#many of whom are methodists who left their church already

[cinemaocd]

trying really hard not to post crab rave about the United Methodist Church breaking up over homophobia

#this happened in my local UCC church in the 80s #when the main denomination wanted to allow gay pastors #and our church broke away and took their homophobic football and went home #now it has fewer than 50 members #many of whom are methodists who left their church already #seriously I'm bitter bring on the crabs

[officialyourdailyinspiration]

Today in Christian History

Today is Friday, January 6th, the 6th day of 2023. There are 359 days left in the year.

Today’s Highlight in History:

786: Martyrdom of St. Abo in Tsibili, Georgia. A Muslim perfumer from Baghdad, he had become a Christian and attempted to strengthen Christians and win Muslims to Christ.

1088: Theophylact delivers a flattering address in Constantinople before Emperor Alexius that results in an unwelcome “promotion” to the position of archbishop of Ohrid, Bulgaria (now in Macedonia). Homesick, he will write obscure letters to distract his mind.

1374: Death of Andreas Corsini, Italian bishop of Fiesole. After a reckless youth, he converted and became a strict Carmelite, and was credited with being a prophet and miracle-worker. (Under the Florentine calendar his death is given in 1373.)

1422: Jan Ziska, blind Hussite general and master tactician, defeats Sigsimund of Bohemia at Nebovidy, one of many defeats he will inflict on Bohemia’s enemies.

1494: Columbus and his men celebrate the first mass in the Americas, on Isabelle Island, Haiti.

1628: Bribed by Roman Catholics, Turks in Constantinople seize a press that is preparing to print a small catechism written by Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Cyril Lukaris. Jesuits had already maneuvered to exile Lukaris for several months.

1771: First baptism takes place among the Moravian converts of the Saramaccas people, near where the Senthea River empties into the Surinam River. Chief Arabina, the mission’s first convert is baptized.

1772: Death of Samuel Johnson, a New England clergyman, educator, and philosopher. In 1724 he had opened the first Anglican church built in Connecticut, after which he had served as a missionary for the Anglican Church, and played an important role in setting the standards and curriculum for King’s College, New York, (later known as Columbia University).

1829: The Indiana State Legislature incorporates Hanover Academy, begun two years ealier with six students by Presbyterian minister John Finley Crowe. The school sits on land donated by Presbyterian Elder, Williamson Dunn, who becomes one of the trustees.

1835: Businessmen operating in China circulate a paper among themselves, calling for a “Morrison Education Society” to bring the gospel to China. The society is named for pioneer missionary Robert Morrison who had died a year earlier. They raise several thousand pounds to support the mission and offer the post of missionary to Samuel Robbins Brown.

The Swedish Mission Society is founded.

1844: Hermann Anandarao Kaundinya is baptized in Mangalore, India, with two other young Brahmans. He becomes a notable educator, pastor, and Bible translator in the Kanarese district.

1850: Conversion of Charles Spurgeon who will become one of the most notable pastors of all time. He had entered a little Methodist church because of cold and snow where a deacon told him to look to Christ. “I can never tell you how it was but I no sooner saw whom I was to believe than I also understood what it was to believe and I did believe in one moment.”

1852: Death in Paris, France, of Louis Braille, developer of the reading system of raised dots for the blind which bears his name. He is just forty-three years old.

1884: Death in Brno (in modern Czechoslovakia) of Gregor Mendel, a monk who through persistent experimentation had discovered the laws of genetics.

1894: Death of Theophan the Recluse, a Russian Orthodox author, priest, and bishop. He had written several works, among them a translation of the Philokalia, a famous collection of the church fathers. Typical of his sayings was, “Attention to that which transpires in the heart and proceeds from it—this is the chief activity of the proper Christian life.”

1902: Edith Warner, a Presbyterian missionary, sets out from Asaba, Nigeria, to become the first white woman to visit the East Niger.

1921: Death of Alexander Whyte, regarded as the finest preacher of the Free Church of Scotland. He had also served as professor of New Testament Literature at New College, Edinburgh, and wrote the popular Bible Characters.

1934: Peter Deyneka and four other men meet to form the Russian Gospel Association.

1948: Janani Luwum converts to Christianity in Uganda. He immediately asks his family to pray that he won’t backslide, but rather lead a godly life. Eventually he will become an archbishop and will be executed by the brutal dictator Idi Amin.

1973: Death in California of Pentecostal evangelist Tommy Hicks, allegedly of alcoholism. Nineteen years earlier he had packed stadiums in Argentina, winning thousands to follow Christ.

1986: Death in Grand Rapids, Michigan, of Elsie Rebekah Ahlwen. She had served as an evangelist among America’s Swedes and wrote the hymn “He the Pearly Gates Will Open.”

1992: Naimat Ahmer, a Christian educator and poet in Pakistan, is stabbed seventeen times in earshot of students by a Muslim who claims Ahmer has insulted Mohammad. Ahmer taught that Christ is the only way to salvation.

#Today in Christian History #January 6th #Death of Alexander Whyte #death of Elsie Rebekah Ahlwen #death of Louis Braille #conversion of Charles Spurgeon #Swedish Mission Society is founded #First baptism takes place among the Moravian converts of the Saramaccas people #Columbus and his men celebrate the first mass in the Americas

[johnchiarello]

Romans 1-3

ROMANS 1-3

Romans 1-3 videos-

[The videos below should all be the same- I’ll add multiple links to this study- as well as others down the road- of the same video- because I have learned over time if a site deletes your videos- the links are no good- so for that reason- regardless of what happens down the road- there will be at least 1 link that still works- embedded in the teaching post]

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-3-15-romans-1-3.zip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz4xrnpMFhU

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhRWSt6Bar8L1ZhQn

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10B590nvz5_myWvPziBYakbj8VMqlDee9/view?usp=sharing

Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/

 For the next 3-4 weeks I plan on covering the letter to the Romans- written by the Apostle Paul- Below are excerpts from a commentary I wrote years ago- try and read the book of Romans the next week or so.

Actually reading thru the bible- in context- is one of the best habits you can develop.

Rome was the city of influence at the time of Paul- located just east of the bend of the Tiber river- about 18 miles from the Mediterranean Sea.

The letter to the Romans- would be read orally to both Christians and Jews in the city- in the days of the writing of these letters [which now make up our bible] they were living in an ‘oral’ culture- and the letters were intended to be read aloud to those in the early Christian communities [remember- you didn’t have books back then- like we have today- and the mass production of writing/publishing did not yet exist].

So- Paul was a strategic thinker- and he penned this letter hoping it would be a ‘shot in the dark’- that is the darkness of sinful man-

The letter to the Romans is the closest thing to a systematic theology found in the New Testament.

Its impact in church history is great- John Chrysostom- the great 5ht century preacher- had it read aloud to him- once a week.

 Saint Augustine attributes it to his radical conversion- the story goes he heard some kids singing ‘take up and read’.

 He picked up a copy of the letter to the Romans- and history was changed.

 Luther- the great 16th century reformer- was teaching this letter- as a Catholic priest/scholar- out of Germany- when he read ‘The just shall live by faith- therein is the righteousness of God revealed’-

It lead to what we call today ‘The Protestant Reformation’.

 A few hundred years later- the Great Methodist founder- John Wesley- would say his heart was ‘strangely warmed’ while hearing a message at Aldersgate- and it lead to his conversion- sure enough- the message was from the letter to the church at Rome.

 So- when the great Apostle sat down and penned this ‘arrow’- hoping it to go forth and have great impact for the Kingdom of God- his hopes were indeed realized.

Enjoy-

 · ROMANS 1: 1-16 many believe this letter to be Paul’s best, I wouldn’t disagree. The letters of the New Testament do not appear in chronological order, some feel this to be a huge obstacle in understanding scripture. I think it helps to know the times when Paul wrote the letters, but this in itself doesn’t prevent us from learning scripture. Romans is addressed to the church at Rome and is significant in that Paul did not ‘plant this church’. Unlike the other letters of Paul, he is writing to the believers with whom he had no strong prior relationship. He roots his gospel in the historical facts of history and scripture. ‘The gospel of God that the prophets foretold- Jesus of the seed of David who was proved to be the Son of God by the resurrection’. Make no bones about it, Paul is coming down strong on the gospel of Jesus Christ and he positions himself well right at the start. There were ‘other gospels’ [Galatians] that were circulating and at times might have even outnumbered Paul’s message! The Jewish sect from Jerusalem who embraced both Jesus and the law were very influential in Paul’s day. When Paul combats a legalistic gospel, at times he is running ‘neck and neck’ with the Judaizers. Paul will make a foundational statement that will run true thru out the rest of the New Testament. ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone who believes. For in it is the righteousness of God revealed’. Now, I have hit on this theme before, but it is so fundamental to the rest of this study that we need to spend some time with it. I always wondered why so many Evangelicals, and scholars, could not ‘rightly divide’ this biblical doctrine. I am speaking of ‘Righteousness by faith’ as being the root of all other ‘Salvation’. What I mean is many have confused the doctrine of ‘the salvation of the righteous’ with the salvation of the sinner. The reason why the gospel is one of salvation, is because this is the tool that God has ordained to administer ‘righteousness- justification’ to the believer. When God ‘saves- delivers’ a sinner from an ‘unjust state of being’ this act can be called ‘being saved’ [Ephesians 2]. Also thru out the scriptures you have people who are ‘just- righteous’ who experience ‘continual salvation’ because of the fact that they are righteous. This doctrine can be called ‘the salvation of the righteous’. David in Psalms says ‘the righteous cry and the Lord hears and delivers them out of all their troubles’ ‘The salvation of the righteous is from the Lord’. Peter speaks of God delivering the ‘just- righteous’ from wrath. Both Lot and Noah are said to have been ‘saved’ because they were righteous. The whole point here is as we progress thru Romans Paul will use the term ‘salvation’ and ‘righteousness’. Whenever [chapter 10] you have a combining of the righteous [believers] calling, crying out to God for ‘salvation’ it needs to be understood that this does not mean ‘salvation’ in the sense of the initial act of justification. While the two are closely related, the testimony from scripture does make a distinction. So Paul shows us that the reason the gospel is Gods power ‘unto salvation’ is because this is the way God chose to ‘make people just’. Paul will spend a few chapters [3 and 4] laying the foundation of righteousness by faith. But first he will argue his case for why all men need to have this righteousness. [ see entry # 704 for more comments on ‘the salvation of the righteous’]

  · ROMANS 1:17-21 ‘for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness’. Now, we have already established the ‘mode’ by which the gospel ‘saves’ us. Once we believe in the gospel, it immediately, and progressively ‘saves’ us. The immediate act of justification can be described as ‘getting saved’. But there is also a large amount of scripture that speaks of ‘continual and future salvation’. Now Paul begins showing us how this salvation works. He says ‘the wrath of God is revealed against unrighteousness’ the previous verses showed how the believer is made righteous. So we are ‘delivered from the wrath to come’ [Thessalonians] ‘saved by wrath thru his life’ [Romans 5:9] ‘he will appear from heaven the second time to bring salvation to those who look for him’ [Hebrews] and many other verses testify of this theme. Paul is showing us one aspect of this ‘ongoing, future’ salvation by saying ‘see, since Gods wrath is promised to come upon the unrighteous, once you believe with the heart unto righteousness, you then become someone who is off the radar screen from wrath’ [John 3- the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever, but the believer is in a state of ‘no condemnation’]. This understanding will be important as we get to the later chapters in Romans. Now I also want to share a somewhat ‘unique’ interpretation of the following verses ‘that which may be known of God is manifest IN THEM [some say ‘to them]; for God hath showed it unto them [not necessarily meaning ‘showed it to them from created things’!] For the invisible things of him [his attributes! Invisible stuff] from the creation of the world [since the beginning of time, that is since God created all things he has imbedded a witness of himself into all creation; ‘all creation groans and travails’ Paul will attribute ‘human like’ characteristics to all creation. In essence all creation has this testimony and yearning for God in it] are clearly seen [not with the natural eye, but thru this ‘imbedded testimony of Gods attributes that he has placed in all creation’] being understood by the things that are made [not understood by ‘looking at the things that are made’; creation. But actually being understood ‘by them’] so that they are without excuse’. The normal way of seeing these verses says ‘God has left a witness of himself thru his creation. All people are without excuse because they can see his creation and know he is’. Now, is this concept true? Of course! David says ‘the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament SHOWETH his handiwork’. The only problem is ‘all men can’t see!’ I don’t mean to be trivial here; I want to show you that if you read this passage like I just taught it, that it basically is saying ‘since the beginning of Gods creation he has left man without excuse. He has always revealed his inner attributes to man. The witness of moral law and conscience is imbedded in the creation. All men ‘hold’ [possess] the ‘truth’ [this inner moral witness] in unrighteousness, therefore they are without excuse’. I don’t want to be a contrarian simply for the sake of being one. But if you see what I just told you, this fits in with Paul’s understanding of salvation. God’s wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness, yet those who say ‘that’s not fair, God made us this way!’ have no excuse, because God gave all men [and creation] an inner witness that they could have acted on- ‘when they knew God, they glorified him not as God but became vain in their imaginations’. All men have at one time ‘known God’ even those who have never seen Gods testimony from creation! Therefore they are without excuse.

 · ROMANS 1:21-32 the scripture says that all creation ‘knew God’. The indictment is ‘there is no excuse’. The previous verses proved that God not only made man, but that because man was made in Gods image, he therefore had an ‘inner imprint’ of his maker inside him. Now man chose to ‘change the image of God into that of animals’. Man could not escape this inert desire to worship, this thing in him that said ‘there’s more to life than simple flesh’. So he didn’t just become an atheist [though that’s what they would have you believe] but they became ‘changers of Gods image’. They came up with an alternative ‘religion’. Scripture says they changed God’s image into that of an animal [idolatry] and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator. Evolution was Darwin’s feeble attempt at ‘changing the image of God into that of animals’. How so? Modern man was too enlightened [after all we had the enlightenment!] to actually go out and make an image of an animal and bow to it. Instead he bought into the idea that he evolved from animals. Scripture says we are made in Gods image, evolution says ‘we are made in the image of an animal’. Men did not ‘like to retain God in their knowledge’. They had to have some controlling worldview, they came up with one. Now Romans says God gave them up to become like that which they chose to worship. Man was designed to worship God, in seeking and going after God they would become more like him. When man chooses to empty his mind from the creator, God allows him to fill it with what he wants. He receives a ‘reprobate mind’. He fixates on the animal instincts that are a natural result of ‘worshipping four footed beasts’. Now man has no choice but to be formed into the thing that he worships. Paul is here telling us that man became immoral as a result of his own choice to eradicate God from his thoughts. Man received the just recompense of his choice. At the end of the chapter Paul closes with ‘they know that those who do these things are worthy of death’. Once again the idea of judgment ‘the wrath of God is revealed from heaven’. Paul’s summary; Man is unrighteous. God is righteous in punishing man. Man chose to become like this. The only way to escape an inevitable meeting with wrath is to ‘become righteous’. This is accomplished thru believing the gospel. When you believe you become righteous and are no longer on Gods radar screen for judgment.

[One note on Evolution- In the future I hope to cover various views on Evolution- and explain some of the objections that Christian’s have- are actually not good arguments. For instance- in the creation account- Genesis 1- we read that the ‘waters brought forth life’- we see that in the creation account itself- there are progressive acts- God ‘made man’ from the dust- do Christians object to ‘the dirt’? No. We don’t argue ‘no- we weren’t made from dirt! – God made us’! True- but God can use progressive acts- and materials- that are ‘base’ in his creative acts- see?]

 · ROMANS 2:1-13 ‘Therefore thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art that judgest’. Now, this chapter will run with the theme ‘who do you think you are to judge, you do the things that you say are wrong’. Yikes, this type of preaching convicts us all. But we need to understand that Paul is saying a little more [well, a lot more!] than this. Here’s where we need to do some history. This letter is addressed to believers in Rome, those ‘called to be saints’. Paul is also giving one of his strongest defenses of his theology, he realizes that a large Jewish population are also at Rome [Acts 28]. By the time of this letter the lines are being drawn between ‘Paul’s gospel’ [the true gospel] and the ‘Jewish law gospel’ coming from the Judaizers out of Jerusalem. The main fight is over whether or not Gentile believers need to be circumcised and come under the law in order to ‘be saved’ [Acts 15]. Now the mentality of the Jewish mind was ‘we have been given Gods precepts [true] and because we are the inheritors of the law and moral standards of God, this puts us in a better class than the Gentiles’ [false]. In essence the law was supposed to reveal mans sin to himself, it was to show us our need for a Savior. But in the legalistic mind it created enmity between Jew and Gentile. This is what it means when Paul writes the Ephesian letter and says ‘the middle wall of partition has been removed in Christ’ this ‘middle wall’ is referring to the law and how it divided Jew and Gentile. So here Paul is saying ‘you Jews who are trusting in the fact that you were the recipients of the law, who use the law as a measuring rod to justify yourselves. This measuring rod was actually given to show you your sin. Did it never occur to you that the very fact that the ‘rod’ says “don’t commit adultery, don’t steal” that these things are actually sins that you yourselves do [the legalistic Jews]. And yet the very rule [law] of God that you are using to justify yourselves, this law you actually break!’ Now you are beginning to see the context. And not only were they breaking the law, but at the same time they were saying to Paul’s Gentile churches ‘unless you get circumcised, you are not accepted with God’. The Gentile believers were actually born of God and stopped doing the things that the law commanded them not to do. They were ‘fulfilling the law by nature’. So Paul is really rebuking this hypocritical mindset that said to the Gentile believers that they weren’t saved. And at the same time the ‘judgers of the law’ were actually breaking the law, while the Gentle converts were keeping it by nature! In this context verse one means a lot. Now to an important verse ‘for not the hearers of the law are just before God, BUT THE DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED’. Just the fact that this statement is made by Paul in this letter is amazing. Paul will spend lots of time in this letter saying ‘those who try and become justified by keeping the law are missing it’. He will go over and over again stating that trying to become righteous by works and law keeping are futile. Yet here he says ‘the doers of the law SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, not the hearers’. Keep in context what I just showed in the beginning of the chapter. The New Testament has a theme that I have hit on before [read the Hebrews 11 commentary on this site]. The theme is ‘men are justified’ [declared legally righteous] by faith. This faith also ‘sanctifies’ [which can also be called ‘justified’ a sort of progressive justification. James uses this in his letter. Paul says in Galatians ‘having begun in the Spirit [legal justification] are you now made perfect by the flesh’ [law keeping]. Now the New Testament teaches that God wants people to actually ‘be righteous’. Johns 1st epistle uses this as the marker of whether or not you are a child of God ‘by this we know… those that do what is righteous are born of God, those that do evil are not’. In Jesus judgment scenarios ‘those that have DONE good are raised to life, those that have done evil to damnation’. So Paul in essence is saying ‘God ‘justifies’ [using the term in a ongoing- futuristic sense] the righteous, not the ones who only hear the law [the Jewish legalists] but those who by nature do it’ [Paul’s gentile converts]. Got it? This distinction is very important. One of the historic reasons why the Protestant and Catholic churches are divided is over this issue. The Catholic Pope [Leo] who initially condemned Luther did so on grounds like this. The Pope who succeeded Leo re-read all of Luther’s documents, in an honest effort to bridge the schism, and came to the same conclusion. Now I like Luther and side with him more so than the Pope, but one of the problems was some of Luther’s writings seemed to say ‘Justification is solely by faith [true] therefore sin hardily’ [false]. Now Luther didn’t intend to come off this way, but that’s the way it sounded. So the Catholic doctrine fell more on the side of ‘Gods grace makes you righteous, God cant declare people actually righteous until they actually are righteous’ this is called the ‘Legal fiction’ argument. They said Luther’s idea was a ‘legal fiction’. In essence some of what the Catholic scholars were saying was correct. Now God does declare us righteous at the moment of belief, before we actually ‘become totally righteous in practice’. But the error of the Catholic argument saying ‘God cant declare you righteous until you are’ was missing the point. When God says ‘you are righteous’ then you are! God doesn’t lie. But I understand the Catholic point. I think Paul understood it too. In this chapter Paul says ‘not the hearers of the law, but the doers shall be justified’.

 · ROMANS 2:14- 3:18- Paul says ‘you are called a Jew and are confident that you are a teacher and an instructor of the law’. Read my Hebrews commentary, chapters 5 and 6. It is interesting that Paul understood the teaching role that the Jewish nation was to play among the Gentile nations. In Jesus parables he also hits on these themes. Hebrews says ‘when the time has come [the appointed time of Messiah- Galatians 4] that you ought to be teachers, you have need to be taught the first principles again’. Here Paul tells them they are proud to be the ‘possessors’ of the Old Testament, yet thru their disobedience to it the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles [ouch!] Paul fully acknowledges the privileged role that Israel had, he himself was brought up with this ‘elitist/intellectual’ mindset. But here Paul rebukes them for not fully living up to the law. ‘Well brother, how could they live up to it? Paul himself says that this is impossible.’ If they carried thru with the receiving of Messiah, which their law spoke and testified of, then truly they would have been fulfilling the law as new creatures in Christ. In essence their indictment is ‘you never fully followed thru with your own law’! Now Paul will flatly say that circumcision and being the guardians of the law profit nothing. That the ‘circumcision of the heart’ is what matters. He says if the gentiles, who have no historical attachment to the law, if they do by nature the things in the law then they are ‘spiritually circumcised’ [set apart unto God]. But if the circumcised do not obey the law and character of God [thru the new birth] then it profits nothing. I want to note the strong disconnect between the way Paul speaks about natural Israel and her heritage, and how some in the American church present her. Paul, who himself is a Jew, makes it very clear that Israel is in a state of ‘danger’ by not receiving Messiah. Though he will admit their special place and role in history, yet he refuses to exalt her in her natural ‘state’ [of being]. Now Israel’s response to Paul [which by the way Paul interjects himself. I want to make a note here. Paul will give ‘both sides’ of the argument in his letters. He will say things like ‘and you will say to me such and such’. He actually try’s to add both sides of the conversation in his letters. Recently there has been some discussion on whether or not we can really understand the New Testament without fully knowing all the background and history of the letters. Some have said just knowing the letters are like hearing only one side of a phone conversation. To be honest this isn’t really true. The writers of the letters and the gospels lived in an ‘oral culture’. This is why Paul himself gives instructions on his letters being read- as opposed to saying ‘pass the letters around for everyone to personally read’. The point is we can understand a whole bunch of scripture just by reading it!] Now Israel asks ‘what good is the whole thing, why even have Jews or circumcision or any history with God at all’? Paul realizes that his whole argument for law and circumcision meaning nothing without a changed heart, that some would respond back like this. He in turn says ‘the law and all the history of Israel with God were very important! It was Gods way of getting his prophetic word [oracles] to man’. In essence God chose to ‘start a conversation’ with Abraham and extend it forward to his children. Over a long history of God interacting with Israel, God would speak thru prophets and ‘wise men’ and these prophetic words were being recorded [meticulously by the way!]. God would reveal himself and his purpose of Messiah thru these writings that came from this relationship [though rocky!] that he had with Israel. Now Paul will say ‘does their unbelief negate Gods promise’? No! Let God be true and every man be a liar. The fact that Israel as a nation were ‘not believing’ in their Messiah, didn’t effect the actual power of the Messiah to be believed on among the Gentile nations. A couple of things here; dispensational theology teaches that the Kingdom of God has been postponed until Christ’s return. I think this contradicts Paul’s argument. Paul said Israel’s unbelief could not negate the full purpose of God. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead and is presently seated at God’s right hand proves this. Also Paul will teach later in this letter that the actual reason why salvation has gone out to the gentiles is because Israel rejected Messiah. In essence Israel’s unbelief could not negate what God purposed to do all along.

 · ROMANS 3:19-31 ‘Now we know that what things the law says, it says to those who are under the law… that every mouth may be stopped and all the world becomes guilty before God’. One of the questions that arise as a response to Paul’s gospel is ‘if the law cannot make us righteous, then why even have it’? Paul will consistently teach the concept that Gods intention for the law was simply to reveal mans sin to him. Man would have this ‘form’ of the law written on stone tablets and as he tried to live up to God’s standards he would come to the proper diagnosis that all men are sinners. This diagnosis would then lead him to a place of faith in Jesus. After he believes in Jesus he then fulfills the law naturally, out of having a new nature ‘yea, we establish the law’ [3:31]. I have found it interesting over the years to teach people this. To explain to sincere people, church goers. To say ‘did you know the bible says that no man can be saved by trying to obey Gods Ten Commandments’? I will always explain that this doesn’t mean that God wants us to break them! But when we come to the Cross we by nature keep them. These verses lay down the foundation of ‘justification by faith’. He that believes is righteous. To declare Jesus righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. Having faith ‘in His Blood’. Both Jews and Gentiles need to be made righteous thru faith/belief in Jesus. I want to establish this fact in your mind. Paul without a doubt describes this experience as being ‘justified by faith’. This is the same as saying ‘believing with the heart unto righteousness’. Later on [chapter 10] this needs to be understood when parsing the verses that say ‘with the heart a man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ many are confused about this, to get it right you need to see that Paul spends much time early on establishing the fact that ‘those who believe unto righteousness’ are justified by faith already!

  Below are just a few clips from Romans 1-3- I hope to hit on these in the video.

 Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

     ROMANS 4-7

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-11-15-romans-4-7.zip

Video

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/700-galatians.wav?_=1 This is an old radio show I made years ago- thought it fit well with what I’m teaching now- you’ll need to use Internet Explorer browser to hear it.

 The apostle Paul quotes a lot of Old Testament scriptures in this letter- I hope to cover some of them on the video- but as you read these chapters- it would be helpful to read Genesis 12- 13- 15-and 17- these are the main chapters Paul uses in the life of Abraham to show Abrahams faith- and how he was justified by faith- before he was circumcised [Gen 15].

He will describe the faith of Abraham by using the story of Abraham and Sarah having a son in their old age [Gen. 17] – and talk about how the heirs of the promise- that Abraham would be ‘heir of the world’ was made to ALL THE SEED- meaning not just to his Jewish brothers who would believe- but also to the Gentiles- who were never granted the ‘right of the covenant’ [circumcision].

Paul explains that Abraham was justified BEFORE he was circumcised- so- he is the father of all the kids- even the Gentile believers who were never circumcised- but had the faith of Abraham.

Now- there’s’ a lot I am trying to cover in this Romans study- for those who watch the videos- you will see that I’m also covering the divisions within Christianity- primarily those that arose out of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. I quote the book of James- and show how James says ‘was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar’. It’s important to see- that these words JUSTIFIED BY WORKS- are indeed used in our New Testament- in the videos I’m explaining this- but the point I’m making is James uses the account of Abraham- in Genesis 22- and shows us that the progressive work of ‘Justification’ can- and is- applied to the act of Abrahams obedience- and when God saw Abraham DO A JUST THING [a work] James says ‘he was then justified’- the same word used in the initial act of our Justification- seen in Genesis 15- ok- this might be a bit much to take in now- but over time when we get a better grasp on this- I believe it will help to foster unity in the Body of Christ.

 James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

NOTE- As I do this study- I’m copying/pasting an old commentary I wrote years ago- I guess I should read the commentary first- after I penned the above- I read it- I basically covered the same thing- at least I’m consistent!

  ROMANS 4: 1-12  Now, Paul will use one of his most frequent arguments to prove that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, need to be justified by faith and not ‘by works’. The most famous singular figure that natural Israel looked to as the ‘identifier’ of them being a special people was ‘Father Abraham’. Paul does a masterful job at showing how Abraham was indeed justified by faith and not by works. The ‘work’ of circumcision came before the law. It would later become synonymous with law keeping [Ten Commandments] and Paul can certainly use it here as implying ‘the whole law’. But to be accurate this work of circumcision was a national identifying factor that Israel looked to as saying ‘we are better than you [Gentiles]’. Paul is showing Israel that God in fact ‘made Abraham righteous’ before he circumcised him! [Gen. 15] And the sign of this righteousness was circumcision. This meaning that Abrahams faith in Gods promise [a purely ‘passive’ act! This is very important to see. Later on as we deal with the famous ‘conversion texts’ we need to keep this in mind] justified him without respect to the law. God simply took Abraham outside and said ‘look at the stars, your children will be this abundant’ and Abraham simply believed this promise to be true. Much like the passive belief of Cornelius house at their conversion [Acts 10]. The simple belief in the promise of Jesus justifies the sinner! Now this fact of Abraham believing and being made righteous, before being circumcised, is proof [according to Paul] that Abraham is the father of ‘many nations’ not just natural Israel. All ethnic groups who HAVE THE SAME FAITH AS ABRAHAM are qualified to be ‘sons of Abraham/ heirs of God’. The fact that Abraham carried this justification along with him as he became circumcised, shows that all Jewish people as well can partake of this ‘righteousness by faith’ if they have the same faith as Abraham had. Jesus did say ‘Abraham rejoiced to see my day’[ John’s gospel]. In Gods promise to Abraham of a future dynasty of children, this included the promised Messiah. So indirectly Abraham’s belief in the promise of being the father of ‘many nations’ included belief in the coming Messiah. So according to Paul, all ethnic groups who have faith in Jesus are justified/made righteous. The very example Israel used to justify ‘ethnic/national pride’ [Father Abraham] was taught in a way that showed the truth of the gospel and how God is no respecter of persons.

 · ROMANS 4:13-14 ‘Now the promise that Abraham would become the inheritor of the world was not going to be fulfilled thru the law [natural Israel] but thru faith [all who believe, both Jew and Gentile]’. I have spoken on this before [see note at bottom] and will hit on it a little now. The historic church can be defined for the most part as ‘a-millennial’, that is they interpreted the parables on the Kingdom of God and the promise of ‘inheriting the world [which includes the Promised Land]’ as being fulfilled thru the church. That Jesus established Gods kingdom and the church basically fulfills these promises by expanding Christ’s ‘rule’ thru the earth. Some historians saw the 4thcentury ‘marriage’ of Rome and Christianity as a fulfillment of this. During the 19th and 20th century you had the rise of Dispensationalism, a ‘new/different’ way of interpreting these land promises. Many good men showed the reality of Christ’s literal coming and pointed to a future time where Jesus literally sits on a throne in Jerusalem and rules all nations. These brothers are called ‘Pre-millennial’, they believe that Jesus comes back first [pre] and then establishes his ‘millennial rule’ on earth. The Premillennialists would see the Amillennialists as ‘replacement theologians’. They said that these brothers were taking the actual promises that God made to Israel and ‘replacing’ Israel with the church. In essence they accused the Amillennialists of spiritualizing the promises to Israel and saying the church would be the recipients of the promises. Now, both sides have truth to them, I personally believe the Amillennialists have a lot more truth! But I do see some of the good points that the Premillenialists made. I want you to simply read these verses [Romans 4:13-14, Galatians 3:18] and see for yourself how Paul does teach the reality that the promises to Abraham are to be fulfilled thru the church [spiritual Israel]. This does not mean that there is no future physical return of Jesus. But the body of scripture leans heavily on the Amillinnialists side. [see entry 703] NOTE- To be fair, some historic thinkers held to the Premillennial position. The majority were Amillennial.

 · ROMANS 4:15-25 ‘For the law worketh wrath, for where there is no law there is no transgression’. I simply want to touch on the concept of ‘wrath’ being a very real part of judgment. One of the ways the gospel ‘saves us’ is by promising a future [and present!] deliverance from wrath. While death ‘reigned’ before the law was given, it wasn’t until the law where you had a clear picture of transgression and atonement. We will deal with this later in Romans. Now Paul once again hits on the theme of Abraham being the ‘spiritual father’ of many nations [all who believe] and how the promises of God to Abraham were to be fulfilled thru this ‘new race of people’ [the church]. Paul is careful to not demean Israel; he couches his terms in a way that says ‘God will fulfill these things thru the circumcision who believes [Jews] and the un-circumcision who believe’ [Gentiles]. I want to stress the very plain language Paul uses to show us that we should not be seeing Gods ‘covenant promises’ thru a natural lens. Christians need to be careful when they support [exalt!] natural Israel in a way that the New Testament doesn’t do. ‘To the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is the faith of Abraham’. Now Paul tells us that when God made promises to Abraham that Abraham believed against hope. When all things looked really bad, he still believed. When he was 100 years old and Sarah around 90, he held to the promise [read my commentaries on Genesis 15-18 and Hebrews 11] and therefore God imputed righteousness to him. How closely are you paying attention to Paul’s free use of Abraham and Genesis? If you carefully read this chapter you see Paul ‘intermingle’ the story of Abraham being ‘made righteous upon initial belief’ [Gen. 15] and the later story of Sarah having Isaac [Gen. 17]. I think Paul was simply using the description of Abrahams faith, as seen in the Gen. 17 [and 22!] accounts of his life, to show the type of faith he initially ‘exercised’ [I don’t like using this term to be honest. God actually imputes faith to the believer at the initial act of regeneration]. The important chapters from Genesis that we all need to have a ‘working knowledge’ of are Chapters 12 [the initial promise], 15 [the oft mentioned ‘imputed righteousness’ verse], 17 [the receiving of the promised seed- Isaac], and 22 [the ultimate act of obedience that Abraham showed in offering up Isaac. This will be described in James epistle as ‘righteousness being fulfilled’. James, who is concerned about ‘works’, will say that when Abraham offered Isaac he was fulfilling the ‘imputed righteousness’ that God gave him earlier. James actually describes this as ‘being justified by works’{James 2:21} and James says ‘the scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness’… ‘see how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only’. The classic view taken by many confuses the ‘justified’ part with the initial act of justification that Paul centers on. James uses ‘see how he was justified by works’ in a future ‘judicial decree’ sense; that is God having the ongoing ‘freedom’ to continually say ‘good job son, you did well’. The word justification is used in a fluid sense much like salvation. Christians need to be more ‘secure’ in their own assurance to be able to see these truths. When we approach all these seemingly ‘difficult passages’ in a defensive mode, then we never arrive at the actual meaning]. When we see the overall work of God in Abraham’s life we see the purpose of God in ‘declaring people just’ [initially ‘getting saved’]. The purpose is for them to eventually ‘act just’ [obey!] ‘Jesus was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification’ thank God that this process is dependant on the work of the Cross! [see # 758]

 · Romans 5:1-9 ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God thru our Lord Jesus Christ’. There are certain benefits ‘results’ of being ‘made righteous by faith’, peace being one of them. Paul goes on and says we glory in hope and also trials, because we realize that thru the difficulties we gain experience and patience. Things that are needed for the journey, we can’t substitute talent and motivation and ‘success principles’ for them. We need maturity and God produces it this way. Those who teach otherwise have a ‘self inflicted wound’ their teachings are very immature! That is there was a ‘strain’ of teaching in the church that said ‘we don’t learn thru difficulty and suffering, we learn only thru Gods word!’ [that is reading it]. Those who grasped onto this false idea have produced some of the most unbalanced teaching in the church, stuff that even the younger generation is saying ‘what in the heck are these guys preaching’?  If you by pass the difficult road, you will be shallow. Now Paul says ‘God commended his love toward us, that when we were sinners Christ died for us’ ‘being now justified by his death, we shall be saved thru his life’ [saved from wrath thru him]. Once again this theme pops up; ‘since we are justified, made righteous by believing with the heart, we shall be saved [continual, future deliverance] from wrath thru him’. I don’t know if you ever realized what a major theme this is in Romans? The ongoing, future ‘being saved’ is a result of ‘being made righteous’. Later on in chapter 10, when we read that the righteous call for salvation, we need to understand this context. Remember, when the two are linked together in the same verse, it is not saying ‘saved’ in the sense of some sinner’s prayer. It is speaking of the ongoing, promised deliverance [from many things, not just wrath!] to the ‘justified caller’. We have access ‘by faith into this grace wherein we stand’. Wow! That’s some good stuff, Jesus ever lives so that those who come to him are ‘being saved’ to the uttermost. This grace we are in is available to us all of the time, are we availing ourselves of it?

 · ROMANS 5:10-21 ‘For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to him by the death of his Son… much more we shall be saved by his life’. Now, some have ‘divided’ the role of Jesus death and resurrection in salvation. I heard a radio preacher teach that all the people who think they are ‘saved’ because Jesus died for them were deceived. He used this verse to say they need to believe in his ‘life’ [resurrection] to ‘be saved by his life’. Well I get the point, but he was missing the meaning of the verse. Why? Because once again we see ‘saved’ as initially ‘getting saved’ while here it is in a continual sense. Paul is saying ‘if God reconciled us [justification] while we were deadly enemies, how much more shall the actual ministry and life of Jesus at Gods right hand do for us!’ The New Testament teachers that we have actually entered into an eternal covenant with God thru his Son. Jesus ‘ever lives’ to make intercession for us [Hebrews]. Therefore he is able to ‘save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him’. The bible teaches an ongoing ‘saving’ relationship that believers have with the Messiah. This ‘relationship’ would not be possible if he were dead. Now we ‘joy in God thru Jesus Christ from whom we have received the atonement’ good stuff! Isaiah says God will meet with those who ‘rejoice and do what is right’. We have both of these ‘abilities’ because of the atonement. The rest of the chapter teaches the Pauline doctrine of original sin. That because Adam sinned, death and sin passed to all men. So likewise the ‘righteousness’ of one man [Jesus- the last Adam] has passed upon all men [those who receive of the abundance of grace and the gift of life]. This is an interesting angle that Paul uses to teach redemption. He shows the reality that there are only 2 ‘federal heads’ of mankind. You are either in the first or last Adam. The ‘righteous act’ is speaking of the Cross [Philippians says Jesus was ‘obedient unto death’. The singular act of obedience that allows this righteousness to pass to all who believe is the Cross. Some have misunderstood this chapter to teach that the obedient life of Christ, his sinless life, saves us. I feel this is a wrong reading of the chapter. The sinless life of Jesus, pre Cross, made him the true candidate to be the substitute for man. He was able to die in our place [obedience unto death] because he was the sinless Son of God. We are now ‘saved by his life’ because he ever lives to make intercession for us]. All who believe in Jesus can now trace their lineage to the ‘last Adam’ [Jesus] and be free from ‘original sin’.

 · ROMANS 6- Lets talk about baptism. To start off I believe that the baptism spoken about in this chapter is primarily referring to ‘the baptism of the Spirit’, that is the work of the Holy Spirit placing a believer in the Body of Christ. The Catholic and Orthodox [and Reformed!] brothers believe that Paul is speaking about water baptism. The MAJORITY VIEW of Christians today believe this chapter is referring to water baptism. Why? First, the text itself does not indicate either way. You could take this baptism and see it either way! You are not a heretic if you believe in it referring to Spirit or water. You are not a heretic if you believe in Paedo baptism [infant baptism]. ‘What are you saying? Now you lost me.’ Infant baptism developed as a Christian rite over the course of church history. The church struggled with how to ‘dedicate’ new babies to Christ. Though the scriptures give no examples of infant baptism, some felt that the reason was because the scriptures primarily show us the conversion of the first century believers. There really aren’t a whole lot of stories of ‘generations’ of believers passing on the faith to other generations. So some felt that the idea of dedicating babies to the Lord through infant baptism was all right. The examples they used were the circumcision of babies in the Old Testament. Infants were circumcised [a rite that placed you under the terms of the Old Covenant] though they weren’t old enough to really understand what they were doing! This example was carried over into the Christian church and applied to infant baptism. Now, I do not believe in infant baptism. But I can certainly understand this line of reasoning. As Christian theology developed thru the early centuries, particularly thru the patristic period, you had very intellectual scholars grapple with many different themes and ideas. Some that we just studied in chapter 5. Some theologians came to see infant baptism as dealing with original sin. They applied the concept of infant baptism as a rite that washes away original sin. The church did not teach that this meant you did not have to later believe and follow Christ. They simply developed a way of seeing baptism as ‘sanctifying’ the new members of Christian households. This basic belief made it all the way to the Reformation. The Reformers themselves still practiced infant baptism. It was the Anabaptists [re-baptizers] who saw the truth of adult baptism and suffered for it, at the hands of the reformers! Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, would have them drowned for their belief. Some Protestants stuck with the infant rite, while others [the Restorationists] would reject it. Today most Evangelicals do not practice infant baptism, the majority of Christians world wide do. Now, the reason I did a little history is because Evangelicals [of which I am one] have a tendency to simply look at other believers who practice this rite as ‘deceived’. Many are unaware of the history I just showed you. The reasons the historic church developed this doctrine are not heretical! They used scripture and tradition to pass it down to future generations. I do not believe or practice infant baptism, many good believers do.

 · ROMANS 6: 1-11 ‘shall we continue to sin, so grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’ Now begins the ‘actual part’ the result, if you will, of being ‘made righteous by faith’. One of the main accusations against Paul, by the Jewish believers, was that he taught ‘sin a lot, because you are no longer under the law’. Paul spends time defending himself against this accusation thru out the New Testament. Here Paul teaches that the believer has been joined unto Christ [baptized, immersed into him] and this ‘joining’ identifies him with Christ’s death. So how can ‘we, who are dead to sin, live any longer in sin’? Paul’s argument for righteous living comes from the fact that we have died with Christ unto sin. ‘We have died with him, and we have also been raised with him to new life’. In Ephesians chapter 2, Paul says we who were dead in sins have been made alive in Christ. Now, we live a new life, free from sin [practically speaking- not absolute sinless-ness!] because we are identified with Jesus in his new life, we are ‘alive with and in him’. ‘Since we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection’! Jesus died once, and now he lives forever unto God ‘likewise count yourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God thru Jesus Christ our Lord’. Paul’s basis for the transformed life is Grace and being ‘in him’. Paul does not appeal to the law to try and effect holiness in the believer, he appeals to Christ ‘in him you have died to legalistic practices, trying to earn salvation and acceptance; and now because of this new position [placement] you too have died to the old man [lifestyle] and are alive unto God’. Paul obviously did not teach ‘sin hardily’ to the contrary he taught ‘live unto God’.

 (834)Romans 6:12-23    ‘Let not sin therefore rule in your mortal body’ if we have died with Jesus, we are ‘dead with him to sin’. If we are risen with Jesus ‘we are alive unto God thru him’ for this reason don’t sin! Paul makes sure his readers understand him, he in no way was teaching a sinful gospel. He encourages the believers to renew their minds to this truth. ‘For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace’ Paul clearly saw the dangers of legalism [living under strict ‘do this, don’t do this’ guidelines] he saw that the law actually quickens the fleshly nature and brings to the surface mans sin. Now, because we are under grace, does this mean we get to keep on sinning? ‘God forbid!’ Paul launches into the explanation of sin and bondage. Remember, sin was in the world before the law. Men were dying ever since Adam sinned. So for Paul, this means even though we are not under the restraints of law, yet the reality of sin, bondage and punishment still exist. Paul says ‘if you yield to sin and allow it to rule you, you will become its slave’. There will be a penalty and price to pay ‘the wages of sin is death’. But because you are identified with Jesus ‘sin shall not have dominion over you… you have been made free from sin’. Paul teaches the victorious Christian life. He does not deny the struggle [next chapter!] but he shows the reality of redemption. He obviously never taught the concept of ‘sin more, so grace can abound’. He understood the dangers of preaching ‘we are not under the law’ but he also understood the reality of ‘being under grace’ he figured it was worth the risk of being misunderstood if he could truly imbed the gospel into the believing community.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Romans 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Romans 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Romans 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  (835)ROMANS 7:1-4 Paul uses the analogy of a married woman ‘don’t you know that the law has dominion over a person as long as he is alive’? If a married woman leaves her husband and marries another man she is guilty of breaking the law of adultery. Now, if her husband dies, she is free to marry another man. The act that freed her from sin and guilt was death! Every thing else in the scenario stayed the same. She still married another, she still consummated the new marriage. But because her first husband died, she has no guilt. I always loved this analogy. For years I wondered why these themes in scripture are for the most part not ‘imbedded’ in the collective psyche of the people of God. We have spent so much time ‘proof texting’ the verses on success and wealth, that we have overlooked the really good stuff! Now Paul teaches that we have been made free from the law by the ‘death of our husband’ [Jesus] so we can ‘re-marry’. Who do we marry? Christ! He has not only died to free us from the law, he also rose from the dead to become our ‘husband’ [we are called the bride of Christ]. Paul connects the death and resurrection of Jesus in this analogy. Both are needed for the true gospel to be preached [1st Corinthians 15]. Notice how in this passage Paul emphasizes ‘the death of Christ’s body’. The New Testament doesn’t always make this distinction, but here it does. In the early centuries of Christianity you had various debates over the nature and ‘substance’ of God and Christ. The church hammered out various decrees and creeds that would become the Orthodoxy of the day. Many of these are what you would call the ‘Ecumenical councils’. These are the early councils [many centuries!] that both the eastern [Orthodox church] and western [Catholic] churches would all accept. Some feel that the early church fathers and Latin theologians [Tertullian, Augustine and others] had too much prior influence from philosophy and the ‘forensic’ thinking of their time. They had a tendency to describe things in highly technical ways. Ways that were prominent in the legal and philosophical thinking of the West. Some of the eastern thinkers [Origen] had more of a Greek ‘flavor’ to their theologizing [Alexandria, named after Alexander the great, was a city of philosophy many years prior to Christ. This city was at one time the center of thinking in the East. That’s why Paul would face the thinkers at Athens, they had a history in the east of Greek philosophy]. Well any way the result was highly technical debates over the nature of God and Christ. The historic church would finally decree that Christ had 2 natures, Human and Divine. And that at the Cross the ‘humanity of Jesus’ died, but his ‘Deity’ did not. I think Paul agreed by saying ‘we are free from the law by the death of Christ’s Body’ here Paul distinguishes between the physical death of Jesus and his Deity. Note- actually, Augustine would be in the same school as Origen. Alexandrian.

  (836)ROMANS 7: 5-13 ‘But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter’. This is such a powerful statement! WE ARE DELIVERED FROM THE LAW, surely Paul must mean ‘the fleshly law [carnal nature] in our members’? No, he means ‘the law’, the actual moral code that was contained in the Ten Commandments. He writes to the Colossians ‘Jesus took the handwriting of ordinances that were against us [the real law, not the sinful nature!] and nailed it to his Cross’. He tells the Ephesians ‘the middle wall of partition [law] has come down in Christ’. I know it’s easy to develop ideas that justify this radical grace concept in our minds, it’s just part of mans nature to want to be able to do something, contribute some way to our salvation. ‘Surely the law helps me stay in line’? No it doesn’t! You are ‘dead to the law by the Body of Christ’. We now live and are regulated by the ‘Spirit of life in Christ Jesus’. It is the fact that we have been raised to life in Christ that frees us, not the law. Paul goes on and explains that there was a time when ‘he was alive without the law’ but when the commandment came ‘sin revived, and I died’. Paul was a strict Pharisee, the further he advanced in law, the more he found himself to be ‘exceeding sinful’. The more he learned, the worse he got! It’s sort of a catch 22, you see and hear the ‘do not do this’ portions of law, and it stirs up the sinful nature to ‘do it’. Now Paul recaps an earlier theme of the law serving the function of revealing sin to man. He defends the law by saying ‘was that which is good [law] death unto me’? No, but the law simply ‘awakened’ the sin that was always there, hiding under the covers. It brought to a head the ‘disease’. The law revealed the underlying problem of sin, and made it ‘exceeding sinful’. The law is good, we are bad! [apart from Christ and the Spirit of life].

 (837)ROMANS 7:14-25 Paul now shows us the reality of Gods law and its effect on man. ‘When I do something that I DON’T WANT TO DO, then I consent unto the law that it is good’. Did you ever think of this? The fact that you [or even the atheist!] have done things that ‘you don’t want to do’ proves the existence of God and natural law [which the 10 commandments were only a glimpse, they reveal a small part of Gods character and nature]. So if you, or anybody else, have ever struggled with ‘I am doing something that I hate’. Then why do it? Or better, why hate it? You yourself are an actual living testimony of ‘the law of God’. Your own conscience testifies that there are  ‘good things’ and ‘bad things’. You also testify of the fact of sin ‘why do you keep doing the bad things’? Alas, that thing called ‘sin’ does exist! Paul shows us that the experience of every human member on the planet testifies to both the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Freud [the father of modern Psychology] saw this war rage in the psyche of man, he came up with an idea that we need to ‘free man’ from this inner moral struggle. He espoused the idea that in mans ‘head’ he has this preconceived image of ‘God’ and right or wrong. Being Freud was a child of the Enlightenment, as well as a student of Existentialism [though the Father of Existentialism was a Christian, the Danish theologian/ philosopher Soren Kierkegaard] he taught that if we could just eliminate this ‘God idea’ and ‘church moral code’ from mans mind, then all would be well! Geez, I could hardly think of a more destructive thing than to tell man ‘if it feels right, do it’! Paul taught ‘if you can’t stop doing something that ‘feels right’ then you are sinning!’[if that which ‘feels right’ is making you miserable!] And the very fact that you can’t escape the guilt, proves that God exists and that his law is this unstoppable force that invades all human consciences. Paul knew the struggle, he testifies thru out scripture that he tried to become right with God over and over again, but the ‘law of sin’ [the sinful nature. Here ‘law’ is speaking of the ‘principle of sin’ and the fleshly nature] prevented him from keeping the ‘law of God’ [doing what’s right], he then found the ‘righteousness of God that comes thru faith in Christ’. Paul ends the chapter ‘O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death’? ‘I thank God thru Jesus Christ my Lord’. Paul found the answer, his name was Jesus.

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

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.

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Romans 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Romans 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

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.

Romans 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Romans 7:18 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.

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Romans 7:23 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.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

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.

ROMANS 8-10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqIktzp8Xc

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-24-15-romans-8-10.zip

 VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the videos that are not in the post- here are a few]

.Council of Trent- what did the Church say?

.Do we get the final say- at the Judgment?

.What are the Catholic virtues- did Paul teach them?

.Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and Wesley.

.Infusion or Imputation? How bout both!

At the bottom I added some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.

 . REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new.

.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;

· Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him?

· When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he only speaking about resurrection?

· Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?

· Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?

(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who ‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’. Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore [because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’! This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology, part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more ‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus ‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially]. The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually living the changed life] have no condemnation’.

 (840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what’s right. The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go ahead and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they have little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in verse 13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if you are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit, which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23] so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe [which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as ‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been ‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of England- Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of England. Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league. He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s resurrection as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief [and historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul. Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now, which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present ‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection, and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life to glorify him]. These are both great truths!

 (841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context ‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit and a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too much here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as proof, a result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of being born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in chapter 4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from the Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the reality of ‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba, father’. ‘We are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this has been a popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say ‘God owns the cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are heirs ‘give me some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of our identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too shall share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the resurrection- we shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye. This mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern American Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens, Paul held to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled him to go thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted the suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.

 (843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material [monetary stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ – real]. Paul teaches that the whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a ‘makeover’ but there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself longs for this [almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the redemption of our body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also says [1st John] that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be pure in this life’ [every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure]. Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well as our spirits! The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the resurrection ‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral term. In can apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you read certain commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when coming across these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will be saved thru childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some writers have when they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’ thru the birth of a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply changed the word ‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing] that maybe this would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to look forward to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think ‘what’s all this suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great promise at the other end!

 (845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying ‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we cannot. I just finished an hour prayer time, not an ‘official’ intercession time [which I do a few times a week now]. But an ‘unofficial’ time where I try and hear what the Spirit is speaking. When you are ‘praying in the Spirit’ [which can include the charismatic expression of tongues] you are depending upon the Spirit to transcend your limited ability to articulate what needs to be said. ‘All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are ‘the called’ according to his purpose’. A very famous verse indeed. What does it mean? It means what it says! Over the years I have heard so many excuses for trying to get around difficult things. Why do the righteous suffer? Some taught it was because of their ignorance of scripture. Why did the things that happened to Job happen? Some said it was because he ‘feared’ that the things would happen [this group seems to miss the whole underlying reason for the book. Job’s friends are continually looking for a reason thru out the book. The point is, sometimes there is no reasonable explanation. I realize you can pick apart certain statements from Job and come up with ‘reasons’, but the meaning of the book is God is sovereign and we shouldn’t always think we can figure him out or ‘work the system’]. Here Paul says ‘whatever is happening to you right now [even very bad stuff!] will eventually work out for you benefit’. What about Hitler? Did he love God? I don’t believe so. This scripture says ‘to them that love God’. Your only responsibility thru the difficulty is to ‘love God’.

 (846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture. Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’ by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’ like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.

 (847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall we say then to these things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and has guaranteed completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the ‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can ‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’ about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view us. Paul did teach that Elders should have good character and a fine reputation in the community. But there is another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can fall into. A sort of ‘concern’ about what the critics are saying. In this context Paul says ‘If the opinion of the only person in existence whose opinion really matters, is one of “I accept you unconditionally, I declare you free from what others think, you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever since I have known you, you have been pleasing in my sight” [all true scriptures by the way] Then who cares what others think! Paul also teaches that nothing can separate us from Christ’s love ‘not tribulation or distress or famine or persecution’ IN all these things we are more than conquerors thru him who loved us. Most times we view this passage from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want you to see the impact of this statement thru a different lens. In the American church we have taught people ‘would a good father not pay the bills of his kids? Would a good father allow his kids to suffer? If you were really partaking of the New Covenant you would have it made’. While I do realize that many well meaning ministers have taught these viewpoints with honest and sincere hearts, I also have seen how this mindset accuses the saints. It basically tells the struggling believer ‘what kind of father do you have? If he really loved you would you be going thru these things’? In essence we are saying ‘tribulation and distress and persecution’ are all signs that ‘you have been separated from Gods love’! Paul blows this false [materialistic] mindset out of the water. He says it is thru these things that we are more than conquerors. It is the ability to look into the face of Pontius Pilate and say ‘you have no power over me, my father has permitted these things to take place. I am here to lay my life down for his glory’. Paul said all these things we are suffering are opportunities to glorify our father. To look into the face of society and say ‘nay, we are more than conqueror’s thru him that loved us’. The early church set the world on fire when they were laying their lives down for the cause, refusing to deny their Lord even at the point of death. They were ‘more than conquerors’.

 ROMANS 9-

.PAUL- SPURGEON- AND DAVE HUNT- DID THEY BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION?

.HOW DOES PAUL DEFEND AGAINST THE SEEMING ‘UNFAIRNESS’ OF IT?

.WHAT DID THAT RUSSIAN ATHIEST SAY?

 (848)ROMANS 9: 1-8 Paul returns to an earlier theme ‘Christ came, as pertaining to the flesh, in response to the covenants that God made with Israel’ [my paraphrase!] Paul says that natural Israel played a very important role in the coming of Messiah. He was [is] the fulfillment of the prophecies that came as a result of Gods interaction with ‘the commonwealth of Israel’. Now Paul again says ‘they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called’”. Understand something here, Paul is not teaching ‘another’ natural lineage to Christ. The mistake of the worldwide church of God [Herbert Armstrong] which teaches British Israelism, trying to trace the natural lineage of Europeans and saying ‘these are the lost tribes’. Paul is simply saying ‘those who are of the Law, the natural tribe of Israel [Jews] are not automatically counted as ‘the seed’ [children] but those who ‘are of promise’. Paul also uses this in Galatians 3 and 4. ‘Of promise’ is simply saying ‘those who have been born of Gods Spirit [Jew or Gentile] are the children that God promised to Abraham’ he is the father of ‘many nations’. All who would believe. These themes are building upon Paul’s earlier theology in this letter. This letter [Romans] has a little more ‘weight’ than say a pastoral epistle [Timothy, Titus]. Now, I am not saying it is ‘more inspired’ but I want you to see that even in the book of Acts you see Paul place special emphasis on ‘I must make it to Rome’! Paul fully realizes that this letter will be read among the believers and Jews at Rome. Rome is the capitol city of the Empire. He wants the early believers to understand the role and purpose of God for Israel. Paul’s efforts are being seen by some Jewish believers [Jerusalem] as antagonistic. Paul wants to make it clear that he was not trying to start some type of movement that rejected natural Israel. At the same time he wants natural Israel ‘my kinsman according to the flesh’ to receive their Messiah! So in this context Romans is a theological treatise saying ‘God wants to bring both Jew and Gentile together as one new man in Christ [Ephesians]’. When he argues ‘they that are the children of the flesh ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD[verse 8] but the children of the promise are counted for the seed’ he is simply saying ‘all people, both Jews and Gentiles [which includes all races that are ‘non Jews’ even Arabs!] can partake of this free gift by grace’. The promise is to all who ‘will believe’.

 (849)ROMANS 9:9-23 now we get into predestination. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau [I spoke on this in the Genesis study, see chapter 25], he says God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. He also uses the story of Pharaoh and says God was the one who hardened his heart. Paul says these things show us that God’s mercy and choice are a sovereign act. He specifically says ‘God chose Jacob, not on the basis of any thing he did [or would do!] but because of his own sovereign choice’. Now, this is another one of those arguments where Paul says ‘you will then say to me, how can God find fault? If everyone is simply doing the things he preordained, fulfilling destiny, then how can God justly hold people accountable’? First, I want you to see that this statement, that Paul is putting into the mouths of his opponents, only makes sense from the classic position of predestination. Second, if predestination only spoke of Gods foreknowledge of the choices that people were going to make [like asking Jesus into their heart!] then the obvious response to the argument would be ‘Oh, God chose Jacob because he knew what a good boy he was going to be’. Not only would this be wrong, Jacob [the supplanter] was not a ‘good boy’, but Paul does not use this defense in arguing his case. He simply says ‘who are we to question God? Can the thing formed say to him that formed it “why have you made me like this”? It seems as if Paul’s understanding of predestination was in the Augustinian/Calvinistic Tradition. A few years back a popular author on the west coast, Dave Hunt, wrote a book called ‘what kind of love is this’? He took on the Reformed Faiths understanding of predestination. Dave was a little out of his league in the book. He seemed to not fully grasp the historic understanding of the doctrine. He quoted some stuff from Charles Spurgeon that made it sound like he was not a believer in predestination. Spurgeon did make strong statements against certain ideas that were [are] prevalent in classic Calvinism. Some taught that Christ’s Blood was shed only for the elect. This is called ‘particular redemption’ or from the famous ‘Tulip’ example ‘limited atonement’. Spurgeon did not embrace the idea that Christ’s Blood was not sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. The problem with Hunt using this true example from Spurgeon, is that he overlooked the other obvious statements from Spurgeon that place him squarely in the Calvinistic camp. Some refer to this as ‘4 point Calvinism’. I myself agree with Spurgeon on this point. The reason I mention this whole thing is to show you that major Christian figures have dealt with these texts and have struggled with the obvious difficulties involved. I think Paul does a little ‘speculative theology’ himself in this chapter. He says ‘what if God willing to show his mercy and wrath permitted certain things’. He gives possible reasons for the seeming ‘unfairness’ of this doctrine. The point I want to stress is Paul never tries to defend it from the classic Arminian understanding, that says ‘God knew the way people were going to choose, and he simply ‘foreordained’ those who would choose right’. To be honest, this argument does answer the question in the minds of many believers, I simply don’t see it to be accurate.

 (851)ROMANS 9:24-29 Paul quotes Hosea and Isaiah to show that God has a purpose for both Jew and Gentile. He uses a few verses from Isaiah 10 and 13 to say ‘except the lord had left us a remnant, no one would be left’. Now, once again we come up against the mindset of always reading ‘saved’ as meaning ‘born again’. In context, God ‘saving’ a remnant simply means ‘he spared them from ruin and total destruction’. There is a verse in Revelation that says ‘the nations of them which are saved shall enjoy the new heavens and earth’. Some commentators will show you how some versions leave out ‘which are saved’ which would leave the text as saying ‘the nations [that are left, remain!] shall walk in it’. This is the context here. Paul is saying God always had a few from Israel that remained, he didn’t utterly wipe them out. Now, this of course fits in with ‘having sins forgiven’, being ‘saved’ or redeemed. There are prophets who say ‘the Lord will turn away ungodliness from Jacob’ [delivered from sin] and ‘the lord comes to those who have turned away from their sin’ speaking of Israel. So I want you to grasp the biblical concept of God saving [sparing] a remnant. The word ‘remnant’ actually speaks of the part of cloth/ material that is ‘left over’ from the whole piece. Jesus also said ‘unless those days were shortened, their would no flesh “be saved”’. Once again meaning ‘no human would survive unless God cut short his wrath’. Paul also uses this language here ‘the lord will do a quick work on the earth and cut it short [shortened!] in righteousness’.

 (853)ROMANS 9: 30-33 ‘What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after the law of righteousness have attained it, even by faith’.  Paul concludes the chapter by summing up his ‘righteousness by faith’ argument. Natural Israel, who sought to become righteous by law, who were always striving for perfection thru the keeping of the law. They did not attain that which they sought after. Why? Because they sought it ‘not by faith, but by law’. No law could ever make a man righteous. The Gentiles, which were not even looking! They got it. Why? Because they simply believed in the Messiah, it was the best message they ever heard. They were told their whole lives ‘you are separated from Gods promises. You are not included in the commonwealth of Israel’. They never dreamed that the Jewish Messiah would say ‘neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more’. They received Gods righteousness by faith. Israel ‘stumbled’ at the stumbling stone. Jesus is called a precious stone and also a rock of offence. To those who believe, he is great, precious. To those who don’t believe he is this tremendous obstacle. The unbelieving world doesn’t know what to do with him. I was watching Ravi Zacharias the other night. He is a good Christian apologist. He was telling the story of being in Russia and speaking to a large group of Atheists. During his talk they were really aggressive, making motions with their hands and all. He was told ahead of time to be prepared. At the question and answer time a Russian Atheist asked ‘what are you talking about when you say God? I have no idea what you mean by this false concept’. Ravi asked him ‘sir, are you an Atheist?’ He replied yes. ‘What is an Atheist’? Ravi asked. The man responded ‘someone who denies God’. Ravi said ‘what exactly is it that you are denying’? The unbeliever has come up against this ‘rock of offence’. He tries to get around it, to develop all types of systems and philosophies to deny it. The rock is there, you can either ‘fall on it’. That is admit he is who he claims to be. Submit and be ‘broken’. Or it will eventually ‘grind you to powder’. You will pass from the scene and the next crop of Atheists will rise and face the same dilemma. This rock ‘aint going away’.

 ROMANS 10 [On the video I give a broad overview of the doctrine ‘the salvation of the righteous’. I cover many verses not in the post].

.DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ‘A SINNERS PRAYER”?

.DOES THIS CHAPTER SAY ‘THOSE WHO CALLED/ASKED- DID NOT GET IT?

.IS THEIR A ‘RIGHTEOUS MAN’S PRAYER’ THAT BRINGS SALVATION?

. PLEASE- LETS STOP DIVIDING OVER SMALL STUFF-

 (854)ROMANS 10: 1-13 Many years ago I referenced all the back up scriptures for this chapter [and book!]. The study was intense because I saw a fundamental ‘fault line’ that ran thru many in the Evangelical church [the revivalist tradition]. The ‘fault line’ was reading this chapter as in if it were saying ‘ask Jesus into your heart, or you won’t be saved’. Now, I have no problem with those who trace their conversion to an experience like this. But I want to give you my understanding of this chapter, based on the exhaustive study I did years ago. Also, I will probably quote some verses and you will have to find them later [I forget where they all are]. Paul begins with his desire for ‘all Israel to be saved’. I taught in chapter one how come the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Because all who believe ‘become righteous’. After 9 chapters of Romans, we have seen that when Paul refers to ‘justification by faith’ this is synonymous with ‘believing with the heart unto righteousness’. Here Paul’s desire is for Israel to experience ‘all facets of salvation’ [present and future] to ‘be saved’. Now, he will say ‘Christ is the end of the law to all who believe’ Israel did not attain unto ‘righteousness’ because they sought after it by trying to keep the law. But it comes only by faith. Then Paul quotes a kind of obscure verse from Deuteronomy saying ‘Moses says the righteousness which is by faith’ [note- this whole description that follows is describing ‘the righteousness that comes by faith’] and says ‘the word is near thee, in thy mouth and heart’. Paul then says ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved, with the heart a man believes and becomes righteous [which according to Paul means ‘justified’] and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’. In this text, Paul once again is ‘dividing’ the common understanding of ‘salvation’ meaning ‘getting initially saved’- which is ‘believing and being justified’. And simply saying ‘believers will inevitably call and be saved’ [in a generic sense]. Why would he do this? In the context of his argument, he is simply showing the ‘righteousness which is from the law’ [the man under the law is described as ‘doing something’ continuing under the load and strain of law] versus the ‘righteousness which is by faith’ [described as a person who believes and speaks, as opposed to ‘does stuff’]. It is not inconsistent for Paul to use the term ‘confessing and being saved’ as speaking of something different than meaning ‘accepting Christ into your heart’. Paul is simply giving a description of those who believe ‘all who believe will call’. And yes, they will and do experience ‘salvation’. It’s just in this example Paul is not saying ‘they are saved initially upon confession, calling’. At least not ‘saved’ in the sense of ‘getting justified by faith’. Why? Because the rest of the chapter doesn’t make a whole lotta sense if he were saying this. ‘How can they call on him in whom they have not believed’? He already showed us that ‘believers are justified’. The very argument Paul makes distinguishes between ‘believing unto righteousness, and calling unto salvation’. You can see it like this, there is a verse I stumbled across years ago. It is in one of the prophets [Old Testament] and it says ‘Gods wrath will come upon all them WHO HAVE NOT CALLED UPON HIM’. In this context Paul can be saying ‘whoever calls upon God will never enter judgment/wrath’ [a description of a particular lifestyle, remember Paul said Gods Spirit makes us cry ‘Abba Father’] in this light Paul can be saying ‘all who call [both Jew and Gentile- simply making an argument for inclusion. God accepts ‘all who call’] will not come under future [or present!] wrath’. This would be in keeping with Peters scathing sermon in Act’s where he quotes the Prophet Joel and says ‘whosoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved’. If you go back and read Joel you will see that in context he is saying ‘at the future time of God’s revealed judgment, those who cry for deliverance will be spared’. Peter quotes it in this context as well. He shows Gods future time of judgment and ends with ‘all who call will be saved’. How do we know that Peter was not quoting Joel for some type of ‘sinner’s prayer’ thing? Because after the Jews say ‘what should we do’? He doesn’t lead them in a sinners Prayer! I don’t want to be picky, I simply want you to see context. Paul has already established multiple times thru out this letter how righteousness comes to those who believe. One of the descriptions of ‘those who believe’ are they ‘call upon God’. They even call upon God ‘to save them’. In this chapter the reason Paul uses ‘whosoever calls upon the lord will be saved’ is to simply show God will deliver both Jews and Gentiles. His promise of salvation is ‘to all’. When he uses ‘believing and being made righteous’ along with ‘calling and being saved’ he obviously can not be speaking about the same thing! He even states it this way in his argument. ‘How can they call unless they already believe’? He was simply giving a description of ‘those who believe’. This ‘calling for salvation’ that ‘all who believe’ partake of can speak both of a ‘present tense’ being saved, that is from any and all types of bad things, and a ‘future tense’ deliverance from wrath. Even when Paul quoted David in Roman’s 4, he is ‘describing the blessedness of the man unto whom God will not impute sin’ [Psalms 32] if you go back and read that psalm David says ‘for this shall EVERY ONE THAT IS GODLY PRAY UNTO THEE’. David uses this in the context of his confession of his sin. So the ‘everyone that is Godly’ describes ‘the righteous’ and they WILL CALL! Also in 2nd Corinthians Paul quotes Isaiah ‘now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation’ in the context of ‘God heard you and saved you’. Why would Paul use this in 2nd Corinthians? They need not be told ‘pray and get saved’. In context he used it to encourage them to return back into full communion and fellowship after their restoration and reproof he gave them in the first letter. He is saying ‘I rebuked you guys harshly, you repented and asked for forgiveness. God ‘heard you’ in his acceptable time, now get over it and ‘be restored’. Salvation to them came by ‘calling’ but it was not describing an initial conversion experience. Well, I didn’t realize I would go so long, but this is a good example of having a ‘holistic view’ of scripture. You try and take all the quotes the writers are using, put them in context of the broad themes of scripture. Add that to the immediate context of the letter [Romans] and then come to a deeper understanding of truth. I am not against those who see this chapter thru an evangelistic lens, I just think the way I taught it is more faithful to the text. [NOTE- Thru out this site I have taught the doctrine of ‘the salvation of the righteous’. I mentioned it earlier in Romans and have spoken on it before. If you can find these entries they will add some insight to this chapter. NOTE- verse 20 actually has Paul quoting Isaiah ‘I was found by them who did not ask for me’. This would sure seem strange to say in the same chapter that taught a concept of ‘all who ask for me will enter the kingdom’. It is quite possible to ask and pray and confess everything ‘just right’ and still not find him. And according to this verse, the ones who did ‘find him’ [Gentiles] did not ask! After years of coming to the above understanding I read a church council [Council of Orange?] and I was surprised to see how they actually dealt with the issue of believing versus ‘calling upon God’. They quoted some of these texts to show that before a person could call upon the Lord, he first needed faith. They used this example to show Gods sovereignty in salvation. I though it interesting that they came to the very same conclusions that I did. They even used the same examples! This shows you how the corporate mind of the church is manifestly expressed thru out the ages. I think the council was in the 8thor 9th century?

 (855)ROMANS 10:14-21 [Just a note for the previous entry. In the conversions recorded in scripture [Acts] do you know how many times there is a reference to ‘calling upon the Lord’ during the conversion? Surprisingly one time. The conversion of Saul [Paul]! During one of the ‘re-tellings’ of his own story he says ‘I was told to arise, and be baptized. Washing away my sins while calling upon the Lord’. Wow, could we have arguments over this one! Do you identify the ‘washing away of sins’ with baptism or the ‘prayer’? I actually previously taught [somewhere on this long blog!] how in the 1st century Jewish mindset ‘washing from uncleanness’ and water were related. I taught it in a way that did not teach ‘baptismal regeneration’ but more along the lines of ‘discipleship’ you might find the entry under ‘my statement of faith’. The point I want to make here is Paul spent 3 days after the Lord appeared to him before he actually got baptized and made an open confession of faith. Paul’s reputation was so bad [he killed Christians!] that his conversion and confession needed to have all the weight possible. Others needed to know that he now ‘confessed Christ’. Most commentators will look to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the Damascus road as his conversion. The point I want to make is in the book of Acts, the main ‘altar call’ was actually baptism. This was the normal means to identify with the believing community. We also see the fact that once people believed, they then were baptized. The same distinction can be made with ‘confessing’. Neither can take place until one believes. I would assume that Paul said something like this at his baptism ‘O Jesus, please forgive me for what I have done. I killed your people and have committed a terrible crime’. There obviously were some serious things he needed to confess! But the overall view of conversion in Acts does not show a ‘sinner’s prayer’ type conversion.] Paul indicts Israel ‘The word did come to you, you didn’t believe’. He also quotes Moses ‘God said he would provoke you to jealousy by a nation who were “no people”’. We are beginning a portion of Romans where Paul will try and explain the dynamic of Gods purpose for Israel, and his ‘use’ of the Gentile nations to ‘make them jealous’. When we studied the parables we saw this dynamic at work. Israel was offended that God [Messiah] was offering equal access to the promises of Israel thru Jesus. Israel was jealous of this free grace. Paul shows them that Moses prophesied that this day would come. You also see this in Stephens sermon in Acts chapter 7 ‘Moses said the Lord would raise up a prophet like me [Jesus!]’ and then Stephen shows how Israel also did not recognize that Moses was the intended deliverer of the people. So likewise 1stcentury Israel also did not recognize their Messiah [the first time around!]. God’s acceptance of the Gentiles was difficult for Israel to embrace. It took a divine vision for Peter, and he still ‘fell back’ into a caste system mentality. God is not finished with these dealings [Paul will say in the next few chapters] and he will make every effort to show both Jews and Gentiles that they are both important pieces to this ‘divine puzzle’. He will even warn the Gentiles ‘don’t get proud, if God cut off the true branches to graft you in, watch out! He might do the same with you.’ Paul is striving for both Jew and Gentile to live in harmony as much as possible, he did not want to come off as a defender of the Gentiles only. He was ‘defending the gospel’.

 (857)ROMANS- Let me overview a little. This entry goes along with the last one [#856- those of you reading this straight from the Romans study will need to find it under one of the ‘teaching’ sections]. Paul deals with the issue of ‘being provoked by/to jealousy’. Many times believers remain divided because of pride and jealousy. We often do not want to accept the fact that God actually is working thru other camps, groups of Christians who are ‘not like us’. It challenges our very identity at times! We feel like ‘well, my whole experience with God has been one of coming out of [name the group- for many it’s Catholicism] and I KNOW that I have found and experienced God by leaving mistaken concepts about God. Therefore any other ‘defender’ of Catholics is challenging my core experience’. I myself attribute my conversion to ‘leaving religious ideas’ and reading the bible for the first time. Though I had various believers witnessing to me, it was the actual reading of Johns gospel [and the whole New Testament] that clinched it for me. The reality of ‘whoever believes’ as opposed to religion. But my own experience should not limit [in my mind] the reality of others who also embraced the Cross without ‘leaving’ their former church. It is quite possible that other ‘Catholics’ arrived at a serious level of commitment to the Cross, while remaining faithful to their church. Now I realize this in itself can become an issue of contention, all I want to show you is we should not limit the power of the gospel to our own personal experience. During the recent controversy [2008] over certain Pentecostal expressions of ‘revival’ some old time churches simply made a case against all the Charisms [gifts] of the Spirit. The fact is most theologians accept the gifts of the Spirit as being for all ages of the church. Sure, there have been problems with them, even early on [the Montanists] but the fact is there has always been some type of Charismatic expression of Christianity thru out the church age. But the more Reformed brother’s sound [and are often!] more ‘biblical’ than some of the crazy stuff that happens under the banner of ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic’. So the divisions exist. In this chapter [Romans 11] Paul is dealing with a very real dynamic that says ‘I find my whole identity in the way God has worked with me for centuries [Judaism]. The fact that he began a new thing with other groups who I detest [Gentiles] has offended me to the point where I can’t even experience God any more’. Israel could not see past her own experience with God. The fact that God was ‘being experienced’ by other groups in ways that seemed highly ‘unorthodox’ did not mean that their former experience was illegitimate. It simply meant that Gods experience with them was always intended to ‘break out’ into the broader community of mankind. They lost this original intent and used their ‘orthodoxy’ as a means of self identification. An ‘elite’ religious class, if you will. I find many of these same dynamics being present in the modern church. We should stand strong for orthodoxy, we also need to expose and correct error when it gets to a point where many believers are being led astray. But we also need to be able to see God at work in other groups, we should not use our own experience with God [no matter how legitimate it is!] as the criterion of what’s right or wrong.

CATECHISM of the Catholic Church-

1963    According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God. (1610, 2542, 2515)

1964    The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.”17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven. (122, 1828)

 1977    Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.

1982    The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983    The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

 I TALKED ABOUT THESE VIRTUES ON THE VIDEO-

I. The Human Virtues

1804    Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good. (2500, 1827)

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.

The cardinal virtues

1805    Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. “If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage.”64 These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

1806    Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.”65 “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.”66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid. (1788, 1780)

1807    Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”68 “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”69 (2095, 2401)

1808    Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. “The Lord is my strength and my song.”70 “In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”71 (2848, 2473)

1809    Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.”72Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites.”73 In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought “to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.”74 (2341, 2517)

Down the road I hope to teach a bit more about the Catholic teaching of ‘the working of the work’- meaning the Church teaches that the Sacraments ‘work’ regardless of the holiness/faith of those administering them. It’s a controversy that dates back to the early centuries of the Church [the Donatist controversy]. The point I want to make here is the bible teaches that there are things we can train ourselves to do- acts of prayer- fasting- etc.- that over time will train the mind to think Godly thoughts [these practices of discipline work over time- regardless of the way you feel]. I think one of the drawbacks from the Protestant Reformation was the neglect of ‘works’- the role that good works play in the Christian life. Paul [in Romans] says ‘as you have yielded your parts as instruments of unrighteousness to sin- so now yield them as instruments of righteousness unto God’. I added this section about Virtues because I felt it covered this theme well.

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

Proverbs 9:2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.

Proverbs 9:3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,

Proverbs 9:4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

Proverbs 9:5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

    ROMANS 11-13

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/3-12-15-romans-11-13.zip

[note- there’s much more on the video than the post]

.ROMANS 11

.ROMANS 12

.ROMANS 13

  END NOTES-

.What effect did the Renaissance have on the Reformation?

.How did Erasmus differ from Luther?

.Do Catholics exalt Tradition over Scripture?

.Renaissance artists.

.Do Catholics believe in Justification by Faith?

.Catholic teaching on Civil Authorities [Romans 13].

.What does ‘AdFontes’ mean- and how does it relate to the Renaissance/Reformation?

 Romans 11

.Was Paul a full time preacher- paid?

.Is he teaching universalism here?

.Elijah was not alone.

(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul ‘exercising’ his apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet [since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’. He exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He did this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on ‘Gods government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing with the mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is Gods government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or modes of operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When the apostle John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the world’ he was referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods kingdom you operate under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… and your neighbor as yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have different types of ‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these gifted ones are given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can have a mature faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in the earth. Paul was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman Gentiles. He did not have some type of a corporate relationship with them where he said ‘commit to my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or someone else!’ These are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive money from the Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said this myself. Paul did receive support from the Philippians, but that was support for his traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read carefully you will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I did not eat, or take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those that were with me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke to the Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was with you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave you ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul did not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he took it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them coming under ‘his covering’.

 (862)ROMANS 11- let me make a note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’ it all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to rethink what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons that say ‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay you for what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in this letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers at Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise his apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and spent time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose when he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’. So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses [even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter 11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are beyond our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of Israel as an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is showing to the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to jealousy’. There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip over. ‘All Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings with natural Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some say ‘the Israel of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some say ‘all Israel that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is closer. To be honest I think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who are alive and also raised at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form of universalism [all people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist, but I don’t want any ‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I think God has the ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in such a way that ‘they all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t wait for this to happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’? Because God commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a type of universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the second coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be ‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called ‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the Arminians could use this type of argument for the previous predestination chapter [9]. But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing, Paul quotes Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of God having a remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God told Elijah ‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul uses this to show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself included] who received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic ministry [Elijah] seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean ‘fame’, but Elijah was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running thru the nation. If you read the story of Elijah you would have never known that there were ‘7 thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use prophetic people to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is presently existing in the ‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah had a web site, the 7 thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying ‘right on brother, that’s exactly what we believe too’!

 ROMANS 12

.ARE SOME GIFTS BETTER THAN OTHERS?

.HOW SHOULD THEY FUNCTION IN THE ‘BODY’?

. HOW SHOUD WE GIVE OFFERINGS- DID PAUL TEAHC TITHING?

.HOT COALS ON THEIR HEADS- HUH?

 (864)ROMANS 12:1-8    ‘I beseech you by the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’. Most times we see ‘by the mercies of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has taught from chapters 1 thru 12. This is true to a degree. I think Paul is honing in on the previous chapters that dealt with the purpose of God specifically seen in the resurrection of the body. As we read earlier ‘for we are saved by hope’ [the hope of the resurrection]. Basically I see Paul saying ‘because of what I showed you concerning Gods redemptive purpose for your body, therefore present your body now, in anticipation of it’s future glorious purpose, as a living sacrifice ‘holy and acceptable unto God’. Why? Because you are going to have that thing [body] forever! [in a new glorified state]  Paul exhorts us to be changed by the renewing of our mind, the way we think. I have mentioned in the past that this renewing is not some type of legalistic function of ‘memorizing, muttering the do’s and don’ts all day long’. But a reorganizing of our thoughts according to this new covenant of grace. Seeing things thru this ‘new world’ perspective. A kingdom view based upon grace and the resurrection of Jesus. This resurrection that is assured to us because we have the deposit of the Spirit which is our guarantee that God will complete the work that he has begun in us. And Paul will jump into one of his ‘Body of Christ’ analogies which he uses often to describe the people of God. Because we are all one body, we should think soberly about our different gifts and purposes. God gave some ‘better’ [or more noticeable] gifts for the overall edifying of the body. So don’t boast about it. All have varying gifts, freely given. Administrate them with much grace. Do it with humility and cheerfulness. We are simply children thru whom Gods Spirit manifests himself in different ways. Don’t boast that ‘Wow, daddy gave me a bike��. Or look, I got a more expensive Christmas present than you. Daddy distributes the gifts freely as he wills. They are for everyone’s benefit. Don’t use this grace gift as a means of self importance or prestige. It would be like ‘prostituting’ a gift for self-aggrandizement. People have done it, but it displeases the giver of the gift.

 (865)ROMANS 12: 13  Paul continues to give some basic guidelines on practical Christian living. Notice his teaching on financial giving ‘distribute to the necessity of the saints’. This basic Christian doctrine from Jesus teachings has become the premier act of giving for the New Testament saint. The reason I have stressed this teaching as opposed to the more popular view of tithing, is because the scriptures place such a high priority on Christian charity. As I have mentioned before, Jesus even uses this basic description to describe those who ‘are righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’. He teaches the final judgment will be based on this outward identifier of ‘what we did to the least of these’. If you read carefully the New Testament epistles you will see a picture of ‘local church’ as a caring community of people who show their love for one another thru these acts of kindness and compassion. None of the New Testament letters teach a  type of financial giving that focuses on ‘support the ministry/institution’ as being ‘the new testament church’ that replaced the ‘old testament temple’. For example a tithe system that supports the ‘pastor/priest’ in the same way the Levitical priests were supported under the law. It’s so vital for us to see and understand this. Because the average believer is taught thru out his life that his primary expression of giving is to ‘bring the tithe into the storehouse’ in such a way that it violates the actual primacy of giving as taught in the New Testament. Which is to regularly give to meet the needs of those around you. The fact that there were instances in the book of Acts or the letter to the Corinthians where believers gave an offering in a corporate way [the collection for the poor saints- 1st Cor. 15, or the laying of the money at the apostles feet in Acts] does not excuse the believer from the teaching that we should all regularly give to meet the needs of those around us. This is flatly taught as a regular part of the Christian experience. The other fact that Paul never once teaches the tithe as a function of giving for the Gentile churches should cause us all to take another look at the way we teach giving in the church today.

 (866)ROMANS 12:14-21 Notice how Paul puts such a high priority on the principles of Jesus. He exhorts the saints to live by the precepts of the great ‘sermon on the mount’. Often times believers try and make a division between Paul’s revelation of justification by faith and the ‘liberal moral teachings of Jesus’. I see no division here. Paul actually quotes Jesus ‘if you’re treated badly, respond in love. By not getting even you heap “coals of fire on your enemies head”’. Actually, I remember how a few years back, when everybody was coming up with their ‘new revelation knowledge’ ideas on scripture. Things like ‘the camel going thru the eye of the needle’. Some taught Jesus was not really rebuking wealth, he was simply talking about a ‘low gate’ thru the wall of the city that was called the ‘eye of the needle’ and the camels had to crouch a little to get thru, true silliness! This verse ‘coals on the head’ was taught as saying Jesus was simply saying you were helping your enemy on cold nights by ‘keeping his head warm’! Sad. Jesus said don’t avenge yourselves, God will avenge you. Doesn’t sound like the lord is talking about ‘head warmers’! Look at these verses carefully. Paul incorporates the teachings of Christ as having a very high priority for the believer. We are often inundated with modern concepts of ministry. How to raise funds [or amass wealth]. Paul ‘locates’ the important thing as being centered on Christ. He knew if the churches [believing communities] of the first few centuries would follow this idea, that they would truly turn their world upside down for the cause.

 ROMANS 13

.SHOULD WE OBEY WICKED RULERS?

.IS IT EVER RIGHT TO ‘NOT OBEY’ [Civil Disobedience].

.TAXES AND THE TITHE.

 (867)ROMANS 13:1-6 Paul teaches that believers should ‘be subject’ unto human government. He shows us that ‘the powers that be are ordained of God’. All human leaders are given their position of authority, ultimately, from God. What about Hitler? Or evil Pharaoh? Did God ‘put them there’? If God is sovereign [which he is!] then he permits all things to transpire, that actually transpire! He does not ‘ordain evil’ in the sense that he initiates unrighteous things. But because he has the power to prevent anything from happening, if ‘it happens’ that a wicked ruler is in authority, then he in that sense ‘ordained it’. Understand Paul is writing this at a time in Roman history where the leaders were quite wicked. They worshipped false gods, and even claimed to themselves the title of ‘a god’. For Paul to use this language in this chapter, he even says ‘they are the ministers [servants] of God to thee for good’ is strong. Paul is also not teaching that there is never a cause for civil disobedience, in the sense of ‘whatever the government says, we will do’. In the New Testament we have Peter resisting the order to ‘not teach or preach in Jesus name’ [Acts]. He even says ‘should we obey God or man’ in his defense. Of course today we have legalized abortion, and in the case of later term abortions, the practice is equal to infanticide. We should do all that is in our legal power to stop the murder of unborn children. This law violates Gods law, from whom all human government is derived.

 (868)ROMANS 13:7-14 ‘For this cause pay your taxes also, for they are Gods ministers’ I noted earlier how Paul taught ‘give to those around you that are in need’ [chapter 12] and here he teaches the importance of ‘paying taxes’. Where is the exhortation to ‘pay tithes’? In the ecclesiology of Paul, the ‘corporate community of people’ are the ‘new testament temple of God’. Therefore you see the need to ‘pay tribute’ to only two ‘institutions’. One being the ‘local church’ [as seen in simple giving to the needs of the community around you] and the other being ‘the government’. Paul sees no 3rd ‘institution’ that is called ‘the local church’ to which the tribute of the tithe belongs. To correctly apply the verse in Malachi [if you were going to use it at all. It is obvious that the prophet is directing the rebuke towards natural Israel] you would simply see the ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’ as ‘give to meet the needs of the community [Gods new testament storehouse] around you’. Now Paul teaches the primacy of the law of love for the believer. If we walk in Jesus command to love, we fulfill the law. And again Paul uses the language of ‘fluent soteriology’ [salvation]. He says ‘now is our salvation nearer than when we believed’. Paul comfortably jumps in and out of ‘being saved’ and ‘will be saved’. It is this free use of the term that we need to become familiar with. The New Testament clearly teaches a future salvation. And it is not as simple as ‘My spirit is saved, my mind [soul- which is really a very weak translation for soul. The soul is much more than the mind, emotions and intellect!] is ‘being saved’ and my body will be saved’. It is not this cut and dry. Your spirit is saved, your spirit will be saved and is being saved [he ever lives to make intercession to God for us- this ongoing intercession deals with all aspects of the humans salvation. Not just the body!]. All 3 modes of salvation [past, present and future] can apply to ‘all of you’ [spirit, soul and body]. Don’t think future salvation only deals with the ‘salvation of the body’.

  END NOTES- I’m adding portions of the Catechism at the bottom to show my Catholic [and Protestant] friends the official teaching of the church.

Some of my Catholic readers who are following along in this study- I want you to know that these doctrines are indeed in line with your faith.

 RENAISSANCE STUFF –

 The renaissance was the 13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for centuries- It began in Florence Italy.

The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’  meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in philosophy- as well as in Christian learning.

This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again from its original language.

The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th century] – re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and scholar]

Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a ‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw.

But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed set a spark- because it allowed the Priests to see the bible in its original language.

And Luther was actually teaching this book of Romans to his students in Germany when the Reformation began.

Today the Catholic Church [as you can see in the official Catechism that I have been posting] does indeed teach the bible as God’s Word.

The divisions between Protestants and Catholics are many- but they did agree that the bible was the Word of God.

Some Protestants do not know this- they think the church holds Tradition higher than the bible.

No- the church does believe that God speaks both thru tradition- and scripture.

They see the tradition of the church as simply another means by which God uses the church [Magisterium] to explain scripture- but the Catholic Church does not elevate tradition over the bible.

And indeed- it was a catholic scholar- Erasmus- who introduced the first Geek version of the New Testament.

NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus was what we would call ‘Free Will’.

In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek and Latin- the language of the elites.

He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders of the Church.

He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with no strings attached.

He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the Reformation’].

He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of the people-

He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church.

Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]-

Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith-

He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.

 RENAISSANCE ARTISTS-

The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael- used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were not just paintings.

DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in the Vatican.

It took him 4 years to complete.

The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century to the 17th– [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by what we term Humanism.

Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often has a bad connotation- especially among Christians.

But it meant something different back then.

It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value.

There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man.

But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does have a Christian basis in my view.

Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just art.

He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist- though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above.

1989    The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”39 (1427)

1990    Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. (1446, 1733)

1991    Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. (1812)

1992    Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40 (617, 1266, 294)

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

1993    Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: (2008, 2068)

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42

1994    Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect… will not pass away.”43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy. (312, 412)

1995    The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the “inner man,”44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being: (741)

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification…. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45

1. Grace

1996    Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46 (153)

1997    Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. (375, 260)

1998    This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47 (1719)

I added these below for commentary on Romans 13- Civil authorities. In our world today- there are many governmental authorities- and some are changing ‘overnight’- with much instability in the world. So you have cases where one group- government- is in charge- to be ‘obeyed’- but yet- that group is ousted some times in a day. Then do you view the new government- and all the new courts- judges- etc. – as illegitimate? Because they did not submit to the former group?

I find lots of confusion among Christians about our right relationship to civil government- many do not seem to understand that when we in the U.S. rebelled against British/English rule- we too were not ‘obeying’ the authority. We formed a new government- with courts- judges- etc.

So- this portion below shows us that there are indeed times when government loses the authority to govern- given to them by God.

1902    Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

1903    Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”23

  ROMANS  14-16

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/3-28-15-rom14-16.zip

 CHAPTER 14

.CAN WE WEAR SHORT, SHORTS?

.THE ATHEIST KNEW

NEW NOTES BELOW-

. ON EATING MEAT [I wrote this commentary years ago- so I added some recent notes below].

.DAVID KORESH- KING CYRUS?

[END NOTES-

.RETHINKING HOMELESS MINISTRY.

.TIMOTHY CHAPTER 6]

 (869)ROMANS 14:1-9 Paul discusses Christian convictions. Things that are personal habits of discipline where the scripture is silent on. Some believers abstain from certain types of food. Others see certain days as ‘more special’ than the others. It’s important to see that in this discussion Paul is not concerned with ‘who is right’. Though he will describe the legalistic believers as ‘weak in the faith’. And he himself will say he is convinced that ‘nothing is unclean in and of itself’. He is speaking about the convictions mentioned above. When I first became a believer I attended a good church. It was a Fundamental Baptist church that was a little legalistic in these areas. I remember a funny story, some of the brothers went on a canoe trip. We had a blast. One of the guys was wearing these old cut off shorts that looked like ‘blue jean hot pants’ [who wears short shorts, we wear short shorts!] the pants were old and the ‘fly’ kept unzipping. We told the brother ‘hey James, your gonna get us arrested or something if you can’t keep your shorts on!’. He got mad and called us a bunch of legalists! As you can see there are times where this accusation can simply be an excuse. But seriously the church was old fashioned [though well meaning]. I had another friend of mine that I led to the Lord and he asked ‘what’s wrong with the Christian rock, I like it’? He had heard some songs from the group Petra and he thought they were great. He also questioned why it was wrong for his boys to play mixed sports in public school. He was taught that the boys and girls wearing shorts in mixed company was wrong. So things like this are personal convictions that believers should not use to judge others. I want to stress that Paul does not condemn the more legalistic brothers, but he does make it clear that this is a sign of ‘weaker faith’. A faith that looks at the insignificant things and makes them significant. Many ‘Emergent’ church folk [of which I am one to a degree] seem to have had this type of background. Or at least are familiar with the classic evangelical message and preaching. Some have found a revolution in their thinking by re-organizing their lives around the actual lifestyle and teachings of Christ [which is a very good thing!]. But some seem to despise the older type churches and expressions of Christianity that they experienced while growing up. Some even cast away the good with the bad! Though many of the more legalistic churches practiced this type of Christianity, yet I commend them on spreading the gospel of Gods grace. Taking seriously their faith in the Lord. And being historic defenders of the faith at a time when the more liberal universities were throwing out the baby with the bathwater [the 20th century fundamentalist movement].

 (870)ROMANS 14: 10-23 ‘As I live…every knee shall bow and every tongue confess’. Paul teaches that we will all give an account of ourselves to God. He shows that one of the proofs that ‘he lives’ rides on this fact. How? The context of every one giving an account of his life is speaking of a future judgment day. But we also see the reality of Gods existence in the fact that most people [even atheists!] have at one time or another ‘spoken to God’. I was listening [or reading?] a testimony of a woman who was an atheist. Her child became critically ill and as the days went by in the hospital she had a conversation that went like this ‘I cant pray to God now. I would be a hypocrite. I have denied him my whole life’. The point is she actually knew that in time of need you should pray to God. This universal reality that most people on the planet have at one time or another ‘confessed to God’ is proof of his existence. Paul says because of this fact that we all will give an account to God, therefore don’t judge other people [motives] before the time. If you have the freedom to ‘eat meat’ [less legalistic] then by all means do so. But if this freedom causes another to stumble, then your first priority as a Christian is to live your life in an unselfish way for the benefit of others. So do not let your freedom become an offence to those who have ‘weaker faith’. Do all things with the benefit of others in mind. When Paul says ‘don’t judge your brother’ he is not saying there is never a time for correction and reproof. Paul used very harsh language when dealing with the Judaizers. These Jewish legalists did believe in Christ, they just mixed the law in with the gospel. Paul rebuked them harshly [just like Jesus and the religious leaders of his day]. But when dealing with new believers, those who are ‘weaker in the faith’ you don’t want to overload them with too much stuff. You want them to grow and mature in the proper time. If you used to be legalistic [not going to movies, not eating pork, all types of stuff] and now are more mature in your thinking [though some movies are bad and pork isn’t real good for you!] you should not despise those who still see the practice of their faith thru this lens. Paul said ‘he that eats, eats unto the Lord. He that abstains does it also to the lord’. In these less important restrictions that some believers abide by, most of the times their motives are pure. We shouldn’t demean them. We should try to live peaceably with all men as much as possible, we will all give an account some day.

NEW NOTES-

IS EATING MEAT OK?

The question of food and Holy Days are a subject that the Apostle Paul deals with more than one time in his letters to the churches.

For us today- it might not seem like a big issue- but for various reasons it was an issue for the 1st century church.

When he wrote the church at Corinth- their issue was whether or not it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Corinth had a tradition [non-Christian that is] where the town folk would sacrifice animals to various ‘gods’.

Now- the priests who dealt in this trade- would take the leftover meat from the animal- and either eat it- or sell it to the local ‘butcher’.

These sacrifices were to false gods [also understood to be demon entities by the 1st century Jewish/Christian communities].

So- the question was- is it ok to eat the meat?

The apostle Paul tells them that we know there are no other gods but the true God- and meat in general is ok for us living under the New Covenant [he also says in the End Times some will command to not eat meat- and that God gave us all animals to be received with thanksgiving].

So- in general- the meat was fine.

But- if doing it offends a weaker brother- then don’t eat it.

Meat also played a big role in another sense- the Jewish converts to Christianity were indeed taught kosher rules for food/meat.

Were these converts not to obey their old religious rules about food?

We read of this type of debate all thru the New testament- not just about meat- but about the whole transition of the Jewish believers- and their relationship to the Old Law.

In Acts chapter 13- and 15 you can get a good feel of this debate.

There are Christians today who still struggle with the Old Law- and how we today should relate to it.

Paul says he is persuaded that there is nothing unclean in and of itself [here talking about food- not things like adultery- which some of my friends think is ok- I can’t stress enough that when the bible says ‘nothing is unclean in and of itself’- it is NEVER TALKING ABOUT BREAKING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS].

So- in the end- if in areas of what we call Christian convictions- it’s simply a matter of choice-

If the bible is silent on an issue- then lean towards grace-

But- if your freedom hurts your brother- because he thinks it’s a bad thing- then be willing to abstain from it- like eating the meat that was sacrificed to the idol- at least while their around.

Some see a contradiction in Paul’s teaching- at one point he says ‘meats ok- even if part of it was used as a sacrifice to idols’- yet he also says ‘don’t eat at THE TABLE with devils [demons]’.

Ok- one of the practices at the city of Corinth was you ate in a sort of ‘demonic’ Eucharist- those who worshiped false gods had a sort of meal like Christians celebrated- which we call Holy Communion.

These idol worshippers did sort of the same thing- they ate together at their own TABLE_ in a sort of celebration of their gods-

So- Paul did forbid this practice- he told the church at Corinth you cannot eat at the table of the Lord and the table of devils-

If you were actually participating at the Table- eating the meat there- in celebration of the false god- then it’s wrong.

But- if you simply bought some of the left over meat- at the local butcher- that was fine.

See?

No contradiction at all.

 KING CYRUS- DAVIVD KORESH?

Paul uses a quote from Isaiah 45 ‘every knee shall bow- tongue confess’ – talking about God using a pagan king- King Cyrus- to restore Israel to their land.

We read about him in the book of Ezra and Daniel-

He gave the famous decree for God’s people to return to their land [2nd Chronicles 36, Ezra 1].

Josephus the historian indicates that Cyrus was shown the prophecy about him [written by Isaiah about 150 years before].

It’s possible that Daniel himself showed this to Cyrus- being he held a high position in the Persian empire- at this time.

David Koresh- the infamous leader of the branch Davidians [a breakaway sect from the 7TH day Adventist church] took his name from Cyrus-

Koresh is the Persian name for Cyrus the Great.

 CHAPTER 15

.IS THIS ABOUT US GETTING STUFF?

.WHO ‘RAN’ THE CHURCH?

.WHAT WAS PAUL’S SERVICE TO THE CHURCH?

   (871)ROMANS 15:1-7 ‘we then that are strong [more mature] ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not please ourselves’. In Philippians we have the ‘KENOSIS’ the act of Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not something to be used for his own advantage. He did not see his purpose in the kingdom as one of ‘let’s find out our rights in the covenant and posses what’s rightfully ours’. A few years back it was common to hear ‘God told me his people don’t have a problem with giving [oh really?] but they need to learn how to receive’. While there might be a ‘speck’ of truth in this, the overall ethos of the kingdom [according to Jesus and Paul] is ‘we are not here to please ourselves, but give up our rights and blessings for the purpose of pleasing others’ [building them up, edifying them]. Paul makes this statement right after the chapter on Christian convictions. He shows us that even if we are right on a particular issue, it is ‘more right’ to not offend or put a stumbling block in our brother’s path. It is possible to ‘be right’ in a particular doctrine or truth, and yet ‘be wrong’ in that we might have used it in a way that destroyed the purpose of God in building others up. Many in the church [at large!] have unwittingly ‘tore down’ the poor and oppressed by seeking ‘their own pleasure’. Many overseas countries have been hurt by the amount of pleasure seeking doctrines that went into their countries. Many 3rd world Pastors gave sacrificially out of their extreme poverty to rich American ‘pleasure seekers’ and their poor people suffered greatly when they did not get a literal 100 fold return as was promised. Paul said ‘we that are strong ought to help the weak, and not please ourselves’.

 (872)ROMANS 15: 8-14 Paul freely quotes from Psalms and Isaiah [the 2 most quoted Old Testament books in the New Testament] and shows how God always had a future plan to include the Gentiles. In the first century mindset, ‘salvation’ was seen more in a nationalistic sense than an individual ‘me and Jesus’ type thing. The messianic promises were for the ‘commonwealth’ of Israel. As the gospel would expand into the Gentile nations, Peter would call us ‘a holy nation’. Still couching the purposes of God and his kingdom in a nationalistic way [not human ‘nations’ but Gods people]. So for Paul it is significant to show how King David [the greatest king Israel ever had] actually prophesied [Psalms] of the future inclusion of the Gentiles into the corporate ‘nation of God’. Also Paul says ‘you are able to admonish one another’. A theme in Paul’s writings is the ability of the ‘local believers/church’ to have within them a corporate ability for self edification. He teaches an idea that says ‘you are all able members of Christ’s Body, therefore build each other up’. Notice how Paul is not speaking into the modern day concept of ‘the Pastor’ who is usually seen as the main ‘builder’. In all of Paul’s letters he addresses the entire body to carry out the function of the church. He tells the Corinthians ‘when you are all gathered together, commit the unrepentant believer over to satan for the destruction of the flesh’. He gave this very heavy charge to the church. He did not see it as something that was to be carried out by a singular office [Bishop or Pastor]. So here we see Paul admonish the local believers to build each other up.

 (873)ROMANS 15: 15-20 Paul appeals to his apostolic authority as ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’ in defense of his strong letter. He also says ‘I dare not use any thing that Christ has not wrought by me to make the Gentiles obedient’. Was Paul saying he would not speak about his past testimony and struggles with sin? I don’t think so. He already spoke of these struggles in this letter [chapter 7]. If you keep reading he says ‘thru mighty signs and wonders, by the power of Gods Spirit’. If you read Galatians, Paul says ‘how did you receive the Spirit, by the works of the law or the hearing of faith’ [P.S. for those still stuck on chapter 10 of Romans, see here how Paul saw the passive hearing as the only outward sign of receiving the Spirit- not calling!] here Paul appeals to the Galatians and says they received the Spirit and God wrought miracles among them [mighty signs and wonders] thru faith. In Acts we saw how the primary purpose of the charismatic signs and wonders was for the proclaiming of the gospel. The signs testify of Jesus being the Messiah. So here in Romans I think Paul is simply saying ‘I will not resort to the preaching of the law’, the main tool used by the Judaizers to try and gain ‘obedience’ among the Gentiles in order to make the Gentiles obedient [these are the things that Christ has not wrought by him. They represented Paul’s past experience in Judaism]. But instead he will declare the gospel of God’s grace. He will lean on the Cross of Christ as the functional tool to ‘bring obedience to the Gentiles’.

 (874)ROMANS 15: 20-33 ‘Now I go to Jerusalem to minister to the saints’ ‘my service to them’. Paul tells the Romans that he is going to ‘minister’ and have ‘service’ towards the Jerusalem saints. How would you take it if I said ‘I am going to New York to minister, hold a ‘service’ in the church’. You would see me as saying I was going to preach in a building, do my best to encourage the people. And before I left I was going to receive an offering. Paul is saying nothing of the sort! His ‘ministry and service’ are speaking of his charitable work among the poor. He received gifts from the churches for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of the poor. He even says ‘if you Gentiles have been made partakers of their blessings, you should help them out financially’. We are familiar with this terminology when Paul uses it to speak of meeting the needs of Elders, but we very rarely apply it to the meeting of the needs of the poor. Paul had a ‘service’ for the saints, and he was not speaking in terms of going to some town and preaching a message and taking an offering. Service in the first century context was giving of your time and resources for the benefit of others. Doing things at your own expense, not always receiving a recompense yourself. I wonder where they got such an ‘unbiblical idea’. It reminds me of the time when Jesus put on a towel and washed the disciples feet. Another one of those strange passages that seem to teach that leadership is here to serve, not be served. These kingdom precepts do not fit in with the modern idea of ‘ministry/service’.

 CHAPTER 16

.HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE?

.DID THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVE THE RAPTURE?

.SHOULD WE ‘PREACH’ AT ALL?

 (875)ROMANS 16- Some debate the ‘canonicity’ of this chapter. They feel that all the personal greetings from Paul are too personal. Let’s talk a little about the Canon [inspiration of the scriptures]. First, I am a ‘bible believing Christian’ who holds to the historic doctrine of scripture. But you do have varying views on what the historic doctrine is. I hold to the idea that God never intended for the letters that were written in the first century, which have become our New Testament, to be writings that were pulled out of time. That is the writers had to have been writing with a contextual purpose in mind. The recipients of the letters had to have had some type of practical instructions that they could wrap their minds around. So for John to say something to the seven churches in Asia Minor [Revelation] it was just common sense that the actual recipients of the letters would expect something practical for their day. This of course does not mean there are no further applications or instructions for us today, but we need to have a more personal understanding of the give and take between the Apostles and the people they were writing to. So this is how I think we should view the personal stuff in the Canon. This also needs to be understood when interpreting scripture. I have made the argument before for the 1st century belief in Christ’s literal second coming. I have also taught how the early church had no concept of a Rapture that was separated from the return of Christ. The event spoken of by Paul in Thessalonians chapter 4 is a real thing that takes place at Christ’s return. We get ‘caught up to meet him in the air’. Now how confusing would it be for the first century readers of Paul’s letters, to have one letter that speaks of a second coming, and another that spoke of a rapture? It would be next to impossible to have any coherent view of scripture if they did stuff like this. You could then make an argument for any doctrine. There would be no coherent thinking if you were living in Thessalonica and read a letter from Paul that used the same terminology about the return of Christ as he used in a letter to the Corinthians. And if you relocated to Corinth and said ‘Oh, yes. Paul wrote to us about the resurrection and return of Jesus. But when he wrote to us he was speaking of the rapture, but when he wrote to you he was talking about a different event called the second coming’. This type of thinking would have been disastrous for the early church. They were all receiving letters from Paul that contained basic truth. The fact that these letters were not included in an entire collection [as we have today] leads us to believe that the basic message had to stay the same in all of these letters, or else you would have had havoc in the early church.

 (876)ROMANS 16- CONCLUSION  Okay, lets try and finish up Romans. We do see some good stuff in this last chapter. We see Paul addressing women as  functional ministers in the church. Phoebe is a deaconess, Junia an apostle! I still believe that Elders were only men, but women did function in the first century Ecclesia’s. Paul also says ‘mark those which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine you have learned and avoid them’. Now, I have heard the strict Baptists use this against the Pentecostals, and it did put the fear of God in you! But then I heard the Pentecostals use it against the strict Baptists, and it also put the fear of God in you! [maybe another fear?] The point being you could use this to defend any doctrine you ‘have been taught’ by well meaning men. Here Paul is warning against those who were early on departing from the faith [the basic elements of the gospel and Gods grace]. The apostle John addresses those who ‘went out from us, but were not of us’ ‘whoever rejects Christ as come in the flesh is anti christ’ [1st John]. You did have those who rejected the basic elements of the gospel and the incarnation of Jesus. Paul warned the Corinthians not to depart from the reality of Christ’s resurrection [1st Corinthians 15]. And of course Paul openly rebuked the Judiazers for trying to put the gentile believers under the restrictions of the Mosaic law. So even though these types of verses seem to fit in to our present day controversies and differences among various denominational groups, yet in context they refer to those who were rejecting the basic tenets of the faith. Paul also encourages ‘God will crush satan under our feet shortly’ ‘God is able to establish us thru the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ’. Let me defend the concept of ‘old fashioned preaching’ a little. While I and many others have publicly taught a type of new testament ecclesiology that is absent the ‘weekly pulpit Pastoral office’. Yet there is biblical precedent for the preaching of the Word. Paul taught in chapter 10 ‘how can they hear without a preacher, and how can they preach unless they are sent’? God strengthens believers thru the preaching of Gods Word. While it is wrong for the average believer to depend solely on this preaching to become educated in the things of God, yet there is a strengthening that God gives to the believer when he comes under the pure preaching of Christ. As we end Romans, I want to re emphasize the major doctrine of justification by faith. The reformation of the 16th century did not happen in a vacuum. God restored a very vital truth back to the people of God. All Christians should be grounded and well versed in the reality of God freely accepting us based on simple faith in Jesus Christ. Now, I realize that many are returning to a more ‘sermon on the mount’ orientation of the Christian lifestyle. As I have taught before I think this is a good thing. A ‘re-focusing’ on the teachings and instruction of Jesus. But I think we also need to emphasize the many statements from Jesus himself on those who believe having everlasting life [John’s gospel]. Romans is a masterpiece letter from Paul, one of his main points was justification by faith. God wants believers to be grounded in this truth.

 MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

 Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

 http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

 Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

 Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber classic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

https://d.tube/c/ccoutreach  

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A  

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui  [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

 I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on-  Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

 Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is [email protected] - contact me first- thank you- John

#God #Bible #jesus #Christian #religion

[madewithonerib]

Matthew 25:32-33 | ³² All the nations will be gathered before HIM, & HE will separate the people one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ HE will place the sheep on HIS right & the goats on HIS left.

Alex Duke | @_alexduke_ Feb.7/21

The GOAT²

If Brady wins another Super Bowl, he graduates from the GOAT of football (that’s already cemented) and becomes the GOAT² (the GOAT of GOATs, passing MJ, Gretzky, Tiger, Phelps, et al).

just learned meaning for the acronym yesterday, wonder is this reason why GOD hates goats? [Mt 25:32-33]

Charles John Ellicott, Theologian [1819–1905] | Matthew 25:32-33

    [32] Before him shall be gathered all nations—Better, all the            nations, or even better, perhaps, all the Gentiles.

    The word is that which, when used, as here, with the article,     marks out, with scarcely an exception, the heathen nations     of the world as distinguished from GOD’s people Israel     [as, e.g., in Romans 15:11-12; Ephesians 2:11].

    The word, thus taken, serves as the key to the distinctive     teaching that follows.

    We have had in this CH:

        [1] in the Wise & Foolish Virgins, the law of judgment for              all members of the Church of CHRIST;

        [2] in the Talents, that for all who hold any office or              ministry in the Church: now we have

        [3] the law by which those shall be judged who have lived              & died as heathens, not knowing the name of CHRIST,              & knowing GOD only as revealed in Nature or in the              law written in their hearts.

    Every stage in what follows confirms this interpretation.

2]  As a shepherd divides HIS sheep from the goats—Elsewhere     the shepherd’s work is the symbol of protective,     self-sacrificing love, and, as such,

                our LORD had emphatically claimed for                 HIMSELF the title of the Good Shepherd                 [John 10:14].

    Here we are reminded that even the shepherd has at times     to execute the sentence of judgment which involves separation.

    The “right” hand & the “left” are used, according to the laws of     what we might almost call a natural symbolism, as indicating     respectively good & evil, acceptance & rejection.

Joseph Benson, Methodist [1749–1821] | Matthew 25:32-33

1] Before HIM shall be gathered all nations—That is, all the     individuals of all nations & ages; not only all that are     found alive at the time of HIS appearing, & are changed     in a moment, & rendered immortal, that they may be     capable of enjoying eternal happiness, or of suffering     everlasting misery, but all that had ever lived from the     beginning to the end of time.

    All of every clime, country, & place, great & small, even     from the remotest corners of the world.

2] And HE shall separate them one from another—According     to their different characters, [which HE most perfectly knows]     with as much ease as a shepherd divides HIS sheep, which     belong to HIS flock, from the goats, which may be mingled     with them, & places them in distinct companies.

3] And HE shall set the sheep—The righteous, whom HE will     own as such, & who are termed sheep on account of their     innocence, meekness, & usefulness;

4] on HIS right hand—In token of HIS favour to them, & of the     further honours HE purposes to bestow upon them.

5] And the goats—That is, the wicked,

        called goats because of         the exorbitancy of their lusts;

6] on his left—To intimate HIS displeasure against them, &     their final removal from among HIS people; nor shall the     haughtiest & mightiest sinner be able to resist that     appointment by which he is placed in this situation.

        “I cannot imagine,” says Dr. Doddridge,         “a more magnificent image than this;

        the assembled world distinguished with         such unerring penetration, & distributed         into two grand classes, with as much         ease as sheep & goats are ranged by         a shepherd in different companies.”

    The wicked & the godly in this world dwell together in the     same kingdoms, cities, Churches, families, & are not with     certainty distinguishable always one from another:

    Such are the infirmities of saints, such the hypocrisies of     sinners, & one event frequently happening to both; but in     that day they will be separated & parted for ever:

        for the LORD both knows them that are HIS, &         them that are not, & HE can & will separate them:

        & the separation will be so exact, that the most         inconsiderable saint shall not be lost in the crowd         of sinners, nor the most plausible sinner hid in the         crowd of saints [Psalm 1:5];

    but every one shall go to his own place.

    Dr. Whitby thinks, that there is an allusion here to the     received custom of the Jews in capital causes, to place     them who are to be acquitted on the right hand, in the     sanhedrim,

        & those who were to receive the sentence         of condemnation, on the left.

Matthew Henry, Nonconformist [1662-1714] | Matthew 25:31-46

    This is a description of the last judgment.

    It is as an explanation of the former parables.

    There is a judgment to come, in which every man shall be     sentenced to a state of everlasting happiness, or misery.

    CHRIST shall come, not only in the glory of HIS FATHER,     but in HIS own glory, as Mediator.

    The wicked & godly here dwell together, in the same cities,     Churches, families, & are not always to be known the one     from the other;

                such are the weaknesses of saints, such the                 hypocrisies of sinners; & death takes both:

                but in that day they will be parted for ever.

    JESUS CHRIST is the great Shepherd; HE will shortly     distinguish between those that are HIS, & those that are not.

    All other distinctions will be done away; but the great one     between saints & sinners, holy & unholy, will remain for ever.

    The happiness the saints shall possess is very great.

    It is a kingdom; the most valuable possession on earth; yet     this is but a faint resemblance of the blessed state of the     saints in heaven.

    It is a kingdom prepared.

    The FATHER provided it for them in the greatness of HIS     wisdom & power; the SON purchased it for them; & the     blessed SPIRIT, in preparing them for the kingdom, is     preparing it for them.

    It is prepared for them: it is in all points adapted to the     new nature of a sanctified soul.

    It is prepared from the foundation of the world.

    This happiness was for the saints, & they for it, from all eternity.

    They shall come & inherit it.

    What we inherit is not got by ourselves.

    It is GOD that makes heirs of heaven.

    We are not to suppose that acts of bounty will entitle to     eternal happiness.

    Good works done for GOD's sake, through JESUS CHRIST,     are here noticed as marking the character of believers     made holy by the SPIRIT of CHRIST, &

        as the effects of grace bestowed         on those who do them.

    The wicked in this world were often called to come to     CHRIST for life & rest, but they turned from HIS calls;

    & justly are those bid to depart from CHRIST, that would     not come to HIM.

    Condemned sinners will in vain offer excuses.

    The punishment of the wicked will be an everlasting     punishment; their state cannot be altered.

    Thus life & death, good & evil, the blessing & the curse,     are set before us, that we may choose our way, & as     our way so shall our end be.

Albert Barnes, American Theologian [1798-1870] | Matthew 25:32-33

1] And before HIM..—At HIS coming to judgment the world will     be burned up, 2 Peter 3:10-12; Revelation 20:11.

2]  The dead in CHRIST that is, all true Christians—will be     raised up from their graves, 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

3] The living will be changed—i.e., will be made like the glorified     bodies of those that are raised from the dead     [1 Corinthians 15:52-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:17]

    All the wicked will rise & come forth to judgment     [John 5:28-29; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 13:41-42; Revelation 20:13]

    Then shall the world be judged, the righteous saved, & the     wicked punished.

4] And HE shall separate ..—Shall determine respecting their     character, & shall appoint them their doom accordingly.

Matthew Poole, Nonconformist [1624-1679] | Matthew 25:32-33

See Poole on "Matthew 25:33".

John Gill, Baptist & Calvinist [1697-1771] | Matthew 25:32-33

    And before HIM shall be gathered all nations.....

    That is, all that have professed the Christian religion in all     the nations of the world, whether Jews or Gentiles,     high or low, rich or poor, wise & foolish,

        such as have had greater or lesser talents;

    though it is also true of every individual of mankind of     every nation, tribe & family, of every sex, age, & state,     that ever has been, is, or will be.

    Yet Christian professors seem only here intended, as the     following distinction of them, their final state, &     the reasons of it show.

    This collection of them before CHRIST, the righteous judge,     will be made by the holy angels, who will come with HIM     for this purpose; & being mighty, as they are, will be able     to accomplish great a work; & especially as being under     the direction, influence, & authority of so divine, glorious,     & illustrious a person, as the SON of MAN will then     to all appear to be;

    And HE shall separate them one from another, as a     shepherd divides HIS sheep from the goats:

        they shall be gathered before HIM, as they were         together in their visible Church state, as being all         under a profession of religion;

                some wise, some foolish virgins; some sheep,                 & others goats; some industrious, diligent,                 faithful, & laborious servants;

                others wicked, slothful, & unprofitable ones;                 many of whom pass undistinguished &                 undiscovered now: but then the judge, who is of                 quick understanding, will easily discern the one                 from the other;

                such as have the oil of grace in                 the vessels of their hearts,

    together with their lamps, from such as have only the outward     visible lamp of a profession, but destitute of the grace of GOD;

    & good & faithful servants, who have made a right use of their     gifts, from such who have been negligent, careless, & remiss;

    & though these have been folded together,

    sheep & goats, in the sheepfold of the Church, where they     have all bore the character of the sheep of CHRIST;     yet now when the chief shepherd appears,

        who knows HIS own sheep, & calls them by name,         HE will as easily separate the one from the other,         & more so, than any shepherd, among men,         can part a flock consisting of sheep & goats.

    Hypocrites in Zion shall now be no more, nor sinners stand     any longer in the congregation of the righteous, nor both     together as one body, & on one side in judgment.

Geneva Study BIBLE, ‎Protestant Affiliation [1557-1560] | Matthew 25:32-33

    And before HIM shall be gathered all nations: & HE shall     separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides     HIS sheep from the goats:

biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/25-32.htm twitter.com/_alexduke_/status/1358627444027228160

#goat #sheep #separation #eternity

[firstumcschenectady]

“Life” based on Romans 12:9-21

My normal preaching style is to argue with the text, but I can't do it with this one.  Romans 12 speaks for itself.  That is, it preaches for itself.  It doesn't need to be argued with, just amplified.  It preachers better in the Message, paraphrased by Rev. Eugene Peterson. Hear it again1:

Love from the center of who you are; don’t fake it. Run for dear life from evil; hold on for dear life to good. Be good friends who love deeply; practice playing second fiddle.

Don’t burn out; keep yourselves fueled and aflame. Be alert servants of the Master, cheerfully expectant. Don’t quit in hard times; pray all the harder. Help needy people; be inventive in hospitality.

Bless your enemies; no cursing under your breath. Laugh with your happy friends when they’re happy; share tears when they’re down. Get along with each other; don’t be stuck-up. Make friends with nobodies; don’t be the great somebody.

Don’t hit back; discover beauty in everyone. If you’ve got it in you, get along with everybody. Don’t insist on getting even; that’s not for you to do. “I’ll do the judging,” says God. “I’ll take care of it.”

Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he’s thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. Don’t let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good.

This is one of those passages that doesn't speak the name of God – but tries to speak about what it means to be followers of Jesus.  Its good news that following God means being good friends.  Modern theologians and scholars spend a lot of time working on the idea of a “relational God.” which is to say that God is in relationship with us and cares deeply about our relationships with others.  To take it a step further even, God is in the midst of all of our relationships with others.  To be in relationship with God IS to be in good relationship with those around us.  To harm those in our lives IS to harm God.

So we hear that we should be good friends who love deeply – and thus we become better friends with God.

The next line is one of the best pieces of advice in the Bible.  As Peterson puts it:  practice playing second fiddle.   Imagine if we did this.  Imagine if we could practice and perfect second fiddle. If we didn't dream of having the top seat, but dreamt of being as supportive as we can be from the place we are.  Imagine if we all saw ourselves as important people because of the ways that we play the harmonies..... and not for the ways we play the melodies.  To practice playing second fiddle is also to put emphasis on God as the band leader who knows how to make the music – it is to be willing to play the role most needed instead of the role most prestigious. There are people who do this, and do it well – you probably know some.  Think of how precious they are....  It is good advice– practice playing second fiddle.

“Don't burn out; keep yourselves fueled and aflame.”  We hear so often about burn out.  People throw themselves wholeheartedly into their jobs, and their bosses take advantage of their willingness, and there is more work than any person can handle, and eventually they have nothing left to offer.  We know this happens in the church too. People get excited about being in a place where they can serve God – and where they can feel God's love through the people around them – and they want to help however they can.  Yet the meetings can get tedious.  And the excitement can fade as things don't go as they'd dreamed and maybe it seems like nothing ever changes – or like everything has changed – and there is burn out.  But this passage tells us, as it continues, how to avoid it.... “ be cheerfully expectant.  Don't quit in the hard times! Pray all the harder.”  (I would suspect, as well, that constancy of prayer and mediation would guide each of us to be strong and wise enough to say no to roles in the church that are currently dragging us under instead of lifting us up.  So prayer really is the answer!)

I love the line:  “Be inventive in hospitality.”  That feels like a task we are particularly called to right now, when all the forms of hospitality we're used to have suddenly become moot.  What does it look like now?  How can we practice it?  How do we experience it?

“Bless your enemies, no cursing under your breath.”  Oh that we might all become people really able to do that.  It is true that praying good for our enemies, blessing them, changes them and us.  Sometimes we have to be careful about how we say it – its not real to say “May every blessing fall on the person who annoys me most in the world.” but its usually real to say “may the person who annoys me most AND I manage to be more civil today.”  And transformation happens – particularly when we work hard enough that we don't leave a piece of ourselves behind muttering nasties.  

We have another piece of God caring about how we are with one another: “Laugh with your happy friends when they are happy; share tears when they're down.  God along with each other; don't be stuck – up. Make friends with nobodies; don't be the great somebody.”  We are to be with those we love – and share lives with them.  What helps neighbors and families to share tears and laughter today?  It takes more intentionality to be “present” with people right now, and it has always been challenging for many of us not run away at the first show of emotion (especially grief and anger.)  Also, it is to try to be “THE GREAT SOMEBODY” - but we already know we're supposed to try to play second fiddle.

“Don't hit back, discover beauty in everyone.”  You know, I have found, especially over that when I let God show me what God loves about a person, the beauty of the person is really visible.  There is stunning beauty in everyone.  Mary Lou Kownacki says, “There isn’t anyone you couldn’t love once you’ve heard their story.”  I buy it.  Of course, it takes some serious work to let go of my own annoyances and do so – but there is beauty in EVERYONE.  “If you've got it in you, get along with everybody.”  I love how this is phrased.  It acknowledges that it won't work for all people.  Particularly because getting along with some people means giving up who you are – and that's not the point.  But WHEN ITS POSSIBLE, for WHOM its possible, get along with everybody.  Its a worthy goal!

“Don't insist on getting even; that's not for you to do. I'll do the judging' says God, 'I'll take care of it.”  I like this translation way better than the NRSV :)  It is in any case a good reminder that the world is God's, and justice is God's, and our goal is to do the blessing of our enemies, not the seeking of retribution.  I also like that it acknowledges our DESIRE to get even, which is honest, without making space for us to act which is moral.

“Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he's thirsty get him a drink.  Your generosity will surprise him with goodness.  Don't let evil get the best of you: get the best of evil by doing good.” It is so true that evil never overcomes evil, just like hate never drives out hate, and violence doesn't bring peace. Peace brings peace.  Goodness brings goodness. Love brings love.  Love and goodness and peace transform evil.  I hope you've all seen it.  I've seen it time and time again, particularly in faith community.  People who are afraid of being hurt come to camp or church with a chip on their shoulder, ready to pounce at the first person they see.  With gentle love for a few days or weeks or years, a sweeter and gentler person emerges, ready to soak in the goodness and affirmation.  People change more when you welcome them for who they are and what they do well than when you disparage what they do wrong.  People change a lot – and you change a lot – when you have lunch with your “enemy.”  

Romans 12 teaches us a lot about how to be – how to be human, how to be Godly, how to follow the way of Jesus.  May we live our lives guided by it.  Amen.

Questions for Reflection

How do these instructions seem to you?  Do they feel like useful guidance?  Do they feel different from or similar to the 10 commandments or the greatest commandments?

Which piece strikes you the strongest?

What part is hardest for you?

Where do you hope to be able to do better?

What DOES it mean to “love from the center of who you are” and how can you do so more fully?  

1  I fixed one word, FYI.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

#progressive christianity #Thinking Church #FUMC Schenectady #UMC #sorry about the umc #Rev Sara E Baron #Paul #Practice Playing Second Fiddle #Good Advice #Romans

[theothersidepress]

Still Here – Our Near Death Experiences

https://ift.tt/2UWatjY

Spirited Adventures Authored by Fred and Liz Welling

Fred Welling was in his late 20s and living in Shirley, Southampton U.K. when his first wife Doreen, needed major surgery. Fred signed the papers authorising it, as the alternative was death.

Unfortunately, Doreen died on the operating table and for many decades, Fred felt as though he was responsible for her death because he signed the consent forms.

Even though Fred had been born into a spiritually aware family, during his grieving he demanded that “God prove and let him know if there really was life beyond death.”

He spoke to a Minister of the Methodist Church where he had been a young choir boy. He asked if the Minister KNEW that there was life beyond the physical but the response was: “Just believe. Have faith and just believe.” Naturally that did not satisfy Fred’s inquiring mind.

He visited a Spiritualist Church seeking answers. One afternoon, a medium on the platform was an old lady who was almost blind. She could not have seen Fred, who sat at the back of the church. But she singled him out and gave incredible details of the relationship between him and Doreen – information that was known only to Fred. She also emphasised that Doreen did not hold him responsible for her death. It was her time to leave the physical world.

Direct Proof of Life Beyond the Physical Realm

Fred remarried (another Doreen) who had a 4 year old daughter named Patricia, whom Fred adopted. Doreen and Fred were also blessed with a daughter, Barbara, and the family migrated to Australia in 1969.

They lived in Sydney, New South Wales before moving to a home in Hope Valley, Adelaide, South Australia. It was not long before he found a Spiritualist Church in the northern suburb of Elizabeth.

Some years later, the family had been enjoying a day at the beach. Whilst driving home, Fred started to feel dizzy and unwell. He opened the car door and was able to enter the house but the next thing he knew, he was lying on the kitchen floor.

Fred intended to go to bed but part way down the passage way, the floor came up to meet him. He had passed out and found himself in a tunnel. Two Beings of Light were at the end of the tunnel and informed Fred that it was “not his time" and that "he had to return.”

The love was so incredible and unconditional that Fred fell to his knees, pleading with them to stay but they insisted that his family still needed him in the physical world and he was sent back.

He awoke in the passageway, went to bed and slept for 12 hours – something he had never done before nor since.

The next day, Fred remembered his demand to God that he be given proof of life beyond the physical realm. In a dramatic way, God had answered his demand and Fred was very grateful that he was able to drive safely home before having the experience.

Liz Welling had a Near Death Experience (NDE) about 35 years ago and her experience was the well-known and hugely documented tunnel of white light that is mentioned by others when they recall their experiences.

As she floated along the tunnel, Liz telepathically heard the voices of her parents’ friends and then two Beings of Light, who clairaudiently said: “Your children are too young. You must go back.”

She awoke in intense pain. Her young children phoned a doctor who came to the home and injected her with pethidine.

When Liz Met Fred

Liz met Fred in 1987 when he and a friend came to the library. They inquired about the possibility of doing a display on crystals for his friend’s son who was completing a Duke of Edinburgh award.

Liz was chief librarian at that stage and the library had just been extended, so she was delighted to have an instant display that could tie in with the books that the library already had on crystals.

They did not go out until 1992 but Liz had seen Fred around Adelaide in various meditation groups.

She had just started giving talks in spiritualist churches and asked Fred if he would be the medium.  In this way they worked as a team and continue their wonderful work to this day. Fred and Liz married in October 1995 and the rest, as they say, is history.

Maleny hinterland, Queensland, Australia

Fly Like an Eagle

In July 2016, Fred and Liz attended a retreat led by Gay Robinson and Lyn Edwards at The White Eagle Lodge, Maleny, in Queensland’s Sunshine Coast hinterland. Maleny is situated on the southern edge of the Blackall Range with spectacular views across to the Sunshine Coast and Glass House Mountains.

Each day at the retreat there was an hour’s 'cellular meditation' starting at 8.00am, followed by breakfast, a talk and another one-hour meditation.

During the meditations, the eleven retreat participants (two men and nine women) were encouraged to enter the stillness – the silence. The format of the meditation was as follows:

~ A short piece of quiet music was played

~ The leader usually guided the meditators into a pool of healing and up a mountain to enter the higher realms of spirit – of consciousness – and then into the silence where it is possible to hear the word of God – known also as the creative word of life – the Word of the Divine Spirit

~ In the silence, it is possible to hear the celestial music of the spheres

~ The return to everyday awareness was via another piece of quiet music

Be Careful What You Wish For

During the retreat, Liz had three incredible experiences.

1. Wednesday 5 July 2016 – Meditation led by Gay

The format was a short track of quiet music, a guided journey to the higher realms of light, silence, quiet music and return to everyday awareness. There was no debriefing but we were instructed to return silently to our rooms and not to speak for an hour until lunch time.

Following Gay’s initial guidance, Liz saw wild flowers in her meditation, including daffodils, primroses and snow drops. For some reason, she found it hard to enter the Pool of Healing. The pool was pink with floating pink lotus flowers.

They were asked to look for elementals (nature spirits) and she saw a tiny round light which is the sylph or zephyr elemental of air. Struggling to follow the meditation, Liz decided to use the Eagle from her previous day’s meditation and followed the Eagle into the higher realms.

Then, a spinning vortex/tunnel of beautiful purple/pink amethyst energy formed. A spirit being manifested at the end of it and she heard an inner voice telepathically ask: “Do you want to come?” Very quiet, yet powerful and loving.

Instantly, she replied: “Not without Fred” and the Being of Light and the amethyst tunnel vanished.

Intense sharp pain immediately hit her upper transverse colon and she had to move away from the group to sit on some carpeted stairs. Liz writhed in agony until the meditation time finished.

The stabbing pain continued. She tried to use the Golden Light of The Christ Consciousness – the Golden One – for healing but still the pain intensified. Tears of pain streamed down her face.

At the end of the meditation and final music track, Liz tried to stand up to return to her room, but bent over double in pain. Gay realised something was wrong and asked what happened.

“I have to tell Fred first,” Liz replied. The three of them went back to the bedroom leaving the other nine members of the group wondering what had taken place.

Liz dissolved into more tears. She was upset because she had not mentioned to the Being of Light that her daughter Tanya may still need her as she was due for major surgery when they returned from Maleny. (Fred later told Liz that from his experience of an NDE, family is not even on your mind.)

Throughout the whole experience, everything had been so natural and matter of fact.

“Do you want to come?”

“Not without Fred.”

In retrospect, it was an opportunity to leave her physical body behind and make the transition to the next stage of life beyond physical death.

Her reply ‘Not without Fred’ was very interesting, as the previous day, Fred had shared with several of the women that “he had a contract with God that Liz and he would die at the same time.”

One of the women asked Liz what she thought about it. Liz merely shrugged and the woman responded, “You don’t seem to be a part of it.” Liz answered that “she was not sure if God had accepted Fred’s contract”.

Fred was quite relieved with Liz’s answer as he did not want to be left on his own if she died first, so it may be that Fred will die first or they will indeed go together. Who knows? Yet to be revealed.

"I am your Overlighting Angel"

2. Thursday 6 July 2016 – Meditation led by Lyn

They lay on the floor in the Temple rugged up in warm dynes, practicing a daily exercise known as 'Cellular Alchemy'. This is an hour-long process in which Golden Light is brought into every part of the body including all the cells, nerves, tissues, blood, veins, arteries and organs.

Part way through the practice, Liz felt a magenta/purple feathery presence above her and an inner voice – again telepathic – said: “I am your Overlighting Angel.”

Her response was simply: “Oh, are you?”

This Overlighting Angel felt very comforting and protective.

Retreat participants were not permitted to use telephones or the internet whilst on retreat but after this meditation, Liz was very naughty and sent a text message to a friend in the Clare Prophet Summit Lighthouse movement. She asked if he knew about the Overlighting Angel.

His reply was “No” but he Googled it and confirmed that it was a very protective energy. Still curious, Liz did some research once she returned home and found that the Devas or Overlighting Angels are part of Theosophy. They ”interface" with the human soul while in form and are responsible for the life vitality of the human form.

The Archangels are also referred to as the Overlighting Angels, since their function is to overlight or watch over and direct groups of angels, as well as all aspects of humanity.*

The four Archangels we are most familiar with are Gabriel, Michael, (deep blue colour) Raphael, and Uriel.**

Whatever name is given to these beautiful beings, it is obvious that Liz was very close to physical death.

3. Thursday 6 July 2016 – Meditation Gay led by Gay

The group was taken to The Lake of Peace and 'magically' crossed it in a small canoe with their Guide and Guardian Angel. They were instructed to climb the mountain to a plateau where they would meet souls they had known who were gathering to perform an ancient ritual to bring in the Dawn and gather rays from the Solar Logos – the Golden One – to bless earth and all humanity.

Liz met several family members and Fred’s previous mother-in-law.

Again, for the second time, a voice asked: “Do you want to come?”

No beautiful amethyst tunnel this time but the same calm voice asking: “Do you want to come?”

“No thank you.”

A second opportunity to exit the physical body and make the transition to the worlds of spirit. Again, all very natural and matter of fact.

Before lunch that day, Liz was looking at the trees that led down to the valley and they were all different – more vibrant and more alive. She was actually seeing the etheric part of the trees and leaves. It was like entering a fairy world.

Before these experiences, although cold, Liz had felt OK. But when she looked in the mirror, she commented to Fred that one of her eyes was only partly open and that both eyes looked full of pain.

When she had partly processed the experience, she shared it with the other retreat group members. They were very supportive and one of them commented: “What a pity you did not actually go over and then change your mind and come back and tell us about it.”

Liz replied that there was an inner knowing that if she had accepted the invitation to depart, there was no return ticket included. “Make or break.”

“It was a timely experience, as I had been in so much pain at home before we left Adelaide. And in an outburst, I said: “I have had enough. I wish I were dead. I want it all to end.”

Moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for. It might just come true.

However, there is still a little more. When they returned home, Fred said:

“I was doing an hour-long meditation at a retreat in Maleny when I suddenly had a vision of a garden of flowers of many colours not seen on earth. I knew that if I entered this garden, I would not return to earth. I did not wish to leave my wife Elizabeth so I did not enter the garden.”

So Fred and Liz, at the time of submitting this article, are “Still Here”.

Liz, Fred & daughter Tanya

Reference Sources

* https://ift.tt/37pY0Yo

**www.angelfire.com

NDE Postscript

Roar of Death – Maleny 2001

It was the Sunday after 9/11 and Fred and Liz were attending a service at the White Eagle Lodge, Maleny Queensland. Ivan Cooke, the Grandson of Grace Cooke (who channeled White Eagle) was present and had just led a beautiful Opening Prayer.

Suddenly there was an almighty roar and Fred collapsed forward in his chair.

The next thing he remembers was sitting in the chair, which had been carried with him in it, to the kitchen. He was surrounded by several concerned women and a bucket of water that had been collected from his body.

People in The Temple were commenting that it was a “heart attack”.

Hoping that Fred could hear at some level, Liz assured them that his heart was strong and healthy, as it had been checked before they left Adelaide.

He was taken by ambulance to the Maleny Hospital where he was given a heart check and his records from Adelaide were sent to the hospital.

The Doctor diagnosed “dehydration” and explained that the almighty roar was the sound made by some people at the actual moment of death.

He said Fred had come as close to death as possible without actually dying.

The roar sound was very different from the death rattle Fred was familiar with from hospice work.

He commented that this time, there was no welcoming Tunnel or Beings of Light.

Liz & Fred Welling

Authored by Fred and Liz Welling, Adelaide, South Australia

if(window.strchfSettings === undefined) window.strchfSettings = {}; window.strchfSettings.stats = {url: "https://the-otherside-press.storychief.io/still-here-our-near-death-experiences?id=186246444&type=2",title: "Still Here - Our Near Death Experiences",id: "ff9f9eef-5765-4d6d-bd86-ed78b42ea041"}; (function(d, s, id) { var js, sjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {window.strchf.update(); return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://d37oebn0w9ir6a.cloudfront.net/scripts/v0/strchf.js"; js.async = true; sjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, sjs); }(document, 'script', 'storychief-jssdk'))

from The Otherside Press https://ift.tt/38r70hu via IFTTT

#IFTTT #The Otherside Press

[gdmli]

A Little Bit About a Lot of Things

This blog will break convention by straying back to observations and reflections from throughout our time together as well as those from today’s class at Camp Dodge.

Also, much of the commentary in this and future posts will be through the lenses provided by my unique position (At Risk Coordinator) in one of Iowa’s neediest schools. ************************************************************************************************

At class orientation, some of us were given the question, What is one thing you enjoy about Des Moines? A few additional things have come to mind which deserve a shout out such as...

...our system of public libraries. Not only do we have a fabulous Central Library, but the East Side, Forest Avenue, Franklin Avenue, North Side, and South Side libraries give every neighborhood convenient accessibility. There is also programming available for every age. My favorites include the AVID series of lectures by prominent authors as well as the many events and activities for children which we frequent with our grandkids.

...the Downtown Farmers Market. Recently City View asked readers which was their favorite-the State Fair or Farmers Market. For me, it’s not even close! The Farmers Market provides small, often organic producers a venue to present and sell their wares to thousands of consumers each week. I make a point of visiting the large number of the small businesses which are operated by recent arrivals to our country. The food is always fresh and competitively priced. Recently I purchased a bounty of carrots, cucumbers, garlic, kale, Swiss chard, tomatoes for $15. Incredible!

...my favorite non-profit agency. 8th and College Connections utilizes space inside the Trinity Las Americas United Methodist Church and provides radical hospitality as well as language and civics instruction to newly arrived people to this country. As a volunteer teacher beginning my third year I come home after every class session with my heart warmed. These adult learners are grateful and ultra-motivated to learn the essentials for successful living in the US. If you are intrigued, let me know and I can tell you more. ************************************************************************************************

May I also begin a dialogue on the one thing we would like to see improved?

I think we need to clean up our act.

Let me first point out that living in the neat as a pin town of Pella for 22 years has left me just a tad psychotic about cleanliness. Despite this, it does bother me seeing trash lying around our city which could otherwise have been disposed of more appropriately. Both the areas where I live (just off SW 23rd) and work (East Side) seem to suffer from this malady.

My remedy has been to become a one-man clean up crew. Every day at work and once a week around my neighborhood I’m out picking up trash. My goals are to help beautify these areas as well as lead by example to motivate others to pick up after themselves and others.

Please join me in this crusade. **********************************************************************************************

The gentleman who led our cemetery tour, Archie Cook, is a real gem you all need to know a bit better. Rather than kicking back in retirement, he takes on the very challenging assignment of substitute teacher for the DMPS. He gets around to a lot of schools, but is very frequently at East High. In fact, he graces our building so frequently he is almost part of the staff. Teachers and students all know him which goes a long ways towards establishing a positive learning environment. Our building can be pretty rough some times, but I’ve never seen Archie get his feathers ruffled. He’s always positive, always leads the classroom with compassion, and students always have a good day when Mr. Cook is subbing. This is a rare skill and our students are the beneficiaries.

**********************************************************************************************

One of the speakers at the Opening Retreat made mention of Des Moines’ talent shortage. This phenomenon is frequently sited by business leaders as an impediment to future growth (see here: 

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2019/09/06/ grassley-ernst-immigration-employment-visas-iowa-business-leaders/2217840001/ ).

While I have no doubt as to the efficacy of liberalizing the H-1B process, it is also true we are neglecting a very large and potentially powerful pool of talented workers. The best part is these future stars are already right here under our noses. This untapped reservoir of talent are the thousands of young people who attend East, Hoover, Lincoln, North, and Roosevelt.

If you need further convincing, let me know and you can spend a day walking the halls of East High and you will see this too. If you prefer metrics, check this out as it paints a bleak picture of the situation in the city schools. https://www.iaschoolperformance.gov/ ECP/Home/Index. Either way you will see we are not doing our best for these youngsters.

Here are some additional thoughts on the topic of developing our homegrown talent. This is a blog post courtesy from Mr. Knox of Urban Dreams who spoke to us at Principal Financial Group: https://www.makedmgreater.com/grow-a-diverse-future/ 

***********************************************************************************************

The day devoted to social capital was and continues to be very thought-provoking for me. One source of inequity which has been on my mind recently is the lack of effective support for our English Language Learners (ELL). A critical piece to the educational process are the services provided by a cadre known as the Bilingual Family Liaisons (BFL). These people provide for open communications between school and home as well as support at school for students who arrive speaking little or no English.

The BFL with whom I work at East is one of the most effective educators I’ve ever met. She is extremely humble and would be very upset at me if I used her name, but she is an interpreter, teacher, coach, counselor, nurse, social worker and mom to countless students.

Therein lies the problem. Her workload is ridiculous. She not only supports hundreds of students and families at East, but serves additional clients at our feeder schools (that is to say elementary and middle schools whose students end up going to East for High School). I recently asked her how large her caseload was and she couldn’t even begin to provide a ballpark estimate.

Yes, resources are tight. That however is because of misplaced values by society and the policy-makers who represent us. In order to effectively influence the future of our nation we need to invest in our neediest students. ***************************************************************************************************

Over the weekend of September 13, I had a couple of “ah ha” moments related to the topic of social capital which I wrote about in my other blog. You can read it here: https://leadershipstars.blogspot.com/2019/09/friday-night-football-and-saturday.html 

****************************************************************************************************

We are surrounded by military history, frequently without even being aware.

 For instance, in order to get to class today I drove on two roads authorized by the National Interstate and Defense and Highway Acts, signed into law by (President) General Dwight Eisenhower on June 29, 1956. It is the largest public works project in the history of the world. My favorite stretch of this highway is the ten or so miles just east of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. If you’ve ever driven this stretch of road you know what I’m talking about. **************************************************************************************************

The vision for our “interstate highway system” came in part from the mind of a junior officer (Dwight Eisenhower) taking a troop transport across dusty back road for deployment in World War I, in contrast to what the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Allied Forces (SCAEF) saw from the Autobahn which the Germans had engineered prior to World War II. No doubt one of Ike’s ah-ha moments! ************************************************************************************************

The part of my drive from the East Mixmaster to Merle Hay Road was along I-80/35, built ostensibly for military purposes, is a portion of road which connects the George Washington Bridge in NY/NJ to the Bay Bridge which spans the Bay from Oakland to San Francisco. Have we ever thought about what a miracle that is? ***********************************************************************************************

And speaking of Merle Hay Road...Private Merle Hay of Carroll County was the first Iowan to die in the “War to End All Wars.” He lies in the West Lawn Cemetery in Glidden, Iowa. 

************************************************************************************************

Camp Dodge derives its name from Grenville Dodge who was one of the chief members of General Grant’s staff in the Western Theater of Operations of the War Between the States. Mr. Dodge was born in Massachusetts and is buried in Council Bluffs. He became an executive with the Union Pacific Railroad and no doubt was a close associate of many of those Archie talked to us about during our Opening Retreat. ************************************************************************************************

The prominent signage in Camp Dodge made it clear that using one’s cell phone while driving is frowned upon. Wish the same could be said on all of out public roadways. **************************************************************************************************

As a certified history nerd, I wish a full hour or so or our class would have been set aside for the Gold Star Museum. My goal is to go back in the very near future. I have ancestors who died at the Battles of  Pea Ridge and Shiloh (like nearly all native Iowans). I want to go back and do further research. ************************************************************************************************ 

I am too old and fat to have fully benefited from today’s exercises. I am in awe of those who have made this a way of life and those classmate who fully participated today. ************************************************************************************************

Those classmate who overcame fear and kicked ass on the Wall and in the other tests of courage, my hat is off to you. Also, the closing exercise in which everyone shared out from their experiences was the most inspirational part of the day for me. Bragging on each other with meaningful feedback is a great motivator.

*************************************************************************************************

I’m a big believer in Servant Leadership. On that note, I was really impressed to see the Lt. Col. making coffee at lunch today. *****************************************************************************************************

Thank you to him, his staff, and the GDMLI Institute for making today possible.

[romancatholicreflections]

22nd January >> Daily Reflection on Today's Mass Readings for Roman Catholics on Sunday of the Third Week of Ordinary Time, Cycle A

Commentary on Isaiah 8:23-9:3; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13,17; Matthew 4:12-23 THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT PARTS in today’s Gospel reading: a. Jesus, the light of the nations and the fulfilment of Hebrew Testament prophecies. b. A call to total conversion, to live in that light c. Early responses to the call. After the arrest of John the Baptist, Jesus moves up north to Galilee. It is his home province. It is where he will begin his public life. John’s “arrest” A note about John’s “arrest”. The verb in the original Greek is paradidomi (), which literally means to “hand over”. This is a theme word which goes right through the Gospel: John the Baptist was handed over – and executed (by King Herod) Jesus was handed over – and executed (by both Jews and Gentiles – he died for all) Many of Jesus’ disciples were handed over – and some were executed (mainly by Gentiles). And this “handing over” has been happening to disciples ever since and down to our own day. Paradoxically, persecution can always be the expected result of living the Gospel of truth and love. At the consecration during every Eucharist, the celebrant says: “Take this all of you and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.” “Given up” is perhaps a less than ideal translation of the Latin tradetur which means “will be handed over” and is the Latin equivalent of the Greek verb paradidomi. So, in the Eucharist, the Body of Christ is also “handed over” to us. And we, in turn, collectively as the Body of Christ in the Christian community are expected to continue that handing over of ourselves in the service of the Gospel and the promotion of the Kingdom. Nazareth Matthew says that Jesus left his home town of Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum, a town in Galilee, which, he tells us, is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee “in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali”. This reminds the evangelist of a prophecy from Isaiah which Matthew now sees being fulfilled. At this time Galilee did not seem an obvious choice for the Messiah’s mission. It was regarded as a ‘remote’ province. (“Can anything good come from Nazareth?”, Nathanael asked with some surprise and cynicism.) It was a rebellious region where even Jews were not noted for their observance of the Law. Yet the prophecy suggests that the Light of the World is to be found in Galilee. Galilee, of all places, is to be the light of the nations? Not for nothing do we speak of a “God of surprises”! But it is precisely in this Galilean town of Capernaum that Jesus, the Messiah, begins his mission. His preaching is summed up in one deceptively simple sentence: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” ‘Preaching’ would be better translated ‘proclaiming’, making an announcement of Good News. Good News What is this “good news”? The Greek eu-angelion (’), from which comes the Latin evangelium, is translated into modern English as “gospel”. This is a variant of the earlier ‘God-Spel’ or ‘good news’. And what is this good news? The Good News is that the “Kingdom of Heaven” is near. “Kingdom of Heaven” can be a very misleading term. To many, it may be identified with “heaven”, the “place up there” where we hope to go to after death, if we have behaved ourselves. In fact, it is important to be aware that the term in this context has far less to do with a future life than with our life here in this world. The other gospels speak more directly of the “kingdom of God” which, in fact, is what Matthew also means. However, Matthew’s gospel was written for a Christian community consisting primarily of converted Jews. In their tradition, they were very reluctant ever to use the name of God directly and so Matthew throughout his gospel speaks of God in indirect ways. One way is to use the term “heaven” or to use the passive voice of a verb, e.g. “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” He does not say by whom they are forgiven but God is clearly understood. Again, “kingdom” for us suggests the territory ruled over by a king. The Greek word the evangelists use is basileia () from the word basileus () which means a king. Basileia is better translated as ‘rule’, ‘reign’ or ‘kingship’. It indicates more the power of being a king than the place over which one is king. To be in the kingdom, then, is not to be in a particular place, either in this life or the next. Rather it is to be living one’s life – wherever we are – under the loving power of God. It is to be in a relationship of loving submission to one’s God and Lord and to be in an environment where values like truth, love, compassion, justice, freedom, commmunity, and peace prevail. ‘Repent!’ The way to enter that relationships is, in Jesus’ words, to “repent”. This is the response to Jesus’ call. ‘Repent’ usually means to be sorry for, to regret some wrong actions we have done in the past. Jesus, however, is asking for much more than that. It is a call, not to wipe out the past, which is really not possible, but for a change of direction from now on and into the future. The Greek word which is rendered by many translations as ‘repent’ is metanoia, (). This word implies a radical change in one’s thinking; it means looking at life in a completely new way, making what is now sometimes called a ‘paradigm shift’. This new way of seeing life is spelt out through the whole of the Christian Testament. It is only when we begin to make this radical change that we begin to become part of that Kingdom, that we begin effectively to come under the influence of God’s power in our lives. We begin to see things the way God sees them and our behaviour changes accordingly. The call is not just to be sorry for past sins and not to do them any more. There has to be a complete change of direction, a deep involvement in doing God’s work. That work involves working with others for an end to poverty and destitution, to hunger and joblessness, to communal and religious hatred, to rampant greed, ambition and shameless consumerism and to create a world of love and care – the special attributes of God. The kingdom has not yet arrived. There is still much to be done – right here where we live. And it is a message not just for Catholics or Christians but for people everywhere. The Kingdom goes far beyond the boundaries of the Church and the Kingdom is being realised in many ways in places where Christianity has yet to penetrate. About 80 percent of the world’s population does not know the Gospel of Jesus but that does not mean that the values of the Kingdom are absent. We must learn not to see Christianity or Catholicism in sectarian terms – ‘them’ and ‘us’. The message of Jesus is a vision of life for all humanity and should be communicated as such. First partners After his preaching, Jesus finds the first partners for his work. They are not Pharisees or Scribes, not scholars or influential members of the community but fishermen, who may have been quite illiterate. (In the sense that they could not read or write, although they may well have been steeped in the oral tradition of their Jewish faith – knowing their Hebrew Testament much better than most of us know our New Testament!) It is significant that the call takes place right in their working place. The initiative for the call comes from Jesus. “I chose you, you did not choose me.” For them it means a metanoia, a complete break in their lifestyle. There is a complete letting go. “Immediately they left their nets and followed Jesus.” They put their total trust in Jesus, leaving behind their only means of livelihood, not knowing where it would all lead. Jesus himself had already taken this step in leaving Nazareth, his family and his livelihood as a carpenter. From now on their life would consist not in worrying what they could get and keep but in service to their brothers and sisters, especially those in greatest need. At the same time there is no evidence that they lived in destitution or want. Leaving the tools of the only way of life they had known was to choose to lead a simple lifestyle, only having those things necessary for their sustenance and their work, the new work Jesus was calling them to do. Their security now came from the new lifestyle they were inaugurating, life in a mutually supporting community, where the needs of each one were taken care of. This, in effect, brought a life of greater material, emotional and social security than is found in our individualistic, competitive, rat-race style of survival. One great family They separated from their families not because they did not love them but because, as disciples of Jesus, they realised they belonged to a much larger family. They were learning not only to love their own but to love especially all who were in need of love, care and compassion. In the beginning, their first concern may be family members (early on, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law) but later on they will give priority to those in greater need, non-family members, foreigners, total strangers, even enemies. To follow Jesus is to belong to a much bigger family. In the Second Reading, too, Paul warns against divisions in the Christian family. It seems that the Christians in Corinth were dividing into factions and identifying themselves with various community leaders: “I am for Paul”, “I am for Cephas (Peter)”; even “I am for Christ”. It is clear that such divisions are harmful. All can only be for one person, the One who suffered, died and rose for them, the One in whose name all of them were baptised – Jesus their Lord. We have, unfortunately, many such divisions among Christians today – “I am a Catholic”, “I am an Anglican… a Lutheran… a Methodist… a Presbyterian…” The list is, alas, endless. This is not the kind of family that Jesus intended. Such a dysfunctional family is not in a good position to give effective witness to the Good News of truth and love and fellowship which Jesus prayed for at the Last Supper (John 17). Today’s call is asking us not just to fit Jesus into our chosen way of living but to fit ourselves into his vision of life. In doing so, we are not making a sacrifice; we are on to a sure winner where we can only gain.

[pianotiles]

Mark Galli describes himself as an evangelical Catholic.

Evangelicalism in America is nearing extinction due to the movement’s devotion to politics at the expense of its original calling to share the gospel, according to Mark Galli, former editor-in-chief of Christianity Today.

“The evangelicalism that transformed the world is, for all practical purposes, dying if not already dead,” Galli said during the “Conversations that Matter” webinar hosted by Baptist News Global Oct. 8. He spoke with BNG Executive Director and Publisher Mark Wingfield in an hour-long webinar that is available for viewing on BNG’s YouTube channel.

Mark Galli describes himself as an evangelical Catholic.

The over-identification with politics isn’t just an issue with white conservative evangelicals, he added. “Evangelicals on the left and the right … find it harder and harder to imagine that an evangelical from another party can be a real Christian.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/2020BBMAs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/2020BBMAs/hot/ https://www.reddit.com/r/2020BBMAs/new/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BbMscAwards2020/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BBMAsawardslive/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BBMAsawardslive/new/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BBMAsawardslive/rising/

Now semi-retired, Galli served 20 years at Christianity Today and is the author of a new book, When Did We Start Forgetting God: The Root of the Evangelical Crisis and Hope for the Future.

While he has identified at times as Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Anglican and recently becoming Roman Catholic, Galli said he has remained true to his evangelical upbringing that emphasized evangelism and spiritual renewal.

“I am an evangelical Catholic,” he said.

Galli spoke on an array of other topics including the culture war divisions between Americans, the polities that divide churches, and how dialogue may help pastors and others hurdle those barriers.

That editorial

But he hit on a very high-profile topic, too: his December 2019 Christianity Today editorial describing President Donald Trump as morally unfit to hold office and arguing for his removal. It was published during the Congressional impeachment hearings.

“He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud,” Galli wrote. “His Twitter feed alone — with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies and slanders — is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.”

The piece generated severe backlash from the right, including from the president himself. The viciousness of responses often was hard to bear, Galli said.

The one possible thing he would redo, he said, is the headline — “Trump Should Be Removed from Office” — that placed the emphasis on politics, when it was faith that motivated his position, Galli explained. “I was making moral arguments to fellow evangelicals. But it sounded like a political comment.”

The editorial was not, as some claimed, an effort to back Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election. It’s just that Trump has “such deeply flawed moral character” that he needs to leave office, Galli said.

Trump has “such deeply flawed moral character” that he needs to leave office.

He has no quarrel with conservative evangelicals who acknowledge Trump’s flaws but still vote for him because he lines up on issues important to them, Galli said.

There were certainly plenty of those in 2016, according to a pre-election Pew survey that Christianity Today published titled, “Most Evangelicals Will Vote Trump, But Not for Trump.”

Rather than citing issues like abortion, religious freedom and support for Israel as rationale for voting Trump, white evangelicals were much more concerned about the economy four years ago, Galli recalled. “I get it. I disagree with their choice, but I respect their wrestling.”

On the other hand, he said he does not understand those evangelicals who refuse to criticize Trump on moral grounds, who believe liberals need some shaking up and describe the president in messianic terms.

He recalled an anecdote about a pro-Trump Christian describing the president as sitting “at the right hand of the Father” and said of this ideology: “That’s idolatry, clearly and simply.”

Demise of evangelicalism

To explain the demise of evangelicalism, Galli cited the legacy of Billy Graham, who even in advanced age preached to invite men and women of all races and cultures to Christ. “He was the glue that held evangelicalism together for many years,” Galli said.

“An unfortunate symbol of what evangelicalism has become is epitomized by his son, Franklin,” he continued. “Franklin stands for evangelicals on both the right and the left who believe that politics is an essential work of evangelical faith.”

“Franklin (Graham) stands for evangelicals on both the right and the left who believe that politics is an essential work of evangelical faith.”

One symbol of that politicization is an organization called Evangelicals for Trump.

“In describing themselves in that way, they have become just another political interest group, taking the great name ‘evangelical,’ with all its theological and doctrinal and gospel history and meaning and putting it in the service of a political candidate,” Galli asserted.

And from his vantage point, the news is no better from the evangelical left.

“What’s really troubling to me is that instead of decrying this coopting of the term ‘evangelical’ for political gain, the evangelical left has only mirrored this tragic move when they recently formed a group called Evangelicals for Joe Biden.”

Evangelical groups that focus almost solely on social justice and cultural change, instead of sharing the gospel, are contributing to the decline, too, he said.

“As a result, we’ve started to let the agenda of the world determine the agenda of the church, and we’ve sidelined evangelism and church renewal as the result.”

Galli said he noticed this trend during the hiring process at Christianity Today beginning in the 1990s. Candidates overwhelmingly were interested in cultural analysis, and perhaps one in 10 story ideas pitched was about evangelistic outreach.

For the most part, he added, the lack of interest in that founding mission of faith sharing exists across the board.

“I am going to go so far as to say that our fascination with social amelioration, and political activism, has watered down the evangelical faith to the point that it looks little different than mainline Christianity,” he said.

“We’ve forgotten that the genius of evangelical faith was its singular focus: spiritual renewal. ‘You must be born again’ was preached to individuals and to whole churches and denominations, from George Whitefield, John Wesley, to Charles Finney, to Dwight Moody to Billy Graham. It was preached in the First and Second Great Awakenings, it was preached by the circuit riders, and at local Baptist revivals every year or many times a year.”

Yet, that message is not being preached much nowadays, and there will be consequences, he said. “Evangelicals today no longer have a laser focus on evangelism and spiritual renewal. As a result, I believe they will fade away as will the very term.”

Who will the Lord raise up?

But Galli predicted the mission of evangelism will continue, possibly under a different name.

“In every generation, the Lord raises up some Christians to whom he gives the charism of evangelism and spiritual renewal. What they will be called in the future, I don’t know.”

“In every generation, the Lord raises up some Christians to whom he gives the charism of evangelism and spiritual renewal. What they will be called in the future, I don’t know.”

Citing the tradition of various orders within Roman Catholicism — Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits and so forth — he suggested one way to reclaim evangelicalism is for those called to evangelism to rise up as a holy order across the church universal.

With some portion of the church focused on evangelism, then Christians can be involved in the public square, love their neighbors and work for social and political justice, he added. “Christians should not run away from culture but dash right into the middle of it and do whatever it takes to show forth the righteousness of God.”

Friendship amid differences

Galli explained that he’s developed these insights partly in becoming Catholic, which has provided a different vantage point from which to view evangelicalism and the wider church.

Regarding Christian unity, he said: “I don’t know if there is a reason for us to be apart, but it’s hard to get together because no one is willing to give up anything. For example, talking to a Methodist and a Presbyterian reveals little difference, “but Methodists don’t want to give up their bishops and Presbyterians don’t want to submit to bishops.”

Divisions within congregations, especially politically driven ones, must be addressed delicately, Galli said, suggesting pastors preach on the Bible from the pulpit and speak with parishioners aside from their sermons about politics.

But he acknowledged that even the Bible has been politicized in the current climate.

“Unfortunately, everything is perceived as political,” he said. “We just have to remind ourselves there are more important things than politics.”

#politics

[asfeedin]

Coronavirus pandemic overwhelms ‘death care’ industry

The coronavirus is not only controlling how we live, but increasingly what happens after we die.

In early April, New York City’s Council Health Committee chair Mark Levine generated buzz after tweeting that the city was considering temporary burials in local parks for victims of COVID-19. News outlets and social media users eagerly circulated his tweets, which seemed to be an ominous sign of the disease’s toll.

Although city officials assured residents that such temporary burials had not yet taken place, aerial footage of workers in protective gear interring bodies on Hart Island, the city’s “potter’s field,” seemed to confirm that the epidemic was overwhelming both our health care and our death care industries.

For people who expect a “proper” send-off when they die, the images were shocking, but for thousands of poor Americans, the prospect of burial in such a grave is a growing reality. It also is nothing new.

Cost of dying

Burial on Hart Island has been the fate of indigent New Yorkers for years. The city purchased the island in 1868 and performed its first burial there the following year. With approximately 1,000,000 individuals interred there since, the island off the Bronx is one of the nation’s largest potter’s fields, but it certainly is not the only one.

Programs exist throughout the country to handle the indigent dead, a category that includes unidentified bodies or deceased individuals whose families cannot or will not claim their bodies. These programs vary by state and, in many cases, by county. Most allow for an extended period of time for family to claim the remains, then rely on various methods for disposing of the bodies left behind.

Chicago inters remains in plots donated by the Catholic Archdiocese at Mount Olivet cemetery. San Francisco contracts with a cemetery in nearby Oakland to dispose of cremated remains at sea.

Costs for handling these remains can range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per body, creating a financial burden for some cities and counties. Often, cremation is the preferred method of disposal because of its lower cost, but in some cases, counties donate the dead to medical science, which is free.

Rich and fulfilling death

As a historian of death in America, I have seen how socioeconomic standing has dramatically shaped the final disposition of the dead throughout time, especially after the rise of the funeral industry following the Civil War. By the end of the 19th century, the more affluent could afford to be embalmed, laid out in a casket, transported to a cemetery, and put to rest in a marked plot, all which might cost around US$100 — around $3,000 in today’s dollars.

But those without means have long relied on the community to properly dispose of their remains. In rural communities, where most residents knew one another, the poor might at least hope to receive an unmarked plot in the local churchyard — the primary burial site until the establishment of public burying grounds in the 19th century.

In cities, however, the indigent dead often became the responsibility of municipal departments, such as the board of health. As better wages drew laborers to urban areas in the late 19th century, officials worked to address perceived problems stemming from industrialization and rapid population growth: poverty, vice, crime and disease. Those who died in public hospitals, poorhouses, workhouses, orphanages or prisons were usually buried by the city with little ceremony. Bodies were placed in simple coffins and carted straight to the public burial grounds with minimal funeral service.

Sadly, burial in a potter’s field also sometimes rendered the poor more vulnerable in death than they had been in life. In an era before willed body donation programs, medical schools throughout the country often targeted the poor — as well as criminals and African Americans — for the dissecting lab. Medical students or professional grave robbers disinterred remains under the cover of night, sometimes with the explicit permission of bribed public officials or cemetery employees. What’s more, the practice of grave robbing eventually became legally sanctioned through the passage of anatomy acts, whereby states like Massachusetts and Michigan permitted medical students to dissect unclaimed bodies from poorhouses.

Even without the threat of dissection, the potter’s field — named after the biblical, clay-rich burial ground the high priests of Jerusalem bought with Judas’ 30 pieces of silver — was a place of stigma. As a result, many communities did what they could to protect their own from such a fate. For example, black churches, such as Baltimore’s African Methodist Episcopal Church, founded burial grounds for the city’s enslaved and free residents. Similarly, African American benevolent societies in the 19th and 20th centuries often paid funeral and burial costs for their members.

Permanently parked

Likewise, New York’s Jewish community had burial societies and immigrant aid societies that provided similar services, assuring individuals remained part of their community, even in death.

Such practices were difficult to uphold during periods of crisis. For example, during deadly outbreaks of yellow fever and cholera in the 19th century, New York officials — fearing that the dead were contagious — hastily interred bodies in local parks. In such instances, corpses were placed in large trenches with little ceremony or intimate care. Similarly, when the flu overwhelmed Philadelphia in 1918, bodies were buried in mass graves all around the city. Such graves were also common after mass fatality events, like the 1889 Johnstown Flood, especially before DNA testing allowed for the identification of unknown remains.

Recent angst about Hart Island allows us to consider why these mass burials trouble us. They serve not only as reminders of our own mortality, but also the fragility of our death rituals in times of crisis. We all hope that our deaths will be good deaths, surrounded by loved ones, but COVID-19 kills people in isolation and limits our rituals. Yet, this is already a reality for many Americans.

Indigent burials have been on the rise for years due to both the increase in funeral costs and the widening gap between rich and poor, now further exacerbated by the pandemic’s economic effects. We will likely see an increase in the number of people for whom such burial remains a real possibility even after the pandemic resides.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversation’s newsletter.]

This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Live Science’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Source link

No tags for this post. from WordPress https://ift.tt/3eV6Z90 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #Asfeed.in #asfeed #asfeedin #asfeed blog

[thewallnerteam]

History of St. Louis Part 2

Government and Religious Practices

    At one time, the Louisiana District was ruled by the same governor as the Indiana Territory. It means St. Louis was also governed in the same way. Due to organizational regulations, foreign slave trade dealings were prohibited. This prevented St. Louis from becoming a powerful force within the area.

    However, a slew of prominent figures from St. Louis lobbied against the decision and convinced Congress to reconsider its prohibition. In 1805, Congress declared its intentions to completely restructure the Louisiana District. It was to be renamed the Louisiana Territory and given the opportunity to appoint its own governor.

    From 1812 to 1821 (when Missouri was officially made a state), St. Louis was the legal and administrative center of the Missouri Territory. During these years, the region’s population grew steadily, and it conducted a variety of important territorial acts. For instance, in 1809, St. Louis’ appointed its first Board of Trustees. These acting trustees were responsible for legislating slavery codes, managing fire services and keeping public streets clean.

    They also appointed the first official St. Louis Police Department and opened a jail. As the population grew, it became clear the region would soon meet requirements for incorporation as a township. This was a positive development as townships were free to establish local ordinances without consulting with territorial powers.

    The War of 1812, which saw the United States battle British forces, triggered a population boom. After its resolution in 1815, the number of residents in both St. Louis and the wider Missouri Territory increased dramatically. Around this same time, the Old St. Louis County Courthouse was built on land specially donated for the purpose.

    The expanding population sparked fervent interest in the possibility of statehood and independent legislature. In 1820, Congress enacted the Missouri Compromise, a bill which officially made Missouri a state but also tried to balance its role as a slave territory with the interests and demands of other non-slave states. St. Louis hosted its inaugural General Assembly and state constitutional convention later in the year.

    Two years later, St. Louis was recognized as a city of the United States. William Lane was appointed its very first city mayor and he made health codes, street safety and renovations to the area’s riverfront major priorities. Together with a new Alderman – who would replace the original Board of Trustees – Lane implemented street repairs and even went as far as to rename many parts of the city.

    The region’s religious practices would evolve throughout this period as well. In 1802, its Spanish occupiers left and returned rule of Louisiana to the United States. As a result, they also stopped funding churches in the area. This would cause St. Louis to be without a single Catholic priest for almost sixteen years. Catholic priests would visit but none became permanent residents until Louis Dubourg was appointed in 1818.

    Dubourg worked quickly and made a significant impact on the new city. He entirely rebuilt its old wooden church, taking it from a simple wooden structure to a brick building. He also recruited additional priests and created a theological training centre. In 1826, a second influential church appeared and, eventually, established its own diocese. It was managed by Joseph Rosati, a well-travelled priest from Naples.

    At the same time the Catholic Church was changing shape and growing in influence in St. Louis, local Protestant communities were also developing. In 1818, the very first Protestant Church in the region was erected in the city. It was built by a Baptist missionary named John Peck and it quickly flourished away from the oppressive rule of the Spanish.

    Methodists would also be welcomed to the city, but it took the religion a while longer to establish itself. The first Methodist congregation didn’t arrive until 1821 though ministers had been present in an informal capacity for many years. Between 1811 and 1825, scores of new ministries and churches emerged including the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopal Church. Most had existed in some capacity for years but only became official organizations after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

    Christian denominations would remain the most influential religious groups in St. Louis for many decades. It wasn’t until the 1930s that any alternative faith communities began to build a presence. In 1837, the first Jewish church was established and called the United Hebrew Congregation. It was followed by an increase in the number of Mormons in the area, many of whom had been resident for some time but were only just beginning to organize.

    Despite this hotbed of religious activity, St. Louis before the Civil War was a surprisingly secular environment. The most fervently religious and most influential worshippers were still the Catholics and, among those who weren’t, the popular choice was no religion at all.

    Economic and Commercial Activities

    In the wake of the Louisiana Purchase, the economy in St. Louis was still heavily supplemented and supported by fur trades. The primary fur traders in the region were the Missouri Fur Company owned by Manuel Lisa and the legendary Chouteau Family who famously forged an alliance with the Osage tribe of the Great Plains.

    Due to its prime location and access to key resources, St Louis was one of America’s most prominent trading posts. It attracted a slew of wealthy investors and a great number of immigrant families in search of work and business opportunities. Printing and banking were two of the fastest-growing industries. In 1808, Joseph Charles established the region’s first newspaper. The Missouri Gazette was the first print news publication west of the Mississippi.

    After the Panic of 1819, the economy in St. Louis suffered alongside those in most other regions of the United States. The first major financial crisis since before the war exposed the fragility of financial markets and created very tough conditions for local businesses. The economy in St. Louis would not recover until 1924.

    The arrival of the steamboat, in 1817, was a positive development which brought new jobs and created exciting new industries. Fast-moving rapids to the north made St. Louis an appealing prospect for increasingly large ships and it soon became a hotspot for maritime activity. By the 1930s, the city would be a thriving inland port that welcomed hundreds of trading ships every year.

    The steamboats brought more than jobs. They came laden with new products and technologies the likes of which St. Louisans had never seen before. This was a major boost to the economy. Soon, the city was awash with retail stores, commercial banks and wholesale outlets. Brand new ideas were arriving thick and fast and the cleverest understood it was the perfect time to make a fortune.

    The fur trade in St. Louis would continue to be a profitable industry well into the 1940s. Although, in other parts of the country, it was already in decline. Despite its myriad controversies and bloody history, it was responsible for some of the greatest early feats of exploration. In 1822, Jedediah Smith joined the William H. Ashley – Andrew Henry Fur Company. It was the start of an iconic career which would see the explorer become the first to trek overland to California. While beaver fur declined in value during the early 1940s, buffalo hides, and other types of fur remained popular.

    Infrastructure and Education

    One major downside to St. Louis’ rapid (and initially uncontrolled) population growth was a serious outbreak of cholera. In 1849, cholera caused close to 5,000 fatalities in the region. It was a stark wake up call for city officials who ordered a large scale renovation of the city’s sewers and relocated several of its cemeteries to prevent groundwater contamination.

    During the same year, a huge fire erupted on a visiting riverboat and, due to the crowded nature of the city’s port, quickly spread to more than twenty other vessels. From there, the fire managed to travel from the water to the centre of the city where it razed a sizeable proportion of the commercial centre. The disaster led to a complete restructuring of the docks. New levees were constructed to move currents towards Missouri, reduce sand bars and make the St. Louis landing a safer place for large riverboats.

    Education was a lesser priority for St. Louisans during the 1810s. Although, it doesn’t mean there weren’t opportunities to learn. They were just more readily available to individuals with wealth. Private libraries flourished but the majority of locals could not read. The region’s first schools were similarly limited. They charged substantial fees and most lessons were performed in French. They were a prospect only for the wealthiest families.

    The first major changes to this elite system came in 1818. The Catholic Church established Saint Louis Academy, a school without fees that, nevertheless, required students to dedicate themselves to religion and religious study. After applying for a state charter in 1832, it was named the first chartered university institution west of the Mississippi River. It would go on to teach a litany of now iconic thinkers. However, up until the 1840s, it remained a largely seminary institution with a primary focus on religious education.

    The city of St. Louis welcomed its second university institution in 1853. It was established by William Eliot, a prominent figure within the education movement and a champion of civic facilities, public school systems, and charitable organizations. Eliot was the grandfather of the famous modernist poet T. S. Eliot. He founded a number of educational organizations including the St. Louis Country Day School and the Mary Institute for Girls.

    Slavery, Immigration, and Nationalism

    When Missouri was granted statehood, it was given so on the basis the region would continue to operate as a slave-trading territory. Throughout the 1840s, the number of slaves that were resident in St. Louis steadily increased. However, they did not keep pace with the growth of the general population as might have been expected.

    The population of St. Louis grew but interest in owning or trading slaves was not expressed by many of the new arrivals. By the 1850s, the resident slave population had stopped increasing and started to decline. According to documentary records, in 1850, around 3,200 black people lived in the city. There were many slaves among them but there were also lots of free deckhands, servants, artisans, musicians and other independent workers.

    For those who remained in servitude, conditions varied greatly. Some slaves were permitted to earn a salary and even purchase their freedom for a price. Other slaves were eventually released on goodwill. Those living in the worst conditions often attempted to flee bondage using Underground Railway communities. A small percentage actually filed legal suits to assert their right to freedom in a court of law.

    One of the most talked-about legal cases was brought by a man named Dred Scott. Together with his wife, he sued for his freedom in court basing his claim on the fact they’d already spent many years traveling with and working alongside their master in states where slavery was outlawed.  Knowing about these things might not help you sell your house in St. Louis, but the history of this city is important nonetheless.

  The post History of St. Louis Part 2 appeared first on The Wallner Team.

from The Wallner Team https://www.thewallnerteam.com/home-2/history-of-st-louis-part-2/

[gracewithducks]

God’s Irregular Spirit: A Pentecost Sermon (Acts 2:1-21)

The Methodist Church started with irregular ordination. The Methodist Church started by breaking the rules. I mention this because, undoubtedly, the ongoing debates about ordination and rule-following in our denomination are going to continue to make news in the days to come.

 First, though, some history. Before Methodism even became a church, John Wesley and some others in the Methodist movement got in all kinds of trouble because they kept breaking the rules. When Wesley famously said, “The world is my parish” – he wasn’t just sharing his personal understanding of mission, he was defending himself against accusations that he had overstepped his authority and overstepped his place. Back when the American revolution began, the Church of England recalled its priests, telling them to come back home for their own safety. And this was when Methodism stopped being a movement in the church of England and became a church in its own right: because there was ministry that needed to be done, in the warring colonies and then in the newly forming nation; there was work needing to be done, and God provided new bold and courageous leaders to carry out that work – both empowered laity as well as those who were called to be set apart for full-time ministry.

 The problem is, there weren’t any bishops left to perform ordinations, no one to grant those new leaders authority to go and do what God was calling them to do. So two pastors, named Coke and Asbury, set each other apart as bishops – so that they could have the authority in turn to set others apart for God’s work.

 That’s not how you’re supposed to do it. But extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and God’s Spirit doesn’t so much seem to care about our institutional rules.

 Jesus often gets into trouble for breaking the rules, for opening the circle wider and wider. And the Bible has a lot to say about God’s great equalizing Spirit, about the fact that God has always chosen the unexpected people to do his work – the weak and the foolish, the stutterers and the sinners, and yes, even the kind of people who aren’t “supposed” to lead, the ones who don’t look or talk like any other pastor in the world.

 At the beginning of the month, the Michigan Conference of the United Methodist Church gathered to have some important conversations and to make decisions about the kind of church we want to be. Specifically, among other things, this was our first chance to respond to the General Conference which met earlier this year and, by a narrow margin, voted for a narrow understanding of human sexuality. Like many churches, our congregation was left reeling by that decision. There is still a lot of work to do, but after last week, I can tell you, there is hope. The Conference voted in favor a vision for ourselves where we are motived by ministry, and where we are inclusive of leaders of all kinds, and where we spend our energy and our resources not on church trials but on changing lives. The Conference took a non-binding poll, which asked us to dream of the future: and if it was up to us, more than two-thirds of us voted against a narrow and exclusionary church and voted instead for a much broader vision of what it means to be the people of God.

 And on Sunday, at the ordination service, our bishop commissioned two historic candidates into provisional ministry: we welcomed into leadership and prayed God’s blessings over a deacon who is gay and an elder who also happens to be a happily married lesbian.

 And Michigan is not alone. Our Conference is not the only one dreaming of a bigger church; our conference is not the only one rejecting exclusion and refuting discrimination; our conference is not the only one affirming and ordaining people whom we believe God has called, no matter what the rulebook says. Something new is being born all around us. The struggle isn’t over yet. In fact, by this point, I’m sure complaints have already been filed. The work is far from done. But we are not alone in this work, and this week, there is hope.

 Today is Pentecost Sunday. Today isn’t about fear, and today isn’t about following the rules: today is a day for rushing wind and tongues of fire; today is a day when we celebrate and affirm that God’s Spirit is for everyone.

 On that first Pentecost Sunday, Simon Peter preached a sermon. Peter’s sermon is the one that got written down and saved for all time. But Peter wasn’t the only one who received the Spirit that day, the only one God called and gifted and sent to share the good news that day.

 God sent everybody: Peter, and John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, and even the new guy, Matthias.  And God sent the women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus, and the other Mary, and Joanna, and Salome, and the others whose names have been lost in time.

 Everybody received the Spirit.  And everybody went.

 In fact, that’s part of the amazing thing about Pentecost: each one of those people went out to share the good news, but they were each telling it in a different way – literally, each one spoke a different language.  But together, they were able to reach many, many people in that crowd – and as a result, some three thousand people came to faith that day.

 We may all be different.  We all speak differently, we live differently, we have different experiences and different strengths.  But that’s a good thing.  We are all unique… and God calls us all.  Every one of us.

 And perhaps nowhere is that more clear than when Peter tries to make sense of it all: Peter who remembers that great promise of God, that all people would receive the Spirit – not just the priests and the leaders, not just the oldest or the strongest, but all people – that a day would come when the next generation, regardless of gender, would speak forth God’s truth, when the young would see visions, and the old would dream dreams, when God’s Spirit would come upon us all.

 I may be the pastor of the church, but you are all – all – ministers. Because we are all called and gifted and sent to serve God.

 For this season, I am blessed to be your pastor.  But friends, you are the church.  And we are all of us ministers of God – all gifted, all called, all sent into the world, to share the good news that we have received, to show the God that we love to a world who desperately needs to see love, and to hear good news, and to learn what hope is all about.

 That’s what Pentecost is about.

 That’s what the church is about.

 It’s about all of us. It’s about me, and it’s about you. It’s about the ways that God is calling me – and it’s about the ways that God is calling you.

 We are all gifted.  We are all called.

 May we all be found faithful.

  God, we thank you: we thank you for calling us, each one of us; we thank you for empowering us, strengthening us, encouraging us with your Holy Spirit, for such a time as this. \We pray for the leaders you have called and set apart; we pray for the vision that you have for the church and for the world, that we might see your kingdom and your dream coming true all around us. Help us to be faithful, in all the ways you’ve called us, and help us to remember that we are never alone. In the name of Christ, and by the power of your Holy Spirit, we pray; amen.

[standrewumcspokenword]

Many Faiths, One Invitation

“I am.”  Whenever I read those words, my ears tend to perk up.

I expect to hear a name after that, something that will tell me about that person.  

This week, I was sitting at a table with other clergy at a mosque in Willowbrook, and I had to introduce myself. I started with the standard, “my name is Michael and I am pastor at St. Andrew United Methodist Church.”  But then, we were challenged to go a bit deeper in a one-to-one conversation. A deeper introduction.  There were so many statements I thought about.  “I am a tired parent,” “I am a mad Methodist,” “I am a caretaker of souls,” or “I am a banana bread baker.”

What would your “I am” statement be today?  Would it be what you do at work?  Or would there be more?

I am statements are not new to Jewish thought, as the Divine Name given to Moses from a burning bush was something like “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.”  A Divinity that is present, here, who is, and who is being with us.   Psalm 23 shapes that I am with the images available to a shepherd working in the field.  The I am becomes a Good Shepherd, one who leads beside still water, the one who makes a table, who makes a way with enemies, even when there seems to be no way.

Jesus has a few “I am” statements.  We start here in John 10. These include I am the gate this week and I am the Way next week.

It is fair to say that most of the statements we talk about have not been used to sound very pastoral. I mean, it feels like instead of saying “I am the gate” or “I am the shepherd,” we’ve made Jesus out to be one who says – I’m the bouncer at the club door or the security guard behind the desk. I don’t think Jesus checks ids. I don’t think he’s a border guard or sits at the door of the tall apartment tower. This week, I was reading these words from John 10 as I was sitting in a mosque in Willowbrook eating lunch with the pastor of Second Baptist Church in Wheaton.  If Jesus was that kind of gate, I might have been in the wrong place.  

But I happen to think that if we think of Jesus as the gate, which is an odd expression even in the original, it seems like he makes that gate where there was only a wall before, making a way where there wasn’t one, like that creating a table before us even in the presence of our enemies.  And I want to invite you to see THAT gate today as we journey towards John 10.

Jesus begins – “whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over is a thief and a robber.”  These words are at the end of a long conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees about a healing he did with one born blind.  That’s a great story, by the way.  The Pharisees accuse the blind man of being a sinner – a sinner because he’s blind – how many times do we do that with sick folks? – and because the Pharisees aren’t willing to see what God is doing, those whom God is healing, Jesus refers to Pharisees as the ones who are blind. Or worse, really. As those who see, but turn away from helping God’s people.  They bully them, pushing them away from the help they could receive.

The “thief and robber” words are meant for those Pharisees.  And with his disciples gathered around, Jesus sketches out what a Good Shepherd looks like.

The Good Shepherd is a common image used in the Hebrew Scriptures – one that contrasts the Bad Shepherd who lets the sheep get devoured and doesn’t look after them.  If you’re interested, Ezekiel 34 has all kinds of stuff on that Bad Shepherd, all directed at leaders who failed – they fed themselves before the sheep, who didn’t care for their welfare. But then we have the Good Shepherd. The one like we read in Psalm 23.  This was one who cared for the flock even when death’s shadows came over.

There were many examples of those Good Shepherds.  Moses was a Good Shepherd, both literally and figuratively.  And of course, there’s David who was the king of Israel and whose Psalm we read today. In Ezekiel 34:23, when they were in exile in Babylon, God promised to give the people a Good Shepherd to lead them back.

By the way, those Good Shepherds then and now would’ve been the young or the old who go out to sheep pens separated by rock or wood fences. Maybe there would be a few families who would each have their own pen and sheep, and the Shepherd would have to know each sheep and where they go.  

A modern day equivalent might be someone who walks dogs or cares for horses, or a kind of preschool director who knows every single child and what they’re going through when they walk through those doors.

The sheep know the Good Shepherd.  The shepherd would call out or whistle to the sheep. The Greek word Jesus uses is “phonees” or sounds that the shepherd uses to call out to the sheep. It kind of makes you think differently about the phone you carry, right? I mean, I get a text from Jesus to meet up, I’m going.  Doesn’t matter if it’s a friend’s house or a heroin addict’s home.  That sound is an invitation.  An invitation to come out of the pen because new life is here.

Jesus says the religious leaders have been bad shepherds. Shepherds who hurt them. Shepherds who didn’t care for them.  But he is different.  

And then we come to it in John 10:7

“I am the gate for the sheep.”

This is an odd phrase, by the way, as we don’t have this image from anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Jesus is using the Divine Name – I am – and saying God is, Jesus is a gate for sheep.

The image the commentators give is that the sheep might have been kept in different kinds of pens. If they were far from home and out overnight, the shepherd might build a pen for all the sheep, putting thorns at the top to keep out wolves. So, this temporary structure would have a gate.  A place where the young shepherd might stay.  Laying down there to keep them safe, laying down his own life, if necessary, for the sheep to be able to go in and out and find pasture.

That’s the God we have in Jesus.  

The one who knows the sheep, responds to their hurt, and won’t let anything get in their way. Who invites them to go in and come out and find pasture.

Are you hearing how this might be different than the way we’ve used it?  This I am statement is one where the shepherd cares for how the sheep are doing because that little shepherd, that Good Shepherd, is so familiar with the sheep.  Familiar with the ones who would be left out by any other.  The ones who have been called sinners, left blind, made to beg, the ones who wouldn’t recognize home even if their sight was restored. But who know the sound of the shepherd’s call.

That’s the gate.

So, I was sitting in a mosque on Wednesday. It’s a mosque in Willowbrook that just completed construction two weeks ago, and we clergy were meeting there.  Because 5 years ago as the mosque was looking for a permit from DuPage County to build, the county suddenly said they wouldn’t issue any permits to new houses of worship.  That included the mosque over here on Army Trail, where a doctor of ours goes, or new Christian churches looking to build.  

Now, that’s one way of being a shepherd.  But five years ago it looked to us in our Conference leadership that such a ruling really focused on keeping out those who are the latest wave of immigrants, Muslims and non-Protestant Christian groups.  So, our Conference joined with many others, realizing that if that ordinance passed, there would be no way for churches to add on to their existing structures with a school or do renovations like solar panels on a roof.  

But most of all, it felt like some were being bullied and left out, that the gate was being set up not to care for those created in God’s image, but to shut people out.  

One of the reasons the Board gave in the press was that there were too many places of worship already.

So, the people, we Easter People, raised our voices.  And the ordinance was overturned, the mosque was built.  

It was an issue that brought together clergy from all over, and so we met on Wednesday celebrating that though we were different-looking sheep, each of us was able to hear the invitation. The phone, the voice, the call out to come together to see for the welfare of all of God’s people.  

I love how that mosque is next door to a Macedonian Orthodox Church and next to that is a Shia mosque, and behind it is a Buddhist Temple.  Wow.  That’s quite a variety of sheep there.  And on Wednesday, we sat in that completed mosque as we celebrated, and I had lunch with pastor Kevin from Second Baptist in Wheaton. His heart was heavy.  Heavy, he said, because he was tired of seeing young men, those created in God’s image, to see those young men shot by those charged with being their shepherds.

The gate reminds us that all are included.  The gate reminds us that we cannot stop caring for all of God’s people.  The gate reminds us that we can set up a place of protection for all those created in God’s image.  And that the trouble comes when we say there are those who God cannot love, care for, heal, and help to see – including us.

In this gate, I don’t see Jesus checking your beliefs at the gate.  I don’t see Jesus asking whether you’ve got it figured out.  It’s a Jesus whose actions are bringing life that faith isn’t about right belief but whether we are about the work of healing.  That’s why I hear in this an invitation.  That we may have many faiths, but there is one invitation.  Many of us come from different sheep pens, we spend our nights in different locations, with different people, but when we need to get to that green pasture, we hear an invitation.  A call that comes to all of us.  To join together and DO God’s work.

Don’t compare the folks in that mosque to the extremists we see in Isis burning churches abroad.  Just like we can’t compare those in our church to the ones who burned 8 black churches in Georgia last year.  Instead, let’s form relationships that lead to transformation for all our communities.

Amen

[dmmowers]

Mary! Rabbouni!

Mary! Rabbouni! A sermon for St. John's Episcopal Church, Portage, Wis. and Trinity Episcopal Church, Baraboo, Wis. EASTER DAY | April 16, 2017 | Year A Jeremiah 31:1-6 | Psalm 118:1-2 | Acts 10:34-43 | John 20:1-18 On February 15, I went to Target. This was when we still lived in Minnesota, which seems like a long time ago now, but was really only a little more than a month ago. On February 15, I went to the dairy section in the back of Target to get some groceries. The dairy section is right next to the seasonal section, which, until recently, had been occupied by all sorts of Valentine's Day merchandise. But on February 15, all of the hearts and candies were demoted, relegated to the back wall: the clearance section. What had occupied the seasonal section? Easter goodies. Most notably: Peeps. You know, the marshmallow birds in neon colors.Now, some of you might be worried. "Oh, here we go. Easter Sunday and the preacher is going to go off about all the fun Easter baskets and say that we're supposed to be serious, that Easter is not supposed to be commercialized and trivialized, and say that we're not supposed to be having fun."So for all of you who think I hate Peeps and all commercialization of Easter, please know that I am a champion Peep Jouster. 

My only brother is about five years younger than me. Because of our age difference growing up, let's just say that sometimes I could talk him into things that just might get him into a small bit of trouble. Just a little trouble. He might tell this story differently. But one Easter, he and I both got Peeps in our Easter baskets.This particular year, I had heard from friends that you could joust Peeps. It turns out that if you take two Peeps, and you put a toothpick in each of the Peeps, and then you put the Peeps in the microwave, the Peeps will joust. One of them will end up poking the other, and if they don't explode, they'll just go completely liquid. The winner is the last Peep left standing, the last Peep to not be a puddle of liquid on the plate.So I convinced my brother to joust two peeps, and then we said, how about a Peep Jousting tournament? So we jousted a bunch more peeps. I don't quite remember what sent my mom over the edge: the burnt sugar smell that slowly filled the house, the cackling boys crowding into a tiny kitchen around the microwave, or a peep exploding all over the walls of the microwave. All I know is that after that one year, we were banned from Peep Jousting. I won the inaugural Peep Jousting tournament, and there was never another one. So I'm still the champion. 

I.

For all of us over age 12 or so this morning, we're past celebrating Easter because of Peeps and great gifts in Easter baskets. But many  of us who think of Easter as a holiday to be with family, the special moments we have in shopping for our kids' Easter baskets, for the beauty of the Wisconsin spring and the rebirth of mother nature after a long, cold winter. For many people, Easter is about spring, renewal, rebirth, spending time with family and grilling out.

Our gospel reading this morning suggests a different reason for our marking Easter. Early in the morning, on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb where Jesus was buried, and finds it empty. Thinking that someone had taken Jesus' body, she ran to get Simon Peter and the beloved disciple, probably John, and they run to the tomb. They see the linen wrappings that had been used on Jesus' body lying there, but Jesus is nowhere to be found. Even though the story tells us that the beloved disciple believed, he and Peter go away, and Mary is left crying at the tomb. 

As she stood there weeping, she looks into the tomb, and there are two angels there. They gently ask her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She says, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." She turns around, and sees a naked man. The story doesn't exactly say that he's naked, but it seems a safe assumption. Instead of being shocked at the appearance of a naked man, she thinks he's the gardener. He says, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" She replies, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Then the man says to her, "Mary," and she replies, "Rabbouni". She embraces him, and then he tell her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Why does Jesus tell Mary not to hold onto him? Is it because he is a ghost or a hallucination? Is something wrong with his post-resurrection body? Did any of this conversation outside of the tomb actually happen anyway, and if it did, what difference does that make?

II. 

People do not generally rise from the dead, and yet the church proclaims on Easter Day that Jesus Christ has risen again. Some people think that this resurrection is a nice myth, a fairy tale that weak people tell themselves to make them feel better about life. Colleagues in ordained ministry have told me stories of greeting people at the back door of their churches on Easter Sunday morning and being told, "Father, nice sermon." Then the person leans in and says quietly, "But you don't actually believe any of that resurrection business, do you? I mean, you're a smart person: you don't really believe any of this stuff, do you?" I know other clergy, both in the Episcopal Church and outside it, who have decided that they do not believe that Jesus could actually have risen again, but they like being pastors, so they redefine what resurrection means: they say that what the New Testament actually meant was that the first followers of Jesus had a spiritual experience, not that Jesus Christ actually, bodily rose from the dead. You don’t know me all that well yet, but you may already know that I think those approaches are exactly wrong. If Jesus Christ didn’t actually, bodily rise from the dead, I think we’re wasting our time.

Our American Christian culture has not helped this problem. Many of you are familiar with the old hymn, "He Lives", which I grew up singing as boy in our Methodist Church. "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." But this doesn't help us at all with the question of why Jesus' tomb was empty on that Sunday morning. Our faith in Christ is not based on how our feelings; it's not based on whether we are currently experiencing his closeness in our heart. It is based on the radical claim that the tomb was empty on that first Easter morning. He doesn't just live within our hearts, Jesus lives as the one who has ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, the one who is the Lord of the Universe. 

And yet, there are numerous reasons reasons why the resurrection is so hard for many people to believe. It's impossible to prove. The gospels don't give us eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection - they simply agree that the tomb was empty.

III. 

But we believe in the good news, the stunning news, the unprecedented news, that Jesus Christ, having been crucified, rose again from the dead on that first Easter Day, and in so doing, conquered death, conquered hell, conquered that human tendency we have to break things. The first person to realize this may have been the disciple Jesus loved, but he doesn't say anything in our story this morning, so it's hard to be sure. 

The first person we can be sure knows and believes that Jesus has risen again is Mary Magdalene. A woman has become the apostle to apostles. Mary is alone in a garden, weeping, and when she turns around and sees a naked man, she thinks he is the gardener, but then when she hears him call her name, “Mary!” Her heart leaps and she responds, “Rabbouni”. She has walked into the Central Moment of all Human History, the moment in which the Messiah of Israel has been raised by God from the dead, has conquered death through his own death, giving to all of his people the hope that we will one day be raised again like he was.

Does this sound at all like any other Bible story to you? The author of John's gospel constantly recalls the book of Genesis, and here he gives us the new Garden of Eden. In the old garden, Adam and Eve were put into the garden to care for it: they were to be the gardeners. But the serpent spoke to Eve, and she gave the fruit of the tree to her husband, and through them sin entered the world. Adam and Eve realized they were naked and they were ashamed. In this new Garden of Eden, Mary is alone, weeping, and sees a naked man. Instead of commenting on this, and being ashamed, Mary thinks that Jesus is the gardener. This imagery is meant to make us think of the Garden of Eden, and it shows us that in Jesus - in that lovely exchange between Mary and Jesus, "Mary!" "Rabbouni!" The world has been made new. Jesus, the new Adam, has come into the world to tend it and care for it, just as the old Adam was meant to do. 

She embraces him, his real body. He is not a ghost. He is not a hallucination. Jesus' talking is not just an experience within Mary's heart, but it is his actual, physical body speaking to him. He allows her to hug him, because that is the human thing to do. Finally, he tells her, "Don't just stand here and hold on to me. Go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." When Jesus calls Mary's name, she recognizes him, and embraces him. After she embraces him, Jesus tells her to go and tell my brothers what has happened, and what is about to happen. After she recognizes Jesus and embraces him, Jesus gives her a mission. 

IV. 

If today is like any other Easter Sunday I've ever known, there are people here who are all over the board on why we're in church this morning. Your mother dragged some of you, and the memory of your mother dragged some others. Some of you were baptized long ago and have been at this church a very long time; others of you are here for the first time today. For a lot of us, what this day means is grilling and time with family and springtime and Peep Jousting, and we don’t reflect much on what the news of Jesus’ resurrection means for us. But regardless of what brought us here or where we are, I want to tell you that Jesus is calling for you. The question for each of us is the central question of our lives: do we recognize this Jesus as the Lord, risen from death, as the one who put himself on the line for us at the cross? Just as Jesus loved Mary, Jesus has now ascended to the Father and knows and loves each of us. 

For more than two thousand years, this event has changed lives. This event changed the course of history. For myself, knowing that the risen Jesus was calling me changed the course of my life. I didn't have to prove myself in order to be loved; in Jesus, God showed his love for me completely apart from my own actions and my own achievements. 

But we church people can get caught up in Churchianity sometimes. We can come to church here and there, or even, sometimes, every Sunday, and think that because we go to church or because we got out to church on Easter we can cross Jesus off our to-do list. Church is important; you can't follow Jesus without the church. But our faith begins not by our trying to appease God by going to church. It starts by our hearing the voice of the risen Jesus calling us, and our responding by being baptized. For those of us who were baptized long ago, our faith starts by living out the promises made at our baptism to love and serve the Lord Jesus. If you haven't made a commitment to following Jesus, to answering his call, or if you've been away from faith in Jesus for a long time, I invite you this morning in the silence of your own heart to answer Jesus' call to you.Just like Mary Magdalene, those of us who embrace Jesus are given a mission to tell people what has happened and what is about to happen: the Lord Jesus, crucified, dead and buried, was raised from the dead on the third day, and will return again: to raise all of the Lord's people from the dead on the last day, and to make our creation new, just as he and Mary walked in a new Garden of Eden, where death will be no more. If Christ calls to any of us, there is a new creation: the old order of things has gone away, and the new creation is here! (II Cor 5:12 para). Thanks be to God. 

[newstfionline]

In Kiron, Iowa, pop. 229, life, death and another cup of coffee

By Stephanie McCrummen, Washington Post, April 16, 2017

KIRON, Iowa--Russell Paulson had already heard by the time he arrived at the Quik Mart for his afternoon coffee. Walt Miller had died.

“Died last night, huh?” someone was saying as Russell pulled up a chair.

“Yeah, last night,” another man said.

Russell listened; he had known Walt. At the age of 80, he knew almost everyone in Kiron, a town of 229 people, one of whom is U.S. Rep. Steve King, who has a house on the edge of town. Russell knew King, too, knew that he was the sort of person always stirring controversy, often by raging against what he called “cultural suicide by demographic transformation.” More recently, King had said that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,” a comment embraced by prominent white supremacists and widely condemned around the country as demonizing Latino and other non-European immigrants.

There was little controversy across King’s district, though, a swath of rural America made up of tiny towns with tiny, aging white populations that routinely elected King with more than 70 percent of the vote. In Kiron, people brushed it off as King being King, a man they all knew, expressing a plain truth they all understood: The white population was shrinking, and towns like theirs were vanishing, with the few exceptions being places such as Denison, a pork-processing town 20 minutes down the highway where population growth was being driven by immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

Kiron, meanwhile, was losing steam. According to the most recent census figures, the population included nine Mexicans; the other 220 were all white, and their numbers were decreasing by 10 or so each year, and now, on a Wednesday, by one.

“Oh, Walt Miller? He did pass?” Dwain Swensen, 67, said, sipping his coffee.

“What’d he have, pancreatic cancer or something?” said Ron Streck, 70.

“Liver,” said Herman Kohnekamp, also 70. “I think that’s what it was, wasn’t it, Russell?”

“I knew he passed but didn’t know any details,” Russell said.

It was a quiet afternoon, the ritual 3 p.m. coffee in a place where, as one regular put it, “you can figure out Steve King by understanding all of us.” Every day but Sunday, the bell on the front door rang as they arrived. The wood-paneled backroom was waiting. The Bunn-o-Matic and the Styrofoam cups. The space heater humming. The clock with the squinting Merit cigarette man on one wall, the calendar on the other, the cracked blinds dangling over the window where the view through the slats was a sea of farm fields, and on a hill in the distance, a stand of evergreens where the cemetery was. Now the bell on the front door rang again, and Russell looked up.

“Oh,” Ron said under his breath, seeing who it was. “Here comes trouble.”

It was Kevin Lloyd, 52, who came in occasionally, and had been in the day before, all riled up about the latest Steve King situation, waving his hands and going on about how people had misunderstood what he’d meant about “other peoples’ babies.”

“If you’re American, you got to take care of America!” he had said then. “I love that people want to come here from Mexico, from Ukraine, from the Middle East, but they need to come here legally.”

Dwain, Ron, a woman named Jane Gronau and Russell had been there, sipping their coffees, as Kevin had continued that he had no idea why people would call King a “white supremacist,” or, for that matter, why people would call President Trump racist. “Now, is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim? In my opinion, yes,” he had said, and that had brought him to the other thing he figured King meant about babies. He had meant Muslim babies of the Muslims that Obama had allowed into the country.

“And here, I’m going to quote a great president, Abe Lincoln,” he had said. “He said the fall of America will come from the inside. Well, if you’re allowing all these children in, and if they hate America, how long is it going to be before we’re not the United States of America anymore?”

Jane had nodded: “If you study the number of Muslims, there are going to be so many here, and they’re going to have so many kids, they’re going to be able to take over that way.”

Dwain had nodded: “They say ‘freedom of religion’ but if you’re Muslim, and you become Christian, you’re ousted. Sometimes, they kill ‘em.”

“They behead ‘em,” Kevin had said into a quiet Iowa afternoon.

“I think what King was trying to get across is, look: We can only grow so many hogs, so much beans and so much corn,” Kevin had said. “If we let everybody in, we’re going to be without a food source. And what happens when that’s gone? Then we’re all in trouble.”

The next day, Russell had his morning coffee and got into his car.

He stopped by the bank where he’d been going since the 1940s.

“Hi, Russell,” the one teller said to her one customer.

He got back into his car and drove one block to the edge of town, turned onto the two-lane highway, then one long gravel road after another, straight lines stretching out into still-fallow fields.

“Some of the roads have been abandoned,” he said. “Because there’s not as many people living out here, the roads just disappeared.”

He knew the roads better than anyone. His own family’s roots in the area stretched back to the 19th century, when the U.S. government was aggressively removing Native American tribes to make way for one of the largest immigration waves in American history. The Swedes came, the Germans came, the farms, the towns and generations of babies, one of whom was Russell Elmer Paulson, born in 1937. He was raised on his mother’s family farm in rural Kiron and never left other than a stint in the Army, and one in Dubuque.

He and his wife, Glenda, inherited land when Russell’s parents died and lived on it until they retired and moved into town. Russell’s work had been farming and insurance adjusting. His culture was being a Methodist and a Mason and listening to polka, though most of that had fallen away. The church he and Glenda had gone to “died for lack of people and money,” he said. There were hardly any Masons left. Polka was not enjoying a revival. His kids had left for jobs in other areas. Glenda had died last year.

“See that ridge? That’s the old railroad bed,” he said now, driving along, squinting through his gold-rimmed glasses.

“My aunt bought this,” he said, passing a stand of trees where farmhouses had been.

“Walt would go there,” he said, pointing out a repair shop where Walt Miller had coffee, and soon he turned onto a narrow dirt road leading to the farm where he and Glenda had lived, a collection of storage buildings where Russell now kept his old tractors, and one he used as an office, where he went these days to work crossword puzzles or just sit and think.

“Commune with God and the birds,” he said. “Well, not too many birds now.”

He glanced around at the old buildings, now shuttered and locked, though someone had broken into one of them recently.

“They stole a bunch of tools and such,” Russell said, pulling back onto the gravel road. “No need to get all worked up about it.”

He passed a rotting barn and a bird on a stretch of barbed wire, and after a while, a gray house with a huge American flag.

“This is Steve King’s house here,” he said, looking at it.

He had known King a long time and saw no reason to be bothered by something or other he said. He supported King--“I have no reason in the world to dislike the man”--but wasn’t one to rant about politics. He had no computer, no smartphone. His television had no cable. He watched a half-hour of national news, a half-hour of local, followed by “Wheel of Fortune” and Lawrence Welk. He ate chicken tenders and food he described as “American.”

“He’s just kind of one of us,” Russell said of King, driving on past a field where a church had burned down, and the home of a man who’d died last year. It began to rain.

“When it comes down like it’s doing now, it’s just wonderful,” he said.

He drove past fields and more fields until he came to another stand of trees on a hill.

“This is the cemetery,” he said, pulling in.

He drove slowly past the headstones. “A lot of these people I knew,” he said and began reading names.

“Larson.”

“Lind.”

“Gustafson.”

“Paulson--this would be my folks right here,” he said, and then he noticed the time, almost 3 p.m.

He headed back to town, pulling onto Main Street where a wooden sign said, “Kiron, Blessed with the Best.”

After King had made his comment about babies, some out-of-town protest group had put up another sign below that one that said, “White Supremacist.”

The sign didn’t make any sense to Russell, and, after it was removed, his main worry was that the protesters might have damaged the town sign, which had started to rot a few years ago.

Russell had taken on the job of maintaining it. He had trimmed the tree branches that had grown through the wood. He had taken down “Blessed with the Best” and repainted each of the letters. He went to a lumberyard and had a new K, I, R, O, and N made, painting each letter several times and spraying them with wood preservative. One year, he and Glenda had planted a bed of petunias and geraniums.

“I don’t think we will ever have a better display of flowers,” he said now, and soon he was pulling up to the Quik Mart for the afternoon coffee. As he walked inside, he saw a funeral notice on the front door with a photo of a smiling man in gold-rimmed glasses.

“Oh,” Russell said, pausing for a moment. “There’s Walt.”

The next day, the bell rang as the door with the funeral notice swung open, and it was Dwain, then Bob James, then Herman, then Russell. The Merit cigarette clock showed a few minutes after 3 p.m. Russell got the coffee pot and poured. The bell rang again, and it was a man named Glen Ballantine.

“Time for plowing?” Herman asked the 84-year-old farmer.

“Two weeks,” Glen said, sitting down.

Bob was reading the paper. Russell was sipping his coffee, looking out the window.

“Got the visitation tonight,” Herman said.

He didn’t have to mention Walt Miller’s name because they all knew what he meant.

They went back to talking about plowing, and Glen was saying how different farming was now than when he was a young man, which for some reason reminded him of one of his first jobs, digging graves.

“For 18 bucks,” he said.

“You dug a regular grave for 18 bucks?” said Dwain.

“Oh yeah, and we had to fill ‘em back up again,” said Glen.

“I helped dig one once,” said Russell. “You know, manually. Only one. I don’t know what I got paid. But. That’s a long way down to the bottom of that.”

“If there was frost in the first foot, you got $1 more,” said Glen.

“What’d you use to get through the frost?” asked Bob.

“Pickax and sledgehammer,” said Glen. “And when we’d fill ‘em, we’d fill ‘em in 14 scoops. We were just little kids, more or less.”

“We had more dirt than we needed,” Russell said. “And had to --”

“Had to haul that away,” said Glen, finishing his sentence.

“Had to put that on the pickup,” said Russell, and they went on talking like that until Herman got up to leave. It was after 3:30 p.m.

“Funeral home starts, what, at 4?” Herman said.

“Four till 7, it says on there,” Russell said.

The funeral home was in Denison, and the sun was going down as Russell turned onto the two-lane highway toward one of the only towns in Steve King’s district that was growing, and which appeared in the distance as a cluster of lights and rising steam from the pork-processing plant.

Russell turned by the Walmart, bustling on a Friday payday, and turned again into a neighborhood where Latino kids were playing in a yard. Up a hill, he parked in front of the funeral home, where people were still streaming in near 7 p.m.

Russell made his way through the receiving line, his hat off, comb lines visible in his gray hair. He shook hands with Walt’s family, who thanked him for coming, and inched forward until he reached the open casket.

He stood there a moment. He looked at Walt. He looked at the light-blue satin lining and the farm scene etched into it. A man stood next to Russell.

“Went fast,” he said of Walt, who had passed away soon after his diagnosis. “That’s what you hope for.”

“I do,” said Russell, still looking at Walt, and soon, he headed back to Kiron.

The funeral was the next day at Zion Lutheran Church in Denison, and more people came from Kiron and other vanishing towns like Odebolt and Ida Grove. They sat in jeans and dresses and suits on the wooden pews of a church founded in 1872, and read about Walt in the program, where it was said that “farming and fixing equipment and household items were his favorite things to do,” and soon the church bells began ringing.

The pews creaked as everyone stood and watched the pallbearers roll in the coffin draped in a white cloth with a red cross, and a procession of dozens of family members that included exactly one baby, a girl with a black ribbon around her head.

“Your world has changed,” the pastor began.

When it was over, people got back into their cars and drove 20 minutes up the highway to the cemetery in Kiron, a long procession of headlights passing through fields and more fields, then turning right, then heading up the hill to the stand of evergreens, and afterward, at 3 p.m., the bell on the Quik Mart door began ringing.

It rang for Herman, who arrived with a loaf of homemade bread. It rang for Dwain, for Bob, and for Charlie, who shuffled into the backroom and said, “Buried a nice guy this morning.”

It rang for Russell, who poured his coffee, walked back into the wood-paneled room, and pulled up a chair.

“Strawberries come to life this time of year, Russell?” Dwain asked.

“I don’t know,” Russell said.

They talked about the frost, and when spring might arrive.

“Well, I better get moving,” Charlie said and headed out.

“I got things to do, too,” Russell said, but then he didn’t leave, not yet.

He got up and sat where Charlie had been, closer to the window.

“Well, I gotta go,” Herman said.

“See you, Herman,” Russell said.

“Bye, Herman,” Dwain said, and now there were just the three of them left.

Dwain cleared his throat. A car passed by. The space heater hummed. Bob finished his coffee. Russell swallowed the last of his.

“You want more coffee, Mr. Bob?” Russell asked.

“Do you?” said Bob.

“Yeah,” Russell decided, and walked over to get the coffee pot.

He poured some into Bob’s cup. He poured some into Dwain’s cup. He filled his own and sat down again. He tapped his thumb on the table. Eventually he stood up and walked toward the door, where Walt’s funeral notice no longer was.

“See ya, Russell,” said Dwain.

“See ya, Russell,” said Bob.

“I hope so,” Russell said.

#Kiron Iowa #Steve King #rural towns