{"id":3762,"date":"2012-06-18T22:01:01","date_gmt":"2012-06-19T02:01:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/?p=3762"},"modified":"2012-06-18T22:01:01","modified_gmt":"2012-06-19T02:01:01","slug":"in-the-words-of-jesus-part-356","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/2012\/06\/18\/in-the-words-of-jesus-part-356\/","title":{"rendered":"IN THE WORDS OF JESUS\u2013Part 356"},"content":{"rendered":"

Love is the Fulfilling of the Law<\/span><\/h2>\n

ON GOD; Part CXXXIX<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry , Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>” (Romans 8:14-23).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In yesterday’s post we discussed the origins of the doctrines that we still see in use today in the churches. The origin of the majority of these is found in the writings of the Church Fathers, some of whom we mentioned and many of whom we did not and we offered a link to a source of much information as well as many of\u00a0their\u00a0writings so that one could define for himself what these men believed and taught. In addition to this we mentioned the men of the Reformation albeit seemingly in passing and that these men changed some of the preordained doctrines during the sixteenth century. A prime motivation of the Reformation was rebellion against the authority of the Church in Rome and and it resulted in most of the newer doctrines as they were established by the writings of men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin who remain the most famous and influential. Others included\u00a0Philipp Melanchthon,\u00a0Thomas M\u00fcntzer,\u00a0Menno Simons,\u00a0Martin Bucer,\u00a0Olaus\/Laurentius Petri,\u00a0Huldrych Zwingli,\u00a0John Knox and\u00a0Primo\u017e Trubar as these movements and rebellions took on a regional and and national tone.\u00a0There were many predecessors to these men dating back to the 12th century and several conflicts as segments attempted to pull away from the Roman Church, the sixteenth century reformation however was the culmination of this rebellion which then led to a rather bloody series of wars across much of Europe and of which the conflicts in Northern Ireland which just recently ended are likely a remnant. It is difficult to even estimate the number of people killed in these wars that raged for more that one hundred years and which included such conflicts as the Thirty Years War and the Eighty Years War both of which ended by treaty in 1648. Suffice it to say that many millions were killed with an estimated eight million dead in the Thirty Years War alone*.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our point here is twofold; first that the whole of this had sparked a movement in the Christian World that is contrary to the very teachings of the apostle whom the Reformation founders profess to most adhere to. In the horror of these times the Christ was lost to the world as most all of what was happening in His name was abhorent behaviour by ALL sides. The Apostle Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, saw the divisions that existed in this early church and wrote to them these words which we have covered before in relation to the many denominations of the ONE CHURCH: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.\u00a0For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are\u00a0contentions among you.\u00a0Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.\u00a0Is\u00a0Christ divided? was\u00a0Paul crucified\u00a0for you? or were ye baptized\u00a0in the name of Paul?<\/em>” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). With this in their cannon the reformers and the Roman Church still took the more political approach to their Faith as it broke apart into many pieces. Vincent tells us of the idea above regarding divisions that:\u00a0Divisions<\/strong> <\/em>(scismata<\/em>). See on John x. 19. In classical Greek used only of actual rents in material. So in Matt. ix. 16; Mark ii. 21. In the sense of discord, see John vii. 43; ix. 16; x. 19. Here, faction, for which the classical word is stasiv: division within the christian\"\" community. The divisions of the Corinthian church\"\" arose on questions of marriage\"\" and food (vii. 3, 5, 12); on eating, meat offered to idols (viii. 7; x. 20); on the comparative value of spiritual\"\" endowments, such as speaking with “tongues” 79 ; on the privileges and demeanor of women in the assemblies for worship\"\" (xi. 5-15); on the relations of the rich and the poor in the agape or love\"\"-feasts (xi. 17-22); and on the prerogatives of the different christian\"\" teachers (i. 12, 13; iii. 3-22)<\/em>4<\/sup>. Can we see the continuing effect of these divisions in the Reformation period and still yet today? Can we see how very un-Christian these divisions are especially when they are openly hostile to one another.<\/span><\/p>\n

Vincent goes on to tell us that the idea of contention includes that attitude of\u00a0contradicting; denying; opposing<\/em>1<\/sup>\u00a0rather than with dispute and discussion:\u00a0Contentions<\/strong> (eridev). Socrates in Plato’s “Republic” distinguishes between disputing (erizein) and discussing (dialegesqai), and identifies contention (eriv) with gainsaying (antilogia), “Republic,” v., 454. Compare Tit. iii. 9\u00a0<\/em>4<\/sup>. Vincent goes on to treat the next several verses which we have covered in some detail in In the Words of Jesus part 315 and will not repeat here except to go to our main point in this discussion as regards the Christ where he says:\u00a0Is Christ\"\" divided?<\/strong> (memeristai o Cristov). Some of the best expositors render as an assertion. Christ\"\" has been divided by your controversies. He is broken up into different party Christs. This gives a perfectly good and forcible sense, and is favored by the absence of the interrogative particle mh, which introduces the next clause.<\/em>\u2020 \u00a0<\/em>Divided<\/strong>: so portioned up that one party may claim Him more than another. Christ\"\" has the article. See on Matt. i. 1<\/em>\u00a04<\/sup>. Can we\u00a0appreciate\u00a0here Paul’s comments to the Corinthians and can we see how this same idea of\u00a0different party Christs<\/em>\u00a0which likely\u00a0<\/em>brought the church into the Reformation period and wars and how it is still prevalent in the churches today.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second part of this point that we are making revolves around the very teachings of the Master, His teachings about Love and His teachings about meekness<\/strong><\/em>. Regardless of how the church chooses to define Love, we are convinced that the intent of the Master was along the lines of Love as we have defined it here in our posts which is our multipart saying that combines the Master’s words with our definitions which are in reality our interpretation of His intent. As we generally present it, we say:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

KEEP HIS WORD<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAnd thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy stren-gth: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these\u201d. (Mark 12:30-31)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

WHAT THEN IS LOVE?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTherefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them\u201d (Matthew 7:12)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is Love as the Master presents it and Love as we define it; There can really be no mistaking these ideas by any who intelligently read them. It is only the clouds of illusion<\/strong> and fog of \u00a0glamour<\/strong>and the give the doctrines of the\u00a0churches\u00a0more power than these sayings and in these there is really no allowance for war especially among those who are claiming to be seeking the same thing which is to follow the words of the Lord. Can anyone really claim that these wars were necessary and right in the Light of the Master’s teachings? Can anyone really claim that the animosity\u00a0engendered\u00a0by the opposing views regarding the most meaningless things as baptism and ritual and doctrinal approach are necessary today? In addition to these teachings on Love the Master teaches us meekness<\/strong> <\/em>and does so in many ways that are apparent when we realize the True meaning of this concept which we have defined as\u00a0humble restraint\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/em>which should give us the understanding that one who can have his way and do as he will is in meekness when he has the ability but he does not use it. The Master’s ideas of meekness<\/strong> <\/em>and harmlessness are many and they start with the saying above that we call the Golden Rule. We should see this saying as a cornerstone of Christianity but instead it has become merely a nice saying for so many; in this is the essence of meekness<\/strong> <\/em>and of harmlessness requiring forethought in action.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

By example let us imagine two men in competition over a certain thing; the one will do most anything to prevail in this competition but the other looks at the situation and judges his potential actions against what he would like done to him. This second man can also do most anything to prevail but he thinks better of it; he shows humble restraint<\/em><\/strong>, he shows meekness<\/strong><\/em>, even in the face of losing this competitive battle and even in the face of perhaps looking foolish. Can we see this\u00a0principal\u00a0at work in our own lives; that even with the ability to prevail, we back off and do only what we would want done to us? Emmet Fox, in his Fifteen Points on how to know if one is IN TRUTH says this of the Master’s command:\u00a0I PRACTICE, the Golden Rule of Jesus instead of merely admiring it. He said, \u201cWhatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.\u201d The important point about the Golden Rule is that I am to practice it whether the other fellow does so or not<\/em>**.\u00a0<\/em>In this single and most profound statement we have the fullness of the Master’s teaching on Love of one’s neighbor and one’s Love of himself and the essence of His ideas on meekness<\/strong><\/em>. We look toward the Master’s few uses of the word meek<\/strong> <\/em>in the gospels to give us an understanding but in doing so we miss the true meanings of His words. He says this mentioning meekness<\/span><\/p>\n