THE MIND OF CHRIST
[Bottle cap]
ON VIDEO-
https://youtu.be/YiuSH7YAmMo
[Mind of Christ]
https://youtu.be/UyBE9c1vySA [Bottle cap]
.Dad’s fault?
.Pop’s update
.Synoptic gospels
.Charlies Place
.Oikos
.Not robbery
.Sons of God
.Identification
.Saints
.Examined life
.Love them?
PAST POSTS [verses below]-
. (871)ROMANS 15:1-7 ‘we then that are
strong [more mature] ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not please
ourselves’. In Philippians we have the ‘KENOSIS’ the act of Jesus, who being in
the form of God, thought it not something to be used for his own advantage. He
did not see his purpose in the kingdom as one of ‘let’s find out our rights in
the covenant and posses what’s rightfully ours’. A few years back it was common
to hear ‘God told me his people don’t have a problem with giving [oh really?] but
they need to learn how to receive’. While there might be a ‘speck’ of truth in
this, the overall ethos of the kingdom [according to Jesus and Paul] is ‘we are
not here to please ourselves, but give up our rights and blessings for the
purpose of pleasing others’ [building them up, edifying them]. Paul makes this
statement right after the chapter on Christian convictions. He shows us that
even if we are right on a particular issue, it is ‘more right’ to not offend or
put a stumbling block in our brother’s path. It is possible to ‘be right’ in a
particular doctrine or truth, and yet ‘be wrong’ in that we might have used it
in a way that destroyed the purpose of God in building others up. Many in the
church [at large!] have unwittingly ‘tore down’ the poor and oppressed by
seeking ‘their own pleasure’. Many overseas countries have been hurt by the
amount of pleasure seeking doctrines that went into their countries. Many 3rd
world Pastors gave sacrificially out of their extreme poverty to rich American
‘pleasure seekers’ and their poor people suffered greatly when they did not get
a literal 100 fold return as was promised. Paul said ‘we that are strong ought
to help the weak, and not please ourselves’.
(872)ROMANS 15: 8-14 Paul freely
quotes from Psalms and Isaiah [the 2 most quoted Old Testament books in the New
Testament] and shows how God always had a future plan to include the Gentiles.
In the first century mindset, ‘salvation’ was seen more in a nationalistic
sense than an individual ‘me and Jesus’ type thing. The messianic promises were
for the ‘commonwealth’ of Israel. As the gospel would expand into the Gentile
nations, Peter would call us ‘a holy nation’. Still couching the purposes of
God and his kingdom in a nationalistic way [not human ‘nations’ but Gods
people]. So for Paul it is significant to show how King David [the greatest
king Israel ever had] actually prophesied [Psalms] of the future inclusion of
the Gentiles into the corporate ‘nation of God’. Also Paul says ‘you are able
to admonish one another’. A theme in Paul's writings is the ability of the
‘local believers/church’ to have within them a corporate ability for self
edification. He teaches an idea that says ‘you are all able members of Christ’s
Body, therefore build each other up’. Notice how Paul is not speaking into the
modern day concept of ‘the Pastor’ who is usually seen as the main ‘builder’.
In all of Paul’s letters he addresses the entire body to carry out the function
of the church. He tells the Corinthians ‘when you are all gathered together,
commit the unrepentant believer over to satan for the destruction of the
flesh’. He gave this very heavy charge to the church. He did not see it as
something that was to be carried out by a singular office [Bishop or Pastor].
So here we see Paul admonish the local believers to build each other up.
(873)ROMANS 15: 15-20 Paul
appeals to his apostolic authority as ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’ in defense
of his strong letter. He also says ‘I dare not use any thing that Christ has
not wrought by me to make the Gentiles obedient’. Was Paul saying he would not
speak about his past testimony and struggles with sin? I don’t think so. He
already spoke of these struggles in this letter [chapter 7]. If you keep
reading he says ‘thru mighty signs and wonders, by the power of Gods Spirit’.
If you read Galatians, Paul says ‘how did you receive the Spirit, by the works
of the law or the hearing of faith’ [P.S. for those still stuck on chapter 10
of Romans, see here how Paul saw the passive hearing as the only outward sign
of receiving the Spirit- not calling!] here Paul appeals to the Galatians and
says they received the Spirit and God wrought miracles among them [mighty signs
and wonders] thru faith. In Acts we saw how the primary purpose of the
charismatic signs and wonders was for the proclaiming of the gospel. The signs
testify of Jesus being the Messiah. So here in Romans I think Paul is simply
saying ‘I will not resort to the preaching of the law’, the main tool used by
the Judaizers to try and gain ‘obedience’ among the Gentiles in order to make
the Gentiles obedient [these are the things that Christ has not wrought by him.
They represented Paul's past experience in Judaism]. But instead he will
declare the gospel of God’s grace. He will lean on the Cross of Christ as the
functional tool to ‘bring obedience to the Gentiles’.
(874)ROMANS 15: 20-33 ‘Now I go to
Jerusalem to minister to the saints’ ‘my service to them’. Paul tells the
Romans that he is going to ‘minister’ and have ‘service’ towards the Jerusalem
saints. How would you take it if I said ‘I am going to New York to minister,
hold a ‘service’ in the church’. You would see me as saying I was going to
preach in a building, do my best to encourage the people. And before I left I
was going to receive an offering. Paul is saying nothing of the sort! His
‘ministry and service’ are speaking of his charitable work among the poor. He
received gifts from the churches for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of
the poor. He even says ‘if you Gentiles have been made partakers of their
blessings, you should help them out financially’. We are familiar with this
terminology when Paul uses it to speak of meeting the needs of Elders, but we
very rarely apply it to the meeting of the needs of the poor. Paul had a
‘service’ for the saints, and he was not speaking in terms of going to some
town and preaching a message and taking an offering. Service in the first
century context was giving of your time and resources for the benefit of
others. Doing things at your own expense, not always receiving a recompense
yourself. I wonder where they got such an ‘unbiblical idea’. It reminds me of
the time when Jesus put on a towel and washed the disciples feet. Another one
of those strange passages that seem to teach that leadership is here to serve,
not be served. These kingdom precepts do not fit in with the modern idea of
‘ministry/service’.
CHAPTER 16
.HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE?
.DID THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVE THE
RAPTURE?
.SHOULD WE ‘PREACH’ AT ALL?
(875)ROMANS 16- Some debate the
‘canonicity’ of this chapter. They feel that all the personal greetings from
Paul are too personal. Let’s talk a little about the Canon [inspiration of the
scriptures]. First, I am a ‘bible believing Christian’ who holds to the
historic doctrine of scripture. But you do have varying views on what the
historic doctrine is. I hold to the idea that God never intended for the
letters that were written in the first century, which have become our New
Testament, to be writings that were pulled out of time. That is the writers had
to have been writing with a contextual purpose in mind. The recipients of the
letters had to have had some type of practical instructions that they could
wrap their minds around. So for John to say something to the seven churches in
Asia Minor [Revelation] it was just common sense that the actual recipients of
the letters would expect something practical for their day. This of course does
not mean there are no further applications or instructions for us today, but we
need to have a more personal understanding of the give and take between the
Apostles and the people they were writing to. So this is how I think we should
view the personal stuff in the Canon. This also needs to be understood when
interpreting scripture. I have made the argument before for the 1st
century belief in Christ’s literal second coming. I have also taught how the
early church had no concept of a Rapture that was separated from the return of
Christ. The event spoken of by Paul in Thessalonians chapter 4 is a real thing
that takes place at Christ’s return. We get ‘caught up to meet him in the air’.
Now how confusing would it be for the first century readers of Paul's letters,
to have one letter that speaks of a second coming, and another that spoke of a
rapture? It would be next to impossible to have any coherent view of scripture
if they did stuff like this. You could then make an argument for any doctrine.
There would be no coherent thinking if you were living in Thessalonica and read
a letter from Paul that used the same terminology about the return of Christ as
he used in a letter to the Corinthians. And if you relocated to Corinth and
said ‘Oh, yes. Paul wrote to us about the resurrection and return of Jesus. But
when he wrote to us he was speaking of the rapture, but when he wrote to you he
was talking about a different event called the second coming’. This type of
thinking would have been disastrous for the early church. They were all
receiving letters from Paul that contained basic truth. The fact that these
letters were not included in an entire collection [as we have today] leads us
to believe that the basic message had to stay the same in all of these letters,
or else you would have had havoc in the early church.
(876)ROMANS 16- CONCLUSION
Okay, lets try and finish up Romans. We do see some good stuff in this
last chapter. We see Paul addressing women as
functional ministers in the church. Phoebe is a deaconess, Junia an
apostle! I still believe that Elders were only men, but women did function in
the first century Ecclesia’s. Paul also says ‘mark those which cause divisions contrary
to the doctrine you have learned and avoid them’. Now, I have heard the strict
Baptists use this against the Pentecostals, and it did put the fear of God in
you! But then I heard the Pentecostals use it against the strict Baptists, and
it also put the fear of God in you! [maybe another fear?] The point being you
could use this to defend any doctrine you ‘have been taught’ by well meaning
men. Here Paul is warning against those who were early on departing from the
faith [the basic elements of the gospel and Gods grace]. The apostle John
addresses those who ‘went out from us, but were not of us’ ‘whoever rejects
Christ as come in the flesh is anti christ’ [1st John]. You did have
those who rejected the basic elements of the gospel and the incarnation of
Jesus. Paul warned the Corinthians not to depart from the reality of Christ's
resurrection [1st Corinthians 15]. And of course Paul openly rebuked
the Judiazers for trying to put the gentile believers under the restrictions of
the Mosaic law. So even though these types of verses seem to fit in to our
present day controversies and differences among various denominational groups,
yet in context they refer
[parts]
(594)
MEGA CHURCH-
I want to speak a little on the trend of ‘mega church’. Those of you who
have read all my stuff know the way I view ‘church’. Not so much the ‘church I
go to on Sunday’ but more of ‘the group of believers residing in my city’. Now,
I am not against mega church. Recently a mega church in Texas taught some stuff
that was in the class of real heresy. They denied that Jesus was the Messiah of
Israel. This got us to discus how stuff like this can happen. In the idea of
church as being ‘to get as many people to attend the Sunday meeting as
possible’ this environment often breeds a corporate mindset that sees the
‘filling of the building’ as the goal. Along with this comes the ‘meeting of
the budget at all expense’. When we first started reproving the doctrine of
Jesus being a millionaire, the disciples having a huge budget, Jesus owning an expensive
house and all the other stuff that went along with this distorted view of
Jesus. It was hard to ‘correct’ the average Pastor who would hear a ‘proof
text’ like Jesus wearing an expensive coat and then falling headlong into the
money camp. It really upset me that average Pastors could be so easily ‘moved
from the gospel of Christ’. I then began to see that in the context of these
men’s lives, the major pressure was to ‘fill the building and meet the budget’.
All well meaning guys, just distracted from the real goal [the developing of
the character and image of Christ in the people groups [oikos] you relate to
over your life]. Now, in this environment [the fill the building one!] you
grasp hold of any teaching that helps with the accomplishing of the mission. So
good Pastors, wanting to meet the budget, hear something from the prosperity
group and take it in hook, line and sinker. Any reproof is seen as ‘these
rebels don’t see the truth of money and its major role in the Christian life’.
While in reality money is dealt with in scripture, but the overall view can be
summed up in Paul’s statement ‘using the things of this world while not abusing
them’. An overall balance of finances without falling into the trap that Paul
warned about in 1st Timothy 6. But in the highly individualistic
style of a Pastor overseeing thousands of people [like the San Antonio mega
church- 18,000 members] you can become isolated thru viewing everything thru
the lens of million dollar budgets and having people come and listen. The
safety mechanism that Jesus put in the ‘church’ [corporate body of people] was
when all the believers are together, they share and correct and keep each other
in balance. The ‘big church’ model can be in danger of losing this ‘safety
mechanism’. Some see this and encourage home groups, that’s a good thing. But
some mega churches have Pastors who don’t participate. So these brothers are on
a course to accomplish huge goals and then when they get off track doctrinally
it is next to impossible to correct them. The members are so enamored with the
strong preaching of the leader [in the more authoritative situations, I don’t
see this in Corpus Christi] that they fall into the category of hearers only
and would never confront the leader. Even if he starts to deny that Jesus is
the Christ! [Messiah]. So in all of the varied expressions of church, let’s
stay balanced and be open to receive from all the Christian communions that are
out there. Don’t go down the road of viewing other Christian churches as ‘those
deceived traditionalists’. I find it disturbing that when talking with Jehovah
witnesses they espouse the same feelings towards the Catholic Church as many
Baptists do. While not defending all the teachings of the Catholic Church, this
mindset is inherently unhealthy. When a strong mega church is ‘ruled’ by an
authoritarian Pastor, this whole dynamic is absent from the New Testament.
There was NEVER a situation, NOT ONE TIME EVER where you would have 18,000
believers under the weekly preaching of any single person who was called ‘the
Pastor’. Now you can see why the way you view your function as a Christian can
be limited if your whole experience in Christianity is one of sitting in a pew
and passively hearing bible words being preached. This perspective is not what
you find taught in the New Testament assemblies of believers.
JOHN 19 (radio # 602) The reality of redemption! I want to
stress the fact that Jesus actually dieing on the Cross and really shedding his
Blood for us is what saves us. No spiritualizing here! Over the years I have
seen and read how believers in an attempt to ‘see’ the deep truths of God will
sometimes fudge on the real Blood of Christ redeeming us. Let’s make it clear,
the New Testament teaches that it was the real Blood of Jesus and his death on
the Cross that saves man. Now, were there s
[parts]
SOCRATES
Socrates was born around
469-470 BCE.
He is famous for
introducing a way of learning that engaged the students in a dialogue- the
question would be put on the table- and thru rigorous debate- you would come to
an understanding thru the process of questioning.
This is referred to as the
Socratic Method.
Socrates came on the scene
during the famous Spartan wars.
The other day I watched
the movie 300- which depicts the battle between the city state of Athens
against the city/state of Sparta.
As you know- the Athenians
suffered a great defeat at the hands of the Spartans.
The Spartans were
outmanned by the Athenians- but their motto was ‘come back with your shields-
or on them’.
They were a true warrior
nation- trained to fight from their youth- and this defeat sent the people of
Athens into a time of disillusionment.
They questioned the power
of their gods- and a sort of malaise fell over Athens after the defeat.
This was when Socrates
entered the fray- when the people had many questions about life.
He was called the Gadfly
of Athens- a title that would also be given to the 19th century
Danish father of existentialism- Soren Kierkegaard.
They were called Gadfly’s-
because they were like flies that would pester you- and elicit a response.
The leadership of Athens
saw Socrates as one that was stirring up the youth of his day- and creating
discontent among the populace.
He rejected the many god’s
of the day- but did have a belief in a single deity- he- like the Christians 4
centuries later- would be accused of atheism- because of his rejection of
multiple god’s.
He was sentenced to death
in 399 BCE- and his form of execution was drinking Hemlock.
His most famous student-
Plato- spoke with him before his death.
Many were surprised at how
willingly Socrates faced his demise- and this willingness had a great impact on
those who witnessed it.
Socrates never wrote anything-
but most of what we do know about him comes from the writing of others- most
notably from Plato’s Dialogues.
Plato wrote down what
Socrates taught- In his writings we see Socrates engaging in this method with
various people- thus the name of Plato’s works- Dialogues.
There is a debate about
how much of what was written about him was actually true- Plato did add his own
ideas into these debates- and the controversy about this is so strong that we
actually have a name for it- the ‘Socratic Problem’.
During the time of the
disillusionment of the Athenians- there were a group of philosophers known as
the Sophists.
The word comes from
Sophia- meaning wisdom.
Philosophy itself means
The Love of Wisdom.
In our day the words
Sophomore- Sophistry and Sophisticated are derived from this root word.
The Sophists were the
original Pragmatists.
Pragmatism is a form of
belief that says ‘do what works- regardless of the ethical implications’.
We will get to Pragmatism
at the end of this whole series on Philosophy.
But for now- we see the
division between what Socrates taught- and the Sophists.
Socrates did indeed teach
a form of Ethics- which contrasted with the Sophists.
He said that the pursuit
of virtue was better than the pursuit of wealth- much like the words of Jesus
‘what does it profit a man if he gain the world- and lose his soul’.
His most famous saying is
‘The unexamined life is not worth living’.
He emphasized the
importance of mind over body- which inspired Plato’s philosophy of dividing
reality into 2 separate realms- the world of senses and the world of ideas.
Socrates actually
challenged the Democratic process- he believed it better for the wise men- the
Philosopher Kings- to run the show.
Athens did have a form of
Democracy at the time- and because of the rise of the Sophists- and the
itinerant teachers- you had sort of an election process- much like in our day-
where those who would attain office were those who spoke the best- and made the
best public argument.
We elect judges and stuff
in our day- and even presidents- not because they are the most capable- but
because they ran the best campaign.
So- in a way I agree with
Socrates- at times I think we need a better process of electing those to higher
office- then the one we have now.
It’s important to note
that even though we started this study with Thales- and in the study of Western
philosophy it’s commonly understood to have started with Thales.
Yet- Socrates seems to be
the Father of philosophy in many ways.
He probably has had the
most influence in the field philosophy- and the 2 great philosophers that we’ll
get to next come right out from the heels of Socrates [Plato and Aristotle].
Why is this important to
note?
As we progress in this
study- and get closer to the 19th/20th century philosophers-
we will see a trend- away from the idea that there are actually any ethical
values- moral virtues- or ‘right or wrong’.
These philosophers dabbled
with the idea that values themselves are the cause of man’s problems [Freud].
So- keep in mind- one of
the main streams of thought in the early stages of philosophy was that values
were indeed the main thing- Socrates challenged the Sophists of his day- he
said that moral virtue was very important- that to live life with the values of
courage- honesty- self-denial- these were the things that made men good- noble.
The bible says ‘the fear
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ ‘those that seek the Lord understand
all things’.
Christian tradition would
agree with Socrates in many ways- Jesus showed us that the virtue of service to
others- to love your fellow man- to honor God- that these were indeed the heart
of the matter.
Socrates feared the loss
of virtue in society- that if we simply lived for the present time- with no
higher values [a form of hedonism] then the foundations of society will erode.
He also believed that it
was good to question things- not to simply believe a thing for the sake of
believing.
Over time- thru debate and
the discourse of other people- he believed you would get to the truth.
The bible says ‘in the
multitude of counselors there is safety’.
Yeah- as people have a
conversation- as they dialogue- often times they themselves come up with the
answer to the question.
The apostle Paul penned
the letter to young Timothy- he said ‘preach the word- in doing this you will
save yourself- and those that hear you’.
Yeah- when you engage- and
even try and teach others- this will have an effect on you too- the actual act
of engaging- of teaching- often brings more insight to the one doing the
communicating- then the ones who hear.
Yeah- I like Socrates- he
believed in what he taught- he drank the Hemlock- knowing full well that his
life would pass- but he had belief- faith- that after death man would pass over
into another realm- a much better one.
No- he was not ‘Christian’
in the traditional sense of the word- but he was about as close as you could
get- for his time.
PLATO
Plato wa
[parts]
VERSES-
. Philipians 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every
man also on the things of others.
Philipians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus:
Philipians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God:
Philipians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Philipians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Philipians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and
given him a name which is above every name:
Philipians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Philipians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God,
believe also in me.
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not
so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient foryou that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will
not come unto you; but if
I depart, I will send him unto you.
Jn. 16:7
Ye shall
seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.
Jn.7:34
John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon
us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us
not, because it knew him not.
John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him as he is.
John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth
himself, even as he is pure.
1Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye
stand;
1Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory
what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which
I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the scriptures:
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we
continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans
6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Romans 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Romans 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
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