True Apostles or just want-to-be's?

One of the most controversial doctrines for ministry is perhaps the so-called “Five-fold ministry” based on Ephesians 4:11 which reads:

“It was he who gave some to be (1) apostles, some to be (2) prophets, some to be (3) evangelists, and some to be (4) pastors and (5) teachers.”

Primarily as a result of this verse, some believe God has restored, or is restoring, the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today. Ephesians 4:12-13 tells us that the purpose of the five-fold ministry is, “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

So, since the body of Christ definitely is not built up to unity in the faith and has not attained to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ, the thinking goes, the offices of apostle and prophet must still be in effect.

However, Ephesians 2:20 informs us that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone.” If the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, are we still building the foundation? Hebrews 6:1-3 encourages us to move on from the foundation. Although Jesus Christ is most definitely active in the church today, His role as the cornerstone of the church was completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. If the work of the cornerstone is, in that sense, complete, so must the office of the work of the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation, be complete.

What was the role of the apostles and prophets? It was to proclaim God’s revelation, to teach the new truth the church would need to grow and thrive. The apostles and prophets completed this mission. How? By giving us the Word of God. The Word of God is the completed revelation of God. The Bible contains everything the church needs to know to grow, thrive, and fulfill God’s mission (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The cornerstone work of the apostles and prophets is complete. The ongoing work of the apostles and prophets is manifested in the Holy Spirit speaking through and teaching us God’s Word. In that sense, the five-fold ministry is still active.

Also, modern apostles lack the mark of one of the Apostles of Christ, that is having seen him. We must not let the word "apostle" in the sense of the Twelve, be confused with the word "apostle" as used in the sense of those "messengers" sent out from the churches. Thus we believe-at least I do-that the is a vast difference between the Apostles of Christ and the apostles sent out from the churches.

Don't sweat the small things . . .

Funny thing, my wife asked me to explain the difference between Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists the other day.

"Well," I replied, "for one thing they are not Catholic, that's for sure."

The discussion continued: "Then what are they? Protestants?"

"Well," I continued, this time trying to mimic Ronald Reagan when he used to tilt his head, smile and say his "Wells." I thought for a minute and said, "No, Anglicans are not considered Protestants."

"What are they, then?" she asked, looking a little puzzled.

I then explained that they were schismatics, but still in dialogue with Rome. Then I added, "Actually, Methodist and Anglican doctrine are very similar."

The questions continued until I finally said, "You know what? There's not that much difference in any of these that could not be solved with a little charity. At least not enough difference to keep any of them out of Heaven, and I have a feeling that there will be just as many of them as will be Assemblies of God people and, yes, a lot of others that we never expected to see on the other side, either!"

Why do I say this? Because, take for instance the Calvinist position on grace and accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, is our decision to accept Christ really an irresistible tug of grace to do so, or not? The Methodist and we Assemblies of God say that there's a tug there but certainly not irresistible. Not so, say our Baptist and Presbyterian friends because to allow that infringes on the sovereignty of God; as if, God were not also fully capable of relinquishing His hold on our freedom to give us a choice in the matter.

After saying all of that, we ask ourselves, what difference does all of this theological wrangling make?Not much, in my opinion. The end game is still the same, you're either Heaven or Hell bound in either case. So, why get all in a tizzy about it?

I know. I know. "Because," I hear someone say, "'em Baptist believe once saved always saved and that give the excuse to just do what they want to sin-wise, 'cause they're gonna get to Heaven whatever."

Really? I've met a lot of Baptist in my life, some among my own relatives, and I even attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (the larges seminary in the world at that time) and I have just to meet a blatantly sinful Baptist that tried to wiggle out of the consequences with the lame excuse of "Well, once saved, always saved." No! A Baptist conscience compels them toward repentance as does ours. On the other hand, do I agree with the Baptist theologically? Absolutely not, but the point is, these petty differences, by in large, are just that: petty differences.

"Well," I hear my imaginary friend say, "teaching that you can sin like the Devil and still make it to Heaven is just wrong."

Sure it is, but when you get right down to it we are all sinners on our way to Heaven--at least that's the way I see it. I've heard of a lot of perfect people, saints and all, but I really have never met one, including Mother Teresa. At least not good enough for Heaven, unless they accepted the fact that they were made ready for Heaven on the merits of His death not what good they had done.

That's what it is all about. "Grace. Grace. God's grace," as the song goes. Baptist, Methodists, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, what have you, it all about grace, God's grace. That's what missions is all about, too. Not making people better actors in some earthy morality play, but sinners in search of a savior, whom we have met: Jesus is his name. Hallelujah! Isn't that wonderful news? We know the Savior not just our Savior, but the Savior who died for the whole world, every last people that has or will ever live!

So, let's band together and stop majoring in the minors and vow that in the essentials we will strive for unity, in non-essentials we will exercise liberty, and above all things we will practice charity.

I am yours for the journey,

      Jim R/~

Musings on the Trinity

Ontologically, God is and in essence the single and only primal consciousness of imaginative and willfull potentialities. In His imaginative and realized potentialities by inference He communicates Himself as self sustaining love. Since only Godly intentionality is capable of sustaining and communicating such primal love it is rightfully assumed that His expressed purposes are of such nature. Now, let us consider these assertions. 

Firstly, as the primal essence God is what He is and He is understood only when declared as such. Fortunately, as an act of sustaining love God graciously discloses Himself to us through His Word which He announces and was proclaimed in the kerygma and from which we derive doctrine.

Accordingly, the kerygma is distinct from didache, which refers to teaching, instruction, or doctrine. Thus the kerygma refers to the initial introduction to the claims of the Gospel with an implied or otherwise stated appeal for conversion, whereas; on the other hand, the didache (catechesis) concerns the fuller and more extensive doctrinal and moral teaching and instruction in the Faith that a person receives once he has accepted the kerygma and has been baptized* and which more fully assist our understanding of the content of this persuasive grace. God as such--that is in His divine essence--has lovingly and thereby graciously initiated both the disclosure and the creaturely capacity for understanding the act and nature of this message. 

This we believe necessarily, that then:

". . . faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." [Romans 10:17]

In other words, conceptionally faith is activated in content as a word from God--the word, however, is not faith but only the self-disclosing content on which faith acts.

Thus by faith and a priori intuition we understand that God is and He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. [Hebrews 11:6 NIV] Ethereal concepts are however just that: concepts, unless actualized in the praxis of life. Two plus two may in ethereal reality equal four; however, the concept is understood first in concrete reality--thus, Godwardly we understand the necessity of the incarnation for a fuller understanding of who He is.

Thus the axiom that if one wishes to understand a jelly fish then one must have access to a jelly fish is true in this case even more so because for God to remain ethereally aloof in His aseity may not discount His existence but it would most certainly influence our understanding of Him and at best He could only be understood apophatically.

This, Tillich understood but failed to articulate how he came to this conclusion other than through ignorance. Apophatic ignorance is hallow without reference or substance so therefore is incapable of understanding.

It is said that Buddha was once asked what God is and he pointed to a variety of things and said, "God is not this; God is not that!" Naturally, he could have gone on infinitely since the primal essence of God is beyond our grasp unless we are granted through and by His self-disclosure to glimpse His inwardness through the analogy of His outwardness in the praxis of our understanding. 

This God has done, we believe, in and through the incarnation of His primal essence in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth, His Son and the son of Mary, a virgin girl married to Joseph the carpenter as recorded in Holy Writ the Christian canon of scriptures.   

That having been said, however, gives humanity at best only a glimpse of His Godly glory which may spark a certain curiosity but can only be adequately understood when appropriated in faith.

Faith without action is dead, so we thereby understand that a casual or intellectual curiosity is not sufficient. Commitment is required and by His grace we come to sense cognitively that we are indeed His child as our spirit bears witness with His Spirit that we are His offspring. [Acts 17:28] 

And, again we read in Romans 8:15-19 that,

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to son-ship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. [NIV]

Further, the Scriptures informs us that,

6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” [Galatians 4:6 NIV]

This certain dawning, as it were, is the eureka moment--that, aha! moment at which our human experience suddenly realizes that God is there and we then realize that ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ [Acts 17:28 NIV]

------------
* http://www.catholic.com/blog/hector-molina/the-kerygma-enigma

I can see clearly now . . .

 

---

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." — C. S. Lewis

---

Dear friends, faithful prayer and financial partners,

Paul has captured the spiritual plight of our generation when he wrote that,

“The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Sadly, the truth is that modern secularism has failed miserably to deliver the promised utopia of freedom and liberating spirituality that it has so passionately championed. Instead, we have been handed a culture of death both from war abroad and the abortion industry nationally. 

Our personal freedom has been corroded with an ill-defined political correctness that insists on equal rights for all except those that dissent. Our youth has been and are harassed daily to conform to worldly standards that even the most flagrant of sinners would have blushed at in times past. Heterosexual and indeed traditional marriage unions in general are considered just one ‘moral’ choice among others—yes, others, as in homosexual unions, and believe it or not, there is a strong from this ungodly crowd to legalize polygamy and even polyandrous (two men/one woman) government sanctioned relationships.

May I ask, where is there freedom in sex addition or liberty in the shackles of politically correct speech? 

This great Apostle to the Gentiles also cues us in on why modern secularism has failed us so miserably.

For [he writes] although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)

Now, I challenge you to take the front page of any national newspaper or tune into the headlines of any international news broadcast and place either of these two Biblical references side by side with what the media gives us 24/7 and tell me that there is not a parallel there.

Sadly, in my opinion, we have become a nation of secular Hindus—more interested ecology  and animal rights than we are with pleasing God; not understanding that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

But then, I am preaching to the choir, aren't I? And, we all know that is not good enough; we must also act. If we can agree upon this, then my next question is, Why then are so many Christians willing to sit on the sidelines and  let the few carry the banner and wage the war?

Truly, the harvest is plenteous. We need, therefore, to pray that the Lord of the Harvest will send forth laborers into the harvest field. 

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~

P.S. I've sent my passport particulars to begin the visa process for Russia. At present, we have received some, but not nearly enough to pay the expenses.You are a vital part of this ministry. So, please keep us on your prayer list. 

Sanctification: What are the standards?

In our enthusiasm to please God, we often reduce the process to a set of self induced standards [I am tempted to say, 'self inflicted' standards, but I shall resist that temptation] so it is imperative that we understand the true nature of what God is calling us to be. [Notice, I used the word 'be' as opposed to 'do'.] Standards are good and proper; however, any standard is only as good as the heart of a man or woman who practices them. Holiness, per se, alone will never convince the skeptic: 

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ (John 7:33-23)

 Yet, Paul does give us a good rule of thumb in dealing with believers. He says,

It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. (Romans 14:21) 

So, I gather two things here; firstly, an unbelieving and skeptical world is not impressed with our standards; whereas, on the other hand believers may be offended by them.

Now, as far as believers are concerned, culture is relevant isn't it?

With that in mind, I make the following observations: The German Assemblies of God as well as Italians take a different view than we do on certain standards we in the USA have. Spurgeon smoked as well as C. S. Lewis (2 of the greatest soul winners of their times, I must add); yet, I find the very thought nasty and repulsive. Shall I place my standards on them, and if I do are they Biblical standards. We can all agree that adultery, killing, stealing, and so-forth are proscribed in Scripture, but we must admit that there are some practices that fall in grey areas. Women who cut their hair was not sanctified when I was a boy (Assemblies of God); lipstick and rouge was a no-no, movie pictures (i.e., Hollywood films) and television were forbidden, and yet, I dare say that none of these practices ever produced true holiness. Holiness is first of all a commitment, and attitude, and is bathed in love: primarily a love of God and people. 

I think the Apostle Peter sums it up best when he admonishes us to:

“Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. (1 Peter 3:15-17)

Please understand that I in no way condone the filth that comes out of Hollywood or appears on the screens of our televisions; nor do I feel that a Christian woman would even entertain the thought of looking like a go-go stripper, or flip their bunny tails in some restaurant. That is simply something that Christians don't do without ever having to be told not to do it.

On the other hand, a lady can rub her face raw removing any residue of makeup off, and still not produce holiness. God truly looks at the heart. 

The the big question is, if that is true, do these verses in 1 Peter 3:3-4 apply?

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

They certainly do!

Now, if that is true, pray tell me, you might say, in what way is it true?

Wealth is relative, but a Godly attitude is not. The Apostle is not talking about jewelry in this case, he is talking about pride and attitude of the heart. He is talking about not letting your Godliness be equated with how much you are worth, or how good or sexy you may look, he is talking about your attitude.

What he is saying is that your wealth or good looks do not count for a hill of beans in God's economy. Adorning one's heart is everything— no more and no less—when it comes to holiness.

Holiness in action . . .

According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology sanctification is to set someone or something apart for the use intended by its designer. In our case by God in and through Jesus Christ: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" ( Heb 10:10 ). Christ was qualified to sanctify because he himself had been sanctified through suffering (Heb 2:10-11). 

Jesus was sanctified from the moment of his conception ( Matt 1:18-20 ; Luke 1:35 ). He was rightly called the "Holy One of God" ( Mark 1:24 ), sanctified by the Father ( John 10:36 ). In his character, therefore, Jesus Christ was morally sanctified. Second, he was vocationally sanctified (set aside for a particular ministry). Christ was obedient to His call (John 5:19 John 5:30 John 5:36 ; 6:38 ; 8:28-29 ; 12:49 ). Thus, he sanctified himself by fulfilling his unique calling as the Messiah ( John 17:19 ), being declared the Son of God at his resurrection ( Rom 1:4 ). Jesus Christ, therefore, is the model human being for both moral and vocational (ministry) sanctification (Php 2:5-11 ). He accomplishes his purpose through time, and continually fulfills his sanctifying purpose as the forerunner is for us as  an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 6:20).

Now, the big question is, How do we live a sanctified life that continues in grace instead of a theology of works?

There is much in the New Testament that Paul does not teach completely. It was left up to James to “complete” or explain in greater detail that good deeds is a corollary that always accompanies abiding faith. In kindergarten terms, it is the show and tell of faith.

Our example is always the best proof of our inner convictions. [James 2:18]. This in essence is all that James is saying, When according to some he and Paul disagree theologically.

James knew Paul and was most probably was familiar with Paul’s epistles, so the reasonable conclusion is that James is simply expanding on Paul’s doctrine of grace and faith to counter a prevalent antinomianism [Acts 21: 17-28] among some who had misinterpreted Paul’s doctrine of grace and faith.

Personally, I therefore object to E. C. Barr that,

“Only unto Paul was committed the complete system or revelation of church doctrine. We term this division Paul’s unique gospel, those great church truths which Paul and Paul alone, reveals, proving that unto him was committed the complete revelation of church doctrine, thus it is "the gospel according to Paul."

That to me smacks of the kind of cultism to which Paul was most definitely opposed, when he wrote: 

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? [1 Corinthians 1:10-12]

For as he put it,

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” [1 Corinthians 3: 11]

We can agree, however, with Dr. Barr that Paul’s admonition to Timothy is applicable:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15).

Where we choose to disagree, however, is that rightly dividing the word of truth is left entirely in the hands Paul’s gospel; as if the gospel belonged exclusively to Paul.  How anyone could claim that the 12 Apostolic foundational stones were somehow placed there with Paul’s permission.

So, we reject to the exclusivism of Barr’s interpretation of what the gospel is in terms of the New Testament narratives. We believe in the plenary inspiration of all scripture, including New Testament theology as recorded by others as well as by Paul..

In the words of scripture,

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Picking and choosing proof text for a particular doctrinal preference is not the way to go about doing theology. For sure, as Paul says,

"We are not under law, but under grace." [Romans 6:14]

Works are not an insignificant tag along that just happens to follow grace along on the trail faith. It seems to me that minimally faith requires assent which is a function of the will; however, a strict Calvinist, as appears that many of these Pauline cultists are, will not even concede that. Human assent is relegated to the sovereignty of God, as if God did not even give man the freedom to choose.

However, those that insist on a strict Calvinistic approach in understanding Paul’s doctrine of grace will adamantly oppose any and all suggestions that any effort—including ascent—as an act of libertarian free will on our part not only unnecessary, but also impossible, since for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.  (Philippians 2:13 NASV)

However, these same men conveniently overlook the prayer of blessing that the writer of Hebrews shares with us:

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip[i] you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (Hebrews 13: 20-21 NASV)

The same corollary applies to works. Not the works of the Law, as Paul so clearly proscribes; but rather the works of Him that sent Christ, who likewise in turn sends us. [John 20:21] In a word, good works follows faith; or faith is not faith. It may be mental ascent, belief, or perhaps hypocrisy, but it is not faith. So, we are treading on theologically thin ice, so to speak, when we insist that Paul’s theology of grace is in some way superior to James’ theology of works.

It is true that it appears that Paul taught that pure grace is not in any way contingent on works or law. However, pure grace does not expunge good works as a corollary of actualized faith. For sure the law was inadequate as a salvic principle, since no manner of good works will save us eschatologically. Only Omnipotence has made that possible through the substitutionary atonement of The Son of God—a man of good works, for us. So, it seems only reasonable to assume that since we are to be made in His image [Romans 8: 28-29] that we too should be men and women of good works. This to me indicates an obligation not a choice. It is part and parcel of our redemptive covenant.

So, no matter how hard the “free grace” theologians try to wiggle out of any responsibility that translates into works, it seems that scripturally and logically they are lock into a theological conundrum of inescapable proportions. 

Good “born again” Christians are men and women of works.

---

[i] 1 Thessalonians 3:10

BIB: πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα

NAS: your face, and may complete what is lacking

KJV: and might perfect that which is lacking

INT: face and to supply the things lacking

Hebrews 13:21

BIB: καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς ἐν

NAS: equip you in every good thing

KJV: Make you perfect in every

INT: perfect you in

What's the point in getting all spooked out?

---

“Once again, we come to the Holiday Season, a deeply religious time that each of us observes, in his own way, by going to the mall of his choice." — Dave Barry

---

 

Dear friends, faithful prayer and financial partners,

While on my morning walk I strolled past a neighbor house that was all Halloweened-up. Funny thing, I don’t remember any other time of the year that this couple has decorated their home. Not at Christmas, or Yom Kippur and I know they are not Muslims (at least not practicing Muslims—no head scarves, or other tell-tale signs). So, what’s up with this, I thought? Why the fascination with Halloween?

Well, being the amateur psychologist that I am I began to think of plausible answers before finally settling on the fact that it has been my observation that most people are puzzled by the hereafter, the shadowy world of the dead. This must be a coping mechanism, I guessed. Spooking yourself and others must bring a kind of comic relief to an inquisitive soul. Joke about death or the afterlife and it kind of brings it down to the right size, one that we can deal with without any extra help from above.

Now, I know that I am kind of odd when it comes to religious things—at least, I have been told that. However, I don’t think in this case that I am. (What else do you expect for me to say?) So, I would like to make a couple of points about Halloween. 

First of all, it is not my favorite holiday because it commercializes weirdness and degrades the dignity of the hereafter—but, again, that’s just me. Now, before you get all tied up and think that I am a bad father or grandfather, I must tell you that I hand out candy to the trick-or-treaters and enjoy the excitement of the fright.

So, what’s the point? The point is that an Easter bunny has replaced the risen Savior for some, and Halloween is no longer a time to respectfully reflect on the saints of yesteryear, and further Christmas has been reduced to a jolly old man in a red suit that rubs his tummy and laughs with a big “Ho-ho” as he flies away on an imaginary sled drawn by reindeers lead by one with a big red nose.

As for me, I think it is about time that we Christians take back our holidays and make them our own. There can be no substitute for the real thing. “Ho-ho-ho” if you want to, but let’s not forget what Christmas is all about. Nor should we allow a few dyed eggs and an anatomically gifted bunny replace the solemnity of Easter, either. These are sacred days for which — whether or not most people realize it — men and women have suffered martyrdom to celebrate. So, let us not let the triviality of a little fun blur the memory of such sacrifice or the significance of these events.

In closing, if I leave the impression that I am a grouchy old man, well, I probably am but that really has nothing to do with the truth of these matters. So, I say, let's have our fun, but let's double up on our effort to keep the spirit of the holidays, truly in the Spirit for the Holidays.

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~ 

P.S. You are a vital part of this ministry and in all honestly we could not—nor would we want to continue—without you. Please continue to pray for and support our ministry in the former Soviet Union and in Southern Asia. 

---

Love flies . . . catch it if you can!

 

---

"Love flies, runs, and rejoices; it is free and nothing can hold it back." — Thomas a Kempis

---

 

Dear friends, faithful prayer and financial partners,

As I grow older the more I realize that it's the simple things that mean so much:  

• The smile of a child especially a grandbaby, or in my case 6 great-grandchildren.
• The sound of your sweetheart's voice.
• Good and successful children and their spouses who love God with all their hearts. 
• A telephone call from a friend.
• A thank you note.
• The smell of a fresh rose picked from your very own flower garden.
• The taste of a good home cooked meal.
• The memories of a great childhood and wonderful parents.
• Great brothers and sisters, and yes their spouses, too.
• A high school football match.
• A pastor who really digs into the Word and delivers it with passion.
• Communion and fantastic music. 

And, of course, there is more: There is His great love. As the songwriter John W. Peterson wrote,
There will never be a sweeter story,Story of the Savior's love divine,Love that bro't Him from the realms of Glory,Just to save a sinful soul like mine.

Chorus
Isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful,
Wonderful, wonderful.
O isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful,
Wonderful it is to me.

Boundless as the universe around me,
Reaching to the farthest soul away,
Saving, keeping love it was that found me,
That is why my heart can truly say;

Chorus
Isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful,
Wonderful, wonderful.
O isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful,
Wonderful it is to me.

Love beyond our human comprehending,
Love of God in Christ how can it be?
This will be my theme and never ending,
Great redeeming love of Calvary.

Chorus
Isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful,
Wonderful, wonderful.
O isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful,
Wonderful it is to me.

Sing it with a thankful heart, and if you can't sing meditate on the words and they will feed a weary soul.

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~ 

P.S. You are a vital part of this ministry. So, please continue to pray for and support our ministry in the former Soviet Union and in Southern Asia. I've sent my passport particulars to begin the visa process for Russia. At present, we have received some, but not nearly enough to pay the expenses. He is able. It is, however, His decision to use us and what little we have to fulfill His Great Commission.

---

* "Isn't the Love of Jesus Something Wonderful?" Words and Music by John W. Peterson © 1961, renewal 1989 by John W. Peterson Music Co. All rights reserved

The Apocrypha: a response . . .

Devin, concerning the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon of Scripture since it was included in the Septuagint and that further even Jesus leaves room for its possible inclusion when he said that the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist. (Luke 16:16)

However, please correct my understanding if I am wrong; but isn’t the Apocrypha used to reinforce doctrine rather than as a source for doctrine as are the 39 OT books and the 27 NT books? I do not wish to argue, I simply ask for clarification considering the following observations:

Despite the fact that New Testament writers quote largely from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament, there is not a single clear-cut case of a citation from any of the fourteen apocryphal books . . . . The most that can be said is that the New Testament writers show acquaintance with these fourteen books and perhaps allude to them indirectly, but in no case do they quote them as inspired Scripture or cite them as authority (Unger 1951, 101).

Finally, it must be observed that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being inspired of God. Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like, “the word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . .” In fact, some of the documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: “Ye are entreated therefore to read with favor and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have labored to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases.”

Too, there is the matter of literary style. Dr. Raymond Surburg has written:

When a comparison is instituted of the style of the Apocrypha with the style of the Biblical Hebrew Old Testament writings, there is a considerable inferiority, shown by the stiffness, lack of originality and artificiality of expression characterizing the apocryphal books (1980, 7).

In closing, let me say that I am indeed thankful—indebted perhaps is a better choice of words—to the Catholic Church for the canon of Scripture, both old and new; although, I  must say at this juncture in my journey I believe I am more in the Orthodoxy camp than Rome, theologically.

Blessing, I am yours for the journey,

 Jim

Sloopy prayers . . .

Watching one of my grandsons—which one will remain a secret—practicing hitting a baseball and missing it each time until he grew frustrated and just started swinging sloppily at any ball that came within his line of vision and some that obviously were not perked my curiosity so I asked why? He said, "oh, I just can't hit the stupid ball so why try?"

We are like that at times when it comes to prayer. The problem is that often we get the order in reverse: we ask for stupid things and then get frustrated when God doesn't oblige us. Things like: "Dear, God, please make Mary Ann really like me 'cause she sure would make a pretty wife." Never mind, of course, that Mary Ann is a snob and might be pretty but she would never make a pretty wife. Her disposition would attend to that.

Believe it or not, once as a young man I was devastated that a pretty little thing dumped me for the star quarterback on the football team. I thought, "Man, he is not all that good looking and he is only about 5.2' and bowlegged at that!" But she wanted him bowlegs and all. Later on, I came to the conclusion that she was the lucky one, not him. She became a highschool drop-out and married a real loser her next time around. She glad didn't answer my prayers on that one. But not at the time. I was convinced that I knew best.

Well, the facts are, we don't usually know what is best for us. [Yes, I meant usually as in more often than not!] Usually, we pray with a hidden agenda. That agenda usually has a lot of God's no-no's on it too. Things like: "No, I don't want you rich because it will help you to forget me." Or things like: "No, Mr. Bright One, you didn't study so I am not going to help you on the test." Funny, but true. Right?

Then there are some who pray, using the advice of one wisecrack who said, "When a sincere complaint comes to mind, don't hesitate to give it." Which unfortunately we usually do.

This list of stupid prayers could go on and on.

Yours for the journey,

P.S. Please continue to pray for and support our ministry in the former Soviet Union and in Southern Asia. 

Spiritual smugness

Spiritual smugness is a nuisance.

Sometimes, when I am around some “Holier-Than-Thou” Christian I think of the anecdote about the old Quaker’s wife who asked him who was going to make it to Heaven and he responded with:

“Well, me thinkest that shall be thee and me, and sometimes me wonders about thee.”

Aren’t you thankful that your salvation does not depend on someone else’s opinion?

Jesus prayed, “Father, sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.” [John 17:17] So, very clearly, opinion unless it is based on God’s word is absolutely baseless because a foundation built on opinion with what Paul calls wood, hay, and straw will not stand the test of time or the fiery judgment of God. [1 Cor. 3:12-13]

Consequently, it really does not matter one iota what some super enlighten spiritual umpire says, unless our lives have been established in the truth of God’s word we toil in vain. Let us not forget, therefore, that someone else’s opinion is just that unless it is established in the truth of God’s word.

So, why do we labor so furiously to please and try to live up to another man’s standard?

However, before you answer that consider how The Message translates 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Here’s what it says,

“. . . Don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what's good.”

And what is the test of whether or not something is good and therefore truthful? Over and over again both Jesus and the Scriptures tell us that God’s word is truth. So, holiness or true spirituality must be verified or attested to by God’s word.

Thus, we can say without hesitation or fear of contradiction that unless God has said it then we are not obligated to practice it. True, some say, but what about those gray areas of Scripture, those that really don’t make it clear whether we should do this or do that?

I will answer that with a quote from St. Augustine, who once said,

“The greatest heresy is the lack of charity.”

So, once again as Paul reminds us let us,

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that we do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16: 13-14)

With that in mind, we do well to recall an old refrain repeated by Negro slaves during the Civil War that says,

Sticks and stones will break my bones

But words will never harm me.[i]

Just keep in mind, it really doesn’t matter what someone else thinks of you as long as whatever you do is in love because in the final analysis God is the judge not they.

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~

P.S. Please continue to pray for and support our ministry in the former Soviet Union and in Southern Asia.

---

[i] Christian Recorder of March 1862, a publication of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.