Bowels of Mercy – May 15, 2025

I find writing on a given subject goes rather smoothly, but am sometimes challenged to come up with a subject.  This morning a grandson’s conversation had the term “bowels of mercies” running through my head.  The phrase appears 11 times in the KJV, but most notably (at least to me) in Colossians 3:12:  

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness,       humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering;…

I love the following illustration, especially, in light of the acrimoniousness of today’s political and theological discourse!  I think it stands in place of anything I could write on the matter. ~Pastor Scott


A true Christian is like the lily which stings no one, and yet he lives among those who are full of sharpness. He aims to please, and not to provoke, and yet he lives among those whose existence is a standing menace. The thorn tears and lacerates: it is all armed from its root to its topmost branch, defying all comers. But there stands the lily, smiling, not defying; charming, and not harming. Such is the real Christian, holy, harmless, full of love and gentleness and tenderness. Therein lieth his excellence. Who would not stop and turn aside to see a lily among thorns, and think he reads a promise from his God to comfort him amid distress? Such is a true Christian: he is a consolation in his family, a comfort in his neighbourhood, an ornament to his profession, and a benediction to his age. He is all tenderness and gentleness, and yet it may be he lives among the envious, the malicious, and the profane, a lily among thorns. The thorn saith, “Keep away; no one shall touch me with impunity.” The lily cries, “I come to you, I shed my soul abroad to please you.”  

“So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; please you.” (Col 3:12 NASB1995)

And speaking of “bowels* of mercy”, this a good article:

https://telosblog.com/the-sacred-spleen-of-jesus/

*Paul technically used the Greek word for “spleen”.

New Question, Old Answer – May 8, 2025

Back in the day the publisher of the monthly newsletter would submit questions for me to answer in my column.  This question from 2010 popped up this last week in class.  So I offer this exchange between a “nit-picker” and me.

Dear Pastor Scott,

Why are we a congregational church rather than an elder-led church?  My sister says there’s no scriptural support for that model.  What gives???

Too Nit-Picky?

 Dear Nit-Picker,

That’s sort of like asking, “Pastor Scott how can you say you’re Swedish when we can all see you are a Caucasian?”   We are legally or technically a congregational church and we are actually an elder-led church.  Let me see if I can explain.

There are three generally (legally?) recognized forms of church polity.  They are (according to Theopikea):

EpiscopalChurches having Episcopal polity are governed by bishops. The title bishop comes from the Greek word episkopos, which literally translates into overseer. In regard to Catholicism, bishops have authority over the diocese, which is both sacramental and political; as well as performing ordinations, confirmations, and consecrations, the bishop supervises the clergy of the diocese and represents the diocese both secularly and in the hierarchy of church governance.  Bishops in this system may be subject to higher ranking bishops (variously called archbishops, metropolitans, and/or patriarchs, depending upon the tradition; They also meet in councils or synods. These synods, subject to presidency by higher ranking bishops, may govern the dioceses which are represented in the council, though the synod may also be purely advisory.

Presbyterian meaning “Elder-led.” Many Reformed churches, notably those in the Presbyterian and Continental Reformed traditions, are governed by a hierarchy of councils. The lowest level council governs a single local church and is called the session or consistory; its members are called elders. The minister of the church (sometimes referred to as a teaching elder) is a member of and presides over the session; lay representatives (ruling elders or, informally, just elders) are elected by the congregation. The session sends representatives to the next level higher council, called the presbytery or classis. In some Presbyterian churches there are higher level councils (synods and/or general assemblies). Each council has authority over its constituents, and the representatives at each level are expected to use their own judgment. Hence higher level councils act as courts of appeal for church trials and disputes, and it is not uncommon to see rulings and decisions overturned.

Congregational Congregationalist polity dispenses with titled positions such as bishop as a requirement of church structure. The local congregation rules itself, though local leaders and councils may be appointed.  Members may be sent from the congregation to associations that are sometimes identified with the church bodies formed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and other non-congregational Protestants. The similarity is deceptive, however, because the congregationalist associations do not exercise control over their members (other than ending their membership in the association). Many congregationalist churches are completely independent in principle. One major exception is Ordination, where even congregationalist churches often invite members of the vicinage or association to ordain their called pastor.  It is a principle of congregationalism that ministers do not govern congregations by themselves. They may preside over the congregation, but it is the congregation which exerts its authority in the end.  Congregational polity is sometimes called “Baptist polity”, as it is the characteristic polity of Baptist churches.

I wasn’t even born when Blue Ridge (Now DBA Word of Grace) was incorporated, but as I understand it we (they) had three choices.  We (they) strongly believed that our church should be self-governed and, therefore we are, by definition, a congregational church.  And I would bet my left lung, if I were a betting man, that your sister’s church is “congregational” too, at least according to the definitions above.

By now I trust the reader is wondering how it is that I can say we are a Congregational/Elder-led church.  Let’s start by looking at some definitions in Scripture:

In Acts 6 we have the story of the Apostles (who were serving as the Elders/Overseers of the one and only church at that time) being bombarded by service requests.  Their response was to tell the congregation to go choose seven men, filled with the Holy Spirit, to serve the Apostles as deacons (ministers, servants).  In one passage you have the establishment of congregational polity and the office of deacon.

Later, as the church grew, elders were established.  We first see it in Acts 14:23 – “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”   The word isn’t really explained since there were always elders in Israel.  But it’s interesting to note that the word “elder” is plural and the word “church” is singular.  Notice James 5:14 – “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;”  or 1 Peter 5:1 “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,”  It seems pretty clear to me that every church has a plurality of elders, but what about the bishops?  Are they in Scripture as well?

As mentioned in the article above, the Greek word is Episkopos and it is translated “Overseer” and transliterated as “Bishop.”  It is only used in the Pastoral Epistles.  We see it in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 – “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.  An overseer, then, must be above reproach,….”  The office of overseer seems to come from out of the blue here, except that in chapter five he starts talking about “Elders who rule well” which gives us a hint that he might be using the word Elder and Bishop interchangeably.  This hint is confirmed in Titus when he gives Titus the same instruction:  “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.  For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,”   Elders are Overseers (Bishops) and Overseers are Elders.  At least in the Bible, but not in “the church.”

The Church that became the RC saw Paul referring to the office, singular, of Overseer – Bishop they also saw (or some would argue, inherited) a system whereby individual men already had a lot of power.  For all that they claim Peter was the first pope, it was James (Acts 15) that headed the council at Jerusalem, to whom Paul, the overseer of all gentile churches, reported.  In the same way Paul then seems to oversee Timothy and Titus, heads of the churches in Ephesus and in Crete.   I truly see a plurality of Elders, but it’s not hard to see how the Bishoprics got started.

That brings us to the reformation.  Calvin and Knox agree with me about the plurality of Elders but they still thought in terms of church hierarchy.  So you have councils of Elders reporting to Councils of Elders (Presbyterianism).  Still others in the reform movement determined to place the authority in the local church movement and thus Congregationalism was formed.

We are a Bible Church.  Our movement was born just 100 years ago when many of the mainline denominations started to slip away from Fundamental Doctrines of the Faith.  Many of our parent denominations were Hierarchical in nature and we wanted nothing to do with that so we (along with most evangelical/fundamental churches) chose to keep our churches autonomous and therefore congregational.  We believe in a plurality of Elders and our bylaws do affirm that the Elders oversee EVERYTHING.  However, in keeping with the fact that the church (the body) is autonomous  the congregation still votes on (ratifies) things like the hiring of a new senior pastor, the annual budget and our deacons and our elders.  It’s really a model of the republic and some have called our model the federated model.

And that’s probably waaay more than you wanted to know.

