Verses Working Together: Eternal Security

Posted on 04/01/2014 by Paul Pavao

Yesterday I provided two lists of verses (link opens in new window or tab for reference), both of which could have been considerably lengthened. One set was meant to prove eternal security, that a person once saved is guaranteed an entrance into the eternal kingdom of God. The other set contained warnings to Christians that they need to do something in order to enter the eternal kingdom of God.

How do we reconcile the two?

The first step is to be willing to be honest.

“I know that such and such verse clearly contradicts what I said, but I believe it anyway because I have six verses that support my view.” That is not honesty. That is wishful thinking. That is making Scripture contradict Scripture. It is what I call “verses versus verses.”

Above all, that is making part of the Scripture meaningless.

Do you really want verses that you don’t want to talk about or look at?

So let’s practice on those two lists of verses I gave yesterday.

The Contrary Verse

Let’s start with a passage that causes problems for the eternal security doctrine. We’ll list just one for now, and we’ll go through the verses my Life Group leader supplied and see how we can believe this verse and his at the same time.

Ephesians 5:5-6:

Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. (NAB, revised edition)

Romans 8:38-39

Let's begin with Romans 8:38-39, although this one is too easy.

For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor power, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in King Jesus our Lord.

These two passages do not even seem to contradict. Romans 8:38-39 talks about things that can happen to us or that can tempt us or bring us trials. None of those things can separate us from the love of God, as long as we abide in the love of God and don’t become an immoral, impure, or greedy person. Immorality, impurity, and greed may or may not separate us from God’s love, but Ephesians 5:5-6 tells us that they will separate us from the reward of eternal life in God’s kingdom. There is nothing in Romans 8:38-39 that contradicts this.

Hebrews 10:14

For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Exactly two chapters later, in Hebrews 12:14, we are told that the only way we will see the Lord is if we pursue peace with everyone and holiness. “Holiness” and “sanctification” are sister words in Greek (hagiasmos and hagiazo, respectively). In this case, Hebrews 10:14 is the verb form of holiness, and Hebrews 12:14 has the noun form. Otherwise, they’re the same word.

Jesus has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. These are those who pursue holiness and shall see the Lord. These do not include those who fall into immorality, impurity, and greed. If you live in these sins without repentance, you will not enter Jesus’ kingdom no matter how much you think you believe or how much faith you think you have.

Philippians 1:6

I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work in you will continue to complete it until the day of King Jesus. (NABRE)

I’m using the New American Bible Revised Edition when the KJV has stilted wording. You won’t find any differences in meaning between the two. I am also usually replacing the word Christ with King because King gives a better idea what Christ means. Christ is not a name. It is a word that means Israel’s annointed King and Redeemer, the Son of God.

Here we are told that Paul is confident that the one who began a good work in us will complete it. There are two things we have to take into account here.

1. Paul gives a reason for this confidence. He says it is only right he should have that confidence because he has them in his heart, and they have been partners with him in grace.
2. Jesus tells us how this good work is done in us in John 15. We are branches joined to a vine. The life of the vine pours forth into every branch. However, not every branch bears fruit, despite the work of both the vine and the vinedresser. It’s possible for a branch not to bear fruit, in which case it is cut off (Jn. 15:2). It is also possible for a branch to refuse to remain in the vine, in which case it is taken away and burned with fire (Jn. 15:6). In either case, the branch is no longer joined to the vine.

Is this really what Paul is telling the Philippians in that verse? If we read the rest of the letter, we will see that it is. Let’s add a third thought to take into account.

3. Philippians 3:8-15 is a long passage exhorting the Philippians to continue on the path because they have not yet attained to the resurrection. Paul himself had not yet attained, so he presses forward, pushing towards the finish line so that he can lay hold of the reward for which Jesus had laid hold of him.

Clearly Paul wasn’t saying, “This is just going to happen, no matter what you do.” If Paul himself felt he had to press forward and run to grab the prize, we should feel the same way. In fact, he tells us to feel the same way in 3:15.

The power comes from God. Apart from Jesus, we can do nothing (Jn. 15:5). Nonetheless, we must abide in him and press toward the finish line, or we will find that we will not attain, but we will be dragged off as a branch and burned.

Romans 8:29-30

I want to point out that to this point, we have done no violence to any of the verses presented on behalf of eternal security. The explanations we have offered are not only reasonable, but in context they are the most likely interpretations of the verses we have looked at. None of our explanations have been far-fetched or fanciful.

We won’t do that with this passage, either.

Those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Moreover, those he predestined, those he also called. And those he called, them he also justified. And those he justified, them he also glorified.

It sounds like he’s describing a process with no exceptions. We can’t always assume that there are no exceptions to blanket statements in Scripture, however. For example, Paul’s “There is none good, no, not one” is a quote from Psalm 14 and Psalm 53. In both those Psalms, which are essentially duplicates of one another, those who are not good are persecuting the righteous, making it clear that he does not mean “every last person” when he says “none is good.”

I think that’s an important principle in Scripture, but I am not going to use it to reconcile Rom. 8:29-30 with Eph. 5:5-6. Instead, I want to focus on the word “foreknowledge.”

There are enough statements in Scripture about predestination—though they are few and far between—that a good student of Scripture must deal with the subject.

Twice predestination is said to be based on foreknowledge. Besides Rom. 8:29, 1 Pet. 1:2 tells us that election is based on foreknowledge. Foreknowledge means to know in advance. God predestines those that he knows something about in advance. We are not told what he knows, but we are told that because of this advance knowledge, he predestines the foreknown to justification and glorification.

I want to take a strong stand against Calvinism in this discussion. God wants everyone to come to repentance. Because of free will, some don’t. I strongly reject the Calvinist notion that some are predestined not to believe. If believing is in God’s control only, then every person on earth would believe and be saved because that is the will of God (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Jn. 2:2).

So Romans 8:29-30 starts with foreknowledge, not predestination. What did God foreknow? I suggest that God foreknew something that does not contradict all the other things Paul said about entering the kingdom of God. My suggestion would be that he foreknew who would “continue in the faith grounded and settled and not moved away from the hope of the Gospel” (Col. 1:23).

Assuming that’s what he foreknew, we once again have no contradiction between all these verses, and we have still taken every one of the verses we have addressed at face value.

We will do the rest of the eternal security verse list in the next post. Today’s post is plenty long enough. I want to promise you that when we are done, if you are willing to embrace this simple method of honestly interpreting every verse we run across so that they are all true and all understood at face value, that you will find yourself comfortable with every passage the apostles wrote on this subject. As an added bonus, you will find yourself saying the same things that the members of the apostles’ churches said in the earliest days of the church.

Posted in Bible, Modern Doctrines, Verses Versus Verses | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Verses Versus Verses: Eternal Security

Posted on 03/31/2014 by Paul Pavao

We’ve been talking about eternal security the last two weeks in our “Life Group.” They have been very gracious with my dissent, and my dissent has not been very strong because this group does not deny the necessity for works to enter the kingdom of heaven. They just don’t believe we’re allowed to say that.

The Life Group leader, whom I would call a friend, gave 8 reasons that he believes in eternal security.

  1. Romans 8:38-39 says nothing that is created can separate us from the love of God.
  2. Hebrews 10:14 says he has perfected us forever.
  3. Philippians 1:6 says the one who began a good work in us will complete it.
  4. Romans 8:28-30 says that those whom he foreknew are predestined, and the predestined are justified and glorified, all of them.
  5. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says we are new creatures. How could that be undone?
  6. John 5:24 says that we have eternal life now and that we will never come into condemnation.
  7. John 17:9,20 say that Jesus is praying for us, and his prayers are always answered. (These two verses say nothing about what he’s praying for, however.)
  8. 1 Peter 3:5 says our inheritance is imperishable, undefiled, unfading, and kept in heaven for those who are safeguarded by God through faith.

Convincing verses, for sure! I cannot deny that.

But if I were to accept his interpretation of these verses, a person like me would rapidly run into problems. I keep track of the verses I can’t explain when I hold to a particular doctrine. If I were to adopt eternal security, then here’s how the difficult verse list would accumulate. (Actually, did accumulate.)

  1. Romans 2:6-8 says we’ll all be judged by our works. Those who patiently continue to do good will be repaid eternal life, and those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness will be repaid wrath and fury.
  2. 2 Peter 2:20-21 says that those who escape the corruptions of this world by knowing Jesus, and then are entangled in them again and overcome, they’ll be worse off than if they had never heard the Gospel.
  3. Revelation 3:4-5 says that in the church of Sardis only those who do not defile their garments will walk with Jesus in white. Those who do not overcome will have their name blotted out of the Book of life.

I assure you it would be very easy to keep going until my verses outnumber his 8 verses.

That is not my way. The Bible does not contradict itself, at least not on these kind of matters. It is an accurate guide for our faith and practice because it contains the heart of apostolic teaching.

There is a teaching to be learned from these verses that does not leave us choosing from one list or another. We just need to find it.

Hope in the Apostles’ Churches

There are two sentences in ancient Christian literature that really encouraged me to believe there is a better answer on this subject..

Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna for some 50 years. Tradition holds that he knew the apostles, though it seems unlikely he could have known any but the long-lived John. Polycarp would have been born no earlier than AD 70.

Nonetheless, he was among the most respected, if not the most respected, bishop of the first half of the second century. If anyone breathed the apostolic faith and could be expected to understand and be devoted to it, it was Polycarp.

In the one letter we have preserved from him, to the church at Phillipi, he wrote two seemingly contradictory but illuminating statements:

Into this joy many long to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ. (ch. 1)

But the One who raised Christ from the dead will raise us also, if we do his will, walk in his commandments, love what he loved, and keep ourselves from all unrighteousness, greed, love of money, evil speaking, and lies. (ch. 2)

These two sentences are separated by less than 100 words in the letter.

How could one man write such obviously contradictory statements so close together?

The same way the two lists above seem to contradict. Either we are not properly interpreting chapter 1 of Polycarp’s letter, or we are not properly interpreting chapter 2. Or perhaps we are misinterpreting both.

Those of you who have read my blogs or web pages surely have an idea what I would do with the verses above and with the two sentences from Polycarp.

Those of you who don’t have an idea, or who have to choose one list of verses above while rejecting the other, need to begin admitting you don’t know the apostles’ teaching about salvation, faith, works, and entering the kingdom of heaven.

Stick around over the next few days, and we’ll read these verses, listen to what they say, and learn from ALL of them.

Posted in Verses Versus Verses | Tagged , , , , | 25 Comments

Far-Fetched: John 15:2

Posted on 03/26/2014 by Paul Pavao

For some reason, faithalone.org sent me a magazine in the mail. I’ve been to that site before, so I knew the magazine would be good fodder for a blog. It did not disappoint.

I can’t find the magazine now, which is fine. It’s the principle that matters, not the source.

The magazine and the web site don’t like the idea that God would cut anyone off, so John 15:2 is a problem to them.

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. (NASB)

The magazine argues that “takes away” should be “lifts up.” It then explains that vinedressers will take a fruitless branch and set it up on a rock or some other support so it can get more sun. Along with special care, this is supposed to allow the branch to produce fruit.

