We’ll see how much blogging I can get done tonight. I hope to write more than one.

I’ve done 4 parts of a series on the appearance of Paul before tonight. This is Part 6 because I skipped part 4 in order to do part 5 on exhortation, which I think is very important.

All of those were from 1 Thessalonians, chapter 2.

Now I’m continuing to skip part 4 so that I can get to the part that doesn’t come from 1 Thess. 2.

This is 2 Cor. 10:10 …

For his letters, they say, are weighty and powerful, but in bodily presence he’s week, and his speech is unimpressive.

Paul the Famous Preacher?

Nowadays messages given by preachers are well-prepared. They are not only taught how to outline and write a sermon, but they are taught how to deliver it as well.

There’s a lot of shouting along with careful use of pauses and even quiet whispers for effect. A properly trained preacher uses hand motions, and he makes sure to move his body around—whether by walking or by vigorous gestures—to keep his audience’s attention.

Most sermons have three points, and if possible, they should all begin with the same letter.

Not Paul’s. The report about him is that his speech was unimpressive.

Paul’s Purpose

I remember the first time I did a radio program on a Christian station in Sacramento.

As soon as I got done, I got my first phone call at the station. Because I was on in the evening, the front desk was closed, and the technician and I listened to the answering machine pick up the call.

"I don’t know who this guy is," the caller began. "He never gave any credentials, and he didn’t even preach! He just talked!"

The caller would have had a hard time with the apostle Paul, too. Paul was concerned about content, not presentation.

I … did not come with excellency of speech or wisdom … I was with you in weakness, in fear, and with much trembling. My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of Spirit and power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of man, but on the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1,3-4)

Paul had something to say, and he was not ashamed of it.

He knew that his Gospel was the power of God to salvation, and he was content to let God back it up, not his seminary training.

And don’t be confused; Paul had seminary training. He studied under Gamaliel. He knew human wisdom, and he makes it clear in Romans that he knows how to logically argue.

He saved his logical arguments, however, for those who were already convinced. Those that he had to convince, he sought to convince with the straight powerful words of the Gospel.

The verse I left out above says, "I determined to know nothing among except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2).

Learning from the apostle Paul

It would do us good to learn from Paul. I cannot imagine him recommending three point sermons with each point starting with the same letter.

It’s not the ability to be remembered that makes a good sermon; it’s the power of God that makes a good sermon.

The whole idea of picking a pastor from a school somewhere is completely contrary to the spirit of the New Covenant. Shepherds were chosen from among the people, and the Christians knew their shepherds. They knew their history in Christ, they knew their testimony, and they knew the power of their walk with the Lord.

That’s why the writer of Hebrews could tell us to submit to our leaders "considering the result of their behavior" (Heb. 13:7).

That’s why Timothy and Titus were left in Ephesus and Crete, respectively, to appoint elders.

One early Christian wrote:

Tested men, our elders, preside over us, obtaining that honor not by purchase, but by established character. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. A.D. 200)

There’s some things we need to do differently?

Let me ask, when you teach or when you hear teaching, is it the enticing words of man’s wisdom, or is it the power of God?

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.

What Do We Need To Change

1. Preach a true Gospel. Let people know that Jesus wants everything, that he’s worth everything, and that the church is for those that at least want to have their lives changed by Jesus.
2. Bring them into the church—not a club with bi-weekly meetings, but a family. Show them that you meant what you said, and that your house is their house, your family is their family, and your money is their money.

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.

A Caveat Based on the Mercy of God

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.

Final Comment: Continuing in Christ’s Commands

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.

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.

Shocking Statements in 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

We Believe in One God, the Father

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).

Combating Arianism

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.

The Difference between Arianism and Orthodox Christianity

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.

Matter and “God”

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.

Homoousios

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.

Emphasizing Substance

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 Does This Matter

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.

Verses Versus Verses

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.)

Summing Up the Council of Nicea

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.

What About the Holy Spirit?

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.

Scriptural and Early Church Support

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.

