The Rise of Roman Catholicism

Posted on 05/08/2014 by Paul Pavao

How and when was there a Roman Catholic Church? Once you know the story of the church, the rise of Roman Catholicism is easy to understand.

This is a VERY short version of a one-hour video I put on Youtube. The map will make a nice reference for some of you. If you click on it, it will open a new tab or window. If you click on it again (in the new window), it will enlarge.

Roman-Empire-36BC

Geography

Most of the apostolic churches that we know anything about were founded in the eastern half of the Roman empire. The green sections on that map—Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, Cilicia, and Syria—contain Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and Thessalonica. You can see the Galatian churches are right next to Asia. Even the additional churches which received letters from Jesus in the Book of Revelation (chs. 2-3) are all found in or around that green area marked Asia.

The lone exception mentioned in the apostles’ writings is Rome. It sits far to the west of all the others.

Later Christian writings discuss churches in Edessa, Syria (founded by Thaddeus, one of the 70, not the apostle), in Alexandria, Egypt (founded by Mark), and in Carthage (modern Tunis, Tunisia).

The Authority of the Apostles

For the early churches, the apostles were the final authority on everything:

Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, [our rule is] that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for ‘no one knows the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son wishes to reveal him’ [Matt. 11:27]. Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom he sent forth to preach. (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 21, c. AD 210)

We have learned from no one else the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they proclaimed at one time in public, then, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:1:1, c. AD 185)

Therefore, when some dispute arose among churches, they were quick to seek out churches founded by an apostle, in case the apostle had left some instruction on the matter under dispute.

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question(2) among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (ibid. III:4:1)

Authority of the Bishops

Although the pattern in Scripture is leadership by a group of elders, by the mid-second century all churches had one elder who was the bishop (lit. overseer or supervisor). Because of the importance of the apostolic churches, the bishops of those churches became very respected and sought out.

Unfortunately, except Antioch, which managed to maintain its importance as an apostolic church, the churches that really grew in importance were the ones in big or in imperial cities. Thus, both the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Alexandria exercised wide influence throughout the third century, Rome in the west and Alexandria in the east.

By the fourth century, the Council of Nicea would affirm the authority of the Alexandrian and Roman bishops over their surrounding areas (Canon 6). “Antioch and the other provinces” are said to “retain their privileges,” which implies that the bishops of Antioch and other major churches had authority to become bishop of whole provinces.

A few years later Constantinople was built, and its bishop was added to the most important bishops.

By this time, in the fourth century, the authority and the breadth of the rule of a bishop was at least as tied to the imperial authority of the city as it was to the founding of the church in that city by an apostle.

The Rise of the Roman Catholic Church

So how did Rome’s authority eventually expand to the whole world?

Well, the truth is, it never has. The east has never recognized the authority of the Roman bishop (the Pope). In the west, however, it was simply inevitable.

Surprisingly enough, the rise of the Roman Catholic church depended on the fall of Rome.

In the 5th century, the city of Rome fell to Barbarian invaders. The last emperor to reign from Rome was deposed in 476. The Roman empire did not fall, only the western half fell. Basically, if you look at the map again, everything in green and east remained under the rule of the emperor in Constantinople until the 15th century, when the Turks finally toppled the Roman empire (though it had ceased to be “Roman” a millennium before).

A look at the map will reveal that the only church known to be formed by the apostles in the western half of the Roman empire was Rome. No more competition from Constantinople, Antioch, or Alexandria. The bishop of Rome, though he maintained relationship with the emperor and the bishops in the east, was the highest, most respected ecclesiastical authority in the Germanic kingdoms.

This was how the bishop of Rome became pope. Protestant theologians argue about which bishop of Rome first had papal powers. (Roman Catholic theologians are under obligation to claim that Linus, the first bishop of Rome, had papal powers.) It doesn’t really matter. Once the western half of the empire fell, it was inevitable that the bishop of Rome would be the “go to” person whenever there was controversy.

Protestant theologians usually suggest that Pope Gregory the Great, who ruled from AD 590-604, was the first to really have papal powers, so that even kings sought his approval and blessing. Dr. Brendan McGuire, a Catholic historian, has a great series of lectures on the medieval papacy, and he agrees that Pope Gregory was the first to have what the Roman Catholic Church envisions as papal primacy.

Notes

  • Gregory’s authority, and that of later popes to this day, was only in the west. The churches of the eastern and continuing Roman empire were never under the authority of Rome.
  • We have only covered the churches of the Roman empire because we have more of their history. Tradition holds that Thomas went all the way to India to establish churches, and those churches had no influence whatever from any churches of the Roman empire for centuries.

I have a friend who is very interested in lesser known histories, like that of the Ethiopian and Indian churches. Great Britain has an unusual history as well. I hope at some point to get to some of those histories, but I can’t promise anything.

Posted in Early Christianity, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , | 12 Comments

Worship: Why Your Church Is Failing And What You Can Do About It

Posted on 05/07/2014 by Paul Pavao

I’ve never reblogged before. I hope this is just normal and okay because I used a WordPress reblog button at the bottom of his page to do it.

Simply extraordinary, straightforward, important truth. Don’t read it if you’re allergic to uncomfortable truth.

Jim's avatarNot For Itching Ears

worship the creator From my view in the cheap seats, it seems that what it means to worship God has become open to interpretation.

Can I worship God any way I want to?

Does church leadership have biblical authority to design a worship service anyway they think is best?

Judging by the state of worship in the American Evangelical church, the answer is Yes to both questions. And boy do we ever take this permission seriously!

It would appear  that

View original post 933 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Eliminate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Posted on 05/04/2014 by Paul Pavao

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) has become somewhat of an epidemic in the computer age. We have become an electronic people, and everyone types.

Today I want to recommend a product which, if used, would almost eliminate CTS.

Oh, don’t worry. You don’t have to buy anything. You already have it. You just need to use it.

Have you ever wondered why your computer keyboard is arranged the way it is? What kind of logic put a “k” right under our fingers, but the “e” is on a different line? What kind of logic put a semicolon directly under our fingers, while four vowels—all but the “a”—require us to shift to a different line?

This kind of logic:

Back in the late 1800’s, keyboards were called typewriters, and there was nothing electronic about them. Originally the keys were arranged in alphabetical order. This worked well for memorizing the keys, so people became proficient typists quickly. In fact, they became so proficient that the keys—not the ones you pressed with your fingers, but the ones that shot up and struck the paper—would jam.

The solution?

Manufacturers scrambled the keyboard so that it was harder to learn and harder to use.

Yes, that’s right. You are using a keyboard that is designed to slow you down.

Dr. Dvorak to the Rescue

Dr. August Dvorak spent 12 years designing a keyboard that was designed for efficiency. He even made one designed for those who type with one hand, one keyboard arrangement for the left and another for the right.

Dr. Dvorak’s Result

I am typing on a Dvorak keyboard. It is an option on all Windows and Mac operating systems. You can buy cheap rubber overlays to change the lettering on your keyboard if you need to, but I have left my keys as they are. I’ll explain the easiest way to learn the Dvorak keyboard after I describe its benefits.

The claim I read is that Dr. Dvorak’s key arrangement reduces finger movement by 75%. Is that possible?

Let’s pick some random words from the paragraphs above to test:

  • Rescue – On the Dvorak keyboard I have to move from the home keys on 2 letters (c and r). On the “qwerty” keyboard (named for the first 6 letters on your keyboard), only 1 letter is a home key. In other words, I have to move my fingers from the home keys 5 times in that one word.
  • Keyboard – Dvorak: 4 home keys; qwerty: 3 home keys
  • easiest – Dvorak: 7 home keys; qwerty: 3 home keys
  • possible – Dvorak: 5 home keys; qwerty: 3 home keys

The Dvorak layout puts the most used letters in the English language right under your fingers. Not only that, but all the vowels are under your left hand, so that you are more likely to alternate hands as you type out a word. Further, the Dvorak keyboard puts dipthongs, like “th” and “sn”next to each other so your fingers easily roll from one letter to the next.

I have been typing as a primary activity for over 20 years. I have written books and built web sites that are heavy on text. Before Dvorak, there were many days that my forearms ached from all the typing.

It is this strain that produces Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in typists. CTS is called a “repetitive stress injury.” The Dvorak keyboard reduces the stress.

I’ve heard that it reduces the stress by 75%. I don’t know if that is true, but I do know that I can type for 16 hours straight without feeling any strain on my fingers or forearms.

How to Switch to Dvorak

Making your computer switch is the easy part. As I said, it’s an option both in Mac and Windows. After you opt for Dvorak, both operating systems will provide you with a button in the taskbar allowing you to switch between qwerty and Dvorak with ease.

On Windows, you’ll find it in the control panel under “regional and language options.” Click the languages tab and then the details button. On Mac, it’s in the keyboard options under “system preferences.” Hit the “input sources” tab at the top of the keyboard option window.

Learning Dvorak, now that’s much harder. Of course, if it means you will never have CTS, isn’t it worth it?

Here’s how I was advised to switch, and it worked excellently for me.

I found an image of a Dvorak keyboard layout online and printed it. I got myself a free typing tutor program which I searched for on the internet. I won’t recommend it to you because that was 10-15 years ago, and I don’t remember what program it was. I’m sure there ar ebetter free ones now.

For 15 minutes each morning, I practiced on the typing program, then I switched back to qwerty for the rest of the day. After 30 days I could type 40 wpm on the Dvorak keyboard, so I switched permanently.

My experience is that it will speed up your typing about 10% in the long run, which is not much, but the reduction in strain on the wrists is phenomenal.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Trinity and Nicea

Posted on 05/01/2014 by Paul Pavao

Someone wrote me claiming that Theodosius I forced the whole Roman empire to believe in the Trinity doctrine in 381. He suggested a book, but the synopsis on Amazon was so bad there is no way I am going to read it. Here is my response to that synopsis.

One side note: Theodosius did make such a decree, but it was in 383. The Council of Constantinople is given credit for confirming the Nicene Creed and putting the Arian Controversy to rest. That happened in 381, but it’s not true that the Council of Constantinople ended the controversy. The book is correct that Theodosius ended the controversy. It is wrong in suggesting he created a new doctrine in doing so.

The following is thoroughly explained, using ancient histories, in my book, Decoding Nicea, which we should have available on Amazon in the next couple weeks. Until then, you can get a good taste of it (four chapters and appendices) at at Christian-history.org online for free. You can also buy the book already under the name In the Beginning Was the Logos on Kindle for just $4.99 (even though it’s a 460-page book). Don’t buy the print edition because the updated print edition will be out for $12.95 very soon.

Anyway, here’s my response. I’m pretty sure you’ll enjoy it.

The Development of the Trinity: The True Story

The synopsis takes a fact and spins it into a falsehood, which would be normal if the writer is a politician. If he is pretending to be a historian, however, he ought not to twist truths into non-truths.

Truth is that there was no argument at all over the subject of the Father and Son in the early days of the church. They had a definite belief that was universally accepted. Arius challenged that believe in 318. He was simply excommunicated, as one lone elder has no ability to overthrow the long established teaching of the Church. He managed to get a politically inclined bishop to back him, however, so it became a controversy among churches in the East (and in the eastern Roman empire only).

The Council of Nicea should have simply ended that controversy, but it didn’t. The church had let the emperors meddle in church affairs, and Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with his contemporary, Eusebius the historian) swung the opinions of the royal court and soon of the emperor toward the Arian heresy.

Constantius, Constantine’s son, took the side of the Arians in 337, and the battle was on, though it only once affected the western empire.

Finally, an elder of the Novatians* made a brilliant suggestion. What the church had not lost was a respect for their ancestors. The elder suggested to the bishop in Constantinople that he tell Emperor Theodosius to ask Arian and semi-Arian sects whether they agreed that the church should hold to the opinions of the fathers of the church before them. None could say no because the people would have rejected them.

*Novatians: followers of Novatian, who split the church in Rome in the 250’s over the repentance of Christians who lapsed during persecutions. There was little difference between the Novatians and the united apostolic churches, so they eventually just came back together again.

The emperor then asked them to prove their case from the writings of the fathers, the leaders of the apostolic churches. Of course, they could not, so he banished them from the major cities. He did not disband them. He did not make it illegal to hold to Arian or semi-Arian views.

In the end, the accurate Nicene definition triumphed, but not for long. It was mixed with modalist* ideas, which had existed in the background or under the surface since near the time of the apostles, and it turned into our modern co-equal Trinity, something a bit different than the Nicene definition and the beliefs of the earlier leaders of the church.

*Modalist: There is one God who is one person who operates in three “modes.” He’s the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in the church, but all one person, not three.

The early fathers held that the Father was the one God, who had a Son, Jesus Christ, who was literally the Word/Wisdom/Reason of God, born before time began from the bosom of the Father. The one God was the Father, who had a Son, the one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6). There was one divinity, the source of which was in the Father but included the Son because the Son is the Father’s Word/Wisdom/Reason. The Son proceeded from the Father, just as the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

This was the view of the early churches, explained rather thoroughly from Justin Martyr in AD 150 on and by many early fathers. It is this view that was confirmed at Nicea. It is this view that leaves no difficult verses to explain in Scripture, and which can implicitly be found in the writers before Justin.

Posted in History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Living Life to the Glory of God

Posted on 04/25/2014 by Paul Pavao

“Humans are made to fight and overcome. We love heroes, and we all get opportunity to be one, whether in small situations or large.”

I wrote that earlier in the week in a query letter for my leukemia book. Even though I wrote it myself, it really convicted me.

I started paying more attention to opportunities to be a small hero in someone’s life. Well, to be more precise, I was forced into a situation where I had to help a stranger. Afterward, I felt so good that it reminded me that I had been convicted and needed to be paying attention to these small God-given opportunities.

First, let me point out that I know people who live like this all the time and have for years. They see everything around them, and they are always meddling in other people’s affairs, sometimes to life-changing effect. I’m not one of those. I’m writing about this subject for those who, like me, don’t naturally consider other people. We’d be happy to be locked up in a room somewhere reading a book or, in my case, writing one.

So now I’m trying to pay attention. I’m at 2.5 out of 4 for being a small hero since then.

Twice I saw a situation, and I followed through. Once I was driving by somewhere, saw someone, and thought, “Nah, that has nothing to do with me,” then drove on. Later I realized I could at least have cheered someone up.

The half point came from an elderly couple I saw when I was taking my daughter to a physical therapy appointment. It’s a great story.

The man was old, tall but bent over, and struggling to push his wife’s wheelchair up the tiny ramp to the front door. Worse, he was trying to move a steel walker along beside him. Walkers are made to be in front of you. They get in the way when they’re at your side.

The man let me carry the walker for him, though he was intent on making it up the ramp, which he did. Then he looked at me and said, “Would you take my wife up to the second floor? I’m going to go park the car.”

I was a little surprised. This man didn’t know me, but I did it anyway, chatting with her a bit along the way. When I got to the second floor, she said thank you, and I left … sort of. I didn’t want to leave her alone until her husband showed up, so I got a cup of coffee (free in almost every doctor’s office in my experience). As I was doing so, I thought maybe I should offer to bring her a cup of coffee. Thinking (stupidly) in my mind that she’s pretty old and probably didn’t drink coffee, I just found a seat near her to wait for her husband to come.

A sweet lady came over just to talk to her, and the woman in the wheelchair said, “Would you get me some coffee?”

I shouldn’t ignore those little promptings by the Holy Spirit.

I gave myself 1/2 for that opportunity, so I’m 2.5 out of 4 over 3 or 4 days.

By the way, I haven’t created those opportunities. They’ve just arisen.

A couple weeks ago I was coming out of a Starbucks, and a homeless guy asked me for money. I didn’t have any. I use a debit card almost everywhere, so I only occasionally have cash. It wasn’t till a few minutes, and a few miles, later that I realized there was plenty I could have done. I could have offered him a meal at Taco Bell next door. I could have offered him a drink from Starbucks. Either way, I not only could have fed him, but I could also have talked to him. Homeless people are easy to talk to if they’re in their right mind, easier than comfortable people who have no time to talk. I just didn’t consider the possibility of offering time as well as provision.

Anyway, from one inadequate person to another, there are small ways we can make a big difference in people’s lives. Stories like this help me not to live my life dodging the uncomfortableness of meeting strangers, so I thought I’d tell you a couple of mine in case you needed the same motivation.

Posted in Holiness, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Repentance Revisited

Posted on 04/20/2014 by Paul Pavao

I was reading Wisdom today, and I ran across a really neat passage on repentance. (I’ll tell you below what the book of Wisdom is, why I read it, and why you should, too.)

But you have mercy on all because you can do all things;
You overlook sins for the sake of repentance. (11:23)

This is a beautiful picture of the mercy of God, one we all can love and have our heart warmed by.

God has mercy on all because he can do all things. He is not confined by some cosmic law of justice that forbids him to forgive sin unless he also obtains retribution. No, God can forgive, and because he can, he does. He is full of mercy.

I am purposely refuting the idea, taught in most evangelism programs, that God wants to forgive sin but cannot because he is just and must punish sin.

He does have a requirement. He has the requirement we all know is good.

He demands repentance.

“God will overlook sins for the sake of repentance.”

Really? Is that Scriptural?

Well, I’m going to make a strong argument that this is Scripture, but yes, the rest of Scripture agrees with Wisdom on this … over and over and over again.

Tell them, “‘As I live,’ says the Lord Yahweh, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live'” … “when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right … he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him: he has done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. (Ezek. 33:11, 14-16)

“Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!” (Acts 11:18)

(Paul speaking) [I] declared first to them of Damascus, at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. (Acts 26:20)

That’s a mere beginning:

For you don’t delight in sacrifice, or else I would give it. You have no pleasure in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Ps. 51:16-17)

“But you go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matt. 9:13)

Repentance is not contrary to faith. Repentance is a major part of faith.

Belief

I remind you again that belief in the Gospel is not belief in an event, but in a person. The event we believe in is truly a great event. It is the foundation and power of the Gospel. Jesus did die for our sins. Jesus did transform all of his creation by the great events of the crucifixion, but the Gospel is not belief in the crucifixion or his death for our sins. It is not belief in an event, no matter how great the event. It is belief in Jesus himself..

Events don’t issue commands. Events don’t call you to repentance. When Jesus rose from the dead to become Lord of the living and the dead (Rom. 14:9; 2 Cor. 5:14), he came to command. He came to demand repentance.

“The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked, but now he commands that all people everywhere should repent.” (Acts 17:30)

If you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, which is the central message of the Gospel, then you must know that he is God’s chosen King, Lord of all, and Judge of the living and the dead. Repent and follow him, and you will receive both forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. You will become a child of God, and as you continue in that faith (Col. 1:22-23), the divine nature you receive from him will overthrow your old, earthly nature (2 Pet. 1:3-4), and God will make you like his Son.

Wisdom as Scripture

Some of you, I’m sure, have never heard of the book of Wisdom. It is also known as the Wisdom of Solomon. Roman Catholic Bibles have both the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach in them.

Don’t get up in arms! You’ll be fighting against yourself if you reject this book. I’m telling you:

  1. You’re going to love it! Do NOT talk yourself out of reading it! (Chapter 2 has a prophecy of Jesus every bit as amazing as Isaiah 53.)
  2. If it ought not to be Scripture, it certainly has the best claim outside of the Protestant’s 66 books to be Scripture, and it has ALWAYS been recommended reading by ALL churches, even Protestant ones.

Here’s the brief history:

There are lists of what constitutes Scripture for Christians going back to close to the middle of the second century. We can tell by the books quoted in Christian writings that they agreed with this basic canon even before that time.

What we know is that there were a number of undisputed books, and then there books accepted by some churches and not by others.

I need to pause here to make sure you know that in the second and third centuries “some churches” is a reference to location, not denomination. The church in Ephesus probably did not read Hebrews. The church in Carthage almost certainly did. These were regional differences, not denominational differences.

Disputed apostolic books (i.e., NT books) included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. The rest, 20 books, were used by all churches.

Some books that were regarded as Scripture by some churches which are not in our Bible include 1 Clement, the Letter to Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. These, in the end, were not rejected as heresy, but they were determined not to be of apostolic origin, so they could not be part of the Scriptures.

Eusebius discusses disputes over some books (all that I listed above) in AD 323. Augustine says that there are books accepted by some churches and not by others in AD 412. The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the 7 extra books that are in the Catholic Bible were in dispute throughout the middle ages and were not finally canonized until the Council of Trent in 1546!

The Eastern Orthodox churches, who are the descendants of the original apostolic churches throughout the eastern world, have generally accepted not just those seven books, but others as well, including, for example, 3rd and 4th Maccabees and 2 Esdras.

The book of the Wisdom of Solomon, as part of those 7 “deuterocanonical” books, have been at least attached to the Scriptures, if not fully regarded as Scripture, for the entire middle ages.

What about in the early churches?

Eusebius tells us that Melito of Sardis listed the canon of the Old Testament in AD 170. Wisdom is included.

Origen made a list in AD 240. He did not include it.

Augustine made a list in AD 397. He included it.

Interestingly enough, although Origen doesn’t include Wisdom in the list he made, he cites the Wisdom of Solomon with great authority, if not directly as Scripture:

Let us now ascertain how those statements we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture. [2 quotes from Paul here, then … ] Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: “For she is the breath of the power of God and the purest efflux of the the glory of the Almighty” [Wisd. 7:25]. (De Principiis I:2:5)

I’m not telling you that you ought to add the Wisdom of Solomon to your Bible. I’m just suggesting strongly that you read it. You will NOT regret it.

Posted in Early Christianity, Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Easter is Passover, not Resurrection Sunday

Posted on 04/15/2014 by Paul Pavao

The only annual feast that the apostles’ churches kept, as far as I can tell, is Passover. Over time, that has become Easter.

I won’t concern myself with how it got to be Easter, whether there were pagan origins, etc. More importantly, I am concerned with what Easter means to Christians today.

Easter today means coloring eggs, hiding eggs, finding eggs, and eating chocolate bunnies.

For Christians it means an over-attended church service, usually too warm because of all the people crammed into a usually half-filled auditorium. It means a salvation sermon because the pastor knows that many of the people in the pews are Christians in name only who attend church once to three times per year.

For committed Christians, it means a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus because we have forgotten Easter’s real origins.

Easter was originally the early churches’ Passover. It was the one time of year that the churches celebrated the death of Jesus. The resurrection was celebrated every Sunday. One of the main reasons that Christians held a corporate meeting on Sunday was to celebrate the resurrection. In fact, it was a tradition that they did not kneel on Sunday because that was a day of celebration.

Passover, however, was a day to celebrate the Jesus’ sacrifice and all it accomplished. It was the day to recognize him as the Passover Lamb, the one slain from the foundation of the world to bring in the new creation, the kingdom of which we are a part. It celebrated our release from Egypt and from our bondage to sin.

If we want to return to the practice of the apostles, let’s not reject “Easter” and call this yearly feast day “Resurrection Sunday.” Let us recognize that every Sunday is Resurrection Sunday, and let’s reject “Easter” and call this yearly feast day “Passover,” which is what it was originally.

His death was not ignored on Sundays. As many of you know, communion/eucharist was celebrated at least every Sunday by the early churches, and the eucharist is, of course, a reminder that his body was broken and his blood spilled for us, for our sins, for our salvation, and for the establishing of the New Covenant. Nonetheless, the earliest Christians give consistent testimony that Sunday was celebrated weekly as the day upon which he rose.

Free Bonus: The Sabbath and the Council of Nicea

Passover is the reason that so many people wrongly claim that the Council of Nicea changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday.

That never happened. Instead, from the earliest days of the church, there was a difference between the celebration of Passover in the western churches and in the eastern churches. While Anicetus was bishop of Rome (155-166) he tried to force the eastern churches to celebrate Passover on the Sunday nearest Nisan 14 (the day for Passover prescribed in the Law) rather than on Nisan 14 itself.

The eastern churches objected, and Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, wrote a very strong letter back to Anicetus informing him that Ephesus would be continuing in the tradition received from the apostle John.

Polycarp, the aged bishop of Smyrna, went to Rome when Anicetus tried to excommunicate the eastern churches for not complying, and he brought Anicetus to his senses. Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp) relates the story in such a way that it seems Anicetus was quite a gracious host and brother when Polycarp came, and they settled their differences quickly.

Only a couple decades later, Eleutherius, another bishop of Rome, also tried to force the eastern churches to switch to a Sunday passover. This time it was Irenaeus, originally of Smyrna and a hearer of Polycarp, who corrected Eleutherius. Irenaeus was now in the west, in what is now Trier, Germany, as a missionary and overseer of several churches. Being in the west, he had interaction with the Roman church because it was the closest apostolic church to his field of ministry. (Consultation with apostolic churches like Rome, Corinth, Philippi, etc. was important at that time.)

This is known as the Quartodeciman Controversy. Quartodeciman means fourteen or fourteenth and refers to Nisan 14, the date of Passover. In the Hebrew Scriptures it is Abib 14. Somehow Abib became Nisan later. Either way, it was the first month of the Jewish calendar.

As an interesting aside, the Jewish calendar is based on the moon, so the Passover always falls on a full moon. Lunar eclipses can only happen during the full moon as well, so this year’s “blood moon” on the day of Passover is not really a remarkable occurrence.

Things settled down, but the differences remained until the Council of Nicea.

Since the council was meant to unite the empire as much as the church, they decided to unify the practice of the churches. By then, very few churches were still celebrating Passover on Nisan 14 each year. Most were already rejecting Jewish practice and celebrating on the nearest Sunday.

There was never a controversy about the weekly Sabbath. Christians are part of a spiritual nation that can keep perpetual Sabbath. The churches held Sunday meetings to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, which also left the Sabbath day free for Jewish Christians to attend synagogue or rest. (Acts is clear that while Jewish believers are not under the Law any more than the Gentiles are, most, including the apostles, chose to continue keeping the Law except where it hindered fellowship with the Gentiles.)

Posted in Christian History News in Focus, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Glimpse of the Gospel

Posted on 04/15/2014 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.

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 Evangelicals, Gospel | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Christian History that Matters

Posted on 04/07/2014 by Paul Pavao

I got asked today about writing a book on church history. The idea behind the request is a good one, but this morning I thought I wouldn’t have time for years.

How I underestimate the internet!

My blog is not a megasite, but I do have some followers and am currently averaging about 80 readers a day. With your help, we can write that church history book online.

Why?

Why Another History Book?

I became a Christian in 1982. I devoured popular church history books that I found in libraries and bookstores. After 7 years and reading 5 or 10 full church history books, I had no idea how to find the writings of the "church fathers." I had no idea that we had writings from people who KNEW THE APOSTLES! I certainly didn't know we knew so much about the apostles' churches.

There's no excuse for that. How can so many church history books be written that really don't cover anything important? That don't help resolve any controversies?

It's a good thing to avoid inflammatory statements or purposely offending people out of anger, but come on! Let's at least address the questions that people want to know answers to. There's a certain amount of controversy that cannot be avoided if you want to learn something.

How You Can Help

What I would need from you is two things: questions and complaints.

The person who asked me wanted me to cover non-western Christianity as well. What about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? What about Thomas’ churches in India?

When I posted an overview of the second century, a reader (Restless Pilgrim) asked me about liturgical issues and provided a couple references.

One of the most popular topics is how we got from the united apostolic churches of the second century, with their holiness, simplicity, and bravery in persecution to what we have today. The Church was small at the beginning of the second century and quite large at the end of the second century. Obviously, it was a time of great power. Many of their practices were different, not only from Protestantism, but from Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well. What happened?

I want to cover all of that, one blog post at a time, and compile it into a book later.

Please, please help me with that, especially if you are a regular or long-time reader.

We’re not starting in the next post. We’re starting today. Above, I linked a review of the second century. Please give me feedback there or here. What other things would you like to know from that period of history? What complaints do you have about what I posted?

I would like to take this opportunity to recommend a book. Lies My Teacher Told Me is a book that takes the above approach to American history. As a result, he makes American history interesting, not boring like school textbooks. He tells real stories, and he addresses real issues. He makes Woodrow Wilson a bad guy, a real bad guy. You may not agree, but at least you’ll have something to think about, to chew on, to be interested in.

Changing your perspective on history can change your perspective on everything.

Posted in History | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Verses Working Together: Salvation Apart from Works

Posted on 04/03/2014 by Paul Pavao

We spent a couple posts looking at warning verses and comparing them with assurance verses. Let’s do the same with the issue of faith and works, which is closely related.

For by grace you are saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

This passage should always be quoted with verse 10 attached, but we’ll get to that later.

We moderns tend to think a certain way about salvation by faith alone. We read “salvation” or “justification” and we think that means that we are “going to heaven” by faith alone.

That assumption is unjustified.

First, it contradicts all the warning verses, which are many. Why would Paul tell us that our sins (“unrighteousness” or “works of the flesh”) will prevent us from “any inheritance” in the kingdom of God and of his King (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5-6) if works have nothing to with our entering the kingdom? Why would Jesus say that only those who do the will of his Father in heaven enter the kingdom of heaven? (Matt. 7:21). Why would Jesus say that the righteous are rewarded eternal life for visiting the sick and imprisoned and helping the naked, hungry, and thirsty? (Matt. 25:31-46).

None of that makes sense if we “go to heaven” by faith “apart from works.”

So how do we reconcile those verses saying we enter the kingdom because of what we do with verses like Ephesians 2:8-9?

It’s pretty simple, really. Someone just needs to tell you about it. I’m afraid those of you who read me regularly have read this over and over. Sorry.

Romans 5:9-10

This passage does a wonderful job of reconciling the “enter the kingdom of heaven” verses with the “apart from works” verses. You’ll also find the explanations we come up with exactly mirror the explanations we came up with when we reconciled warning verses with security verses two days ago and yesterday.

Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Look at the unusual use of tenses here. We are already justified, but we shall be saved from wrath. We “were” reconciled, but we “shall be” saved.

Paul also distinguishes between what was accomplished by Jesus’ death, and what is accomplished by his resurrection life. His blood, Paul says, has made us justified, or righteous right now. His death has reconciled us to God. He by his life, however, will save us from wrath.

This is a very important point because it explains the difference between the “apart from works” verses and the verses that say we enter the kingdom of heaven by doing good works and avoiding bad ones. A past and present salvation tied to faith, and a future judgment and entrance into the kingdom of heaven by works is consistent throughout the apostles’ writings.

Really? The Bible teaches that we enter the kingdom of heaven by doing good works and avoiding bad ones?

Yes, a lot of times.

Entering the Kingdom of Heaven by Works

I know this terminology gives people the willies, but look how many times Scripture uses it!

  • “Not everyone that 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)
  • “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world because I was hungry, and you fed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me.” (Matt. 25:34-35)
  • “The hour is coming in which everyone in the graves will hear his voice and shall come out; those that have done good to a resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to a resurrection of condemnation.” (Jn. 5:28-29)
  • “God … will repay everyone according to their deeds. To those who, by patiently continuing to do good, seek after glory, honor, and immortality, [he will repay] eternal life. But to those who are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [he will repay] indignation and wrath.” (Rom. 2:5-8)
  • “If you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body, then you will live.” (Rom. 8:12-13)
  • “Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived.” (1 Cor. 6:9)
  • “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of the King, to receive the deeds done in the body, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.” (2 Cor. 5:10-11)
  • “Now the works of the flesh are apparent … of these I tell you, as I have told you in times past that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:19,21; note that “do” is in the Greek present tense, meaning ongoing or repeated action, not a one-time action.)
  • “He who sows to the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh. He who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit. Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we shall reap [eternal life] if we do not lose heart.” (Gal. 6:7-9; brackets added by me to help readers notice the context)
  • “For you know this: no immoral or unclean person, nor a greedy person, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of the King and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words. It is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 5:5-6)
  • “Take heed, brothers, that there be no evil heart of unbelief in any of you in departing from the living God.” (Heb 3:12)
  • “Pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14)

Quick break here for a note. Most of the book of Hebrews could be used with these verses. I have only used two passages.

  • “If you address as Father the one who impartially judges according to each one’s work, then conduct yourself throughout the time of your sojourning here in fear.” (1 Pet. 1:17)
  • “Be diligent to make your calling and election sure because if you do these things you will never stumble. In this way an abundant entrance will be supplied to you into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the King.” (2 Pet. 1:10-11)
  • “If after they have escaped the pollutions of this world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus the King, they are again entangled in them and overcome, their latter end is worse for them than the beginning. It would have been better for them never to know the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.” (2 Pet. 2:20-21)
  • “You have a few names, even in Sardis, who have not defiled their garments. They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He that overcomes … I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” (Rev. 3:4-5)
  • “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened. Another book was opened, which was the Book of Life, and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. … Whoever was not written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:12,15)

There is so much consistency in these verses, that there are less “apart from works” verses to explain than there are works verses to explain.

Explaining the “Apart from Works” Verses

I skipped one of the works verses so that I could use it here as the ultimate example of a seeming contradiction in Scripture. You may have noticed that I didn’t use any verses from James in the list above. I didn’t need them; there were already so many.

We do need one now, however:

You see, then, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jam. 2:24)

How can that verse not be seen as a contradiction to this one?

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. (Rom. 3:28)

I have heard this explained by saying Paul was only talking about works of the Law, not works in general. That explanation doesn’t work, however, because Paul just says “apart from works” in Ephesians 2:9. He also adds that it is apart from works for a purpose. The purpose is that no one would be able to boast. Doers of good works can be boasters whether those works are prescribed in the Law of Moses or not.

And then there’s Romans 4. That chapter teaches that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works, and Abraham preceded the Law of Moses.

The difference between James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 is not the meaning of the word “works”; it is the meaning of the word “justified.”

This is a long post, I know, but perhaps you remember Romans 5:9-10, which you read about 5 minutes ago if you’ve read this whole thing.

There is a justification which was is given to us through faith, a justification which was purchased by the blood of our great King and God’s Son, Jesus. His death also reconciled us to God. There is, however, a wrath that we are to saved from in the future. That salvation is yet to come, and we obtain that salvation not by his death, but by his life.

If you’ll read through the verses that precede James 2:24, you’ll find that James is talking about the whole course of our walk with the King, a walk that begins with faith, but that continues, by the power of the Spirit, in a life of holiness and good works. Paul, however, is only talking about initial justification in Romans 3:28. We were justified and continue now in our justification by faith apart from works.

That justification means that God looks on you with acceptance and favor. That is why we have access with boldness to God’s throne (Heb. 4:16). There we obtain not only mercy, but the grace that helps in time of need, the grace in which we stand (Rom. 5:2).

That all came by faith. But if you want to enter the kingdom of heaven, you need to add virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love to your faith (2 Pet. 1:5-11). Your need to continue in the faith, grounded and settled (Col. 1:22-23). You need to put the deeds of the body to death by the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:13).

Let me try to give you two explanations that I hope will make this idea more simple.

1. The significance of baptism:

At baptism, we died and and rose with Jesus. As we are buried with him in baptism, our old life is buried as well. We rise from baptism into new life. 2 Cor. 5:17 tells us that “old things are gone; new things have come.” The death part of baptism means that old things—our old sins, our old desires, our old plans, everything—are gone. We are reconciled to God, and we are now forgiven, clean and righteous, all apart from any works which we have done.

We rise from baptism with a new life. Paul says that even though he was crucified with Christ (and buried with him in baptism), yet he lives because Jesus lives in him (Gal. 2:20). That life saves us.

Paul gives a further explanation of that in Titus 2:11-12, where he tells us that the grace we received by faith teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live righteously, godly, and soberly in this present age. Grace breaks sin’s power over us (Rom. 6:14). As a result, if we will do as Paul did, and walk in the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the body, his life will complete the work he began in us so that we can be presented blameless before his throne (see yesterday’s post).

2. I think this quote from yesterday’s blog explains the idea well, too.

“If we will continue hearing and believing, grounded and rooted in the faith, we can count on God to bring us to the judgment in a blameless, holy state.
   “That promise, perhaps expressed more fully in Colossians 1:22 than it is in John 5:24, is the real promise of God that we can rejoice in. We have not bought fire insurance so that the kingdom is guaranteed to us. We have been translated into the kingdom of his beloved Son, and as long as we continue to walk in the ways of that kingdom, we will continue to experience continual cleansing. We will be the ones ‘to whom the Lord does not impute sin’ (Col. 1:13; 1 Jn. 1:7; Rom. 4:3-8).”

Posted in Bible, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments