Blogs

BLOGS

Blog or Article?

Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.

Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made.  Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.

All Posts (7)

Sort by

Tidbits of Truth - 5

Posted by Gary Cendroski on October 17, 2008 at 7:30pm
Hey all you wonderful people!Jesus nicknamed the apostles James and John "the sons of thunder" not because they were the result of a cloud seeding experiment gone awry, but because they were loud, boisterous, wild and crazy guys whose presence was usually known before they entered the room. They were called "sons of thunder" because they were LIKE thunder in their behavior. That's the idiom. It's a figure of speech. Thunder is loud, startling, and attention getting. That's how these guys were. I'm sure you've known people like this. (By the way, this proves Jesus had a sense of humor.)You'll find this figure all through the Bible, Old and New Testaments.The simplicity of it is that the parent leads the way, sets the example, or initiates and inspires, while the child or son follows in the footsteps, imitates the example, or is like the parent.You're familiar with Abraham being "the father of all who believe" (Romans 4:11). Obviously he didn't father all who believe literally, but we are like Abraham because we believe as he did.Ephesians 5:1 tells us to be "followers [imitators] of God as dear children." The children imitate the father. The exhortation is to behave like God, our Father - to be like Him..Christ said "wisdom is justified of all her children" (Luke 7:35). Wisdom here, as in Proverbs, is being described as a "she." This is not literal, but figurative. People who are wise are like their mother, wisdom. In real life they show the preeminence of wisdom.He said in Matthew 5:44 & 45 "Love your enemies...That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven." Was Jesus introducing yet another way to get saved? No, he was simply saying to behave like our Father who loves all."Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." - Matthew 5:9. The verse is in reference to behavior, not birth. God is a peacemaker, and when we are peacemakers, we are like God.I John 3:9 & 10 says, "Whoever is born of God does not commit [practice] sin, because His [God's] seed [children] remain [abide] in Him [God]...In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil, whoever does not righteousness, is not of God...." The children are thus manifest by their behavior, They are called "the children of God" because they behave LIKE God and they are called "the children of the Devil" because they behave LIKE the Devil. And there is no literal seed involved in either becoming children.In John 8:41 - 44, Jesus said, "You do the deeds of your father...You are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do." He was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees. Notice that the relationship of the Devil as their father was dependant on their behavior - "You do...you will do." They were children of the Devil figuratively because they were like him in behavior, not because they were somehow literally born of him.In Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives...." The figure determines the interpretation of the "sons of God" here. Since the "sons of God" are those who are like God, and follow and imitate Him, they are the Old Testament believers. The term could never be in reference to fallen angels who are opposed to God. Besides, Jesus said angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Matthew 22:30). And though the apocryphal books of the O.T. are not accepted as Scripture, they still give us useful information, such as the many times O.T. believers are commonly referred to as "sons of God." Of course, they were not sons by a new spiritual birth, but sons because they believed and followed God."Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him: for we shall see Him as He is." - I John 3:2. We are like Him now. We will be more like Him then!I believe we are sons of God by a literal, spiritual regeneration as it says in Titus 3:5. But as we read through the Bible, we should be aware of what is a literal and what is a figurative reference to being children and sons. It'll make the difference between error and truth.
Read more…

The Way. It Was.

Posted by John Lynn on October 17, 2008 at 12:17pm
The Way. It was.By John A. LynnIn the interest of truth, both small “t” (the facts about The Way International) and capital “T” (the Word of God it taught), I am compelled to propose why I think The Way International was (past tense), from a certain perspective, one of the most significant movements in the history of the Christian Church. I do so for the benefit of any graduate of the “Power For Abundant Living” class who still wants to live for the Lord and who may have been unduly discouraged, either by his/her own experience in The Way or by the ensuing barrage of negatives from other ex-Way saints about what was wrong with The Way.Given that I was one of the top ministry leaders from 1967-1987, I speak with experiential knowledge. Furthermore, I have spent the past 21 years continuing to dig into the Word of God along with knowledgeable Christians, and, in the process, re-evaluating everything we were taught. I speak with great thankfulness for the truth I heard in The Way (hereinafter TWI), with no doubt that God led me to it, and then away from it. And though I left with some wounds, I also took with me the resources I had been given that enabled me to be healed from those wounds and help others do likewise.I speak so that you can know “the rest of the story,” as opposed to all the disparaging things that have been said about The Way through the years by the media (much of that false), other Christians (much of that false), and disgruntled former followers (much of that true, some of it false). My purpose is to set forth a much more redemptive view of The Way than what I have thus far read from others with “ex-Way vision.” In some ways, this is a sequel to my March, 1988 letter in which I blew the whistle about what was then going on in TWI. (http://www.swiftlynx.com/beyondTheWayInternational/)Yes, there was more doctrinal error than I ever realized while I was in TWI, and there was corresponding practical error that became more evil than most of us involved ever imagined. Yes, many precious people were terribly abused. Yes, there was dishonesty about Scripture, there was plagiarism, and there was rampant sexual sin, all of which contributed to many people choosing to turn away from God and His Word. And as I realized these things, I did speak out about them, both publicly and privately, from 1987 until about 2000, after which TWI had marginalized itself in Christendom.Perhaps worst of all, a golden opportunity to make known the Word of God, as it had not been known since the first century, was squandered. I will elaborate upon why that is true from a doctrinal standpoint, but when else in the history of the Christian Church has there ever been such a cadre of thousands of young, energetic, enthused, biblically knowledgeable, logistically equipped, organizationally backed, diverse, multi-lingual, mobile, available, and committed-to-“It-is-written” men and women with leadership qualities who were willing to go anywhere and spread the Word? Certainly not often in the past 2000 years. Thank God that many of these students of the Word became teachers themselves, and were thus able to recognize the errors that crept into TWI.The Way. It was. What was it? First and foremost, it was, from about 1955-1987, the only place I know of where anyone could hear the amount of truth of the Word of God that we heard. Why? In large part because God led Victor Paul Wierwille to the work of E.W. Bullinger, whose approach to Scripture was virtually unique. That is what allowed Wierwille, and thus TWI to an even greater degree, thanks to the quality men and women with research ability whom it attracted, to put the Word together like it had not been known since the first century Church.The sad thing was that I, and many others, became too proud of our knowledge, and failed to couple it with enough of a humble, heartfelt desire to obey God and become like Jesus Christ. We became too arrogant toward other Christians, thinking that our study of truth somehow made us more “approved before God” than they. To a degree, we became more like hearers of the Word than doers, and often deceived our selves. BUT, the antidote to that is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because without knowledge of truth there can be little practice of it.Why did God have a need for The Way International? Actually, He didn’t. But He did have a need for any group of people who would make known what, or close to what, the Apostle Paul taught once the whole of what we now read in the Church Epistles had been unfolded to him. Why was there such a need? Because true Christian doctrine had all but disappeared from the spectrum of Church history by the 4th century. It was then that the Roman Catholic Church began based upon a bunch of fables mixed with Christian verbiage, established a monolithic ecclesiastical hierarchy, and for more than a thousand years dominated the European religious landscape, killing countless dissenters and for the most part silencing the rest.When Martin Luther came along (1517 was when he nailed his 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenburg), thank God he did recognize justification by faith rather than by works, but what we today refer to as the “Reformation” of the Roman Catholic Church was very limited in scope. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell, that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a Trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, water baptism is relevant, and maybe even that the Bible is not absolute truth.I don’t know where else we could have heard the “package” of biblical truth we heard in TWI. Admittedly, most of the major doctrinal components of that package were being taught by some Christians, with varying degrees of accuracy, but none that I know of put together as many into a package as TWI did. Let’s begin with what I mentioned about E.W. Bullinger’s contribution to TWI, which was HUGE, because his basic approach to Scripture is what facilitates one being able to discover its inherent keys and utilize them to derive the Author’s originally intended meaning.TWI taught us to approach the Word with the “It is written” conviction that it is what it says it is, and that it cannot contradict itself. That alone is enough to at least identify error about the Bible, and the keys to the Word’s interpretation we were taught enabled us to understand it, take its truth into our hearts, and apply it on a daily basis.Given that the identity of Jesus Christ is the world’s biggest deal, I would have to say that chief among the wonderful biblical truths we heard in TWI was that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not God), the Man who mediates between God and men, and that the Trinity is a pagan fable. Some ex-Way saints now say this distinction is not that important, but I assert that God thinks differently, given what He says in His Word (e.g., 2 Cor. 4:3 and 4). Yes, TWI failed to teach us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus, but there were not too many other places where we could have heard that Jesus is not the “eternally begotten” Second Person of the Trinity.I’d have to say that the next most important biblical truth we heard in TWI was what we then called the “Mystery,” and, correspondingly, what parts of Scripture are written to Jews, to Gentiles, or to Christians regarding either the past, the present, or the future. For the record, we have since learned that “Sacred Secret” is a more accurate way of rendering the Greek, musterion.Ephesians is the apex of the Church Epistles (the primary curriculum for Christian living), and it clearly shows that the Body of Christ (the “one new man” of Chapter 2, verse 15) is the most unique group of people who have ever lived, chiefly because of the permanence of our salvation and our holy spirit equipping. 1 Corinthians 2:8 chimes in with the monumental (and generally overlooked) truth that had Satan known the Sacred Secret, he would not have crucified Jesus!In terms of biblical error that is practically debilitating to one’s quality of life, I see nothing more important than knowing what Scripture is written to whom, when, and in particular what is written to us as Christians today. The Church’s failure to understand this central truth has led to its trying to live in accordance with directives pertaining to other people at other times. It is only in the Church Epistles that a Christian finds his true identity “in Christ,” as well as his true Hope. Simply put, the Word of God will never fit together without contradiction if one does not understand the “administrations” therein, and in particular this current “administration of the Sacred Secret” (Eph. 3:9).Yes, there are quite a few Christians who have a “Dispensational” view of Scripture, but the vast majority of them fail to grasp that Jesus is not God and that he did not know the Sacred Secret. Most think that parts of the Four Gospels and the book of Revelation speak of the Christian Church, but that is not the case. The Gospels record the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about Christ’s first coming to the earth to Israel (his suffering), and Revelation records the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about his second coming to the earth to Israel (his glory).Another major truth we learned in TWI, which is unknown to most Christians, is that of the Giver and the gift, and, correspondingly, that speaking in tongues is available to all Christians because it is a manifestation of holy spirit, not a gift. We also learned the indispensable truth that speaking in tongues is the only absolute proof that one is saved. How many tens of thousands of people did those truths alone set free?TWI also taught us that death is, in fact, the end of life, and that our true Hope for new life in the coming age is to be raised from the dead and meet the Lord Jesus in the air prior to the Tribulation (the “time of Jacob’s trouble” – Jer.30:7). What percentage of Christians do you think know this? Although TWI failed to teach us that Paradise (the new earth), not heaven, will be our everlasting home, thank God we learned that resurrection is much more than an incorporeal “soul” once again getting a body.And TWI pointed us toward an understanding of the figures of speech in the Bible (thanks to Bullinger), of which little is known in theological circles. This included the figurative language in the Old Testament that helped us see that God is not responsible for evil or suffering, nor is He in control of everything that happens.Like I, you may know of some ministries that do teach some of these truths, but I submit that until 1987 there was nowhere other than TWI to find all of them taught as accurately as they were there. That is why The Way International stands out on the spectrum of Church history as an amazingly significant Christian movement.As far as I can see, TWI was also about the most disparate dichotomy of good and evil in the history of Christianity. Like the wheat and the tares growing up together, tremendous truth and egregious evil shared the ministry platform. Many people look back on their TWI experience with nothing but thankfulness, while others rue their free will choice to stay involved as long as they did because of the abuse they suffered. Some have been stymied by self-condemnation due to the abuses they themselves committed. No doubt there are also many who recognize that they heard the Word like they never had, who have allowed the Lord Jesus to heal any wounds they suffered in TWI, and who have since experienced spiritual growth far beyond what they ever imagined back in “the good old days.”I hope you are in that last category, and if you’re not, you can be. Even if people badly abused and disappointed you, you can turn to the Lord Jesus, he who is The Way to wholeness in all categories of heart and life. His love and truth will heal your heart and help you forgive and move forward with him toward the same goal you once had. You have a ministry in the Body of Christ, and he who is the Head longs to help you fulfill that calling. It was neither your heavenly Father nor your Lord who hurt you, nor does whatever happened to you change anything the Word says. God’s promises are still true, and they are yours for the believing.The Way, we were. If you once sat through PFAL, you heard the Word of God taught more accurately than the vast majority of Christians who have ever drawn breath. As a fellow PFAL grad, I identify with you, and have an affinity for you and a desire to encourage you to take advantage of the truth you once heard, if you are not already doing so. Along with me, you will one day stand before our precious Lord Jesus Christ, who will reward you according to how you have lived your life as a Christian. In essence, he will ask each of us something like this: “What did you do with what you knew?”[For a detailed list of biblical subjects I think TWI mishandled, see the following link: http://www.christianeducational.org/25diffTWI.htmIf you would like to discuss with me about what I have written, please contact me at jalces@aol.com]
Read more…

Those Little D’s and R’s

Posted by Debra Kline on October 16, 2008 at 11:00pm
I'm not real excited about knocking doors, trying to convince people to vote for more government or less, or what the difference between socialism and capitalism is and why nations normally prosper on the latter, long term, while paying far too much for marginally better healthcare.Instead I'd like to write about "D's and R's", you know, those little letters identifying political party after the names of politicians? I believe that owners of television networks and movie studios, as well as political writers, talk show hosts, actors and other famous people, anyone who influences the votes of the masses, in any venue, should also bear a "D", an "R", etc., after their names when on the air or in print. So that when one is listening to a savvy man speak, such as the winsome George Stephanopoulos, "D", one knew there just may be "spin" there (ya think?). So that trusting viewers at least have a chance to consider - there just might be an agenda at play, rather than unbiased truths. Or, so people realize, that although the red and blue allegiants are divided about 50/50 in our country, about one Democrat to one Republican, that on "The View", it's a 4 to 1 designation. A Disney (D) owned station is entitled to balance a cast as it likes...all I'm asking for is a little "D" with the name. Same goes for famed republicans: just a little "R". Everyone knows what letter Rush gets because he is not trying to appear as an unbiased analyst and people pretty much know he couldn’t if he tried.Broadcasters, commentators and actors (famous, rich people, who influence votes, like sales, easily, due to their positions) tend to be liberal and most of what is broadcast in our society is done so, or driven, by the "D"'s. My friends and both my parents hold different political affiliations than do I. People have a right to believe and speak as they wish in America. It's not that.It's this: no matter who the person is, when they evaluate a debate or speak on an issue, no matter how well-spoken or confident sounding, one tends to filter information through one's own beliefs. It's human nature, at best. I won't say that there is a plan to sway votes via the media, but there is, by nature.I will say there should be a little "D" or a little "R" after the names of famous speakers, whether on talk shows, political forums or acclaimed newsprint columns, where candidates, et al, are alluded to. No one with a memory listens to Jane Fonda talk politics, so she is exempt. Tina Fay is just plain funny and can have whatever letter she wants.Debra Kline
Read more…

On ALCOHOL - Part I

Posted by Steven Budlong on October 10, 2008 at 4:03pm
Dear Way Corps,In 1982, my wife and I were living at The Way International, in New Knoxville, Ohio. It was our interim year in The Way Corps and I had the privilege of producing the 40th Anniversary Film. It was supposed to be a 20-minute documentary but it spun out of control and into a 64 minute mini-feature entitled “The Teacher.” It is not my best work but it was an amazing experience and I was honored to do it. It is also an important record of the event.During that time I became acquainted with a man from Van Wert, Ohio, who had been part of Dr. Wierwille’s ministry at the beginning. That beginning was the first “The Youth Caravan Hour” radio broadcast in 1942. I heard a number of those broadcasts from The Way’s archives. The program was a blend of inspired teaching, praise and worship and for its time and means it was remarkably well done. As my new friend told me story after story of his days with V.P. (as in “V”ictor “P”aul Wierwille) I wondered about the obvious disconnect. I wondered why he left the ministry “oh so many years ago”. Clearly it was not over doctrine.One evening I asked Dorothy Owens about his departure and without hesitation she shot me a look I will never forget. I swear I was looking right into the crazed eyes of Carrie Nation; head of the pre-prohibition temperance movement Out of her mouth came one word, a thunderclap loud and crisp, “Alcohol!” That is all she said and she said it all. You may well remember Dr. Wierwille telling us, “alcohol has ruined more men’s ministries than anything I know.” And with that I agree.I have been working on a film for Caron Treatment Centers, which is one of the most progressive organizations on addiction in the country. The man who founded it was Richard Caron, an alcoholic, who found his way to Hazelton, got sober through the principles of AA, nutrition and good therapy and started what were known then as the Chit Chat Farms in Pennsylvania. He was an amazing Christian and I visited his grave out of respect for his work. His tombstone says:Richard J. CaronFounder of Chit Chat FarmsSeptember 23, 1914 – January 8, 1975Who Reached Out His Hand“The glory of life is to love, not to be loved.To give, not to get. To serve, not to be served.To be a strong hand in the dark to another in the time of need.To be a cup of strength to any soul in a crisis of weakness.This is to know the glory of life.This is how he lived.”His is one of the most profound burial markers I have ever seen. It led me to weep when I first read it. What it said to me is that life, love and freedom are all about service. I thank Father God for giving us Richard Caron.In my life, my work and my ministry I have come to know a great deal about addiction. I thought this would be a good place to share what I know, because in The Way we often overlooked drunkenness as harmless fun. And in excusing it we let a lot of our brethren slip into addiction. Let me explain.By the time I was in tenth grade I was on a pretty steep slope of self-destruction. I was living and chasing the false illusions of the sixties’ counter-culture that espoused dubious philosophies like “turn on, tune in and drop out.” For some it was a time of searching and for others it was an excuse to party, act up and act out. I was genuinely on a quest. I looked for meaning in just about everything, including sex, drugs and rock and roll. Through a maze of rather remarkable events I finally accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But, at the age of 16, I wasn’t quite ready to retire from the party scene. In fact, I took my whole Christian fellowship partying with me each and every weekend until one day I was spiritually and scripturally confronted by someone I highly regarded. He called me one morning, a Sunday morning about seven, when I had just gone to bed, and he challenged my behavior and put my nose in the Book. I realized that “pharmakia” (Greek for drug use and translated as sorcery) was not God’s intent for man, and was in fact, sin!I stopped the drug use and didn’t look back. I really loved being born again. I loved the ministry, the people, the natural high of the fellowship and my freedom in Christ. And you know what? We drank! We drank a lot. Sometimes we drank a lot, a lot. We went to bars to "witness". Well, what do you really do in bars? We drank and smoked and engaged in foolish conversation. I do not remember ever winning anyone to the Lord Jesus Christ in a bar. Isn’t that strange???See, nobody told me there was anything wrong with alcohol. In fact, from what I could see, alcohol was good! Why??? Because Paul had encouraged Timothy to "take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake", right? Yup, you see “its in the Bible”. So, as logic goes, we should all take heed to this great spiritual lesson, actualizing and harnessing the truth of it, so that if a little is good, a lot must be great, right?Well, there are other things in the Bible too, but most of us glossed over those word studies. For instance:"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness..." Romans 13:13"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” Ephesians 5:18I also recommend reading Proverbs 23:29-33.Now, many Christians perceive alcoholics to be nothing more than morally weak people who choose to drink to excess, to get high, to get wasted, to pass out or black out. They are weak willed, selfish people, caring only about themselves. They endanger themselves, their families and complete strangers. They are drunks who could stop it if they wanted to, if they really wanted to, but they don't. They don't because they are weak, weak, weak. I use to think that, did you?After all, why do we (mankind) get high? Because WE WANT TO, that is why. We chase things, we lust, we desire to have and then we kill to have even more (“yes, its to die for, darling!”). We bounce from one emotion to another, from one state of consciousness to another, from one feeling to another and we do it for a lot of really good reasons. You know them. They have to do with f e e l I n g s. We (mankind) drink to have a good time. We yuck it up and f e e l better about ourselves. We blot out emotional pain, stress and those really uncomfortable thoughts. We drink our courage to erase our memories and inhibitions. We drink and we f e e l comfortable in our own skins, we f e e l like somebody. Sometimes we drink to mask pain or to become (in the words of Pink Floyd) comfortably numb. Sometimes we drink to hide. We hide from ourselves, from others and from our responsibilities. Like the ostrich with its head in the sand we are not here, not now, not tomorrow. “Tommy Can You Hear Me?”My definition of the alcoholic came from the culture of The Way, not the Bible or Science. I picked up my beliefs from the attitudes, words and actions of others. And I believed that alcoholics were simply sinners who could not control their own lusts."Well", you say, “there might be something to that?” And I will answer you and say “there is, but there is really a whole lot more.” And if you don’t try and understand the “more” you will never understand the process of addiction that turns your child, your partner, your friend or yourself into the addict.I can go on and on, but I think I will spread this out over the next four or five blogs. If there is a question you would like me to answer please e-mail me at stevenbudlong@earthlink.net and I will try and work it in. And I will end this particular blog with the end of the Bible... some good thoughts for this dark, dark day!“He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Revelation 22:20, 21Respectfully Yours,Steven C. BudlongRidgefield, CT 06877Copyright 2008 Sojourner Media, LLC
Read more…

Two Natures? Part One

Posted by Ken & Sue Brown on October 10, 2008 at 8:15am
Are there two “natures” alive and well in each child of God, an old sin “nature” and a new Godly “nature”, each actively pulling the believer one direction or the other? E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) thought so, though the other great “E. W.,” E. W. Kenyon (1867-1948) disagreed. (See pages 153 and following of The Father and His Family.) The opening paragraph of the preface of Dr. Bullinger’s book, The Two Natures in the Child of God, cites Galatians 5:17.Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.Dr. Bullinger offers this verse as a Biblical description of the conflict that he says always abides in every true child of God. Throughout his book, he attributes the opposing sides of this conflict to the two “natures” living in each of us who are born again of God’s Spirit. Proponents of this doctrine have typically coupled Galatians 5:17 with Romans 7:15-21 where the apostle Paul says:Romans 7: 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.These scriptures (Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7:15-21) are the primary ones used to show the two “natures.” There are a few others that I will address in another posting.One of the first things a Bible student might notice about these two references being given as proof of the two “natures” is that neither of them mentions anything about anything called a “nature.” The word “nature” doesn’t appear here. Let’s look at the contexts to see what these passages are about;first, a little of the context of Galatians 5:17.Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.So is Paul telling the Galatian believers that they will not be able to walk in the spirit like they would like to because they have a sin nature that is always warring against the spirit? Of course not. First, the words “cannot do” are a mistranslation. “Cannot” doesn’t appear in any of the other eight versions I checked. The Greek word is, “poieo,” meaning to make, produce, construct, form, fashion, etc. It isn’t “cannot do”, but walk in the spirit so that you do not do, or do not produce, the things that you would. The point is to tell the Galatians to walk in the spirit so that they do not do the lusts of the flesh, NOT to tell them they cannot walk in the spirit because of the lusts the flesh within them! And there is nothing in this record about a “nature” of any kind.Before moving on to the context of the passage in Romans 7, lets just think about this concept for a moment. If there were some sin “nature” inherited from Adam, something from which we cannot escape until the return, something that continually draws us toward sin, wouldn’t that sin “nature” draw us toward ALL sin and not just SOME sins? Why is it then that in some areas you are not the least bit tempted, but in some other areas perhaps you are? Is this due to how the sin “nature” works within you, or is it simply because in some areas you have absolutely committed yourself to doing what God’s Word says while in other areas perhaps you just haven’t come quite that far? A passage in James chapter one would seem to indicate the latter.James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.Verse 14 does not say every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his sin “nature.” It says every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. And that is why believers sin, not because they have some irreconcilable “nature” to do so.Now let’s go to the classic argument adapted from Romans 7:15-21. Here we see the apostle Paul describing a truly sorry condition, but is it the condition of the born-again believer, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ? In this section Paul says, “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I…. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me…. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”We can all relate at least on some level. But just because we can relate to these feelings of inadequacy, doesn’t mean Paul is talking about.… Whoa! What was it I just said, “Feelings of inadequacy”??? If that is what Paul is describing here, it is certainly inconsistent with his other self-pronouncements. Nowhere else in all the seven Church Epistles does he ascribe to himself any such weakness. In fact, he is almost unimaginably confident. Take a look at the following examples of what he said about himself. There are more such references, of course, but these should be enough to paint the picture.Romans 1: 5 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.Romans 15: 19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.1 Corinthians 2: 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:1 Corinthians 4: 4 For I am not conscious of any wrong in myself; but this does not make me clear, for it is the Lord who is my judge. [Bible in Basic English]1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.1 Corinthians 14: 18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.1 Corinthians 15: 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.2 Corinthians 12: 11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.Galatians 6: 17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.Philippians 3: 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.Philippians 4: 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.Colossians 1: 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.1 Thessalonians 2: 10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:2 Thessalonians 3: 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;But in Romans 7 Paul says he just can’t do the things he really wants to because of all this sin that dwells in him? Let’s take a look at the context to see exactly what is being expressed in Romans 7:15-21. For the pertinent context, we must back up at least to Romans 6:1.Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?Romans 6:1 asks a question, a very reasonable question if one understands the magnitude of the grace of God explained in the preceding chapters. Paul, by revelation, has already informed us in those chapters that the believer has been given the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ, has been freely justified by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, has been justified by faith without the deeds of the law, has been saved from wrath, has peace with God and access into this grace by Jesus Christ etc etc etc. So what is to be our response? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Verse 2 gives the short answer to the question, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Verses 3 through 14 expand on the answer given in verse 2. We ARE dead to sin. This is not just a state of mind, not just how we should think even though it isn’t really true. Our old man has been crucified. We have been made free from sin. So don’t let your body act like it isn’t true. The section concludes with verse 14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” This introduces the next question:Romans 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.This question is answered in Romans 6:16-7:6. In this section we read that we were the servants of sin, but have been made free from sin and have become servants of righteousness. We are told to yield our members, our body parts, servants to righteousness i.e. we ARE servants of righteousness, so act like it. We read that we are dead to the law and freed from it. This brings up question #3 (of 4 in chapters 6 & 7): Was the law a bad thing?Romans 7: 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.Here we have the question, “Is the law sin?” and the short answer. The answer is expanded on in verses 9-12. Verse 9 states:Romans 7: 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.Really? Paul was alive without the law and then he saw when the commandment came? The law was given nearly 1,500 years before the time of the Apostle Paul! I quote from PFAL: “Whenever a word or words fails to be true to fact, it must be a figure of speech.” Paul wasn’t alive when the law was initiated. Can you imagine any statement that would be a more obvious big sign to alert the reader that we are entering in to figurative language? The Darby version appropriately puts the “I” in quotation marks, pointing out that Paul is not talking about himself personally. But whom is he talking about? This is a metonymy. Paul is putting himself for the Children of Israel as a whole, those who were alive without the law and then saw the coming of the commandment. The Paul-for-Israel metonymy continues until the end of the chapter. In this section we read that the law was holy, just, and good, but “I” (the Children of Israel) found it to be unto death. This very logically brings up the fourth (and final) question:Romans 7: 13 Was then that which is good [the law] made death unto me [Israel]? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me [Israel] by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.This is the question and the short answer. The expanded answer is given in verses 14-25. Is it not apparent that verse 13 is talking about the effect the law had on those who were under it, not about the condition of the born-again believer? Verses 14 and following are a continuation of the same discussion.Romans 7: 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.Was Paul as a born-again believer sold under sin? Compare the following:1 Corinthians 6: 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.1 Corinthians 7: 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.Romans 7:14 is not talking about believers in the age of grace, who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is talking about the condition of Israel under the law. Paul’s use of the first person is simply a continuation of the Paul-for-Israel metonymy he began in verse 9.God’s Word also brings in another rhetorical device in verse 14. Use of the present tense to describe the past is called, “historical present.” Modern novelists use it frequently. The effect of this device is that it brings the reader closer to the action, causing him to more readily experience the emotion of the narrative. The verses following verse 14 express Israel’s dilemma and do so with feeling, climaxing with verse 24: O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?Romans 7: 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?In this section, Paul refers to, “sin that dwelleth in me” (twice), “sin which is in my members,” and “evil … present with me.” This was true of Israel under the law, but it is not true of those described only a chapter earlier as “dead to sin” (6:2) and “freed from sin” (6:7). Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” The section above illustrates sin’s dominion over the Israelites under the law, not the condition of the believer under grace. Verse 23 speaks of “captivity to the law of sin.” Is this the condition of the believer under grace? A mere four verses later (Romans 8:2) Gods Word states, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”O wretched man that I am! Is that supposed to be the cry of we who have been paid for by the blood of God’s only begotten son that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? Of course not! This is a personification of Israel’s condition under the law. Who shall deliver me? The answer is Jesus Christ our lord as referenced in the next verse.Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.Forget the chapter division between chapters 7 and 8. Romans 8:1ff follows through with the deliverance cried out for, the deliverance brought to us by Jesus Christ. “There is therefore now no condemnation [There WAS condemnation to Israel under the law but NOW there is no condemnation to…] to them which are in Christ Jesus,” The following verses continue to show the contrast between what we have now as opposed to what Israel had under the law.Romans 8: 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.So is Romans 7:15-21 about the workings of the sin nature in the child of God? No, this section is not even about sons of God, let alone about a “nature” of any kind within them. Those who want to promote the “two natures” doctrine are going to have to do better than their interpretations of Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7:15-21.My next posting will deal with the other argument for the “two natures.” This argument depends on a misapplication of the Greek word translated “nature” in God’s Word.
Read more…

Tidbits of Truth - 4

Posted by Gary Cendroski on October 4, 2008 at 6:00pm
Hey all you wonderful people!If we become children of God because our Father put His seed in us, and that seed is His Spirit, then what was the egg and who was the mother?Whenever the word "seed" is used in the Bible in conjunction with a "father," it either refers to his offspring or sperm. So if we are born again of an "incorruptible seed" from the Father, and that seed results in a new birth, that seed must be some kind of spiritual sperm. And if you've got a father and his "seed," you've got to have an egg and a mother to have a birth!I didn't dig the hole, but I'll help us get out of it.In I Peter 1:23 it says, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible [seed], by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." You'll notice that the word "spirit" doesn't occur in that verse. (The word "spirit" in verse 22 is not in some manuscripts.) So if the term "incorruptible [seed]" refers to the Spirit of God, one would have to bring that concept in from somewhere else and introduce it into that verse. But if you look up every occurrence of the word "seed" in the Bible, you'll find that the Spirit of God is never referred to as seed anywhere.The term "incorruptible [seed]" is interpreted right in the verse where it is written, and it couldn't be more simple. The "incorruptible [seed]" is the word of God. Well, think about it. What does "incorruptible" mean. Our Lord said that moths and rust corrupt things. Something that corrupts deteriorates. It goes by the board. It doesn't last. So something "incorruptible" doesn't corrupt. It lasts. It goes on and on. Is there anything mentioned in that verse that is referred to as going on and on? Well of course! It's the word of God that lives and abides forever! Then the following verses confirm and establish this truth. Then Peter nails it down by saying in verse 25: "And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."But wait a minute, does the Bible refer to the word of God as "seed"? Try Luke 8:11: "The seed is the word of God."And how about the parable of the sower? But what does the word of God have to do with the new birth? "So then faith comes by hearing...the word of God" - Romans 10:17.And so the new birth and the spiritual life that ensues is as solid and everlasting as the word of God that brought it about.And since the Devil can only counterfeit something God created, and since there is no spiritual seed entity by which we are born of God, then there can be no such thing as "being born of the wrong seed" or "the Devil's seed." And I don't care how many classes you create about the subject. I had a Corps leader in the field once who told us not to witness to a group of people because they were born of the wrong seed. But that's par for the course because doctrinal error usually ends up in practical error of some sort. Even Jesus witnessed to the Pharisees whom he considered children of the Devil (Matthew 23).But what does it mean then when Jesus Christ said things like in John 8:44, "You are of your father, the Devil"? This is a tremendous and enlightening figure of speech used throughout the Bible, but it will have to be a topic for another tidbit, because I don't want you to take my word for it. I want to show you.
Read more…

Donate

Latest Blog Posts

Most Popular Blog Posts

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives