Penal Substitution and Jesus as a Sin Offering: An Ancient Perspective

Posted on 03/14/2025 by Paul Pavao

This is the completion of a post I wrote on March 5 addressing Christus Victor and Jesus’ ransoming us.

My exposition from the Scriptures on the atonement can never be the final word. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the most momentous event of human existence. No one can explain it in fullness.

Finally, this post includes a (partial) retraction of the stance I have taken against Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

What caught my eye as I was preparing for this post was Hebrews 9:15:

… a death has occurred for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant …

I have always objected to the teaching that Jesus “paid for our sins: past, present, and future.” It is not taught in Scripture, and it is contradicted by dozens of verses (e.g., Eph. 5:5).

In fact, I object to “Jesus paid for our sins”; the New Testament repeatedly says that he paid for us (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:20). In fact, every time we say we are “redeemed,” we are saying that Jesus bought us. You probably don’t need me to tell you that Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “redeem” is “to buy back: repurchase.”

One of the main reasons I write about the atonement is to refute the idea that God cannot forgive sin without sacrifice. There are a lot of Old Testament passages objecting to the idea. On of my favorites is Micah 6:6-8 because a lot of of us know verse 8, but not verses 6 and 7:

How shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams? With tens of thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my disobedience? The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
   He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does the LORD require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

There are many other passages like this. For example, we all know that Samuel told Saul, “To obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22). Hosea 6:6 says that mercy is also better than sacrifice. Lots of things are better than sacrifice, but if you have sinned, the most important thing better than sacrifice is repentance (e.g. 2 Pet. 3:9; Isa. 1:11-20; Ezek. 18:21-23).

Okay, back to offerings. Jesus’ death was a sin offering. In Romans 8:3 and 2 Corinthians 5:21, “on account of sin” and “he was made sin for us” can both be rendered “a sin offering.” Interestingly, though, the sin offering was for “the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). 

In the next few verses (Heb. 9:16-24), the writer of Hebrews teaches us that Jesus’ death was also to inaugurate the New Covenant. He did so by bringing his blood into the heavenly temple. Just as Moses’ sprinkled the book of the covenant in Exodus 24 and the priests sprinkled blood in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, so Jesus cleansed the heavenly temple with his own blood (Heb. 9:23).

Okay, now I’m going to dive into Jesus as our  substitution.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

I have always objected to this term, but I am seeing that rather than objecting to the term, I should have objected only to how the term is used. Again, many say that God cannot forgive sin without sacrifice, and I have shown throughout my posts on this blog and on Facebook that this is constantly contradicted in Scripture.

However, when Paul writes …

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” [Gal. 3:13 (quoted from Deut. 21:23)] …

… he is telling us that Jesus was at the very least our substitute when it comes to the Law of Moses. Being crucified is “penal” (“of, relating to, or involving punishment”), so becoming a curse for us is, by definition, penal substitution.

This is a retraction for me. My objection  to the application of PSA (God can’t forgive sin without sacrifice), does not justify my throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

That said, I do want to throw out the bathwater. We can begin with Isaiah 53 and address the meaning of the whole chapter with just verse 5:

But he was pierced for our transgressions.
He was crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
and by his wounds we are healed. (Isa. 53:5)

Jesus was pierced and crushed for what we did. That is substitution, and being pierced and crushed is definitely penal. However, we have to ask the purpose of penal substitution. Peter quotes Isaiah 53:5 in telling us the purpose:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by his wounds. (1 Pet. 2:24)

This is important. Jesus was not wounded to pay for sins, nor so that God could could vent his wrath, but so that we might live righteously. Only one thing appeases God, and that is repentance and obedience (Isa. 1:8-20; Ezek. 18:21-23; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Our Father was pleased to bruise him (Isa. 53:10), not because he was angry and had to vent his wrath, but because he desires repentance. Without the healing that was brought by Jesus’ wounds, we would never live a life of repentance and righteousness. Isaiah 53:10 is not telling us that God can’t control his temper; it is telling us what Romans 5:8 tells us: God loves us so much that he gave his own Son in suffering and death in order to heal us from our wickedness (Acts 3:26) and to make us alive in Christ even though we were dead in trespasses (Eph. 2:5).

Back to Offering: Sin and Sins

One other important passage in Hebrews’ deep dive into the atonement is Hebrews 9:26:

But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I was puzzled by “put away sin,” so I looked up “put away.” The Greek word means that Jesus “canceled” sin. In the same way you might cancel your subscription to Netflix, Jesus canceled sin. How does one cancel sin?

First, we have to note the difference between “sin” and “sins.” In Romans 8:3, the offering of Jesus “condemned sin in the flesh.” In Romans 6:6, “the body of sin” is said to “stop working” [katargeo; also “bring to naught; sever; abolish”] because our old man was crucified with him.

Without trying to delve into nuances that I’m certain I’ll never understand, the “sin in the flesh” described in Romans 7 was canceled and condemned and the “body of sin” stopped working because our old self was crucified with him. Surely this is what the writer of Hebrews means when he says Jesus appeared to cancel sin.

Let’s try to bring the condemnation of sin in the flesh, the breaking of the body of sin, and the cancelation of sin into the practical realm. Everything is easier to understand when we talk about what we are supposed to do with our theology. There is a great passage for that:

So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Php. 2:12-13)

Because God has done all these things for us, freeing us from sin in the flesh so that we can serve him (Rom. 6:7-14), let’s work out or salvation with fear and trembling. Why fear and trembling? Because one day we are going to be judged by what we do with this “great salvation.”

Therefore we ought to pay greater attention to the things that were heard, lest perhaps we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation—which at the first having been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard. (Heb. 1:1-3)

If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man’s work, pass the time of your living as foreigners here in reverent fear, knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things like silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:17-19)

Those two passages are possibly terrifying and, indeed, they are meant to inspire fear. Philippians 2:12 does say “fear and trembling.” There is a proper place for fear, though, so let me now point out that …

I Am Not Calvinist (and neither were the apostles)

Calvinists teach that the smallest sin deserves eternal condemnation. This is horrific nonsense and an insult to God.

Whatever John MacArthur or other Calvinists might say, the apostle Paul says that when God judges, he will give eternal life to those who “by patiently continuing to do good seek after glory, honor, and immortality” (Rom. 2:6-7). In other words Jesus and the apostles taught that a righteous person lives in a pattern of good works, not necessarily sinless perfection.

We all sin (Jam. 3:2; 1 John 1:8-10). The Epistle of James and John’s first epistle are both notable for their emphasis on obedience. First John 3:7-12 is as frightening as any passage in the Bible, but both epistles, James’ and John’s emphasize that we all sin. Not only is it false that the smallest sin deserves eternal damnation, but a person who only does small sins but lives righteously deserves eternal life!

Paul repeats his claim that a pattern of good works will be rewarded with eternal life in Galatians 6:7-9, but adds that this pattern of good works is produced by “sowing” to the Spirit:

Don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. But he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let’s not be weary in doing good, for we will reap in due season if we don’t give up. (Gal. 6:7-9)

Here, Paul is warning those who do not try. We know what God does with the lazy (Matt. 25:26-30). As the pastor of my church likes to say, God is looking for progress, not perfection.

Mercy

God’s attitude toward sin is not Calvinist. In fact, it is not even evangelical because it is not true that he “must punish sin.” Instead …

“But if the wicked turns from all his sins that he has committed, and keeps all my statutes, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live. He shall not die. None of his transgressions that he has committed will be remembered against him. In his righteousness that he has done, he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” says the Lord GOD, “and not rather that he should return from his way, and live?” (Ezek. 18:21-23)

Seek Yahweh while he may be found.
Call on him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts.
Let him return to Yahweh, and he will have mercy on him,
to our God, for he will freely pardon. (Isa. 55:6-7)

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.
O God, you will not despise a broken and contrite heart. (Ps. 51:16-17)

That is what the Old Testament says about the God who supposedly cannot forgive sin without sacrifice. God has always desired repentance and righteousness. He has always had ongoing mercy on the righteous.

Blessed is he whose disobedience is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man to whom Yahweh doesn’t impute iniquity,
in whose spirit there is no deceit.

This passage is not just found in Romans 4:8. Paul quoted it from Psalm 31:1-2. The righteous can expect God to forgive the “stumbling in many ways” that James describes (James 3:2).

Don’t get me wrong. Second Peter 1:10 tells us that if we want assurance (“to make our calling and election sure”), we have to be diligent to do “these things” (the things mentioned in 2 Peter 1:5-7). As we saw, Philippians 2:12 tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Nonetheless, it is also true that “these things” in 2 Peter 1 are to be “yours and increasing.” Our diligence is working out our salvation is progress and not perfection.

My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. (1 Jn. 2:2)

This post is already long, but this passage is so wonderful that I have to talk about it. The word “Counselor” in this verse is parakletos. It is the same word used 4 times of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16. It can be used of a person who helps, comforts, and consoles, but also of one who admonishes and corrects. In other words, in being a “Counselor” with the Father, Jesus will comfort and console if that is what is needed. He will warn and rebuke if that is what is needed. He will gently teach and instruct if that is what is needed.

What parakletos never means is punishment. I am not saying that God does not chastise us (Heb. 12:6) for our disobedience, but in this verse, towards the beginning of a letter that demands righteousness throughout, John tells us that if we sin, Jesus will provide us whatever help we need.

And then there is the term “atoning sacrifice.” The meaning of the Greek word in John’s letter, hilasmos, is disputed, with words like appeasement and propitiation used as well as the “atoning sacrifice” that is in the World English Bible that I use for all my posts.

The word “atonement” is literally “at-one-ment.” It is reconciliation, two becoming one in heart or coming into agreement. The note in my WEB version says hilasmos is “the sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath because of our sin,” but we have seen that sacrifice does not turn away God’s wrath. I think it is fair to say that Isaiah 1:2-15 is God’s tirade against those who think his wrath can be turned away by sacrifice.

Isaiah 1:16-20 tells us what will appease his wrath. This is a beautiful picture of our patient, merciful God whose lovingkindness endures forever:

“Wash yourselves. Make yourself clean.
Put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes.
Cease to do evil.
Learn to do well.
Seek justice.
Relieve the oppressed.
Defend the fatherless.
Plead for the widow.”
“Come now, and let’s reason together,” says Yahweh: “Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

Jesus death appeased God and satisfied his wrath because it blesses us who believe in him by turning us away from our wickedness (Acts 3:26; cf. 2 Cor. 5:15; Tit. 2:11-15). And we, who diligently and patiently continue to do good are granted the greatest gift that has ever been given:

Let’s therefore draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace for help in time of need. (Heb. 4:16)

This is the reward of the righteous. Blessed is the one to whom God will not impute sin (Rom. 4:8). Who is that one? “Don’t be led astray, little children, the one who is doing righteousness is righteous as [Christ] is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7)

Posted in atonement, Gospel, Modern Doctrines, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Christus Victor: Atonement by Ransom and Offering

Posted on 03/05/2025 by Paul Pavao

Rather than make this post 6,000 words long, I separated the section on Jesus death as an offering and made it a second post. I am going to consolidate them into a booklet, so please hammer me in the comments (of both posts) with any objections or questions you have.

Here’s what the Bible–I think obviously–teaches about the atonement:

It has always been true that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. In fact, God rewards even the wicked who repent and live righteously, forgetting all the wickedness they had ever done (Ezek. 18:21-23).

Way too many humans turned out to be among the wicked (Rom. 3:10-18, which is quoted from Psalm 14 & 53), so Jesus died to ransom us out of slavery to sin and wicked spirits (cf. Eph. 1:1-3), to condemn sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), and to empower us to live righteous lives (Tit. 2:11-15; 2 Cor. 5:15; Acts 3:26; all of Romans 6; etc., etc.). Then he rose from the grave, cleansed the temple in heaven with his blood (Heb. 9), so that by that blood we have bold, confident access to the throne of God’s favor (Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16).

In this way, as new creatures created in Christ Jesus to do good works (Eph. 2:10), patiently continue to do good and are rewarded with the eternal life that has always been the reward of the righteous (Rom. 2:5-8; Gal. 6:7-10).

Thus, I want to point out that Jesus did not die to make the judgment easier but to equip us to face it. It’s still hard (1 Pet. 1:17; 4:18-19), but with diligence we are well equipped to attain to the resurrection (Php. 3:8-15; 2 Pet. 1:9-10).

Around 1900 years ago, an anonymous Christian described this equipping:

As long then as the [Old Testament times] endured, [God] permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. (Letter to Diognetus, ch. 9; brackets mine)

God’s Mercy

Whenever I write about the death of Jesus being primarily to equip us to do good works, which tends to freak out modern Christians, I try to add a comment about God’s mercy. Jesus did not die to make God merciful. God does not have to kill an animal or remember his Son’s death to forgive sin.

The mercy and lovingkindness of God is the primary feature of the character of God in the Old Testament. When he introduces himself to Moses, he proclaims:

Yahweh passed by before him, and proclaimed, “Yahweh! Yahweh, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness and truth, keeping loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and disobedience and sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the children’s children, on the third and on the fourth generation.” (Ex. 34:6-7, WEB)

Through Ezekiel we are told:

Again, when I say to the wicked, “You will surely die,” if he turns from his sin and does that which is lawful and right, 15 if the wicked restore the pledge, give again that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity, he will surely live. He will not die. 16 None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done that which is lawful and right. He will surely live. (Ezek. 33:14-1-6; see Ezek. 18:20-30 as well)

Psalm 136 points out the lovingkindness of God in every verse.

God is remarkably merciful with the righteous, not because Jesus died, but because lovingkindness is the main attribute of the God of Israel and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think, too, of Jehoshaphat’s army marching into battle with singers at the front crying out, “Give thanks to Yahweh, for his loving kindness endures forever” (2 Chr. 20:21).

Most Christians are familiar with the passage in Romans that says, “Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin” (Rom. 4:8), but they are not familiar with the fact that this is a quote from Psalm 32 in the Old Testament.

Who is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin? That man is the righteous man who believes God, whether under the Old Covenant or the New. In Romans, Paul uses Abraham as the example of a faithful man to whom God will not impute sin, and we receive the same benefit by having the faith of Abraham.

Jesus died so we could live even more faithfully to God than Abraham, in which case we can be the man (or woman) to whom God does not impute sin. God’s nature did not have to change in order for him to forgive sin, but our behavior had to change. Notice in Exodus 34:6-7 above that God will by no means clearly the guilty. We are warned by the apostle Paul not to be deceived about the fact that this is every bit as true in the New Testament (Eph. 5:5-7; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 6:7-9).

Jesus died to free us from the power of sin. It is the very purpose of grace (Rom. 6:14). He concludes Romans 6 by saying:

But now, being made free from sin and having become servants of God, you have your fruit of sanctification and the result of eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:22-23)

For most modern Christians, these two verses contradict. Is eternal life the result of holiness (as Heb. 12:14 also says), or is it the gift of God? We don’t understand because we have not been taught that the primary gift we received by grace through faith was to become God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works (Eph. 2:8-10).

Christus Victor

Christus Victor is the name of a book published by Gustaf Aulen in 1931. An AI accurately summarizes the Christus Victor view of the atonement as:

 … the classic view, where Christ overcomes the hostile powers holding humanity in subjection while God reconciles the world to Himself, is the distinctively Christian idea of the atonement, prevalent in the New Testament, patristic writings, and the theology of Luther.

I don’t trust AIs even to summarize a book but, in this case, I know that summary to be accurate. I have read the book and discussed Aulen’s theory with others who know it. I found the book confusing, and Aulen’s theory incomplete, but I do need to give him credit for the title of this blog and for opening my eyes to just how Jesus overcame and overcomes “the world, the flesh, and the devil.”

Jesus Ransomed Us: How Jesus “Paid the Price”

I noticed a long time ago that the Scriptures do not use “paid the price” in the same way modern Christians do. Jesus did not “pay the price” for sin; instead he paid the price for us (1 Cor. 6:19-20; Tit. 2:13-14).

Almost every time “redeemed” or “redemption” is used in the New Testament, the word is more accurately translated “ransomed” or “released by payment of ransom.” For example, one of the most important verses in the New Testament is Ephesians 1:7 which, if translated hyper-literally, reads like this:

… by whom [Jesus] we have release by ransom through his blood, the release of transgressions, according to the riches of his favor. (Apostolic Bible Polyglot)

That website, StudyBible.info, gives the Strong’s number above every word. If you click on that number, you are taken to a page with at least 5 Greek lexicons defining  the word. If you click on the number above “release by ransom,” you will see that the word usually translated “redemption” primarily means “release by payment of ransom” in every lexicon.

The point of this is that Jesus’ death was not a payment to God to appease his wrath because it is repentance that averts wrath (e.g., 2 Pet. 3:9, but this idea is in every Bible story). Instead, it was a ransom in which Jesus offered himself in exchange for our freedom from “the rulers of this world.”

This is expressed in that wonderfully enigmatic (i.e., puzzling) verse that says:

… [the mystery] which none of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 2:8)

In the early days of the church, the parable of the strong man (Matt. 12:29) was understood to be about the atonement. Jesus allowed himself to be taken captive by the rulers of this world through death, but they did not realize that he was stronger than the devil. He bound the strong man, the devil, and he plundered his house, “taking captivity captive” (Eph. 4:8) and parading his captives in a triumphal resurrection (Col. 2:15).

When [the Lord] spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way “spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house.” … Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For [the strong man] was not strong, as opposed to [Jesus] who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as [the strong man] caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. (Irenaeus, c. AD 185, Against Heresies Bk. 3, ch. 8; excuse all the brackets that I thought we necessary to understand the wording.)

A friend who understands New Testament Greek explained to me that the “ransom” described in Ephesians 1:7 and other verses should be better understood as a rescue because the Greek word is used in the Greek Old Testament in stories about rescue.

The point is that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with God taking out his wrath against us on Jesus. God’s wrath is on the wicked, but though God is angry with the wicked every day (Ps. 7:11), he does not want the death of the wicked (nor the death of a substitute); he wants repentance (2 Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 18:21–23).

God’s wrath is not currently satisfied for all time. Salvation from his wrath is in the future, and it is obtained by living by the life of Jesus inside of us (Rom. 5:9-10; Gal. 2:20). If we do not “continue in the faith, grounded and settled therein” (Col. 1:23), we will still face that wrath (Eph. 5:5-7, note the “let no one deceive you”).

This does not mean that Jesus was not an offering to God. Instead, Jesus was an offering to God in a different way than we normally think.

Jesus Was an Offering for Sin

I promised to finish this post the first time I released it, but the end of the post was too long! I made it into a second post.

Posted in Bible, Early Christianity, Modern Doctrines, Rebuilding the Foundations, Teachings that must not be lost | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Church History 3: The Faith Once For All Delivered to the Saints

Posted on 02/11/2025 by Paul Pavao

If you missed Church History Focused on the Parts that Interest You 2, it’s because I didn’t know when I started the post that it would be a Church History lesson. Thus, the title does not have “Church History” in it. Part 1 has links to the whole series.

This post is about “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). We are supposed to “earnestly contend” for it, but mostly we don’t know what it was. Let me begin with a complaint about dodging the truth because it is unpleasant. (You don’t have to read this complaint, you can hop straight to my list of the things the churches believed when they were united.)

Complaining About Historians Hiding the Truth

I was raised Roman Catholic. It did nothing for me as far as my relationship with God, which I knew was lacking even in Junior High School, so I quit believing it even though I still had to go to mass (what the RCC calls their services) with my parents. When I was powerfully saved by Jesus (cf. Rom. 1:16-17), I was excited about joining the Protestants and adopting their concept that “the Bible is our sole rule for faith and practice.”

The problem was that the Protestants did not seem to know what their sole rule of faith and practice taught, so there was a lot of bickering and division in Niceville, Florida where I was saved. I started reading church history books–great big, fat books–trying to find out what the churches believed when they were united. I am sure I read at least 5 of them in the 1980s, but not a one of them told me anything about what the churches believed at the beginning.

How can you write a church history book and not address the elephant in the room?

The elephant in the room is that the churches I had fellowship with–Assemblies of God and Baptists mostly–held doctrines that strongly conflicted with the little they knew about the early churches. Their answer to this problem was to tell me, and everyone else, that the churches fell away into legalism very early on.

I knew that the apostles’ churches must have been significantly different from the churches I was attending because all I could get from them, and Protestant history books, is “their beliefs were bad.” They didn’t actually say “bad,” they used “legalistic.”

What they did not say was what those beliefs were. I am sure even the pastors did not know. They were just legalist, whatever they were.

Finally, in 1989 I ran across a book by a lawyer. Like me, he was frustrated with not knowing what the churches believed when they were united. Unlike me, he had access to the library of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and he began reading the earliest writings of the church.

Unlike a lot of cowardly Protestant historians, he wrote a book on what the churches believed at the time of the apostles. He titled ie, provocatively, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. One thing led to another, and I read both that book and all the writings of the early church fathers from the earliest in the late first century through the AD 250s.

The Faith Once for All Delivered to the Saints

This is a list of some things all churches believed before they started dividing:

I am only going to cover these topics briefly here, but each has a link to quotes from 2nd and 3rd century Christian writings. When you get to the quote pages, you will find that each quote also has a link to the original writing so you can read the quotes in context.  

How the Churches are United

Very early on the churches were united by a common belief in the apostles’ teachings, which they described as “the faith,” “the truth,” or “the one tradition from the apostles.”

 As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. … But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. (Irenaeus, c. AD 185, Against Heresies, Bk. 1, ch. 10)

Note: Irenaeus is uniquely qualified to speak on this subject. He was raised in Smyrna (modern Turkey) under Polycarp, a bishop appointed by the apostle John. He traveled across all of Europe to Gaul (modern France) as a missionary, then settled there as a bishop. He became an advisor to the bishops of Rome and other churches.

Link: https://www.christian-history.org/unity-quotes.html

The Apostles Themselves Are Inspired

To the early Christians, the apostles were inspired. Thus, anything they wrote was also inspired. Our New Testament is the collection of writings that the early churches thought were written by apostles or by men who were companions of the apostles (Mark, Luke).

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, 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. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge … (Irenaeus, c. AD 185, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, ch. 1)

Note: I wrote about this in the first Church History blog post.

Link: https://www.christian-history.org/apostles-quotes.html

The Scriptures

The inspiration of the apostles, above, covers what the early churches believed about the New Testament. They accepted the Jewish Old Testament without change because the apostles were Jews. The Jews did not have an “official” canon, just a generally accepted one, until they approved an official canon in reaction to the growth of Christianity later in the first century. As a result, I am just going to give you a link to the quote page, rather than adding a quote here.

Note: The Jews list the very same Old Testament we Protestants have as 24 books rather than 39. This is because they consider 1 and 2 Chronicles to be one book, Ezra and Nehemiah to be one book, and the 12 minor prophets to be one book, etc. Thus, when you run across Origen’s list of 22 books in the link below, he’s just combining books like the Jews did.

Link: https://www.christian-history.org/scripture-quotes.html

The Trinity

The early churches taught that belief in the Trinity was a primary, central doctrine. They did not say the Trinity was “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,” but said there was “One God, the Father; one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Spirit” (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). To simplify this, they said, “One God, one Lord, one Spirit” (cf. Eph. 4:4-6).

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets … (Irenaeus, c. AD 185, Against Heresies, Bk. 1, ch. 10)

Link: https://www.christian-history.org/trinity-quotes.html

Salvation by Faith and the Final Judgment by Works

The early churches taught that we are regenerated (born again, created in Christ Jesus for good works) by grace through faith and in baptism. This empowers us to live righteously so that one day, when we are judged for our works, we will be resurrected to eternal life in the kingdom of God.

Polycarp, from whom this next quote comes, was bishop of Smyrna, a church Jesus commended in Revelation 2:8-11. Irenaeus says he was appointed by apostles, and it is widely accepted by scholars that it was John who appointed him, since John was living nearby in Ephesus when Polycarp became bishop.

In whom, though now ye see him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory 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 [1 Pet. 1:8; Eph. 2:8-9]. … He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; “not rendering evil for evil …  (Polycarp, AD 110-150, “Epistle to the Philippians,” chs. 1 & 2)

Note: I think this passage from Polycarp sounds remarkably like the contrast between Ephesians 2:8-10 and Ephesians 5:3-7.

Link: https://www.christian-history.org/faith-versus-works-quotes.html

This post is long enough I think. In the next Church History post I will cover at least water baptism, spiritual gifts, Sunday morning services, and communion.

Posted in Early Christianity, History | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Rest of the Old, Old Story: What Does It Mean To Be Catholic?

Posted on 02/08/2025 by Paul Pavao

Note: I made this part 2 of my “Church History Focused on the Parts that Interest You” series. Part 1 has links to the entire series.

This is a response to “Restless Pilgrim’s” post, “Before 300: Pre-Constantinian Christianity.” There he has a list of 21 things the churches believed before the year 300. I will not be able to cover them all in this post, of course. My intent was to do 3 today, but I only had room for 1.

My answers give and example of why I originally named this blog “The Rest of the Old, Old Story.” Things can be perceived one way, but once the whole truth is shown, they no longer seem that way. Let’s get into this:

 1. The Church is Catholic

This is almost meaningless in any practical senses, unless it is an exhortation to all Christians to unite their churches. In the early church fathers, “catholic” refers to all the churches united and following the teachings of the apostles, over and against the gnostics who did not teach apostolic doctrine (then later, other heresies).

[The apostles] after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches, they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in unity, by their peaceful communion, title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality. (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 20; brackets mine, parentheses in original)

I apologize for the long quote, but in a refutation I like to put things in context. Of course, I always link my quotes from early Christian writers so you can read the context yourself.

I am relatively sure Restless Pilgrim would be satisfied that the quote above is what Christians, around the year 200 when Tertullian wrote, considered “catholic” in reference to churches. “Apostolic” and “Catholic” are both descriptions of the one holy church in ancient creeds, such as the Nicene Creed. The Apostles Creed, favored by Roman Catholic churches says only, “… Holy Catholic Church,” but the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin. (par. 863)

Note: There is no reason to link the Catechism of the Catholic Church because you can find anything in it by typing “Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 863” (for example) into any search engine.

While  Tertullian’s quote is much longer than the Catechism quote, you can see that both say that being a catholic church is tied to having a bishop descended from the apostles. I am certain that any Roman Catholic today would love his quote.

He does add, however:

Let [the heretics] produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. … But should they even effect the contrivance [produce such a roll], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 32)

Apparently, this apologist from the turn of the 3rd century believes that there are 2 requirements for being Catholic, and the second, to be able to show that your doctrines are from the apostles, triumphs over the first, because apostolic tradition is more important than apostolic succession.

What I mean by that is that holding to the one faith, the one set of doctrines, is more important than showing that your church was founded by the apostles. Not long before Tertullian wrote, Irenaeus writes an explanation for Tertullian’s arguments:

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these things just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. …  But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 10)

Note: At that same link you can find his “rule of faith,” the summation of what constitutes “the faith” that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

Restless Pilgrim’s Reference for Point 1

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

Note: You have to ignore the second paragraph in that link. Someone added a lot of text to Ignatius authentic letters and even wrote other letters in his name that were not his. Today scholars agree that the short version of seven letters. What Restless Pilgrim wrote is authentically from Ignatius. It was written either in AD 107 or 116. The dates have to do with the two times Hadrian was in Asia Minor near Ignatius to sentence him to death in the arena in Rome.

Restless Pilgrim is using this passage to say that “the Church is Catholic.” Great. Above, I have given the early Christian definition of what a catholic church is.

An Excursus on Bishops and Colleges of Elders

As an aside, it is very likely that only the churches in Asia Minor had one bishop leading a group of elders. I explain this in my article on Ignatius at Christian-history.org, so I won’t repeat it here. Tertullian, quoted above, refers to the churches in Asia Minor as “John’s foster churches” (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.v.v.html). Those churches would include the churches Jesus wrote to in Revelation 2-3, all of which were located within 100 miles of Ephesus. Ignatius wrote to Rome and 5 other churches, which were all also within 100 miles of Ephesus, in an area known as Asia Minor

The churches of Asia Minor were also unique for celebrating Passover on the same day as the Jews, which caused a controversy because the rest of the empire’s churches celebrated Passover on Sunday. This was a controversy from the mid-second century until the Council of Nicea pressured Ephesus and the churches around it to conform to the rest of the churches.

Ignatius was not from Asia Minor, but from Antioch of Syria, nevertheless tradition has it that he was appointed by John, and the fact that he addressed the same churches that Jesus did, through John, in the Revelation ties Ignatius to John as well.

Anyway, the point in that article I just linked is that Paul and Peter established churches in which all the elders were also bishops (lit. overseers or supervisors; Acts 20:17,28; 1 Peter 5:4). Historians call this a “college of elders.” It is likely that the churches of Asia Minor and also Antioch had one bishop over the college of elders, something done by John and therefore having apostolic authority.

I will add that the very early letters, “1 Clement” and “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians” give strong evidence that Paul and Peter’s churches continued to be led by a college of elders at least into the early 100s. Even Ignatius’ “Epistle to the the Romans” makes no mention of a bishop, which is unique among Ignatius’ letters.

Let me reiterate something that I mentioned to Restless Pilgrim on Facebook. I suppose this excursus on Ignatius in regard to bishops and elders is history with no real application because all the Roman Empire’s and Europe’s churches had a monepiscopal bishop and a college of elders by AD 150 at the latest.

 

 

 

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

A History of the Church Focused on the Parts That Interest You; Part 1: The inspired traditions of the apostles.

Posted on 01/29/2025 by Paul Pavao

My wife suggested I write a church history so that she can read it. I am going to do that bit by bit on this blog … I hope. (Part 2, Part 3)

I should point out that I am an amateur, part-time historian. I cannot know all of church history in detail like, say, Justo Gonzales does. On the other hand, I am going to focus on the parts I know my evangelical friends are curious about, and I will not dodge the challenging things that most histories written for the public avoid . Still, there may be a lot of “one thing led to another” when I get to the Medieval period.

I don’t want to start way back in the Old Testament like some histories do. In fact, I don’t want to start in the New Testament, but rather afterward. You should at least read Acts (in the Bible). It’s not a long book, more of a booklet. I’ll start after. In fact, I’m going to start today with the central doctrine held by the churches after the apostles had died.

The New Testament canon, the books of the New Testament that we consider inspired, were assembled over a few decades for one reason and one reason only. The early churches, for centuries, believed that the apostles themselves were inspired, not just their writings. Thus, the one reason that the early churches gathered the Gospels, letters, Acts, and the Revelation of John is because they were written by apostles or companions of apostles.

Many historians list other criteria, such as “approved by most churches” or “agreement with apostolic teaching,” but those are just evidence that a document was written by an apostle or a companion of an apostle. Obviously, if a document conflicts with the teachings that churches had heard from the apostles, then an apostle did not write it. Churches, too, especially the ones that had been established by an apostle could help determine whether a document could have been written by an apostle. I love the following quote:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. … For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question 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 to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (Irenaeus, c. 185, Against Heresies, Bk. III, ch. 4, par. 1; brackets added by translator)

This issue, that God gave the whole truth of the Gospel to Jesus, who passed it on to the apostles, who then gave it to the churches answers a lot of questions and disputes. Protestants are right in rejecting traditions invented by anyone except the apostles. The Orthodox and Catholics are right about holding to tradition, but only if that tradition can be shown to be from the apostles. Irenaeus writes again:

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. … Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these,  for no one is greater than the Master; nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. I, ch. 10, par. 2)

In John 14:26, Jesus said:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.

We tend to apply this to ourselves, and surely we should, in some sense, do so. However, Jesus didn’t personally say anything to us. Instead, he was speaking to the apostles at the Last Supper. They had heard him personally, and this is a promise that God would inspire them with memory of his teachings, which they would deliver, once for all, to the saints to be preserved unchanged (cf. Jude 1:3).

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, 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. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, they were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down, were filled with everything, and had perfect knowledge. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III, ch. 1, par. 1)

Finally, one more quote just to show you that Irenaeus was not the only one saying these things in the second century … Hmm, WordPress.com’s evil attempt to stop us old guys from writing won’t let me paste in one more quote. I posted on Facebook how terrible it is to use a “block editor,” which seems to be the choice for most blog writers and web site builders, and I got a bunch of agreements of how block editors are. They provide a “classic” editor, but it is glitchy.

Anyway, since their glitchy editor is not accepting more quotes right now, here is a web page full of quotes from the second and third centuries about the authority of the apostles as the only source of inspiration and tradition for the church.

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

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Other Warning Passages Are Practical Not Theology

Posted on 01/28/2025 by Paul Pavao
If you can’t see the video, click on this link to go to YouTube: https://youtu.be/Sb1x4fQOWtk?si=LUJs9-bdHv0tCIOk
Posted in Bible, Gospel, Holiness, Modern Doctrines, Rebuilding the Foundations, Teachings that must not be lost, Verses Evangelicals Ignore | Leave a comment

1 John, 2 Peter, Eternal Security and Assurance

Posted on 01/18/2025 by Paul Pavao

A friend of mine posted a video of a preacher going on and on about his incorrect theology of the atonement and eternal security. He tagged just me when he posted the video. Here is what I responded:

Have you read 1 John? In it he says, “I have written these things to you who believe so that you may know you have eternal life.” What “things” did he write? He wrote, “If you love the world, the love of the Father is not in you.” He wrote, “If you say you know God, but do not keep his commandments, you are a liar and the truth is not in you.” He even wrote about assurance. He said that if you want to assure your heart before God, then love in deed and truth, not just in words.

At the heart of the problem is his question, “Is there a sin Jesus did not pay for?” Jesus did not pay for sin. He paid for you and me. He ransomed us from sin, and therefore WE are bought with a price and must therefore purify ourselves in body and soul.

This guy’s whole argument crashes on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-7. All of them say there are sins that will keep us out of the kingdom of God. One of them says Paul warned about this repeatedly, and the other two tell us not to be deceived that there are sins that will keep us out of the kingdom, yet here is a man deceiving us about that very subject.

People claim that they have the righteousness of Christ rather than their own righteousness. The apostle John seems to agree with this, but he tells us not to be deceived about the fact that the only people who have the righteousness of Christ are those who are living righteously (1 Jn. 3:7).

I could go on about this for 30,000 words and 50 or 100 Scriptures, but that’s not what Facebook is for. You cannot only look at the verses you like. What was Paul’s response to his own teaching? Paul’s response was to discipline his body and bring it under subjection so that he would not be disqualified (1 Cor. 9:24-27). Paul’s response was to press forward, forgetting everything that was behind, so that he could attain to the resurrection because he had not yet attained (Php. 3:8-15).

Peter told us to live in fear because our Father is the God who will one day judge impartially (1 Pet. 1:17). Our assurance is that if we cling to Christ and do his will, we will bear fruit because he died to make us doers of good works (Rom. 14:9; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Cor. 5:15; Tit. 2:11-15).

Let’s be like Paul and confidently affirm that God’s people must be careful to do good works (Tit. 3:8), not like this guy who is telling us our works don’t matter.

There was one more verse I was going to include in my Facebook response, but I included so many that I forgot it. It could not be more pertinent:

Be diligent to make your calling and election sure because if you DO THESE THINGS [described in vv. 5-7], you will never stumble, for IN THIS WAY an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:10-11)

Posted in Bible, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Evangelicals, Gospel, Modern Doctrines, Rebuilding the Foundations, Verses Evangelicals Ignore | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jesus Prefers Unity of Spirit to Unity of Bishops and Popes

Posted on 01/08/2025 by Paul Pavao

So someone commented on my YouTube video on the rise of the pope on YouTube with “So in your view, Christ had no plan for how His Church would survive for the rest of time and unending? How old is your church and what is your bishop’s name? Serious questions. Not trolling.”

I wrote:

I have answers for those questions, but my video does not require me to answer them. I need to make that clear first. My video is simply history. It is accurate history.

I have been puzzling over Jesus’ plan for his church ever since I wrote Decoding Nicea. The fact is, if “the Church” is a big organization like the Catholics and Orthodox, then Jesus began disassembling his church in the 5th century. He sectioned off Egypt and Syria at the 3rd and 4th ecumenical councils. The Persian and Indian churches were separated, though not excommunicated like Syria and Egypt, in the same century. Worst of all was the descent of the Roman Catholic church into irreligion and immorality in the tenth and eleventh centuries with the popes being selected by powerful Italian families (see my book, Rome’s Audacious Claim). In the 1300s, French families and cardinals became even more powerful than the Italian families, and the bishop of Rome, “the pope,” reigned in Avignon, France for 70 years. Then there were two popes, and for a very short time, there were 3!!

Oh, and I skipped the official mutual excommunication between the pope and the bishop of Constantinople in 1054.

Obviously, Jesus plan was not to keep the big organization that claimed to be “the Church” together. It is still not together. Most Orthodox consider the pope a heretic, and the pope’s titles make him, by definition, an antichrist. It is Jesus who is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, not the pope.

So, my conclusion is that Jesus never wanted a unity of organization, but a unity of Spirit. We have a biblical command to “diligently” preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to love one another, to build one another up (Eph. 4:1-16). I know of no command to adhere to the one, true church organization.

In the beginning, the foundation of unity was churches all adhering together to the one faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3, see also Apostolic Tradition at Christian-history.org). You can find this in all the second-century “fathers” of the church. In the third-century fathers, the foundation of unity slowly shifts to the unity of the bishops. This is a big difference since Jesus is the Truth (Jn. 14:6), our one foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). Bishops are not “the Truth,” and they are not our one foundation.

The fruit of this shift can be seen in the divisions I described above. Jesus clearly is not standing with the big organizations and their apostolic succession. Instead, he continues to call us all to truth, commands us to unite, and most of us just ignore him putting our eternal destiny in danger (Gal. 5:19-21). In Galatians, note the numerous references to divisions and schisms in that passage.

Posted in Bible, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Early Christianity, History, Leadership, Rebuilding the Foundations, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Assembling the Church, One Another, and the Outreach Meeting

Posted on 01/07/2025 by Paul Pavao

I talk and write about Hebrews 10:24-25 quite often:

Let’s consider how to provoke one another to love and good works, not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Obviously, when the church assembles, it is supposed to be doing far more than sitting in a pew and listening to a sermon.

When I bring up Hebrews 10:24-25, I am generally pointing out that most Sunday morning services do not allow for any “one anothering,” much less “provoking” one another to love and good works. Today, though, I want to point out that our Sunday morning services provide a critically important service.

I don’t want Sunday morning services to stop. I want them to be understood for what they are, outreach services. They are places that Christians can use to find Christians with whom they can love, serve, and encourage one another. In most cases, they won’t be able to do those things on Sunday morning, but they can meet Christians with whom they can “one another” during the rest of the week.

I also need to credit churches with Sunday morning services with knowing that their Sunday morning services are not enough. Many churches today provide small group meetings under various names (cell groups, life groups, home church, etc.).

I do wish that every time a Christian, including our pastors, quoted “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” that they added that the assembling of ourselves together means stirring one another to love and good works and exhorting*. I wish that pastors warned Christians that serving Jesus is not and cannot be a private thing. I wish also that they warned us of the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13) and the deceitfulness of riches (Matt. 13:22). All this is important, and it only rarely happens.

*Note: The Greek word for “exhort” has a wide range of meaning. I think those meanings are best summed up in 1 Thessalonians 5:14.

On the other hand, what does happen on Sunday mornings is helpful. As said, it is a place to find Christians. When a person realizes that they need to get their lives right and decide it is time to follow Jesus, they all know they can go to a church on Sunday morning and find help. God forgive us that sometimes that help is pitiful, but often that person can find someone to help them get started and to stick with them along the way.

So when I quote Hebrews 10:24-25 and complain that we don’t do what it says, nor even know what it says, please don’t interpret me to mean that Sunday mornings are useless. No, I wish we would all know that Sunday morning is not “church.” If it were church, we would be one anothering. It is, though, outreach, and that outreach is extremely effective.

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

My Experiences with Praying in Tongues

Posted on 12/31/2024 by Paul Pavao

Believing in Jesus

I was raised Catholic. When I was saved at 21 (in 1982), my introduction to Protestant Christianity was foreign to me, brand new, and exciting. It was also mostly Pentecostal. 

My boss, Sgt. Roger Thomas, is the one who opened me up to Jesus, and I’m certain it was much more his prayers and his joyful, kind demeanor than the many words he said to me. On the weekends, he was assistant pastor at a Church of God in Christ, a black and solidly Pentecostal church.

I actually surrendered to Jesus after a Wednesday night service at a (mostly white) Assembly of God church. A two-hour talk with Robin Whitley led to me agreeing that Jesus was the Son of God. I said it knowing that meant I had to listen to him, and as soon as “yes” came out of my mouth, I was flooded with joy. It seemed like the whole world had changed. 

I prayed inwardly, “God, what did you do to me?”

God answered in a way I still can’t explain 42 years later, “I just baptized you in my Holy Spirit.”

Praying in Tongues for the First Time

Two days after I was saved, I went back to the Assembly of God for a Bible study, Robin came up to me immediately, and I told him what had happened to me on Wednesday. I had not told him that night. I had said nothing about the most amazing experience of my life because I had not wanted him to think he “won” our conversation. (Sheesh! Even I marvel at the stupidity of that thought.)

But even after I told him that God had told me he baptized me in the Holy Spirit, he said I still needed the baptism in the Holy Spirit because I had not prayed in tongues. 

For the next two weeks I was very confused because I did not yet know that when God tells you something and a human tells  you something different, you should ignore the human.

While I did know that I should believe God over Robin, I was confused about whether I needed to speak in tongues. Remember, I was not just newly saved, Protestantism was a whole new culture I had never experienced. I had only had conversations with one committed Protestant follower of Jesus in my whole life. As far as I knew at that point, 2 days into the journey, everyone I met at church had had the same amazing experience as me and every one of them prayed in tongues.

I prayed every day for two weeks that God would give me the gift of languages. (Let’s use modern English from here on. Referring to “languages” as “tongues” is archaic.) During that time I read a tract that suggested I try starting with a couple words to sort of “kick start” the gift. I tried that, and it didn’t work.

Back in those days, Pentecostal churches spent a lot of time praying, even the “Pentecostal lite” Assemblies of God. Two weeks after my first Friday night Bible study, I went again and was on my knees praying, when words I did not understand came flowing out of my mouth. There was no striving, no trying to form words, they were just there. 

From then on, I could pray in a language or languages I did not understand. For the next couple years, praying in languages felt like a natural part of my prayer life and made me feel close to God.

An Experience with Praying in Unknown Languages

Very early on, certainly within the first 9 months I was a Christian, I went to work, midnight shift, and our swing shift electrician had dropped a bolt in an F-15 cockpit. This is really bad because as the plane does maneuvers, a lost object can move around, block linkage, and prevent steering. He had spent most of his shift trying to find the bolt, but without success.

I went to plane, and I searched for over an hour, pulling this and that control box. The F-15 is a joy to work on. Everything is in easily removed modules, and a cockpit in a fighter jet is small. The seat had been removed, so it should have been no problem to find it, but it was. After something over an hour, I got out of  the cockpit and walked around the plane for 15 minutes, praying in an unknown language. 

God told me where the bolt was.

I wasn’t sure how the bolt could have found its way under the map case but, as far I as was concerned, it did.

I needed an extension to remove the map case, so I headed to the tool room to get one. My boss (the night sergeant, not Roger Thomas) was there, and when I told him I thought the bolt was under the map case, he told me it was impossible. He wouldn’t let me get the extension, and he sent me back out to the plane. 

I wasted my time looking in places I’d already looked for about 15 minutes, and then I told myself, “This is stupid. God told me it’s under the map case.”

I went back to the tool room, didn’t go in until I made sure my boss wasn’t there, grabbed the extension, pulled the map case, and retrieved the bolt. I don’t think I ever told my boss it was under the map case.

Another time, at the Assemblies of God I was attending, I felt like God wanted me to give a “word,” a few-second message, to the congregation. I was new to Christianity and a timid person, so I told God that if someone gave a message in tongues, I would give my message as an interpretation. Now, I was at that church 9 months, and over those 9 months I only heard a person speak out loud in tongues 3 times. This was one of those times. Almost instantaneously, someone spoke out in tongues.

The end of that story, which makes me cringe to this day, is that I was too timid to speak out despite the instantaneous answer to prayer. Someone else did, though, simply quoting a verse from John that was quite similar to what God had told me to say. 

About a year later, I told that story to a guy who was against praying in other languages. His response was, “That’s asinine.” There’s no sense continuing a conversation with someone who reacts like that, so I left to find a dictionary. I’d never heard that word before. (It means “utterly stupid or silly.”)

Change Over Time

Finding that bolt happened in 1982. For about 15 years, probably because of all the controversy over praying in unknown languages, I wondered if my “gift” was even real. I’ve been praying in an unknown language or languages for 42 years, though, so there’s been 25 years of growing comfortable that my fellowship with God is enhanced by the gift. 

Even when I’m praying in a language I do not understand, I sometimes know, internally, what or whom I’m praying for, and I’ll jump from English to the unknown language and back again. 

I’ve become quite settled with praying in other languages as an aide to my fellowship with God and my prayer life.

Theology of Praying in Tongues

I know the arguments of Pentecostals that everyone should pray in tongues. If the Book of Acts were the only book in the New Testament, there would be no doubt that they are right. But Paul, who rejoiced that he prayed in tongues more than any of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14:18), also asked “Do all speak in various languages?” in a rhetorical tone that demands a “no” answer in 1 Corinthians 12:30.

Their argument implies that those who do not speak in various languages are lesser Christians because Pentecostals associate speaking in languages with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus, those who speak in languages have the fullness of the Spirit, while those who don’t have a lesser portion.

I can tell you from 42 years of fellowship in many churches in many places that this is nonsense. People who don’t speak in tongues are as righteous and unrighteous as those who do. Tongue-speakers are not more righteous, insightful, or loving than other Christians. They’re the same, some great, some good, some not so good.

On the other hand, I like and mildly agree with Demos Shakarian’s statement back in the 1960s that “We Pentecostals have the same piece of steak as everyone else; we just keep it in the frying pan while most leave it in the freezer.”

This isn’t always good. A zealous, boastful hypocrite is a horrible thing to behold.

One of the most well-known Christians of the second-century, a man who was taught as Christian in Smyrna, in modern Turkey, and then was sent as a missionary to Gaul (modern France), all the way across Europe, wrote:

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:6)

I think we Christians are prone to thinking that our theories about what the Bible says have some authority, even though they are just our own interpretations of the Bible. For me, as a teacher, it is my responsibility, when I make an assertion about what the Bible teaches, to show that my interpretation is a reasonable enough that my hearers/readers will walk away convinced by the same clear Scriptures that convinced me. Even more importantly, I believe that I and all teachers should dump our theory when reality shows it to be false.

What I mean by this is that the quote above shows us, in reality not theory that speaking all kinds of languages did not disappear when the New Testament was complete, so that particular interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 is false. 

It also tells us that, in practice, not everyone spoke in tongues around AD 185, when this was written. Because that same author also claimed that the whole Church–from barbarian Europe to Rome, the capital of the empire, to Turkey and the Middle East, and to North Africa–held to one truth “just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart” (Against Heresies, Bk. I, ch. 10), then we can conclude that the apostles did not teach their churches that everyone should be speaking in tongues. Surely that would not have been forgotten by all churches in the course of just a century. 

Remember, too, that the first quote from Irenaeus, he is speaking with great honor of those who were spiritual, and understood mysteries, tying that together with those who had the gift of various languages. Churches that honored speaking in unknown languages would not have forgotten that they were taught that everyone should do so.

Anyway, my point is that observations of reality, of what actually happened–tongues did not pass away after the New Testament was completed and not all spoke in tongues–trumps our theoretical interpretations of Scripture. 

A Final Observation

Praying in unknown languages is an awkward subject in many non-Pentecostal churches. What is humorous, to me, is that when I’m part of a church where praying in unknown languages is rarely mentioned, when even one person finds out that I do, invariably numerous others in the church will let me know they do as well. 

To all you Baptist pastors, “They are among you.”

Honestly, though, I think most Baptist pastors know that. 

Note: There is a very interesting book, a testimony of going to China alone and into the worst part of Hong Kong, called Chasing the Dragon, by Jackie Pullinger and and Andrew Quicke. Ms. Pullinger had her converts there praying in unknown languages every time they face withdrawal and experience some amazing success there. (“Chasing the Dragon” seems to be a popular title, so make sure if you try to purchase the book that it is the one by Jackie Pullinger.) 

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