I've been using this advice for 10 years.
It drives me crazy to see people experiencing ongoing pain knowing it can be cured with a tennis ball and a little knowledge.
Even most cases of
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
can be treated with the Julstro method.
Simply put, it works.
More Information
and Testimonies
(written by me)
Or go straight to julstro.com.
Pain Free Living can literally be life-changing.
I have several posts I really need to get on this blog, but I have a lot of other things to do today instead. Sad …
So I just want to send you to an awesome blog post I read today. (I found it through a Google Alert that come to my email inbox.)
You will read that post all the way to the end.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Don’t let this post stop you from reading the previous one I just wrote, which is better and more important.
Not that this one isn’t important, so …
I remember my surprise the first time I really noticed Proverbs 26:2 as I was reading …
Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow, so a curse without cause shall not alight. (NKJV)
A curse without cause shall not alight?
Doesn’t that suggest that a curse with cause shall alight?
Remember the story of Balaam? Balak of Moab hired Balaam to curse the Israelites.
Balak was scared of Israel. He hired Balaam because he believed that Balaam’s curse would really happen. It would hinder the Israelites.
In other words, Balak—and Balaam who accepted his employ—believed that a curse would cause real world damage.
Remember Jacob and Esau?
Jacob sneaked into Isaac’s tent to steal Esau’s blessing, which was his by right because Esau sold it to him for a bowl of lentils.
When Esau came later, seeking a blessing, Jacob said …
Behold, I have made him your ruler, and I have given him all his relatives as servants. I have sustained him with corn and wine. What shall I do for you now, my son? (Gen. 27:37)
It’s apparent, isn’t it, that Isaac believed his blessing had power. He did not talk about wishing something were so. He talked about "making him" and "giving him" and "sustaining him."
No wonder the Scripture says death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. 18:21).
I believe the Bible is correct. I believe blessing and cursing carry power, though that power varies from person to person depending on their faith and sincerity.
However, the Scriptures do not only talk about the power of blessing and cursing. They talk also of the power of those who follow God …
A great example is Balaam, whom we have mentioned.
Balaam obviously knew the power of cursing, or he would never have accepted Balak’s offer. Yet, when it came time to curse Israel, he was unable to. He excused himself to Balak with, "How shall I curse those whom God has not cursed?" (Numbers 23:8)
Also, as we saw in the verse that begins this post, Proverbs claims that a curse without cause shall not alight.
Finally, the Scriptures say repeatedly to those who inherit the promises of Abraham, "I will curse those who curse you."
In modern times we have turned do not curse into do not cuss.
Have you ever wondered why damn and hell are cuss words?
They are cuss words because they were originally curse words. People would tell other people, "God damn you," as in, "May God condemn you."
Similarly, "Go to hell" was a curse that at one time people meant.
Cursing someone to be condemned by God and to go to hell are things the Bible forbids to Christians. We are told to bless and not curse by Paul and to bless even those who curse us by Jesus himself?
Why should we worry? If we are under God’s blessing, how can a mere man curse us? If we give no cause, then a curse should not alight.
Worse, those who curse us face being cursed by God. Thus, it is a matter of kindness to bless in return so that they are not damned by God.
Of course, we have added a lot of other cuss words that are not curse words since cursing became cussing. I won’t print any of them on my blog, of course.
This section is completely and aside. It adds nothing to what’s above, but it’s related, and I thought you’d be interested in this.
The Scriptures say nothing about cussing because cussing wasn’t invented back when the Scriptures were written. They still knew about cursing. They didn’t know there were words you shouldn’t say just because they have 4 letters in them.
That doesn’t mean we should cuss.
The Scriptures do forbid us "filthiness, silly talk, and jesting" (Eph. 5:3).
I don’t believe that means never telling a joke. If it does, then you might as well curse me with going to hell because I’m definitely on my way straight there.
I think that verse is talking about being crude and silly. Christians are told to be sensible and responsible (my interpretation of sober and grave, which I think can be justified by the Greek words).
No one wants to lean upon or trust a crude or silly person.
Cussing is a sign of a weak intellect. By that I don’t mean people who cuss aren’t smart. I mean they’re lazy, indifferent to the feelings of others, uncontrolled, and offensive. In other words, they’re wimpy about putting effort into their lives and relationships.
Most cussing can be replaced by very effective adjectives, and overcoming a bit of laziness will allow us to communicate our feelings more fully, more accurately, and with respect.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Bible, Miscellaneous, Modern Doctrines
I promised a post on peace "tomorrow." I should have said "next post."
It’s been 3 days. So, here goes.
Paul commonly blesses his readers with "grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." Often it’s at both the start and end of the letter (though usually at the end it’s only grace; Ephesians has only peace at the end).
I don’t believe it’s something Paul just says as a nice saying. I think he knew what he was saying, and he meant it.
I addressed grace in the last post. Let’s address peace today.
I’m sure the phrase "the peace of God" puts Col. 3:15 in many of your minds:
Let the peace of God adjudicate in your hearts, to which you were also called in one body.
You probably don’t recognize that translation, since I made it up. The NASB tells us to let God’s peace "rule" in our hearts, but a note says "act as arbiter." I have heard repeatedly that the Greek word indicates judgment as in what a referee does.
Thus, Colossians 3:15 tells us that we are to let God’s peace make decisions in our heart.
Since it’s Paul who wrote the letter to the Colossians, I have to imagine that when he wishes grace and peace to the churches to whom he’s writing, that he is thinking about such thing. With the peace of God we can be directed in making decisions.
God can make his will known to us by peace.
The other NT passage that comes right to mind is …
Do not fret about anything, but in everything make your requests known to God by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, and the peace of God, which surpasses understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. (Php. 4:6-7)
Now that’s an awesome promise!
You don’t have to be told that we all want such peace. Worry is not something we like.
We like peace. There is nothing better than feeling like everything is under control and the way it ought to be. Making your requests known to God with thanksgiving will bring that peace. It lets us know that everything is under the control of God.
Notice, too, that it’s a peace which surpasses understanding.
The peace of God is something supernatural. That’s why Paul wishes his readers peace rather than commanding them to have it.
He does command them not to worry, but peace he wishes to them in the form of blessing them.
That’s because it’s something supernatural. It will not come to you by your choice. It will come to you by your obedience.
You do what God wants, and God himself sends you peace.
There’s one more verse on the peace of God that simply cannot be left out:
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. (Is. 26:3)
I used the KJV there because I’ve heard that verse from the KJV for 28 years. I’ve even sang it in song that way numerous times, I think because of an old Maranatha Praise tape.
The peace of God is promised to us if we will set our mind on our Father.
That’s not the only promise made to those who simply set their mind on God.
Those who are of the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are of the Spirit on the things of the Spirit. To be fleshly-minded is death, but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace. (Rom. 8:5-6)
That’s pretty awesome results for just thinking about spiritual things, don’t you think?
Though our outward man is being consumed, yet the inward man is being renewed daily. For our light affliction, which lasts only a moment, is bringing us a far more abundant and eternal mass of glory, while we do not look at what is visible, but at things which are invisible; for the visible is temporary, but the invisible is eternal. (2 Cor. 4:16b-18)
Again, pretty awesome result for just what we’re paying attention to, don’t you think?
You can find similar things all over Paul’s letters, in both promise and command form.
If, then, you are risen with Christ, set your mind on things above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Think about things above, not on things on the earth. (Col. 3:1-2)
We are to set our minds. That’s our command and duty. The peace of God is the blessing that is returned for it.
Paul "wishes" his readers grace and peace in the form of a blessing. I don’t think Americans understand the importance the Bible ascribes to blessing.
That’s for a different post, however …
3 Comments »
Filed under: Holiness, Miscellaneous
2nd post tonight …
Paul begins and ends many of his letters with "Grace and peace be with you from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ."
Yesterday, I talked about the reason it’s God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Today, I want to talk about the grace and peace.
I like to end my own letters with "grace be with you" because I know what it means.
Grace is that wonderful, effective power of God that breaks sin’s hold on us and empowers us for service.
It’s a big word that describes almost everything the Holy Spirit does in us.
Grace …
Grace is also the power behind whatever spiritual gift or gifts God has given us (1 Pet. 4:10).
Doesn’t that make "Grace be with you" a rather incredible blessing?
Let’s keep this short. I’ll do peace tomorrow.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Miscellaneous
I was reading one of my own archived posts, and I was reminded why we do this.
What do we do?
We take a stand for change. We preach a Gospel that demands the counting of the cost and explains the cost as everything. We say you cannot be a Christian without doing so because cannot is the word Christ used (Luke 14:26-33).
The fact is, the vast majority of "Christians" don’t make it.
Many of those are trying, or at least want to try, but they don’t know how.
They pray more, read the Bible more, and it makes them dislike prayer and the Bible more than ever. It’s supposed to help them, but it seems just to condemn them.
Then they fall away, get on the internet, get besieged by atheists with loads of information on problems with the Bible and Christianity, and they join the attack on the religion that made them feel bad.
Pretty dangerous to do that second one, huh?
It’s not so dangerous when you do that with disciples—with people who are giving up everything for Christ.
I do often sound like God is a harsh taskmaster.
It’s not so.
You do have to give up the world. The Gospel is an exchange of your own life for Christ’s life. Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. It is only after you die that you enter Christ’s family.
The Gospel cannot be compromised.
But …
But we’re not talking about entering a life where God is looking over your shoulder, measuring the length of your skirt, and pinch testing the tightness of your jeans.
