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

Re: The Root of the Problem

I normally take more time than I am today when I write, so this post may be just a little sub-par. If so, I apologize now.

I'd like to begin by stating that I do not advocate less commitment. If you are a Christian, be as committed as you can to Christ. I do however believe that He will take up the slack. Also, I do not advocate abandoning standards. I think that a standard is vital to our Christian walk. I simply state that it cannot be dictated externally, but should be a fruit of the process of maturation through Christ. Merely subscribing to a checklist of dos and don'ts can never be enough, all that does is fix the outside leaving the inside unchecked (Luke 11:39).

I am amazed that somehow I managed to jump to the forefront of "this effort". Five posts (this is my sixth) on a blog not too many people even know exists and I have become a chief of the liberalization movement. I have this to say about that, "Um, OK?"

Do I believe in perfection whether it concerns perfect church order or not? Absolutely. Do I believe it is an intrinsic quality? No. I believe in a proxy perfection, and yes I understand that not everyone agrees with me on this, or even quite understands what I am saying when I use the word proxy (which isn't even in the Bible), but it is a good word. I am stating here that I, me, the person writing this blog, have a mediator between me and God, and that is Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5) an advocate (1 John 2:1) or if you will be so kind, a proxy. Jesus covered my sin by his blood, and I became a partaker in His death (Rom 6:3). I was dead, but now I am alive THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:11). Should I sin because I have all of this? No, of course not (Rom 6:15). Don't you know that I can become addicted to sinning (Rom 6:16)? I'm saying the things that I'm saying because even though Christians are covered by Christ's sinlessness, I'm still human and I can fail but even when I do I still have hope through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 6:23). I believe in a Christ-centeredness.

Maybe I'm wrong to think that Christ's blood can even cover a sin that I haven't yet committed. Maybe it's not powerful enough to do this and somehow I need to make up for this on my own? No, no, no. The blood covered all my sins and when grace came into my life the day I first believed, Christ became my atonement now and forevermore (1 John 2:2). That never changes.

I've been accused of being a man who is not serving Jesus Christ by Bro. Dyal through his use of Rom 16:17-18. If you REALLY believe this, don't listen to a single word I have said or will say. If it's my intention to divide God's people up, then ignore me. Stop reading now and walk away. Strange though isn't it how Bro. Dyal seems to know exactly what my intentions are? Moreover since his blog doesn't directly quote me or reference the post I wrote in any way other than stating my userID, you are only left with his interpretation of what I said, therefore he is capable of portraying my intentions as whatever he wants or needs them to be to say what he is saying. Oh well, at least he said I can write fairly well, so I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

I'd like to quote from his blog though if I can. "If they cannot answer yes to both of these questions they do not have the vision of this body." (emphasis added) [1]. I'll state right here, right now, I don't have a vision of this body. Whoa, did I just step into a trap? Hope not. What I will say is that I have a vision of Christ for this body. I simply refuse to put the cart before the horse, or in this case the body before the Head. I'm interested in what Christ is doing with our group, not just what our group is doing. A vision is about what you are looking at, and I've turned my eyes upon Jesus, not upon a group of men.

Oh, and by the way, if anyone feels like quoting any of the preceding paragraph, quote it all, or reference it and urge people to read it in its entirety so that they understand what I'm saying. Don't use a partial quotation to put words in my mouth, or rather take them out. That's fair isn't it?

I've already answered Bro. Dyal's question B (see above) and now I will tackle question A. In all honesty, I'm guessing that Bro. Dyal meant to write Holy Ghost filled Christians and not Holy Ghost Christians, so I am going to assume that he meant that. "Do you believe that the ultimate goal of Holy Ghost filled Christians in The Body Of Christ is to completely mature into the divine image of Christ having completely divested themselves of the sin nature?"

I don't believe that people can completely divest themselves of their sin nature (Eph 2:8-9). Assuming that you could however, what need would you have of Christ anymore? Would there be a time in your life, even just a second before you died, that you could live in a fashion that you would no longer need that hope that is within you, just a fraction of a second even where you didn't need Christ?

There's more to question A than just that though, and the best way I can answer this is by asking the following question. How do you know you are completely mature?

Bro. Dyal says "My revelation has not changed from what was delivered to me almost forty years ago, and I will not follow lesser gift, and no gift vain talkers into perdition." [1] I say, my revelation has changed as I've grown and matured. I've learned more than I knew twenty years ago (I can't say forty; I'm not old enough yet) and I expect to learn more than I know today as I grow (2 Pet 3:18). My understanding is not a static thing. I also will not follow a lesser gift, but I am looking for a greater understanding.

Bro. Dyal also says "If this group of men and Assemblies go in the direction espoused by this man and his fellow travellers I will cease to believe it to be the body of Christ, lose all confidence in it having any vision of what God is doing in the earth today, and cease to gather with it with any regularity." [1] I say that God has placed me in this group of people, and if any one of them veers away, I will continue to love them and try to encourage them to correct any issues that need correcting. I will not abandon the people God put me among merely because I disagree with them.

I know that what I am writing is not going to change the way that some people think, I will not delude myself into thinking that I can do anything more than I can do. However, I am a person that tries to make sure that what I am being taught is correct (I Thess 5:21) So being driven by that and taking my method from John 8:7, I now welcome anyone reading this who is now sinless, post the first reply.

Reference:

[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/10/root-of-problem-is.html

Overcoming

This is one of my favorite subject to talk about, as it really inspires me. I once had a teacher who made the excellent point that what wasn't explained in history was the information that everyone knew, the information that everyone took for granted. To me, overcoming, especially in our group fits this bill and can be a source of confusion to the younger generation. It is just so easy to assume that everyone knows what it is to be an overcomer, that the word overcoming almost becomes a platitude or colloquialism. In this post I just want to give an applicative definition of what it means to overcome.

I've heard taught that being an overcomer means that you have reached a point at which you can no longer be tempted. Each of the synoptic Gospels give an account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Hebrews also states that Jesus was tempted just like we are (Heb 4:15). I have trouble reconciling us attaining a state where we could not be tempted with the scriptural account of Jesus being tempted. Romans does not support this description of overcoming (Rom 3:10). As a matter of fact, James says something very strange about temptation (James 1:2). Who was he talking to? Obviously not "overcomers".

We do not ever reach a incorruptible state. Looking at this logically, if we did somehow manage to reach what would be a sinless state, we would no longer need a savior. If we attained this point of perfection, we would no longer need to worry about how we handled ourselves. What I find though is that the people who espouse this doctrine of overcoming are very worried about committing sin, and don't have much assurance. Without being overt about it, they seem to believe a salvation of grace up to a point. Somewhere in their Christian walk they switch over from believing in grace to believing in works, or at least denial of the works of the flesh. I once asked a wonderful elderly lady who had been about our way for almost all of her life whether she knew that she would go to heaven, and she began telling me about how she always tried to do good and at least she tried not to sin, but she was just never sure that it was enough so she just kept trying. Eph 2:8-9 directly addresses this denial of the gift of God which is the product of teaching overcoming this way. We cannot ever save ourselves.

So what is overcoming? I'd like to use an example to illustrate my point because it will be more poignant. Consider if you will a man who is an alcoholic. He attends AA and turns his life around. He may never lose the desire to drink for the rest of his life, but every time he denies that desire and refuses to take a drink, he is an overcomer.

Overcoming is an action verb, not a state of being. We are admonished to put off the old man and put on the new man (Col 3:9-10) but no where in that admonition are we led to believe that we will reach a level eventually where that is automatic. Your Christian walk does not have an autopilot.

Personalizing this, every time I am tempted and make a choice not to sin and follow through with it, I am an overcomer. It's that easy. Anyone can do it, there is no mystery involved. In a way, it's much like breathing; doing it regularly is very good for you. There is a constant aspect of our walk described by Luke (Luke 9:23). We will all struggle with sin until the day that we die, it is our nature. We will not obtain an incorruptible nature until we have gone out of this existence (1 Cor 15:52, 1 Pet 1:4). So until we do die, the old saying "Keep on keeping on" applies.

This being said, this is NOT an admonition to no longer try to be an overcomer. Humanity tends to vacillate from one extreme to another. I am not saying that anything goes or that we should just keep sinning because of the grace of God (Rom 6:1-2, Rom 6:12-15). Please don't read anything into this post that I'm not saying.

I want to bring in a concept of worldliness into the discussion here because it fits. The world is full of sin and corruption, but we've been called out of the world (John 15:19). But still we are surrounded by the world we are called out of. It's like being in the middle of a river and not getting wet. This is impossible, but I believe that my God doesn't know the meaning of that word. As a matter of fact, he allowed the children of Israel to pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan on dry ground. We can only be called out through a closeness with Jesus Christ, no other way! That make us of God, his children, because of Jesus dwelling within us (1 John 4:4). In Him and in Him only do I dwell.

I'm going to raise the stakes here a bit and state that Jesus was an overcomer. What? Did I hear me right? I want to say it again, Jesus was an overcomer; he overcame sin (John 16:33). How did he do this? One temptation at a time. You see, temptation only becomes sin when we give in. When you don't overcome, you sin. When you don't sin, you overcome. Jesus did not sin, he overcame sin. As a matter of fact if Jesus hadn't overcome, we wouldn't be able to.

There is so much scripture regarding this I hardly know where to start, but don't know if any other scripture lays this out better than 1 Cor 15:57. We have our victory through Christ! Go back a bit you will see that we have yet to be completely changed, and we will put on incorruptibility (1 Cor 15:52-53). I do not separate the physical from the spiritual in this scripture as some are wont to do. Both physical and spiritual are the creation of God, and both are damned without Him.

I want to close this post by quoting 1 John 2:1-2 because it is a passage so full of hope for us, so full of meaning, and so necessary in these times. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."