In the Name of Jesus

Posted on 06/13/2014 by Paul Pavao

I have heard several definitions of what it means to pray “in the name of Jesus.” I have heard even more of what it means to baptize in the name of Jesus.

I want to suggest that we don’t need Greek lexicon or English dictionary definitions to know what “in the name of” means. We don’t need deep historical study to know what “in the name of” means. We all already know exactly what it means if we just stop to think about it.

Say I go to a bank in Dallas to get a loan. I need it to keep my business afloat, and I’m sure my business can pay it off. To the loan officer, my opinion of what my business can afford is meaningless. He wants proof, and collateral in addition, before he will loan me money.

But if I were to walk into that same bank and tell the banker that Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is going to guarantee my loan, suddenly I will need neither collateral nor proof of the credit-worthiness of my business. I will get the loan because I appealed to Mark Cuban’s name and permission.

I would get even more attention if I came in with a corporate resolution from the Dallas Mavericks to arrange a bank loan for the Mavericks themselves as an authorized representative of the business. Then I would truly be asking for a loan “in the name of” the Dallas Mavericks.

If I were the Maverick’s main liaison with the bank, I would soon become known there. “Hi, Paul. What can we do for you today?” With the proper authorizations in place, I could borrow money or move money around “in the name of” the Dallas Mavericks.

We see an example of that in Scripture. The seven sons of Sceva tried to cast out a demon, not only in Jesus’ name, but also in the apostle Paul’s name (Acts 19:14-17). The demon’s answer is telling:

“Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?” (v. 15)

The demons not only knew Jesus, who could cast out demons on his own authority, but they knew Paul as well. He had been plundering their kingdom as one of Jesus’ representatives on earth long enough that his name was known like Jesus’ was.

Certification

When an officer or representative of a corporation makes a loan or withdrawal from the bank, he needs certification in place authorizing him (or her) to act on behalf of the corporation.

Obviously, as the sons of Sceva found out, there is also certification needed to act on behalf of the greatest kingdom on earth, the kingdom from heaven, ruled by King Jesus, Lord of everything.

That certification is the Holy Spirit.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walks through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, “I will return to the house from which I came out.” And when he arrives, he finds it empty, swept out, and decorated. Then he goes, and he gets seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and live there. (Matt. 12:43-45)

We must not have empty houses. Our body should be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Paul, who was very successful acting “in the name of” Jesus, twice tells us how we can qualify ourselves as representatives of his kingdom and of his household:

If anyone does not have the Spirit of the King, he does not belong to him. (Rom. 8:9)

As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. (Rom. 8:14)

Further Qualifications

Jesus, through his apostles, gave us some other qualifications if we are going to act in his name.

  • We must remain in him, and his words must remain in us. (Jn. 15:7)
  • We must ask according to his will. (1 Jn. 5:14)
  • We must ask in faith, without doubting. (Mark 11:23-24; Jam. 1:6-7)
  • We must not be trying to fulfill our lusts. (Jam. 4:3)

What Authority Have We Been Given?

As obvious examples, we have not been given the authority to kill in Jesus’ name, to steal in Jesus’ name, nor to envy, slander, or insult in Jesus’ name. We have not been given the authority to undo creation in Jesus’ name.

Those are all obvious limits, but what other limits has God set on our authority to act on his behalf, using the name of Jesus? More importantly, what specifically has he given us the authority to do in his name?

That question has many answers because anything Jesus has commanded us to do, he has, as an inherent consequence, authorized us to do.

Some specific things that may matter to us are:

  • Ask for and receive the Holy Spirit! (Luke 11:13).
  • “Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask and receive so that your joy may be full” (Jn. 16:24).
  • Cast out demons (Mark 16:17).
  • Requests peace for our anxieties (Php. 4:6-7).
  • Cast all our cares on God (1 Pet. 5:7).
  • Have all our needs met (Php. 4:19).
  • Suffer with him! (Php. 1:29; cf. Php. 3:10; Acts 14:21; Jam. 1:2-5).

It would be good to know your King’s commands so that you can ask of God in the name of the King and according to his will.

A Practical Thought

Personally, I am thinking about driving this teaching home to myself by changing the way I ask God for things in Jesus’ name. I think from now on, at least for a while, I’m going to pray, “Father, I ask this because Jesus told me to.”

If a friend wanted to borrow something from my house while I wasn’t home, he would tell my kids, “Your dad told me I could borrow this.” He wouldn’t say, “I need to pick up the lawnmower in your dad’s name.”

Just a thought.

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

On the Petrine Primacy

Posted on 06/11/2014 by Paul Pavao

I’m sending you to another post from Mr. Theophiletos. This post is more on the subject of Peter than the pope, but it touches on the pope, of course. I’m reposting because I find it an excellent example of thinking through an issue properly.

Petrine Primacy: An Idiosyncratic Suggestion

This post is a lot shorter than the almost 4000-word essay I reblogged from Theophiletos yesterday.

Posted in Early Christianity, History, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Argument from (Dis-)Similarity

Posted on 06/10/2014 by Paul Pavao

Simply phenomenal. I am going to publicize this post with all my might.

theophiletos's avatarFinite Reflections of Infinity

Will the real Church please stand up?  Go to a phone directory of any moderately sized settlement and see if the listings for “churches” don’t rapidly get bewildering.  Indeed, such an exercise is often an education into varieties of Christianity we didn’t know existed!  How should those who worship Christ sort through this denominational chaos?

One method frequently suggested by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Disciples of Christ (along with a few Baptists, on occasion) is to look at the evidence for early Christianity and see which contemporary denomination is most similar to the churches of the apostles and their successors.  This is the argument from similarity.  I recently read a blog post making this argument against Protestants of all stripes, and a commentator here pressed me to consider the same line of reasoning.  It was not the first time.  I have heard this argument made in favor of multiple different branches of contemporary Christianity.  I…

View original post 3,539 more words

Posted in Church, Early Christianity, Evangelicals, History, Protestants, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Law of Moses and the Sabbath for Christians

Posted on 06/05/2014 by Paul Pavao

I addressed a question concerning the Sabbath on the Christian History for Everyman Facebook page. It’s short compared to most of my blog posts, but very long for a Facebook post.

If that’s a topic that interests or puzzles you, this is a long forgotten teaching that was once universal in the church.

Posted in Early Christianity, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Climate Change, Antarctic Ice Sheets, Honesty, and News

Posted on 06/04/2014 by Paul Pavao

I get very frustrated with climate change news stories. Don’t get me wrong, I believe climate change is real, and I think we are causing it. Nonetheless, the reason people reject news of climate change so vehemently is because the news really is extremely inaccurate and overblown.

Here’s what’s true:

  • There are only three places on earth that have enough land-locked ice to raise sea levels.
  • Only land-locked ice can raise sea levels.
  • The arctic is indeed melting, and if we caused it, this is not good. However, melting arctic ice cannot raise sea levels because it was floating in the sea already.
  • The three places with land-locked ice are Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica.
  • Greenland started melting around 2000 or 2001, about ten years after the media was telling us it was already melting. I suspect scientists were warning us of the possibility of melting, and the media turned it into actual melting.
  • West Antarctica has been melting for a while. This melting is caused by an increase in sea temperature.
  • East Antarctica is not melting … yet.
  • East Antarctica has 75% of the world’s landlocked ice. West Antarctice has 15%. Greenland has 10%.
  • Thus 75% of the landlocked ice is not melting, and doesn’t really look like it’s going to. However, if it starts, that’s a very, very scary thought.

Now, why did I tell you all this?

Because this week the media is full of false reports of doomsday news about the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets.

Here’s the Yahoo! search results page for “melting antarctic ice sheets.” That will give you 10 news reports, most of them ridiculous.

Here’s how the report should read: “The West Antarctic ice sheet, approximately 15% of the world’s land-locked ice, is melting faster than expected, scientists have discovered. It will still take centuries for it to completely melt, but no increase in melting bodes well for us.”

A headline like “Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting Rapidly: Could Put Miami and New York Underwater” is misleading.

With all the things we US citizens hear in the news, with all the careful analysis of weather and high pressure and low pressure areas, with our interest in forensics through TV shows, are you really going tell me that distinguishing between the West and East Antarctica ice sheets is too much for us to comprehend? It certainly is not lacking in importance. The distinction is hugely important.

My concern is never politics or climate change. My concern is honesty among Christians. We should be an honest, truth-loving people, but how many times have we issued statements much like the misleading headlines on that Yahoo! search page?

It’s one thing for the world to create parties fortified by dishonesty, partisanship, and constant bickering and dissension. It is entirely another for Christians to live like that. We do, though. We do it with politics, with science, and with our pet doctrines.

Time to man up. If our fierce political opinions make us rude or obnoxious, we have lost the path, no matter what you think of Christians’ involvement in politics. If we slander perfectly honest scientists over scientific subjects we are actually quite ignorant about, then we are not doing Jesus a favor. Worst of all, anything that we do that divides disciples from one another is treason to the purposes of God and Jesus, who taught that our love and unity—lived out in obedience to him (2 Tim. 2:19)—were his main testimony to the world (Jn. 13:34-35; 17:20-23).

Posted in Church, Evolution, Miscellaneous, Unity | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Church: Inside and Outside

Posted on 05/31/2014 by Paul Pavao

The Church is a complicated subject for me. I’m glad for this opportunity to look at what the church is from all angles. What follows is a very long comment I posted in answer to a very short question.

A brother asked, “What would the church be like if we adhered to the apostolic Gospel?”

I answered:

Action and resulting change. That’s what teaching is all about. It’s supposed to result in love from a pure heart, a sincere faith, and a clear conscience (1 Tim. 1:5). The very purpose of the Scripture is that we would be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Scriptures make wise for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-15) and then build on that foundation. If a person has not renounced himself/herself as king and submitted to Jesus as King, there is nothing to build on. That’s the rock to build on, “Jesus is the King, the Son of the living God.”

There are people that it’s hard to determine where they are. I think Jesus’ warning about accidentally destroying wheat as you root out tares applies to them. The church is patient, merciful, and kind.

There are others that don’t even want to submit to King Jesus.

Let me give you a famous example, though this is very old. I saw an interview with “Mr. T,” co-star in Rocky III and the original A-team series. I think the interview was in 1983 or so. They were interviewing Mr. T because he had gotten some acting award and, at the podium, “preached the Gospel” to the crowd.

In the interview, Mr. T said, “I’m a Christian, but I’m not Jesus. If you hit me on one cheek, I’m gonna hit you back.”

No, Mr. T, you are not a Christian. Christians walk as Jesus walked. At least, they devote themselves to doing so. When they are unable, they confess their sins to God and their faults to their brothers and sisters because their lives are devoted to becoming like their Master (e.g., Gal. 5:25; Php. 3:8-10; 2 Pet. 1:5-11).

There’s way too many in our “churches” who are just like that. WE have deceived them because we have not told them the truth.

Sons of Disobedience and Children of the Devil

We have to remember that not only are such people in danger of condemnation, but they are still walking according to the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:1-3). We all once did. We were, and they ARE, puppets. They may not be consistently puppets, but until one is delivered by grace, the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one (1 Jn. 5:19).

Let such people be church members, and the devil will use them to make sure you never get anything done that is truly of eternal benefit.

I think the loss of the experience of the fellowship that was experienced throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries is not just because of Constantine. The real issue was that the church opened its doors and let the world come be part of them. Only in rare cases in history have churches purged the leaven from the loaf (1 Cor. 5) so they could experience real fellowship among holy brothers and sisters.

For the most part, our organizations let the world in freely. Without the requirement that they confess Jesus as LORD, we have let in all sort of people who want the benefits of the Spirit without subjecting themselves to the Spirit. That’s why we do so much evangelizing from the pulpit. Those aren’t churches. Those are outreach centers, and most people don’t know who needs to be reached and who already has been!

How do you have fellowship when you don’t know who is of God and who is of the devil? (1 Jn. 3:7-10). We apply 2 Cor. 6:14-17 to marriages, but we don’t see that destroying the unity of the church by being unequally yoked is a MUCH worse problem.

The church is an incredibly powerful entity, the pillar and support of the truth, the family of God, but we have abandoned our family to spread out and live and meet with the sons of disobedience.

Inside and Outside

In the days of Jesus and the apostles, there was an inside and an outside. They talked about it regularly.

No longer. Not only are we not throwing down the gates of Hades (thank God for the exceptions, of which there are many), but we are not even trying to defend our own gates. The fold, the sheep pen, has been thrown open, and new walls have been built that encompass everyone: thieves, robbers, wolves, and dogs alike. Thieves and robbers no longer need to climb over the wall; there is no door and no doorkeeper to keep them out!

It is time to rebuild the walls that have fallen. It is time to tell Tobias and Sanballat that they cannot participate in the building of the city of God, no matter how much they plead good motives.

Posted in Church, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments

The Church, part one

Posted on 05/27/2014 by Paul Pavao

I’m not near as good at describing the Church as the Chinese that came from Watchman Nee’s Little Flock movement. I’m a pretty good storyteller, but I can’t spin the tale of the church like Gene Edwards can.

I can, however, paint you a picture and hope God gives you revelation.

Almost no one has experienced church life as the apostles envisioned and taught it. Almost no one even knows they’re missing anything.

Church Life

This is how the church used to live:

They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers. … All that believed were together and had everything in common. … Continuing daily in one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. (Acts 2:42,44,46)

A lot of people think this only happened at Jerusalem. Not true. This pattern was followed everywhere.

We who formerly … valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions now bring what we have into a common stock and share with every one in need. We who hated and destroyed one another and would not live with men of a different tribe because of their different customs now, since the coming of Christ, share the same fire with them. (Justin, First Apology 14)

That was written around AD 150, over a century after the church of Jerusalem was formed. Another half century later, and we read:

It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to label us. “See,” they say, “How they love one another!” For themselves are animated by mutual hatred. … They are angry with us, too, because we call each other brethren. … But perhaps the very reason we are regarded as having less right to be considered true brothers is that no tragedy causes dissension in our brotherhood. Or maybe it is that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among [Romans], create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. (Tertullian, Apology 39)

Both of these quotes are defenses of Christianity attempting to explain to the emperor, or to whatever Roman official they could get to read the letter, how Christians typically behave. They were not portraying an ideal they were striving for, but they were claiming that is the way Christians lived, just as Luke claimed the Jerusalem church lived that way.

