If we took this admonition to heart, how would it change our churches this Sunday? Ray Ortlund writes,

“Outdo one another in showing honor.” Romans 12:10

Here is a competition in which everyone wins, here is where we can fight for first place in line: in honoring one another. Not just accepting one another, not just forgiving one another, not just tolerating one another, but honoring one another.

Every church can be a culture of honor. Why? Because of the doctrine of glorification. It’s the punch-line of the gospel: “Them he glorified” (Romans 8:30). Every Christian you know will be forever glorious inside and out with the glory of the risen Jesus: “To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 2:14). Let’s see one another not as we are but as we will be. That gospel-perception makes Romans 12:10 an obvious thing to do. Romans 12:10 might be the most disobeyed Scripture in our churches today, but it really is the wardrobe into Narnia.

Who wouldn’t want to walk into church this next Sunday morning to a hero’s welcome?

Interior of Rheims Cathedral, France

The Church
Catholics believe that God was made man in order, among other things, to deliver a body of truth to man, much of which he might have guessed at, some of which he might positively have known, some of which he could neither have known nor guessed at. This body of truth was delivered to His Apostles; and it is beyond the power or the rights of their successors either to add to, or to diminish, in the smallest degree, this Divine Revelation.

Christ constituted, however, a Church — that is to say, a group of persons raised, by certain rites which we shall consider later, to the supernatural state, and intended to embrace sooner or later the whole of human kind; and one of the functions of this Church is to preserve aright and to promulgate the truths revealed to her by Christ. Yet, while the Church may not modify the truths themselves, she will “develop,” as time goes by, their contents; she will, for instance, make more explicit that which was at first implicit or obscure, in answer to questions or denials on matters of faith; and in this action — in the exercise, that is to say, of this supreme dogmatic function of hers — she believes herself so far safeguarded by the assistance of God as to be incapable of teaching error. This gift of Infallibility, it will be noticed, is quite another thing from Inspiration. The former is rather a negative gift by which she is kept immune from error; the latter a positive impulse, given to the prophets and the writers of Scripture, including Infallibility, but transcending it. The Church does not claim Inspiration, either for her General Councils or for her Divinely appointed Head; yet she claims entire infallibility for these two mouths of hers by which she formally defines truth.

The Unity of the Church
Unity is provided for in the following manner: Christ, it is recorded in the Gospels, chose out one from among His Apostles to be the leader, and, in a sense, the centre of the rest; and He particularized him in many ways. First He gave him a new name, and Himself supplied the interpretation of that name. He called him Cephas, or Peter; and added that “upon this Cephas” (He) would build His Church; further adding that “the gates of hell should not prevail against” this Church. Next He said that to him He would give “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”; and lastly commissioned him to “feed His sheep.” It is noticeable that these three functions thus representatively conferred upon Peter are predicated in their fullness only of Christ Himself: He is the “Foundation Stone,” the “Door,” and the “Good Shepherd.”

Catholics therefore claim that the Church of Christ — that Church to which Christ committed such functions and to which He promised His continual Presence — can be identified by its unity with Peter; and the See of Rome, therefore, where Peter lived and died, is called the “Holy” or the “Apostolic” See; and its occupant is regarded as having inherited the prerogatives of Peter. Among these prerogatives, therefore, is that of safeguarding and defining the truth; and the Bishop of Rome, or “Pope,” is named the “Vicar of Christ.” He, therefore, when, as supreme Pastor of Souls, in a matter of Faith or Morals, he defines a truth to be held by all Christians, acts in virtue of his commission from Christ, and is divinely safeguarded from error. His prerogative does not preclude the possibility of his erring in his private capacity; still less does it preserve him from personal sin.

The promises of Christ, however, were made to the whole Church in the person of Peter and a properly constituted “General Council” therefore, sitting under the presidentship of “Peter,” is also believed to be infallible. In cases where such a Council has sat, the Pope does no more than ratify and confirm the decisions which, it is believed, are also safeguarded from error by the same promises of Christ. To the Pope also belongs supreme jurisdiction, and from him every bishop and priest draws his right to act in his official capacity. Most of these acts are valid, though irregular, even when exercised in defiance of, or separation from, the Pope; some of them — for example, absolution or the Power of the Keys — are invalid as well as irregular under those conditions.

The Church Is Dispenser Of Grace
The second great function of the Church is that of Dispenser of Grace. The Incarnation and the Atonement, as has been seen, are believed to have released an infinite torrent of grace for the salvation of all mankind; but this grace must, normally, be applied to the individual through certain channels and agents. Chief among these channels are the Sacraments; chief among these agents is the Sacerdotal Hierarchy; and the second is, normally, the dispenser of the former.

THE SACRAMENTS
The Sacraments are seven in number: Baptism; Penance; the Eucharist; Confirmation; Holy Order; Holy Matrimony; and Extreme Unction. First, however, the Eucharist should be considered, as it is more than a Sacrament.

According to the doctrine of the Atonement, Christ offered on Calvary the one perfect and adequate Sacrifice for the sins of the world. A Sacrifice is commonly believed to involve two things: primarily the offering and death of a Victim, and secondarily an Union with God to whom the Victim is offered by means of a feast upon its Flesh. Two things therefore are involved in the Atonement wrought by Christ: there is first the Sacrifice proper; there is next Communion with God by feeding upon the Divine Victim.

Now Christ spoke of these two things expressly in one sentence, “The (Living) Bread which I will give is My Flesh which I will give for the life of the world”; and again, “Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you.” Further, He instituted a Rite by which (1) the Sacrifice once offered should be continually re-presented to God; (2) the Flesh and Blood, thus sacrificed, should be made accessible for human food. This Rite is called the Eucharist.

The Eucharist
In the Eucharist, by Divine Power exercised through the priest, the “elements” of Bread and Wine are changed substantially (though not accidentally) into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ. This is called the dogma of Transubstantiation, and signifies that while the externals or “accidents” of the elements — those qualities accessible to the senses — remain unchanged, the substance — that in which the “accidents” inhere and by which, for instance, the bread is bread — is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. In the transubstantiated elements there is no actual separation of Body and Blood; the Host and the contents of the chalice are, alike, Christ whole and entire (since a real separation would involve another death of Christ); but the two different elements are used in order to signify and to re-present, mystically, that actual separation which took place on Calvary.

Here, then, in the Eucharist, is, first, the Sacrifice of the Mass — the re-presenting, that is, under another mode, of the Sacrifice of Calvary; then in the Communion, the Body and Blood of the Sacrificed Divine Victim are assimilated by the participators. Lastly, in Catholic Churches, the “Blessed Sacrament” is preserved in the Tabernacle, and both here, and in the service of Benediction, is adored by Catholics. The Eucharist, therefore, pre-eminently above the other Sacraments, is sometimes referred to as the “extension of the Incarnation,” though all the Sacraments are this also in their degree. But in the Eucharist, according to Catholic belief, the Human Nature of Christ is always present on earth — dwelling in the Tabernacle, sacrificed in the Mass, and assimilable in Communion.

Baptism
Baptism is the Rite ordained by Christ for the washing away of original sin; and Penance (or Absolution) for the further washing away of sins afterwards contracted.

Baptism therefore is the first sacrament received by the individual. Since man is not pure spirit, but spirit incarnate, the supreme means of grace also have something of this double nature — an external visible part, and the interior grace conveyed by it and Baptism (which, like matrimony, does not necessarily require a priest for its valid administration) is an outward ablution accompanied by certain words, which whole Rite raises the catechumen to the supernatural life, removes his sins, original and actual, and infuses certain graces into the soul. It is “necessary to salvation”; yet the Church has always held that the “Baptism of Desire” — i.e. God’s response to a perfectly pure and good intention of pleasing Him, accompanied by an implicit wish to conform in all things to His Will and therefore inclusive of a desire for baptism, if the necessity of such were known to the individual — confers the grace of the sacrament upon those who are unable actually to obtain it.

Penance
Penance is the sacrament instituted by Christ, by which post-baptismal sins are forgiven through the ministry of a priest acting judicially, in virtue of Christ’s words to His apostles, ” Whosesoever sins you forgive they are forgiven.”

Confirmation, Holy Order, Holy Matrimony, Extreme Unction
Confirmation is the sacrament by which certain gifts of the Holy Ghost — seven in number — beyond those received in baptism, are conveyed to the individual, primarily for his strengthening in the battle of life.

Holy Order is the sacrament by which men are raised to the ministry, and made sharers in and administrators of the Royal Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Holy Matrimony is the sacrament by which a man and a woman are united before God in such a manner that what would, without grace, be merely a contract terminable or dissoluble, becomes a mysterious uniting of the two that nothing but death can sever. The Church entirely denies divorce, and refuses the sacraments to those who have profited by a legal “divorce” to marry again in the lifetime of their surviving partners.

Extreme Unction (“The Last Anointing”) is the sacrament by which the sick in danger of death are frequently restored to health, or, if not, purified and made ready for death.

Lastly, on the point of the Sacraments, it must be added that three of them — Baptism, Confirmation, and Order — confer “Character,” or an indelible seal upon the soul; and these three sacraments therefore can be received but once. These are also the three sacraments in which the Holy Ghost acts directly upon the soul and is “given” to her.

The Sacraments are, as has been seen, dispensed by the Church, and for five of them the ministry of a priest is essential for validity; further, for two of these five (for Order absolutely, and for the administration of Confirmation, with certain rare exceptions) the Episcopal order is necessary. For Extreme Unction too the use of oil blessed by a bishop is necessary. In Baptism any rational human being can act as minister; in Holy Matrimony the ” ministers,” strictly speaking, are the contracting parties, though by recent legislation the presence of the parish priest is, as a matter of fact, also necessary.

The Hierarchy Of The Church
All Priesthood, it is taught, comes from Jesus Christ, who is alone the Supreme and Absolute Priest. But He has raised men to be not only His representatives, but actually the agents by whom that “Melchisedech” priesthood is exercised on earth. He conferred this gift upon His Apostles at the Last Supper, and gave them also the power of passing it on to their successors, under certain restrictions and safeguards: and this Priesthood includes primarily the power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass by consecrating the Eucharist, as well as the power to forgive sins in His Name, to bless, and to administer other means of grace.

There are seven orders in the Hierarchy. First the three Major Orders; the Priesthood (which in its plenitude is present only in the Episcopate), the Diaconate, and the Subdiaconate: then the four Minor Orders; the offices of Doorkeeper, Reader, Exorcist, and Acolyte. The reception of the “tonsure,” by which a man becomes an ecclesiastic or “clerk,” precedes that of the Minor Orders, but is not an order in itself. Now the four Minor Orders do not necessarily preclude a man from returning to ordinary lay life in the world: he remains always an ecclesiastic, but he is not bound to wear ecclesiastical dress or to remain unmarried. Usually however, in our own days, the reception of Minor Orders is but a preliminary to the Major ; and when the Subdiaconate has once been received it is impossible without a special dispensation, exceedingly difficult to obtain, to return to lay life. Henceforward the man is bound to be a celibate, to say the Divine Office every day, and to dress as an ecclesiastic. (A slightly different discipline prevails, however, in the Churches of the East that are in communion with Rome, by which a married man may become a priest, although a priest may never marry.)

It is by this Hierarchy therefore, governed locally by bishops, and supremely by the Pope, that the dispensing of grace, the preaching of the faith, and the preserving of the Tradition undefiled, are effected and it is an essential of the Catholic Religion that this should be so. It is indeed possible for souls who, without their own fault, are unable to have access to a priest (whether that inability is virtual or physical), to obtain from God direct all necessary graces. An act of “perfect contrition,” for example, removes the guilt even of mortal sin without the ministry of a priest, under such circumstances; and it is exactly for this reason that the Church never presumes to declare the final fate of any individual soul outside her pale, since God only can know the dispositions of such a soul. Persons may, that is, belong to the “Soul” of the Church who, for no fault of theirs, have been excluded from the “Body.” Yet wilfully to reject the ordinance of Christ — to refuse Baptism or Penance, for example, when the Institution by Christ of these sacraments is known and their efficacy recognized — is to forfeit all claim on obtaining in other ways the graces conferred by them; to lose their place in the “Soul” of the Church as well as in the “Body.”

Other Means Of Grace
First, there are those things or rites which she calls Sacramentals, resembling the Sacraments in their double nature, as well as in the fact of their conferring grace (though, theologically speaking, in a slightly different mode), yet not instituted by Christ Himself. Such a sacramental is Holy Water. Holy Water is water, with a small infusion of salt, blessed by a priest in virtue of his general powers to bless, and used by the faithful for the purifying away of lesser stains of guilt, for their protection against spiritual assaults, and for the disposal of their mind towards Divine things. Blessed ashes and palms are other examples of sacramentals; and all these depend for their efficacy not only on the blessing that they have received, but on the fervour and the disposition of those who use them.

Next, there is Prayer, or the lifting up of the heart to God with attention and intention, whether the aspirations are vocally expressed or not. And there is perhaps no department of the Catholic system more minutely or exhaustively treated than is that of Prayer.

Prayer is of two main kinds. First, there is Vocal Prayer, especially that form of Vocal Prayer stereotyped in the Mass and in the Divine Office. All Religious and all ecclesiastics above the rank of Subdeacon are bound under pain of mortal sin to “recite office,” except where special exemptions are given to the illiterate or to those otherwise physically or morally incapable of fulfilling the obligation. So high is the value attached to this exercise that among monks it is called Opus Dei — The Work of God — and is the supreme duty of their daily life. Further, it must be said aloud, or, in the case of private recitation, with at least the deliberate movement of the lips; and, in Enclosed Houses, it forms the chief occupation of every day: a large proportion of it is recited, in choir, in such houses during the hours of the night.

Secondly, there is Mental Prayer; rising at last into Contemplation; and this, though practiced widely by the faithful everywhere, reaches, as a rule, its perfection only in Religious Houses, where its cultivation is brought to the highest possible pitch. In one Order, for example, only partially “enclosed,” Mental Prayer or Meditation on the subject of the Passion of Christ is enjoined on all members for two hours every day.

Lastly, the Church regards as means of Grace all good actions done with a pure intention to God’s glory; and she names the principal of these, Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy.

Corollary Doctrines And Practices
So far the Catholic Religion has been described in a few of its barest essentials only: and it need hardly be said that a vast number of doctrines and practices — corollaries even further detached from those that have been mentioned — have not been touched upon at all. Such are the Church’s teaching upon eschatology, beyond what has already been said, devotion to Mary and the Saints, the “Religious Life” in general, the place of Miracles, together with a less formal consideration of the system of faith and life as a whole. It will perhaps be better to treat of these now, separately. Their connection with what has already been said will easily be seen.

It has been remarked that the Catholic recognizes but one probation here on earth, closing with the “Particular Judgment” that takes place immediately after death; and but two final states or places to which the individual Soul can come. Yet he recognizes a third intermediate state, not final, through which the vast majority of souls who are, later, to attain the Beatific Vision must pass. This place is named Purgatory; and in Purgatory the temporal debt due for forgiven sin is paid, as well as the punishment for venial sins in which the soul has left the body.

For the forgiveness of mortal sin (as in Penance, for example) does not, obviously, involve the remission of all penalty. A drunkard, for instance, who turns from his sin and is forgiven, does not, as a matter of fact, receive his health back again immediately. The guilt is forgiven; there is no longer, that is to say, any obstacle between his soul and God; he is restored to the life of grace; and the eternal punishment due to him becomes merely temporal. It is conceivable therefore, and indeed practically certain, that many souls whose sins have been few and whose sufferings many, pay that debt in this life, and do not, therefore, go to Purgatory. But with the vast majority of souls the case is not so. Many spiritual sins, for instance, have little or no perceptible penalty attached to them in this life. Such sinners as these, therefore, as well as those whose sins are out of all proportion to their sufferings, pay the balance due to such sins in the pains of Purgatory.

Two practical corollaries follow from this dogma.

First, there follows the utility and the duty of praying for the departed that they may be purged from their pains quickly and pass to their eternal joy; and for this purpose also the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered for them on earth. For if, as Catholics believe, intercession avails with God, in such a way that the pleading of a soul in grace, on behalf of another, helps and forwards that other soul while still on earth, so too will it avail for souls departed.

The Doctrine Of Indulgences
Secondly, there follows the doctrine of Indulgences — a doctrine that has given rise, probably, to more misunderstanding than any other, yet one that is perfectly consistent and inevitable, if the Catholic teaching on Sin and its penalties, and on the common supernatural life enjoyed by the baptized, is once understood.

Briefly the doctrine is as follows:

A soul that has sinned and has been restored to grace yet owes, as has been said, a temporal debt to God; and this temporal debt is, for the most part, paid only in Purgatory. Now all that such a forgiven soul is obliged to do, if she would enter heaven, is to remain in the “state of grace” while still on earth. If then she does more than she is obliged; if she undertakes, let us say, some heroic work for the poor or the suffering; if she strips herself, for the love of God and in reparation for her sins, of her temporal possessions; if she devotes herself to austerity and prayer — it is quite certain that such efforts and reparations on her part must count before a Just God as payment of her debt; and such is of the more value before Him, as she undertakes such acts voluntarily and lovingly.

Now the whole doctrine of Indulgences is, in its essence, nothing more than a systematization of this very reasonable idea. The Church runs to help, so to speak, a generous soul such as this, and not only directs her in her efforts and gives her special aids and privileges, but further, showers upon her a portion of the superabundant merits of all souls, from the Soul of Christ downwards, who, like her, have done far more than their absolute duty obliged them to do. For so deep and intimate is the interior union between soul and soul in grace, and so authoritative the commission uttered to the Church by Christ to the effect that what she “binds on earth shall be bound in heaven,” that the Catholic Church claims to have a kind of “impetratory” (vocab: obtaining by petition or entreaty) authority over such transactions, and to be able to help one soul that is struggling heroically and lovingly upwards, by the merits of other souls that have striven yet more heroically and lovingly in the past.

The “Treasury of Merits” is the phrase used of that vast community of meritorious actions and lives which is placed, in a sense, at the disposal of Christ’s Representative and Vicar on earth.

It is hardly necessary to add, then, that “Indulgences”(that is, a remission of future Purgatorial pains) can only be gained by souls that are not only in grace, but in the possession of good and fervent dispositions.

Corollary Doctrines And Practices: Devotion To Mary
When once the doctrine of the Incarnation is grasped, as well as that of the Virgin-Birth of Christ, devotion to the Mother of God is seen to be inevitable. And it is extremely significant that where this devotion ceases, sooner or later the doctrine of the Incarnation grows obscure or is even denied. In fact, the use or the disuse of the phrase “Mother of God” is a tolerable guide to the more fundamental doctrinal belief of those concerned, since the phrase is, to the Catholic, nothing but a simple statement of the Divinity of Mary’s Son.

Now devotion to Mary, and dogmatic statements as to her Person and office and attributes, are matters of extremely careful and well-tested theology. They are very far from being, as is sometimes thought, the result of popular and rhetorical sentiment. Their origins are found, for example, in the Church of the Catacombs, at which period she was depicted in the attitude of intercession, and given the title of “Advocatrix.” Parallels were also drawn, in very early days, between Mary the Mother of the Redeemed and Eve the mother of the fallen.

By the disobedience of the one the way was made open for the first Adam to ruin the race at the Tree of Death; by the obedience of the other the way was made open for the second Adam to redeem the race at the Tree of Life: and all subsequent “Marian” theology takes its rise and form and is limited by her function as an “Assistant,” so to speak, of Redemption, not as a source of Redemption. It is not believed by Catholics that Mary is more than this; she can intercede, but she cannot, strictly, “give”; there is offered to her a veneration higher than that offered to any other creature, since she stands towards God, in virtue of her Motherhood and of the privileges He has given her, in an absolutely unique position; yet this veneration never approaches and never can approach, even when offered by the simplest and most uneducated believer, that supreme and unique adoration which is offered to God alone.

It is not only that Sacrifice is offered to God alone; there is also another kind of prayer — the outcome of the relation of the Creature towards the Creator — which is given to God and to God only. All the rhetoric of the lovers of Mary, all the devotions performed in her honour, all the sounding titles bestowed on her with or without authority — these can no more be taken to imply an assertion of her Divinity, than the adding together of finite numbers can attain to infinity.

Corollary Doctrines And Practices: Devotion To The Saints And Angels
Following upon this devotion to Mary comes devotion to the Saints and Angels, and, most of all, towards those Saints more intimately associated with the event of the Incarnation — such persons, for example, as St. Joseph, Spouse of Mary Ever-Virgin, and St. John the Baptist, the Forerunner of Christ. Devotion to these is natural and inevitable, for the same reason as to Mary, though all the honour paid to them can never equal that paid to the actual Woman of whom God Incarnate was born, and who, as Catholics believe, was specially prepared for her high destiny by being conceived in the womb free from the taint of original sin. There is, in fact, no difference in kind between the honour given to such saints as St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist and the honour given to those later and other friends of God who, by the sentence of canonization, are declared certainly to have attained the Beatific Vision, and to be proper objects for the veneration of the faithful.

For, to Catholics, the grace of God is as powerful as ever, and the stream of “saints” therefore can never cease. There always have been, and always will be, souls that live lives so heroic, for motives so pure, as to merit this title. Some few of these are detected by the Church, and, at some period after their death, are publicly proclaimed, after an exceedingly searching inquiry, to have reached the technical standard of “sanctity”: the vast majority, no doubt, succeed in evading the honours from which their humility would naturally shrink.

It is to souls that have been publicly proclaimed as “saints” that public veneration may be paid, though privately any Catholic may invoke the prayers of any soul or even of all the “holy souls” in Purgatory: and this public veneration is, of course, in a line with the whole main thought of Catholicism in which the Humanity of Christ, and not merely His Divinity, is believed to be the instrument of Redemption. Once again it is directly from the full Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation that the veneration of saints springs, since by the Incarnation man is united to God potentially, and by the sanctity of the individual this potentiality becomes actual. It is then merely as from intercessors and advocates that Catholics seek the assistance of the saints, not as from men who have become part of the Deity, and who therefore merit Divine honours.

Hello!

Wow, so many amazing things have been happening!  It has been a very exciting week!  Here are some highlights:

There was a huge Christmas party at Esther’s house for our department of Spiritual and Community Life, the Christian Communications Institute (CCI), and Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC)!

It was awesome just hanging out with everyone, playing games, and having a gift exchange!  We were even playing frisbee and horseshoes!  Everything was going great until I threw the frisbee to Esther’s 84 year old mother and hit her in the face giving her a bloody nose!!!  Thankfully she was fine.  My Thai friends, like Rew, secretly thought it was hilarious!  New rule:  No throwing frisbees to people over 83!

Speaking of CCI – Shanna and I did another voiceover recording for them in their recording studio.  It was fun!  It was some sort of promotional video for Payap and their new dorms.  I don’t think a native English speaker (or at least young native English Speaker) did the proofreading, however, because there were funny lines like “Payap’s campus is very shady.”

Dom, Anna, Sarah, Shanna, Amy, Eric (Anna’s visiting second cousin), and I went to the Buatong Waterfall.  I’ve mentioned it before in a past post.  The water is loaded with minerals so wherever it flows is covered in a bulbous rock that has amazing friction!  You can walk and climb up the waterfall with the water flowing down and never slip!  It’s incredibly counterintuitive.

Lately, I have been getting plugged in with the local homeschooling group.  I met some of them at CMCC youth group and we’ve become good friends.  They have even asked me to teach frisbee and part of my critical thinking class at the Homeschool Co-Op next semester.  It’s a cool opportunity to give back to a group of people special to my heart.  I was also the ticket collector at their Shakespeare play, which was surprisingly excellent for high schoolers!

On Friday night, I went out with Payap Church to do some Thai Christmas Caroling.  It was awesome… a little different, but awesome!  I joined the group at about 9:45 PM and we went around to different houses of people in the congregation and community.  We would sing a song outside their house and wait for them to invite us in.  Inside would be tons of snacks and goodies!  We would sing a few more inside, pray for the host, and then be off to the next house!

I told some of the Thai students that in America we don’t always take our shoes off when we enter someone’s home and they were shocked!  It was a fun night and I got to know a lot of people better!  We sang and sang from house to house until 4:30 AM!!!!  I was so tired and super full by the end!  The last place gave us warm milk!  I was so excited to sleep!

Here’s my friend Poy from CCC.  This was at about 3:00 AM.

On Sunday we had the Payap Church Christmas Party (I’ve never been to so many Christmas parties!)

There was tons of food and lots of different shows, dances, and skits.  It was a really fun night.  I have grown very close with the people at Payap church!

Here you can see how Thais eat.  At American picnics people have a plate, go through a line, pick out food they want to eat, then eat it.  In Thailand, everyone grabs plates and puts them in the middle of a circle and samples from every else’s plates!

They asked us farang (foreigners) to do an international performance.  Before consulting with Holly and Shanna I graciously volunteered us!  Here’s what we came up with:

Payap Church Dance

Later that night I was talking to my mom in the parking lot of Paradornparp.  It was dark but you could see a little by the street lights.  I saw this dark object in the parking lot and was curious what it was.  I thought maybe it was a shirt or shoe or something.  Wearing my Birkenstock standals, I gave the object a good kick…

POOP!!

As the craziness continues I left at 3:00 AM on Tuesday morning with my friend Jacob and a missionary named Lauren to drive to watch the sunrise at a sweet place called Huai Nam Dong.  I thought I could sleep during the two hour drive there.  WRONG!  The road was seriously never straight.  For two hours we turned and turned and turned.  It was a cool sight though.

On top of this mountain you can see the sea of fog that floats between the other nearby peaks.  It was so cool.  It really looks like water!  A picture doesn’t do it justice!  We also checked out some hot springs and went for a dip in a natural mineral bath.

This morning I went to a woman’s prison with some Payap Church people.  It was such an awesome experience!  It was seriously the highlight of my week – believe it or not!  We were ushered into an outdoor room with about 250 Christian prisoners all with worn Bibles in front of them.  I’ve never seen so many Thai Christians like that all together.  We sang Christmas songs together and played some games with them (similar to Simon Says.)  One woman from our church shared a message, we gave them hygenic gifts, and Bibles, and then were on our way.   They were so full of smiles – it was amazing.  I have never seen people so happy.  Not like we were really doing anything spectacular, but they were happy on a deeper level – despite being in jail and away from their families and friends for the holidays.  I wanted to hang out there all day!  Thank you Jesus for that opportunity.

I’m thinking of you all very much – especially as Christmas approaches!  Know that I love you very much and I wish I could be there with you all!  Answer your phones on Christmas if you see a weird number!!!

Love,

Ozzie

Rick Hiebert has posted an update on Todd Bentley at Bene Diction

Evangelist Todd Bentley–when not allegedly getting visions on his tanning bed  (“I’m used to the frozen tundras of Canada”) or musing on Twitter that he would have liked to have been a samurai warrior were he not an evangelist (I see John Belushi in samurai garb with Don Pardo announcing: “Samurai Evangelist!”) is back on the job.

I’ll be writing about the introductory remarks during his ”Secret Place” webinar of  Dec. 15th, but that evening he was very excited about promoting his meeting from last Friday, Decmber 18 at the Morningstar HQ church in North Carolina. He was preaching for the first time in 18 months.

“Can you believe it, a revival service,” Bentley said. “If you’re hungry, get on a plane…we’re gonna have a visitation!”

A few hours before the filming of his latest webinar, Oral Roberts, the famed evangelist, died, which led to some interesting remarks by Mr. Bentley.

“But there’s a new generation that’s emerging,” Bentley adds, with a sly smile on his face. “But it’s time for us to rise up, ’cause you know, when I heard about his passing, I said “God there’s a great mantle…There’s a vaccuum , right now…

Continue here

You know what this means, right? It means we’ll soon be reading and hearing about a ‘new mantel’ available to believers–

The “Oral Roberts Mantel” will soon join the long list of “mantels” these nuts tout in their teachings.

Perhaps Einstein was right..

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity”

You may sometimes hear the objection that there were lots of other gospels and books floating around at the time when the 27 books of the New Testament were standardized. The right way to answer this problem is to ask for a particular book that the challenger would like included and then to take a look at factors like the date it was written, who wrote it, and where it was written. When you look at these factors, it becomes obvious why the other books were left out.

Consider an article by Dr. Charles Quarles, who has written against an early dating of a “left out” book called the “Gospel of Peter”. Why was it left out? Because Christian are mean? Because we’re hiding the decline using Mike’s Nature trick to avoid losing billions of dollars in taxpayer money? Not quite.

Excerpt:

An impressive number of clues suggest that this gospel [Peter] postdates even the latest New Testament book and belongs to the mid-second century. First, a close analysis of verbal parallels shared by the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Matthew suggests that the Gospel of Peter postdates Matthew and utilized that Gospel as a source… an examination of the vocabulary, grammar, and style of the two documents strongly favors the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Matthew. Robert Gundry, one of the most respected experts on issues related to Matthew’s style, called the phrase a “series of Mattheanisms” (Gundry, Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 584). Similarly, John Meier noted “when it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthews priority. . . . The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter” (Meier, Marginal Jews, 1:117). This is consistent with a number of other Matthean features appear in the Gospel of Peter that all point to the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Matthew.

Second, other features of the Gospel of Peter suggest that the gospel not only postdates Matthew, but even postdates the latest book of the NT canon, the Book of Revelation. For example, although Matthew indicates that the Roman guard sealed the tomb of Jesus, Gospel of Peter 8:33 adds that it was sealed with seven seals. The reference to the seven seals conflicts with the immediate context. Gospel of Peter 8:32-33 states that all the witnesses present sealed the tomb. However, a minimum of nine witnesses were present leading readers to expect at least nine seals. The best explanation for the awkward reference to the seven seals is that the detail was drawn from Revelation 5:1. This allusion to Revelation fits well with the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50 reference to the day of Jesus’ resurrection as the “Lord’s Day” since this terminology only appears in Revelation in the NT and first in Revelation out of all ancient Christian literature. The reference to the “Lord’s Day” in the Gospel of Peter is a shortened form that appears to be a later development from the original form appearing in Revelation.

Still other features of the Gospel of Peter fit best with the historical data if the Gospel of Peter was produced in the mid-second century. The Gospel of Peter assumes the doctrine of Jesus’ descent into Hades to preach to the dead. However, this doctrine first appears in the words of Justin Martyr around AD 150. The talking cross is a feature of other second-century literature. The Epistula Apostolorum 16 states that during the second coming Jesus will be carried on the wings of the clouds with his cross going on before him. Similarly, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter 1 describes the returning Christ as coming in a glory seven times as bright as the sun and with his cross going before his face. In a similar fashion, beginning in the late first century, Christian texts describe Christ as possessing gigantic stature. In an allegorical depiction of Jesus’ supremacy and authority over the church, Shepherd of Hermas 83:1 described Christ as of such lofty stature that he stood taller than a tower. 4 Ezra 2:43, a portion of 4 Ezra dating to the middle or late third century, referred to the unusual height of the Son of God. These shared compositional strategies and features make the most sense if these documents and the Gospel of Peter were composed in the same milieu.

Read the rest here.

It turns out that Quarles has actually debated the views he presents in this article against John Dominic Crossan, the main proponent of the view that the Gospel of Peter is early. You can buy the audio on CDs here, or you can get the book. The CDs are highly recommended, but the book leaves out all the dialog, so I don’t recommend it.

And you can read about two more rejected books, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, as well. The authors of those two articles are Craig Blomberg and Craig A. Evans, respectively. Craig Evans is also involved in the debate I mentioned with Crossan, and in the debate he also reveals that another left out book called “Secret Mark” is actually a 20th century hoax, and Crossan had no response to that revelation in the debate.

What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

It is astounding that the God who is great enough to have made the heavens can take notice of mere man. But He goes beyond taking notice, He is mindful of man, he cares for him. This is why I’ll never understand why we still sin so badly as Christians. No, we’ll never be perfect – but aren’t we at least supposed to try?

Daniel 9:5 says, ‘We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments…’

How did we get so blinded by the entertainment of the world and church that we don’t remember the burden? Do you remember what conviction feels like?

1Peter 4:17 says, ‘For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?’

Are you so holy that you’ve gone beyond these trivial things? After all, you’re so far past such mundane ideology.  The Church has drifted away from such things.

I see these things every day from confessed Christians. They allow sin into their lives constantly; secular movies & music, television, alcohol…anything that entertains is something that diverts your attention from the Lord and what He wants from you.

Daniel said, ‘We have sinned and committed iniquity’.

Does anything trouble you? Are you so busy that nothing seems amiss?

As a Christian, we are to be equipped to witness when the Lord tells us to and to whomever He wants.

How can you look the other way? What if that was a test from God to check you spiritual temperature?

Hebrews 13:2 says, ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.’

Life is God-breathed. Life has an eternity. Life is beautiful. Life should never be wasted on the things of the world to justify the ungodly.

Latinos and Latin lovers STAND UP!

Brisbane’s hottest Latin night returns to the Church Nightclub this Australia Day Eve to kick off the new decade in ferocious style!

And this time we’re bringing a guest.

Performing a live two hour set at Dame Reggaeton this Australia Day Eve we have Australia’s hottest Latin DJ, direct from Sydney, DJ Don Juan!

Regarded as a pioneer and a leader within the Latin community, Don Juan has been spreading the Latino gospel all over Australia! There isn’t a Latin party in Australia Don Juan hasn’t rocked – except Dame Reggaeton! But on on January 25th this will all change as Don Juan brings his fiery blend of Dem Bow beats and Latino rhythms to The Church for the most explosive Dame Reggaeton ever!

Your favourite Dame Reggaeton DJs, Oscar and Danilo, will also be in the house keeping the party alight with all your favourite Reggaeton and Latin flavours til the early morning!

The party starts at 9pm sharp at The Church Nightclub, 25 Warner Street, Fortitude Valley. Don’t forget to bring your ID as this is an 18+ event and make sure to invite your friends! (RSVP today!) We will see you on January 25th the biggest party of the year.

Become a Fan of the Dame Reggaeton page for further updates on this and future parties at http://www.facebook.com/damereggaeton

Also, don’t forget to check out Don Juan on the web: http://www.djdonjuan.net

Shane Rosenthal is executive producer of the White Horse Inn radio show. Find this article and more from Shane (along with many others) at ReformationINK.

I can still remember the failed evangelistic attempts my friends attempted on me during my high school years. I was Jewish (although non-practicing), and they were “born again” Christians. During a skiing trip, one of my friends kept trying to get me to listen to his “Christian” rock music, arguing that the quality was just as good. Well, the quality wasn’t “just as good,” and frankly, I wasn’t interested in religious music to begin with.

But a funny thing happened a few years later. I had just started my first semester at a nearby community college and was reading sections of the Old Testament (I hadn’t picked it up since before my Bar Mizpah at age 13). In my readings I came across a passage that really shocked me: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2). I had seen all of the animated Christmas specials year after year, so I knew what the implications of “Bethlehem” were, but no one had ever shared with me the connection between the Jewish messiah and the person of Christ. In short, I became an over-night convert — in fact, the very next day I went out and purchased a copy of the New Testament and began reading it with a believing heart.

After this extraordinary event in my life, I hooked up with my Christian friends who were always trying to get me to come to their Bible studies. This time, however, I actually wanted to study the Bible. My friends were very excited about my conversion and invited me to their “Friday Night Study.” Unfortunately for me, it was not primarily a study of anything. There was a lot of guitar singing and fellowship, but very little study of the Bible. And wouldn’t you know it, before I had a chance to dive into the punch and cookies, I was whisked off to go street witnessing. I was given a stack of tracts and was told to hand them out to people walking along the pier. I felt quite awkward about this, wondered to myself, “Have I become one of those religious weirdos you see in the airports?” But in my evangelistic zeal to share the transforming message about Jesus, I followed along.

That was ten years ago. Looking back on those days often makes me cringe. There I was, brand new to the faith, and within a year I had street witnessed, gone door to door, answered phones for the Billy Graham Crusade hotline, helped out teaching Sunday School to children in juvenile hall, and even considered becoming an overseas missionary. The only problem was, I didn’t really know what the Gospel was. My experience is not unique. I have met a number of folks with similar stories to tell, some who are no longer Christians. This problem occurs when we push evangelism from our pulpits rather than the Evangel. I can honestly say that during the first two years of my Christian walk I had never heard of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, but I sure had it drilled into my head that I needed to be a witness for Jesus. The problem was, I knew that I was to be a witness, but I didn’t quite understand what it was I was to witness about.

The Pursuit of the Practical
In just one of his epistles, Paul could have guided us all through the “Four Spiritual Steps Toward Effective Evangelism,” but he didn’t. The apostles seemed to think that their time was best spent in defense of the Gospel message and in clarifying doctrinal questions. How boring! Today, we want to know how to reach the busters, how to “grow” churches, how to plan crusades, how to witness on a plane, how to, how to, how to…, but of these questions there is no end. The Bible, however, is simply not a “how-to” manual (which is fine because how-to manuals are outdated before any other kind of book–you’ve probably seen them on sale for a quarter each at your neighbor’s garage sale). The Bible gives us information that will not be outdated through the passage of time, and it does this by convincing arguments and by appealing to objective truth. Truth does not go out of style, and it does not become irrelevant. It may get ignored every once-in-a-while, but it never loses its relevance.

Unfortunately for me, most of the folks I met both before and after my conversion seemed to think that techniques and practical matters were more relevant than the truth which they neglected to teach me. It is at this point that I find a sharp contrast between today’s evangelistic appeals and the content of apostolic preaching.

Theological Training
What good is a message without content? As I related in the beginning of this article, I was sent out street witnessing the first day I went to a Bible study. But our Lord’s admonition is not like the shampoo commercial where, “You tell two friends, and they’ll tell two friends, and so on, and so on…” Rather, our Lord’s command was that we “go and make disciples of all nations…” Part of the problem in America is that we view evangelism as if it were simply getting folks to make a decision. We have been so influenced by Arminianism and anti-intellectualism that we have almost completely ignored discipleship. But doesn’t it make sense that you would first train a person in the basics of the faith before you send him out to the mission field? But we don’t do this. We must, therefore, recover the lost art of catechism and theological training. If we did, there would be less emphasis on the “stuff of evangelism” and more emphasis on the “stuff of the Evangel.” Christians would cease trying to “sell” their religion by manipulative techniques and would begin sharing their faith in convincing, thoughtful, and articulate ways. Look for example at some of the Apostles’ prayers and instructions in regards to equipping the saints:

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight (Phil 1:9).

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly (Col 3:16).

Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:18).

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Tm 2:15).

Once a person has been thoroughly equipped so that he can “correctly handle the word of truth,” then he can do the work of an evangelist. But not until then. Until a person can, for example, rightly distinguish the Law from the Gospel, he should not consider evangelistic enterprises. For how can one preach effectively, unless he first shows a person the demands of God’s Law? And how can one comfort those terrorized by the Law, unless he preaches the Gospel in all of its sweetness?

Another point that needs to be made here is the fact that witnessing to others about Christ must be theologically based or it will wind up being testimonial. In other words, if I don’t have a solid understanding of the doctrines of the Christianity, I will inevitably end up talking about the effects of religion on my life, rather than the objective message of the Gospel itself. J. Gresham Machen is helpful at this point:

From the beginning Christianity was a campaign of witnessing. And the witnessing did not concern merely what Jesus was doing within the recesses of the individual life. To take the words of Acts in that way is to do violence to the context and to all the evidence. On the contrary, the Epistles of Paul and all the sources make it abundantly plain that the testimony was primarily not to inner spiritual facts but to what Jesus had done once for all in his death and resurrection. Christianity is based, then, upon an account of something that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it is rather important that the Christian worker should tell the truth. When a man takes his seat upon the witness stand, it makes little difference what the cut of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. The important thing is that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.1

Effective, Christ-centered, evangelism must therefore be based on the “facts” of Christianity, not the “effects.” When you think about this, it makes perfect sense. Just about any religion or ideology can make a difference in a person’s life, and yet, all of these different belief systems cannot be simultaneously true. But if a religion is presented first of all as being true, then it has implications on everyone, not just those for whom it is helpful. This brings me to my next point.

Whatever Happened to Apologetics?
Why was I so surprised to see the passage I found in Micah 5:2? Because no one ever showed it to me. In their zeal to convert me, my friends spent all their energy thinking of techniques by which I could be saved, rather than approaching me with sound arguments in support of Christianity. What they didn’t realize is that I thought all religion was absurd, so all of their attempts to get me to read Christian books or to listen to Christian tapes were equally absurd. But in my case, a simple discussion of fulfilled messianic prophecy could have been an open door to sharing the Gospel with me. All they had to do was to give me reasons for their faith.

Apologetics is a crucial ingredient missing in much of contemporary evangelism. The Apostle Peter gives us the clear and familiar admonition to: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pt 3:15). But we do the exact opposite. We don’t give reasons for the hope that we have; we simply force our faith on others in the form of tracts, booklets, and cassettes. And very few of us take the time to prepare ourselves for the tough questions of the faith that non-believer might ask us. There is, however, much wisdom in Peter’s command. Just look at the example of Peter himself in his famous Sermon at Pentecost:

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know…God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:22, 32).

Notice that Peter did not simply demand blind faith. Whereas in evangelical circles you might see a shirt or bumper sticker with the slogan, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” Peter here appeals to commonly known evidence “as you yourselves know,” and eyewitness accounts for the authority of his claims. Peter just didn’t have time for evangelistic techniques. He was convinced that the message he was preaching was true, and that is why he gave solid and convincing reasons for his faith, as he explained the meaning of the cross and resurrection. And we must not forget the success of Peter’s sermon either, for Luke records that “about three thousand were added to their number that day.”

Another good example of the importance of apologetics in evangelism is given to us by Stephen. In Acts 6:9-10, Luke records that as men were arguing with Stephen about the strange new teachings of Christianity, “they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.” We can take a few things from this passage. First of all, it is okay to argue. By this I am referring to the exchange of propositions, not hostile confrontation. Many American Christians think that arguing is a negative thing, but we are called to argue for the truth of Christianity in the same way an attorney would argue for his client’s innocence. Another thing we can take from Stephen’s example is the fact that no one could stand up to his wisdom, or the Spirit by whom he spoke. The Holy Spirit likes sound arguments and sanctifies them for his own use. Is it any wonder that he is called the “Spirit of Truth?”

Then there is the example of Paul. This apostle’s message was simple. In the words of Festus, Paul was obsessed with “a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive” (Acts 25:19). He was not like many of these religious mystics who constantly speculate on spiritual and religious matters. This man was convinced that the whole issue of religion was wrapped up in one thing, and in one thing only; “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1Cor. 15). Paul was comfortable with this type evangelism because, as he explained to Festus and King Agrippa, “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).

Apologetics then is a way to give credibility to the Gospel message. It prevents your listeners from thinking, “Oh, this is one of those religious messages.” If Jesus really did rise again from the dead in time-and-space history, then his claims about himself are vindicated. This is why, for Paul, everything hinged on the resurrection. But you know, in all my years as a non-Christian, I never once heard this type of message. Sure, I saw the bumper stickers that said, “Try God,” or “Give Jesus a Chance.” But those appeals only made me feel pity for the Christian deity. I had simply never heard of a God who had “given proof [of his coming judgement] to all men by raising [Jesus] from the dead” (Acts 17:31). Christianity is not afraid of the truth, it is upheld by the truth. Therefore we must make every effort to remove every obstacle from the eyes of an unbelieving world.

Conclusion
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the person who has done a little work in basic theology and apologetics will probably not have to spend much time with various evangelistic techniques. Those who confidently know what they believe, and why they believe it, are ready at all times to “give a reason for the hope that [they] have.” They know both how to articulate the hope that they have (the Gospel), and to give convincing reasons for it (apologetics). This type of evangelism isn’t done only on Friday nights down by the pier, and it isn’t something that has to be scripted. It springs forth naturally from a confident heart standing firm in a reasonable faith, well-saturated in the Gospel of grace.

There are a lot of people in this world who are still at the place I was ten years ago. They think religion is an absurd, trivial and meaningless pursuit, and the fish on your car simply won’t convince them otherwise. Please, for their sake, do the work of a well seasoned evangelist, giving them reasons for the hope that is within you. New evangelistic ideas and techniques will come and go, but don’t settle for them. Follow, rather, the Apostle’s instructions when he encouraged Timothy to “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2).

Notes
1. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), p. 53.

Dr. James Duncan is an associate professor of communication at Anderson University. He blogs (or at least, he used to) over at pajamapages.com. He has been known to criticize practices that he finds offensive, often associated with NewSpring Church in Anderson, South Carolina.

Recently, Duncan has gone public with some severe abuses that he and his family suffered from representatives of NewSpring. His account is heart-breaking. I can’t believe that Christians would treat each other like this and then so stubbornly refuse to establish reconciliation. I hope and pray that peace can find its way into this entire situation and forgiveness can be found.

Jesus made a bold proclamation to Peter – You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church (Ekklesia) and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)

Why did Jesus use the word “Ekklesia” and what’s so special about that word?

Why didn’t Jesus set his apostles in place in territories and proclaim – the gates of hell will not prevail against my apostles? Isn’t that the way western apostolic networks think? In fact most western apostolic literature turns the church into the one conquered (by church leaders), and not the ones doing the conquering.

If you want to take a territory – you just bring in the super apostle – he says a few words to the skies – and leaves town proclaiming the territories have been taken (never mind they’ve not taken any territory yet – the church has actually shrunk in the west).

Okay – let’s look at Ekklesia. Jesus didn’t use the word for “gathering” (episunagoge) – he used the word Ekklesia – a word all of the disciples knew.

 Acts 19:39 gives us the clue:

“You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly.” (Ac 19:37-39 NIV)

 “Legal assembly” in Acts 19:39 is the word Ekklesia. Ekklesia by definition is the “Called out ones” – in Greek society – they were called out of their homes into a public place to make governmental decisions. The government of God rests squarely in the Ekklesia – not in the hands of a select few leaders. Leaders are there to help mature and care for the saints, not to be their government or Lords. The leaders greatly influence the Ekklesia, but they cannot usurp the Ekklesia’s governmental authority given by God.

In the end, if territory is to be taken – it is taken thru the Ekklesia – with her leaders building her up and ultimately her members building one another up to accomplish the task.

“His intent was that now, through the church (Ekklesia), the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph 3:10-11 NIV)

I have to admit, I don’t know much about Ekklesia – I have very limited experience.  I’ve seen her there, tied to a chair with someone shouting to her how ugly she is – and I really can’t handle much more of that!  Even on a good day – she’s been tied to that chair with someone declaring prophetic destinies over her.  Those prophecies made me cry – but she’s still just sitting there (in the west).   I don’t really know how she is built, how she functions, how she governs.  I know she’s the most stunningly beautiful thing the world has ever seen – more stunning to Jesus than Eve was to Adam.  I know she’s the most powerful force this earth has ever known – the exact representation of Jesus Himself – and yet I know so very little of her.  This is my mission right now – find out about Ekklesia.  Can anyone help me?

Jesus made a bold proclamation to Peter – You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church (Ekklesia) and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)

Why did Jesus use the word “Ekklesia” and what’s so special about that word?

Why didn’t Jesus set his apostles in place in territories and proclaim – the gates of hell will not prevail against my apostles? Isn’t that the way western apostolic networks think? In fact most western apostolic literature turns the church into the one conquered (by church leaders), and not the ones doing the conquering.

If you want to take a territory – you just bring in the big apostle – he says a few words to the skies – and leaves town proclaiming the territories have been taken (never mind they’ve not taken any territory yet – the church has actually lost territory in the west).

Okay – let’s look at Ekklesia. Jesus didn’t use the word for “gathering” (episunagoge) – he used the word Ekklesia – a word all of the disciples knew.

 Acts 19:39 gives us the clue:
 

“You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly.” (Ac 19:37-39 NIV)

 “Legal assembly” in Acts 19:39 is the word Ekklesia. Ekklesia by definition is the “Called out ones” – in Greek society – they were called out of their homes into a public place to make governmental decisions. The government of God rests squarely in the Ekklesia – not in the hands of a select few leaders. Leaders are there to help mature and care for the saints, not to be their government or Lords. The leaders greatly influence the Ekklesia, but they cannot usurp the Ekklesia’s governmental authority given by God.

In the end, if territory is to be taken – it is taken thru the Ekklesia – with her leaders building her up to accomplish the task.

 “His intent was that now, through the church (Ekklesia), the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph 3:10-11 NIV)
 

In school we are being taught about the history of our nation & the history of the continent we live in & the history of the world. We daily hear/watch news about the leaders of the countries taking certain decisions, events taking place in different parts of the world, wars, good news or bad news. This all seems so “real”, since it is outward, you can actually see it and even feel it. This is the human history as we see it, know it, are being taught or make it. But behind the human history, hidden in the events that take place or we don’t know that take place, God has a history – the divine history. Within the human history there is the divine history. God’s plan, His purpose, is being carried out and accomplished within – secretly – the human history, even without the news being known/spread about! Empires and countries are raised up – and they also fall; civil wars and genocides take place; un-ending wars are going on in many countries – all these things, though so “real” and known by everyone, are not the “real history”. Although it is easy for us to see physically what is going on – the “shell” of the human history – we need to have some intrinsic sight, even spiritual eyes, to see what is going on within this human history, what is God doing on the earth today – the “kernel” of the divine history within the human history.

In God’s economy, according to which He operates and does everything, God desires to work Himself into man to be one with man – even to be man’s life, his life supply, and his everything – so that man, in a corporate way, would become His expression. This is what is on His heart, and this corporate expression constituted with Himself is what He’s working on – in His divine history that goes on within the human history.

The first step of the divine history, after God Himself & His economy, is His incarnation. God became a man, and lived a perfect human life for 33 1/2 years. Then, He was crucified – He died on the cross to accomplish redemption – an all-inclusive death which terminated the old creation&solved all the problems! His death ushered Him into His resurrection, where millions of people were regenerated with His divine life to become the members of His Body, His corporate expression. This is the church, His heart’s desire in this age, of which the Body of Christ is the reality. This is the age we are in right now – and this age is about to be finished/to end. At the end of this age, Christ will come with His overcomers and defeat Antichrist & his armies – the 1000 years kingdom of God(as a reward to the overcoming believers) will take place. Eventually, the kingdom age will consummate into the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and new earth for eternity. The New Jerusalem is the consummation of God’s economy, the ultimate finalization of His purpose – here His heart’s desire is accomplished for eternity! – this is what is going on right now, what God is doing behind the scenes, in a spiritual way – arranging the world situation for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose. Lord, grant us eyes to see the divine history within the human history!

DENVER – The auditorium lights turned low, the service begins with the familiar rhythms of church: children singing, hugs and handshakes of greeting, a plea for donations to fix the boiler.

Then the 55-year-old pastor with spiked gray hair and blue jeans launches into his weekly welcome, a poem-like litany that includes the line “queer or straight here, there’s no hate here.”

The Rev. Mark Tidd initially used the word “gay.” But he changed it to “queer” because it’s the preferred term of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people invited to participate fully at Highlands Church.

Tidd is an outlaw pastor of sorts. His community, less than a year old, is an evangelical Christian church guided both by the Apostle’s Creed and the belief that gay people can embrace their sexual orientation as God-given and seek fulfillment in committed same-sex relationships.

See story at Yahoo: Evangelical church opens doors fully to gays.

I don’t consider the church in the news item above, part of The Church.

The new testament Church heeded Christ’s command to go into all the world and preach the gospel, and “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16)

We are to make disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28)

Today’s Church body throws the doors open to every false doctrine and teaching, as well as including unregenerated sinners into their fellowship. Just as bad, new believers [in need of correct bible teachings and disciple-ing] are told they can continue in their sins and still be a part of the Church fellowship; These things should not be folks.

Read a portion of Justin Martyr’s letter: notice the order in which things were done, concerning the welcoming of a new believer into the fellowship of the brethren.

Justin Martyr, from his First Apology (155 A.D).

Originally addressed to the Roman emperor in defense of Christianity, Justin’s description gives us a window into the early Church;

“How we dedicated ourselves to God when we were made new through Christ I will explain, since it might seem to be unfair if I left this out from my exposition. Those who are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and promise that they can live accordingly, are instructed to pray and beseech God with fasting for the remission of their past sins, while we pray and fast along with them.

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are reborn by the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were reborn; for they are then washed in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, “Unless you are born again you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”

Now it is clear to all that those who have once come into being cannot enter the wombs of those who bore them. But as I quoted before, it was said through the prophet Isaiah how those who have sinned and repent shall escape from their sins. He said this: “Wash yourselves, be clean, take away wickedness from your souls, learn to do good, give judgment for the orphan and defend the cause of the widow, and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as wool, and though they be as crimson, I will make them as white as snow.”

After thus washing the one who has been convinced and signified his assent, [we] lead him (*then*) to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled.

They then earnestly offer common prayers for themselves and the one who has been illuminated and all others every where, that we may be made worthy, having learned the truth, to be found in deed good citizens and keepers of what is commanded, so that we may be saved with eternal salvation.

Related, as far as the original (biblical) purpose of The Church, meeting places, or gatherings (for Christians) I’d like to repost a video.

An inspiring story

From WAR AND GRACE – Short biographies from the World Wars, by Don Stephens.

Throughout 1915 the First World War raged in both western and eastern Europe. In the German onslaught in the east against Russia, Paul Robert Schneider, an eighteen-year-old German soldier, received a serious wound in the stomach. For his bravery he was awarded the Iron Cross.

After surgery and recovery from it, Paul Schneider fought in the artillery against Britain and France. His courage did not go unrecognized. By the end of the war he had risen to the rank of lieutenant. At about the same time another German soldier ended the war as a corporal. His name was Adolf Hitler.

Adolf Hitler is now regarded as one of the most evil men who has ever lived. For twelve years, from 1933 to 1945, his political party, the National Socialists, or Nazis, dominated the life of Germany. For many years after 1933 his following among the German people was almost complete. Cheering crowds greeted him with rapturous enthusiasm whenever he appeared in public. He was idolized like a god. His power was so great that he led his people into an aggressive war in which millions died. His legacy to the country he ruled as a dictator was ruin and shame.

During those fateful years, the opposition to Hitler within Germany was so small that it was crushed with ease. Those who openly protested against Nazi ideology or policies paid a heavy price. The great scientist Einstein pointed out the origins of the most effective resistance. ‘Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign to suppress truth…’

Paul and Margarete Schneider, October 1922 (engagement photo)

When Germany was defeated in 1918, Paul Schneider decided to give up his original plan to be a physician. His father, Gustav-Adolph, was a pastor in the German Evangelische Reformierte Kirche, a church that is Presbyterian in organization and belief. Paul’s decision to study theology at this time probably had a great deal to do with the influence of his family background.

It is not surprising the years immediately after the war were a time of mental turmoil for him. Since schooldays he had been taught the critical view of the Bible. This held that it was full of mistakes and could not be trusted.

He was also troubled by the appeal of Communism and Socialism. As a German, he did not like the parts of the Treaty of Versailles that allegedly humiliated his country. He struggled spiritually, yet it was clear to him that, unless people’s hearts were changed, a new tyranny would merely replace an old one like that of the Kaiser.

Just before Christmas in 1921, as his theological studies began, his spiritual struggles came to an end.

He rejected his positive view of human nature, which he realized was derived form nineteenth-century optimism. The Reformers Luther and Calvin were right: man is a sinner in need of redemption. The Bible is not just religious folklore; it is the Word of God. Gretel, the young lady who was to become his wife, recorded: Eternal life entered his soul and he was filled with great joy.

From his diaries and letters we know that he experienced a definite personal conversion to Christ. Now he had a message to preach: the biblical gospel that salvation is by repentance and faith in the crucified and risen Christ. He could see the Reformation confessions of his church not just as historical documents, but also as statements of his faith. Later on, when in prison, he asked his wife to let him have the Belgic confession and the Heidelberg Catechism to study alongside his Bible. Paul Schneider had become a Reformed evangelical Christian.

During the demanding preparation to be a pastor, he felt the need to experience the life of an ordinary workingman. An uncle heard of his plan to work in a factory for a while, and offered him a comfortable, well-paid job. But he did not want a ‘soft’ job. So throughout most of 1922 Paul Schneider became part of a gang of workers at a blast furnace near Dortmund. He said that he needed to understand the demands of the daily grind such men face. They showed him their respect and on the day he left said, ‘You are one of us. Try to stay like that.’ He did.

The years before his ordination were filled with study at university and theological college. For nine months up to July 1924 he worked for the Berlin City Mission, becoming acquainted with poor and wretched men and women, some of them addicted to alcohol and drugs.

Ordination followed in 1925. For a time he was an assistant pastor in Essen. In 1926 his father suffered a stroke while preaching and died three days later. His father’s church at Hochelheim unanimously called Paul to succeed him as pastor. He had been married less than a month when he was installed as pastor in September 1926. His first sermon was based on 2 Timothy 3:14-17, the heart of which declares that all Scripture is God-breathed, which means that it is without error – that is, infallible. The choice of this passage indicates his belief in the authority of the Bible alone. He was Reformed in his faith and his ministry was Bible-based. All surviving accounts indicate that he was a bold and powerful preacher.

He also had a real loving concern for the people. There are descriptions in existence of the sick listening for the distinctive whine of his motorcycle on his way to visit them. Gretel, his wife, records that in their dying moments some testified that Paul Schneider was the one used by God to bring peace through leading them to faith in Christ.

Paul Schneider was an example of a minister who was rarely off duty. His work was his life. We see him trying to win young people to Christ by playing sports or going on rambles with them. Older folk working in the fields would find him joining the work of harvesting or haymaking. He built up his relationships with the local people. Yet within his congregation he believed in applying Biblical church discipline to a few who had scandalous lifestyles and came to the Lord’s Table as though they were doing nothing wrong.

On 30 January 1933 Hitler came to power, and life in Germany began to change.

Of the one thousand people in Schneider’s rural Rhineland parish of Hochelheim, half freely voted for the Nazis. Nevertheless, from an early stage of Nazi rule, Paul Schneider spoke out against wrong policies and actions. He would never use the greeting, ‘Heil Hitler’, quite reasonably considering it a form of idolatry.

So-called ‘Christians’ who accepted Nazism were known as ‘German Christians.’

Schneider would have nothing to do with them because they accepted Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies. Eventually Paul Schneider put some criticisms of Nazism on his church bulletin board and was forced to account for what he said to a ‘German Christian’ leader. This man was dressed in Nazi uniform and had a huge cross dangling on his chest. Paul could see that these people were trying to force the church to adopt Nazi ideas. Sadly, the leaders of the Hochelheim Church would not support him in his stand. As a result, he was forced to take a new pastorate with two churches, one in Dickenschied and the other nearby in Womrath.

Paul Schneider was installed as minister in May 1934, at the age of thirty-six. He had been in his new pastorate for only a few weeks when faithful men who thought as he did issued a declaration. Part of the wording of this declaration defiantly asserted:

‘Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.’

Just over a month after he began his new ministry a completely unexpected incident occurred.

Tuesday, 12 June, dawned as just another beautiful early summer day in rural Rhineland. As Schneider travelled to nearby Gemünden to stand in for another pastor at a funeral service, he had no idea of the trouble that lay ahead.

Wearing his simple black clerical robe, Paul Schneider walked in front of the bearers of the coffin towards the open grave. Ahead of him could be seen a parade of the Hitler Youth organization with bands and flags. He recalled that the dead seventeen-year-old youth had told him that he was the first young man in Gemünden to join the Hitler Youth. Paul conducted the graveside service, but before the committal and without asking permission, the local Nazi leader, Heinrich Nadig, spoke at some length and then asserted, ‘Comrade Karl Moog, you have now been enlisted in Horst Wessel’s battalion in heaven.’

As Paul stepped forward to pronounce the benediction, he knew that something must be said to make it clear to the hundreds of youthful Nazis that Horst Wessel was not part of a Christian burial. As reasonably as he could he explained the truth of the gospel and rejected the idea that there is a Horst Wessel group in heaven.

The local Nazi leader then approached the coffin and half addressing the crowd and half addressing the dead youth, he insisted, ‘Comrade, whatever they say, you are now enlisted in Horst Wessel’s battalion.’ Paul Schneider protested and reminded the Nazi leader that he was at a church service. The Nazi stormed away and the parade broke up.

The day after the funeral Schneider was arrested and imprisoned for a week. On his release he was given a strong warning to stop opposing the wishes of the state.

What was the Nazi thinking in all this? They had revived old pagan legends, one being the Viking myth that at death the individual joins other departed warriors. They idolized various folk heroes. Horst Wessel was a Nazi who had been shot in a street fight with political enemies in 1930. He became a Nazi folk hero, and was glorified as a martyr. The Horst Wessel song, full of pagan sentiments, was often sung at rallies when Hitler was present.

When the pastor made his graveside protest against Nazi ideology, he was holding to the right of the church to defend the purity of Christian truth. While in prison he informed the Nazi officials that he did not intend to be antagonistic to the state, but if there was to be harmony between church and state, the Nazis should respect the rights of the church to maintain the truth of the gospel. He had embarked, single-handed for all he knew, on a collision course with an increasingly dominant police state.

During the winter of 1935-36 the Nazis rebuked Paul Schneider on twelve occasions.

They resented the fact that faithful Christians had organized themselves into the ‘Confessing Church’. This body issued a statement that was intended to be read openly in faithful gospel churches. The Gestapo, the State Secret Police, visited Paul and put pressure on him to sign a document agreeing not to read it publicly. True to his principles, he refused. For that, he was imprisoned for four days.

Paul Schneider also resisted the pressure that was put on Christian youth movements to integrate into the Hitler Youth. Somebody reported him for not using the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute at his confirmation classes. He considered the salute as idolatry and would not use it on principle. Schneider particularly loathed the hate propaganda against the Jews. His church had an organization that was a mission to German Jews. When he went ahead with his usual collection for the mission to the Jews, Nazi feelings were inflamed against him. Later this Nazi anti-Semitism would lead to the Holocaust, an undisguised attempt at total genocide.

In the early hours of 7 March 1936 Hitler ordered German troops to occupy the Rhineland.

One of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles was that part of the Rhineland was to be demilitarized. By sending German soldiers to seize it back, Hitler was openly defying the peace treaty. The world held its breath. Rather than cause another war, Hitler was allowed to win. He was jubilant at his success. Most Germans agreed with him. Many historians now think that if the Allies had resisted Hitler over the Rhineland incident, he might have acted differently when it came to seizing lands that were not German territory.

The Nazis organized a ballot supposedly to indicate whether citizens approved of Hitler’s illegal action. The ballot paper had no place to say ‘No’, so the inevitable result was ninety-nine percent in favour of Hitler. On the day of the vote, Nazi police visited Paul and Gretel to try to persuade them to vote.

Their decision not to vote was one more major accusation that was levelled against the rebel pastor.

To be a Nazi and to be a German patriot had become the same thing for most people in the land.

The sermons he preached were powerful. Often they included passages like this: ‘Do not deceive yourselves, you cannot participate in Jesus’ glory and victory unless you, for his sake, take up the holy cross and go with him along the path of suffering and death.’

By the summer of 1936 the Schneiders had a family of four boys and a girl – and their education intensified his troubles. Both his churches had single-class church schools attached to them. The two teachers had joined the Nazi party and used their positions to indoctrinate the children. Paul Schneider tried to intervene. After all, they were church-based schools, and he was the father of five of the pupils.

As a result, Nazi police searched his house.

Papers and sermon notes were taken away and not returned. Doubtless this was because some of his sermons contained references to ways in which Nazism and the Bible were in disagreement. The Gestapo dossier of his opposition to Nazi beliefs and policies grew ever bigger.

On most days he was out and about using his motorcycle for pastoral visits. One evening in March 1937, he was returning home after taking a confirmation class at Womrath. He did not arrive at the expected time. Gretel received the news that in the dense fog he had collided with an unlit farm trailer carelessly parked on the road. His left leg was broken in three places and had to be put in a plaster cast. He was kept in hospital.

A little while later his sixth child was born. Paul wrote a poem, as he often did to celebrate important events. Interestingly, they named the child Ernst Wilhelm, the names of two of Gretel’s brothers killed while fighting the British at the Battle of Somme in 1916.

On 3 May 1937 two Gestapo agents burst into his study and arrested him. His general health was not good because his leg had only been out of plaster for a few days. They gave him no time to pack any belongings. Gretel was informed that he would be taken to nearby Koblenz for questioning.

He was held in an underground cell. There was no charge, no questioning and no trial. The reason given for his arrest was that he was a danger to public order. In the world of the Gestapo he became ‘Prisoner Schneider’, not ‘Pastor Schneider’. In an attempt to intimidate him, he was treated like a common criminal by having his photograph taken from every angle and his fingerprints recorded. Eventually he was allowed to write to Gretel. She was urged not to worry about him because ‘All is in God’s hands and he will use the matter…’ Although he would be present only in spirit, he urged Gretel to go ahead with the baptism of the sixth child. Another long poem celebrated the birth of the child and the baptism.

After eight weeks he was released. However, there was a condition. He must accept an expulsion order from the Rhineland.

Paul made it absolutely clear that he could not accept the legality of such an order that would separate him from his home and his churches. After all, there had been no trial, just the so-called ‘law’ of the Gestapo. To make their point, the Nazis bundled him into a car, drove him fifty miles to Wiesbaden, just over the Rhineland border, and left him there. To make his point Paul put the illegal banishment papers in a rubbish bin and caught the first train home. He was taking a big risk.

When he arrived home he looked ill; he was exhausted and his leg needed medical attention. Friends persuaded him to go for treatment and convalescence at Baden Baden, which lay outside the Rhineland. Here he was safe. Outwardly it appeared that he accepted the banishment order.

After a week Gretel joined him. Her hope was that he would give in to the Gestapo and find a church outside the Rhineland. Paul, however, had made a firm decision while in the Gestapo prison at Koblenz. He would resist unjustified bullying. With questioning in her mind, Gretel reminded him that if he went back to his Dickenschied pulpit, he would be rearrested. Paul quoted some words from a Bible verse to her. They came from Judges 5:18 and said, translated literally, ‘Zebulun…and Naphtali…risked their lives to the point of death.’

Hearing him quote this, Gretel hung her head in despair. Her voice quivered as she asked, ‘Paul, don’t you think about the children and me? Paul, don’t you love us?‘

Paul’s eyes filled with tears. With powerful arms he hugged Gretel to his chest. ‘My darling’, he sobbed, ‘I have never loved you or the children more than on that night of decision. I wept for you.’

With those words, spoken with such deep emotion, pathos and conviction, Gretel knew that her only choice was to indentify herself with her husband.

To continue see Messianic Good News, Paul Schneider – German opponent of Hitler

I was just on the Commercial Appeal website and all 5 Top stories are crime.

How disappointing that on Christmas Eve, this is the biggest news of our city.

What could our churches be doing to make significant stories that are positive?

Right now it is midnight in Uganda and a 20 year-old mother of 14 is hopefully sleeping well. The 15 of them will wake up about the time we eat dinner tonight and celebrate Christmas.

Unknowingly, this family on the other side of the world has given me a a great Christmas gift…a blog which is a collection of their stories over the past two years. How they became a family, how they function day to day, and how they live on faith.

I have learned so much, been challenged so deeply, and been encouraged to love my Lord even more because of them.

Ashleigh introduced me to Katie’s Blog a few months ago, but last night I went back and started reading from the beginning. Ashleigh and I were just so deeply moved and inspired by her stories and the deep wisdom that comes from such a sweet and passionate young lady.

You have got to read KissesFromKatie.  It will truly bless, and challenge, your soul!

Christ has done greater things than to create the world, in order to obtain his bride and the joy of his espousals with her: for he became man for this end; which was a greater thing than his creating the world. For the Creator to make the creature was a great thing; but for him to become a creature was a greater thing. And he did a much greater thing still to obtain this joy; in that for this he laid down his life, and suffered even the death of the cross: for this he poured out his soul unto death; and he that is the Lord of the universe, God over all, blessed for evermore, offered up himself a sacrifice, in both body and soul, in the flames of divine wrath. Christ obtains his elect spouse by conquest: for she was captive in the hands of dreadful enemies; and her Redeemer came into the world to conquer these enemies, and rescue her out of their hands, that she might be his bride. And he came and encountered these enemies in the greatest battle that ever was beheld by men or angels: he fought with principalities and powers; he fought alone with the powers of darkness, and all the armies of hell; yea, he conflicted with the infinitely more dreadful wrath of God, and overcame in this great battle; and thus he obtained his spouse. Let us consider at how great a price Christ purchased this spouse: he did not redeem her with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with his own precious blood; yea, he gave himself for her.

- Jonathan Edwards, The Church’s Marriage to Her Sons, and to Her God (As quoted in: The Infinite Merit of Christ, p. 45)

(HT: Erik Raymond)

Who was at the Meeting?

The question at hand is who was in the meeting of Acts 15?

We know that Apostles and Elders were there (Acts 15:6).

We know that Peter addressed “Men and brethren” (Acts 15:7) Possibly two phrases for the same group, or maybe even believers and unbelievers were present?

We know that Barnabas and Paul were there (Acts 15:12).

We know a MULTITUDE kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul. (Acts 15:12) “Multitude” is translated a “great number” in all of the other instances where it is used in scripture. Could it be that the entire group of believers and possibly even some unbelievers were present at this meeting? Is it possible that meetings were always open door meetings and that anyone and everyone was allowed to participate?

We know it pleased the apostles, elders, and the whole assembly (Ekklesia) to send men to Antioch (Acts 15:22)
And here’s what was written: It seemed good unto us BEING ASSEMBLED in one accord (Acts 15:25). Was the Ekklesia (the whole church) in this meeting – or did they just send a letter saying they were part of the assembly? Obviously – the whole church was in the meeting. 

Could Acts 15 then be a picture of the Ekklesia being gathered in order to make a governmental decision?

In my opinion, this was a legal assembly (see Acts 19:39) – the very heart of the word “church” (Ekklesia)

How did they come to a decision?

 There was much disputing – open discussion – back and forth – many people coming forth with their arguments. (Acts 15:7)

Peter gave a testimony of what God did at Cornelius’ house – and gave his opinion that the law was a yoke on the Gentile’s necks that they could not follow. (Acts 15:7)

Barnabas and Paul gave testimony to what God had done among the Gentiles thru their ministry. (Acts 15:12)  Notably, Paul is a complete outsider to the Jerusalem church – and he is one of the main players in this meeting.

James brought a passage of scripture testifying that God was going to move on the Gentiles – and then gave his opinion on laying down some guidelines about eating that would make it a whole lot easier for the Jews to not be completely offended by what the Gentiles were eating – thus opening up the real possibility that Jews and Gentiles could eat together. (Acts 15:14-21).

Decision by consensus or decision by the “HEAD” of the church at Jerusalem?

If you look at James as the head of the church at Jerusalem – and see that he talked last – then you will probably conclude that the decision was a unilateral decision made by James and dictated to the rest of the group. But…… let me present to you another alternative….

A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deut 19:15)

But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.‘ (Matt 18:16) Jesus

This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”. (2 Cor 13:1) Paul.

The law taught, Jesus taught, and Paul taught that every matter must be established by two or three witnesses.

In John 5:31-47 Jesus outlines what a true “witness” is.

1. NOT your own testimony about yourself (not even Jesus could do that)
   
2. The prophetic word (given to John the Baptist) was a “human witness” , subject to caution but a witness. (prophecy can be manipulated)
   
3. The signs and wonders (works) that Jesus did was a “God witness”.
   
4. The voice from heaven that the disciples heard was a “God witness”.
   
5. The scriptures (that the teachers of the law mishandled) was a “God witness” (not man’s interpretation of the scriptures).
   

In Acts 15 – we have two “God witnesses” – signs and wonders thru Peter, Barnabas and Paul, and we have a third “God witness” – the scripture given thru James.

Now the whole group had been taught about “Witnesses” (by the law, by Jesus, and by Paul) and could say a hardy amen when the third witness (James) came forward. James kind of put the icing on the cake – and with a stroke of Godly wisdom to bring the Gentiles and Jews together – not divide them!

Once the group caught sight of the third witness – the meeting was over.

James was not the “head” in this meeting – Jesus was and the testimony of what Jesus was doing ruled the day and trumped the opinions of the circumcision party.

Which is right to follow – the witness of God – or the authority of man? It’s easy when they are the same – but what if James would have sided with the circumcision party?

My opinion is that – the witness of God ruled the day in the early church – not the authority of man. In fact, they knew no such thing as a man in authority over them dictating to them what he thought God was saying. The leaders were well respected and actually led the people – but the governmental decision was a consensus on the evidence at hand – not an edict from the “head man”.

The vast majority of time that a “sola pastora” rules over an assembly or even a meeting, the context of two or three witnesses is totally destroyed. This slaps the command of God in the face. The scriptures never said – put a pastor in charge and let him establish every matter. No, no, no, indeed. Let every matter be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you want to know what God is doing in your midst right now? Ask the person next to you. You might be surprised what a group will come up with – and how it all fits so wonderfully together. Instead – we ignore (or assign to some other time or setting) whole passages of scripture (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14; Acts 15; John 5, etc) – and instead replace these practices with stuff that’s nowhere to be found even in a single scripture. (Senior pastor, Assistant Pastor, the authority of the pastor, Senior Elder, covering, Marketplace Apostle, Foundational Apostle, Sunday Service, pulpits, A non-participatory meeting, etc). Is it any wonder that moves of God are so rare in the traditional western setting?

“The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?” (Jer 5:31 NIV)

The question at hand is this: even if you think everything I’ve written here is total error – and that the church is a hierarchy led by a single pastor and advised by a group of elders – then how does the concept of two or three witnesses come into play – in a meeting – in governmental decisions – in EVERY MATTER?

From time to time one hears an argument for infant baptism based on two texts where the Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to allow young children to come to Him to be blessed.  The argument runs that we likewise should not forbid baptism to infants.

 The first text is Matthew 19:13-15. ‘Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them:  for such is the kingdom of heaven.”  And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.’

 
The second is Luke 18:15-17. ‘Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”’

Of course, the elephant in the paedobaptists’ bathroom is the simple fact that our Lord didn’t baptize these ‘infants.’  Had He been in the habit of baptizing infants, here would have been the perfect opportunity.  But instead He blessed them and let them go.  According to the Biblical record, He only baptized disciples (John 4:1 ).  Of course, it goes without saying that all Christian parents should be bringing their children before the Lord in prayer and asking Him to bless them.  These texts are an encouragement to us to believe that He will answer such prayers.

It may nevertheless be interesting to do a brief study on the Greek words that are translated ‘babes,’ ‘infants’ or ‘little children.’ There are six of them:

  Paidarion is a diminutive form of pais, a ‘child’ or ‘son.’  It isused only twice, in Matt 11:16 and John 6:9 .  It would probably best be translated, ‘Lad’ or ‘youngster.’

  Mikros, literally a ‘little one’ is used in Matt 18:6 and Mark 9:42.  We will touch upon these later.

Teknion, the diminutive of teknon, ‘a child,’ is actually only used in the NT of adult believers (John 13:3; Gal 4:19, and seven times in 1John).   Teknon itself is used by our Lord of His disciples in Mark 10:24.

Paidion, another diminutive of pais, is frequently used of very young children, particularly of the young Jesus in Matt 2. It is the word used in Luke 18:16, 17. However, the only time we are told of the age of a paidion, it is of Jairus’s daughter, who was 12 (Mark 5:40ff). Like teknion, it is also used of adult Christians (John 21:5; Heb 2:13, 14; 1John 2:13, 18 ).

Nepios means literally an infant without the full power of speech, but again it is almost entirely used to describe adult ‘babes in Christ’ (Matt 11:25; 21:16; Rom 2:20; 1Cor 3:1; Eph 4:14; Heb 5:13 ).

This finally takes us to Brephos, which is the word used for ‘infant’ in Luke 18:15. It certainly does mean ‘infant’ in Luke 1 and 2 , but in 2Tim 3:15. Paul writes, ‘And that from childhood (Gk. Brephos) you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.’ Timothy did not learn the Scriptures as a new-born baby, so here it obviously also means a ‘child.’ This is corroborated by Luke 18:15, where the Greek states that the disciples rebuked, not the parents, but the children themselves, unthinkable if they were babies in the arms of their mothers or fathers. Furthermore, Jesus called them, not their parents, to Him and said (v16 ), “Let the little children (Gk. teknion) come….” They are to come, not the parents, suggesting that these little ones were at least able to walk. Finally, Brephos is used of babes in Christ in 2Peter 2:2. ‘As newborn babes (Gk. Brephos), desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.’

So we can see that these ‘baby’ words are used as often as not to describe new-born Christians of any age. This may help us to understand what our Lord is saying in Luke 18:16-17. “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Those who are seeking Christ, whatever their age, are not to be kept away from Him. Their ignorance or their pagan or irreligious backgrounds are not to be used as an excuse to keep them from the Gospel. The kingdom of God will be filled with such people (Matt 8:11-12 ). This understanding will help us as we look at another text used by paedobaptists:-

‘At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. ”But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!  If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. ”Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”’ (Matt 18:1-11).

 What is the Lord Jesus saying here?  He is saying that anyone wanting to enter the kingdom of heaven must be converted, born again, becoming a babe (Gk. Paidion) in Christ.  Moreover, a humble, child-like faith, that lays hold of Christ, setting aside all preconceptions, worldly wisdom and philosophical arguments, is the only faith that will bring one into the kingdom (cf. Matt 11:25).  Anyone who destroys the faith of such a child (‘little one’- Gk. Mikros) in Christ by false teaching or philosophy is in deep, deep trouble (v6ff).  Therefore the angels spoken of in verse 10 do not serve physical children and then abandon them at some supposed age of maturity.  No, no.   They are the servants of the born-again children of Christ (Heb 2:13b) of all ages.  ‘Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?’ (Heb 1:14; cf. Psalm 91:11-12).

Very good post by Phil Johnson on the issues concerning the Manhattan Declaration.

What sinners in this decaying culture need is redemption and spiritual rebirth, not merely sounder moral logic and more convincing rational arguments about why their sin is bad…

..the gospel—not natural law, moralistic logic, philosophical reasoning, or political strategizing, but the gospel—is the power of God unto salvation. God’s Word doesn’t need an intellectual’s rational arguments to prop it up. It may sound foolish to suggest that the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed clearly and supported only with “thus saith the Lord” carries more weight or is actually more efficacious than an elaborate philosophical argument..

If evangelicals really want to make an impact on our culture, we need to keep that in mind. We need to get to work proclaiming the gospel in our own communities. And frankly, we ought to leave the philosophical strategy in the culture war to people who have no sharper weapon. Declarations of spiritual unity with moralists, academicians, and religious figures who reject the gospel are a sham and a lie, and such declarations do undermine the gospel and muddy our testimony—regardless of anyone’s original intent.

See, TeamPyro: Robert George and the New Ecumenism