Angry Elders

"An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered..." (See context: Titus 1:6-9; Emphasis mine)

“Not quick-tempered.” The word used in the Greek text to convey this idea of “quick temper” is “orgilon.” It means wrath. I think the idea in the Titus text regarding the qualifications of an elder is that an elder is not to be given to exploding often in angry displays of really bad, wrathful behavior. The reasons are obvious. How can an elder manage or rule over the church of God if he cannot rule over his own temper? (See 1 Timothy 3: 5)

The Old Testament book of Proverbs speaks to this very issue.

"A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of wicked intentions is hated."(Proverbs 14:17 NKJV)

A man of quick temper behaves not only foolishly but the conjunction used here, and, in the verse connects a quick-tempered man with a man of wicked intentions.

"He who is slow to wrath has great understanding, But he who is impulsive exalts folly." (Proverbs 14:29 NKJV)

This verse tells us that someone who is quick-tempered lacks great understanding and that he is impulsive and thus exalts folly.

But, most importantly, the Bible tells us in the Wisdom Book of Proverbs that we are not to even associate with a quick-tempered man:

"Do not make friends with a hot-tempered person, do not associate with one easily angered, or you may learn their ways and get yourself ensnared." (Proverbs 22:24 - 25 NIV)

An elder in a church who is quick-tempered is NOT qualified to be an elder. In fact, when there are more than two three witnesses (See Matthew 18:16; Deuteronomy 19:15) to this sinful behavior the fact can be confirmed that this is a problem from which the quick-tempered man must repent or step down, or be removed, as an elder.

We are commanded in Scripture not to make friends with or to even associate with such a one making it impossible to submit to the Biblical teaching and or discipline of such an elder.

***

The Role of the Church Elder

The primary duties of an elder(s) of the church is to teach and protect sound doctrine to the members. They overstep their boundaries and take on cult-like roles when they seek to intrude into a family within their assembly and seek to undermine the head of the household by telling them who they can and who they cannot consider to be a part of their home. It is the elders duty to teach sound Biblical theology and ethics and the practice of it but it is NOT their role to tell families who they can accept into their family household as members of their family though not blood related. When they do, they've got one foot in the door of a cult.

Deliver Me From Tribulations

Have you ever noticed that during prayer meetings, small groups, or mainline church services, the majority of prayer requests and subsequently offered prayers are those to be delivered from the trial and tribulations of illness, failures in business, martial relationships, kids rebelling, or any other thing which seems to be plaguing the believer and his or her family? Why is that?

What I mean is why do we as Christians, children of God, want the "bad thing" to go away? And just why do we perceive the trial or tribulation brought by the hand of God to be a "bad thing?" But, most importantly, why do we want it to "go away" and for it go away as fast as possible? If the number of prayer requests made at gatherings of God's people for "deliverance" is any indication of how the trials and tribulations in our lives are regarded, then this is a subject worth a moment of consideration.

In November 2009, in our adopted country of Mexico, we began attending a new church. In this assembly of God's people, I was sharing in an informal conversation with a few of the men the issue of my chronic and incurable illness with which I have been afflicted for more than 20 years. I have a disease called Fibromyalgia Syndrome. This is a pain, fatigue, and sleep disorder that more or less tortures me with unrelenting pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances night and day. The symptoms never go away. The meds I take sometimes control the symptoms, but mostly they work very minimally.

As I explained to this small group of men, the illness with which I must contend, God's thorn in the flesh for me (2 Corinthians 12), I could tell that they were entering into a state of horror from the looks on their faces. Then after I finished with the explanation, one of them said something to the effect, "The church will be in prayer for your healing." To which I responded, "This illness teaches me humility and dependence upon God, why should I want to be healed from that?"

Their collective looks of horror that I had been suffering with this illness for more than 20 years turned into looks of abject disbelief. You would have thought that I had just uttered a denial of Christian Historical Orthodoxy itself and uttered heresy. That was my perception of the situation at the time.

In the following weeks and months as I listened carefully to the prayer requests offered by this congregation during the prayer part of the service, almost all the prayer requests, with very few exceptions, were to be healed of an illness for themselves or a loved one. Not once did I hear (nor have ever heard) anyone ask God to use the illness to develop godly character in his or her life. Never once did I hear (or have ever heard) any of the congregation "thank God" (1 Thess 5:18) for bringing the illness into their lives. Not once.

This most certainly makes one ask the question, "Why not?"

In all fairness to this church, I must mention that I have seen this throughout all the churches I have belonged to over the past 40 years. People in general, even professing believers, want quick deliverance from the pain and agony of trials and tribulations. Now, I get this, I really do. If my wife became ill, seriously ill with a life-threatening disease, I would want God to heal her. I could not bear even the thought of losing her to an illness. I cannot begin to imagine the pain and heartache of someone whose child was afflicted.

But, even in something as dire as a life-threatening illness, what should be our attitude? What should the Christian do?

One more point is that during church prayer meetings, how many times have you heard someone get up and ask prayer for a habitual sin in their lives and to ask for prayer to "put to death that deed of the flesh" (Colossians 3:5-10)? How many times? We want instant relief from illness but we don't even mention our struggle with habitual sin as a thing worth requesting prayer.

The Apostle Paul was sick or had an incapacitating injury. We are not told exactly what was wrong. When you read Paul's account of this illness in 2 Corinthians 12: 5-10, you read:

"And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure." - verse 7

Paul honestly makes the proclamation that to prevent him from boasting in pride of the richness of revelation God had been giving him through Divine inspiration, God afflicted Paul with a "thorn in the flesh" to prevent any self-aggrandizing or self-exaltation. Paul calls it a messenger of Satan.

"Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me." - verse 8

Now we see that Paul did pray for healing or deliverance of this thorn in the flesh or messenger of Satan. Paul wanted this illness or injury to "depart from me."

"And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." - verse 9

Do not miss the two parts of this verse: Rather than healing Paul, the great Apostle to the gentiles, God said to Paul that "My grace is sufficient for you," and that "My strength is made perfect in weakness." Then Paul says, "I would rather boast in my weakness so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

You simply do not hear this in church prayer services! You do not hear anyone get up and thank God that they are sick, proclaim God's grace is sufficient for them in this illness given to humble them, and a boasting in their infirmities so that the power of Christ may rest upon them. You just don't hear this.

Then, in verse 10, you hear Paul's conclusion. It is something that makes me wonder if an entire congregation could be made to swoon hearing it uttered in modern day churches:

"Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." - verse 10

Paul's conclusion, his "therefore" signaling to the reader that this is how he sums it up, was that he takes pleasure in infirmities. But he doesn't stop there. He mentions his pleasure in reproaches, needs, persecutions, and distresses for Christ's sake. And his reason is, "For when I am weak, then I am strong."

Tell me when the last time you heard someone get up in a prayer meeting and say all that?

Paul did pray for healing or deliverance, but when God said "no," Paul settled down into a thankfulness of heart that enabled him to see why God was not, anytime soon, going to relieve him of his infirmities, whatever those were. He came to the Biblical conclusion that "power" is made perfect in weakness. If he needed the power and the strength, to endure the infirmities, then he would take pleasure in the weakness of the illness so that the power of God may be manifest in his weakness.

"Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong."

I wonder why professing believers do not understand that if they claim to be justified by faith in Christ why they do not glory in their tribulation?

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5: 1-5)

Because of our justification by faith alone in Christ alone, we have peace with God. No matter the circumstance, no matter the trial or tribulation, we have peace with God. Our justification by faith in Christ and the resultant peace with God is bigger than anything life can throw at us.

"Not only that," says Paul, "but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope."

Again I ask, when was the last time you heard someone stand up during a church prayer meeting and glory in his or her tribulation?"

Tribulation, whether a life-threatening illness, losing your job, or whatever, produces perseverance; perseverance produces character; character produces hope.

And yet, we get up in a prayer meeting and ask God's people to take the tribulation from us.

What To Do With The Deeds of The Flesh?

We are, as believers, mandated in Holy Writ to "put to death" the deeds of the flesh. Putting to death the deeds of the flesh is basic or foundational to the Christian's life. This is because when we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we are not walking in them but in the Spirit. Paul writes that we are "to walk in a manner worthy of our calling with which we have been called." (Eph. 4:1) Paul expounds this further in Col. 1: 9-10, in which he says he prays constantly for the Colossians the following:

"For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God." (NASB)

Note here what Paul says: walking in a manner worthy of the Lord, pleasing Him in every respect, bearing fruit unto every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God would be the direct consequences of Paul asking God in prayer for the Saints at Colosse to being filled (controlled/empowered) with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual understanding and wisdom. All of this is directly opposite to a life in the flesh.

To walk in the Spirit is to walk in a manner worthy of our calling or in a manner worthy of the Lord. This is what we are to do; this is what it is all about. And, what prevents us from doing what we ought is the ever-warring factions within us, the flesh and the Holy Spirit within us. All our failures in our Christian life are caused by the flesh. To learn just exactly how to put to death the deeds of the flesh and walk in the Spirit, the answer to everything, Paul also wrote,

"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." (Gal. 5:16 NKJV)

Paul's teaching in Gal. 5 shows us that a life of walking in the Spirit is the very secret or key to the Christian life. God wants us, as His children, to live a life that is controlled and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Every evil word, thought, and deed comes from our sinful flesh. In Romans 8:10, Paul tells us that we've been changed in our inner man in Christ and it is that against which our sinful flesh wars.

Sinful flesh wrecks our fellowship with God by exerting its powerful influence and causing us to fall. This influence feels insurmountable over our minds and will. It pushes, plods, yanks us senseless, and is relentless. Its strongest influence is perhaps on our emotions. The flesh sets its strongest opposition against the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5: 17). It is in this opposition where the "how to perform that which is good I find not because nothing good dwells in me that is my flesh" (Romans 7:18) is discovered. The control center that sin seeks to find within us is in our flesh. It is there it seeks to wreak its devastating power over us. To operate in the flesh, the Bible calls "quenching" the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19) or "grieving" the Spirit (Eph. 4:30).

If putting to death the deeds of the flesh and walking in the Spirit is the answer to everything, then how is it done? What are the facts in Scripture?

Though the Bible does not teach that we become sinless when we believe in Christ for our salvation, it does teach that the moment we call upon Christ as Lord and Savior, we are born again unto a living hope. It means we are eternally kept from condemnation and guilt and freed from sin's dominion or rule. We are instantly put into a position before God (in Christ) where He does not hold to our account our sin and a position in which we are dead to sin and its dominion over us through our co-death, co-burial, co-resurrection, and co-ascension in Christ. It is from that position we are free from sin's control as a pattern of life (See Rom. 6:1-23; Col. 3:1-17).

From that position in Christ, we are to "count on" ourselves indeed dead unto sin's control and alive unto God in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:11). We put to death-refuse to yield to-the deeds of the flesh based on who we are in Christ-that Romans 6:11 "reckoning". If the driving desire is not in a professing believer to do that, then this gives one pause regarding one's faith.

There was a time in my Christian life where I confessed sin after sin, only to have sin re-accumulate from one confession period to another. The same sin seemed to always rear its ugly habitual head. There were patterns of sin that I never addressed and, probably as a young man and believer in Christ, didn't know how or even that I should.

It was this concept of my "position in Christ" that was presented to me in high school that ended up transforming my walk with God. I began bringing (and still bring) areas of my life, habitual ones, to God in prayer, claiming the facts of His Word regarding sin that sought to rule my flesh. I asked the Holy Spirit to work in my mind the willingness and the doing of His good pleasure of not yielding to a specific sin (any and all sin) so that I might walk in a manner worthy of my calling in a consistent and habitual way. I would claim all this according to the promise of His word found in 1 John 5:14-15:

"Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him."

Was it His will that I no longer yield to sin in any sense and especially habitually? According to the verses cited in this paper, yes. Then I had the confidence that He not only heard me in my request but I also had the confidence I had that which I had asked of Him.

Being The Friend of God

Jesus called his disciples in John 15:14-15, "my friends." He expounded what this meant in just a few short phrases: "You are my friends if you do what I command." "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." (John 15:14 NIV)

In the Gospel of John chapters 13-15, there can be seen a development of an intimate relationship between our Lord and His disciples. In John 13, Christ refers to the disciples as "servants" while in the John 15 text he calls them something closer, "friends." (The John 13 text does not use the word "servant" but shows a servant-master reference and relationship.) In John 15, the text clears up the point: "from now on," or "henceforth," Jesus says He no longer calls them servants but, instead, friends. And how has this qualitative difference in the Lord and servants, now friends, relationship occurred? "…if you do what I command you," says Jesus in 15:14.

Abraham is used as an example of this in the Old Testament. "My friend" is used as a descriptive of God's relationship with Abraham (Isaiah 41:8: 2 Chronicles. 20:7). The reason Abraham was called "the friend of God" was the same reason for which Jesus called His disciples His friends. The disciples and Abraham obeyed the Word of the Living God. Jesus told His disciples that they were His friends if they obeyed Him; Abraham was called God's friend because he acted on faith (Heb. 11:8; Romans 4:18-21; Heb. 11:17-19). God calls those friends who act in obedience without reservation. Related passages bearing on the same idea are: 1 John 2:1-6: 1 John 5:1-3.

A thought not to be missed in the John 15:14 text is what can be discerned from the Greek text: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." The phrase, if you do, in the present active subjunctive carries the idea of "if you keep at it," "if you keep on doing the action" and not just for a moment in time or as an impulsive action (Robinson). It is obedience and a constant obeying of God's commandments over and over again. Those are the friends of God.

Also note in verse 15 of John 15: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you." (ESV) The phrase, I have called you friends, is a perfect active indicative phrase indicating a "permanent state of new dignity." What an amazing life-changing idea!

Self-Evaluation

I spend a great deal of time self-evaluating. This can be a good thing if done with the Bible open to the pages of Scripture and praying thoughtfully through them. It was in February 2010 that I began to sense a need in my life to begin a new re-acquaintance with God. I had fallen into a kind of habitual despairing of my physical illness-laden life. I suffer from a disease called Fibromyalgia Syndrome that afflicts me with unrelenting pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. I've had this illness for twenty years and had fallen into a defeatist attitude about it. The symptoms were ruling me and once I realized this had been going on for years, I sought God's wisdom and guidance.

The first thing I did was begin a new study program with a Bible Institute in Australia. It is a correspondence school, of sorts, via the Internet. As I cruised through the Certificate program in Biblical Studies, I was constantly reminded that my relationship with God was not meant to be one of despair. That even in the midst of valleys, and I was in some valleys, I could be on top emotionally. Where and how the devil would hit me, and hit me hard, was in my emotional reaction to severe pain from my illness. The more and more I dwelt on the things of God, the less and less, it seemed to me, I was wallowing in the despair over my disabilities.

I believe that each time I obey God's Word to rejoice in all things, to give thanks, to count it joy, to be anxious for nothing in the specific trials and tribulations in my life, I am counted more and more in a progressive sense a "friend of God." It begins, I believe, in never leaving the Word of God. This is the medium in which the Spirit bends your will to an inclination to obey Him. When you see that it is not only possible to "put the death" the deeds of the flesh, but also that the Word reveals that God works in us both the willing and doing of His good pleasure, then you are spurred on in a kind of Spirit excitement to do just that.

Addressing Obstacles

A pattern in my life has been that when I begin to become lazy about immersing myself in the Word of God, the habitual sin of despair seems to creep back into my life in an insidious intrusion. What keeps despair at bay is a constant, daily saturation in the Scripture and a prayerful mediation on specific Bible verses and passages.

What I am prayerfully considering is returning to school via the Internet in Biblical Studies. I would like to earn a degree in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Languages. It is not that I think this is something everyone should do, but it is something I should do. It would keep me busy for a number of years, which would keep my mind off my illness. And, it would keep me in an environment devoted to eternal things rather than earthly things. And so, what happens when the degree is finished? Hopefully, I will have earned some more developed skills in Bible Study and teaching. I would teach through the medium of writing.

The point of being God's friend is obedience; doing what He says. This is a calling I wanted to answer a long time ago.

It is never too late.

Two-Step Plan of Salvation Part I

My wife and I were sitting in the living room of an elderly couple we wished to influence for the Gospel. The man was admittedly a non-Christian. He was not hostile to the Gospel but from he understood from the Gospel explained to him by his wife, and the life she lived, was not a believer. The wife was a different story. In a completely self-aggrandizing manner would all but flush with excitement in telling us how she was saved when she was sixteen-years old.

When I asked her how she got saved her bubbly explanation was something very close to this:

"When I was sixteen-years old, I made a decision, as an act of my will, to believe in Christ. Years later, in my adult years, was taught about the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and how to speak in tongues."

She confirmed, when we questioned her that, "that was it."

That was her salvation experience. A two-step process which began with "her decision" and culminated with her "baptism in the Spirit" some years later.

Any fruit of the Spirit, any manifestation of her regeneration, was limited to her own self-enhancing, self-exaggerating, self-power, and self- reputation protestations.

What is wrong with this picture?

Until the 1800's this idea of decisionism, or decisionalism salvation, not to mention the "baptism of the Holy Spirit", evidenced by speaking in tongues, was never a part of an explanation of the Gospel of Salvation. Through those centuries there were theological and doctrinal debates concerning various doctrinal position on different Biblical truths, however, there was no "decisionism" salvation. We can thank Charles Finney for introducing decisionism salvation to the church.

Finney, a theological Arminian, rejected the Biblical doctrine of total depravity. He held to the error that man could exercise himself Godward salvifically. Man could "decide" himself in and out of a state of salvation with God. So pervasive was his error that he taught that one could lose one's salvation while in heaven. Amazingly, Finney had huge followings.

Decisionism salvation has as its root, its very foundation, that man "can" exercise himself toward God in a salvation sense when confronted with the facts of the Gospel. It means that man is not hindered him from seeking God, and if man likes what he sees, can choose Godward.

Is this God's plan of salvation? Is this what the Bible teaches? Do the pages of Holy Scripture teach than man has some righteousness left in him, some light, that he, when hearing the Gospel, can "make a decision as an act of his will" to believe in Christ?

Let's look first at what the Bible teaches as to the exact state of man's nature or what the Bible calls mans "fallen nature." But before jumping in the Biblical texts let me ask a series of questions:

One: To decide to believe in Jesus would be a righteous decision, would it not?

Two: To decide to believe in Jesus, to be able to make a decision regarding the death on the Cross would mean one would have to understand the message, would it not?

Three: To decide to believe in Jesus would mean that one would have been seeking God, or the decision itself would or could mean one would mean the "lost" had been seeking Jesus, would it not?

Four: To decide to believe in Jesus would have to mean one did something "profitable" and "good", would it not?

Five: To decide to believe in Jesus would not mean a destructive and miserable thing was accomplished, would it not?

Six: To decide to believe in Jesus would be to choose a way of peace, would it not?

Seven: To decide to believe in Jesus would mean one would have to have decided to "fear" God (reverential trust and awe), would it not?

Now let's read what God says in His Word:

As it is written:


" There is none righteous, no, not one;

11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."

13 " Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit";
" The poison of asps is under their lips";

14 " Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."

15 " Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;

17 And the way of peace they have not known."

18 " There is no fear of God before their eyes." - Romans 3:10-18 (NKJV)

How would any man or woman be able to make the righteous decision to exercise ones self towards God if there is none who righteous, no, not one? (vs. 10)

How can any man or woman make a decision to be saved if there is none who (the message). (vs. 11)

How can any man or woman decide to seek God unto salvation when there is none who seeks after God? (vs. 11)

How can any man or woman make the profitable decision to come to faith in Christ when all have become unprofitable? (vs.12)

How can any man or woman do the good thing of believing Christ unto salvation when there is none who do good, not one? (vs. 12)

How can any man or woman clear his or her path to Christ when destruction and misery are in their ways? (vs. 16)

How can any man or woman choose the peaceful way of salvation when "the way of peace they have not known?"

How can any man or woman "fear God and keep His commandments" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 KJV)?

And, God has commanded us to be reconciled to God.

"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20)

(The phrase "be reconciled to God" appears in the Greek text in the "second aorist imperative" and in the dative case. It carries the meaning of "Get reconciled to God and do it now.")

According to the Truth of Scripture, man is not capable of exercising himself Godward to believe on Christ unto salvation. Isn't that what the Bible is saying?

When someone asks me how I know I am saved I tell them:

"While I was yet dead in my trespasses and sins, a child of wrath, a son of disobedience, even as the rest, God made me alive in Christ Jesus saving me by His grace."

This is what it says in Ephesians 2: 1-10:

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

I love the way the King James Bible puts the first verse of this text:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" (Eph 2:1)

That's it. That's what the Bible says is the Gospel message: "and you hath He quickened (made alive) who were dead."

Let me illustrate: Do you remember the story of Lazarus who died and Jesus raised him from the dead? He was the brother of Mary and Martha and not the Lazarus of Luke 16:20. Jesus' friend, Lazarus had died from an illness and though his sisters sent for Jesus to come that he might heal Jesus' friend and their brother, Lazarus died and had been interred by the time Jesus arrived.

So that His disciples might believe, the John 11 texts says, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. He ordered the tomb stone to be removed to the objections to the sisters. Their brother had been dead for four days and there would have by this time developed a stench.

Once Jesus' orders were carried out, He cried out in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." (John 11:43)

Just how could a dead man, one dead for four days, rise up and walk? For that matter, how could a dead man hear the command to rise up and walk? But, walk Lazarus did. He came forth from tomb alive.

Before Lazarus could hear the command to come out of the tomb and before he could rise and walk, he had to be made alive or quickened in order to obey Jesus' command to walk out of the tomb. Take note of the order: dead, made alive, obedience.

This illustrates what the Ephesians 2 text is saying. How can a man dead in his trespasses and sins obey the command to be reconciled to God? The spiritually dead man, in order to hear and obey the command of God to be reconciled to Christ, must be quickened or made alive first so that he can "come forth" and believe in Christ unto salvation.

This was the first error of our woman friend mentioned at the beginning of this essay. She was telling us in essence what Paul called, "another Gospel."

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-9 NIV)

Our friend's gospel, her testimony, if you will, is that "she chose" herself into heaven. She believes and advocates another Gospel.

If is "her deciding to receive Jesus" that she might be saved is the Gospel, then why should she, or anyone else, need Jesus? Why not use the force or power of your will to be good and sin no more? If our friend "made a decision, as an act of my will, to believe in Christ," then why not skip the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16)" and just choose to be a good girl. From what do you need saving if your will, your decision making power, is untainted by the fall of man?

###

Unless you speak in tongues you do not have the Holy Spirit

“The simpleton believes every word he hears, but the prudent man looks and considers well where he is going.” (Proverbs 14:15 Amplified Bible)

If it is true the Holy Scriptures are able to make us, the believer, perfect and furnished unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:17), then it is to the Bible and the Bible alone we need to look to answer the question, “Unless you speak in tongues you do not have the Holy Spirit.” Experiences we may have, experiences we hear from others, experiences we witness, should be tested against and by the Word of the living God.

Two texts of Scripture, Acts 2:4, 10:44-46, do point to events in which speaking in tongues did accompany the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:4 – The Apostles are filled by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in other known languages so that the salvation message could be understood by others.

Acts 10:44-47 – Another event to demonstrate to the Jewish believers that the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon even the Gentile believers. Later in Acts 15:7-11, Peter points to this event as proof of Gentiles’ salvation.

Both passages are in accord with the Isaiah 28:11 prophecy, the purpose of tongues, which Paul quotes in I Corinthians 14:21,22, that tongues are for sign.

“In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.” (1 Corinthians 14:20-22 New International Version)

Tongues therefore were “…a sign to unbelievers, who are moved when they hear the gospel spoken in their tongue by men who have never learned it and do not understand it.” (See People’s New Testament Commentary: I Corinthians 14:20-22.)

The Apostle Paul outlines in Ephesians 1:13 that there is no period of time after receiving Christ that the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit but rather a Scriptural order that occurs at salvation: 1) Included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; 2) Having believed; 3) You were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.

When a man or woman is brought to faith in Christ, he or she is sealed in Christ with the promised Holy Spirit.

Paul, speaking to believers, says those in Christ are not under the control of the sinful flesh but by the Holy Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in us. If, he goes on, anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (here equating the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ) then he does not belong to Christ. (See Romans 8:9-11)

Redemption and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are linked as one in the same in Ephesians 4:30 with the outcome of this redemption and indwelling being the putting off of bitterness, rage, and anger, brawling and slander, every form of malice. And, putting on kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. Notice that these moral attributes (fruit of the Spirit) and not speaking in tongues are the outcome of Redemption and the Spirit’s Indwelling.

This error, “Unless you speak in tongues you do not have the Holy Spirit,” began when the “Holiness Movement” originated their “Second Work of Grace” (or Second Definite Work of Grace) doctrine. With many subsequent variations, the theology went like this:

Though Christ was sufficient for salvation, you will need the baptism of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the speaking in tongues, to have the “full gospel.” In other words, what Christ did at the Cross of Calvary was not sufficient enough requiring something “more,” which they called “the baptism of the Spirit.” Depending on which version you read, it was also called “the Spirit’s infilling.” Regardless of what you called it, “the baptism or infilling of the Spirit,” the doctrine taught that sometime after you received Christ, you had to seek this “second work of Grace” evidenced by the speaking in tongues.

If the gift of tongues, when it appeared in the first century, was a sign of judgment to the unbelieving Jewish nation as predicted in Isaiah 28:11, then when that nation ended (70 A.D.), the speaking in tongues would have ended. Its purpose would be done with. Therefore, tongues, the actual Biblical gift, and its association with the filling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) would not be seen today.

And, is it not another gospel to say that what Christ did on the Cross was not quite enough, that there is something more to seek, to be had, to want? To say there is a “second work of Grace” is essentially saying we are not complete in Christ to which the Bible clearly responds we are in Christ complete. (Col. 2:10)

There are even more grave issues about the modern tongues movement that one needs to consider.

"Dr. John Kildahl, a psychotherapist, conducted a ten-year, in-depth study of modern day tongue-speaking. The importance of the leader was well illustrated by the fact that the style of glossolalia adapted by the group bore a close resemblance to the way in which the leader spoke. A linguist engaged in glossolalia research found that prominent visiting speakers affected whole groups of glossolalists. Although no two tongue-speakers sounded exactly alike, if the prominent leader spoke in a kind of Old Testament Hebraic style, those who were taught by him also spoke in this manner. If the leader of the group evidenced Spanish diction and mannerism, his followers also developed that style. It is not uncommon for linguists to be able to tell which prominent itinerant glossolalist has introduced a congregation to tongue-speaking. Relatively few men and women travel the tongue-speaking circuit. The glossolalist styles of Bennett, Bredesen, Christenson, du Plessis, Mjorud, and Stone are distinctive enough to be identifiable by observant linguists. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, (Harper & Row) 1972, pg. 53." (SOURCE)

Testing what is being passed off as tongues speaking needs to happen. They, the tongues proponents, would have us accept their tongues experience as "gospel" based solely on their word.

"Listen to the experiences of Dr. Kildahl: We attended many meetings where glossolalia both occurred and was interpreted and noted that the interpretations were usually of a very general nature. After a segment of tongue-speech, an interpreter commonly offered the explanation that the speaker had been thanking and praising God for many blessings. Another frequent theme was that the speaker was asking for strength and guidance for himself and for others. However, perhaps a third of the time, the interpreter offered specific interpretations of what glossolalists said. More rarely, an interpreter "translated" phrase by phrase and sentence by sentence. In order to investigate the accuracy of these interpretations, we undertook to play a taped example of tongue-speech privately for several different interpreters of tongues. In no instance was there any similarity in the several interpretations. The following typifies our results: one interpreter said the tongue-speaker was praying for health of his children; another the same tongue-speech was an expression of gratitude to God for a recently successful church fund-raising effort. When confronted with the disparity between their interpretations, the interpreters offered the explanation that God gave to one person one interpretation of speech and to another person another interpretation. They showed no defensiveness about being cross-examined and generously upheld alternative interpretations as equally valid." (Source)

If we take it all at face value that what we see and hear in tongue's meetings, then how do we know for sure that what just took place is the supernatural? There has to be some way of framing it all in some sort of testable hypotheses. Just because someone pops up and demonstrates an Academy Award worth "interpretation" performance, means nothing. If it really is the Biblical gift of tongues, then the tongues with the so-called interpretation, if recorded, should prove to be a real foreign language. And, if it is, how do we know that the tongue speaker really did not previously know that language?

"We know of a man who was raised in Africa, the son of missionary parents, who decided -- rather cynically perhaps -- to test the interpretation of tongues. At the appropriate moment he rose and spoke the Lord's Prayer in the African dialect he had learned in his youth. When he sat down, an interpreter of tongues at once offered the meaning of what he said. He interpreted it as a message about the imminent second coming of Christ. John Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues, (Harper & Row) 1972, pages 62- 63. The Bible is clear in its warning to Christians concerning the many false teachers in the world. Many will be eternally lost who thought they had prophesied, cast out demons, and done many mighty works (i.e., tongue-speaking, etc.) in the name of Jesus (Matt. 7:22-23)." (Source)

"I've Got The Holy Spirit; Why Be Baptized?"

Having been in the faith for more than 41 years, I think I have heard just about every objection to obeying God and His Word. I once was told by a fellow male member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church we were attending in the States that he "didn't work-be gainfully employed- to support his family because he was afraid his sons would grow up not knowing who he was if he was gone to work all the time." That was an easy one. However, every now and then something comes along that takes me by surprise, like the theme of this essay: "A member of your cell group/congregation tells you that because he already has the Holy Spirit he does not believe that baptism in water is necessary."

Perhaps the root of this distorted view of the biblical doctrine of the sacraments is merely a misunderstanding or an ill-taught view of what baptism is and why we, as Christians, should be baptized. If so, then a small examination of the Scriptures would do nicely to set this person's view back on track and, hopefully, direct him to obedience in baptism.

Though the word "sacrament" is not in the Bible, it is an interesting word, which finds a highly appropriate application to what baptism (and the other church sacrament: communion) is all about. It was a word used in ancient Roman times as a sign of a soldier's military pledge to serve faithfully his commanding officer. It was sign, indeed a seal, representing the promise to faithfully execute his commander's standards and a sign of the promise not to desert him.

This excellent description of a sacrament applies to baptism in that when we are brought to faith and repentance in Christ, we, too, are listed in the service of the "Captain of our salvation" (Hebrews 2:10 KJV). Our standard, the thing to which we pledge ourselves through faith in Christ, is to take up our cross daily, denying sin within us, and follow Him in obedience.

Some early church fathers saw the sacraments as "solemn badges" worn by Christians metaphorically as a means to distinguish believers from the rest of humanity. As circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness and faith (Romans 4:11) under the Old Economy, under the New, the same distinction corresponds to the New Testament sacraments. What baptism represents is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and how this benefits the believer (Romans 6:1-12). It is the outward expression (sign) of the believer's New, Inward Nature. In every sacrament, there is a spiritual reality between the sign and what it represents.

Baptism is not only a New Testament sacrament, the sign and seal of the New Nature in Christ (Galatians 3:27; Col. 2:11,12), but it was also ordained by Christ Himself. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19), believers are commanded to baptize in the fulfillment of the discipleship process. To be baptized is to obey Christ's word.

"In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith-your own faith, not your parents' faith. If it is not "through faith"-if it is not an outward expression of inward faith-it is not baptism." (John Piper)

In I Peter 3:21, reveals that: 1) Baptism is not the removal of dirt from the flesh (the water is not the object); 2) Baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience; 3) Baptism is the outward demonstration or expression of a changed heart and mind in Christ. This, therefore, is a nail in the coffin for infant baptism.

If baptism is a Christ-ordained sacrament for the New Testament, and if there can be no discipleship without it, (New Testament, first-century Christians were baptizing and baptized Saints), then let me suggest five reasons why someone who claims to be a believer refuses baptism.

One is that they just do not know. They truly came to faith in Christ and were not taught to take the sign and seal of the New Covenant through baptism.

Two is that once they learn of baptism and its meaning, they are ashamed to admit they've never been baptized.

Three is that they are apathetic. Once they are taught and understand that baptism is an issue of obedience, they can't be bothered. I have encountered this with the elderly.

Four is that they are rebellious. They have been living a spiritually duplicitous life, and they know it, and if they were to suddenly come forward in obedience and be baptized, they would be found to be a spiritual fraud.

Five is that they are not really Christians after all. Church attendance is all the spirituality they need and is the extent of their meaningless profession of faith or lack thereof.

The waters of baptism are not what save you. Faith in Christ, because of Grace, and through the instrumentality of Faith, is what saves you. But, just as the Old Testament saints received circumcision as a sign and seal of their Covenantal relationship with God, so, too, do New Testament saints receive the sign and seal of the New Covenant through the waters of baptism. It is a command of Christ within the salvific purposes of God. And did not Jesus say,

"If you love Me, you will keep my commandment?" (John 15:14 NASB)

The Effect Upon the Church of the Legalization of Christianity Under Constantine

The legalization of Christianity under the rule of Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, or Constantine I, was a landmark decision for persecuted Christians. It would, eventually, change everything. What Constantine would implement during his reign would cause Christianity to become the official religion of the empire. It would bring tremendous changes for good for believers as well as many changes of questionable value. When Constantine signed his infamous Edict of Milan it would grant religious freedom to the kingdom for all religions but with a decidedly Christian bias on the part of Constantine. This favorable bias toward Christianity would endure for centuries.

Advantages

Constantine the Great became the Christian's patron. Financial support flowed church-ward. Not only did Constantine build churches but tax exemptions were available for the clergy. Constantine began a church building program in the Holy Land. For the purpose of evangelism and increasing wealth for the clergy, under his or his mother's (Helena) support, he ordered the following churches built: Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem to be constructed; in Rome, St. Peter's Basilica, an oratory now the Basilica di San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls¸ and in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, plus the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Employment in prestigious positions never before allowed for Christians were suddenly available. Property of great value was granted to the church as well as land taken during the persecution of Diocletian was returned. Constantine's Christian biased proved to provide an unprecedented acceptance into the society at large.

Constantine's pro-Christian reforms were enforced as law. These reforms favored not only Christians but had an effect for the non-Christian. Capital punishment and prison reforms were implemented affecting all, Christian or pagan alike. This, however, did not prevent and increasing pagan hostility toward Christians to whom to was obvious Constantine favored. What had to add to this growing hostility was the fact that Constantine, while building Christian churches, was not building pagan temples. In fact, as he no doubt grew in his faith, he became less and less likely to mix pagan with Christian, which he did very early in his profession of faith in Christ, and grew to the point of limiting his patronage Christian-ward.

The newly emboldened church resulted in internal strives which Constantine saw as his duty to deal with in the forms of "councils". He ordered in 314 A.D. The council of Arles to settle the Donatist controversy and to deal with the Arian error he ordered the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

These were certain advantages never before experienced by the church. To have an Emperor who not only claimed to be a Christian but who more often than not consistently demonstrated his conversion with reforms and favor toward a previously persecuted God's Elect.

Disadvantages

Mostly certainly a negative point to consider, and which garnered much enmity and resentment toward the Christian from the pagan camp, was that Constantine eventually got around to closing their temples and forking over the pagan wealth into the Emperor's bank to fund his Christian favoritism. Some scholars say the motive was to teach the pagan to come to the point of despising their paganism and to convert to Christianity. Well heeled Roman families began to be deprived of key government appointed jobs for their rejection of Christ. This could not bode well for the Church.

Another point to consider requires a bit of history. During Constantine's time and previously to his alleged conversion, there were four stages with which someone engaged to become a Christian. According to Ian Mugford's paper, Constantine's Impact on Christianity when someone became an inquirer into the faith he would meet with believers to express his desire to become one of them. In other words, he would make application to the church and submit himself for examination. If deemed worthy he would proceed to step two.

Step two was the instructional stage in the faith that could take up to five years. During this instructional phase the candidate's life was examined and judged. If found acceptable, he would then be permitted to advance toward stage three.

Stage three centered on the beliefs of the potential Christian. More intense teaching ensued. After much additional orthodox teaching and severe examination to test the sincerity of the candidate and his knowledge of church doctrine and practice, he was baptized.

Stage four was the "mystagogy"-the explanation of the baptism and communion the "new Christian" had just experienced.

Constantine completely changed this process. He had not submitted to this four step or stage process. He spoke of church leaders as his brethren and would eventually regard himself as "fellow servants" within the church. Yet, he had not submitted to this process of examination and scrutiny. By example Constantine gave people the chance of becoming a Christian without submitting to baptism or being instructed by the church. After all, the Emperor didn't submit to these requirements, why should the people? It wasn't until the end of his life that he did submit to baptism and teaching. There wasn't time to judge his life as to determine the sincerity of his professed conversion which was what the four step process provided. Regardless of the Emperor's conversion and its sincerity, during the next twenty years of his reign would prove problematic for the church.

The impact upon the church was significant. The four step process that one would normally need to go through was the opportunity for the church leaders to judge a candidate's sincerity or motive for becoming a Christian seemed to decline in importance. During Constantine's rule the motive for conversion changed. Constantine did not coerce people to become Christians but he did bribe them. Not only did he change the conversion landscape by ignoring the four step process for becoming a Christian, he polluted the church's membership with those with nefarious motives. How could those who responded to the Emperor's conversion bribes of cash for the convert and church, better jobs and promotions, and the social status for being a member of the Emperor's religion be sincere? The sad thing is that this bribery continued after the Emperor's death. Edicts made it impossible for pagans to get jobs or advance n their positions.

Conclusion

How to judge the effect of the legalization of Christianity during Constantine's reign is difficult. Granted that before his reign Christians were on the Empire's extinction list. By the time of Constantine's death, Christians were in all levels of government positions and institutionalized persecution was gone from within the empire.. Whether one believes Constantine's conversion was real or not, he was definitely "christianized" and his subsequent "christianized" reforms changed everything.

###

RESOURCES


Christianbook.com Home


bible-media.com

Christian Dating

Christian Music

A Plurality of Leadership

^“And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” (Acts 14:23 NIV)

In the New Testament, the church, each local, earthly expression of Christ’s body, was expected to appoint a plurality as its leadership called elders. Deacons were also to be appointed and, again, in the plural sense. Missions in the New Testament also sought to establish a plurality of leadership where churches were established.

Today, in the array of church denominations existing in our Western societies, there is a confusing string of terms describing church leadership. There are pastors, elders, bishops, overseers, deacons, and even, in some cases, the word apostle is used. In the first century church, there were two offices, elder and deacon, used to describe how the church was to be “set up” and how it was to function.

“Elder” (presbureros) is what the man is called who shares leadership with at least one other Elder within the church’s government. Bishop or Overseer (episcopos) is the work of the Elder. He “oversees” the church and its needs. Pastor (poimen) is the means by which the Elder accomplishes oversight of the flock. He shepherds or pastors it. In the English translations of the Greek text of the New Testament, these English terms are often interchangeable.

For example, in Titus 1:5-7, in the New American Standard Bible, Paul is giving instruction for the appointment of Elders in the church in Crete (verse 5). He goes on to list the qualifications for Elders (verse 6). Then he says, “For the overseer must be…” (verse 7), and he delineates additional qualifications for the Elder or Overseer. Elder and Overseer are equated as the same thing. The word “for” links verse 7 with 5 and 6.

In the King James Version, in verse 7 of the same passage, Paul says, “For a bishop must be…” using “bishop” in place of overseer. Here bishop, as is overseer in the NASB, is equated with elder (see Titus 1:5-7 in the King James Version). It is the same word, episcopos, in the Greek text.

In I Peter 5: 1-2, the function of the Elder, what the Elder does, is defined. Peter writes to “exhort the Elders” to pastor the flock. The word pastor, the Greek word poimen, is translated “shepherd” in the NASB and “feed” in the KJV. In the same passage, Peter also shows how they are to shepherd or feed the flock and that is by “exercising” or “taking” the oversight (episcopos).

In Acts 20:17 and 28, Luke links Elders to Overseers to Pastors. Luke records in the text that Paul met with the Elders (presbureros) of the church admonishing them to take heed of themselves as well as the flock over whom they had been made, by the Holy Spirit, overseers (episcopos) to shepherd (poimen) the church of God.

In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word elder is used. The word chosen to render the Hebrew word for elder into Greek is presbuteros. Elders in the Old Testament led the Israelites. They would represent the Jews in spiritual issues, represent them before Kings, and settle political matters. (See II Sam. 5:3; II Sam 17:4; I Kings 20:7; Exodus 7:17; 24:1-9)

Therefore, Elder is the office a male within the church holds; Overseeing is what the male does in the office of Elder; and Shepherding or Pastoring is how he carries out oversight as an Elder. But, what of the Deacon? Is there a difference in what a Deacon is and does within the church?

From the Greek word “diakonos,” we get our English word, “deacon.” It means a “servant.” Though this word has a general sense in its various usages, it also has a specific use. When diakonos is used in a technical sense, it is tied to the office of “deacon” within the church. Quite simply, when it is used to refer to the office of deacon, it has the meaning of serving others within the church. A deacon is a male who is in the office of ministry to others within the church. A deacon renders service.

The qualifications for a deacon are almost exactly the same moral attributes as that for an elder. In I Timothy 3:1-13, Paul spells out first the qualifications for the office of Elder. He lists the attributes, “above reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, self-control, respectable, hospitable, not addicted to the drink, etc…” Then, when the Apostle gets to verse 8, he writes, “Deacons, likewise, are to be men…” Likewise or “in the same way” indicates a link between the Elder qualifications and those for the Deacon.

There is no confusion in the mind of Paul as he penned the qualifications of both Elder and Deacon. While the office of Elder was different from the office of Deacon in function, neither office should be regarded frivolously. Both should be the husband of one wife, making it necessary the offices being filled with males. They should have exceptional character and run their homes according to Scripture. He, of course, has to be a believer and walk in a manner worthy of his calling.

So why are so many church governments set up with one man running the entire show rather than a plurality of leadership? Is it as some suggest that the primitive church government was only a workable solution for the first century church?

The normal church government you see today is an organization with a man or woman called a “pastor” who runs everything. If there are Elders or Deacons, they are more often than not little more than figureheads. A church building growth program is usually their reign of influence. Since “pastor” is not a church office but a function of the Elder, then churches set up on this type of top to bottom structure is not biblical.

In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I belonged to in the States, there was a ruling Elder (the pastor), Elders, and Deacons. This triangular or pyramid structure had the “ruling elder” at the top, then came the “lower” Elders, then the Deacons, then the church members. This is not the biblical example. One Elder is never above another no matter what you call them. They are all equal.

An excellent example of an entirely Elder ruled, viable church government is found in the Plymouth Brethren Assemblies.[1]

###

RESOURCES


Christianbook.com Home


bible-media.com

Christian Dating

Christian Music

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren