Surprised by Jesus

Posted on 11/15/2008 by Paul Pavao

I’m borrowing a title from David Servant’s “eteaching.” I figure it’s okay because he’s a Christian and I’m fixing to plug his web site and ministry. You can find their site at http://www.heavensfamily.org. Their ministry is awesome, directed at helping widows, orphans, and the poor overseas, as well as discipling pastors in foreign countries. We’ve met David, and we can tell you it’s place to give money that you will not regret–eternally. You’ll also love his story. He refers to himself as a “recovering pastor.”

Warning, it’s not for the faint of heart nor those who think the American dream has anything to do with Jesus.

Then again, you wouldn’t be at my blog if either of those things applied to you, would you.

David’s eteaching starts with:

An astounding fact: Although the scribes and Pharisees rigorously studied God’s revelation of Himself in the Old Testament, when God appeared in human flesh and simply acted like Himself, they didn’t recognize Him. In fact, they hated Him. Think of that for a moment! Here were men who could quote large portions of the Old Testament, who considered themselves extremely devoted to God, who were Israel’s spiritual leaders, and who were anticipating a Messiah, but when God appeared on the earth, they wanted to kill Him. They were surprised by Jesus, to say the least.

I purposely haven’t written further yet, so that I don’t borrow anything else from his eteaching. I have lots of thoughts just about this paragraph. Maybe you should wait to read mine, though, till you’ve meditated on your own a bit. Why don’t you take 15 minutes, read that paragraph, and think about it a bit. Then read mine.

Okay, if you’re back, this is rabbit trail #1. In meetings I have to avoid going down rabbit trails. Being a bit long-winded, I’m prone to going down them. Writing, however, is a different story. The rabbit trails are often better than the main point, and sometimes they’re the only thing that make the main point interesting.

The apostolic churches–the ones the apostles started, which stuck around in a near-pristine form for a couple centuries–believed that the Law had not been abolished. That’s not real surprising,  since Jesus said in Matt. 5:17 that he didn’t come to abolish it. On the other hand, it is surprising to us, because the writer of Hebrews said that the old covenant is ready to disappear (Heb. 8:13).

The apostolic churches, though, had an advantage. Taught by the apostles, they weren’t confused by things that seem like a contradiction to us. They understood that when the writer of Hebrews said that there is “of necessity a change of law,” that it didn’t mean from one law to another completely unrelated to it. The two covenants, and the two laws, one of Moses and one of grace from Christ, are intimately related. The second covenant and the second law are the fullness of the old covenant and the old law.

It is absolutely essential, if you have any desire to understand the Scriptures or the new covenant that you sign up for when you become Christ’s disciple, that you understand that the new covenant and new law are the fulfillment–nay, better, the fullness–of the old. The old covenant was adapted in thought and words to an earthly kingdom and a fleshly people, a people without the Spirit of God. The new covenant, however, is made with a people who all have the Spirit. In fact, that’s the one key feature of the new covenant. All of God’s people would have the Spirit, not just special people like David and Samuel (Acts 2:16-17).

So, knowing that he would now have a spiritual people and establish a heavenly kingdom, Jesus came to fulfill–to expand or fill up–the Law of Moses. He was ready to make new wine–because he knew he would have new wineskins to put it in.

One way that new wine was manifested was in his statement to Pontius Pilate that his disciples don’t fight with earthly weapons (Jn. 18:36). Israel under Moses fought with earthly weapons because they were an earthly kingdom. Jesus came to establish a new covenant, however, and a heavenly kingdom. His people have beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. They fight with spiritual weapons, and they war against spiritual beings and against the thoughts of men (Eph. 6:10ff; 2 Cor. 10:4-6).

One other way that the new wine was manifested, and the old law brought to fullness, concerns an issue that will bring us off this little rabbit trail. God doesn’t care about food. Food for the belly, and the belly for food, but God will destroy both it and them, says Paul. But the food laws were to prepare an earthly people to become a heavenly kingdom. They avoided that which did not chew the cud nor part the hoof. This law is not gone, but it is changed, as Heb. 7:12 puts it. We are to “eat of,” or to fellowship with, those who ruminate on the word of God and who separate from the world. How do we know with whom we can have unity? How do we know from whom we can separate? If a person does not meditate on the Word of God nor separate from the world, do not partake of them. You can love them, pray for them, and hope for them, but you cannot take them into the body. If they do, then they are clean, and you can “eat” from them. It is not your brother’s doctrine on eternal security that determines whether you should fellowship with them, but their ruminating and parting.

So, I said all that to encourage you to always be ready to stop and meditate on the words you hear, just as I asked you to meditate on that paragraph above. It marks you as a partaker of Christ’s new wine, the changed law of the new covenant.

God desires truth in the inward parts (Ps. 51:6). God asks Job, “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Who has given understanding to the heart?” (Job 38:36). You can not trust your brain. You must learn to have wisdom in the inward parts. If you trust your brain, God will see to it that you are turned to foolishness. He has no regard for the wisdom of this world.

Quick caveat: this does not mean that you should not reason or think. You should. In the end, however, you must know truth in the inward parts, where God has put it. The heavens do not necessarily testify to the mind that there is a God. Nature around us testifies to the heart, and those who ignore what the creation testifies to the heart will end up fools who do not believe in God, no matter how brilliantly they study nature. A large percentage, perhaps even over half, of natural  scientists are atheists.

Ok, the caveat’s not so quick. Let me do another rabbit trail.