Great. No problem yet. I’m not a Greek expert. When I suggest an alternate translation, I consult authorities and make sure at least a couple translations agree with me. I’ll give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

There are two problems with his theory, however. One is minor, the other warrants this far-fetched post.

1. No translations agree.

  • KJV: “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.”
  • HCSB: “Every branch in me that does not produce fruit he removes.”
  • NIV: “He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit.”
  • Amplified: “Any branch in me that does not bear fruit [that stops bearing] he cuts away (trims off, takes away).”
  • Catholic Public Doman Version: “Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he will take away.”
  • WEB: “Every branch in me that doesn’t bear fruit, he takes away.”

You get the idea.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible is produced by the Southern Baptists, a large safe haven for the eternal security doctrine. One would think that if there were an alternative to “he removes,” the translators would have gone for it.

2. It ignores a nearby verse.

I have to ask. Could you, dear reader, try to explain away a verse while ignoring one just four verses later that says exactly what you are trying to deny?

I hope not, but this magazine did. Look at John 15:6:

If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (NASB, with punctuation corrected)

I don’t think it takes a theologian to see that the two verses are related. Even if John 15:2 should be translated as “lifted up,” which no translator appears to agree with, the author should have dealt with John 15:6 as well.

The Far-Fetched Mine Field

I’m not sure exactly what someone gets out of refuting one verse while ignoring another right next to it. I saw a book once, back in the 80’s, arguing for the absolute equality of men and women in the church. It spent a lot of time on Ephesians 5:21-33, analyzing each verse. To this day, I still shake my head in wonderment that the authors had the audacity to simply leave out verse 24. An entire book! They simply never mentioned the verse existed while analyzing every other verse in the passage!

I don’t know what dishonest people like this get out of their deceit, but I do know what the rest of us get. We get a minefield.

Here’s how it works. We are given a teaching. We are told that it is true and that if we deviate from it, our souls are on the line. We will be led astray, wind up in a cult, and eventually burn in hell if we deviate. Our mission? To get to the end of our journey with that teaching still intact.

There are land mines strewn across the path in front of us. One of provisions, however, is a teacher to disable the land mines.

We begin the journey. There is John 15:2 trying to steal eternal security from us! Our bomb tech jumps to the rescue! Whew, it means “lifted up,” not “taken away.”

We take four more steps forward and KABOOM! We lose our right leg up to the knee.

“Hang on!” the bomb tech cries.

“Hang on? What is wrong with you? Why didn’t you disable the mine?”

“I didn’t know how, so I figured I’d just not tell you about it. I was hoping maybe you’d just step over it without noticing.”

Don’t get your leg blown off to the knee.

Posted in Far-fetched, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Far-Fetched Interpretations

Posted on 03/25/2014 by Paul Pavao

In researching how much the Reformers relied on or referenced the early church fathers, I ran across this article on The Old Jamestown Church blog.

That particular post defends the Reformation view of salvation by faith alone with citations from church fathers, going all the way back to Clement of Rome in the 1st century.

Though I would normally commend someone for quoting the early Christians so copiously, I cannot leave their selectiveness unchallenged.

Far-Fetched Interpretations and Verses Versus Verses

Sometimes a far-fetched interpretation can seem entirely reasonable, until you look at the other things that Jesus, or an apostle, or one of the early Christians wrote.

The quote from Clement seems to be a rousing recommendation for our modern claim that we go to heaven by faith alone:

All these (saints of old), therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. (1 Clement)

I had to go find the chapter reference myself, though it was not hard to do. It’s in chapter 32.

Seems like an open and shut case, right? Clement believes exactly what we moderns believe. We “go to heaven” by faith alone.

Then why did he say …

Take heed, beloved, lest his many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all, unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. (ch. 2

If you can cite Clement from chapter 32, but you would never repeat what he said in chapter 21, then your interpretation of chapter 32 is far-fetched and should be rejected.

Simple as that.

It is the verses-versus-verses syndrome.

The Not Far-Fetched Interpretation

Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor Paul believed that anyone inherited or entered the kingdom of God by faith alone. To enter the kingdom of God means first facing the judgment, where you will be judged for your works (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:7; Rev. 20:11-15).

Instead we are born again by faith alone. We obtain grace to live this life by faith alone. We are converted to Jesus by faith alone.

Clement speaks like Paul speaks. Speaking of our current state in Jesus or of the transformation in the past that put us inside of the King, they speak of faith apart from works, granted to us by the blood of Jesus. Speaking of the judgment, in the future tense, they speak of living by the life of Jesus, walking in the Spirit, doing good works, and doing “those things which are good and well-pleasing in his sight.”

Here’s Polycarp speaking the same way:

Faith, past and present tense:

… into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ. (Letter to the Philippians 1)

Works, future tense:

But the One who raised Christ from the dead will raise us also, if we do his will, walk in his commandments, love what he loved, and keep ourselves from all unrighteousness, greed, love of money, evil speaking, and lies. In addition, we must not return evil for evil, accusation for accusation, blow for blow, nor curse for curse. (ch. 2)

Go through Paul’s letters and see if you don’t see that pattern followed, excuse me, religiously.

James speaks of faith and works together. Read through James 2:14-26, and you will see that even James follows the pattern. He speaks of the whole of our salvation, from start to finish, and so he addresses faith and works and says that we are not justified by faith alone.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Did the Reformers Read the Church Fathers?

Posted on 03/23/2014 by Paul Pavao

This is just a light touch on the subject. I will try to get more specifics about how the Reformers, as well as fathers of denominations such as John Wesley with the Methodists and Alexander Campbell with the Churches of Christ, applied the writings of the early church to their respective movements.

From Reformation scholar David Steinmetz of Duke Divinity school, as cited by ChristianHistoryInstitute.org in an interview:

“The Reformation is an argument not just about the Bible but about the early Christian fathers, whom the Protestants wanted to claim. This is one of those things that is so obvious nobody has paid much attention to it—then you look and you see it everywhere.

“The reformers use the fathers all over the place. We know Calvin read Augustine, and we discovered recently that Luther read Jerome—he had copies annotated in his own hand. The index of Calvin’s Institutes is filled with an enormous number of quotations from the fathers. And in the first preface to that work, addressed to Francis I, Calvin did his best to show his teachings were in complete harmony with the fathers.”

Steinmetz then gives examples, which include John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome. These are all fourth and fifth century fathers, and thus, they are after the great changes under Constantine.

There is a really awesome quote on there. I agree with the Reformers’ sentiment on this:

“The Protestants did this because they were keen to have ancestors. They knew that innovation was another word for heresy.” (ibid.)

If we could just get moderns to believe that! Boy, would there be some massive changes in what we say and, more importantly, do! We have twisted several Reformation ideas into something the Reformers would never recognize.

This quote from John Wesley, founder of the Methodists, is somewhat well-known:

Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus. (Cited by Wesley Center Online)

Wesley agrees with me that the pre-Nicene fathers are best, and I agree with him that the fathers of the next century or two are also of benefit.

well, that’s a start. More to find out.

Posted in Protestants | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Far-Fetched

Posted on 03/22/2014 by Paul Pavao

You’re probably explaining away more of the Bible than you realize.

Baptized in Bickering

I became a Christian in northern Florida in 1982. I was excited, filled with joy, and rarin’ to go. I was excited about Jesus, and I wanted everything he had to offer. I went to meetings every night of the week except Saturday, when we would pass out tracts near the beach.

I was saved in an Assembly of God church. My favorite person at the church was Mike, my Sunday School teacher, Friday night Bible study leader, and deacon.

Two months after I was saved, he disappeared.

To make a really interesting story painfully short, bizarre circumstances put me in a pew next to him at an anti-spiritual gifts, eternally secure Baptist church.

He was thrilled to see me. He invited me to talk with the pastor after the service, and I sat in the pastor’s study with the both of them as they explained why the Pentecostal way was false. Gifts had passed away, we are eternally secure, and there is no separate baptism in the Holy Spirit.

It was an evening service that I attended, and I worked a graveyard shift in the military. I was up for hours, had little work that night, and I diligently read the pamphlets they gave me and compared them with Scripture.

My conclusion that night doesn’t matter. I had lost my innocence. I was introduced to the world of denominational bickering, and it took a very long time to leave it.

Note: For the curious, I now hold neither the Pentecostal nor the Baptist view on those subjects.

In order to attend a Bible study or Christian meeting every night of the week, you have to go to several churches and small groups. What great fodder for doctrinal debates! I mostly debated Baptists, but I got a few shots at Jehovah’s Witnesses and quite a bit of time with the Way International.

I will say it enhanced my knowledge of Scripture and sharpened my intellect (#dangerous).

The Blossoms of Bickering

I got seven months of such training, and God saw fit to have the Air Force send me to a tiny village in the middle of Alaska with about 300 military and government workers there. I was looking for action the moment I set foot on Alaskan soil. Where are the Christians? When do they meet? How do we reach the eskimoes and indians?

On that little site, I only found five other avid Christians. They weren’t doing anything. I got them meeting in the chapel on Friday nights and going to the local village to pass out tracts on free days.

Six weeks later none of them would talk to each other.

Let’s see: we had …

  • A charismatic from Arizona
  • A Pentecostal from Arkansas
  • Two young men who had come to Jesus there in Alaska (before I arrived)
  • A Baptist from I don’t remember where.

The Pentecostal man once told me, “Where I’m from, we spit when we hear the word ‘charismatic.’ They’re just Pentecostals who wear pants and drink wine.”

In fact, halfway through my year up there, the Pentecostal came to me and said, “I’m not a Christian. The Bible says that if you hate your brother, you don’t have eternal life, and I hate Mike.”

He repented weeks later.

At the same time as this was happening, a dear friend back in Florida was being kicked out of the Assembly of God. “Cold-shouldered” out would be a better term. Again, the issue was doctrinal.

That was it for me. I sat down, put a Bible in my lap, and told God I needed to start over. I repented of being Assembly of God, and I asked him to show me what to do.

Verses Versus Verses

There’s a lot of places I could go with that story. I could talk about which doctrines matter and which don’t. I could talk about Titus 2 and Paul’s idea of “sound doctrine.”

Instead, I want to tell you about a principle I learned for Bible study.

I learned it from watching Pentecostals (including myself) debate Baptists about eternal security. The Baptist would throw out John 10:27-28. The Pentecostal would reply with 2 Pet. 2:20-21. The Baptist would bring up Eph. 2:8-10. The Pentecostal would fire back with Heb. 6:4-6. Etc., etc., etc.

I always wondered, “Do we think we are correct because we can come up with 15 verses, and the other guy can only come up with 8? If that’s the case, then the Bible contradicts itself. There are 15 correct verses on this subject and 8 that are wrong.”

I saw an astonishing example of this in a systematic theology I read a few years later. A systematic theology is a book that covers a number of doctrines, explaining them thoroughly and going over all the relevant verses.

This one had a chapter on eternal security. It spent several pages arguing that we cannot lose our salvation. Then it concluded the chapter with a list of verses that “seem” to contradict what the chapter had taught.

The list was at least 50 verses long!

Tragic.

So here’s my rule … for me.

Far-Fetched Interpretations

On any given subject I will allow myself one unlikely or far-fetched explanation for a verse that “seems” to disagree with what I’m teaching.

For example, there are hundreds of verses in the apostles’ writings that apply to the topic of salvation. One of them that was really weird, being a good Protestant adherent of salvation by faith alone, was Romans 2:6.

[God] will render to everyone according to their works.

The passage is even weirder when you add verse 7, which says that people who pursue immortality by doing good will be repaid eternal life.

What??

It’s okay, I had an explanation, the same one everyone else had. That passage is hypothetical. If anyone could live a sinless life in pursuit of immortality, then they would reap eternal life. No one can, however, so “faith only” is still intact.

I wasn’t very satisfied giving that explanation, but I had so many verses backing me up! I was able to set Rom. 2:6 aside. For me, however, setting a verse aside meant writing it in a list in the back of my Bible. I put all my troubling verses there.

The list in the back of my Bible began to grow, however.

If you address as Father the one who patiently judges according to each one’s work, then conduct yourself throughout the time of your sojourning here in fear. (1 Pet. 1:17)

There’s more, many more. The final straw was a book I saw in a Church of Christ bookstore. It said, “Martin Luther wrote ‘faith alone’ in the margin of his Bible, and it was the first time the world had every heard of it.”

What?? Ridiculous! Faith alone is all over the Bible.

I couldn’t think of any direct references to faith alone, so I got out my concordance. I looked up every occurrence of “faith” in the Bible, and I looked for “only” or “alone” near it. (We didn’t have home computers in those days to do this for us.)

It is in the Bible!

Once.

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

I know the explanation for that verse. It goes like this. “We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.”

Ha ha. I feel like a con man when I say those words. Go read the passage. That’s a ridiculous interpretation of James 2, and you know it.

I feel sorry for you if you can’t admit it.

I have more respect for Martin Luther, who simply considered James 2:24 wrong.

The same thing happened with the Trinity, at least with our modern explanation of it. I talked with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I saw verses I could not explain while believing in a “co-equal” Trinity.

I didn’t switch to the JW view because they were dancing around way more verses than I was.

I hate the “my verses outnumber your verses” thing, so I rejected both my view and theirs.

Two Rules of Scripture Interpretation

I have two rules for Scripture interpretation now:

  1. If I have to explain a verse away, so that it’s left with no real meaning, I write the verse down somewhere and keep it. That way I have the verses I can’t explain listed.
  2. If I find, or am shown, two verses on a subject that require a far-fetched explanation, I change my view on that subject to “I don’t know.”

No more embarrassing explanations, dodging the bullets of Scripture. If I can’t say exactly what the Scripture says, and in the same words, then what I believe is error.

So my rule is, I get one far-fetched interpretation on any doctrine. Once I have to make two far-fetched explanations, I assume I don’t know what I’m talking about. Maybe down the road I’ll find a better explanation that makes more sense, but until I do, I’m not risking holding to false doctrine.

Can This Be Done

It’s worked exceptionally well for me. It worked so well that when I ran across David Bercot’s Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, I found nothing surprising in it. In fact, I was thrilled to find out that I wasn’t the only one who believed the things that I had found by simply giving up far-fetched explanations. In the early churches, the things I believed would have been normal.

It is also great for arguments. I am as sure as a human can be that I am not holding any doctrine that requires weak explanations of verses that seem to disagree.

That kind of honesty can be painful, I warn you. We’re 2,000 years from the apostles. A lot is wrong. Be that honest with the Scriptures, and people are going to fight for their precious, but not apostolic, traditions.

Posted in Bible, Evangelicals | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Christian History in a Nutshell

Posted on 03/20/2014 by Paul Pavao

Ready? Let’s go!

The apostles formed churches. Those churches formed churches. These churches had no leadership higher than the local city or town. Nonetheless, they were taught to carefully preserve the apostles’ teaching.

Over time, as the churches grew, some of the more prominent cities had “metropolitans.” These were bishops of major cities who led the churches of their city and surrounding small towns.

By the time of the Council of Nicea in AD 325, about 300 years after Jesus died and rose, the council gave official authority to the bishop of Alexandria over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. It then said that the Roman bishop and the bishop of Antioch had similar authority (“the like is customary”; Canon 6). These bishops became known as “patriarchs,” and the bishop of Constantinople was added to them a few years later when Constantinople was built.

At that point, for the sake of such a quick history, all the churches were united (mostly). They were all “catholic,” which means “universal,” but in practice it meant “in communion with one another.”

A lot happened after the Council of Nicea, but let’s limit it to saying that the emperors of Rome got on board with Christianity and most Roman citizens became Christians, at least in name.

In the 5th century, the western Roman empire—all of Europe—fell to Barbarian kings. The other three patriarchs kept working with the Roman emperor in Constantinople. Over the next 300 years the Roman patriarch got the Barbarian kings to look to him as the spiritual leader of all western Christendom. That climaxed with the crowning of Emperor Charlemagne by the pope around 800.

A couple centuries later, in 1054, the patriarch of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople (very interesting story), and the patriarch of Rome became permanently separated from the other four patriarchs. (Moscow had been added as a fourth patriarch in the East.)

500 years later, around 1500, the Roman Catholic Church, as the western churches were now known, became so corrupt that people were leaving (e.g., Waldensians), being driven out of (e.g., also Waldensians), or being martyred by (e.g., Jan Huss, William Tyndale) the Catholic Church regularly.

Finally, though, they drove out someone with support from lords and nobles. Martin Luther was the first Reformer to gain the support of nobles: German nobles. Many of them stuck with Luther after he was excommunicated by Rome at the Diet of Worms [really].

Luther got the support of many German nobles after his excommunication in 1521. Around the same time, Ulrich Zwingli led a reform movement that was supported by the city council of Zurich, a city-state in Switzerland. About twenty years later, John Calvin gained the support of the Geneva city council.

Reform missionaries also reached England, where King Henry VIII had separated the church of England from Rome because the pope refused to annul a marriage for him so he could marry a second wife. They found great receptivity there to Calvin’s doctrines (“Calvinism“), and to this day many “Reformed” doctrines are part of Church of England theology.

All of these events involving Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and King Henry VIII are known as the Reformation. The Protestants—the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, etc.—are all splits in the Protestant movement that have happened in the last 500 years.

I have painfully left out Anabaptist history for the sake of brevity. Even that link is insufficient. Best of all is Secret of the Strength; highly recommended.

Note: as often is the case, this blog post is an email sent in response to an inquiry. The following paragraphs more directly addressed his question. They seem pertinent to a brief church history, at least here in the western world, so I am including them.

Thus the Roman Catholic Church considers itself the original apostolic Church. I don’t agree because there wasn’t an original apostolic “Church.” There were original apostolic “churches,” and the Roman Catholic churches don’t look anything like what I read about in the apostles memoirs or in writings collected from their churches.

A great example of that wrong kind of thinking is in the very scholarly translation of the writings of Christians from before the Council of Nicea in AD 325 called The Ante-Nicene Fathers. In Volume 3, they title a chapter with “All Doctrine True Which Comes from the Church Through the Apostles,” yet the chapter never uses “Church,” but instead uses “churches” five times.

Yes, the early Christians do use “the Church,” just as Protestants do today. Like the Protestants, however, there was no organization that fit “the Church,” it was simply a general reference to all the churches. (Unlike the Protestants, they were united.)

An organization like the RCC did not exist in the first few centuries of Christianity.

The churches of the East never had a Protestant movement. Those churches are now known as Eastern Orthodox churches, or just Orthodox churches. The missionary movements of the last three or four centuries caused the Protestants and Catholics to reach eastern nations, and the Orthodox churches to reach America. Until the Reformation, however, in most of Asia and the Middle East, there were no churches except the national Orthodox churches.

The Orthodox churches in Syria and Egypt were excommunicated way back in the 5th century, Syria at the Council of Ephesus (432) and Egypt at the Council of Chalcedon (451), even before the Roman Catholics split off. The main Orthodox churches have appointed a new patriarch in Alexandria, but the old excommunicated church of Egypt still exists and is the primary church in Egypt, known as the Coptic Church. The Syrian church is now known by others as the Nestorian Church and by themselves as the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East. They were the Christians persecuted by Sadam Hussein in Iraq.

One last thing.

The Pope and Roman Catholicism in the Second Century

The Roman Catholics claim that there was a pope from the time the apostle Peter came to Rome until now. The Eastern Orthodox reject that claim, and every non-Catholic historian rejects that claim. I have a great book by a Catholic scholar, a Notre Dame church history professor, rejecting that claim as well.

All the historical issues are addressed at “Is the Roman Catholic Church the One True Church?

Further Information

I have a longer history on a one-hour video on Youtube.

What I would really love is question and answers. Whenever I speak on this subject, whether in informal or formal settings, there are always lots of questions. Almost always, though, if I speak formally, people come up afterwards and ask questions privately rather than publicly. So I end up answering the same questions over and over to two or three people.

So I know people are interested. How did we get from there to here? Leave questions in the comments, and I will use them for future blogs.

Posted in Church, History, History (Stories), missions, Protestants, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Obama Tricked Me!

Posted on 03/19/2014 by Paul Pavao

Al Francken’s book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them makes a point about how he was fooled into supporting the Iraq war by George Bush. Boy, was he mad about that, and rightfully so.

I was tricked into voting for Obama in 2008. He’s an excellent con man. I feel no regret for voting for him. I don’t ever want to be politically savvy enough to catch crafty deceivers like him. I want to spend my time in the Word and in the church becoming spiritually savvy enough to ride the waves of doctrine without being tossed and to be unaffected, along with those with whom I am united, by the cunning craftiness of men in which they lie in wait to deceive.

Obama, by my judgment, is a man of cunning craftiness lying in wait to deceive. He’s not my problem, though. My command about him is to pray for him so that we can live a quiet, godly, and peaceful life in holiness. I want to catch the Charles Stanleys, Neil Hendtkes, and David Parkersons. I want to see them coming and make every effort to help them, with my hand always on the spiritual pistol stuck in the back of my pants, allowing them no leeway with the flock of God.

I’m fine with being tricked by Obama. Putting people in office is God’s job. Driving away wolves and seeing them coming is the job of the elders and the spiritually mature.

You’ll find me in that training the next time an Obama comes along, and I will probably be fooled again. I’m inviting others to join me.

This is an email I sent to a friend, (He’ll agree with it; I wasn’t correcting him.) I thought I’d share it with you as well.

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

Christ in Us, the Hope of Glory

Posted on 03/18/2014 by Paul Pavao

What does “Christ in us, the hope of glory” mean? We quote it, but do we think about it?

The surface meaning is plain enough. Our hope of glory is the Anointed One living in us. But do we live like that is true?

Paul did.

I am crucified with the King; nevertheless, I live. Yet not I, but the King lives in me, and the life I live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20)

Note: I often translate the untranslated word “Christ” into “King.” “Christ” actually means anointed (just as “Messiah” does), but the Jews would have understood it to refer to the King that is anointed by God. See here for a longer explanation.

“I am crucified with the King.” That’s somewhat mystical.

God intends for us to receive it as truth, but how do we do that? How do we practically apply “I am crucified with the King”?

Is it simply true, and we get beneficial results whether we realize it is true or not? That would mean there is nothing for us to do but to rest in its truth. Do we try harder in order to prove that we’re really crucified with the King, or, even more so, that we have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”? (Gal. 5:24).

I think the key is faith. In that verse, the apostle says, “The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.”

Even that requires explanation. How do I live by faith in the Son of God?

Synergy

There are two verses that I think address that question well:

  • ” … that we may present every man perfect in King Jesus. For this I also labor, striving according to his power, which works in me mightily. (Col. 1:28-29)
  • “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works in you both to desire and to do his will.” (Php. 2:12-13)

You can see the synergy in these verses. Two things are happening. We are striving, but we are striving using a power that comes from God.

I believe we underestimate both sides of that synergy.

God’s Side

One, we underestimate God’s side. We are people who casually say, “If you’re a Christian, you have the Holy Spirit.” That’s all wrong. It should read, “If you’re a Christian, YOU HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT LIVING IN YOU!”

How can God living in you not be the most amazing thing ever?!

Hebrews tells us that we have entered into a better covenant [WITH GOD!] based on better promises. We are PARTAKERS OF HIS DIVINE NATURE!! (2 Pet. 1:4). How much better can a promise get?

The same verse tells us that we HAVE ALREADY escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I could go on and on reiterating the promises of God. Sin shall not have power over us! (Rom. 6:14). We can expect to arrive at the judgment seat of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, cleansed of sin by the blood of Jesus, having lived a life in the light by the power of God, blameless and without a single blemish (1 Jn. 1:7-9; Jude 24; etc.).

We vastly underestimate God’s side of the equation. We ought to be in awe every day.

We also vastly understimate our side of the equation.

Our Side

How did the apostles respond to this great gift of God?

  • Paul: “I do not run uncertainly. I do not box like a someone shadow boxing. I discipline my body, and I make it my slave, lest in some way, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Cor. 9:26-27)
  • Peter: “Give every effort to make your calling and election sure.” (2 Pet. 1:10)
  • James: “He gives more grace. … Therefore submit yourselves to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners! Purify your hearts, double-minded ones! Be afflicted! Mourn and weep!
  • Hebrews: “Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus … Consider him who endured such opposition of sinners toward himself so that you do not become faint and weary in your own minds. You have not yet resisted to bloodshed striving against sin.”

I would say the apostles took their responsibility to use the power of God seriously.

I said at the beginning that this had to do with faith. You will never run the race the way Paul tells you to unless you know with Paul that King Jesus lives in you. You will never obey and tackle the painful, difficult things God calls you to unless you know there is power to overcome.

Let us feed ourselves with faith in the power of God. Let us see ourselves as God sees us. We are not mere humans. The Corinthians were rebuked for behaving like mere humans (1 Cor. 3:3). We are children of God, delivered from the corruption of this world.

Let us believe it and live like it is true.

From out of him you are in King Jesus, who from God has been made wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption to you. (1 Cor. 1:30)

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Posted on 03/17/2014 by Paul Pavao

There is a strong and growing voice against divorce and remarriage in the United States.

The case that Jesus, the apostles, and the early churches all forbad remarriage after a divorce is strong. I won’t bother making a case because earlychristianfellowship.org has done a superb job of making that case.

These people, and many others, argue that even though Jesus and the apostles allowed divorce in the case of adultery, they did not allow remarriage.

This is a strict rule, but it was definitely the practice of the early churches. Again, I’ll leave the proof for that to the earlychristianfellowship.org article.

This rule, however, has led to a practice that I would like to address. I would like to …

Stop the Madness

I have to admit that the case the Early Christian Fellowship makes is solid. Their application of it, however, leaves something to be desired. Despite all those early Christian quotes they provide, they left one out. I have a suspicion they left it out on purpose, since I have discussed the passage a couple of their members on Facebook.

I was mocked like I was on an elementary school playground for doing so.

Here’s the issue.

Twenty-two years ago I met a family with 10 children. The parents had been married 20 years. However, at the age of 17 or 18, the mother had been married for one week on a foolish lark.

They had a private conversation with the leaders of a church that was very strict about divorce and remarriage, asking them if they could stay married and be members of that church. Not only did the leaders turn them down, but their secret was somehow leaked to the congregation, and the family’s children found out for the first time about their mother’s one-week mistake.

I am not making this up. I met the family. I Know the church.

The passage that the earlychurchfellowship.org article left out is in a tract called On Monogamy. Tertullian, the author, is discussing a short passage is 1 Corinthians 7:28. Here is the context of that passage:

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned. (vv. 27-28)

Here is what Tertullian says that means:

“But if you have taken a wife, you have not sinned” because to one who, before believing, had been “loosed from a wife,” she will not be counted a second wife who, subsequently to believing, is the first. For it is from believing that our life itself dates its origin. (On Monogamy 11)

I don’t find this statement very hard to understand. If a wife is the first wife after believing, then she is not regarded by the church as a second wife. In fact, shortly thereafter, Tertullian adds:

And so, “a woman, if she shall have married, will not sin,” because he will not be reckoned a second husband who is, subsequently to her believing, the first … And so truly this is the case, that he adds “only in the Lord” because the question in agitation was about her who was married to a heathen and had believed subsequently to losing him. (ibid.)

The point is obvious, the statement clear: “It is from believing that our life itself dates its origin.” Previous marriages are not regarded as marriages.

Arguments by the Anti-Remarriage Movement

I understand the crusade against remarriage, though the people who are a part of it have been almost exclusively such distasteful Pharisees that it is hard to remain understanding. Nonetheless, I will be more fair than earlychristianfellowship.org chose to be.

In the midst of the playground scoffing, I did get one reasonable argument from them. The argument, however, is double-edged and unconvincing.

Tertullian had become a Montanist by the time he wrote On Monogamy. Montanists were a small sect of of believers in a “new prophecy,” which had come from Montanus and two women prophetesses. The churches rejected their prophecy because they claimed that the Holy Spirit was improving on what the apostles handed down.

Their “improvements” included permanently rejecting Christians guilty of major sins without possibility of repentance. Another improvement, they claimed, was that the Holy Spirit had removed the allowance for remarriage after being widowed. That allowance, which they acknowledged was given by the Holy Spirit through the apostles, was only because the church was young. Now that it was more grown up, more was expected of it, especially in the way of celibacy.

The argument given earlychristianfellowship.org, or at least the members I talked with on Facebook, was that Tertullian was only speaking of a widows and widowers. He was allowing widows and widowers, and only widows and widowers, to remarry if their spouses died before they were baptized.

My Response

If he was only giving liberty to remarry to widows and widowers, then his reason for allowing that liberty seems strange.

She shall not be counted a second wife, who, subsequent to believing, is the first, for it is from believing that our life dates its origin.

My other response is the argument from silence, which drew no response from the anti-remarriage guys except scoffing.

You can see from their article how easy it was to pull quotes concerning remarriage from the writings of the early Christians. Feel free to search all those quotes for a statement that is any way relevant to those who divorced or remarried before their baptism.

Not a word.

Let’s consider one more passage.

Hippolytus, an elder in Rome in the early 3rd century, wrote a church manual known as The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Very shortly after he wrote it, he rejected the election of Callistus and bishop and split the church at Rome, forming a congregation with himself as bishop.

In the church manual is a list of questions to be asked of those that wish to be taught and prepared for baptism. The list is extensive; very extensive. “They shall be questioned
concerning their life and occupation, marriage status, and whether they are slave or free” (par. 3).

The questions don’t stop there. They are asked about whether they are a pimp or prostitute. If they are a slave, they need a reference from their masters that they are a good servant. Sculptors, actors, charioteers, those who have a role in the gladiator games, those who are castrated, governors, military men, and several others are questioned about their occupation, and required instructions are given. Military men can’t kill, governors must resign, those involved with the games must quit, sculptors must not make idols, etc.

All of this careful inquiry. What about those who are divorced and remarried? Tertullian tells us this was so common in Rome that “women long for it as though it were the natural consequence of marriage.” Three or four marriages in a lifetime were not uncommon.

Yet where are the questions about whether a married person is previously divorced. Candidates for baptism were asked about whether they were married.

If a man has a wife, or a woman has a husband, let them be taught to be content, the husband with his wife, and the wife with her husband. If there is a man who does not live with a woman, let him be taught not to fornicate, but to either take a wife according to the law, or to remain as is. (par. 15)

There is even instruction about concubines.

If someone’s concubine is a slave, as long as she has raised her children and has clung only to him, let her hear. Otherwise, she shall be rejected. The man who has a concubine must cease and take a wife according to the law. If he will not, he shall be rejected. (par. 16)

If a remarried person, coming to the church for salvation, was considered an adulterer or adulteress, why are there no questions about remarriage in this extensive list? Why is there not a parenthetical comment that being content with your spouse is not an option for those once divorced?

The reason is apparent. To the church, it is from believing that our life has its origin.

The anti-remarriage movement has scoured the writings of the early church for justification for their position. They have done well in that search by obtaining solid evidence that the churches from the very beginning did not allow remarriage for Christians, at least not while the divorced spouse was living.

Yet in all their scouring they have found nothing at all suggesting that the early churches asked the remarried to count themselves adulterers and divorce when they came to the church.

The silence is deafening.

The Ancient Church and the Modern Church

There is another issue that is not being taken into account.

The love of the Christians for each other in the early churches is legend. Even the Romans cried out, “Behold, how they love one another” (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. AD 210). The Christians of the early churches were family. They shared their lives and they shared their possessions (ref).

I know from experience that in real church life, divorce can be avoided with the intervention of the church. In real church life, the saints seek out the faces of the saints every day for exhortation and encouragement (Heb. 3:12-13; Didache 4). In real church life, the saints are shepherded and watched over, not just preached to in a weekly meeting. In real church life, there is openness for the shepherds and other mature saints to enter the home of those in a struggling marriage to train the individuals and save the marriage.

While there are always tares that look like wheat and hypocrites that don’t stealing their way into the church, the churches the apostles left us were filled primarily with disciples. Disciples know that they could not and must not divorce, and they know that marriages are worth working at. Disciples know that when there are relationship problems, the first place to look is at onesself. Disciples know that they must please their King and Master, and they know that the husband is to love his wife and the wife is to respect her husband.

Disciples are determined to be good students. They receive help. They believe that the advice, the correction, and even the rebuke of the righteous bring life.

In that environment, men and women do not have to divorce.

Very few have had that environment since the church gladly received “Constantine’s flock” some 1700 years ago.

Does that mean we should show a bit more mercy to Christians who have been offered nothing more than a chance to listen to a speech on Christian ethics every Sunday morning, along with some additional speeches, seminars, and teachings over the internet or on CD’s and tapes?

I think it does. I don’t know how far that mercy ought to extend because the Scriptures make no real provision for the sort of Christianity that exists today. It is hard to find your way into such a deep Christian life that you know how important it is to obey Jesus in everything. It is hard to find your way into such a deep Christian life that you have the help of others who know how to overcome the tactics of the devil and help save your marriage.

There are teachings, which if we are to obey them across the board and in every case, real churches will be required; real hospitals for sinners.

Weekly lectures, or even daily lectures won’t do it. Weekly or daily shovelfuls of law and condemnation won’t do it, either. Only daily intervention of the saints will do it. We need not only the King’s head, but his entire body.

Posted in Early Christianity, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment