GCC Sermon on: I Corinthians 7:25-40 "Watch and Pray"
Sermon question #1: How much of what you feel you need to accomplish in life comes from people? How much from God? How can you calibrate correctly?
Ans: I think the form of the question is typical of fundamentalist: the world vs. spiritual being mutually exclusive. Though it may not be the intent of the questioner. Though not as colorful, the right question would be "...how much from God, how much not from God..." this way we don't follow the Gnostics.
Questions #2 & 3 are similar.
#2. Who or what is your second master? What will you do about it?
Ans: I assume the second master was expected to be self. Anything else seems to be the propagation of that self.
#3. How does a homeward bound life change everything? In what ways does it make your life more rich?
Ans: This is a good one. It reminds us that we are pilgrims. Though we must take care again not to follow the Gnostics in this, for God has placed us in this fallen world which was also His creation. We are thus, to work out both worlds.
The sermon touches on Paul's view on marriage, though not of his own "opinion", but as someone holding the office of an apostle. In Point II.A: Cannot serve two masters - Worldly marriage, the pastor said "Bad marriage is worse than no marriage [at all?]" [a quote apparently from Neil Clark Warren co-founder of eHarmony] to weigh in on how being single is better, despite that there's nothing wrong but good in the blessing of marriage. Perhaps in reference to 1 Corinthians 7:1,7-8,26,28,33-35,38 (...does better...),40. The pastor also seems to imply that the right singleness is defined as being unattracted to the opposite sex.
My reaction: The quote is a fun play with words especially it being obvious even from a worldly sense, but one can also say "bad singleness is worse than being married" though not likely to be as popular as the former quote because this one is at a more spiritual level and a more serious effect in the relationship with God. Bad singleness leads to an unhealthy view of women, of genders, and thus unto the Creator of genders essentially. So, the quote itself though interesting, is moot if it is not clarified (i.e. only focusing on sexual aspects, etc.). The only reason Paul gave to imply being single as better than marriage is simply less distraction (v.35). And only those who recognize this distraction in a full zeal to serve God is considered truly called by God to make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake (Matthew 19:12), to marry oneself into the fellowship of God's children as father, mother, son, daughter, such as Paul. This blessed singleness is certainly not being complacent in the Lord, doing less than a zealous married couple. There seems to be a common erroneous American fundamentalist (any other cultures as well) Christian view on marriage being identical to sex or sexual relationship, as if in marriage one must have sex, though it's presumed. Such view itself is perhaps why Paul (along with other reasons that equate quality from above with from beneath) came up with 1 Corinthians 7, contrary to this shallow view of these Christians, to break away from the wrong conception of marriage. Sex is not a required, nor should it be the only component in marriage. So there is no such thing as I am not attracted or interested in the opposite sex. Such is the beginning of a bad singleness view.
On Sunday School: Continuing (from v.40) The Gospel According (I think "of" and "according" are interchangeable, one isn't really more humble than the other, as the pastor seemed to make a big deal of few weeks ago. But for clarity, the issue has to do with "of" being genitive or simply identical as "according" and thus "according" is used to avoid such confusion. But "according" can also be used in a very self-centered way, so it's kind of moot. I think I am using the word moot a lot recently) to John 6:22-71
This time Phil brought up an interesting point when the doctrine of predestination was touched on again (though it seems that there are some who may still be struggling: God never did anything bad to Esau, God sees the heart-almost like Molinism, etc.), when he referenced 2 Peter 3:9:...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Phil was hoping for (not much trying on his part) ALL to be interpreted as ONLY the elects, but the pastor disagreed and referred to the entire world. I guess the pastor was implying "sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect". John Calvin has this: For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. Calvin also said of similar thing in John 3:16: Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.
Stephen Tong once expounded 1Tim 2:4's "ALL" as simply the Elects. Which means he would have agreed with Phil, though on different verse at least. From here, it seems John Calvin's pushing for "ALL" to simply mean "that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception."
So my conclusion is that I do find Calvin more convincing than Stephen Tong on this. But I don't see how Stephen Tong could be wrong, as the two views are not contradicting but painting a better picture.