We’re talking about obeying Christ, the friend of sinners, whose burden is easy and whose yoke is light. We’re talking about opening your home to strangers, about being free from caring about money, about trusting and praising God in joyful delight, about fellowshipping with Christ and with his people.
Entering the life of Christ is not entering a monastery. It is entering the wonderful, joyful life of Christ. Holy, yes, but also a touch wild, a touch rebellious, and more likely to get you called a glutton, winebibber, and kook than to be called righteous.
Jesus hung out with the wrong people. His holiness offended the Pharisees, and he openly expressed distaste for them. He publicly called them snakes and pretenders. He accused them of devouring widows’ houses!
You do have to be brave to be a Christian. You do have to help the needy.
You do not have to be boring, and you certainly don’t need the righteousness of the Pharisees.
Jesus commands are given so that your joy may be full.
Okay, that was a long caveat.
Back to the point.
If we are going to continue in Christ’s commands, we are going to have to do it together. We need each other. Those who sell everything are supposed to get the pearl of great price in return, not just a bunch of rules about how to live.
In other words, when the seed falls into the ground and dies, it’s supposed to come out never alone again.
We’re supposed to be a family, but we’re never going to be a family with people who don’t give a hoot about Christ’s commands or who explain why they’re unnecessary. Wish them well, kiss them goodbye, then dust your feet off and leave them.
Same with the Pharisees. There’s no hope of bringing them around until they repent of their evil ways, stumbling little ones.
(I’m a little afraid I’ve been a Pharisee on the internet by accident, though those who know me would never call me a Pharisee in person.)
But with those who will fall in love with Jesus, boldly or quietly, we can be family. We can take care of each other, worship God together, and make sure none of us is ever alone again except for when we’re sent on a mission by God.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Church, Gospel, Holiness, Modern Doctrines
In A.D. 325, Eusebius, the first church historian and the bishop (link opens in new window) of the church in Caesarea, wrote a letter.
To me, it is one of the most surprisingly ignored letters in the history of the church.
THe letter is an explanation of the Nicene Creed immediately after its acceptance by the bishops present at the Council of Nicea. Despite the fact that Eusebius says, “We did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions,” no one, not even historians, seems to pay any attention to Eusebius’ explanation of what was meant by the wording of the Nicene Creed.
Understand that the Nicene Creed is the basis of the Apostles Creed, which is recited in all Catholic churches and many Protestant churches every week to this day. Numerous Christian organizations use the Apostles Creed as a basic statement of faith, requiring all those they fellowship with to assent to it.
Yet most, if not all, of those churches don’t believe the Nicene Creed.
The most shocking statement of all in the Nicene Creed is right on the surface. It is its basic declaration of belief:
We believe in one God, the Father …
This statement is not followed by a clarification explaining that what we actually believe is in one God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead it reads …
We believe in one God, the Father … and in one Lord, Jesus Christ … and in the Holy Spirit
I’m reading a book right now by Justo Gonzalez, an excellent, well-informed historian.
Justo Gonzales is a professional historian. He knows a lot more than I do. I love his books, and I highly recommend him.
Yet in his chapter on the Trinity, when he expounds on the Nicene Creed for 6 pages, he never mentions that it says that there is one God, the Father. He never mentions that Christian writings previous to Nicea use the same terminology. He never points out that even the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, uses the same terminology.
Nor does he mention that Jesus Christ himself calls the Father, separating the Father from himself, the one true God (Jn. 17:3).
The Nicene Creed was convened to put the doctrines of Arius, an elder in the church at Alexandria, to rest.
Arius taught that the Son, Jesus, was created by the Father in the beginning in the same manner that angels, people, and the universe were created. He taught that Jesus was created from nothing.
Admittedly, he also taught that the Son was the first and greatest creation of God the Father. He taught that the Son went on to create everything else.
Nonetheless, he taught that the Son was created from nothing, and the church objected to this.
Today, most people believe that the difference between Arius and all the bishops at Nicea (except two who embraced Arius’ doctrines) is that Arius taught that the Father was the one God while everyone else taught that the one God was three persons.
Let me pause to point out here that there’s an element of truth in this. The Trinity is a complicated subject, which is the reason that there is so much error on the subject.
The real difference between Arianism and the Nicene Creed is this …
Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Son was created from the substance of God, and Arius taught that the Son was created from nothing.
Both views allowed Christians to say that there is one God, the Father. Obviously, that had to be true because the Nicene Creed says that there is one God, the Father.
The Nicene view, which is taught in every early Christian writing from the time of the apostles until Nicea, teaches that the Son was then birthed from the substance of God, not created from nothing.
The early church liked to call everything God created “matter.” It didn’t matter—sorry for the accidental pun—whether they were referring to dirt, air, stars, animals, the spirit of men, or angels. If God created it from nothing, then it was matter.
Matter had a beginning, so matter is not eternal.
Anything, they argued, that had a beginning could have an end.
Therefore, if the Son was created from nothing, it didn’t matter what you called him, he wasn’t really eternal, and he isn’t really divine. If he had a beginning, then he can have an end.
Thus, Arianism made the Son to be mortal.
To the early churches, the only substance in the universe besides matter was “God.” The divine substance is that unknowable essence that God is made of. That substance alone is eternal. That substance alone has always existed.
In the same way, that substance alone cannot cease to exist. It had no beginning, and thus it can have no end.
The substance of God is truly eternal.
The Nicene Creed was not created from nothing, either.
The early churches all had their own creed. It was called the rule of faith, and it was taught to every member at baptism.
The Nicene Creed was based on the rule of faith of the church at Caesarea.
Eusebius’ letter gives the church at Caesarea’s rule of faith and explains that it was agreed to by all the members of the council. The council then added to it …
It was Constantine who …
… exhort[ed] all present to give [the creed of Caesarea] their assent … with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios.
Homoousios means "same substance."
In other words, the Council of Nicea was trying to emphasize that the Son was of the same substance as God, the Father.
In this way, the council emphasized that the Son was truly eternal and truly divine.
The emphasis on substance is all over the Nicene Creed …
"… that is, of the substance of the Father"
"… God from God … true God from true God"
"… begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father"
And the council added something at the end that most of us do not repeat today …
"But those who … assert that ‘he is of other substance or essence than the Father’ … the catholic and apostolic church of God anathematizes.
Three times in that short creed the substance of God is mentioned.
Actually, the substance of God is mentioned four times because "God from God" and "true God from true God" is also a reference to the substance or essence of God.
The phrase "God from God," nor ever "true God from true God," cannot be a reference to saying that the Son is the one true God, or "part" of the one true God because the creed has already said, "There is one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ."
Why am I bringing all this up? Does this really matter?
The reason I give for bringing all this up is that the Council of Nicea was convened to put Arianism to rest. Yet our interpretation of the Nicene Creed has allowed Arianism to crop up anew in the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Yes, it is our fault that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are able to prosper and thrive.
The Nicene Creed is scriptural. Understood correctly, it allows us still to say what 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, "For us there is but one God, the Father."
The Nicene Creed also allows us to understand John 17:3 in its plain sense. It’s part of a prayer by Jesus, and Jesus says, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
By the Nicene understanding, we can still believe that there is only one God, the Father, yet allow Jesus to still be truly divine and called God.
By our modern understanding, Jesus is truly divine, but we don’t believe that the Father is the one true God, as Jesus said. Instead, we believe that the one true God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in some mysterious way that confuses everyone.
As a result, the Jehovah’s Witnesses thrive on quoting John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Those verses seem to support the JW position and refute ours.
Those verses do refute ours. They do not, however, support the JW view, and that’s why there’s so many other verses that we can use to answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Today, with all our various modern traditions, it is normal for churches to use verses against one another. One church uses verses that seem to teach eternal security, and another church uses verses that seem to teach we can lose our salvation.
This doesn’t seem to bother us. We present our verses, and as long as we think we have more verses than the other church, then we can hold onto our doctrine.
It’s almost like we’re content to believe the Bible contradicts itself!
It doesn’t contradict itself. We’ve simply lost a lot of apostolic teachings over the centuries, and we’re not interested enough to get them back!
(By the way, I cover apostolic teaching on eternal security and losing your salvation on numerous pages of my Christian history site, such as one I titled Sola Fide.)
According to the Council of Nicea—and according to the Bible and the writings of the churches prior to Nicea—there is one God, the Father.
Then, either eternally—so that it had always happened, there being no time prior to the beginning—or in the beginning the one God, the Father, gave birth to his Word. The Word was "begotten, not made."
The Son was not created from nothing. He was, quite literally, the Word or Reason of God. Formerly, inside of the Father, having always existed inside of the Father, he was birthed as a second person to Almighty God, thus making God the Father and the Word his Son.
The Council of Nicea doesn’t address this. They state simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit."
The Scriptures don’t address the subject of God’s Spirit very well, either, though I should point out that the Spirit of God is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, yet the Jews didn’t (and still don’t) teach a duality. They don’t teach two persons in one God. They simply mention God’s Spirit.
Later, after Nicea, the Church added that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." (I use "churches" prior to Nicea because that’s how it worked. After Nicea, once there were general councils and four bishops who ruled over all of Christendom, I use "Church.")
Sometime before A.D. 800, the Roman Catholic Church made it "proceeds from the Father and the Son," and the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are still divided over that to this day.
This blog is already incredibly long. I did not fill it with Scripture or early church quotes. You can find such references at Christian History for Everyman.
I will point out that the early churches used to quote Psalm 45:1 from the Septuagint, "My heart has emitted a good Word," and Prov. 22:8, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways and works," to support their view.
Like John 17:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have co-opted Prov. 22:8 to their view because we have forgotten what the early church taught.
I’d like us to be able to understand the Scriptures for what they say, know what the apostles taught their churches, and understand the Nicene Creed.
Thus, this post on my blog.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Church, History, Modern Doctrines
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(As you may be able to tell, this is one of those off topic posts I occasionally put up.)
As it turns out, my children think the answer is simple: If you believe in evolution, the egg came first; if you reject evolution, it’s the chicken.
If you take Genesis literally, and God created all birds on the 5th day, then the chicken has to come before the egg because the egg would require a chicken to incubate it.
If you don’t take Genesis literally, and you believe in evolution, then the egg came first because it was produced by something that was almost a chicken, and then the chicken came out of the egg.
Of course, I should be saying, "If you believe in evolution, then you believe the egg came first; if you reject evolution, you believe it’s the chicken."
In this case, what’s true is true no matter what you believe. We can argue all we want about whether Genesis is literal or evolution is true, but our belief won’t change the truth an iota.
6 Comments »
Filed under: Miscellaneous
It takes me too long to get around to finishing series I started.
This may be the most important blog I’ve ever written.
If you DO this, it will change your life and the lives of all those with whom you have regular contact.
I’m sorry if the post is boring, or isn’t broke up enough, or is hard to skim. I try to write interesting things that are easy to skim, but this is worth working your way through!
I started on a series on the appearance of the apostle Paul, and I only got through 3 parts before I needed to write on other things. As a result, it’s been over 3 weeks since the last one.
Now I’m skipping part 4 because I like part 5 better. I’ll do part 4 some other time.
You know how we exhorted, consoled, and testified to every one of you, like a father does to his children. (1 Thess. 2:11)
Are you one of God’s workers? Are you one of those that labors among the brethren, takes the lead, and admonishes? (1 Thess. 5:12).
Then this lesson, like the others in this series, is one you’d better learn.
Paul chose some pretty general words in today’s verse. Of the three verbs—exhort, console, and testify to—"exhort" is the most general.
I love the word exhort. I learned what it means the same way all of us learned to speak English. I listened to it being used.
The Greek word for "exhort," in 1 Thess 2:11, is parakaleo. It is used 109 times in the New Testament. It’s two noun forms, parakletos and paraklesis, are also in the New Testament 34 times. I looked up all 143 occurrences.
It’s translated with about 10 different English words, depending on your translation.
It’s used in all kinds of senses. There’s places where he’s clearly talking about comforting someone, and there’s other places where he’s clearly referring to rebuking someone. In other places, it’s clearly asking or pleading.
The noun form is used 4 times of the Holy Spirit, and it is translated "Comforter," but it could just as well be exhorter.
The noun form is also used of Jesus in 1 Jn. 2:1, where it’s translated advocate. I’ve read that parakletos can mean defense lawyer, though it doesn’t in 1 Jn. 2:1. (You don’t need a defense lawyer with God. He already loves you and wishes the best for you.)
I came up with one overriding definition for parakaleo after seeing it used 143 times:
To use words to get someone to do something good
You can do that by comforting, begging, or admonishing, but in the end if you are "parakaleo-ing" someone, then you are trying to get them to do something.
Paul did it all the time, without fail.
Watch, and remember that for 3 years I did not stop warning everyone night and day with tears. (Acts 20:31)
What do you think would happen to you if you were encouraged, warned, admonished, and comforted every day, night and day, with tears?
Don’t you think that would move you? Give you strength? Help you believe?
Paul did.
Let me give you another one. Do you believe that smoking is bad and that people who smoke are foolish?
Very few people believed that in the 60′s. Smoking was manly and sexy both.
What changed?
What changed is that the US government ran ads for 20 years. They warned us night and day through our fears, and the opinion of over 200 million people was changed.
It’s not just in Acts 20:31 and 1 Thess. 2:11 that this is said. It’s mentioned repeatedly …
I will not be negligent to always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are established in the present truth. (2 Pet. 1:12)
[Paul and Barnabas] returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts 14:21-22)
The next word Paul uses, consoling, is also a wide word.
The Strong’s definition of paramutheomai is …
To speak to … whether by way of admonition and incentive or to calm and console.
In other words, no matter how you have to do it, get them to follow God.
You can admonish, give incentive, or console them, but talk to them and get them to walk in the commands of Jesus Christ.
It’s the very commission, Jesus gave the apostles …
Go therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19-20)
The last word is translated "charge" by the KJV and "implore" by the NASB, but Strong’s and the note in the NASB say that the word means to testify.
So Paul uses two very general words that can mean admonish, comfort, or beg, and then he adds testimony.
In other words, tell them how it’s worked for you.
It’s the example we were given by the Israelites …
These words, which I command you, shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children. You will talk about them …
- … while you sit in your house
- … when you walk along the way
- … when you lay down
- … and when you get up.
You shall secure them to your hand as a sign, and they shall be hung between your eyes. You shall write them on the posts of your house and on your gates. (Deut. 6:6-9)
Do you think God wanted us to be consumed with his words?
Paul was consumed with them. He talked about them night and day with tears, and he reminded, pleaded, implored, encouraged, consoled, exhorted, and rebuked the disciples so that they would be followers of Jesus Christ, doers of his Word.
It’s not just workers in the house of God who should be doing this.
Paul says this sort of exhorting, consoling, and testifying is what a father does with his children. It’s part of training them and bringing them up in the way they should go.
Or were you confused into thinking that training your children means just spanking them when they do something wrong?
Training involves positive teaching, correction, and encouragement, not just punishment when something wrong is done.
In fact, I think it would be fair to say that punishment is a rather minor part of training, reserved for the uncommitted learner, who needs encouragement and warning at least as much and probably more than discipline.
I was going to title this section "What About Us," but, hey, let’s pick on me, not you.
I’m a father and a worker in the house of God, and this post is horribly convicting to me.
Is this how I father? Is this how I deal with people in the house of God?
Sometimes. I could make excuses for myself. I could talk about Bible studies I’ve led with my children present. I could talk about telling them stories while I drive. I can talk about lectures I’ve given them on how to live life and what their life should be for.
But the fact is, I don’t even come close to "night and day with tears."
I don’t talk about the commands of Christ when I’m sitting down, walking, entering, leaving, getting up, and going to bed. I don’t have them tied on my hands and forehead, nor written on the posts of my house.
I don’t believe we’re supposed to literally write Jesus’ commands on our hands and forehead.
God has something better for us. Live for Christ and exhort, console, and testify so much that every time someone sees you, it might as well be written on your forehead; so that every time someone goes through your door or sees you along the road they think of Christ because that’s what you’re about.
So I have to close now and write a couple of these Scriptures down on Post-It notes so that I can hang them on my mirror and bookshelf at home.
I have a lot of work to do …
9 Comments »
Filed under: Holiness, Leadership
I think Romans 1:16 is the key to unlocking all the deep secrets of the letter to the Romans.
In that verse Paul says he is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. But why does he say that?
There are three reasons he says that. Two are directly stated, and one is implied.
If you understand those three things, you will not be confused about Romans any more, nor ever again use it to justify unrighteous living.
Let’s go backwards through those issues …
Due to misunderstandings that have prevailed since the Reformation (not during; Luther and Calvin did not make this mistake), many Protestants believe that Romans is about going to heaven without having to do any good works.
This contradicts the main point of Romans, which is that Paul’s Gospel is nothing to be ashamed of. The reason it’s nothing to be ashamed of is because the righteousness of God is revealed in it … and that from faith to faith.
In other words, when people believe Paul’s Gospel, the righteousness of God is seen in their lives. That’s how it’s revealed.
As Paul says later:
For [the Jews], being ignorant of God’s righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. (10:3)
God’s righteousness is revealed in those who believe and thus submit themselves to it. It’s a righteousness that is different from our own righteousness, but it is a real, tangible, visible, and experienced righteousness, not merely an imputed one.
The apostle John tells us that only those who actually practice the righteousness of God can claim to have imputed righteousness.
Little children, don’t let anyone deceive you. He that does righteousness is righteous just as [Christ] is righteous. (1 Jn. 3:7)
Notice that John warns us not to be deceived about this! He’s not the only one who warns us …
It’s amazing that people can read Romans 1:16-17 and think that it could possibly mean that you can live however you want and go to heaven. The very next verse—yes, verse 18— says …
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Or maybe you believe that Paul disagrees with John when John tells us that only those who do righteousness are righteous as Christ is righteous?
Paul doesn’t disagree with John. He issues almost exactly the same warning …
Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived … (1 Cor. 6:9)
After spending verses 19 through 32 castigating those who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Paul then starts on the Jews who oppose his Gospel, upbraiding them for their hypocrisy …
Therefore you are inexcusable, oh man, whichever of you judges someone else … for you that judge do the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them who commit such things. Or do you think, oh man, you who judge those who do such things yet do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? (2:1-3)
The fact is that yes, a lot of us Protestants think that we can do the same things as the world and yet escape the judgment of God.
Paul has something to say to such people …
After your hardness and impenitent heart you store up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay every man according to his deeds. (2:5-6)
This is not the only place Paul says this …
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [in context, this is uncleanness, immorality, and greed] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not be partakers with them. (Eph. 5:6-7)
Clear enough, don’t you think?
And he even issues another warning not to be deceived about this. It’s as though he knew what was coming.
The Gospel is the power of God to salvation. As we have seen, it is a salvation that can be seen.
Later in Romans, Paul gives a very clear—almost amazingly clear—description of salvation. We miss it because we don’t understand it, and some of us simply don’t believe it, but it’s a wonderful description of just what the power of God to salvation is.
In Romans 7, Paul describes what we need to be saved from. We are powerless to obey God. We may love righteousness, but we can’t perform it.
Jesus died to change that.
Romans 7 explains that the Law was powerless to change that. It could not empower us to obedience.
But Jesus can …
For what the Law could not do, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of God might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:3-4)
Notice something there. Jesus’ death accomplished something, but it only accomplished it in those who do not walk according to the flesh but choose a spiritual walk instead.
What did he mean by that? Did he mean that the choice of which to do was up to us?
Just a few verses later, he answers those questions.
So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh, for if we live according to the flesh we will die. But if by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh, then we will live. (Rom. 8:12-13)
Those sure seem to say something clearly, don’t they? Do you really want to bank your hope on the possibility that the choice of which to do is entirely up to you?
Again, this isn’t the only place where Paul says this. Look up Gal. 6:7-9. Peter says it, too. Try 2 Peter 1:5-11 for that.
Sin will not have power over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. (Rom. 6:14)
That verse sounds a lot like Romans 8:3-4 that we just looked at, doesn’t it?
Romans 8:3-4 is a description of real grace. Grace is not a license to sin. Grace is the power of God delivering you from the power of sin so that you can make the choices given to you in Romans 8:12-13; Gal. 6:7-9; and 2 Pet. 1:5-11.
You can find a terrific description of the grace that brings salvation in Titus 2:11-14.
Romans is all about Paul defending his Gospel.
He gets to drop that by chapter twelve. In the first eleven chapters he dispenses with any objection that any lover of the Law could have to his Gospel, and then in chapter twelve and afterward he gets to move on to exhortation and encouragement.
3:8 specifically says that negative things were being said about Paul and his Gospel, but the whole tenor of the first eleven chapters makes it clear that he’s defending himself.
Romans 1:16 is the beginning of that: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel."
But note, the reason he is not ashamed, as we saw above, is because the Gospel is producing righteousness. It is producing people whose lives are to be admired; not like the Jews who are powerless to do good (re: all of ch. 2).
Now comes the biggest question of all. What about you? What about me?
Have you believed the Gospel and found no change? Has the Gospel failed to be the power of God for salvation to you?
Gratefulness for the death of Christ is not going to be sufficient. It is by the Spirit that we put to death the deeds of the body, not by gratefulness. The death of Christ is effective for those who "do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
How do you obtain that power?
Truly, it is only by believing, but is what you have believed the truth?
Jesus said that you cannot be his disciple unless you hate family, possessions, and even your own life (Luke 14:26-33).
You have to despise everything and everyone and follow Christ. You do this not by treating them badly, but by making Christ your sole influence in life.
This is the Gospel. Jesus doesn’t know about another one.
That Gospel will bring you the Spirit, and you will receive the Spirit just for believing it.
Know, however, that Jesus is serious about that Gospel. He is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him (Heb. 5:9).
Will you become his disciple? Will you forsake everything to have him as Teacher, Guide, and Lord?
Everything else comes later. Theology doesn’t matter. Christ will teach you your theology. Will you follow the One who is risen, who is Lord, and who will judge everyone on the last day according to what they have done?
Some of you reading this may be wondering, "What about Paul’s statements that salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done?" (Tit. 3:5).
I can’t address that every time I teach from the Scriptures. Overthrowing modern traditions and confused Bible interpretation can be a time-consuming process.
I have a number of pages addressing that issue. You might try Christian Salvation, Sola Fide, or Not by Faith Alone.
If you’re having a negative reaction to my entitling a page "Not by Faith Alone," I want to remind you that’s a Scripture quote (James 2:24).
2 Comments »
Filed under: Gospel, Modern Doctrines
One of these days I’m going to have time to do justice to the series I was doing on the appearance of Paul from 1 Thessalonians 2. There’s one post on exhortation I really want to get to, but I have to have a good amount of time to write it.
I got another email from the Eastern Orthodox fellow I wrote to a couple days ago. It made me realize there’s some very un-Protestant ideas I hold to.
What I’m about to write is not going to be very popular because most Protestants prefer to trust their intellect than to trust God.
There’s 2 reasons for this:
It’s not historical.
Even as late as A.D. 399, Augustine wrote …
Among the canonical Scriptures [the skillful interpreter] will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. (On Christian Doctrine II:8:12)
While most of the books we have in our Bible were accepted by all churches, some were in dispute. Other books that didn’t make our canon, like The Shepherd of Hermas and First Clement, were accepted by some churches.
The Apocrypha, subject of much dispute between Catholics and Protestants, were in dispute until modern times. Even Martin Luther quotes the Wisdom of Solomon as though it were Scripture.
It leads to a "magic book" mentality.
Protestants today honor the Bible almost to the point of idolatry. They won’t set another book on top of it, and they’d certainly never toss one or set a coffee cup on it.
Protestants would never allow anyone to say that the Bible has contradictions or scientific errors in it, nor would they ever acknowledge disbelieving anything in the Bible.
Nonetheless, a majority have never read the whole thing. There are dozens of verses no self-respecting Protestant would ever repeat. It’s okay if the Bible says it, but we shouldn’t!
We use the Bible like a magic book. We proclaim verses in defense of our traditions as though they were incantations from a spell book, driving away evil beliefs. Other verses—the ones that directly contradict the things we believe—we ignore. They are true, we acknowledge, but we can give no practical way in which they are true, nor can we ever say them ourselves.
Not having a closed canon of Scripture means that the faith has to be handed down, as it was meant to be. It means that we have to find our own answers to many problems of life, guided by the Holy Spirit, as one of the undisputed books of Scripture commands:
I have written these things to you about those that are trying to seduce you. The anointing you have received from the Holy One remains in you, and you don’t need anyone to teach you. As that same anointing teaches you everything, and is true and not a lie, so you will remain in him, just as it has taught you. (1 Jn. 2:26-27)
Paul agrees:
… the house of God, which is the church of God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
Oh, wait. I’m not supposed to say that. That’s one of the verses we don’t believe. It’s only true when Paul says it. We’re not allowed to repeat it.
This should follow from what I’ve written above.
The very fact that we have Scriptures we don’t believe, don’t agree with, and can’t repeat, all the while saying we do believe them, should be enough to prove that our intellectual approach is failing badly at understanding the Scriptures.
Our incredible, widespread division ought to be proof enough that we are not able to understand the Scriptures.
But we don’t get it.
The Scriptures were not meant to fuel our debate. The Scriptures were meant to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16). They were meant to get us to obey Christ.
Not perform religious rituals … obey Christ.
Have you ever paid attention to what you’ll be judged for?
Look at those Scriptures you claim to believe (but mostly don’t; you believe your traditions instead). They say you’ll be judged by whether you fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and imprisoned. Other verses say "good works," leaving things kind of general. 2 Peter 1 adds things like virtue, knowledge, goodness, patience, kindness, and love. (And I highly suspect that "knowledge" is a knowledge of what’s good, not a knowledge of systematic theology.)
You search the Scriptures because you think that you have eternal life in them, but these are they which testify of me, and you refuse to come to me so that you may have life. (Jn. 5:39-40)
What’s my point? Some new doctrine different from Protestant doctrine.
No, my point is that Christianity is all about exalting and obeying Christ. That’s what the Scriptures teach; they don’t teach something else.
In fact, they don’t teach anything else.
Protestants—in general, I’m not speaking of all of them—don’t trust God.
Protestants really prefer to trust their interpretation of the Bible. They figure that if you start following the Spirit, being led by God, as the Scripture commands, then you’ll go astray.
Figure that one out.
The Scriptures—that set of 66 books you say you believe—say that if you follow the Anointing, it will be true and not a lie.
God is able to make his will known.
If we gave any indication—an honest indication—that we cared what God had to say, rather than saying the Scriptures are wrong wherever they disagree with our infallible Protestant traditions, then we’d find God has myriads of ways of getting our attention.
In the 1st century, back when John was on the Isle of Patmos, he actually appeared to John and sent letters to seven local churches.
Wouldn’t you like to get a letter from Jesus?
No, I don’t mean the Scriptures. Those are written to everyone. I mean a letter just for your church and its situation.
We might see things like that if we gave any indication we cared.
But as long as someone can read us a Bible verse telling us that the church is the pillar and support of the truth and we can reject that Bible verse because we believe the Bible is the pillar and support of the truth, then why will God speak to us? If we reject 1 Tim. 3:15, which we claim is the Word of God, and warn people against Rom. 8:14 because they might go astray, then why would God bother speaking through a human by letter or by prophecy? If we reject 1 Timothy 3:15 and Romans 8:14, then we’re certainly going to reject the letter or the prophecy.
Well, that’s an abrupt ending. This post isn’t very organized. The paragraphs in each section don’t all fit the section they’re in.
What I wrote is true, though. I hope you’ll look at it without being offended by my generalizations about Protestants. Obviously, those things are not true of all Protestants, nor even all denominations of Protestants.
The magic book mentality, though, is pretty pervasive in conservative Protestant circles.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Bible, Church, History, Modern Doctrines
How am I getting 300 visits a day (and growing) to my Christian history web site?
Note: Christian History for Everyman had its first 400 visit day on Feb. 15, 2010 and is averaging 361 visits each day for the month.
Update: averaged over 400 for April; had first 500 visitor day on May 26.
