Back to the cross, the root, the word @
The Radical Pilgrim
~ Pro Bible ~ Pro Apologetics ~ Pro Kingdom ~All scripture quotations from the Authorized Bible, without apologies. Placed accents mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Few Good Men
For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile
1 Thes. 2:3
Good men? Are they around? Can 2 Timothy 2:2 still apply?
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Why do many Christians still find it easier to hate than love? To
spit venom rather than apply soothing oil? Please note; when
this article will use the word love it will not mean the weak, lovey-dovey,
sloppy luv; which folk use to lure people into a club, then place conditions
on them. Hopefully, it will mean the reason Jesus laid down His life
for sinful man, without malice or ulterior motive. The true meaning of the word charity believe it or not!
Loving those without:
Recently, I visited a fundamentalist website who not only exposed Catholicism (scripturally) but also hated Catholics and condemned people who loved Catholics, Freemasons, cultists, or anyone else outside their group. It also gave it's justifications for doing so, misquoting scripture, and taking it out of context in places, to suit their rules. On this level of platitude, I find myself quite often at loggerheads with others who call themselves Bible believers, because I may be on talking terms with someone who may not meet their "spiritual" or "doctrinal" criteria. Of course ... those 'without' shouldn't any way, be in agreement with our doctrinal creed, that is. However, this should not be a licence to reject and hate them. No wonder the world has enough verbal ammo stashed away to unleash on so-called fundamentalist and non conformist believers alike. Not so much 'without a cause', but due to the pigheaded bigotry and lack of compassion for the lost, or deceived, by those who name the name of Christ and what they actually portray in the end.
Whenever I meet someone for the first time, I first like to take them at face value, ignoring what innuendoes and subtle hints I may have been subject to by others beforehand, trying to make me biased, in order to shape my preconceived image of the person in mind. After all, everyone should be given a fair chance, a 'benefit of the doubt', an 'innocent till proved guilty' open-ended verdict, at first appearance ... shouldn't they? It use to be called grace, before the world hijacked the great hymn portraying this virtue.
Then there are others who justify being indifferent when it comes to fulfilling "the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men".
"All", not meaning "all" in an individual headcount of course. What I am saying here is when scripture says "all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan" went out to met John the Baptist, it obviously did not mean all the bedridden and insane, and all those who held positions of vital responsibility (in some cases). What scripture means with "all" is in a blanket generalization ... like in all types of people in all categories ... to (all) "them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people (Rev. 14:6)".
However, some would say the word "all" does not necessarily mean "all" in this sense either (contradicting Rev, 14:6 and other scriptural equal opposites such as Jer. 2:29, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12, & 1 Cor. 8:1 ), but only purveys to those who qualify, or have been pre qualified, through pre election.
If this was true, then how can the verse "let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith", be of relevance? If "all" did not mean "all", then Paul would not have added ... "especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Would you not agree? Confirmed by other verses, should I say. F'instance: "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men."
Again, if this particular verse was not literally referring to "all men" would not of Paul mentioned "both among yourselves (the elect within), and to "all men" (without)"?
Here is another: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
Reinforcing the fact, if Paul was not meaning "all men" then again he would not have added "specially of those that believe (the elect)"!
"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
"Love the brotherhood"! Again differentiating the brotherhood (God's elect) from honouring "all men" (within and without)!
Also, if honouring "all men" was only referring to those within, scripture would
only be referring to honouring a regenerate king, but
not an
unregenerate king without. I don't think so!!! Peter said
in regards to those we serve ... "not only to the good and
gentle, but also to the froward." So there it is ... plain and clear,
in a nutshell!
One of the qualifications of electing elders was for him to be "gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men." Not just to the brotherhood within, but to ALL!! Paul also said, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (also, it should be noticed here that all these scriptures rightly divided like this, are irrefutable and blow Calvinism clean out of the water!!!) Therefore, could not have "some" been saved, unless Paul was impartial to "all", when expressing the love of God to ALL was concerned?
Sifting out - or discerning good men:
Some say nobody can be called good as the scriptures say, "There is none righteous, no, not one."
However, when Paul said, "For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing"; in essence Paul was referring to, "that is, in my flesh".
That's why we are called the new circumcision in Christ Jesus, where we place no confidence in the flesh. Where all rubbish from the past is to be crucified, and put to death. Even our fleshly affections in addition to our lusts!
True ... "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."
All good and perfect gifts are from above, as any pure goodness only comes from the Father of spirits and of lights in the first place. However, it is not our place in judging the eternal destiny in individuals. There are goats, and there are sheep; as there are tares, and there is wheat. Also, there are reprobates and there are those who are repentant ... who the Lord will separate His way, and in His time. However, we are to love them irrespectively, allowing the Holy Ghost to draw those whosoever cometh, into the light that they maybe saved. He is the Lord of the harvest, not us! It is only when men continually reject the truth, we are to shake the dust off our feet, and go and labour for the gospel in a new field.
In regards to good men (singular), there are many scriptures in both Testaments (13 in fact). Here is one:
Acts 11:24. "For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord."
The good part of the new man is Christ, who dwells in the sanctified believer (the treasure, or sweet fragrance within earthen vessels), who is released through his life by the believer dying daily to self, and being obedient to the word. Christ's manifested life in other words (John 14:21)! After all ... what happens when the alabaster container breaks?
Here's a couple more (in the plural this time):
Proverbs 2:20. "That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous."
Where are the good men? How can we walk in the way of good men if there are no good men?
The Lord sets good men in the Body, or local assembly, as leaders and examples to the faith:
Titus 1:8. "But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate"
Which means, the individual has the freedom to choose who they fellowship with, show hospitality to, and open their home to. The opposite to the counterfeit/institutional church, where man governs whom you are subject and obligated to. Which generally has nothing to do with qualifying those 'within', the New Testament way. Which generally means you could be stuck with yobs and yahoos and "spiritual" heavies to commit yourself to, or be fellow partakers with in the same club. Not realizing who the good men are. Not realizing you do not need to be under, or aligned with, manipulative acquaintances and leaders who abuse their apparent call:
Jer. 10:21. "For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD."
The New Testament equivalent ... "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind".
The bottom line is that we are obligated to no man. We follow no man, but we are a servant to all, in the Lord, in the sense ... we don't live for ourselves anymore, but our Redeemer, who says to follow in His example. We choose who we fellowship with. This is because the scriptures say:
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" We gather "with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart", only seeking those things above."
Loving those within:
Also, by befriending or being in fellowship with other strong men (who I believe could be called good men) I have come under heavy flak, even lost friends, and still do at times. Some may like me (believe it or not) but go hostile when they find out I am in communication with someone they detest. They try to make out that the problem is mine, when in fact it is their problem. I most certainly would not want to be in their (manipulative) shoes:
1 John 2:9. "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now."
Phew!! Of course they get around this by saying the brother concerned
is not a brother anyway, but an impostor or heretic. Moreover, I should
not be in league with a heretic.
Good excuse, eh! However, this is not the real reason. They may not acknowledge "the accused" as a brother, but what if the Lord sees him as His child, under the blood of His Son? Big trouble, eh! Which means "the accusers" have been blinded by some hidden darkness, still lingering somewhere in their own lives that's not been dealt with, and are lead by wishful thinking, deluding themselves:
1 John 2:11. "But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes."
And it gets worse:
1 John 3:15. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
These haters could be walking a very fine line. Again, I would hate to be in their shoes:
1 John 4:20. "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
Maybe his/her love is in word only, and is not in deed and truth? To love God means obeying His rules, not our own. Obedience is better than sacrifice! At least, this is the way God sees it. You know ... the One who has the final say!
1 John 5:2. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments."
There's no other way really! Unless you want to take the religious way out, become a phoney, and take short cuts.
What is the problem?:
They may hate the other party because the other party offended them about the truth about themselves!
They may hate the other party because the other party made their pet theme/s look stupid!
They may hate the other party because the other party exposed their "church" they were supposed to have left, but still cleave (partially??) onto!
They may just hate the other party because the other party simply misunderstood them (or vice versa), and got a wrong impression or the wrong end of the stick (this is one of the biggest downfalls, causing most of the conflicts in the world and church, I believe)!
They may hate the other party because the other party insulted their
country! Who knows what these excuses will stretch to?
Or,
they may simply hate you without a cause ... the only cause being
... you happen to be in the light whereas they are in darkness!
Personally, I don't have "a church" to rubbish, although I do fellowship and enjoy fellowship. You can rubbish my country as much as you like. Who cares!! I'm not a patriot, but a pilgrim seeking a better country! You might be right anyway! You may rubbish the Book I count as dear, but you could be doing it in ignorance. If deliberately to upset me, then that's your problem! As for me and my house ... we shall serve the Lord! The bottom line could be you just don't love the truth? And your faith or life is anchored in other things!
Ps. 119:165. "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."
The type of people who love to hate may also character assassinate you by pointing out the websites you may be linked to, overlooking your disclaimer. I question these people's agendas and motives why they are out to foot-trip men. Who are nothing more than busy bodies, bringing division to the Body. Why can't they get on with building up the Body, instead of tearing it down? True, I have no problem when blatant apostasy is being exposed. But then it should be done with caution and wisdom, scripturally, and not with the intention of "going after" that person. If it is someone known by the exposer, then the person in question should be first contacted personally, without doing exposés behind the persons back.
The people I correspond with, or fellowship with, may appear to be poles apart from each other, as there is a very wide spectrum of personalities. That's not my problem again. There should also be room for diversity within the Body, as long as the person's ministry is not out to self-destruct the Body, but edify it. Hopefully, I have nothing to hide. I do stay in contact with, or are linked with men who are despised at times. To know who some of them are, you only have to visit my links page on the RP. So don't go ballistic, just ask the Lord what your problem is. If a man of God is either loved or hated (nothing in between) shouldn't this mean something? Shouldn't this mean he may not be a neutralist and a man-pleaser, taking the common middle-ground, but one who wants to please the Lord first? Who is on the Lord's side? We follow Jesus because He can be trusted to the end. ... because, in Him was found no guile.
Ps. 32:2. "Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile."
Who is without guile? Without having a hidden agenda? An ulterior motive? Abuses and misuses good for his own ends? Where plausibility and being well meaning can be tainted with wrong motives? Well, we do have some cases in scriptural (very few in fact) when someone was without guile:
John 1:47. "Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
So there it is! Looking at Acts 11:24 again:
"For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord."
Was it because Barnabas was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith; that impetus was added to the reason why much people were added unto the Lord? According to scripture, there are good men to be found, without guile, who are single eyed for Jesus, and have not bowed the knee to Baal. You or I may not feel comfortable with their personality. They may have rough edges, imperfections and inadequacies, and may not see things your or my way. They are rare, but few are to be found. So let's not hinder the Holy Ghost and add derision to the Body.
"The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth
in his way."
