Home » Posts tagged 'authority'
Tag Archives: authority
The Horrific Distortion of the Lord Now in Matthew 5:17-20
Related Post Number One Related Post Number Two Related Post Number Three
Perfect Preservation
You required payment from me on a certain future date and I had no money except the exact change for the payment in a large jar. You needed full payment and I had it in the way of coinage. It was all in one large jar, and I said to you:
I truly say to you, until the specified future required date of payment, one dime or one penny shall in no wise pass from this large jar, till the fulfillment of the whole amount of payment.
Anyone hearing this statement could and should acknowledge a promise of preservation of every coin in the large jar until the completion of the payment. One could call this a promise of perfect preservation of the coins. Every coin and all of them will survive or continue within the jar. Of course, the fulfillment of the promise depends on the trustworthiness and veracity of my words. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That sounds like a guarantee to me, and a strong one. When you read the previous and following verses (17 and 19-20), they do not diminish from what Jesus guaranteed in verse 18.
The Veracity of Jesus
The promise of Jesus extends to heaven and earth passing away, which has still not occurred. That event will transpire, but it remains in the future. At this date in the year 2024, heaven and earth continue. With that the case, what would one expect related to the promise of Jesus in Matthew 5:18? Of course, the perfect preservation of every jot and tittle of the law. The context says the law here was (so is) all of scripture. The words “jot” and “tittle” indicate the preservation of all of scripture goes to the very letter.
In my hypothetical for illustration, I promised the perfect preservation of every coin in a large jar. I thought the illustration would enhance an understanding of what Jesus said. The major difference between the two statements, mine and Jesus’, is that what Jesus says is the truth, always. My guarantee even for one generation is not as sure as Jesus’ is. When He promises preservation, you can count on it. He always fulfills His promises.
Jesus is truth, so what He says is always true. He also can make guarantees or promises based upon His divine attributes. He has the power to fulfill what He promises. Because of His omniscience, He also knows already He will fulfill the promise. The quality of what Jesus says depends on His attributes. Since I don’t have those attributes, my promises or guarantees are of a lesser quality than that of Jesus.
Again, in my hypothetical, let’s say that I did lose a few of my coins, so I did not fulfill my promise of perfect preservation of every coin. If that happened, it does not change the meaning of what I promised. Those words continue to mean what they meant when I said them.
High View of Scripture
Perhaps you’ve heard the terminology, “a high view of scripture.” Someone has a high view of scripture when he sees scripture elevated above feelings, man’s thinking, philosophy, tradition, and all other authority. A high view fits within the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 3:4: “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” It follows that scripture is inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, perspicuous, and sufficient.
Someone with a high view of scripture will not and does not change its meaning based on circumstances. God said it, that settles it. That kind of thing. With a high view of scripture, when he reads Matthew 5:18, he takes it at face value. He explains the fulfillment based on what Jesus said and not on what he think may happen. He conforms what happened to what Jesus said and not vice versa. This also means not later changing the meaning to have it fit with how he interprets what happened.
Adapting Circumstances to What Jesus Said
John Lightfoot first wrote From the Talmud and Hebraica between 1658 and 1674. In that book, he writes about Matthew 5:18, and he already considered the repercussions of circumstances of which I speak, saying:
A second question might follow concerning Keri and Kethib: and a suspicion might also arise, that the test of the law was not preserved perfect to one jot and one tittle, when so many various readings do so frequently occur.
Do variant readings nullify what Jesus said? Instead of conforming what Jesus said to the circumstances, which is a low view of scripture, Lightfoot explained variant readings of the text to what Jesus said. John Lightfoot was not questioning or changing the meaning of Matthew 5:18. The teaching on perfect preservation was so indisputable to him, that it need no mention. That is how it reads. Bravo Lightfoot.
What we see occur today horrifically distorts what Jesus said to deprive it of its original meaning. In so doing, men eliminate a promise of preservation in lieu of textual variants. I’ve noticed they even distort much of the meaning of what Jesus said even in the entire sermon, it seems, just to eradicate a promise of perfect preservation of scripture in Matthew.
More to Come
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Three)
Authority of Scripture
To obey God and His Word, one must first believe in His authority and the authority of His Word. I believe in God’s authority and the authority of His Word. True New Testament churches submit to the Bible as their final authority. God and His Word also function through a hierarchy of authority. He uses men. In the first century, God spoke and ruled through apostolic authority. Peter and Paul were uniquely God’s instruments.
The Pharisees and Sadducees opposed the authority of Jesus. Jesus also attacked their faux authority. The Pharisaical view of circumcision and eating with Gentiles arose from their traditions, not from God’s Word. Jesus said, They “teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Their teaching was devoid of God’s authority.
In spite of their insubordination to scripture, Jesus did not debunk the office of the Pharisees, just the opposite in Matthew 23:2: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” According to Jesus, the Pharisees still sat in Moses’ seat. They held the office. They lost authority, however, by not obeying the Word of God, including that written by Moses.
In Galatians, the gang of false teachers, who traveled to Antioch from Jerusalem and said they associated with James, borrowed from the Pharisee’s tradition. These men mixed certain rituals and traditions with a true gospel to concoct their false one. The Apostle Paul writes against them in Galatians 2. They had no authority, either scriptural or ecclesiological, to overturn the doctrine and practice of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches. They looked out for themselves, not for God’s will or pleasure.
Pastoral Authority
God gives pastoral authority. Pastors need it for fulfilling the important God-ordained task of overseeing a church. God instructs members to obey pastors, assuming in scriptural and even non-scriptural matters. Pastors shouldn’t expect obedience to something unscriptural. Someone in a church may view a practice of the church to be unscriptural.
Our church did fundraising for our school. A church member challenged a method we used. He thought it was unscriptural. Our principal didn’t think so. I wasn’t sure. We dropped the method and lost money. It was the right thing to do.
When a pastor says, “I want everyone there at 9am,” that is a non-scriptural matter, but he has authority in it. 9am then means 9am. A member should take that seriously. If he wants everyone there at 9am, everyone should put their selves under that authority, the idea of “submit.” This unifies a body, all the body parts working together. Defying the authority as a pattern fits the definition of factious, even for not showing up on time.
Some of what I’m addressing relates to a pastor dealing with a pattern of disobedience. He wants to help someone. To do so, he comforts, exhorts, instructs, intreats, warns, and admonishes, the approach depending on the person and his response.
To deal with a matter well, a pastor must listen. He must hear a matter before he answers it (Proverbs 18:13). And even then, he wants to edify, correct, strengthen, and restore. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth,” praying to God the Father. The goal is to rely on God’s Word.
Forum for Challenge
Proving Everything
Depending on the Word of God does not mean depending on an opinion about the Word of God. “A pastor thinks this, so it is true.” It might be. I hope it is. However, scripture also says (1 Thess 5:21-22):
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:31-32:
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. A forum for challenge exists in a church. The Bible is the final authority.
Helping People Change
Room to Grow
Certain times I led toward a change of position in our church. Just because I took a new position, I knew that didn’t mean that everyone would believe it. It might take time for everyone to come along. Unity also matters in those occasions. Our church had taken a different position for awhile. I wanted everyone to change, but I didn’t require everyone to change. The bottom line during those times was not causing “divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” (Romans 16:17).
Opinions and what Paul calls doubtful disputations (Rom 14:1) necessitate sorting. Not everyone applies scripture exactly the same. Sanctification occurs and tweaks viewpoints. Every disagreement is not a threat to or defiance of authority. It’s not rebellion. When it takes even pastors years to change on something, they can’t turn around and expect someone else to change in days or hours.
Harmful Approaches
Through many years, I have listened to numbers of various positions of pastors. We almost never agree on everything. Nevertheless, pastors will talk with great confidence and authority when they state their positions. Pastors might treat an issue like they’re Teddy Roosevelt after just climbing San Juan Hill. They’re raising the flag at the top of Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. Bluster and bravado or a stern countenance don’t equate with authority.
I may hear a man mock my position in his preaching, sometimes setting up straw man arguments. I might smile at the audaciousness of it, but mockery is not especially convincing. Calling people a liar definitely doesn’t persuade. Neither does characterizing the difference in an extreme or insulting manner.
Sometimes someone says God gave him peace. He may add, “I prayed about it.” Or, “I fasted over it.” If you disagree, somehow you oppose answers to prayer and the practice of fasting. A man expresses a feeling of peace. Scripture nowhere uses a feeling as a harbinger of truth.
Pastors can find many various means to provoke change. Someone might notice a modulation in the tone of voice. Cheeriness is missing. It isn’t friendly now. The eyelids are half mast. A pastor can send a message in the spirit of mean girl syndrome. Someone in is now out. If a person was a fish, he can’t swim in the small pond anymore. He’s relegated to the smaller adjacent puddle until he apprehends the message sent.
Longsuffering and Patience
“God is longsuffering toward usward” (2 Peter 3:9). “Charity suffereth long” (1 Corinthians 13:4). I think of the fellowservant in Jesus’ story in Matthew 18:29, who cried, “Have patience with me!” I don’t see a biblical pattern of cutting off people with a different position, cancelling them with little to no due process.
A kind of political cancellation and making phone calls, applying social and economic pressure, is not the method of pastoral authority. People will have difficulty seeing Jesus in an environment of possible expectation of punishment. Scriptural conviction can motivate loving service that will please the Lord.
God gives and uses authority. Romans 13:1 says, “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” At the same time, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). Especially church leaders should know that the final judgment of Jesus Christ, that’s what matters. “Ye masters,” forbear “threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven” (Eph 6:9).
Everyone of us will give an account to God (Romans 14:10). And God says, “destroy not him for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). Christ didn’t give authority to take His place as Lord or destroy the people He died for.
More to Come
John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus and Sending Authority in Matthew 3
Paraginomai Versus Ginomai
The Greek verb paraginomai appears only three times in Matthew, an intense or emphatic form of a common verb, ginomai. All three occur in Matthew 2 and 3:
2:1, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”
3:1, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.”
3:13, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.”
The magi, those kingmakers from a powerful far eastern nation, came with royal authority and bringing kingly gifts. Herod recognized their authority. It troubled him. John the Baptist, the forerunner and herald of the King who would sit on the throne of David forever, came heralding or preaching. The King Himself, Jesus, came to begin His work in an official capacity.
Luke 7:20 uses the same unique verb, paraginomai, to describe John the Baptist ascending to his divine task, parallel with Matthew 3:1. The only usage in Mark, 14:43, sees an official, governing body of chief priests, scribes, and elders with Judas coming to arrest Jesus. The Apostle Paul uses paraginomai in 2 Timothy 4:16, saying, “At my first answer no man stood with me.” He described no one joining him in an official capacity in public court. It’s an obviously technical word to denote the function of a person who came into court to defend the accused (John Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles, p. 454).
Official Capacity
The only use of paraginomai in Hebrews (9:11) reads:
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.
This verse describes Christ, the anointed one, come an high priest, so again in a high, official capacity, so with authority. In the New International Commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth says concerning Hebrews 9:11, The use of paraginomai instead of the usual ginomai suggests “an official public appearance” (p. 449). So also Harold Attridge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, commenting on the dramatic nuance of the word (paragenomenos, participle of paraginomai), says, “He has arrived on the heavenly scene as High Priest” (p. 245).
John the Baptist was a man sent (apostello) from God (John 1:6). That verb (“sent,” apostello) is also very technical, expressing the nature of an envoy or an ambassador. Jesus asked (Matthew 21:25), “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The implication in Matthew by Jesus (cf. Mk 11:30, Lk 20:4) was that God authorized the baptism of John. He got it from heaven.
The Lord Jesus came like John with sending authority. Jesus said, “As my Father hath sent (apostello) me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). God also expects sending for all His workers. It’s more than reading the Great Commission, saying you’ve got it because you read in Matthew 28:18-20. That command went to a plural, “Go ye.” One should assume that “ye” meant people in the group. It did not imply that anyone or everyone could go with His authority (“power”). “You” is also plural in John 20:21.
Romans 10:15
The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:15,
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
The word “preach” is kerusso. This is the same word applied to John the Baptist and his preaching. The kerux is someone to announce the Lord’s coming, to give His message, and to prepare the way for Him. Again, Romans 10:15 asks of the plural, “they.” Who “sends” (apostello) “them”? Christ sends as Head of His church.
John the Baptist “came” in an official capacity. God “sent” John in an official capacity. The New Testament uses the same terminology for every believer. How shall they hear without a kerux? How shall they kerusso except they be apostello? God the Father sent John and Jesus directly. Jesus then sends true believers by means of the church. He heads the church. God sends believers only through true churches.
A Special Cast of Characters
Ones Christ sends constitute a special cast of characters and yet not one, not one because it applies to everyone. Every one bringing glad tidings or the gospel of peace should be and must be sent. That should be every member of a church, a member of Christ’s body with Him as Head.
As a personal example, individual churches sent my wife and I. A true church sent us in 2020 from California to Oregon. The same true church sent us in 2021 from Oregon to Utah. In 2022, a true church in Utah sent us from Utah to Indiana. The church in Indiana sent us for a few months to England at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023 Since February 22, 2023, my wife and I function as heralds with authority of or from our church in Indiana. We requested and received letters, which we possess, from three total churches in all this (California, Utah, and Indiana).
God sent John. He came. Sent and came are unique words of sending. God sent Jesus. He came. The same pattern applies to the work of every true believer.
How serious would you take the sending of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? If the United States of America authorized you for a legitimate task, would you acknowledge the honor bestowed? Can you recognize the greater honor of the Lord Jesus sending you through a true church?
Trail of Blood and Landmarkism
Men use the terms “Trail of Blood” and “Landmarkism” as a kind of mockery, almost never with evidence. They use them in the same manner as calling someone a “Flat Earther.” If I said I was “Trail of Blood” and “Landmark,” what would I mean? Should I embrace those terms in light of potential derision?
Trail of Blood
“Trail of Blood” refers to a booklet written by James Milton Carroll in 1931. Carroll did not originate the words “trail of blood” as referring to the persecution of churches. Others before used “trail of blood” to describe the ongoing record of atrocities of Roman Catholicism through the centuries in its opposition to the truth. I like the metaphor of Carroll, which is saying that you can detect true churches in the historical record through findings of state church persecution.
Carroll would say that the trail of blood started with the Lord Jesus Christ and that suffering marks the trajectory of true churches. I use this exact language all the time, “There have always been true churches separate from the state church.” I also ask this question, “Do you believe the truth was preserved in and through Roman Catholicism?” Men find it difficult to answer “yes” to that question. If they answer, “No,” then they essentially take a Trail of Blood position. I say, “Well, then we take the same position, don’t we?”
Whitsitt Controversy and English Separatism
Opposition to the Trail of Blood started with a liberal president of the Southern Baptist Convention, William Whitsitt (read here, here, here, and here). The work of Whitsitt is less famous than Carroll’s Trail of Blood, but if someone does not accept the Trail of Blood, his other option is called, “English Separatism.” Can we mock someone as “English Separatist”? The Trail of Blood position predates the English Separatist one. If someone rejects Trail of Blood, he is left with the Roman Catholic position on church perpetuity or succession. He denies the promise of Jesus, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
Whitsitt took from his European training a modernistic view of truth. He wrote and said that if it does not have primary source historical evidence, it isn’t true. From this, Whitsitt said that the earliest Baptist churches trace from 1610 in England.
A split occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention over Whitsitt. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under the presidency of B. H. Carroll started in a major way because of the Whitsitt controversy. Most Southern Baptists then distinguished themselves from Protestants. Carroll’s brother wrote Trail of Blood.
The Application of Modernistic Historicism
Did you know a historical gap exists between the completion of the New Testament and the doctrine of justification? With that historical position, justification did not exist until after the Protestant Reformation. No primary source evidence exists for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. I’ve been to Bethlehem in the Palestinian West Bank area, and the best historical evidence outside of scripture for Jesus’ birth is secondary and vague. It starts around 325 with Constantine’s mother Helena visiting there.
The mockery designated for Trail of Blood reminds me of the mockery by scientists of a God Hypothesis and intelligent design. Trail of Blood is true, but it is institutionally inconvenient. Intelligent design or a God Hypothesis puts people out of business. Trail of Blood is a strict ecclesiological position that undermines free-floating free agents, who function outside of church authority, like for instance, Alpha and Omega ministries. “Ministries” function outside of a church, not something we read in the Bible, and cross denominational lines on a regular basis.
Landmarkism
The attack on Landmarkism dovetails with the one on Trail of Blood. Landmarkism did not originate local-only ecclesiology. The Landmark movement began in the Southern Baptist Convention because of an ecumenical drift in the Convention. Modernism began affecting the Convention. Compromise grew. Baptist churches began allowing Presbyterians in their pulpit and accepted their “baptism” for transfer of church membership. The Landmarkers stood against this.
The Landmarkers believed local-only ecclesiology like most of the Southern Baptists in the middle 19th century, but they stressed and influenced a stronger practice. They rejected what they called, “alien immersion,” baptism without proper authority. They were saying, “Don’t accept Presbyterian baptism,” or any other Protestant baptism. The Protestants arose from Roman Catholicism with a continuation of state church doctrine. Baptist churches should reject their baptism, Landmarkers claimed, practiced, and encouraged all Baptists to join that.
Many today define Landmarkism with a giant falsehood. They say Landmarkism is chain-link succession of Baptist churches. Furthermore, they say that Landmarkism requires proof of a chain-link succession of Baptist churches all the way to the Jerusalem church. That is not what Landmarkism is.
In a more simple way, you should understand Landmarksim as, first, since Christ, true New Testament churches always existed separate from the state church. Second, churches start churches. Third, baptism requires a proper administrator. Authority is a matter of faith, but scripture recognizes the importance of it. It does not proceed from Roman Catholicism, so it also does not come from Protestantism.
Authority isn’t arbitrary. It is real and it is somewhere. We should not eliminate it. This arises from the rebellion of men’s hearts. Men don’t want authority, especially church authority. I see this as the primary cause of the controversy over Landmarkism and the Trail of Blood.
The Seriousness of Religious Authority As Illustrated by Russia and Ukraine
Some reading may have heard that the Russia invasion of Ukraine relates to the religion in these two countries. They might consider it a religious war. I will go back to give perspective on this issue and then dovetail with something from the last few days.
No one has more authority than God. In fact, God possesses all authority and any group has authority only because of God. To say that you have authority means that you function for God and even speak for God. People who want to stay in good standing with God will do what God’s authority says. It’s like God telling them. Disobeying this authority, since it is from God, is disobeying God. This could also relate to someone’s eternal destiny, this often going along with the authority claim.
The true church authorized by Jesus Christ, the only church, is local only. Jesus started it in Jerusalem in the first century during His earthly life as seen in Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-17. The New Testament book of Acts records that first church reproduced other assemblies with scripture as their sole authority. The Lord Jesus Christ gave the true church authority, autonomy, with Him as the Head of each true church (Eph 1:22, 5:23, Col 1:18).
A true church has authority. It is serious enough that Jesus says the church looses and binds (Matthew 16:9, 18:18). It makes authoritative declarations as to whether someone is in the church or out. If someone is loosed, the true church regards him as unsaved. When the church sends someone out of the church, 1 Corinthians 5 says the church delivers this person unto Satan (5:5). These are true or real occurrences. They aren’t games being played. It’s very serious.
HISTORY
In the fourth century AD a counterfeit church arose in Rome. It claimed Christ’s authority through a bogus declaration of Petrine successionism (Petrine Theory). This spurious organization with the influence of Roman Emperor Constantine turned the church into a state church, the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal. One could place the date at 313AD with the Edict of Milan, 325 with the Council of Nicea, 337 with the baptism of Constantine, or 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica. This institution, which preached a false gospel, claimed an authority it did not possess.
Nevertheless, for purposes of rule, Constantine split the empire into East and West in 330AD and the empire divided after the death of Theodosius I in 395AD. Roman Catholicism was still unified until it split into two in 1054, the Great Schism. The Orthodox Church (called Eastern Orthodox) formed from the division. The schism much related to authority, as the Eastern Church rejected the infallibility and unique authority of the Pope.
The authority of Eastern Orthodoxy describes itself a fellowship of self-headed churches, the term “autocephalous.” Orthodox churches recognize the preeminence of Constantinople, called the primacy of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. This means Constantinople is a first among equals. The Orthodox hold that God’s authority passes down directly to Orthodox bishops and clergy through the laying on of hands. They consider this apostolic succession and each Orthodox. Each bishop has a territory, called a “see,” that he governs.
Roman Catholicism invented its own authority by procuring a non-existent apostleship. Eastern Orthodox then appropriated it as its own. It’s difficult to estimate, but stats say 1.3 billion Roman Catholics and 220 million Orthodox in the world, top two of Christendom in numbers. Neither of them possess authority. When they talk about authority, it’s not true. They say they have it. They don’t. Yet, if a religious organization says it is from God, we shouldn’t be surprised when it acts like it has authority.
Of all the autocephalous churches of the Orthodox by far the largest is the Russian Orthodox with over 100 million. It is known as the Moscow Patriarchate. This Orthodox church started when the early, original Russian prince, Vladimir I, was baptized by the Patriarchy of Constantinople in 988. The center of Russian Orthodoxy was Kyiv. It remained under Constantinople authority until 1488, when it moved to Kyiv as an autocephalous church. The Russian Orthodox Church relocated then to Moscow in 1686 when the region of Kyiv came under authority of the Tsars there.
I zoom forward to the period after the Soviet Union. The atheistic Soviet Empire swallowed religions. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church emerged again. Alexy Ridiger first became Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1990. This continued under Patriarch Kirill in 2009, who remains in that position.
CONSIDERING AMILLENNIALISM
Not only did and does the Roman Catholic Church not have authority, but it operates with a corrupt system of interpretation of scripture. The Eastern Orthodox and its autocephalous churches continued that system of allegorization or spiritualization of the Bible. These denominations within Christendom rationalized themselves with an eschatological and ecclesiological program called amillennialism.
According to amillennialism, the kingdom of God exists on earth in the present age in a universal church, a kind of spiritualized nation Israel. In the Old Testament passages about Israel, someone can read in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. With amillennialism a nation can function like one that authoritatively enforces the precepts of the Bible as seen through the lens of church authority. This explains a Christian holy war fought on behalf of the church.
Amillennialism says there is no literal millennium where Christ comes to rule for a thousands years on the earth. The “a” of amillennialism means “no,” as in “no millennium.” This view allowed for a state church that functioned like a kingdom.
An inquisition that tortures or puts to death heretics also comes from authority allowed by an amillennial eschatology. The church does the work of God by punishing sinners and implementing what God said.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople, the foremost of the autocephalous churches, gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox. This formed a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, taking the jurisdiction of the Ukraine, the region of original Russia and the initial Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarch of Moscow. Not all of the Orthodox Churches operate under the authority of the Ukrainian Patriarch but under the Moscow Patriarch, who now is Patriarch Kirill.
The Associated Press reported that just this week Kirill came out in support of the invasion of Ukraine by saying the following:
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, leader of Russia’s dominant religious group, has sent his strongest signal yet justifying his country’s invasion of Ukraine — describing the conflict as part of a struggle against sin and pressure from liberal foreigners to hold “gay parades” as the price of admission to their ranks.
Kirill, a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, had already refrained from criticizing the Russian invasion – alienating many in the Ukrainian Orthodox churches who had previously stayed loyal to the Moscow patriarch during a schism in their country. Several of these former loyalists are now snubbing Kirill in their public prayers, with some demanding independence from the Moscow church even as their country’s political independence is imperiled.
Kirill, in a sermon delivered Sunday before the start of Orthodox Lent, echoed Putin’s unfounded claims that Ukraine was engaged in the “extermination” of Russian loyalists in Donbas, the breakaway eastern region of Ukraine held since 2014 by two Russian-backed separatist groups. [He] focused virtually all of his talk about the war on Donbas — with no mention of Russia’s widespread invasion and its bombardment of civilian targets.
Kirill on Sunday depicted the war in spiritual terms.
“We have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance,” he said.
He contended that some of the Donbas separatists were suffering for their “fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.”
He claimed that this unnamed world power is posing a “test for the loyalty” of countries by demanding they hold gay pride parades to join a global club of nations with its own ideas of freedom and “excess consumption.”
God holds all authority. When He looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, he saw the corrupt lifestyles. This included homosexual or same sex activity. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Within the nation Israel, God expected punishment of death upon such behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20.
The fall of communism in Russia left a vacuum of authority the Russian Orthodox Church filled. Putin had become antagonistic to communism. The Russian Orthodox Church filled that void in harmony with his nationalistic thinking. This mirrors such a historical figure as Henry VIII in England in his role in the Anglican Church. He put many opponents to death. This arose from a belief held called “the divine right of Kings.” Henry was also the head of the state church in England, which like the Russian Orthodox, borrowed from the amillennialism of Roman Catholicism.
Putin may rationalize his acts according to an Eastern worldview. He sees the corruption, decline, and decay of the West. The West in hypocritic fashion commits its own barbaric acts by murdering its own children through abortion. Putin sees a Ukraine following in the trajectory of the West with its gay parades and then its separation from the state religion of Russia. Kirill expresses this. Many Russians still dwell in the Ukraine both ethnically but also religiously. They still submit to the Moscow Patriarchy.
I’m not saying I support Putin’s position, just that this is a matter of authority. God is still on the throne. He’s not ruling through the Russian Orthodox, but its strong adherents at least admit that God rules in some manner. They follow a historical position without a biblical basis. This is not inferior to those who do not give acquiescence in any way to God’s authority, even if they see themselves as having superior values.
RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY
God reigns. Authority exists. The United States and Western nations reject Divine authority. They face consequences for their rebellion.
The Orthodox do not possess genuine Divine authority, but many of them recognize it exists. Indications of belief in Divine authority appear all over historical monuments of the United States. It is seen in the founding documents. Statements like “In God we trust” evince these foundations. Even if a nation stops acknowledging the authority of God, it is still subject to His reign.
LDS Visions or Revelations a Consideration for Their Danger as a Source of Authority for Everyone Else, Including Baptists
The visions or revelations of Joseph Smith came about in America at a time in this country when many others were receiving their own visions or revelations, paving the way for Smith’s and the acceptance of his by others. The United States was a land of equality, equal opportunity, and populism. It despised a king and state religion. It liked, loved really, democratic society, where everyone’s voice was heard, and it was, therefore, acceptable to get your own personal revelation from God as a part of your personal relationship with God. That spirit is still very alive in America. Americans distrust their own institutions and this is woven into the fabric of being an American. That includes the institution of the church.
In early nineteenth century, especially on the frontier, people operated in many unconventional ways, depending on superstitions in medicine, farming, and predicting the weather. It was not unusual to use dowsing to find water with a special, forked stick. People could see signs everywhere, giving them guidance from above or within. Snake oil salesman got their name in this era, literally selling snake oil, promising cures to almost anything, circumventing the conventional manner of tending to one’s health.
Joseph Smith was 14 years of age when he had his first vision or revelation from God, and the Smiths, Joseph Smith Sr. and mom, Lucy, weren’t members of a church. Joseph Jr. didn’t come up with the idea of getting visions. It was a thing to have. Only special people had them.
The Smiths couldn’t find a church they liked or agreed with, were still looking, and then Joseph ‘heard from God’ that there was no true church to join. Convenient. Churches have set beliefs and if you are a rank and file non-clergy, you might disagree, your opinion probably doesn’t count for much, and you don’t have a means of having your own in those situations. You might not want the church doctrines and practices imposed on you and also their financial obligations. You want a church where perhaps everyone could share, like is seen in the first church in Jerusalem in Acts chapters 2 and 5. That’s what churches should do, accept your way and then take care of you with little expectation.
On top of everything above, even though there was freedom, it was tough to navigate the new world, especially if you were not born into wealth, grinding it out to earn a living. Many made it through subsistence farming, sometimes succeeding, perhaps enough to invest in a cockamamie get-rich-quick scheme, lose everything and start over again. People still are very allured by the suggestion of some easier path to success, willing to subject themselves to whatever comes along that promises to work better, reinventing the wheel.
Joseph Smith lived in an environment, a culture, that someone could believe that God was talking to him directly. All of the new, astounding doctrines and practices of LDS came by this manner, contradicting doctrines and practices hitherto already established in the history of Christianity: the preexistence of human souls or spirits, God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood, celestial marriage, polygamy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same being, God organized the world but did not create it from nothing, and proxy baptism for dead people. It was also revealed to him through a story that all of these beliefs were the original truth that had been lost and buried for 1400 years. On many occasions, Joseph Smith and then other Mormon leaders received revelations at a time that fit whatever it was they needed to hear from God to make a pronouncement to deal with that situation.
Matthew Bowman writes in The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith (pp. 10-12):
The Smiths had unwittingly moved into an ideal location for a family with unresolved spiritual yearnings, the center of what one historian has called “the antebellum spiritual hothouse” and another “the burned-over district.” . . . . The optimism, instability, and freedom of the New York frontier were life’s blood to the eclecticism and experimentation always to be found at the margins of mainstream Christianity. The Shakers, for instance, so named for their physical worship services, had fled to America from a disapproving Britain under the leadership of Ann Lee, whom they believe to be Christ reincarnated. In the United States, they found fertile ground for both converts and settlement, and in 1826 they established a colony less than thirty miles from Palmyra. . . . North of Albany, the farmer William Miller sat by the fire in his home in Low Hampton, New York, feverishly working out the precise date of the Second Coming from the book of Daniel for his thousands of followers, who were convinced that they needed no trained pastors to interpret scripture for them.
But the Smiths had always been drawn — particularly Lucy — not to such visionaries but to the more mainstream ecstasies of evangelical revivalism. The force behind revivalism was the Methodists, who . . . urged potential converts to embrace Christ in a personal divine encounter. At Methodist camp meetings, itinerant preachers, though frequently uneducated and even unlettered, learned how to muse the Holy Spirit among their listeners. Between rousing and sometimes raucous gospel hymns, they offered not prepared sermon on doctrinal topics but emotional appeals, promising forgiveness, warning of hell, reaching their hands to the heavens, and pleading with the crowd to leave sin behind and walk forward to be saved in the arms of Christ. . . . “Men are so spiritually sluggish,” declared Charles Grandison Finney, the great revivalist of the age, “that they must be so excited that they will break over their countervailing influences before they will obey God.” Finney’s talents shone in a month-long revival in 1830-31 in Rochester, a few miles from Palmyra, in which he converted hundreds. . . .
The sort of spiritual manifestations the Smith family had already experienced were not new to most revivalists. Portentous dreams were common particularly among itinerant Methodist preachers, as were the type of healings and providential manifestations Lucy had experienced. . . .
It was in this atmosphere that Joseph Jr., then a young teenager, began thinking about religion.
The ecstasies and visions of revivalism were the seedbed or hothouse for Joseph Smith and the new religion. What makes this acceptable? Some might say, because what they revealed was not false. I don’t know that they can say, that what they’re saying is in fact true. How do you know it’s true, if it is? Someone could say, it’s scriptural. Well, then you don’t need a vision or a revelation from God. It’s already in the Bible. If cannot be proven to be false, then it is an acceptable vision or revelation.
If someone can hear revelations from God, how do those differentiate from scripture? If they are from God, that is equal to scripture. One cannot accept visions and revelations as from God. That opens up Pandora’s box. It’s not acceptable. And yet it is today. You really can’t question it. You’ve got to accept whatever version of it. How does a LDS today distinguish evangelical visions from their LDS ones? It really just buttresses the point of Mormon visions and revelations, that God is still talking to men. He’s still talking to Mormons.
LDS do not have a kind of closed canon of scripture. They have their continued visions, their continued revelations, even if they don’t like the LDS teachings, which many LDS has a problem with, and with their prophets. What has pushed LDS along is their continued revelations. I had a long talk last Saturday to an LDS man, coming out of the garage of his big house, a CEO of a small software company, and he disconnects from LDS doctrine, but he’s got his own testimony, his own experience, his own way of connecting with God, so he can pick and choose. LDS is fine with that. They encourage it. They might call it “the burning in the bosom.” Before Joseph Smith got his first vision, he prayed James 1:5, and that’s become the pattern of LDS since then.
I estimate that a majority of Baptists still get direct messages from God. They call it different things, but these impressions are authoritative, nonetheless, very often for some of the major decisions of their lives. When they give testimony to the important decisions, they don’t say, it was scriptural, my church was fine with it, so I had the liberty to do it, so I did. They say, I knew, God told me. Sometimes God also told the spouse, as a validation. Both knew. Both heard.
The one who questions the experience is the one who says he’s in authority, he’s a king, taking away from the egalitarian nature of receiving visions. Some kind of exegesis of an authoritative book is not sufficient for a genuine Christian experience. Obviously there are contradictions, because many have been excommunicated for contradicting the vision of someone in authority, Smith or Brigham Young. The acceptance of a democratic community fine with your receiving your vision or revelation is the level playing field. Revelations aren’t just for the elite few, but for anyone. This is the “antebellum spiritual hothouse” that we still live in.
The Required Specific Application of Non-Specific Biblical Commands
There are over 1,000 commands in the New Testament alone. Some of them are specific. Some of them, I’m calling, non-specific. You can easily find a list of all the commandments of the New Testament. I said “some” for the specific and “some” for the non-specific, but those two are far from equal.
Ephesians 4:28, “Let him that stole steal no more.”Ephesians 5:6, “Let no man deceive you with vain words.”1 Corinthians 7:10, “Let not the wife depart from her husband.”1 Corinthians 7:11, “Let not the husband put away his wife.”1 Thessalonians 4:2, “Abstain from fornication.”
Romans 13:14, “Make not provision for the flesh.”1 Peter 2:11, “Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.”Romans 12:2, “Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.”Luke 12:15, “Beware of covetousness.”2 Timothy 2:22, “Flee youthful lusts.”
Millennials Will Rue the Day They Despised Authority
Authority proceeds from God. When I write “authority,” I mean what the Bible says it is, and it is hierarchical (Romans 13:1-3). It doesn’t violate scripture. God created or originated authority. It is necessary to accomplish His moral will (God’s sovereign will is always going to occur). Authority orders the divine design of the world. It will only work the way God designed, if authority is respected.
I’m not saying that all millennials despise authority. I’m writing about millennials who do, and really anyone who does, but I focus on millennials because this is more characteristic of their generation. Millennials will still want authority now and especially in the future. They will need it. Right now in the short term it is convenient for them to despise authority.
Why should anyone do what these millennials tell them to do? If they do tell anyone to do, why should they expect them to do what they are told? Why should these millennials ever possess any authority, if they don’t believe in it themselves?
Many Christian leaders today decry the apostasy of the day. For all the possible causes, a perverted view of authority explains a lot. In a rudimentary way, it is the underlying problem. How? Why?
God is in charge. He uses under-authorities to be in charge. He authorizes institutions — family, church, government, etc. — to order the world He owns. Satan merely usurps that authority. The response to authority is obedience. The attack of authority undermines God’s institutions and then results in disobedience. Salvation itself comes through the obedience of faith. The faith is in God, Who is the authority. His under-authorities are still His authority. Someone who disobeys those, with the exception of violations of the Word of God, disobeys Him. They are not believing in Him, because this is how He works, just like He used men for the writing of His Word. In that sense, obedience to God is obedience to Moses, for instance.
All of society breaks down with the position of these millennials on authority, really just so they can have their own way, just like Korah and his band with Moses in Numbers 16. They will justify it or excuse it by saying that their authority is unreasonable or wrong or bad leaders. They know best about leadership, how it’s supposed to be done. In most cases though, they can’t even be challenged, these millennials. They offer no due process, no discussion, no defense. They are judge, jury, and executioner. Like Rehoboam of 1 Kings 12, they look to their contemporaries, their friends, other millennials, as proof or evidence that they are right, their cronies on social media.
No one who despises authority as a practice is a Christian. God is the Author of authority. Again, I’m not talking about so-called authority that teaches or requires something contrary to the Word of God. Just because millenials don’t like what they’re being told doesn’t mean that they can call it unscriptural, and that’s their simple, rebellious way out.
The despising of authority starts with not truly glorifying God as God. The despising of authority is an outgrowth of not glorifying God. You know someone does not glorify God because he despises authority. It is indicative of a reprobate mind.
The benchmark or the norm for someone aligned with God is subjection to authority. His instinct is to do what he is told. He listens. With God-ordained authority, he is swift to hear, slow to speak (argue), and slow to wrath (at what he’s being told) [James 1:19]. He is apt to do what he is told, rather than bucking it.
If you are millennial, and you despise authority, don’t expect your spouse to submit, nor your children. Why should they? You shouldn’t expect your employees to listen to you. You don’t listen, why should they listen to you? The culture that you spawn will be one that will break down because authority is necessary. Your disrespect will come back on you. There is no way that your world will work.
The millennial who despises authority won’t be in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, because Jesus expects obedience. He is the King. Your Jesus might be something more like a therapist, but the Jesus of the Bible, the only true one, will rule over the earth. You won’t like His kingdom and you won’t be in it. It is a kingdom of authority.
2 Peter relates despising authority to lust. Lust then relates to self, to me, me first. 2 Peter 2:10 says:
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
They walk after the flesh. Their lives are characterized by flesh. Their music is fleshly. Their entertainment is fleshly. Their recreation is fleshly. Someone who lives according to the flesh doesn’t want the restraint of a authority, hence, he despises it. He is not afraid to speak evil of authority. When the authority arrives to restrain, like the Holy Spirit, the Restrainer (2 Thess 2:7), he tears down the authority.
Righteous men are very careful with their authority, especially in public. Righteous men don’t rebuke an elder, but intreat (1 Timothy 5:1). This is seen in the servant/master or employee/employer: “be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling.” “Fear and trembling” is a non-starter with most millennials today. It’s a violation of personal wellness and self-care.
Deuteronomy 5:1 says:
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
There are verses like that all through Deuteronomy. Moses says, these statutes and judgments that I speak, learn, keep, and do them. That is how authority works. Moses says something and everyone learns it, keeps it, and does it. This is especially the message of the Bible toward parental authority, that is seen again and again in Proverbs. This generation is even represented by Proverbs 30:11, “There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.” The book of Proverbs reads very serious about this from God. I’m going to publish all of these just so that you have them all in one place:
Proverbs 1:8, My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
Proverbs 4:1, Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
Proverbs 10:1, A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.
Proverbs 15:20, A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother.
Proverbs 17:21, He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy.
Proverbs 17:25, A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him.
Proverbs 19:13, A foolish son is the calamity of his father.
Proverbs 19:26, He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother, is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach.
Proverbs 20:20, Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.
Proverbs 23:22, Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.
Proverbs 23:24-25, The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him. Thy father and thy mother shall be glad, and she that bare thee shall rejoice.
Proverbs 28:7, Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father.
Proverbs 30:17, The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
Many, if not most, of these statements are axiomatic. A millennial may question them, but it’s like questioning the transitive property or some other axiom. They are just true. As you read them, millennial, you can question them or challenge them or just ignore them, but if they are you, then they are who you are.
You will notice that there is very little about the father and what he’s doing with his son, but it’s about the son and what he’s doing with his father. If the father is disobedient to scripture, and teaches that, that’s bad, but this isn’t the issue. There aren’t a series of verses that say, “Father, please thy son and make sure he gets to have his way and live like he wants. Don’t be too scary. You don’t want to hurt his feelings.” Your millennial companions might listen to your complaints and justifications, but in the judgment of God, you are still guilty. You won’t escape this judgment of God without repentance. It’s on you, no one else.
Recent Comments