I have to ask this question, OK ? WHOSE AUTHORITY ?
I recently opened a “can of worms” by asking a simple question. Whose authority was the “canonization of Scripture” done in.
I want to make this a PLAIN AS POSSIBLE !!!
I KNOW the origin of The Word!!
I KNOW the authority of The Word!!
So don’t come back at me about all scripture being divinely inspired. That is not my point !!
How do we know that after roughly 300 years of man’s use of God’s Word, that man used ALL of what God intended for us to have?
How convenient it would have been, when these that decided the fate of the world by deciding what went into “The Bible” as we know it, to say ” that’s not what we believe, so let’s leave that one out” or ” Oh yes, let’s include that one”
Paul wrote in Col. 4:16 “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” What happened to “the epistle from Laodicea”? Was it lost overtime, or was it simply excluded for some purpose? Very little is said about the Laodicean church, except in Revelations, and no one would dare leave out or alter that “book of prophecy”.
I KNOW that the Scriptures we have now are divinely inspired and that they are The Plumbline in which we are to measure all things against. I just ask, “By Whose authority” were those who decided such an important thing, working under. DID THEY HAVE an audible calling from God, to form their group? Or, were they commissioned by man to do this awesome task? Was there any underlying things that may have swayed the decisions at all ?
I think these are fair questions to ask. Or should we just assume that these men knew what was best for us all and did what they had to do? HMMM?
And while we are in this vain, what about the continuance of the Apostleship? I feel that the Apostleship is needed just as much today as it was 2000 years ago. But, by whose authority are these Apostles working under today. I am not jumping ship on modern day apostles. I think I have made that position clear. It gets back to this amazing line of headship.
There is but one Head of the Church and His name is Jesus!!
There is but one covering needed, that’s by His Blood !!
And BTW, what’s the difference between a ” covering” and a “denomination”, as used in our modern day vocabulary?
OH, well, just random thoughts and plenty to get our minds to thinking. I pray that we think, however, with the Mind of Christ, and not our own intellect!
Love in Christ Jesus
Jake
Living Bread of Life Ministry 
Jake,
I asked all these questions myself as I searched for the truth. But the histoy of the Church shows that in 367 A.D. the Council of Carthage was the first Council to recognize the New Testament as authoritative. These writings were put together with the Septuigent (deuterocononical books included) and called Sacred Scripture. At this time in history, there existed only one Church, we refer to this Church today as the Catholic Church, so the authority the Church worked under was the authority of Christ “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven.”
So the Bishops of these councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the authority of Christ, the founder of the Church, gave us the Holy Scriptures we read today.
Of course this is a short synopsis, there are other details and councils that help finailze what we have today. But I thaught this was a great starting point.
As far as the Apostleship issue goes, within the Catholic Church all the priests and bishops are of apostolic succession, so in that sense, there are still Apostles today. Of course, the definition “to send” or “one who is sent” means that the Church as a whole Body is apostolic by nature. We are to “go and make disciples.”
I hope this adds to the discussion and not to dissention.
Blessings through Christ,
Tim
Hi again Jake,
You said again, “I KNOW that the Scriptures we have now are divinely inspired and that they are The Plumbline in which we are to measure all things against.”
However, the conclusion can’t be gotten away from if one is to follow your line of thought that maybe, just maybe, we don’t have the total Plumline that God intended. And please don’t say that is not what you mean. The rest of your comments makes it clear that is where you are going.
Maybe I am wrong in what I am thinking here. But I can’t help but wonder if maybe (note the maybe–I’m not saying this is the case) when a movement such as the whole Lakeland Revival can not find any Scriptural support for what is happening in its midst, that questioning if we have the whole of Scripture that God planned for us isn’t the next logical step?
Cheryl,
These are questions that have been lingering in the back of my mind for some time now. Actually before I had ever heard of TB or any of the other “movements” that have been going on.
I DO BELIEVE that what we have is 100% devinely given to us by God.
As evidenced by the post from Tim Glass, he believes that the RCC is where it all stems from. That’s because they are the ones responsible for enfluencing so many of the things we now believe to be true, when in essence these things are not. All you have to do is look into their theology to understand that. SO, why should we accept their authority?
I FOR ONE DO NOT !!
I am so glad that you have the fullness of scripture and the fullness of understanding it. ALL has been revealed to Cheryl !! Is that what you are saying?
Cheryl,
I ask you then!
Who “called” these men together that decided such a fate for the world?
Who gave them their insight and was it devine insight or well thought out human reasoning, maybe mixed with some Spiritual guidance?
If TimGlass is right, then we really should question some things, IMO.
After all, I don’t think most of us would want the doctrines of man, err the RCC, to influence us .
The one statement that I have to agree with Tim on is about the whole church is to be “apostolic” in nature of our calling to “go ye therefore”!
Jake,
Don’t put words in my mouth. Did I ever say “all things have been revealed to Cheryl”? I don’t think so. I said I was asking a question, not making a “this is the way it is statement” because, very honestly, I have been wondering that siince you first asked the question on the other blog.
Jake,
ALL has been revealed to Cheryl !! Is that what you are saying?
That wasn’t fair at all. She never said anything like that.
Jake,
Was the Catholic Church back then all that we know it to be today? I know I certainly don’t agree with a huge amount of what they teach now. But I also think their belief system probably didn’t happen overnight. So I don’t know if it is is fair to say that we can’t trust what they did because of that. That is something I simply haven’t studied so I don’t know the answer. I do know from what I have read that the meaning of the word Catholic is “universal”. At the start there was only one church so it was the universal, or catholic, church.
And I guess that I have another question for you. If you can’t trust that we have all God intended us to have in His Word, how is it that you can trust that everything that is there is supposed to be there? If they decided that they didn’t like or believe something and so left it out, why couldn’t they have also decided to put something in that they liked and believed that wasn’t supposed to be there in the first place?
This is, I think, my main concern with this whole train of thought. It can start a run away wholesale doubting of the Word of God that leaves us with no absolutes to go on, only a subjective, “I think this is Scripture,” or “God told me this.” And that would be a very dangerous place to be.
Cheryl,
Sorry if I came off wrong to you.
This whole subject is one that I take seriously. The great apostacy of the body, IMO, started 17-1800 years ago and I believe that it is that deception that has pulled the Body apart in so many directions. That is the best way to defeat anyone, which is to divide and conquer. That is what the devil would like to do. Divide and conquer. IMO, what better way than to let the “doctrines of man” influence all of mankind over a long slow process.
People are leary of any new thing that comes up, BUT the “old ways” must be right, after all they have been teaching thos things for thousands of years and “so and so said it” so it must be right !! I am being funny here ! [Sadly though it isn’t funny”]
Just because someone is adamant in there teaching doesn’t neccesarily make them right. They could be wrong in it and whole heartedly think they are right. Most of the time because that is what they have always heard.
That reminds me that Jesus was very misunderstood when He began teaching about The Father, because for thousands of years no one related to God as The Father. Who was wrong? The traditionalist point or the “new thing”, at that time ?
I AM NOT EXCUSING TB or any other teacher for using false teachings that JUST DO NOT line up with scripture. TB’s baptism service is such a point. NOT SCRIPTURAL!! And NO, not some “new revelation” either!
Lee,
I wasn’t trying to be hard on cheryl. I apologized to her.
I was just making the point that NONE of us have total revelation at this point and time.
Cheryl,
I would never want to start a “wholesale” anything goes, as a matter of fact what I am shooting for is exactly the opposite of that!!
When I was preparing to speak at a revival a few years ago, The Spirit of God spoke to me and told me this, ” If my people would read my Word, they would know their Purpose for life”. I knew right then that what He was telling me was about the “Purpose Driven” thing that was so hot back then. AND so it is with what I am trying to say here. Let every man get back into the Word and YES, test everything by the Word of God. That’s what I had to do when I was first called into ministry. The teachings of man was greatly influeing the denomination I was in. When it came to Spiritual things, especially the gifts, they hardly spoke of them and if they did it usually wasn’t in a positive way. We were expected to just “go with the flow” I guess. THANK GOD, His Spirit rescued me from such blindness!!
cherylu wrote; I said I was asking a question, not making a “this is the way it is statement” because, very honestly, I have been wondering that siince you first asked the question on the other blog.”
What have you been wondering since the post over at TGC?
cherylu wrote; “I do know from what I have read that the meaning of the word Catholic is “universal”. At the start there was only one church so it was the universal, or catholic, church.”
And here I always thought we were known as Christians.
Also, doesn’t it bother you about the “universal” thingy thing.
We are members of one Body, and that is the Body of Christ ! Not some “universal” church.
Jake,
Apology accepted.
You asked what I have been wondering about since the post at TGC. What I asked above, “Maybe I am wrong in what I am thinking here. But I can’t help but wonder if maybe (note the maybe–I’m not saying this is the case) when a movement such as the whole Lakeland Revival can not find any Scriptural support for what is happening in its midst, that questioning if we have the whole of Scripture that God planned for us isn’t the next logical step?”
It sounds like from your answer to me above that is not the case as far as you are concerned. I am glad to know that. And I am really glad that you are in no way promoting “anything goes”. It just seems to me that when we question Scripture in any way shape or form, that is what can very easily happen next. If not to us, then maybe to someone that has started doubting because of what we have said.
I think “universal” had a different connotation back then then it does now. It was, in my understanding, a reference to that one true Body of Christ, the one true church throughout the whole world. It is not the same thing as one would think of when we hear the word used today in an ecumenical, interfaith kind of way.
Cheryl wrote; ” It just seems to me that when we question Scripture in any way shape or form, that is what can very easily happen next. If not to us, then maybe to someone that has started doubting because of what we have said.”
Again, BELIEVE me, when I say I am not questioning Scripture.
You have to seperate what I am asking about from the Scriptures. I am simply asking about the people that decided the contents of the Canonized NT. The people is at question, not the Scripture.
You said that “universal ” may have had a different connotation back then.
“May have” ?
That indicates that you aren’t sure. That indicates also that it “MAY HAVE”!
It could very well have been the case that what they were hoping for with the creation of the RCC was a “one world religion”. We are talking about a time in which people were persecuted for not lining up with Rome.
This has really gotten off track from the original thought, but it is such deception that, IMO, has divided the Body today.
And BTW, “universal ” = “universal”
I’m sorry Jake, but I just don’t know how else to interpret your quotes below in any other way than that you are questioning Scripture. Maybe it is not what you meant, but it is certainly what is sounds like you meant:
“How do we know that after roughly 300 years of man’s use of God’s Word, that man used ALL of what God intended for us to have?
How convenient it would have been, when these that decided the fate of the world by deciding what went into “The Bible” as we know it, to say ” that’s not what we believe, so let’s leave that one out” or ” Oh yes, let’s include that one”
And then, “I think these are fair questions to ask. Or should we just assume that these men knew what was best for us all and did what they had to do? HMMM?”
I am sorry, You did not say “may have”.
I think I better quit for today, LOL
Again, I am questioning these men.
would you feel better if i just deleted this whole post ?
I certainly don’t seem to be making myself clear to you.
And that is not what I want to do.
Am the only one out here that understands this line of questions ?
Come on people, jump in and let us hear from some of you!
Am I ……
Click to access bn-v1-12.pdf
This was interesting and the use of scripture to support what was considered scripture in the early part of the document
Layla,
That was a good read and very useful had I not known my Fathers voice in His Word.
I say again, it is the people that was in these “counsels”, that I bring to question.
Their authority ! Their calling, if you will !
I know that scripture supports scripture. PLEASE , drop this whole idea that I am questioning scripture.
When you read a document that was inspired by God The Father you can tell it.
I was once given a bible from LDS and as I began to read it, I knew automatically that It was not from The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. I did not hear His Voice in it.
Every page of God’s Holy Word, that we recognize now, is from Him and I will never back down from that !!
You guys and gals be blessed, it is time for me to go for today.
Love in Christ Jesus
Jake
This siite explains what I grew up believing athe defininition to the term “universal church” meant.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
Please excuse my dumb typos in the above comments.
Dictionary definition of universal:
u·ni·ver·sal (yn-vûrsl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: “This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness” Ellen Key.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. See Synonyms at general.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad.
6. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
7. Logic Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.
n.
1. Logic
a. A universal proposition.
b. A general or abstract concept or term considered absolute or axiomatic.
2. A general or widely held principle, concept, or notion.
3. A trait or pattern of behavior characteristic of all the members of a particular culture or of all humans.
Note the second meaning. It is the one which has been applied in the discussion on the church as I understand it. It is certainly the one I grew up believing.
I know that scripture supports scripture. PLEASE , drop this whole idea that I am questioning scripture. Didn’t say you were….
Jake,
I am not questioning what you think about scripture and that was not why I linked the article. I linked it because I thought it was interesting that Paul and Peter (according to this article) referenced each other as the first men to recognize the scripture as scripture and I am assuming because of their authority as Apostles.
Good morning Layla and CherylU,
Layla,
gotcha! At least we agree on this issue, amen?
Cheryl,
I read the link you gave me as well as the exposition link at the bottom of it from Dodds? I find Article 9 particuliar interesting and would suggest you to read it in completion.
If I read it right it was Ignateus who called it “the Catholic Church” some 300+ years after Christ.
Two points I want to bring up about that.
#1 Why didn’t Christ call it the “Catholic Church” instead of “My church”?
It is well noted that when you give something a proper name, which is what someone goes by, that you are to use capital letters. This is what was done by Ignateus and others who recognized “The Catholic Church” and not neccessarily the catholic [ meaning universal] church. I hope you see the difference and why I have a problem with it.
#2 according to scripture, we were called christians in Antioch. That is to say, followers of Christ, who is The Head of the Body and The Living Word. In our modern day mind set we forget that “the church” and “the Body” are one in the same. Not some building that we meet in are some “set of creeds” that we are to go by. I believe as I said yesterday, that this could very well be part of the deception that started during that period where man was trying to determine and decide what scriptures were to be used and what scriptures were not to be used. Why ? Well, just as I pointed out in #1 that just the subtile use of a capital C instead of a little c changes the way we have to judge what you were saying as “the Catholic Church” or “the catholic church”. satan always works in subtile ways to get us to where he wants us. he always goes through our thought process first and attacks the very things we cherish in order to break down our belef system.
From Matthew Henry commentary on “Christians”
The disciples named Christians, Relief sent to Judea.
Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ’s precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true
Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind.
Qoute ” Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do”
Yes, Lord, Grant that prayer !!
Also from the Matthew Henry commentary on Matthew 16:18 about the confusion of Peter and “the rock”, which is what the RCC declares to be there right to being “the Church”.
Peter’s testimony that Jesus was the Christ.
Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord’s being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated to �rock, to � is not the same word as Peter, but is of a
similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter’s confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer’s character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men’s sins, are
blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful. (Mt 16:21-23)
NOW THAT”S what I have been given the revelation of 8 years ago before I had ever read it or for that matter ever started studying this stuff.
Jake,
Good Mornin’ to you to.
I know you are adamantly saying that you are in no way questioning Scripture. However, in my mind anyway, if one is to question whether the folks that decided what is Scripture and what is not had proper authority to do so and if they were unbiased in doing so, it seems to me that the conclusion can not help but be questioning the Scripture. I mean, if there were problems with the people, how can we trust the result?
Jake,
Change of topic… for just a moment… And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful. (Mt 16:21-23)
When you pray for a person who is being oppressed by the enemy do you use the bind and loose in those prayers against the enemy?
Cheryl,
As I stated in a post above, one can tell, at least I thought so, when they are reading The Voice of God or the words of man.
I trust God with everything, it’s these people and maybe even the fact that it took 300+years for this process to come to be. The OT was actually canonized much quicker than that. Study it out for your self.
Layla,
The way I read Henry’s comment is “binding and loosing” relates to legal terms. To teach those things that are lawful or not. To forbid and allow .
Seems to me that if one chooses to bind up an oppressive spirit and loose the Spirit of Liberty, than that would come into agreement at least from Henry’s comments.
I Personaly have become very leary of the “Binding and loosing” thing, after hearing a teaching that says, essentially, “that when we bind something, we actually come into agreement with that thing. Such was the case when the Israelites “bound themselves” or came into covenant with God”
I certainly don’t want to come into covenant with the enemy, so for right now, me personaly, I ain’t “binding and loosing” anything, untill I get some further insight on that.
Thak you… I am in agreement. Too much “binding” going on these days when I think scripture supports the idea that “Satan tempts”, “we take hold because of our fleshly desires”, then “we sin” and I feel that too many people try and blame the devil when it is our responsibility for the choice to take hold of the temptation.
I have found repentence and renouncement has been the freedom fighter, if you will, through Christ Jesus. He is our deliverer.
after hearing a teaching that says, essentially, “that when we bind something, we actually come into agreement with that thing.
Would this teaching be available on line someplace….?
Not that I am familiar with, as far as an online source. google it and see, it would be worth your time.
I heard it once on a TBN broadcast a couple of years ago and also from another source. Don’t really remember the person teaching at the time.
Ot sort of makes sense when you consider that we bind or are bound by our covenants. So that’s why I don’t do it that way. I do speak to those spirits and cast them out when those things come up.
Hi again Jake,
Did you happen to read the article from SOJ that was referenced in the current discussion on The Greycoats on open theism? While the main thrust of that article wasn’t on how the canon was formed, it did touch on it quite a bit and I thought it brought up some very interesting information pertinent to the questions you have been asking here.
Cheryl
Cheryl,
Do you remember the link or name of the post ?
I would like to see it, at least to get some more opinions on this subject.
Jake,
Herei is the link. Like I said, the canon isn’t the main subject discussed here, but is a part of the conversation. I thought there was some interesting info there.
Jake,
Guess I’m not awake yet. Can’t even type two sentences without a typo and left the link out. Will try again!
http://signofjonah.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/doctrines-of-the-reformation-1-sola-scriptura/
Cheryl,
That was an interesting read as well as the follow up dialogue between Keith and one of the posters. TOO BAD that the questions that were being asked never got followed up on by Keith before they shut down SOJ.
You know I Emailed Keith personaly from a couple of different email addresses I could find for him. He NEVER responded to any of them.
Cheryl, I am the first to admit, I am not a theologin. There is some stuff that I stil don’t understand about “theology”, BUT, I understand, and see this more and more every day, that God the Father LOVES us with a Love that we are just not able to understand.
His Grace is not dependant on our understanding of Him or each other.
His Love is not dependant on our understanding of His Word or our differences of understanding His Word.
God, Grant us a portion of Your Love, that we come to Love each other here in this world, the way that You Love us in Your world!!
Love in Christ Jesus
Jake
Hi Jake,
I ran into this quite accidentally this a.m. as I was reading part of a lenghthy article linked on tgc. I remembered part of the conversation we had here earlier and thought this quote might be helpful in expressing what I was trying to say about the “universal”, church.
“Perhaps the most succinct and the best statement of the church as invisible and visible is found in the Westminster Standards. Chapter 25, “Of the Church,” states: “The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (sections 1, 2).”
Here is the link: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/the_visible_vs_the_invisible_c.php
I realize that creedal statement may raise other questions. I am just focusing on the way they defiined the universal church as I thought they expressed what I was trying to say earlier in a much better way than I did. Not so sure about the covenant theology, “and their childredn”, that is expressed there. And I don’t know what is meant by “no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
Anyway, I hope the definition of the universal church given is helpful.
Greetings to all here. I just finished reading all of your comments and felt that the Lord might want me to interject in order to perhaps shed some light for you from my own experience on the issue of the validity of the canon of Scripture.
I too, like all of you, have wrestled with this immense issue. I wanted to know for sure for myself by what authority the canon was compiled and can I really trust every word of it as being from God and was any of it left out.
The following is what I believe God has led me to understand about this matter (and many others too) which has given me a very firm faith and utterly complete peace over the whole issue.
Romans 14:22a – the faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God…
First of all, I had to come to realize that according to this verse, God wants us to use our own minds and reach our own conclusions INDIVIDUALLY FOR OURSELVES on every word that we believe to truly be from God, no matter where or when or how or thru whom He wrote it or what book or books He has kept it in – period.
After all of my years of research and a huge amount of heartfelt prayer and for tons of reasons of my own (which I have not room nor time to discuss here), I personally ended up rejecting every other supposed depository of His Word except for the protestant Bible alone, in any and all of its many wonderful translations! This is the Bible that has come down to us from the council of Nicea in 3?? a.d. (which was evidently a very prayerful meeting of many, many individual church leaders with varying opinions). This is my own personal belief which is based upon personal revelations that I believe to be from God but which I do not put upon you or anyone else, just myself.
Yet I do espouse this belief to all to whom the Lord Jesus Christ sends me including all of you. This conclusive belief is IMO, what everyone who truly desires to follow our Lord Jesus Christ in this life must also reach in the same struggling manner as I did and as you all are now trying to do. God bless you all for engaging so reasonably in this discussion.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together…
In the Protestant Bible in John 16;12 – 15, Jesus promises all of us that as we can bear it, His Holy Spirit WILL GUIDE EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY INTO ALL TRUTH. That is, He will do this if we abide in Him and in His Word. So, in this verse’s Words He is saying that this is a process we must go thru and as long as we are trying to walk with Him in His Spirit and as long as we are pondering His words and really seeking His truth on this (or any other) matter, we are safe in God’s good grace until the time when He feels that we are ready for Him to reveal that particular matter’s truth to us.
John 16:12 – I have many more things to say to you, but you can’t bear them now.
In my experience, when I am truly doing all of the above mentioned things, then He gives me His peace in my heart because I fully believe that I’ve done all that I can do and the ball on this (or any other) matter is in His court until His Spirit picks a time to dump a revelation on it into my mind.
Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God (they are in His court so to speak), but the things revealed belong to us…
And can we trust every word of the protestant Bible’s many translations? The answer to that question I believe that God has given me over and over again over the years. It is that until I truly need to know the validity of one translation’s verse or verses – versus -another translation’s verse or verses for some affair of my life, once again the ball is in His court. His Holy Spirit will be faithful to reveal that particular truth to me in due time. So until then, I just need to trust God to eventually do so on the issue and relax and enter His peace about it.
Over the years I have learned that the whole secret for me to feel completely secure with God on any matter, not just this extremely important one, is to reach peace with Him. I am able to do this by realizing that He knows my heart’s sincerity towards Him and all of my efforts to find the truth on that matter and until He moves on my behalf about that matter, I am safe and secure with Him because the ball truly is in His court on it.
Colossians 3:15 (Amplified Bible)- And let the peace (soul harmony which comes) from Christ rule (act as umpire continually) in your hearts [deciding and settling with finality all questions that arise in your minds, in that peaceful state]…
Reaching peace on this major matter or any other questionable matter DECIDES AND SETTLES WITH FINALITY(!)THE MATTER FOR ME! It will do the same for all of you now, even without an answer yet and in spite of not having that answer yet. This is because all that counts for you with Him is that you enter into His peace thru your faithful belief that you are safe and in good standing with Him, whether you have that answer yet or not!
Thank you for indulging me with your time. If you feel that this teaching has helped you and you would like to learn more about my ministry please check out my blog – Annals of an Anonymous Apostle at http://anonapostle.blogspot.com/2008/04/19-reserved.html
Thank You Brother !!
All of God’s Children have from time to time, IMO , run across things that pull on their thoughts.
As the Apostle Paul tells us, “When we don’t know how to pray, pray in the Spirit”, paraphrase mine.
We all can do well sometimes to “back off” and examine our hearts on a matter, and discrn what manner of spirit we are operating in at the time these things are happening.
Fortunately, for me at least, I have been able to move on to other things, and know that, as I grow in HIM, HE will grow in me.
Love in Yahushua, Christ Jesus
Jake