The Reality of the Cross - Part 1

I was talking with a good friend today about the Christian belief of an eternal abyss or torment, real hellfire and brimstone kind of stuff! During our discussion he stated he had come to the conclusion the hereafter was little more than a “dirt nap”. Through the years he has “lost the faith”, and I assume that by and large not to be an intellectual decision, but more of an emotional response to past abuses suffered by the carcinogens of Christianity these often creep in, distort, deform, and left untreated cause death…

Those killers of course are those that turn faith to fear, relationship to rules, and gain to guilt.

The basis of my eternal view nonetheless is located in the book of Revelation… For those that believe the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and given to men, who in turn penned those Words for our betterment, and that these Words contain present and eternal unchanging truths, the following text validates our view, otherwise known and called; the truth.

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(Revelation 20:13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

(Revelation 20:14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

(Revelation 20:15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The original origin of our discussion was based on the fact that my friend… lets call him “Rob” (after all that is his name!) stated he had not realized some evangelicals took issue with Joel Osteen on some of his practices namely omitting the gospel message of Christ, and the validation that one must be saved to avoid eternal despair. As the conversation progressed we began to discuss the variety of issues such omission would cause, why they are important and to what degree these topics seem to have become so taboo in the church today.

Now then I need all to realize that my message is laced with love, grace, mercy and the forgiveness of sins, provided for and given by Jesus Christ through the cross… In this manner I in no way boast of my faith as some pompous “Christians” do… Instead I consider myself the fortunate recipient of someone else’s sacrifice, and the benefactor of absolute mercy(The sacrifice of Jesus) I think that view is best, because it is most biblically accurate and keeps the Christian from elevating self to some sort of “self righteous”(which is actually an oxy moron by the way) attitude surveying others as stupid immoral sinners… The truth is we Christians are humans whom the blood of Christ has washed, and in which His Spirit dwells … making us what we could not be on our own… Saved, sanctified, redeemed etc…

The unfortunate reality for so many Rob, being one, and myself being another, among so many others is, we grew up in the Bible belt, which sought to gain disciples and to retain them by:

Guilt

Fear

Belittlement

And a variety of other manipulative means…

Readying the mind to understand the horrendous consequences of sin, but often times spending much less time detailing the depth of grace, mercy and love… Found in Jesus!

The result of that is manifested in one of two ways…

1) My case – I have trouble being free in Christ and enjoying His love and mercy because I always feel guilt for no apparent reason! A direct result of fear based teaching the second manifestation is

2) My Friends case - A denial and rejection either completely or partially of Christianity, based on the fact that one becomes tired of feeling guilt, particularly while watching others of less moral character seem to advance by the tool of ministry

So in the end both parties are quite similar… Some chose door one, while unfortunately others chose door two… To those of you who have selected “Door Two” I’d like to address this first installment!

The reality if eternal punishment is quite real biblically, and based on scientific evidence validating other concepts biblically based, the intelligent decision would be to accept the fact that God certainly does exist, making the next question “Now what do I do about that?”

For certain a proper argument would then include such scientific proofs validating the reality of God’s existence… by and large however you Door #2 people don’t need that validation, for you have known Him, and His reality is evident within you even still, and by and large it is inescapable.

It is not proof of existence you need, but understanding of the concept of a “Loving God” which can penetrate the skewed image of Him painted by hardliners whom failed to understand this concept themselves or more ghastly used the image of holy anger to sway and manipulate congregants into ; serving, giving etc…

The Reality of Hell, to a Loving and Giving God:

So infuriated is God with the concept of eternal punishment that He gave the ultimate sacrifice, His Son Jesus Christ. Consider for a moment the concept that exists here; imagine the pain and suffering associated with your dearest loves suffering. When consoling individuals who have lost loved ones to some terminal illness, the most grievous part is not so much the loss, although that is painful, but it is the suffering that precedes the death. This the Father was willing to endure that you and I might escape the reality of Hell.

That is to say God the Father so believed in this concept of eternal punishment that He was willed to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer, to be ridiculed, to be flogged, beaten, spat upon and then crucifixion, which is excruciatingly painful, unimaginably tormenting, and intensely torturous! The reason for this action is simple! God loves us.

(John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(Romans 5:8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

While I cannot deny that an eternal punishment exists for sinners of whom all human kind is, as powerful a concept is redemption, justification, and acceptance, these the benefits of salvation! If we understand the concept of grace we realize that not by what I have done, or will do, but by what Jesus has done and what He will do, that this punishment is exchanged for reward, not just eternally but in the present time as well!

In other words, it is by the cross of Christ that we are saved, and by the gift of the Holy Spirit that we are regenerated. These acts occur by faith not by works and are provided not by condemnation, but by love!

Therefore for you door #2 people, let us well establish in our minds the gospel is less about eternal hell fire and brimstone, and more about redemption, and victory! You and I, us guilt carriers, must absolutely release guilt, understanding that the atoning blood of Jesus cleansed us from ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS!

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Furthermore we must also understand that there is NO CONDEMNATION in Christ Jesus. We have been freed from sin, death, hell, guilt, and shame. In fact as audacious as it may seem, and I trouble with wrapping my mind around this one

WE ARE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD – IN CHRIST JESUS!

Literally when God looks at us, He sees righteousness, holiness and purity. Imagine describing yourself that way? Do you dare? Imagine accepting that God loves you, and I mean really loves you, and is for you, and seeks your heart, because He loves you…

The most critical aspect of all this God stuff, is to understand the power of redemption and the meaning of the cross… which I will detail more in my next post, but as a preview of that the cross means:

God loves us

He was willing to give it all that we might live

He is for us

He is searching for our heart

We can be free from shame

We can be free from guilt

We can be free from fear

We can be free from condemnation

We can be free from sin

All this and so much more…

Are you a door #2 person? Maybe you are a door #1 person… Whoever you are, are you riddled with shame, guilt, fear, condemnation or other life controlling issues? There is still power in the cross, there is still life in the blood… Behold – Jesus makes all things new!

Until next time…

Saturday or Sunday Worship - Why is that the Question?

It was recently suggested to me that there may be some confusion as to the day Christians are to worship, and further more that this confusion may be causing turmoil, and unrest…

To which of course I wondered “Why?”

Never being immersed in the group the Seventh Day Adventists I am sure I cannot fully appreciate the ingrained dogma regarding Saturday worship… Although a time or two I have tuned into the local Seventh Day radio station and heard tidbits of information regarding the “satanically inspired Saturday morning cartoons”, which were of course a demonic ploy to keep children out of “Sabbath School” Stating “Do you think it is a coincidence they show those cartoons on Saturdays?” It caused a slight chuckle, a grin and a turn of the dial back to the local Christian Contemporary station…

However I too have had the cold scaly hands of legalism around my throat, therefore I feel sympathetic towards any who may be struggling with such thoughts and am inspired to put forth a suitable amount of effort to clear things up a bit, and I hope it helps.

Many Seventh Day Adventists associate Sunday worship with receiving 'the Mark of the Beast'. In fact many believe that Christians who attend church on a Sunday have actually been deceived by a variety of demonic influences ranging from the Catholics, to Constantine, to Satan himself, and therefore, by attending Sunday worship, are in essence sinning against God!

Legalism in all cases seeks to justify it case by selective texts, and selective historical documentation, somehow failing to balance their view or conveniently leaving certain historical truths covered. In fact I am amazed at the length to which these groups will search to validate their view, obtain obscure historical records, of which are highly questionable, and then degrade those most generally and scholarly accepted documents! In fact it sickens me and I am appalled!

It is suitable to note that most Seventh Day Adventists also hold to the dietary laws of the Old Testament as well… So if one chooses to subscribe the “Sunday is Satanic” or Pagan or whatever hot button word being used, I’d lay aside the bacon, as well, and of course Shrimp Fest at the local Red Lobster should be considered a memory as well!

This is only noted to state that in the New Testament some changes where made, and we observe those changes and we follow them as the fulfillment of initial first coming of our Messiah – Jesus Christ…

So let us dive into the meat of the issue!

The commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 states that the seventh day of the week, which is Saturday, is the day which the Lord instructed as the day of rest and worship. However in the New Testament we see the church worshiped on Sunday. So what gives?

Though there are a variety of places to begin let me first start with the New Testament view of the Sabbath.

Romans 14:5-6: "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

Paul illustrates for us in Romans that one man regards one day, and another man, another day… He then states “He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord”

If Saturday worship were so critical, then why would Paul give such variance to man, such flexibility? Why would he not drill the issue, as some feel it should be, why not make it an object of division, as some have? I won’t answer this, actually I cannot answer this question because no answer exists, other than to note Paul felt we should take a day to observe the Lord, but this day was to the discretion of men… As a man observes that day of choice, he observes to the Lord. It is a clear command.

Colossians 2:16-17: "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

This is a critical text. Take note of the Holy Days noted here:

a festival

a new moon

a Sabbath day

Preceding the mentioning of these things we are given a command from the Word of God “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to” Pretty weighty stuff so far.

No one can judge in regards to the Sabbath day, or what day we worship the Lord, and the reason is… this is where it gets interesting –

The Sabbath was a “mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ”

The Message Bible

Col 2:16 So don't put up with anyone pressuring you in details of diet, worship services, or holy days. All those things are mere shadows cast before what was to come; the substance is Christ.

Amplified Bible^(R)

(Colossians 2:16) Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath.

(Colossians 2:17) Such [things] are only the shadow of things that are to come, and they have only a symbolic value. But the reality (the substance, the solid fact of what is foreshadowed, the body of it) belongs to Christ.

Jesus is essentially our Sabbath! The Sabbath was a shadow of what is to come. He is our rest, He is our worship, and the entire law is summed up in Loving God, not in keeping a variety of Holy Days!

The insistence of the Seventh Day Adventists adherence to Saturday worship, and their condemnation of Sunday worship, is unfounded and ignorance or ignoring based of New Testament SCRIPTURE, PRACTICE, AND TRADITION!

That in mind let’s take a look at some historical truths

Acts 20:7: "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

Message Bible

Act 20:7 We met on Sunday to worship and celebrate the Master's Supper. Paul addressed the congregation. Our plan was to leave first thing in the morning, but Paul talked on, way past midnight.

The first day of the week is now as it was then and that day is Sunday. It also appears to be the day that the church gathered for worship. The day that people gathered, worshipped and learned of God, in the New Testament church… WAS/IS SUNDAY.

Now if this was a single occurrence that would be fine, but as you’ll see it was not!

1Corinthans 16:1

Regarding the relief offering for poor Christians that is being collected, you get the same instructions I gave the churches in Galatia. Every Sunday each of you make an offering and put it in safekeeping. Be as generous as you can. When I get there you'll have it ready, and I won't have to make a special appeal. Then after I arrive, I'll write letters authorizing whomever you delegate, and send them off to Jerusalem to deliver your gift. If you think it best that I go along, I'll be glad to travel with them.

Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday. Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide.

So we notice that Paul instructs the saints to make an offering on Sunday, which sounds like well an offering in a church service!

Revelation 1:10-11: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

On the Lord’s day is Sunday

Same text Message Bible

(Revelation 1:10) It was Sunday and I was in the Spirit, praying. I heard a loud voice behind me, trumpet-clear and piercing:

Ask the REAL EXPERTS

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

The Lord’s day - The first day of the week, observed as the Christian Sabbath, because on it Jesus Christ rose from the dead; therefore it was called the Lord’s day, and has taken place of the Jewish Sabbath throughout the Christian world.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Rev 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,.... Not on the Jewish sabbath, which was now abolished, nor was that ever called the Lord's day, and had John meant that, he would have said on the sabbath day; much less the Jewish passover, but the first day of the week is designed

Now let me give you a bit of wordy information, but it so validates this truth

The Lords Day

the Ethiopic version renders it "on the first day"; and is so called just as the ordinance of the supper is called the Lord's supper, being instituted by the Lord, and the Lord's table, 1Co_10:21, and that because it was the day in which our Lord rose from the dead, Mar_16:9; and in which he appeared at different times to his disciples, Joh_20:19, and which the primitive churches set apart for his worship and service, and on which they met together to hear the word, and attend on ordinances, Act_20:7; and Justin Martyr (z) tells us, who lived within about fifty years after this time, that on the day called, "Sunday", (by the Greeks,) the Christians met together in one place, and read the Scriptures, and prayed together, and administered the ordinance of the supper; and this, he adds, was the first day in which God created the World, and our Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead;

Barnabas (a), the companion of the Apostle Paul, calls this day the eighth day, in distinction from the seventh day sabbath of the Jews, and which he says is the beginning of another world; and therefore we keep the eighth day, adds he, joyfully, in which Jesus rose from the dead, and being manifested, ascended unto heaven: and this day was known by the ancients by the name of "the Lord's day"; as by:

Ignatius

Irenaeus

Tertullian

Origen

End quote

Some of you may not know the names listed: Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc… These men are known as the “Church Fathers” We value their opinion because they where disciples of the disciples… Yes, most of them knew the actual disciples/Apostles of Jesus Christ, and as they began to pass away, these men began to lead the church…

Fringe groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists will often discredit the Church Fathers… They do so because their thoughts, and words disagree so vehemently with what I call their “existence doctrines”

Existence doctrines are those doctrines so extreme that orthodox Christianity rejects them as heresy there fore a group is formed around the existence of this polarizing doctrinal view… it then becomes the soul reason for their shallow existence! The sum of all their sermons etc …

Nonetheless the writings of the Church Fathers and their historical value are so esteemed by so many scholars all over the world it is silly to refute them in totality!

Constantine Controversy

Poor Constantine, he was the fourth century Roman Emperor, and is usually the man in black for our Seventh Day Advents which is all to humorous to me, because he also is the devil in the Oneness doctrine as well… This guy gets blamed for more stuff!!! I am sure he was not sweetheart but come on… The rumor is Constantine created or imposed Sunday worship (along with the trinity as well) and then persecuted all the Sabbath-keepers and modalists of his age… Excuse me while I chuckle

Justin Martyr 110-165 a.d. [160 years before Constantine]

"Sunday is the day upon which we all hold our communion and assembly" (Justin Martyr, First Christian Apology)

Didache Estimated Range of Dating: 50-120

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day (Sunday) gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Obviosuly Sunday worship was happening LONG before Constantine, so that theory, accusation is false, and perhaps we may even say it is a lie…

The non-canonical Epistle of Barnabbas show that Christians were also assembling on Sundays.

The Epistle of Ignatius about A.D. 107 gives the reason why The Lord's Day was now seen as having more importance than the original sabbath:
'Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish Law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace....If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and By His death.'

'Apostolic Constitutions: Church life in the 2nd Century' says this:
'On the day of the resurrection of the Lord--that is, the Lord's Day--assemble yourself together without fail, giving thanks to God and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ.'

What about Jesus

Jesus bluntly corrected the legalistic view of the Pharisees when he stated, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

The point Jesus made is that the Sabbath was not instituted to enslave people, but to benefit them.

The purpose of Sabbath is to give man the opportunity to honor God, and to rest from work to worship God… Not simply a law to obey!

A few final thoughts

Adventists claim: The Catholics take responsibility for changing Saturday to Sunday worship.

My answer – Maybe they do, I have not checked into this… but they also claim Peter as their first Pope! So who care what they claim as their, and what they take credit for? Is it scriptural, is it historical… That Adventist claim is MUTE, WORTHLESS, WITHOUT MERIT

Do not fail to remember worship on a Sunday is present within the New Testament itself (Acts 20:7 1 Cor 16:1-2 and Revelation 1:10, for instance).

The Sabbath command is never repeated in the New Testament, not even once.

Christ entered his own rest from His earthly labors on a Sunday - not a Sabbath.

The resurrected Jesus appeared to His disciples first on a Sunday (John 20: 19-22).

If you wanted to have church with the disciples during that time period… You better wait till Sunday (Acts 20:7 1 Cor 16:1-2 and Revelation 1:10). If you want to go the Jewish Synagogue and follow all the laws, dietary, and all other 600 or so… go ahead and do the Saturday thing

While Paul chose to preach on a Sunday - see Acts 20:7.

MY FINAL THOUGHT…

Legalism is a killer. It seeks to steal, kill and destroy. “Destroy what?” you may ask. Life, faith and grace… oh yes, and the cross of Jesus Christ. The command given to us regarding our worship to God is simple… Do it with all your heart!

(Matthew 22:36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

(Matthew 22:37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

(Matthew 22:38) This is the first and great commandment.

Other than not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, we will find no other commands in the New Testament about our public worship, not the correct day it must happen, the correct time it must happen… This foul “existence doctrine” of Saturday worship is sheer legalism, and it is void of scriptural, historical and logical truth. So then, I’ll see you Sunday.

Mr. Opinionated

Okay well sooner or later this blog was bound to get me in trouble, sooner or later it was certain that my opinionated discourses on a variety of subjects was bound to break through the eewie gooey goodness of past posts, no longer satisfied with silence here comes “Mr. Opinionated”!

With fair warning I first feel it fair to confess, a soon apparent reality, I write this offering with a hint of irritation! It could be a warning perhaps to go no further although I implore you to do so.

What has rained on my parade, you may ask? What has caused such irritation? Well not a single incident per say, though it certainly could be labeled as the catalyst. The past week brought news of an impending divorce to take place among a Christian TV personality (televangelist) and her husband who pastors a very large church in Florida.(somewhere in the neighborhood of 23,000 members). The cause for such an action was simply labeled as “We are going in different directions” with the promise to continue in ministry without missing a beat. He’ll continue to Pastor, and she will continue to pursue or serve in the ministry on television…

I must confess that this floored, shocked, disappointed, and saddened me. Without coming across as calloused and uncaring I am quick to note that I pray for this couple and sympathize with the plight and pain of divorce. Truly it is devastating and painful for all who find themselves at this crossroads, or who are themselves storming such weather…

However, with dues sympathies noted, under no condition, or circumstances at all should divorce be considered, simply because a couple finds themselves going in different directions, under such a discovery, that they may well be, and most certainly are actually traveling in opposing directions which therefore are the wrong directions, an immediate change of travel MUST take place, so they find themselves once again on the right path… together… because after all that “two shall become one flesh stuff… I think God meant that! (ref; Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:31)

This failure to do so cannot be remedied by further separation! Certainly a time of refocus of the roads being traveled and finding the correct avenue, one ample for proper travel would be the wise pursuit to endeavor!

What I find so saddening. is certainly the decline of moral fiber here in America, what I find utterly repulsive and sickening is the decline of moral fiber in the church. In past years marriage was considered to be ones first ministry, and it was considered the most precious commodity. Is that sentiment, no let me reword that, is that truth somehow losing its fire in the hearts of modern American Christianity?

In our modern Christian view, are we know shaping the commands of Christ based merely on cultural preferences? Gee, I hope not.

The basis of the marriage vow… “for better or worse, richer, or poorer…. Until death do we part” is said for a reason!!! The reason or the summation of such is a word seemingly hated by society today… So scary I cringe as I say it … get ready here it comes!

COMMITMENT

Ouch! That’s right God calls us to be committed… to Him, to each other and to our marriage, our spouse our children, our church etc…

In fact if we as Christians are to be any thing, or to have retained any quality since “Jesus came into my heart” as the song says… IT SHOULD BE COMMITMENT – and the first sin of wavering commitment(oxymoron) should be a warning that one may be weakening in their spiritual life…

I do realize that extenuating circumstances exist. Certainly in cases of abuse I don’t expect a spouse to abide under the same roof where physical danger lurks…

Nonetheless a principle quality of the church ought to be the sanctity of marriage, in which we certainly confess with our lips, but our statistics are far from it! Divorce is as prevalent in the church as it is in society at large… In fact our statistics rival theirs!

It seems to have lived in the pew long enough that it is becoming more socially accepted… Now that acceptance is crawling from the pew making its way to our pulpits… and I personally don’t like it! In fact as you were fairly warned I have something to say about it! IT – STINKS!

So my one lone voice resonates on the pages of this Blog perhaps making a point or two to those who frequent… But one voice is not the totality of the body of Christ… For we being many are essentially one body… there fore I make the simple suggestion to you… Be ye holy… as you have been so called, and defend the faith, which was given to you at the costly price – the blood of Christ.

We must make a stand against the erosion of moral integrity in Christianity today… Because we, like it or not are the only church God has in America, we are the modern day: apostles, prophets, teachers etc… Lets not take that to lightly! In fact I would encourage some contagious zeal! Let’s stand firm in the faith, and let the WORD of God be a lamp, and a light to our path! We live in age were uncertainties exist, and social pressure seeks to override the precepts of God… This truth therefore begs the question: What are you going to do about it?

The Dream Of God

The Dream Of God

I want to talk to you about the dream of God

I am very honored to have you here, because you are a creation of God.

You know many people have spent all the time they want to spend in; depression, being burned out, feeling lost and uncertain. There are other's who have dreams and visions and they see day by day go by and those dreams do not come to pass... I feel called to encourage you today...

maybe secretly you have wondered

Secretly you have considred the the thought:

• Maybe God doesn’t love me

• Maybe God just doesn’t care

• Maybe God doesn’t want me to be happy

Come on now its passed through you somewhere along the way

Maybe God just isn't interested or concerned with my life

• He's unaware of my dreams
  

• He’s unaware of my heartache

• He’s unconcerned with my situations

But the bible says

That your father know your needs

Lu:12:32: The Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

I am excited about that, I am excited and encouraged to tell you that God has a dream! God has a dream for your life, He is concerned about you, He is dreaming about you!

• God has not created you destination-less

• God has not created you without purpose

• God has a dream for you

1) You Where Created With a Purpose

Jer:1:4: Then the word of the LORD came …., saying,

Jer:1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee ……….a prophet unto the nations.

I want you to pay particular attention to the word BEFORE in this text

It contains two key ingredieants to our understanding The Dream of God

A) BEFORE you where concieved

B) BEFORE you where born

God had a plan for your Life

HE purposed you – HE designed you

• before you took your first breathe of air

• before you kicked inside the belly of your mother

• before a name had been chosen for you

• before your mother even knew she was with child

God did something for you

He Sanctified you – God ordained you

We ministers love to talk about being ordained – Carry our papers and our cards! The truth is God already ordained each one of us for a purpose

Ordained means –set apart for a sacred purpose

– Ordained you for a sacred purpose –

– You’re ordained you for divine destiny

Before you were a failure, before you had heard all the negative things people have said to you, before any body knew you and what you were...

GOD had already spoken some things over your life

GOD already had a dream that HE established within your being

You’re not just some chump down here with no place to go and nothing to do! Your not just taking up space – You where created with a destiny! You where created with a purpose! You where created with gifts and attributes to propel you towards the dream GOD has for you

People wonder why I spend so much time and why I preach so many messages on divine destiny on personal purpose

The reason is, I believe the devil has spent the last how many years of your life telling you, and trying to convince you that you’re worthless, you've have no purpose, that God can’t, and doesn’t want to do anything special in your life!

The devil has used people, he used failures, he used your bad circumstances, he used your bad mistakes, he's used every conceivable means available to make you believe your purposeless, worthless, and without a destination.

WHAT A LIE! The truth is you’re ordained! You've been set apart for a sacred purpose - you've been sanctified for a divine destiny - before the mistakes, before the failures… GOD spoke who you really were/are!

I'm not talking about what you did, with whom, and where…

I’m not talking about mistakes made in terrible ways, and unseemly circumstances…

I’m talking about something that happened in the HEAVENS

The moment the LORD spoke you into existence;

· HE shouted your destiny –

· He spoke it before HIS throne

· He spoke it in the presence of angels

and now all of heaven watches for you to fulfill the will of GOD

to be all that HE has sacredly purposed you to be, we’ll to be who you really are… not this façade you have become.

The angels know what you can be

GOD knows what you can be

The devil knows what you can

The only one that may be unsure, or unsettled in that is you

Its not who you fooled around with

It’s not the drugs you took

the failures you have had

It’s none of that

It’s what God has said about you

David’s father and brothers thought David was just a Shepard boy but GOD knew he was a king, a giant slater

They called Moses an Egyptian, but God knew he was a deliverer…

They called Joseph a dreamer- a slave – Potipher’s wife called him a rapist – they said his place was in the dungeon

But God knew his place and it wasn’t a prison it was in the palace

See I’m thinking GOD has said some things about you and I

I’m thinking that in the womb HE spoke some purpose

HE spoke some destiny

Proverb:23:7: as he thinketh in his heart, so is he

Some of us thought we where drug addicts

Some of us thought we where bums and losers

Some of us thought that we were what other people said about us

Addicted, strung out, helpless… Whatever!

But what did God say:

(Philippians 4:13) I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

(Matthew 19:26) …………….with God all things are possible.

Before anybody had a chance to say anything

GOD spoke

HE ANNOUNCED IT TO THE HEAVENS

(Jeremiah 29:11) For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD , "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Crafted By God

Joh:1:3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

See we have been crafted by the Master’s hands

We where made by HIM – Because there is not anything made that was not made by JESUS

I’m thinking if HE made me – HE must have purposed me

IF HE made me – HE must have ordained me

IF HE made me - HE must have sanctified me

IF HE made me – there must be a reason

Be all that God has created you to be, and believe that you the creation is much greater than you first imagined... That with God... Nothing is impossible!

The Correct Formula For Baptism Part Two

The Correct Formula For Baptism Part Two

The following thesis will attempt to answer the following questions. This time it is in my own words and thoughts. I hope you enjoy it!

A) What formula, or pronouncement should be made at baptism?
B) What was the historical and biblical process of the early church – apostolic and post apostolic?

The correct practice of baptism has long been debated between adherents of the Christian faith. Disagreements such as how one is baptized: sprinkling or immersion, what is pronounced during the baptism “in Jesus name” or “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ”are a few that exist.
These disagreements have created quite a rift in the Christian church, most notably among those of the Pentecostal faith. In Fact adherents of the oneness doctrine assess and state that no one baptized in: “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”(Matthew 28:19) is saved, nor can they be until they are water baptized with the pronunciation of “in Jesus name.”

Here an attempt will be made to rightly divide the Word of God, to verify if such disagreements should exist and to what importance they actually bare on baptism.


What is the proper announcement or verbal formula for baptism?

Much debate and division has been waged over the proper formula of pronunciation at baptism. Some attest it is to be done in the name of Jesus while others insist it is to be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


(Matthew 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(Matthew 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The dominant formula spoken at baptisms in this day and for history by and large is derived from the above text. Such pronouncements would be:
“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”

I could include a variety of sources – but I think it is well beyond debate, that this is the most common of formulas. With great ease we could fill a page with such examples but for brevity I’ll include only a few

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III a.d. 120-202.
A student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Wrote 123 years before Nicaea

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."308 And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God,309 He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Justin 1st Apology Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism. 110-165 a.d. [160 years before Nicaea]

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics.1 a.d. 145-220
[105 years before Nicaea]

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost."203


Tertullian-On Baptism.
105 years before Nicaea

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Now then, it is dully noted that church fathers as credible as they may be, are not bible – and in this manner – I will look then to the WORD – though I may draw a comparison to some wording that I see of interest down the road a bit!

The bible states the following regarding the pronouncement at baptism, this is the veru first instruction we receive, and it comes right from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ

(Matthew 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(Matthew 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


With post apostolic/early church history well established we then must deal with biblical precepts such as:


Which is the most correct formula for baptism? Here is where we (you(the reader) and I) need to take a hard well deserved look at the formation of the “Jesus Name” doctrine.

Which is as followed:

A) the assessment of the apostles wording in Acts 2:38 is that “JESUS” is the one name subscribed to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

- In this manner the apostles then, understood the seemingly cryptic message of Jesus, that they where not to invoke the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Ghost at baptism as Jesus said, but instead – this was a coded message to use his name.

I think we have to deal with this first – for this is the cornerstone of the view
1) Did Jesus ever speak in this code prior to this?

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

He uses freely “my name” in the above texts, so why now at such a crucial point of salvation does Jesus “mix it up” a bit? Why not be forthwith with it?

-

Another thought process could be – is their another meaning behind “in my name”?

2) Is the name of the Father, JESUS?

Here is the crux of the matter – We really have to determine this one issue. It is critical because this is where the doctrine makes its presumption. It states JESUS is the one name of GOD revealed to humanity by which to call – Hence the name of the Father is JESUS, and the Holy Spirit is JESUS .

The problematic scene we have – is biblically we do not see such a reality – this causes us a problem with the oneness interpretation of Acts 2:38.

There is no scriptural text to validate that the one name of JESUS is the one name ascribed to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In fact scripture contains distinctions such as those noted in the greetings to the Romans See Romans 1:1-7

(Rom 1:7) To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Again in 2 John 3 (2 John 1:3) Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.


Such greetings and statements are problematic for the oneness adherents; in fact in most cases such a greeting would not be welcome among oneness ranks, for its supposed Trinitarian implication.

Typically most of the text that is used to support this view are interpretational errors such as…

(John 5:43) I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states…
John 5:43 - I am come in my Father's name,.... Power and authority; by his consent, with his will, and according to a covenant with him: Christ came not of himself, of his own accord, by a separate power and will of his own, but was called, and sent, and came by mutual agree meat; and brought his credentials with him, doing the works and miracles which his Father gave him to finish:

Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible states…
I am come in my Father’s name - With all his influence and authority. Among the rabbins, it was essential to a teacher’s credit that he should be able to support his doctrine by the authority of some eminent persons who had gone before. Hence the form, Coming in the name of another.

The most accurate rendition of this is “I am come in my Father’s authority, power and consent” not that the name of the Father is JESUS. You’ll find few biblical scholars who assume the text to mean anything more than the commentaries above have noted. Much like David stated

(1 Samuel 17:45) Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

Meaning the power, authority and might of GOD, David was not implying that the name of the Father was DAVID!!! But under the exegesis of apostolics – we must assume this to be the meaning since they insist the same words spoken by JESUS to mean this very thing.

Another instance is seen here in (John 10:25) Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.


The greek word for “name” according to Strongs is:
G3686 ὄνομα
onoma
on'-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

”Name” here could be figuratively or literally – but we see the two fold meaning
1) a “name
2) authority, character
It is scholarly assumed to mean: authority, character

Thirdly some assume the prophecy of Zechariah 14:9 to be fulfilled by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ

It reads

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Insisting this prophecy has been fulfilled and that name is Jesus, oneness adherents often site this verse to establish the validity of their doctrine…

Lets look at the verse in context…

The chapter starts with this prophetic word

(Zechariah 14:2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

(Zechariah 14:3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

(Zechariah 14:4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

Zec 14:4 -

… The place of His departure at His ascension shall be the place of His return: and the “manner” of His return also shall be similar (Act_1:11). He shall probably “come from the east”…

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Zec 14:1 - Behold, the day of the Lord cometh,.... Or the day when the Lord will come, both in his spiritual and personal reign; for this is not to be understood of his first coming in the flesh…

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

One Lord, and his name one - There shall be in those blessed days, only one religion, and one form of religion. There shall not be gods many, and lords many. All mankind shall be of one religion, the essence of which is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy Neighbor as thyself.”

Further the context states

Zec 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Zec 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Obviously this is a futuristic event and not a current reality! Therefore their use of Zechariah 14:9 is improper.

Seeing that we do not have the ability to attribute the name of JESUS CHRIST to the Father - we must then consider a possible variance in meaning...

One could from these thoughts parallel the phrase, "in the name of the Lord" is not so much a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority.

Consider the following using this phrase:

It is easily discerned that the phrase is used in a Biblical sense as an expression of authority.
Acts 16:18 above. "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour."

If power and authority was not intended and simply just the name of “JESUS” was enough – someone would be hard pressed to convince the sons of Sceva of such a theology…

Notice in Acts, there is no occasion where one person says to another, “I baptize you in Jesus’ name.” Every time Acts mentions a baptism in Jesus’ name, the phrase characterizes the baptism; it does not record what the baptizer said. In this manner supposition is the only ally.

If instead it means the baptism was in Jesus’ name, under the authority that Jesus gave them. This flows more clearly with the words of Jesus, the apostles and the entire word of God… Making all three elements(Jesus, The Apostles, and the rest of the Inspired Word) in harmony, as opposed to using only two ingredients to derive at a doctrinal position.

The most common thought is it was the way they distinguished what sort of baptism was done. They were not performing a Jewish baptism for a convert to Judaism, nor were they performing John’s baptism for repentance, they were performing a Christian baptism into Jesus Christ, at the command and verbiage of Jesus Christ.