Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.53LIKELY
Disgust
0.51LIKELY
Fear
0.08UNLIKELY
Joy
0.5LIKELY
Sadness
0.5LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.71LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.23UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.94LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.7LIKELY
Extraversion
0.29UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.44UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.68LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
“Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?
What do I imply then?
That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.
I do not want you to be participants with demons.
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.
You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
Shall we provoke the Lord to Jealousy?
Are we stronger than He?”[1]
 
Do you sometimes wish that the Apostle Paul was present so you could ask him to clarify what he meant by some of the things he wrote?
Some points of contention among Christians could be quickly cleared up if he were present.
Though we don’t have the Apostle present, we do have living within us the same Spirit who impelled the Apostle to write the letters that have been written.
Moreover, that same Spirit of Christ works among His churches, guiding His people into truth as they submit themselves to Him and seek His guidance.
If we do not understand what is written at some particular point, or if we fail to see the applicability of what is written, we need but ask, and God will give the answer we seek.
Ignoring the context of Paul’s words in our text could lead to serious distortion of Scripture.
A casual reading could lead an individual to assume that the Lord’s Table is an actual sacrifice—a position advocated by some major Christian denominations.
However, that would lead to serious error.
Again, ignoring the context of the text could lead an individual to assume that Christians can worship God even while participating in devilish activities.
Again, such a conclusion would be a presumptuous error.
In order to understand the importance of this portion of the Word, it will be helpful for us to refresh our memory of Paul’s letter to the Church of God at Corinth, and especially with what he has written immediately preceding the text before us.
Paul has been cautioning his readers that they cannot participate in evil without consequences.
He uses the example of Israel in the wilderness, who though blessed with great and wondrous blessing nevertheless were not permitted to enter the Promised Land [*1 Corinthians 10:1-5*].
He then issues a caution, reminding readers of the consequences of idolatry and immorality among the people of Israel.
He reminded readers of the crafting of the golden calf [*Exodus** 32:1ff.*]
and the consequences of that sin.
Then, he wrote of the sin of grumbling against God by the people of God as recorded in *Numbers 21:4-9*.
When the people complained, God sent venomous snakes among them as punishment, though He did provide a means for relief when they were bitten.
In short, Paul warned the Corinthian believers against presuming against the Lord.
He warned them that sin always has consequences, and however well intentioned an action may be, God nevertheless holds His people accountable.
The Apostle wrote these things because some Corinthian Christians were treating idolatry as a casual matter.
Some, only recently delivered from the bondage of idolatry, were being drawn back toward that evil through the actions of others who imagined that their freedom gave them licence to do as they pleased without considering the impact of their actions on others who were more scrupulous about participating in the activities they had only recently shunned.
Join me in focusing on the truths Paul revealed to the Christians of Corinth nearly two millennia past.
Our purpose is to discover the will of God given through Paul’s instruction and to apply in our own lives what we discover.
The passage is *1 Corinthians 10:18-21*, and the subject under consideration is whether we can be guests at the devil’s table.
*Participation as Worship* —Paul’s argument points up the necessary relationship between participation and worship.
Participating in a religious ritual implies worship of the one behind the rite.
Refresh your memory of the problem Paul was confronting among the Corinthians.
Some Corinthian Christians had concluded that since they were free, they could participate in feasts honouring idols.
However, in drawing this conclusion, they failed to consider the impact of their choice on the lives either of other Christians or even on those outside the Faith.
It was a systemic problem running throughout the congregation as the people focused on their own comfort without thinking of the impact of their choice on others.
In the ancient world, meat was sold in the Agora—the marketplace.
Meat cutters were members of a guild, which though having similarities to a modern union was actually a religious organisation.
Those belonging to a particular guild would be expected to acknowledge the patron god or goddess of the guild.
Thus, in the meat cutters guild, all the meat would be offered to the patron deity, though only a portion would remain on the altar.
The meat that was not actually left before the deity (usually the better cuts) was sold in the Agora.
Accordingly, those who ate of the meat were said actually to be dining with the deity to whom the meat was offered—that deity was considered a guest at any meal where the meat was served.
The key to understanding Paul’s argument is provided by focusing on the word “participation” in verse sixteen and “participants” in verse eighteen.
The root word implies fellowship.
The word “partake” in verses seventeen and twenty-one is a different word which nevertheless conveys a similar meaning.
When you partake of someone’s table, you accept their hospitality and share their life, even if transiently.
To partake of a Jewish sacrifice in a holy place was an act of worship.
By the same rationale, to eat food offered as part of a pagan sacrifice was an act of worship.
Those who shared in the Jewish sacrifice made, at the least, a tacit admission that they were Jewish and that they shared common belief concerning God who was worshipped.
Likewise, those who shared in pagan sacrifices were, of necessity, in communion with each other and were also in communion with the god worshipped (or in this instance, the demonical power behind the god).
Participation in Christian ordinances points to communion with Christ; and participation in pagan ceremonies entails communion with demons.
Before exploring this issue further, I direct your attention again to Paul’s argument.
He is not conceding that the Greek or Roman gods were real—there was no Athena or Minerva, no Zeus or Jupiter, no Poseidon or Neptune.
However, behind the concept of the gods were demonic powers who took advantage of culpable and gullible humans.
The Greeks and the Romans did not intend to worship demons; nevertheless, they did so.
People in our world do not plan to serve demonic powers when they break God’s laws while pursuing their own desires.
However, those who reject God’s rule over their lives serve Satan as surely as though they were bowing down before Him.
Satan is identified in God’s Word as the “god of this world” [see *2 Corinthians 4:4*] and as “the ruler of this world” [e.g.
*John 12:31*].
The sole alternative to worshipping the True and Living God is to worship the god of this world.
Although the gods of the Greeks and Romans had no existence, there were nevertheless behind them real, evil beings—the rulers of the darkness of this world.
Paul was confronting the Corinthians with the disconcerting knowledge that regardless of their intention, they were actually guests at the devil’s table when they participated in a sacrificial feast at which meat dedicated to a pagan deity was offered.
Though the Christians who shared in these meals would have undoubtedly argued that they did not intend to worship demons, they were nevertheless worshipping demons.
The question was not what their intent might have been; the question was what they had done!
Not their intention, but the implications and effect of their conduct were under apostolic scrutiny.
A person need not intend to burn himself when he places his hand in the fire; but he will burn his hand when he places it in the fire.
Similarly, an individual need not intend polluting herself when she engages in questionable behaviour; but she will nevertheless pollute her soul through watching questionable shows or reading questionable literature.
The principle is forcefully applied to the life of Christians who share in religious acts with those who are not serving God.
In heathen countries, professed Christians cannot join in religious rites with unbelievers and say that their actions were only demonstrating courtesy.
As certainly as the Corinthians were dining with demons, so the professed Christian who participates in a pagan ritual is sharing with demonical powers and rendering worship to the god of this world.
Let me take this a step further to make a serious point that is neglected in this day.
Baptists who hold to the Bible as the sole rule for faith and practise, who hold the Bible to be authoritative and true, cannot link arms with professed Christians who deny the infallibility of the Word and treat the Book as though it were inerrant without sharing in the fallen philosophy of those holding such truths.
As one who believes the Bible to be God’s Word—inerrant and infallible—I cannot participate at worship with those who deny the Word which God has given.
While pastoring a congregation nearby, I was approached by a group of women who wanted our church to host a women’s day of prayer.
I graciously declined the invitation.
When the spokesman for the women’s group protested that I was being bigoted, I firmly insisted that I would under no circumstances permit our congregation to either host the event or promote it.
There was grumbling from some women within the congregation I pastored; they felt that I had disgraced them in the eyes of the church community.
In fact, at the next congregational meeting, two women presented a demand of the congregation to host the meeting.
They were incensed that I had declined on behalf of the church.
After one woman in particular had voiced her protests, I responded by reading from the literature circulated on behalf of the day of prayer that was planned.
It revealed that the women were urged to form a prayer circle in order that participants could pray to “earth mother,” confessing their sins against the earth.
The literature continued by instructing participants in the use of prayer wheels and other pagan customs.
Following my rationale for refusing to participate, there was shocked silence.
Then, one of the women responded by saying, “But, these are only guidelines.
We never do those things.”
Nevertheless, I carefully pointed out that to participate—even to lend our name to venture, however casually, was to embrace the entire agenda.
I suppose that our congregation was the only church in our community that failed to participate in that venture.
On another occasion, I was approached by a ministerial group to inquire whether our church would be participating in a service of Christian unity.
When I inquired who would be participating in the event, I was informed that “all the churches in town” would be represented.
Again, I graciously declined the offer only to be met once more by the rather puerile question, “Why not?”
It is a common response designed to erode confidence because it is assumed that the one refusing to participate is merely bigoted, having no rationale for refusal.
I responded that I would not share an act of worship with a particular minister, whom I named by name.
“She holds,” I stated, “in common with her denomination the conviction that a church should sanctify same sex marriage.
She holds the Bible to be a compilation of ethical positions supported by various myths.
She denies that Jesus is very God in human flesh.
These reasons will do for a start.”
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9