In the Book of
Proverbs, God lays
out a list before us
of what are often
called the "Seven
Deadly Sins." They
earned that
nickname, not
because those sins
will cause a
believer to lose his
salvation, but
because they are the
most destructive
sins to a believer's
spiritual progress
before the Lord.
"These six
things doth the LORD
hate: yea, seven are
an abomination unto
Him: A proud look, a
lying tongue, and
hands that shed
innocent blood, An
heart that deviseth
wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift
in running to
mischief, A false
witness that
speaketh lies, and
he that soweth
discord among
brethren." (Proverbs
6:17-19)
We'll go
through them in
depth as we go on.
But first, note that
God HATES the first
six on the list.
Note even more
carefully His
opinion of the
seventh -- it is an
ABOMINATION to Him.
The first
deadly sin on the
list is pride.
Although it doesn't
make the
'abomination'
category, it is the
first step on the
road that leads
there.
Pride is the
most insidious sin,
since it might
easily be termed the
'silent' sin. Its
very nature prevents
us from either
recognizing it in
ourselves or
admitting to it when
it is finally
recognized (usually
by somebody else.)
God hates
pride. 'Pride' is
arguably the seminal
sin of the universe
out of which all
other sin arises.
The first recorded
sin in the history
of the universe was
not the fall of man,
but the fall of
Lucifer.
"How art thou
fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of
the morning! how art
thou cut down to the
ground, which didst
weaken the nations!"
(Isaiah 14:12)
What follows
is Satan's
indictment, often
called the five 'I
wills' -- each of
which are the
byproduct of
Lucifer's pride.
"For thou hast
said in thine heart,
I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt
my throne above the
stars of God: I will
sit also upon the
mount of the
congregation, in the
sides of the north:
I will ascend above
the heights of the
clouds; I will be
like the most High."
(14:13)
Some preachers
have made the case
that sin can be
defined through this
passage. "I will" --
rather than "God's
will." It's pithy
and elliptical --
and even accurate,
up to a point -- but
it doesn't quite hit
the bullseye. Close,
but not exact.
If one were
seeking to locate
the root and branch
of sin, "I will" is
a lesser included
offense, so to
speak, but not the
original sin. "I
will" is merely the
outward expression
of the original sin
of pride.
If you take
God's list in order,
"pride" is first
because without it,
the rest of them
haven't a leg to
stand on.
The secular
dictionary defines
'pride' thusly: "A
sense of one's own
proper dignity or
value;
self-respect."
Pride breeds
lies. Why do people
lie? Generally
speaking, it is to
conceal some secret
that would make them
look bad. There is a
standing joke in
prison that the one
thing all inmates
have in common is
that they are
innocent.
Even after
having served their
time, few convicts
own up to the crimes
for which they were
convicted, even
though vindication
wouldn't give them
back their time
served. It is gone
forever, so why
bother continuing to
deny it? Pride.
"Hands that
shed innocent blood"
immediately brings
abortion to the
forefront of my
mind. Why are
abortion records
kept secret? After
the abortion is
accomplished, the
'problem' is
'solved'. It isn't
illegal to have an
abortion, so there
is no legal jeopardy
attached to having
had one. The records
are sealed to
protect the privacy
(and pride) of the
perpetrator.
And while
there are many
'reasons' for
wanting to get an
abortion, when they
are distilled down
to their essence,
one will find pride
in there somewhere.
The pro-life slogan,
"It's MY body" is an
expression of pride.
The abortion
destroys the baby's
body, not the
mothers.
"A woman's
right to choose" is
another. A pregnant
woman already made
her choice when she
did the deed that
produced the
pregnancy. Claiming
a special 'right' to
a SECOND choice to
correct the first
wrong choice -- as
an expression of the
uniqueness of
womanhood, is rooted
in pride.
Men are
expressly forbidden
the same 'right' to
correct a wrong
choice. And not only
is their sin NOT
concealed, it is a
matter of public
record, accessible
by anybody searching
through
court-ordered child
support records.
The identities
of those who
actually shed
innocent blood are
protected, to
protect their pride.
Those just as
involved in the
creation of the
child, but who have
no say in the matter
of abortion, are
often held up to
public ridicule. (Or
even imprisonment)
The 'innocent
blood' shed in the
process is secondary
to protecting the
reputation of those
who shed it. I would
venture to bet that
there would be lots
fewer abortions if
there were a legal
requirement to post
the particulars of
an abortion in a
local paper, the way
the law requires
public notification
of a death, an
estate, or a
bankruptcy.
A heart
devising 'wicked
imaginations' and
feet that are 'swift
to be running in
mischief' would be
less divisive and
less swift if the
particulars were
certain to be
published on the
front page of the
newspaper, even when
no crime has been
committed.
We've
discussed pride's
role in bearing
false witness, and
now we come to that
final
pride-sponsored
abomination, "he
that soweth discord
among brethren."
Ever find
yourself in a
discussion over
doctrine that turns
nasty? Where what
ostensibly began as
an effort to
'straighten out'
someone else's
doctrinal error
degenerates into an
argument over whose
understanding of
doctrine is the
correct one?
You can tell
when it has made
that shift from
discussion to debate
to argument, even if
you aren't part of
it. It becomes less
about the doctrine
in question and more
about who is right.
Even after
both sides have
agreed to disagree,
the debate lingers
as each side waits
for an advantage,
some unrelated event
or circumstance that
will re-open the
debate and give one
side or the other a
hope for the
opportunity to say,
"Aha! Told ya!"
Pride, by its
insidious nature,
blinds us to the
fact (obvious to
most observers) that
the goal of the
debate has morphed.
It's no longer about
the doctrine. It's
about being right.
The debate
about the timing of
the Rapture is a
perfect example. It
is a given that,
when two genuinely
saved, born-again
Christians start
debating the timing
of the Rapture, both
sides sincerely
believe that they
are right. Why else
would they want to
argue about it?
What neither
side can articulate
very effectively is
what difference the
timing of the
Rapture makes to
their own salvation.
Or what difference
it makes to the
mission of leading
souls to Christ.
A pre-trib
Rapturist is no more
saved than a
post-Trib Rapturist.
One is saved by
grace through faith
in Christ, not by
faith in Christ's
appointment
calendar. An
understanding of the
timing of the
Rapture is necessary
to rightly dividing
the Word insofar as
understanding the
Bible's prophetic
outline.
But we aren't
saved by our
understanding of the
Bible's prophetic
outline. It isn't
when He comes that
saves us, it is
faith in the One Who
is coming.
But spend a
little time reading
through some of the
debates and it is
hard to find much
about Christ in
them. It's about
being right. Pride.
Bragging rights.
Proverbs says
that 'pride goeth
before destruction,
and an haughty
spirit before a
fall." (16:18)
In our forums,
debates about the
timing of the
Rapture has driven
many members right
out of our
fellowship. Those
who remain are
vindicated -- some
even rejoice at
having driven such a
one away.
Nobody has
learned anything
from the exchange
except which party
is the better
debater. Each side
remains convinced of
their own position,
because the goal is
to defend their own
view, not consider
the merits of the
other side.
And pride
won't allow us to
see that the damage
being caused in the
process far
outweighs any
eternal value that
might be gleaned
from winning over a
post-tribber to the
pre-trib side.
Salvation is
by grace through
faith in Christ.
Nowhere does the
timing of the
Rapture play a role.
Nothing of eternal
value is obtained by
driving away a
brother or sister
from fellowship over
an issue that can
never be proved
until after the
fact.
It serves only
to spread
unnecessary discord
among brethren,
which the Scriptures
identify as an
'abomination before
the Lord'.
The discussion
at hand in today's
briefing isn't the
timing of the
Rapture -- it is the
insidious nature of
the sin of pride. It
sneaks up on us,
unawares. By the
time we recognize
the role it plays,
(if ever) it is too
late to undo the
damage its caused.
It shatters
relationships,
spreads discord
among brethren,
damages the shared
mission of all
Christians -- to
demonstrate the
truth that, "God so
loved the world,
that He gave His
only begotten Son,
that whosoever
believeth in Him
should not perish,
but have everlasting
life." (John 3:16)
There are
doctrinal
differences between
Christians because
that is the way God
has ordained it to
be.
In the Book of
Genesis, we read of
Nimrod's efforts to
rally the whole
world to his cause,
to build a tower
that would thwart
God's effort at
judgment in the
event of another
flood.
To prevent the
whole world from
falling under the
sway of one man's
heresy, God confused
the languages and
divided the world
into nations,
confusing their
languages so that
they would be able
to form their own
opinions about God's
will for their lives
without the
influence of a
single, powerful
human leader.
Within the
Church, there are
doctrinal
differences between
denominations that
serve the same
purpose.
Interestingly, it is
only AFTER those
doctrinal divisions
are 'taken out of
the way' at the
Rapture that the
antichrist is free
to advance his own
personal doctrine,
whereby he seizes
control of the
global religion and
declares himself to
be God.
His plan could
never work during
the Church Age.
Christians can't
even agree among
themselves about the
details of the
Eternal God, despite
the fact they were
revealed by God
Himself, let alone
buy into the unified
doctrine of
antichrist.
There is but
one universal
Christian doctrine,
summed up in Acts
4:12:
"Neither is
there salvation in
any other: for there
is none other name
under heaven given
among men, whereby
we must be saved."
(Acts 4:12)
The Apostle
Paul addressed the
doctrinal divisions
that had already
stirred up the pride
of the early Church,
as some Christians
declared themselves
followers of Peter,
and others,
followers of Paul.
"Him that is
weak in the faith
receive ye, but not
to doubtful
disputations."
(Romans 14:1)
There is
probably no better
example of a
'doubtful
disputation' than
the timing of the
Rapture.
As Paul noted
in his letter to the
Corinthians; "What?
came the word of God
out from you? or
came it unto you
only?" We teach what
we believe, but
nobody should be
forced to agree with
every detail in
order to keep
fellowship. We are
all one in Christ as
sinners saved by
grace.
I am convinced
of a pre-trib
Rapture, but if
somebody wants to
reject that in favor
of another view, his
eternity is not in
jeopardy. Just his
understanding.
As to endless
debate about
peripheral details
not related to
salvation, Paul
says, "But if any
man be ignorant, let
him be ignorant."
(1st Corinthians
14:36,38)
In addressing
the minor doctrinal
divisions of his
day, Paul writes,
"One man esteemeth
one day above
another: another
esteemeth every day
alike. Let every man
be fully persuaded
IN HIS OWN mind."
(Romans 14:5)
The operative
phrase here is for
each man to be fully
persuaded of his own
doctrine in his OWN
mind. If someone has
a question, I will
spend all the time
necessary to answer
it.
But debating
the answer is both a
waste of time and an
exercise in pride. I
can't fully persuade
somebody else's
mind. Nor would I
want to. Rather, it
is my job to present
the facts as I
understand them and
let the Holy Spirit
take it from there.
He is able.