Why if We Have the Truth We Have the Smallest Churches and Less Financial Income?

This question was asked to me, and I will try my best to answer this in my own perspective.

Why is it that if we have the truth, we have the smallest churches and less financial income in our churches? 

This question was made in regards of the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus. And first of all, I want to state that the truth is not defined by money or riches. Having the truth doesn't define our financial status, but our foundation in which we stand for our salvation. 

So, why if we have the truth, we have the smallest churches and less financial income in our churches?

I believe this is more spiritual than any other secular issue, and having money is a carnal thing. We do not need money to satisfy our spirit. 

The words of Jesus wrapped all of these financial questions simply in three verses;

(Mat 6:19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

(Mat 6:20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

(Mat 6:21) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

We are more concerned about our treasure in heaven, evangelize to the world and disciple the new converts.

Let us understand that our truth is our doctrine, our beliefs, and our foundations, and this is what distinguishes us from other movements. They may have money, mega churches, and all that but they do not have what we have; the Truth.

To best explain what I'm trying to say, I would like to share a thought.

The tabernacle of David

The tabernacle of David was a special place for the presence of God. In contrast, we also have the tabernacle of Moses. In the tabernacle of Moses, sacrifices of animals and blood were given, and it was a sacred place.

But the tabernacle of David was different and special for God. It didn't consist of great walls and so many stations. The tabernacle of David was simply a tent, and instead the sacrifices were sacrifices of praise, worship, and thanksgiving (Psalm 95:2,100:4, 141:2). 

This little tent was simply the house of the Ark of the Covenant, which represented the glory of God. In other words; the tabernacle of Moses was a mega church, and the tabernacle of David was one of our little Apostolic Church. Now my question is why is it that God seemed to like David's tabernacle more?

The tabernacle of David being simply a tent covering the Ark of the Covenant.

One of the reasons why God seemed to like more the tabernacle of David, though it was just a tent, was because the sacrifices weren't blood or animals, but praise and worship.

Psalms 51:17 says:

(Psa. 51:17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Here are two pictures comparing the tabernacle of David, with the tabernacle of Moses:

Tabernacle of David:

Tabernacle of Moses:

What a difference!

And yet we know that God emphasized his presence more in the tabernacle of David, and whatever the reason was God emphasized more of His glory in the tabernacle of David. Now we know that it is not about the money, big mega churches, or financial income that define our richness, but the glory that is in our midst.

Ask This to Trinitarians

For those of you who like to defend the Word of God and His truth like me. Ask this question to Trinitarians:

What is the name of God?

This question sounds so simple, yet it's hard for them to answer it.

Look at what the bible says;

(Exo 9:16) And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

God is a personal God, therefore He has a name.

So now the question is what is God's name? This question intended to Trinitarians is a key point to understand the roots of the Trinitarian doctrine.

(The proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity will lead to the better understanding of these arguments)

Let's suppose that their answer is the Father. The Father is the name of God? Now upon what basis they support this answer?

First of "Father" is not a name, it's just a title. Suppose that I'm a father. Just because I'm a father doesn't mean that's my name. My name is Guillermo, though I'm a father, my name is not father, but Guillermo.

Now let's say that the name of God is indeed "father" then how do you explain John 1:1 where it says:

(Joh 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If the name of God is "Father" then this verse would say:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father.

The "Word" is Jesus, and at the end you would end up calling Jesus the Father. (Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father)

And if the name of God is the Father, then where do you leave the Son and the Holy Spirit? The doctrine of the Trinity states that within God there are three persons, and that those three persons have the same power and authority.

Calling the name of God, the Father, you automatically degrade the name of Jesus and Holy Spirit.

Now what is the name of God?

Let's suppose they say is the Holy Spirit. Here we can apply the same arguments previously mention; where do you leave the name of the Father and Jesus? Aren't they supposed to have the same authority and power and everything? They're supposed to share the same name. What is the name of God?

Let's suppose that their answer is Jesus. Is this correct? Well where do you leave the name of the Father? Or the Holy Spirit? Then if the name of God is Jesus, I suppose that Jesus is the only God since there could not be any other God within Jesus. (The proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity will lead to the better understanding of these arguments)

I don't think Trinitarians will agree with this, they do not call the name of God Jesus.

Trinitarians have a name for all the persons within God. But throughout all the pages of the bible, God declares that He has a name. Then what is the name of God?

Well this is where the controversy comes, the trinity is a made up term. Now what if they call the name of God the "trinity"? Is this correct? I don't think so!

If the name of God is the trinity, then why is it that the bible never mentions it?

Or if the name of God is the trinity, then how do you explain 1 Timothy 3:16 where it says:

(1Ti 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Were the trinity manifested in the flesh? Were the three persons in the Godhead manifested?

Or what about John 1:1? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the trinity, and the Word was the trinity?

This is absurd, this is totally anti-biblical, and it is not correct.

So now, I ask; what is the name of God?

Walk in the Spirit

Galatians 5:16-25 says:


Gal 5:16-25

(16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
(17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
(24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
(25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.



Church of Galatia - confused Law and Justification
The whole context of this is that Paul was talking to the Galatians. They were having problems with the brethren. The church of Galatia was struggling in their doctrinal beliefs. They thought that the law was still in action and that faith and grace was to be combined with the law. They thought that the law was going to justify them.



That's the problem that many of us are still living under the law
I believe that to live under the law now a days is to live in the same o' same o'
Those who live under the law live in the same praise they've always been, in the same prayer, in the same warmness, their neither cold nor hot, but they're warm, just hanging their, and all they say is "anyways I'm already saved" "I'm already baptized" "I already have the Holy ghost". To live under the law is to live like the Pharisees, Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof , and not impacting the world.


The law was nailed to the cross, and now free from the law
Colossians 2:14


And instead of the law, the apostle Paul commands us to "Walk in the Spirit"

There was also some fights between the people in Galatia, and Paul tells them to "Walk in the Spirit"
But that is not the only reason why Paul tells the Galatians to walk in the Spirit for, not only to love one another. There is a bigger purpose in walking in the Spirit.


2 verses coughed my attention. Acts 16:6, and Acts 18:23

(Act 18:23) And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.

(Act 16:6) Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

We see Paul working in both of them, and in both verses we see the city of Galatia. In Acts 16:6 the Holy Ghost commanded them to the work and disciple in Asia as well as he had already done in Galatia. So we see that the church of Galatia was already thought under the influence of the Holy Ghost. And in Acts 18:23 we see Paul strengthening all the disciples in Galatia, through the Holy Ghost according to Acts 16:6.

So when Paul said in the book of Galatians to walk in the Spirit, it wasn’t only to address the issue of the fights between the brethren, and to address confusion. But it was also to remind them not to only live in the Spirit, but to walk in the Spirit, and to destroy all the possibilities of them living under the law.


So in other words, it is not sufficient to receive the Spirit. But we need to walk in the Spirit.

When Paul told them to walk in the Spirit, he went over the issue of the fights and confusion, and probably said; the problem is not that they're fighting and having confusion, but it is that they're in a "stick" mode, they don't move and aren't accomplishing what I thought them; which was to walk in the Holy Ghost and strengthening the church.




The last bible study I gave was; not to seek the ministry, but to seek the empowerment.

And after you seek the empowerment, you don’t stop there, but you walk in the empowerment

And let me tell you that... To walk in the empowerment is to walk in the Spirit.



To walk in the Spirit is to walk in fire. Without the fire we can't distinguish the day from the night

(Gen 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:




Let us go back to our main text, now starting from verse 22.

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

The fruit of the Spirit
Love being the First One. This is significant because the apostle Paul always puts love in the first place

1 Corinthians 13:4 it talks about love, and what love does.

1) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
2) It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
3) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
4) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.



Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs….


Put your name instead of "Love" and see if you actually fulfill this fruit of the Spirit








Joy
When was the last time you had joy?
Better said…
When was the last time you had joy in the middle of the storm?

Though the fig tree may not blossom...yet I will rejoice in the Lord Habakkuk

(Hab 1:2) O Jehovah, until when shall I cry and You will not hear? I cry out to You of violence, and You do not save!

Habakkuk started out complaining and ended with a song of Praise






Peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith… et cetera

And look at how this little portion ends… "Against such there is no law"





(24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh
Are you having problems with your flesh? Everyone does, but are you overcoming them?



And the apostle Paul ends like this:
(25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.




What are you lacking? What part of these fruits are you missing? Or are you still living under the law?

If you do so, if you're indeed missing some of the fruits, or all of them, or if you are still living under the law. And even though you have the Spirit, you may want to start considering to Walk in the Spirit.

I believe that to Walk in the Spirit is to start the process of fulfilling your calling.