We help those scientists be atheists by testifying with our ignorance and dishonesty that Christians don’t care what’s true. Every day, on the internet and air waves, Christians testify by their refusal to be honest with scientific evidence that we still want to live in the dark ages. Anti-evolutionists have got to be the most dishonest brand of Christians there are. I am regularly stunned by the willingness of anti-evolution Christians to distort evidence, misquote honest scientists, and even pass on stories they know to be false in order to defend a narrow-minded, one-dimensional interpretation of Genesis one that they only apply to part of Genesis one, anyway. In the scientific area, a lot of Christians had better start thinking and reasoning, because they are missing some wonderful truths that God would place in their hearts if they were not so stubborn. Even in today’s advanced scientific world the creation testifies that there is a Creator and teaches us about his power and divine nature.

Okay, off rabbit trail #2.

You must be able to recognize truth in the inward parts. The Pharisees were great students of Scripture. They were wise, but with a worldly wisdom, and God made fools out of them. In fact, it is obvious in Christ that he was highly irritated with them. He was so fed up with them that he complained even about their Bible study: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have life; however, these are they which testify of me, but you refuse to come to me so that you may have life” (Jn. 5:39-40).

Jesus was known not to the Pharisees but to common people, whose did not have a confidence in their personal wisdom and personal interpretations of the Bible to blind them to the truth that bursting up from inside them. Down inside them, where God has placed wisdom and understanding, that wisdom and understanding came bursting forth, and they recognized God in our Master. Like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, their hearts burned within them.

Have you ever paid attention to the fact that those two disciples upbraided themselves at the end of their journey with Christ. “Were we so blind? Why didn’t we recognize him? Didn’t our hearts burn within us while he spoke?” (Luke 24:31-32). Obviously, that’s not a quote, but that’s what they were saying. We should have recognized him by what was within us!

That does not stop today. We are under obligation to recognize Christ when we see him, in whomever he might be. Listen to the words of John the apostle and meditate a bit on what this means:

He that believes the Son of God has the witness in himself. He that does not believe God has made him a liar, because he does not believe the testimony that God have given us of his Son. . . .

Okay, stop right there! What testimony has God given us of his Son? Do you know how this verse finishes? This is an important verse. If you don’t believe the testimony that God has given us of his Son, you make him a liar. That’s scary, because God’s God. You don’t want to call him a liar, I promise you. So what is his testimony?

And this is the testimony: God has given us Eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son. He that has the Son has the Life; He that does not have the Son of God does not have the Life.

That’s the testimony? He that has the Son of God has the Life, and he that doesn’t does not have the Life?

Yes. Have you learned to recognize the Life of God when it comes, or are you separating from brothers and sisters over your Bible interpretations. In other words, are you a follower of Christ or a Pharisee? Before you answer that, consider this. When you see Christ in a brother or sister, do you recognize and attach yourself to him? Or do you ignore him and jealousy against him like the Pharisees?

Pharisaism is the norm among Christians today. We have been taught to be just like them. We bristle, like they did, when we hear that we search the Scriptures, expecting life from them, and all the while ignoring Christ in a human body on earth. Just because he’s in bodies now, and not one body, doesn’t mean that it matters less to recognize him. According to John, the children of God are “obvious” (1 Jn. 3:10). Do you believe that? There may be exceptions to this rule (and there are), but if they’re not obvious to you most of the time, it’s because you’re judging from the wrong place and seeing with the wrong eyes.

Am I making too much of this? Since Paul said that schisms, divisions, and factions will keep you out of the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21), I don’t think I’m making too much of this. It’s time to discern the body. We wonder sometimes what it means when Paul says that those who eat the Lord’s Supper unworthily eat and drink damnation to themselves because they don’t discern the Lord’s body. Is he talking about the bread there? Of course not! Look at where that verse is. That’s written in 1 Cor. 11:29. 1 Cor. 12 starts six verses later. Do you think that’s an accident? 1 Cor. 12 is the longest dissertation on the local church (not the universal church, which is called the Bride) as the Lord’s body in all of early Christian literature. It’s division that’s the problem. Paul started on division way back in 1 Cor. 1, and he didn’t forget it. He’s teaching the local body that it must be one.

You don’t get to go to 1st Lutheran on 5th street while your next door neighbor goes to American Baptist on 8th street. Every time you take “communion” you are eating and drinking damnation to yourself because there’s no way you’ve discerned the Lord’s body while you’re doing something like that. Do you understand that divisions, schisms, and a party spirit will send you to hell? That’s right, while you’re condemning your neighbor’s drunkenness, you’re practicing openly a sin that is listed in the same list with drunkenness. Only you’re worse off because you claim to be reading the Bible and understanding the will of God. To whom much is given, much will be required.

Now perhaps God will have mercy on us. I believe that. Many Christians don’t know any better. Others who do know better don’t know what to do about it. God called some kings in the Old Testament good even though they sacrificed on high places. Shoot, God told the first Israelite king that he would be king at a sacrifice at a high place (1 Sam. 9:12ff). However, God also greatly commended those kings who tore down the high places. Our division–our denominations–are a high place, and they’re a high place even in our minds. We must recognize Christ, and we must attach ourselves to him. We must partake of those who ruminate on the Word and part from the world.  It is time to let the wisdom within us rise up and override our exalted Bible interpretations, so that we might be the ones to prove to the world that Jesus is who he said he is by our unity and love (Jn. 13:34-35; 17:20-23).

