Ted A. Roberts's Blog, page 4

The understanding of the Inner and Outer-Man are anything but simple!

The understanding of the Inner and Outer-Man are anything but simple... That is, when we try and figure it all out with a carnal mind ... The simplicity of Christ is actually complicated to fleshly man; so, if we try and decipher God's Word with a carnal mind, at all, then we'll always fail miserably at our task ... Paul had, indeed (in 2nd Corinthians 1:12 "...in simplicity and godly sincerity ..."; and 2nd Corinthians 11:3 "...the simplicity that is in Christ."), spoke of the simplicity of Christ. Which, simplicity, by the way, is only achieved by deciphering the Word of God with the Mind of Christ; for, we're not merely speaking about common sense matters only – such as saying that we need to be good to one another in this hateful world (which, certainly, is a large step away from ungodly ways) – but, when we dig into deeper matters of the hidden, Godly mysteries (as is spoken of in 1st Corinthians 2:7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory."), we are at a complete loss until God shines a spiritual light onto these subjects for us – especially when we're talking about topics such as the Inward and Outward-Man. If and when we try to decipher anything with the carnal Mind of Man, then we're always going to be way off base from ever discovering the truth of the Word of God; which I've already discussed thoroughly in my book 'In the Beginning: it was spiritual from the very start.' But, basically, it's the Spirit of Truth who'll lead us and guide us unto all truths (St. John 16:13 "...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."); certainly not by the spirit of man. Once truth is obtained, and actually understood, the truth will then seem very simple – making us free (St. John 8:32 "...the truth shall make you free."), free from the lies of flesh – causing us to wonder how we ever missed truth in the first place! It's the journey there, though, whilst contending with our interfering fleshly mind, which makes it difficult; for, nobody has a fully developed and mature spiritual mind at their first approach to the scriptures, because those are our baby years, as we take baby steps toward our ultimate goal of Godly knowledge, wisdom and understanding. However, within such a venture as to investigating these matters at all, a fleshly, carnal mind has absolutely no place in the participation (even though it intrudes, nonetheless!). So, therefore, again, if we are trying to read and decipher things by the wisdom of man, we'll always complicate matters so much more that (without obtaining the Mind of Christ along the way) we'll ever be learning but never come to the knowledge of the truth (2nd Timothy 3:7) ... Again, the simplicity of Christ is complicated to the Mind of Man; but, it's no longer complicated once we understand things with God's help.

1 Corinthians 2:7 - But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the HIDDEN wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is a quick excerpt from an upcoming Christian, Theological book, called: “The Church and the Five-Fold Ministry” by Ted Roberts.

Chapter 2, from an upcoming Christian Theological book

Chapter 2
Should We Put Our Trust in Man?

Psalm 118:8–9
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

There's a question that arises in many hearts: Should we put our trust in man?

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

This passage, as expressed by the editors of the King James Version (KJV) – a Bible translation which has reigned supreme for many years – may actually cause some individuals to misunderstand what Paul was suggesting.*5 We may hear Christian leaders today declare boldly: "Follow me as I follow Christ!," just as the man Moses led the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt – as he himself was led by God. But, the children of Israel, in turn, had actually questioned Moses' authority, asking if he, indeed, were truly being led by God; as there were those who questioned the Apostle Paul's authority, and even that of Jesus. So, and since they were found to be true men of the Word, why question any of our pastor's authority today? Follow them, many say, as they are themselves following God. Is that not the pattern of heaven? . . . But, how do other Bible versions render that passage in 1st Corinthians?

Tyndale, 1535 A.D.
Folowe me as I do Christ.

About the same – which isn't surprising, though, seeing that the KJV (King James Version) is mostly an update of Tyndale's translation, anyway (as seen at the last part of my End Note, called: 'May actually cause some individuals to misunderstand what Paul was suggesting...') . . . But, how about J.P. Green’s more modern, literal translation?
J.P. Green, Sr. Literal, from the Interlinear
Be IMITATORS of me, as I am also of Christ.

Now, that’s a bit different . . . But, what does the Greek say?

Imitator/Follower: Mimetes, G3402, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G3401; an imitator: follower. [G3401, mimeomai: Middle voice from mimos (a mimic); to imitate: follow.]

So, either version could be right in one sense or another. However, the KJV could lead one to believe that pastors become authoritative leaders (maybe even 'mediators' between the saints and God!), when all along Paul could have simply meant that others should, on their own steam, press toward the mark and goal of Christ, even as he was trying himself, with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12*6) . . . So, what's the real answer? Do we follow the man of God (i.e. have him become our headship that we follow blindly) as he leads us to Christ; and, to let him be our mediator between us and God? Or, as J.P. Green Sr. seems to suggest, to simply follow the pastor's example, and 'imitate' his pattern of Godly dedication? . . . In fact, of the approximately 38 Bible versions compared over at the online page 'Bible Study Tools' (which can be seen at: www.biblestudytools.com/1-corinthians...), we see, boldly, that most of them emanate the imitating of Paul's own actions (or, suggests following his example), rather than the people following him personally, as if he were their headship . . . While having that in mind, let's now closely examine our modern day man of God. But, just who is the man of God? Again, is it our pastor? For, indeed, anymore and in many places, it seems as if the pastor is the only recognized authority ordained out of heaven itself; and, a lot of times, ordained out of Bible Colleges. I have heard of church meetings where if you weren't even a pastor, you weren't allowed to get up to speak or preach. Ministers seem to forget that there were four other leadership offices mentioned by the Apostle Paul: evangelist, prophet, teacher and apostle (Ephesians 4:11). But, if you see what is happening, a pastor usually has the power over a group of people to be their spokesman for and from God. And, a lot of times, a pastor will even take on the office of a teacher; some will take on the office of a prophet; and, there will be a few to apostolize other churches. So, then, when the pastor becomes the only recognized authority (let us look at this in reality), how far should he go in becoming a shepherd to the people? How much power is he allowed to wield over the people under his care? Can any of the sheep question his authority? Is everything he teaches the people gold nuggets of truth streaming down from heaven?

Let's look at it like this (and this will only apply to some – but, not to all), when you first came to church to "come and get saved," you looked upon the church 'system' as Godly ordained. You walked into the church building, sat down quietly, and looked around yourself to see what was happening. The first thing that you noticed was a congregation of people assembled together for one purpose – to worship God. Everyone there had a long week at work or at school, and were there to get a washing from God before they had to go face another week of the same thing all over again . . . The first actions they performed in the service was to sing songs, usually about Jesus, the things that he did, had to suffer, his crucifixion and his glorification. The next thing that happened was that the pastor got up and asked a few people to testify about what the Lord had done for them during the last week. After those things, the pastor then preached his sermon of which he had been studying for the entire week; and, he made it as short as possible, for he knew that the people were anxious to get out of the church building as quickly as possible to prepare for their new week of work and hardships. Therefore, his sermon would be cut to just under an hour. Then, he would ask the people if they needed any prayer; or, if it was a Sunday night, he might have asked for everyone to come to the alter for prayer so that he and his prayer warriors could pray for them. Or, the pastor would ask everyone to bow their heads down low, and to not look up, and asked for people to secretly raise their hands if they needed prayer . . . These are some of the things that happen in a lot of organized churches. Different churches and different beliefs will do things a little differently, but on the whole, they are basically all the same. There's not a lot of difference in one from another.

Even in unorganized churches, things are similar, as well; but, when you get to a little more sophisticated churches, they do things quiet differently, such as letting the Spirit lead the services. There, anyone's allowed to get up to sing a song, testify, or preach if they feel led to do so by the Holy Spirit. There's more liberty in such a setting; but, basically in appearances there are many similarities to organized religion. For instance, there's a pastor who conducts the services, sitting on a platform that sets above the common floor; and, all the sheep are faced toward him and his fellow ministers. And, the people still look toward him for guidance, inspiration, learning and healing.

Even though a very "loose" approach to the world of churches (and, I know for certain that many folks won't like my illustrations, as they may see them as inaccurate to all churches), it's still a pretty accurate picture, though, to many; and, I know that I had missed many points that happen in a lot of them, and not everything that I mentioned happens in all.

However, and nevertheless, now that you are settled in your church (in a lot of cases – but, again, not in every situation), you start to become a little uneasy. And, if so, then why is this? What's happening? You may begin to notice things that are very unusual. There are 'political' things happening that you had never noticed before: back–bitings, talebearers, whisperers, betrayals from your fellow Christians, and even (God–forbid) from the pastor himself!

But, you were thinking that he was a man of God, ordained by God himself – incapable of deceit, corruption, or betrayal; and, you may say to yourself: "And he goes and commits this folly?"*7 And, you then realize that he's just as human as you are yourself; and, can surely make mistakes, too. So, what do you do now? You found out, like I said, that your pastor was human, after all; and, he may have hurt you in one way or another. Some people, upon seeing these things, either quit church altogether, join another church, or start a new church of their own – sometimes in the same faith and belief; or, even start a new denomination. And, by so doing, they will add yet another name to the Earth! You found yourself naked, and was so anxious to clothe yourself with a new faith or belief or religion, so you clothe yourself with another name, and cover your nakedness with a fig leaf.*8

Again, what's happening? Why are there so many religions? Why are there so many men of God? Are those, who are claiming to be men of God, actual ministers? Why do so many want to rule over others? Why do so many want to be an authority and in power and not to be just an equal? Do we listen to that man on the platform who is behind the pulpit? Do we consider his words? Do we do what he says for us to do? Do we obey his words? How much power does that man have over us? Do we fear the powers that be, and take heed to his words of how to conduct our lives?

St. John 13:13–15 (Jesus speaking)
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Is this passage suggesting that we are to give one another an occasional, literal foot washing? And, by actually doing so, is this showing love toward one another? Or, is the bottom line of Jesus' lesson simply to teach us to give reverence to each other as a brotherhood? A lesson, of which, we really should not take so literally? What this is telling us is just to prefer one another above our own selves, and is not to mean that we must cater to the minister's every need.

St. John 13:16–17 (Again, Jesus speaking)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

Who is your lord of whom you are not greater than? Your pastor? Your man of God? Or, is it, as this passage actually suggested, only Jesus? No, you are not greater than, nor ever will have a higher status than the man Jesus; and, he's certainly our Lord; and, the rest of the people, namely you and I, are God's children – and, are not to usurp authority over one another (as I'll be covering, in detail, in the following, upcoming pages); for, again, that's the spirit of a Gentile – a type of fleshly wisdom and thought that we simply must put down and begin to actually prefer our brethren (brethren meaning both male and female – see the Galatians quote just below) above our own selves. And, this saying is true for both minister and saint.

Galatians 3:26–28
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But how far does that go? Does that not include pastors or any other ministers in the equation? And, by me asking this, am I insinuating that God does not set apart a ministry to teach others who are of lesser understanding? Actually, what I'm trying to point out is just because one may have greater understanding on certain issues than another, that it does not mean, in the least, that they are a better person – as many ministers have taken upon that thought and action. But, in all actuality, if you truly are greater in understanding, then you actually become a servant unto others, rather than you becoming the master! For, if a master role is taken by the minister, then a spirit of a Gentile does form.

Matthew 20:25–28
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister [i.e. servant*9]; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

But, what has happened? Have the roles reversed? Are the great being served by the less instead of the less being served by the great? And, in turn, making them greater than what they already are? And, does the earthly saying apply when it says that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Do the rich in truth and knowledge increase their learning whilst the poor in truth and knowledge decrease into nothing?

Now, and to what is to be expressed in the next chapter, please take no offense; but, do consider and see things for what they really are. And, do not think that I judge anyone personally by the things that I will be expressing from here on out. But, instead, let us look at this in the light of reality, and observe these things with wonderment, and comparing them with scriptures with what is happening in today's society. Can we not glean actual happenings from the Bible and compare them with our everyday lives? And, cannot we see people for who they truly are? And what they truly are?

Ecclesiastes 1:9–10
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

In other words, people remain the same, yesterday and today and from now on.


END NOTES for Chapter 2
Should We Put Our Trust in Man?

*5. May actually cause some individuals to misunderstand what Paul was suggesting...
I had actually went over, in some pretty good detail (in my book: 'In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start'), about the pros and cons of biblical translations into English; I had also suggested therein, that there are certainly differences in sentence and word expressions in ages gone by than as compared to today; knowing, assuredly, that they, too (i.e. the King James Version panel), had to deal with ancient languages themselves when they translated the Bible from the original languages (that is, when we realize that this translating task was mostly William Tyndale's work**), where (as I've just said) expression of thought and phrase can be varied as to what we might understand now ... I will be covering, with greater detail, the topic of Bible translations in an upcoming book, called 'The Bible is not a buffet.' But, in the meantime, please know that with my present wording (i.e. 'the KJV may actually cause some individuals to misunderstand what Paul was suggesting') wasn't issued as a warning for the reader to be leery of that particular translation; but, to be aware, instead, of modern phrasing as opposed to older and more ancient phrasing; and, also knowing that the audience of the 1600's AD may have actually understood this KJV thought perfectly when it was compared to the original teaching that Paul was trying to convey in Greek. Also, and because of that, we aren't to suddenly think that the KJV is ready for the trash can; or, that it's no good for us today. That opinion belongs in the pros and cons argument of Bible translations, as well. I will add, though, that it may be a wiser decision to become educated on the KJV 'language' rather than trusting in some modern 'corrupted' Bible versions. But, and again, as to what these are (that is, which versions may be corrupted), I will get in detail about that in my upcoming book on that topic.

**That is, when we realize that this translating task was mostly William Tyndale's work...
I slipped this statement in because I wanted to let my audience know that I am aware of what the KJV claims on its cover page that, not only do the translators say that their version was "newly translated out of the original tongues," but, that it also said (and, more accurately, I might add!) that it was also "with the former translations diligently compared and revised." These translations, one should know, were predominately only one, and that was William Tyndale's work from about a hundred years beforehand (approximately AD 1535), who was the very first person to directly translate the Bible from the original languages; especially since John Wycliff's Version (circa AD 1390 – which, before Tyndale, was the only complete English Bible in existence) was merely translated from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate of the late 4th century AD. The translations that appeared between Tyndale and the KJV (within that hundred year gap), were also, dominantly, Tyndale translations, too ... For further research on Tydale's translation being a main influence (if not the main influence) for the KJV, please see 'God's Secretaries: The making of the King James Bible,' by Adam Nicolson (Perennial/Harper Collins Publishers, 2004) – especially on pages 221-225; and, without trying to infringe on copyright issues, I'd like to at least quote Mr. Nicolson on page 224, when he says: "Far from burying Tyndale, the 1611 translators honoured him. They were quite explicit about their debt to the past." Not only so, but on page 220, when explaining that the KJV panel tried to put their task beyond his (as in, advancing, not destroying), he says: "What they did could not have been done without Tyndale." Also, see 'Book of Fire: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the bloody birth of the English Bible;' by Brian Moynahan (Abacus, 2011). And, perhaps more especially, the works by David Daniell – who has been called the foremost modern authority on both William Tyndale and William Shakespeare. His works include fresh Tyndale old and new testament publications (1992 Yale University, OT; and 1989 NT). His introductions and notes therein are extremely helpful! Also, David Daniell's own biography on Tyndale, called: 'William Tyndale: A Biography' (1994, Yale University).

*6. With fear and trembling...
Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

*7. And he goes and commits this folly?...
I certainly hope that by now I haven't lost my audience! That is, in believing that I am going into a direction that I'm really not. It may seem from my wording that I am against pastors; but, such is certainly not the case – as I had explained in my Introduction, which I have added in the early part of this book because I wanted to detour any wrong thoughts concerning this writing before even beginning this journey ... In fact, one of my own mentors, years ago (back in the mid to late 1990's) whom I thought was dead-set against there being any pastors (since he seemed to hound on them just about every time he preached!), had told me, just a few days before he passed on (whilst sick in a hospital bed) that he predicted that 'ol so-and-so would become a pastor themselves. I told him: "But, brother, you are against pastors! How can you make this prediction?" "Who said that I am against pastors?" he asked me, with a grimace. "I have gathered that from your own words," I replied. "Ted," he said to me, "I have never been against pastors – it's dictators that I am against! But, God had ordained for there to be pastors." And, that saying of his has stuck with me unto this day. It said a lot ... By the way, that prediction of his did come true ... I, too, am in agreeance that pastors are very much needed, as well as the leadership of the other four offices, too. And, as will be seen in the upcoming chapters of this book, I do support a five-fold ministry (even though there are other callings and offices of the ministry, these five represent leadership positions in the church), but ONLY if they are conducted in the way that God intended – and that's without (as my old mentor had said) being a dictator. A pastor, my friends, should be a loving, and kindhearted parent, who is interested in allowing and helping a child to grow up, and to become mature themselves. Even in nature, a mother bird will sometimes kick her babies out of the nest if they are staying in too long, so that they can learn to fly, because the baby simply needs to learn how to gather and find food for their own survival. So, it's 'unnatural' for any kind of parent to hold back a child. Why is it healthy, then, for a spiritual parent to hold back God's children? It's not only unnatural, it's unethical, wrong, and anti-biblical ... Please take note that most of my statements in this present chapter (chapter 2 – and, indeed, carried on over to chapter 3!) are directed toward ministers who are holding people back from growing to their full, intended potentials – from both prematurely ordained novices, and, too (more especially, though) from actual dictators. But, I'm not meaning properly-called pastors who are working within their gifts correctly; for, I know for a fact that there are good pastors and ministers out there, even if they may seem to be the 'minority' of the pastoral group.
*8. You cover your nakedness with a fig leaf...
I almost left that statement out of this book, I now laughingly admit! For, it seems a little ill-fit with the rest of my words. My wife, however (during the final editing stages), insisted that I leave it in; and, I realize that she's right, for it really does fit in perfectly with what I'm trying to convey. Back in the year 2000, however, when I first wrote those words in, I was in a passion to express a certain thought without realizing, though, that it could raise a serious eyebrow or two ... For the folks who know exactly what I meant by the statement, this End Note would probably seem unnecessary; but, I know for certain that others will be scratching their heads over the phrase ... Of course, this has a direct connection to the story of the Garden of Eden, with the incident of Adam and Eve when they realized that they had done something wrong.

Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

A host of thoughts can be gleaned from this situation; and, too, many more thoughts with my own connection in the main part of this book (i.e. during chapter 2); but, I will try and be brief with my explanation ... First of all, we should realize that, in proper, metaphorical, biblical analysis, there's a really huge difference in being 'naked' and being 'nude.'

1 Corinthians 4:11
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace.

We don't, of course, imagine Paul and his comrades nude in this situation! ... This next verse will explain his meaning:

Hebrews 4:13
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest [clearly visible] in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Here, with this statement, we see a connection with the Genesis account, in that nothing can be hid from God. Naked, in this case, is an exposure toward God of the intents and thoughts of a person's heart ... Adam and Eve suddenly felt that they needed to have a covering other than God's – as if God's covering wasn't enough for them! Or, that they were too ashamed to have His covering anymore because of their wretched sin. That's why God asked them: "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" – Genesis 3:11. Especially since, earlier in the story, they were already aware of their nakedness, and weren't even ashamed of it.

Genesis 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Or, I should say, and as Paul had suggested in Hebrews 4:13, that their hearts were open and exposed to God, and they weren't ashamed, and needed not to hide anything about themselves within God's kingdom; because, up until that time, they had done nothing wrong. Committing a great sin, however (which sin, by the way, was a wish to usurp unearned, unmerited authority – to become as gods [Genesis 3:5 "...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"], much like dictators over churches try to do; of which subject – concerning our first parents – I fully intend on exploring in my upcoming book on 'Adam and Eve,' Part II in the 'Spiritual Side of Creation' book series), they suddenly felt a great need to cover themselves with another name other than God's. That is, they needed the name of Adam (see Genesis 5:2 – i.e. '1st man Adam', as seen in 1st Corinthians 15:22 "in Adam all die...;" and 1st Corinthians 15:45 "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit"); which, all that basically means is possessing the name of religiously, carnal 'man,' as opposed to simply having the name of God. But, with the sin of their disobedience came a great shame, and a need for another covering besides what God had already provided. It's not a coincidence, therefore, that their new covering was made of a fig leaf ... Why is that? ... We must seriously ask ourselves why it had to be that of a fig tree. Why not any other tree leaf? Because of the size of the fig leaf? That it was bigger than the others? No. I'm sure other leaves could have been big enough; but, there was a spiritual significance to it being that of a fig tree – a thought, of which, I had traveled down pretty well in my book 'In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start,' in linking the fig tree, metaphorically, to the religious, Israeli nation of the Old Testament (i.e. Hosea 9:10b "...I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time." And, as seen in the parable of Luke 13:6-9 "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none...," etc – which, in turn, links directly with Matthew 21:19-20 and Mark 11:13-14; 20 "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet") ... I'm not speaking of the natural land over in Israel or Judea, but the Hebrew nation as a religious state: of their covenant and worshipping of God (which began with their fathers Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) – which ultimately led to the corrupted religious leadership of Jesus' day: i.e. Pharisees, Sadducees, etc ... Even Moses had warned the Israeli nation that they, religiously and spiritually, would fall horribly away from God's ways:

Deuteronomy 31:29
For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.**

And, all of this because, religiously, they began to worship and serve in the name of Adam rather than in the name of God; i.e. they worshipped and served the Creature more than the Creator. So, in our account in Genesis, of the sin that began with Adam and Eve, we see for the first time in history a linking to the religiously carnal mind-set of man, and of wanting to operate, religiously, in their own name rather than God's; and, anytime man wants to do things their own way, religiously – especially for selfish gain, needs and wants – then they, too, are working within that same spirit that Adam and Eve had worked in all those years ago ... So, basically, what I'm saying is that the fig leaf did not represent a piece of natural clothing; it, instead (again, metaphorically), represented a religiously, carnal mind-set of how man had, from that day forward, served and worshipped God in fleshly form; until, that is, Christ had come to reconcile man to the Father, and to introduce a Spiritual path. And, too, I'm also insinuating that every time somebody has a name other than Jesus for their religion, that they, too, had found themselves naked, and did cover themselves with that other name; which, again, is Adam (but, which – indeed! – comes, modernly, in the form of other names, too: religious names that man had invented) ... This, however, is not an insinuation that, since they did end up wearing a fig leaf apron themselves, that they had necessarily committed some atrocious sin as did our first parents; but, is a suggestion that they are operating in the flesh, as many do who are raised in man's religion and know only the fleshly aspects of Jesus (2nd Corinthians 5:16 "...though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more..."), without realizing, of course, that there's a different, and a much better way to Christ; and, that they can, instead, operate 'in spirit and in truth' ... I'll certainly speak more on this idea (i.e. of how many are 'operating' in the flesh instead of the Spirit) within the upcoming chapters of this book; and, too, of Adam himself, of how he was the first to kick-off man's fleshly religion; and, of his connection with our current topic – which, I'll actually begin speaking on him in the very next, upcoming End Note – #9; and, a few more times throughout this book ... I will remind my readers, too (especially those who have trouble with trying to 'spiritualize' some scriptures; or, rather, in seeing some as metaphorical) to please see my book, called: 'In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start,' where I explain in some detail that many verses in our Bibles can be read as allegories – especially the first four chapters of Genesis. Please refer to that book for an explanation.

**The work of your hands...
This statement has a very religious connotation to it: i.e. that man's own dreamt-up religion is the work of their own hands; of which statement can be seen repeated throughout the biblical text. I will explore this idea later on in this book; such as, for one, in End Note #55 for chapter 7, where I will make this more obvious.

*9. Let him be your minister/servant...
The irony of the KJV translation, for Matthew 20:26-27, is in the fact that it said minister when it should have said servant; and, it should have said slave where it said servant. And, even though we had already spoken briefly about a servant/slave in an earlier End Note, it won't do any harm to say a bit more on it for the benefit of this study. Let's, therefore, look a little more closely at these two words:

Minister (from KJV translation), Diakonos, G1249, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: Probably from Diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.

Servant (from KJV translation), Doulos, G1401, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G1210; a slave (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily; frequently therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency): - bond (-man), servant.

Either way you want to look at it, a minister (which, certainly, includes a pastor) is not a master, but a servant (or, I should say, not a 'master' as in modern terms – as one who has servants attending his or her every need). Of course, one could argue that since Jesus was both a servant and a master, that a modern day minister also has that same right (Even though it should be a no-brainer to realize that none of us has the same status and authority as Jesus; and, neither will we ever! – even though, with my own ears, I have heard several ministers of the past putting themselves up to that level). One of my hopes, in this book, is to present a contrary thought to the idea of people waiting hand and foot on a ministry. Basically, if one is to be a spiritual master (as in, a biblical understanding of what that truly is: i.e. a spiritual father or spiritual mother), then one only should look upon that as a role of a loving parent, as I had already suggested (and, of which, I will explore a bit further near the end of this present End Note). Even Jesus said that a true minister would not take upon himself a usurping role, which a worldly person would certainly do. In fact, Jesus further pointed out, in verse 25, of Matthew chapter 20, that a usurping role (and, indeed, a worldly 'master' role) is a thing that only a Gentile would do, but not a true Jew ... Of course, I'm turning this situation, which happens in a natural setting, into spiritual roles for the minister. For instance, and again as verse 25 suggests, only a Gentile would take upon a usurping role over another person's head: which shows us that anybody today, who would do the same thing, would have that same kind of a spirit – hence, as I had pointed out, that modern day person would be displaying a 'Gentile spirit;' or, have the 'spirit of a Gentile;' and, in like manner (or, I should say, in reverse roles), a 'true Jew' – and, I'm not here meaning a 'natural' Jew, of course – would leave such fleshly thoughts behind them.

Romans 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

So saying, that if we are born into God's kingdom today (that is, born again through His Holy Spirit), then no matter what our fleshly nationality had been, we're now a Jew – spiritually speaking, of course – which means, beyond natural nationality, that we are a keeper of God's spiritual laws (Romans 7:22 "I delight in the law of God after the inward man.") ... A lot of ministers seem to forget what their roles in the kingdom should be, and they begin to look upon themselves as an authoritative, mighty titan, who's a lordly master, and who has baby sheep under his or her thumbs! This is exactly what had separated first man Adam from the second man Adam, as both of them had to deal with the same temptation of becoming a usurping god. However, the second Adam succeeded where the first Adam failed ... How so? ... Well, we know from scripture, that there was, indeed, a first man Adam, whom we began learning about in Genesis:

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Notice, though, how Paul handles Adam's situation compared to that of Jesus':

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul [as seen, again, in Genesis 2:7]; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

As for any connecting scriptures that we can use to say that this second Adam was Jesus Himself, we need not go much further than this Romans passage:

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Knowing, assuredly, that Jesus was the first to resurrect from the dead (1st Corinthians 15:20 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."), it's implying that Jesus was quickened (i.e. made alive! – That is, unto true life [i.e. immortality], as opposed to temporal life); and, so, being the first to do so from the tomb, he would be considered the new Adam. That is, a new man.

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh [when he died on the cross] the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain ONE NEW MAN, so making peace.

And, we, too, are needing to do the same, to become a new Adam (a new man), such as he:
Ephesians 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Now, so saying, we can make our connection between the two Adam's; and, we will be able to see clearly that one fell, but the other, in the same situation, overcame. We need not, though, rehash too much about the first Adam's sin, since his story is quite plain from the Genesis account, and of which we can see, without much digging, from Genesis chapter 3, starting in verse 1. But, especially, is this evident from verse 5, when the serpent told Eve that when she and her husband would eat of the forbidden fruit, that not only would their eyes be opened up, but that they would become gods, knowing both good and evil! Of course, and according to verse 6, both Adam and Eve partook of that which was forbidden (we will get into detail, in my book on 'Adam and Eve,' of what that forbidden fruit really was; and, too, of what [or, 'who!'] they were wishing to usurp authority over). We now see Jesus in the same battle, during his wilderness experience, here:

Matthew 4:8-9
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

In other words, you can become a god, if you will bow down to me! And, by doing so, you will become an authoritative dictator over all the people ... Of course, Jesus, as opposed to first man Adam, actually resisted the devil:

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God [i.e. the Father], and him only shalt thou serve.

Now, one could argue the fact that Jesus did become a God, after all! And, such a thought could possibly destroy my theory; except for the fact that because of His desire not to become the man of sin (that is, by bowing to satan's wishes, and being a god on satan's terms), it had afforded the Father to put His Son in that high position. Let's watch this in scripture:

Hebrews 1:8-9
But unto the Son [Jesus] he [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever [See? Here, the Father calls His Son a God]: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [Why? Because...] Thou [Jesus] hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God [the Father], even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows [i.e. above any other prophet or minister of the Old Testament].

Even when Jesus physically walked this Earth, He let folks know who was in charge:

Matthew 19:16-17
And, behold, one came and said unto him [Jesus], Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [Jesus' response?] And he [Jesus] said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God [i.e. the Father]: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Not only so, but Jesus is going to, willingly, give up all his rule and authority (that the Father had given Him), and give it back on over to His Father:

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then cometh the end, when he [Jesus] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he [Jesus] shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. [28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Father], then shall the Son [Jesus] also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.

First man Adam did not have that kind of a spirit. He wanted power without God's involvement, consent or blessing; Jesus, as we see from scripture, never even disobeyed His Father, unlike first man Adam had:

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities [i.e. Jesus; see the verse just above this one]; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

So, what does all this mean? It means that if we are in our own name (i.e. Adam), then we cannot be a proper minister for God; neither can we even be a proper saint!

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Now, as far as a minister's role, in either being a slave or a servant to the saints of God, it's really quite evident of what that means. It's in things, foremost, which calls us to duty as a parent. A good parent would want their own children to succeed in life; and, we should want to see the saints of God triumphant, as well. If we see that a person displays a certain gift in the ministry, then we need to help develop that gift if possible – even if it means that they'll use their gifts in other churches, or other cities, or other countries! We cannot stand in God's way when He works with His children, for one of the biggest differences in rearing a spiritual child than a natural child is that we are only 'temporal' parents, knowing that God is their eternal parent. Therefore, once that child is grown, it is doubly important not to stand in their way, at all! The minister, also, is a steward of the Written Word; realizing, of course, that they're not our words, but God's; therefore, we are not to have a monopoly on the Gospel in any respect, nor to say that we know all possible truth, and 'organize' ourselves in that area; or, that nobody else can even know it as deeply as we. This certainly can confuse a child. It's even okay to say occasionally that you just don't know the answer to some questions – I know that I had to do that on several occasions, but without embarrassment ... The adolescent (in Godly years, not natural years necessarily) will certainly want to know why there are so many divisions amongst Christians; so many denominations; of why they can't go visit another church – especially of another denomination. They should be taught that it is man that's divided, not God ... Now, I'm certainly not opposed to keeping a child safe during their baby years; but, once they start growing, we need not keep discouraging them of exploring other churches; but (and hear me out!), these churches should be within the Christian faith only. As I had explained in an End Note earlier, there is no other religion whereby man can be saved other than that of Christianity, nor any other name that we should be involved in other than Jesus Christ. A wise parent will know how to handle this ... All I'm really suggesting here is that we use wisdom, as parents, when the child asks about other denominations, or even other Christian religions. I know this is a hard thing for many spiritual parents; because they, for the most part, are afraid of other churches, and other denominations; that's why, perhaps, it's best to become educated on these issues themselves first, with unbiased investigations, so that the parent can share proper warnings, but not discouragements; for, we must believe that if others are doing their best to find Christ – through the instructions of the Holy Scriptures, no doubt – to at least let the older student see things for themselves, and not to shelter them too much; for, just like natural teenagers rebel against sheltering, spiritual teenagers will do the same! However, if the other denomination in question doesn't have at least the five fundamental established truths, as I had shown in an End Note for chapter 1, as was written out by the European-American Evangelistic Crusades, then I, too, would be leery to see a student attend. Here are those fundamentals again:

1). The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2). The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3). The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4). The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5). The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

Certainly, it's a different matter entirely when an entire church or denomination doesn't understand the basics of these as opposed to a single, struggling, learning individual, as I had illustrated earlier in this book. Those who call themselves teachers of the Word surely should know these things! Too, the ministry must remember that the Gospel was given for the perfection of the saints – not to stunt their growth:

Ephesians 4:11-12
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

And this perfecting (or, much rather, maturing), is showing us that we really need to allow and help those kids to grow up! I cannot stress this enough, for I have seen too many kids remain kids, even when the saint themselves are an older person in natural years ... We also, as ministers (and, I know that I will get flak for this!) need to teach the child to ask any question that may come to their mind when it deals with God's kingdom – even if that question brings the deity of God under scrutiny. We need not fear such questions from the learning child, but to prepare ourselves with wise answers, and kindly responses that uplift the scriptures without making the student feel stupid for asking such things ... Basically, folks, we serve God's children by teaching them and helping them, both spiritually and naturally. Of course, the natural side of helping certainly includes feeding them, housing them, clothing them, and helping them financially when serious needs arise – but, all within the confines of Godly discernment and prayer; but, never with instant, terrible judgment, as if they are nothing but lazy bums for being in such a predicament in the first place; or, that they're not worthy of our assistance. And, with whatever assistance we do give, we need not look down upon that person as if they are beneath us ... Remember, ministers serve the people's needs, and not the other way around! Unless, of course, the minister is the one in need themselves ... But, with having said all that, I'm certainly not stressing only the natural end of things; but, help can certainly come in other forms, too – which can either be just as important, and sometimes even more important – such as in simply listening to people when they are down and depressed. You'd be amazed of how valuable your time is that you can give for another person. And, of course, we serve them by expounding the scriptures as plainly as possible, which not only can help them during their everyday lives, but can ultimately lead to their salvation ... Now, I am more than aware that a lot of folks, who are poor in finances, might not always be able to feed, house, or clothe the needy, but there are always ways out there of helping. We just need to help these folks find the right paths, of what would be best for their situation – we need to, at least, show them that we care – but, certainly not faking the concern! ... If a church isn't functioning within the confines of helping others, we must seriously ask what they are even doing, at all. Do we think that if a church doesn't help others, that it looks good in God's eyes? Do we believe that God is pleased that we paid $1,000 for a new church sign when there's a family that hasn't eaten in a few days? Do we think that the pastor deserves a car newer than 3 years old when there's an elderly couple in the congregation that are barely getting by financially each month? Do we think the pastor and the other ministers should use church funds to make the church look beautiful when there are so many needs in their community? Folks, I hate to break it to you, but God loves the poor people just as much as the rich. And, He looks at them all in equality.

James 2:1-4
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay [magnificent] clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (published in 1748-1763; 1809; public domain): The saints are all brethren, they are children of the same Father, belong to the same family, and are all one in Christ Jesus, whether high or low, rich, or poor.

READ CHAPTER 1: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

Visit the official webpage: http://www.seekingthegospel.com/churc...

Chapter 1, from an upcoming Christian Theological book

Chapter 1: No Division Amongst God's People

To a great majority of Christians in this world – yet, not to all – a church building and a main pastor behind the helm is the only way of serving God. And, to even dare question such a notion, to many of these Christians, is the first step to heresy. Such questions, however, are being asked in this book . . . I have found (during my own quest), that I must agree with the current saying: “we must think outside the box!” For, I really believe that there's more to God than just what four walls can enclose. But, this will take some time for me to explain, and to assure my readers that I am not enemies to the attendees of these said church buildings, nor to their leaders. But, you'll certainly find some negative references herein concerning the "organized church system."*1 Of course, I personally do not believe in becoming organized – unless it's simply in servitude toward Christ. However, and at the same time, I'm not against individuals who are; nor, with those who are comfortable within such institutions. By no means am I saying anything negative about these attendees; I just do not agree with the governmental–type systems that construct many modern-day churches . . . But, if it may seem that I am attacking the organized church, then please know that I'm certainly not; I'm merely saying things concerning their governmental-structure that has become its backbone – and, of the “mind-set” of many of their leaders who fulfill scripture which describe them as becoming workers of iniquity...

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Because they deny the proper growth of many of God’s people . . . But, does this only concern some who consider themselves organized? Nay; for, as I will slowly paint a picture of, even those who do not consider themselves organized are, indeed, in the same boat together with them who consider themselves so. This stretches the globe of all Christendom!

But, as far as carnal flesh completely taking over as headship, please know that it could be very possible for any of us to be in danger of such a thing within the confines of an actual church building; or, of when a ministry is in charge – which is another subject that shall be covered herein . . . So, and because I had declared this, does it mean that all leaders in churches are bad? Of course I am not saying that; and, neither do I even believe such a thing. In any construct in life, though – whether it be in politics, religion, or even in the business world – you are going to have your bad apples in any bunch; therefore, it is to these bad apples (let’s admit it, they are amongst us!) of whom I'm referring. On the other hand, please know that God did indeed have His hand in the construction of these said industries and rude leaders for one reason or another. Many of these reasons, however, I feel are not for a good outcome. Even when things are Godly ordained, there's still a balance of good and evil.*2

I have many brothers and sisters within the massive walls of these institutions – i.e. these organizational denominations. I care little of what 'denomination' that they may represent; for, those curtains called denominations are not thick enough on any side to deny their relationship with me. Being so the case, whether Baptist, Pentecostal, Oneness, or any other state, I want fellowship with all of them if they are willing to have it with me;*3 because, I know that the word denomination should not be a wall of separation between God’s true children. So, toward these precious individuals, who may find themselves enclosed within a building’s walls, I say nay a thing that may be cross; but, plenty I may convey about the religious 'systems' that they may find themselves in for one reason or another by the hand of the Lord. And, it's very possible, too, that there may be a time for many of them to make their way away from theses states to perhaps explore other areas of His grace. In God’s good time, and only if He chooses to, shall He pull some of His children out from within a governmental-structure that had been pitched by man; or, rather, He may wish to keep them in there as a guide to others who are a little less fortunate in quickly hearing the voice of the good Shepherd as others have done. Perhaps the deciding point on how quickly a move is (if, again, there is even a move) depends on the spirit of the minister of the groups. But, please know that I'm certainly not against pastorship; however, I have absolutely no use for dictators. God ordained pastors; but, many have taken on the role of a dictator – which is the spirit of a Pharisee – and, that's when we start having problems.

But, in all honestly, should there really be division amongst God’s true people?

1 Corinthians 1:10–13
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing [not in man's doctrine – but, in believing in Christ, and in love], and that there be no divisions among you [modern-day terms: no denominations]; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now 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 [I’m Baptist; I’m Oneness; I’m Pentecostal; or any other Christian state]. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Also, I'm certainly not against the gathering together of God's elect – we must not deny ourselves this necessary thing. But, perhaps, the best way to describe what I'm saying is to express the need for fellowship amongst ALL true Christians without the burden of walls to separate them. The actual building itself means nothing, and people can gather there just fine (whether in a large one; or, as the early church members did, in their own homes). What's really important is to not make a small fleshly kingdom built upon the desires of men; and, to keep meetings simple, void of any 'church politics.'

'The Break of Day: The Life Story of William Sowders.' by O'neill:*4
"Let me say this: God brought me through something, when I first started in the ministry that has been a great help to me. I have used many of those things down through the years. I look back to the time when we were having meetings and had no music, not even a guitar. I never did forget those days. We never had a guitar. I never heard any sweeter singing in my life than it was then, and I watched it. Not only did we not have a guitar, but we didn’t have a church house and we didn’t have seats to sit in. When we started the meetings they were the most powerful, richest, grandest meetings that you ever saw. Would you believe that all of these meetings I have come through these 40 years, that I can look back and say, they were the richest meetings I was ever in? When they built a church I told the saints right there, that settles the sweet spirit here in our meetings, they said, why Bro. Will? I said, here we are building a church house. We are taking it out of the humble home down there and we are moving it up here on the hill. We’re going to have church, and the church meetings we have to have a pastor and the pastor means that everything will be orderly. He will be proud and we won’t have it as common as we had it down there. When we started up there on the hill, it was just a battle day after day, battle after battle. Who was going to be the pastor? Who is going to do this? Who is going to do that? Say, so and so wanted to sit here, so and so wanted to sit there? I saw a way back there before that happened that we were gone. We lost the sweetest thing that Pentecost ever had in that day, and I was plenty active. I was investigating around, finding out what this fellow was doing and that fellow and what they had, etc. I was attending their camp meetings. I wanted to go to a big gathering, but God rebuked me and wouldn’t let me go. I was doing all I could in the way of getting out among the people. But we lost the sweetest thing that we ever had back there.”

After reading this book, I truly hope to reveal that I'm not being judgmental of any particular individuals; but, we must all admit that there are 'systems' out there that have been pitched by the spirit of man; and, that these systems in question must not detour the free thoughts that God has allowed us to have in reviewing the sacred text of the Bible; or, to be free to follow God's leading when He speaks to us outside the box.

END NOTES for Chapter 1: No Division Amongst God's People

*1. Organized church system...
Even when many modern day churches say that they understand that the building itself isn't the true church of God, sometimes their actions can say otherwise ... What do I mean? The very idea of being organized doesn't imply that the literal building is the very structure of their enterprise; but, it's really what that organization stands for, and of what practices they perform within the confines of their walls. The governmental systems of the modern church, as I am so calling it, is what that organization has defined as their own code and niche in the church world, of their beliefs that they have established and written down; and, of which, can neither be questioned, challenged, nor changed. Hence, they are boldly crying out that if anybody differs from their beliefs and rules, that they are not only separated from their denomination, but possibly from God Himself! If that's not true, then why become organized in the first place? Such a position and stance can certainly emanate arrogance, as it places a monopoly on the Gospel, seeing as they say that one must embrace their practices and beliefs in order to be saved. It was toward those kinds of thoughts that the Apostle Paul was trying to make a stand against in 1st Corinthians 1:10–13 (which I will be quoting in the main part of this book during chapter one), in saying that there should be no separation of God's people, and that there should be a universal brotherhood within the Christian circles ... However, and at the same time, that's not saying that there isn't a strong foundation and basis for solid Christian belief, and that any 'ol Joe Schmo should make up any doctrine for the benefit of their personal congregation. In fact, and due to the intense emergence of Christian liberalism, there was a work composed, in the early 1900's A.D. (in 12 volumes), called 'Fundamentals' (and, of which, was edited and released in only 4 volumes about 25 years later, by R.A. Torrey) that boldly addressed these issues; and, from its pages, folks have since gathered at least five basic Christian beliefs that should not be altered or changed. Of course, many have challenged these throughout the years; but, there is sense to its basic decree. The internet is filled with different ideas of what these basic stances are, so I thought I'd list what was shown at Wikipedia, since it's a generalized online encyclopedia:
1) The inerrancy of the Bible;
2) The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis;
3) The virgin birth of Christ;
4) The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ;
5) The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ fundamentalism
Quoting a very similar list, the European-American Evangelistic Crusades from Sacramento, CA (www.eaec.org), in an online PDF article, called 'Five Fundamentals of the faith,' added this declaration to their creed:
"Those who disagree with any of the above doctrines are not Christians at all. Rather, they are the true heretics ... if some deny even one of the five fundamentals mentioned above, they have departed from the faith."
But, then, further down in the same document, they added this final statement to soften the blow:
"If you take offense to differences in lesser doctrines, don't think that we are condemning you as unbelievers or heretics. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Which, I personally found to be a complete contradiction to their earlier words ... Here is their own list of established doctrinal beliefs:
1). The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2). The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3). The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4). The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5). The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).
Even though I find nothing wrong with any of these five things that the European-American Evangelistic Crusades had quoted (for, I actually – and strongly – agree with all five of their doctrinal beliefs!), I cannot, however, see how a struggling Christian, who hasn't come to see things similarly, could be considered a heretic. Any Christian should really know that we learn about things slowly over time, and that we never come to pure truth overnight. However, and at the same time, many denominations think that we, as sheep, should automatically accept their established doctrines immediately without question. I actually find, though, that a person who can think for themselves (outside the box) is a better candidate to being a continuing Christian, since no denomination can claim that once a person embraces their beliefs that they are then completely immune to falling back into the ungodly world afterward ... In fact, the same Bible that they claim is inerrant (which, I completely agree with, by the way!) says that there's only one sin that cannot be forgiven (Matthew 12:31 "...the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"; and 1st John 5:16b "...There is a sin unto death..."); but, that didn't include not being in agreeance with all five 'established' fundamental beliefs. As I mentioned already, not everybody can agree with what these five basic doctrinal beliefs even consist of ... Here's another list from www.deceptioninthechurch.com/5doctrines. html:
1). The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.
2). The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
3). The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.
4). Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
5). The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.
And, in this last quoted list, there are a couple of things that even I disagree with! So, if everybody can't even agree with what five to push to the public forefront, then why have a list at all? ... But, like I also said, we don't want just anybody throwing just anything out there, and preaching strange doctrines in the churches of Jesus Christ. After all, there is a single truth, and God does have to personally ordain and send out ministers to preach His pure Word, and to establish that one truth ... So, for fun, I will forward my own list of requirements for any true Christian (at least, a view for what will initially establish a person into God's kingdom to begin with):
1) God alone has the right to call and ordain ministers and stewards of His infallible Word; but, not man (2nd Timothy 1:8-9 "...Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began").
2) The Holy Ghost must speak through ministers; but, not the spirit of man (St. John 7:38 "...out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"; 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak..."). Basically, without the Spirit of Christ dwelling within any believer, we are none of His (Romans 8:9 "...if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his").
3) Jesus is the only way to salvation; and, the only doorway to the Father. By no other name or religion can mankind be saved (Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved").
4) God's Written Word is inerrant (2nd Timothy 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God..."; Isaiah 40:8 "...the word of our God shall stand for ever"; Matthew 4:4 "...Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"; etc.); not, however, any single translation – but, from the original languages. His Living Word leads to ultimate salvation (Ephesians 1:13 "...ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise;" and Ephesians 6:17 "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"). And, only by the Holy Ghost can we fully understand His Word (1st Corinthians 2:12-13 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual").
5) Only with pure agape, Godly love toward one another and to God can we resurrect unto eternal life (1st John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren..."); that is, through the instructions of the Spirit of Truth (St. John 16:13 – quoted a moment ago), as commissioned and established through the unaltered words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away).
All other topics, folks, are up for healthy, friendly discussions; and, they should never be a separating factor if disagreements arise ... Now, it may seem a contradiction to the reader, but I am going to say further on this subject, and to declare boldly that I actually agree to the importance (and, more than anybody else's) of the European-American Evangelistic Crusades' five fundamental doctrinal beliefs; and, to say that, at the end of the day, any true Christian will ultimately see that these are concreted, established truths. My disagreement with that ministry was in saying that we cannot express boldly (because, we do not have that authority!) to say that whomever we meet that disagrees with any of those five statements is a true heretic and a non-believer (that is, of course, if I understood their meaning correctly); for, the point I was trying to make was that everybody is on a different learning level, and that it may take years for somebody to come to a truth, whereas it may have taken minutes for others. God alone is the final judge on whether somebody makes it to be with Him or not ... In my many years of serving God, I have met with a lot of folks who claim to have a love for God and His Word, but not all of them agreed to every one of those five statements that I and the European-American Evangelistic Crusades agree on. It never crossed my mind, though, that because of their 'unbelief,' that they couldn't be an elect of God; but, to the contrary, that they just still had much to learn. Jesus Himself said (Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:13; Mark 13:13) that it is to those of whom will endure until the end that will be saved – not to those who got the pure truth immediately! So, unless a person curses God to our face with malicious joy, then we need not dismiss them from our minds or our prayers (but, even if they do, we can still pray for them! For, we never know whom God has chosen). People need our help and not our unrighteous judgments (St. John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment"). As the Apostle Paul had so plainly said, one plants, one waters, but only God can give the increase (1st Corinthians 3:6-7). And, further, said that neither is he that plants any thing, nor he that waters; but, only God, who gives the increase. So, at the end of the day, it is God of whom will direct the steps of individuals unto salvation or unto damnation; but, we ourselves need to be careful of whom we dismiss out of the kingdom so quickly.

Ecclesiastes 5:2
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

*2. Even when things are Godly ordained, there's still a balance of good and evil...
I had, in extensive detail, went over this position in a previous work in this 'Seeking the Everlasting Gospel Teaching Series,' in a book called: 'Blaming God! Is it really His fault?' Even if such a notion seems wrong or strange to mention, I fully believe this to be the case, and is very important in the understanding of how God's kingdom works. I will, herein, be showing examples of how corrupted ministers have entered into the church world; and that, even though evil in nature, people still got what they needed from God – as Jesus had so curiously pointed out in Matthew 7:22-23 – in that even though they were workers of iniquity, God's children still got prophesied to by these evil men; they further casted out devils; and, even did wonderful works in the name of the Lord. Yet, they themselves never entered into the blessed kingdom. One may curiously ask why this is so, and why God even allows such men to flourish. Well, that's another thing that we will cover within these pages – such as in the fact that people want to latch onto a fleshly king when God Himself deserves that position. I don't want to give away too much here, for this certainly will be addressed in the upcoming chapters ... Stay tuned!

*3. I want fellowship with all of them if they are willing to have it with me...
Again, I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not boldly declaring that we should go running into established church buildings and yell out: "Come out of her, my people, and be not partakers of her sins!" For one thing, I do not believe that just because you have a church building, or that you have an organization, that it automatically places you into sin! As I've already stressed, God Himself has ordained the church building in its present form for one of several reasons; many, of which, are good; some, of which, are bad. But, I also believe that if God places a young man or woman into the hands of a caretaker, that the caretaker should be honored for their parental role ... And, with that loaded statement should come a host of explanations! In fact, one of the many purposes of this book is to address what a proper caretaker is, of what role they are to play, and of what kind of honor they should receive; for, certainly, honor to a caretaker can either be too light, or it can certainly go too far! But, back to what I was saying – if a Godly ordained minister has care over a person whilst that attendee is in their child years (not in actual human years, but in the fact that they are still children in understanding), then they do not need to be torn from that union prematurely; else, confusion and damage could certainly set in. Not only so, but as the Apostle Paul had suggested (concerning another man's servant), we aren't to judge any situation incorrectly.
Romans 14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
We need not necessarily look upon this situation as the world might see it. That is, concerning a servant, in this particular passage, and comparing that to an actual bought slave – even though Paul, in other areas of his writings, does address actual slavery. There are other places, though (such as this passage), where he addresses being a servant or a slave to certain church situations – especially since he spoke of this right smack-dab in the middle of talking about church issues (please read from verse 1 down to see). Also, the Greek word used in Romans 14:4 doesn't even denote an actual 'slave,' but rather a sort of house servant. And, a church worker can certainly fall into that category.
Servant, Oiketēs, G3610, from Strong's Greek Dictionary (published 1890; public domain): From G3611; a fellow resident, that is, menial domestic: - (household) servant.
But, even if slave were meant in this passage (that is, slavery as we know it today), then it's not too far off base to say that we can be a slave to another person if we are in servitude toward them – even in a church! In fact, being in servitude to Christ, the original Greek word, Doulos (translated as servant in the King James Version), actually refers to us being God's 'slaves,' rather than just workers in His kingdom.
Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.
Servant/Slave, Doulos, G1401, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G1210; a slave (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily; frequently therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency): - bond (-man), servant.
But, again, concerning Romans 14:4, Paul, like Jesus, was always in teaching form, and loved to use parables, allegories, figures and similes throughout his letters (please see my book called 'In the Beginning: It was Spiritual from the very start' for a more detailed explanation on this position). And, here, we can see how that if a person is in servitude toward another person (even in a church situation between saint and pastor), then we aren't allowed to interfere or intervene into that relationship (even if we think the person's ready to come up to a higher position), unless God tells us to, or gives us permission to do so. I tell you of a truth, if the saint isn't ready to leave that relationship, they will defend their position with all of their might, even if they are in a terrible situation. But, and at the same time (and, if they are even called to do so), there will be a time when God's ready for that person to move away from their current position to explore other areas of His grace and kingdom, to get into a more advanced position – that is, if the minister or pastor in question actually allows them to grow-up, or (if they felt led) to just simply leave that church in their due season. And, when ready, they will know it, and you will know it, if everybody is working within the confines of God's Spirit; and, at that time, fellowship will be more permissible and possible ... I, personally, do not believe in proselyting another person without God's will being enforced, or without His permission being granted. God alone is the one who can say when a person is ready to advance from any given situation; and, frankly, we may not be gifted enough to determine or judge anybody else's position (Matthew 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," etc) ... But, like I had said, once a person is free (if they are ever granted to be so from God), is an adult, and if they are willing, then I want healthy fellowship with them – no matter their previous or present affiliation. But, nevertheless, all fellowship must be within the confines of what has been laid out in scripture ... At the same time, though, I'm not here suggesting that it's a preferable thing for a person to be in servitude to another person; but, and as I had explained in my book 'Blaming God! Is it really His fault?', God may send us through bad situations for our benefit, education and growth. So, the bottom line of what I'm meaning is for us not to judge unrighteously (St. John 7:24 – which I quoted earlier), and for us to be ever ready and prepared for if and when God needs us to help others to – not only come to Him to begin with – but, to plant and to water in due season so that God can give the proper increase.

*4. 'The Break of Day: The Life Story of William Sowders.' by O'neill...
This quote was from the actual words of William Sowders: noted as the founder and apostle of the American movement called the 'School for the Prophets.' William Sowders' ministry began in AD 1914. This small, rare, yellow pamphlet has an unknown date.

MORE CHAPTERS TO COME ... You can also visit this book's official webpage: http://www.seekingthegospel.com/churc...

Christian-Themed Historical Fiction Novel Now Available!

Now available for Trade Paperback and Kindle Ebook .... Here are the links:

TradePaperback:https://www.amazon.com/dp/1986185028/...

KindleEbook:https://www.amazon.com/Sword-Against-...

This is so recent of a listing, that I don't even have this listed on Goodreads just yet; and, neither do I have the two versions (i.e. Paperback and Kindle) linked with each other at Amazon. But, that'll all be taken care of within the next few days... If you would like to read the first three chapters before deciding to get the entire book, please feel free to view them in my latest blog postings: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ... Happy Reading!

Chapter 3 for upcoming novel!

My proof copy will be in by Friday for this new, upcoming novel. If the proof copy looks good, I'll release it online. Primarily, this will be available in Trade Paperback on Amazon(dot)com ... Coming soon will be a Kindle Ebook version ... In the meantime, please enjoy Chapter 3:



CHAPTER 3: A Confrontation That Leads to More Mystery

Directly at noon, Charles d'Avaloy, along with a small company of Guards, show up at the back of the Louvre, much to the astonishment of three men; whom, it would seem, had been waiting for him there.

"Only three?" d'Avaloy says to himself. "There may be more waiting for me wherever it is that they wish for me to go."

Upon arriving in the presence of the three men, d'Avaloy exclaims surprise at the one who is standing in front of the other two.

"L'Forney! Are you behind all this?" he says, addressing the man with whom he had a conversation with in the courtyard of the Guards only an hour earlier.

"Of course! Did you not know?" l’Forney says, smiling as usual. "I really didn't think that it would be that hard for you to figure out. I gave you a clue only this morning."

"A clue?"

"Are you really that dense? Do you not remember our conversation this morning when you challenged me to a duel, and I said that you have to attend other matters of that nature first? I was referring to the letter that I sent to you last night. My friend, here, delivered it to you," he adds, pointing out the man standing behind him to his left.

"Who hired you to kill me?" bellows out d'Avaloy, wasting no time.

"What! Hired me?" l'Forney says. He then turns to his friends, and says to them: "He thinks that someone has hired me to kill him! As if he were that important."

After saying this last sentence, l'Forney bursts out laughing. His two friends laugh a little as well, but not over-enthusiastically, for seeing the small troop of Guards that are with d'Avaloy, they have become somewhat nervous.

"And what's with this company of Guards?" l'Forney continues, turning back to the lieutenant. "Need this much help with your fencing?"

"That note that you sent me was part of a series of strange events, and the captain thought it wise to send a small company of Guards with me, to make sure that there's no foul play, and that I can have a fair fight."

Ever since d'Avaloy had mentioned the word 'captain', l'Forney's eyes began to widen. "The captain!" he yells out, with a grimacing gesture. "You have involved the captain in this matter? Are you trying to get us both arrested? Are you mad?"

"Let's just say that the captain involved himself into this matter. There was a man that came to see the captain last night, asking for me – a man whom the captain had never seen before. He came to warn me of my life, that it was in danger. They found that same man dead in an alley this morning, and the message was never delivered to me."

"And, you think that I killed him?" asked l'Forney, a bit concerned.

"It was either you, or one of your friends," he says, looking at the other two men; who, in turn, look at each other with worried expressions upon their faces. "Or, perhaps," d’Avaloy continues, "the killer was part of the same group that hired you to kill me today."

"What an imagination you have, d'Avaloy. When I said that you weren't important enough to hire someone to kill you, I wasn't jesting. I'm not even going to kill you myself!"

"Oh, no? If what you say is true, then why did you sign the letter as 'your murderer?'"

"It was to get you upset!" l’Forney says, while rolling his eyes about sarcastically. "It was not an actual threat. I merely wanted to humiliate you in front of a couple of witnesses here, just to have some fun. There's no real murder involved."

"Oh, but there is murder involved. And, you are now the prime suspect – you and your two friends, here. And, I have a handful of witnesses who can vouch for that," he adds, while pointing out the soldiers who are accompanying him. "Just by you being here, and confessing that the word 'murderer' was in your note, these men can all testify that you were the one’s who signed a death threat."

"Now, wait just a moment!" protests one of l'Forney's friends. "What l'Forney has been telling you is true. We just wanted to scare you, and humiliate you a little – there was no murder to be involved. We have nothing to do with the death you spoke of."

"Why is it that you want to humiliate me?" says d’Avaloy, with a frown, and while addressing l’Forney’s friend. "I don't even know you. What have I done to you?"

"Nothing, personally. I am doing this as a favor to my friend l'Forney."

"I have never seen you before," continues Charles. "Just who are you, sir?"

"François d’Ambry, of Musketeers. And, my associate here is Monsieur Nicolas de Fontenot, also of Musketeers."

"Trying to impress your new lieutenant, eh gentlemen?"

"It's not that way, Monsieur d'Avaloy," insists d'Ambry. "L'Forney insisted that you were nothing but a scoundrel, and how you had hurt his mistress; and, that you really needed to be taught a lesson."

"His mistress?" asks Charles, taken aback by that statement. "And, who is that?"

"Oh, come now, d'Avaloy," says l'Forney, "don't play stupid now. You have dishonored a lovely lady – don’t try and deny it!"

"I honestly don't know what you're talking about," declares d’Avaloy, knitting his brows heavily. "What lady?"

"You really are dense!"

"Enough insults l'Forney, or I'll order my men to shoot you!"

"And, I believe that you would – it would save yourself from my sword! You know perfectly well that I am speaking of Madame Anne, Duchess d'Halluin."

"What! The marshal of France's daughter in law? She’s your mistress? So, that's how you received the appointment of lieutenant of Musketeers! I knew that you didn't receive that appointment upon your own merits. You come from a good and noble family, but that station is beneath one such as yourself."

"Now, who is insulting who?"

"That's not an insult – that's a fact!"

"Enough! I had my mind set on teaching you a lesson today, but after these new events I will hold my peace, for I would like to have a talk with the captain about these matters, and try to prove my innocence of this murder – considering that you said I'm the prime suspect. However, this still does not excuse you of offending my mistress."

"I tell you honestly, l'Forney, I know not your mistress. I have never even met her – I swear upon my honor as a gentleman! Perhaps she has me mixed up with someone else of her acquaintance."

"Perhaps," l'Forney says, unconvinced. "I will, however, get to the bottom of this matter. If you are guilty, I should like satisfaction from your humiliation."

"If you prove me guilty, I should be honored to satisfy you. If proved innocent, I will hear no more about this, and you will not bother me in future."

"Agreed!" simply says l'Forney.

The group of men turn on their heels to leave; but, just as soon as they turn, however, they are stopped short by the figure of a man who is standing at a short distance away, enveloped inside of a dark hooded cloak, and is facing them.

"Who goes there?" asks d'Avaloy, in a voice of authority. But, then, upon a suspicion: "Is that you, Arnaund?"

The man now takes off his hood. "Yes; it is I, Charles. I am glad that the duel did not take place."

"How long have you been standing there, brother?"

"I've been behind your troop since you first entered this place."

"Did you overhear our conversation?"

"Nay. I was standing in the background, praying."

"I see. Then you do not know that your life may be in danger?"

"Danger?" Arnaund d'Avaloy asks, forcing his brows into a questionable look.

"Yes, danger. It would seem that there's someone out to kill me, and you may be a target, as well. Come, let's go to my captain, and all will be explained there."

****

Just as soon as Charles d'Avaloy, Arnaund, l'Forney, d'Ambry and Monsieur de Fontenot enter into Captain des Essarts' chambers, Charles briefly explains what had taken place behind the Louvre to his commander.

"Well, I'm glad to see that you are safe and sound, my friend," says the captain, after hearing the story.

D'Avaloy grins, while saying: "Well, did you expect me to lose in the first place?"

"Ha!" suddenly bellows out l'Forney.

At this, the captain looks hard at l'Forney. "You can laugh, but this is a very serious matter, sir," he tells him, in a firm rebuke. "It’s a good thing that you will not be in my company as of tomorrow – else, I would have you imprisoned for your insolence! Instead, I will write the captain of Musketeers and have him deal with you in the best way that he sees fit."

L'Forney looks glaringly at d'Avaloy. "Thanks for telling him!"

D'Avaloy was about to reply when the captain broke in: "He didn't just tell me; but, considering the circumstances, he had no choice. Honestly, this is the first time that he has ever spoken to me about these types of engagements of his. I think, dear sir, that you have a lot of explaining to do concerning many matters. But, first . . ." at this, he looks back at d'Avaloy, "I must explain that my words to you were not because I thought you would have lost the duel..."

L'Forney laughs silently under his breath.

"...it was because I have just been informed that the body of my messenger has recently been found near your apartment, and that his letter was stolen from him."

"Another death," interrupts l'Forney. "And, I suppose that this will count against me, too!"

"As I've told you, l'Forney," says d'Avaloy, "you are the prime suspect because of your letter to me."

"Now, just a moment," l'Forney shouts, in an irritated voice, "I was in my apartment all night last night, and could not have been outside to commit any murder!"

"Can you prove this?" asks the captain, suddenly. "Is there a witness to this?"

"Well..." l'Forney hesitates.

"Well?"

"Well, a lady was present with me."

"A lady?" asks the captain. "And, what is her name?"

"Madame Anne, Duchess d'Halluin!" interrupts d'Avaloy, with a sly grin.

"What! The marshal of France's daughter-in-law?" shouts the captain, in great disbelief. "No wonder you got the appointment into the Musketeers!"

This time it's d'Avaloy's turn to laugh under his breath.

"Doesn't anyone think that I could land that appointment upon my own merits?" asks l'Forney, in slight bewilderment – lifting his arms slightly in the air as he asked.

"No!" d'Avaloy and the captain shout at the same time.

"Not even a hesitation!" says l'Forney, looking back at his two friends, with a bit of disgust.

"I must summon Madame Anne, Duchess d'Halluin, to ask her to verify your story," continues the captain.

"Oh, sir – don’t do that!" yells out l'Forney.

"And, why not? You want to be freed from being the prime suspect in these murders, do you not?"

"Oh, yes, sir – I would. But, it's just that my relationship with madame is supposed to be a secret. She would just die if she knew that I was the cause of her being interrogated!"

"Well, in that case, there's no other thing that I can do but to imprison you."

"What? Now, hold on just a moment! You told me that you wouldn't imprison me, that you would write my new captain, instead."

"True. But, that was just because you ignored the edict against dueling."

"But you sent d’Avaloy off to duel with me!" insists l'Forney.

"No, sir," calmly replies the captain. "I sent him off to defend himself. But, what I am talking about now is a different matter entirely, for you are the prime suspect in a murder case. That is, you and your friend here," he adds, pointing out d'Ambry.

"Me?" yells out d'Ambry, in his turn. "What for?"

"You delivered that letter to d'Avaloy, did you not?"

"True. But, what does that have to do with anything?"

"You were at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder."

"Oh, this is too much!" says d'Ambry, dismayed, and waving his hands up in the air, also. Then he adds, while looking at l'Forney: "What have you gotten me into?"

"Shall I send for the Duchess d'Halluin, or not?" asks the captain of l'Forney, once again. "Or, just send you to prison now?"

There's hesitation once again.

"Well?"

"Oh – alright!" l'Forney concedes. "Besides," he adds, while looking at d'Avaloy, "It will give her a chance to prove to this lunatic that he's a fraud and a liar."

"I have heard Monsieur d'Avaloy called many things, sir," says the captain to him, "but a liar and a fraud he is not!"

"That remains to be seen," simply says l'Forney, looking about the room and trying to avoid the captain's eyes.

"You gentlemen wait in my antechamber until madame arrives," announces the captain, pointing out the direction.


****

The interlude spent in the waiting room of the captain's office goes by in silence, except for the daily rush of the messengers and soldiers doing their daily routine. The silence, though, is coming from the waiting gentlemen, who are sitting in uneasiness, awaiting the captain's orders. And, finally, after an hour had elapsed, the men are called back into the captain's office.

"I have just received word from the Duchess d'Halluin," the captain begins.

"Well, where is she?" desperately asks l'Forney.

"I was just about to tell you that she refuses to come. It would seem that I am now going to have to involve the marshal into this matter.

"What!" shouts l'Forney. "You mean her father-in-law, the marshal of France? Are you mad?"

At that statement, there's dead silence in the room.

"Sir," says the captain, glaring hard at l'Forney, "one more outburst from you in such a manner as this again, and you will be dealt with in a most embarrassing manner . . . Gentlemen, please wait a while longer in the antechamber."


****

And, as another hour passes, Captain des Essarts steps into the antechamber where the anxiously awaiting men are. "I do apologize for keeping you waiting, gentlemen. It would seem that the marshal was struck in the wrong way concerning my summons for him. He has asked me to meet with him in the king's chambers where we can discuss this in the presence of his majesty. I have also asked the captain of the Musketeers to be involved in this, as well."

What proceeds from l'Forney is a low groan. D'Avaloy looks at him and notices that he's turning very pale.

"Please, go home for now, sirs," the captain continues. "But, I would advise all of you not to leave the city until this matter is settled, else there would be the law to deal with. You two sirs," he says, addressing l'Forney's two friends, "will leave your address with my servant. Adieu, gentlemen."

At this, the captain walks back into his office.

D'Avaloy turns to his brother Arnaund. "Not a word about this to me concerning God, alright?"

Arnaund smiles. "Alright, brother. But, do you mind if I come home with you for a while? I do not have enough money to stay at an Inn."

"Of course, Arnaund," says d'Avaloy, while smiling. "You are always welcome."

At that last statement from D'Avaloy, Arnaund shoots him a quick glance of doubt, for his brother has never been this nice to him before. But, accepting the good natured welcome, he merely decides to follow his brother without question back to his apartment.

END OF CHAPTER 3 ... Again, I'm hoping that this book will be available for ordering by either this coming weekend, or by early next week ... stay tuned!

Chapter 2 for upcoming, Swashbuckling, Christian-themed novel!

CHAPTER 2: At the Guard's Headquarters

In the morning, Charles d'Avaloy heads straight to the gates of the Guard's Headquarters, where he holds a position therein as lieutenant. He barely makes his way into the courtyard, though, when a Guard seizes his attention.

"Holla – d’Avaloy!" the Guardsman calls out. "And, what makes you in such haste this morning?"

At this, d'Avaloy turns around and notices a small group of soldiers who were having a conversation when he entered. Charles stops his advancements and begins to rest his eyes upon the one who had addressed him thus, recognizing the man immediately, though he had not known him for very long.

"I am in haste," Charles says to the speaker, having no expression upon his face at all, whilst delivering the announcement with an obvious bitterness that's not hard to miss, "for I am in hopes of passing by before you would notice me, dear Monsieur l'Forney!"

"Ah! Surely you jest, my friend," l'Forney says, grinning widely, eagerly awaiting the results of the conversation.

"And, why should I do such a horrible thing as to jest about such a serious matter?" Charles asks, continuing his sarcastic tone.

"Why, because, dear sir, I would think that you would be speaking to me in a kinder manner than this, considering that you are perhaps touched by divine grace this day."

There's a pause on d'Avaloy's part. But, just as soon as this line is delivered, the small assembly of Guards, who are standing directly behind l'Forney, begin laughing a little. Charles slowly surveys the small group with a careful eye, for he's not an acquaintance with any of them, because he's but recently been admitted to his post as lieutenant, and has not had the chance to make known who each Guard is. And, as far as he being a Guard for several years now, we must take note that Monsieur d'Avaloy is not one to make friends with many people; therefore, he knows but only a quarter of the Guards personally, and most others by face alone.

"And, what mean you by that, sir?" Charles finally asks, looking back at l'Forney.

"Why," l'Forney begins, "only yesterday a stranger in priestly robes stopped by here looking for you. I know he was looking to know of your whereabouts," he continues, sarcastically turning his gaze slowly toward his listeners behind him, hoping to get more laughter – and, he not being able to fight the grin that has now embedded itself upon his face, "for, I was fortunate enough to have had the pleasure of eavesdropping in on the captain's conversation with him." He then looks back at d'Avaloy. "A priestly brother, eh?"

There's certainly more laughter from the small group of soldiers, and l'Forney continues to grin with satisfaction. "Is this really the case, brother d'Avaloy?" he adds, stressing the word brother, which has a religious ring about the way he pronounced it. This last statement causes the small group to laugh with even more vigorous zeal.

D'Avaloy, after a very brief reflection, decides to turn his grim look into his usual sarcastic, swaggering grin. "First of all, dear l'Forney," he begins, "it's not a strange thing to have a priest in one's family, and neither does it indicate that the rest of the family would be enticed into such a lifestyle just because that's the case; and, secondly, did you not know that it is a serious offense to insult an officer? I would think that the good manners would have to come from you, for I do outrank. Also, as I am to understand, you come from too good of a family to be insulting them in such a manner as to being nothing more than a bully."

"Really?" says l'Forney, beginning to lose his grin. "As to my family traits, they're no concern of yours," he amply implies. "And, as far as your rank is concerned, you can choke on it – I have been transferred to a better unit than this as of tomorrow!"

"Oh? Is this true? And, what Guard unit is better than this one? The Cadets?" d'Avaloy adds, with a more sinister grin. "You forget, we are in the unit of Captain des Essarts; which is, in my humble opinion, the best of all the Guard companies!"

"I am transferring into the company of Musketeers – which is better than any of the regular Guard units – and, as a lieutenant, to boot!"

"Lieutenant of Musketeers?" D'Avaloy says, laughing loudly. "They couldn't have picked a better man!" he adds, mockingly.

"Too true, I was the better man," l'Forney concludes, insinuating that he was a better pick than d'Avaloy for the position.

D'Avaloy gets the point. And, after stopping his short laughing spell, he – now, with a very serious expression – takes a step toward l'Forney, to where he's only twelve inches away from him. L'Forney stands his ground, gravely staring at d'Avaloy, without even blinking an eye.

"Good," simply says d'Avaloy to him. Then adds: "But, a better man for the job should know not to insult a better man at the sword; for, he may see that a high rank does not entail that he's manly enough to back up his insulting words behind a blade!"

"All in good time, d'Avaloy," l'Forney says, beginning to smile once again. Then, as he leans forward a bit, he says with a wink: "Finish your other quarrels first."

At this, there's more laughter from the small group.

This last statement really does strike home! D'Avaloy knits his brows into a frown. Does l'Forney know of the mysterious note that d'Avaloy received just the night before?

"What do you mean, sir?" d'Avaloy asks, very seriously.

"Nothing, sir," l'Forney says, leaning back to where he was originally, and still continuing with his smile. "Soon enough, my friend," he implies, whilst starting to walk away, "soon enough!"

The small group of soldiers walk away also, and are still laughing at d'Avaloy – who is standing very still, quite vexed, not knowing what to think about what he had just heard. He finally breaks away from where he was standing, and looks all around to see if anyone is watching him. He notices nobody looking, so he proceeds on to the captain's office.

Walking into the captain's antechamber, d'Avaloy is greeted by a servant who asks what he's needing.

"An audience with my captain."

"Presently, lieutenant. Please have a seat, sir."

"Alright."

He sits on a chair near the entrance of the captain's chambers, while his mind is in a whirl. He hardly notices anything that is going on in the room because he is totally mixed up in his own thoughts; though he does imagine that he sees somebody looking at him. But, just as soon as he looks in that soldier's direction, the soldier returns his attention back to the small group of men with whom he was conversing. D'Avaloy shrugs it off as nothing out of the ordinary.

Just afterward, the servant walks out of the captains' chambers and asks d'Avaloy to enter. He does so.

"Lieutenant d'Avaloy, reporting for duty, sir," he says, saluting his captain, just as the servant leaves, who has shut the door behind him.

Captain Alexandre des Essarts, of his majesty's Guards – a middle-aged, yet slightly muscular gentleman – jumps up from behind his desk upon the soldier's entrance, holding out his hand for d'Avaloy to shake. Having, too, a look of concern about him.

"Are you feeling well, sir?" asks his captain, while d'Avaloy shakes his hand.

"Quite well, sir. Why do you ask?"

"There have been a couple of strange events that have happened since I had seen you yesterday," the captain announces.

"Yes, sir. I know. My brother had come to see you yesterday, asking where I lived."

"I was surprised to see that you have a brother, for I did not know that you had one. I was reluctant to give out your address at first; but, as you may or may not know, my personal servant has taken holy orders himself, and had been an acquaintance of your brother in the church, and he was able to verify him as a reliable and honest man. I then gave out your address on such grounds. However, having a brother that you have not seen in many years is hardly a strange occurrence, and is not what I am referring to; though, it was the first of a couple of events that were about you."

"Alright, you now have my curiosity up; for, verily, some strange things have been happening to me since last night, and not just my brother showing up. But, please tell me what you mean, sir."

"Well," continues Monsieur des Essarts, as he walks back around to his desk, sitting down again, "like I said, it started with your brother asking for your address; and, no sooner had he left, when a stranger showed up also asking for your address."

"A stranger?" d'Avaloy asks, interrupting his captain's tale.

"'Tis true. I had never seen him before. And, he said that you two have never met, but that he was trying to warn you that your life is in danger, and that it was most urgent for him to meet with you. I refused to give him your address, of course, but I promised him that I would send you a note, telling you of his request to see you. That is why I sent you that note last night."

"You sent me that note?" d'Avaloy asks, surprised, raising his voice a little.

"Of course. I signed it, didn't I?"

"Are you then my murderer?"

"Your murderer? What ever do you mean by that, sir?" asks the captain, with a frown.

"The note that was delivered to me last night was signed by my murderer, and was challenging me to a duel at noon today."

"Really?" says the captain, confused. "Well, I assure you, sir, that I sent you no such note; it was of an entirely different nature. You say that you have been challenged to a duel? Well, that is nothing new for you. But, what has become of my note to you, then? . . . Apparently, my messenger never reached you."

"The only messenger that I saw last night was one enveloped in a dark cloak, being careful to conceal their identity."

"I see," says the captain, thoughtfully, while looking away, as if he could more easily see this whole situation by looking out the window. "It appears," he continues, looking at d'Avaloy once again, "that my messenger is then dead."

"Dead?" asks d'Avaloy, frowning in his turn. "I don't think that it is as serious as all that, now!"

"My boy, I think that you are mixed up in a rather pretty net; and, the catcher is just about to reel you in."

It is now d'Avaloy's turn to look out the window, perhaps to see what his captain was seeing. He then turns back. "Are you sure?" he asks, with some doubt.

Looking attentively at his captain, while his captain looks attentively at him, d'Avaloy begins to reenact in his mind the events of last night.

"I have not yet told you all," the captain continues, not giving Charles any time to finish his thoughts.

"There's more?" asks d'Avaloy, his eyes widening.

"Yes, yes. It's concerning the stranger who asked for your address last night. It would seem that he didn't get too far. Only five minutes before you were announced this morning, I was informed that he was found two streets down, in an alley, dead! One of my Guardsmen who lives in that quarter happened to see him there, and had recognized him as to have been the one who visited me last night. I was just about to send a small troop out to search for you, but thank the Lord that you are safe and sound! I fear also for your brother's safety."

"Oh, as far as he is concerned, his God will protect him."

"His God?" asks the captain, curiously. "Is He not your God, as well?"

There's a moment of silence as d'Avaloy slowly answers: "...of course."

"I think that now, of all times, you will need Him for your well being."

"Of course," d’Avaloy mechanically repeats a second time.

The captain scans his lieutenant’s countenance with all the scrutiny of a parent who holds his child's protection in his hand.

"But, as far as this duel at noon is concerned," the captain says, continuing, "you must not attend."

"But, captain," d'Avaloy protests, with a slightly raised voice, "my honor is at stake!"

"You mean your life! You know as well as I that duels are forbidden. You, being an officer, have to set an example for the men."

"That's exactly why I must attend – to be an example!"

The captain sighs. "True," he admits, shaking his head a bit.

"What kind of a lieutenant would I be if I decline such an engagement?"

"A scorned and cowardly one."

"Now you see why I must attend – even at the risk of my life."

"I'm afraid that it will be at the risk of your life. This letter that you mentioned smells of ambush to me!"

"Well . . . what must one do?"

"Well, one – such as myself – will send an attachment of Guards with you to make sure that all will be fair play . . . Unofficially, of course."

D'Avaloy smiles at his captain's cleverness. "Of course," he says, with satisfaction.

"Still," the captain continues, "we must find your brother for protection."

"If I know my brother, he will show up at the duel at noon. Otherwise, I know not where to find him."

"Why do you say that he will show up at your duel? Is this priest fond of fighting?"

"Nay; but, fond of saving my soul! That is why he was looking for me last night, to get me to give in to his – I mean our God."

"Oh, I see . . . Well, a little religion never hurt any soldier; myself included. I pray under my breath before every skirmish, bloody as well as political – though, there's very little difference between the two! Well, if your brother will be at this duel, as you say, then we must try and convince him that his life is perhaps in danger, as well. Hopefully, waiting until noon won't be too late to warn him. Get this matter over with as quickly as possible, and I will try and find out what this whole thing is about concerning you as best as I can."

"Thanks, good captain."

"Don't thank me yet – there's still much we must do!"

END OF CHAPTER 2 ... Stay tuned, this novel is almost upon us! I'll also, here, publish chapter 3 soon, and the novel being available won't be far behind that!

NEW, UPCOMING CHRISTIAN, THEOLOGICAL BOOK

THE INTRODUCTION...

As promised, I will, over the next week or two, be showing a few chapters from my new, upcoming Christian, Theological book, called: "The Church and the Five-Fold Ministry: Should we put our trust in man?" So, to begin with, you are seeing my new book cover; and, here is the INTRODUCTION:

A Church is God between four walls.
– Victor Hugo.

I would like to begin with a special note, because I do not want to be misunderstood from the very start of my true intentions. I do believe that what may be termed as the 'modern Church' has been ordained by God. It, like many other things in Christendom, serves many good purposes. However, the modern church may best be viewed merely as a stepping stone toward a higher goal in God's spiritual kingdom; but, is certainly not the final goal. So saying, the actual, literal 'building' itself, of course, is not the true Church of God; it's not the true Temple of God; nor is it the true House of God; but, it's simply a gathering place for Christians to learn more about the Lord, and to not only help them grow in Christ, but can even serve as a way-station so that they can reenergize themselves for an upcoming harsh week. Unfortunately, a lot of Christian leaders cannot grasp that simple concept, which can certainly lead them (and has led them) to take things to a terrible level of ungodliness and greed. This book is an attempt to shine a light onto the true Ecclesia of Christ, which is not limited to four walls; and, of which, reaches beyond the limitations of a literal building. But, even so, I'm not here declaring that it's wrong for people to attend such services; we just simply must understand God's intentions and purposes for them.

At the same time, though, the modern church can rob so many of their opportunity of reaching that higher goal if the leadership therein holds the people down, stunting their growth in Christ; whilst, also, dipping them into the mud of church politics, and smothering them within man's governmental systems; which, truly, forms an ungodly backbone for so many churches in this world. However, and despite that, if done correctly, church services in a building can certainly be a blessed event – but, only when the Spirit of God directs its course, and washes the people to a grand degree. But, a lot of times (though, not every time), with an actual building comes the need to control the people and to lord over them by ministers who have gone astray, and who do not have a love for the people [John 10:12-13]. Therefore, when I speak about the church building in a negative light throughout this book, then know that I am speaking of these said leaders who have taken this wrong turn, who misinterpret the building's true purpose, and who have become power-hungry in the process. It must be understood that true, called leaders in Christ do have authority to help lead children to the Lord, and the respect that is due to them is that the children should listen to their words with reverence, and to consider and meditate upon those words – if those words truly connect with the Spirit of Christ. But, not only so, even if they don't seem to ring true with the scriptures (for, we ourselves may be wrong about the scriptures' true meanings at times), to at least give them a chance to explain their position on God's Word. That is, if the ministers even allow folks to question them at all! In fact, if they aren't allowing people to do so (with respect, of course), then they may be hiding something, and don't want to be called out on the carpet about it.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

As Christians, we all have the right – nay!, the duty – to question ministers; but, with utter kindness, and with love...

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

However, and at the same time (and, this is another point that will certainly be covered herein), these said ministers do not have free license to usurp authority over the heads of God's children, to where they become their lord and master. Ministers, instead, must take on the role of a spiritual parent, who will – with agape love – direct the child's steps toward Christ; but, not to keep a clamped hand upon them. They must allow and encourage the child to grow up into the full stature of Christ, and to actually deliver them on over to God once that child has become a spiritual adult themselves – instead of holding them back for fear of losing another financially supportive member; or, that they may see an empty seat in their audience.
This book is certainly not a battle cry to tear the Church building down; nor am I asking the ministry to resign; but, this is rather a plea for all Christians to understand what the building is really all about, and to see the need for church services to flow with the leading of God's Spirit instead of the spirit of man. The true ministry of Christ needs to step forward and to replace many false leaders who have nothing more than the spirit of a Pharisee! But, especially, this is a look beyond the literal Church building, and on into the spiritual world of Christ; and, of a spiritual walk with Him – which should be the ultimate goal for any true Christian.

Even though a lot of these things have already been said in my original edition of this writing from A.D. 2000 (as will be seen in the following pages), I felt that when updating this text that I should reestablish these thoughts stronger than I had previously . . . So, with all that being said, let's begin our quest.

– Ted Roberts; July, A.D. 2015

Plot Synopsis for new, upcoming novel!

As I've announced it yesterday, I have been working on a historical fiction, swashbuckling novel that has Christian overtones, called "Sword Against the Robe." Here are the plot details for this book. Soon, I will also begin uploading the first few chapters, as well ... This has not interfered with my other upcoming book, which will be completely on Christian Theology, and of which belongs to my 'Everlasting Gospel Teaching Series.' So, I will begin posting chapters of that project as well, hopefully by either the end of this month, or by the beginning of next month! ... With that being said, here are the plot details for the upcoming, swashbuckling, historical novel:

"On the first Monday of April 1625, in Paris, Monsieur Charles d'Avaloy, a lieutenant in Louis XIII's Guard, suddenly finds himself mixed up in some high intrigue. Other than duels (which, admittedly, he has done quite often, and for a long time), the soldier normally keeps away from public life as much as possible. So, why, all of a sudden, does somebody want him dead? And, whoever it is, is willing to set assassins at his heels to make sure that the job gets done right ... Again, dueling other soldiers for honor is one thing, but assassination attempts are quite another! Within a single evening, not only is this man's life turned completely upside-down, but in order to keep this matter as hushed as possible, several other men have already been murdered – one of them just for attempting to warn him!

"To top things off, and on this same eerie evening, Monsieur d'Avaloy's brother, who's a priest, happens to also visit – mysteriously, after nine years of them being separated – to warn him to turn away from a life of the sword, else it will be his undoing! Even though the priest admits that he knows nothing of these sudden attempts upon his brother's life, the soldier does begin to wonder if the man's presence and words are a prophesy, or just a weird coincidence. Is God truly, and through these strange occurrences, trying to sway the solider away from his violent lifestyle? That is, since he has killed every single man with whom he has dueled? Or – and, as the soldier also begins to think – is God only besetting him with these current, horrible things to finally destroy him in the name of justice? Whatever's happening, will Monsieur d'Avaloy turn away from his life of violence and accept a life of priestly robes – since he feels that this is the real reason for his brother's visit? Or, will he end up dying by the sword, since he has been living by the Sword? ... Even though the priest assures him that his visit is only to give him peace within his heart (because, since his youth, the soldier has suffered horribly from deep depression – a result of the daily thrashings from his supposed Christian father), and to tell him that by accepting faith in God, and of stopping all the violence, that it will finally set him at liberty ... But, after everything is said and done, what will the end results be? Will the swordsman, through all of these events, find out that these circumstances, which have finally caught up with him, truly are the results of his life of the sword as opposed to a life of faith? Or, rather, the difference of having peace in one's heart who wears the priestly robes, as opposed to the violent, disturbing lifestyle of those who fiercely wield a blade? In other words, perhaps his has been a life of a sword against the robe!"

NEW UPCOMING NOVEL!

My other self (just kidding about that!) is coming out with a novel very soon. Other than me writing Christian Theology, I have also written two historical, swashbuckling novels in the past. This will be my third book with that kind of a theme. However, this time, the Christian overtones are more than noticeable in this recent endeavor! Even though I have hinted at them in my past two books, this will be more geared toward a Christian audience, though light enough to allow others to join in on the fun, too. I will give details soon about what the book is about, and I will then give some chapter examples for y'all to read... Stay Tuned!

Metaphors - a controversial topic in the Bible? - Giveaway (Aug 08 - Oct 31, 2017)

In the Beginning: It Was Spiritual From the Very Start
I'm at the starting stage of writing an entire Bible teaching series, which I have named: 'Seeking the Everlasting Gospel Teaching Series.' The book title "In the Beginning" is actually my third book published, and I found it necessary to cover the controversial topic of 'metaphors' in the Written Word to purposefully set the stage for all other books which will follow afterwards ... But, why is the topic controversial? A lot of folks don't actually believe that the Word of God is dashed with idioms, parables, similitude's and figures, seeing as such an idea just may harm the literalism which many declare is the 'simplicity of Christ.' And yet (as I point out in this third book), even Jesus boldly declared that He hid His messages behind the institution of metaphors to purposely hide truths from some who merely want to use the Word for self-promotion and worldly gain - seeing as such a thing could be a usurping tool to become a king themselves! Therefore, knowing this, we can easily see that when God's Word is being mishandled, in such a horrid way, that it's not the actual truth being used to fool those poor, misguided people; but is, instead, only a pale, man-made religious substitute that will never actually bring life to their listening audience ... The blind shall lead the blind into a deep ditch! ... But, thankfully, God has preserved His pure Word unscathed for those who actually have a love for it, and an actual love for Him ... All this is not saying, however, that God didn't create this world and universe literally and physically as it so declares in Genesis chapter 1; but, as we will see, the Spiritual creation was made along with, and at the same time, as the Natural creation - for, what we read naturally therein also has a metaphoric counterpart (by using the same exact words) that describes our own, personal Spiritual creation, which actually shows us that while God was creating a temporal existence in this natural universe, that He was also creating eternal existences for His children ... As of today, this book is a part of the Goodreads Giveaway program (Aug 08 thru Oct 31, 2017). I am giving 2 signed copies away at the end of the contest. Details of this book, of course, can be read here at Goodreads at the book's official page: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... ... Giveaway is for USA residents only...