Skip to main content

Who Do You Trust?


I find it very interesting that in this day and age, people prefer to revere and believe scholars of contemporary times or the last two centuries. For example, there are brothers and sisters in Christ who will believe every word of Derek Prince, Darby, Jack Hayford, Bob Mumford, Max Lucado, but they twist and try to reason away the words of Christ Jesus that read, "deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me," (Matthew 16:24) and "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36).

Conveniently, Christian brothers and sisters will reinterpret Christ's word to have a different meaning. That our Lord could not possibly ask us to endure such hardships are having family hate us or have to deny ourselves pleasure and comfort. And yet these same people will swallow the words of the religious leaders and sages as if they are Manna from heaven and divine truth from on high; never questioning if it aligns with the Scriptures.

Who do we honor? Are we called to follow Joseph Prince or Joyce Meyer or are to follow Jesus Christ? Is God's Word suppose to be what shapes our lives or the words of a  pastor, priest, scholar, or theologian? I am not saying that the men of ages past or this present age do not speak the truth or that they have no insight to share; on the contrary there is meat in their books, but there is also bones. I am not calling for a boycott of everything but the Bible. I am however,  asking the question, where does our allegiance lie? Why is that for 1500yrs, the Apostles and Church Fathers knew the "Abomination of Desolation" was the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus and thus fulfilled Daniel 9 and 12, but a man named John Nelson Darby decides it wasn't that event, but is a future event and this man with the help of another scholar has gotten millions of Christians to believe they we as Christians will never suffer tribulation and shall be raptured out; even though Jesus Christ said, "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33), "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken," (Matthew 24:29), "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved," (Matthew 10;22, Mark 13:13), "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me," (Matthew 24:9), and perhaps the most stark example that we shall suffer tribulation is this verse, "Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:14).

Who words are suppose to be more trusted? The Words of the Apostles who were with Jesus Christ in flesh and recorded His words, or an Anglo-Irish Preacher who is 1800yrs removed from the time of Christ? This is not just about Darby, it is about all men and women who have authority, who abuse that authority and who masses of people obey, believe, and trust more than Jesus Christ! I watch as people defend their favorite saints, theologians, and scholars, saying their point on a doctrine is correct because St. Francis of Assisi said it or because Pope Francis I said it. People defend their views with the pontifications of men and women outside the Bible, and yet when Words written in red by Christ and the Early Church Fathers are recited, the response is, "that's a wrong interpretation! You aren't literal enough or you aren't liberal or symbolic enough in your approach." Interesting, when it comes to the Scriptures, which are divine words of God, arguments on interpretation come up, but when it comes to making a point, someone can cite Bob Mumford or Bernard of Clairvaux and there is not questioning the words of these believers; but we question the words of Christ and The Apostles?!

This is an infection that began long ago in the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. The idea that Canon Law, that is the books written by holy men, popes, and so forth were always right, but the Scriptures were open to interpretation. Canon Law in effect was like Talmud of the Jews, extra Biblical writings. In fact, one could claim this infection goes back to Judaism, the forerunner of Christianity. What happened is men began to revere, believe, accept, and depend on this books of Canon Law as being irrefutable and infallible, while ascribing to the Holy Bible words like, interpretation, literal or symbolic, and doubting terms of authenticity of the letters of 2 Peter and 3 John. This all was a plan of man to cast doubt on the only irrefutable and infallible Word of God and to make people trust instead writings that had truths in them, as well as lies.

This Canon Law or Talmudic dependency is in the Protestant Church. I have personally encountered people who zealously believe and trust books like "The Shack", "The Purpose Driven Life," "Crazy Love," "Battlefield of the Mind," but then at same time argue over interpretation of the Scriptures. Interesting, when it comes to the Words of Jesus, there is many ways to interpret, but when it comes to Joel Osteen there is only one interpretation. To preface, I am not attacking Joel or any of the writers I have mentioned in this post. I am asking, why as Christians are we putting such stock and trust in the sources of other saints (servants of God) who are fallible and not the Scriptures and the Ultimate Source our Savior?!

There is nothing wrong with reading the words of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, and so forth. The problem is when we ascribe to these works of brothers and sisters the same authority, infallibility, and perfection as the Bible. For Apostles said, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1), "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:4). For those who argue about how to apply Scripture, here is a good standard of using it: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.." (2 Timothy 3:16)

I personally think that many do not want to follow the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ. They would rather say, "His words are open to interpretation, but Joseph Prince or Joyce Meyer has it right when they say.." The truth is that many Christians hate Truth. They would rather trust the words of brothers and sisters who can teach error or be deceived, than adhere to the Scriptures from the Spirit of God that came down to the Apostles. Granted, believers, followers of Christ today can get inspired words from God (Lectio Divina) and share profound revelations; but we must test these new revelations and enlightenment with Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

I find it alarming that people today trust implicitly teachers, preachers, pastors, priests, and religious writers; but question Christ and His Word! Honestly, it is a telltale sign that the Church is actually not as free as it thinks. Protestants and those who say they have "left the tyranny of Rome (Roman Catholic Church)," are actually under a another kind of tyranny. Rather than be under the Pope, they have many popes who peddle out the literature for them to read and tell them what to do on Sunday and Monday-Saturday. In fact the control of the High Churches in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is less extensive in my opinion than the control that can be found in Charismatic, Pentecostal, and even Evangelical congregations. Yes, their have been abuses by the Church of Rome, but there are plenty of pastors, mystics, pseudo-prophets (panhandlers), and like who do far more damage with their spiritual abuse, stealing of money with "snake oil" spirituality schemes, and even physically abusing people with  pseudo-"slain in spirit" experiences and more. People under these esoteric leaders are controlled by chaos, confusion, and crazy (intemperate and bipolar) displays. At least in the High Churches the control is straightforward and there is structure, while in esoteric movements it is haphazard and chaotic. Neither form of control is preferable or desirable; for both the liturgical and esoteric churches have done horrible abuses that have "shipwrecked" many in their faith. The Catholic Church in particular having to answer for sexual scandals and sexual abuse of children. Scripture would convict both groups, saying to the Esoteric Churches, "test the spirits to see if they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1), and "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24). The Scriptures would confront the High Churches, "But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea," (Matthew 18:6) and to the priests having to be unmarried which helps the evil abuses against children, the Apostle Paul said, "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.." (1 Timothy 4:1-3). But sadly, the esoteric preachers and ecclesia of High Churches often do not read the Scriptures, and instead resort to their Canon Laws, pamphlets, and rhetoric.

We were called to be followers of Christ Jesus, and yet as Christians we keep following corruptible men and women who are not Jesus. St. Paul said, "This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead." (Galatians 1:1). The Apostle to Gentiles did not revere the call of men (anointing & ordaining) or their blessing. Paul made it clear he was chosen by Christ Jesus. The Apostle Paul even goes as far as to say that everything He knew as Pharisee of Pharisees, all he learned from other men is worthless, "Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ." (Philippians 3:8). It is evident Paul did not revere anyone's words, anointing, calling, or esteem except for Christ Jesus. How many of us as Christians would be willing to do as Paul? This truly would be a, "deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow," Jesus.

I shall say once more that I am not saying to boycott and cease reading books by believers from 33 A.D. t0 2015 A.D. There is a wealth of inspiration, insight, and enlightenment in the words of the Church Fathers, Saints, and Brothers & Sisters in Christ throughout the ages to this present day and age. What we must beware of is not reading their works, but revering them too highly and holding them above Holy Scripture (The Bible: Old and New Testament). The Words of St. Augustine and Aaron Eckhart have a place in the libraries of our minds; but it is the Word of God (Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit) that should be written on, "our hearts," as well as our "minds." (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:16).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These w

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come and died for our sins an

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few people are endeavo