john said:
There were a number of things that concerned me at the church my wife and I attended last Sunday. I thought I would collect them in one post.
1. One of the songs we sang during the service had a line to the effect (not exact words)
"He paid our debt so that we could become his righteousness"
This struck me as completely backwards. Does not Christ become our righteousness? Or more appropriately, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.
Methinks at best the wording is poor although it probably goes far beyond that. Today, theological accuracy (true to biblical teaching) is not a priority apparently. 2Cor 5:21b says, "...that we might become the righteousness of God in him.", which is a far cry from "...we could become his righteousness."
john said:
2. Another song we sang was written in the first person where the first person was Christ, e.g. (again not exact words),
"I came to die for you, I came to save you"
Is it appropriate for a hymn to be written in the first person where Christ/God is the first person? The more I think about it, the more I disagree with it. It seems songs/hymns like this are becoming more common.
Unless the words are a direct quote or a very accurate paraphrase of that which God spoke, I believe this qualifies as a violation of Rev 22:18, 19 (adding to or taking away from Scripture). Additionally, the phrase is theologically wrong if used as a universal application of Christ's death and atonement. If Christ actually died for everyone and if it was His purpose to save everyone, then ALL without exception would be infallibly saved.
john said:3. The sermon text was 1 Cor. 7. On verse 18
Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? (R)He is not to be circumcised.
the pastor made the comment that to become uncircumcised was a medical procedure in the 1st century where circumcised people could physically have the foreskin restored. I have never heard this before. I always thought the proper interpretation was circumcised=Jews and uncircumcised=Gentiles. So, to be uncircumcised would mean to turn your back on your Jewish heritage or to leave Judaism. Is the pastor correct in his interpretation?
Perhaps you should offer to preach in this pastor's place?
Your understanding of Scripture, at least on this particular passage, is far better than his. And, I seriously doubt that physicians of the 1
st century had the knowledge, skills nor surgical tools to accomplish "uncircumcision". Admittedly, the idea he had was novel but I think hardly what the Spirit of God intended when He inspired Paul to write that passage.
Okay, 3 strikes and they're out!
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/mooseball.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