In Christ,

Pastor Scott

Strength – April 10, 2025

Do you face a task or challenge that seems too big (or annoying)?  Do you have a person in your life that you find hard to understand (or may even tolerate)?  Do you have some hurdle or challenge affecting your health or finances?

Take a minute, read the verses below – out loud if possible – and let the true Word of God wash over you!  ~Pastor Scott

  • 2 Corinthians 12:9 – “My grace is all you need, for My power is the greatest when you are weak.” 
  • Psalm 73:26 – “My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.” 
  • Nehemiah 8:10 – “Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”
  • Deuteronomy 31:6 – Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.
  • Philippians 4:13 – I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
  • Isaiah 40:31 – But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.
  • Isaiah 41:10 – Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.
  • Exodus 15:2 – The Lord is my strength and my song, and He has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise Him, my father’s God, and I will exalt Him.
  • 1 Chronicles 16:11 – Seek the Lord and His strength; seek His presence continually!
  • Ephesians 6:10 – Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.
  • 1 Corinthians 16:13 – Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
  • Exodus 15:2 – The Lord is my strength and my song, and He has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise Him, my father’s God, and I will exalt Him. 

Partakers – March 13, 2025

We are in the middle of our annual month-long Missions Conference.  Some of the missionaries we have heard from have been supported by this church for decades.  A verse that keeps going through my head, as I listen, is Philippians 1:5, which says, in context:

I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all,  in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now.  For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.  For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.  (Philippians 1:3-7 Empahis added)

The word koinonia appears twice in the passage.  The word, elsewhere, is also translated “fellowship,” “sharing,” “communion,” “contribution,” and, “partnership.”  As I have often said, it’s a very high privilege to have been in partnership with some many ministers of the gospel for so many years.  At the same time it makes me want to ask; “What can we, as a church and/or as individuals, do to make the fellowship even sweeter?”    I think for starters we can meditate on the Lexicon below (particularly the “usage” and “Cultural/Historical Background” paragraphs) and ask God for specific ideas of something that can be implemented (done) this week (month or even year) that would bring you closer to any of our missions family members. 

Pastor Scott – James 1:22

Strong’s Lexicon

koinónia: Fellowship, communion, participation, sharing

Original Word: κοινωνία
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: koinónia
Pronunciation: koy-nohn-EE-ah
Phonetic Spelling: (koy-nohn-ee’-ah)
Definition: Fellowship, communion, participation, sharing
Meaning: (lit: partnership) (a) contributory help, participation, (b) sharing in, communion, (c) spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit.

Word Origin: Derived from the Greek word κοινός (koinos), meaning “common” or “shared.”

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: – Strong’s Hebrew 2266: חָבַר (chabar) – to join, to unite, to be in fellowship

– Strong’s Hebrew 7453: רֵעַ (rea) – friend, companion, fellow

Usage: Koinónia refers to the deep, intimate fellowship and communal participation among believers, as well as their shared relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It encompasses the idea of sharing in spiritual blessings, mutual support, and active partnership in the faith. This term is often used to describe the unity and community life of the early church, emphasizing the believers’ common bond in Christ.

Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, koinónia was a term used to describe various forms of partnership and communal life, including business partnerships and civic associations. In the New Testament, the term takes on a distinctly Christian meaning, highlighting the spiritual and relational aspects of the Christian community. The early church was characterized by a strong sense of koinónia, as believers shared their lives, resources, and faith with one another, reflecting the unity and love of the body of Christ.

With Gentleness and Reverence – 02.19.2025

I was planning to address the issue of mean-spiritedness that I sometimes see in human discourse.  This article was one of the documents that came up with that particular search string.  I don’t know Kyle but, while he and I share a different soteriology, his understanding of “balance” seems biblically accurate and insightful.  Take a few minutes to read it, Pastor Scott

13 February 2025/Kyle Borg

The Reluctant Polemicist

One of the most embarrassing moments of my life happened when I was a new seminary student. I had scheduled lunch with one of my professors, excited to talk theology and ask about preaching. As I got into his car and was buckling up, he said in his strong Scottish accent, “Kyle, I’ve seen how you interact on social media. If there were a degree for being argumentative, you’d be at the top of the class.” I wanted to run, but the car was already moving, and I was stuck.

I grew up in a home that encouraged me to challenge what I was taught and to have informed convictions. My family enjoyed a good-spirited argument around the dinner table, and due to natural “abilities” I believe that if something is worth saying it’s worth saying loudly. In college I won an award for the best speaker in debate, and on one particular occasion I received applause when I reduced my rival to tears as she fled the room. I studied philosophy and was always asked to prove or disprove the world of ideas. When social media became popularized it gave me endless chances to tell people they were wrong.

In my formative years my love for arguing turned theological. I had big shifts in my thinking when I was introduced to Calvinism and Reformed theology. Far more ignorant than knowledgeable, I fiercely argued with anyone who disagreed with me, even if I had shared their view minutes earlier. I didn’t listen; I only responded. I didn’t try to understand; I just wanted to win. I thought I was being heroic, especially since John Calvin famously said: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”

Then came my professor’s confrontation. His words hit me hard, they were shattering. But it was an “Aha-Moment” — I wasn’t a defender of the faith, I was just being a jerk, hiding behind a think mask of piety. Unfortunately, my actions had consequences. I needlessly offended others, I hurt people not with the truth but with my words, and I dishonored Jesus. Since that day I’ve tried to blunt my polemical edge — or, to put it more accurately, I’ve tried to have that edge sanctified.

I say “sanctified” because there’s a place for Christians to stand firm and refute. After all, we believe in the authority and clarity of the Bible and this should lead us to have strong convictions on theological matters. The Prophets, Apostles, and even Jesus didn’t shy away from contending vigorously for the truth — speaking boldly and convincingly. But to do this in a godly way requires grace and wisdom — qualities that are, in my view, rare. There’s a fine line between contending and stirring up trouble (Prov. 29:22), speaking a soft word or being harsh (Prov. 15:1), being prepared or disrespectful (1 Pt. 3:15), being responsible or a busybody (2 Thess. 3:11); correcting or fault-finding (Matt. 7:3-5), being discerning or divisive (Titus 3:10). There’s a fine line between seeking peace and exhibiting pride. A godly polemicist needs to know that line, and I fear very few do.

When the Dutch theologian Herman Witsius was invited to give a response to a big theological controversy in Britain, he began his response by writing:

And I reckon it not the smallest part of our calamity, or at least the most painful of our office, that we who preside in matters of Christianity, are often constrained to bestow tedious labour in resolving the difficulties of thorny controversies. So is the age; all places resound with debates: that very temple not excepted which the Lord hath consecrated to peace and concord […] Be ye willing or unwilling, in battle you must engage; O that it were always that good fight of faith, which Paul recommended to Timothy! However, if we are not permitted to shun the conflict, the prudence of the just demands, that they, who in the defense of orthodoxy show themselves the right guardians of truth, should remember studiously to avoid [those] things which are not lawful for ministers of peace.

Witsius wasn’t unwilling to engage. Anyone familiar with his writings knows how thoughtfully, thoroughly, and strongly he did so. There’s a time and a place and a way to do so — and passivity lacks the courage that should distinguish believers. But he was also reluctant. He was reluctant because controversy can come from the spirit of the age, the fight of faith can be counterfeited, the peace of the church easily disturbed, and argumentation can become lawless warfare. Such polemics are beneath the dignity of Christianity.

What does the church need most today? The answer can vary depending on your perspective. After observing many debates on social media, you might think the church needs less arguing and more caution. I can relate to that view. Most social media interactions don’t seem to be helpful, kind, or honoring to Christ. A lot of it is just rude, uncharitable, and straining gnats. It’s just a shameless craving for controversy. On the other hand, when we look at the culture, we see many Christians who are indifferent—those who aren’t deeply convicted or committed, and they avoid necessary conflicts at almost all costs. I understand that too, and wish the church had more of a fighting spirit.

In my opinion, the church needs the reluctant polemicist. We don’t need reluctant people without polemics, nor do we need polemics without reluctance. We need those with an uncompromising backbone who are willing and able to zealously contend for biblical doctrine, worship, and godliness. Men who fight for the honor bestowed by God alone. But they also need to have enough reluctance to avoid, in the fight, everything unbecoming of one enlisted under the banner of Jesus Christ, and whose contending is for peace. Again, in the words of Witsius: “Those men [are] the most happy, who knowing nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and living soberly, righteously, and godly according to the prescription of the gospel” remain far from contentions and striving.

Kyle Borg

Husband of one. Father of six. Pastor of more. Rural enthusiast.

Descended into Hades??  – Feb 14, 2025

On Sunday (2/9) I preached on Mark 9 which deals with the place where “the worm does not die and the fire never goes out” – the place called Hell.

I got a question on the text line that results from the line in the Apostles Creed, posted below (appearing between the burial and resurrection) or from 1 Peter 3.  Where did Jesus go during his “death?”  The passage from which the Apostle’s Creed draws its conclusion is 1 Peter 3:18-20 which reads: 

 “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water”

Did Jesus go to Hades and preach to the spirits of the dead?  

Did He go to Hades and triumphantly proclaim His victory over sin and death?  

Or, is this a reference to Jesus’ spirit being with Noah when he preached to the lost of His day?  

I prefer the third interpretation, but it is textually the weakest of the three; the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).  These words seem less subject to conjecture or misinterpretation.  I do NOT think Jesus was in Hell (or Hades) for those 3 days.  And on those rare occasions I’m called on to recite or sing the Creed, I stay silent during those moments.  

I understand why it’s there and I’m not going to go on a crusade to get it changed, I just think there is a better interpretation.

Pastor Scott (with thanks to William for reminding me of Luke 23:43)On Sunday (2/9) I preached on Mark 9 which deals with the place where “the worm does not die and the fire never goes out” – the place called Hell.

I got a question on the text line that results from the line in the Apostles Creed, poster below (appearing between the burial and resurrection) or from 1 Peter 3.  Where did Jesus go during his “death?”  The passage from which the Apostle’s Creed draws its conclusion is 1 Peter 3:18-20 which reads: 

 “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water”

Did Jesus go to Hades and preach to the spirits of the dead?  

Did He go to Hades and triumphantly proclaim His victory over sin and death?  

Or, is this a reference to Jesus’ spirit being with Noah when he preached to the lost of His day?  

I prefer the third interpretation, but it is textually the weakest of the three; the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).  These words seem less subject to conjecture or misinterpretation.  I do NOT think Jesus was in Hell (or Hades) for those 3 days.  And on those rare occasions I’m called on to recite or sing the Creed, I stay silent during those moments.  

I understand why it’s there and I’m not going to go on a crusade to get it changed, I just think there is a better interpretation.

Pastor Scott (with thanks to William for reminding me of Luke 23:43)

Idols! February 7, 2025

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” said Jesus in Matthew 6:24.

Our money can certainly be an idol! So can our career, our fitness or our family! At the same time to give away all my money, quit my job, let my body go to pot, and walk away from my family would be a quintessential failure!

So what should I do? Paul was faced with a similar conundrum as the believers were trying to figure out their convictions about idols. For them national idolatry was involved in how meat was produced and what days were honored. In that passage (Romans 14) he said: “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind {v. 5}.” Furthermore he says that the abstainer should not judge the “indulger” and the indulger should not regard the abstainer with contempt.

This is not a prescription for dealing with clear cut sin issues, but rather a call to respect another’s conviction about how to apply principles that aren’t precepts. Is having a 401K idolatry? Is having a new suit/dress idolatry? Is letting my kids color in church idolatry? And when does rooting for a particular sports team become idolatry? Let each person be convinced before God and let everyone be satisfied with that. Not my opinion, but rather that of the Spirit-filled Apostle – and a call for mindfulness, regarding our decisions and the decisions of others!

Pastor Scott

So what happened to the 12? – Jan 30, 2025

After Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 1). The 11 remaining disciples appointed a brother named Matthias to replace Judas, who had committed suicide after betraying our Lord. This is a debated point because the Scripture gives us no indication whether or not God wanted them to do this, and many see the apostle Paul as God’s obvious replacement for Judas. While I personally tend to hold this point of view, I find it pointless to argue or debate. God has called all of us to the work he has for us and no one is more important or more holy or more loved in God’s kingdom than any other person.

What happened to these men after Jesus is based in part on historical record and in part on church tradition. Unfortunately politics enters into the traditions of men and so we have traditions claiming that James, the brother of John, went to Spain, when the Bible makes it clear that he was the first of the 12 to be martyred (killed) for his faith in Jesus, when he was put to the sword in the early days of the church in Jerusalem.

PETER

Peter was crucified around 66AD in Rome under the persecution of Emperor Nero. There are all kinds of unverified traditions about his death, most notably that he was crucified upside down because he didn’t consider himself worthy to die the same way Jesus did. 

JAMES

James was the first of the 12 to be put to death. King Herod had him killed by the sword in Jerusalem (Acts 12). There are some non-biblical traditions about James that I will address later. 

JOHN

The writer of the the Gospel of John, the book of the Revelation and three epistles bearing his name, John is the only one of the 12 that history says was not put to death for his faith, although he suffered greatly because of Jesus throughout his long life. Tradition says he ended his life ministering in the region around Ephesus in modern day Turkey and is buried there. 

ANDREW

The brother of Peter, Andrew traveled north, bringing the good news to what is now Russia and the western regions of the former Soviet Union. He later traveled through modern day Turkey and Greece where he was martyred.

PHILIP

Philip ministered in North Africa and then Asia Minor. Traditions says that a Roman Proconsul was so enraged that his wife had converted to Christianity because of Philip’s preaching that he had Philip brutally put to death. There is disagreement about the manor in which he died but no matter the method, it was because he fully believed that Jesus had died and risen from the grave. It is possible that Philip’s tomb was recently discovered (read about HERE).

BARTHOLOMEW/NATHANIEL

Bartholomew was apparently someone who loved to travel. Some accounts have him going to India with Thomas, then Armenia before heading along the trade routes between Ethiopia and the southern Arabian regions. While we are not sure how he met his end, tradition agrees that he was martyred for his faith. In some places he is listed as “Nathaniel” which could have been a family name or a name he was known by in the church. 

MATTHEW/LEVI

The gospel writer who had previously been a tax collector, Matthew traveled to modern day Iran and then down to Ethiopia, probably following established trade routes and preaching the gospel along the way. While some account do not include how he died, others say he was stabbed to death in Africa. 

Like Bartholomew, Matthew was known by more than one name: Levi. This other name is easier to pin down and is probably a family or tribal identification. 

THOMAS

Thomas get’s a bad rap. Although he doubted the resurrection at first, Thomas’ faith in the risen Jesus was strong enough to send him traveling east to Syria and Iraq to preach the gospel, eventually ending up in India were the Marthoma Christian tradition considers him to be their founder. The Marthoma tradition says that Thomas died by stabbing at the hands of four soldiers. 

JAMES THE SON OF ALPHAUES

Very possibly the brother of Matthew/Levi, James is believed to have preached in the regions north of Israel. A non-christian historical account says that he was stoned and then clubbed to death. He is sometimes known as James the Younger (younger brother of Levi?) or James the Lesser (which would have had different connotations then it does for us today). 

SIMON THE ZELOT

Simon’s ultimate end is somewhat unclear. I wrote earlier that politics gets involved in the traditions about the apostles. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it became politically advantageous to be connected with the apostles or notable christian events or leaders. This means that places like Turkey, Greece, Rome and Jerusalem naturally had more power/influence than churches in places like Britain, France, Africa and Spain. 

As I said earlier, there are non-biblical traditions regarding the apostles. In the 12th century, a Spanish bishop began to promote the idea that James had come to Spain, despite the account of James’ martyrdom in Acts 12. The same is true with Simon the Zelot with different groups and agendas making claim to Simon’s legacy. The majority view seems to be that Simon was sawn in half in Persia.  

PHILIP

Little is known about Philip’s life after Acts 2. Some have tried to link him with the Philip found later in the book of Acts but the circumstantial evidence doesn’t seem to fit other than sharing the same name. Tradition says that he preached in the Phrygia region of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and was martyred for his faith in Jesus in the town of Hierapolis. 

JUDAS THADEUS 

The early church father Jerome called Jude “Trinomius” which means three names. Mark and Matthew list him by his family name “Thaddeus”, while Luke refers to him as Judas the Brother of James. Some have tried to link him with Jude, the half-brother of Jesus who wrote the book of the same name but we reject this view. 

Tradition holds that he preached the gospel in the area we could think of as Northern Syria, Iraq and Turkey. He was said to have been killed with arrows in Turkey’s mountainous northern region. 

MATTHIAS

Tradition says that Matthias traveled north, possibly as far as the Caspian Sea. He was martyred for his faith although the method of his death is unclear.

PAUL

Paul suffered for the Lord throughout his life. In addition to imprisonment and multiple threats to his life, Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:25 that “Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea.” 

Paul was beheaded in Rome in 66 AD, possibly at the same time as Peter.

JUDAS

Judas committed suicide after betraying Jesus. I mention this because every one of Jesus’ followers died. 10 of them as martyrs. John died of old age. But Judas chose a cursed path. He was not the only one who betrayed Jesus; all of the other disciples abandoned Jesus, Peter directly denied knowing him. Paul persecuted Jesus’ followers. Yet all of them embraced the grace and forgiveness of God and that same grace was available to Judas. 

Faith or Sight?  12.13.2024

Last Sunday we were talking about Faith in the light of catastrophe: “Though the fig trees should not blossom…”  But time got away and we didn’t talk as much about just everyday living by faith as I had intended.  This “got questions” article is a good thought provoker in that direction! – Pastor Scott

What does it mean to walk by faith and not by sight?              (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Second Corinthians 5:6–7 says, “So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight” (ESV, emphasis added). Other versions use the word live, rather than walk. The “walk” here is a metaphorical reference to the way a person conducts his or her life. We still use the phrase “all walks of life” to mean a variety of lifestyles or cultures.

The apostle Paul reminds his readers that followers of Christ must not build their lives around things that have no eternal significance. Rather than pursuing the same things the world pursues, a Christian should focus on the unseen realities such as Jesus and heaven. Paul goes on to say, “So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Corinthians 5:9–10). Jesus instructed us to store up treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19–20; Luke 12:33). He promised rewards to everyone who does His will (Matthew 16:27; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 22:12) and punishment for those who reject Him (Matthew 25:24–46; John 3:16–18).

Walking by faith means living life in light of eternal consequences. To walk by faith is to fear God more than man; to obey the Bible even when it conflicts with man’s commands; to choose righteousness over sin, no matter what the cost; to trust God in every circumstance; and to believe God rewards those who seek Him, regardless of who says otherwise (Hebrews 11:6).

Rather than loving the things of this world (1 John 2:15–16), Christians should spend their lives glorifying God in everything they do (1 Corinthians 10:31). It requires faith to live this way because we cannot see, hear, or touch anything spiritual. When we base our lives on the truth of God’s Word, rather than on the popular philosophy of our day, we are going against our natural inclinations. Our natural instinct may be to hoard money, but walking by faith says we should give to those in need (Luke 11:41; Ephesians 4:28). Society may say that sexual immorality is acceptable, but those who walk by faith base their standards on God’s unchanging Word, which says any sex outside of marriage is sin (1 Corinthians 6:18; Ephesians 5:3; Galatians 5:19). To walk by faith requires that we tune our hearts to the voice of the Holy Spirit and the truth of His Word (John 10:27; 16:13). We choose to live according to what God reveals to us, rather than trust our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5–6).

Discipleship Defined 10.04.24

Got this blog from GES on Wednesday Oct 2, 2024 The week the Grace Groups begin their Study of Discipleship.  I thought it was God-timing.  ~Pastor Scott  
Grace Evangelical Society

Success in Fishing Doesn’t Come Free By Kenneth Yates on Oct 02, 2024 09:30 amOne of the characteristics of Free Grace Theology is that it makes a distinction between a believer and a disciple. A believer is somebody who has believed in Jesus for eternal life. They receive it as a gift. Works play no part in it whatsoever. A disciple is a believer who follows Christ in obedience. Discipleship involves works and is not free. All believers will be in the kingdom, but not all believers are disciples.Many Bible teachers disagree. They say we must do works to prove we are saved. They maintain that all believers are disciples. There is no difference between the two.This is a strange and contradictory teaching. Those who promote it say that eternal salvation is free, then quickly add that it will cost the person everything. That makes absolutely no sense. They do this because they think verses that say eternal salvation is free and verses about the cost of being a disciple are all talking about the same thing—salvation from hell. They try to make all these verses be about the same thing.We need only look at one example to see how nonsensical such a view is. Imagine preaching that salvation is absolutely free, then saying that Mark 1:16-20 is talking about the same thing. The Lord calls four fishermen to follow Him. The word follow is a discipleship term. It is an ongoing process. The Lord wants these men to walk after Him, learn from Him, and do the things He commands them to do. Receiving eternal life is not a process. It happens in a moment of time, when the person believes in Jesus for eternal life.Clearly, Jesus is not telling these men to believe in Him. He is not offering them a gift. These men had already believed and received the gift of life (John 1:37-42). Jesus is telling them to do something more and to get to work.The call to do work is also clear in what Jesus wants them to do. He wants them to learn how to fish for men. These four men were fishermen, and they knew the kind of work involved in that business. When Jesus called them to follow Him, they were doing hard work. Some were casting nets into the sea (v 16). Others were mending broken nets and getting them ready for the next trip out into the water (v 19).Recently, I went on a trip to the coast of Georgia. I did a tourist thing where a fisherman showed us how to catch fish with a large net. I volunteered, along with another man, to give it a try. We unfolded the net and waded about thirty yards out into the water. We dragged the net for about ten minutes. We caught a bunch of small fish. After those ten minutes, I was done. I needed to take a nap.It was obvious to me that fishing takes a great deal of work. Not a single one of those men whom Jesus called that day thought, “He is calling us to do something that is absolutely free and takes no work.” They understood that the Lord was urging them to follow Him by doing hard work.Even though I have heard it a thousand times, it still baffles me when I hear people say that the Lord was telling these fishermen to believe in Him for eternal life in these verses. If those four men heard somebody say that Jesus was offering them a free gift on the Sea of Galilee that day, they would have rolled on the ground laughing.There is no doubt that Christ was calling these men to be His disciples. That is not the same thing as believing in Him. Believing costs nothing. Discipleship is very costly. It is hard work. If you try to say they are the same thing, you only look foolish.Let’s keep them separate. Receiving eternal life is given freely by God’s grace through faith alone. Being a disciple will take hard work. Go to the coast of Georgia and drag a net in the ocean for ten minutes and you’ll see. Unless your theological tradition compels you do to so, you will never say that Mark 1:16-20 is an invitation for these men to receive a gift.