In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. On this St British's Day, A.D. 2019, let us pray. Heavenly Father and Lord Jesus Christ, we give thanks that the Holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father and the Son, and doth come unto us who are God's children. We are most grateful that the Holy Ghost, who is the Comforter, is come unto us, and that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance. Filasso, Trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with the fruits of the Spirit, that we may always honour and glorify thy holy name, And this we pray through the redeeming blood of Christ and enabling power of the Holy Ghost, who in the unity of the Father art ever three divine persons in one God, now and forever. Amen. Welcome to all listening to this address. This sermon, entitled, What's Unforgivable Sin and the Test for Knowing It's Been Committed, consists of four parts. In the first part of the sermon, we consider the issue of what is unforgivable or unpardonable sin, as seen in a number of examples with reference to the gospel and moral law, as found by Excellence in the Ten Commandments, in order to clearly establish from scripture the type of thing that constitutes unforgivable sin. And then in the second part of the sermon, We considered firstly some relevant Anglican hagiological principles, as found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and 39 articles, in connection with the memory of St Britia's Day and associated memory of the St Brice's Day Massacre of 1002. And secondly, the issue of what is unforgivable or unpardonable sin with special reference to the further example of Babelism, a matter which we noted is of particular relevance to the memory of St. Pretius Day in connection with the St. Price's Day Massacre of 1002. And now in part three of the sermon, we shall consider the issue of what is the test for knowing if a man's committed unforgivable sin. Before in part four of the sermon, in addition to some comments on the historic English tradition of the Stamford St. Brice's Day Bull Run, we shall apply these principles in a case study of Bishop Brutius of Tours to see if he did or did not commit unpardonable sin. And parts one, two, three, and four of the sermon all exhibit the maxim, If the Bible says it, I believe it. That settles it, for me. And so, on the basis of the examples we've seen in parts one and two of this sermon, it's clear that, on the one hand, God calls a man out of his rejection of the gospel or immoral life at variance with the precepts of the Holy Decalogue, and that there are sinners who so come to Christ. For example, before his conversion, the Apostle Paul was the gospel-rejecting Saul of Tarsus, who, for instance, violated the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill, when he sought the death of Christians, as taught in Acts 8.1. But on the other hand, rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ or any other big sin, and so any egregence of, for instance, the precepts of the moral law as found par excellence in the Ten Commandments or Holy Decalogue, may potentially be unforgivable sin. The test isolated for unforgivable sin in Numbers 15, 30 and 31 involves a man being hardened in sin in which he acts boldly, defiantly or presumptuously as he busies himself eagerly in strengthening his reproaching or reviling or blaspheming the Lord repeatedly. As such an evildoer despises the Word of God as now found in the Holy Bible and hath broken the commandment of God's law as found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the moral law of the Ten Commandments. And Numbers 15, 30 and 31 teaches that such sin is unforgivable or unpardonable. That's what the Bible teaches. And if the Bible says it, I believe it. That settles it for me. And so what's clear from the various examples we've considered in parts 1 and 2 of this sermon, with regard to the gospel and the law, is that not everyone who commits the sin of despising the word of God and breaking the commandment of God's laws will have thereby necessarily committed unforgivable sin, but on the other hand, some will. And it's also clear that the Matthew 12, 31 instance of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is only one specific example of this wider issue of unforgivable sin. And in the case of Matthew 12, 31, this is said to apostate Jews who have blasphemously attributed the work and power of God the Holy Ghost to Satan, which is one specific type of blasphemy. in violation of the Third Commandment of the Holy Decalogue, and a most wicked blasphemy indeed. But it's clear from the wider context of St Matthew's Gospel that in harmony with Numbers 15, 30 and 31, these Jewish leaders had for some time been acting boldly, defiantly or presumptuously, as they busied themselves eagerly in strengthening their reproaching, or reviling, or blaspheming the Lord repeatedly. For example, The Pharisees had earlier said in Matthew 9.34, He casteth out devils through the prince of devils. And such evildoers despised the Word of God as found in the Old Testament and Christ's teaching. For example, they rejected the teaching and witness of Jesus earlier. Miracles. And these Jews had broken the commandment of God's law as found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Decalogue. For example, the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill. For we read in Matthew 12, 14, then the Pharisees went out and held a council against Christ, how they might destroy him. And indeed, our Lord said on another occasion in John 7, 15 and 19 to certain Jews, did not Moses give you the law? And yet none of you keepeth the law. Why go ye about to kill me? And so by the time we get to Christ's teaching on unforgivable sin in Matthew 12, 31, and 32, there's a Numbers 15, 30, and 31 history of these Jews boldly, defiantly, and presumptuously busying themselves eagerly in strengthening their reproaching, or reviling, or blaspheming the Lord repeatedly, and despising the Word of God, and blasphemously breaking His commandments. Now, reference was made in the opening prayer to Galatians 5, 22 and 23, fruit of the spirit. where fruit is Greek karpos in the singular. But at this point, let me say that as with the English word fruit, the Greek word karpos is a singular plural word. So that depending on contact text, it may refer to a singular fruit or a plural fruit. For example, one may say, there was only one fruit, a lone apple on the tree. Or one might say, there was lots of fruit and many apples on the tree. For example, in Matthew 7, 15-20, referring to both good and bad, or evil fruit, Greek karpos in the plural is rendered in the authorised version as fruits, in verses 16 and 20, and as fruit in verses 17 and 18. And Greek karpos in the singular is rendered in the AV as fruit, in verse 19, in the words, every tree that bringeth forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire, which contextually requires plural fruits are meant in the singular plural for word fruit. And so with this understanding that as in English, as so in Greek, fruit is a singular plural, I shall at relevant places in this sermon refer in the plural to fruit, or fruits interchangeably. Now, Article 16 of the Anglican 39 article says, Quote, not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fallen into sin. And by the grace of God, we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore, they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent." And we read in Article 35 of the Anglican 39 Articles, Book 2, Homily 19, entitled Of Repentance, quote, We do not, without a just cause, detest and abhor the damnable opinion of them which do most wickedly go about, to persuade the simple and ignorant people, that if we chance, after we be once come to God, and grafted into His Son Jesus Christ, to fall into some horrible sin, repentance shall be unprofitable for us. There is no more hope of reconciliation, or to be received again into the favour and mercy of God. And that they may better colour their pestilence and pernicious error, they do commonly bring in the sixth and tenth chapters of Hebrews, and the second chapter of the second epistle of Peter, unquote. That is Hebrews 6, 4 to 6, 10, 26 to 29, and 2 Peter 2, 20 and 21. Quote, not considering that those places do not speak of the daily falls that we, as long as we carry about this body of sin, are subject unto, but of the final falling away from Christ and his gospel. which is a sin against, Matthew 12, the Holy Ghost, that shall never be forgiven, because that they that do utterly forsake the known truth do hate Christ and His Word, and therefore fall into desperation and cannot repent. And this appeareth by many other places of the Scriptures, which promiseth unto all true repentant sinners free pardon and remission of their sins." And so, as an Evangelical Protestant, I uphold the teaching of such scriptures as Acts 1038. Jesus of Nazareth, verse 43, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. And this truth is found in Articles 2 and 11 of the Apostles' Creed, which is found in the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer, includes the words, I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Anglican 39 article says, quote, we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith alone is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification, unquote. And this homily of justification refers, referred Two, in article, referred to, refers to, article, sorry, it refers to article 35 of the, 39 articles, book one homily four entitled of the true and lively faith whose short title is of faith in which I shall add the first numbers of biblical quote and which being made in the 16th century are not from the later 17th century authorized King James Bible of 1611 quote Holy Scripture beareth witness that a true and lively faith in Christ doth bring forth good works, and therefore every man must examine and try himself diligently to know whether he hath the same true lively faith in his heart unfeignedly or not, which he shall know by the fruits thereof. Many that professed the faith of Christ were in error, that they thought they knew God and believed in Him, when in their life they declared the contrary. Which Eris and John, in his first epistle, confuteth, writing in this wise, 1 John 2, 3 and 4, Hereby we are certified that we know God, if we observe his commandments. He that saith he knoweth God, and observeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. And again he saith, 1 John 3, 6, Whosoever sinneth doth not see God, nor know him. And the meaning of 1 John 3, 6 is a matter We shall, in due course, return to. But let me just say at this point, it does not mean so-called sinless perfection. And the homily further says, quote, and finally, he concluded and showed the cause why he wrote this epistle. saith 1 John 5 verse 13, For this cause have I thus written unto you, that ye may know that ye have everlasting life, which do believe in the Son of God. And in this third epistle he confirmeth the whole matter of faith and works in few words, saying 3 John 11, He that doeth well is of God, and he that doeth evil knoweth not God. saith, Lively knowledge and faith of God bringeth forth good works. Christ himself speaketh of this matter, and saith, Matthew 12, 33, The tree is known by the fruit." Note well those words of this homily, quote, A true and lively faith in Christ doth bring forth good works, and therefore every man shall know by the fruits thereof. St. John saith, Lively knowledge and faith of God bringeth forth good works. Christ himself saith, Matthew 12, 33, The tree is known by the fruit, unquote. So too, Article 35 of the Anglican 39 Articles Book 2, homily 16 entitled Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, in which I shall add the verse numbers of biblical quotes which being made in the 16th century are not from the 17th century authorised King James Bible of 1611, says using the old English Anglo-Saxon word for sooth, meaning for in truth, Oh, but how shall I know that the Holy Ghost is within me? Some man, perchance, will say, Forsooth, as Matthew 12.33, the tree is known by his fruit. So is also the Holy Ghost, Galatians 5.19-23. The fruits of the Holy Ghost, according to St Paul, are these, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance, etc. Contrawise, the deeds of the flesh are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, debate, emulation, wrath, contention, sedition, heresy, envy, murder, drunkenness, gluttony, and such like. Here is now that glass wherein thou must behold thyself and discern whether thou hast the Holy Ghost within thee, or the Spirit of the flesh. If thou see that thy works be virtuous and good, consonant to the precept rule of God's Word, savouring and tasting not of the flesh, but of the Spirit, then assure thyself that thou art endued with the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, in thinking well of thyself, thou dost nothing else but deceive thyself." And so, let me say that in harmony with the biblical teaching here found in these Anglican homilies of Article 35 of the 39 Articles, the test for whether or not one has committed unforgivable sin is found on the lips of our Lord in Matthew 12, 33. Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt. For the tree is known by his fruit. That's what the Bible teaches. And if the Bible says it, I believe it. That settles it, for me. In my four-part King Charles Martyrs' Day sermon earlier this year of 2019, Entitled, Fear the Lord All Earth, Part Three, I refer to God's judgments upon a homosexual sodomite who was the minister of the homosexual haunt of the Metropolitan Community Church in Brisbane, Queensland from 2015 to 2018, Pastor David Coulthard. And as stated then, I'll give some further attention to a case study of this man in the appendix to the printed form of my sermons in my next textual commentary volume. But for our immediate purposes today, I shall refer to an address he made in 1976 or 1977 when he was married to a woman. and in agreement with scripture regarded homosexuality as a sin, and one he made in 2014, some years after he had come to deny the scriptural teaching that homosexuality is a sin. A David Colthart's 1976 or 1977 address was on this topic of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and he claimed the fact that those at at that meeting who were hearing him speak were desirous of God's forgiveness was evidence that they had not committed such unpardonable sin. He thus claimed that if someone committed the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, then he would not be concerned to repent as his doom would be sealed. And by contrast, he considered the fact that the people listening to his address were seeking God's forgiveness and so on, were signs of the fact that they had not committed this sin. Now I don't concur with the view he expressed in all particulars on unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost, since I don't think the test of repentance alone is sufficiently comprehensive to do justice to the biblical test of St. Matthew 12.33, either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt, for the tree is known by his fruit. This biblical test requires that there is repentance from sin in the associated context of bringing forth fruits of the Spirit. It must thus be distinguished from repentance in isolation from a context of bringing forth fruits of the Spirit. For instance, the apostate Jews that Jesus addressed in Matthew 12 were still in some hypocritical sense seeking God's forgiveness. For example, our Lord says in St. Luke 18, 10-14, two men went up to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a Republican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortionists, unjust, adulterers, or even as publican. I fast twice in the week. I give tithes of all that I possess. and the publicans standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes under heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me, a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other." And we cannot doubt that such a Pharisee would, in the words of St. Matthew 5.23, bring his repentance gift to the altar of the Jewish temple at Jerusalem. And we also read in Hebrews 12, 16 and 17, that Esau afterward found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. And so the biblical test of St. Matthew 12.33 requires that there is repentance from sin in the associated context of bringing forth fruits of the Spirit. It must therefore be distinguished from repentance in isolation from a context of bringing forth fruits of the Spirit. And indeed, this man, David Colthart, who was, who in speaking on the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in 1976, 1977, at the time was married to a woman and accepted that the Bible teaches a homosexual lifestyle is sin, but who claimed being desirous of repentance or seeking God's forgiveness alone was evidence that a man hadn't committed unpardonable sin. Some 40 years later, came to tell in his autobiography of how he repeatedly repented from homosexual sin, but repeatedly failed to bring forth the associated fruits of the spirit in terms of forsaking such homosexual sin. And in another sermon that David Coulthard preached in the homosexual haunt of the Metropolitan Community Church in Melbourne in 2014, which I accessed on the internet, he now alleges that as a result of how quote, God-led, unquote, he entered into a sodomite union, which is clearly wrong, as God never leads a man contrary to his divinely revealed will in Holy Scripture, which teaches in, for example, 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And the associated list that the King James Bible renders as idolaters, effeminate, and abusers of themselves with mankind, or what Book 1, Homily 11, Article 35 of the Anglican 39 Articles renders as worshippers of images, effeminate, or sodomites, is arsenokoites, and is a compound word derived from two Greek words, forms of which are found in the Greek Septuagint at Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13. namely arsine, meaning a man, and coiti, meaning coitus or sex, and so arsine coitis literally means a man who is a man-liar, that is, a man who lies with a man, and so this refers to men who have coitus with men, that is, male homosexuals, and is a contextual allusion to the words of Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 in the Greek Septuagint. For example, in rendering the Hebrew at Leviticus 18.22, the Greek Septuagint reads, and thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is abomination. And both the Hebrew and Greek of Leviticus 18 and 20 and the Greek of 1 Corinthians 6 is put in broad descriptive terms so as to include any form of male homosexual acts. And in preserving Tyndale's basic rendering of 1526, the King James Bible of 1611's abuses of themselves with mankind alludes to the word mankind of Leviticus 18 and 20, and recognizing the teaching of Leviticus 18, 24 to 28, that the heathen nations judged by God when the children of Israel entered the promised land were capable of knowing from natural law through God's common grace, which is not under salvation, that, for example, sodomy with a man is wrong. And likewise we find the same natural law teaching in Romans 1, 26 and 27, which refers to the natural heterosexual use in contrast to homosexual acts that are against nature, and thus sexual abuse. And the King James version's rendering abuses of themselves with mankind further takes into account the words of Ephesians 5.12. It is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret, of which one example, though not the only example, is sodomy. So that the rendering of 1 Corinthians 6.9 requires reference to Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1 and Ephesians 5.12 to unravel its meaning, with the consequence that if, for instance, children are present and they say something like, what's abusers of themselves with mankind mean, the adult can simply reply, reply, people who abuse themselves with darling, people who abuse themselves, darling, you'll understand it better when you're older. Now go and play with your toys. By contrast, reflecting a translation methodology of using a one word equivalent for the Greek word The Anglican 39 Articles of 1562 and 1570, as printed by command of His Majesty King Charles I in 1628, renders 1 Corinthians 6-9 as sodomites, a term which further alludes to a number of biblical passages including Genesis 18 and Jude 7. For Jude 7 says those of Sodom gave themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh. And we know from Genesis 19.4-11 they had a homosexual preference so that they rejected the offer of heterosexual fornication saying instead where are the men that we may know them in the sense of sexually knowing them. Let me say that I don't think God would have allowed that offer of heterosexual fornication if there was any chance that it would have been taken up. But in his infinite wisdom, he allowed it to make the point that these men of Sodom had a homosexual orientation and preference. And so with regard to homosexual acts, Jude 7 says, those of Sodom gave themselves over to fornication. And St. Jude then further refers to their going after strange flesh, which included a desire for cross-species sodomy, in their instance with angels, so that God's destruction of Sodom shows his abhorrence of sodomy with man or cross-species sodomy. And these jurisprudential principles are then further found in Leviticus 20, 13, 15, and 16, where sodomy with man or beast is deemed a capital crime. And so the Anglican 39 article's rendering of arsonic coities at 1 Corinthians 6, 9 as sodomites acts to allude to other biblical verses on sodom. And so God would never lead a man into a homosexual relationship. With the consequence that the claim of this Metropolitan Community Church sexual abuser, who is one of the 1 Corinthians 6-9 abusers of themselves with mankind, or sodomites, that, quote, God led, unquote, him into a sodomite union, is clearly wrong in his claim. that, quote, God led, unquote, him into this. For God never leads a man contrary to the teaching of holy writ. And in this 2014 sermon, this sodomite, David Coulthard, who is a talented and articulate speaker and has some good theology amidst some very bad theology, When he made his inadequate address on unforgivable sin some 40 or so years ago, when he was married to a woman and accepted that the Bible teaches a homosexual lifestyle is sin, this man, who is now a sodomite, makes an argument in favor of a homosexual lifestyle in his 2014 sermon. But before we consider that argument, let me first note that heresy sometimes consists in asserting one biblical truth in such a way as to make it contrary to another biblical truth. For example, we read in John 5.18 of how with respect to his deity Christ said that God was his father, making himself equal with God. And in John 1.14 that he was made flesh through the incarnation. And in John 14.28 our Lord says, my father is greater than I. And so Article 35 of the Anglican 39 Articles, Book 2, Homily 12, quotes John 10, 30, and 14, 28, saying, quote, We are evidently taught in the Scripture that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ consisteth of two natures, of his manhood being perfect man, and of his Godhead being perfect God. Therefore he saith, The Father and I are one. which is to be understood of his Godhead. For as touching his manhood he saith, the Father is greater than I." And as found in the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer, together with the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed is one of the three Catholic or universal creeds, whose doctrine is believed by all Orthodox Christians. And so the Athanasian Creed, named after, not written by, a great defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy, St Athanasius, who died in 373, says on quote, the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood." And so the words of John 5.18 that Christ said God was His Father making Himself equal with God, Or those of John 10 30 where Christ saith I and my father are one teach Christ is equal to God as touching his Godhead and the words of Christ in John 14 28 my father is greater than I teach that he is inferior to the father as touching his manhood for Christ is both fully God and fully man But some years ago, I entered debate with an Aryan heretic of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult, who sought to misuse the biblical truth of Christ's humanity in John 14, 28, my father is greater than I, to deny the biblical truth of Christ's deity in John 5, 18, where he said that God was his father, making himself equal with God. And so heresy sometimes consists in asserting one biblical truth in such a way as to make it contrary to another biblical truth. And you'll find another example of this in Satan's temptation of Christ in Matthew 4, 6 and 7. And so, with this, a caution. In his 2014 Metropolitan Community Church sermon in Melbourne, this sodomite, David Coulthard, says in his alleged justification of a homosexual lifestyle, quote, sin isn't just about wrong actions. Sin is much more based on a wrong relationship with God. It's the broken relationship with God that's the sickness. And the things you do wrong, evil sins and temptations that you fall in, are then symptoms of that disease we call sin. If you concentrate as Martin Luther did, referring to when Luther was a Roman Catholic monk, quote, if you concentrate as Martin Luther did on simply confessing sins for all the wrong things you've done, you'd spend, like he did, four, five, six, seven or eight hours a day confessing every little sin. You can so emphasize those little wrong things that you forget The real thing. You see, if doing little things that are wrong are your sins that you worry about, then the opposite is also true, namely that doing lots of good things and good deeds makes you right with God. That's legalism. That's earning your salvation by doing right things. So if you cannot earn your salvation by doing right things, nor can you lose your salvation by doing lots of wrong things. Just as sin is a broken relationship, so salvation is a restored relationship, which is what Paul was talking about in the Church of Corinth. Well, what then do we do with all these little sins? We put them on Jesus Christ. Forgiveness has already been provided, unquote. And contextually, this is how he allegedly justifies a professed Christian practicing a homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore, although I watch very little television, on one of his visits to Australia, the Metropolitan Community Church's 1968 USA founder, Troy Perry, who specifically designed it to be a pro-homosexual church, I think but I'm not sure in his 1997 visit, which with this qualification I shall hereafter simply refer to as his 1997 visit, appeared in a news clip that I saw on TV with him standing behind a Metropolitan Community Church pulpit, I think, but I'm not sure, in Sydney. And wherever it was, and whenever it was, and wherever it was, I clearly remember that in this TV clip, Troy Perry quoted from Romans 10.9, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And in dealing with the issue of Christians opposed to those living in a homosexual lifestyle, he prefaced this quote from Romans 10.9 with the words, one thing they can't take away from you is this. And so in comparison of these claims by two different metropolitan community church preachers, both of whom have been ministers in that church, firstly on TV in Sydney in 1997, and secondly on an internet YouTube in Melbourne in 2014, we find the same basic claim is made, namely, that justification by faith can be used in a selectively antinomian way to justify a homosexual lifestyle, is a claim that's made from time to time in the known homosexual hall. of the Metropolitan Community Church. In response to this claim, which certainly contains some good biblically sound Protestant theology in it, we see how some biblical truths are heretically being used to deny other biblical truths. Historically, justification by faith has been attacked in two opposite directions, namely either by legalism or antinomianism, and paradoxically sometimes both approaches are used simultaneously by mixing legalism with selective antinomianism. For example, in the Gospel we read of how the Jews thought that by decalogue keeping they could earn salvation, so that in Matthew 19.16 the rich young ruler asks Christ, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And Christ's reply to this works righteousness question is for him to keep the Ten Commandments perfectly, something that no fallen sinful man is capable of doing. Our Lord says this to the rich young ruler in order to give him the opportunity to recognize that it is an impossibility. In the words of Galatians 3.24, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. So that in recognizing what Galatians 4.24 calls the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai, that is the Decalogue, as a means of justification by works to merit salvation, gendereth the bondage, he should cry out for mercy under the covenant of grace, that he might be justified by faith. As our Lord saith in St. Matthew 9.13, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, for I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. And so these Jews attacked justification by faith via legalism. But they also engaged in selective antinomianism, in their case setting aside the fifth commandment of the Decalogue. For our Lord further says in Matthew 15, 4, and for God commanded, saying, honor thy father and mother, verse 5, but ye say, whosoever shall, verse 6, honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus she made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Thus on the one hand, if someone desires to keep the moral law, the devil's temptation is to get the sinner to think that by such a decalogue keeping, he is meriting his salvation and or some heavenly rewards. But on the other hand, if someone does not desire to keep the moral law or only selectively keep it, the devil's temptation is to get the sinner to think that because of justification by faith, he can be a decalogue breaker selectively or per se. Now, specifically with regard to these pro-homosexual claims from two Metropolitan Community Church preachers, Troy Perry in 1997 and David Coulthard in 2014, on the one hand, these two sodomite Metropolitan Community Church false teachers are preaching the biblical truth of justification by faith and the fact that we have access to God the Father through the Son. In the case of David Coulthard's 2014 sermon, together with the fact that sins are fruits, of man's fallen sinful nature as a contrast, that is, in opposition to legalism and earning one's salvation by doing good works. But on the other hand, these sodomite false teachers and preachers are using these biblical truths in a selectively antinomian way to strike down obedience to the law of God, and thus to strike down the usage of the moral law at the point of both justification by faith and also in sanctification of the spirit or holiness of living. With regard to the 1997 Metropolitan Community Church claims of Troy Perry, I note that the teaching of Romans 10, 6-13 is echoed in the Apostles' Creed's Articles 1a and 2. I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. Articles 4, 5, and 6. Who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. The third day, He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven. But it's further discussed in my series of six sermons on the Catechism of March and April 2017, which are presently available at Audio Sermon. Classic Protestant Catechism, such as the short Catechism in the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer, contextualize the truths of the Apostles' Creed as one of the five great symbols of the Christian faith, together with four other symbols, of which one is the Ten Commandments. And this manifests biblical teaching as St. Paul, in his wider epistle to the Romans, which also uses the Holy Decalogue to isolate sin in Romans 7, 7 and 13, 9, a matter we shall in due course return to. But, for the moment, with respect to the moral law as the fruit of the Spirit, I note that St. Paul saith in Romans 6, 20-23, For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed. For the end of those things is death. But now, being made free from sin and become servants of God, ye have your fruit, unto holiness and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." And so the type of selective antinomian misuse of Romans 10.9 evident in the 1997 claims of the founder of the Metropolitan Community Church is contrary to scripture and consonant subordinate standards of church tradition, such as the Anglican short catechism of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. And with regard to the 2014 false teacher and preacher David Colthart's reference at the Melbourne Metropolitan Community Church to Martin Luther, given the Romanist usage of the law for justification under salvation by a combination of faith and works, somewhat paradoxically, selective antinomianism is also one of the heresies of the devil's masterpiece of the Roman Church that the Reformation addressed. For the Roman Catholic Church is selectively antinomian in that, for example, it sets aside the second commandment of the Decalogue of Exodus 20. Thou shalt not make, bow down to, nor serve any graven image. By producing a form of the Ten Commandments that omits this precepts and then splits the Tenth Commandment in two so as to get the number 10 back, in order to cloak its idolatrous teachings. And while it would be possible, as indeed historically has sometimes occurred, for someone to use this type of decalogue breakup without simultaneously using it as a cloak for idolatry, in the case of the Roman Church this is done as a cloak for idolatry and hence Article 35 of the Anglican 39 Articles Homily 21 Book 2 says, quote, Lest the poor people should know too much, the Bishop of Rome would not let them have as much of God's Word as the Ten Commandments, holy and perfectly, withdrawing from them the Second Commandment. And so the Roman Church is selectively antinomian in that it shows the corrupt fruit of, for example, idolatry. For instance, the idolatry of venerating various statues of saints or so-called saints, especially Mary, or the adoration of the consecrated communion elements of the Roman mass, which is one of the deadly sins earlier referred to in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 10. But they conceal this idolatry in the form of the Ten Commandments they use. And so when this second sodomite metropolitan community church false teacher uses in his 2014 sermon, the biblical truth of justification by faith, with reference to Martin Luther, and the Reformation to justify selective antinomianism with regard to God's moral law. In his case, God's law against sodomy, which 1 Timothy 1.10 teaches is an example of an egregious breach of the morality of the seventh commandment. He simultaneously sets aside the biblical truth upheld by Martin Luther and the Reformation against the Roman Church, that one cannot use the truth of justification by faith to justify selective antinomianism with regard to God's moral law. In the Reformation's case, for example, God's law against Romish idolatry. And while on the one hand, neither idolatry nor sodomy are intrinsically unforgivable sins, for we read of former idolaters and former sodomites in 1 Corinthians 6.11, And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. On the other hand, we are told in the preceding two verses of 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 11 that willfully unrepentant idolaters and sodomites shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And with regard to the 1997 false tits and preacher Troy Perry's reference to Romans 10.9 at the Sydney Metropolitan Community Church, it is of some interest to note that on his 1997 visit to Australia, this Metropolitan Community Church's founder, born in 1940, debated the Reverend Fred Nile, born in 1934, who both then and now is a member of the New South Wales Upper House of State Parliament, and the leader of the Christian Democratic Party, then known as the Call to Australia Party. And in connection with that 1997 debate, as well as Troy Perry's later 2002 visit to Australia, in connection with the Metropolitan Community Church's, quote, queer sexual ethics conference, unquote, The Reverend Mr. Fred Nile, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, said in connection with such scriptures as Matthew 9, 2, 5, 6 and John 8, 11, quote, Jesus said, I forgive, sin and go no more. Not, I forgive now, go and sin some more. Unquote. Now, in St. Paul's great work, or in the Latin magnum opus, on justification by faith to wit the epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, he upholds the moral law of the Decalogue in Romans 7, 7 and 39, and as one manifestation of that moral law, he also very specifically teaches in Romans 1, 26 and 27 that a male or female homosexual lifestyle is sin. And he further says in Romans 6, 1 and 2, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Or returning to our key passage of Matthew 12.33 where our Lord says, two-fold more the child of hell than yourselves. In Christ's words of Matthew 12.33, the tree is either good or corrupt. And so in terms of a man's broken relationship with God, there is a restoration of that relationship through Christ on the basis of his atonement at Calvary. And by the regenerating work of the Holy Ghost, as stated in John 3.7, ye must be born again. And so it then transpires that the Matthew 1233 tree is good. But Christ does not leave the matter there. He further says that we can apply a check. Namely, if the tree is good, it will have good fruit. Whereas if the tree is corrupt, it will have corrupt fruit. For the tree is known by his fruit. Now, One knows an apple tree from an orange tree, or from a lemon tree, by the tree's fruit. And Christ uses the moral law of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 to isolate sin. For example, in Matthew 15.4, the 5th commandment, honor thy father and mother. In Matthew 5.21, the 6th commandment, thou shalt not kill. And in Matthew 5.27, the 7th commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery. And our Lord refers to a number of Decalogue commandments to isolate sin in Matthew 19, 17 to 19, including thou shalt not commit adultery. And earlier in this same chapter 19, with regard to sexual sin, Christ upholds the heterosexual nature of the institution of marriage in Matthew 19, 4 and 5. Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? And so our Lord makes the point that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, not Madam and Eve, but Adam and Eve, when he made them male and female. And in this context, Christ condemns fornication in Matthew 19, 9. And this is against the contextual backdrop of him having earlier condemned in Matthew 15, 19, adulteries and fornications. So that our Lord contextually teaches that the wider orbit of the seventh commandment prohibits any form of interpersonal sexual relations between people who are not lawfully married to each other in the heterosexual institution of marriage. And to underscore that point with special reference to the sin of sodomy, I also note that in Mark 6, 11 and 12, Christ refers to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment, after which his disciples then went out and preached that men should repent. And while such repentance clearly is a reference to all sin, it's also surely notable that the sin of Sodom is here used for illustrative purposes to give some greater specificity with reference to sodomy. And so when our Lord says in Matthew 12, 33, either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt, for the tree is known by his fruit. We cannot doubt that one example, though by no means the only example of such corrupt fruit, is the sin of sodomy or homosexuality. Now, it's sometimes said in a maxim, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And the 2014 sodomite preacher at the Melbourne Metropolitan Community Church, David Colhart, had a little bit of knowledge about the fact that in a number of Bible verses there's a nexus between idolatry and sodomy. From which he then wrongly concluded that sodomy per se is not condemned, but homosexuality in the context of pagan idolatry with pagan idolaters. is what is condemned. But in harmony with the maxim, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, this sodomite failed to recognize the biblical teaching of, for example, Romans 1, 18-32, that as a divine judgment upon a man for his antecedent sins of idolatry and or denying God's creatorship, God may give a person over to a homosexual orientation, although he does not always do so. And so while in this sodomite's instance, his homosexual orientation was related to the fact that he failed to repent of his antecedent sins, such as, for example, lust, idols, idolatry, and connection with blasphemy, it's notable that with an overly simplistic focus on a cheap and unbiblical form of repentance, that over time he became more and more entangled in the gross sexual immorality of homosexual sin. And he then claimed in justification of his and fellow homosexuals actions, the words of the song he had learned as a child. Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. And so we see how this 2014 sodomite false teacher at Metropolitan, Melbourne Metropolitan Community Church, like the earlier 1997 sodomite false teacher at Sydney Metropolitan, Metropolitan Community Church, in the words of Holy Moses in Numbers 15, 30 and 31, did act presumptuously because he hath despised the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandments, not heeding the warning of King Solomon in Proverbs 13, 13. Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed. And so on the one hand, As to whether or not the sin of these two men, who have both been ministers in the Metropolitan Community Church, is already too great so as to be unpardonable, is not a matter I know the answer to for sure. But on the other hand, I would say that at this stage, they both either have or have come very close to doing so. For in the words of Numbers 15, they have repeatedly act presumptuously, and hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, as they now both freely testify that they haven't brought forth the fruits of the Spirit that result in them forsaking a homosexual lifestyle." And so the test for having committed unforgivable sin is not whether or not someone simply wants forgiveness, or says the words, I repent. For our Lord tells us what the test is in this key passage dealing with unforgivable sin. Saying in Matthew 12, 33, either make the tree good and his fruit good or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt. For the tree is known by his fruit. And so the biblical test requires that there is repentance from sin in the associated context of bringing forth fruits of the Spirit. And our Lord then gives us one example of this in St. Matthew 12, 35-37, saying, A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Thus, our Lord, he gives us this example of every idle word that men shall speak. And whilst there are many different types of idle words that men may speak, one example, though by no means the only example, is one which is cross-referable to the morality of the third commandment of the Holy Decalogue of Exodus 20, thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain. And that's of some note, for we live in a day and age when many people quite freely blaspheme the name of the Lord with blasphemous exclamations such as, Oh my God, or Jesus Christ, or I swear, and being hardened in sin, do not consider or care that they thereby speak idle words of blasphemy. We read in Romans 1 of how men, by God's common grace which is not unto salvation, may discern there is a Creator God, and how in Romans 2.5, by hardness and in penitent heart, a wicked man treasurest up the wrath of the righteous judgment of God. And in Leviticus 18 of how those who were without the benefit of the divine revelation were judged by God for those things which they could discern through God's common grace if they were humble in heart and diligent in study of godly reason or natural law. So that, for example, Leviticus 18 24 and 25 saith, Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled, therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. And one of those things was the sin of profaning the Lord's name. For we read in Leviticus 18.21, Neither shalt thou profane the name of the Lord thy God. I am the Lord. That's what the Bible teaches. And if the Bible says it, I believe it. That settles it for me. And our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also gives us other examples of how a Matthew 12.33 good tree shall bring forth good fruit. For in the Sermon on the Mount, He upholds the Holy Decalogue, saying of the sixth commandment in Matthew 5.21, Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Verse 22. But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment. And of the seventh commandment, in Matthew 5, 27, ye have heard that it was said of them of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery, verse 28. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And so our Lord is making the point that the precepts of the Ten Commandments have a much deeper reach than some people think. And that includes, professedly, religious people. For Christ saith in Matthew 15 to Jewish scribes and Pharisees, in verses 3 and 4 of the fifth commandment, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother. Verse 6, Ye have made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition. Now in Jewish tradition, as signified by putting the numbers 1 to 5 on the first tablet of the Decalogue, the first five commandments are referred to, and by putting the numbers 6 to 10 on the second tablet of the Decalogue, the last five commandments are referred to in artistic tradition. And then our Lord further says in Matthew 15, 18 to 20, first with reference to the second tablet of the Decalogue, containing the sixth to tenth precepts, out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, that is the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill. Then he refers to adulteries, that is the seventh commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery. In its narrower sense, then he refers to fornications, that is the seventh commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery in its wider sense of any interpersonal sexual relations outside of God-ordained heterosexual marriage. Then he refers to thefts, that is the eighth commandment, thou shalt not steal. Then he refers to false witness, that is the ninth commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness. And then with reference to the first tablet of the Decalogue containing the first to fifth the precepts, he refers to blasphemies, that is the third commandment, thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain. And with respect to such Decalogue breaking, he says in Matthew 15, 20, these are the things which defile a man. And so Christ is here contextually upholding the two tablets of the Holy Decalogue. And our Lord uses the same technique of upholding the two tablets of the Ten Commandments in a quite different context with the rich young ruler in St. Matthew 19, 18 and 19 when he uses the Ten Commandments to isolate sin. Thus first with reference to the second tablet of the Decalogue containing the sixth to tenth precepts he says, Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness. And then with reference to the first tablet of the Decalogue containing the first to fifth precepts he says, honour thy father and thy mother. And so as with Matthew 15, 19, the commandment order in Matthew 19, 18 and 19 is used by our Lord to make the point that sin is isolated by both tablets of the decalogue. And thus Christ is here contextually upholding the morality of all of the Ten Commandments. And so the test for whether or not a man has committed the unforgivable or unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in Matthew 12, 31 and 32, as stated in Matthew 12, 33, is to look at the general fruits of a man's life in connection with God's law, as found by Excellence in the moral law of the Ten Commandments or Holy Decalogue. In the words of Matthew 12.33, the tree is known by his fruit. Put simply, if in the words of Matthew 12.33 the tree is good, as there is genuine salvation with justification by faith, then the other side to the coin of justification is sanctification, for the tree is known by his fruit. As an Evangelical Protestant, I have an emphasis on justification by faith, so that the Gospel message of Mark 115, repent ye and believe the Gospel, means repent from sin, as itemized by excellence in the Ten Commandments, and believe the Gospel means have saving faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as Saviour and Lord, being man's only Saviour from sin, who died in our place, and for our sins at Calvary, before rising again the third day. And as a preacher of righteousness, I have an emphasis on sanctification in the Spirit, or holiness of living, so that, as found per excellence in the Ten Commandments, in the words of Matthew 12.33, the tree is known by his fruit. For justification and sanctification are the two sides of the one coin for the Christian. Thus on the one hand, with respect to repentance from sin, St Paul says of the Ten Commandments in 1 Timothy 1.8, the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, and with respect to justification, St Paul says in Romans 1.17, the just shall live by faith. But on the other hand, with respect to sanctification, St Paul says, with respect to the Decalogue, as exampled by the Tenth Commandment in Romans 7.7, I had not known sin, but by the law. For I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet. And so the test for whether or not someone has committed unpardonable sin is that of Matthew 12 33. Either make the tree good and his fruit good or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt for the tree is known by his fruit. And so if a man has experienced true biblical justification by faith in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, he will exhibit biblical sanctification in the Spirit in harmony with God's holy laws, as found par excellence in the moral law of the Decalogue of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Such a man will not be resistant to God's holy laws. In the words of Psalm 110.3, he shall be willing. For even though the sight of glorification he will accept due to his sinful fallen nature, he cannot keep it perfectly. In the words of Romans 7.22, he shall delight in the law of God after the inward man. Declaring of the holy decalogue in the words of Romans 7.12, the law is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good. And we can therefore say of such a man that whatever sins he has committed, he has not committed unforgivable sin. And so too, speaking through the Holy Apostles and Paul, God saith in the words of Galatians 5, 22-24, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Now, concerning the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5, 22 and 23, ask yourself these questions. Concerning love, the primary reason for churchgoing is to worship the Trinitarian God, but understood as a secondary reason for churchgoing, bearing in mind that love, here in Galatians 5, 22, is Greek agape, or agape, depending on how one translates, how one says these things. It relates to what Article 10b of the Apostles' Creed calls the communion of saints. That is the 1 John 1.7 fellowship of believers in a local context. For we read in Acts 2.42 that the Apostles' doctrine included the fellowship of believers, that is the communion of saints. And so, do you love Orthodox brethren or do you dislike Orthodox religiously conservative Protestant Christian brethren? Now, I've been to a number of churches where it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have any kind of spiritual, biblical, Christian conversation with anyone but the minister. When, for example, you go to church, do you ever speak to anyone there on a spiritual level, in which one is clearly having some kind of Christian conversation about something that's biblical, or to do with church history, or the sermon, or would you generally prefer to focus the conversation on secular things like sport, or cars, or anything other than Christian and biblical things? Do you make your conversation with fellow churchgoers as non-religious as possible, so as to forget about the fact you're both professedly Christians? Because really, you just don't identify with that one John 3 14 teaching to love the brethren. Do you just hate those religiously conservative Protestant Christians who exhibit biblical values? Or do you love religiously conservative Protestant Christians who exhibit biblical values? Concerning the Galatians 5.22 Joy, do you know the joy of the Lord in salvation manifested in, for example, giving thanks to God? Concerning the Galatians 5.22 Peace, do you experience the Philippians 4.7 Peace of God which passeth all understanding? When you read various accounts of confessors and martyrs in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, is the miraculous gift of peace given by the Spirit to such holy confessors and holy martyrs something you can understand? Or does such peace in Christ strike you as bizarre? Considering the Galatians 5, 22 long suffering, do you have what Revelation 14, 12 calls the patience of the saints? Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Concerning the Galatians 5.22 gentleness which is Greek Christotes and also carries the idea of kindness or benevolence. Do you ever give money to some worthy Christian charity or cause that seeks to show kindness or benevolence to needy people, this being part of the fruit of a Christian gentleman or lady? Or would you say that benevolence is beneath you and that you've just got to look out for yourself and forget about everyone else? Or would you say that benevolence is a good idea in theory, but personally you're too busy for it just at the moment, but you hope that someday in the future to get around to it, to showing a bit of Christian charity or kindness or benevolence to needy people? Concerning the Galatians 5.22 goodness, there are numerous examples. For instance, we have already touched upon our Lord's reference to the third commandment in Matthew 15.20 when he refers to blasphemies and examples of this with such blasphemous exclamations as, Oh my God, or Jesus Christ. Are you defensive about condemning such blasphemies, claiming that they're okay? Do you delight in goodness? So, as it's biblically defined, bearing in mind that we live in an age in which, in the words of Haile Isaias in Isaiah 520, bad men frequently call evil good and good evil. Are you comfortable about the way St. Paul uses the Ten Commandments in Romans 7-7 to isolate sin by the law? And then says of the Decalogue in Romans 7-20, the law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good. So that he describes the holy Decalogue as good. Do you delight in goodness as found in God's holy laws? So that you can say with St. Paul in Romans 7-22, I delight in the law of God after the inward man. Now, in Galatians 5.22, goodness is Greek. Agathos Sunni from Agathos, found in the female name of Agatha. And St Agatha's Day is remembered on the 1561 and 1662 Anglican calendars, with a black letter day on 5 February for a Virgin and Martyr of Sicily. And there have been some Anglican churches dedicated to God in special memory of Agatha. For example, in Oxfordshire, there's St Agatha's Church of Ingwell, Church of England, Britwell comes Sotwell. Now, as stated earlier today, Anglican hagiology is set forth in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Thirty-Nine Articles, should not be confused with Roman Catholic concepts of what they call hagiology, since the story of Agatha was greatly embellished by medieval Romanist editions. For example, the claim that she made a vow to virginity and that her invocation has stopped eruptions of a volcano near Sicily, so that Romans pray to Agatha for protection from fire, and they produce letters addressing her on prayer cards that may be used to orally invoke her. For example, I note that the 2019 website of the Roman Catholic University of Notre Dame in Indiana, USA, includes a written letter used as an oral invocation, quote, St. Agatha, patron saint for protection from fire, pray for us, unquote. And concerning such letters written to Agatha on Romish prayer cards, Article 35 of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, Book 1, Homily 5, says concerning, quote, superstitious Antichrist invented counterfeit religion. Let us rehearse some papistical superstitions and abuses as of these, of lady psalters and rosaries, of St. Agatha's letters. of purgatory," unquote. And we further read in book two, homily two of Romish practices, quote, they have spoiled the true living God of his due honor, as the Gentile idolaters have done before them. For instead of Vulcan and Vesta, the Gentiles gods of fire, our men have placed St. Agatha and make letters on her day for to quench fire with, unquote. By contrast, the 1561 and 1662 Anglican calendars simply refer to Agatha, a virgin and martyr of Sicily. And the Reverend Mr. John Fox in Fox's Book of Martyrs at the Seventh Persecution under Decius, who was the Roman emperor from 249 to 251 AD, refers to, quote, quote, Agatha, a holy virgin of Sicily, who is said to suffer diverse and bitter torments, unquote. But he further adds, quote, I doubt, unquote, with regard to various alleged miracles added onto the story of Agatha. And the big point is that different Protestant Anglicans looking into the story of Agatha may not entirely agree as to all of what looks to be correct and what looks to be incorrect and added on to Agatha's story. But the only thing required from her placement on the 1561 and 1662 Anglican calendars is that she died giving a Christian witness in connection with her virginity as an unmarried lady. For as taught in 1 Corinthians 7, a Christian lady should be a virgin upon her marriage bed, so that the martyrdom of Agatha who flourished in the 3rd century AD, stands as a Christian witness, both of faithfulness to Christ in the spiritual sphere and associated sexual purity in the moral sphere. And so with respect to the Galatians 5.22, goodness, do you like Agatha, who was martyred by pagan Roman idolaters, repudiate idolatry and the interfaith compromise and uphold the unique truthfulness of biblical Christianity? Do you distinguish between a good girl like Agatha who prizes keeping herself a virgin till marriage with a man and a bad girl who doesn't and who plays the slut by losing her virginity outside of marriage? Do you delight in goodness, such as this Christian example remembered on St Agatha's Day of the Holy Virgin and Holy Martyr Agatha? Or do you think that a bit of idolatry is okay, or a bit of interfaith compromise with non-Christians is all right, or a bit of fornication is okay? Do or don't you exhibit the Galatians 5 fruit of the Spirit with respect to goodness? Concerning the Galatians 5.22 faith, we are here reminded of the enabling power of the Holy Ghost with respect to salvation. Thus we also read in Ephesians 2.8, For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. And so the whole thing, both the faith in Christ as Saviour and Lord, and the grace of God's unmerited favour, are all part of God's gift. And thus St Paul also makes a contrast in Galatians 5.4 between those who erroneously think they can be justified by the law, as opposed to those who are justified by grace. Further saying in Galatians 3.11, the just shall live by faith. For in the words of Galatians 3.13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. And in Galatians 1.3 and 4, our Lord Jesus Christ gave himself for our sins. And thereafter, in the words of Galatians 1.1, God the Father raised him from the dead. Do you have the Galatians 5 fruit of the Spirit with respect to faith? Are you justified before God on the basis of what Christ did at Calvary? Do you believe in the Biblical and Protestant teaching of the Reformation, found in Galatians 3.11, the just shall live by faith? But concerning the Galatians 5.22 faith, the emphasis in this passage on the fruit of the Spirit is a sanctification emphasis as a fruit of justification, rather than a justification by faith emphasis in which, by the gift of faith, we accept the gift of eternal life, given by God's grace. And so the faith he isolated in Galatians 5.22 is not the faith of justification, but the faith of sanctification. For scripture teachers, of this faith as one of endurance. Thus with regard to the example of the Holy Apostle Saint Paul, he saith in 2 Timothy 3.10, Thou hast fully known my faith. Which refers to both justification faith and sanctification faith. And in verse 11 he saith, I am doered. And more generally, we read in 2 Thessalonians 1.3, your faith groweth exceedingly. It groweth. And so that's sanctification faith. And in verse 4, of your patience and faith that ye endure. Or in Hebrews 11.27, that Moses by faith besook Egypt. fearing the wrath of the King, for He endured, as seeing Him who is invisible." And so as touching upon sanctification by faith, God the Holy Ghost strengthens us to endure in the Christian life. Do you or don't you exhibit the Galatians 5 fruit of the Spirit with respect to such sanctification faith? Concerning the Galatians 5.23 meekness, this is Greek praotes, which on internal New Testament Greek linguistic diversity is a noun also sometimes found as prates, Greek praotes, or protes. It carries the idea of meekness or gentleness or humility. And so we read in James 1.21, receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save your souls. And meekness here is the same Greek word. And in James 1.21 it carries the idea of humility. So that to receive with meekness the engrafted word is to receive with humility the engrafted word of God. And it's notable that in Holy Scripture we learn that such meekness or humility is always present in successful dealings with God. For example, Christ our Lord saith in St. Matthew 11, 29, Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, in which meek is Greek praus, and this is the adjectival form of the noun Priotis or Proutis, or in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew 5-7, one of the Beatitudes pronounced by Christ is out of St. Matthew 5-5, Blessed are the meek. Once again, Greek Prouse. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Or speaking through his penman of the Old Testament, Prophet Holy Isaias in Isaiah 57-15, We read, Thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy. I dwell in the High and Holy Place with Him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Or in drawing on Proverbs 3.34 in the Greek Septuagint, and speaking through his penman of the New Testament Apostles, Saint Peter, in 1 Peter 5.5, the Lord says, God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble. Now, I understand the first epistle general of Peter to have been written in the first instance to racially segregated Jewish Christian churches per 1 Peter 1. And the general epistle of James are likewise to have been written in the first instance to racially segregated Jewish Christian churches per James 1.1. Although in the second instance, all of scripture, including these two general epistles, are for all Christians, whether by race they are Jews or Gentiles, or whether by race they are whites or coloureds. And James 4, 5 and 6 also draws on Proverbs 3, 34 in the Greek Septuagint and cites this verse as scripture. So that God the Holy Ghost speaking through his penman of St. James saith, But he giveth more grace, wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Indeed, consider the example set by the incarnation of our Lord and Saviour. the God the Son, for we read of the second divine person of the Holy Trinity in Philippians 2, 5 and 8. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Like our Lord Apostle St. Paul who says in Philippians 4.12, I know how to be abased. Do you know how to eat humble pie? Is the Galatians 5.23 meekness or humility part of the fruit of the Spirit in your life? Concerning the Galatians 5.23 temperance, This is Greek enkratia, and it conveys the idea of temperance or self-control. Now, before considering what this means, let me firstly say that it does not mean alcohol prohibition, since there are certain Puritan-derived types, though not all Puritan-derived types, together with certain cultists, such as Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists, all of whom claim temperance means alcohol prohibition. I consider this is entirely incorrect, though I should mention that this touches on an area of intra-Protestant disagreement with the generality of Anglicans and Lutherans together with some Puritans, considering the Bible teaches that the moderate consumption of alcohol is within biblical guidelines, which is my position, as opposed to some Puritans who claim the Bible teaches alcohol prohibition in the word temperance here in Galatians 5.23, so that they have sometimes formed so-called, quote, temperance societies, unquote, promoting alcohol prohibitionism. Now, alcoholic content is regulated by glass size. For example, a port glass is relatively small but contains the same alcohol level as a glass of red wine in a red wine glass. Since these are the two alcoholic drinks I prefer, I use them as examples. But the same is true for others as well, although beer has become more difficult because of different strengths. By moderate, for a man, I mean no more than two or three glasses consumed slowly over two or three hours, and for a woman, no more than two glasses consumed slowly over two or three hours. So for example, I might have two ports after dinner, or I might have a glass of red wine with my meal, followed by one or two ports. But that would be it for the day. For in the words of Psalm 104.15, wine maketh glad the heart of man. And I should also mention that it's best to drink alcohol with or after a meal, not on an empty stomach. And I'm opposed to drinking alcohol before or while on duty. Leviticus 10.9. On the one hand, I earlier read from Article 35 of the Anglican 39 Articles, Book 2, Homilies 16, which included a citation of Galatians 5, 19 to 23, among other things, contrasting the fruits of the Holy Ghost with such deeds of the flesh as drunkenness. And so on the one hand, the Holy Bible clearly condemns drunkenness. But on the other hand, the Holy Bible also allows for the moderate consumption of alcohol in, for example, the fifth book of Moses, called Deuteronomy, chapter 14 and verse 26. Holy Moses saith, thou shalt bestow money for strong drink, and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God. Or in the first epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, in dealing with abuses of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion in chapter 11, verses 20 and 21, the Holy Apostle St. Paul saith, when ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper, For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken." Now the Greek word here for drunken, methuo, which is the verbal form of the noun methusos, found in 1 Corinthians 6.10, where with verse 9 we read that drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And so that means the Corinthians were using alcoholic wine at communion. But St. Paul does not say something like, stop using alcohol and start using grape juice. Rather, he says in 1 Corinthians 11, 22, what, have you not houses to eat and drink in and to drink in? So that he tells them to drink alcohol in their homes. And contextually with 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10, this would mean the moderate consumption of such alcohol. And then in the context of the communion service, he makes it clear that this is a memorial supper. So verse 25 says, Christ took the cup when he had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. Verse 34, and if any man hunger, let him eat at home. So that communion is a supper, not a main meal. Hence one only takes a small amount of bread and wine at the Lord's supper. And so the teaching that emerges on alcohol from 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10, and 11, 22 to 34, is that the moderate consumption of alcohol is permissible, for example, in one's home, and that it may be used in the church service of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion in a small quantity with a small amount of communion bread. And so the Galatians 5.23 temperance which in the Greek conveys the idea of temperance or self-control, cannot be fairly used as an alcohol prohibition verse, but it may be fairly used to condemn drunkenness and require that there be only a moderate consumption of alcohol. And so, on the one hand, I am tolerant to fellow religiously conservative Protestant Christian brethren who as weak brethren choose to abstain from alcohol. In the words of the Holy Apostle St. Paul in Romans 14.21, But on the other hand, I would not permit such persons to spy out the Christian freedoms. of religiously conservative Protestant Christian brethren who engage in the moderate consumption of alcohol, in the words of the same Holy Apostle St. Paul in Colossians 2.16, let no man judge you in meat or in drink, of which we further read in Colossians 2.20-23 with regard to such man-made ordinances as, touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men, which things have but a show of wisdom, and in fact fire in the satisfying of the flesh. For in the earlier words of Colossians 2.16, let no man judge you in meat or in drink." Well, having now considered what temperance or self-control in Galatians 5.23 does and doesn't mean with respect to alcohol, let me say that its use to condemn drunkenness as opposed to the moderate consumption of alcohol is only one possible application of its meaning in this verse. As I say, the Galatians 5.23 temperance is Greek enkratia and it conveys the idea of a temperance or self-control. And so there are a number of possible applications of this verse to various things that may appeal to the fleshly senses of which we are only considering some in today's sermon. For example, it includes in its orbit, a temperate usage of raiment seen in the usage of the word excess in the name of the Anglican homily of article 35 of the 39 articles book to homily six, which is entitled against excess of apparel. And within religiously conservative Protestant Christianity, this 16th century Anglican teaching is also found among Puritans, such as Matthew Poole, who says in his 17th century Bible commentary at Galatians 5.23 that temperance includes, quote, a sober use of meats, drinks, apparel, or anything wherein senses are delighted, unquote. And such a temperance such a temperate usage of clothing prohibits, for example, a woman wearing the swimsuit called a bikini, which is really nothing more than a woman immodestly and whorishly strutting around in a bra and underpants. We also find the same Greek word used in Acts 24-25, where in addressing the governor, Most Noble Felix, the Apostle Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. So that in this gospel presentation, the Holy Apostles and Paul included temperance or self-control as something of fundamental relevance to the Christian life. And likewise, using the same Greek word for temperance or self-control, the Holy Apostle Saint Peter saith in 2 Peter 1, 5-9, Giving diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. And so the Apostle Peter here contrasts such fruits as the temperance or self-control of the Christian whose sins are purged with the spiritual blindness of the one lacking such temperance or self-control. And this raises a much bigger issue, for we live in a day and age in which in both church and state many are spiritually blind and lack such fruit of the spirit as temperance or self-control. The Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer wisely puts a special focus on Psalm 95, which is found at morning prayer or matins, as rendered in the Anglican Psalter, which is taken from the Great English Bible of 1539, set forth and used in the time of King Henry VIII, whose regnal years were 1509 to 1547, and under whom was commenced the Anglican Reformation of England and Ireland with the break from Rome. And this great Bible was also set forth and used in the time of Edward VI, whose regnal years were 1547 to 1553, and under whom the Anglican Reformation advanced, and produced Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's Protestant Prayer Book of 1552, as now preserved for us in the 1662 prayer book. And there are a number of reasons for this special focus on Psalm 95. For example, Psalm 95, 6 says, O come, let us worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker. For unlike both Roman Catholic churches and Puritan churches, Anglican churches have kneelers placed in front of the pews as Anglicans kneel for prayer, both in the pews in private prayer before and after church service, and also in public worship during the church service. But again, reading from the Anglican Psalter, Psalm 95 also says in verses 7 and 8, Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. And verses 10 and 11 gives the consequence of this, where God says of a rebellious generation, It is the people that do err in their hearts, for they have not known my ways, unto whom I swear in my wrath, that they should not enter into my rest. And, sadly, we live in a day and age where rebellion against Almighty God, as started with the rise of the secular state in the 18th and 19th century, which got people off a God-first focus, as manifested in the first three commandments of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and as accelerated in the post-World War II era from the mid-20th century, is Western worldwide and shows transgenerationalism with generation upon generation that do err in their hearts for they have not known God's ways, under whom Almighty God doth swear in His wrath that they should not enter into my rest. We see this, for example, in the post-World War II lack of temperance or self-control, with the rise of big-beat music and figures like Elvis Presley in the 1950s, or the Beatles in the 1960s, and many other such big-beat musicians who, like the Pied Piper, have used music to lead generations into captivity. Now, Big Beat Music is a name I derived from Frank Garlock's 1971 book, The Big Beat, published by Bob Jones University Press USA, and this type of music has a strong pulsating beat, so that people don't so much listen to it, but rhythmically feel it and pulsate with it, so that its brain-deadening beat is calculated to incite the beating up of fleshly lusts in rhythmic pulsation, and then to this beating up of fleshly lusts pulsation is then added images and lyrics focusing on and promoting all manner of ungodliness as captured in the phrase, quote, sex, drugs, and rock and roll, unquote, or the terminology of a, quote, rock idol, unquote, in which a big beat musician is glorified as an idol in someone's life. And this big beat music has rock and roll spinoffs, which now give us a rock and roll, pop, metal or heavy metal, rhythm and blues, rap or hip hop and punk. And a lack of temperance or self-control was associated with this big beat music from its very outset. And now big beat music to some extent grew out of a perverted usage of some concepts found in American Negro spirituals. songs. For example, the words rock and swing were originally used in American Negro spiritual songs in connection with Negro body movements coordinated with their songs as one of their racial characteristics includes an above average mix of rhythm and coordination evident in both sport and music. But swing was later used for jazz music and rock later used for rock music. And these concepts derived from American Negro spirituals were in time perverted by degraded and ungodly persons who cross-applied the idea of Negro swinging or rocking back and forth as they sung these type of songs to a degraded concept of people rocking back and forth in the sexual lust of fornication in the termination of rock and roll in fornication. which was a term first used by disc jockey Alan Freed of Cleveland, USA, as a term to express the wild response of teenagers to the music of those like Chuck Berry and Gene Vincent, which was associated with violent riots and sexual hysteria, as well as the music of Elvis Presley. Such rock and roll music came in time to more fully promote fornication in its lyrics. And many other evils were also promoted in this mischievous music, which uses polyrhythms in combination, in combining what's sometimes called the wicked or left or black hand, drawing on American Negro concepts of rhythm, with the so-called white or right hand of Caucasian technology and creativity, used in a negative and degrading and debasing way. And so from its outset in the post-World War II era, rock and roll's lack of the Galatians 523 temperance or self-control saw the beating up of fleshly lusts that resulted in such out-of-control behavior as racial desegregation, fornication, drunkenness, drugs, and girls screaming wildly over some rock and roll idol. And that went with images such as the usage by the so-called king of rock, Elvis Presley, known as Elvis the Pelvis, of his guitar as a phallic symbol, a subliminally focusing mind on the male genitalia, or the image of religious and racial desegregation found in the lifestyle of the rock idol John Lennon, one of the long-haired git beetles who cruelly divorced his wife, his white wife for no good reason, and married a mongoloid Japanese woman, and whose sin was then visited in harmony with the second commandment of the Decalogue upon his child, who bears in his very frame. The holy anger of nature's God is seen in the fact that he is a half-caste. How vile. And Lenin's life, lifespan, was also reduced as God has said he will always do. For miscegenationists. And so, a big beat music is one example and drunkenness is another example, but neither of these are the only examples. Those lacking the Galatians 5.23 fruit of the spirit found in temperance or self-control. Another example of those lacking temperance or self-control would be sexual perverted women. lusting after traditional male roles, for example, female politicians, judges, doctors, lawyers, workplace supervisors of men, and so on, thereby subverting the base unit of society, which in a Western land such as Australia, the UK, or USA, is that of a white Christian patriarchal husband and father, his white Christian wife, and their white Christian children. And in this context, I note, for example, that English Churchman newspaper of 7 and 14 June 2019 published at page four a press release of Gavin McGrath books, which said in reference to myself under the headline, old guard outside, new guard inside, quote, in response to a Southern Cross, Anglican Media, Sydney, Australia, May 2019, page 8, article on a celebration of women deacons, 1989 to 2019. Gavin McGrath, a Lowchurch Evangelical Anglican, mounted a protest movement at St Andrew's Cathedral on the night of Thursday, 23 May 2019. He spoke the words he held on a placard. On one side, don't celebrate 30 years of sex, role perversion, sin with women deacons, 1989 to 2019. God says, I suffer not a woman to teach the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 1 Timothy 2, 12 and 13, authorized King James Bible of 1611. And on the other side, women who covet male roles, such as women deacons, are covetous. And God says that covetous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 10. Authorised King James Bible of 1611. Gavin handed out free flyers entitled, what about the anti-patriarchal sex role perverts usage of 1 Timothy 3.11, citing the NRSV's claims. Some refused to take one. For example, retired Auxiliary Bishop of North Sydney, Paul Barnett, of whom Gavin says he once told clergy to follow the examples. the example of those that have turned the world upside down, Acts 17.6, but alas, on a number of issues, the world turned him upside down. Or Michael Hill, sometime vice-principal of Moore Theological College, who alleged 1 Timothy 2.12 sounds like one thing in English, but something quite different in Greek, to whom Gavin, the first Neo-Byzantine Greek, New Testament textual analyst in over 300 years replied, as one who has lectured at Moore College, you should know better, before Mr. Hill walked off towards St. Andrew's House. Or the rector of St. Matthew's Windsor, Chris Jones, who first made some negative comments about Gavin to an accompanying woman before saying, I wouldn't take anything from you or of yours. Mr. Jones' comments are also reflective of a situation in which he and Gavin are in conflict over the fact that one of the low churches Gavin used to attend 1662 Book of Common Prayer services at was St Matthew's 8am service on the fifth Sunday of the month. And before his appointment as rector, the nominators got a commitment from Mr Jones for no changes to this service. But after his appointment in 2015, Mr Jones immediately discontinued the 1662 BCP services. And when confronted by Gavin over this, as he stood inside St Matthew's church, Mr Jones asserted he had kept his pledge that There's been no changes before he too walked off. But other attendees were more gracious. These included, for example, the Archbishop, Glen Davies, who was greeted by Gavin at the West End Cathedral door with the words, your grace, as the Archbishop listened to Gavin's recitation of one side of the placard, then politely took one of Gavin's flyers before he went up the steps, paused to listen to Gavin's recitation of the other side of the placard, and then went inside. So too, the Dean of the Cathedral came to the Cathedral porch and said he was happy to take one of Gavin's flyers before returning inside the Cathedral. Before leaving, Gavin fastened the placard with blue tack to the east end George Street door of the cathedral with the side facing out reading, don't celebrate 30 years of sex, role, perversion, sin with women deacons, 1989 to 2019, et cetera. Gavin says he did so in the tradition of Martin Luther, who posted his protest to a church door, and that he would not enter the cathedral while this service was on. For in the words of Southern Cross of April 2019, page 17, we who were once insiders have been turned into outsiders by these type of dechristianisation values in churches. Unquote. And so, sex role perverts who oppose biblically sound patriarchal structures in church and society are another example of those lacking the Galatians 5.23, fruit of the spirit, found in temperance or self-control. Concerning a woman's place in the home with domestic duties as a housewife, or what Titus 2.5 calls keepers at home, In the wider words of Titus 2, 3 to 5, we read, the aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. But under the influence of sex-role perverted feminist ideology, aided and abetted by the bunyip intelligentsia in, for example, the formal academic world, the media and elsewhere, and also having the religiously liberal support of apostate church leaders and evil politicians enacting anti-patriarchal feminist legislation, sociological structures in law and society were tragically and wickedly altered away from a traditional patriarchal sexual division of labour. Now, before the rise of the post-World War II ideology of anti-patriarchal sexism, unmarried women might work in support roles as secretaries or some might, for instance, work in a woman's hairdressing shop or dress shop and resign upon marriage, possibly doing some part-time work when the children were older, or in some instances work as schoolteachers at the level of a classroom teacher in which higher executive positions were held by men. Indeed, I recall some years ago talking to a young woman who was desirous of becoming a schoolteacher so that when she married and had children, when the children were older, she would work as a schoolteacher and be at home when the children were there. But as for those under the witches' matriarchal sociological values as manifested in their secularized form with the influence of sexual, perverted feminist ideology, we find that these women's lusts found in their lack of Galatians 5.23 temperance or self-control, have been pandered to and fostered by a feminist ideology. For example, the iniquity of equal pay for equal work and associated iniquity of women taking on traditional male jobs, which led banks to look to joint incomes. And so house prices skyrocketed, as did other prices. And soon, most middle and lower class women were economically pushed into the workforce as a consequence of the fact that the male wage was no longer determined on the basis of a dependent wife and two dependent children, but rather on an equal pay for equal work basis of one adult and one child. And so we see how post-World War II so-called human rights, values in the form of anti-patriarchal, sexual division of labour values, manifest the antithesis of the Galatians 5.23, fruit of the spirit, found in temperance or self-control. And so we find that many women now lack such temperance or self-control as they lust and covet and obtain traditional male roles in church and society. And only when these lusts of anti-patriarchal feminist ideology and also the lusts of fornication are first addressed, can one have any meaningful impact on the mass murder abortion industry, which manifests as a bad fruit these underpinning sex role perverted and sexually immoral values. Those opposing abortion who try to isolate abortion as a one-off issue without simultaneously seeking to strike down the forbidden lusts of anti-patriarchal feminist ideology and fornication can expect to have no real success in getting down the underpinning lusts that are manifested in the mass murder abortion values that violate the Sixth Commandment, thou shalt not kill. And notably then, following reference to temperance or self-control in this Galatians 5 passage on the fruit of the Spirit, we read in verses 23 and 24, against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. And this reference to lust points us to the 10th commandment. For St. Paul saith in Romans 7.7, I had not known sin, but by the law. For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Now there are many examples of such Galatians 5.24 lusts, which as taught in Romans 7.7 are violations of the 10th precept of the Holy Decalogue of Exodus 20, thou shalt not covet. But to the extent that St. James saith in James 1.14, but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed, and then in James 1.25 and 2.10-12, he refers to the Ten Commandments as the law of liberty, it follows that a violation of the Tenth Commandment prohibiting lusts, in the words, thou shalt not covet, precedes further violations of the Decalogue's First to Ninth Commandments. With the consequence that these words of Galatians 5.23, they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts, includes in its orbit the more general violation of the moral law of the Ten Commandments or Holy Decalogue. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I am not here preaching justification before God by works righteousness, which is not possible. As St. Paul saith in Romans 117, the just shall live by faith. Nor am I preaching sinless perfectionism. Which is not possible, for we frail and fallen sinners, this side of glorification. But rather I am preaching sanctification in the spirit, or holiness of living. As St. Paul saith in Romans 7.7, I had not known sin but by the law, for I had not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet. And he then says in Romans 7.14, we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. And in Romans 7, 22 and 23, for I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Nevertheless, In a relativistic sense of righteousness, as opposed to the unattainable goal of sinless perfection, this side of glorification, there should be in the Christian life holiness of living with sanctification in the spirit, found in the type of examples from the moral law that St Paul itemizes in Ephesians 6 too, honour thy father and mother. Or in Romans 13 9, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and thou shalt love thy neighbour. as thyself. But as I say, we sadly live in a day and age of rebellion against Almighty God. as started with the rise of the secular state under the Type I Christian morals, secularists in the 18th and 19th centuries, which, though retaining many Christian morals which were justified on a rationalistic basis, nevertheless got people off a God-first focus as manifested in the first three commandments of the Decalogue of Exodus 20. which rebellion was accelerated in the post-World War II era under the Type II so-called human rights secularists' values of forbidden lust which have more comprehensively attacked the moral law of the decalogue. When I was a boy and teenager in the 1960s and 1970s, this propaganda brainwashing into immorality and vice was promoted under the name of, quote, the Generation Gap, unquote, so that attempts were made to disconnect an entire generation from the earlier high moral standards of parents and grandparents who upheld godliness and biblical Christian values, such as white, race-based Christian cultural nationalism, patriarchal sociological structures, keeping sexual relations to the heterosexual institution of marriage between a man and his wife of the same race and religion, for instance, the white race and Protestant Christian religion. and associated opposition to things like rock and roll music, pornography, fornication, sodomy, abortion and euthanasia. I shall not now consider in detail the issue of their degraded dress standards with things like jeans, or immodestly dressed women not covering their front to above the breast line, nor covering their legs to below their knees, or their sex role perverted unisex clothing in which women don't wear dresses or skirts but trousers, or men wearing drop shoulder cut shirts. that put the sleeve joint below the shoulder to make men look like they have smaller shoulders, whereas women wear clothing with artificially broadened shoulders to make them look more like men. Or males with long hair like females, or females with short hair like males, or tattoos, or heathen, Hindu-derived nose studs and other such things. But what I will say is that what was called the generation gap was really a righteousness gap against the traditional Protestant values of goodness and decency and being Christian. And this generation gap claim was also used to disconnect people from spiritual and cultural manifestations of Protestant Christianity, such as the 1611 authorised King James Bible, hymnals, with compatible language forms such as the, thou, and thy, and in the Anglican context from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The language of the King James Bible was deliberately archaic in its day. Since if one looks at Shakespeare's contemporary English, it uses thee and thou like the French too, which is a singular you used in a more informal way, indicating greater intimacy with, for example, friends, whereas the second person plural pronoun vous is you plural and used both in a more formal form of address to a singular person as well as a plural you to multiple persons. By contrast, the King James translators deliberately used language that was archaic in 1611, because for the religiously conservative Protestant Christian, accuracy of translation is paramount, and the used singular and plural distinction found in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is thus preserved. And so the absurd claims of the plethora of so-called modern versions, that because the language is archaic, the King James Version and associated work should go, is totally ridiculous. As an Anglican rector said to me when I was in my 20s in the 1980s at a 1611 King James Bible and 1662 Book of Common Prayer using church, when this objection of archaic language was raised in discussions with some older people in the congregation, they dismissed it on the basis that they too had to learn this language when they were younger, as they asked poignantly, how did we learn it when we were younger? But under such rebellion, initiated under the camouflage of the smokescreen name of Generation Gap, we find that in both church and state, many became, for instance, the newly empowered white trash of society. That, for example, now controls the major political parties, media, formal academic world, and many churches in Western lands. And many have set aside the cautionary words elucidated upon in Hebrews 3 and 4 and found in the Anglican Psalter of Psalm 95 verses 7 and 10. Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts with the Psalm 95 verses 10 and 11 consequence that God saith of such a rebellious generation. It is a people that do err in their hearts, for they have not known my ways, and to whom I swear in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest. And if God doth swear in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest, then one will not find, more generally, the fruit of the Spirit in such persons' lives. And since God has said of such like that they should not enter into His rest, then it must be said that their case is truly hopeless. For God doth swear in His wrath that they should not enter into His rest. For on the one hand, the test isolated for unforgivable sin in numbers 15, 30, and 31 involves a man being hardened in sin in which he boldly, defiantly, or presumptuously acts as he busies himself eagerly in strengthening his reproaching, or reviling, or blaspheming the Lord repeatedly, as such an evildoer despises the Word of God as now found in the Holy Bible, and hath broken the commandment of God's law as found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the moral law of the Ten Commandments. And Numbers 15, 30 and 31 teaches that such sin is unforgivable or unpardonable. But on the other hand, the test for whether or not one has committed unforgivable sin is found on the lips of our Lord in Matthew 12.33. And so the biblical test requires that there is repentance from sin in the associated context of bringing forth fruits of the Spirit. And thus it must be distinguished from repentance in isolation from a context of bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit. And this, I think, is relevant to an issue raised in part one of this four-part sermon, to wit, the meaning of 1 John 3, 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God, which is a teaching endorsed in the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer at Morning Prayer or Matins in the T.D.M., which uses the words, quote, vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin, unquote. And now, on the one hand, I consider sinneth not in 1 John 3, 6, and 5, 18 cannot contextually mean sinless perfection. For St. John saith in 1 St. John 1, 8, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But on the other hand, St. John saith in 1 John 5, 7, and 18, all unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not. And so as seen by 1 John 5, 17 and 18, St John is here isolating a deadly sin unto death when he says, the Christian sinneth not. What then is this deadly sin? I take it to be the same as the unforgivable sin that we read of in Numbers 15, 30 and 31, that is, one who acts boldly, defiantly, or presumptuously, as he busies himself eagerly in strengthening his reproaching, or reviling, or blaspheming the Lord repeatedly. And such an evildoer despises the word of God, as now found in the Holy Bible, and hath broken the commandment of God's law, as found in the gospel of Jesus Christ, or the moral law of the Ten Commandments. And we further find some specific examples of such willfully unrepentant sin in the list of deadly sins in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 10, Galatians 5, 19-21, Ephesians 5, 5, 1 John 3, 15, Revelation 21, 8, 27 and 22, 15. For example, 1 Corinthians 6, 9 says, Fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 6, 19 and 21 says, Fornication, they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And Revelation 21, 8 says, Whoremongers shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. And so considering such willfully unrepentant sin, such deadly sin, one of the petitions of the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer Litany is, quote, from fornication and all other deadly sin, and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil, good Lord, deliver us, unquote. And so this teaching is biblically sound. That's what the Bible teaches. And if the Bible says it, I believe it. That settles it for me. And following a break, part four of this sermon will apply these biblical principles in a case study of Bishop Brutius of Tours to see if he did or did not commit unpardonable sin. Let us pray. O Almighty God, who in the book of nature doth teach us that in the visible world thou art the Creator, who hath not left thyself without witness, in that thou doest good and give us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness, we thank thee that in the book of divine revelation, or Holy Bible, thou dost tell us that in the invisible world, that if in a man's life thou dost make the spiritual tree good, then his fruit is good, for the tree is known by his fruit. We thank Thee, O Lord, that Thou art good and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon Thee, for Thou art willing to forgive he who cometh to Thee in humble repentance through our only Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that Thou dost assure us such a man Thou dost assure such a man of his forgiveness in Christ, and the unction of the Holy Ghost, in that he doeth in that he doth bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. We thank thee that through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord, we have boldness and access with confidence, so that we may sing blessed assurance, Jesus is mine. And we thank thee that we may apply to ourselves or others this biblical test of a repentance that brings forth the fruit of the Spirit, so as to know that no unpardonable sin hath been committed. As thou sayest through thy holy Apostle Saint John, we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not. And so unto thee, O Lord, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be ascribed as is most justly due, praise and dominion for ever and ever, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.