THE BOYS https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/9-10-15-the-boys.zip
[note- you’ll see midway thru the
teaching- Jimmy wants to hold the camera- I say ‘don’t shut it off’- he says ‘I
wont’. That’s where the video stops- LOL]
Below are a few notes/scriptures
we talk about on the video.
I added lots of old posts I did
over the years that talk about the Gifts of the Spirit and the 5-fold ministry.
The complete studies are on the blog.
Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of
the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against
the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Acts
6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said,
It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
Acts 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Acts 6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
Acts 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Acts 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Acts 6:14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
Acts 6:15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.
[This is from Wikipedia]The wager is described
in Pensées this way:
If there is a God, He is
infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no
affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He
is....
..."God is, or He is
not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here.
There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the
extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What
will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the
other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error
those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I
blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he
who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both
in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is
not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since
you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to
lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your
will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to
shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather
than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled.
But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is.
Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you
lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
"That is very fine. Yes, I
must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is
an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead
of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would
have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be
imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three
at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an
eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of
chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in
wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by
refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity
of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely
happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life
to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what
you stake is finite.
I mentioned Pascal-
helenization in these posts I wrote a
while back- figured I’d add them here.
(944)1ST CORINTHIANS
1:18-31 Paul declares the actual preaching of the Cross to be the power of God.
The Jews sought for a sign [remember the sign of Jonas?] and the Greeks prided
themselves in wisdom. Paul declares that Jesus IS the wisdom and power of God.
In Christ is contained all the wisdom and power [signs] in the universe! Paul says
God destroyed the wisdom of unregenerate man and that Gods foolishness is wiser
than men’s greatest achievements apart from God. Wow, what an indictment on
enlightenment philosophy. Man goes thru stages of learning and knowledge
[renaissance, enlightenment. Industrial, scientific revolution] these are not
bad achievements in and of themselves. Many of the greatest scientists and
scientific discoveries were made by men of faith [Newton, Pascal, Faraday, etc]
the problem arises when men think that sheer humanistic reasoning, apart from
God, is the answer. Right now there is a movement [11-08] going on where some
atheists bought ad space on the sides of buses that say ‘why believe in a god?
Do good for goodness sake’. So they had both sides [Christian /Atheist] debate
it. The simple fact is, sheer humanism cannot even define ‘what good is’.
‘Good’ becomes a matter of what serves me best at the time of my decision.
Without God and special revelation [scripture-10 commandments] good can be
defined by Hitler’s regime as exterminating one class of society for the
benefit of the whole. Only Christian [or Deist, Jewish, Muslim] beliefs place
special value and dignity on human life. It is a common misconception to think
that all the enlightenment philosophers were atheists; this was not the case at
all. Locke, Hume and others simply believed that thru human logic and reason
people could arrive at a sort of naturalistic belief in God. This would form
the basis of Deism, the system of belief in God but a rejection of classic
Christian theology. Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers of our country
were influenced by this style of belief. Now, getting back to the Greeks. Paul
says ‘God destroyed the wisdom of this world’. What wisdom is Paul talking
about? The enlightenment philosophers of
the 18th century had nothing on the Greek philosophers going all the
way back to a few centuries B.C. Plato, the Greek wrestler turned philosopher,
had one of the most famous schools of Greek philosophy. At the entrance of the
school the words were written ‘let non but geometers enter here’. Kind of
strange. Geometry simply meant ‘form’ in this use. Most of the great
theoretical physicists were also great mathematicians [Einstein]. The Greek
philosophers were seeking a sort of ‘unified theory’ that would explain all
other theories and bring all learning together under one intellectual ‘roof’.
Sort of like Einstein's last great obsession. The Greeks actually referred to
this great unknown future ‘unifier’ as ‘the Logos’. Now, some atheists will use
this truth to undercut the New Testament. They will take the common use of
these words ‘The Logos’ and say that Johns writings [Gospel, letters] were
simply stolen ideas from Greek philosophy. This is why believers need to have a
better understanding of the inspiration of scripture. John’s writings were no
doubt inspired, he of course calls Jesus the ‘Logos’ [word] of God. But he was
simply saying to the Greek/Gnostic mind ‘look, you guys have been waiting for
centuries for the one special ‘Word/Logos’ that would be the answer to all
learning, I declare unto you that Jesus is this Logos’! So eventually you would
have ‘the wisdom of the world’ [both Greek and enlightenment and all other
types] falling short of the ultimate answer. They could only go so far in their
journey for truth, and ultimately they either wind up at the foot of the Cross
[the wisdom of God] or the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’. God said
this ‘tree’ [sources of wisdom and knowledge apart from God] would ultimately
lead to death if not submitted to ‘the tree of life’ [the Cross]. You would
have some of the enlightenment philosophers eat from this tree all the way to
the ‘death of God’ movement. Man in his wisdom would come to the conclusion
that ‘God is dead’. If this is true, then the slaughter of millions of Jews is
no moral dilemma. If God is dead then man is not created in his image, he is
just this piece of flesh that you can dispose of at will. To all you
intellectual types, it’s Okay to have a mind, but you must love God with it. If
all your doing is feeding from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you
will surely die.
(1142) MAN,
GODS UNIQUE CREATION- Okay, we already saw how God made the animals and fish
and birds, but when he describes mans creation he shows us that it is unique.
Out of all the other created things, man alone is in ‘Gods image’ and bears his
likeness. Man is a moral being with a built in conscience, he has the capacity
to know God and live with him forever. This is the basis of the Judeao
Christian value on human life. Those religions who believe in the Genesis
account of creation, see man as having special value. The Darwinian worldview
[social Darwinism] sees man as a simple blob of meaningless flesh, no different
than the other life forms along the line. I always found the atheists reasoning
to be a little illogical; they will argue that they are the real intellectuals,
the so called ‘brights’ [a recent term they have come up with to describe their
group] they will then explain to you how their view of their mind and brain is
purely naturalistic, their brains are simply these jumbled masses of cells that
are the result of thousands of years of meaningless process. Their whole being
started as an accident, they have no initial purpose or final end. They see
themselves, and along with it, all their reasoning and education and knowledge
as being the result of years and years of luck and chance, and then they want
you to trust in their conclusions! Ah, the utter foolishness of mans wisdom.
God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him his own breath
and man became a living soul. Though the basic material of man is the same as
the other material things God made, yet he only breathed his own image into
man. The great 17th century philosopher/mathematician Blaise Pascal
was reading the gospel of John one night, he was meditating on John 17 and had
an awakening, he began to see that God was ‘the God of Jesus’ not the God of
the philosophers. He saw that having a real relationship with God was different
than simply knowing the things about him. God built into man the capacity to
know him, while all other creatures are valuable and special to him [Jesus said
not even a little sparrow dies without God caring about it!] yet man alone has
the capacity to know and be in true communion with his creator, man was created
in Gods image.
(1284) FOR A LAW SHALL PROCEED
FROM ME AND I WILL MAKE MY JUDGMENT TO REST FOR A LIGHT OF THE PEOPLE Isaiah
51:5 I found out last week that one of
my friends converted to Islam, he spent some time in New Jersey jails and
rehabs and the Muslim influence is strong in Jersey. He explained to a friend
how ‘God doesn’t share his glory’ and that he was taught that the Christian
view of Jesus violates this truth. First, it would take too much time to
overview the entire history of various beliefs and questions on different
expressions of the Trinity, suffice it to say that there have been Christian
groups from the first century up until today who have had difficulties with the
Orthodox expression of the Trinity. I am Trinitarian, but understand how these
various groups have had difficulty. Just to name a few; the Ethiopian Orthodox
churches reject Trinitarian language. The Oriental Christian churches in
general reject the language. The invading barbarians who attacked the Roman
Empire were eventually converted to a form of Christianity that would reject
Trinitarian language. The great Blasé Pascal thought it to have been a false
teaching. I could go on and on with many groups who believed in God and Jesus
but did not accept strong Trinitarian language. The point being, if someone
thinks that all Christians hold the same views on the language, they are
mistaken. I wrote a letter to my friend who converted to Islam, I simply shared
the main difference between Christianity and Islam [and all religions], that
Christianity teaches forgiveness and acceptance with God as a gift that comes
thru the Atonement of Christ. Jesus died for men’s sins and rose again as a
sacrificial atonement for man, Islam has some well meaning teachings in it but
at the end of the day it is a religion that is legalistic. People attempt to
gain Gods favor thru their own efforts; this is opposed to the Christian view
of grace. I basically think it to be a red herring to use the language of the
Trinity as a reason to reject Christianity and become Muslim, as I already
stated there are many Christian groups who would agree with some of the issues
that Muslims raise; this does not deal with the fact that man cannot atone for
his own sins, man is unable thru any religious works to make himself right with
God. The ‘law that proceeds from God’ to the nations is a law based on grace,
not works. Paul calls it ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus’ [Romans]
he contrasts it with the law of works. Now the whole history of Justification
by faith and how different Christian groups see it is another intramural war
that rages within the church, N.T. Wright recently put out a book on it, John
Piper wrote one in defense of the historic Reformation view- Wright’s view has
some excellent points, but would be considered New Perspective. So there are
differences in the way Justification by Faith is seen, but all groups agree
that man is accepted by God based on the free gift of Grace that comes thru the
Cross. Yes, Catholics and Protestants agree with this language, though there
are other differences. The point today is I believe we as believers need to
make clear the differences between law based religions and Christianity, Jesus
offers free forgiveness based on his death burial and resurrection. Law based
religions might seem noble at the start, but at the end of the day they lead to
condemnation and frustration, they are a vain attempt by man to make himself
pleasing to God- an impossible task.
NOTE- Christianity in the first century was not born in a
vacuum.
Of course the major World View was Judaism- but the second-
very strong influence/philosophy of the day was Greek wisdom [thus my quote in
the last post ‘The Greeks seek wisdom’].
In the letter to the Colossians- the Apostle refutes
Asceticism- which was indeed a belief of the Greek philosophers.
Greek wisdom taught that the material realm was evil.
Way back about 6 centuries before Christ- you had the famous
Philosopher Socrates.
His most famous student was Plato.
And Plato’s most famous student was Aristotle.
When Socrates was put to death- because of his supposed bad
influence on the youth of his time [he taught them to questions stuff!].
It is reported that he calmly drank the Cyanide- because he
believed that when he would die- be released from his body [the so called evil
realm of matter] that he would finally ‘be free’.
Now- do Christians believe this?
Yes and no.
Because our bibles were written in Greek [which shows you
how strong the Greek influence effected the early church- our first New
Testaments were written in Greek- though the Roman Empire was the world Empire
of the day.
But Alexander the Great- the famed Greek conqueror who came
a few centuries before Christ- he instituted what we refer to as Helenization.
A form of conquering where you let the people you conquer
keep their culture- but you also use parts of your culture [in this case the
Greek language] to permeate the vanquished.
So- the Roman Empire of Jesus day [who at one time were
under the rule of the Greek Empire] continued to write in Greek.
It wasn’t until around a few centuries after the time of
Christ that the first Latin bible was written [by Saint Jerome].
But even his bible [the Latin Vulgate] used the Greek Old
Testament [called the Septuagint] instead of the Hebrew- for his Latin
translation.
Ok- the point being- the Greek world did indeed have a
strong influence on the early church.
And the church had to refute the belief that all matter was
evil.
The Christian doctrine of creation [developed under saint
Augustine- the 4th-5th century bishop of Hippo- North
Africa].
Was the teaching that matter was good- that God created the
material realm- so it is not inherently
evil.
But- after the fall of man [Genesis 1-3] a curse did indeed
come upon the earth [some times when the bible says ‘the world’ it is speaking
of the earth- but other times it is speaking of the fallen order- the sinful
realm of man. That’s why there is some confusion- till this day- among
Christians. They might read verses like this- and think the bible is saying the
earth itself- the planet- is wicked. Actually in those verses it is speaking
about the fallen order of sinful men. See? ‘For all that is in THE WORLD- the
lust of the flesh- the lust of the eyes and the pride of life- is not of the
father- but is of the WORLD- and the WORLD is passing away’- this is one
example from the epistle of John- here the World is not saying the planet- but
the world of sinful man- a fallen ‘world’ order.]
So- in conclusion [if I ever get there!] we- as believers-
reject the belief that all matter is evil.
No- man was created in the image of God- and God is the
creator of all things- both visible [earth- man- etc] and invisible [mentioned
in the above chapter].
The evil we see in the ‘world’ today is simply a result of
mans sin- mans choice to live in rebellion against God.
We can’t escape ‘this world of sin’ by simply denying
ourselves [though that is one aspect of the Christian life].
But God sent his Son into the world to redeem man- Christ
died for all men- and this is the Divine act of Salvation.
When we as humans partake of this Salvation- we are then
free- free to enjoy this life- that God gave us- and we don’t have to have the
mindset of a Socrates- who saw this natural life as evil.
The apostle Paul says in his letter to the Romans;
‘Present your bodies as a living sacrifice- HOLY and
acceptable to God’.
See?
Our bodies- the actual flesh we live in- can be Holy-
sanctified- when submitted to the will of God.
This is from my Romans teaching I did a
few years ago- ROMANS 11-13
[note- there’s much more on the video than the post]
.ROMANS 11
.ROMANS 12
.ROMANS 13
END NOTES-
.What effect did the Renaissance have on the Reformation?
.How did Erasmus differ from Luther?
.Do Catholics exalt Tradition over Scripture?
.Renaissance artists.
.Do Catholics believe in Justification by Faith?
.Catholic teaching on Civil Authorities [Romans 13].
.What does ‘AdFontes’ mean- and how does it relate to the
Renaissance/Reformation?
Romans 11
.Was Paul a full time preacher- paid?
.Is he teaching universalism here?
.Elijah was not alone.
(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak
to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my
office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul 'exercising’ his
apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet
[since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship
with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’. He
exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He did
this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on ‘Gods
government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing with the
mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is Gods
government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or modes of
operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When the apostle
John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the world’ he was
referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods kingdom you operate
under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… and your neighbor as
yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have different types of
‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these gifted ones are
given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can have a mature
faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in the earth. Paul
was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman Gentiles. He did not
have some type of a corporate relationship with them where he said ‘commit to
my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or someone else!’ These
are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive money from the
Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said this myself. Paul
did receive support from the Philippians, but that was support for his
traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read carefully you
will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I did not eat, or
take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those that were with
me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke to the
Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was with
you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave you
ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul did
not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he took
it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor
saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet
the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to
show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church
simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It
was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I
hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into
alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American
corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So
in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some
truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them
coming under ‘his covering’.
(862)ROMANS 11- let me make a
note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of
experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the
well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career
choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is
to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically
speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think
ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned
how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with
a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work
with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but
also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get
gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also
taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor
among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’
it all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to
rethink what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons
that say ‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay
you for what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in
this letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers
at Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise
his apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and
spent time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose
when he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most
effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it
without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all
this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the
fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’.
So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into
alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses
[even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you
expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the
storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating
very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter
11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are beyond
our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of Israel as
an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is showing to
the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to jealousy’.
There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip over. ‘All
Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings with natural
Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some say ‘the Israel
of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some say ‘all Israel
that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is closer. To be honest I
think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who are alive and also raised
at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form of universalism [all
people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist, but I don’t want any
‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I think God has the
ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in such a way that ‘they
all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t wait for this to
happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’? Because God
commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a type of
universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the second
coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in
scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out
the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by
the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I
taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future
judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also
warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to
graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest
for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this
verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic
sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be
‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called
‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t
think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is
saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as
quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the
Arminians could use this type of argument for the previous predestination
chapter [9]. But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing,
Paul quotes Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of
God having a remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God
told Elijah ‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul
uses this to show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself
included] who received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic
ministry [Elijah] seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean
‘fame’, but Elijah was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running
thru the nation. If you read the story of Elijah you would have never known
that there were ‘7 thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use
prophetic people to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is
presently existing in the ‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah
had a web site, the 7 thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying
‘right on brother, that’s exactly what we believe too’!
ROMANS 12
.ARE SOME GIFTS BETTER THAN
OTHERS?
.HOW SHOULD THEY FUNCTION IN THE
‘BODY’?
. HOW SHOUD WE GIVE OFFERINGS-
DID PAUL TEAHC TITHING?
.HOT COALS ON THEIR HEADS- HUH?
(864)ROMANS 12:1-8 ‘I beseech you by the mercies of God to
present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’. Most times we see ‘by the mercies
of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has taught from chapters 1 thru 12. This is
true to a degree. I think Paul is honing in on the previous chapters that dealt
with the purpose of God specifically seen in the resurrection of the body. As
we read earlier ‘for we are saved by hope’ [the hope of the resurrection].
Basically I see Paul saying ‘because of what I showed you concerning Gods
redemptive purpose for your body, therefore present your body now, in
anticipation of it’s future glorious purpose, as a living sacrifice ‘holy and
acceptable unto God’. Why? Because you are going to have that thing [body]
forever! [in a new glorified state] Paul
exhorts us to be changed by the renewing of our mind, the way we think. I have
mentioned in the past that this renewing is not some type of legalistic
function of ‘memorizing, muttering the do’s and don’ts all day long’. But a
reorganizing of our thoughts according to this new covenant of grace. Seeing
things thru this ‘new world’ perspective. A kingdom view based upon grace and
the resurrection of Jesus. This resurrection that is assured to us because we
have the deposit of the Spirit which is our guarantee that God will complete
the work that he has begun in us. And Paul will jump into one of his ‘Body of
Christ’ analogies which he uses often to describe the people of God. Because we
are all one body, we should think soberly about our different gifts and
purposes. God gave some ‘better’ [or more noticeable] gifts for the overall
edifying of the body. So don’t boast about it. All have varying gifts, freely
given. Administrate them with much grace. Do it with humility and cheerfulness.
We are simply children thru whom Gods Spirit manifests himself in different
ways. Don’t boast that ‘Wow, daddy gave me a bike’. Or look, I got a more expensive
Christmas present than you. Daddy distributes the gifts freely as he wills.
They are for everyone’s benefit. Don’t use this grace gift as a means of self
importance or prestige. It would be like ‘prostituting’ a gift for
self-aggrandizement. People have done it, but it displeases the giver of the
gift.
(865)ROMANS 12: 13 Paul continues to give some basic guidelines
on practical Christian living. Notice his teaching on financial giving
‘distribute to the necessity of the saints’. This basic Christian doctrine from
Jesus teachings has become the premier act of giving for the New Testament
saint. The reason I have stressed this teaching as opposed to the more popular
view of tithing, is because the scriptures place such a high priority on
Christian charity. As I have mentioned before, Jesus even uses this basic
description to describe those who ‘are righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’. He teaches
the final judgment will be based on this outward identifier of ‘what we did to
the least of these’. If you read carefully the New Testament epistles you will
see a picture of ‘local church’ as a caring community of people who show their
love for one another thru these acts of kindness and compassion. None of the
New Testament letters teach a type of
financial giving that focuses on ‘support the ministry/institution’ as being
‘the new testament church’ that replaced the ‘old testament temple’. For
example a tithe system that supports the ‘pastor/priest’ in the same way the
Levitical priests were supported under the law. It’s so vital for us to see and
understand this. Because the average believer is taught thru out his life that
his primary expression of giving is to ‘bring the tithe into the storehouse’ in
such a way that it violates the actual primacy of giving as taught in the New
Testament. Which is to regularly give to meet the needs of those around you.
The fact that there were instances in the book of Acts or the letter to the
Corinthians where believers gave an offering in a corporate way [the collection
for the poor saints- 1st Cor. 15, or the laying of the money at the
apostles feet in Acts] does not excuse the believer from the teaching that we
should all regularly give to meet the needs of those around us. This is flatly
taught as a regular part of the Christian experience. The other fact that Paul
never once teaches the tithe as a function of giving for the Gentile churches
should cause us all to take another look at the way we teach giving in the
church today.
(866)ROMANS 12:14-21 Notice how
Paul puts such a high priority on the principles of Jesus. He exhorts the
saints to live by the precepts of the great ‘sermon on the mount’. Often times
believers try and make a division between Paul’s revelation of justification by
faith and the ‘liberal moral teachings of Jesus’. I see no division here. Paul
actually quotes Jesus ‘if you’re treated badly, respond in love. By not getting
even you heap “coals of fire on your enemies head”’. Actually, I remember how a
few years back, when everybody was coming up with their ‘new revelation
knowledge’ ideas on scripture. Things like ‘the camel going thru the eye of the
needle’. Some taught Jesus was not really rebuking wealth, he was simply
talking about a ‘low gate’ thru the wall of the city that was called the ‘eye
of the needle’ and the camels had to crouch a little to get thru, true
silliness! This verse ‘coals on the head’ was taught as saying Jesus was simply
saying you were helping your enemy on cold nights by ‘keeping his head warm’!
Sad. Jesus said don’t avenge yourselves, God will avenge you. Doesn’t sound
like the lord is talking about ‘head warmers’! Look at these verses carefully.
Paul incorporates the teachings of Christ as having a very high priority for
the believer. We are often inundated with modern concepts of ministry. How to
raise funds [or amass wealth]. Paul ‘locates’ the important thing as being
centered on Christ. He knew if the churches [believing communities] of the
first few centuries would follow this idea, that they would truly turn their
world upside down for the cause.
ROMANS 13
.SHOULD WE OBEY WICKED RULERS?
.IS IT EVER RIGHT TO ‘NOT OBEY’
[Civil Disobedience].
.TAXES AND THE TITHE.
(867)ROMANS 13:1-6 Paul teaches
that believers should ‘be subject’ unto human government. He shows us that ‘the
powers that be are ordained of God’. All human leaders are given their position
of authority, ultimately, from God. What about Hitler? Or evil Pharaoh? Did God
‘put them there’? If God is sovereign [which he is!] then he permits all things
to transpire, that actually transpire! He does not ‘ordain evil’ in the sense
that he initiates unrighteous things. But because he has the power to prevent
anything from happening, if ‘it happens’ that a wicked ruler is in authority,
then he in that sense ‘ordained it’. Understand Paul is writing this at a time
in Roman history where the leaders were quite wicked. They worshipped false
gods, and even claimed to themselves the title of ‘a god’. For Paul to use this
language in this chapter, he even says ‘they are the ministers [servants] of
God to thee for good’ is strong. Paul is also not teaching that there is never
a cause for civil disobedience, in the sense of ‘whatever the government says,
we will do’. In the New Testament we have Peter resisting the order to ‘not
teach or preach in Jesus name’ [Acts]. He even says ‘should we obey God or man’
in his defense. Of course today we have legalized abortion, and in the case of
later term abortions, the practice is equal to infanticide. We should do all
that is in our legal power to stop the murder of unborn children. This law
violates Gods law, from whom all human government is derived.
(868)ROMANS 13:7-14 ‘For this
cause pay your taxes also, for they are Gods ministers’ I noted earlier how
Paul taught ‘give to those around you that are in need’ [chapter 12] and here
he teaches the importance of ‘paying taxes’. Where is the exhortation to ‘pay
tithes’? In the ecclesiology of Paul, the ‘corporate community of people’ are
the ‘new testament temple of God’. Therefore you see the need to ‘pay tribute’
to only two ‘institutions’. One being the ‘local church’ [as seen in simple
giving to the needs of the community around you] and the other being ‘the
government’. Paul sees no 3rd ‘institution’ that is called ‘the
local church’ to which the tribute of the tithe belongs. To correctly apply the
verse in Malachi [if you were going to use it at all. It is obvious that the
prophet is directing the rebuke towards natural Israel] you would simply see
the ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’ as ‘give to meet the needs of
the community [Gods new testament storehouse] around you’. Now Paul teaches the
primacy of the law of love for the believer. If we walk in Jesus command to
love, we fulfill the law. And again Paul uses the language of ‘fluent soteriology’
[salvation]. He says ‘now is our salvation nearer than when we believed’. Paul
comfortably jumps in and out of ‘being saved’ and ‘will be saved’. It is this
free use of the term that we need to become familiar with. The New Testament
clearly teaches a future salvation. And it is not as simple as ‘My spirit is
saved, my mind [soul- which is really a very weak translation for soul. The
soul is much more than the mind, emotions and intellect!] is ‘being saved’ and
my body will be saved’. It is not this cut and dry. Your spirit is saved, your
spirit will be saved and is being saved [he ever lives to make intercession to
God for us- this ongoing intercession deals with all aspects of the humans
salvation. Not just the body!]. All 3 modes of salvation [past, present and
future] can apply to ‘all of you’ [spirit, soul and body]. Don’t think future
salvation only deals with the ‘salvation of the body’.
END NOTES- I’m adding portions of the Catechism at the bottom to
show my Catholic [and Protestant] friends the official teaching of the church.
Some of my Catholic readers who are following along in this study-
I want you to know that these doctrines are indeed in line with your faith.
RENAISSANCE STUFF -
The renaissance was the
13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for
centuries- It began in Florence Italy.
The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’ meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in
philosophy- as well as in Christian learning.
This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again
from its original language.
The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th
century] - re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was
referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and
scholar]
Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a
‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to
stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw.
But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed
set a spark- because it allowed the Priests to see the bible in its original
language.
And Luther was actually teaching this book of Romans to his
students in Germany when the Reformation began.
Today the Catholic Church [as you can see in the official
Catechism that I have been posting] does indeed teach the bible as God’s Word.
The divisions between Protestants and Catholics are many- but they
did agree that the bible was the Word of God.
Some Protestants do not know this- they think the church holds
Tradition higher than the bible.
No- the church does believe that God speaks both thru tradition-
and scripture.
They see the tradition of the church as simply another means by
which God uses the church [Magisterium] to explain scripture- but the Catholic
Church does not elevate tradition over the bible.
And indeed- it was a catholic scholar- Erasmus- who introduced the
first Geek version of the New Testament.
NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of
Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus
was what we would call ‘Free Will’.
In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek
and Latin- the language of the elites.
He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders
of the Church.
He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align
himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with
no strings attached.
He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very
influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though
the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the
Reformation’].
He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of
the people-
He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole
of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church.
Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language
that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]-
Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for
debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith-
He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of
the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.
RENAISSANCE ARTISTS-
The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael-
used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were
not just paintings.
DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the
Sistine chapel in the Vatican.
It took him 4 years to complete.
The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century
to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took
place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by
what we term Humanism.
Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often
has a bad connotation- especially among Christians.
But it meant something different back then.
It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man
to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value.
There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in
that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man.
But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not
man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does
have a Christian basis in my view.
Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to
as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just
art.
He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist-
though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above.
1990
Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love
of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s
merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It
frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. (1446, 1733)
1991
Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through
faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of
divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our
hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. (1812)
1992
Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who
offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and
whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification
is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the
righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its
purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40 (617, 1266, 294)
But now
the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law
and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in
Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a
gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as
an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former
sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that
he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41
1993
Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s
freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the
Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity
with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: (2008, 2068)
When God
touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is
not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and
yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward
justice in God’s sight.42
1994
Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made
manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of
St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the
creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the
salvation and justification of the elect... will not pass away.”43 He holds also that
the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice,
in that it bears witness to a greater mercy. (312, 412)
1995
The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the
“inner man,”44 justification entails
the sanctification of his whole being: (741)
Just as
you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity,
so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that
you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you
get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45
II. Grace
1996
Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free
and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become
children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal
life.46 (153)
1997
Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us
into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in
the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can
henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life
of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. (375, 260)
1998
This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends
entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give
himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every
other creature.47 (1719)
I added
these below for commentary on Romans 13- Civil authorities. In our world today-
there are many governmental authorities- and some are changing ‘overnight’-
with much instability in the world. So you have cases where one group-
government- is in charge- to be ‘obeyed’- but yet- that group is ousted some
times in a day. Then do you view the new government- and all the new courts-
judges- etc. - as illegitimate? Because they did not submit to the former
group?
I find
lots of confusion among Christians about our right relationship to civil
government- many do not seem to understand that when we in the U.S. rebelled
against British/English rule- we too were not ‘obeying’ the authority. We
formed a new government- with courts- judges- etc.
So- this
portion below shows us that there are indeed times when government loses the
authority to govern- given to them by God.
1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy
from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the
common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords
with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls
short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much
the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when
it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit
means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures
contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in
conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in
shameful abuse.”23
ROMANS 14-16
CHAPTER 14
.CAN WE WEAR SHORT, SHORTS?
.THE ATHEIST KNEW
I taught on the book of
Corinthians in the past- here’s my view on the gifts of the Spirit-(943)1ST
CORINTHIANS 1:1-17 Paul greets them as an apostle called by God, he affirms his
authority and ‘fathering ability’ as coming from God. He tells them he thanks
God all the time for the fruit that he sees in their lives, the thing that made
Paul rejoice was the work God was doing in the communities he was establishing
as an apostle. Today ministers have a tendency to ‘rejoice’ over the Christian
enterprise that we oversee. Whether its’ how well the budget went this year and
stuff like that. Paul’s joy wasn’t in the fact that God called him to some
great personal ministry where he would find self fulfillment. His joy was in
the actual growth and freedom that ‘his churches’ [communities of people] were
experiencing. He also defines them as ‘those that call upon the name of the
Lord like all the others’. Remember what we said when studying Romans chapter
10? One of the signs of the believer is ‘they call upon Jesus name’. They are
believing communities of ‘Christ callers’. Not so much a one time evangelical
altar call, but a lifestyle. Jesus said we are ‘a house of prayer’. A spiritual
community/house who intercedes for all nations. It’s in our very DNA! Paul also
commends them as being enriched by God in all ‘knowledge and utterance’
[speech]. It seems funny that he would say they were blessed and enriched in
speech. Paul will give some of his strongest rebukes over speaking gifts
[tongues, prophesy] to this community. Yet he does not approach it from the
strong anti charismatic view. He doesn’t say ‘your speech is demonic’ he says
it is enriched by God! We will deal with the gifts later on. Now for the first
real rebuke. Paul says he has heard reports that there are divisions and
strivings among them. They are already dividing up into various sects. Some
follow Paul, others follow Cephas, some say ‘we are the true Christ followers’.
Paul rebukes them sharply over these divisions, he does not want the early
church to identify with individual personalities and gifts at the expense of
true unity. Was this the early development of denominationalism? To a degree
yes. But I also don’t think we should view the various Christian denominations
as deceived or ‘lost’. The modern church has become what we are thru many
struggles and difficulties over a 2 thousand year history. My personal view is
we should strive for unity, not by trying to dissolve all the various ‘tribes’
that exist in Christ’s church, but by growing into a more mature view of all
who name the name of Christ as being fellow believers who partake of a common
grace. I applaud all the efforts being made by various Christian churches today
to come to a greater outward unity [for example the Catholic and Orthodox
dialogue] but I also believe as we see each other as fellow believers and learn
to appreciate our different emphasis, that this approach can also lead to greater
unity among believers today. Paul saw the beginnings of division in the early
Corinthian community, he did his best to quell the coming storm.
(944)1ST CORINTHIANS
1:18-31 Paul declares the actual preaching of the Cross to be the power of God.
The Jews sought for a sign [remember the sign of Jonas?] and the Greeks prided
themselves in wisdom. Paul declares that Jesus IS the wisdom and power of God.
In Christ is contained all the wisdom and power [signs]
HEBREWS commentary copyright 2007 John Chiarello www.copruschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com
P.O. box 181256 C.C. Tx. 78480
Feel free to copy this booklet as well as all my other books on my blog
site!
KCTA RADIO [1030 on the AM Dial] every Sunday at 9:45 am .
CHAPTER 1:
‘God, who at sundry times and in diverse
manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last
days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by
whom also he made the worlds’ Many years ago when I was going to a fundamental
Baptist Church, they would interpret this passage in a ‘cessationist’ way. They
would say because God says in the past he spoke by prophets, but now by his
Son. That this means he doesn’t speak thru Prophets any more. The Prophets here
are Old Testament voices. In Ephesians it says after Jesus ascended up on high
he gave gifts unto men, some Apostles, some Prophets, etc. The fact that Jesus
made Prophets after the ascension teaches us that there were to be a whole new
class of New Testament Prophets that were different from the old. I find it
strange to believe that Jesus would create a whole new class of gifts, and then
take them away as soon as the Bible is complete. Why would Paul give instruction
in the New Testament on how Prophets would operate [Corinthians] and then to
say ‘as soon as this letter is canonized with the others, all this instruction
will be useless’ it just doesn’t seem right.
The reason Paul is saying in the past God used
Prophets, but today his Son. Paul is showing that the Jewish Old testament was
a real communication from God to man. But in this dispensation of Grace, God is
speaking the realities that the Prophets were looking to. Paul is saying ‘thank
God for the Old Jewish books and law, they point to something, his name is
Jesus’! The Prophets [Old Testament] served a purpose; they brought us from the
shadows to the present time [1st century] now lets move on into the
reality. Now you must see and hear the Son in these last days. ‘Who being the
brightness of his glory and the express image of his person…when he by himself
purged our sins SAT DOWN on the right hand of the majesty on high’ here we are
at the beginning stages of themes that we will see later in the letter. The
significance of Jesus ‘sitting down’ will be contrasted with the Old testament
priests ‘standing up’. Paul [for the record I think Paul wrote this letter,
from here on I will probably just refer to the writer as Paul] will teach that
the ‘standing up’ of the Levitical Priests represented an ‘incomplete
priesthood’ the reason Jesus sat down was because there would be no more
sacrifice, and no more priesthood made up of many priests who would die year
after year. This doesn’t mean there would be no more New Testament priests as
believers, but that there would be no more Old Testament system. Paul will find
spiritual truths like this all thru out the Old Testament.
Some theologians feel that Paul is a little
too loose with these free comparisons that he seems to ‘pull out of the hat’,
for the believer who holds to the canon of scripture, it is the Word of God.
‘Being made so much better than the angels…but unto the Son he saith “thy
throne O God is forever and ever, a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of
thy Kingdom”. Here Paul introduces another theme that will be seen thru out
this letter. The superiority of Jesus over angels. Why is this important? Most
believers know that Jesus is greater than angels, don’t they? Here we see why
context is important to understand this letter. In Jewish tradition it is
believed that the law was given to Moses by God thru the mediation of angels.
Some say ‘well, we don’t use Jewish tradition, we use scripture’. First, Paul
used anything he could to win the argument. Second, if we believe Hebrews is an
inspired book, then when we read later on that the law given thru angels
received a recompense if broken, then right here you have scripture [Hebrews]
testifying that God did use angels to ‘transmit’ the law to some degree. Now,
why is it important for gentiles to see this? Well it really isn’t! But it is
vital for a first century Jew to see it. If Paul can show that Jesus is greater
than the angels, then he is beginning to make the argument that the New Covenant
is greater than the Old.
Here is the
context. Moses law is highly revered in the first century Jewish community, so
here Paul says ‘how much better is the law/word given to us from Gods Son’.
Since Jesus is much better than the angels, therefore pay closer attention to
the words spoken thru Gods Son, he is greater than the angels! ‘But to which of
the angels said he “sit at my right hand until I make thy enemies thy
footstool” we end chapter one with the theme of Jesus being better than the
angels, yet in chapter 2 something funny happens, Paul will make the argument
of Jesus being “a little lower than the angels” lets see what this means.
(947) 1ST CORINTHIANS
3:11-23 Paul teaches that once the foundation of Jesus is laid, that no other
foundation can come in and replace it. Remember, Paul is speaking about a
spiritual foundation. He is not building ‘a literal building’! I know we know
this, but for some reason modern church planters can’t seem to break the
mindset of having a building ‘to do church’. Now we begin to get into some
doctrine. I believe Paul begins a New Testament doctrine here that could be
called ‘the sin unto natural death’ or the judgment of a believer when he falls
into open sin and rebellion and refuses to repent. Now, I have looked at this
doctrine from different views over the years. I try not to allow my own leaning
towards reformed theology to effect me. But I have come down on the side of
‘eternal security’ in viewing these verses. Paul teaches that even though the
foundation of Jesus is laid, it’s still possible to build a life of worthless
things upon it. He says ‘if any man defiles Gods temple, him will God destroy’.
This same language will be used in chapter 5 ‘deliver the sinning brother to
satan for the destruction of the flesh so the spirit may be saved’. Paul also
uses the term again here in chapter 3 ‘yet he will be saved as by fire’. Also
in chapter 11 ‘for this cause many sleep [physical death] and are sick among
you’ he uses this as a judgment that came upon them for their abuse of the
Lords table. So reading this in context it sure seems that Paul is saying ‘if
you, as a believer, allow yourself to fall into sin in such a way that you are
doing permanent harm to the temple [which he describes as their bodies, both
individually and corporately] then God will destroy you’. This seems to fit all
these other verses. The apostle John also speaks on the ‘sin unto death’ [which
I see as physical death] in his letter. He says ‘if any
(986)CORINTHIANS
12: 8-10 this section deals with the various gifts of the Spirit. The list is
not exhaustive, Paul speaks in Romans and Ephesians about other ones as well.
Instead of diving into a definition for each gift, lets look a little at the
various ‘modes’ and characteristics of the Spirit of God. In revelation we have
a scripture that many seem to stumble over, it says ‘the 7 spirits of God that
are before his throne’. Some associate Isaiah 11 with this. In Isaiah 11 you
can find 6 distinct characteristics of the Spirit of God, some see 7. Or you
could say ‘God has 7 actual Spirits’. Does God have 7 spirits? Or 25 or 10,000?
God is the creator of all spirits. He is the Father of lights! In revelation
you have Jesus holding the ‘7 stars’ in his hand, which are said to be angels.
Then you have the ‘7 angels of the 7 churches’. I showed you before why these
angels are not ‘Pastors’ they are angels! [You can find the post somewhere
under END TIMES STUFF]. Revelation has 7 seals, bowls, candlesticks. The book
is a prophetic book that has angels revealing and operating and functioning.
The 7 spirits before God’s throne are probably the 7 angels spoken about in the
book. Hebrews says the angels are ‘ministering spirits’. Well let’s get off the
rabbit trail. In Isaiah 61 we have the famous verses that Jesus read and
applied to himself in the New Testament [Luke 4]. Jesus opens the scroll and
reads about the Spirit of God upon him, the eyes of everyone in that place were
fixated on him. Notice how both in Isaiah 11 and 61, one of the main purposes
of the anointing was to administer justice to the poor and oppressed. Much of
Evangelicalism has opted out of this responsibility. There was an overreaction
to the social gospel of the late 19th, early 20th
century. The social gospel had a tendency to overemphasize good deeds, without
focusing on conversion. But the Fundamentalist movement of the 20th
century neglected the social justice aspect of the kingdom, thank God for the
Catholics who picked up the torch. The point today is the purpose of the gifts,
which we will get into tomorrow, is not simply for self glory and edification.
Or should I say the purpose of the anointing. Jesus made it very clear that his
mission involved justice for the poor and oppressed, he did not limit his
ministry to ‘the church’.
(991)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12: 8-11 Instead of giving you my definition for each one of the
gifts of the Spirit, let me just give you a sense of where I’m coming from.
Over the years I have learned the normal Pentecostal understanding of these
gifts. I also have learned the ‘anti-Pentecostal’ view. I take a little from
each camp. The strong Pentecostal view usually sees all the gifts as
‘supernatural’ I do too! But to them this means the gifts of Wisdom and
Knowledge can’t be ‘regular wisdom or knowledge’. Okay, so what are they? Some
teach that the ‘word of wisdom’ is simply a prophetic word about future stuff.
The ‘word of knowledge’ is simply prophetic insight into ‘past stuff’. To be
honest I have no idea how people come up with stuff like this [well, actually I
do have an idea]. I see Paul as operating in a strong gift of knowledge, though
Paul was trained and had a good education, the Spirit took all of his ‘head
knowledge’ and quickened it. I see James as having a strong gift of wisdom, his
epistle is the only New Testament work considered to be part of the corpus of
wisdom literature. Of course the gifts of healing[s] and prophecy are
supernatural, but wisdom and knowledge can be ‘supernatural’ without having to
fall into some prophetic type category. If it’s wisdom and knowledge from God,
then it is supernatural! I have known Pastors who had the gift of wisdom,
sometimes they would come to the same conclusions as me, but they took a
different route to get there! They might not have ‘seen’ all the knowledge portions
of scripture that I saw, but the wisdom they operated in caused them to arrive
at the same place. Some teach that after the Spirit fell on the church at
Pentecost [Acts 2] that you no loner had miracles, dreams and visions or
angelic visitations. Why is this wrong? The book that records more miracles and
angels and visions than any other book [except for the gospels] is the book of
Acts. In essence, one of the major New Testament books on these manifestations
shows them to be a result of the Spirits outpouring! The point being these
things didn’t end after Pentecost. I realize both camps [Pentecostal- non
Pentecostal] have had their wars over this stuff. I find that both sides can be
just as legalistic and judgmental in their views. I think one of the major
‘signs’ of being ‘Spirit filled’ is a life based on free grace. When people
grasp the gospel and are filled with the Spirit, they should be free from
living their lives out of a state of condemnation and guilt. Many ‘Spirit
filled’ churches operate in the gifts [their view of them] but are just as
legalistic as the non Pentecostals. To me this is not what it means to be
‘Spirit filled’. Overall we should be open to the working of the Spirit in
supernatural ways. We should avoid making this the goal or identity of our
Christian walk, but we should not reject or despise prophetic/supernatural
things. They are available and necessary at times for completion of the
mission.
(994)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12: 12-26 Paul uses the analogy of a body to describe the church.
Keep in mind that the ‘church’ in Paul’s writings mean ‘all Gods people in the
region/city’. Not just the gathered assembly! It’s important to make this
distinction because much of the talk on the restoration of the organic church
versus the institutional church focuses too much on the way believers meet.
Here Paul is saying ‘you are all individual distinct members in the local
community, you express Christ in various ways, though you have unique gifts you
also are part of one corporate expression of Christ in your city’. The distinct
gifts function in your community, not just in the meeting! [Whether it be the
Sunday building type thing or the living room!] Paul also tells them to be on
the guard for the ‘one member dominating the group’ expression of church. If
everyone is centered on one particular gift then the corporate expression of
the Body of Christ is diminished. Or if everyone saw ‘full time ministry’ as
being a modern Pastor then you would have too many sincere believers all
seeking to serve God in a limited way ‘if all were an eye, ear, mouth [speaking
gift]’ then where would the Body be? I find this chapter to be a key chapter in
the current reformation of modern church practices. As Gods people strive for a
more scriptural expression of ‘being the church’ we need to keep this chapter
in mind. Now, a word for the strong organic church brothers. The fact that Paul
encourages a corporate expression in the church does not mean the gatherings of
Gods people must be leaderless. Paul includes the concept of Elders in his
writings. To be sure these men were not to dominate the meetings, or be the
weekly speaker on an ongoing basis. But some hold to a type of idea that the
way the church is supposed to testify of the ‘headship of Christ’ is by
demonstrating a human leaderless church. That is God ordained the local bodies
of believers to have no functioning human leaders in order to show forth
Christ’s headship. To be honest I don’t see this in scripture. I see leaders in
plurality [never a one man show] and Paul was not afraid to tell Titus and
Timothy to ‘ordain’ [recognize!] Elders in the church. But the overall
instruction in this chapter is God wants all of his people to function on a
regular basis in the Body of Christ. This of course includes the gatherings,
but it is not limited to them. The primary way we ‘show’ the world the Lordship
of Jesus is by the selfless love we have one for another. When we daily live
charitable, sacrificial lives, this demonstrates the ‘headship of Jesus’ over
the church. The way believers meet has some effect on this, but most of Jesus
instructions to the disciples was on how they would go out into the world and
bring the great message of the kingdom to society. The primary ‘battlefield’ of
the church militant is the world, not the meeting place!
(996)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12:27-31 Lets talk about ‘the fivefold ministry’ [some say four].
In the 90’s there was a real interest in this subject. It comes from this
portion of scripture [and Ephesians 4]. The basic teaching is/was that God was
restoring all these ministries [Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and
Teachers- some see this as one combined gift] and that this restoration was one
of the final things to happen before Christ’s return. I read and bought lots of
books on church planting and how Apostles are gifted to ‘plant churches’. This
teaching really wasn’t a new thing. Back in the 1800’s you had Edward Irving
head up an apostolic movement called ‘the apostolic catholic church’
[Irvingites]. You had interesting folk like John Alexander Dowie who would
start a modern city of God called ‘Zion ’ in Illinois .
Brother Dowie saw himself as an apostle and felt the Lord led him to start an
apostolic city. You can still visit the city today. It was also common for many
‘up and coming’ preachers to begin seeing themselves as ‘apostles/prophets’ and
actually advertise their callings in this way. Well of course the old time
brothers who reject the gifts all together, saw this as another sign of the end
time apostasy. You also had a strange phenomenon take place. It was common for
‘apostolic/prophetic’ people to be taught ‘the missing ingredient is covering
and authority’- the churches are weak because they are under pastoral
authority, they don’t have apostles ‘covering them’ [ouch!]. So it was not
uncommon to have respected men kind of stepping over the normal boundaries of
relating to churches and to say things like ‘you need to do this’ ‘you over
there, be quiet. I don’t give you permission to speak’ and stuff like this.
These sincere men thought it their responsibility to act this way. They felt
this was a part of the restoration of apostles. Now, do apostles exist today
[and prophets]? To be honest with you, yes. If you read this section along with
Ephesians chapter 4, it is next to impossible to teach that they passed away in
the first century. These scriptures make it clear that after Jesus ascended he
gave ‘some apostles, others prophets’ they are included in the list of
evangelists, pastors and teachers. If you lose one gift, then you lose them
all. Also the timing of their ministries is given ‘till we all come to the
unity of the faith unto a perfect man’. These gifts are all given to build Gods
people up until we come to fall maturity. We aint there yet! So it’s pretty
obvious that these gifts exist. Those who believe they don’t exist usually
refer to the fact that the apostles of the Lamb [a category unto itself] did
pass away. They will show you the truth of these apostles having to have been
witnesses of Jesus actual resurrection. But these are a different category of
apostles. The ones in this chapter were not even ‘made’ until after Jesus
ascended on high. The same for the prophets. So, what do these strange fellows
do? In all the books and stuff I have read on these movements, I feel some have
been too limited in their definitions. Some taught that they were primarily
itinerant men [traveling church planters]. Of course Paul was the master at
this. But you find James as a stable pillar of the church at Jerusalem . Peter did travel, but he was no
Gentile church planter like Paul! And Timothy in the New Testament had an
apostolic type gifting, yet he was a protégée under Paul. So for the most part
apostles do carry a special ability to ground Gods people in truth. Those who are
called to ‘plant churches’ need to be more in tune with the example of Paul.
Many modern day ‘apostles’ see church planting as going to a region and
organizing Christians to meet in certain ways. I have heard it said ‘I have
planted an organic church’ ‘I have planted a home group’ or of course the
standard ‘I have planted a building based church’. The main ‘church planting’
of Paul was bringing the gospel to UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS and evangelizing
those groups. Now of course he did give instructions to them on ‘how to meet’
[like in this book we are reading!] But don’t confuse ‘church planting’ with
organizing believers around a new way to meet. All in all God gave us these
gifts to build each other up and bring us to maturity, a place where we are no
longer dependent on these gifts to function. I feel one of the greatest dangers
was the strong authoritarian mindset that some of the apostolic brothers had,
they meant well, but they stepped over their boundaries at times.
(998)CORINTHIANS
‘DO ALL SPEAK WITH TONGUES’? - Before we leave chapter 12, let me overview a
little. Paul mentions ‘do all speak with tongues’ and the presumed answer is
‘no’. I love my Pentecostal brothers, but some have developed an interesting
doctrine that says ‘God wants all to speak with tongues’ though here it is
obvious that all don’t! I am familiar with the classic defense of this. It says
that in the beginning of the chapter the gifts are individual gifts that all
believers can have [true enough] but that later in the chapter the ‘tongues’
that all don’t operate in is speaking of some sort of ministry gift of tongues.
That Paul is basically saying ‘you can all prophesy, speak with tongues, etc..’
but you are not all going to have public ‘ministry gifts’ in these things.
Okay, I got it. What’s the problem with this defense? Simply that when your
done making the case, the brothers usually wind up saying ‘therefore, we should
all speak with tongues’! Any argument [case] made from scripture, needs to use
the plain language/thought flow to interpret that which is not plain. I believe
all the gifts are for today [though I would disagree on certain Pentecostal
definitions of them] but I also believe we violate the New Testament when we
teach that certain gifts are supposed to operate in every person. Sure, you can
find tongues and other gifts as signs in the book of Acts that believers were
filled with the Spirit. But this doesn’t mean that those who don’t speak in
tongues are not filled with the Spirit. Paul’s teaching here is that we are all
baptized into Christ by the Spirit and we are all ‘drinking in the one Spirit’
but yet he empathically says ‘you all will not have the same gifts operating’.
I think it is a violation of scripture to develop a doctrine that says ‘unless
you function in a certain gift, you are not Spirit filled’. I do not see the
classic Pentecostal division between ‘public tongues’ [that everyone doesn’t
do] and ‘private tongues’ that you must have in order to have proof of being
baptized in the Spirit. I do see the division to a degree, but I feel the
Pentecostal brothers are being legalistic when they make this case.
(999)1ST CORINTHIANS
13:1 ‘THOUGH I SPEAK WITH THE TONGUES OF MEN AND OF ANGELS, AND HAVE NOT LOVE,
I AM BECOME AS SOUNDING BRASS OR A TINKLING SYMBOL’ Over the years I have seen
how the church can ‘have a voice-make noise’ without actually effecting change.
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
ccoutreach87.wordpress.com
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post
them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.
No comments:
Post a Comment