REVOLUTION
https://youtu.be/p1RAPGm1TFE Revolution
ON VIDEO-
.Isaac Newton
.French revolution
.Statue of Liberty
.John Wesley
.Time- Space
.Bastille
.Natural/Special revelation
.Deism
.Pietism
.Moravians
.Wesley
.Great awakening
.Einstein- Unified theory
NEW STUFF [past posts- verses below]
In 1687 Isaac Newton published the bombshell book,
‘Mathematical principles of natural philosophy’ [Gravity].
It was a bombshell not only in the scientific sense- but for
those who were looking to expel Christianity from society.
In France you had the Encylopedists- people who advocated
for an atheistic world view.
In their minds- the Church was part of the ‘old world’ and
as man advances- he needs to realize that the church itself is a hindrance.
Now- Newton showed us that the world [cosmos] operates more
along the lines of a machine- with set principles- and not so much by ‘the
power of God’.
This is a classic mistake that many make- they look to the
natural laws of ‘nature’ and say ‘see- this explains everything’.
Actually- not.
But anyway- the French revolutionaries wanted change- and
change they got.
Near the end of the 18th century- emboldened by
the American Revolution- they stormed the Bastille- and it was the beginning of
the age of Progress.
The Bastille was a former fortress- that became an infamous
prison in France.
It was believed that many freedom lovers were held captive
there.
Actually- upon breaking in- there were only about 7
criminals held- but it still became the standard for Revolution.
King Louie tried to institute reforms- but they did not go
far enough.
Eventually Napoleon Bonaparte takes control- and he tried to
form an agreement with the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Priests and churches were attacked during the
time of the French Revolution- and the great Notre dame university had a lady
representing ‘reason’ on the altar.
The churches were turned into ‘houses of reason’ and girls
dancing in the streets represented a sign of Liberty for the French.
But the liberty they were talking about was not in the same
sense as the American Revolutionaries.
The French were being ‘liberated’ from Christianity- as well
as the oppression of the nobles and Priests.
So- the famous gift from the French to America [1886] the
Statue of Liberty- might have meant something a bit different than what we
understand today.
The statue itself was of the Roman goddess ‘Libertas’.
The church came thru a period where they showed how reason
and religion do not contradict one another.
Many of the great thinkers/philosophers were indeed
believers.
Yet some in Christianity felt there was a danger in too much
reliance on reason and rationality.
We refer to this as Pietism- Men like Philip Spener and
Count Zinzendorf played a role in helping believers return to a more spiritual
communion with God.
The famous Methodist founder- John Wesley- was effected by
the witness of the Moravian Christians on one of his journeys back and forth to
America.
Wesley and George Whitefield were coming to America and
spreading revival by their preaching- on one occasion John Wesley was on board
ship- the seas were rough- John feared for his life.
Yet he noticed the Moravian brothers had no fear.
He later asked them why they seemed to be fearless at the
possible point of death.
They told Wesley they had true assurance they were saved by
Christ-and there was no need for fear.
Later John Wesley had an experience at a meeting on
Aldersgate St. - they were reading from a Romans commentary- notes from Martin
Luther.
And the story goes Wesley felt his heart ‘strangely warmed’
and he saw this as a conversion experience.
Wesley never intended to start the Methodist Church [as his
movement later became known in the states] - he simply wanted to revive the
‘dead faith’ of his fellow Christians in the Anglican Church.
Yet eventually- thru men like Francis Asbury- the Movement
Wesley started would spread thru America and eventually become a separate
denomination.
PAST POSTS-
Alexander sought to implement the ideals of his teacher- he
wanted to unify the known world under one people/culture- a belief that Aristotle
held- a sort of ‘unified theory’ [Einstein] that would seek to bring all
learning/knowledge together under one supreme [Divine] principle.
Alexander’s experiment was called Hellenization- which was
the Greek worlds attempt to impose Greek culture/language on all their
conquered enemies- and at the same time allow them to hold on to the their own
culture too. Alexander did amazingly well at this experiment- at the young age
of around 24 he had accomplished most of his mission. The cities were a sort of
composite of Greek culture mixed in with their own culture- this is where we
get the modern term Cosmopolitan.
Alexander died young and his kingdom was divided between 4
generals- one of them- Ptolemy- would himself make it into the history books
because of his keen intellect.
The system of cosmology developed under him would last [and
work!] until some 17-18 hundred years later when it was overthrown by the
Copernican revolution during the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
Alexander’s generals would do their best to carry on the
system of Hellenization- and other nation’s generals would keep the system
going even after Greece fell. One of them- Octavian [Roman general] makes it
into the history books by another famous name- Julius Caesar.
Alexander established a great library in the Egyptian city
of Alexandria [named after him] and many of the great writings were preserved
during this time.
The writings of Aristotle would be discovered again during
the time of Thomas Aquinas [13th century Catholic genius/scholar]
and this would lead to Scholasticism [a peculiar school of thought
developed/revived under Aquinas] and give rise to the Renaissance.
Okay- before the birth of Christ- the Jewish people resisted
the imposing of Greek culture upon them- you had the very famous resistance
under the Jewish Maccabean revolt- where the Jews rose up and fought the wicked
ruler Antiochus Epiphanies- and till this day the Jewish people celebrate this
victory at Hanukah.
Eventually Rome would conquer the Greek kingdom and the
Jewish people were allowed to keep their culture and temple- yet they were
still a people oppressed. Hassidism [getting back to the beginning] developed
during this attempt to not lose their Jewish roots- the Pharisees of Jesus day
came from this movement.
Alexander was pretty successful in his attempt to unify
language- even though the bible [New Testament] was written by Jewish writers-
living under Roman rule- yet the original bible is written in the Greek
language.
Bible scholars till this day study the Greek language to
find the truest meaning of the actual words in the bible [I have a Greek
Lexicon sitting right in front of me].
It would take a few centuries before a Latin version
appeared on the scene [the great church father- Jerome- would produce the Latin
Vulgate].
Yet it would be the re- discovery and learning of the Greek
texts [under men like Erasmus- and the Protestant Reformers] that would lead to
the Reformation [16th century] and other movements in church history.
The
Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various
times.
Alexander the Great instituted
Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered.
They could keep their
religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule.
Some Jewish people rejected any
compromise- we call them the Essenes- they moved out of town- so to speak, and
lived in what we refer to as the Qumran community.
This was a few centuries before
the time of Christ- and this was where the Dead Seas Scrolls were found in the
20th century.
A Bedouin boy was looking for his
goats- threw a rock in a cave right off the Dead Sea- and that’s how we found
the scrolls.
The scrolls might have been
hidden there by the Essenes-
Now- when my friends asked me
about them- I told them that it’s been a while since I read up on any of this-
but to the best of my memory the thing that made them significant was the fact
that they were very old manuscripts- from the bible- and they backed up what we
had had all along.
[parts]
[1587] OVERVIEW- Lets
over view a little today- in the last post I mentioned how we will be getting
into Marx, Freud and Nietzsche in the coming months- yet I have so many things
going on at this time that just in case I never get to them I want to lay out
some stuff. First, most challenges to the Christian faith/God- have come from
the point of view that said ‘yes- we believe that there is some being out
there- God- but we challenge the purveyors of religion and how man has used
religion to control- manipulate the masses’. It was not until the rise of these
men that the popular approach of ‘no God’ would take a foothold in the minds of
many unsuspecting ‘masses’. Before we delve into the ideas and contradictions
of these men- let me explain why most thinkers of the Enlightenment did not
take the atheistic approach- and instead opted for some form of Deism/Theism.
The original debate of ‘where did everything come from’ did not start during
the Enlightenment- it dates back as far as 4-5 centuries before Christ- the
question is obviously older- but you can read the debate taking place in the
great minds of the Greek philosophers; Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Though
the idea of God in the minds of these Greek thinkers was not the same
definition that Christianity would hold to- yet they did believe in some type
of being who for the most part was what we would think of as God- they referred
to him as The Prime Mover- a term that the great Catholic thinker Thomas Aquinas
would use in the 13th century as he too argued for the existence of
God. Okay- the Greeks taught that the universe/cosmos always existed- and there
was an initiator who started the ball rolling [motion]. Their ideas about how
the solar system worked were primitive- the famous idea espoused by Ptolemy had
a sort of crystalline sphere
[parts]
Actually reading thru the bible- in context- is one of the
best habits you can develop.
Rome was the city of influence at the time of Paul- located
just east of the bend of the Tiber river- about 18 miles from the Mediterranean
Sea.
The letter to the Romans- would be read orally to both
Christians and Jews in the city- in the days of the writing of these letters
[which now make up our bible] they were living in an ‘oral’ culture- and the
letters were intended to be read aloud to those in the early Christian
communities [remember- you didn’t have books back then- like we have today- and
the mass production of writing/publishing did not yet exist].
So- Paul was a strategic thinker- and he penned this letter
hoping it would be a ‘shot in the dark’- that is the darkness of sinful man-
The letter to the Romans is the closest thing to a
systematic theology found in the New Testament.
Its impact in church history is great- John Chrysostom- the
great 5ht century preacher- had it read aloud to him- once a week.
Saint Augustine attributes it to his radical conversion- the
story goes he heard some kids singing ‘take up and read’.
He picked up a copy of the letter to the Romans- and history
was changed.
Luther- the great 16th century reformer- was
teaching this letter- as a Catholic priest/scholar- out of Germany- when he
read ‘The just shall live by faith- therein is the righteousness of God
revealed’-
It lead to what we call today ‘The Protestant Reformation’.
A few hundred years later- the Great Methodist founder- John
Wesley- would say his heart was ‘strangely warmed’ while hearing a message at
Aldersgate- and it lead to his conversion- sure enough- the message was from
the letter to the church at Rome.
So- when the great Apostle sat down and penned this ‘arrow’-
hoping it to go forth and have great impact for the Kingdom of God- his hopes
were indeed realized.
Enjoy-
ROMANS 1: 1-16 many believe this letter to be Paul's best, I
wouldn’t disagree. The letters of the New Testament do not appear in
chronological order, some feel this to be a huge obstacle
[parts]
(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
[parts]
(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.
[parts]
these areas will ‘abide forever’
that is your impact will affect many generations to come. Right after the 16th
century Reformation you had what is referred to as the Enlightenment, or the
‘age of reason’. Many thinkers began to challenge the institutional church [and
institutions in general] and believed that reason and rationality would lead
the way. In France [1700’s] Paris became a center of thinking for these Deists.
These men were smart enough to realize that the total denial of God was too
ridiculous to accept, they instead embraced Deism. Deism is a type of belief
that said God started the ball rolling, but he left the rest on auto pilot; the
same belief that the Greek philosophers embraced. Now, one of the famous
‘Philosphes’ [sic] was a man by the name of Voltaire, he is well-known as an
infamous atheist today, but he did not totally reject God. These men did have
tremendous influence and they produced the French Encyclopedias which backed up
their cause. Eventually they would overthrow the Catholic Church and kill the
king in their mad rush towards ‘reason’. They were wrong on their basic
understanding of reason and rationality as they applied it to the church. They
believed that rational thought meant
‘naturalistic thought’ that is in order for things to be rational, they
could not be supernatural. They were wrong, in fact those who would later take
the next step into full atheism would deny the laws of reason and logic all
together. I saw Richard Dawkins do an interview the other day, he is one of the
popular atheists of our day. These men who reject God accept a view of creation
that violates the laws of logic; they teach/believe that all things came from
‘no-thing’ a scientific impossibility. This idea violates the law of ‘reason’
known as the law of ‘non contradiction’. This law states that a thing cannot be
and ‘not be’ at the same time and in the same relationship. For all things to
have come from nothing [self creation] would mean that all things created
itself. It would have to 'have been’ before it was. This common system of
belief is absolutely irrational, even though the atheist believes it to be rational.
To believe that God is a self existent being who created all things does not
violate the laws of logic, you might think it does, but it doesn’t. For someone
to have existed forever does not violate the classic laws of logic. So these
thinkers who thought that their rejection of God was ‘rational’ were in fact
wrong. Their ideas led to effects that were horrendous, they in effect ‘planted
seed’ [bad doctrines] that would outlast them and their generation, their bad
ideas had bad consequences. But the truth of God and his kingdom have also
been ‘planted’ in the world, these seeds
will last forever. If you want to effect society for good, then plant the seeds
that will have an eternal impact, for ‘he that does the will of God will abide
forever’ [1st John].
I have a catalog sitting here- from the company that I order
courses from. A few years ago I got on their mailing list [How- ?] and ever
since I have been bombarded with monthly catalogs.
I mean every month- a bit much. Then I realized that one
month out of the year they put a bunch of courses ‘on sale’ for around 70% off
the regular price- and that’s probably where they do their best business [I now
only buy from the discounted monthly catalog].
Anyway- I read the intro to their course on Dark
Matter/Energy- these teachers are really good- they are
[parts]
Basically you can’t argue a moral position [is something
right- wrong] if you reject the reality of morality itself. This mistake is
easily refuted in the field of apologetics. Sam Harris [another contemporary
atheist] makes these same arguments.
I found it interesting to hear Governor Cuomo and other
supporters of the law- they were oozing with moral language ‘we are proud to be
part of the struggle for the rights of all people’ and other language like
this. I’m sure these well meaning folk don’t realize they are contradicting
their core argument ‘who is society- the church- to say what’s right or wrong!’
And then they say ‘it’s wrong for them to think that way’.
Okay- I hope you see the point. Immanuel Kant saw this some
300 years ago when the ‘age of reason’ was just taking off. Many thinkers of
his day began questioning the wisdom of having religion/morality as part of the
fabric of society. Kant recognized the need for the basic idea of right and
wrong [What he called ‘oughtness’ you know what you ought to do] and even
though he disagreed with Descartes’- he did not believe you could ultimately
prove God through reason- yet he saw the need for ‘God’ to exist in the fabric
of human society- in his mind there had to be an ultimate judge who could carry
out justice- and there had to exist a basic idea of what you should and should
not do.
[parts]
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’!
[parts]
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.
[parts]
VERSES-
Revelation 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and
thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
Revelation 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him
that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast
their crowns before the throne, saying,
Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and
honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are
and were created.
A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold
the humble in spirit. Prvb. 29
Humble yourselves in the sight of
the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth
the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
James
11 And I
will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any
more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to
destroy the earth.
12 And God
said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and
every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set
my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and
the earth.
14 And it
shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be
seen in the cloud:
15 And I
will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living
creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy
all flesh.
16 And the
bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is
upon the earth.
17 And God
said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established
between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen. 9
And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them,
If any man desire to be first, the same shall belast of all, and servant of all.
But many that are first shall be last; and the lastfirst.
Mark
In the day
when I cried thou answeredst me, andstrengthenedst me with strength in my soul.
Ps. 138
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