Groanings Too Deep To Be Uttered

Posted on 02/08/2013 by Paul Pavao
In the same way, the Spirit also helps our weaknesses, for we do not know what to pray for like we should. However, the Spirit himself makes interession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. ~Romans 8:26

Let’s talk about tongues—meaning the spiritual ability to speak in a language you have not learned, whether anyone around you can understand the language or not.

I don’t think Romans 8:26 has anything at all to do with tongues, but we need to dispense with some controversial issues so that they don’t interfere with looking at what the Scripture has to say about prayer in this verse. Tradition—meaning beliefs that we got from our denomination, parents, or some other source to which we are emotionally bonded—can entirely steal our ability to interpret even the most obvious, straightforward teachings of the Bible.

And speaking and praying in tongues is an emotional issue these days, not as much as 30 to 50 years ago, but still an emotional issue.

I have a friend and mentor who, I’m pretty certain, believes that tongues have passed away because of 1 Cor. 13. He’s brought it up with me at least two or three times, and I always just tell him I don’t agree, then avoid discussing the issue.

The point of that comment is that even I, Mr. Theological Controversy, avoid arguing this topic, even with close friends.

Simply put, I think that, in regard to the interpretation of Scripture, tongues is a muddy enough issue that it has to be resolved on a practical, experiential basis, not a theoretical one.

Let me explain.

Tongues in Acts

The Book of Acts is often used to argue about the role of tongues in the church today. It is important that we remember that this is the issue. What about today? Should we be speaking and praying in tongues? Is there spiritual edification for us or for the body in praying in tongues, or has it ceased, as 1 Cor. 13:8 says it will at some point.

Despite the fact that the Book of Acts talks about tongues more than any other book of the Bible, it is, in my opinion, useless for determining anything about what we ought to do today.

The reason is that nothing is said about tongues in the Book of Acts that is doctrinal or theological. We are simply told that it happened. We are given no instructions, no reasons, no guide for the future.

I think the one thing we can all agree on concerning tongues in the Book of Acts is that it happened often, it happened at conversion, it’s never mentioned outside of conversion, and it seems to have happened to every convert present.

I would add that we can all agree that it always happened when some new group of people came into the church, but I think it’s really a stretch to suggest that the disciples of John in Acts 19:1-6 are a new group of people.

The others are:

  • The Jews on the day of Pentecost, represented by the apostles (Acts 2:1-4)
  • The Gentiles under the preaching of Peter (Acts 10:45-46)
  • Possibly the Samaritans under the preaching of Philip and the laying on of hands of Peter and John (Acts 8:14-18)

Tongues in 1 Corinthians

The only other place that tongues is mentioned is in 1 Corinthians 12-14. There we find some definitive guidance on the use of tongues in the church and in our private prayer life.

I keep using “tongues is” rather than “tongues are” because I’m talking about the gift of tongues. “Languages” would be a better translation than tongues, but we’re all used to using “tongues,” so, contrary to my normal manner, I’m sticking to convention.

Corinthians tells us:

  • Not everyone has the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 12:30)
  • Interpretation of tongues is also a spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12:30)
  • Tongues without love is useless (1 Cor. 13:1)
  • That tongues will stop when “that which is complete” comes (1 Cor. 13:8), as will prophecy and the gift of knowledge
  • That praying in tongues builds up the person praying, but not the church (1 Cor. 14:4)
  • Unless the tongues are interpreted (1 Cor. 14:5)
  • If we speak in tongues, we should pray that we can interpret (1 Cor. 14:13)
  • If you bless food in public in tongues, you are giving thanks well, but you shouldn’t do that because no one else can understand you (1 Cor. 14:16-17)
  • Paul prays and sings in tongues (1 Cor. 14:15)
  • Paul doesn’t understand what he’s praying or singing (1 Cor. 14:14)
  • Paul speaks in tongues more than any of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14:18)
  • And he thanks God for that! (1 Cor. 14:18)
  • Paul doesn’t speak or pray in tongues in the church (1 Cor. 14:19)

Summing Up the Scriptures on Tongues

What does that say for us today?

Honestly? I don’t know. Here’s the problem.

Whom do you know that speaks in tongues and that spoke in tongues spontaneously, without instruction or being told that they should speak in tongues?

One person? Two?

I attended and diligently participated in Pentecostal and charismatic churches for eight years. I read books about the history of the Pentecostal movement written by Pentecostals. I read everything that Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, T.L. Osborne, and several others wrote.

My experience?

Almost no one in the modern era has ever spoken in tongues without coaching. There are a few rare exceptions, but they are very rare.

I think it is undeniable that this is not what happened in the Book of Acts.

Were the apostles coached on speaking tongues before the Spirit fell on them? How about Cornelius? Did Peter really interrupt his sermon about Jesus to mention that real Christians speak in tongues, but Luke forgot to mention it?

No, in the Book of Acts, men and women spoke in tongues as the Spirit fell on them—spontaneously, without coaching.

That simply doesn’t happen today. Or if it does, it happens so rarely that I have never heard of it despite being on the mission field with Pentecostal missionaries and extensive experience in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches and literature.

I heard of one well-known ministry (a husband-wife team, I forget their names) that sat people down and had them say “abba” over and over until they “spoke in tongues.”

I’m sorry, that’s not the New Covenant’s gift of tongues. It is babbling.

Look up “travesty.” It’s an interesting word. What that ministry was doing is a “travesty” of tongues, not tongues itself.

Conclusion

I have to go to a prayer meeting. I’m late. I’ll give you a conclusion tomorrow.

There is a good, practical approach to tongues in the modern era, and the secret to it is locked up in Romans 8:26.

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

Questions About Salvation

Posted on 02/04/2013 by Paul Pavao

This is an email I wrote this morning. I think it’s anonymous enough to post publicly.

1. What does “saved” mean to me?

“Saved” is a big word that means different things in different context. In Romans 5:9-10 for example, “saved” is used in a future tense in reference to the judgment, being “saved from wrath.”

In that particular passage, our “past tense” salvation–when we were born again, forgiven, and brought into the life of Christ–is referred to as being “justified.” However, in Eph. 2:8, “saved” is a reference to the exact same thing that is called “justified” in Rom. 5:9-10.

Let me give you a three-part picture. Every part can be called salvation, and the whole process can be called salvation, too. But each step has its own terminology that never varies, at least in Paul’s letters:

Stage 1: justification, born again, new creation – Jesus died for us, so that we could believe and obtain grace and have our past sins forgiven. Grace is the power of God to overcome sin and live spiritually, which is simply the power of the Holy Spirit in us. We have grace because we have the Holy Spirit. Grace is spiritual power (Rom. 6:14; Tit. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). Our previous sins are all forgiven here, and we die to our old life. We start a new life, and everything previous is forgiven and forgotten.

Stage 2: We live for Jesus on this earth by the power of the Spirit. Paul referred to this stage as “saved by his life” in Rom. 5:9-10. The picture of living on earth is spelled out in Romans 8 especially, but I like Galatians better. I love this picture, “Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. The life that I live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God” (Gal. 2:20).

When Paul talks about Jesus’ death (and I think other NT writers, too) to Christians in this stage, he speaks about what Jesus did for us in the past. Jesus’ death is what allows us to be forgiven and born again. We don’t live by Jesus’ death. We live by Jesus’ life, which is no different than living by grace or living by the Spirit.

Since you’re asking such specific questions, let me add that we still need daily forgiveness, which comes by Jesus’ blood. “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 every sin” (1 Jn. 1:7).

However, you should read “cleanse” correctly. The verse I just quoted is 1 John 1:7. Two verses later, in 1:9, John distinguishes between forgiveness and cleansing. We need both. The hymn “Rock of Ages” says it well, “Let the water and the blood, from the wounded side which flowed, be for sin the double cure, cleanse from guilt and make me pure.” The song uses “cleanse” for the forgiving part of Jesus’ death, while John uses “cleanse” for the deliverance part of Jesus’ blood, but the idea is the same even if the terminology is slightly different.

Stage 3: This is the judgment. It is possible to appear before the judgment blameless and without fault. In fact, that’s the plan. If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, that should be what we face at the judgment because Jesus’ blood will have been cleansing us daily.

But let’s not be fooled. If you want to have the righteousness of Jesus at the judgement, you had better be living in righteousness. John could not say it more plainly than he does in 1 Jn. 3:7-8: “Do not be deceived, he who practices righteousness is righteous as he is righteous. He who practices sin is of the devil.”

The judgment will be according to works. Nothing else. You can read about the judgment in Matt. 25 and Rev. 20, and there are numerous comments about it in the apostolic writings (2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rom. 2:5-8, etc.). Christians don’t get an easier judgment. They get the same judgment the world gets. There are not two judgments. The 2-judgment theory is a fantasy created by people who refuse to believe that Christians are judged by their works.

This is stage 3. If you live by his life, then you will be saved from wrath at the judgment. If you don’t, then you will be condemned with the world.

2. Where does grace come from?

Have I already answered this above, like I hope?

3. How is Jesus’ death “for us”?

Christians today get so stuck on the penal substitution theory of the atonement, even though it was just invented 700 years ago, that they can’t really conceive of anything else. “For us” gets to meaning “in our place.” The Scriptures don’t really use that terminology.

A person can die for me by being my substitute in a trial, though I doubt that has ever happened or that any judge would allow it to happen. A person can also die for me by throwing himself on a grenade next to me. “For me” means I benefit from it.

The benefits we receive from Christ’s death are so great and so many that of course we can say he died “for us.” His death, according to Scripture, was a “ransom” and a “purchase” and a “redemption.” Who gets redeemed, purchased, or ransomed, and to whom is the redemption money, purchase price, or ransom paid? Slaves and captives are redeemed, purchased, or ransomed, and the price for the redemption, purchase, or ransom is paid to the captor or slave owner, not to the Father.

Our Father God paid the price for us. He paid with his only Son to redeem us from slavery. Jesus didn’t pay a price to God so God wouldn’t be mad. God already loved us, “while we were yet sinners” (Rom. 5:8). Nor was the blood brought to our slavemaster, satan. Instead, Jesus’ himself was given into the hands of satan. He was exchanged for us. We were set free from satan’s hold.

But it didn’t stop there. Satan didn’t know what he was getting into. He thought he had Jesus all wrapped up in the chains of death. Had he known that Jesus was going to shatter the chains of death forever, he never would have crucified the Lord of glory.

Jesus came roaring out of death, leading forth a host of captives, ending satan’s reign for all who would come to him. He gives his Spirit to all who believe, transforming them from mere humans into sons of God who house the very life of God and partake of his divine nature.

Jesus did all that “for us.”

4. What about baptism for the remission of sins?

You asked how this “fits into your points.” Um, I don’t know. I didn’t go back and look at the original Sola Fide article, so I’m not sure how baptism came up. I would likely have talked about it because it’s supposed to be the place where you acknowledge your belief, are buried with Christ, rise to new life, and receive the Spirit of God.

5. What is the point of having our sins forgiven, especially if it doesn’t lead to eternal life?

Wow. It’s amazing how brainwashed we modern Christians can get. So if I say that Jesus didn’t “pay the penalty” by suffering a death penalty in our place, then I said that forgiveness of sins doesn’t lead to eternal life???

I said no such thing. Of course forgiveness of sins has to do with eternal life. Sins were going to keep us from eternal life (Eph. 5:6). Jesus’ death brought both forgiveness of sins and deliverance from sin.

6. What does it mean to believe in Christ or have faith in Christ? Is it to believe that he is the Lord, the great I AM, the Messiah? That he’s the final judge? Something else?

I’m sorry for marveling. I would have asked questions like this, too, I think. However, no one who has not been showered with evangelical narrow-mindedness could even ask such a question.

Believing in Christ means believing in Christ. It’s not a reference to believing anything *about* Christ, that he’s this or that he’s that. It’s a reference to believing in him. Become his disciple, do what he says, believe everything he says, follow him.

Believe it or not, if you’re not brainwashed by weird Christian thinking, that’s what believing in someone will automatically mean to you. If I told you I believed in Hulk Hogan, you would expect to find me learning whatever Hogan teaches, living like him, and talking about his life and ways.

Unless we’re Christian, we all know that is what believing in a person means in Greek, English, German, Hebrew, or Pig Latin.

7. My case seems much stronger in the letters of Paul than in John.

The opposite is true. My case is stronger in John. Have you ever read 1 John? Consider these verses:

“Do not be deceived, he who practices righteousness is righteous as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil.”

“He who says, ‘I know him,” and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

“This is how that we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”

I focus on Paul in my writings on salvation by faith because evangelicals make their case primarily from Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. I use those letters primarily, and that is because I want to show that even Martin Luther’s great “faith” epistles don’t teach salvation by faith alone the way the evangelicals do.

Just so you know, from my perspective, I have to work at understanding even why you would reference Acts 13:48 as though it were relevant to our discussion. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” What do you think that means? Are you suggesting that if that verse is true, then there is no judgment by works for us? Are you suggesting that verse says that all our sins are forgiven, even future ones? Are you suggesting that verse says that anyone who believes [believes what?] has eternal life no matter what they do?

I am simply astounded that anyone would suggest that “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” somehow contradicts anything I’ve been saying. How much interpretation and “reading into” are you putting into those 9 words???

1 John 5:11 is worse. “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son?”

Oh, wait. Maybe I’m starting to get it. You’re saying that this verse must mean that we have “eternal” life, so now that we have it, we must go to heaven because we have life “eternally.” It can’t go away.

Okay, that at least helps me understand where you’re coming from.

Here’s my answer. That interpretation contradicts all sorts of verses, makes a mess of the apostles writings, and it’s only one possible interpretation.

Here’s a better one. It is the life that is eternal, not our possession of it. That verse says we have eternal life, not that we have life eternally. “Eternally” would be an adverb. It would describe a verb, and thus it would mean that our possession of life is eternal. However, “eternal” is an adjective. It describes the noun, life. The life is eternal, not our possession of it.

1 John 5:11 is talking about eternal life rather than our physical, temporary life. Not only is that life in the Son, as 1 John 5:11 says, but Jesus actually *is* that life, according to the start of 1 John. At the beginning of the letter, John tells us that he and the other apostles handled and saw eternal life. It came down and lived with us. Jesus is eternal life.

So yes, as long as we have the Son living in us, we have eternal life. If the Son departs from us, we no longer have eternal life, because “that life is in his Son.”

Take heart, though! Immortality is a reward of the judgment (Rom. 2:7). If you continue faithful to the end and overcome, then eternal life will be in you as well as in the Son. Then you will confidently possess eternal life eternally.

Let me add a question you didn’t ask:

8. How do we have assurance that we will go to heaven?

We don’t and we are repeatedly warned not to think we do. Peter tells us to fear because there is a judgment according to works, without partiality, coming to all of us (1 Pet. 1:17). Paul uses the example of the Israelites in the wilderness, who were baptized into Moses and had Christ with them, to tell the one who “thinks he stands” to “take heed, lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:1-12). John tells us that if we want to have assurance, then we need to love in deed and truth rather than in word and tongue. This will assure our hearts before him (1 Jn. 3:18-19). Jesus’ whole point in Matthew 7:21-23 is to snap us out of our assurance and make us afraid to be “workers of iniquity.”

And is it really possible to miss that 1 Cor. 6:9-11, which tells us not to be deceived, and Gal. 5:19-21, which tells us that Paul felt it necessary to warn his hearers repeatedly, and Eph. 5:5-7, which again tells us not to be deceived … is it really possible to miss that all these are warning Christians not to be fooled into thinking that they just have a guarantee of heaven?

I’m sorry, but a person who can’t tell that is what those verses are saying isn’t even trying. He’s just defending tradition, playing silly games. Such a person is not trying to find out what God, through Paul, is saying.

I apologize if any of my “marveling out loud” was offensive to you. It’s just that the ability of evangelicals to refuse to consider any alternative way of looking at any of their favorite verses is amazing.

Posted in Bible, Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Council at Jerusalem

Posted on 02/03/2013 by Paul Pavao

I’m not going to talk about the council at Jerusalem. I’m going to pass on an article about it. I’m quoted in it, though only as admitting I really didn’t know why the council chose those four laws to put on the Gentiles.

The following article, however, explains it perfectly. Pay special attention to the part about Leviticus 17, which is the last section.

Restless Pilgrim on the Jerusalem Guidelines

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

Leukemia in the Body of Christ

Posted on 02/02/2013 by Paul Pavao

I apparently stopped being notified by email of comments on this blog. I had a couple that sat for a few days before being approved. Sorry.

This is an email I wrote to someone. This is now in the “thinking out loud” stage. I’ve been through the “thinking quietly and talking only to close friends” stage for over a year. So this is the best stage to jump all over me if you’re offended by this, even though I’ve thought about it a while. At the moment, I’m still holding it before God, but I’m confident enough to say this out where anyone can hear it.

This is directed at professed Christians:

Leukemia in the Body of Christ

I had leukemia last year. Chemo, radiation, and a stem cell transplant have put it into remission, hopefully permanently. Leukemia, however, painted a really clear picture for me of a problem in the body of Christ.

Leukemia is a cancer. All it takes is for one cell to go bad, then survive. That one blood cell does not finish its development. It gets stuck along the way as an “adolescent,” not grown into it’s proper role. It then reproduces and reproduces.

It reproduces and reproduces, always clones of itself, and it and its clones do not know how to die. All our other cells are programmed to die when they are not functioning correctly or when they are overcrowded. Not cancer cells. They just keep multiplying until they crowd out all the other cells.

In other words, these cloned cells stop all the blood cells from doing their job, and they don’t fulfill their own role, either.

The church is like that today, and the leukemia cells are pastors.

Yeah, I really said that.

They have multiplied out of control, and they don’t know how to stop. They don’t quit, even if they are not doing the job God made them for, and even if their work is actually damaging to the church.

Leukemia cells crowd out other cells by sheer number. Pastors crowd out other gifts by the role they play rather than by numbers. Rather than training the saints so that the saints do the work of ministry (Eph. 4:11-12), they try to do it all themselves. The body of Christ is reduced to one big mouth with no other parts functioning.

That’s an exaggeration, but the picture is correct.

Worse, the pastors are not fulfilling their Scriptural function, but a new, false (cancerous) function. Some are evangelists, evangelizing the supposed church, preaching salvation messages to the same crowd every week.

Actually, they preach soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, confusing it for the Gospel. I thought I wrote a recent post on this, but I guess I didn’t. I did write a booklet on it. I’ll condense it and make it a post in the next few days.

Some are trying to do the work of shepherding, but most know little to nothing about real church life and the need for and power of unity. In fact, most vastly underestimate the importance of obedience to Christ understanding neither salvation nor grace nor the judgment.

Since they are qualified in the wrong way—by theological training at a seminary, college, or Bible school rather than by established character lived out before the church throughout their lives—it is no surprise that they function in the wrong way, teaching Christians to pursue the wrong goals.

Not everywhere is like that. There are exceptions. House churches are multiplying. Unique expressions of modern church arise more quickly than ever.

Nonetheless, the primary model of Christianity being displayed in the western world—and in the third world, for that matter, where we’ve transported our cancer—is a pastor-centered model that cannot be found in the Scriptures. In it the church is a building, and the center of church life is not the unity and love of the saints, but a couple meetings held at the church (meaning the building) every week, where a song leader, a group of money collectors, and a pastor are the only members functioning.

Leukemia. The body of Christ has leukemia, and the leukemic cells are pastors.

The cancer has not completely taken over, but it is very, very advanced. Kudos to the many who are fighting against it, but I hope you are going to step back and let God create the new blood system rather than building a new cancer into the work you are doing.

Treating Leukemia

What the hospital did for me when I had leukemia was destroy my entire blood system so that it could be built over again from scratch.

Hmm.

I had acute leukemia, though. Acute leukemia advances so aggressively that the patient usually has only weeks to live once it is diagnosed. My leukemia was found about six weeks before I would have died.

Chronic leukemia moves slower. Doctors don’t treat chronic leukemia like acute leukemia. Destroying a blood system and starting over kills a lot of patients.

If you have Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), about 75% of patients either can’t get or don’t survive the treatment.

What I had was worse, but the treatment was the same as the strongest AML regimen available.

From a nurse: “Wow. This is a big dose! Are they really giving you eight of those?”

Me: “Uh, no. They’re giving me twelve.”

The nurse left the room without comment.

Since patients can survive chronic leukemia for a long time, it’s better to give those patients safer treatment. Most chronic leukemia sufferers stay on a single pill dose of chemotherapy all their lives, and they’re never quite completely healthy and sometimes very, very sick.

I’m not going to explain that illustration. I’m just going back to thinking about it. I just wanted to let you chew on it with me.

Posted in Church, Gospel, Leadership, Leukemia | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jesus’ Demands

Posted on 01/24/2013 by Paul Pavao

I exchanged several emails with an Eastern Orthodox believer, I don’t know which branch, and in the midst of it I talked about how many “ancient church” members never think about or consider Jesus’ demand of his disciples: “Deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow me.”

Then I started thinking about how many people who know me, but who are not told or inspired by me to deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Jesus.

I don’t want to leave Jesus’ Gospel unsaid or undemonstrated.

So I want to share some thoughts that I’ve been reading on Facebook from a fellow named Brett Hancock. He’s been posting mini-sermons every day for a few days, and they remind me that I had better look at “deny myself,” while I’m looking at helping those who are missing the Gospel (and freeing them from churches that encourage them by example and by bad company—1 Cor. 15:33—to miss the Gospel).

I am not yet perfect, so back in the gym (this world and its tests) I go. … Thank God for the Church, a people serious about this training. … Hebrews 12:4 In your struggle against sin, you have not resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (1/24/13)

Will someone explain that when we hear and read Jesus speaking like this that he really means “pick up your remote control and kick back; I did it all for you”?

  1. Matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
  2. 2. Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

(1/24/13, Brett had five verses, not just two)

Finally, can any of you say that this question doesn’t make you tremble a bit? I was stung by this:

For the watered down preaching from pastors and priests today, ask yourself, why does the New Testament often say “MAKE EVERY EFFORT” if any amount of effort is acceptable to Christ? How much effort are you putting into your Christianity? (1/23/13)

Posted in Gospel, Holiness | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Penal Substitution

Posted on 01/23/2013 by Paul Pavao

I wrote a page on “penal substition” or the “substitutionary atonement” at Christian-history.org. However, because of the nature of my site, Christian History for Everyman, I included an exposition of the atonement from my perspective, which I hope was an educated one.

A solid explanation of the atonement is terribly difficult to nail down, both from a scriptural and historical perspective.

Perhaps this is good. Why should we humans be able to fully understand the most divine, sublime, paradoxical (God becoming flesh and dying?!), influential, and powerful act in human history? It should not surprise us that the power of the atonement is a mystery.

Today, I want to skip trying to explain the atonement and simply show that one extremely popular interpretation, penal substitution or substitutionary atonement, cannot be true.

Doing that is simple.

Penal Substitution

The idea behind penal substitution is that every sin earns the death penalty (a rather bizarre and frightening idea on its own, but we’ll leave that refutation for another post). Jesus offered pay the death penalty for us by dying on the cross. Being divine and sinless, his offering was sufficient to erase the penalty of sin for everyone.

This idea is called penal substitution because Jesus death was a substitute for our penalty. It’s also called the “paid penalty” theory for the same reason.

Problems with Penal Substitution

There’s two problems with this theory, both of them fatal to the theory. First, it contradicts several Scriptures, and second, its origin can be traced to Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. No one prior to A.D. 1200 believed it.

Novelty in Christian doctrine is not good.

Contradiction of Scripture #1

If Jesus paid for all sins by his death, then no sins can be judged. Many Christians, and even whole denominations, teach that unbelievers are not condemned for their sins, but because they did not believe in Jesus.

The apostle Paul flatly contradicts this:

For this you know, that no sexually immoral or unclean person, nor a covetous person, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Do not let anyone deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the disobedient. (Eph. 5:5-6, emphasis mine)

God … will render to everyone according to his deeds … to those that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [he will render] indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of mankind that does evil. (Rom. 2:5-6,8-9, emphasis mine)

Contradiction of Scripture #2

Others believe that penal substitution does not go into effect until we believe. In fact, Calvinists (whose doctrine I strongly oppose) teach that Jesus only died for those who will be saved.

Those who believe this often teach that the judgment for Christians, though according to works, will only include our good works. How can it include our sins? They have already been paid for.

Paul doesn’t agree:

For we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

Use of “Paid” and “Penalty” in Scripture

One final mark against penal substitution.

You would think that if penal substitution was correct, then the Scriptures would speak the way we do. It would use words like “the penalty was paid,” or “Jesus paid it all,” or “Jesus paid a debt he did not owe; I owed a debt I could not pay.”

We don’t find these things. We find the apostles teaching that Jesus paid a purchase price for us or that he was a ransom. The very word “redemption” implies a purchase price from slavery.

However, neither “ransom” nor “redemption” implies a price paid to God. Instead, ransoms and redemption money are paid to slave owners.

Most Christians I’ve mentioned this to flinch. The idea of Jesus’ death being a payment to the enslaver of mankind is horrifying to most of us.

Is that because the idea is not scriptural? Or is it because we have believed a false doctrine for about 800 years?

I’m not the one who wrote “ransom” and “redemption” in the apostles writings. They wrote it. Jesus said it, too. I’m not repeating it because I like the idea, and I decided that I’m going to try to make my idea popular. I’m repeating because it’s in the holy Writings of the apostles and prophets.

It will take thought, prayer, and revelation to understand the mystery of the atonement to whatever level we are able to understand it. However, I hope that I have helped put a bullet in the head of the novel and false idea that Jesus’ death was a substitution for a penalty that our sins brought upon us from God.

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

Yeah, But …

Posted on 01/21/2013 by Paul Pavao

My father-in-law has started sending out a “verse of the day” by email that is usually closer to a chapter a day. I wrote him and told him it was really good. Today, I got a good picture of why his little devotional is really good.

One of the verses he touched on is Galatians 5:19-21:

19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (NASB)

This is a controversial passage of Scripture. I don’t know how many times—in the distant past—that I’ve had doctrinal arguments about this passage, but it’s a lot.

Does this mean we can lose our salvation? What does it mean not to inherit the kingdom of God?

Even now, I have to strain to avoid the temptation to answer those two questions.

The questions have their place, but they are inappropriate until some other questions has been answered:

Have I stopped my immorality, envy, anger, slander, and all the other things listed in Galatians 5:19-21? Am I able to stop those things? Do I want to stop practicing those things? Do I know what I need to do in order to stop practicing them?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then we can have our “lose your salvation” arguments later, and we can discuss inheriting the kingdom of God later. We all know that this passage is a threat. Paul is “forewarning” us. He encourages us in other passages, but in this passage, he is “forewarning” us.

He is forewarning us because not inheriting the kingdom of God is a bad thing. We all know it is a bad thing. Discussing how bad a thing it is, rather than discussing how we obey God in order to avoid that bad thing, and thus heed Paul’s warning, is just one more “work of the flesh” to add to Galatians 5:19-21.

What does my father-in-law think about losing your salvation and eternal security? I don’t know. What he wrote was:

The Bible is God’s revealed will. It is His desire on how we should think, live and act. It also reveals what displeases Him or better yet what He will not tolerate. … What does God not want us to do? Here is what His Holy Word says …

Are we striving to please God? Do we talk about our role in obeying God (“work out your salvation with fear and trembling”) and God’s role in obeying God (“for it is God who works in you both to do and to will of his good pleasure”) so that we can find the power to OBEY him … or are we just talking about it as a distraction, while we carry on in the works of the flesh?

I discipline my body and bring it under subjection, lest having preached to others, I should be disqualified my own self. (1 Cor. 9:27)

As you read that, are you asking the right question?

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Authority of the Apostles in the Early Church

Posted on 01/20/2013 by Paul Pavao

No written blog today. I wanted to share this video. This is a relatively comprehensive look at the early Christian understanding of the role and authority of the apostles, the source of the Scriptures, the role of tradition, the preservation of the faith of the Gospel, and how this applies to the modern Roman Catholic view of the role of tradition and apostolic succession.

Posted in Bible, Church, Gospel, History, Leadership, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Revisiting Grace

Posted on 01/18/2013 by Paul Pavao

I don’t mind revisiting the word “grace” as many times as necessary until it’s understood accurately in the mind of as many people as I can explain it to. “Grace” may be the most wonderful word in the Bible besides “Father,” “Jesus,” and “Spirit,” but it is used incorrectly almost every time it is uttered by a Christian.

Hopefully, the following flurry of verses and comments will make defining grace easy.

Usually we use the word “grace” in such a way that it is a synonym for mercy.

I’ve heard Christians give a wonderful definition for grace:

Mercy is God not giving us what we deserve; grace is God giving us what we do not deserve.

That’s true! Great definition! But almost no one actually uses grace that way. Instead, we keep confusing it with mercy.

Example

Have you ever been in a situation where a person did something wrong, and they weren’t punished? Perhaps a teenager with parents, or a church member that violated some church protocol?

In Christian circles, it is common for us to say, “We gave that person grace in this situation.”

No, you didn’t! You gave that person mercy! What is it called when a person breaks a rule, custom, or law, and is not punished? We call it mercy, not grace.

The Bible doesn’t use grace in that way, either.

A Biblical Definition of Grace

This post is an adaptation of an email I sent to an excellent Bible teacher who had been lulled, like all the rest of us, into using grace as a synonym for mercy in an otherwise inspiring teaching on Rom. 1:5.

From whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations.

Grace is actually the source of Paul’s apostleship. His use of the two words here, grace and apostleship, are related. Consider these verses:

Rom. 12:3: “For I say, through the grace given to me …”
Rom. 12:6: “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us …”
Rom. 15:15: “I have written the more boldly to you … because of the grace that is given to me from God.”
1 Cor. 3:10: “According to the grace of God that is given to me as a wise master builder …”
1 Cor. 15:9-10: “For I am the least of the apostles … but by the grace of God I am what I am. And his grace, which was on me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than them all.”
Eph. 3:7-8: “I was made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of his power. To me, who am the least of all the saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Mercy is important, and we are saved by mercy as well as grace (Tit. 3:5), but grace is different than mercy. Grace is the ongoing power for life today. Grace is the reason we can have the obedience of faith without our salvation being by works. Our salvation is by grace. We obtain grace by faith, and our works come from grace:

Rom. 5:2: “We have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.”
Rom. 6:14: “Sin will not have dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace.”
Eph. 2:8-10: “For you have been saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do.”

In Eph. 2:8-10, we need to remember and apply Rom. 5:2. Faith is the access to the grace that saves us. Grace is a gift, but it is also what empowers us to do those “good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do.”

There are three more verses that I like to use to define grace because they’re so clear:

Tit. 2:11-12: “The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.”
Heb. 4:16: “Let us come boldly to the throne of grace, so that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need.”
1 Pet. 4:11: “As every man has received a gift, minister it to one another as good stewards of the grace of God.”

Grace is that really awesome power described in these three verses (and in Rom. 6:14, breaking the power of sin), and we have access to it simply by faith!

Practical Application

One of the applications of this is the situation where you have to admonish a brother or sister, and the response is, “Remember, brother, it’s by grace, not by works.”

Once we are using the word grace properly, we can say, “Of course it is, which is exactly why I am admonishing you. If we had to rely on works, you would probably not be able not obey my admonishment. You would still be in slavery to sin living in you. However, now that you are under grace, I can admonish you, because grace is teaching you to live soberly and godly in this present age, and sin has no power over you anymore.”

I’m sure all of this is not completely new to most of you. It’s not a teaching that I invented. Christians *teach* this, but on a daily basis, as we use the word grace, we seem to forget it; grace loses its power in our mind, and it morphs into simple forgiveness. We need both!

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

Rev. Louie Giglio

Posted on 01/11/2013 by Paul Pavao

Anti-gay pastor Louie Giglio has decided not to speak at President Obama’s inauguration.

That’s polite. I agree with his decision. What I wonder about is how you felt about my reference to Rev. Giglio as anti-gay. (And in some other post, maybe we can discuss how you feel about the title “reverend.”)

The quote from a Louie Giglio sermon says that the Old and New Testaments make it clear that homosexuality is a sin. This, apparently, makes people think it’s fine to describe him as “anti-gay.”

I’ll bet that if Mr. Giglio spoke on homosexuality and referenced the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostles writings in the process, then he probably also noticed that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin, too. I’d be willing to bet a paycheck that at some point, he said that a man and woman living together outside of marriage (assuming a non-platonic relationship here) is a sin. Yet, I have seen no references to Rev. Giglio as anti-adulterer.

I’ll bet that Mr. Giglio has spoken against theft as well, and murder, and even gossip and slander, yet I’ll bet he’s never been described as anti-gossip nor anti-thug.

I’ve been called a homophobe a number of times schizophrenic people, who apparently conglomerate towards the left end of the political spectrum. To this day, I would agree with Rev. Giglio that homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. In fact, Lev. 20:13 calls it an abomination. It was punished with the death penalty in ancient Israel.

I’m not calling for a death penalty, nor even for legal action against sinners whose most obvious sin is homosexuality. I am saying that homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity outside of marriage and like theft and lying, is a sin.

“Homophobe” means a person who is afraid of homosexuals. I have excellent proof that I’m not afraid of homosexuals. I lived with one in my 20’s, even though I knew he was homosexual. That was in the military, and I didn’t turn him in; nor did I turn in his partners.

I am not a homophobe, and Louie Giglio is not anti-gay, any more than he is anti-thief. In fact, I would guess he’s a lot more anti-thief because he probably, like me, wants thieves punished by the law, while I see no point in arresting and punishing homosexuals.

One More: “Keep Religion Out of Politics”

While I agree with those who say that the founding fathers were trying to keep politics out of religion and not vice versa, that’s not what I want to discuss here.

I want to discuss an email I heard read this morning on CNN. The writer said that Louie Giglio had no business bringing his religion into politics.

What is she talking about? Is she unaware that the only reason that we are discussing Rev. Giglio in the news is because Barack Obama, the president of the United States, invited him (and others) to PRAY at his inauguration??? If Rev. Giglio, invited to the white house BECAUSE he is a pastor, should keep his religion out of politics, why isn’t she also complaining about others who were invited? Why isn’t she complaining about Barack Obama, who invited him?

The reason is that this woman is lying. She doesn’t want Rev. Giglio, nor anyone else, to keep their religion out of politics. She wants Rev. Giglio to be silenced on the issue of homosexuality because she disagrees with him.

Thus her religion, which apparently teaches that people who disagree with her ought not be allowed to speak publicly on any issue, even if they never bring up the issue she disagrees with, is the real problem. He religion directly disagrees with the constitution and threatens our freedoms.

She is an “aleithiaphobe,” a term I just coined which means someone who fears the truth.

What Is This Post About?

I’m pretty sure that a computer that read this post would pick out “homosexuality” as the most relevant topic to this post, with Rev. Louie Giglio as a close second.

This post is about neither subject. There just happened to be a real world subject on TV this morning that makes a great anecdote/illustration of a point that is at the center of almost everything I write about: honesty and self-denial.

I said “a point,” and then I mentioned honesty and self-denial. That is because the two go hand in hand.

We are, by nature, defenders of our opinions. (I wish I had bookmarked the study I read in Scientific American or Discover or on a science blog saying this was so.) It takes effort, sometimes extreme effort, to overcome our opinion and look closely at what is true.

That is the very reason the scientific method was developed, to provide a structure that would protect scientists from their own opinion. That is why the peer-review process was added to the scientific method and then formalized in peer-reviewed journal, so that scientists could police one another and thus protect each other from unrestrained and uncorrected opinion.

I’m just trying to point out, one more time, that unrestrained opinion (as usual in politics and religion, which is why we’re scared to talk about them) is running amok on the subject of Louie Giglio and his comments on homosexuality.

I’m crusading for people who will join me in loving truth: people who will bear their own anger when their opinion isn’t being heard, rather than pouring it out on others; people who will go off and get over their embarrassment before they answer someone who has given an argument undercuts their own; people who can endure and thus overcome the powerful emotions that accompany our own opinions and choose the truth.

It is my opinion that lovers of the truth will wind up at the feet of Jesus, who is the living Truth, because Truth loves his own. You can agree with that or disagree with that, but time will either bear me out on that or not.

Jesus is the one who said he was the Truth. Mohandes Gandhi is the one who said that Truth is a living being who will help, with immense power, those who become lovers of the truth.

Are they right?

You and I both know how Jesus of Nazareth and Mohandes (or Mahatma, meaning “great soul”) Gandhi would have wanted us to live. One of them lived 2,000 years ago, and most of the people on earth have heard of him. We date our calendars from his birth. The other has been dead for over 60 years and virtually single-handedly expelled the British empire from India … with suffering rather than violence!

I like taking a chance on their opinion and gathering people who want to live as they prescribed. (I think Gandhi did wind up at the feet of Jesus, acknowledging that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) was the best description of how people should live.

I guess that’s off the subject. I’m just trying to tell you why I write about things like this.

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