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
0.52LIKELY
Disgust
0.11UNLIKELY
Fear
0.13UNLIKELY
Joy
0.56LIKELY
Sadness
0.57LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.49UNLIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.1UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.92LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.35UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.1UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.21UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.69LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
The Enemies of Liberty
gal 5.
Having discussed the foundation of our liberty in Christ, Paul now turns his attention to its foes.
The enemies of freedom :
My past
My present friends
Religion
Bondage though legalism What they were doing to hinder you from freedom.
Illustration:
Enemies of WWII
They were dressed in different uniforms
They wanted something we processed
They spent a lot of money to fight us
They would sneak up quietly
Their ultimate Goal is destroy us
But someone had raised a roadblock in the way.
The word for “hinder” is enkoptō, which was used of people breaking up a road or putting an obstacle in the path.
“Who broke up the road along which you were making such good progress?”
Paul demands.
I Their Doctrine
gal 5
He describes both their doctrine and their doom.
He begins by showing how their doctrine spoils: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
2. The foes of our liberty (5:7–12)
a. Their doctrine revealed (5:7–9)
Having discussed the foundation of our liberty in Christ, Paul now turns his attention to its foes.
He describes both their doctrine and their doom.
He begins by showing how their doctrine spoils: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you” (vv.
7–8).
They had been off to a good start.
Paul could remember the dynamic days he had spent among them and how eagerly they had embraced the gospel.
They were off and running when he had left them.
But someone had raised a roadblock in the way.
The word for “hinder” is enkoptō, which was used of people breaking up a road or putting an obstacle in the path.
“Who broke up the road along which you were making such good progress?”
Paul demands.
Often in my travels along the American highways, I will encounter a sign that reads, “Roadwork Ahead”.
Sure enough, around the next bend in the road, traffic is stalled.
The caterpillar tractors, heavy earthmoving equipment, and big shovels are there.
There are the workmen in their hard hats.
There’s the man with the flag, waving the traffic ahead into a single lane.
And there ahead is the improvised traffic light, glaring red, bringing all vehicles to a stop.
It means both danger and delay.
It is bad enough when warnings are posted, when every effort is made to clear the road and let the impatient traffic through.
But what if there were no signs?
What if the obstructions were deliberate?
What if they were set up maliciously, not to improve the highway but as traps for the unwary motorist?
That was what Paul was asking.
He knew only too well the natural dangers and difficulties of the Christian life.
But what of those men who were deliberately obstructing the way?
“Who are they?” he demands.
Paul had no patience with false teachers who would do such a thing.
Somebody had been persuading them.
Whoever it was, the arguments had not come from God.
The Devil can quote the Bible.
He dared to quote it (or, rather, deliberately to misquote it) to the Lord Himself.
Nearly all cultists appeal to the Bible to give credence to their errors.
The Judaizers had the whole Mosaic Law to which to appeal.
But they quoted Scripture without any regard for that monumental dispensational change effected by Calvary and Pentecost that had rendered Judaism null and void.
As Paul would put it, they did not “rightly [divide] the word of truth” (2 Tim.
2:15).
So the Judaizers were spoilers.
They put their hindrances in the way of those who were making progress in the truth.
But the false doctrine did something else.
Paul showed the Galatians how their doctrine spreads: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (v.
9).
Throughout the Scripture, leaven is used as a symbol of corruption that spreads furtively, secretly, and unseen until it permeates everything.
It usually symbolizes false doctrine at work within the corporate body of the people of God.
Leaven was sourdough.
It was introduced into the dough of a new loaf, which was then left to stand in a warm spot until the fermenting, spreading influence of the old had thoroughly taken hold of all parts of the new.
The only way to stop the action of the leaven, once it had been insinuated into the new loaf, was to put the loaf in the oven.
The action of the fire stopped the action of the leaven.
That is the trouble with false doctrine!
That is why the Old Testament prophets, the Lord Himself, His apostles, and discerning, Spirit-filled men in all ages have been so vigorous in exposing error and in denouncing those who propagate it.
It spreads.
It does its corrupting work until it has taken over the whole.
Not a major denomination in Christendom has not eventually been taken over by liberalism, legalism, fanaticism, formalism, ritualism, or some other such corrupting influence.
By its third generation, every new movement, born of revival by the Spirit of God, needs a fresh moving of the Holy Spirit if it is to survive.
With the first generation, freshly discovered truth is a conviction; those who see it and embrace it propagate it with zeal.
They would willingly die for it.
They will give up all they have for it.
“Buy the truth, and sell it not,” advised the wise man (Prov.
23:23).
That is the motto of the first generation.
By the time the second generation takes over, what was once a conviction has become a belief.
The second generation has been taught these truths.
They have heard the first generation tell tales of battle, fire and sword, of persecution and pioneering, of the high price that was paid for these truths.
They have been brought up in them, drilled in them, made to memorize them, and urged to accept them for themselves.
And so they do, but not with the same fire and fervor of the first generation.
But they believe them.
They can give chapter and verse for their beliefs.
The zeal to spread them has cooled, but they still hold to them and defend them and still rear their children to believe them.
By the time the third generation is in charge, what was first a conviction and then a belief has become an opinion.
The truths are now lightly held.
Compromise is acceptable.
Things are watered down, distinctives disappear, and an accommodation is reached with dissenters and other groups who hold some things in common.
First, the sharp edges are blurred, then new ideas are introduced; things that would have made the first generation turn over in its grave the third generation tolerates with smiling ease.
The power has gone; the drive has gone.
There is talk of renewal.
New methods are tried.
More money is poured in.
Projects are announced.
Doctrines are tinkered with.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9