Posted in Bible, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

One Little Sin

Posted on 11/06/2008 by Paul Pavao

This is part 2 of a blog I just finished (sort of ).

Many Christians believe that all it takes is one little sin–a white lie or stealing a piece of chewing gum as a child–to send you to hell. Doesn’t the Scripture say, “For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet offends in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10)? It does, but it also says that a wicked man turns from his wickedness he’ll save his soul (Ezek. 18:27). James goes on to say, “He that turns a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death” (James 5:20).

The point is, don’t deceive yourself. If you sin, you’re a sinner. Jesus said, “Whoever sins is the slave of sin” (Jn. 8:34). You need to acknowledge your sin and repent. James is talking about a very specific sin in chapter two, that of preferring rich men over poor men in your congregation. Our congregations today, many who quote James 2:10 to say that people are going to hell for lying when they were 7 years old, are commonly guilty of giving special seats to rich men; exactly the sin that James is condemning in James 2:10. Let’s get the right message from what we read.

Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Did they fall short of the glory of God for backtalking their mother at 9 years old? No, read the chapter. We all fall short of the glory of God because the poison of asps is on our lips and our feet are swift to shed blood. God is a just Judge. He doesn’t burn people in hell for an endless period of time for one act of disobedience to a parent as a child.

But he doesn’t have to worry about that. We provide ample reasons for him to punish us. In us, that is in our flesh, nothing good dwells. God will show us that nothing good if we really come to him. We need to see it in order to learn all future lessons. We have to get okay with being evil, so that we can trust Jesus to make us righteous by the Spirit of God.

The idea that one sin in a lifetime will send us to hell is part of a whole doctrine of the atonement that is based in the Roman legal system. It is not Hebrew, and it is not apostolic. It was developed by St. Anselm during the Middle Ages. The apostles and the apostolic churches give all sorts of descriptions of the atonement, but none of them are like ours.

We Evangelicals commonly believe that we can only be forgiven because Jesus died for our sins. This is ludicrous. I mentioned Ezekiel 18:27 above, but the whole of Scripture describes God as a God of mercy. He forgives sin. He doesn’t need to be appeased by a death in order to forgive sin. That’s contrary to the whole of Scripture. David says it as plainly as it can be said, “You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it. . . . The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you will not despise” (Ps. 51:16-17).

We have always been able to repent and be forgiven. The problem is, we were powerless to continue in righteousness. In us, that is, in our flesh, nothing good dwells. We may keep some moral and religious rules, but in the end we deceive ourselves and fail to live as servants and lovers of those around us. We need Christ, and those who choose to follow him will find him helping them. As it is written, “He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9).

Jesus died for our sins because we couldn’t find the power to repent of them. He reconciled us to God while we were yet sinners. His death did as much–no, more–for us than it did for God. God was already merciful, even before Christ died. We, however, were powerless to repent and continue before Christ died. Through his death, Christ brought the grace and Spirit of God to us that we might continue.

The problem with the whole idea that everyone is guilty because they might have committed one small sin, which God can’t forgive because he’s “just”–as though “just” could possibly mean sending a person to hot, tormenting flames for all eternity for one small sin–is that if that theory were true, then our sins would all be paid for, and we could go to heaven as sinners. It’s not true, however. There are people who claim it is true, but let’s face it; it’s impossible that they’re correct. They only believe such a strange idea because they concluded it from the “Jesus paid for our sins in a legal sense” idea, which is nowhere found in Scripture. (Look for “paid for sins” or something like it in the NT; you won’t find it.) Once that idea is gone, it’s obvious the Scriptures speak out strongly against the idea that those who continue in sin can go to heaven.

1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal. 5:19-21, and Eph. 5:5 all say that immoral people who practice the works of the flesh won’t inherit the kingdom. Jesus echoes this in Matthew 7, saying that those who call him Lord, Lord will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of his Father in heaven. 2 Pet. 1:5-11 says that we have to keep adding to our faith in order to “make our calling and election sure,” and on and on and on and on.

Through faith, apart from works, we have access to the grace that can make us stand as righteous men before God (Rom. 5:2). With the power of the grace, mediated by the Spirit of God, we can “not grow weary in doing good,” so that we can reap eternal life (Gal. 6:8-9). Entering heaven is not apart from works. Entering heaven is by works, as all the verses above say and every verse on the judgment says (Matt. 25:31-46; Jn. 5:27ff; Rom. 2:5-8; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; and others).

There’s an interesting verse in Jeremiah 7. The apostolic churches quoted it all the time, because they were aware God isn’t interested in sacrifices. He’s interested in a broken and contrite spirit. They knew that the offerer’s heart purifies the sacrifice, not the sacrifice the offerer’s heart. Thus, they had no problems with this fascinating passage that stumps us every time:

For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. Instead, I commanded them this, “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. Walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.” (Jer. 7:22-23)

God didn’t say anything in the wilderness about burnt offerings or sacrifices??? How can he say that? The early church explained that those sacrifices were added to help keep the eyes of the Israelites set on God. The sacrifices were for their sake, not God’s sake. They found numerous verses like Jer.  7:22-23, and they quoted them often to explain why they didn’t sacrifice animals like the Jews did.

Another wonderfully interesting passage is the story of Cain and Abel. We Evangelicals generally think that Cain’s sacrifice was refused because it was grain, and Abel’s was refused because it was an animal. The early church, however, knew that God doesn’t care about sacrifices, so they knew that couldn’t be the issue. So it was obvious to them that when John said that Cain killed his brother because his works were evil, then Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because he was evil, not because it was grain. Grain was a perfectly acceptable offering under the Old Covenant, especially if that’s all you had. How much more so in that time before the Old Covenant.

Genesis 4:7 also has God telling that he’ll be accepted if he did good. God didn’t tell him to change his sacrifice. He told him to change his behavior.

This is what God is telling us, too. God has granted to us the repentance that leads to life. Let us not try to offer the sacrifice that leads to life unless we have a pure heart to purify the sacrifice. Otherwise, we may find that God considers our trust in the blood of Jesus to be an insult to the Spirit of grace and accuse us of counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. This is what he says of those who sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.

It’s very important that we change the way we understand the Scriptures. I’m not talking about something new, but about returning to the powerful and eminently Scriptural ways of the primitive, apostolic churches.

Posted in Bible, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

There Is None Righteous; No, Not One

Posted on 11/05/2008 by Paul Pavao

The  Bible says in Romans 3:10 that there is none righteous, no, not one.  Why is that?

It is not because all of us have committed at least some small sin somewhere in our lives so that we’re therefore guilty of the whole law. Contary to popular Evangelical belief, a person who commits only one small sin in their lives is a righteous man who will go to heaven based on his works (Rom. 2:5-7; Ezek. 18:27).

Read the verses that follow Romans 3:10. The people Paul are talking about have a throat like an open grave, the poison of snakes on their lips, deceit on their tongue, their feet are swift to shed blood, and destruction and misery are in their ways. Nice, huh? Those are the unrighteous that Paul is talking about.

So, is everyone like that?

We all know everyone is not like that. So why did Paul say they were? I have two things to look at:

1.) Paul is quoting the Scriptures when he writes this passage. All of it, from Romans 3:10 to Romans 3:18, is quoted from various parts of the Old Testament. He’s not just making a statement of his own, and that matters. He’s bringing up some passages to prove a point, not saying on his own that no one is righteous. One of the places he quotes is Psalm 14, where the Psalmist tells us, “They are all gone aside; they became filthy together. None does good, no, not one” (vs. 3). Yet that very same Psalm also tells us, “God is in the generation of the righteous.” I thought there were no righteous!

There are righteous. The Bible speaks in all sorts of general terms about things that are not universal. Not all the Pharisees robbed widows’ houses, but Jesus was not careful to specify that. Many Pharisees believed in him; he left them to figure out on their own that he wasn’t talking about them. (If you want a place to complain about me: yes, I’m saying that “no, not one” does not mean “not one.”)

2.) Even though we may behave correctly outwardly, that does not mean that we are righteous inwardly. Paul said that in regards to the Law he was blameless prior to his conversion (Php. 3:6). Yet in 1 Tim. 1:15 he says he is chief of sinners. In 1 Cor. 15:9 he says he’s not fit to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church of God.

I do not believe that Christians are supposed to live in Romans 7 (where we do what we hate and don’t do what we want to do). Romans 8 is the answer to Romans 7. Romans 7 describes “the law of sin and death.” Romans 8 describes “the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus” that delivers us from the law of sin and death.

However, I believe that lesson #1 for every Christian is “that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells” (Rom. 7:18). You will never go anywhere if you do not figure out that you are evil. Yes, you. Jesus addressed his disciples with, “If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him?” (Luk. 11:13). His apostles didn’t flinch at this; I’m sure they were used to it. We need not to flinch at it, either. You had better understand it because you need the salvation of God. “God is with the generation of the righteous.” Didn’t I quote that earlier and say there’s righteous people? Yes, I did, but you’re not one of them, and neither am I. We really are sinners, just like Paul. Maybe he’s chief; but maybe you or I are.

Get used to that idea because the only righteousness God will accept is Christ’s. He has been made righteousness for us. And Jesus doesn’t produce a fake righteousness wherein he closes his eyes and pretends we’re good. No, as John puts it, “He who practices righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7). Jesus has been made righteousness for us, and that righteousness is visible. Paul said he wasn’t ashamed of the Gospel of God because the righteousness of God is revealed in it (Rom. 1:17). Two chapters later he says the righteousness apart from the Law was “manifested.” Jesus’ righteousness can be seen. Let us be a people, “zealous for good works,” who know how to receive empowering grace by faith (Tit. 2:11-14).

Paul’s arguments in Romans 3 are directed at Jews, but they are a perfect argument to us Christians. At the end of Romans 2, he told the Jews that if they don’t actually keep the righteousness of the Law, their circumcision won’t do them any good; it will become uncircumcision. Then he goes after them in Romans 3. “Look at all this stuff the Scriptures say,” he cries out to them. Then he lists verse after verse stating that people–all people or at least someone–are terribly unrighteous. Then he lets them have it. Here comes the haymaker in v. 19: “We know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law.” “Hey, my fellow Jew,” he is saying, “these verses are about you!!!”

Once he’s made it clear that they are the unrighteous, neglecting to keep the righteousness of the Law even though they’ve done the religious act of being circumcised, he tells them to receive the righteousness of God that comes by faith. Now don’t get confused here. I know Evangelicals often bring on pretend righteousness here. Pretend righteousness doesn’t work here. Those who don’t practice righteousness aren’t righteous, John says, as we saw above. Paul says the very point of Jesus dying was so that the righteous requirement of the Law could be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit. So the point is not that righteousness–real, lived-out righteousness–doesn’t matter. The point is that the only way to achieve it is by the Spirit of God. “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, then you will live” (Rom. 8:13).

 I’m going to add another blog immediately, because I really want to address the “one little sin” thing. It’s part of a doctrinal system that is, in my opinion, insulting to God.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Romans and Romans

Posted on 11/04/2008 by Paul Pavao

We’ve been going through Romans in a Bible study on Tuesday and Thursday mornings before work. It’s pretty neat. I want to talk about some of the things we talk about there–for two reasons. One, they’re radical and life-changing. Two, the people at the Bible study already know a lot of those things. I’m hoping to pass them on to people who don’t already know them.

The problem is, John McCain just conceded the presidential elections, so everyone’s mind is on the election, not on our Bible Study in Romans. So I thought I’d tie the two together.

First, just so you have an idea who I am, I voted for Obama. Why? Because my concern was the economy, not the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice. Despite the “tax and spend” reputation that the democrats unfairly have, I believe it’s clear that they’re the party that–currently–cares most about living within their means. Balancing the budget means only spending the money you have. That’s a good way to run a business. I’ve done and am doing some learning about that myself.

A lot of Christians won’t agree with me on that. I voted for a guy that supports legalized abortion. I think abortion is just murder, and I’m astonished that anyone could claim to have a clean conscience while they’re killing a baby. I have no understanding of that sort of behavior at all.

What I want Christians to agree with me on, though, is this: God appoints every president, every Supreme Court justice, and every congressman to their position. He appoints governors and mayors, too. The Scripture says that there is no authority except that which is ordained by God (Rom. 13:1). 1 Peter 2:13 adds that we are to submit ourselves to every established authority of man. He adds in the next verse that they are sent by God. So, like it or not, even an immoral president like Bill Clinton was sent by God.

Okay, I called this “Romans and Romans” because I want to say something from our Romans Bible study, and my political comment was from Romans as well (all authority is ordained by God–Rom. 13:1). So, on to the Bible study comments:

There’s a really neat passage in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, c. A.D. 155, which you may have read, but probably not:

If they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God, and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” That is, having repented of his sins, he may receive remission of them from God, and not as you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them. (ch. 141)

Now who are these people who believe that even though they are sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them? Justin is talking to Jews in this dialogue, and it is the Jews he is accusing of believing this doctrine. Justin goes on to argue that it is not true, pointing out that king David himself wasn’t forgiven until he repented with mourning and tears.

What does this have to do with Romans? Well, Romans addresses the whole issue of the claim: “I’m one of the elect.” The Jews in Paul and Justin’s time believed that they were the elect of God. They made their boast in the Law, as Paul says in Romans. What most of us don’t realize is that they didn’t boast in keeping the Law; they boasted in just having the Law. Yes, they were circumcised, kept the Sabbath, offered sacrifices, and celebrated the feasts. But do you notice how confidently Paul asserts that they’re hypocrites when it comes to actually keeping the Law? In Romans 2:1, he states that everyone in his audience that judges is guilty of the same behavior they judge others over. In vv. 21-22 he names a couple of those behaviors: stealing and adultery. In vv. 23-24, he tells them they’re lawbreakers and that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of them. Obviously, he was talking about Jews, and he was confidently asserting that they were lawbreakers.

The reason this was happening is because what Justin described in A.D. 155 wasn’t new to A.D. 155. It was around in Paul’s time, too. They were making their boast in the Law (2:23), but they were breaking the Law and dishonoring God’s name. For them, it was enough to possess the Law and be circumcised. As one brother put it at our Bible study, they were holding to “once saved, always saved.”

Paul addresses this very directly. In v. 26, he tells those Jews that if they break the Law, their circumcision will become uncircumcision. In v. 27, he tells them it works the other way around, too. If Gentiles keep the righteousness of the Law, then their uncircumcision will become circumcision.

God’s not interested in ceremony. If you do not walk in the righteousness that comes from faith in Christ, then your baptism will become non-baptism. There is no partiality with God. We read that often in Scripture, but most Christians don’t believe it when they read it. God will not be partial to you because you accepted Christ. He will ask more of you. You’re supposed to have the Holy Spirit and be walking in the light of life. You will not be judged less strictly than non-believers; you will be judged more strictly.

The apostles try to warn you often. You are warned there in Rom. 2:26, but Paul warns you even more clearly in Ephesians 5.  There, in v. 5, he tells us that no immoral man, unclean person, or covetous man (who is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Then he says something very important. Let no one deceive you with empty words. Don’t be deceived! It’s like Paul knew that men would come along telling you that you can be unrighteous and still go to heaven. You cannot! Don’t be deceived by bloated teachers, full of hot air, speaking empty words to you.

What does Paul use as proof for what he says? He uses a line of reasoning. He says, “For because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”

Do you see how Paul does not distinguish between saved and unsaved? He’s saying, “If the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience for these things, don’t be deceived; it will come upon you as well.” Peter says it, too, and very plainly. “If you address as Father the one who judges impartially according to each one’s work, then conduct yourself throughout the time of your sojourning here in fear” (1 Pet. 1:17). God is an impartial judge, and he will judge you impartially as well.

This is the reason for running to Christ. Only he can give you the repentance that leads to life. He can unite you to God so that your arrive at the judgment seat holy and blameless and will not need to shrink back when you see him.

There’s one more interesting passage on this subject I want to point out. 2 Cor. 10:1-14 is one of the best arguments against false security in the Bible, but it doesn’t get noticed much. I’m not sure why. Paul begins in vv. 1-4 by arguing that the fathers in the wilderness, the Israelites of old, were, in a sense, as saved as you and I. They were baptized by being baptized into Moses in the sea and in the cloud, and they had Christ. They drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them, which Rock was Christ.

Verse 5 then tells us that God wasn’t pleased with them, despite their being baptized and saved. Then in the next verse, he makes his intent clear by telling us that they are examples to us, so that we won’t lust like they lusted. He goes on like that to v. 10, and then in v. 11 he tells us again these were examples to us.

What’s his point? He states it as plainly as anyone can state anything: “Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

Shoot, if you can read all that from 2 Cor. 10 and say, “Well, I know I’m saved because I accepted Jesus on June 3, 1993,” then nothing will wake you up. You’re probably hopeless, and you’ll go straight to hell. Pray that someone is praying for you because you don’t have a chance on your own.

Oh, and some commentary on the passages we’ve been studying is at http://www.oldoldstory.org/commentary/commentary.html. I’m a couple weeks behind, and I’ll probably fall further behind, but I am getting some up. They’re very interesting, in my opinion; definitely not your typical commentary, any more than what’s above is your typical commentary.

Grace be with you!

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Amazing Grace

Posted on 10/28/2008 by Paul Pavao

The song Amazing Grace was written by John Newton, an ex-slaver who repented. It’s easy to think that the amazing part of grace is that God forgave him for his horrible past. This isn’t true, however. What do you call it when a judge lets a first-time criminal off with probation? It’s called mercy. The defendant throws himself on the “mercy” of the court, not the grace of the court.

Grace is different from mercy, and it’s important that we know that. Grace is that “amazing” influence from God that breaks the power of sin. In Romans 7 we read about ourselves and our struggles to do what is right. There is Romans 7 and there is grace. They are two opposite things. The Law produces Romans 7. Grace overthrows Romans 7.

The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age. ~Tit. 2:11-12

Sin will not have power over you because you are not under law but under grace. ~Rom. 6:14

This is grace, but there’s something just as amazing about grace as what it produces and that’s how easily it’s accessed. We miss it. We struggle and look for strength within. We strive with temptation. All of it is looking in the wrong direction.

The mind set on the Spirit is life and peace. ~Rom. 8:6

If you are risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Think on things above, not on things of the earth, because you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. ~Col. 3:1-3

Though our outward man is perishing, yet our inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works in us a far greater and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at things which are seen, but at things which are unseen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are unseen are eternal. ~2 Cor. 4:16-18

We need only to turn our minds–to keep them set on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. But how often do we remember this? Instead, we strive as though we trust in ourselves. It is one thing to strive to get your mind on things above, but we have to know where our strength comes from. We have to be striving to get to the source of our power, not striving to obtain power from a place that has no power: ourselves.

We are far too prone to establishing a new law. We have a New Testament law rather than an Old Testament law. Let  me tell you that if the Old Testament Law, which was specifically designed for a fleshly people that do not have the Spirit, was too hard to keep, the New Testament commandments, which were designed for a spiritual people empowered by grace, will be even harder to keep.

Let our striving be towards God, not toward some strength we’re trying to obtain from ourselves. Let us remember that our job is set our mind on the things of the Spirit and on things eternal, not to keep a new law. If you are a disciple of Christ, and if you have the Spirit of God, then setting your mind on the things of the Spirit will lead you to live the life God wants from you. Nothing else will.

If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. ~Gal. 5:18

As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. ~Rom. 8:14

Posted in Bible | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Theme Change

Posted on 10/20/2008 by Paul Pavao

I changed the theme on this blog. Let me know if you like it or not by clicking the comment link above. (It gives the number of comments, but it’s a link.)

Posted in Miscellaneous | 7 Comments

Rebelution

Posted on 10/20/2008 by Paul Pavao

Okay, I borrowed someone’s word, but since I’m going to give them a rousing advertisement, I think it will be okay. You can find The Rebelution at http://www.therebelution.com (don’t forget the “the” if you intend to memorize that for later).

A couple of twins, sons of Greg Harris, the noted home school leader of a couple decades ago, spawned The Rebelution. They call it a rebellion against low expectations for teens. They started a blog, it caught fire, and they ended up being called on by an Alabama State Supreme Court justice to come work as interns there at the tender age of 16, completely unqualified except for their experience as skilled debaters (and thus researchers). It was a great success, and they followed by working or campaigns for Alabama Supreme Court justices. (I guess those aren’t appointed the way US Supreme Court justices are.)

The ladies of our house are using the book Do Hard Things, written by these remarkable young men, for devotions at breakfast. I’ve only heard the first chapter, but I have read several of the Harris’ youths blogs and web pages, and I unhesitatingly recommend anything they do. If you don’t have the book, you should run not walk to your nearest bookstore and get it.

We have 70 or 80 useful years on this earth nowadays. That’s a lot, but it’s not a lot. It’s a lot to do things with, but it’s not so much that we ought to waste those years. It’s not just teens who should be rebelling against low expectations. I’m 47, and I have no intentions of settling down and earning enough money to retire on. My life’s worth more than that to me than that. There’s still plenty of time to change the world–or at least a few people around me.

The Scriptures say, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God has prepared beforehand for us to do” (Eph. 2:10). We’re not just created for good works. We’re created for good works that God has prepared in advance for us to do. There are things lodged in your heart, that neither you nor anyone else can make go away. You can let them sit there and die while you don’t fulfill your purpose, but they’re always there, waiting to be aroused. When you wake them up, they will push you along a path that you were made for. Circumstances and situations will fall in place, your deepest skills–things you didn’t even know you had–will awaken, and you will fulfill what you’re made for. It may not look like that to you, and it may not feel like that to you, but that will be the result. It’s not supposed to be easy, but it is supposed to work.

There is tons of advice out there for finding out what it is that you, deep down inside, want to do and are made to do. I won’t give it here. Do Hard Things has some of that advice. It’s directed at teens, but why shouldn’t you borrow advice that works for teens? You’ll have to do your own searching for more of that advice, but I’ll give you the first step. Help people. Look for ways to serve. If you want to be great in God’s kingdom, you have to become the servant of all. So serve and help. That will be the foot up you’ve always needed.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Pope and Apostolic Succession in the Early Church

Posted on 10/19/2008 by Paul Pavao

I put a teaching on the pope in the early church up on youtube. I can only load videos up to ten minutes long, so it’s in five parts. I also just finished editing a teaching on apostolic succession, kind of a corollary to the one on the pope, that will go up in four parts, hopefully today sometime. Part one is right here, and there’s a link below to go to the rest of them.

Part one is here, and you can link to parts two through five from there.

I also put those up on godtube, but I don’t know when they’ll show up. I’ll put up another post when the teachings on apostolic succession go up.

Posted in Church, History | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bible Commentary

Posted on 10/14/2008 by Paul Pavao

Today I started a twice a week Bible study at the wonderful hour of 5:30 a.m. for just half an hour. There was just a couple of us this morning. We’re going to go through Paul’s letters. I think I want to post the highlights of our studies, because today’s was awesome. The writeup might be better than the actual study. I don’t know how that happens. Writing’s easier for me.  However, I don’t want to post it here, but on my web site. So today’s blog is just a link to:

http://www.oldoldstory.org/commentary/rom1-1.html.

Posted in Bible | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Creed of Nicea

Posted on 10/10/2008 by Paul Pavao

Okay, I’m posting this right away after my last blog, so you probably haven’t seen the previous one yet. If you have the time, make sure you read it, though this one can be read by itself, too. It’s not really a part two, just a different approach to a question asked by Craig Allerts in A High View of Scripture? The question is “Does it make sense to say that the fourth-century church was making very good decisions about the Bible but mostly poor ones about everything else?”

Again, as I mentioned in the last post, his point is that Evangelicals today accept the books of the Bible that were set in the 4th century but they believe the 4th century church was corrupt. Does this make sense? Allerts believes that the Scriptures and the church are inexorably tied together, which of course they are. However, the 4th century church didn’t really pick the books of the Bible. They just picked from among those used by their predecessors, then attempted to nail down the collection of books of Scripture so that it could not be changed.

In the last post, I addressed the issue of the canon of Scripture. In this post, I want to address something more specific, which is the councils that addressed the canon of Scripture.

It has always amazed me that apologetic groups (i.e., those specializing in defending the faith, usually anti-cult groups), like the Christian Research Institute (CRI), claim to hold to the historic Christian faith, and then they mention the “great creeds” of the church. There are so many contradicting ideas involved in these claims that it’s hard to know where to start.

The first contradicting idea is the one Allerts points out. The Councils that gave us all the “great creeds” were held by ecclesiastical bishops representing churches that Protestants would consider cold, corrupt and Roman Catholic (though they were by no means ruled by Rome yet). If I were to produce the writings of the bishops present at these councils and ask Protestants to review them, they would disagree almost as thoroughly with those writings as they would with the writings of modern Catholics. Why, then, would CRI point to the “great creeds” as emblematic of the historic Christian faith?

As an aside here, I once wrote CRI and asked them about this. I pointed out some major doctrines that were believed from the 2nd century through the time of the councils, and I asked them if they believed those doctrines, which I knew they didn’t believe. They said no, of course, so I asked them why they said they accept the historic Christian faith, when in fact they really disagree with it. They replied that whatever the Bible says is the historic Christian faith, which makes a joke of their use of “the historic Christian faith” to refute the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

The second contradicting idea is what they mean by the “great creeds.” An article on their web site (http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2708569/k.B787/JAE1001.htm), written by the note apologist Norman Geisler, says that there are three creeds: the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are pretty much the same creed. There’s very little difference in wording. There’s an official Creed from Nicea, and there’s a later creed, only slightly adjusted, that’s probably wrongly attributed to the Council of Constantinople in 381. That later creed is the Apostles’ Creed. In between those two is the Athanasian Creed, which contradicts the other two. However, we’ve turned the Trinity into such a “mystery” that everyone pretends like they don’t contradict. I’ll explain the contradiction under the next point.

Finally, CRI and the other apologists, along with the Roman Catholics and almost everyone else DO NOT AGREE WITH THE NICENE CREED OR THE APOSTLES’ CREED! (Sorry, I really try to avoid caps, but this is a such a ludicrous thing, it’s worth shouting about.) HELLO, HELLO! Is anyone paying attention here? Catholics and Protestants alike recite this creed. CRI calls it an essential of the historic Christian faith, BUT THEY DON’T AGREE WITH IT.

The Nicene Creed (and the Apostles Creed) begin with “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty . . .” (The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus I:5). The wording is exactly the same as 1 Cor. 8:6. It does not say, “We believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” On the other hand, the Athanasian Creed does say that. It reads, “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm).

It was not until after Nicea that our modern idea of the “mystery” of the Trinity existed. In the early church, the Father was the one God, and he had a Son. The Son, they explained, is the Word of the Father. He always existed inside of the Father, but at some point in eternity past, the Father birthed the Word from out of himself in some way we cannot comprehend. They loved to quote Psalm 45:1 (LXX), “My heart has emitted a good Word,” and Prov. 8:22 (also LXX), “The Lord has created me the beginning of his ways for his works,” in reference to this eternal begetting of the Word.

The Word, they explained, is like a beam coming from the sun. It is of the  same essence and nature as the sun, not of a different nature. Thus, the Word of God is made of divinity, of the divine substance. Angels, ourselves, animals, the sun, moon, stars, and the earth were all made from nothing. They are all formed of a created substance we can simply refer to as “matter.” All matter had a beginning. It is not eternal, and it is not divine. The Word of God, however, is not made of matter. He is from the divine substance, because he is the Word of God, who  has always existed inside of God. Thus he is divine and can be called God.

However, for us, as 1 Cor. 8:6 says, there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. How do we resolve this “mystery”? Tertullian, referred to as “the father of the Trinity doctrine” by historians because he was the first to use the word Trinity (in latin; Athenagoras used the Greek word Triad), explains it this way:

If the Father and Son are alike to be invoked I shall call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.” But when Christ alone [is mentioned] I shall be able to call him “God” . . . For I would give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered by itself; however, if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of “sun” from the mere beam. For though I do not make two suns, still I reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance as God and his Word, as the Father and the Son.

You will find that this practice of Tertullian’s is the consistent practice of the apostles in Scripture, as well as the practice of all the other Pre-Nicene Christian writers. If the Son is mentioned alone, he is called God. If he is mentioned with the Father, then the Father is called God and the Son Lord. This is because, as the Scripture repeatedly says, and as the Nicene Creed affirms, there is one God, and that one God is the Father.

While the Jehovah’s Witness version of John 1:1, which calls the Word “a god,” is not correct, neither is our translation, “The Word is God.” I have both read books on the subject and sat through a lesson on John 1:1 in Greek class. According to literally everything I’ve seen, in the last clause of John 1:1 the word “God” is used as an adjective. One book I read suggested the best translation would be, ” . . . and the Word has the character and nature of God.” Really, though, it seems apparent to me that the proper way to translate God as an adjective is to use the adjective form of God, which is “Divine.” John 1:1 should read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine.” The Word, as the Nicene Creed confirms, is of the substance of God. He is like God, not like creatures. He is the Creator and not the created.

This is what the Nicene Creed means by “God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God.” It adds that he is “begotten, not made” and “one in substance with the Father.”

In the end, the important thing to note is that the Nicene Creed, unlike the Athanasian Creed, says, “We believe in one God, the Father.” It is this simple affirmation that CRI and most Protestants do not agree with. They do not understand the doctrine of the early church, and they don’t want to. They don’t want to understand what the Nicene Creed says the early church believed because they don’t want to deal with the fact that they don’t agree with it.

There are ramifications to this unreality (I hesitate to call it dishonesty). Jehovah’s Witnesses get to walk into people’s homes and point out John 17:3, a prayer by Jesus that reads, ” . . . that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” “See,” the JW says to the soon-to-be-ensnared soul, “you have been deceived by Christendom. There is no Trinity. The Father is the only true God.” Who can answer them? This is Jesus Christ himself saying that the Father is the only true God.

Unlike the modern Protestant view, the Jehovah’s Witness view did exist prior to Nicea, and it was rejected by the church both before and at Nicea. The JW view is that the Son was created from nothing, like the angels. Thus, he had a beginning and is not eternal. The JW’s say that God somehow made the Son to be god, but not Almighty God, like the Father. The result is that they have two Gods: one major God and one minor, created God. There are two divinities in the JW system: one uncreated divinity of the Father and another created divinity of the Son. This was exactly the teaching of Arius that was rejected at Nicea. To the early church, there is only one divinity. The Son, being the eternal Word of the Father, who always existed inside of the Father, is of the same substance–the same divinity–as the Father (“one in substance with the Father, God from God . . . “). He is not created, but born (“begotten, not made”).

On the other hand, we Protestants–and the modern Roman Catholics as well–have no room to talk to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Our view, that the one God is three co-equal persons, wasn’t developed until after Nicea. It was a merger of modalism (Jesus only: the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same divine person filling three roles, like an actor), which had been common in the early church at least as far back as the 2nd century, and the Nicene view.

Nor are we convincing to those who hear us argue with JW’s. We look bad when they point out John 17:3 or 1 Tim. 2:4 (“There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus”). They have been able to make a booklet on the early Christian view of the Trinity, where they pull quotes written from the Nicene viewpoint, but they make them look like they represent the JW/Arian viewpoint, the same thing they do with Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; and 1 Tim. 2:4.

I recommend reading through Tertullian’s Against Praxeas. Some of it is hard to understand, but some of it is extremely insightful into the early Christian view of the Trinity. It’s not a long booklet, and it’s representative of everything else you’ll read in the early Christian writings on the subject. You can also try Athenagoras’ A Plea for the Christians, which is a somewhat longer work generally defending Christianity, but it has a lot of insightful and helpful comments about the relationship of the Son and the Father. Both can be found for free online. You can always look at http://www.ccel.org for any early Christian writing.

Oh, you may be wondering what I’m going to say about the Holy Spirit in reference to Nicea. I’m going to say what the Council of Nicea said, nothing more and nothing less: “We believe in the Holy Spirit.”

Posted in History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment