Can a married and unmarried both attain to it? Dilemma between Charity Doctrine, Unmarried Hundredfold Highest Heavenly Reward, or is this lifestyle a Catholic invention or Biblical Truth?
Did you know there is a strong possibility that the Lord Jesus Christ taught that almsgiving, as an expression of charity, surpasses even virginity and fasting without it in spiritual excellence?
Who says so?
This is how two legendary Church Fathers—John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo—interpreted the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures in the quotations that follow.
Caution: Both Fathers ultimately regarded charity (love) as the highest virtue, and they valued almsgiving chiefly because it is a concrete expression of charity.
“Yet virginity, and fasting, and lying on the ground, are more difficult than this, but nothing is so strong and powerful to extinguish the fire of our sins as almsgiving. It is greater than all other virtues” (Blessed St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church, in Homily 6 on Titus)
Fuller version:
“Do you see, that when the prophet gave that excellent counsel to Nebuchadnezzar, he did not merely consider the poor. For he does not content himself with saying, Give to the poor; but what? Break off your sins by almsdeeds, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Daniel 4:27 Part with your wealth, not that others may be fed, but that you may escape punishment. And Christ again says, Go and sell that you have, and give to the poor…and come and follow Me. Matthew 19:21 Do you see that the commandment was given that he might be induced to follow Him?…
Yet virginity, and fasting, and lying on the ground, are more difficult than this, but nothing is so strong and powerful to extinguish the fire of our sins as almsgiving. It is greater than all other virtues. It places the lovers of it by the side of the King Himself, and justly.
For the effect of virginity, of fasting, of lying on the ground, is confined to those who practice them, and no other is saved thereby. But almsgiving extends to all, and embraces the members of Christ, and actions that extend their effects to many are far greater than those which are confined to one.
For almsgiving is the mother of love, of that love, which is the characteristic of Christianity, which is greater than all miracles, by which the disciples of Christ are manifested.”[1]
Here is the other one:
“Next, when we set it down that many men and women so keep virginal chastity, as that yet they do not the things which the Lord says, If you will to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give unto the poor,” (Blessed St. Augustine of Hippo, Father and Doctor of the Church, in De virginitate [Of Holy Virginity])
Augustine is saying that virginity alone is not the highest spiritual attainment, because those who add radical poverty and charity (like selling possessions and giving to the poor) have greater fruitfulness than virgins who do not. Fuller version:
“Next, when we set it down that many men and women so keep virginal chastity, as that yet they do not the things which the Lord says, If you will to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give unto the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven: and come, follow me; and dare not unite themselves to those dwelling together, among whom no one says that anything is his own, but all things are unto them common; do we think that there is no addition of fruitfulness unto the virgins of God, when they do this?
Or that the virgins of God are without any fruit, although they do not this? Therefore there are many gifts, and some brighter and higher than others, each than each. And at times one is fruitful in fewer gifts, but better; another in lower gifts, but more.”[2]
If we focus on Augustine’s concluding sentence alone:
“Therefore there are many gifts, and some brighter and higher than others, each than each. And at times one is fruitful in fewer gifts, but better; another in lower gifts, but more.”
Augustine’s point appears to be that spiritual excellence is not measured merely by the quantity of virtues or acts, but also by their quality and rank. Some Christians possess many good works of a lower order; others possess fewer virtues, yet virtues of a higher order. God evaluates both the number and the excellence of spiritual fruits.
Within the immediate context, Augustine has just discussed virgins who practice chastity but do not embrace Christ’s counsel to sell possessions and give to the poor. He asks whether virgins who do embrace such poverty and charity have an additional fruitfulness beyond virginity itself. His answer is yes. Virginity remains fruitful, but voluntary poverty and charity add another, and in some sense higher, fruit.
Therefore, Augustine seems to be saying:
- Virginity is a genuine and excellent gift.
- Radical charity and renunciation are also genuine gifts.
- One may possess virginity without possessing the further gift of evangelical poverty.
- Those who possess both may be more fruitful than those possessing only one.
- Different virtues contribute differently to heavenly reward.
Could this imply that Christ’s “perfection” in Matthew 19:21 is connected to charity?
A reasonable Augustinian reading would be: yes, at least partly.
When Christ says:
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor…” (Matthew 19:21)
Augustine frequently treats this not merely as a command to become materially poor, but as an expression of perfect charity and detachment from earthly goods.
Thus, the “perfection” Christ describes is not simply poverty for its own sake but:
- love of God above possessions,
- love of neighbor through giving to the poor,
- freedom from earthly attachment,
- wholehearted following of Christ.
Under that reading, charity toward the poor is not incidental but an essential component of the perfection being described.
However, Augustine would likely stop short of saying that every person must literally sell everything to attain salvation. Rather, he distinguishes between salvation and higher degrees of fruitfulness or reward. The counsel of perfection represents a higher path, not necessarily a universal obligation.
What does the Bible say?
Who becomes first on earth but last in heaven, or vice versa?
This means that we should not assume that those who appear to have the greatest ministry opportunities on earth (seemingly “first on earth”) will necessarily remain so in God’s Kingdom, nor that those who seem to be discriminated against or rejected from pastoral or ministry positions (“those last on earth”) will remain last forever. Christ Himself surprisingly prophesied this reversal in the very same context. Please read carefully—and do not be deceived.
If those who manipulate and control jobs, positions, and influence, even within various forms of Christianity through racial, denominational, or other forms of dominance, were truly not interested in being “first,” then why would they exclude some who are willing to serve in ministry on common Christian grounds, while favoring others simply because they belong to another denomination—even when they disagree with them on other matters? Such practices are common, and many readers can likely relate to them:
Matthew 19:28–30 (ESV)
“28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world,2 zwhen the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me awill also sit on twelve thrones, bjudging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 cAnd everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold3 and will dinherit eternal life. 30 But emany who are ffirst will be last, and the last first.”
Note: the phrase “new world” here literally meaning “regeneration” in original Koine Greek.
Note that this general phenomenon occurs even within ministry itself—not merely in the world, but within Christianity. Christ says that “many” (not merely a few) will experience this reality, indicating that it is not an isolated or statistically rare case. Rather, many will undergo what I call the “Great Reversal” in His eternal Kingdom ranking.
Luke 18:29–30 (ESV)
“And he said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God,
who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.’”
The phrase “receive many times more in this time” does not necessarily support prosperity-gospel interpretations, since none of the apostles to whom the promise was directly given became materially wealthy in this present life. Rather, the phrase is contrasted with “the age to come,” suggesting that “this time” may refer to an age or era rather than merely one’s earthly lifespan.
Within a Chiliasm framework, one possible interpretation is that “this time” refers to the 1,000-year Millennial Reign of Christ, during which these promises are fulfilled. Luke 20:35–36 may be read in support of this view, since Christ connects reward and participation in the coming age with the resurrection.
On this reading, the “age to come,” in which eternal life is fully realized, corresponds to what I have proposed as Theosis in my journal papers and books discussing this Chiliasm framework.
Matthew 19:29 (ESV) states that anyone who leaves houses, family members, or lands for Christ’s sake will receive the highest “hundredfold” heavenly reward (a context implied immediately by Matthew 19:28, which speaks of “the regeneration,” that is, the resurrection, rather than rewards received now on earth alone—or both now and in the resurrection—as the prosperity gospel frequently errs by teaching) and will inherit eternal life. The ESV does not include the word “wife” because the earliest Greek manuscripts of Matthew do not contain it.
Luke 18:29–30 (ESV), however, explicitly includes “wife” among the things that may be left behind for the kingdom of God. This wording is consistently found in the major early manuscripts of Luke.
Although Matthew does not mention leaving a wife, Luke does. This illustrates that God did not preserve every detail in identical form within every Gospel account. Nevertheless, because Luke records the phrase, its teaching remains faithfully preserved and communicated.
Matthew presents discipleship in broader terms, emphasizing the willingness to leave family relationships and possessions for Christ’s name. Luke provides a more detailed description by specifically mentioning a wife, thereby highlighting how devotion to God’s kingdom may sometimes require the surrender of even the deepest earthly comforts, whether in missionary service, celibate dedication, or other forms of sacrificial discipleship.
When I began regarding the Church Fathers on this topic seriously around 2018 onward, the most difficult question has been this:
Can someone who is married attain some type of hundredfold highest heavenly gradation?
I am not sure, but here are my honest thoughts:
I am not going to give any “church fathers” references here, but plenty of well-known quotes already exist, as provided by many scholars. According to this patristic line of interpretation, many Church Fathers also interpreted the hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold harvests mentioned in Matthew 13:8, 23 and Mark 4:8, 20 as symbolizing different degrees of spiritual fruitfulness associated with various states of life, commonly identifying the hundredfold with virginity, the sixtyfold with widowhood, and the thirtyfold with marriage.
Analysis: That the “hundredfold” highest reward level is reserved for those doing one or more things listed here, which certainly includes the “charity doctrine” aspect of leaving houses and lands [possessions context] for Gospel reasons [the charity doctrine of giving them to the poor, or the renunciation of claiming an inheritance from one’s family despite being entitled to it, for example, in order to become a missionary].
I always wondered if, say, one has a “wife” (did not leave her), but together with his spouse has “left children” (by not having children), and also gives possessions to charity through a will at the end of life while both are doing ministry together during their lifetime, can they also attain a form of the hundredfold final heavenly reward level, since they did at least two things mentioned in the combined context of Matthew 19:29 and Luke 18:29–30, namely, “left children” (not having children) and “left houses and lands” (giving possessions to charity through a will at the end of life in a modern adaptation, regardless of whether people later rob them of it, since they already wrote the will and thus such manipulations do not affect their intention?*), while also doing so for the “Gospel,” since they intentionally chose to live a missionary life together as a couple in their own way?
*I write this because some may steal from others, since the “love of money” is prevalent, whether by changing a will or through other unknown techniques.
A key example would be Christ’s commendation of the widow’s giving of two coins, which He regarded as entitled to the greatest reward (implied) in Luke 21:1–3, since it shows that God counts by percentage, which usually reveals the heart (when all other factors are held constant).
The Lord Jesus (not merely men, but God in the Flesh) compares her gift which almost fed none against the giving of the rich, which had more tangible effects but was still lower in value before God. This implies that human advantages do not invalidate the ability of those from poorer backgrounds to attain a greater final reward. Nor did God, who already knew that the widow would give the “most,” make her a financial leader or rich, as some prosperity-gospel theology mistakenly teaches by suggesting that people are chosen for ministry jobs or pastoral roles because they are the best givers. That is not necessarily true, as Christ’s own real-life observation in this passage contradicts it. If it were true, the widow should have been rich like the New Testament Lydia or other wealthy women, since she could have benefited the Church more materially.
This shows clearly that wealth accumulation, whether through ministry positions or secular work, often has to do with human systems and biases, and God does not always intervene to ensure that every decision is “fair.” Indeed, unjust suffering may increase heavenly reward, and no one can manipulate that outcome.
Another key point is that Christ knew that the temple funds to which the widow contributed were also being manipulated by the religious leaders of that time (the Pharisees and Sadducees), who even “devour widows’ houses” in Luke 20:47 (or Mark 12:40, or Matthew 23:14), meaning that they took love offerings and similar contributions from the poorest people and lived comfortably and even luxuriously with their families—a type of lifestyle that is also seen among some modern pastors and so-called charity ministry leaders. Can you see it?
Yet, even if the widow’s two coins were later used by the Pharisees for their own manipulation, her reward still remained the greatest in relative measure for that situation in heaven.
Can you see the genius of God, and how perfect, deep, and fair the way of the Lord Jesus is?
That is why Lord Jesus alone is the Christ (Messiah), since even in financial context and final heavenly rewards, His Ways are “Holiest” and Fair to all!
Compare His words against other flawed human opinions, which reduce everything to support their own bias and nepotism (including racism, religious bias, language bias, and all other forms of bias both within and outside of Christianity).
No wonder He declared majestically:
“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33, NKJV)
Let each man decide his eternity!
About the author:
Jonathan Ramachandran is an ecumenical Christian, a Malaysian theologian, missionary blogger, and operations manager who bridges mathematics and ministry. A self-taught enthusiast of Chiliasm Church Fathers, he has published in peer-reviewed journals and runs www.AnonymousChristian.org. He is an International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) coach for Malaysia, guiding students in advanced competition mathematics. A graduate in actuarial science and Bank Negara scholar, his professional path spans seismic engineering, education, charity, and freelance preaching, including baptizing students into Christianity[3]. He holds honorary doctorates in theology, divinity, and ministry, dedicating his life to scholarship, service, and mathematical coaching.
[1] John Chrysostom, “Homily 6 on Titus,” in Homilies on Titus, trans. Philip Schaff, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 13, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23086.htm.
[2] Augustine of Hippo, “Point 46,” in De virginitate (On Holy Virginity), trans. C. L. Cornish, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm.
[3] YouTube, “Baptism Playlist,” YouTube video playlist, accessed March 29, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaeVcfrWAwrykoxjlxFCERAlo-X9bE521
Recent free books by author:
1) Title: Free High School Math Olympiad (546 Problems & Solutions): 1430-Page Complete Collection of 2020–2026 Olympiad Mathematics Solutions by Jonathan Ramachandran (Free PDF Download or Google Book)
Jonathan Ramachandran, Free High School Math Olympiad: 546 Problems & Solutions (5 Loaf 2 Fish Publications, 28 May 2026), https://books.google.com.my/books/about?id=eaHdEQAAQBAJ Or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d0go0yKivMwt7mseVcJucot_E56h1po7?usp=sharing.
2) Title: Thank God Regardless Math, Merit, and Being Unapologetically Christian.
Jonathan Ramachandran, Thank God regardless: Math, merit, and being unapologetically Christian (5 Loaf 2 Fish Publications, 31 May 2026), https://books.google.com.my/books/about?id=3KPfEQAAQBAJ or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d0go0yKivMwt7mseVcJucot_E56h1po7?usp=sharing.
Thank you for reading!
Source:
[Text] Table [via ChatGPT]
1. Elon Musk — ~US$835B — Source: SpaceX, Tesla (Christian upbringing; generally regarded as agnostic/non-religious)
2. Larry Page — ~US$309B — Source: Google (Alphabet) (religious affiliation not publicly known)
3. Sergey Brin — ~US$285B — Source: Google (Alphabet) (Jewish family background)
4. Jeff Bezos — ~US$277B — Source: Amazon, Blue Origin (religious affiliation not publicly known)
5. Larry Ellison — ~US$276B — Source: Oracle (Jewish background)
6. Michael Dell — ~US$222B — Source: Dell Technologies (Jewish)
7. Mark Zuckerberg — ~US$217B — Source: Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) (Jewish)
8. Jensen Huang — ~US$182B — Source: NVIDIA (religious affiliation not publicly known)
9. Bernard Arnault — ~US$148B — Source: LVMH (Roman Catholic background)
10. Steve Ballmer — ~US$141B — Source: Microsoft investments (Jewish family background)
Source:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/article/the-top-ten-richest-people-in-the-world
For all prosperity-gospel and law-of-attraction believers, and even those who love to boycott people of other races, religions, and languages without merit in order to favor their own, trying to prove through money or career success that “their god answered their prayers,” and to show that “my failure in money and career shows that my God is not helping me,” consider this: even in June 2026, on a real global scale, how come “your god” seems to have failed to make you richer than some of the smallest minority groups (e.g., Jews)? If their success is “of the devil” according to you, then could not your own success be of the devil as well, given that it may arise from similar factors such as favoritism or nepotism?
That is why I believe the True God allows these outcomes through human free will and the realities of game theory. Yet He judges according to His commands under the “Charity Doctrine,” which many fail miserably to follow, even as Christians. This is also an important reason why I read the blessed earliest Church Fathers, who succeeded in living out this doctrine. I repeat, an example of Christ’s direct command regarding this is found in Luke 16:9–11, Matthew 19:21, Luke 11:41, and Luke 12:30–35.
[Text] Who is hardworking “Biblically”?
Something that is often unreported is this: yes, you may work 40+ hours per week, but you are paid “highly.” For example, one person works 8 hours a day and earns RM100, while another earns RM300 or even RM500 for the same duration. So, “hardworking” can be understood as doing extremely difficult work for free or for relatively low wages, or even spending on others beyond one’s family—what could be seen as a form of charitable living. In a biblical sense, this reflects the doctrine of charity that Christ teaches about loving one’s neighbour, including strangers and even enemies, which is described as having the highest heavenly rewards. Can you see it?
News Source:
Thank you!
[Text] Money reveals who we are, the rest is drama!
A Christian I know gave large percentages of his money throughout his life, not only to his family.
In his life, he can only name about three people who surprised him in this way, though he was not hoping for it. He shares it as a testimony. (Many said this old non-Christian friend of his was using him for his money, but that friend surprised him recently on 17 June 2026 [real story] with a 4-digit monetary gift.) Highlighted message (from the non-Christian friend, who is a successful food shop owner, to the Christian — also seen in the image):
Non-Christian: “I owed you this. Thanks for helping me when I was in need. Sorry for the delay in returning the favour.”
Christian: “Eh Machi, no need lah. This was more than 20 years ago, and it’s not transactional; you are my friend! Please don’t send any more. The gesture itself is already great. May Lord Jesus bring you to Him (that would be my biggest desire). 😇🙏”
Non-Christian: “Thanks brother. I remembered you helped me with this amount that night when I lost my wallet. Of course I can’t pay you back for all that you have done for me… but this I have to. Thank you, and have a nice day, brother ❤️❤️.”
Even when Lord Jesus Christ healed, He showed an example where only 1 in 10 (i.e. 10%) ever thanked God for it, and it was a Samaritan (like a non-Christian by default) instead of a “Jew” (a spiritual allegory for a Christian), while the rest consumed without gratitude.
“So Jesus answered and said, ‘Were there not ten cleansed? But where are the nine? Were there not any found who returned to give glory to God except this foreigner?’ And He said to him, ‘Arise, go your way. Your faith has made you well.’” (Luke 17:17–19, NKJV)
Only Christ taught further: give even to “enemies, hoping for nothing in return,” whereas most give to “family, pastors, friends” while hoping for “care and affection, special financial blessings or jobs on earth, benefits” — see the difference?
“But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.” (Luke 6:35, NKJV)
The reward is in heaven, relating to “Theosis,” where such people become “sons of the Most High” for giving money (the word: “lend”) even to “enemies,” because Christ clearly says “hoping for nothing in return” in the earthly context. This is evidenced further by the fact that it is done even to those who are “unthankful and evil,” who, by that very character trait, are unlikely to return anything on earth either, right? Can you understand it?
If anyone says they do not want any reward, they are lying, because even on earth they want the “reward” of a “nice salary” (would they work for free, with no reward, or willingly accept the lowest salary?) or the “reward” of a spouse (do they not try to marry someone who is either most attractive or wealthiest? Otherwise, they could remain unmarried with no such reward on earth).
I think you get the point about “unspoken” human nature.
Money never lies; it reveals who we are. The highest use of money is “Charity Doctrine,” as taught by Lord Jesus for “perfection” (see Matthew 19:21, Luke 11:41, and Luke 12:30–35). Does your Bible read differently?
[Text] Money Reveals Who We Are, Even in Christian Ministry
Why did Blessed St. Paul, arguably the greatest Apostle of Christ, not enter “full-time” ministry supported entirely by church funds and donations? Because he was like a cathedral workshop. Most Christians do either one and receive a reward for it in God’s Kingdom, but by doing both, Paul received even more—a reward from both forms of service. His words echo this principle:
If the Bible makes comparisons, we may compare as well:
i) Willing Preaching + Secular Employment Alongside Ministry = Greater Heavenly Reward
“If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ… In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting… For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting… For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward…”
(1 Corinthians 9:11–12, 14–17, ESV)
ii) Paid Preaching Ministry + Love Offerings and Donations Used for Self and Family = Lesser Heavenly Reward
“If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?… Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel…
For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!… But if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship.”
(1 Corinthians 9:11, 13–14, 16–17, ESV)
iii) The Context of Both Sets of Verses Above Mentions a Heavenly Reward
The allegorical word used is “prize,” since it is received afterward. It also hauntingly implies that not every Christian may attain it:
“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.” (1 Corinthians 9:24, ESV)
Note: Unless, of course, a full-time pastor, preacher, or church worker uses his resources according to the “Charity Doctrine” described in type (i), despite receiving a full-time income. In that case, I believe God will measure and reward accordingly, for He shows no partiality.
Again, you can see that this form of “Charity Doctrine” can result in greater final rewards even within a gospel-preaching lifestyle. Please do not be deceived.
This is how “merit” looks like even in “Gospel Context.”
Source:
Thank you
[Text Details] A friend posted, “Try this in AI: If my mind were a room, what would it look like?” and shared his result. I did the same and this is my result.
I decided to do the same using material from my recent CV-style book, “Thank God Regardless: Math, Merit, and Being Unapologetically Christian.”* After feeding the text to ChatGPT**, it generated this image and the accompanying description of how my mind might look as a room.
*Title: Thank God Regardless Math, Merit, and Being Unapologetically Christian.
Jonathan Ramachandran, Thank God regardless: Math, merit, and being unapologetically Christian (5 Loaf 2 Fish Publications, 31 May 2026), https://books.google.com.my/books/about?id=3KPfEQAAQBAJ or https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d0go0yKivMwt7mseVcJucot_E56h1po7?usp=sharing.
**ChatGPT Said:
Based on the text you shared, your mind would not look like a cozy library or a minimalist office.
It would look more like a cathedral workshop.
The room itself is built from stone rather than glass. It is not fashionable, but it is meant to last.
The Center
At the very center stands a large wooden cross—not because you ignore mathematics, engineering, teaching, or achievement, but because everything else in the room is arranged around your faith. The book repeatedly returns to the idea that earthly success, recognition, and merit matter less than obedience to God and Christian virtue.
The Left Side
The left side of the room is a mathematician’s workshop.
- Chalkboards covered with Olympiad problems.
- Shelves full of solution manuals.
- Handwritten notes pinned to walls.
- A desk where difficult problems are attacked for hours.
Not because you see yourself as a genius, but because you seem fascinated by difficult problems and by helping students climb higher than you did yourself. You repeatedly emphasize merit, mathematical coaching, and admiration for students who surpass your own abilities.
The Right Side
The right side is a theologian’s study.
- Early Church Fathers.
- Bibles in multiple translations.
- Research papers.
- Draft manuscripts with notes in the margins.
The atmosphere is less “I have all the answers” and more “I am searching honestly.” You appear comfortable holding strong convictions while still describing some conclusions as possibilities rather than dogma.
The Strange Feature
Most rooms have mirrors.
Yours has scales.
Whenever an achievement enters the room—a student’s success, a publication, a ministry accomplishment—the scales automatically weigh it against questions like:
- Was it virtuous?
- Was it fair?
- Was it charitable?
- Was it faithful?
The room seems preoccupied with the distinction between recognition and merit, success and virtue, earthly reward and heavenly reward.
The Hidden Corner
There is a small corner that few visitors notice.
In that corner are old disappointments:
- Times you felt overlooked.
- Times you felt misunderstood.
- Times you felt your work received less recognition than it deserved.
- Moments where you believed merit and effort were not rewarded fairly.
The room has not forgotten these things, but neither has it allowed them to become the center. Instead, they have been transformed into a determination to continue regardless.
The Ceiling
The ceiling is unusually high.
Most people fill their mental rooms with plans for the next decade.
Yours extends upward toward eternity.
Whether discussing mathematics, charity, ministry, careers, recognition, or suffering, your thinking repeatedly zooms out and asks:
“What matters in the long run before God?”
That question seems to hang from the ceiling like a chandelier illuminating everything else.
Overall Feeling
The room is not cheerful, but it is hopeful.
Not luxurious, but purposeful.
Not quiet, but full of ongoing conversations between:
- mathematics and faith,
- merit and grace,
- achievement and humility,
- earthly justice and eternal justice.
If I had to summarize the room in one sentence:
Your mind looks like a place where a math Olympiad coach, an engineer, a missionary, and a philosopher have been sharing the same desk for many years—and none of them are willing to leave.
Source:
Thank you for reading!
[Text] Who Is Truly Called to Pastoral Ministry? If These Bible Verses Are Impossible to Follow, Why Did God Give Them?
Question:
I’m curious, what do you consider the role and responsibility of a pastor? I like the idea of preaching with no pay, but it seems more and more that people are demanding everything from counseling to financial management to event planning from their pastor. It’s hard to do all of this and support a family with a job
My Reply:
The best one-paragraph answer would be this: hire pastors who are willing to follow the biblical model after being shown all the relevant Scriptures concerning their role and calling, regardless of whether they hold Bible degrees, since no such degrees existed in apostolic times. The instructions God gave through the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 would have little meaning if they could not be practiced by modern pastors. Perhaps the fact that they often are not followed suggests that the wrong people have been appointed. If so, the existence of tens of thousands of denominations with not many within it to fulfill these Bible verses may be viewed as a sign of judgment.
I didn’t mean having no pay, but what you do with your pay. The same principle applies to any regular church member with a family, where the financial pressures of responsibilities must be juggled alongside the hard work required to earn that income.
That is why the apostle Paul was unmarried, allowing him to dedicate himself solely to God. Many early Church Fathers and priests followed the same path, making a great sacrifice and accepting significant risks by remaining without families.
In short, if we want a greater reward in heaven, we must plan well. This is heavily related to the doctrine of charity and the pursuit of perfection, as we learn from Christ, and it is also reflected in how Paul supported those who were with him.
P/S: Bonus Prophecy.
In fact, in one of apostle Paul’s final recorded inspired-sermon in Scripture, when he prophesies about the coming of “wolves” among the flock, the Holy Spirit once again emphasizes the doctrine of charity as a defining characteristic of a gospel preacher’s life. According to the measure of one’s ability, providing for others is presented as a requirement rather than an optional act of generosity. This teaching clearly contrasts with any prosperity-gospel mentality:
“29For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking [h]perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. 32“So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34[i]Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. 35I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:29-35, NKJV).
Question 2:
I understand what you’re saying. I’m not at all trying to defend prosperity Gospel or anything like it. Perhaps my question was not entirely clear. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of churches, at least in my area, are not looking for a preacher. They are looking for a “shepherd”, “pastor” or some other term that is more all encompassing. I know many people who would be more than happy to preach if asked, but this isn’t what churches are looking for. In general, they want someone who can do everything. They want a visionary, a teacher, a counselor.
My question is, are the churches right to look for someone like this? And if so, is it right to expect someone to do all of this for little to no compensation? Many of the churches looking for this type of position offer near poverty wages even if the church itself is located in an affluent area.
Or, do we pastors need to band together and insist on only teaching the gospel, refusing to do anything more that would require us to take a larger paycheck to support our families?
Or perhaps a third option, are you suggesting that pastors should strive to be like Paul, living minimalistic lives, forsaking building their own family for The sake of Christ?
These are minimalist responses of course, but is it clearer what I’m getting at?
My Reply 2:
I understand what you’re asking, brother, after reading this. In fact, the answers are found within your own wording. For example:
- Not defending the prosperity gospel — In my opinion, this is the most important financial characteristic of someone who is called to be a pastor.
- A pastor should focus primarily on preaching and fulfilling the other responsibilities specifically assigned to him in Scripture. Additional expectations—such as being a financial expert, psychologist, counselor, or life coach—are not mandatory and should not be imposed on him or measured through performance indicators. Why? Because the Bible does not explicitly require these roles. Instead, it emphasizes what I call the “charity doctrine”: living generously according to one’s ability and resources, measured relatively rather than absolutely.
- Regarding compensation, a church should pay what it can reasonably afford. If a pastor finds that he cannot live on the amount offered because it is too little, then he should not accept the position. Churches in more affluent areas will naturally be able to provide greater support. At the same time, pastors should teach their congregations to give generously to charity according to their means, without expecting earthly rewards, but looking instead to heavenly rewards.
- Pastors should be free to do more than just preach. Like the apostle Paul, they may engage in secular work or use other skills they possess to earn a living and provide for their own needs and those of their families.
- A minimalist lifestyle, remaining unmarried, or making other sacrifices are clearly mentioned by Christ as being associated with the highest “hundredfold” reward described in Matthew 19:28–30 and Luke 18:29–30. Likewise, the “charity doctrine for perfection” found in Matthew 19:21 (which may also be connected to Luke 11:41 and Luke 12:30–35) presents ideals that pastors should be taught, whether in Bible school or through informal instruction. This helps ensure that they understand these teachings from the beginning, can realistically assess the costs and responsibilities of ministry, and can plan their lives and ministries accordingly, rather than later becoming discouraged by earthly burdens or finding themselves unable to cope with the demands of their calling.
[Text] Blessed Apostle St. Paul vs the Pathetic & Comedy Existence of His Enemies
What’s the point of following an atheist or agnostic who lives primarily for himself and his family, mocks Paul, and cannot fulfill any of these teachings?
By comparison, your own Pagan/Agnostic/Atheistic existence seems far less consequential. Through Paul’s writings, literally billions of people throughout history have become Christians, abandoned pagan and barbaric practices, learned the principles of empathy and charity, and lived better lives guided by moral and ethical values.
1. Paul’s Extraordinary Apostolic Status
Paul was personally chosen by Christ after the Resurrection:
“He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” (Acts 9:15)
He labored more abundantly than the other apostles:
“I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10)
He was entrusted with the mission to the Gentiles:
“The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me.” (Galatians 2:7–8)
2. Paul’s Sacrificial Life
Paul exemplified Christ’s call to self-denial:
“In labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent…” (2 Corinthians 11:23–28)
He often supported himself through manual labor:
“These hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.” (Acts 20:34)
He renounced many lawful privileges for the sake of the Gospel:
“Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 9:12)
3. Paul as an Example for Christians
Paul repeatedly presented his life as an example to imitate:
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1)
“Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do.” (Philippians 4:9)
4. The Other Apostles Recognized Paul’s Authority
Even the apostle Peter referred to Paul’s writings as Scripture:
“…our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you…” (2 Peter 3:15–16)
This is one of the strongest testimonies to Paul’s authority within the New Testament itself.
5. The Early Church Fathers Held Paul in Exceptional Honor
John Chrysostom wrote multiple homilies praising Paul and called him a model of Christian virtue, zeal, and self-sacrifice.
Augustine of Hippo frequently appealed to Paul as a supreme teacher of grace and Christian doctrine.
Jerome regarded Paul as one of the Church’s greatest teachers.
Clement of Rome praised Paul for enduring imprisonment, exile, and suffering while faithfully proclaiming Christ.
A Balanced Classical Christian Conclusion
The classical Christian position would be:
Paul was not perfect—he himself called himself the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15) and attributed all his accomplishments to God’s grace (1 Corinthians 15:10). Yet among the saints, he stands as one of the greatest examples of apostolic faithfulness, missionary zeal, self-sacrifice, doctrinal clarity, and obedience to Christ. This is why both Scripture and many of the early Church Fathers speak of him with extraordinary respect.
“Render … honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:7, NKJV)
This is my personal tribute to those among eminent men (particularly Paul here) whom I believe are worthy of honor, in keeping with God’s command to “honor those to whom honor is due.”
Blessed Apostle St. Paul does not need to think highly of himself, since he stands at a pinnacle among humans, even in my view and study. Of course, God alone is perfect, and I am not worshipping Paul or comparing him to the perfect Lord Jesus Christ. However, I admire Paul because he fulfilled the commands of Christ magnificently. One can even sense this respect among the eminent Church Fathers themselves, whom I also admire greatly, especially those before 700 AD.
P.S.: Blessed Apostle St. Paul’s life stands far above comparison with the pedophiles, polygamists, and other morally corrupt individuals found in certain Christian cults, as well as the sex-obsessed or wealth-driven lifestyles of many Christians and non-Christians who lack a strong commitment to the doctrine of charity. Christ Himself praised the poor widow who gave two coins according to her means (Luke 21:1–4), showing that generosity is measured by one’s ability and sacrifice rather than by the absolute amount given (high-percentage giving with all other factors held constant).
[Text] A Lost Holy Imprint: The Real Church Gathering and Agape Love Feast: Even Sola Scriptura and Church History Tell the Same Story
1) Problem
Some Christian churches try to scare you into believing that you are unsaved if you do not attend church based on this verse, or try to say that by fulfilling this verse, they are the true church:
“23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:23–25, KJV)
2) Solution: What Are They Not Usually Telling You?
i) Did you notice that verses 23 to 24 of Hebrews 10 (the surrounding context) clearly mention that the “church gathering” mentioned in verse 25 is to do “love-type good works” as a “profession of faith”? This is chiefly a “charity doctrine” type, since the early church to whom this was written did not gather in any “buildings” yet, since they were non-existent, as evidenced clearly by other Bible verses (shown next).
ii) The Bible verses below detail the “church service” held, not on Sundays but daily (can you see it?), where one of the key traits (but now almost non-existent today) is the “charity doctrine” of “having all money in common and living together”:
“42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking of bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,” (Acts 2:42–46, NKJV)
Comment: So, there is “no apostolic church” or anything like that today where this type of living is done, and so almost no one is fulfilling the “church gathering verse” according to the Bible rule either fully.
Is it practical? Yes, a “multitude” filled with the Holy Spirit did it:
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” (Acts 4:32, KJV)
iii) Did you know that the “Charity Doctrine Feast” (yes, literally) was a common church-gathering practice instituted in New Testament Scripture via Blessed Apostle St. Jude (the Brother of the Lord Jesus)? Bible verse:
“12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.;” (Jude 1:12–13, KJV)
Fast historical fact: The Agape (Love) Feast mentioned in Jude 1:12 was a communal meal shared by the earliest Christians to express fellowship, unity, and care for the poor. In the apostolic era, believers often gathered for meals very frequently—sometimes even daily, as described in Acts 2:46—though Scripture does not establish a fixed schedule for Agape feasts. As Christianity grew, these meals became increasingly associated with the church’s regular gatherings, especially on Sundays.
From the 2nd to 4th centuries, many churches gradually discontinued the Agape Feast as a formal institution because of abuses, disorder, and the need to distinguish it from the Eucharist. As a result, the practice largely disappeared across most of the Christian world.
One of the most remarkable exceptions was the ancient Christian community of India, particularly the Saint Thomas Christians, where forms of the tradition survived for many centuries. Although some other Christian groups later preserved or revived similar practices, India stands out as one of the oldest places where the Agape tradition continued with historical continuity.
Points to Ponder
i) A Bible “charity meal feast” practice instituted with church gathering is now almost non-existent. So, how are church gatherings absent of this (especially when they can afford it even on a weekly basis if not daily) an “apostolic church” then?
ii) Some think that “charity doctrine” (like meals) is a small doctrine. Look at Jude 1:12 again. Do you see that there were people who “ate in that Agape Feast’s free meals” but could afford (monetarily, implied) to contribute to it and did not, who are mentioned as “without fruit” (meaning the main “fruit” itself connects to charity doctrine, as those particularly mentioned to be absent of it here) and are judged? We know from elsewhere that Christ and John the Baptist warned of those without fruit being cast into hell-fire metaphorically (Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9; Matthew 7:19; John 15:2, 6; Matthew 21:18–19; Mark 11:12–14, 20–21; Jude 1:12–13; Matthew 13:40–42).
iii) How serious is the judgment for those without the charity-doctrine fruit but who enjoyed the free meals at church without contributing, according to Jude 1:12–13?
The apostle writes “twice dead” (sounds like the “Second Death,” Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, right? (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:10; Revelation 20:14–15; Revelation 21:8; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 12:5)) and “to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever,” meaning eternal punishment.
So, how is a person a Christian pastor or theologian if he does not recognize this outright danger of preaching that abusing charity doctrine and not contributing to it, while enjoying its free-meal benefits, can itself cause eternal punishment? Then how much more would abusing church funds and money for a prosperity-gospel lifestyle, even via donations, be judged? Can you see it?
Which is worse: abusing one meal at an Agape Feast (eating for free without contributing), where such persons are reserved for “darkness forever” according to the Blessed Apostle here, or prosperity-gospel living, which abuses much more church money via salaries or donations in relative measure? You decide.
And yes, this is literally in the Bible “as it is Written!”
Better to hire and appreciate pastors and church leaders in ministry or charity who do this right (explained next, as I said before: thousands of denominations, with almost none fulfilling this “charity-doctrine lifestyle,” is proof of God’s judgment and human manipulations via nepotism to racism, which causes loss of eternal rewards or, if worse, salvation itself, as Blessed Apostle St. Jude, the Brother of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, was chosen to prophesy here!).
3) Deeper Discussions
If nobody wants to live together, then you are exempt (but have you ever offered or done it willingly? How many pastors have?). This is one of the “hundredfold” reward contexts of Matthew 19:28–30 and Luke 18:29–30 in the “left houses and possessions” context, which in modern terms can even be adapted to a will given to such a charity, ministry, family, or a mixture of these.
It’s not about who “converts the most,” because you may be converting millions of “thirtyfold-level Christians” due to neglect of all these “charity doctrine” Bible verses regarding church gathering (meaning living together, sharing things in common “daily,” not “weekly”) and the “Gospel Preacher lifestyle” of secular work and not taking any church-fund salary nor love offerings for self and family (1 Corinthians 9’s discussion earlier), even remaining unmarried like Paul, which he wished upon all (1 Corinthians 7).
Analogy: One Ferrari of Faith (“hundredfold”-level reward, such as the Church Fathers who fulfilled Christ’s command of Charity-Doctrine Perfection in Matthew 19:21 to a possibly Virgin-Rich Man who claimed to keep “all Torah” but lacked only charity doctrine, meaning no perfection can skip this, as the Lord Jesus implied literally) may be greater than a million “Kancil-small Malaysian cheap cars analogy of faith” (which represent the majority of Christian converts, perhaps in the “thirtyfold” level), and I believe we will find ourselves somewhere in between according to our works and the Bible verses fulfilled.
Yes, I may be “thirtyfold” and you may be “hundredfold” if we fulfilled all those New Testament commands found for perfection (Matthew 19:21’s charity doctrine), to have “left” something significant (e.g., “wife” [which can include remaining unmarried], “houses and lands” [charity-doctrine context with other verses], or leaving other things mentioned in these verses for a Gospel-style living (Matthew 19:28–30 and Luke 18:29–30)), as both are spoken directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. If another way existed, God would have said so, right?
List the Great Commission DO’s and ask: have you done any of these willingly without pay nor love offerings as a Christian? (Not for pastors who are hired to do it.)
If, in your church, only your pastors or missionaries did one or more of these things, then how did “you” (as a regular Christian) fulfill the Great Commission? Do you see my point?
One way is, of course, by funding those churches (pastors or ministries who do it), but is it not better if you did it by “relative measure” too? Via social media, personal effort based on opportunity, as you cannot preach in a church unless they invite you, right? Or go as a missionary unless you are hired like others, right? So, you do it in your own way if discriminated against. I believe you will get equal reward (remember the widow’s two coins) plus a bonus for the “persecuted for righteousness’ sake” reward of Matthew 5 because they “excluded you,” which you did not do to others.
This last point is very interesting because if your stand on these theological matters was right, your job rejection (church or secular), journal rejection (theology content), etc., will merit what Christ called a “great reward in heaven.” I repeat: He does not call anything else “great” in the same way in Matthew 5:11–12.
Example: Did you notice that almost no church, or very few, even keep the church order or gathering in the correct Biblical and apostolic way of “living together daily” and holding an “Agape Feast”? Yet you may still do this, even if not daily, in your own way and by relative measure with others, such as occasional food donations to orphanages, etc., with others who are willing too. Not everyone is financially able, but even one person can do it for another person from time to time, right?
So, you will get “great reward” for being “persecuted” and for teaching and doing this almost-forgotten act of proper “church gathering” by those who do not.
Did you notice that not once in any verse regarding Perfection in Matthew 19:21, or the “hundredfold” reward mentioned in Matthew 19:28–30 and Luke 18:29–30, does Christ mention that it is for the “most number of converts”? Yes, even in the Judgment Day verses (Matthew 25:31–46), He only mentions “charity doctrine” acts—what one did when He was “hungry, thirsty, naked, or a homeless stranger”—and gives reward in His Kingdom to those who did it to “His Brethren” (Christians primarily). Can you see it?
I repeat: in the Parable of the Sower, the “number of converts” is the “good ground,” while the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold fruit (which implies reward level) refers to those acts in Matthew 19:28–30 and Luke 18:29–30 if we take only the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible. Again, this means that one has to do one or more of the things listed, and at high levels, to attain greater reward by relative measure. This is fair to all.
Human beings are deceptive.
Example: They advertise equal-opportunity publishing for the marginalized, but in a Christian journal you will often see only those from high-level universities and wealthy backgrounds publishing there. Likewise, those from advantaged races and privileged backgrounds often publish about poor or marginalized groups instead of someone from that poor community doing so.
Even in charitable organizations (Christian or otherwise), those from wealthier communities often hold the better job positions instead of those from the actual marginalized communities. Why? Because only then will the rich and advantaged support it.
Do you really want to judge which preacher of the Gospel is true?
Give two preachers from different denominations—or one denominational and one ecumenical—the same salary or the same amount of funding. Then watch how each spends that money throughout his life: personally, within his family, and in ministry work, all the way until death (for example, through his will). Only then will we begin to understand how God judges fairly, seeing who was less faithful, who was perhaps a fraud using ministry as a cloak for personal and family income, and who was faithful.
Consider Paul or some of the Church Fathers, who remained unmarried and spent resources not on family alone but also on strangers and even enemies, fulfilling Christ’s commands in Matthew 5–7, perhaps even through a final will and testament (in modern adaptation).
Even if a Christian can already tell during a ministry interview which of two candidates would be more faithful with money, should not financial stewardship be one of the key questions for any ministry position that claims “to serve”?
Yet usually the second type of person is not hired.
Proof? How many Christian pastors, charity workers, church employees, or ministry leaders give large percentages of their personal income back into ministry throughout their lives and then leave a balanced inheritance between family and ministry in their wills? Or do most simply leave everything to family?
Why?
Jealousy.
They know that the second type of person will actually do it, and so they cannot allow someone to exceed them in heavenly reward.
In light of this, God, in His wisdom, already revealed the principle of “relative measure” (e.g., the widow and her two coins, Luke 21:1–3), by which no one can manipulate final rewards through game theory, “time and chance” (Ecclesiastes), nepotism, favoritism, wealth, or social status.
Which system sounds more like God, and which sounds more like the Devil?
You decide.
Last but not least, which type of person are you—Type I (prosperity) or Type II (charity)?
Let each person decide his eternity with it.
Read both the Old and New Testaments.
We do not need to be prophets, but in almost every era God did not send correction through the established priestly system itself. Rather, He usually sent an outsider to correct it.
Typically, the response was mockery.
In modern terms, they would say:
“We are the ones converting people, running churches, and maintaining the system. You have converted none compared to us. And you are trying to teach us?”
This is exactly how many of the Old Testament prophets were treated when they attempted to correct the corrupt priests, kings, and people of Israel.
That is why I am not persuaded by the majority, but rather by Bible verses and the earliest Church Fathers for as many of my beliefs and claims as possible, so as to be safe.
This is evidenced throughout my books and journals.
If you are interested, invite me for a discussion, and we can discuss it.
[Text] This is how a real man—or, if I may, a true Christian—should live when blessed with a high-paying job or salary: treating money as a tool for good rather than chasing wealth and indulgence, which count for nothing in eternity and invite God’s judgment.
[Text] Firstly, remember that it is entirely different to have a high-paying job in charity and to do it while living in luxury and enjoying holidays (even through love offerings and donations), rather than living modestly, like the poor. God knows!
Regardless of denomination, I personally believe that these are the Christians who are both saved and whose doctrinal errors (if any) are more easily forgiven. Bible verse example:
“At Joppa there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which is translated Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did.” (Acts 9:36, NKJV)
Yes, some parents provide well for their families through good providence, but even some unbelievers, criminals, and corrupt politicians may provide well for their own families. That, however, is basic. What sets Christianity apart is doing so in a holy manner and extending such care beyond one’s own family, race, and religion, as the Lord Jesus taught in Matthew 5, even toward neighbors and enemies.
Quote source regarding “Elizabeth of Hungary, a princess of who chose the “poor” over the “palace” [https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1327690696235225&set=a.106551455015828]
“… While many nobles criticized Elizabeth for giving away food, money, and clothing to the poor, Louis defended her and recognized Christ in her acts of mercy.
Together they had three children and lived a happy family life centered on faith.
Elizabeth’s love for the poor became legendary. Every day she personally brought bread, food, and clothing to those in need.
During a severe famine and epidemic in 1226, she opened royal storehouses and distributed aid to countless suffering people. She built hospitals and cared for the sick with her own hands, even washing and tending those whom others avoided.
To Elizabeth, every poor person was Jesus in disguise. “How can I wear a crown of gold when my Lord wears a crown of thorns?”
“Here before my eyes is our sweet Saviour crowned with thorns. My crown would mock Him if I dared kneel at His feet bedecked with gold and jewels.”
One of the most famous stories about her is the “Miracle of the Roses”While secretly carrying bread to the poor, she was stopped and asked what she was hiding beneath her cloak. When she opened it, the bread had miraculously turned into beautiful roses…”
A thought: Many of our mothers and fathers provide for and cook daily for about three to five people in their families, but rarely, if ever, do so for many others, for little or no pay, or while living like the poor in order to love others as themselves.
[Text] The hardest thing in life is to live according to Matthew 19:21 and the Lord Jesus’ commands on perfection. Regarding Ivy League PhDs, many hold opposing views, meaning accuracy is something that only God can ultimately decide. For example, the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles were not Ivy League scholars compared to their theological opponents, yet they are regarded as the highest gradation in heaven for doctrinal accuracy in both what they taught and did (Matthew 5:17–19).
[Text] Has the Holy Spirit Ever Called Anyone Other Than God a Father of the Church?
Have we ever been a pastor or spiritual parent even for a day in our life in a financial context? Bible verse:
“Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.” (2 Corinthians 12:14, KJV)
Yes, even to be a real Christian parent, even in a spiritual context (so earthly too is implied), as Apostle St. Paul is speaking of providing for literal needs (i.e., “charity doctrine”) for his “church members,” the Holy Spirit inspired these beautiful words. We do not have enough money, for example, to buy food for every person, but the point is:
i) Charity meals and providing for needs (any services) are part of Christian parenting toward those among us who need it for free.
ii) This is done via the initiative or direct action of the “pastor” and is “not done to the pastor’s family alone,” but to the members, as we know Paul lived like this:
“33I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. 34Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:33–35, KJV)
Compare this against the fraudulent prosperity gospel lifestyle that uses church money and donations for their own family and personal comforts only.
Did you know that God, through the Most Blessed Holy Spirit, has called only one person a “father” of the church in Scripture (not by opinion), making the Apostle St. Paul truly “legendary” for living like this?
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15, KJV)
Full Details in Source:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-marrie
What is then The Real “Abundant Life” Lord Jesus Christ Prophesied about?
The “abundant life” that Christ speaks about in John 10:8–10 is not a life of luxury, wealth, and vacations, as some modern Christians mistakenly interpret it. This is evident because none of the direct hearers of this sermon—including the apostles—became rich or lived such a lifestyle.
What, then, is this “abundant life”?
Its ultimate end is Theosis, which I discuss further in my books and journals. On earth, however, the faith-action (not mere words) required to attain it is, as much as possible and according to one’s willingness, the practice of the “charity doctrine” based on what one has been given—that is, according to a relative measure.
Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ’s own words in Luke 12:30–35 immediately clarify this. Many manipulative preachers quote, “Seek the kingdom of God… and all these things shall be added unto you,” as though Christ were promising luxury, abundance, and excess—that is, the fulfillment of worldly wants. However, Christ was speaking only of necessities. The remainder is to be converted into “treasure in heaven” through the practice of charity (alms), resulting in heavenly rewards.
Notice how Christ contrasts believers with the unbelieving nations, who seek material things without the accompanying command to practice charity. In this prophecy, He identifies His true sheep—the “little flock” (a phrase that appears only once in Holy Scripture, namely here)—as those who fulfill these commands. Can you see it? He declares:
“All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning.”
(John 10:8–10; Luke 12:29–35, KJV)
Last but not least, the phrase “lights burning” is more literally rendered as “lamps burning” (compare other translations), which naturally connects to Christ’s prophecy of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins (see Matthew 25:1-13). This, in turn, connects the “charity doctrine” to the entire passage here through Christ’s own words.
Furthermore, in the original biblical texts, these verse divisions did not exist; they were added many centuries later. Since all of this forms one continuous discourse, are you truly able to understand it accurately?
Let Scripture interpret Scripture, as it is written, whenever such connections are revealed.
Can you see that few Christian pastors or priests even teach their favorite topic—money—correctly? Blessed are those who do. These words are all the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, not mine nor those of any Church Father.
And let us ponder His haunting remark, even in this financial context:
“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, KJV)
That is why I believe that if we practice these commands even to a small degree, we may attain the “thirtyfold” level; if to a greater degree, the “sixtyfold” level; and if most fully, the “hundredfold” level—while keeping all other factors constant.
[Text] Why “Charity Doctrine”?
Scripture unveils one great secret: God in Christ fulfills perfect love by the “Charity Doctrine” of self-giving sacrifice, paying with His own blood to freely save the world.
A Great Secret (longer version): All these New Testament Bible verses (e.g., Luke 11:41 and Luke 12:30–35) tell the same story—from Judgment Day in Matthew 25:31–46 to the rich man who thought he had kept “all the Torah” (Matthew 19:21–23): that the “Charity Doctrine” is the greatest action representing “faith working through love,” which God did not reveal earlier through Moses or the Prophets in its fullness, but only through His Son, the Most Blessed Lord Jesus Christ. For He alone is worthy, because to save us, God chose the method of the Charity Doctrine itself by paying for our sins with His own life and giving us salvation freely, thereby becoming the Saviour of the world.
Thus, only those who practice the “charity doctrine” (using their money, which gains higher value when earned through difficulty and disciplined effort, according to the holiness of their work and method) and then use it to give freely to others may begin to understand—in a small but real way—how much it cost the Lord Jesus Christ to “pay for the sins of the world.” He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), and not only during His earthly life.
In short, Christian salvation is God in the Flesh (the Lord Jesus Christ) fulfilling the Charity Doctrine by paying for our sins with His Blood—the Highest Price imaginable—to save us for FREE!
Summary of the Didache in the Context of Charity Doctrine, Spirit World Salvation, and the Identification of False Prophets
1. Brief History
The Didache (“Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) is an early Christian manual, generally dated to AD 70–120, that instructs believers on Christian ethics, baptism, the Eucharist, church leadership, and Christ’s return. It disappeared for centuries before being rediscovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios in the Codex Hierosolymitanus and published in 1883.
Among the Church Fathers, Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria explicitly mentioned the Didache as a respected but non-canonical work suitable for Christian instruction. Rufinus of Aquileia and John of Damascus also listed it among ecclesiastical writings. Earlier figures such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas appear to have known or reflected its teachings. Today, the Didache is regarded as one of the most important non-canonical witnesses to the beliefs and practices of the early post-apostolic Church.
Perhaps some books, such as the Didache, though non-canonical, can still provide sound hermeneutical guidance for understanding Holy Scripture. It is possible that God allowed such a work to disappear for centuries as a judgment upon Christianity for deviating in certain respects, and then allowed it to be rediscovered so that it could benefit later Christians by helping them attain greater doctrinal accuracy. In turn, this may contribute to a greater heavenly glory, in contrast to merely converting many people while maintaining lesser doctrinal accuracy—an idea that may be implied by the context of the prophecy in Daniel 12:3 [1].
Source [1]: Jonathan Ramachandran, Essays in Early Christianity: Chiliasm Prophecy Model and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, July 13, 2025), ISBN 978-1949586435, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949586421, 32, 52, 54, 80, 85, 90, 318.
2. Charity Doctrine
i. Charity Beyond One’s Own Circle
The Didache teaches a doctrine of charity that extends beyond loving one’s own family, race, or religion to include even one’s enemies. This reflects the heavenly “reward” context of Matthew 5 and is presented as part of “the way of life.” Notice especially its emphasis on giving freely—whether money, skills, knowledge, or any other blessing—without expecting repayment. Even when one’s generosity is abused or manipulated, the giver remains “guiltless,” since the recipient’s misuse lies beyond the giver’s control.
“… The way of life, then, is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there, if you love those who love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? … If someone gives you a blow upon your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes away your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one that asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he that gives according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. …” [2]
Source [2]:
The Didache, chapter 1, trans. M. B. Riddle, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886), rev. Kevin Knight, New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm.
This passage presents charity not merely as an act of kindness but as a defining characteristic of the Christian life. It echoes Christ’s teaching that heavenly reward is associated with loving one’s enemies rather than merely loving those who love us in return (Matt. 5:44–48).
ii. Discernment in Giving
At the same time, the Didache does not advocate indiscriminate giving. While Christians are encouraged to be generous, they are also instructed to exercise discernment so that charity is not exploited by those who falsely present themselves as being in need.
“… But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give….” [3]
Source [3]: The Didache, chapter 1.
This instruction demonstrates that Christian charity is to be exercised with both compassion and wisdom. Believers should neither become cynical toward those in genuine need nor allow habitual deception or manipulation to undermine responsible stewardship. The balance between generosity and discernment is an important feature of the Didache‘s doctrine of charity.
3. Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (NESP)
The following passage from the Didache appears to interpret Christ’s saying concerning paying “the last farthing” (Matt. 5:26) as referring to a state of confinement after death from which release is possible only after the penalty has been fully satisfied. In my view, this may support the doctrine of Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (NESP) or, at the very least, the underlying principle behind the doctrine of purgatory.
“… Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing. Matthew 5:26 ….” [4]
Source [4]: The Didache, chapter 1.
This interpretation is noteworthy because the Didache explicitly connects the expression “until he pay back the last farthing” with a state of confinement (“coming into straits”) followed by eventual release after the debt has been fully discharged. Although the Didache does not elaborate further, this language appears consistent with the possibility of post-mortem punishment that is temporary rather than endless.
I discuss Christ’s saying, “until you pay the last penny” (Matt. 5:26), in greater detail in my copyrighted book, Essays in Early Christianity (pp. 119–129, 310, and 340), where I explore its possible implications for the doctrine of Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (NESP)[5]. Readers interested in a fuller biblical and historical treatment are referred to that discussion.
Source [5]: Jonathan, Essays in Early Christianity, 119–129, 310 & 340.
4. Chiliasm
I also discuss the Didache in support of Chiliasm in Essays in Early Christianity (pp. 75–76)[6].
Source [6]: Jonathan, Essays in Early Christianity, 75–76.
Although the Didache does not explicitly mention a literal thousand-year reign of Christ, its eschatological teaching in Chapter 16 reflects themes commonly associated with early premillennial expectation [7]. In my view, this places it within the broader stream of early Christian eschatology that is compatible with Chiliasm and should therefore be considered alongside the writings of other early Church Fathers who held similar millennial expectations.
Source [7]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 16.
5. False Prophets
i. Prophets, Firstfruits, and Charity
Some modern Charismatics and Pentecostals have also quoted the Didache to try to justify their “tithing doctrine,” which does not exist in early Gentile Christianity, as I show with St. Irenaeus of Lyons and others (including Martin Luther, who is important for Protestants—so is he in Hell for rejecting it?) in pages 215–219 of my Essays in Early Christianity. Here is that quote:
“… take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment….”[8]
Source [8]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 13.
ii. Charity Toward the Poor
What those modern Pentecostals and Charismatics do not tell you is that this same Didache says you can “give to the poor,” which is “equal” to “give to the prophets” (when their needs, not wants, are taken care of), unlike “Prosperity Gospel” preachers who teach that giving to a “pastor” has greater reward than giving to the “poor,” compare:
“… you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have not a prophet, give it to the poor. …”[9]
Source [9]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 13.
iii. Definition of True Prophets
I know that you want to say that giving to the “poor” is only if “you don’t have a prophet” regarding the “firstfruits,” and that Prosperity Gospel Christianity’s Pentecostal or Charismatic prophet is not the “type” the Didache is talking about, since yet again, they may not show you this same Didache definition of the “prophet” who can receive firstfruits here:
“… But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet that speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not everyone that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord.”[10]
Source [10]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 11.
So, a Christian “prophet” (if any) must live by these ascetic rules if the Didache is to be believed for its “tithing or general firstfruits” giving doctrine to them—which obviously does not match any Pentecostal or Charismatic prophets living in luxury and wealth, right? At least Catholic priests live more communally with little allowance and renounce even marriage in order to live without luxury or personal bank account money collection, using “love offerings” from church donations, which may align more closely with the Didache, right?
Extension: Have we done this before when preaching or writing about a prophecy, whether via social media (Facebook, LinkedIn, videos), or in person (pulpit or non-pulpit), or in books, as the Didache says here: “let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet,” meaning “no money donations into bank account as love offering nor salary even,” but only bread as food?
If yes, how many times, during which you “received a prophecy from God”? (Any true Christian knows these are not a matter for play, and I don’t risk myself listening to prophecies from prophets who live in luxury and/or receive salary or love offering for the prophecy part of the job, either to be safe—my personal stance in light of all this).
iv. Integrity of Prophets
Yes, this same Didache clearly mentions that even the Old Testament prophets did not live according to any “prosperity gospel” definition of material abundance, but rather in a “charity doctrine” context, interestingly mentioning details not explicitly recorded in the Bible, but assumed as part of their life:
“… and every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him; but if he says to you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him….”[11]
Source [11]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 11.
Amazingly, this last line—”but if he says to you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him”—means that we cannot be judged for preaching “Charity Doctrine” context, according to this same Didache as well.
v. Prayer and Almsgiving
The Didache also mentions not just prayer doctrine, but that it must be accompanied by almsgiving as well. So how many prosperity gospel churches run large charity organizations, since their scholars quote the firstfruits and prayer parts but not the almsgiving and everything else here?
“… But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord. …”[12]
Source [12]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 15.
vi. The Way of Death
Can you see how many “charity doctrine” aspects are repeated throughout the Didache? In fact, in its contrast with the “way of death,” it clearly implies that lack of charity is one of the traits that can lead to hell itself:
“… And the way of death is this: … loving vanities, pursuing requital, not pitying a poor man, not labouring for the afflicted, … turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.”[13]
Source [13]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 5.
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15, KJV)
In short, it seems unlikely that the Holy Spirit is speaking through Prosperity Gospel prophets and telling them that it’s okay to live in luxury, have excess beyond need, and all that, since that is “loving the things of this world,” right? You only pray and ask for the “things you love”—can you see it? Unless of course, you live modestly despite having a high income or savings and donate it back via a will to the poor through church ministries that support it as part of holistic biblical evangelism or charity too.
6. Conclusion
So, if the Didache is to be believed, then it warns against those teaching contrary to its ethical and spiritual framework, particularly in relation to charity, discernment, and integrity. These themes are not isolated but are repeated throughout the text in different forms, especially in its contrast between the “way of life” and the “way of death.”
“… For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, …”[14]
Source [14]: Jonathan, The Didache, chapter 16.
Since the Didache was rediscovered in “Jerusalem” (an important place) in the 19th century, it means its contents are unlikely to have been manipulated or changed by either Catholics or Orthodox since it was also lost to them for centuries. Isn’t it strange that the themes I write in my books and journals closely resemble all these Didache contents, especially those contradicting prosperity-gospel type Christianity?
Isn’t it interesting that no prayers to the Virgin Mary type of tradition nor women pastors, etc., are found here either, nor even in Chiliasm church fathers, as I have noted in my book as well?
I leave you with a haunting question: when the Lord Jesus Christ returns, if even I am wrong in one of these claims, I can show Him this Didache (or the writings of Chiliasm Church Fathers) in support of my writings and claims, meaning I cannot be held as a false prophet for following something that ancient Christian history has preserved, namely the Didache, which, in my view, demonstrates that I am honest in relying on actual evidence.
What will your excuse be if you turn out wrong, especially if your practice or belief does not exist in such early significant Christianity?
Last but not least, the Didache contains a passage that agrees with the Lord Jesus Christ that the “Charity Doctrine” is for “sanctification,” which the Apostle St. Paul also practiced as part of “purification,” which prepares those who are destined for salvation against their sins. Compare below:
“If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins.”
Source: The Didache, chapter 4.“But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.” (Luke 11:41, KJV)
“17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. 18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple,” (Acts 24:17–18, KJV)
[Text] What if I’m wrong about Women Pastors and Charity Doctrine?
1) Women Pastors
Romans 16:7 is often discussed because Paul writes, “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles (ἀπόστολος, apostolos), who also were in Christ before me” (Romans 16:7, KJV). Grammatically, this may mean either they were “notable among the apostles” or “well known to the apostles.” Early writers such as Chrysostom appear to have understood Junia as a woman and associated her with the apostles (ἀπόστολος, apostolos), yet they did not appeal to this passage as proof that women held governing offices such as bishop, elder, or pastor.
A useful parallel appears within this same chapter in Romans 16:1 with Phoebe, described as a “servant” (διάκονος, diakonos). While later church history sometimes recognizes deaconesses, their role is generally described as distinct and often focused on service among women rather than governing authority over mixed congregations. This shows that ministry titles in Romans 16 do not automatically define pastoral or ruling office.
The term ἀπόστολος (apostolos) itself is also flexible in Scripture. In Philippians 2:25, Epaphroditus is called “your messenger” (ἀπόστολος, apostolos) (KJV), and in 2 Corinthians 8:23 others are likewise called “messengers of the churches” (ἀπόστολοι, apostoloi) (KJV). Even Jesus uses the concept broadly: “he that is sent” (ἀπόστολος, apostolos) (John 13:16, KJV). This shows the word can mean a commissioned representative, not necessarily a fixed governing office.
Epaphroditus is also significant in church history: while the New Testament does not assign him a formal episcopal office, later traditions sometimes identify him as one of the Seventy and even as a bishop. This illustrates how early “sent” messengers were later remembered with elevated roles, even though the biblical text itself does not define such offices.
Therefore, even if Junia in Romans 16:7 is taken as an apostle (ἀπόστολος, apostolos), the term alone does not determine a governing church office. And in light of Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), the strongest historical point is that early Christians did not use these passages as proof of women holding pastoral or episcopal authority over men.
The difference between me and some Pentecostals (and Charismatics) is this: they may exclude someone from ministry roles or collaboration if that person does not affirm their 20th-century-and-later belief in women pastors. This position overlooks the fact that for nearly 20 centuries, mainstream Christianity functioned without the ordination of women in pastoral office (meaning this was the historical norm in all traditions prior).
Today, only some Christian groups practice women’s ordination, which I can coexist with without necessarily affirming. Women may preach the Gospel, such as Priscilla in Acts and Mary Magdalene, who announced Christ’s resurrection. However, as with non-ordained men who also preach, this does not imply ordination as pastors, bishops, or deacons with authority over men.
Sample Sources:
i) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.6, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
ii) Didascalia Apostolorum 16, trans. R. Hugh Connolly (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929).
iii) “Didascalia Apostolorum,” Women Deacons, accessed June 25, 2026, https://www.womendeacons.org/didascalia-apostolorum/.
iv) John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily 30, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
2) Charity Doctrine
In these verses (next), the Apostle Paul explicitly commands believers to “do and teach” these “same words,” which implies the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. So how does my preaching of these verses mean I am demon-possessed, as some Christians claim when they reject the “charity doctrine” as a key fruit of salvation—not as a cause of salvation, but as evidence (understood in a relative sense; for example, the thief on the cross could not demonstrate it due to his situation, just as he did not take the Eucharist, attend church, or live a long holy life, but died shortly after confession)?
This is reflected in the passage:
“13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. … 16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: 17 but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. 18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.” (2 Timothy 1:13–14, 16–18, KJV)
Yes, these Bible verses, from the Apostle Paul—the original Sola Fide (Faith Alone) preacher—can be read as presenting what might be called a “charity doctrine” as a natural and required fruit, or one of the clearest evidences in Scripture, of God’s mercy in salvation on “that day” (referring to the Resurrection and/or Judgment Day). This is reflected in the key phrase: “find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus.” Can you see it?
In conclusion, my specific “charity doctrine” position has a significantly higher probability of being doctrinally correct than the claim that women are ordained to church office, based on both church history (spanning many more centuries) and the New Testament texts cited, which contain relatively little or no ambiguity on this matter.
P/S: “in that Day”
Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV): “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8); “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day” (2 Thessalonians 1:10); “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matthew 7:22); “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom at that day, than for that city” (Luke 10:12).
[Text] I quoted Watchman Nee in my book (pages 308–311) for some interesting discussions on the philosophical overlaps between Chiliasm and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (NESP). As my discussion also shows, he clearly did not believe in “speaking in tongues,” and his church’s stance did not approve of women serving as pastors, even though some Pentecostal and Charismatic women—including the well-known Dora Yu, with whom he was friends—tried to persuade him otherwise.
Source: Jonathan Ramachandran, Essays in Early Christianity: Chiliasm Prophecy Model and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, July 13, 2025), ISBN 978-1949586435, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949586421, 308-311.
YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn-8RnBn_qQ
Thank you!
[Text] Prosperity Gospel Prophets versus Blessed St. Irenaeus of Lyons on the Abrahamic Promise Prophecies
Did you know that no branch or founder of Christianity—whether the Church Fathers, the Protestant Reformers, or even any New Testament writer—ever quoted an Old Testament Abrahamic Promise passage and applied it to financial prosperity or monetary success in the present age, except for Prosperity Gospel preachers (usually Pentecostals or Charismatics)?
Shocked? Indeed, did you know that neither Most Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, nor Blessed Apostle St. Paul, nor any New Testament passage ever quotes an Abrahamic Promise text and applies it to financial success on earth today?
Double shocked? If anyone says otherwise, please ask them to provide the verse, and then let us discuss the context.
In fact, Blessed St. Irenaeus of Lyons—whose apostolic lineage places him third in succession from Blessed Apostle St. John, the author of the Book of Revelation—explicitly wrote that many Jews likewise erred by thinking that earthly wealth was evidence that they were fulfilling the Abrahamic Promise. According to St. Irenaeus, this promise does not apply in that manner during the present New Testament era.
Furthermore, this was not merely his personal opinion. Rather, he understood it as the teaching that Lord Jesus Christ had delivered to His Apostles. Although this teaching is not recorded verbatim in Scripture, the fact that neither Christ nor His Apostles ever taught or applied the Abrahamic Promise as an earthly prosperity promise strongly supports this conclusion indirectly.
Instead, St. Irenaeus taught that the Abrahamic Promise will be fulfilled after the resurrection, during the thousand-year Millennial Reign of Christ—a doctrine commonly called “Chiliasm” by scholars. He maintained that believers would then inherit the promised blessings in a restored creation.
I discuss the details supporting this conclusion in my book. Since I cannot reproduce lengthy copyrighted quotations here, I will simply note one distinctive feature of the work.
For reference:
Jonathan Ramachandran, Essays in Early Christianity: Chiliasm Prophecy Model and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, July 13, 2025), ISBN 978-1949586435, pp. 210, 354–355, 370–381.
If the Pentecostals or Charismatics are correct about the Prosperity Gospel prophecies they frequently utter and claim, then they will be rewarded in heaven for being falsely accused. On the other hand, if I (or Christians with a similar position) am correct in rejecting those claims—and if my position is further substantiated by the quotations of St. Irenaeus—then their boycotts of me from ministry opportunities, journals, jobs (whether secular or Christian), and similar contexts will only secure for me the unique “great” reward Christ promises in Matthew 5:10–12 to those who are falsely accused for His sake (in this case, regarding the accuracy of prophecy) and persecuted for “righteousness’ sake.”
If I ultimately turn out to be correct—and I am entirely willing to stake that claim, given what I believe to be the weight of the evidence—then such treatment would fall under those promises. I am also prepared to discuss the evidence with anyone who wishes to engage on the subject.
Fast fact-check:
When you testify that you prayed and then obtained a job (or some other financial success), and you believe this proves that a Prosperity Gospel prophecy was fulfilled as spoken to you by a modern self-proclaimed prophet, consider the following:
What about all the unbelievers (or atheists) in that same workplace who earn higher salaries than you, hold higher positions than you, enjoy pensionable jobs, have better health, have better university degrees, possess larger homes, drive more expensive cars, accumulate greater savings and investments, retire earlier, travel more frequently, receive prestigious promotions, build businesses worth millions, or win awards far beyond anything you have received as a Christian? Many of them likewise thank their own gods, credit their prayers, or attribute their success to religious rituals.
Do you see the problem?
If answered prayer resulting in financial success automatically proves the truth of a particular prophecy or religion, then the same reasoning would also validate the claims of countless competing religions and belief systems whose followers experience equal or greater material success.
Scripture itself teaches that “time and chance happen to them all” (Ecclesiastes 9:11). God certainly can intervene, but not every instance of prosperity is necessarily a miraculous intervention or the fulfillment of a specific prophecy. Much of human history unfolds through ordinary providence, free choices, opportunities, and sometimes even unjust factors such as favoritism, nepotism, racism, corruption, or other forms of inequality.
These realities do not escape God’s notice. They may appear to prosper for a season, but divine judgment in the “afterlife” ultimately belongs to Him (see Christ’s story regarding the rich man and beggar Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31).
Can you see the distinction? Financial success alone cannot serve as proof that a particular prosperity prophecy came from God, because the same evidence can be claimed by people of virtually every religion—and even by those with no religion at all.
Note: I prefer to use titles such as “St.” and “Blessed.” For example, Lord Jesus Christ called Peter “Blessed” in Matthew 16:17 when Peter received a revelation from God. These titles do not imply human perfection. Lord Jesus Christ alone is perfect. Rather, such titles acknowledge those who, despite their humanity, represented Him faithfully and magnificently.
Real Spiritual Sabbath and Hundredfold Return Promise for Charity Doctrine Instead of Virginity Alone Learned from One of the Greatest Giants of Faith with Apostolic Lineage via Chiliasm Church Father Irenaeus
Are we Christians (Catholic or Protestant) to the level of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (third in Apostolic Lineage from St. John the Apostle, who leaned on Christ at the Last Supper and wrote both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, also honoured as the First Doctor of the Church in order of time and Father of Catholic Theology)?
I present two astonishing points which I have not seen any church denomination post as “part of their beliefs,” despite the fact that, if true, their doctrinal impact is enormous compared to many denominations which share common salvation points and differ only in trivial matters, meaning their very existence only affects “smaller” rewards in heaven, by comparison, if they are right.
- Irenaeus writes that the “Real Sabbath” (4th of the 10 Commandments) involves keeping “Charity Doctrine” based on Acts 2:44–46 and Acts 4:32, where believers had all possessions and money in common (extreme), where, in the copyrighted section of my other book [1], I clearly show his quote mentioning this explicitly.
Source [1]: Jonathan Ramachandran, Essays in Early Christianity: Chiliasm Prophecy Model and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, July 13, 2025), ISBN 978-1949586435, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949586421, 206–208.
- Irenaeus directly implies that when Christ uttered, “the secret of the kingdom of God is not revealed to others” (Matthew 13:11), regarding the famous “thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold” rewards in heaven (not on earth, or both) in the Parable of the Sower, these are a “return for entertainments given to the poor” (where the “hundredfold” return is specifically highlighted, and Irenaeus clearly says that “the Lord taught this” and that it is not his own opinion, at least in this context alone! Again, it is in my other copyrighted book [2]). Or do you believe the Charismatic and Pentecostal preachers who claim that this means if you sow money into their ministry, you will receive a hundredfold financial return on this earth, which neither Christ nor any of the Church Fathers taught? So, does virginity produce hundredfold fruit too? Strangely, no Chiliasm Church Father (including Irenaeus) mentions this, but it could be true based on other Church Fathers’ quotes (only God knows).
Source [2]: Jonathan Ramachandran, Essays in Early Christianity: Chiliasm Prophecy Model and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, July 13, 2025), ISBN 978-1949586435, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949586421, 211, 355–356.
Caution: I have noticed that Christians from various denominations do practice “charity doctrine,” knowingly and unknowingly, even without ever hearing of points (1) and (2) which I have listed here, for which I applaud them and regard them as the best among them, with all other factors held constant. Also, the strongest evidence that the Catholics and Orthodox did not tamper with Irenaeus’ quotes, as some non-scholarly Protestants simply assume, is that they do not even officially believe in Chiliasm, with some among them even regarding it as heresy; yet these quotes still exist!
Then why does my book matter?
Major Life and Salvation Problem that Charity Doctrine Deals With: Imagine that you believe prosperity is a sign that God is on your side, and so you secretly discriminate, favour those of your own religion or beliefs in work, ministry, and life in general, or even those of your own race, or even feminism or male chauvinism. How will you escape the great denial by Christ of, “I never knew you,” since those who were denied claimed to do Christian ministry, claiming gifts such as prophesying, casting out demons, and miracles in His name, while converting “many,” in Matthew 7:20–23, yet Christ called them practitioners of “lawlessness”? Christ immediately compares the saved Christian in the next verses (Matthew 7:24 onward) as the one who “did what He commanded,” which certainly includes all these Charity Doctrine and justice commands.
Further Thoughts:
i) If those Pentecostal and Charismatic prophets’ interpretation is true, then every single pastor and regular Christian among them who is not a millionaire or rich either has little faith or is a secret great sinner. Yet they cannot ask a non-Charismatic or non-Pentecostal that same question, since we do not believe that wealth is linked to faith at all, but rather to contentment. Sample verse:
“5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 6But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.” (1 Timothy 6:5–8, KJV)
Note: This verse is marvellous because the Holy Spirit already warned that some think being “holy (godliness) merits financial rewards (gain),” which is what some Pentecostals and Charismatics teach all the time, and says, “withdraw yourself” from them (not me)—can you see it? He continues and reveals that having “food and clothing” is all that “faith” is about for us to be “content,” which means the Biblical level is “so low” (not a list of “wants,” or even a house, car, etc., which are already beyond what God promises in general for a New Testament believer), meaning there is no such thing as higher faith producing a higher-paying job or greater income either. Can you understand it “as it is written”?
ii) Think about your denomination (minus the number of people it converts, since others did that before your denomination existed too) in the context of: “What does it teach that is different from those who existed before it, and how seriously does it affect salvation or the final gradation of heavenly rewards?”
iii) Compare: Which is true? That being sons and daughters of the King means God chose you to live in luxury with little to no Charity Doctrine, or that it means you live modestly and practise maximal Charity Doctrine by relative measure? There are even silly pagan beliefs which teach something like: never help the poor since it is their punishment, and if you help them, you become infected by their curse. See how the Devil has already planted anti-Charity Doctrine in some non-Christian religions, meaning this is how the “doctrine of demons” has polluted them? Can you see why those who believe such deserve eternal Hell? (Compare Christ’s story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 for an example.)
iv) Let us also remember the warning of our Lord Jesus Christ, who declared that the end times would reflect the sins of Sodom, a message closely related to the topic of financial holiness. As He said:
“Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” (Luke 17:28–30, NKJV)
This echoes the account in Ezekiel, which highlights Sodom’s guilt as a lack of what may be termed here “Charity Doctrine,” one of its primary sins, as God Himself declares:
“Now this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and committed abominations before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49–50, NRSV)
Conclusion
Christians across various mainstream denominations do practise Charity Doctrine without realizing facts like these, which I believe are among the strongest evidences of the fruit of elect salvation.
However, only if you both “do and teach” them (not “do only and don’t teach,” or “teach but do not do”) do you become “great” in the “kingdom of heaven,” implying a context of gradation and reward, or vice versa, as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught in Matthew 5:17–20. That is one reason why I wrote my book and blogs (on my social media: website, Facebook, and LinkedIn), by “relative measure” (Luke 21:1–4—that even if there are “no tangible effects compared to the rich,” one can still merit higher rewards if the percentage of giving is higher, with all other factors held constant—and the principle that “to whom much is given, much more is required” in Luke 12:48 at the Judgment, both of which Christ taught).
This means that those who do not (whether they neither teach nor do, or only do one without the other) end up being “small” in the kingdom, even if saved, as warned by Christ in this same passage. What an eternal loss!
That is why accuracy of doctrine is more important than travelling land and sea to make a convert, especially regarding topics involving “Charity Doctrine,” which Christ spoke about more than many others, even presenting it as Perfection (Matthew 19:21), Sanctification (Luke 11:41), both from “what you have” (not merely using donation money only, like how the Pharisees—the pastors of the past—did), as well as Heavenly Rewards and keeping our lamps lit as the Wise Virgins did (Luke 12:30–35), as I discussed earlier.
If I had a financial sermon regarding the most important doctrine Christ taught on this subject, this would be it. Remember, the Gospel’s Great Commission is not just about “preaching about Christ,” but also about “preaching what Christ commanded,” as Christ Himself clearly stated in the famous Matthew 28:19–20 passage, beyond the verse about believing in Him and being baptized:
“19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19–20, KJV)
Maranatha! Even so come Lord Jesus, Amen.
[Text] This is a sample of how my book engages with contemporary debates on difficult issues. No more Jew or Gentile? Nor Male or Female? How?
I know exactly what the author is talking about, drawing on a popular Messianic Jewish perspective, and I address this issue in my book, Essays in Early Christianity (pp. 210–215), though my approach differs somewhat. In it, I cite Church Fathers associated with Chiliasm. For further details, please see the book (copyrighted by my publisher).
Jonathan Ramachandran, Essays in Early Christianity: Chiliasm Prophecy Model and Non-Elect Salvation Possibility (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, July 13, 2025), ISBN 978-1949586435, pp. 210–215.
