Category Archives: Man-Made Churches

Teachings of denominations

The Church of Sweden

02 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by in Doctrine, Faithfulness, Man-Made Churches

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/church-sweden-stop-clergy-calling-god-lord-bid-crack-gendered/

Church of Sweden to stop clergy calling God ‘he’ or ‘the Lord’ in bid to crack down on gendered language

The Church of Sweden is urging its clergy to use gender-neutral language when referring to the supreme deity, refraining from using terms like “Lord” and “He” in favor of the less specific “God.”

RT: Why is this taking place? Is it because the Greek text of the New Testament demands this, or is there some other reason? A good translation can‘t do anything but responsibly translate in an accurate manner the (a) word from the document of origin to the language of destination. Thus, when the word “theos” in Greek is translated, the language of destination (English) uses the word “God.” What Greek word is used to give us our English word “Lord”? That word is kurios. It’s a word that conveys power and authority, appropriately translated “Lord.” Does not the word “God” convey the same? It can and does, but the word “God” does not come, translationally (if you will), from kurios. The less specific “God” is not less specific (with regard to authority), except when one wants to eliminate an idea that permeates the Bible, especially the New Testament, such as the idea conveyed in the word “Lord”.

The move is one of several taken by the national Evangelical Lutheran church in updating a 31-year-old handbook setting out how services should be conducted in terms of language, liturgy, hymns and other aspects.

RT: Since the Evangelical Lutheran Church is not a term one reads of or about in the Bible, then their origin as a church is from the mind of man. Anything man conjures up is bound to change; he is as steady as the waves of the sea. The Holy Spirit gave warning in these words: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12, ASV).

The decision was taken Thursday at the end of an eight-day meeting of the church’s 251-member decision-making body, and takes effect May 20 on the Christian holiday of Pentecost.

A former state church, headquartered in Uppsala, some 60 kilometers (37 miles) north of the capital, the church has 6.1 million baptized members in a country of 10 million. It is headed by a woman, Archbishop Antje Jackelen.

RT: The Scriptures teach, “Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In today’s environment, such words as from the apostle Paul are not well received. Of course, this makes our point. With man there is constant change. With God, He is steady as a rock, the Rock. The Lord, in other words, does not support the head of any church filled by a female or, for that matter, a male. He (Jesus) is the head of the church, and what He says concerning it is not up for discussion. Paul, in writing to the church in Ephesus about Jesus, said this: “far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church” (1:21-22).

Jackelen told Sweden’s TT news agency a more inclusive language had already been discussed at the 1986 conference. “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human,” Jackelen was quoted as saying by TT.

RT: Yes, it is true, inherently speaking, God is beyond our gender determinations, but it is not true that God did not become human. When Jesus became flesh (He who was/is God), He became a man, a male, not a female. There is a reason for this, and the reason belongs entirely to God. Thus, God is not beyond our gender determinations!  Consider what Paul said about the Lord in his second letter to the Corinthians, “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (5:21). Notice the pronouns; substitute those pronouns with a neutral word, then read it; for instance, use the word “it.” How does this help one to properly understand?

The change was met with criticism, however. Christer Pahlmblad, an associate theology professor with Sweden’s Lund University, told Denmark’s Kristeligt Dagblad that the move was “undermining the doctrine of the Trinity and the community with the other Christian churches.”

“It really isn’t smart if the Church of Sweden becomes known as a church that does not respect the common theology heritage,” he said.

RT: This is not an answer to the problem. It’s not a matter of heritage, but of truth as revealed in Scripture. Perhaps there are occasions when a neutral word is much better than a word specifically oriented; on the other hand, those who have an agenda to neuter language for the sake of psychology might also have an agenda to neuter and neutralize the Way of God. The Church of Sweden, the state church seems to have this approach (their denials not withstanding!).  

Gender-neutral terms | Checklist

Forefathers – ancestors, forebears

Gentleman’s agreement – unwritten agreement, agreement based on trust

Girls (for adults) – women

Housewife – shopper, consumer, homemaker (depends on context)

Manpower – human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce

Man or mankind – humanity, humankind, human race, people

Man-made – artificial, manufactured, synthetic

Man in the street, common man – average/ordinary/typical citizen/person

Right-hand man – chief assistant

Sportsmanship – fairmess, good humour, sense of fair play

Cardiff Metropolitan University’s Guide to Inclusive Language

 

The Pattern

11 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Doctrine, Faithfulness, God, love, Man-Made Churches, Teaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

There are some in the Christian world who look upon the idea of a pattern (a correct way to do things) in religion as being something to be dismissed. In fact, some call this legalistic, and that it is in part and whole contrary to the New Testament. Is this true? It is not!

The idea behind a pattern finds its way into religion from God. To Moses the Lord said, “And see to it that you make them [articles of the Tabernacle] according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain” (Exodus 25:40, NKJV). As the children of Israel made their way from Egypt to the land of promise (Canaan) and embarked on clearing the land of its evil, it was finally the case that the Israelites were able to “rest from their labors” and go home. Joshua gave the departing ones a word of exhortation, “But take careful heed to do the commandment and the law which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, to keep His commandments, to hold fast to Him, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Joshua 22:5). You will note in this word from Joshua two important ideas. First, the Israelites were to pay attention to the Lord and do exactly what He said. Second, they were to have their motivation (love) properly in place. This is the idea behind what some people disparagingly call “pattern theology.” Those who do so speak about that which the Lord set in place!

So important was this concept that the people of Israel were alarmed when they heard of a compromise existing (Joshua 22). After having laid down their arms they were prepared to take them up again because of the perceived compromise. In other words, they were prepared to do battle with their brothers (22:13-21). After some conversation it was learned by the leaders of Israel there was no attempt to compromise the Lord’s way (22:29), but that which was built was done as a witness (a replica, a pattern) for later generations (22:26-28).

In this there is a lesson. What some ridicule as “pattern theology” actually got its origin from God, not any man. Whatever failings man may have had in implementation of the Lord’s pattern, let us not be guilty of doing the same. There are two things to keep in mind: first, when the Lord said something on a particular topic, that which the Lord said (commanded) is that which is to be done in the way He said to do it. He did not give to man the option to alter what He said, only to choose to obey or not. Second, those who serve the Lord faithfully understand the Lord’s mercy and its underserving quality. Because this is understood, the love that is expressed to the Lord brings about obedience. Joshua understood this and, when he was preparing to pass from this life, set before the people of Israel the alternative to the Lord’s way (Joshua 24:14-15). In the Lord’s church, those who are faithful to the Lord understand the same. The structure of the church, the structure of worship, the behavior in life—these are things the Lord addressed for His saints to understand and to submit to.

 

Single Bishop?

13 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in history, Leadership, Man-Made Churches

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In this third bulletin article on church history, the book I have been gleaning my material from has expressed the importance of the Church’s inward growth. By that is meant the growth in doctrine (teaching) and organization.

Interestingly the author of this church history book spoke truly when he said “[t]he theory that doctrine is not important is not only shallow and foolish, it is also crafty. It is one of the devil’s best tricks” (The Church in History, Kuiper, p.15). It’s unfortunate, however, when he mentions that from the first through the early portion of the fourth century the organization and doctrine developed (p. 16). Of course, this is true when viewed from the perspective of man-made institution, but from the perspective of the Holy Spirit this is not true at all. Peter wrote that at the time he lived all things that pertained unto life and godliness had been revealed (2 Peter 1:3; cf. Jude 3). Paul stated it this way: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV).

There are a number of doctrinal items worthy of discussion in this bulletin article, but only one that I want to reference now: “the development of the episcopate.” This is the title of the section dealing with how the church developed a doctrine wherein one man stood above and before others. In fact, “[b]y the middle of the second century practically all churches had monarchical bishops” (p. 20).

The term “monarchical bishop” is a term for a single man who rules alone in a particular religious community. The reason for this single-man rule, we are told, was because of the heresy of the day (known as Gnosticism and Montanists) needed to be opposed and this was best accomplished in one man. We are told the “Church had to establish its position as the authority who decided the meaning of the Bible” (p. 18), and this was exercised through the episcopate or monarchical bishop. This was (and is) a most unfortunate sentiment because it dismisses (unintentionally, I believe) what the Lord’s revealed word had already determined. “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, NKJV).

When the Lord gave His charge to the apostles to take His message into all the world, He gave them and those they taught (2 Timothy 2:2) the adequate tools to thwart the fiery darts of Satan. Man, in his own wisdom, decided to set aside that which the Lord taught and make some adjustments to the pattern set forth by the Lord. This presumptuous action, even if it was done with good intentions, puts both the teacher and those taught in a precarious position (at best).

In this same church history book the author clearly recognizes that in the New Testament this form of leadership (government) is not present. “At first the organization of the Church was very simple. The officers were the elders and deacons. The elders were known as presbyters, since presbyter is the Greek word for ‘elder’” (p. 19, italics in original). Thus, based on what we just read, the Lord’s simple plan was made more complex by man. Herein is the problem; “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12).

Our challenge is to stay true and fiercely adhere to the teachings of the New Testament. If one would simply allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, then man’s complex ways could be dismissed. The sacred Scriptures need to be put exactly where the Lord placed them: as the revealed pathway of life (2 Corinthians 5:7; Romans 10:17).

The Mechanical Structure

30 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by in history, Man-Made Churches

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Did Jesus tell His disciples what was the “mechanical structure” of the church He established? The term “mechanical structure” is a term used by a church history book dealing with the organization of the church; the author of that book say he did not. “He did not tell His disciples what the mechanical structure of the Church was to be…” In fact,  “He did not arrange for an organization; He taught the principles upon which it should be built” (The Church in History, B. K. Kuiper, Eerdmans, p. 4, 1964).

The New Testament, however, gives another picture. To begin, the Lord “built” His church (Matthews 16:19-19), and this suggests an organization is in place—unless builders build in an unorganized way! Secondly, the apostle Paul appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and told Titus to do the same on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). This is second tier leadership in place, after the Lord (cf. 1 Peter 5:1-4). This is clearly associated with structure. Third, when Paul addressed his letter to the church at Philippi, he addressed the elders, deacons, and the whole local church (Philippians 1:1), something that very much indicates there is structure to the local body of Christ. Fourth, Paul said that Christ is the head of the church, and that the head has a body (Ephesians 1:22-23). With these four points in place, do you see any structure?

The importance of this topic is in relation to the misinformation spread by this church-history book concerning church structure or organization (or what he calls “mechanical structure”). It has encouraged a great many people to think there is no local structure to the church when the Holy Spirit very much affirms there is. Consequently, this approach in the church history book invites men to establish man-made churches with its own peculiar organization (structure). This is tremendously unfortunate because it is not in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

A great many people want to speak about the time of the year and honoring the birth of the Lord Jesus, but do they really honor Him by altering what His word said on such things like the structure of the church? RT

A SALVATION SHOW

23 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by in Man-Made Churches, Preaching, Presumptuous, Teaching

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

A good number of years ago Neil Diamond wrote and sang a song that still resonates with me today. That song: “Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show.”  I suppose a number of people can interpret it any number of ways, but I interpret it as both humorous and as a slight against preachers who have more interest in promoting themselves with their “healing” services than they have in promoting the gospel of Christ. The Scriptures are rather plain-spoken about such people – and they need to be called out (2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 1 John 4:1).

“It has been said that God has performed many miracles through Chiles,” we are told. During the days of the prophet Isaiah, God’s prophet was preaching to and against the charlatans of his day. The standard by which any and all preachers were to be judged was the written word of God (Isaiah 8:20). The subjective feelings of a person were only accorded respect when that person lived by the Lord’s expressed word. For the individual or individuals eternity hung in the balance!

It may seem harsh to some to call out preachers who promote things contrary to the Lord’s written words, but it is necessary (Jude 3). It may be that these self-promoting preachers are doing many good things in the community and, if so, there will be nothing negative coming from me in that regard. On the other hand, whatever good may be done or may have been done does not allow a compromise of the Lord’s written Word. In fact, the good deeds that is (or are) done by any and all will not be that which judges us on Judgment Day; it will be the words spoken by the Lord Himself 9(John 12:48).

The challenge, therefore, to all religious folk is to measure everything by the Lord’s word (Romans 15:18; 1 Peter 4:11). RT

KNOW or THINK

16 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by in Leadership, Man-Made Churches, Preaching

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Every now and again there will be a remark made about those who are “progressive amongst us.” Who are the progressives, and exactly what is it that makes one progressive? The Scriptures teach, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 7-11, NKJV).

In the context of which John speaks, a progressive is one who does not feel constrained by that which the Lord said. In other words, a progressive is one who thinks what the Lord said does not prohibit in all cases. For instance, the New Testament expressly declares that saints under the authority of  the new covenant will sing with the heart (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16); there is no express prohibition to the use of the mechanical instrument of music. Progressives will assert this does not, therefore, prohibit its use in the congregational setting.

Look at what John said again; to “transgress” or “go beyond” means that one does not stay within the constraints of the New Testament. The NET reads this way, “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God” (2 John 9).

Those who are progressive in religious matters can be just as sweet, courteous, genuine and have all the appearance of godliness as any, but in this mistaken approach of theirs they have put themselves in a precarious position with the Lord. What shall we do then? Let us stay within the constraints of the Lord, and encourage (insist) others do the same. Doing so, with the right heart, means we can KNOW we are right. Those who refuse (or don’t) can’t know anything; they can only THINK they are right. There is a difference. RT

The New Birth (2)

21 Tuesday Aug 2012

Posted by in Man-Made Churches

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

This is a continuation of my previous post

The new birth is a mystery that no man can explain away. Since one can’t see the wind, but know of its presence – will one try to explain that away? Not if good sense is in existence with one who makes an observation concerning it. The same with the new birth; no one can see the Holy Spirit, but to deny his presence is to illustrate that one does not have good sense. These thoughts are not exactly parallel with one another, but his sentiment is true just the same.

The new birth is the work of God; since one can’t “join” the family of God (a work of man, presumably), it is a work of God when one is “born” into the family of God. In the course of his discussion he made no reference to a word Jesus himself used. Jesus said one must be born again of “the water and the spirit.” Earlier in the tract Pastor Levin denied that baptism has any connection to the new birth. Having an idea that he would say such a thing I thought he would say a word or two on Jesus use of the word “water,” but he did not. When discussing how one must be born again he tells us that it is not the result of parental descent, of one’s own willpower, or by “any of man’s religious creeds, systems, or ceremonies.” The new birth is of God; it is a miracle and only God can perform it.

It is true the new birth is a work of God that man obeys, and it is true that only God can declare one righteous, thus giving them that new birth, but it is not true that it is a miracle. This can be demonstrated with just the meaning of the word “miracle.” The new birth is, on the other hand, a spiritual birth, not a miraculous one. Nothing in nature has been suspended for one to be “born again.”

Pastor Levin took a little bit of his writing space to give us an idea about how we should understand the word “spirit.” It is unfortunate that he did not take the same amount of writing space to tell us what is meant by the use of the word “water”. He dismisses baptism, which is how one normally understands the meaning of the word “water,” but he offers us no alternative idea.

There is a reason for this.

Since the word “water” is normally understood to mean baptism, it would then be clear that Jesus would teach the new birth consists of two components: spirit and baptism. This is contrary to the theology of Pastor Levin and most Baptists. Why such an aversion to “water baptism”? Because some people have the mistaken view that obeying God’s command is a “work of man.” This idea is not taught in Scripture, not even alluded to.  In fact, baptism has God’s command can be better and properly understood in relation to faith (John 6:29).

The New Birth

20 Monday Aug 2012

Posted by in Man-Made Churches

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

THE NEW BIRTH (A tract by a Baptist Preacher Paul J. Levin)

Review

Exactly what is the new birth that some in the religious world speak about? It is a term Jesus used in speaking to Nicodemus (John 3:3-5). Pastor Paul Levin writes a tract that addresses what the new birth is. I would like to say a few words about what Pastor Levin wrote.

He begins by telling us it is not religion. Pastor Levin does not tell us exactly what he means by “religion,” but I gather it has something to do with some particular things that one does. He mentions especially “law keeping,” “joining a church,” “being baptized,” among some other things. It is interesting that the word “religion” is used once in the New Testament (James 1:27); in that passage we are told there is such a thing as “pure and undefiled religion.” If there is a “pure” and “undefiled” religion, will that religion be pleasing to God? The answer is yes, but it is true that the context of James 1 does not correspond with the context of John 3 – telling us that being born again is pure and undefiled religion. Secondly, we are also told that the new birth is not morality. This is very much true. It is apparent that many in this world think their up-standing moral integrity will bode well with them on judgment day. This is a mistaken notion. Judgment day is based on a standard of righteousness (John 12:48), not morality. Don’t be confused: those who live righteously will live an up-standing moral life, but with God one begins before the other. Third, we are told the new birth is not reformation. Again, this is true – if by reformation we understand a change in one’s behavior. One has to be careful with this because the new birth will not result of one has not a penitent attitude (Acts 17:30-31). On the other hand, reformation (change of behavior) does result from the new birth, but a change of behavior can’t result if there is no change of the will. The new birth involves the will of man, but it does not originate within man. In John 1:12-13, the new birth originates with God and is given to man.

We now know what the new birth is not. Next we will consider what the new birth is.

The church of which I am a member…. opposes God with regard to marriage!

11 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Man-Made Churches

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

That is the approach of the Episcopal Church. Their regard for things sacred hangs on only because some of its members try themselves to hang on. I doubt, however, these members are all that well-informed concerning things biblical for if they were why would they stay as members?

Biblically speaking, the Episcopal Church is not the church one will read about in the pages of the New Testament; it is not, and never has been. This is made all the more apparent when they look at God’s stand on marriage and thumb their noses at Him who is creator of all. The church that one will read about on the pages of the New Testament, the one that belongs to the Lord (Matthew 16:13-19), will stay with the Lord and not compromise His ideals for the benefit of any community.

With regard to marriage, what is the Lord’s ideal? The answer is seen in Genesis 2:21-24 and Matthew 19:3-9.