Repent, While There is Still Time by Rick Frueh

excerpt:

… the outward signs and manifestations of a religion that says it is Christian but reveals everything to the contrary, are all around us. In fact, if you cannot see the open disfigurement of the faith once delivered to the saints you are deceived as well. And these are not minor disagreements that are more fringe than core. These modern displays tear at the very fabric of what Jesus came to do and what the church is ordained to do and be. Again I say that the situation is so horrifying and treacherous, that in good conscience most of the evangelical religious expressions can no longer be called Christian.

Full article here
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2012/01/repent-while-there-is-still-time-i-can.html#links



.

How to approach the Bible (a personal account)

Part one: How NOT to approach the bible.

In my early days as a Christian, the Bible tended to be experienced through the handful of verses quoted by a preacher in church during his sermon. When I was feeling diligent and more “spiritual” than other occasions I would even go home and read over those verses again to make sure the preacher had really been quoting scripture. If the verses were there I was satisfied that the preaching had been “scriptural”.

Some times I would recognise that I needed to study scripture more for myself. So I bought myself a study bible and found myself studying the notes in the margin more than I actually read the text of scripture.

Eventually I started to notice a bit of a discrepancy between the Christian life being promoted by the preachers in church and the actual Christian life being lived and demonstrated within the church and of course by myself. Something was definitely missing between professed faith and experienced/demonstrated faith.

Friends of mine came up with the answer, shared it with me and eventually my eyes opened to the truth of what they had been sharing. Christians did not REALLY believe the word of God. We were swayed by everything around us, by experience by emotion by circumstances even when those things contradicted what God had revealed in His word.

I suppose part of this problem stemmed from the fact that most of us had never really understood what God’s word was saying because we had neglected it. All we knew was what we were being taught in church and it was clear that the church had no more insight than we had.
My friends started to lend me tapes of sermons that concentrated on the importance of knowing God’s word and believing it. The teaching was revolutionary and exciting. It all made complete sense and I could see that a diligent application would help me experience the same dynamic Christian experience recorded in the book of Acts.
I soaked up the teaching and studied the many scriptures I was learning through the teaching, memorising what I could and “confessing” them regularly.
I became very adept at having a “scripture” for every occasion and situation. If I started feeling unwell I knew that “By His stripes I was healed” and that illness was subject to the truth of God’s word. What would I believe – the evidence of my flesh or the word of God Himself?

But again it should be noted that my relationship with scripture was mainly second-hand, coming to me selected and interpreted by the people whose teaching I found appealing. I knew a lot of scripture, but my knowledge didn’t include its intended SCRIPTURAL context. My knowledge and understanding came from the context it was given by the teacher.

I’ve written elsewhere how this house built on sand came crashing down and how it took over 15 years to recover so I won’t repeat that here. I’ll just move on next to what I have learned since then and how my understanding and approach to scripture has changed.

Part 2 Starting With Foundations

Firstly I refrained from any attempt to STUDY scripture. In the past, when I had taken the time to turn to the scriptures for myself it was usually to study a particular topic or a selected portion of scripture. But in doing that I had no idea of how that topic or that portion related to the Bible as a whole. I came to realise that I didn’t understand the very basics of how the different parts of scripture fitted together, how one part related to another.
How did the books of law, the books of history, the prophets, the psalms and the other miscellaneous writings of the Old Testament all come together?

How could I expect to understand what I was studying if I had no overall foundation to build upon? Before I could get anything of value from studying PARTS of scripture I needed to get the overview. The only way of getting that was to read scripture without getting distracted by things I didn’t understand. I needed to see THAT things fitted together and HOW instead of trying to make a piece from here join up with a piece from over there whether they ought to be joined or not.
I also couldn’t expect to understand everything on my first reading. I had to be willing to put some things aside and move on.

Scripture was written in whole books and not in convenient sound bites. Our ideas of “study” tend to make us concentrate on little bits of information rather than the big picture. Often “study” is little more than a demonstration of our impatience. We want answers NOW and so dig into the targeted area to find out as much as possible as soon as possible.
The problem with this is that we may not be ready to understand that issue. Sometimes we may be lacking a more foundational area of understanding and that lack will hinder out ability to correctly comprehend the subject of our study

I use the example of mathematics. We will not understand advanced concepts of algebra if we have never learned the basic truths of arithmetic. And yet, as Christians we try to rush ahead to understand the complex before we’ve grasped the basics of faith. This is why so often we turn to the teaching of others and so easily we get caught up in man’s ideas at the expense of the truth we need to learn.

Reading rather than study helps us to build up those foundational basics. We pick things up as we go along – those things that we are ready to understand instead of trying to force ourselves to pick up things that we are not ready for. This is why subsequent readings often bring new light. Each reading will add to our foundations and will make us ready to add more. I experienced this recently while reading Zechariah. Some things made much more sense this time than previously – in fact it was like reading a new book. This was because my reading elsewhere in the prophets had added a layer of understanding that helped me to see things in Zechariah that I’d missed before.

Part 3. Practical issues.

One of the most valuable bible reading aids that I’ve come across is a volume called “The Books of the Bible”. No it isn’t some kind of commentary; it’s an edition of the Bible without Chapter and verse divisions. It is also presented more or less in chronological order. For example, all of Paul’s letters appear in the order they were written instead of according to length (as in the more familiar order of other Bibles). The Old Testament is also re-ordered so that the prophets also come in chronological sequence. Other books are grouped to match the order of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is hard to describe what a difference it makes to avoid the distractions of chapter and verse numbers. Those manmade divisions have made it very easy to pull sections from their context and apply them incorrectly. They also cause unnatural breaks in the flow of the text. Some of the chapter divisions occur on the most inappropriate places.

Another useful aid I have is a dramatised bible on CD. After reading a book through for myself I find it helpful to read along while listening to the recording. However, not all audio bibles are of the same quality. I’ve heard some from readers who seem to have no understanding of what they are reading. Their emphasis and intonation is all wrong and it becomes a hindrance rather than a help. The particular version I have is excellent.

Many people try to devote a little time each day to reading a portion of scripture. My personal preference is to devote a larger block of time to reading, even if it’s not possible to do so every day. That larger block of time makes it easier to keep things in context and with some of shorter to medium length books it allows the reading of a whole book in one sitting. This of course is rarely practical for the longer books. While on some days there may not always be the opportunity for those longer reading periods, I regularly spend time thinking over and discussing what I’ve read and how it fits together with the rest of scripture.
And remember, the Psalms are ideal to read when time is more limited.

Other Than an Occasional Problem With Pride, I Believe I've Reached Sinless Perfection

An article by David Servant

If God is in you, He is working, and you are thus obligated to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). Only those in heaven have salvation "in the bag." The rest of us are running a race for the finish line.
Paul was certainly running that race at one time. He was obviously living far above the sins he listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that mark one as being unrighteous and disqualified from inheriting God's kingdom. But did he think he had attained sinless perfection? No, it was something he was still pursuing even after he had been a believer for at least twenty-five years.

Full article found here:

Sinless Perfection




.

God's Sacrifice

An article and a sermon from two different sources but addressing the same theme: the cross and the sacrificial crucifixion of Jesus.

Article from Judahslion blog
Behold the Lamb

Recorded Sermon from Art Katz
And they Crucified Him

What should be our response?

Martyrdom of a friend.

My previous two entries have been historical accounts of people who lost their lives for their faith in the area of England where I spent my childhood.

I now want to make note of another martyrdom that was even closer to home than those above, it happened almost exactly 20 years ago, in August 1989.

I met Jackie Hamill in the mid 1980s. She was a student at the bible college run by Vision Ministries Australia, which at the time was based in Parramatta to the west of Sydney.
The college held regular Saturday night meetings that were open to the public and every couple of weeks I’d make the hour and a half drive to attend. Jackie always made sure that my friends and I felt welcome with her cheerful greeting. Of all of the students, she is the only one I remembered, so it was quite a shock when years later I saw her on the evening news.
She was huddled with a group of people taken hostage by rioting prisoners at a Philippines Jail. In the news footage, the group were being shuffled around the front of a building at gunpoint. Jackie and the others had been taking the gospel to the inmates of the prison when the riot began.

According to reports, she and other female hostages were raped repeatedly, yet witnesses said that throughout the horrific ordeal she continued to sing praise to God and to share the gospel with the others present.
After three days there was a shootout between the prisoners and the authorities. In the exchange Jackie was mortally wounded but continued to sing until her life finally slipped away.

A more vivid account and other details can be found at the following links (but note the dating inaccuracy found in one report:

http://www.historyswomen.com/hamill.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19890822&id=0zcRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7OcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5174,759751

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19890817&id=9d8QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=epEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1441,4671400

THE QUESTION that CHANGED MY LIFE by Dr. David Ryser

A number of years ago, I had the privilege of teaching at a school
of ministry. My students were hungry for God, and I was constantly
searching for ways to challenge them to fall more in love with
Jesus and to become voices for revival in the Church. I came across
a quote attributed most often to Rev. Sam Pascoe. It is a short
version of the history of Christianity, and it goes like this:

Christianity started in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece
and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution;
it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and
became an enterprise. Some of the students were only 18 or 19
years old--barely out of diapers--and I wanted them to understand
and appreciate the import of the last line, so I clarified it by adding,
"An enterprise. That's a business." After a few moments Martha,
the youngest student in the class, raised her hand. I could not
imagine what her question might be. I thought the little vignette was
self-explanatory, and that I had performed it brilliantly. Nevertheless,
I acknowledged Martha's raised hand, "Yes, Martha." She asked
such a simple question, "A business? But isn't it supposed to be
a body?" I could not envision where this line of questioning was going,
and the only response I could think of was, "Yes." She continued,
"But when a body becomes a business, isn't that a prostitute?"

The room went dead silent. For several seconds no one moved or
spoke. We were stunned, afraid to make a sound because the
presence of God had flooded into the room, and we knew we were
on holy ground. All I could think in those sacred moments was,
"Wow, I wish I'd thought of that." I didn't dare express that thought
aloud. God had taken over the class.

Martha's question changed my life. For six months, I thought about
her question at least once every day. "When a body becomes a
business, isn't that a prostitute?" There is only one answer to her
question. The answer is "Yes." The American Church, tragically,
is heavily populated by people who do not love God. How can we
love Him? We don't even know Him; and I mean really know Him.

... I stand by my statement that most American Christians do not
know God--much less love Him. The root of this condition originates
in how we came to God. Most of us came to Him because of what
we were told He would do for us. We were promised that He would
bless us in life and take us to heaven after death. We married Him
for His money, and we don't care if He lives or dies as long as we
can get His stuff. We have made the Kingdom of God into a business,
merchandising His anointing. This should not be. We are commanded
to love God, and are called to be the Bride of Christ--that's pretty
intimate stuff. We are supposed to be His lovers. How can we love
someone we don't even know? And even if we do know someone,
is that a guarantee that we truly love them? Are we lovers or
prostitutes?

I was pondering Martha's question again one day, and considered
the question, "What's the difference between a lover and a prostitute?"
I realized that both do many of the same things, but a lover does
what she does because she loves. A prostitute pretends to love, but
only as long as you pay. Then I asked the question, "What would
happen if God stopped paying me?"

For the next several months, I allowed God to search me to uncover
my motives for loving and serving Him. Was I really a true lover of
God? What would happen if He stopped blessing me? What if He
never did another thing for me? Would I still love Him? Please
understand, I believe in the promises and blessings of God. The
issue here is not whether God blesses His children; the issue is
the condition of my heart. Why do I serve Him? Are His blessings
in my life the gifts of a loving Father, or are they a wage that I have
earned or a bribe/payment to love Him? Do I love God without any
conditions? It took several months to work through these questions.
Even now I wonder if my desire to love God is always matched by
my attitude and behavior. I still catch myself being disappointed
with God and angry that He has not met some perceived need in
my life. I suspect this is something which is never fully resolved,
but I want more than anything else to be a true lover of God.

So what is it going to be? Which are we, lover or prostitute?
There are no prostitutes in heaven, or in the Kingdom of God for
that matter, but there are plenty of former prostitutes in both
places. Take it from a recovering prostitute when I say there is no
substitute or unconditional, intimate relationship with God. And I
mean there is no palatable substitute available to us (take another
look at Matthew 7:21-23 sometime). We must choose.

-Dr. David Ryser.

-------------------------
As received from Andrew Strom's revivalschool newsletter.

--
YES! - You have permission to post these emails
to friends or other groups, blogs, boards, etc. Go for it!

To subscribe, please send a 'subscribe' email to-
prophetic@revivalschool.com

See our website and discussion board-
http://www.revivalschool.com

TRUTH or Tolerance and Compromise?

It is becoming increasing evident that the teachings of men have replaced the authority of scripture in the church’s theological foundations. The evidence has become overwhelming. Rather than accept and trust scripture, people will go to all kinds of lengths to explain why it doesn’t mean what it is clearly saying.

We have Calvinism redefining salvation and the means by which God has made it available. Then there are the extreme charismatics who have redefined signs and wonders and have turned God’s love into an expression of His desperation to be accepted. And what about the “extreme prophetic” and the “New Apostolic Reformation”? They’ve created new definitions of the prophetic and apostolic?

No matter which direction we turn there’s someone trying to improve on the truth God has provided in His written word.

I don’t know how many feel the same kind of frustration that I’ve been experiencing increasingly over the last year. From regular involvement with a variety of blogs and forums I’m coming across more and more people who are content to tolerate clear cut doctrinal error.
The first clear (recent) examples came in response to concerns about Todd Bentley and his Lakeland “revival”. No matter how weird and perverse things became there were always those who jumped up to defend what was happening. No matter how aberrant the preaching; no matter how many flaky prophecies were given; no matter how much occultic mysticism was mixed with a sampling of bible quotes – there was always a stridently vocal cheer squad singing the “revival’s” praises and condemning the ‘heresy hunters”.
Even Bentley’s open immorality was not enough to open the eyes of many. Instead the support continues.

But the modern day charismanic circus is only one aspect of the problem. The deceiver knows that you can’t tempt everyone with the same flavours. There are other things he provides for the unwary to taste. Those without a sweet tooth, who are not attracted to fluffy, sugary carnival treats, might prefer something a bit meatier; something with more substance. While the extreme charismatics prefer a scripture-lite approach that shuns “traditional interpretations”, others cling to traditional teachings as if they have the authority of scripture itself. They prize scripture – as long as it’s been filtered through a trained and ordained intermediary. Scripture is beyond the average believer and contains mysteries that are best left to those more qualified to seek out its truths.
And so centuries old traditions are passed from generation to generation and defended ferociously should they be challenged.

My personal journey over this last year (and more) has included experience with these opposite extremes of Christian tradition. One group interprets scripture through a centuries old theological system while the other group seems to make things up as they go along.

One group gives lip service to the authority of scripture while in reality authority is given to their theological tradition and how IT interprets scripture.
The other group gives lip service to scripture while in reality giving authority to spiritual experiences and glib clichés.

One group esteems long dead theologians the other adores the flamboyant man (or woman) of the hour.

In these different groups it seems that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are pitted against each other. One is governed by established doctrines, and interprets scripture according to those doctrines. The other is governed by “the Spirit” and interprets scripture according to “spiritual” revelation.

There are obviously some very distinct and irreconcilable differences between these two groups. And yet they have at least one common factor. Both in reality have applied some kind of condition to their approach to scripture that takes away the average believer’s relationship with God’s word. Those average believers are TOLD what can be believed and how it should be believed. They are told that scripture doesn’t necessarily mean what it seems to mean, promoting the understanding that a (traditionally) college trained or a (charismatically) anointed teacher is required to convey what scripture really saying.

Of course, the extent of how this affects the church is immense and it would be impossible to go into every aspect of the problem. But to the person who wants to know and understand the truth, and is willing to spend the time and make the effort required, the truth is easily accessible. Everyone reading this blog has the means and the ability to search the scriptures for themselves because they can obviously read. But are they willing to utilise that ability?

To a great degree we have been conditioned to believe that scripture is hard to understand and that we need someone to explain it all and to share its hidden secrets. We lack confidence. But we should recognise that it is not only a lack of confidence in ourselves – we are lacking confidence in the God who desires to make Himself known through the revelation of scripture. We lack confidence in the One who promised to send His Spirit to be our teacher, and we lack confidence in His Spirit’s ability and willingness to teach us.

The conditioning process that has distanced us from scripture has also worked by giving us an expectation of how scripture should be approached. Our exposure to scripture has been through “texts” – often meaning isolated verses that are expounded upon at length by an appointed teacher of the word. In most cases little attention is given to context and meaning is given to the selected “text” that indicates some kind of special insight has been needed to get to what was really meant by that text.
Through this experience, we ourselves then try to delve into parts of scripture according to the same method used by the teacher. We dig around and try to find the deeper things hidden within those parts of scripture. And this is usually done before the student has developed even a rudimentary understanding of how the whole bible fits together, and what its overall revelation is about.
There is little understanding of how God has related to mankind throughout history and there is little understanding about the significance of God’s relationship with Israel. To most believers, the Old Testament account is a total mystery – beyond a few half remembered stories of certain bible characters.

Now I’ve waffled on and on about this for long enough. A lot of it I’ve touched upon before on this blog and on others. But is the message getting through? Is what I’m saying having any effect?
It seems not. From what I’ve read elsewhere people are quite content to cling to their personal traditions and to tolerate the traditions of others. Relativism is alive and thriving within the “church” and it has been demonstrated time and again in some of the responses my writings have received.
While I have made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to Calvinism and its abhorrent “doctrines of grace” – those Calvinists that have been most ferocious in their responses to me have at least shown a devotion to those things that they believe. They recognise the exclusivity of their beliefs and see little room for compromise. The same can not be said for so many others who demonstrate (though they would surely deny it) that they accept the relativity of “truth” – that what is true for one person is okay for that person, and what is true for me is okay for me. There is a clear opposition to any idea of bringing correction to others – such actions would be seen as divisive, and it seems like division should be avoided at all costs, even if it meant compromising on the truth.

Recently I have seen time and again how people will twist scripture in every direction possible to avoid accepting what it clearly states. All kinds of mental and logical gymnastics are performed to come to an understanding that contradicts or ignores what would be unavoidable if only the actual words of scripture were accepted for what they actually said.
Why do so many persist with this wilful blindness? And why do so many let them persist, all in the name of keeping the peace?

TRADITION AND THE BEGINNING OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIFE

Recently I came across the question : “Is receiving the Holy Spirit part of Salvation or is it just an added ‘bonus’?”

The answer to this requires us to ask another question. What is salvation and what are we saved from? (Or was that two questions?) This issue of receiving the Holy Spirit is merely one part of our introduction to the Christian life that has been distorted by many centuries of human tradition.
Is it coincidence that so much controversy centres on those issues that are foundational; the things that focus on the very beginnings of Christian life, the things that ensure we start our life of discipleship CORRECTLY?

Some people are only interested in being saved from hell, and many of those want to do the minimum required to achieve that goal. But is that what Jesus came to save us from?

Mat 1:21 And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

The salvation Jesus offers is salvation from our sins. Salvation from hell is a result of being saved from our sins.

Salvation is about THIS life as much as about our eternal destiny. Therefore we need to ensure we are equipped fully to live in our salvation here and now. How can we think we are fully equipped if we ignore and reject what Jesus has provided and has told us to receive? I strongly suspect that those who are ONLY interested in escaping hell and have no interest in God changing their lives NOW, will unfortunately find themselves thrown into the hell they had hoped to avoid.

To many people initiation into Christianity has been reduced to “believing” in Jesus. Yet scripture is very clear that repentance, baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit are ALL parts of the process of salvation. They are not optional extras that we can pick and choose according to our own whims. They are all essential aspects of our entry into Christ, COMMANDED by Jesus Himself. How can we say we believe in Him if we ignore, disobey, or explain away these basic, foundational things?

The dismissal or changing of these vital aspects of Christian life has come about because men’s traditions have replaced the plain and clear teaching of scripture.

REPENTANCE
In scripture, repentance required observable changes in behaviour and the turning away from sin.

In tradition, repentance is a brief, confessed recognition that we are sinners and that we are sorry for our sin.

BAPTISM
In scripture baptism is the full immersion of a repentant believer in water.

In tradition it is the sprinkling of water on an unsuspecting baby.

RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT
In scripture this occurs with observable evidence – most often the evidence reported in scripture is speaking in tongues, but prophetic utterance and “magnifying God” (possibly spontaneous praise) are also mentioned. The important thing to recognise is that SOMETHING happened that convinced those present that the Spirit had been received. The Spirit was not received in a passive and unobserved way. When the Spirit came into someone’s life it was OBVIOUS that He had come.

In tradition, the Spirit is received when we “believe” – with no particular evidence that anything has happened. (Pentecostal tradition is equally erroneous to insist that tongues is the ONLY evidence.)


What does scripture say about believers receiving the Holy Spirit?

1) Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit is given to those who ask (and keep on asking; – the verb is in the Greek present continuous tense).
To ask for the Holy Spirit we need to recognise that 1) we have not yet received Him 2) That we NEED to receive Him and 3) that God is willing and able to give Him to those who continue to ask until they DO receive Him.

2) The first disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem UNTIL they had received the Holy Spirit.

3) Peter told his audience on the day of Pentecost to REPENT AND BE BAPTISED and THEN they shall receive the Holy Spirit. He did not say they should just believe in Jesus and they would receive the Holy Spirit.

4) The believers in Samaria “gave heed” to the gospel Philip preached and responded with “great joy”. The apostles heard that they “had received the Word of God” and travelled to Samaria to pray for the Samaritans so they would “receive the Holy Spirit” – note this was AFTER they had heeded and received the Word of God. They did not receive the Holy Spirit automatically. They received the Holy Spirit after the apostles laid hands on them.

5) When Cornelius and his household were filled with the Holy Spirit, Peter and his companions knew it had happened:
“For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.”
Upon this evidence Peter ordered that they be baptised in water.

6) The Ephesians were asked by Paul if they had received the Holy Spirit after they had believed. After determining that they hadn’t, Paul had them baptised, laid hands on them and THEN they received the Holy Spirit – again this was AFTER they had believed and AFTER they had received water baptism in the name of Jesus. How did they know they had finally received the Holy Spirit?
“ And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”

Only someone drawn away by tradition could argue against these CLEAR, PLAIN statements to insist that receiving the Spirit happens automatically with no discernable evidence.

Are men and their traditions above God and His Word?
Do men and their traditions decide and determine what is acceptable and needed for a believer to walk in their salvation?
Do men and their traditions determine which parts of God’s word are applicable today and which parts are mere historical records? (A common argument against the examples given in Acts – is that “Acts is merely historical it’s not doctrinal” – who gave anyone the authority to make that distinction?).

Returning to the original question: “Is receiving the Holy Spirit part of Salvation or is it just an added ‘bonus’?”

Consider Jesus Himself. At what point did He start His public ministry? When did He begin to preach, heal and deliver those who were captives?

AFTER His baptism in water and AFTER the Holy Spirit had come upon Him.


If Jesus, who is God Himself, ALSO submitted to water baptism why should we think we don’t need it? If HE needed to receive the Holy Spirit (with confirming, observable signs) why should we think we don’t need to?

Mt 3:13-15 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”


Lk 3:21-22 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove.


Note that even Jesus received the Holy Spirit AFTER His baptism and AFTER He had prayed.

And He received the Spirit for THIS purpose:

Lk 4:18-19 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”

He didn’t start His ministry until He had received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn’t conduct His ministry in His own name and power and according to His own authority as God.
If JESUS needed to submit Himself to these things, and if JESUS commanded His disciples to follow His example in these things – who are we to try to change them?
Who are we to try and reason our way out of obedience?
Who are we that we can choose to do things OUR way instead of Gods?