Which Side of the Cross - Lesson 16

Alright, question. And I saw this in an interview and I knew this came up. So I want to get how you'd respond. It was with a Baptist professor, I think, five kids. Actually, he did a great job, I think. But they asked the question and they brought it up because I think it was Bill Gates. when he was young, went to a Lutheran church and asked, why is there war and suffering? So, it was actually Stuart Varney, well this is probably, yeah, Stuart Varney on the Fox Business was interviewing him, and he said, he told about Bill Gates and this, and then he said, how do you respond to how God allowed this?

Flooding in, excuse me, flooding in Houston, and all this is going on. How do you respond to that? I think it brings you closer to God. Okay. So he allowed it to bring closer to God. Other answers? It's the consequences of sin. Consequences of sin. Others? I'm curious, I think this was a very pertinent question.

I remember when I was first coming to know the Lord, I think I was asking Hebert about why do they allow war? And those questions come up by non-believers. I think believers will understand, but this is to a non-believer. What do you say to a non-believer when this happens? A tornado, a hurricane, whatever.

Well, I thought it was a good one and I thought it was very pertinent because I think you're going to get this kind of question. Yeah. So for an unbeliever, I would ask the question, what's wrong with it in the first place? Why is it wrong to you? Because if you have a sense of morality... Well, let me strut.

If God is loving, how did he let this happen? You say God is love. Because if he loved me, why did he flood my house? And why did he let my neighbor die? But it goes back to the fact that you have a sense of right and wrong because you're frustrated about this, right? Like this is something that you believe shouldn't have happened. And you think possibly God is a cause of it, or there's another cause, but why do you have a sense of morality in the first place? Because that's really, at the end of the day, they take, unbelievers take right and wrong for granted and they allow themselves to sit and judge whether something is right or wrong on a basis.

But God is loving. How did he flood my house? Why is there love? What does love mean then? That's the point. I'm just playing. Yeah, I know. That's the point. And that's where you need to draw people's presuppositions out because they're presupposing that there's a right and wrong, which we agree. But why do you have a basis for right and wrong in the first place? And once you get to that root of how do you determine what is right and wrong, then you have a conversation to be had. You see, is it loving to destroy my house?

Well, a lot of people think God is loving. Well, no, that's their question against God. They hear that God is love and that you're loving Christians and all this. So they may not know it, but we know that God is love. But that's what, you know, How does he love me? I can't understand that. Did he love me and he destroyed my house? The point is that I would go back to the same question.

What makes you think that God's in love with you? Well, that's what you Christians say. Who said I said that? Okay, is God love? No, you've got to answer my question. I'm answering it. I want to know. God, you say, I think loving Christians. Is God love? He is. Okay, then how did he allow this? Because you're basing God's love on your personal view of it.

So why do I want to follow a God who allowed my house to be flooded? That needs a lot of money. I mean, these are very pertinent questions, you know. So, I mean, I think we have to be prepared to answer those things. Well, I would say back to them, you deserve God's love. Yeah, I think, yeah. What makes you think you do? I guess, if God is love, why doesn't he love me?

Well, see, I would go to then, he did, he gave us his son. I think also the other is that he's using this to draw everybody to his son, both believers and non-believers. And believers who know him understand it comes from his hand. Those who are not believers, it's to draw you to his son. He does love you. He loved you enough to give us his son. And this is just a way to draw you to Him. Dependency. And this is a means to do it.

Believers know this and understand this. And you see that in some of the responses that I've seen. The great responses by the faith community. in Texas were pretty evident. In fact, when I was watching Fox Business at Varney, he was saying, I keep seeing all these reports and they keep talking about faith down there. They keep talking about faith and how this impacts.

That's when he asked this guy that question. I think it's a pertinent thing that I think we should think about the answer because you know and you know not that that was the whole cause but you know he said Bill Gates went into a church when he was young and he asked that and they they gave didn't give him an answer or it was totally offensive to him and then he he basically gave up the church after that so let me ask you something you know I have a friend that She killed herself in the meanwhile. But she used to say, how could God be there because we have war? And I said, well, he hasn't caused the war. We've caused the war. We've made all these problems. So he wasn't going to dig in and help us or anything. We caused it. Yeah.

Well, I think also kind of in corollary to that was The fact that, I guess they're bringing out that the response to a lot of this Christian was kind of offensive or it was like, what are all these faith people and this and all this junk that they're bringing up? I think a lot of it, the answer to is the world rejected Christ.

They crucified him. They still reject Him now. And that all this faith and all this that's being exhibited, the world still rejects Him. And for wars and different things, they reject Him. So there's war. The world doesn't accept Him. So they will fight, they will do all these different things because they've rejected Him. So we have a gift of salvation through Christ. He offered us, even through all that, He offered us Christ.

What was the guy's answer? Sort of that. Sort of the dependency and that God is still in control and that he's using it kind of for his purpose. I can't remember the exact words. But it wasn't bad. Even though the Baptist wasn't a legal response. It was pretty good. I can't remember exactly, but it just made me think of it.

A question that I think we may get asked as we go through this is, if you come before unbelievers, how do you explain this? And I think we should think about how our response is. with this person whose house was destroyed, he would say, my next door neighbor has been trying to share this Jesus thing with me for 10 years, and his house is flooded just like mine. Yeah.

Well, and see, I think he, believers down there can use it mightily. You know, I'm not tied to the worldly things. You know, my house is gone, but still have the Lord, still have, you know, and that's the focus. I think he can use believers down there in an amazing way, and I think he is.

A lot of the responses, like you said, when you see the responses, a lot of them are faith-based. I mean, you know, the Lord, and they're praising the Lord, or, you know, he got me through this, you know, all these different things, at least bringing some focus to Christ. So, again, one of his purposes, think how many people are hearing this. When a question like that is answered in whatever way it's disguised, we have to be careful not to allow someone, like an unbeliever, to put God on the stand.

Because that's what that question does. And you have to reword the question. If you answer that question and you're not careful about it, you could be playing into that same It's just how their response is. I think it's not right or wrong, but I think you really have to think about your answers is I guess my point.

How would we respond to that? How do you respond to that? How do you respond when a tornado comes through here and wipes out That's what Peter talks about, to be prepared for the hope that you have when you're asked. That question is not a question, that question is an offensive question and it puts us as believers and it puts the Lord on a defensive position. defensive mode.

So it's important to talk to that person to the point where you can actually get to the root of the problem and not be wrestling with the leaves at the top of the tree. Because that will get you into a word battle back and forth with folks and at the end of the day We do have a basis for love.

We have a basis for right and wrong. But you have to understand what their basis is for determining that God is wrong for doing this. Well, I go back to that they reject Christ. The unbeliever rejects, or the world rejects Christ. They have a place in something, and that's where we've got to figure it out.

What are you placing your morality on? And those conversations are not always fun and they don't always have fruit tied to the end of them after an hour long. But if you can maintain a walk with the Lord and composure through those circumstances, you can find out really where they're coming from and where they're making those morality decisions. See, mine goes back to God uses all things. He's put you in that position and no matter what you say or do or whatever, He's put you in that position for a purpose and a reason. And even if you don't have the best answer, it starts the conversation.

And that's, you know, I just go back to all things. And I remember, I think Mike used to say, you know, he was an early believer. He'd go down and he'd say the right things to the wrong people or the wrong time with the right people and whatever it was, you know. And I was like, I don't believe that. I think it was meant to be. Again, last week I was looking at that, but three fingers, it was working on you that day, instead of maybe that guy, or that woman, or whoever.

He's using all things, and for both parties. We tend to be very one dimensional, looking that way, but God is nth dimensional. He's looking at all things, all times, all things put together, time, space, everything. Anyway, just a thought as I went through the week. That's like one of the biggest philosophical questions of all time. You just bring it up as the very first thing.

Just a little touch to start the class. Solve world peace and hunger, but other than that we got it. One last thing, God was pretty upset with all the southerners, but everybody north of there is just fine. They're all just great, wonderful people. I think there's another hurricane coming. I'm sorry, this is rabbit trail day. I always wonder when these people, when they interview people. You know, the plane takes off, you miss the connection, the plane crashes. And you thank the Lord that he kept you off that plane. What about the Christian that was on that plane? Did God not love him or her? I mean, this is the engineering mind that goes crazy. Why is he giving that person more time? He's not done with that person.

And actually, the second best day of a believer's life is when? When they go home. So, they're done with that person, that one believer who was on the plane. They're every month as blessed as you who missed the plane. But our mind goes to, oh, that poor believer who was on the plane.

You know, I just thought, these are randomness that give you some, you know, on a Labor Day weekend when you're thinking and you have extra time, when we're having barbecue tomorrow, you can be pontificating these things. or bring up those questions to somebody.

We can ask other people at the picnic about this question. You can get their responses to them. Anyway, moving on, moving on. We are on Lesson 16, which, by the cross, you live on. Lesson 16, and we'll begin with Question 7. And it is in this regard, is there any occasion when I can exercise all of my rights as a Christian? And looking at 1 Corinthians 9, 4-12, I'll read that.

Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Who at any time serves a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? I am speaking these things according to human judgment, am I not? Or does not the law also say these things? For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. God is not concerned about oxen, is he? Or is he speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written. Because a plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

If he sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ." Okay, so, about the question, do we have the right, can I exercise all of my rights as a Christian?

Are these statements of logic or logical imperative, all these questions and responses? Isn't it about the situation? Well, yeah, he's going through a whole bunch of different situations, different ones, you know, the ox, you know, you muzzle him, he's doing the work, and it was actually, they didn't muzzle the ox, the ox were able to eat the threshing floor. Is he laying out evidential facts? Right, he's setting up all the logical imperatives or these logical situations that will show what in the end?

That's principally the way in answering your question. Yeah, so what is, well, we'll go to, you know, all of them are logical, they're all in the present, you know, so continuous and complete action, they're active and indicative, except for the soldier and that's in the middle voice and you're participating.

The rest of this, after all those, is the biblical truths. All these logical situations come up. The ox, the plow, the shepherd, and the flock, and drinking the milk, and all those different things. But in the end, the key verse is 12. If others share the right over you, do we not more? So, I have the right. I can do this. Do all these, you know, if-thens, basically. Does the ox get muzzled? No, he's free to eat. Does the shepherd partake of the milk of the flock? Yes, he does, because it's his flock. All these different things.

So, isn't it logical, if I do the work, that I get paid or remunerated for? That's Paul's conclusion at the end. the verse 12, if others share the right over you, do we not more? All these logicals. Now, should we be paid or should we exercise our right to be remunerated for our teaching, for what we're doing? What's Paul's answer?

Well, if you were a Jew, I'd be able to get paid. So it should be an instant. Yeah, here's your pay. You just did whatever you did. So what does he say in the end here? I will not be paid. Nevertheless, we did not use this right. Even though we're doing all this and we're thoroughly justified in being remunerated for this, he says, nevertheless, we did not use this right. But what is the end of it? But we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. So what was his rationale? Perfect. That's exactly what he says.

I will not do anything, even though I have the right to do it, or the privilege. Aaron and I were talking about that on the way in. Right versus privilege. Although here it says right. Also verse 18 says it pretty well too. That is my reward, just this, that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it. Right. Again, basically about the rites. He has a right to do it. He gives all these examples of, you know, if this, then they're able to be remunerated, or the ox is able to eat, or whatever.

But he says, nevertheless, we did not use this rite. And the reason was, just what Adrian said was, so it would not cause any hindrance to the gospel. The question was, in regard, is there any occasion when I can exercise all of my rights as a Christian? Yes, I guess there is. I guess the answer is yes, you can, but should you in all instances exercise your rights or privileges under grace?

No, Paul is emphatic here. Anything that hinders the gospel I'm not going to exercise my privilege or what I have under grace. I'm not going to do it because that will hinder the gospel. So that was the underlying principle. into all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel. My question to you is, then, the men who did take support while in the ministry, were they cynical? No. It depends on if they're hindering.

This came up in the Brethren Church. The Brethren Church don't have paid pastors, and some of them don't even pay anything to their elders. And the reason was because paying them for the gospel was wrong. So, the question is, is that correct or not? Are you saying that a minister shouldn't be paid? That's what the brethren say. Brethren usually do not support their teaching pastor or even the elders. In many instances. Or for a long time they didn't. I think they do now. But is that right or wrong?

Remember Paul was an apostle sent by God with a message. A little bit different than a man who is a pastor of a local fellowship. nurturing and growing right along with other people. He's got a family to support. He would be sitting if he doesn't. Well, Paul had to support himself. Not that he had a family. He was going from place to place. Not that he didn't build up the believers. Don't misunderstand. But his ministry was not that. It was to begin and to go on according to the work of the Spirit through him.

I would add to that, I think that's a good point, is that we need to be careful here because Paul is giving a defense for his apostleship based on the unbelievers in Corinth speaking to believers. And the believers were taking the same arguments of the world of, is Paul the actual founder and apostle of this church? And based on that question, they had all of these different points of frustration about him that he is trying to to defend and clarify because of his apostleship alone, not because of his justice ministry. They were questioning whether or not he was an apostle based on whether or not he took or didn't take. So he was having to give a defense for his apostleship to those folks. I think that is why verse 12 is there. There's a lot of that subterfuge going on behind the scenes.

So what did Paul do? Paul says, I'm not going to take anything. So there's no question that would hinder the gospel. So all that other stuff that was going on, he says, I'm not even going to have that as a possibility to hinder the spread of the gospel.

So he said he stepped back from his right to be paid. And I'm not going to do it because of all this subterfuge that's going on all over everywhere and all this questioning. He's getting paid. He's just coming in to steal money from us and spew all this stuff. All that stuff was going on. He said, I'm not even going to go there.

So again, what kind of went in the brethren stuff was, if you got paid, would it be a hindrance to the spreading of the gospel? Actually, there is a pastor down in Houston that is now being questioned for multi-gazillion dollars. I refrain from tape, but lots of things going on. Lots of money and lots of things, and are they questioning what his motive is? Same thing with Paul.

I don't ever want that even to be a problem. That'll never be a problem. If I don't get paid, it's not even going to be a problem. It won't be a hindrance. So, he had the right to be paid. The whole thing is that he had the right, but what is the principle we're working on in this grace? Love. He did it out of love for those who he was bringing the gospel to. He did not choose to exercise his privilege Because in love, he didn't want to hinder the gospel. And in verse 18, same thing. I don't want to be paid if this is going to be a problem.

So the key or the principle under this, the underlying principle is love. Okay? All right. Well, question eight. What was Paul willing to give up in order to advance the gospel? We basically said that. So what was he willing to be giving up? Not to be paid. Not to be paid. But he was giving up his privilege to be paid out of love. So what does that look like for us? You know, I think that's the whole thing here is we have so much liberty and grace.

But if we do it, it's like when Mike I was saying, you know, one of the tapes was, you know, my brother's a Catholic and I just like to irritate his socks by doing certain things. Well, he may be able to say some things out of drawing him to Christ, but if he's doing it out of just irritating his socks, is that done in this principle of love? No. And that's kind of where a modern day, I guess, maybe you weren't here, Mike was saying his brother is Catholic and sometimes I just like to give it to him and irritate him. Well, what's the motive behind that? Is that love and drawing him to Christ? I don't know. You know, it's just one of those things where I think, you know, anything that I think you do that we have the privilege, we have so much liberty under grace. It's tremendous.

Galatians 5.1, stand fast in the liberties.

Don't go under these rules and regulations and put yourself back under that. But, this principle is, in love, don't exercise that in a malicious way or a motive that is not in love. We'll give up some of those liberties, as Paul does here, because we love the brother or sister. And again, it gets real sensitive, we go back, it's repetitive, I'm sorry, but stumbling versus offense, we confuse those a lot, and we've tried to delineate where people going against, you know, I just hate the way you dress.

You know, whatever. That's not anything we should be concerned about. but we do and as in last week we talked about we don't we don't focus on those things that are positive in the scripture that are logical imperative commands that say you know rejoice always all those things we talked about last week we don't focus on those we focus on yeah you know he went bowling last Friday night they had a bar there you know we worry about all that stuff but we don't Focus on the things that are positive. Rejoice always. Be anxious for nothing.

All these things. we've gone through a whole litany of things, but getting to the point where love is the underlying principle too. Don't you think it's because it's a priority in that person that you just give because you love to teach or to help or whatever, it comes from your heart, so payment should be Well, in Paul's instance, that's payment. In today's, there's a whole bunch of different things. The whole principle is in love.

You're willing to give up some of your liberty because you don't want to hinder the gospel. That's the underlying principle, is that you want to draw that believer. You want to draw that unbeliever. And in love, you may give up a liberty that you have, that you're fully capable under grace to do, but you give it up in love for that unbeliever. Yeah, you don't even think about it. Yeah, I mean you're doing it because you love them. One last thought on this thing.

I had a note on verse 12 there. I think Vern mentioned this at one point, but just to read it, it says grace may require you to choose something that the law never dreamed of. I'm talking about law and grace. Law and grace, right. You're putting a restriction on yourself. Is that law?

Or is that an actual motive of grace in order to not hinder the gospel? Grace does at times cause us to make decisions that are restrictive in our behavior. But it's not because it's law, it's because we want the gospel to be clear to the person, as opposed to, I'm not allowed to do this, I cannot do this. It's grace guiding you, principle, for the purpose of the gospel. And that's something the law could never have dreamed of restricting you to do. And that goes back to 1 Corinthians 8, 9-13 about stumbling somebody and eating meat. I'll never eat meat again if that causes that brother to stumble. Well, he didn't ever think about like soy burgers.

Well, I could go back into the verses and said about the weaker brother as the vegetarian. Yeah, I tried to touch that one with kid gloves. But I mean, the whole principle is love. He gave up his, he wouldn't eat meat, even though he's fully capable and able to do that. I'm not going to eat meat if it stumbles you. Here, I could definitely take pay for all the work that I'm doing, but I'm not, because it may hinder the good. Somebody may think I'm doing it just for the money. So, he gave up some of those rights, or the liberties that we have under grace.

And the motive is love. Your point being is you're not putting another rule on yourself. The motive is love, and you're freely doing that, not under a rule compulsion. Yeah. So what was Paul, in question, what Paul was giving up in order to do that? He was giving up payment, but the principle was love. So question nine, we're getting into another principle. Reed Corinthians, do you have something?

Yeah. Tomorrow we're having a barbecue, we're going to eat meat, right? Yes. Should we be doing that? I mean, it might be offensive. Yes, we should. Yes, we should. And I have lots of vegetables sort of in my garden that will be available for those who do not want to eat meat. I know, actually, we used to have veggie burgers for the people. There were a few that didn't. So we tried to accommodate them. Yes, we did. And I think we still have a couple of black bean burgers from your brother being here. So I think we can still accommodate those who are vegetarians.

Principle number 4, 1 Corinthians 10, 23. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. So what is the principle here under grace? Can I offer a little bit of word study there? The first one is profitable, right?

In most translations. The word behind it is bring harmony or bring together. Not everything harmonizes or makes for a good fellowship. And that's, I think, expedient is one of the translations. And the second one is Edify, in my version, it actually has behind it the word is to build up or to encourage. Yeah, that is the meaning of edify, is to build up.

I know, if you think about that, sometimes we might put monetary gain versus what's behind those words. Well, instead of profitable, it sounds like a monetary thing. Oh, oh yeah. Yeah, OK. Instead of actual fellowship. OK, yeah. OK. Yeah, profitable being the, yeah. So what we want is, we want harmony and we want being built up. What was that? I don't like capos. OK. So, the principle is edification, and this can be combined with Paul's discussion from Corinthians 1, 9, 12.

Nevertheless, we did not use our right, but will endure all things, so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel. So, again, the principle is edifier, to build up in the word. So, he gave up his liberty, but the reason why is to edify, or to build up. to use the gospel for both believers and unbelievers. So it's the edifier, the word which it means to build up or to encourage. I hope this is relevant, but I was reading Dr. Schaefer in particular about this, and he says, thus it is seen that the law of expediency contemplates the danger to the believer's own life in the matter of personal habits or injury. and the responsibility to others in the matter of edification. He may be free to do it, but not free when contemplating his own personal good and the good of others. The only part about that, the good of others, though.

I mean, you know, if you're doing it for personal gain, I guess I'm trying to... I wasn't thinking about personal gain. I was thinking about, you know, whatever you might do that would be a hindrance. Yeah, well I think these are the two sides. You don't want to be a hindrance, but what you want to do is encourage and edify and build. There are two sides of the coin there. If you're free to do everything, you may be endangering your own self. You better think about that. Yeah, that's a good warning.

Again, the thing is, you're trying to wind all these principles together into how grace functions. Remember, we're under how grace functions. So all these different principles, they function together. Well, I love them, but it's not edifying. Well, how do you do that? You've got to wrap all these principles together. And I can love somebody, but if it's hindering the gospel and not building them up, is that under grace? I don't think so. So, this is just another one that, again, the building up of it. So, go ahead.

I was just going to say, I think verse 24 kind of answers it. It covers the whole idea of Christianity Let no one see his own good, but that of his neighbor. So that, in other words, it's like we should have a filter on of really putting our brothers and sisters ahead of us. Yeah, again, what's that principle? Love.

So again, it fits together with everything else that Paul has talked about under grace. Again, if you do things out of spite or show off, it goes back to eating meat or vegetables. Who has the right to say which is better? Neither. Neither. And if you do, in love, are you telling that vegetarian, you know, if you ate bacon, you'd be a lot better off. You'd be a happier person. You'd be a lot happier person if you ate vegetables all the time rather than bacon. Neither is right.

So again, just the principle, all these things wrap together. In love, edifying or building up the believer, and I think it's also the hindrance of the gospel to non-believers too. that we function under grace but I think he's saying the hindrance of the gospel if they're thinking I'm being paid and I'm only doing it for the money so I can have the 20,000 square foot home and 10,000 foot pool house and the 65 million dollar jet for my ministry you know is that showing that my heart is in the ministry. They have to answer, not me. But I think that would be a hindrance. There was a guy who was on a month or maybe six months ago. He just was imploring his congregation to fund a $65 million Gulfstream 650. I don't use names. I try not to. He was trying to justify a $65 million plane for his ministry.

Maybe that's justifiable, but I don't know. Does that hinder the gospel? Obviously in my eye, I think that hinders the gospel. He'll have to answer to the Lord about his motive and true motive on that. But from the appearance and what Paul is saying, and maybe this is a modern day thing that you were looking for, modern day is employing the congregation to fund a $65 million plane for the ministry. You know, maybe I should do that.

You guys want to fund a $65 million? I'd love to minister in all sorts of different places around the world. If you gave me a $65 million plane, I could spread the gospel like none other, okay? I could buy you a one-way ticket. If I ask for a $65 million plane, I deserve that one-way ticket. I could fix water problems everywhere. To all the missionaries, I could solve all their water problems. Just give me that $65 million plane.

OK, so basically the new principle that we're working on is edification. So question 10, can we find this principle in the law? Does the law edify? The law is wholly unjust. Does it edify? Yes. It does? I think so. Any other opposing views? Edifies law. Edifies itself? Itself, yeah. Does the law ever edify? No, I made a big booboo. On second thought, on reconsideration by the Romanian judge. Okay, so what does the law do? If it doesn't edify, what does it do? Causes civil misdeeds.

You know, that's the one... I don't think many people know that, that it causes sin to increase. I don't think many believers understand that, because they're still struggling to go under the law all the time. And yet, Romans 3.20, Because the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in this sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin, Does the law justify or edify us by that? No. Through the law comes the knowledge of sin. In Christianity, the grace principles are usually replaced by the rule book. Certain rituals or different things, we try and use a law to make us better.

I'm wearing jeans today. I normally don't do that. Sacrilegious, right? On the Silo Park picnic day, I wear shorts. That's because my legs are so bright that I need sunglasses. Bright white. Kind of distracting, I know. Maybe there's a corollary to that. Anyway, does a law edify? Does dressing make it better? Does that rule or law make it build up? Anything? No. No. What other things? I don't know. Catholics have lots of rituals. Does that edify the body? No. Does it build it up? No. No. What edifies the body? Love. Love, but what edifies it? Christ. Christ does and where do we find that? God's Word. God's Word. Hindrance of the Gospel. The Gospel. His Word. That's the key. That's what edifies. It's His Word and the Holy Spirit working in us. That's the edifying.

No process, no rule ever justifies or edifies us. The principle of edification is nowhere in the law. The law never cared about whether one edified one's brother. Or Paul is saying, edifying, I want to build up. Does the law ever say I want to build that brother up by imposing law?

Is there a verse that says that? No. Alright, last one. Does obeying laws make us Christ-like? No. Should be able to get this right away, yes. To become Christ-alike, the word reveals the beholding of the glory of the Lord. It conforms us. It accomplishes us by the Holy Spirit. Mike's favorite verse? And what does that say? What does it say? The glory of the Lord are transformed into the same image from glory to glory. Thank you. Does obeying laws make us Christ-like? No. There are a couple verses we can go to real quick. Galatians 4, and this is pretty significant. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the law.

You have fallen from grace. Ouch. Ouch. You who have been severed. Does that mean lost salvation? No. No, it does not. Fellowship. You lose the fellowship. And you've, what? If you're seeking to be justified under the law, what does the last part of it say? You've fallen from grace. So does grace and law ever go together? No, you've fallen from it. If you're seeking to be justified by the law, you've fallen from it. Also, Galatians 2, verse 16.

Nevertheless, knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, pretty specific there, but through faith in Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, since by the works of the law no flesh will be justified." Any caveat to that? Any corollary that says, well, if you do this, under the law you're justified. Since by the works of the law no flesh will be justified. So again, law does not justify. It doesn't build up. The gospel and under grace we're to edify or to build up under grace. To edify, to build up and don't impose laws that never will edify somebody. Alright, I think so, not next week, but the following week. You're up for the intro to faith? Alright, let's pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this time. We thank you for the principle of grace and the operating system by which we live right now.

That is the reigning principle in Romans 5, where it is thou the reigning principle. And that is how we function as believers in that system of grace. And we thank you for the principle of love and edification, all the different things that we have learned under grace and how it operates. And again, I think the key is love. That is one of the overriding factors, done in love. And if it's done in love, we will want to edify to build up those believers in your Son, build them up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus.

So we just we thank you for this time where we're able to open your word and just to look at the principle of grace and see how we function in that. We pray also for Vern in the next meeting just to be able to provide the word accurately and just prepare our hearts to receive it. We thank you for all these things in Jesus name. Amen.