It’s no surprise, really. A much earlier document gives commands to the church to live this way …

You shall seek out the faces of the saints every day so that you may rest upon their words. You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace …You shall not turn away from him that is in need, but you shall share all things with your brother and shall not say that they are your own. For if you share what is immortal, how much more things which are temporary? (Didache 4)

Though I reference The Didache for this quote, it is almost certainly from a tract that circulated in the early churches that we now call “The Two Ways.” That tract is also found in the Letter of Barnabas. Those two writings would put “The Two Ways” in the very early part of the second century, if not the first.

If this sort of complete sharing among Christians was normal, then why doesn’t Paul talk about it? Paul talks several times about rich Christians, and so does James, who led the church in Jerusalem some time after the persecution that Paul led before his conversion (while he was still called Saul).

It’s important to look at Paul’s commands to rich Christians.

Command those that are rich in this world not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God who richly gives us everything to enjoy. [Command them] to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to share. (1 Tim. 6:17-18)

Yes, there were rich Christians, just as there were in Jerusalem, where giving was just as optional as it was in Paul’s churches. Before God, it is inappropriate not to give, but the church never forced sharing on Christians. Giving was to be done from a cheerful and willing heart.

It was no different in the early churches …

They who are well-to-do—and willing—give what each thinks fit. (Justin, ibid. 67)

Each puts in a small donation, but only if it be his pleasure and only if he be able. For there is no compulsion, all is voluntary. (Tertullian, ibid.)

Let every man give as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or by compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (1 Cor. 9:7)

Paul may have said it differently, but he clearly expected the Christians in his churches to share every bit as much as the Jerusalem church did:

It is not that other men should be eased while you are burdened, but there should be an equality. Right now it is your abundance supplying their lack, so that their abundance also may supply your lack, so that there may be equality. (2 Cor. 8:13-14)

So first of all, the church shares.

If this is the first time you’ve had to face the story of the church and how it lived, you may be wondering if I’m describing—or worse, prescribing—forced communism. I have already clearly said that early church sharing was not compulsory, but that’s hard to notice when you feel like someone is ransacking your bank account to share it with the poor around you.

That is what God wants you to do with your bank account, though.

He just wants it to be voluntary.

Tithing and a Professional Clergy

Have you noticed all the collection agents God has? There are a long line of preachers who will be happy to take your offerings to God as his representative.

If you want to make sure your offering gets to God, give it to the poor, or to someone you can trust to get it to the poor:

He that has pity on the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay what was given. (Prov. 19:17)

That’s how the early churches saw it, too.

There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. … These gifts … are to support and bury poor people, to supply the needs of boys and girls destitute of means and parents and of old persons confined now to the house. They also benefit such, too, as have suffered shipwreck. And if there happen to be any in the mines, banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church; they become the nurslings of their confession. (Tertullian, ibid.)

I am not against paying shepherds and teachers. I have been told that elders in the early churches did not receive a salary. However, I said at the outset of this series that I would never hold to a doctrine that seems to have even a verse or two that seems to contradict it. I can’t honestly read 1 Timothy 5:17-18 in any other way than suggesting extra salary for elders who lead well.

I do need to point out, though, that Tertullian does not mention paying church leadership or staff among the uses of their church’s treasury. Justin gives a similar description of the uses of the church’s money, and he also does not mention paying church staff. It may be allowable to give salary to elders or other servants of the church, but it certainly should not be the priority.

I am sure this sounds bizarre in the light of modern congregations, which require a huge staff and a huge time commitment from at least the pastor.

This was not so in the early congregations raised up by the apostles. There, the saints share everything. They lived like family. While it was not normal in those congregations to give the elders a salary, it was customary to support them. The churches of the second century had not just elders and servants (deacons), but usually also an order of widows and of virgins who were supported by the church. As a general feel in reading through descriptions of church life in the second and third centuries, it seems that the overseer (bishop), elders, and servants were supported exactly as the widows and virgins were if they were supported at all. They were supplied with food and necessary items only.

The early churches were like a family. Just as grandpa might live with mom and dad on the farm and pull his weight with his wisdom as much as with his body and be paid simply with sustenance, shelter, and love, so the elders—the grandpas of the congregation—pulled their weight with service to the flock, and they were paid by being a part of the family of God. They never went without because no one went without because they sought each other out every day and called nothing their own.

Again, this probably raises up extreme ideas in the minds of those used to the modern institutional way of doing church. Much of the world still lives the way I am describing even outside of the church. A hundred years ago, even much of the western world lived this way. Family and extended family did everything they could to take care of one another, even sharing many of their possessions.

Christians have exchanged their families for the family of God. That is why Jesus said that if you love father, mother, son, or daughter more than him, you cannot be his disciple. That is why he could tell Peter that if he gave up everything, he would receive a hundredfold of houses and parents in this life. I’m not making that up!

“Everyone that has forsaken houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, wife, or children for my name’s sake shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit eternal life.” (Matt 19:29)

Luke 18:29-30 specifies that this hundredfold return will happen in this current age.

Can this really be done? It must be done.

One first step is to reduce the size of our churches. In the next post, we will talk about how Jesus’ method of reducing the size of the flock and what we can do to follow him.

Posted in Church, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Gospel: Comment Response

Posted on 05/26/2014 by Paul Pavao

Let’s take a break from Teachings That Must Not Be Lost to respond to a comment.

It isn’t really a break. I’m trying to put TTMNBL posts up every two days, and this is going up on an inbetween day.

My response to a comment with a really good question got away from me. It was so long, I figured I better make it a post. So here it is:

The Question(s)

Why would spiritually dead people (everybody) have acknowledged Jesus as their King and started obeying him if they have not been told what’s in it for them? If the news that Jesus is King because he has been raised from the dead had been the only gospel ever preached, why would GENTILES, who knew nothing of Psalm 2, become disciples and martyrs only because Jesus is King? The answer must be: the gracious gift of faith and enthusiasm supernaturally given to them by the Holy Spirit. Is that a correct conclusion? Is that “how it works?”

My Rambling But Important Answer

At least every week, maybe more often, I’m reminded about how much I’m assuming my readers know. It seems outright impossible to remember to include foundational issues behind my blogs that my readers may not know about. I depend on questions like these to address those issues.

The answer you gave to your own question is obviously true, but it’s only part of the truth. The Holy Spirit must be involved in repentance and belief because salvation is spiritual.

But there’s more. Your question makes an assumption, and that assumption is right on. People want to know what’s in it for them, and simply telling them that they must submit to Jesus, God’s Son and Anointed King, is not enough.

I’m willing to say that because the apostles did address what is in it for their hearers. The saving confession, as I taught in the article, is that Jesus is the anointed King, the Son of the Living God.” In order to get people to make that confession, you have to tell the hearers about it. That does not mean, however, that we are limited to saying nothing except that one sentence.

In addition to that sentence, we preach the resurrection, which is the proof that Jesus is the King, the Son of God. We also preach, because the apostles preached, that there is something in it for the hearers. Things specifically mentioned by the apostles are:

1. Forgiveness of sin
2. Escape from judgment
3. Receiving the Holy Spirit

The escape from judgment part was not really spoken as a reward. Instead, Paul told the Athenians, with the resurrection as his evidence, that a day would come on which God would judge the world by one man. That’s a warning, not a promise, but implicit in the warning is that if you repent and submit to God’s Messiah, you will do well at the judgment (or possible avoid it altogether).

It appears to me that Paul is the one most likely to focus on the forgiveness of sins. He was, as you point out, preaching to Gentiles, so he focused on the benefit as well as on repentance. Peter, however, had a Jewish audience, and you can see in his sermons, he was willing to frighten them by announcing that the resurrection proved that they had killed God’s Messiah. The Jews knew this was a horrendous thing to do, and horrified, they cried, “What must we do?”

Then Peter told them about water baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Paul couldn’t frighten the Gentiles that way. It’s not very convicting to hear, “They killed their King, who was sent from God.” Instead, he told them that the resurrection established that Jesus was God’s representative on earth, his Son, and that one day he would judge them.

Resurrection and judgment motivated the Gentiles. When Paul told them that if they believed in this new King, they would receive the forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit would move, and the Gentiles would repent. Paul didn’t have to tell them they were sinners. They knew they were sinners.

The Jews are the ones who needed to be told they were sinners because they had the Scriptures and theologians to help them with the Scriptures. This allowed them to try to hide their sins behind verses like “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” They thought that if they were circumcised, kept the Sabbaths and Feasts, avoided unclean foods, and tithed, they would be among those to whom the Lord would not attribute sin.

Their mistake. The one to whom the Lord will not impute sin are men like David, who wholeheartedly serve God, but prove to be human as well. David was a sinner, but he was a sinner devoted to God, given to being transformed by him, and utterly submitted to his will even when God’s will was horrific in David’s life.

Don’t think that anyone else has hope of being among those that the Lord continually and daily favors.

John tells us, “Do not be deceived. The one who practices righteousness is righteous as he is righteous. The one who practices sin is of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:7).

Jesus, the King himself, is just as clear as his disciple John: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Or consider, perhaps: “He who loves mother or father more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37-38).

Comment About My Comment and My Warnings

In a private conversation with someone I knew to be pursuing holiness, but stumbling in the process like a lost hiker in a wet and rocky ravine, I would not add the warnings I added at the end of this answer I gave.

To such a person I would give encouragement, comfort, and 70×7 forgiveness every day.

This is a public blog comment (and now a post), however, and because of the practice and example of the “churches” in America, I almost always give warning as well as promise in my blog’s post. We Americans love promises of good things, but I doubt any of our promise boxes contain “For to us, on behalf of Christ, it has been granted, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Php. 1:29).

Get rid of the false teaching that we enter the kingdom of heaven for eternity by faith alone, and I can drop the warnings I include. Until then, I cannot, lest the majority of Christians or pseudo-Christians, the ones deceived into believing that their works don’t matter on the day of judgment, hear in my words the greasy grace that brings licentiousness, laziness, and destruction rather than the grace of salvation which teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age.

Posted in Gospel, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Teachings That Must Not Be Lost: The Gospel

Posted on 05/25/2014 by Paul Pavao

Dare we consider that the reason we have so much else wrong is because we have the Gospel wrong?

For this post I am indebted to a friend, Matthew Bryan, who is writing a book on the subject. We’ll be adding a link to his book at Greatest Stories Ever Told when it comes out.

This is reblogged from several weeks ago, and I have edited and updated that post for this posting.

Matthew 16:16 Peter tells Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response, Jesus named Peter rock (Petros) and said he would build his church on “this rock” (petra). Protestants believe “this rock” is Peter’s confession, while Roman Catholics believe the rock is Peter himself.

Either way, it was the confession that caused Jesus to name Peter “Rock.” We do not devote enough attention to Peter’s confession. Doing so could transform us and Christianity as we know it.

Peter’s Confession

If we put enough emphasis on Peter’s confession, eventually we would get to two questions that would change the way we look at the Gospel, the Church, and the world.

  1. What exactly does “Christ” mean?
  2. How did Peter know to add “Son of the living God” to his confession?

First, let’s define the word “Christ,” and then let’s get the deeper answer to that first question.

“Christ” is from the Greek word christos, which means “anointed.” It is the same word as Messiah, which comes from the Hebrew meshiach, which also means “anointed.”

One of the clearest references to the Messiah is Psalm 2, and it is in Psalm 2 that we shall find the answer to both our questions.

Psalm 2

The verses that answer our questions are these:

The kings of the earth take a stand, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed (meshiach), saying, “Let’s break their bonds apart and cast their cords from us.” … Then he will speak to them in his anger and terrify them in his wrath, “Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion.”
   I will tell of the decree. The Lord said to me, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron. You shall dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
   … Give sincere homage to the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the path. For his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in him.

This is how Peter knew to add “Son of the living God” to “Christ.” Psalm 2 told him the Messiah was both God’s Anointed King and his Son.

Peter is not the only one that knew to add “Son of God” to “Christ” or “Messiah.”

  • Caiaphas the high priest: “I command you by the living God that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matt. 26:63)
  • Mark: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
  • Demons: “And demons also came out of many, crying out, and saying, ‘You are Christ, the Son of God'” (Luke 4:41).
  • Martha: “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn. 11:27).
  • John the apostle: “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).

Look at the authority of God’s Messiah Son. He receives the nations for his inheritance. He possesses the ends of the earth. He can shatter nations like a clay pot. Those who take refuge in him, however, are blessed.

The Gospel

One of the biggest mistakes we have made is in thinking that the Gospel is about us.

The Gospel is not about us. It is about the Messiah, the coming King, the Son of the Living God.

I know from 30 years of experience that when a Protestant, especially an evangelical or fundamentalist, teaches or is taught the Gospel, it is all about us. For example, Evangelism Explosion by Dr. D. James Kennedy, was a wildly popular evangelism program in the 80’s and 90’s. It’s outline went like this:

  1. Heaven is a free gift.
  2. Man is a sinner and cannot save himself.
  3. God wants to forgive sin, but he is just and must punish sin.
  4. Jesus, the God-man, died in our place.
  5. If we place our trust in him, we will be saved

Although I have strong scriptural, historical, and moral objections to #3, this outline is pretty much all true.

But these points are all about us! We are at the focus of every one of those statements. They are about our need and the rewards available through Jesus and his atonement.

That is not the approach the apostles took. Their Gospel had one central focus: “Jesus is the anointed King, the Son of the living God.”

The Apostles’ Gospel

An excellent example is Paul’s proclamation to the intellectuals on Mars Hill in Athens:

“The times of ignorance, therefore, God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

Or Peter on the day of Pentecost:

“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him among you … him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed. Him God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death because it was not possible that he could be held by it.” (Acts 2:22-24)

And why did Peter emphasize Jesus and not us? To get to this proclamation:

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (v. 36)

The confession that Jesus is the Anointed King, the Son of the living God prompted a remarkable reaction from Jesus. He declared that only the Father could have revealed this to Peter, and he named Peter “Rock,” and said he would build his church on him (or his confession).

That is a strong reaction from the only person whose reaction really matters.

I would argue that the only person whose reaction really matters still reacts strongly to the statement that Jesus is the Messiah King, the Son of the living God.

It is no wonder, then, that the apostles went around proclaiming this very thing. Their job was to be witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 4:33; 10:40-41; 13:30-31). The resurrection, they proclaimed, was proof that Jesus was the Anointed King, the Son of the living God (Rom. 1:4).

This is a blog, and have to keep it somewhat short. I highly recommend that you read through the Acts of the Apostles and pay attention to what the apostles preached to the lost as “Gospel.” Jesus did die for our sins, and the apostles taught that to the churches in their letters, but they did not preach the atonement to the lost. Instead they proclaimed the good news that God raised Jesus from the dead to prove that he is the Anointed King, the Son of the living God. (See my book, The Apostles’ Gospel).

How Does This Apply to Us?

Is it really hard to see the difference between someone who has become a Christian because of “fire insurance” and one who has believed that Jesus is God’s anointed, ruling King who should not be angered lest we perish in the way?

What if all our converts were people who came to Jesus because they believe he is King and Judge of all? What if they all had fled to Jesus because “God is commanding all men everywhere to repent because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by one Man, whom he raised from the dead”?

I think we would see drastic changes, not only because our converts would be disciples, not assenters, but also because God is much more likely to back with power the Gospel that he commissioned the apostles to preach than the one we have developed by tradition over the centuries.

We can see in Scripture how Jesus reacted when Peter embraced the Gospel of the King. He has not changed. His reaction to those who confess that he is the King, the Son of the living God, will not change.

The kingdom of God does not consist of words, but of power, and what better to bring that power than the Gospel of King Jesus?

Posted in Gospel, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Teachings That Must Not Be Lost

Posted on 05/24/2014 by Paul Pavao

There are several long-forgotten teachings that used to be simple orthodoxy, known by all but the least educated Christians. For Protestants today, the Bible is a hodge-podge of competing verses, and which verses one prefers depends on which denomination he or she chooses.

These teachings answer some of the most puzzling questions Bible readers face.

Me

Before we cover these teachings, I should tell you a little bit about myself.

I was raised Roman Catholic. At age 12 or 13 it was time for “Confirmation.” At Confirmation, I was supposed to receive the Holy Spirit and become a soldier for Jesus. I even had to choose a new name for this great event. (I chose my birth name, Paul, because it was the name of an apostle.

I was probably the only child in my catechism class that was excited about this earth-shaking event. The rest of my class was there, as far as I could tell, because their parents made them be.

When the fateful day came, I waited in the pew for my turn before the bishop. My insides shook like my organs were dangling on rubber bands.

Finally, my turn. Quietly, I approached the jovial bishop, trying to hide my excitement.

Nothing. It was a flop. Epic and crushing fail.

Over the next few days, I hoped that something would be different even if I didn’t feel anything. Instead, I was the same shy, terrified kid I had been before Confirmation. I remember plucking up some courage one day to tell someone God sees what we do, but spiritual thoughts had not even captivated my own heart.

The final disappointment, the one that struck me deep enough to make me lose hope, was leaving my Jr. high school one day. I stepped out into the Kansas sun, looked up, and realized I had not thought of God all day long.

My mom tried to help me along. She bought me some Christian Archie comics (remember those) and the book The Cross and the Switchblade. She even got me some Chick tracts (now infamous because I think Jack Chick snapped and lost his mind). Back then, though, he had not digressed into bizarre conspiracy theories, and his tracts had the fundamentalist view of salvation in them.

The Cross and the Switchblade won me over completely. I wanted to be like David Wilkerson.

To do that, I knew, I had to ask Jesus to come into my heart. I prayed the prayer in the Chick tracts over and over again. At night I would lay on my back with my arms wide open begging Jesus to come into my heart.

I just couldn’t convince him to respond.

One tract said that Jesus was knocking at the door of my heart, but the knob was on the inside; only I could open it. That tract made me angry. “Where’s the stupid doorknob? I would open it if I could. What kind of stupid advice is that?”

After a month or so of torturing myself, I gave up. I ran across Dick Sutphen’s You Were Born Again To Be Together, and I became a New Age reincarnationist.

Really Born Again

In 1982, at age 20, I ran across a Christian who didn’t just talk, but prayed with power. God came after me from every direction. Overwhelmed, knowing that I had some huge changes of life in front of me, I gave up and admitted Jesus was God’s Son.

The whole world changed. The sky got brighter, the air got cleaner, the trees were greener, and I was filled with an indescribable joy. I asked God what he had done to me, and this matter-of-fact voice inside of me said, “I just baptized you with the Holy Spirit.”

I promised God that day I would never forget that miracle and that I would serve him forever.

Protestant Shock

I was born again on a Wednesday night in an Assembly of God church, talking with a member who had asked to talk to me privately. Suddenly, I was a Protestant.

I had only been to a Protestant service three times. The first time was in Jr. High with a friend while I was still a Catholic. My friend Skipper took me to a Baptist church. I was so mesmerized by the ushers, who stood the whole service, shouting “amen” throughout the sermon that the amens are all I remember.

The second time, I was in college, and I dropped in on a Baptist church one Sunday morning just out of curiosity. What a shock! This pastor shouted most of his sermon, and he had the audacity to call St. Paul by his first name like they were friends or something. He threatened hell quite a bit, and I thought he was a very unlikeable fellow, not the sort of person one would want to listen to at all. As my daughter likes to say in a high, lilting voice: “Kah-reepy!”

The third time was the Protestant service at the chapel during Air Force tech training. All I remember there was that I found out I couldn’t clap to a beat. I was with a friend who was a drummer, and he said I was the first person he’d ever met who couldn’t clap to a beat.

I have since found out that most Catholics can’t clap to a beat. If you see a Catholic clapping to a beat, you have found a convert from Protestantism.

I, however, was a convert to Protestantism. I not only had to learn to clap on time, I had to learn everything else, too. Protestant rules and customs were a mystery to me.

The Bible

One thing I did know is that the Protestants follow the Bible. They weren’t like the Catholics, who told you exactly how to interpret the Bible. I was a very small child when Vatican II ended, so I don’t remember masses in Latin except on Christmas and at Easter. We were encouraged to read our Bibles when I was a child, though I didn’t know anyone who did. My parents bought me records (albums, remember those?) with Bible stories on them, and I’m sure we had children’s Bibles, too, but as far as I knew, Catholics didn’t actually read the Bible, even though we listened to passages from it every Sunday.

So I was excited about following the Bible and the Bible only.

Every week when the pastor preached, he would say, “Look in your Bible and see if what I’m saying is true. You should only believe what the Bible teaches.”

I wish he had been telling the truth. It would have made my life so much easier.

It is a rare Protestant, of any denomination, who cares much what the Bible says. Quote the Bible all you want as long as it agrees with them. if it disagrees, then it better not touch any pet doctrines, and there are a LOT of those.

If you transgress those two rules, you’ll be fighting like a deep sea fisherman with a blue marlin at the end of his line. Maybe I should say with a Great White on the line because only on the rarest of occasions will you land a Protestant that you’ve got on the hook—no matter what the Bible says or how clearly.

What do I mean? Well, let’s try the simplest one of all. Most Protestants I know believe in salvation by faith alone. Yet the only verse in the Bible that mentonis faith alone is this one:

So we see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jam. 2:24)

What does wriggling like a blue marlin on a line look like? Just watch the comments if anyone is brave enough to comment. I think I’ve scared off most of the rabid “faith alone” crowd from my audience.

Starting Over

After a year of experiencing the disregard, and often contempt, for the Bible from my fellow “Bible believers.” I thought I’d better start over.

What I really wanted was not to start from scratch. I not only began to devour the Bible, but I went to bookstores and bought church history books, one after another.

These church history books were so pitiful that after reading about ten over seven years, I had no idea that we had collections of writings from people who not only were in the apostles’ churches, but some who actually knew the apostles!

How can you write a church history book without mentioning something that important?

For me, it didn’t matter that much. I had adopted a strategy to get back to apostolic teaching that worked exceptionally well. By the time I ran across David Bercot’s book, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, and found out that I could read the writings of these earliest Christians for myself, I had already discovered many of their teachings on my own.

They must have used the same Bible study method because every one of their teachings stands up to my Bible study method.

My Bible Study Method

Here’s my Bible Study method:

  1. If you find one verse in the Bible that clearly disagrees, in its plainest wording, with something you teach, then learn everything you can about that verse to find out why it disagrees.
  2. Until you find out that one verse means something that can be aligned with what you teach, then consider your teaching suspect. You can only disregard the verse if it seems that everyone everywhere doesn’t know what it means (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29).
  3. If you find two verses in the Bible that clearly disagree with something you teach, then throw the teaching out. Say you don’t understand the subject until God gives you something that does fit the Bible without verses that disagree or even seem to disagree.
  4. Until you are teaching something that fits all the verses of the Bible, say you don’t understand that topic even if you don’t understand it for years and even if the topic is critically important.

These rules are not impossible to implement. In fact, they get easier and easier the more you implement them.

Of course, if you’re a Protestant, these rules will demolish numerous doctrines that are critically important to you or your denomination. You’ll probably lose friends, possible be cut off from family, and there will be a lot of churches that will not let you attend if they find out about you.

It can’t be helped. That’s what happens when error is so rampant.

Teachings That Must Not Be Lost

The teachings that we will be covering will fit my rules. They will leave you with no difficult verses, and they will be found clearly stated in the writings of the early church, often enough to indicate that they were universal beliefs of the apostles’ churches. I’m not going to cover anything that is not so.

If you’re like me, this is going to be an adventure, even if it costs you friends.

If you’re not, you might not want to read the posts that are coming.

Posted in Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , | 6 Comments