I See That I Need to Clarify

I find that I'm either being misrepresented or misunderstood. Either way, I mean this post to be a means of clarification.

Some words and phrases take on a additional meaning when they are used in a way that does not express the proper meaning of that word. Linguists call this slang and jargon, though I've always said that we color our words with meaning, because even the term slang is often not completely understood. When we color our words, we give them added meaning that the words themselves don't actually convey. People do this all the time; we as a group have our own jargon. The terms press in, threshing floor, the body and even the word meeting have a special meaning to us. Most of the time it's just a shortcut to expressing a more complicated idea, sometimes it is not.

The "Man of God"[1] was a title of respect used in the Old Testament to describe a prophet or a beloved religious leader [2]. However, I've heard a different use being made of it. There are some in our group that use this term in a similar fashion as the term "Vicar of Christ". Merriam-Webster defines a vicar as "one serving as a substitute or agent"[3]. Wikipedia describes a vicar as "one who represents another and acts as a steward, administering the position in lieu of the true sovereign"[4]. The way some in our group uses the phrase "Man of God" implies that a man is the head of a church in lieu of Christ, and denies Christ's headship. When the first impulse when dealing with just about any issue is to go to the "Man of God", I ask myself did you think to pray? We have become dependent on our ministers, seeking their guidance and approval for every little thing when they are only men who have been given gifts from God to help us, not to live our lives for us. Israel wanted an inferior order and God was willing to give it to them (1 Sam 8:7). If we insist on making our pastors the head of men instead of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), I have a suspicion that God will allow us to do just that. We use the "Man of God" as a Jesus substitute, and I personally refuse to use a term that promotes a substitute over the real thing. More than a lesson in grammar needs to be taught to fix this issue.

A fellow blogger has written of this topic in more detail when the situation I'm talking about has advanced to abusive and controlling, and I suggest you read what he has to say here: http://shaneclifford.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-find-that-it-is-very-arrogant-and.html

The next question I ask myself is has my challenge been accepted? I don't think so, but I'm not absolutely sure. Simply put, I espouse a viewpoint that we do not reach a point where we cannot be tempted, Bro. Dyal holds a viewpoint that we can reach a point where we are above temptation [5]. Paul in Romans 7:17-25 states that sin dwelt within him. When he wanted to do good, evil was present in him. Pay special attention to Romans 7:23. There's something inside us that wars against us, trying to bring us into captivity to the sinful nature that is within us. I believe in overcoming sin, but not when it contravenes Jesus' forgiveness, or when it contradicts scripture.

So once again, I ask someone who is sinless, incapable of sinning to step up and identify themselves, or better yet, if you know someone who is in this state, point them out. If you want to argue semantics, then instead show me a person who is beyond temptation. Is this too much to ask? Instead are we to be distracted by pointing out the difference in syntax between sinful overcomers and sinners overcoming? Redirection is not a valid way to answer this question. If you want to see some people in the church that haven't reached perfection yet, I'll point a few of them out to you, starting with me. I just ask you to point out one person who is beyond the possibility of sin. Without proof, this teaching of perfection as being beyond the capability of being tempted to sin is just a theory.

Addressing a additional issue, there is a problem with using analogies in an explanation because they are limited in their use. I will use an analogy to illustrate a point, but not to prove it. Whether we use an example of being addicted to alcohol or nicotine, the fact of the matter is we are actually talking about a larger issue here, sin, or the total lack thereof. Illustrations are good, but only to a point, and not when misused [6].

Bro. Dyal states "We are not earning our salvation; we are abiding in it unto full salvation." I agree with him fully that we are not earning our salvation, but you see, the way salvation is taught has caused more than a few people to think that they are earning it. A reliance on a regimented set of standards, an improper understanding of the ministry and a downplaying of the grace of God after conversion has caused people to think that that is exactly what they are doing. For some reason we as a group see salvation as an up-to-now event, and I've never been able to figure out why. It shouldn't be this way, but it seems to me at least that is the way that some people see it.

"Some think that a loose fellowship hinging on anarchy and mob rule will bring about proper judgment and order"[7]. I question exactly what is being said here. Is acknowledging Christ as our head the same thing as anarchy and mob rule? Isn't this one of the foundations upon which we are established? What I believe in is accountability, not anarchy. To infer otherwise puts words in my mouth.

"Some think that all men should be of equal authority and say in all things, and that every man has the God given right to do what is right in his own eyes[7]" Why do we spend so much time defending our authority, where Christ's emphasis was on service and not on authority (Mark 10:42-46)? Is the administration of authority the true calling of the ministry? Don't we recognize Christ's authority and also, can God not lead his children?

"It is my desire that we see the Lord, to do so we must purify ourselves even as He is pure, 1 John 3:1-3. We can do it because He said we could. To do it we must with broken hearts and contrite spirits humble ourselves and pray"[7]. Through Christ are our sins removed because in Him there was no sin (1 John 3:4-5). It's through Christ that we are pure, not through ourselves. Forgiveness cleanses us, not a sanctified life. You've got sanctity on the wrong side of the equation:

Our Sin + Jesus Death + Forgiveness = Redemption, Sanctification & Purity
Our Purity + Contrite Spirits + Humility + Prayer = Not much if Jesus isn't involved.

"So this is the thought that I offer to those who criticize, disdain, and complain
Don't bother yourself to visit this blog site, From your sight do it refrain"[8]. We will always have to deal with criticism, disdain and complaint when we are working for the Lord. We must expect it. Asking your critics to ignore you will not work, is naive and is probably in actuality just asking for the opposite. The author Elbert Hubbard said this about criticism: "To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."

Reference:
[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/of.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_God
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicar
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ
[5] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/oxymoron.html
[6] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/shadows.html
[7] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-is-my-desire.html
[8] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/conundrum.html