Who Knew? Discipleship After the Institution
I am presently in the midst of writing the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism and have a good start accordingly. Those who have agreed to do editing have requested a full manuscript when it is done rather than installments (that’s why some of you have not received scripts lately). And, John Immel has agreed to write the forward!
However, I have taken a short break to write a booklet on the New Testament assembly model. I am compelled to do this because the institutional church versus something else motif seems to be gaining serious traction. It’s the something else I am concerned with; we can’t just stop doing things, we need to replace what we have put off with the right replacement. Christians fellowshipping together is extremely important. Folks, we can’t just stop assembling together while going to “Echurch.”
Consider a comment I read yesterday on another blog:
Members of institutional churches are slaves. The Pharoes want their pyramids (institutional religious themed businesses) built, and they need slaves (members) to do the labor. The slaves go on visitation hoping to recruit new slaves (members). The slaves go into the community not with the gospel, but with cards telling what time Sunday School starts, etc.
The slaves have to gather their own straw (pay into the pot in order to use their spiritual gift), as many Pharoes will not let you serve in their “church” unless you pay into the pot, all the while they will not use their gifts without being paid out of the pot. Tell me that the children of God today are not taken bondage by a spiritual Egypt (institutional churches) and serve a Pharoe (clergy employed pastor), and needs a Moses to lead them out of this slave system. Look at the lies told to church members at this link here: [link has some great ideas, but don’t care to indorse it].
The parable is a little raw, but as we blush, we have to admit that it is technically all true. The link that was cited supplies resources/ammunition for those who are anti-institutional church, but again, no alternatives. That is why I am compelled to write this booklet. I want to at least get the ball rolling with some foundational challenges and a place to start. For those not assembling with other believers, it’s time to decide on a course of action IMO. I hope this booklet will encourage you to do so.
And in regard to the book, I am finding myself in the midst of some very interesting research. I have been able to conclude that the New Testament has left us an objective, definitive, Assembly model. And here is something cool: even though this will entail massive research of which I am able to do almost full time, the booklet is being kept to 50 pages; I am only hitting the high points.
I also want to put some history in there. When and how did the New Testament Assembly become an institution? Clearly, the apostles did not leave an institutional model. And, in the New Testament model, all, I repeat, ALL authority is in Christ. Unity is predicated on agreement regarding what Christ said. Fellowships are predicated on various degrees of agreement and cooperation—not horizontal authority. Vertical authority, horizontal agreement and a co-op of gifts occupied by each member. Leadership is a gift, not a position of authority.
This is what my research is beginning to reveal: a contention over what constitutes unity took place very early in the apostolic church era; authority versus fellowship. The idea that persuasive leadership leads to agreement and unity versus blank check submission to ecclesiastic authority. While some of the apostles were still living, bishops located in Rome start showing up and trying to tell the church what to do. At this point, I am not sure what their connection with the Roman government was, if any. The first Romish bishop was installed (by what means presently not known) circa during the same time that Jerusalem was sacked by Titus.
During this time (64-100 AD), controversies arise between Roman bishops and the Christian assemblies at large. The Roman bishops must have had some influence as the regional bishops (which were an aberration of earlier elders), at least argued with them. One controversy is striking. It resulted in the first Roman counsel and reveals that the early church observed Passover until at least 200 AD. Rome insisted that the “church” should observe Passover on Sunday rather than other days that fall on the 14th day of Nisan. Rome eventually won that battle, and hence today we observe Easter on “Easter Sunday.” Who knew? This is by no means tradition, but documented history:
Bishop Victor apparently felt that he had the authority to impose his will on the churches of Asia Minor. But they refused. It is also important to recall that Irenaeus told Victor that he should not have tried to impose Roman traditions on the Asia Minor churches.
The Orthodox Church reports this brief explanation of events in one of its timelines:
193 A.D. – Council of Rome, presided over by Bishop Victor, condemns the celebration of Pascha on Nisan 14, and addresses a letter to Polycrates of Ephesus and the Churches in Asia.
193 A.D. – Council of Ephesus, presided over by Bishop Polycrates, and attended by several bishops throughout Asia, reject the authority of Victor of Rome, and keep the Asian paschal tradition (Markou, Stavros L. K. An Orthodox Christian Historical Timeline. Copyright © 2003 OrthodoxFaith.com).
The Catholic writer Eusebius recorded that Polycrates of Ephesus, around 195 A.D. wrote the following to the Roman Bishop Victor who, as the previous writing showed, wanted all who professed Christ to change Passover from the 14th of Nisan to Sunday:
We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.
And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘ We ought to obey God rather than man’ (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 24. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).
Notice that Polycrates said that he and the other early church leaders (like the Apostles Philip and John, and their successors like Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito) would not deviate from the Bible, and that they knew the Bible taught them to keep the Passover on the correct date, and not on a Sunday. Polycrates also reminded the Roman bishop that true followers of Christ “obey God rather than men”.
Hence it is clear that throughout the second century, the churches in Asia Minor continued to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nisan (and for doing so, they were labeled as Quartodecimans by the Romans), unlike the Romans, and they refused to accept the authority of any Roman bishop over scripture (Bob Thiel, Ph.D.: Victor of Rome; online source | cogwriter.com/victor.htm).
Another interesting controversy arose very early in church history between Clement, the third bishop of Rome, and the church at Corinth. These early bishops constitute the beginning of the Catholic Church. The church at Corinth disfellowshipped several bishops. This happened circa 90 AD, and was the subject of a lengthy letter to Corinth by Clement (1Clement). The letter is a lengthy linguistic drone that addresses no specific issues whatsoever. The long and short of Clement’s appeal is bishop authority. Were these bishops sent by Rome to replace the unity of fellowship with authority? And what was the relationship between the bishops of Rome and the Roman government? Did their pressure result in the one city, one church, one bishop model? Prior to that, there were several home fellowships in each city or region led by several elders. It will take more research to answer these questions.
paul
Are Christians Losing Their Voice in the World Because They are Just Plain Stupid?
I was born again in 1983, but being saved by God does not automatically fix stupid in the here and now. The first stupid thing I did was to join a Baptist church because, by golly, I was saved and I was going to do this Christian thing the right way. Though a selfish sinner ruled by lust, like all of humanity, I had some good God-given qualities; i.e., I took satisfaction in doing a quality job. I brought that quality with me into my Christian life.
To some degree I am not at fault. How was I to know that Baptists are Protestants? How was I to know that Baptists would teach me the ways of Protestant orthodoxy? How was I to know that the fathers of Protestantism despised reason?
Are Protestants stupid? Sure they are. What other breed of homosapien would invest thousands of dollars to learn extensive knowledge about a religion founded by men who believed mankind to be totally depraved and unable to properly understand reality? Stupid? Maybe “sane” is the better question; who endeavors to earn a PhD in total depravity? Moreover, consider the fact that men who earn these nomenclatures of knowledge that plunges the depths of man’s incompetence are themselves men of renown and respected as knowledgeable about knowing nothing.
Yes, supposedly, according to Calvin and Luther, when Paul told the Corinthians that he knew nothing but Christ and Him crucified, he wasn’t talking about knowledge of other gospels, he was talking about the “foolishness of the cross.” Hence, the world rejects the cross because they believe man can know something of value other than the salvific work of Christ. They therefore see the cross as “foolishness.” Calvin and Luther mocked the thinkers of their day and ridiculed those who proposed that the Earth was round and the solar system was in motion. Their serial killing children, the Puritans, attributed the exploits of Benjamin Franklin to demonic powers. Any knowledge other than the cross is not the “cross story,” it is the “glory story.” The glory of man rather than the glory of God.
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. As a pastor, I saw no need whatsoever to learn any “vain philosophy,” and certainly didn’t learn any in high school or seminary. In both cases, Plato is a touchy subject. The Colonial Puritans were ridiculed for being Platonists by their Aristocratic detractors who were children of the same Enlightenment movement that clearly saved Europe from being a third world country shrouded in superstition. The Puritans founded our public school system. They also founded the Ivy League schools from which all of our seminaries came. These were prodigies of Socrates and Plato who defined true wisdom as knowing nothing.
From that gene pool came the Gnostics who defined the “secret knowledge” in the same way. Basically, they were peddlers of happiness in the midst of knowing nothing: “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” And if you messed up the unity and happiness of the communal group led by those with the gnosis, you died a lot sooner.
So, what in the world philosophy inspired this rant? Some time ago, it came to my attention that an atheist website reposted one of my articles in a favorable light. Even after being awakened to the importance of world philosophy and ideas by church historian John Immel, I was horrified. Certainly, I had to then consider that what Calvinists say about me may be true; am I really an “enemy of the cross”? Worse yet, this is a website that has a global rating of 609 with Alexa, that’s #609 worldwide (Google is #1). This multiplied the horror of my evil deed even more. Certainly, if these atheists liked what I wrote, it was pure evil!
Fearfully, I reread the post in order to come to grips with my horrific folly. Soon the fear turned to utter disbelief. The post pointed to the authoritative wisdom of God in the Scriptures. Huh? I reread it again; why would they promote these ideas on their blog? The post, at least in my estimation, assumed metaphysical interpretation via the Bible. So, I stuck around and read some other articles on the website. Clearly, I perceived more of a problem with stupidity than with God. In fact, I couldn’t find any article that had a problem with God in particular; the consistent theme seemed to be that Christians are anti-reason, and my friends, it is no less a fact that Luther called reason a filthy whore that should have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly.
Now enter what I perceive going on among contemporary Christian youth in our day, especially after our mission to the Cross Conference in Louisville this past weekend. The youth that were attracted to that conference are thinkers. Granted, they are hindered by Churchianity, but the desire is to be thinkers well equipped for battle in the arena of ideas. That is what draws them to this vein of Calvinism from the T4G camp—it is perceived as being an intellectual Christianity. It’s bogus, but nevertheless, T4G does a good job of selling themselves that way, compliments of hard cash from the working class laity. Hence, this particular group of youth are ripe unto harvest if you make your case. My friends, this is good news.
Now consider the Passion variety of youth (Louie Giglio versus Al Mohler et al). They are where the Louisville group will eventually end up if something isn’t done. The Passion group is quintessential Gnosticism. Louisville really hatched a vision for us, but we are researching in order to ascertain whether or not the Passion crowd is too far gone at this point. Furthermore, the youth we encountered in Louisville are more likely to be heard by those beckoning for Christianity to show itself reasonable. By the way, John Piper is the bridge between the two movements. But with both movements, a transition from less teaching to more experience orientation can be clearly seen.
When it gets right down to it, Western religion and culture is predicated on the debate between Plato and Aristotle. How ironic that the contemporary Calvinists of our day maximize the use of the very technology that their mentors despised. Though they hate Aristotle and the children he bore like Ayn Rand, without them, Al Mohler would be just another Hindu priest adding to the pollution of the Ganges River with cremation grounds. In the same way that those priests proclaim that horribly polluted river a place of purifying, Al Mohler and company are living contradictions.
At any rate, ignorance of these matters has not served Christianity or our society well. Christians do error if they think that they do not have to choose the reality that they will function in. Until Christians can define their reality, they will look stupid and act stupid. The Neo-Calvinist leaders of our day do not want our youth to know that they must make that choice, for if they do not understand the reality that they live in and how it functions intellectually…complete control is imminent.
Our ignorance of these matters is evident because we don’t understand why 900 people would voluntarily stand in line before a giant vat full of flavored poison. This is not complicated: those who interpret realty for others dictate perception. Why was I so horrified that atheists posted my article? Why was I so horrified that they listened?
I still have a lot to learn about how the world works.
paul
Does the Law Really Lead People to Christ by Revealing Sin Only?
The insanely celebrated return to our Reformed roots teaches the following about the law:
We are unable to keep the law perfectly. And since a perfect keeping of the law is the standard for righteousness required to live with God forever, our inability to keep the law perfectly leads us to Christ who must keep/fulfill it for us. As Christians, we continue to use the law in this way to “preach the gospel to ourselves.” The more we use the law to show our innate sinfulness, the more we experience “vivification” (a joyful, perpetual rebirth).
The bogus idea that perfect law-keeping is justification’s standard aside, the most popular text that supposedly supports this idea is Galatians 3:24 –
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
To make that verse work, “guardian” (paidagōgos) is often translated as “tutor.” That’s a stretch. The word is better translated “protector”:
Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood (Strong’s Dictionary).
Furthermore, the Reformed gospel teaches that the law is used by the Christian for this same purpose in our Christian walk—to continually lead us closer and closer to Christ by showing forth sin. This blatantly contradicts the context of the passage:
Galatians 3:25 – But now that faith has come, we are no longer [added] under a guardian,
Reformed doctrine clearly teaches that Christians are still under the law’s purpose to show us a deeper and deeper need for Christ and His grace as we see our own sinfulness in a deeper and deeper way. In other words, for Christians, God’s word still has a redemptive purpose. This is the basis for Historic Redemptive hermeneutics. However, even in regard to the lost, the showing forth of sin is only one purpose for the law, but far from being the only one.
Primarily, the law shows forth life. This is by far the primary theme of law throughout the Scriptures. The law shows forth the wisdom of God, and the wellbeing (blessings) of those who follow it. The law is also framed in the context of promise much more than it is judgment.
This gets into the major crux of the Reformed false gospel; the fusion of justification and sanctification concepts. The blessings of law-keeping can be experienced by unbelievers and believers alike, but such cannot obtain eternal life. The point is that the law shows forth life as much as it does death. It shows both. Again, this is a constant theme throughout the Scriptures. Who will deny that unbelievers will have a higher quality of life to the degree that they follow God’s law? No, it can’t gain salvation for them, but the law brings horizontal blessings by virtue of its wisdom.
Point in case:
1Peter 3:1 – Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
In this passage, the husband is not won over by the wife demonstrating how sinful we are and our subsequent need for Christ; she is showing forth the blessings of being a believer. These are blessings that he is also experiencing because the home is sanctified by her presence:
1Corinthians 7:14 – For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
So, there is a sense in which the unbelieving spouse is blessed by the believing one. The law not only shows forth sin, but also shows forth life. The latter is the way the law leads people to Christ just as much as the former.
paul
Interpretation
Christians like information. Between church, K-Love radio, and cable, we receive information nonstop. We also live in the Information Age. Never before has mankind received so much information.
But all information has a source, and the source of any given information is disseminating the information with a goal in mind, and that goal will depend on how the disseminators interpret realty. They have an agenda. Sure, some Hollywood producers merely want to entertain, but most want to educate according to their own good intentions. In Religion, agenda-driven education is always the goal. That’s us.
So, all information that we hear as Christians has an agenda. There is no exception here in this venue. And there is an all pervasive belief among Christians in regard to discernment: knowing how the teacher interprets reality is not important, I can take from the shelf what is true and leave on the shelf what isn’t true. The goal of the teacher based on how he/she interprets reality is not important. Every teaching has good and bad in it, but we can benefit from what is good. Hmmmm, really?
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how words work in communication. If you do not know how a teacher interprets reality, regardless of agreement on elements, through word replacement, and emphasis on certain words over others, you can be led to a functioning belief of the teacher’s choosing. I have watched this happen in Reformed circles firsthand. I know of churches that gleefully follow men that they would have run out of town ten years prior. I have watched this concept in action.
All of the words that form the ideas of any teacher you are listening to are framed according to his/her interpretation of reality. In the English language, the alternative use of words to put forth an idea are literally innumerable. No pun intended. Anybody’s best guess is that the English language has about 470,000 primary words. Generic words can be used to put forth an idea that would normally be dismissed out of hand in a certain venue by avoiding the specific word etc.
A classic example in Christian venues is the use of the word “gospel” to put forth certain ideas about justification that would be dismissed out of hand if the word, “justification” was used. Initially, that is. Once the idea is assimilated into the group’s minds, “justification” can then be freely used which seals the deal. If a teacher doesn’t believe in a particular biblical truth, he/she can simply never teach on it while assimilating nuanced antithetical ideas into the general curriculum. Hence: “One man’s account seems convincing until another comes forward.” Well, the other guy never comes forward, and you are therefore convinced.
The idea that we can glean helpful truth from any message is naïveté on steroids. Every word is an accomplice to that teacher’s interpretation of reality and the goal’s thereof. That is what “teaching” is. It is purpose-driven. 900 people liked what the words of Jim Jones seemed to say, but didn’t understand that his interpretation of realty would leave them dead and rotting in the hot sun of Guyana.
This also speaks to the scandalous reality of systematic theology not being taught in the churches. Congregants are left to accept whatever caveats are dished out from the pulpit.
Which can lead to anywhere.
paul
Enablement: Words Don’t Always Mean What We Think They Mean to Others
My dear Paul asked if I would write my perspective on being enabled by the Holy Spirit. We are having differences of opinion on what enablement means. I realize that my perspective will not be full of theological depth, proof texts, or biblical word analysis. My perspective will come from a personal angle.
My first inclination is to say, “Yes. The Holy Spirit enables us to do the will of the Father.” However, all the enablement was given to us at salvation. I must appropriate that enablement in order to accomplish the will of my heavenly Father.
Consider these examples:
a) By strength man is enabled to work.
b) Wealth enables men to be charitable or to live in luxury.
c) The law enables us to dispose of our property by will.
d) Learning and industry enable men to investigate the laws of nature.
The outside source, whether a person, event, or thing renders one capable or able to accomplish some task. A person must act upon that enablement in order to accomplish the desired activity. Strength enables one to work, but if strength is not applied, work is not accomplished. The rope enables you to secure yourself when you climb the mountain. The rope will not do the mountain climbing for you. You must use the enablement (rope) to accomplish the desired task (climbing the mountain). The Holy Spirit supplies the enablement ( at salvation), the believer must appropriate the enablement in order to accomplish the will of the Father. The enabler (Holy Spirit) is always there, the enablement (strength, power, ability ) have already been provided, the believer appropriates it.
There is another consideration with enablement. In today’s society if one is labeled an enabler it connotes a negative and undesirable accusation. Consider this example:
Hi. My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler. Years ago I was confronted about being an enabler. Not me. I was a loving, caring, submissive Christian wife whose goal in marriage was to build up my husband with honor and respect. After all, we were going to serve the Lord together. Our vows were taken from the book of Ruth: where you go I will go. We lit the unity candle signifying to all who came to our wedding that we were going to be one flesh, one mind, one heart. I was a good Christian wife, not an enabler. An enabler helps people continue in their addictions. An enabler is a wimpy, floor mat of a wife who has no life of her own apart from her husband’s wishes and whims. That certainly was not Susan St. Denis! I was not an enabler.
My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler. Years ago I was confronted about my being an enabler. Yes, me. I finally admitted it to myself ,to my pastor and to my closest friends. The counsel I received from my pastor was to keep trying to “fix” what was broken in my first husband, Wayne. I needed to show Wayne that I needed him. I was to become a Total Christian Woman, the perfect, submissive wife. In doing so he would see that his addictions could not give him what I could provide. I was told by my pastors that I was not submissive enough and had a rebellious spirit and when I got right with the Lord, then my husband would follow suit. Sadly, this “biblical” counsel given to me by my pastors only fueled his addictions and deepened my enablement. In my attempts at fixing, I also rescued, coached him when he tried recovery programs, nursed him back to health after being beat almost to death by his drug dealers, and was his cheerleader during the sober times. I was his bank, his bill payer, his bail bondsman, and the accountable one. I was an enabler, a martyr, lost and wounded. However, without me to help him he would have had to face the consequences of his actions and that might have interfered with his continued use. I protected him from consequences and from himself. Sadly, I enabled him to die an early death at the age of 55. Two years before his death, I stopped running interference for him, stopped making excuses, and stopped shielding him from the consequences of his addictions. He died of congestive heart failure, and a diabetic coma all directly related to his alcohol addiction. IF I had not assumed the role of enabler would Wayne’s life have taken a different course?
When Paul asked me to write comments about the Holy Spirit being an enabler, I cringed. You can certainly see how this term bears many negative connotations for me, and to associate enabling to the work of the Holy Spirit evokes unpleasant thoughts. I would rather think of the Holy Spirit as my helper as we co-labor together to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord. However, when I became a believer I was enabled by the Holy Spirit with the same power that resurrected our Lord from the dead. I was rescued from hell, saved from the penalty of sin, redeemed by His blood, forgiven, justified by faith, and empowered by the Holy Spirit on that day I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit’s enablement (being empowered) is a one time event. He does have a continual role in my life as His child. He convicts of sin, He is a helper, a comforter, a counselor, an advocate with the Father.
When I hear or read of someone who says that “the Holy Spirit enabled them to do thus and so” it makes me wonder, “In what way?” Are they saying that the Holy Spirit shielded consequences so that the activity so desired can continue? Are they saying the Holy Spirit smoothed things out so as to not to rock the boat? Are they saying that the Holy Spirit provided financial assets so that choices can continue? Knowing what the term enable means and all its ramifications, I encourage believers to use it with care. Coming from my personal experience of 36 years of being an enabler, and how today’s world sees enablement, another biblical term would seem more appropriate to describe the work of the Holy Spirit.
My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments