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

God’s Stubborn Love and Abundant Pardon

Posted on 12/09/2024 by Paul Pavao

All of us who are not oblivious to our own weaknesses have prayed the opening lyrics to Kathy Troccoli’s “Stubborn Love”:

Caught again, Your faithless friend
Don’t You ever tire of hearing what a fool I’ve been?
Guess I should pray, but what can I say?
Oh, it hurts to know the hundred times I’ve caused You pain
Though “Forgive me” sounds so empty when I never change
Yet You stay and say, “I love you still”
Forgiving me time and time again.

Yesterday I wrote about resurrection and eternal judgment as part of a post on the “elementary principles” or “first things” of Christ. In such situations, what I believe is a teaching gift from God kicks in, and I draw Scriptures together into a picture of “the faith” as it was delivered to the saints by the apostles (Jude 1:3). Often, I am doing that purposely to contrast “the faith” as it was delivered by Martin Luther and John Calvin to the evangelicals specifically and the Protestants in general.

I have learned over my decades of writing and teaching, though, that what I say is not always what people here. More and more then, I have had to intensely focus on the mercy of God. I do not want to compromise God’s standards, nor justify sin, but the reality is that almost all of us know the feeling behind Kathy Troccoli’s words in “Stubborn Love.” They’re very similar to the words in Casting Crown’s “East to West.”

Maybe I should learn from John’s first epistle, arguably the harshest, scariest letter in the New Testament (next to Hebrews?). He does not wait till the end to emphasize the mercy of God, he begins with it … before he goes on to teachings significantly scarier than what I wrote yesterday.

This is especially true if we can understand what John means by walking in the light. First let me write out 1 John 1:7-2:2:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we haven’t sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a Helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. And he is the “at-one-ment” for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

In the verse that precedes this section John says that if we claim to have fellowship with God, but walk in darkness, then we are liars. It is easy to conclude from this that walking in darkness is walking in sin, and walking in the light is walking in purity. That conclusion is wrong, however.

John writes about walking in the light in his Gospel as well. No one knows whether John is quoting Jesus in these verses or explaining Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, but they have biblical authority either way:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God. (Jn. 3:19-21)

Notice that this passage does NOT say “he who does good” comes to the light, nor that his deeds are “good,” but instead it is he who “does the truth” and his deeds are “done in God.”

I don’t believe this passage, nor 1 John 1:7, are about good deeds, but about deeds that are exposed to God. Paul wrote, “… everything that reveals in light” (Eph. 5:13). He also wrote:

You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), as you try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (Eph. 5:9-10, NASB)

Notice in this passage that “goodness, righteousness, and truth” are not the light, but “the fruit of the light.”

Light is that which exposes. We do not immediately live in mature righteousness when we become Christians. Instead, Peter describes a progression in which “if these things are in you and increasing” they make us always bear fruit (2 Pet. 1:3-8). Both Peter and the writer of Hebrews speak of those who are not mature, but need milk (Heb. 5:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:1). We should know the Lord more and obey him more as we grow older in him (cf. 1 Jn. 2:12-14). We are, however, immediately children of the light when we are saved (Eph. 5:9).

The point is that walking in the light means exposing your deeds to God even if they are evil … especially if they are evil. If you do so, you can have unhindered fellowship with those who are around you because you are not pretending to be something other than what you are. You also have ongoing purification from the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7).

You should live holy, but that is not what walking in the light means. Walking in the light means exposing your deeds to God and to others (privately to those who will pray for you) so that you can receive the fruit of the light from God and the prayers of those who are close to you (James 5:16).

God is a God of great mercy. Even under the Old Covenant, the Israelites knew to flee to the Lord because of his abundant pardon (Isa. 55:7). Perhaps the most repeated phrase in the Old Testament is “his mercy endures forever” (cf. Ps. 136).

Perhaps the most telling use of that phrase is in Lamentations 3:21-23. Lamentations is a lament about the captivity in Babylon. It has just begun, and Jeremiah is pouring out his heart in sadness for Judah’s sin that has caused God to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. He knows they will be there seventy years for their sin, but right in the middle of that loment, he writes:

This I recall to my mind; therefore I have hope. It is because of Yahweh’s loving kindnesses that we are not consumed, because his compassion doesn’t fail. They are new every morning. Great is your faithfulness. (Lamentations 3:21-23)

As we believe the frightening words that are written in chapters 2-4 of 1 John–and the words from Scripture in my section on eternal judgment a few days ago–let us first remember the words of 1 John 1:7-2:2. He does want us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Php. 2:12); he does want us to “make every effort” to add virtue to our faith (2 Pet. 1:5) and to “make every effort” to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10); but he also wants us to know that when we falter, he has made “abundant” (Isa. 55:7) provision for our stumbling growth.

I write about 1 John 1:7-2:2 all the time. Maybe I can post the longer version from my book, Rebuilding the Foundations (available wherever books are sold) on this blog sometime so it’s quickly available. Here today, I will leave out my arguments and just expound this passage from my perspective.

1 John 1:7-2:2 not only tells us that God knows we will sin, but it refers to those who claim they don’t as liars. The 1 John 2:1-2 part says the goal is not sinning, but God has a provision if we do. That’s the mildly encouraging skeleton.

The great part is what John says about walking in the light. It is easy to think in the context of John’s letter that “walking in the light” means walking in righteousness. No, it means “walking in the open.” It means exposing your deeds to God and man. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9), and we are to confess them to men as well (James 5:16).

When we do our deeds before God, exposing them to God, and letting God shine his light on them, 1 John 1:7 says that we will have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus will continually cleanse us from sin (the Greek is the word from which we get catharize … look up catharize). This is because, as Paul says in Ephesians 5, the fruit of the light is righteousness, goodness, and truth.

Be out in the open, expose everything to God and as much as possible to your brothers and sisters in Christ, and God will abundantly pardon, give you fellowship, and continually catharize you. It doesn’t get much better than that. Or does it?

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

God is on a mission because your destiny is to be conformed to the image of Christ so that Jesus can have many brothers and sisters (Rom. 8:29). This is God’s mission, to make you just like Jesus.

You may be a faithless friend, like Kathy Troccoli sang. You may wonder how God could possible forgive you one more time, and part of it is that he’s expecting you to forgive like he does. Your foolish repetition of stupid sins you hate helps you know how merciful he expects you to be to others.

Don’t bail out on him. Don’t turn you back on him. If we are faithless, he remains faithful because he cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13). We are his workmanship (Eph. 2:10). He expects us to cooperate, to make every effort, but he knows exactly how good or bad you will be at that, and if you are loyal to him, you will get to see his provisions for your weakness.

That same verse says that if we deny him, he will deny us, so be fiercely loyal. Give yourself to loyalty and honoring God, this is the first and greatest commandment. If you do it, your will find that your miserable failures help you fulfill the second greatest commandment, to humbly love others a yourself, and even to esteem them above yourself as worthy of more honor! (Php. 2:1-4).

Let’s fight the good fight. If you don’t want to ashamed when Jesus comes, remain in him (1 Jn. 2:28) through thick, thin, stupidity, and failure. Stay on the potter’s wheel, and do not be flung off!

Posted in Bible, Gospel, Holiness, Rebuilding the Foundations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Which Denomination Gets It Right?

Posted on 12/09/2024 by Paul Pavao

I was asked  about which major denomination* (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) gets it right (in my opinion). I want to share my answers in a post. My first answer:

The persons or churches that devote themselves to love and good works by encouraging one another to walk in the Holy Spirit, subdue the flesh, and seek first the kingdom of God.

My second answer:

I think the practice of the Orthodox, especially in the matter or icon veneration and overconfidence in their traditions, is a deal breaker. On their preservation of apostolic theology, though, I have learned a lot from them. The Roman Catholics have destroyed the faith of the apostles by ridiculous papal decrees and centuries of irreligious behavior by their pope and clergy. The Protestant Reformation was insufficient to restore the faith once for all delivered to the saints from the Catholics because sola Scriptura is neither scriptural nor practical.

No church so large as Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox has recovered from the introduction of the public–sons of Belial who walk by the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience–into the church and its affairs. Paul gives a long warning about this in 2 Cor. 6 and a short one in 1 Cor. 5.

Individual churches can and are rescuing themselves from the influence of proud & wicked men, but as long as education is honored above righteousness, it seems to me we are fighting a hopeless battle. As long as only the few are doing the exhorting (the super important parakaleo-ing, cf. 1 Thess. 5:12-14; Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25), the church is crippled.”

*Note: By definition, “Orthodox” and “Catholic” and “Protestant” are “denominations” because there name differentiates them from other Christian organizations. I was neither trying to make a religious nor polemic point by using the term.

Posted in Church, Early Christianity, Protestants, Rebuilding the Foundations, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The elementary principles of Christ

Posted on 12/03/2024 by Paul Pavao

I am slowly–very slowly–building a curriculum for discipleship. I wrote a post about 3 weeks ago on the skeleton of that curriculum: 1. Becoming a Christian; 2. Living like a Christian; and 3. Staying a Christian.

It is certain that if I want to write about becoming a Christian, then I must include the “message of the first things of Christ” mentioned in Hebrews 6:1-2. Most translations use something akin to the King James’ “elementary principles of Christ.” My rendering is more literal, though the “message of the first things of Christ” is equivalent to “elementary principles of Christ.”

The writer of Hebrews, possibly Paul but hotly debated, gives us six teachings that are the “first things” or “elementary principles” of Christ:

  1. Repentance from dead works
  2. Faith towards God
  3. Teaching of baptisms
  4. Laying on of hands
  5. Resurrection of the dead
  6. Eternal judgment

Meyer’s New Testament Commentary tells me that these are doublets. Repentance from dead works goes with faith towards God; the teaching of baptisms goes with the laying on of hands; and the resurrection of the dead goes with eternal judgment.

On the issues of Greek grammar structure, Meyer is light years ahead of me. I’m  a beginner, and he is an expert. I am going to simply believe him. It seems obvious that repentance and faith go together and that resurrection and judgment go together. Once he said that baptisms, plural, and the laying on of hands were together, that link seemed obvious to me as well. I’ll explain that link below.

If I were teaching a class, I would explain these doublets as quickly as possible, then leave the juicy (=fun) details to a discussion that would consume most of the class time. Let’s do this blog post that way.

Repentance from Dead Works and Faith Towards God

As I said, this connection is obvious. Jesus began his preaching ministry with, “The time is fulfilled, and God’s Kingdom is at hand! Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Not so obvious is what dead works are. “Dead works” is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in Hebrews. The other is Hebrews 9:14:

… how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without defect to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Meyers gives a simple definition of dead works: dead works are works that do you no good (“in themselves vain and fruitless”). Paul’s goal in Romans is to convince Jews (and teach Gentiles) that it is more powerful to believe in God through Jesus Christ than to try to do good deeds by your own power in obedience to the law. Faith in God brings favor and the Holy Spirit which transform and empower you to do overcome sin and do good, to obey the Spirit and put to death the deeds of the body (e.g., Romans 6:7-14; 8:1-13).

If you ignore the call of God to a covenant of faith which produces righteousness, then you will live in dead works, walking by the flesh rather than the Spirit. Your works may not even be evil; they’re just “vain and fruitless.”

As Christians we have repented of these dead works and entered into the promises given to Abraham by faith. Speaking of which, I always loved the song “I’m a Covenant Woman.”

The Teaching of Baptisms and the Laying on of Hands

When I was a new Christian, this was a puzzle to me. I had an idea of what this might mean, but the dissension over baptism, baptisms (of water and the Holy Spirit), speaking in languages, and laying on of hands between Baptists and Pentecostals distressed and confused me.

How wonderful it was to find the writing of the apostles’ churches (“early church fathers”) and see their strong emphasis on baptisms, baptism in water and in the Holy Spirit. Three things make me confident that they knew exactly what the writer of Hebrews meant by the teaching of baptisms and the laying on of hands.

  1. They were too close to apostolic times to have forgotten a “first principle of Christ.”
  2. There universal practice was to baptize in water (by immersion, but if water was not available, then pouring three times over the head, once each in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, e.g., Didache 7), then anointed the baptized person with oil, laying hands on them, and praying for them to be baptized in the Holy Spirit (e.g., Tertullian, “On Baptism,” chs. 6-8).

The teaching of baptisms refers to the baptism in water, where sins are forgiven and the sinner is born again or “regenerated” (John 3:3-5; see also Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” ch. 61), and baptism in the Holy Spirit, wherein the saints are empowered for their new life. The laying on of hands was a part of this (see link in #2 above). These are the baptisms, plural, that all Christians receive. Paul mentions this in his letter to Titus:

… not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5)

Note: From experience, I know many will miss my point and tell me, “See, see! We are not saved by works.” I, of course, know this is true. We are transferred from darkness to light, born again, and created in Christ Jesus to do good works by faith and apart from works. We do not, however, inherit God’s kingdom at the judgment by faith, but by works (2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 25:31-46; cf. Rev. 2-3).

Now, we see in Scripture that laying on of hands was also done to appoint elders (1 Tim. 5:22), impart gifts (1 Tim. 4:14), and send missionaries (Acts 13:3), but this article is about Hebrews 6:1-2 and the “first things of Christ.” Appointing elders is not a “first thing,” nor is sending gifted men into the world.

The “teaching of baptisms and laying on of hands” is a doublet referring to our first salvation, being born again in the baptisms of water and Spirit, the latter done with the laying on of hands. You can see this throughout Acts, but just Acts 19:1-6 makes a fine example.

Note: From experience, I know I will get a lot of pushback on baptism because evangelicals don’t want to believe it has anything to do with being saved. This is despite the fact that baptism is repeatedly said to be for the release of sins and that Galatians 3:27 tells us that baptism is how we put on Christ. Obviously, God has been quite flexible with us, saving many by faith without baptism but baptism, according to Scripture, is supposed to be what we do as an initiation rite into the church. We believer, and therefore we are buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him to new life when we come out of the water. It is a powerful symbol that has been poorly replace by a sinner’s prayer.

The Resurrection of the Dead and Eternal Judgment

The resurrection of the dead is the hope of all Christians. In Romans 8:18-25 the day on which God redeems our bodies is such a glorious day that the whole creation rejoices. In fact, God’s creation waits with eager expectation for that day. For me, it brings to mind a dog’s wagging of both tail and body in its eager expectation of its master’s return. I want to be like that dog in the way I wait for my Master.

We have to qualify for this day, however. Paul describes his great effort to attain to that day in Philippians 3:8-14, then tells us in 8:15 to have the same mind. He does make a promise to us that that day will find us “holy, without defect, and blameless” if we continue grounded and settled in the faith.

I am scared for Americans like you and me, though, that we don’t know what it means to be grounded in the faith. Too many of us feel free to ignore things Jesus taught. For example, how many Christians agree that if we are slapped on one cheek–which implies insulting, not a fist fight–we should turn the other? Mr. T, the famous actor from the 70s and 80s doesn’t. His words to the public were, “I’m a Christian, but I’m not Jesus. If you hit me on one cheek, I’m gonna hit you back.”

Worse, though, is our attitude about riches. It does not look to me like we believe that it is so difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God that it requires a miracle of God. I have never heard a sermon that would help me decide whether a retirement account equates to storing up riches on earth. I’ve almost never heard someone teach that wanting to be rich is a trap that leads to many foolish and harmful lusts. These lusts “drown men in ruin and destruction” (1 Tim. 6:19).

You’d think that in the richest, or almost richest, nation in the world, the New Testament warnings against wealth would be trumpeted and repeated often. Instead, the only one constantly trumpeting publicly about wealth are prosperity preachers teaching the very opposite of those warnings.

It takes generosity to save a rich man (1 Tim. 6:16-19). It is by generosity that a “good foundation” is laid up “against the time to come” (eternal judgment), so that we may “lay hold of for eternal life.”

Doesn’t the wording of that passage sound like Paul’s words in Philippians 3:8-14?

Peter tells all of us, not just the rich, to live in fear of that day throughout “the time of our sojourning here” (1 Peter 1:17). In fact, by saying “If you address as Father the one who impartially judges according to our works,” he is telling us that warning is for Christians alone. The lost don’t necessarily know that there is coming a day when God will judge everyone by one Man (Acts 17:31).

We cannot pick and choose the verses we like as though the Bible were a buffet. We ignore all the verses warning us about eternal judgment (by works) at our peril. We try to brush off Jesus’ warning that one day we Christians along with everyone else will be divided into sheep and goats, differentiated only by their treatment of the needy (Matt. 25:31-46), by calling it a judgment of the nations. Do we really thing the sheep and goats are nations, or that nations do not consist of people?

More amazingly, I have heard Christians, and even pastors, teach that when we stand before the Bema seat of Christ, rather than the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20, that only our good works will be judged. I guess they missed the “whether good or bad” at the end of 2 Corinthians 5:10.

The Bible tells us that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Php. 2:12), but we spend our time on assurance instead. Yes, we are able to work out our salvation because God is at work in us both to desire and to do his will, but let’s not forget Paul’s application of working out our salvation in the very next chapter! (Php. 3:8-15).

I write all the time about the resurrection (of life for the righteous and of condemnation for the wicked–John 5:27-29) and eternal judgment a lot on this blog and on Facebook, and I hope I have said enough here to explain why. If you have questions about what I have written here, I write a lot on Facebook and this blog about resurrection and eternal judgment; I have at least dozens of other verses that I cover on this subject.

Unfortunately, resurrection and eternal judgment is supposed to be a “first thing,” but evangelical tradition has just about erased it from our mind. If you want the short version of how resurrection and eternal judgment work, search the word “if” in the New Testament or just keep your eye out for it as your read your Bible, then read Jesus’ letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3. There Jesus gives us a picture of how he will judge on the last day, judging those 7 churches by their deeds without every mentioning their faith.

On the subject of resurrection and eternal judgment I beg you with the apostles that you do not be deceived.

Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortionists, will inherit God’s Kingdom. Some of you were such, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Know this for sure, that no sexually immoral person, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words. For because of these things, the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience. (Eph. 5:5-6)

Little children, let no one lead you astray. He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. (1 Jn. 3:7)

Posted in Bible, Dealing with Scripture Honestly, Evangelicals, Gospel, Modern Doctrines, Protestants, Rebuilding the Foundations, Teachings that must not be lost, Verses Evangelicals Ignore | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments