Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part eight)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven
Except a Man Be Born Again
Jesus said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Someone cannot see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. At least two ideas exist here. One, born again, and, two, the kingdom of God. The two ideas relate to one another, which is why Jesus uses them in the same sentence with Nicodemus.
Something is wrong with every man that requires new birth and that same thing also keeps him from the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God, one could say, is the carrot in Jesus’ statement. A person can’t continue like he is, if he expects to see the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is some kind of a draw, but kingdom also assumes a King. I’ve addressed that already in this series, but someone who is in the kingdom of God requires a complete change of nature, which is the new birth.
Only new people, changed through new life or conversion, get into the kingdom and those are people who would want Jesus as King, not their selves as king. You’ve got to want both, that change and then that outcome, the kingdom. Most people do not want that outcome. A big part of this is that they don’t know God’s future plan for earth. To join in that future plan, someone must get with the program, understand what God is going to do. He can’t continue as is. He’s got to believe in that plan, want it.
What God Has in Store
A person must believe what God has in store and opt in for that. People may want a religious experience, but they most often do not want that program. This means they are idolaters, who are dead to God. Their god, instead of the one and only true God, is their own selves and their kingdom is their own little fictional personal fiefdom. What they want is for God to enhance their own program, not give them a new, as in different, one. This is not believing in Jesus Christ.
The future visible kingdom of God on earth starts with the second coming of Jesus Christ. For a person to believe in the kingdom and be born again to see it, he must receive the doctrine of the second coming. If you do not believe in the second coming, you do not believe in Jesus. Jesus is already judging, which leaves everyone condemned who does not believe unto the life of God, eternal life (John 3:18). But He will also continue to judge the world, its nations and people, to return the world to the purpose for which He created it.
The Crux
The word “crux” means essential matter or the heart of the issue and it is literally Latin for “cross.” The cross is the crux. It stands at the supreme juncture of one’s life, a crossroad. You can’t move on to God’s will for your life without coming to the cross of Christ. Believing in Him, that divine Person, sees His hanging there between heaven and earth as the sole mediator between himself and God. His death on the cross is just part of the plan, because the plan culminates in a Kingdom with this same man, the God-man, as King.
The saving part of the cross transports someone to a future kingdom. Jesus on the cross is saving people unto that kingdom. When He was born, all the various major characters in HIs birth story exclaimed Him as King. The magi brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Reception of Him was the reception of a King, which included His work on the cross. Before Jesus judges the world immediately previous to His second coming, the Father and everyone in the heavenly throne room deem Him, the Lamb, worthy to redeem the lost world.
Worthy Is the Lamb
Because the Lamb was slain and has made those believing in Him to be kings and priests, He is worthy to receive power and strength and honor and glory and to claim the inheritance of all things. Belief in Jesus Christ trades you as king for Jesus as King and your own kingdom for His kingdom. With that comes the faith that Jesus did and will do everything for salvation — His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and return to the earth to judge the world and set up a kingdom.
Someone to whom you explain salvation or preach the gospel first of course needs to hear of his dying need for salvation. Crucial though, crucial also a word that comes from “cross” or “crucifixion,” is knowing what it means to believe in Jesus Christ. Sometimes you can’t give all the information or truth that you want to give. However, the goal is giving as much as possible, so that a person understands what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.
When I get to the end in explaining belief in Christ with a person, nearly every time, my audience will say he believes it is the truth. So then most people get saved then, right? No, despite the understanding, most people still will not. Part of the reason they do not believe in Christ is because they do understand. They understand it and they don’t want it, at least yet. Very few after hearing it, that don’t want it, will finally believe in Jesus Christ. Nicodemus in John 3 didn’t believe the first or the second time. Finally, he did believe and some will.
The Time In Which We Live in 2025
Eras or Epochs
Many describe this era or epoch of time to be one of chaos and turmoil. It sends tremors into the present world order. The argument against an obvious shift in culture is its destabilization. What is really happening today?
When you open your Bible to its last book, Revelation, you see the unveiling of the future final act for planet earth. History comes full circle with the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth. Jesus starts in Revelation 6:1-2 with what I see as a bit of a surprise in His undoing of a first seal on a vitally important scroll. These verses read:
1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. 2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
A man on a white horse is the first horseman of the apocalypse. Who is this? It is a fake peace, or a “peace, peace,” when there is no peace. One would not be wrong to say the one on the horse is the future Antichrist. “Peace” becomes the instrument for the future wrath of God on earth. It isn’t chaos, turmoil, tremors on the world order, or destabilization. Peace brings the beginning of the end. The Antichrist goes “forth conquering and to conquer” using peace. Peace is the primary weapon.
Fake Peace
Fake peace or just getting along to get along seems to be a most unlikely culprit. It hearkens back to the many speeches yearning for world peace. People want peace. Future judgment begins with offer and the allure of peace. This reminds me of the judgment of Romans 1 that the Apostle Paul describes as “God gave them up” and “God gave them over” (Romans 1:26-28) to what they want. That’s His judgment. People want to be left alone with their own desires.
On the other hand, what does Jesus bring? He says in Matthew 10:34:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
The Antichrist comes bringing peace, what the Lord sees as turning men over and giving them up. Toward the beginning of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus says in Matthew 24:3-5:
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
The deception is fake peace. This flushes out the enemies of the one and true Christ. Peace is a lie, a very common lie. Satan is the Father of lies (John 8:44). It’s how he rolls.
Chaos and Turmoil
But today again is chaos and turmoil, you know. Division. Separation between people. Strong borders. Promotion of national interests, not global ones. People can speak out and say scriptural things now apparently too, even if it brings chaos and turmoil. What’s happening?
The Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1 writes:
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
We are in the last days. What are these perilous times about which Paul speaks? The word “times” here is kairos, and it is not chronological. It speaks of an epoch, age, period, or season. Paul’s description is of worsening seasons or epochs of time in the last days.
Reprieve and Opportunity
What occurs is a bad period, followed by something of a reprieve or an opportunity, that when lost brings a worse era. I believe we are in a time of opportunity. This is not a good time. It is one of those periods in between bad times if the opportunity is lost. This is all based upon the providence of God. It is not a time of peace right now. There is an available fight, which one could characterize as a kind of open door. It is not a good time. A better way of seeing it is following a really bad occasion or circumstance.
This era is not a time to look for peace and I’m talking about the truth and our culture. It is not a time for shyness, but to take advantage of this moment in between periods. Even if the next era is worse, which is the usual pattern, this one is an opportunity. This is how I would characterize it. People who hold to scripture need to tell the truth, the whole truth. Let everyone know what God says without apology. Now is a time for this.
“Perilous times shall come.” Those times come. They are epochs, because some kind of separation or opportunity follows each of them. I don’t think anyone should take credit for this present open door, because it doesn’t read or seem like anything any human could have invented. I wouldn’t have. It seems it would have come in a different way. This is what we’ve got though and if it’s anything, it’s an opportunity to take advantage with the truth.
Does Doctrine Matter?
President James Monroe on December 2, 1823 first communicated the “Monroe Doctrine” in his State of the Union address to Congress. The Monroe Doctrine viewed any foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Americas, as a potentially hostile act against the United States.
One might ask Spain and Japan whether the Monroe Doctrine matters. These nations acted in violation of the aforesaid doctrine, which was met by a strong military response from the United States, leading to the Spanish-American War and U. S. involvement in World War Two.
THE SUPERIORITY OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
No doubt biblical doctrine matters more than the Monroe Doctrine, because God articulates that doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16 reads: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine.” When the United States calls something a “doctrine,” this is tantamount to a sacrosanct law. The Bible treats doctrine the same, as seen in Proverbs 4:2: “For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.”
The Bible constitutes the law of God, God the Lawgiver and also the Judge. When God said to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” (Genesis 2:17), that is doctrine. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Lord said, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (also 2:17). The consequences for violating that doctrine were far worse for mankind than violating the Monroe Doctrine for the Spanish.
THE AUTHORITY OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
Does doctrine matter? It depends whose doctrine. After Jesus ended His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 to 7, Matthew explained in 7:28-29 that “when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: “For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Jesus had authority. If He said it, that settled the doctrine.
Jesus later described the doctrine of the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 15:9: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Doctrine didn’t matter if it were only the commandments of men. A mere commandment or a lesser teaching of men has no ultimate authority. Earthly bodies may punish for transgressing their temporal edicts, but they hold no sway over eternal repercussions. God does not accept their vain and profane worship.
On the other hand, Jesus could say in the first verse of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:3, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Understood with this doctrine of Jesus was the converse doctrine: “Cursed are those not poor in spirit: for theirs is not the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus spoke doctrine with like authority in John 3:15, “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The opposite of believing is not believing and of eternal life is eternal death. Maybe nothing matters more to a human being than the true doctrine of salvation.
THE ABSOLUTE TRUTHFULNESS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE
True Doctrine Versus False Doctrine
More than any quality, what distinguishes biblical doctrine as divine doctrine, versus the mere doctrine of men, is its absolute truthfulness. Scripture is truth (John 17:17). You can always believe what God says because it is always true. Always. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
As much as the true doctrine of God’s Word matters through all eternity, it also contrasts with false doctrine disseminated by false teachers, who at the same time claim to be true ones. False doctrine matters too, but for the opposite reason. Also, it matters through all eternity, but instead in harmful, destructive ways.
The Bible calls false doctrine, “heresy.” The English word “heresy” transliterates a Greek word, heresis, which means “division” or “faction.” The world started with truth and heresy divides from truth. Every falsehood takes a path away from the way of truth. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Jesus says He is the way to the Father, excluding all other ways. Other different ways than Jesus alone are heresies, diverging from the one path that leads to heaven, where are the Father’s house and God the Father.
God’s Truth is Truth
Postmodernism says, “Your truth is your truth.” It is saying, “Your true doctrine is your true doctrine.” God say “no” to that. In Romans 3:4, Paul writes: “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” God is the final arbiter of truth. If you contradict God, your contradiction is falsehood. I ask you to consider the doctrine of Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” God created two sexes and only two, male and female.
A male might call himself a female, but he isn’t. God also created a woman for man, not a man. He created Eve for Adam. God “brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22) and Adam said, “she shall be called Woman” (2:23). She was a “help meet” or fit for man. God created the woman to complement the man, not another man (2:18). A man does not complement a man and God calls this “an abomination” (Leviticus 20:13).
God also created distinct roles for the man and the woman that are required for a successful family and society (Ephesians 5:22-33, Titus 2, 1 Peter 3:1-7). The teaching, belief, and practice of these roles are true doctrine.
THE ETERNAL IMPACT OF DOCTRINE
Destructiveness of False Doctrine
The Apostle Peter says concerning certain heresies in 2 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Heresies are mainly brought by “false prophets” and “false teachers” “among the people” or “among you.”
Certain false doctrines in particular, which deny the Lord that bought” us, bring “swift destruction.” What Peter describes in 2 Peter 2:1 about false salvation doctrine mirrors what Jesus also said in the Sermon on the Mount, when He said in Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Jesus speaks of the narrow way, which is the true way, and of the broad way, which is the false one. Few enter the narrow gate, which leads to life, and many the wide gate, which takes the broad way that leads to destruction. The wide gate and the broad way are more popular, even though they are false. The next verse, Matthew 7:15, explains why people take this damning path in addition to its popularity: “Beware of false prophets.” False prophets or teachers point the way through their false doctrine to a future damning destination, surely while still calling their teaching “the truth.”
Blessing of True Doctrine
Paul expresses the eternal and serious ramifications of true doctrine through his pastoral epistles in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, especially declared by 1 Timothy 4:16: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” “The doctrine” will “save thyself and them that hear thee,” Paul instructs.
The salvation that comes from true doctrine carries with it ultimate fulfillment. The doctrine Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-12) could and would bring the kingdom of heaven, comfort, satisfaction, inheritance of all things, mercy, joy, gladness, and reward in heaven. Heeding the doctrine of Jesus was like building your house on a rock instead of sand, so that when a storm came, your house would stand and not fall (Matthew 7:24-27).
THE EXCLUSIVITY OF TRUE DOCTRINE
Teach Only the True Doctrine
Considering everything you’ve read so far about doctrine, can someone or at least should someone say, “Doctrine doesn’t matter”? Doctrine matters as much as anything that matters. For this reason, the Apostle Paul wrote his protégé Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:3, “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” Scripture requires church leaders to “teach no other doctrine.”
Because False Doctrine Deceives
God’s Word often explains how false teachers deceive people to believe wrong doctrine. The Apostle Paul again in Romans 16:17-18 writes: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” God requires separation from false teachers, who cause these divisions from true, scriptural doctrine. They are deceptive and use “good words and fair speeches” to deceive their listeners.
Separate from Those Who Teach Different Doctrine
The Apostle John joins Paul in the seriousness of doctrine, when he writes in 2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”
Akin to John’s warning in his epistle and Paul’s teaching in Romans, Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:3-5: “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; . . . . from such withdraw thyself.” If a man teaches other than the true doctrine or consents to it, that is, accepts or inculcates it, from such people, Paul commands, “withdraw thyself.” Nothing helps someone more than true doctrine, but also nothing hurts someone worse than false doctrine.
Today false teachers deceive listeners by devaluing true doctrine. They often say only certain essential doctrines matter, but not all doctrine. It is similar to Satan tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden by saying that eating of the tree wouldn’t matter to her. He said, “Ye shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). In fact, she did die. These kinds of seductions lure people into a false sense of security. Not only do people stop taking heed to the truth, but they are offended by those who do.
THE REQUIREMENT OF TRUE DOCTRINE
The Bible requires doctrine in the preaching and teaching of churches. They who “rule well” a church “labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17). Paul commands Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word . . . . with all longsuffering and doctrine.” He commands him despite the following warning in verses 3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
Have we now reached the time, age, or era when people will no longer endure sound doctrine? Does doctrine not matter to most people any more? They want something else, that Paul characterizes as itching their ears. Instead of preaching sound doctrine, preachers will provide their hearers something they would rather hear. Instead of a place for doctrine, churches become mainly social gatherings to accommodate the carnal allure of this temporal world.
Many today see a drastic decline in the United States. Why is this happening? A growing percentage of people cease church attendance at all. It’s not just that churches stop preaching biblical doctrine. Neither do people want a church that preaches it. Churches adjust to this new reality by reducing their teaching time and minimizing doctrine when they do preach anything. If churches stop caring about doctrine, why would anyone else care?
Doctrine will equip and sustain people for and through tough times. As days become harder and worse, people more than ever need doctrine. It will matter more than ever. Yet, how available will it be to those for whom it doesn’t? Think about it.
The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church (part three)
Evidence in the New Testament
As you read through the New Testament, you see early attacks inside and outside of the church that correspond to what happened at that juncture of history in the world. Revelation 2 and 3 provide a good example of how churches in the first century degrade through changes in doctrine and practice in areas appropriate to the occurrences of the time, diverting from Jesus Christ and His commands. The Lord Jesus Christ gave many various means to keep His churches: faithful pastors edifying, preaching, admonishing, warning, and protecting, church discipline, the Lord’s Table, and personal and ecclesiastical separation.
All of the tools for preserving churches intact revolve around the sufficient, canonical words of scripture. The Word of God is like a purifying fire, like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces, and like water that washes away filth. The fire burns away dross, the hammer shapes something ugly into the beautiful, and the water cleanses away sin and false doctrine. All of this keeps a church or churches on track to extend to another generation.
False Tradition and Human Philosophy
Scripture itself never loses its power, but it becomes something different when someone mixes it with false traditions and human philosophy. In the Old Testament, pagan religion from surrounding foreign nations perverted Israel’s doctrine, practice, and worship. In the New Testament, Gnosticism, a collection of religious ideas and systems that emerged in the late first century AD, had a significant impact on the church by infiltrating it.
One can see in the New Testament reactions to proto-Gnostic false teaching that arose during the history of the first century. It reshaped doctrine, especially regarding the nature of God, creation, and salvation. Gnostic beliefs posited a dualistic worldview where a supreme, hidden God existed apart from a malevolent creator deity (the Demiurge), which some Gnostics identified with the God of the Hebrew Bible. They believed that material existence was flawed or evil, leading them to focus on personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) as the path to salvation rather than faith in Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection.
First century Gnosticism emerged from various sources, such as Jewish mysticism and Hellenistic philosophy. Scripture teaches its own sufficiency in part to combat adding and taking away from its teaching. The additions and subtractions emerge from the woof and the warp of that historical period.
Platonism
Debates over doctrine early in church history hinged on philosophical issues. These debates did not and would not occur from solely influences of scripture. Teachers familiar with the dialogues of Plato relied on the writings of the Greek philosopher in their interpretations of the biblical text. To recognize how they arrived at their teachings, one must understand how neo-Platonic Greek philosophy mixed into their doctrinal views. Plato represented a distinct view of the world seen in the type of teaching espoused by those hearkening to his ideas.
Church leaders believed Christians could appropriate the world’s philosophy and culture, where this seemed right to them. Augustine of Hippo provides an example, when he writes:
If those who are called philosophers, particularly the Platonists, have said anything which is true and consistent with our faith, we must not reject it, but claim it for our own use.
Plato’s writing contributed to the shaping of early doctrine of professing Christianity, including in systems of interpretation of scripture. The Alexandrian Jewish scholar Philo was a key figure in developing allegorical interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, aiming to reconcile biblical texts with Platonic philosophy.
Schools of Theology
Schools of theology arose, many times organizations separate from church authority. Origen was a student at the catechetical school in Alexandria, which had a strong tradition of allegorical interpretation, and likely studied under Clement of Alexandria who was known for relating Christian teachings to Greek philosophy. Origen didn’t invent allegory but he significantly advanced and popularized it, drawing on the influence of Greek philosophy. He often distinguished between a literal and a spiritual or allegorical meaning of scripture.
Doctrines did begin to change and false ones spread to various churches even in the first century, as seen what occurred in the seven churches of Asia (Rev 2 & 3). John expresses concerns over the doctrine of Christ that reflect the introduction of proto-Gnostic heresies (1 & 2 John). The Apostle Paul confronts Greek philosophy in 1 Corinthians 6, that presented a lax view of sexual immorality. In 1 Corinthians 15 he addresses something undoing the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Roman Empire
Most professing Christians and churches could not resist the power of the Roman Empire’s embrace of Christian religion and modification to the religious power of the state. The emperor Constantine possessed his own experience of Christianity and then used his position to affect faith and practice. He promoted his imagination of Christianity with construction of cathedrals, Bible translation, and the calling of official councils for discussion of theological issues.
Like a Rome emperor wanted unity in his empire for its resultant strength, Constantine and then others after him pushed for cohesive doctrine and practice across the empire. He organized and structured Christianity around his own aspirations for Christianity. This conformed Christianity beyond the New Testament to a state religion. Doctrine and practice became malleable to the state. The emperor and the state hierarchy used its authority to use its power to mold Christianity according to the same means by which it ordered the political and secular.
Influence of the State
State endorsement brought safety and great influence. It was difficult for small churches to resist the current of state power, getting swept into the flow of its governance and acceptance. Churches could sell their freedom and autonomy for security and prominence. Anyone could conceive of the opportunities that could come with the immensity of the state and the size of its resources.
The state would endorse those with its position and finally punish those resisting it. It published and propagated what it approved. At many different points it would destroy anything in opposition. What remained available was what the state affirmed. During many various periods, the state kept what it ratified and eliminated what it didn’t. This was a means to maintain cohesion.
More to Come
When I Tried to Do Business with China
My Story
As you might know, I lived and worked in California most of my adult life (33 years). Our church, Bethel Baptist Church, which we planted in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1987, and I became a publisher, Pillar and Ground Publishing, to publish biblical and theological works. It is now a work for South Decatur Baptist Church. When we got ready to publish our book, A Pure Church, I looked into different ways to print the book. I used print-on-demand in the United States for our first book and then a United States printer for the second one.
Since the church was on the West Coast, it was easier to get connections with Asia. I did not believe that I would use China to print our book, but I wanted to see if I could do it. You can find Chinese printers online, inviting business from the United States, so I contacted a few of them. They all wanted our business, that is, until I told them the content of our book. It was illegal for a Chinese printer to do our book because of its biblical, Christian subject matter.
In other words, I could want to save money in China, but China would not do business with a church with a biblical presentation to make. None of the printers I contacted would print our book. Two of them, I believe forgetting what we were printing, contacted me again about our interest for using them. Again, I was 90 plus percent sure that I would not use a Chinese printer, but China wouldn’t do it for me anyway.
Doing Business in China
In recent days, the media reports the potential destruction of a lady’s business, who has her baby bibs manufactured in China. The Trump tariffs won’t allow her to make a profit. She has all her own money and even a sizeable loan involved in this business, and she will lose everything apparently. This is a risk she took in doing business with a foreign, Communist country like China.
How do people get cheaper prices dealing with China? Do you know? Some call it slave labor. The Chinese standard of living is very low compared to the United States. A huge part of this is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its redistribution of wealth. Since a large percentage of business in China is state owned, United States business in China helps support the CCP. Because most of the Chinese people live in poverty, someone from the United States can do their job cheaper.
It is more expensive to do business in the Untied States, because of competition not found in a Communist government and country. People have freedom and choices, so for companies operating in the United States to get the better people, they have to pay them more. The United States might pride itself in the fairness of its workplaces, but one dirty little secret is that the United State has its main workforces in third world countries.
Don’t get me wrong. United States business helps the poor people in third world countries, who make stuff for Americans. They would be worse without the business they get from the United States. However, that model of business sends manufacturing (making things) over seas. What does China then do with this?
Intellectual Theft and More
The common report for China is that China operates according to its rules in trade and business. Chinese companies will steal the intellectual property of successful business in the United States and then sell it in the United States through Walmart, Amazon, and other outlets. A company starts and builds a venture through research and development, and when it reaches a certain threshold in sales, something like five million dollars, China does its own knock-off product and sells it a very reduced price with its poverty level workforce. It stole an idea without spending anything on research and development.
When China undercuts American business, either the company or its product line go out of business. It can’t compete with the price set by the Chinese company that is also subsidized in the Chinese economy. The Chinese take that business away from a United States company. A woman may lose her baby bib business because of tariffs, but once she succeeds to something like a five million dollar threshold, she can lose her business from the Chinese knock-off strategy. They steal her bib idea and sell it for cheap.
The United States has no authority in the courts of China to prosecute theft of intellectual property. When China steals things and American companies go under, this unfair practice does not equate to free trade. The Chinese can function in American courts to get their way here, but an American businessman doesn’t have the same recourse in China.
Conclusion
When I began to write this post, I asked the internet, which now is essentially an algorithm in artificial intelligence, about the Chinese Communist Party. I wanted to know how much of a cut the CCP made from its businesses. How big a cut did it take? Artificial intelligence almost always gives an answer, especially to that kind of question. I asked it in a number of different ways and it would not give me an answer. What do you think is happening? How free are we?
I want to go back to my original point. American printers are free to print biblical content. Chinese ones are not. China can censor religious material in violation of religious freedom. The United States has a first amendment, but when it does business with China like it does, it in fact undercuts and breaches its own Constitutional rights. It is a way of evading or bypassing human rights. People can talk a good talk about these issues, but skirt or sidestep in order to make a buck in China.
Can Restorationist Churches Be or Are They True?
This post provides a good accompaniment to the last three posts I’ve written here (one, two, and three). I’ll return to the first two of those posts, as they are the beginning of a continuing series.
************************
Successionism or Restorationism
The choices are not apostolic succession or no succession of churches. Apostolic succession is bogus, a lie, and a fraud. Apostles did not continue after John. Succession itself though is a biblical concept. True churches continued. Jesus promised that and enough history exists to validate it. If you don’t believe in succession, then you believe in restorationism, which is a commonality in cults. Look at all the religions of the 19th century that started in the United States, claiming to restore the lost church: Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), Churches of Christ (Campbellism, today also the Christian Church), Seventh Day Adventist, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Charismatic Movement is also a restorationist movement. It says that the church lost its true or full relationship with and to the Holy Spirit. Charismatics speak of the “latter rain,” this era with a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
For someone to start a false religion, he needs a kind of blank canvass. He must take his religious etch-a-sketch, shake it, and start over. He starts from scratch, inventing something that almost always includes extra-scriptural revelation or authority of some kind.
“Total Apostasy”
Grounded in restorationism is “total apostasy.’ Everyone everywhere turned from the truth with perhaps a few exceptions imbedded in something of a false church. Wikipedia uses the terminology, “Great Apostasy.”
Protestants, which include Baptist English Separatists, take up the mantle of restorationism themselves. They at least wobble between a couple of competing ideas. Included in their restorationism is the terminology, “the reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the world lost justification for a period of time, enveloped in darkness and coming out in the light of the Protestant Reformation. Supporters have to say that the true church or the truth itself was in Roman Catholicism or that it was free floating on the planet somewhere maybe or maybe not.
The latter of the two explanations for lost Christianity or non-existent New Testament churches for an undetermined period of time, perhaps over a thousand years mainly turns into mysticism. A mystical church existed somewhere. It’s a tough one to admit, but they would say that mainly mystically within Roman Catholicism some kind of true church existed in a spiritual way. It’s a tough view to support.
What’s Left
Those who won’t believe in successionism are saying that the true church existed in a universal, visible apostate church that preached a false gospel. These apparent believers did not separate from that church. The “true believers” stayed in the church in defiance of the biblical gospel, meanwhile practicing multiple forms of false worship and taking everyone around them with them in this journey. It’s no wonder they get angry and just don’t want to talk about it.
I asked AI about the doctrine of justification and it concluded: “The doctrine of justification was indeed lost or significantly distorted for several centuries prior to the Reformation.” AI also reports: “Protestants generally do not believe in a formal succession of true churches from the first century until now.” Concerning restorationism in Protestantism, AI adds: “During the Reformation in the 16th century, Protestant reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the original teachings of Christianity as found in Scripture.” AI says that Protestants themselves are restorationists.
Support for Perpetuity
Matthew 16:18 and 28:20
One of the primary verses cited in support of the church’s perpetuity is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus states, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus says that His church will endure against all adversities, implying a continuous existence throughout history.
In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises His disciples, “And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” This assurance indicates that Christ’s presence would accompany His church until the end of time, reinforcing the belief that there would always be a community of believers—His church—on earth. AI says: “Based on biblical texts and theological interpretations, the Bible does teach the perpetuity of true churches through history in every generation, affirming that there will always be a faithful remnant who adhere to Christ’s teachings.”
Other Reasons
On the other hand, scripture teaches against a total apostasy during the church age. 1 Timothy 4:1 says, “Some shall depart from the faith.” Some. Not all. All depart from the faith would contradict the promises of Christ. Like He preserves His Words, the Lord preserves His churches. Restorationism is a clear signal or cue of a false religion, denomination, or church.
Other arguments and reasons for a visible succession of true New Testament churches exist. Scripture does teach authority. Christ gives all authority to His church to baptize (Matthew 28:20). Jesus himself affirmed John’s authority when he asked the religious leaders about it, stating, “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.” (Mark 11:30). The implication here is that John’s baptism had divine backing, which was essential for its validity. Those who accepted John’s baptism were seen as accepting God’s purpose for their lives (Luke 7:29-30) and recognizing his role in God’s plan.
Jesus Himself traveled 70-90 miles for baptism by John. Surely He could have had someone dunk Him under water or baptize himself. Jesus recognized the importance of authority in baptism. Baptism requires legitimate authority to be legitimate in practice.
I’m not advocating chain link authority, but the principle of authority as a matter of faith. This is how churches understood the authority for baptism. Roman Catholicism does not have this legitimate authority. Neither did Protestants receive legitimate authority from Roman Catholicism. Where did authority lie? It comes through churches independent of the state church with a true gospel and Christ as their Head. Scripture says they would continue and they did. Attacks on perpetuity and succession are tantamount to an embrace of restorationism, admitting that Jesus did not fulfill His promises.
English Reformation?
The English Reformation, a famous religious and political movement in England, almost anyone here reading knows started with King Henry VIII separating from Roman Catholicism because he wanted an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. The English Reformation itself for whatever its benefits begets religions or denominations clearly with no authority. It essentially impersonates Roman Catholicism with some slight tweaks. Then other groups spin off of it equally with no authority. This is painfully obvious and something rather to block out of the imagination.
Despite the truth about the English Reformation, many Baptists today embrace English separatism themselves like restorationists. It would have to go like this. Roman Catholicism was apostate so Church of England started something over anew, and then the Church of England wasn’t legitimate, so English Baptists dissented and began themselves something novel, fresh, and disconnected. They were against trying to restore something lost. They embrace that concept by saying nothing of perpetuity or succession exists, except, probably said in a whispery tone, within Roman Catholicism.
Bogus Attack on Successionism
I understand the attack on successionism. It’s akin to throwing the game board. If you can’t win, then nobody wins. The harsh and vitriolic attack on the Trail of Blood idea found in the pamphlet, The Trail of Blood, irks those with no perpetuity, no succession, and no authority. They don’t want anyone embracing it, so they deny it all and then leave scorched earth behind it. And what do these men leave everyone with? It’s not pretty.
Our church will not fellowship with restorationists. We cannot legitimize that view of the world or reality. Based on presuppositions and suitable enough history, restorationism can’t be true. I believe it is a different Jesus, not in a salvific way, but because the actual true Jesus of the Bible does keep the church intact and fulfill His promises.
How does restorationism or the like fulfill a biblical view of God’s sovereignty? With His love, wisdom, and power, He just allowed true churches to die everywhere. How did they come back? In most instances, they would say from infant sprinklers who embraced a state church and much other doctrine and practical error. None of this is biblical or true.
What Does the Apostle Paul Mean When He Says “One Body”?
The Terminology “One Body”
The Apostle Paul uses the two words “one body” eleven times in his epistles. Theologians, teachers, and others have perverted the meaning of the expression, “one body,” through the years, reading into it something not there. They over complicate it to see one of their presuppositions and twist it like a gumby doll.
The word “one” does not always mean “numeric one.” Very often, especially in the New Testament and in Paul’s writings, it means “unified one.” Let me give you an example of numeric one, such as a single or singular person, place, or thing, and then a unified one. One can express unity. The people were one, means they were completely together. I am not a Phillies fan, but if I said the Philadelphia Phillies were one team, I am not saying that there is a single Phillies ball club. I’m saying that the team has unity. That’s how Paul uses the term. It’s obvious he uses it that way.
Usage of “One”
In the English, the word “one” is used 1,967 times in the Bible. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That is a usage of numeric one. He is saying, not a single jot or tittle will pass from the law. That incidentally is the first usage of “one” in the entire New Testament. Luke writes in Acts 19:34:
But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
This does not mean that this crowd of people had a single voice. They had several voices, but unified voices, so one voice. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 15:6:
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To the church at Rome to whom Paul wrote, he says, “ye,” referring to its plural members, excluding himself. He says that these many, plural people have “one mind” and “one mouth.” Do you think that only one, single mind and one, single mouth existed in Rome? No. Of course not. Yet, you don’t have people saying that there is a universal, invisible mystical mind or a universal, invisible mystical mouth. Maybe they do in a mind science cult, but this does not exist in the actual, real world.
Usage of “One Body”
Colossians 3:15
Now let’s consider the terminology “one body,” which expresses the unity of each church in its context. I want us to consider Colossians 3:15 first, because it eliminates the concept that “one body” is one universal, invisible body. Paul writes:
And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
The Apostle Paul does use the pronoun “we” sometimes and includes himself, but one should not assume that he is saying that he is in the same one body as his audience. When he uses “ye” here, he excludes himself. He says, “your hearts,” “ye are called,” and “be ye thankful.” He could have phrased all this with “we” in it, but he didn’t. Instead, he says, “ye are called in one body.” If this was singular “one body,” referring to a big universal church to which all believers were members, he should not exclude himself, and yet he does. Why? He is addressing the church at Colossae. The “one body” was their church.
The context of this statement in Colossians 3:15 goes back a long ways to say that the church there is neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, etc. In other words, they are now no longer separate tribes, but all one there. Paul says, “be merciful, kind, longsuffering, etc. (v. 12), forbear, forgive, don’t quarrel (v. 13), put on charity, which is a bond (v. 14), so that peace rules in your hearts (v. 15). All these factors lead to unity — in other words, “one body.” Paul instructs them in having a unified body, a church with unity, which God and he both want.
1 Corinthians 12:12
The context of 1 Corinthians 12 is that the church at Corinth has many members and, therefore, many varied offices and gifts. The one Holy Spirit (which is numeric one with an allusion to unity, the one Holy Spirit causes oneness) actually creates this diversity in the church by dividing up or assigning varied spiritual gifts to the members. With this kind of variation, how is there harmony, oneness? Well, first there is one Spirit. He can bring oneness, since He isn’t going to contradict Himself.
As an analogy, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:12:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
“The body is one.” Here he speaks of the actual human body in a generic sense. “The body” is the human body. Question: Is the singular “the body” here particular or generic or is it an invented usage of the singular, “mystical”? It isn’t particular, because Paul is not speaking of a a particular person’s body. It is generic because every body has members or body parts. Each body on earth has always been one, a defining or true aspect of what it means to be a body. It isn’t a body any more when a finger is over here, an ear is in another zip code, and each toe finds itself in a different county.
The Human Body as a Metaphor
I want to emphasize again. Please pay attention here. “The body” is the human body. Human body. Think anatomy and physiology. The “ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the knee bone.” The skeleton does not do the skeleton dance if the ankle bone is not in fact connected to the leg bone. All those joints must connect for the body to work in unity. (Take a deep breath.)
What Paul writes actually contradicts the idea of a universal body. Part of a body being a body is proximity. It is all together in one location. “The body” is not a particular human body, but speaks of any and every human body in a generic fashion. Not only is the human body one, but the human body has many members or body parts. “Members” means “body parts.” Paul uses the human body to illustrate the unity and diversity of a church. Even though the body has many members, it is still one, that is, it is still unified. Every member works together. They must because it is one body. This is not teaching a universal church.
Not Singular One, But Unified One
For being such a prominent doctrine among evangelicals, Paul doesn’t ever mention a universal church. If it existed, he could have easily clarified it. What universal church proponents do is take these “one body” passages and the like, which are unity passages, and they read into them a universal church. This messes up the interpretation or meaning of the entire passage by forcing this non-existent concept into the passage. People will very often do almost whatever it takes to get their doctrine into the Bible, that isn’t there on its own.
When Paul implies, “Christ is one body,” there is a sense of “numeric one,” but it still communicating “unified one” as the primary usage here. Body parts still unify, still operate as one, function together, because of the oneness, the unity of the body. The church at Corinth divided over its gifts. Get this. The church at Corinth divided over its gifts. It’s like a body dividing over its various body parts. That doesn’t happen with a body even though it has various body parts. It still works together. That is what Paul is saying!!
Paul is saying nothing about a universal, mystical body of believers. He is talking about the unity of the church at Corinth and in a generic fashion, the unity of every church. Even though each church has many members, it is one body. That is the reality of a body. Each body is one.
People Will Still Argue
I really do assume that people will still argue over this, because their universal body concept is so precious to them for whatever reason. They want to keep that Platonic “all believers” concept intact. It has no practical ramification at all and doesn’t fit what Paul is teaching, but they still call it the prime meaning of these unity texts. While there is no biblical unity (like that of a human body) between all professing believers, they still begrudgingly use it. Meanwhile, they ruin what’s in the text itself to help out a church. Churches lose an important unity text to preserve a false doctrine.
Why do people need to keep this false concept of a universal body? I believe there are a lot of reasons. It isn’t grammar or syntax or the plain meaning of the text. No, it is something outside of the Bible. The chief reason, I believe, and this is an opinion, but with a large sample size, is that people can live freely without constraint to an actual church. They become a free-floating entity beholden to no one and without authority. It is a good vehicle to take for rebellion. It means not submitting to anything but a mystical Christ, who they shape into the Jesus they want Him to be.
I’m going to stop here, because I believe you get the message. This is what each of Paul’s “one body” texts are about. They are about the unity of individual churches. They all happen the same way, just like the unity of a human body in the body metaphor that Paul uses.
The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church (part two)
The Part Played By Religious Persecution
Under Roman auspices, Judaism persecuted the church at Jerusalem right after its beginning in the first century. Both were Jewish, the religion of Israel and the church, and the Roman Empire didn’t distinguish between the two. To Rome, the church was a mere sect of the Jewish religion. With more conversion to Christ and the spread of churches across the then-known world, Rome began persecuting churches across its Empire.
Subservience to Jesus Christ threatened allegiance to Rome. This replayed in future centuries under nations and other governments where states required devotion and sought to eliminate their competition. The Roman Empire became steeped in polytheism, including worship of the Roman emperor. This clashed with New Testament churches of the first century, threatening the Roman view of the world and presaging an uprising.
As Christianity began to spread, it faced increasing hostility from both local populations and the Roman state, which viewed it as a challenge to traditional religious practices and societal norms. The need for cohesion became paramount as churches sought to protect themselves from external threats. The decentralized nature of early and biblical Christianity, characterized by local congregations each led by a single bishop, seemed inadequate to address the challenges posed by the power of the secular government.
Consolidation of Power and Pragmatism
Leaders of churches consolidated power into prominent pastors and churches, leading to a hierarchy among churches and their elders. This resulted in the emergence of bishops who could oversee multiple congregations and coordinate responses to persecution, thereby fostering a sense of unity across different regions. They reinvented church government by adding layers of extra scriptural authority, in part so they could disseminate information more efficiently regarding threats across regions to cope with persecution.
Newly conceived extra-scriptural and hierarchical networks organized mutual support among churches to share resources, send aid to persecuted members, or coordinate collective actions against oppressive measures imposed by local authorities of the Roman Empire. The idea here was that New Testament government wasn’t suitable to face its opposition. This new type of government was superior and more efficient. Rather than biblical, it was pragmatic. To defend this pragmatism with scripture necessitated reassigning new definitions to the already plain meaning of the text of the New Testament.
Altering Scriptural Roles
The term “bishop” (from the Greek word episkopos, meaning overseer) began to be used to describe leaders who had authority over multiple congregations. This altered the scriptural role of the bishop over only his congregation, not other pastors and churches. Nothing substantial in the first two centuries in historical writings advocates for something more than local leadership of pastors in separate churches. Since Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, the church at Rome took on prominence in this new iteration of ecclesiological organization.
Skilled and successful pastors, actual ones, shepherding their congregations according to the New Testament could become marked for higher authority in these newly devised positions. Bigger is very often thought to be better. Seeking for greater things meant something beyond local only, even if that’s what the Lord Jesus Christ started and the New Testament taught. Men rationalized these new offices with a need to help the churches. They could both complement and supplement the churches in a protective and helpful manner. This meant though also deferring to these more powerful offices.
Human government doesn’t tend toward shrinking. The tendency is toward something bigger and even intrusive, exerting power over people. Many suggest that Nicolaitism represented an early form of clerical hierarchy where church leaders exercised dominion over laypeople. Etymological analysis supports this notion. When breaking down “Nicolaitan” into Greek components, it means “conquering” (nike) and “people” (laos), implying a conquering authority over the laity. Revelation 2:6 and 15 chronicle the rise of Nicolaitism in the first century.
Defenses of New Positions and Perverting Doctrine
New theories emerged about the nature of the church to justify innovations in governance of churches. All of this, men deemed, would work better, but it meant finding this in scripture too. The Petrine theory emerged from passages in the New Testament, particularly Matthew 16:18-19, saying that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock upon which He will build His church. This presented Peter with a unique role among the apostles.
The concept of apostolic succession began to develop, suggesting that Peter, as one of Jesus’ closest disciples, passed on his authority to his successors in Rome. Early ecclesiastical leaders such as Irenaeus and Clement of Rome acknowledged a connection between Peter and the bishopric of Rome. They deemed regional power over churches like the apostles. In his writings, Against the Heretics (3:3:2), Irenaeus writes:
We point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
Irenaeus held up Polycarp as an example of apostolic succession. By the late second century, figures like Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged the special status of the church in Rome due to its association with Peter and Paul. This recognition laid groundwork for later claims about papal authority.
More to Come
The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church
The New Testament Meaning of Church
God revealed His Word, which is the special revelation of every and all of His Words by God the Spirit through human authors. Those words communicate plainly the will of God to man, including the nature of the church. The church is what scripture says it is through its cumulative usages in the New Testament. What the Bible says the church is, is what it is, regardless of what occurs in the world or what men may say or have said that it is.
The New Testament shows that in its rudimentary sense, the church is local only. The underlying Greek word, ekklesia, means “assembly.” The church is an assembly. It is always an assembly and that’s what the word means. Even if the New Testament addresses the doctrine of the church in a generic way, a church is still what it is, an assembly. And yet today, people will say and have said that the church is mainly not an assembly, but a mystical or spiritual universal entity, not local or visible. How did this happen? It didn’t start out that way.
Historical Theology
Historical Theology or the History of Christian Doctrine can show the changes in the meaning of words and doctrine. The meaning of ekklesia and the doctrine of the church changed from its usage and teaching in the New Testament. The church changed into something it was into something it was not and is not. More than changing, outside influences through history actually perverted the meaning of church and the doctrine of the church.
The history of Christian doctrine tells a story of external factors. One of the values of historical theology is chronicling the culture of the world, governments, and other societal elements that affected the beliefs of Christianity. External factors have affected the interpretation, meaning, and doctrine of God’s Word. Instead of reading out the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, people read into the text something not in it. This is another attack on scripture by Satan and the world system.
How Changes Occurred
One of the benefits of studying the history of Christian doctrine is investigating the changes in doctrine and how they occurred. Outside circumstances affected how people understood the biblical writings and their teaching. False teaching also begets more false teaching. A major component to change is fear. The Roman Empire opposed Christianity in the first three centuries and people adapted their belief and practice out of fear. Scripture reveals how that fear can and will modify what people will believe.
In addition, teachers of scripture mix biblical teaching with human philosophies, such as Platonism and mysticism. Through the decades and centuries since Christ, students of scripture allowed the influence of other writings to affect their understanding of the Bible. Traditions sometimes took precedent over sound exegesis of the biblical text. Predominant teachers held greater sway in the minds of people. Powerful men put their thumb on the scale of their preferred scholars and instructors, giving them an oversized impact on contemporary thinking.
Once John finished writing the book of Revelation in the late first century, which completed the New Testament and the canon of scripture, apostolic authority ceased. Scripture stood as the final authority. Also, authoritative leaders were in individual churches, not anything greater than that. The New Testament shows no hierarchy. Pastor and deacons were the only church officers. The pastor presided over their prospective, individual churches, each under Jesus Christ. Individual churches would fellowship with other churches of like faith and practice.
Just Individual Churches
The New Testament shows that churches cooperated with one another in non authoritative ways. They passed around the New Testament books (Galatians 1:2, Colossians 4:16). Churches met together to settle disputes with one another (Acts 15). A church would host and provide hospitality to those traveling from other churches (3 John). Several different churches might send funds to help out another church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). An individual church would send support to a missionary from another church (Philippians 4).
According to the New Testament, no other church had authority over another church. Jesus was the Head of each church and accomplished that headship through scripture. The demarcation between churches could and did impede the spread of false doctrine. No evidence exists in the New Testament of one church having authority over another. The spirit of the New Testament is serving one another (Philip 2:1-5, Eph 5:21, Matt 20:25-28), not domination over one another.
Authority in Individual Churches
God gives authority to pastors over individual congregations and nothing greater than that (Hebrews 13:7,17, 1 Peter 5:1-3, Titus 2:15, 1 Timothy 5:17). Even the pastors with authority over their individual, separate churches (assemblies) also are themselves under the authority of their churches (1 Timothy 5:19-20). After the end of the apostolic era, this is all someone sees in the New Testament. Apostles had authority greater than one church, but no one else. The apostle Paul still submitted to church authority though, the authority of the single church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
What drew together the churches of the New Testament into unity was having the same Head, Jesus, the same source of authority, scripture, and an identical gospel, means of salvation. Jesus calls His church, “my church,” in Matthew 16:18. He congregation distinguished itself from other assemblies by the means expressed by Him in the Gospels and then through His inspired followers in the rest of the New Testament. Churches could become something less than or other than a church or a true church, like the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-21.
Separate Churches Protecting Doctrine and Practice
When Jesus wanted to bring back a church toward Him, so that it didn’t become a Laodicean church, He worked through individual messengers through an inspired message. He didn’t operate through a greater hierarchical system. One can understand how that having a so-called catholic church with hierarchical authority could bring immediate and widespread false doctrine, heresy, and apostasy. With the head corrupted, everything below it would corrupt too. The autonomy of individual churches could protect the truth using the means given only to individual churches.
Separate churches could protect the doctrine and practice of the church through separation. God gave each church pastors to protect the separate church and church discipline. Church discipline could not operate through anything greater than a single church. It was designed for one church. The Lord’s Table was given to a separate church, which had accountability with its own membership. Body parts function in one location with the witness of all the other parts. Parts of a body do not work together outside of a single locale, which is what “body” itself communicates.
Body, Local
The Apostle Paul in defining the body, didn’t say “we are the body,” but “ye are the body,” excluding himself (1 Corinthians 12:27). That didn’t mean Paul wasn’t himself in a body. He was, even as he says in Romans 12:5. The oneness of a body though is in a particular body, not in bodies spread out all over the globe. Unity occurs in churches, which were given by Christ the means to do so.
With the plain understanding of church in the New Testament, how did other teaching develop through the centuries? This is a story and strongly relates to a few significant factors. Judaism and then the Roman Empire persecuted the first church and then the churches proceeding from that church. Judaism crossed regional boundaries and the Roman Empire was itself spread over the then known world. The Roman Empire was mammoth and with tremendous military and political power. It threatened the very existence of the first churches that started across its empire.
More to Come
Globalism and Relativism Run Amok in the Courts
Two Recent District Court Cases
Two recent United States district court cases provide a case study on globalism and relativism run amok in the courts of the United States. These offer another example of the disintegration of the West. I expect criticism for even addressing this issue, which dovetails with the actual issue itself. Globalism and relativism are biblical content to which scripture provides guidance. It is not out of my apparent area of expertise.
For the first example, the Trump White House invoked the Alien Enemies Act for removing alleged members of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members to an El Salvadoran prison. Washington DC district judge James Boasberg, Obama appointee, ordered the deportation planes turned around in order to give these illegal immigrants their due process rights. Legal experts call these injunctions. Courts have issued thirty of these injunctions so far, which is more than they issued against the first forty-two presidents of the United States combined.
In the second example, the U. S. government detained in New Jersey with the purpose of deporting the immigrant Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student activist, before it moved him to an immigration facility in Jena, Louisiana. Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, a district judge of the Southern District of New York issued a court order blocking Khalil’s deportation pending a ruling on his petition.
Immigration, National Defense, and the Executive Branch
Immigration Policy
The defendants in the two cases have in common that neither the alleged gang members nor the Hamas supporting Khalil are citizens of the United States. ABC News reports concerning the Khalil case:
The government has claimed that Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil intentionally misrepresented information on his green card application and therefore is inadmissible to the United States.
According to recent court filings, President Donald Trump’s administration said Khalil failed to disclose when applying for his green card last year that his employment by the Syria Office at the British Embassy in Beirut went “beyond 2022” and that he was a “political affairs officer” for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from June to November 2023.
The executive branch of the United States enforces its immigration laws. Immigration policies directly impact national security by regulating who enters the country. Effective immigration control helps prevent individuals who may pose security risks for the United States.
National Defense
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003 was a significant restructuring of the United States federal government aimed at consolidating various agencies and functions related to national security, particularly in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the events of 9/11, it became clear that there were gaps in communication and coordination among various federal agencies responsible for national security, immigration enforcement, and emergency management.
The United States Constitution assigns the power of the President for national defense. A Department under the President, the Department of Defense (DoD) is primarily focused on military operations and defense against external threats. However, its role in homeland security became increasingly relevant post-9/11. A key goal in forming the DHS was improving information sharing between agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and DoD regarding potential national security threats.
Rights of Citizens
Immigrants in the United States, who are even here legally, do not have the same rights of due process as American citizens. They have certain rights provided by the fifth amendment of the Constitution based on the precedent of decisions of the Supreme Court. No decisions of the Supreme Court have excluded the executive branch from deporting immigrants that are in the United States illegally and especially a threat to the United States.
A Supreme Court case in 1896, Wong Wing et al. v. United States made the simple ruling that protected aliens in the United States from cruel punishment. Another one in 1886, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, etc. and Wo Lee v. Same, said that the United States could not discriminate against aliens in law enforcement because they merely are here as immigrants. Most of you reading know that we should not treat non-citizens exactly the same as citizens.
The Viewpoints of Activist Judges Run Amok
From where or what does the viewpoint come, which would believe that aliens and even illegal ones have the same rights in the United States as its actual legal citizens? These two activist judges abdicate the authority given by the United States Constitution to the executive branch. You can see this occurring at an increased rate and only by a certain category of judges with a particular worldview. Two beliefs or concepts that undergird the injunctions or court actions of these activist judges.
Globalism
One, the above activist judges reveal their globalism versus and superior to nationalism. Globalism refers to an ideology that advocates for the interconnectedness of nations, economies, and cultures, prioritizing international cooperation over national sovereignty. In the context of judicial actions, a globalist agenda manifests when judges interpret laws or make rulings that align more with international norms than with domestic constitutional principles. This can lead to decisions that undermine the traditional separation of powers established by a nation’s constitution.
Nationalism asserts national boundaries, the United States versus other nations. For the United States to keep its national identity, it must protect itself against the intrusion of the rest of the world. The United States operates under its own unique standards and norms. Globalists, on the other hand, make decisions that eliminate national distinctions, opting instead for a broader, more inclusive culture. This also dovetails with multiculturalism, which deems every culture equal with the other, a political form of multiculturalism.
Outside Constitutional Framework
Judges operating outside the constitutional framework interpret laws in ways that extend beyond their original intent. They adopt expansive interpretations of laws that align with global standards or human rights conventions, even if such interpretations conflict with national statutes. They also reference international law or foreign legal precedents as authoritative sources, which can dilute the application of domestic law. When judges prioritize globalist perspectives, it leads to erosion of national sovereignty.
International norms then take precedence over national laws. Based on global standards, courts assume roles traditionally reserved for either the executive or legislative branches. The separation of powers is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. When judges operate under a globalist agenda, they create policy rather than simply interpreting existing laws. Judicial decisions influenced by globalism challenge executive actions, especially those related to immigration and foreign relations, thereby disrupting the balance intended by the separation of powers.
Moral Relativism
Two, the above activist judges embrace some form of moral relativism. They are unwilling to distinguish between Venezuelan criminal gangs and a Hamas supporter. Without objective truth, a judge cannot judge between lies and truth. Truth, goodness, and beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder. These judges make these issues about power. Something is true, good, or beautiful because the powerful say it is and make it to be so. They must use their own levers of power to reconstruct their own opinions or feelings.
Enforcing the borders violates globalism and moral relativism. A government that stops someone’s admission into its country is asserting its national distinction. This offends a globalist view. It also says it can judge something to be better than something else. One culture is worse than another one. But truth and goodness are a construct of power, not absolute and objective. If these judges can continue to act in this way to irrationally stop the rightful function of the nation, this will disintegrate the nation further into chaos.
Recent Comments