and the writing of Paul that what he gave was to be constituted the infallible inerrant Word of God, the permanent deposit of divine will and purpose for the Church in all ages.

15:23 What we have in these passages is Paul, the imperfectly sanctified saint, which he himself confessed he was, Romans chapter 7,

15:35 and in many other places, we have him expressing a view of male and female roles and relationships that had been, as it were, pummeled into him in his rabbinical training. And though he was a converted man, though he was a child of God, though he was a child of God, and a bona fide apostle, when he began to try to prove this structure of male headship and female subordination and to root it in the doctrine of creation, to root it in the doctrine of the fall and in particular the woman's prior activity in the whole complex of the event of the fall as we find in 1st Peter, 1st Timothy chapter 2, Paul was writing more out of the remaining prejudice of his rabbinical training than he was writing out of the matrix of being a man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now that basically is the teaching found on pages 134 and following of Jewett's books, 139 and 145. Well now, let me ask you, sitting there, I know some of you are feeling a sense of shock, and horror. How can a man who claims to be an evangelical treat the word of God that way?

Refutation of Objection 1: Rejection of Biblical Authority and Christ's Prophetic Office

17:02 Well, I hope you feel some of that sense of shock and horror and now I ask you what is our answer to this objection that comes from within the pale of the professing evangelical church? What is our answer to this objection? All right, Jerry?

17:29 All right, so you are saying then that this then is a rejection of biblical authority. Is that what you're saying? How many of you would agree with it? All right, and if we arbitrarily reject the authority of the apostle on this point saying he's writing out of the pressure of his rabbinic prejudice, why then do Jewett and many like him, when they come to this same apostle, writing on the redemptive standing that Jew and Gentile have in Christ, why are they so willing to receive his words as the plenary verbally inspired word of God?

18:10 For example, Galatians 3.28 is their great word. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, Jew nor Greek, ye are all in Christ. You see, I could just with as much authority say, oh no, but wait a minute.

18:31 In his reaction against the horrible prejudice with which he was brought up, against the Gentiles and against women and against slaves and people of a lower class, having discovered the great truth of our oneness in Christ and having been given a unique ministry to articulate that truth, that in Christ Jesus the middle wall has been broken down. What we have in Galatians 3.28 is the overreaction of an overly enthusiastic man who is so desirous of throwing away the baggage of his previous prejudice that he's indulging in rhetorical overstatement as though all these distinctions are utterly blurred. You see, once you start handling the word of God that way and set yourself up as a judge saying, what is to be regarded as pure inspiration of the spirit reflecting the mind and will of God and what is tarnished with the remaining sin of the author to decide by degrees

20:00 drive us back to what horrible system that claims to have a final arbiter as to what the Bible says. The papacy. That's right. Where you've got an infallible interpreter, the Pope, and when he meets in the council of his official leaders and makes a pronouncement, that is the Well, if I'm going to have a Pope, I'd rather have one that's been around for a while and at least has some of the dignity of the tradition of 15 to 1600 years than some professor who comes out of Fuller Seminary and assumes that role.

20:42 So whenever you see an argument like this, dear people, it should immediately send out all kinds of shock signals that here is a blatant, arrogant, authority of the word of the living God. You see, these people cherish Paul and Peter as inspired fallible penmen when it serves their cause, but when it does not serve their cause, they are prepared to call them poor, pathetic, perfectly unsanctified Christians, imperfectly sanctified Christians, whose prejudice mars their pronouncements. And this is not only an insult to the authors, it's an insult to God. As though God cannot overrule whatever remaining sin is in the human authors to give through them to us and to his people in all ages the infallible, inerrant, efficient word of the living God. And furthermore, it flies right into the face of Paul's explicit statement so you not only make him prejudiced, you make him an arrogant liar.

22:05 For you remember in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and verse 37,

22:13 at the end of giving these directives and this is one of the passages where they would say his rabbinical prejudice comes forth and is manifested by enjoining silence upon women in terms of the exercise of gifts of utterance in the mixed assembly. If any man thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things that I write unto you that they are the commandments of a prejudiced rabbinic scholar.

22:49 They are the commandments of the Lord.

22:54 So you see, you make Paul more than merely an imperfectly sanctified saint. You make him a downright liar and a misrepresenter of God. And the Bible has some serious things to say about people who do that. They go to hell.

23:12 All liars have their part in the lake of fire. So dear people, no matter how persuasive and no matter how much on the surface some of these arguments are couched in high blown language of scholarship, at the heart of it there is an arrogant insubordination to the word of God and unwillingness to bring every thought to the obedience of Jesus Christ. And the Bible makes it plain that a Christian is one who not only trusts in Christ as his only redeemer, that is, who sees Christ in his priestly functions as the only way of salvation but a Christian embraces him as his prophet and his king. His prophet to teach him and his king to rule over him and men will perish in hell just as much for refusing to embrace the word of Christ as they will perish for refusing to trust in the cross of Christ or refusing to bow to the crown of Christ. And in some the point of controversy is the priestly office, more dominantly. In some it is the kingly office.

24:33 In men like Jewett the point of controversy is the prophetic office of Christ. As the sole authoritative teacher in his church who gave unique authority to the apostles so that Paul says what I say are the untold answers speaking and the scripture says it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken unto that prophet shall be cut off from among the people. Dear people you cannot parcel out the son of God. He is prophet, priest, and king and if he is your redeemer he is your redeemer in the exercise of all three offices or he is not your redeemer at all. Alright? Now we come to the second argument coming from within the pale of the Christian church. The first one admits that what we say the teaching is as we've studied together that's accurate but it has no binding authority upon first century Christians and it has none upon us.

Objection 2: Denying the Timeless Relevance of Biblical Teaching (The 'Seed Principle' Argument)

25:41 Now the second category is this. While admitting that teaching of male headship and female subordination there is an acknowledgement of its authority in the original setting but its relevance this teaching says yes there are the documents and when Christians in the first century picked up those documents and saw that wives were to be subject to their husbands that women and men in mixed assembly it was the men who were to take the lead to teach and preach that was binding and that was regulative for New Testament church life in the period in which the documents came the first century however we come down here to the 20th century and from those scriptures see the teaching that was binding upon them but that teaching is not timeless unchangeable in fallible revelation of the will of God for the church in all ages no

27:10 that specific teaching is not binding upon now you see the difference between that first approach and this the first approach would say yes Paul and the other writers were writing that which was fitting and appropriate by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what they wrote was the infallible inerrant word of God for the church in the first century now they argued this way however what they taught represented a tremendous movement from where God's people had been in the past in other words there were certain positions and responsibilities and functions denied to women under the old covenant and when we turn to the testament we see that there is tremendous progression there were certain attitudes to women in the society of the first century and that which preceded it for example some of the rabbinical teaching that women it was useless to even try to teach them anything they couldn't learn they were mindless and unable to learn and when Paul then said in 1st Timothy 2 that I will that the women adorn themselves in such and such a way and I suffer not a woman to teach but to learn then they will that when Paul injected

28:40 the concept that the woman not only could learn but should learn he was taking a tremendous leap from the present climate of societal thinking and elevating the woman in the church to the position of an intelligent learner in other words he was nudging women into their ultimate flair by these documents however just as with the case of slavery the New Testament writers did not want to be the occasion of tremendous sociological foment in revolution they did not want to be so radical in their application of the principles that they caused a disintegration of the social order so and this is always one of their ploys they bring in the matter of slavery how does the New Testament treat slavery it doesn't condemn it as an institution patently the New Testament does condemn men stealing in first Timothy chapter one one of the sins that the law exposes is stealing men so it condemns what is often and certainly historically in the horrible institution of slavery as it was instituted in our own country these for the most part were men who had been stolen taken out of their villages and the rest in Africa and

30:10 forcibly brought over to England or to the states of the West Indies etc. but the institution itself in the epistles is not condemned it is accepted as an institution that is and what do the New Testament writers do they tell slaves how to relate to their masters they tell masters how to relate to their slaves but these people tell us in those very directives are seminal principles seed principles that when they were themselves out over the course of time they would ultimately lead to what the abolition of the institution of slavery itself wherever the Christian faith takes root and has any pervasive influence that latter statement true is that exactly what has happened would anyone want to deny that that's what happened no well here's what they say now in the same way in the New Testament you do not have a dismantling of the hierarchical structure that would have been too radical that would have been like saying and you masters who have slaves turn them loose or you slaves who have masters rise up and revolt against them had the New Testament said and you wives who have husbands who because of the sociological structure expect that you will be submissive to them but don't rise up and claim your rights rise up and have egalitarian marriages come along

31:38 the New Testament writers do that because that would have been wrong in itself halve but it would not have been the best way to go about it so what they did is they sowed seeds in these directives which if properly watered and nourished over the general influence of the gospel would eventually result in the total liberation of the woman so that now in the 20th century it is just as ludicrous to take these directives one for one as it would be to expect our women to wear a veil public worship or to wear sandals in order that they could fulfill the injunction as a godly woman to be one who washes the saints feet we've outgrown all of that now you see the argument and on the surface looks kind of convincing to show you that I'm not misrepresenting the argument and it's very current in a magazine that I often read in its entirety it's put out by the seven day adventist believe it or not but it has some excellent materials and once a year they have one of their editions particularly concentrating on the subject of the ministry it's called name of the magazine is ministry and in September 88 edition ordination of women a hermeneutical question an article by John C.

33:08 Brunt Ph.D. Dean of the School of Theology Walla Walla College College Place in the state of Washington and listen to what Dr. Brunt has to say and you'll notice how this concept of progression comes in if we take scripture in a principled contextual way and you see those terms immediately are meant to make all laymen go you read the article ordination of women hermeneutical question you say uh oh only the experts that word hermeneutical that scares me so you're already on your defenses then by the time you come down to page 13 you must understand we take scripture in a principled contextual way to discover the relevant New Testament passes that need to be considered as we discuss women's ordination for example Galatians 328 here Paul sets forth the principle that in Christ there is neither male nor female obviously this does not mean that sexual distinctions between male and female should be disregarded but it does mean that there are no longer any spiritual distinctions between male and female as there had been so definitely in Judaism in Christ they are equal now notice any attempt to deny salvation or

34:36 the exercise of spiritual gifts to women goes directly against the grain of this great principle well you see obviously Paul went against the grain then at the principle if it means not only equal standing in Christ but equal exercise of gifts because he told women even if they had the gift of prophecy they weren't to exercise it in the mixed assembly but to be silent but the good doctor seems to have overlooked that we find that the New Testament moves listen now moves in a definite direction toward the participation of women in ministry so he sees what he's saying in the New Testament it's moving somewhere but oh it stopped before the movement was over now follow now as I continue to read the Old Testament completely closed the priesthood to women but the New Testament sets forth the profound truth of the priesthood of all believers as though women could not worship in the temple under the Old Covenant oh that's naughty Dr. Brunt cheeky but he says it as a result amazing changes there was the court of the women as a result amazing changes come about in a short period of time Paul takes on women as co-workers such as Priscilla and Phoebe Romans 16.1 seems to indicate that Phoebe was a deacon not a deaconess as some translations

36:06 indicate did God's initiative in this new direction of involving women in ministry reach its climax in New Testament times that is when our Bible was being completed or did God intend the church to continue on today in the same direction see what he's saying this movement in the New Testament captures the movement but it does not describe it as a closed end reality helpful analogy and here comes slavery helpful old slavery although such questions are never easy an analogy can help us find a clear answer we know that in certain cases God intended the church to continue movement after New Testament times in the direction of revealed scriptures take the issue of slavery for instance in the New God set forth rules governing the practice of slavery in the New Testament in fact Galatians 3 28 the very same passage that speaks to the oneness of male and female in Christ Paul sets forth the principle there is no slave or free in Christ yet he does not completely forbid the practice of slavery now as a Seventh-day Adventist who believes in ongoing revelation through prophets

37:35 now here's the Achilles heel of his denomination they can't fight him the way we can because he says in his next paragraph if we accept Ellen White and she was their prophet that God did however if we accept Ellen White however we recognize God did not intend the church to stop with the New Testament for Ellen White forbade the practice of slavery altogether she went so far as to suggest that those who permitted or advocated the continuation of slavery should not have a place within the fellowship of the church obviously God intended movement in the direction that the New Testament pointed then he says now how do we apply the principles to today how do we know whether God or not God expects continued progress in breaking down spiritual barriers that stand between men and women how do we know whether it's consistent with New Testament principles to ordain women to gospel ministry today I believe there is evidence that God does expect continued progress I believe there's evidence that God does want us to open the doors of ministry to all of his children I believe there's evidence that within the cultural milieu of North America today God does intend to invite women into full participation in ministry including ordination and then he gives his three reasons and here I'll only summarize number one I see in scripture

39:04 the spiritual oneness of male and female the priesthood of all believers and these lead in the direction of full participation of male and female and he says in American context in essence where the feminist movement is pressing for total leveling of all male distinctions if the church doesn't follow suit she'll have no testimony that's his argument number one number two he said I find women sensing God's call to prepare for the ministry totally subjective number three I see the blessing of God upon the ministry of women he says I sit under women elders and women preachers and they bless my soul well that's what he says summary I've read and re-read his article so I don't misrepresent it alright now the same argument is used by people like Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty there's a element of this sophistry in all of their writings one article called Paul our friend and they seized upon this thing that I suffer not a woman to teach but to learn they said that was a radical statement now the Holy Spirit who moved Paul to say I want women to learn would in our day now that society has changed the context so it would not be revolutionary or so radical as to overturn the fabric of society let us now carry on

Refutation of Objection 2: Attack on Scripture's Nature and Misuse of Cultural Adaptation

40:33 the movement that began in the New Testament but which now must be completed well in the three minutes that remain what do we say to this argument and here again I must in the interest of time though I'd love to draw it out of you first of all this is a frontal attack upon the nature of scripture is scripture a time for Christians or is it the time less sufficient revelation of the will of God for the church in all ages until the coming of Christ all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for teaching reproof correction instruction and righteousness that the man of God in any age in every age may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work what this does is it leaves the present church without a sufficient and adequate revelation of the mind and will of God for its life and practice it leaves us at the tyranny of the experts all we can do is look back and try to capture what wisps of movement were moving through the New Testament and then if we can catch one of those like the surfer looking for the perfect wave we get our surfboard of exegesis and theology upon its crest and we ride it with no chart

42:02 no guide but our own subjection and the pressures of a godless society I tell you I wanted to weep every time I look at the smiling face of John C. Brunt Ph.D. I say poor man evil man who would cast such aspersions upon that blessed book it attacks the very nature of scripture secondly it fails to distinguish between privilege in redemption and role and function and these are never rooted in sociological factors of the first century they are not rooted in the prejudice of the biblical writers they are rooted again and again in creation and in the fall factors that predate any culture factors that are as binding upon us now as they were thirty seconds after Adam ate the fruit from the hand of Eden slavery has never put in that context there is never any polemic for the order of slavery rooted in any divinely structured activity in creation or redemption so to bring in slavery as a parallel put loose and fancy free with the word of God there is a fundamental difference between the New Testament

43:31 directives to slaves and masters and kings and subjects and the directives to husbands and wives and the place of women in the church and those distinctions are very clear and then thirdly the article fails to come to grips with what I would call the true nature of cultural adaptation of the word of God we do believe that there are cultural adaptations of the timeless word of God let me illustrate if you were to ask me pastor do you believe the command repeated five times in the New Testament four times greet or salute warmly greet one another with a holy kiss Peter says greet one another with a kiss of love do you believe that that is a binding commandment of God upon 20th century Christians what do you think my answer is yes or no that's an imperative but now the question is the only way to obey that actually to take my lips and plant them upon the cheek or the lips of every brother and every sister that I see and greet no this is where we recognize that what Paul and Peter were doing was taking the ordinary mode of greeting then existent in the first century and he was saying make the ordinary mode of social greeting a distinctively Christian mode of greeting

45:00 make it the holy kiss as an expression of Christian love and affection and apparently many in the New Testament community without express written apostolic warrant what they may have said that is not recorded we do not know would even add to that a greeting a key word let's conjecture that the word maranatha even so come may have been one of the words with which Christians greeted or said goodbye to one another so they may have had peculiar ways of expressing it but you see here was a peculiar cultural adaptation of the inner principle which is that Christians are sold to maintain a relationship of no backlog of ill will and unresolved tensions that they can at any time and any place greet one another with a greeting consistent with their cultural setting that is distinctively Christian so when I take your hand and grasp your shoulder and say good to see you my brother good to see you my sister I'm obeying the commandment greet one another with a holy kiss with some of you I can embrace you with my arms and you feel comfortable with that others can even take a kiss upon the cheek and there is in terms of our various cultural backgrounds yes there is a proper cultural adaptation

Conclusion and Prayer Against Error

46:30 when the scripture says a widow that's to be enrolled must be someone who has washed the saint's feet do we go around looking for a widow who's got a track record of washing feet and say nobody's qualified expression of having a servant's heart in that context and we would say the application is it must be a widow who shows she has a servant's heart by doing those things that express her heart of service appropriate in the cultural framework that's the proper use of the doctrine of cultural adaptation not this kind of dribble so dear people that's the stuff that's being said within the church and it ought to make us weep but I hope God will immunize us and God willing we'll take the third and last one next week let's pray that God will write his word upon us our father we cannot speak of error lightly for we know that ideas either elevate sanctify and save or deceive degrade and damn oh God to hate damning ideas help us to loathe them like we would the smell and the sight of an open sewer may we be able to say with the psalmist

47:59 I esteem all your precepts concerning all things to be right therefore I every false way Lord we hate the false ways of Dr. Brunt bring them to naught blow upon the may the enemy of our souls not take advantage of even this much exposure of those thoughts ever to cause them to germinate in the heart of anyone in this place Lord as we subject our bodies to a mild dose of a disease that we might build up an immunity so may what we've heard today act like a good successful inoculation against all of these diseased thoughts of men we ask in Jesus name Amen