OriginalChristianity.Net

Not Traditional, Original

The Vision of OriginalChristianity.Net

The vision of OriginalChristianity.Net is to look at the beliefs and practices of the the original Christians.  The reason why this is important is that over the millennium Christianity has developed numerous factions that all claim that that they are the true continuation of original Christianity.  I heard exactly that when I visited a Greek Orthodox Church, I have read it in Roman Catholic literature, it is in the bulletin of a local non-denominational church in my area.  They make these claims despite the fact that they have disagreed, even violently at times.  For other articles on this topic, see A Major Objection to the Restoration Movement Is That Christianity Has Not Changed Substantially Over Time, and Another Claim of Original Christianity in Practice Today,

Throughout this website are numerous articles written on the numerous divisions in the Church that we have today, how a lot of these doctrines developed that are behind all these divisions, and some key points on how original Christianity differed from today.  It is important to look at all these things because they are part of Christianity now and play a big part, perhaps more as obstacles, in the faith of the individual believer.

But the key point of this website is to be able to envision what original Christianity, and in particular the time of Jesus and the apostles and disciples that he touched was really like. There was an incredible spirituality. With the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, and afterward the sending of the Holy Spirit we see the most incredible movement of God on earth since creation.

Click to Read More…

This was a time of power, miracles, healing, and deliverance, not only by Jesus, but by those he touched, his apostles and disciples. People saw God in action through these men. They saw the word of God living, because they lived it together. There was incredible community and sharing. There was incredible believing. There was great faith.

It was a time of simple doctrine.  There were no official doctrines on infant baptism or believer’s baptism. There was no doctrine that prophecy and the other gifts and manifestations of the spirit had ceased. There were baptisms being carried out, and the last supper repeated as a memorial, but there were no “sacraments”, somehow mysteriously conveying grace by ritualistic practices. There were no autonomous churches disputing which form of church government was doctrinally correct, which end times theology was correct, or arguments over whether or not there was eternal security.

There was no argument over the status of the Bible, because there was no Bible. Jesus had referenced the law and the prophets, including the Psalms, as the word of God. And only those books with the addition of the words of Jesus were considered the word of God. There were no written Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were no epistles of Peter, Paul, Hebrews, John, and Jude. So there was no argument over doctrines derived from them like eternal security, justification by grace, predestination, or even the Trinity.

Philosophy was rejected as an unwise practice of the Greeks that actually tore down faith more than it built, so discussion of faith wasn’t an analytical exercise in the nuances of the meanings of words, but rather simple directives, and powerful stories and analogies that emphasize the important meanings to be focused on while ignoring the myriad details that can lead people astray.

What existed was the good news that Jesus the Messiah had come, that he had fulfilled the law, had sent the Holy Spirit, and now many believers were walking in great faith and power. What existed was great praise, great faith, and great love of God.

All of this is not to say that this was an easy time. There were persecutions, challenges, and trials, as both the Jews and the Romans saw this burgeoning Christianity as a threat. But this just served to bring the Christians closer together, and more united in their faith.

Original Christianity was a time of great unity, simple doctrine, great believing, with many believers walking in the love of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

So as you read these articles that discuss all of the divisions, and developments, both good and bad throughout the millennia of history of Christianity, it is important to maintain the focus of the simple vision of original Christianity.  Pray, praise the Lord, walk in the power of the spirit, love God and love your neighbor, and rejoice in what Christ has done. Join together with any Christian who is doing the same.  And in the process perhaps we can bring some of what made original Christianity so great back to life.

© copyright 2012 Mark W Smith, all rights reserved.

Welcome to Original Christianity.Net

It appears that universally, in the church, we Christians marvel at both at Jesus’ miracles and the wisdom in his parables. We especially are in awe of his life, his incredible birth, his short but incredibly powerful ministry, his passion, death, and resurrection. We love him for those. We are also moved by the depth of the wisdom and inspiration of books like the Psalms and Proverbs. Almost universally, although most would say all true Christians, acknowledge him as Lord, and strive to follow his leadership as we walk in a dark world filled with daily challenges, including overcoming evil.

Click to Read More…

In fact, there are some universal, and some almost universal, elements in Christianity. Universally held elements of Christianity include this deep awe of Christ, and likewise, for the bible. The bible, or at least for some, sections of the bible, such as the parables of Christ in the gospels, the powerful poetry of the Psalms, and the wisdom in Proverbs are universally held in the deepest regard. Almost universally held elements include the belief in Christ as the only begotten son of the Father, physically born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, who died for out sins, and was raised from the dead and is presently seated at the right hand of God. Christians look forward to spending eternity with the Lord. Even more, there is common ground as churches promote worship, baptism, and communion with some similarity.

But beyond some basics like these, there is far less agreement on the tenets of Christianity. In fact, there is an elephant in the Church, an elephant of disagreement resulting in tens of thousands of sects, disagreeing on many doctrines.

The disagreements have been legion, often bloody, and always confusing. Christians have killed other Christians for defying the rule of infant baptism and proclaiming “believer’s baptism”. Many Christians have declared other Christians apostate because of their view of the Bible, whether it is inerrant, infallible, or at least partially of human origin.

And even if they agree on the status of the Bible, they don’t agree on what it says on these issues. For example, there is disagreement over basic principles of interpretation like whether the overriding principle is based on the covenants of God versus which dispensation we are in.

There are Christians that call other Christians apostate (traitorous) because they believe that the gifts of the spirit, i.e., prophecy and speaking in tongues, etc. still exist, and vice versa. These days there are sharp divides over homosexuality, abortion, the Word of Faith movement, the emergent Church movement, and the role of women in the church.

Even if Christians don’t call others apostate, they still disagree to the point of not fellowshipping over issues like: dietary laws (whether they need to be followed), drinking alcohol, end times (Eschatology), eternal security, evolution vs. literal seven days of creation, giving vs. tithing, predestination, psychology: the acceptability of Christian counseling, sacraments as conveyers of grace or not, the “in the name of Jesus” debate, and pacifism vs. the concept of a just war, and other issues.

Then there is the ecumenical concept of Christian “orthodoxy” that suggests that none of the issues so far discussed really matter even there are huge divisions over them. The only issue that really matters in “orthodoxy” is whether one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, that Jesus the man is really God and a person in a triune godhead with two other persons, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is promoted as the absolutely most important concept in Christianity even though this emphasis is totally missing for the first centuries of the church.

And let alone that the very doctrine of the Trinity has been disputed over the centuries with more Christians killing other Christians over this issue than any other. It appears that for some that as long as a church accepts the doctrine of the Trinity it doesn’t matter if it teaches that homosexuality is normal or apostate, and/or abortion is choice or murder, and/or baptism should be infant baptism or believer’s baptism, and/or there are two “ordinances” or seven sacraments, and so forth, and so on.

This mess is a huge blemish on the body of Christ. Some of these issues may be legitimate, but to have so many “orthodox” churches teaching so many disparate doctrines flies right in the face of Paul’s charge for believers to have the same mind:

Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all say the same thing, and there be no divisions among you, but you be united in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10 LITV)

If, as Paul teaches, we corporately are the body of Christ, then does the current collective body of competing Christian theologies accurately reflect the mind of Christ. Certainly, no one can think so.

But, before the present time with our tens of thousands of Christian denominations, and before the Reformation that shifted the focus of Christianity from the decisions of church councils and the Pope to the Bible as the principle source of guidance, and before the great schism about a thousand years ago, even before there were arguments over the nature of Christ, the Trinity and whether Mary was the mother of God in the beginning of the age of Christendom (fourth century), even before there was a Catholic church (110 A.D.) there was original primitive Christianity.

While some of the focus of Christianity remains, much has changed over the millennia. The question is whether all or even any of the different traditions that have developed are correct, or the original believers were the ones that actually got it the most right. The place to start is by looking at the beliefs and practices of original, primitive Christianity, and seriously consider embracing them again even though some of them may be radically different from what you or I hold today.

In the days of original, primitive Christianity:

(In the listings below hyperlinks offer more information on the point being made.)

Elements usually still held today:

Elements still held today by some:

Elements held today by few, if any believers:

Elements that are divisive today but didn’t appear to exist then:

The most current blogs (articles) are below. The articles can touch on a large number of topics including ancient history, the original language of the bible, grammar and logic, dividing doctrines besides the basics of Christianity, what Jesus taught, and development (movements) in Christianity throughout the centuries. For an organized listing of the blogs (articles) to get an overview and better understanding of the contents on this web site, go to the table of contents. There is more information on design of this website on this page; look on the right sidebar under Original Christianity and click “Why? Click to Read More…”

The Marvelous Story of Esther, Absent From Early Canons of Scripture

The teaching in church this week centered on the inspiring story of Esther. In a nutshell when Xerxes was king of Persia the Queen was named Vashti. And in a moment of defiance Vashti refused the command of the King. After consulting with his advisers the king decided on a process to find a new Queen, and the beautiful Queen he chose was Esther. Esther had been warned of by her kinsmen Mordecai to not advise the King that she was a Jew because of animosity towards the Jews. As it turned out an Agagite named Haman conspired to get rid of all the Jews and in a thrilling story of bravery and courage Esther is instrumental in ridding the Jews of this direct attack, in elevating her kinsmen Mordecai and in providing for the welfare of all the Jews under Xerxes.  It is an amazing story of bravery, and deliverance.

As much as I love the story of Esther however I must report that there is considerable evidence that Esther, whether true or not, was not a book of the Old Testament according to at least some writings of the day.

Look at this quotation from you Eusebius’ church history:

Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting! Since you have often, in your zeal for the Word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the Word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, 1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs or Wisdom, 2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, 3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. 4 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.[i]

Notice in the above listing that the book of Esther is missing.

With that  again I have to say that it pains me to have to present this because to me the story of Esther has always been a thrilling and inspiring story. But, besides being our Savior, the Lord Jesus was also the greatest prophet ever and he said this about reading the Scriptures:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, (Joh 5:39 ESV)

While the story of Esther is certainly one of the Jewish people being saved at the time it holds the distinction of being one of two books (the other being Song of Solomon) that do not mention God.  It does not include any of the genealogy of the bloodline of our Savior. While Esther is a story of deliverance it doesn’t testify of jesus.   And as noted above it was left out of at least some of the early Christian centuries’ canons of Scripture.  Also throughout the centuries it has not been accepted universally.  Look at this quote from a website called patheos.com:

John Calvin did not include the book in his biblical commentaries and only referenced it once in the Institutes(see 4.12.17). Though he included it in his Bible, Martin Luther was highly ambivalent about it. “I am so great an enemy to . . . Esther, that I wish [it] had not come to us at all, for [it has] too many heathen unnaturalities,” he said in Table Talk 24. And in one exchange with Erasmus he said it “deserves. . . to be regarded as noncanonical.”[ii]

What this suggests is significant in a number of ways:

  1. the Canon of Scripture might not be as divinely inspired as some would have us believe.
  2. The statements of belief of many Christian churches today includes the statement that the 66 books included in the modern Christian Bible are divinely inspired, and the word of God. This is a relatively recent doctrine and not something that has consistently been believed throughout the ages.

I have said elsewhere in places on this website that many churches teach that they are the first century church living in the 21st century. But this is clearly not the case. There were at least some of the earliest church fathers who did not hold that Esther and some of the other books in the Bible were divinely inspired by God. And hundreds of years ago in the forming of the Reformation the founding reformers also challenged some of the books that current statements of belief propound to be true. In other words, churches in Melito’s time, in Luther’s time, in Calvin’s time would not have made the statement that the 66 books of the Bible are all divinely inspired pieces of the word of God.

It is vitally important to me to remember that the true word of God is not a book as much as it is the person of Jesus Christ. And it is helpful in recognizing that much of the disagreement among churches centers around a dogma that God authored the 66 books and the arguments that promote divisions weaken when we acknowledge that that statement of belief is a modern invention and not one held by the reformers nor the early Christians.

The faith of the early Christians as well as the reformers like Luther and Calvin was not based on the doctrine that the 66 books of the modern Christian bible are the word of God, and neither should ours be.

 

[i] The Face of the Early Fathers, William a Jurgens, volume 1, p.81. This is a quote by St. Melito of Sardes which is a fragment in Eusebius, history of the church, book 4, chapter 26. The estimated date of this citation is 170 AD.

[ii] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmiller/2013/06/youre-reading-the-wrong-book-of-esther/

Apologies and Restitution

We have all seen the following scenario:  little Joey and Tommy are playing in the playground. Joey starts hitting Tommy. Joey’s mom comes over and separates the boys and tells little Joey that he needs to say I’m sorry. Little Joey doesn’t want to say I’m sorry, but after a while reluctantly agrees, and mutters a begrudging “I’m sorry”.  Now that she’s gotten an apology from Joey for Tommy the stressed mama makes sure the boys are still separate, and backs off.  However, in a few minutes, the incident starts again, maybe this time it’s Tommy hitting Joey, or it could just as well be Joey hitting Tommy again. We’ve all seen it.

First of all, we want to acknowledge that mom is doing a good thing in getting her son to apologize.  But my question is did the mother really do everything she could to help the situation. Well, if all she wants to do is teach the principle of saying “I’m sorry” after an injustice, then yes she did.  But if she wants to teach her child to build relationships then there certainly is a lot more work to be done here.

While we’re on the topic, the above example is young children but it seems many adults follow the same principle. In that principle all that you ever have to do is apologize, i.e., say “I’m sorry”.

The problem is that just saying “I’m sorry” does not: number one, restore the relationship to a healthy state, and number two, fulfill the guidance that the Bible has provided throughout the ages.

He entered Jericho and was passing through. And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luk 19:1-10 ESV)

Zacchaeus was a rich tax collector, because of that he was not popular. But our Lord praised him, both by staying at his house, and also with his words.  The principle that this section brings out is the principle of restitution. If Zacchaeus defrauded someone he restored him fourfold.  That means if Zacchaeus wrongly took a thousand dollars from someone, he gave them four thousand to correct the situation.

Now, before I go too much further, I do want to say a word about restitution and the law. I have heard it argued that Christians don’t need to make restitution because they are not under the law, and it was the law that required restitution. But I say to you, that not all things in the law are limited to being only part of the law. For example, the law made exact provisions for honoring the principle of resting on the Sabbath, and because of that, some people say resting on the Sabbath is part of the law so we don’t have to do that. But I say to you, that God rested on the seventh day of creation before there was ever a law and so set the example that a day of rest is an eternal principle that is not limited to the law. Likewise, the Law was full of offerings, but we see in the first chapters of Genesis in the story of Cain and Abel the principle of offerings to the Lord and that they should be worthy of being an  offering.  Giving to God, making an offering, is a universal principle outside the confines of the law, So, likewise, is the principle of restitution: when someone has harmed someone or caused them loss, in order to restore the relationship, the person’s loss needs to be paid back as closely as possible. And if you look at the examples in the Bible of restitution, what is paid back is most often more than what was lost.  Zacchaeus above paid fourfold.   There are varying amounts in the law:

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard. “If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution. “If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.(Exo 22:1-7 ESV)

The above section call for “full restitution”, double, fourfold and fivefold restitution in varying cases.  Those amounts were under the law which no longer binds us.  But the examples of restitution show that the person is generous in making restitution.

Restitution shows the goodwill of the restorer. The person making restitution wants the injured party to feel good about their relationship again.

The Empty Apology

The complete opposite of restitution is the empty apology. The empty apology goes like this; Frank and Mary worked in the same shop. Frank goes into the refrigerator and eats Mary’s sandwich. Mary finds out that it was Frank that ate the sandwich and Frank says “I’m sorry.”  Mary is a generous person, and since  this the first time this has happened she says okay and walks away. But a few days later Frank is hungry again, and sees Mary’s sandwich in the refrigerator and eats it.   Mary again finds out that it’s Frank but Frank is quick to apologize again, and says I’m sorry. Mary is a little troubled but forgives again. Then it happened the third time.  Mary is now upset with Frank. She tries to talk with him but his response is “I said I’m sorry!”  The words “I’m sorry” imply that there were feelings of remorse, and consequently, that the infraction would not be repeated. Clearly Frank does not have that understanding. Rather, Frank appears to have the understanding that you can do anything you want and the only price you’ll ever have to pay are two words, “I’m sorry.” Frank’s apology is empty.

The example of eating a sandwich may not relate to you.  The example could be 1 of a million other things, someone not sharing in the chores, a family member spending more than their share of family funds on fun items, not cleaning up messes, and those are just light examples.   How about more serious ones like mates flirting with other people, mates cheating with other people,  getting into fights, staying out drinking, or taking someone’s car without permission.  There are a  million issues that come up between people, the list goes on and on, i.e., always making you late, or always making you wait, etc. etc. etc.

And there are a ton of excuses; “I forgot” being maybe the biggest.  “I forgot”, “it didn’t seem important”, “I couldn’t help myself”, “I got too busy” all show a lack of care for the person you say this to.  “I didn’t agree with you”, “I’m not going to do that”, or even “you’re crazy if you think I’m going to do that”  are inflamatory words that will increase the conflict.  (Certainly there are times when someone has unreasonable expectations but I’m not talking about those.  I have given examples of clear infractions here starting with Joey hitting Tommy.)

The point is that the words “I’m sorry” are empty if they are not followed by action. Of course we are encouraged to forgive one another knowing that God for Christ’s sake has forgiven us. And we certainly want to teach our kids to forgive as well as practice it ourselves.   But we are also to be wise as serpents. And when we see someone constantly violating, constantly performing some grievance, we are not going to feel loved, or possibly even safe in that relationship.

Restitution

So what does it take to restore a relationship? If you make a mess, you clean it up, whether it’s your stuff or not. If a little child takes a toy from another child they should at least let the other child pick one of theirs that they can play with for a while. The point is that the other child needs to feel the love.

Sometimes to restore a relationship you offer something the other person wants. If the person you offended already cleaned up the mess you made perhaps there’s a gift you can give them along with the reassurance that in the future you’ll clean up the mess. If you destroy someone’s clothes you buy them clothes as nice or nicer than that you destroyed.  Or if you’re always making someone late maybe you can do the seemingly impossible and start being ready before the other person so that they can see the you are genuinely committed to being on time.

In a fight sometimes both parties need to make restitution.  Maybe the other person started it but you allowed yourself to heap false accusations and false motives on the other person.  At the very least you need to acknowledge that your words were not true and express the good characteristics that the other person has but that you maligned.

Restitution is not some legal principle of the law of the Old Testament that was only enacted by a tough God in that tough set of precepts called the Law.  Restitution is the principle used of by loving people to restore love to the relationship.

So both in parenting and in our own lives we need to teach and practice apologies with restitution as part of the system of restoring relationships and not as a way to say a quick “I’m sorry” and exonerate ourselves as we continue to act selfishly.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

 

 

A Simple Faith

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod’s president Rev. Mark G. Schroeder made the statement: “We rejoice that even in the Catholic Church (where we believe the gospel has been distorted) there are many Catholics who hold to a simple faith in Jesus Christ as their savior and who will ultimately be saved,”i

I focus here of Schroeder’s point of a shared simple faith. He wasn’t the first to say it, I’ve heard it more times and places than I can count. In its simplest form it states that there is a basic set of beliefs that unites all true Christians of any denomination.

The Apostle Paul addressed what this concept of simple faith is when he wrote to the Corinthians.

Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,”

(1Co 15:3-4 ESV)

Our simple faith starts here. Jesus redeemed us. We were all dead in sin. Jesus who never sinned paid the price for that sin by dying on the cross for us, the ultimate sacrifice. There are a number of elements that we share in our common faith but they start here. We are redeemed by out risen Lord and Savior.
The Corinthians are examples of believers who strayed off the simple faith that our Lord brought. The first chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians tells us that:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) (1Co 1:10-16 ESV)

We could say the same things about denomination leaders. Was the pope crucified for you, or Martin Luther, or John Wesley, or the leaders of the Southern Baptists, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, or any other faction in the church today? Were you baptized in any of their names?

The succeeding chapters in both letters to the Corinthians cover issue after issue that was contended by the factions including who they followed as a leader, family and marriage issues, sex outside marriage, dating, offering things to idols, holy communion, spiritual gifts and manifestations, the resurrection, dealing with anxiety, persecution and other stresses, and giving.

The list of things contended may be different today but the charge to resolve the factions still remains and will remain as long as the Lord tarries.

So let us all remember, as the Apostle Paul charges,

For when one may say, Truly I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos; are you not fleshly? What then is Paul? And what Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, and to each as the Lord gave? I planted, Apollos watered, but God made to grow. So as neither he planting is anything, nor he watering, but God making to grow. So he planting and he watering are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For of God we are fellow-workers, a field of God, and you are a building of God. According to God’s grace given to me, as a wise master builder, I laid a foundation, but another builds on it. But let each one be careful how he builds. For no one is able to lay any other foundation beside the One having been laid, who is Jesus Christ. And if anyone builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, the work of each will be revealed; for the Day will make it known, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire will prove the work of each, what sort it is. (1Co 3:4-13 LITV)

Paul says no man can lay any foundation other than what was laid: Jesus Christ, and that is the only thing that matters, everything else will be burned up in the end.
So lets all everywhere always remember that it is about what Christ achieved for us, and we are fellow laborers in this endeavor so lets act like it.

ihttps://wels.net/about-wels/what-we-believe/, Wels.net is a website run by The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod’, This page is entitled “What we believe”

Biblical references are from the ASV version unless otherwise noted.
Posts and articles © copyright Mark W Smith 2007 - 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Mark W Smith and OriginalChristianity.Net with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. You can reach Mark by emailing Mark at OriginalChristianity.net.

close to attraction

WordPress adaptation by Tara Aukerman | Original design by Andreas Viklund