The Way, the Truth and The Life

One says to know Christ is to know the way and if you do not know the way you do not know the Christ. Another says to know Christ is to know the truth and if you do not know the truth you do not know the Christ, and yet another says to know Christ is to know the life and if you do not know the life then you do not know the Christ.

Time vs. Sin

Once again it’s time for me to try and organize some of the thoughts provoked by you my friends on your blogs and, as always, I ask you my friends to critique my considerations and, if possible, stop me before I go too far. ;-)

I’ve recently been considering the error of Arius with respect to his invalid perception of God. My perceptive of Arius is not one of an heretic, but of a believer not so much unlike many believers today. It seems that, as best I can find, Arius did not deny that Jesus was the Christ or that He was the Son of God. He did not even deny His deity. What he did do, it seems, is to go beyond the limits of revelation to trust in his own understanding when forming his perception of God. I think the specific limit that Arius broached pertains to time and I don’t think he’s been the only one to go too far in this.

Ephesians 3:19 tells us that to be filled with the fullness of God requires that we know the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge and we know that Christ is revealed to us through the Holy Spirit. This fact alone should persuade against forming our perception of God through our own understanding yet for some reason we all tend to try and relate to God in terms that we can already understand. I think this is the first step toward developing a highly flawed theology. We no longer look to Christ to perceive God but we begin to trust in our own understanding. If we are then to accomplish the task of knowing God on our terms we must first bridge the gap between our own understanding and the knowledge of God. The first obstacle we will encounter in this effort is time and we must then use philosophy to remove it. It seems to me that in order for Arius to perceive God on his terms he first had to form some relation between his understanding of creation and the Eternal Creator. He then only need misuse the scripture and elevate his theory to the knowledge of God in his own mind. Sound familiar? What consequence do you think Augustine’s perspective of eternity had on His and other’s theologies? I will leave that one to the “real” theologians here. ;-)

Now that we have made time our obstacle to the knowledge of God then we must conclude that Christ “broke through the fabric of time” and that through him we can escape our temporal state. Is that really the case? Is it really time that has separated men from God or is it sin? Are we reconciled to God through time in Christ or through the life that is in Christ Jesus? Is salvation merely passing from a limited existence to an unlimited existence or is it being fully reconciled to The Eternal Creator?

So what do I conclude from this? Adam brought on the sin that separated all men from the knowledge of God but God determined before creation that the way for all men to know Him is only through faith in Christ Jesus.

We be Anomolies

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar, people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

(1st Peter 2:9,10 KJV)

For Discussion

"...what is orthodox is contained in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. I find no other authority to establish orthodoxy beyond this. That would mean I consider that any theology cannot be considered as orthodoxy no matter how true it may be."

me ;-)

Would you think it wise?

Suppose that the President of the United States decided that the fact that all Christians do not agree on the means, method and meaning of Baptism were the primary cause for the lack of solidarity in support of his policies. Would you think it wise for him to invite all the Pastors in the world to a conference for the purpose of resolving this and a few other denominational differences? Now suppose that only 18% of all Pastors in the world attend the conference and that after much negotiation these men are able to reach a formal agreement on these differences including the means, method and meaning of baptism. Would you think it wise to consider this an action of the Church? Now suppose the President were to enact legislation that required that all Christians in the United States must teach that the means, method and meaning of baptism is as stated in this agreement and that to do otherwise would be considered an action against the state punishable by law. Would you really think that wise?

In 325 A.D. approximately 18% of all Christian Bishops in the world responded to an invitation from the Roman Emperor to assemble with the primary intent of resolving the differences in the perception of God within Christianity because the Emperor considered the controversy arising from these differences detrimental to his empire. The rest, as they say, is history.

A Continuation

One of the greatest blessings I’ve found here online is in having the ability to witness and even enter into discussion and debate with some of God’s most brilliant servants. Occasionally these discussions stray a bit far from the article that provoked them and I consider such the case with some discussions I joined on one of Rose’s excellent post. GoodnightSafeAtHome was gracious enough to continue with me on his group blog and Exist~Dissolve has kindly agreed to continue here on this site. The following is his most recent reply. My comments, which he quoted, are from my previous reply and are italicized.

Correction 10/09/07: I failed to clearly distinguish my comments in my original post. This has been corrected and I apologize for any confusion and for having credited my comments to E~D.


E~D I very much appreciate your attitude in discussion and the abilities God has blessed you with.

I have enjoyed the conversation as well--thanks!

I may have been unclear on what you intend by the term, “historic” Church. Are you referring to the early Church or the Church throughout history? If your reference were to the early Church then I would likely agree concerning their authority in that the apostles were endowed with divine knowledge from Christ and inspired by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand if you are referring to the development of the institutions that purport to be the Church or the various theologies found within Christianity over history then I will likely continue to argue. ;-)

When I speak of the "historic church", I am referring to the ecumenical body of the early centuries which defined the Canon and articulated the parameters of orthodoxy, Christian belief.

I would find the authority to interpret the scripture belongs to God alone and is administered to us through Christ, our head, by the Holy Spirit and not by the Church. The authority and responsibility of the Church to teach does not extend to usurping the authority of Christ as our head or to governing the function of the Holy Spirit.

I don't really see this as a satisfactory solution to your objections, for does this not ultimately dissolve the authority of interpretation down to the individual subjectivities of the private interpreter? For example, as no one knows the heart of another but God, upon what basis could one disavow someone else's interpretation if that same person appealed to the "inspiration of the Spirit" as the source of their interpretation? Upon what basis could the ecumenical Church denounce the heresies of Arius? While they certainly did themselves appeal to Scripture, the straw the broke the back of Arius' argument was its complete incongruence with the accepted orthodoxy of the church which had been preserved within the apostolic tradition of which the councils who condemned the ancient heresies were a part.

The implication I read into this is that the scripture was given to men by the Church and not by God. If you would refer to the canon as an act of the Church I would say it was an act of God through the Church but that it in no way conveys any authority to the Church outside that previously granted by Christ.

It is undeniable that the church wrote (per the apostles) and codified (per the councils) the form and content of the Christian Scriptures. As the tradition which produced and later codified the Scriptures is one and the same (i.e., the apostolic tradition), would it not stand to reason that there exists within that stream of tradition an inherent measure of authority by which to adjudicate those things which are in keeping with said tradition? Again, if Arius appealed to Scripture in his defense of his "creature-Christ," upon what basis could the early church have overcome his exegesis and declare it to be heretical? If they did not perceive themselves to have a measure of authority over the interpretation of Scripture and the analysis of interpretation in comparison with the content of the apostolic tradition, their only recourse could have been to the amassing of proof-texts and an eventual stalemate, or, alternatively, a denunciation of Arius on the basis of pure political fiat.

The trust I have developed in the scripture is based on its truths as evidenced in my life. What of it that I can prove to myself, I do, and what of it I cannot prove to myself has never proved to be wrong or untrue. This is unique in all my experience and has led me to conclude that the scripture is true. My faith in Christ is by virtue of the Holy Spirit testimony and my faith in the scripture is by virtue of my own experience. I do not propose that the Church be stripped of any authority but I do propose that Christ granted and defined Church authority and that authority did not extend to governing our relationship with God in Christ.

I agree that any authority inherent to the church has been granted by Christ. However, I think if you were to look closely at your hermenuetical methodology, you will find that it is rooted quite strongly in the personal subjectivities of the your own conscience. While this is inevitable for the act of interpretation to a certain extent, I do not see that it provides an answer to the question of how one could adjudicate proper exegesis from one interpretation to another.

I hope my position is a bit clearer. I will try to expound. Christ is the head of the man and He alone possesses the power and authority to govern the relationship of the man with God. The Holy Spirit guides and enlightens us through Christ and not through the Church.

I do not see that the enlightenment of the Spirit need be mutually exclusive with the authority of the church. For example, where did you learn of the dogma of the Trinity? Was it derived from your own isolated, private interpretation of Scripture? Or did you learn it from others? And what of your understanding of the hypostatic union of Christ? Did you infer this on your own, or was it taught to you by another? You see, while it is the Spirit who brings illumination, I would argue that this illumination is not something that happens in individual, isolated circumstances, but that rather the Spirit of God works through the church which Christ commissioned to raise up into theological soundness those who have been joined to Christ in faith.

Is it you?

Are you the one? Is it you that was appointed by God to judge what is good and evil in the lives of our Master’s servants? Are you the one elected to judge the hearts and minds of all believers? Are you the one whose knowledge and wisdom is full and whose interpretation of the scripture has been made perfect?

Please tell me what gifts has God given you to impose and enforce your righteous determinations? Do you possess the gift of ridicule? Are you touched with the divine ability to debase another? Could it be that you’ve even been endowed with power from on high (as appointed by men) to prosecute and persecute those who resist your perfect judgments? How marvelous it must be to find yourself exempt from the subjection and humility that marks all other believers!

If it is you then please correct me of my error. I was so sure that all judgment was given to Christ. I was so positive that we were to submit to one another. I was so certain that your position in the Church never existed and that the power and authority you use to govern the hearts, minds and actions of others could only be an offense and I truly am so bewitched as to believe that Christ is the head of the man and the body!

Why do you believe...?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16

In the above verse Jesus referred to Simon Barjona as Peter, meaning “small stone”. He then went on to say that Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as Christ and the Son of God was the "large stone" on which He would build His Church. If Peter's confession is the foundation on which Christ builds His Church then what more confession or creed should be required of believers in order to fellowship together. What further agreement should we make before joining together in praise, prayer and practice?

Why do you believe any further affirmation is necessary for fellowship?

A Forced Observation

Anyone who reads here knows that I don’t accept the divisions being thrust upon the body of Christ as being valid. Throughout Church history I find only one real division and that only because the contrast simply cannot and should not be ignored. To be honest, like others who find a division, I too wonder if any of those on the one side and not the other really are a part of the body. At present I have hope that some were and are and are only in error but regardless I shudder at the effect of their beliefs on the body and the world, and on themselves in judgment. These groups cannot be identified by denomination but only by their personal theology which, for one side, is often masked. Please consider this division I find and decide if it is valid, and if so, on which side you fall.

The first division is the persecuted Church. It’s not hard to trace the origin of this group as it obviously began with Jesus who is their head. Some of these have suffered death as well but the actual degree of persecution varies from mere verbal assault to open torture. This group is also marked by their unique belief that the Church is sustained by the power of God. This group promotes love for God in Christ and love for others and utilizes teaching as their primary tool for accomplishing this goal. They not only continue to exist, but often flourish under persecution.

The second division is the persecuting Church. This division believes the Church should be empowered and sustained through government authority of which they, of course, have a God given right to be head. This group seeks power and control in and of the world and will justify any means to that end.

Through the Looking Glass

If your view of the Church can be made without a mirror you may need to reexamine your position.

Why do you believe...?

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6 (KJV)

Why do you believe there is any other work necessary;

A) for everlasting life

B) to give evidence of conversion for fellowship

What would that work be?

Avoiding Offense

Anyone who’s ever dared to discuss their personal beliefs with another has likely found they’ve either offended the other person or is offended by the personal convictions held by that person. I could attempt to explain the intricacies that result in this circumstance but simply understanding the problem doesn’t solve it and the mental and verbal gymnastics required to avoid it would also require certain gifts that seem granted to a precious few. So how can we learn to avoid offending others? Let me first ask why would you even want to?

What purpose is served by avoiding offensive language and behavior? On the surface you might say that it helps to maintain a healthy relationship but is that really the case? Let’s say you, for one reason or another, are attempting to befriend another person. What does it mean to you to be their friend? Does it mean you always make that person feel good? Does it mean you are always encouraging? Yes you say? Even when their stated intent would seem to harm your friend or another? Well of course not! In that instance you would want nothing less than to completely discourage them in their effort and persuade them to question the beliefs behind their intended action. Do you think they might be offended by your inference on their judgment? You can bet they will and you can rest assured your effort on their behalf will not go unpunished. I think most of us would believe our offensiveness is warranted. Those of us who love would accept whatever punishment is inflicted on us if it insures the welfare of another. There could even be times that the person in question would severe all ties and withdraw all hope of reconciliation. Is it worth it even then? If you consider the alternative and can conclude that the relationship is still healthy then I suppose you might say no but if you find it untenable to “help those that hurt” then you will find no other option.

No fair you say! Why should I suffer for loving and caring for others? Why can’t my love and care be appreciated and not punished? The scripture replies, “the disciple is not above his master nor the servant above his lord” (Mat 10:23,24). The truth is we should expect to offend others and yet this can never be our defense. If our offense has behind it any other motive than a sincere desire for the welfare and well being of another then it is not love but pride and our fall is close behind it. Having examined your life can you honestly say that your pride has never caused an offense? I wish I could say it were so but I know the truth and I suspect you could even read through this blog and at least find enough evidence to suspect, if not convict me.

With this understanding I’m left wondering the merit in attempting to avoid an offense. I suspect my considerations would be better given toward insuring my motives are always love, hope and faith and never for the sake of my pride and if I offend by reason of ignorance then let me be quick to confess it and seek forgiveness and not justification.

Why do you believe...?

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 1:10

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Romans 8:6

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Romans 14:5

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11

Given the above verses it would seem to me that the single mindedness we should strive for has less to do with theological agreement than it does with our willingness to be subject to God, to one another and to the scripture.

Why do you believe Christian fellowship and assembly should be dependent on theological agreement and/or common practices?

Elect in Christ

We “hear” when God reveals the spoken word of truth in our heart. This is the implanting of the word that is accomplished through “the foolishness of preaching” by the power of His Spirit and it’s in this I find that men have no choice at all. I consider every aspect of this as being God’s grace by which we are saved and I honestly believe it is truly irresistible. When God determines that a man will hear the truth, he will hear it. If a man must be altered in any way in order to receive God’s grace then that man can rightly glory in his new and special ability. It is a gift from God to glorify the man and he is created a new creature, apart from Christ and apart from faith. If on the other hand God’s grace is imparted to a man, just as he is, lost and undone without any hope at all, then let all praise and glory be to God the Savior! That man is a creature thoroughly bound in sin and has no new or special ability at all but in His infinite love God has mercifully revealed the truth to Him!

God has determined that all who will believe the truth of the Gospel be no longer condemned but receive instead the gift of eternal life. This belief is nothing less than the creation of our faith through which God’s grace is imparted to us and it is incumbent, not imputed, on us to believe. God has authored our faith by revealing His word in which lies the power of salvation for all who believe. Those who believe are born of the Spirit by the conception of His grace through our faith. This is the spirit birth and it is then that we become a new creature, created in Christ Jesus. All those who would find the word foolishness and refuse to obey the Gospel command to believe must remain condemned with no hope at all and the word will be a testimony against them. This clearly leaves man alone responsible for unbelief but God alone the author of all salvation. A man cannot glory in his faith as it is incumbent on all men to believe but if he believes not then one day he must face the shame of his disobedience and he is without excuse.

I think it a sad thing for a man to glory in election as though it was appointed to him. It was appointed in Christ before the foundation of the world and apart from the body of Christ there are none elect. Were we always part of His body? Can we claim we were always in Him? Can you say you had faith from birth or before? Are you saved by grace through foreordination or through faith? If the scripture reveals any other way to be found in Christ apart from faith in Him then please show me. If the scripture clearly shows that the man who believes in Christ Jesus has everlasting life, and you believe in Jesus Christ, then rejoice with me in His salvation, not only of us, but also of all those who have and will believe the Gospel message that He has appointed we should carry to the world!

Why do you believe...?

During last weeks discussion on authority several good points were made and there were even some good thoughts offered on Church leadership. It seems we all agree that, "Christ is the single authority over each believer". There does, however, seem to be a valid concern regarding praxis, or how it is that Christ’ administers His authority in the Church. Most here find the Roman error quite grievous yet if we examine ourselves we might find those same tendencies thriving in most Evangelical Churches. The question we seek to answer is this, “How can Christ govern His Church if not through some person or persons here on earth?”

History offers numerous examples of how men have sought to establish themselves as Christ’ intermediary here on earth and even today there are many who claim to hold this position. For others it seems this position is not singular but rather Christ appoints rulers with authority equivalent to that of the apostles. Finally there are those who believe that the Church herself is to elect one or more individuals to govern her in Christ stead. Brethren I think we desperately need to alter our perception of us, the Church, as an institution and start to visualize ourselves as the living body of Christ. Christ Jesus alone is our head and He alone governs the movement and action of each member of His body. If we then are a body and not an institution we must ask, “ what is the remedy for the virus of sin that is constantly infecting our members?”

Time and necessity prevent me from expounding on the analogies in this but suffice it to say there is no cure in amputation. In the post below I have provided links to a series of articles detailing my understanding of Church discipline, which I believe is the only cure for any ailment that might infect the body of Christ. I hope it is clear from these articles that all of us have both the authority and the responsibility to provide aid in healing this illness as needed.
And now having fully taxed your patience I will ask, why do you believe there is a need for any form of Church government outside of Church disipline?

Why do you believe...?

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Matthew 20 (KJV)

Given these verses, as well as many others, I have to wonder at those who seek to establish an order of authority within the body of Christ. Nearly every denomination grants certain persons with specific powers and authority to govern others.

Why do you believe that anyone should have authority over any other in the Church?

Why do you believe...?

Note: 1/7/07 The article below should reference the Doctrine of the Church at Rome and not Corinth.

Those of you who read here know I find Denominationalism to be a bad alternative for Church discipline. I am now becoming more and more convinced it is also one of the greatest deterrents to doctrinal purity, which I also find to be the greatest cause for division among believers. I had to withdraw from discussion on my previous article in order to examine my belief and subsequent attitude toward doctrinal purity with respect to division in the body of Christ. I am still considering my understanding and studying this topic and I would appreciate having your thoughts here and your prayers.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
Romans 16:17-18 (KJV)

I know I am simple but the above verse seems to me to be very easy to understand and requires only that we know the doctrine taught to the Church at Corinth in order to comply. My primary concern is that many today would define the term “doctrine” as meaning “my system of theology” allowing them to justify denominational divisions.

Why do you believe you know the doctrine learned by the Corinthians?

The Promise

"I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. "

"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. "

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Why do you believe...?

The debate over determinism is still going strong so please feel free to continue with last weeks question. I know I will! ;-)

This weeks question is at Ron’s request and fits well with our previous discussions. Ron said;

”"The decision was between two men, they casts lots to see who the decision would go to Act 1:26 Then they cast lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias. So he was numbered with the 11 apostles. Here we see that God's ordaining hand was involved in this. (For a future question, Kc, you might ask why we don't use such tactics as this in church ministry. Why would we never even dream of casting lots to see who the next deacon or elder should be??? It is biblical.)"

I’ve tried to phrase this to address Ron’s specific concern but feel free to address this as you see fit.

Why do you believe that we, as believers, should never “cast lots” to make a selection?

Wonderful People

I would rather contend with you for days than find rest in the peace of the careless. You are always so stubborn and sometimes so rude and careless with your words that it almost hides the love we share but it makes no difference in my preference. I can’t help but find comfort in a love that won’t leave me ignorant.

You would never leave me without the truth as so many are pleased to do. You listen to me and then willingly sacrifice your own peace and comfort to fill my need and for that I am eternally grateful. Even when I reject and refuse your help you don’t neglect me. You pray for me.

You ask for us both patience and wisdom and seek for me an understanding that can only come from above. You ask these things and much more. You press for all my needs and ask His greatest blessings on me. You desire only the best for me, in spite of my ignorance. Your love inspires me to be more like Him.

You really are the most wonderful people on earth and I know you are my true brothers and sisters.