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:

• Protestants greatly overestimate their ability to understand something as spiritual as the Scriptures.
• Protestants greatly underestimate God’s ability to reveal his will to men.

1. Having an official canon of Scripture is bad

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.

Protestants Overestimate Their Ability To Understand Something as Spiritual as the Scriptures

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 Greatly Underestimate God’s Ability To Reveal His Will to Men

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.

Final Note

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.

The same day I was asked about the Roman Catholic Church, I got an email about the Eastern Orthodox Church as well.

This was my response to the Orthodox person.

Note: The Eastern Orthodox Church, described too simply, is the Roman Catholic Church of the Eastern world.

The Eastern Orthodox Church and Historic Christianity

Thank you for writing me.

I have considered the Eastern Orthodox church. In fact, I was asked to leave a small church of which I was an elder for opposing their joining the Russian Orthodox Church. I have also attended (just once) an Assyrian Orthodox Church and spent several hours talking with its priest.

The funny part of that is we still make jokes (friendly, pleasant ones) about that day because he had 3 very large turtles in his back yard and he was a trekkie (as in Star Trek trekkie).

The primary reason I can’t go Orthodox–or any other denomination–is complicated.

The simple version of it is that I don’t believe in a church other than the local church.

The saints, those who are sold out to Christ, are supposed to be family to each other in their local area. Yes, the local churches should be in fellowship with one another and correcting one another, but there’s nothing apostolic about regional or national church leaders.

There are secondary reasons, the biggest one being that I believe the veneration of icons to be idolatry, but the primary one is the one I just gave.

I got an email from a Roman Catholic yesterday. It was very nice this time. Most of the vitriolic (um, harsh and negative) letters I receive are from Catholics. This one was very kind.

On the other hand, he asked me to go view a video that would set me straight. I didn’t go view it. I already know that even the best RC apologists go quickly to deceit when appealing to the early fathers on behalf of their church.

But the issue is much simpler than what the father say.

Here’s the email I sent back; it applies to Protestants, too …

Why I Reject the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church

And Why You Should, Too

Thank you for your kind letter.

I really can’t back off on my stance on the Roman Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic. You may be surprised at my biggest objection to the RCC.

Back in the 4th century, the church began to let people in who had made no commitment to Christ. This is true for the vast majority of Roman Catholic members. They are not taught the Gospel, that Jesus Christ calls people to deny themselves, take up their cross, forsake their possessions, live separate from the world, and join themselves to the family of Christ.

Protestants don’t do much better.

Either way, Christ, the apostles, and the early churches knew only one Gospel, leaving the old life to become a part of the family of God that cares nothing for the things of this world.

The RCC doesn’t teach that to its members. Protestants don’t teach that much, either, but then, Protestants don’t claim that to have a worldwide leader who is the vicar of Christ on earth.

I want those who are wholly committed to Christ to join themselves to one another and quit fellowshipping with nominal Christians, who, according to Scripture, are no Christians at all. And I certainly want them to reject the RCC as an authoritative representative of God when they are telling over a billion people that they are in fellowship with God because of rituals while they live lives that testify against the Gospel of Christ. (See Luke 14:26-33 and note the “cannots” in there.)

I don’t want to write posts like the one I just wrote without telling you what I’m about to tell you. That post discussed true and false Christians—or disciples vs. mere believers—and I don’t want you to misunderstand what I mean by disciple.

I’m not going to explain it to you; I’m going to give you an example, which is a much better explanation anyway.

As we were coming back from helping some friends in California come together as a church, my wife told me, "Most people aren’t willing to say the things you say."

I’ve been told that before.

Let me instantly pull you up to freedom of speech the way I was pulled up to freedom of speech.

Someone once wrote, "I am going to preach God’s Word unchanged and completely, even if the truth of his Word condemns me."

I believe that.

The Truth Because It’s True

I don’t preach the truth because I’m living it. I preach the truth because because it’s true

Does that make me a hypocrite?

I don’t believe so, and I have the testimony of the church—friends who know me intimately—that I’m no hypocrite.

But let’s look at this because like me, you have to say what’s true even if it condemns you. You can’t change or ignore the truth just because you find yourself unable to live it.

The Greek word translated—or, rather, left untranslated—hypocrite is hypokritos. It doesn’t mean hypocrite, or at least it didn’t in the 1st century. It means actor.

I like to translate it pretender.

I am not a pretender. I do not lie about who I am. When I teach about something that I am finding myself unable to live (at the moment), I say so.

If I’m not living it, all the more reason to teach it!

Why? Because then my brothers and sisters can help me live it. As I said in that last post, there some sins that you cannot be delivered from without the help of the church.

Being a Real Christian

There’s a terrific example of a real Christian, and what a real Christian needs, in one of the men I went to visit in California.

Bill (not his real name) has some problems. That’s not a surprise. We all have problems. His are particularly difficult to confess because they would be easy for him to hide.

He’s older, and he’s already had very high and very low experiences as a Christian. Recently, though, he was ready to give up. He had reached a state of hopelessness.

When we came along, the hardest thing for Bill to do was to hope again. Hoping means gathering up strength, devotion, and diligence one more time, and it means confessing his faults and taking a risk that we’ll really come along side to help him.

He did it.

That’s a real Christian.

I don’t look down on such a man for his problems. I look up to such a man for his faith.

We need to be people who can be trusted. I don’t have to be perfect. I have to confess my faults.

We will not succeed, we will not be saved, unless we are willing to encourage one another every day, while it is called today, so that we are not hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13). We will not succeed unless we confess our faults to one another and pray for one another that we may be healed (Jam. 5:16).

That’s real Christianity.

Real Christianity is not perfection. Real Christianity is going all the way.

Real Christianity is choosing not to change the commands of Christ, even if they condemn us. Real Christianity is giving ourselves wholeheartedly to the Spirit of God so that God can deal with us and change us even—no, not "even"; especially—when it hurts.

Real Christianity is confessing our faults to one another and praying for one another so that we can be healed.

Don’t think you can have real righteousness otherwise. Sin is too deceitful, and humans, even saved humans, are too easily deceived.

I like to say that there are two things we preach, which are two reasons for changing the way we "do" church in America.

1. The Gospel is a life for a Life. Jesus calls us to give up our lives and enter into his. In the mind of Christ and the apostles, you can’t be a Christian without forsaking your life (dying to self) and giving yourself to follow Jesus Christ.
2. Such disciples are called to do that together. Not together as in holding a couple meetings a week or attending the same Bible study. Together as in family: together for our whole lives, taking care of each other’s needs. Christ’s family, filled with a love given by the Holy Spirit, should be far closer than biological families.

Our churches don’t preach that Gospel … that’s a problem.

Our churches are in the way of disciples being together. When disciples are forced—whether by false teaching or by an obligation to attend an institutional church—to be in fellowship with those who are not disciples, then their unity is destroyed.

That, too, is a problem.

But I don’t want to write about those things today. Instead, I want to write about a practical application of those things. I want to address …

What is Salvation?

Today I got an email notification that someone I once knew is becoming a pastor of a denominational church.

I wish him the best, but his situation is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with today’s Christianity.

This person lived at Rose Creek Village, very close to me, for a year or two. I got to know him very well. Really nice guy. If you met him, you’d like him. I liked him.

But he has a problem that is fatal to following Christ. He is unable to deal with difficult situations, even to the point of dishonesty. There are many problems he’d rather dodge than deal with.

You can’t do that and help people.

You certainly can’t do that and be a shepherd in the church of God.

In almost every denominational church I’ve been a part of, such a problem would go on forever, never dealt with.

Nor is it a minor problem. It affects his happiness and the happiness of his family on an ongoing basis. Because he can’t face problems, his family’s problems go along, never dealt with. Indeed, they had been compounding for decades when I met him.

Is such a man saved?

It depends what you mean. Is he going to heaven? I hope so. I hope he’s made enough of a real commitment to Jesus Christ and that he’s a kind (and thus loving) enough person that God will have mercy on him and let him into heaven.

But if you ask whether he is saved from himself, from the world, and from the devil, the answer is a clear no. There are areas where the devil has a free reign in his life and his family’s life to bring difficulties and torment, intense heartache that could be avoided by the teaching of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit … teaching and power that he cannot bring because he can’t face the problems.

He’s not unusual. He’s typical.

How many men and women have I seen weeping about the problems in their life that they can’t overcome despite a real faith in Christ?

I’ve seen many. And many others have simply learned to live with their difficulties, their addictions, and their conflicts because preaching is not enough to help them.

A Salvation That Comes Only from the Church

Dare I say that a real faith in Christ and good, Scriptural preaching are not enough to deliver men from their sins?

I do dare, and I dare because the Bible says so.

Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

There are sins that can only be overcome by being in the church, and a Biblical church at that … like the ones the apostles started. Churches that are family, that share their possessions and their lives, that take care of one another like brothers and sisters. Nay, not just like brothers and sisters, but like brothers and sisters empowered with a love that comes from heaven.

Until the day we’re willing to overthrow the traditions of men and reject a concept of church that accepts anyone who walks through the front door, we will not see the salvation I’m speaking of in this blog.

This series started by looking at Paul’s boldness and his avoidance of flattering speech.

All of these attributes come from 1 Thessalonians 2, and they are all the result of one thing: Paul’s focus on and commitment to the Gospel of Christ.

Paul never lost sight of the goal: preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation and transformation of all who believe.

Today’s topics come from 1 Thess. 2:5-6, where Paul says, " … nor with a pretext for greed … nor did we seek glory from men" (NASB).

Knowing Ourselves

Both these things …

• Greed
• Glory from men

… have to with personal gain.

We are all prone not only to being influenced by greed and glory-seeking, but also to being deceived by them.

Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

I have never heard of a deceived person who knew they were deceived.

By definition, a deceived person thinks they’re right. A person deceived by sin thinks he’s not sinning.

A person deceived by greed and glory believes they are not self-seeking. They believe they care about God and about the ministry of the Word of God.

Our protection from these things—according to the writer of Hebrews—is being exhorted/encouraged (parakaleo can mean either) on a daily basis.

Don’t judge yourself in such matters. Let God judge you, and ask your brothers and sisters in Christ to judge you as well … not in condemnation, but in exhortation and, thus, love.

Glory from Men

If there’s anything that has a stronger draw on the hearts of men than money (and women), then it’s glory. We love to be glorified. We love to be held in honor. We love to lead. We love to be respected.

This is such a strong influence on us that God has provided many ways for us to battle the temptation and deception of glory.

Deliverance from Glory-Seeking

1. Humiliation

First, you can count on God to humiliate you. You can count on God—if you’re really his and not marked for perdition because of your self-will—to ensure that you have plenty of opportunity to be humbled.

Humbled, though is a nice word. Humiliated, however, is not so nice. Do not fret when God humiliates you. It hurts badly, but it is important for your own salvation.

2. Weakness of the Flesh

Many Christians are deceived into thinking that God is concerned about correcting all their faults.

He’s not.

He’s concerned about making you useful, and perfect people aren’t all that useful. They’re impossible to follow.

It’s important that a minister of the Gospel have weaknesses and struggles. It’s important that people know they have them.

Paul had a "messenger of satan" that perplexed him. He cried out to God for deliverance, but God told him that God’s strength would only be made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).

Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard had weaknesses and temptations … sexual ones. I assure you that they are not the only preachers of the Gospel with such struggles.

Their temptations and subsequent sin were exposed publicly.

God will not deliver you from weaknesses and temptations. He will only deliver you from sin.

Nor does God intend to deliver you by public exposure. He wants you to privately expose yourself.

Confess your faults one to another and pray for one another so that you may be healed. (Jam. 5:14)

We don’t make provision for weaknesses in leaders today. Leaders are separated from the people. The church is not a family. It’s more like a manager (the pastor), some players (active members of the church), and a crowd of fans—some for the team and some against it.

Thus, church leaders are forced to perform. No provision is made for the fact that God sends messengers of satan to them, working on them, wearing them down, making them needy, causing them to struggle … so that the power and the excellency would always be his and never theirs.

Church leaders must come from among us.

Obtaining church leaders from seminaries is a practice far more foolish and dangerous than we realize. Beyond the fact that it’s unbiblical, against the tradition of the apostles, and we don’t care … beyond all that, it’s horribly dangerous.

It produces Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggards.

A church leader should be confessing his weaknesses, obtaining prayer, and being healed … humbled all the time, considering himself, lest he also be tempted.

The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. A.D. 200)

We observe to come from divine authority, that the elder should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony. (Cyprian, "To the Clergy and People of Spain"; c. A.D. 250)

Conclusion

Let me just drop this here. I’m sure there’s more to say, but that’s a lot to chew on if you read all this.

I mentioned at the start that Paul was able to say those things in 1 Thess. 2 because he was focused on the Gospel and its transforming power. He was never moved from his goal. He was always steady and straight ahead.

The things above are true for disciples. They are true for those that want to be transformed by God.

Others may find that God doesn’t get in their way. He doesn’t humble them. Their goal is to honor themselves, not to honor God, and so God doesn’t deal with them at all.

Instead, they hear the worst thing that anyone can hear from God, which is "your will be done."

So if you have been called by God as a worker in his body or as a preacher of the Gospel, don’t fret your weaknesses … confess them. Ask for prayer. Be transformed and healed by the prayers of your brothers and sisters, and thus live in humility, apart from the glory of men, a true servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Last-Minute Hotel Deals at Expedia.com

Enough weather. Back to following Christ.

I got asked today, "Why is church done the way it’s done? Why do we have the system we have?"

There’s one simple answer:

Church has to be done this way to accommodate the fact that the majority of church members aren’t saved.

What Church Would Be Like If All Christians Were Really Christians

If all "Christians" were really Christians, then we’d actually do what the Bible says …

• When we come together, we’d all—or mostly all—come prepared to exercise our gifts when we met (1 Cor. 14:26). Opportunity would be give to all to do so (1 Cor. 14:31)
• We’d talk about all the verses no one wants to talk about so that we could serve Christ better.
• We’d obey the command to exhort/encourage one another every day (Heb. 3:13) rather than writing it off as incongruous with modern life.
• It would be impossible to schedule every teaching because their would be teachers for whom teaching is a gift from God (as well as shepherds—plural—who have the ability to teach). Some teachings would have to be called impromptu, and other scheduled teachings would be canceled at times.
• We’d talk about whether our meetings were boring and change them if they were. The meetings would probably rapidly change into something very different from three songs, offering, and a sermon.

• We would pattern our church leadership after the multiple elder system of the Scriptures (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), not business-style with a CEO (the pastor), VP’s of the various departments (associate pastors), and a board of directors (deacon or elder board)
• We’d care about the use of episkopos, presbuteros, and poimen in Scripture.
• We’d stop accusing the Roman Catholics of violating Matthew 23:9 until we stopped referring to our CEO as "Pastor such and such."
• We’d live like a family and expect to have input when a brother or sister takes a job, moves, marries, and certainly massive involvement should there ever be a divorce.
• Those who expect privacy—meaning the family of God minding its own business on such issues—on such issues would be told they’re not Christians.

There’s a lot more examples that could be given. You who read this could probably give better examples than I could.

A Warning

It would do us well to take note of the fact that ALL of us once lived our lives under the influence of and in subjugation to the Prince of the Power of the Air, the spirit that currently works in the sons of disobedience.

All your unsaved church members are doing the same.

So if over half your congregation is not even interested in Jesus’ requirements for a disciple (Luke 14:26-33), then the devil does the majority of the voting in every one of your business meetings.

Yeah. Shocking, huh?