True Love

God is love, but love is not God. Contrary to popular opinion today, love is not nice words, pleasant tones, and approval. The world's definition of 'love' is a fleeting feeling of lust. To most professing Christians today, 'love' has become synonymous with being "nice" and approving things. It has taken on an eerily similar definition to the world's false definition of love. Most people's concept of 'love' today is a hippie kind of love, meaning to be in agreement, which is a basis for Universalism. "Everybody should get along." "Let's all just be nice." "Live and let live." This is a false and demonic definition of what love is.

Was Jesus unloving when He was harsh with the Pharisees and calling out their hypocrisy? Was Paul unloving when he dealt with the church in Corinth? or when he confronted Peter for being a hypocrite? or when he told the Galatians that those who were bothering them should just castrate themselves? Is God being unloving when His Word tells us to confront those with sin in their lives? Most professing Christians today have zero integrity, honour, and boldness. They have the attitude of Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?" According to the New Testament, yes, you are!

Most people today have a false understanding of what love is and what it looks like. Their concept of love stems from cotton candy theology, and not from the Bible! They war against what the Bible has to say, yet persist in calling themselves "Christian." If you imitate everything Jesus said and did, as well as His apostles, these people label you as "unloving," which means they are labeling Christ and His apostles as unloving. Their life and their doctrine are at odds. They make profession with their lips but they walk not according to their talk. Like the Pharisees, they are hypocrites. They even try to justify their disobedience, just like the Pharisees.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8a is not an exhaustive list of what love is.

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

If love "believes all things," does that include falsehoods? Does that include heresy and false doctrine? Quite obviously not. While everything stated there is true, nevertheless it is not an exhaustive list of what love is. For example, true love needs to be rooted and anchored in God Himself: "God is love." Love is obedient to God: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Real love is marked by truth: "...those who perish...did not receive the love of the truth..." Where truth is absent, love ceases to exist; it is emotional euphoria. Love is without hypocrisy, and it hates evil: "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good." True love is marked by increasing knowledge and discernment: "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment."

If knowledge and discernment are stifled or regressing, either the Holy Spirit is impotent, or you are not abiding in Christ, which means you are walking in disobedience. If you are abiding in His love, the Spirit of truth will lead you into all truth, which means knowledge and discernment will be increasing. This is how it works. There is no alternative. If your Christian life is stagnant, it is because you are not exhibiting true love. If you were, then all these things would be increasing, which would be making you more holy and more Christ-like.

Love is a verb. It requires action. It is based on the will. It is a decision. It is not an emotion or a feeling. The feeling of 'love' is nothing more than lust, infatuation, and heat of the moment. It is not real love. Without the Source of true love, you cannot give what you do not have. In other words, you cannot love your family truly and properly because you're not connected to the Source of love. You may have an appearance of love, and feel something for your family, but it is not true love. Without everything we have just looked at, whatever you are calling "love" is not love in the least. It is a cheap imitation. If you want to see what love in action looks like, look to the life of Christ. In every single moment, He exemplified love. Nothing He did was without love. Every moment of Jesus' life was the perfect expression of true love. If you want to see what love looks like in all of its forms, pick any moment from the life of Jesus and know that what you are seeing is true love in absolute perfection. Jesus was not always nice, nor did He always speak in soft tones. He certainly did not approve of everything. Yet everything He did was in, and out of, love.

In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces woe eight times! He calls them hypocrites seven times! He calls them blind guides and blind men four times! He calls them sons of hell! He calls them fools! He says they are robbers and self-indulgent! He says they are dead men! He calls them serpents and brood of vipers! Not once in all these things was Jesus ever without love. What you see here is perfect love. Not a drop of love was absent in His dealing with the Pharisees. The idea that Christians must always be nice and speak in pleasant tones and approve of everything comes directly from the father of lies and straight out of the pit of hell! Shame on any self-professing Christian who advocates and promotes such godless, unbiblical nonsense!

Most "Christians" today would have accused Jesus of being "unChrist-like" and "unloving." They would have accused Him of "lacking compassion" and "lacking grace." Most "Christians" today would have asked Jesus, "Where's the love?" They have adopted a false post-modern concept of "love." They do not know what love is or what it looks like. They also have no concept as to what grace is or what grace looks like. When Jesus pronounced those woes, was He without grace?

The next time someone accuses you of being "unloving" because you have "abrasive undertones" and you are not always "nice" and do not always speak with "pleasant tones," they need to examine their own life and compare it to Scripture. Chances are pretty high that it is they who have the problem because they are not abiding in Christ, or walking in obedience, or receiving the truth, or walking without hypocrisy, or growing in knowledge and discernment. The latter is quite obvious based on the simple fact that they clearly have no clue as to what love is or what it looks like. In their condemnation of you, they are also condemning Jesus. Anger and love are not mutually exclusive. Different people and different circumstances warrant different dealings altogether. Why did Jesus not deal with everyone in the exact same manner? Because they were completely different people, different circumstances, different degrees of knowledge, different levels of egregious behaviour, and different levels of obstinence. "To whom much is given, much will be required." Religious hypocrites deserve a harsher, more abrasive tone, but it does not in any way, shape, or form indicate that you are "unloving" or "without grace."

A Lesson in Baptism

PASSAGES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WATER BAPTISM

Water Baptism by John

"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Mark 1:4-5

Water Baptism by Jesus and the Disciples

"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing." John 3:22

"And they came to John and said to him, 'Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.'" John 3:26

"herefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), He left Judea and went away again into Galilee." John 4:1-3

Water Baptism in the Name of Jesus

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19

"And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.'" Mark 16:15-16

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Acts 2:38

"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." Acts 8:12

"Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit." Acts 8:14-17 (This passage includes baptism by the Holy Spirit.)

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, 'Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him." Acts 8:35-38

"So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;" Acts 9:17-18 (cf. 22:16)

"'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days." Acts 10:47-48

"And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.' And she prevailed upon us." Acts 16:14-15

"And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." Acts 16:33

"Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." Acts 18:8

"It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said to him, 'No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?' And they said, 'Into John's baptism.' Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying." Acts 19:1-6 (This passage includes baptism by the Holy Spirit.)

PASSAGES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WATER BAPTISM

Baptism of Suffering

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!" Luke 12:49-50

"But Jesus answered, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?' They said to Him, 'We are able.' He said to them, 'My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.'" Matthew 20:22-23 (cf. Mark 10:28-40)

Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matthew 3:11 (cf. Luke 3:16)

"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." Mark 1:8

"for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. ... but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." Acts 1:5, 8

"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." Acts 2:1-4

"And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness." Acts 4:31

"Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit." Acts 8:14-17 (This passage includes water baptism.)

"So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;" Acts 9:17-18 (cf. 22:16)

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered," Acts 10:44-46

"It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said to him, 'No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?' And they said, 'Into John's baptism.' Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying." Acts 19:1-6 (This passage includes water baptism.)

Baptized into Moses (Identification)

"For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:1-4

Baptized for the Dead

"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" 1 Corinthians 15:29

Doctrine of Baptisms (Ceremonial Washings)

"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment." Hebrews 6:1-2 (cf. 9:10; Mark 7:4, 8)

Baptized into Christ (Indentification)

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4

"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26-28

"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Colossians 2:11-12

A Different Approach to Baptism?

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6

A Lesson for Today

George Orwell's 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

“It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett’s unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf, published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator’s preface and notes is to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.

Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all. As one result of this, Hurst and Blackett’s edition was reissued in a new jacket explaining that all profits would be devoted to the Red Cross. Nevertheless, simply on the internal evidence of Mein Kampf, it is difficult to believe that any real change has taken place in Hitler’s aims and opinions. When one compares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteen years earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of his mind, the way in which his world-view doesn’t develop. It is the fixed vision of a monomaniac and not likely to be much affected by the temporary manoeuvres of power politics. Probably, in Hitler’s own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed of the two. But Russia’s turn will come when England is out of the picture—that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it. Whether it will turn out that way is of course a different question.

Suppose that Hitler’s programme could be put into effect. What he envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of ‘living room’ (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across? It is easy to say that at one stage of his career he was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw in him the man who would smash the Socialists and Communists. They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs—and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.

Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is a good slogan, but at this moment ‘Better an end with horror than a horror without end’ is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.”

–George Orwell, The New English Weekly, March 21, 1940

First, the bold text is frequently left out of Orwell's review on a majority of sites because Orwellian fans are ashamed of those words and want to try and hide them.

Second, when you look around today, everything seems as though it is about Socialism versus Capitalism, but there is a deeper issue at hand. It is about our nature. We desire to be comfortable, but we also desire to fight. In a progressive nation, eventually you run out of things to make better. You can start out with slavery, and then abolish slavery. You can start out with women not being able to vote, and then change the laws and give them the vote. You can start out with ethnic separation, and then change it to ethnic integration. When you become so comfortable in your life, and there are no wrongs to right, you start looking for imaginary one and creating ridiculous ones simply because you have a desire to fight. All the nonsense we are seeing now, including the homosexual nonsense and the trans nonsense, is people focusing on tiny, ridiculous asininity and turning a mole hill into a mountain. Could you imagine intelligent people arguing against the scientific fact of two genders/sexes otherwise? Our nature desires to fight so much, that it invents things to fight about, and creates enemies where there should be none. We are seeing this now in Europe and America. Do you see other nations fighting over such stupidity as imaginary "gender pronouns"? The most comfortable nations are where this stupidity is being elevated and fought over. And guess what? It is a form of manipulation. People who know the human nature, as George Orwell obviously did, are aware that we both desire to be comfortable and to also fight. And when someone offers us what we desire the most, we will be manipulated by it until we get sick of it and desire the other again. May we learn from Orwell's wise insight. Note also when Orwell wrote this. Hitler had done none of it yet. One would almost assume that Orwell was a 20th century prophet.

Away with Tradition, and Back to the Bible!

Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Adventists, Pentecostal, etc. Every single denomination is far removed from the teachings of the New Testament and practices of the early Christians. Yet each and every single denomination with fight tooth and nail against you in order to protect their sacred cows — the man-made traditions that have been handed down to them. They are each guilty of proof-texting the Bible in order to support their various traditions, a result of God's Word being divided into chapters and verses. The Bible was meant to be read — not referenced.

Every single denomination is ignorant as to the history and origins of their traditions (and even beliefs). Most of them will claim that they do everything "by the book." But this is a false assertion. Many of the traditions most denominations today practice are rooted in Greco-Roman culture and Pagan rituals. They were predominantly put into place by Emperor Constantine, and later by the Catholic system. If you want to argue with me on this, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Pagan Christianity? and give it a read. It is well-documented. Do yourself a favour and educate yourself. Do not cling to your traditions in fear of the truth. You fear what you do not know, and you refuse to learn the truth because you know it would demand that you take action and conform yourself to the Word of God.

When the early Christians partook of the Lord's Supper, it was a full meal, in the exact same manner as the Last Supper recorded in the Scriptures. During Emperor Constantine's reign and the later Catholic system, this turned into Mass. During the Reformation, certain elements were changed, but it predominantly remained the same as the Mass. No doubt your denomination fails to make the distinction between the bread and the wine. The current practice, and teachings associated with it, are a far cry from how the early Christians practiced and partook of the Lord's Supper. If they were to attend our services today, they would be utterly ashamed of us.

Moreover, a priest or a preacher is not needed in order to administer baptism and partake of the Lord's Supper. Such a practice is utter sacrilege! Likewise, the entire concept of "church membership" is foreign to the Scriptures and is an ungodly, unbiblical practice. These practices are anti-biblical sentiments! Some religious system memberships require you to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to become part of their denominational system. It is utterly ridiculous how far these systems have fallen from the biblical prescription. If someone made confession of Christ, they automatically were members of the church. If there were some problem with a member, the entire church in its various gatherings was informed of it, and they dealt with it.

Most traditions in post-Reformation denominations still retain Catholic practices with minor alterations, and sometimes with complete substitutions that still amount to the same thing. Yet, these individuals will blindly, and often arrogantly, argue against you despite having zero knowledge of the facts. They try to defend their traditions by opinions and feelings, refusing to admit that they are wrong.

Those who call themselves "elders" in your denominations are supposed to be looking out for the flock, and yet they are leading the flock astray. Do your homework and learn your history, "elders"! (And your Bible!) You think Augustine was such a wonderful man of God? Try learning more about him and paying closer attention to his teachings. Augustine was a disciple of Ambrose, and heavily influenced by Cyprian, who was a sacramentalist. He was a Platonist who platonized and re-wrote Christianity as the religion of the Roman State. He was the impetus that accommodated Christianity to the Constantinian Imperial System. The beliefs of the Catholic system were found in embryonic form in the teachings of Augustine: prayer to the dead, belief in Purgatory, the efficacy of relics, baptismal regeneration, the re-sacrifice of the body of the Lord in the Mass, the authority of the Church outside of whose Sacraments there can be no salvation, the Divine inspiration of the Apocrypha, etc. He even believed that it was legitimate to use violence against your critics and adversaries. This is who John Calvin looked up to. Why did the Reformers only go as far back as the 300s when trying to reform the church? They should have went right back to the first century. Every single one of the "church" fathers introduced ungodly elements into Christ's church that remain today. Jerome is predominantly responsible for all the heretical teachings and beliefs found in the Catholic system. It is understandable why the Catholic system would turn to these fathers and rely on them, but Christ's church truly reforming according to the Word of God should take them with a grain of salt, testing their teachings against the Scriptures.

Not one of these denominations has bothered to test the teachings of the early "church" fathers, or their own traditions and practices, against the Scriptures. They fail in the admonition of 2 Timothy 2:15, and they fail to follow in the example of the Bereans of Acts 17:11. The Reformation predominantly corrected much of the wrong theology of the Catholic system, but it also introduced some of their own false theology (as have Baptists and every other denomination). What the Reformation failed to do was to correct the errors associated with the liturgy and the modern worship service, as well as the priesthood of all believers. All liturgies or modern worship services today are practically identical.

Despite their many other errors, Anabaptists recovered and practiced every-member functioning in the church, precisely as prescribed in the New Testament. Because they believed in the priesthood of all believers (that every Christian has the right to participate in meetings [1 Cor. 14:26, 30-31]), they were persecuted and murdered by both Catholics and Calvinists. Funny how "Christians" either erected laws or followed laws that contradicted Scripture and put opponents in prison and/or murdered them. Calvin's Geneva was no better than the Pope's Rome.

Leaders in your religious denominational systems today will argue against individuals like me and the  every-member functioning prescription of the Bible, attempting to argue that it is "undermining respect for authority." They say this because it is all about power with them. Their position has puffed up their ego and made them arrogant and proud. What does authority in the church in Scripture look like? It certainly does not involve one man or a set of men with titles that elevate themselves above their peers (Matthew 23:1-12). It is not a hierarchical authority. The only true authority in the church is Christ Jesus, the Head of His body. Authority in the church in Scripture is elders (older men with a proven track record) appointed in order to maintain order. They are not above their peers by rank, nor are they to lord their appointment over their peers. The position requires humility.

Just because you belong to a certain denomination, do not cease studying the Scriptures and testing their traditions, teachings, and practices against the Scriptures the way that the Bereans did. Your denomination is not the be-all end-all of scriptural truth. Your denomination contains several errors that are not in accord with Scripture, though they might attempt to proof-text the Bible in order to find support for them. Your denomination's religious practices are entirely without biblical warrant, rooted in Greco-Roman culture and Pagan rituals. This is why a Bible without chapters and verses is so very important, and why you need to pay attention to the author's intended structure of each book as well as to the context of what the author wrote.

The Bible is not about you! You are not in the Bible, and it was not written to you. There are, however, applications for you. If I write a letter to Bob pertaining to marriage, and you happen to read it, you can learn from it and apply it, but it was not written to you. You need to know who wrote it, who they were writing to, what was happening at the time, and what they were writing about. You need to understand the social historical context surrounding each book and where they fall historically. Every post-first century religious context is foreign to the Bible, and therefore is not the context of the Bible. The right context for interpreting the Bible is the context that produced it. You cannot impose your culture upon the Bible and think you have the correct context.

Away with tradition, and back to the Bible!

“Ecclesia, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei.”

(“The church, always reforming according to the Word of God.”)

Heart Clichés That Must Die

How many cliches have you heard regarding the heart? Here are a few:

"Trust Jesus with your heart."

"Listen with your heart, and not your head."

"You have to follow your heart."

"Eighteen inches—the distance from your head to your heart—can mean eternity with Christ or an eternity without Him."

These may sound good, but they are not only unbiblical, they are unscientific. When people talk about the "heart," they are not talking about the organ within your chest. This organ does not think or feel. It only pumps blood throughout your entire body. The "heart" they are referring to is the center of man, the core of his being. Your mind is where thoughts, feelings, emotions, and attraction take place.

Your heart organ cannot trust. Your heart organ cannot tell you things, and does not tell you things differently than your head. The idea that you need to "Listen to your heart, and not your head" is utterly ridiculous. Clichés like these need to die. People need to spend a little more time thinking about what it is they want to say, and then do so in a more accurate manner.

I believe the distinction Scripture gives this issue is knowledge ("knowledge puffs up") versus action. You have to act out what you believe. It has to become real to you. A bunch of information does not do a thing for you. But if you believe it and act upon it, it says a lot. I believe Scripture would also give it the distinction of knowledge versus faith. Knowledge can help faith, but knowledge without faith is pretty damning.

The heart cannot think, feel, trust, or anything else. Those are all products of the mind. So when people utter ridiculous clichés like "Don't listen to your head; listen to your heart," what they are really saying is "Don't listen to your head; listen to your head." Our culture has so many ridiculous clichés pertaining to the heart it is not funny. They fail to understand that the heart, as an organ, can do nothing but pump blood through your body. All the things they attempt to attribute to it are products of your mind. And people blindly believe these statements because they are uttered all the time without thought. I am sure I have even wrote some erroneous things toward the same end, and for that I repent. It is the expression of false information. May we grow in our understanding and renew our minds with the truth, ever separating ourselves from the lies and misinformation.

The Bible makes no distinction between the heart and the mind. It is never talking about the organ beating within your chest.

The Gift of Apostleship

As is typical within the Church today, we find two extremes at either end of a pendulum. Both these extremes disregard the whole of Scripture and only proof-text those verses which suit their agendas. On the one end of this pendulum, we have those within Charismania. On the other end of this pendulum, we have those within Charisphobia. When we let Scripture speak for itself, however, rather than blindly believing what we have been told by our particular denominations, we receive a different picture altogether. It is this picture that we, as believers and followers of Christ Jesus, need to be pursuing. It does no good to be a pew-sitter who just blindly accepts whatever a person in the pulpit says to us. We need to constantly be like the Bereans, searching the Scriptures daily.

Rather than engage in reactionary theology in an attempt to combat the counterfeits, we need to be solidly rooted in Scripture and to let it be our final authority. If we are merely going to react to counterfeits and false teachings, then we can attempt to make the Bible say anything we want against such, which is to engage in eisegesis. We have to constantly be allowing the Bible to speak for itself. So let us begin our examination of what God's Word has to say on the issue of apostles.

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?" 1 Corinthians 12:28-29

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as shepherds and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-13

These passages are not describing offices or titles, but functions within the body of Christ. What does the text say? "[Christ] gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Let me ask you a question. Are we there yet? Have we all attained to the unity of the faith? Or mature manhood? Or the fullness of Christ? Quite obviously not. Therefore, has the gift of apostleship ceased? Not according to 1 Corinthians 1:7a.

"I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:4-8

What is an apostle? The word means "a delegate, an ambassador, a messenger, one sent." Technically, anyone who is sent to preach the Gospel and plant a church is called an apostle. Therefore, technically, apostles still exist today. If you pay attention to Scripture, how many apostles were there?

List of Apostles

1. Jesus — Hebrews 3:1
2. Simon Peter — Matthew 10:2
3. Andrew — Matthew 10:2
4. James the son of Zebedee — Matthew 10:2
5. John — Matthew 10:2
6. Philip — Matthew 10:3
7. Bartholomew — Matthew 10:3
8. Thomas — Matthew 10:3
9. Matthew — Matthew 10:3
10. James the son of Alphaeus — Matthew 10:3
11. Thaddaeus, or Judas the son of James — Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:16
12. Simon the Zealot — Matthew 10:4
13. Judas Iscariot — Matthew 10:4
14. Matthias, the replacement for Judas — Acts 1:26
15. Paul — Galatians 1:1
16. Barnabas — 1 Cor. 9:5-6; Acts 14:4, 14
17. James, the Lord's Brother — Galatians 1:19
18. Silas (Silvanus) — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
19. Timothy — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
20. Epaphroditus — Philippians 2:25 [the Greek uses the word apostolos, but most English translations translate it as something other than apostle]
21. Apollos — 1 Corinthians 4:6-9; 3:22
    
22. Two unnamed apostles — 2 Corinthians 8:23

That is 23 apostles right there. There were clearly more than this because "[Christ] gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as shepherds and teachers..." How can this be if there were only the twelve plus Paul? It is because we have a wrong understanding of what an apostle is and was. Do not forget that Jesus was the Apostle (Heb. 3:1), sent from God.

Have some of the spiritual gifts ceased to be available to the church? Again, not according to 1 Corinthians 1:7a. Cessationists confuse "signs and wonders" with "charismata." Are there some overlapping gifts? Yes, there are. Are these gifts identical in nature? No, they are not. (See here.) When talking about the original apostles, what gifts actually ceased? Signs and wonders!

"Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles." Acts 2:43

"And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people;" Acts 5:12a

"In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. But the Jews who disbelieved stirred up the minds of the Gentiles and embittered them against the brethren. Therefore they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands." Acts 14:1-3

"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." 2 Corinthians 12:12

What were taking place through the apostles? Charismata? Nope. Signs and wonders! With the original apostles (and not just the apostles—see Acts 6:8 and 8:6), they were gifted with the ability to perform signs and wonders. This perhaps ended with them. But the spiritual gifts given to the church by Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit are intended for the edification of the body of Christ until He returns.

"Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:8-13

Notice the contrast between "now" and "then." This passage has nothing to do with the completion of the canon of Scripture! "The perfect" is not the canon of Scripture! "Face to face" is always in connection with a person, and there is only one person who fully knows us. When Christ returns, these things will be done away with. When Christ returns, what need will we have for faith and hope? None! The realization of both will have come to fruition. Love will be constant. The gift of prophecy is completely different from revelatory prophecy. We see an example of this in Acts 21:4b. There is no new revelation.

Remember, the term is apostles (small 'a') and not Apostles (big 'A'). It was not a title. It was a function. Jesus had earlier told His followers not to be called by a title (Rabbi, Teacher, Bishop, Shepherd, Pastor, etc.—Matt. 23:1-12; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4). Doing so elevates you above your peers, whom you are supposed to be equal with. Anyone who would attempt to call themselves an Apostle (big 'A') is confused at worst and a false teacher at best. But those who plant churches are, by the definition of the word, apostles (small 'a').

Weaker Christians in the faith do not like to use the term "apostle," and suggest that we should avoid using it. Stronger Christians in the faith see no problem in the use of the term, but in order to not cause their weaker brethren to stumble they might choose to use the term "missionary" instead. This practical lesson comes from Paul's discussion in Romans 14.

DID APOSTLES NEED TO WITNESS THE RISEN CHRIST?
One of the arguments against the existence of apostles today is that in order to be an apostle, one had to be a witness to the resurrection of Christ. This is derived from the isolation and eisegesis of Acts 1:21-22. We know this argument to be false because later, when Jesus ascended, He gave gifts to the Church, which included apostles. Several of these apostles later mentioned in Scripture were from other locations and had never witnessed the death and resurrection of the Lord.

• Barnabas — 1 Cor. 9:5-6; Acts 14:4, 14
• James, the Lord's Brother — Galatians 1:19
• Silas (Silvanus) — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
• Timothy — 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6
• Epaphroditus — Philippians 2:25 [the Greek uses the word apostolos, but most English translations translate it as something other than apostle]
• Apollos — 1 Corinthians 4:6-9; 3:22
  
• Two unnamed apostles — 2 Corinthians 8:23

The original 12, with the replacement of Judas by Matthias, were foundational to the Church's beginning. They served a particular purpose. If there were only 13 apostles, including Paul, then how did James, the Lord's brother, become one and become the head of the Jerusalem church? First Corinthians 9:1 is the other passage proof-texted as support for this argument, but one must remember that Paul did not physically see the death and resurrection of Jesus. He saw Jesus by way of revelation. He also is not arguing that in order to be an apostle one must be a witness to the risen Christ.

WERE SIGNS AND WONDERS EVIDENCE OF AN APOSTLE?
Another argument against the existence of apostles today is that signs and wonders were the evidence that someone was an apostle sent by Christ. But this argument is likewise false. Neither Stephen nor the evangelist Philip were Apostles, and yet they worked signs and wonders.

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." Acts 6:8

"The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing." Acts 8:6

WHAT IS A FALSE APOSTLE?
If the counterfeit exists, it is logical to conclude that the genuine must also exist. Otherwise, it would be pointless and senseless to counterfeit it. Nobody would counterfeit a $25 bill because everybody would know that it does not exist. Likewise, nobody would counterfeit old currency no longer in circulation because everyone would know that it is no longer of value. The early church knew they were to test the claims of apostles in order to guard against false ministry. Jesus commended the Ephesian church for testing and rejecting false apostles (Rev. 2:2) while Paul condemned the Corinthian church for failing to do so (2 Cor. 11:13). Apostleship is not something you feel called to. The word "apostle" means "a delegate, an ambassador, a messenger, one sent." In other words, you are an ambassador of Christ, and you are sent out by the Church with the Church's blessing and recognition of your calling by God in order to plant churches. In other words, you are a missionary. Again, not something you feel called to, but that which the Church recognizes in and about you.

There are people today, especially within the Charismatic movement, who think themselves to be apostles, calling themselves apostles, and yet not exemplifying what it means to be an apostle. Most people recognize that they are false apostles. A false apostle could be a genuine brother in the faith, or they could be sent by the devil. In order to recognize the false, we need to be acquainted with the genuine.

HOW CAN YOU RECOGNIZE A FALSE APOSTLE?
There are plenty of passages in Scripture warning against false teachers, false prophets, false brethren, and false Christs, but only two that warn against false teachers (mentioned in the previous section). Paul describes what a false apostle looks like in 2 Corinthians 11:

• They commend themselves and boast beyond proper limits.
• They lead believers astray from pure and sincere devotion to Christ.
• They preach another Jesus and a different Gospel.
• They create the impression that they are “super” apostles.
• They look for opportunity to be considered equal with true apostles.
• They are deceitful.
• They are servants of Satan and will be judged.
• They push themselves forward, even to the point of abuse and control.

We might also use Jude 3-16 and 2 Peter 2 to identify such individuals. Individuals who think they are apostles but only care about their own ministries have failed the test and demonstrated themselves to be false apostles.

CAN A WOMAN BE AN APOSTLE?
No. This would be placing a woman in spiritual authority over men, which Scripture forbids. The husband is head of the wife, Christ is head of the man, and God is head of Christ. Some people try to argue that Andronicus and Junia were apostles. However, the Bible does not name a female apostle. Most English translations say Junia was "of note among," "noted among," "notable among," "prominent among," "well known among," "outstanding among," etc. A few per-versions (paraphrases and not translations), such as The Message, NCV, and NIrV, actually try to claim that she was an apostle. Wuest's literal Expanded Translation renders the Greek in this way: "who are of excellent reputation among the apostles." All the text means, and is saying, is that the apostles recognized her reputation and deeds. She was esteemed (held in great respect; admired) among them. The word episemos (ἐπίσημος) properly means "having a mark on it, as spoken of money, meaning marked, stamped, coined." In the New Testament, it figuratively signifies (in a good sense) being well-thought-of, distinguished, or illustrious (Rom. 16:7), and (in a bad sense) being notorious, or infamous (Matt. 27:16). If I were "of note among," "prominent among," "well known among," "outstanding among" the kings of the Earth, it in no way implies or infers that I myself am a king; it simply means that, for good or ill, my reputation and deeds are known among them.

QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APOSTLE
According to Mark 3:14-15, three basic qualifications of an apostle are that they

• must be people who have a close relationship with Christ,
• must be completely obedient and willing to be “sent ones,” and
• will have authority to do Christ’s work.

While these are not exclusive to just apostles, it is a good basis with which to start. Other qualifications would include:

• Submission to Christ – not a law unto themselves. (Phil. 2:5-8)
• Willingness to suffer for Christ. (Col. 1:24-29)
• Holiness. (2 Cor. 1:12)
• Sincerity. (2 Cor. 1:12)
• Grace on their lives. (2 Cor. 1:12)

Apostles should be people who love wholeheartedly, who care for the whole Body of Christ (not just their own interests), who have a heart for the widows, the orphans, the poor, the imprisoned, and who have a sacrificial life. An apostle is a servant to all God's people. As with any gift given by God, it requires you possess that gifting, but it also requires the Church to recognize that gift and for it to be nurtured and grown, which takes time. If you study the New Testament carefully, Paul and Barnabas were not sent out immediately. Paul did not appoint elders in churches he planted immediately. These individuals had to be taught, and they had to embrace the teachings and exemplify them in their lives.