We've had many centuries of what is called Pauline Christianity. However, we have never had the feeding of the lambs and sheep and the service of the flock by self-styled Pauline Christians even though there were times in history when they ruled the whole Roman Empire. Even today, we don't hear any call coming out of the bastions of Pauline Christianity for feeding all the lambs and sheep of the flock. Rather, what we hear is "grace" and "faith," especially in conjunction with the word "alone," with hardly a whisper of works or righteous deeds. We hear hardly a whisper about turning the other cheek. We hear hardly a whisper about giving and sharing all. We hear a great noise about family, but it is DNA-lineage rather than the spiritual family. We hear a great noise about homosexuality, but the hypocrisy of other unbridled lusts and confusions is ignored. We hear a great noise about capital punishment, which is simply stoning. We hear a great noise about abortion, but they shout even louder for war, which aborts many people, including pregnant women and hence the very fetuses that they say are sacred lives.

Oh, to be sure, not all people brought up on Paul make all these errors. It is true though that those who focus and focus and focus on the writings of Paul for all their answers end up not doing that for which Jesus called his followers.

We covered Dispensationalism in recent articles. There is also Hyperdispensationalism or Ultradispensationalism that verges into Antinomianism, upon which we've also touched. It all ends up as hardhearted Christianity, which is an oxymoron.

This terrible theology draws a line at where Paul diverged, they see as markedly, from the Jerusalem Apostles to the Jews. For these people, Paul is the founder of the church. Only Paul's theological position is accepted. Frankly, these people very nearly, and in some cases do, throw out everything but what they consider Paul's Epistles. The rest of The Bible is seen only through the filter of Paul's Epistles. The Gospels and the direct quotes of Jesus are not consulted first and directly and taken as standing on their own but rather often totally ignored in many lengthy theological discussions and writings purporting to be Christian. We don't mean here that the writers simply don't quote Jesus. We mean Jesus's message is missing.

Understand here that Jesus's message is a whole. It isn't piecemeal. It isn't half-truth.

Now what has been going on that has caused the church not to bring forth is the convenience of ignoring the various connotations of the law given in The Bible. The waters were muddied and haven't been cleared since. These dispensationalists ignore that the New Commandment is the law and that only those who accept and obey this law may rightly be called Christians by Christians.

They have taken certain verses about grace and faith and stated the huge error that they don't have to do anything but call on his name in a mundane fashion. They don't stop to consider what truly calling on his name implies.

Let us state here in no uncertain terms that to truly call his name is to be calling his law that is the New Commandment. His name is the Word and the word is "love one another; as I have loved you." To do that requires works—huge works. Anyone who imagines that all he needs to do is say "Lord, Lord" is being deluded and deluding himself and others. It's just empty lip-service with deeds to match.

The fact is that of those professing Christianity who's hearts are the least given to the lifestyle of the disciples is where we find the most hardcore Pauline disciples. They have a near stranglehold on many, in the U.S. especially, who might otherwise see the light.

Their leaders use Paul's writings as a convenient method to avoid the implications of Jesus's words and life example. The terrible result is a lack of fruit, even though they control billions and billions of dollars. In fact, that they reject the lifestyle of Jesus and his other disciples is the very reason they control billions and billions, even trillions and trillions, of dollars and other currencies.

Look at the megachurch buildings into which they funnel their money. Look at mansions for which they pay that are lived in by just a few. Look at all the luxury surrounding those shepherds while many in their flocks live as paupers or worse. They make themselves rich and fat and bring forth only that which will enhance their ability to further defraud (even devour) the flock. By what authority do they do this? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think Jesus has authorized such behavior?

Now, what about Paul, was Paul infallible? Well, he diminished deeds and works that Jesus stressed repeatedly. It resulted in the change of emphasis to a do-nothing, hollow doctrine of grace and faith, turning grace and faith into half-truths. He also rebuked the Apostles for following the ritualistic Old Testament law, but he then went to Jerusalem and followed that very law. We are to put the emphasis back upon both works and faith where it belongs, and not just to the point claimed by the Roman Catholics, for they never did the works either, never brought forth.

What happened to the power of the laying on of hands? What happened to healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead? Where are the greater works? They didn't show. Why not? There was a falling away from the spirit of one and love and works that Jesus stressed and stressed with his original disciples. That's plain to see, and the doctrines of grace and faith without feeding the lambs and sheep did it.

1 Corinthians 13:3 says, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Well, it is true. It is also one of the few places Paul mentions feeding or the poor. They weren't his focus at all. Nevertheless, let's be truthful.

If one has charity and does not feed the poor, then that false sense of charity is no profit to him. Real charity goes with really feeding the poor. If we love Jesus and we love one another, then we'll come together to do just that. That's what the Christian Commons Project is all about.

The Empire saw the opening in Paul's writings through the gates of hell. Hell hasn't prevailed against the Church, and it never will; however, the prince of this world does still make war on the saints and does prevail in a mundane, worldly way against them.

All the churches of the Empire are built upon Paul's doctrines and not Jesus's. Where are the churches that attempted to hold off the Pauline emphasis that was to the near exclusion of righteous deeds and faith in anti-hypocrisy? They were savagely attacked by the so-called Christian Empire of Constantine the Great Usurper of Christ's Kingdom and by all the successive Popes and imperial churches thereafter. Every time people wanted to live communistically, the imperial churches mercilessly savaged them and even erased some from history. Only those designated by those churches were allowed to live communistically. The reason for that is apparent.

If everyone were allowed to gather and live communistically, you could say goodbye to being lorded over by the selfish. You could say hello to only being served and to serving. Just think about that, an unselfish world, a Christian world, a harmless, healthy, wholesome world.

All that needs to happen is for the capitalists to stop using their military and police around the world to stop the people from being free to choose. Ultimately, that's going to happen, because the capitalists are going to be swallowed up by their lord who is Satan.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Hello Stan,

      I Twittered this yesterday: "I don't believe in John Nelson Darby's secret rapture. I do believe in escaping damnation: the same yet different."

      By the way, the few people who showed in interest in the RLCC have fallen away. Whether or not they will return, God knows.

      I don't know much about Paige Patterson & Adrian Rogers. I was raised far from the Baptists. "Baptist" was a dirty name in my father's house. He was an Episcopal minister. They didn't start calling them priests until I had already stopped going to church due to the utter hypocrisy.

      I am not a Fundamentalist. However, I am not a so-called "modern" liberal. You can read all about it on the website.

      Feel free to leave comments, ask questions, etc.

      To be specific about the dispensationalism, it is something one can readily see. It had all occurred to me before I'd ever heard the term. What it doesn't do though is explain everything. It certainly isn't the end-all-be-all. In is something to be taken in conjunction with seeing many, many other things that were unknown to Darby and his current followers or simply ignored on purpose.

      The "conservatives" who are for war making are dead wrong for instance. Darby's current followers, by and large, never stand up about that. I haven't done an exhaustive study of his beliefs so I won't claim how militant he was. Afterall, Jesus was not a militant; yet look at the flag-waving warmongers in the SBC.

      That said, there are people in that convention who sincerely believe they mean well.

      Anyway, if you've read much of the site at all, you've seen that I'm an Acts communist (anti-Marxist) and a total pacifist (anti-coercion). Hence, I do not vote in secular elections.